I guess now is as good a time as any. This site will become a member of Pajamas Media (or whatever the new name shall soon be) starting 1 October. Charles and Roger made me an offer I couldn’t refuse (and they may or may not have threatened my cat).
At any rate, the only thing that will really change is the advertising. Blogads* will be going the way of the Edsel, at least around here. The topics and posting and everything else will be pretty much like it always is- me talking out my arse and generally being a jerk, you responding in kind.
My profile is up here, and it makes me sound well- the interview reads like a phone conversation, which is, I guess, what it was.
The only other change to the site is that I have finally convinced an old friend (we have been gaming together online for about 7-8 years, now) to occasionally post a piece or two, and he is going to start by attending the Serenity Preview and writing about it for the site. Should be something up later from him, if he can get his act together. In the future, maybe I can convince him to post some political pieces when I need a day off or when he is inspired. And just a quick warning- he and I score almost identically on everyone of those silly political tests you see on the Intertrons, and I am hard pressed to remember the last time we disagreed on something big.
*I really have nothing but effusive praise for Blogads and Henry Copeland- this was, for me, a better deal and something I really wanted to get in on at ground level and should not in any way be viewed as dissatisfaction with Blogads.
ppGaz
LOL! Well described!
Good luck, I hope it all goes well.
Nathan Lanier
Yeah, I caught that earlier today on LGF. Should be interesting, though I’m still not sure I understand exactly what it is.
Why no picture?
John Cole
In case a student googles me, I don’t want them putting a name to a face.
And then there is always this reason why you don’t post your picture on the internet.
Nathan Lanier
That would have been a solid burn if you linked to my pic.
Anyway, point taken.
Bruce from Missouri
Pajamas Media…
Wank wank wank….
I thought you were a step above those douchebags. Guess not.
MM
Eh. I’m going to give John the benefit of the doubt here. For one, it’s his site and if he’s going to make more money from it, then good for him.
Two, I’m going to assume that he’ll keep writing the stuff that, even if I disagree with it, is intellectually honest and from his heart.
Three, if he keeps linking to Kos without a smug preamble about the dumb, dumb not republicans, and keeps being publically outraged at the torture, and refuses to his trackbacks to the IDF website, then the rest of the pajama brigade will want him burned as a witch anyway.
John Cole
Pretty much, and I just have to allow my material to be used by other PJ sites. Fine by me.
Nelson Muntz
Careful about the pajama parties, be afraid, very afraid, of the little green footballs.
pdf
This is off-topic (who you associate with is your business – as long as I can continue to access your site without your odious new partners seeing any benefit, I don’t care), but it’s from your interview link…
You said:
>For instance, the media are decidedly pro-choice. They look at pro-lifers as people who want to control the uteruses of women, as knuckle-draggers. The media don’t see that the pro-lifers might be deeply religious and following their belief.
I don’t understand where you think there’s a contradiction in those last two sentences. Fine, right-to-lifers are following their religious beliefs. I don’t see how that by itself negates the concept of them being knuckle-draggers who want to control women’s uteruses (uteri?). Religion makes people think, and do, all kinds of fucked-up things, from female genital mutilation to flying airplanes into buildings.
I’ll lay my own position right out: The minute someone tells me they’re doing something because of their religious beliefs, I stop taking them seriously, and this includes supporters of causes I believe in myself. If it’s a genuinely good cause, it’s supportable for entirely atheistic reasons.
So what were you trying to say in the above quote? Were you implying that more respect should be given to religion in the mass media? That religion should be viewed as a legitimate political/social motivation? And even if that’s what you believe, how do your two sentences (which you clearly seem to have meant to contain a contradiction) contradict themselves, in your view?
Thanks in advance.
MI
hey John, congrats on the move, I hope it works out well for you!
But..
..pro-lifers as people who want to control the uteruses of women
Is that just awkwardly phrased or something? I understand there’s a spiritual/religious/moral component to being pro-life, and it’s a position I (begrudgingly) respect. But that has to be one of the all time classic statements, like, ever.
“It’s bias, the media portrays anti-drug crusaders as folks who wanna control whether or not you should be able to use drugs”. wtf John?
Infidel
pdf, my wife is pro-life and her stand has nothing to do with religion; I certainly don’t consider her a knuckle-dragger. That’s only a sample of one, but given that roughly half the country is pro-life, I’d like to think there are more people like my wife than there are chowderheads like Randall Terry.
martin
Yes! Careful about the pajama parties, be afraid, very afraid, of the little green footballs.