PP being, of course, The Progressive Pages:
http://www.globalblogs.com/progressivepages/index.htmlFirst, a huge, heartfelt THANK YOU to everyone who has been contributing listings to the Progressive Pages. In the few short weeks the site has been up, we have 393 entries in 218 categories (and I see a dozen or more waiting in the queue, and I have about 20 entries to add myself today).
393 businesses/companies is not bad! Especially when you consider that a good many of them are
progressive alternatives to the bright-red, repub-supporting businesses we all want to avoid. (Have you checked out the alternatives to Microsoft products from the Mozilla Foundation yet?)
So, we're growing, and I'm very encouraged by our rate of growth, especially after the predictable slowdown over Thanksgiving weekend. We're back up to around 500 hits a day (REALLY good for a brand-new site!), due in no small part to DUers spreading the word on other forums and on mailing lists, and by linking to PP from your own Web sites. Thank you! Please keep up the momentum!!
fudge_striped_cookays, especially, deserves some sort of medal -- in addition to adding entries just about every single day, she has REALLY been getting the word out... fudge is our greatest evangelist! :headbang:
I've been in the background doing a monstrous amount of research (when I'm not trying to spiff up the site itself), double-checking new entries, etc. ... And of course I've been keeping a close eye on where our traffic is coming from, and what the world out there is saying about us. (Oh, Phil Shore/Titian, whatever you're calling yourself these days! You just keep on dissing us over on the Bartcop and Smirking Chimp forums all you like -- AFAIC, all publicity is good publicity... and you're sending us LOTS of of traffic. Thanks! Although I
would be careful about calling anything a "scam," unless you're really dying for someone to sic your ISP -- or a lawyer -- on your whiney butt. LOL)
Which brings me to a question that's been bothering me for the past 24 hours, concerning a comment on the Bartcop forums. I told myself it was nothing -- but that if it was still bothering me a day later, I would bring it to DU and ask you all what you thought about it.
In a discussion thread about the choosetheblue site, a poster mentions PP, quotes one of my DU posts, and then concludes:
"neither site is 100% accurate on how we should choose to support and who to not, but they are useful sources of information."
Does anything about that statement jump out at you the way it did at me?
It's not the "accuracy" question, but the bit about how "neither site is 100% accurate on
how we should choose to support and who to not".
I envision the Progressive Pages as a resource to (as I wrote on the PP "help" page) "help forward-thinking people
make educated judgments about where they do and do not want to spend their money."
I don't think ANY site, anywhere, should TELL people which businesses they should and shouldn't patronize (dedicated boycott sites aside). Sure, obviously, the PP isn't at all coy about the fact that we want people to support "blue" businesses and to starve "red" ones. But the bottom line is, we present information from both sides -- and to my way of thinking, it is up to the reader/consumer to make the ultimate decision about whether or not it's worth patronizing a business that, say, contributes to a PAC that spends 51% on Dems and 49% on Repubs... or whatever.
For example, I just did an entry last night on the
Atlantis Casino-Resort in Reno. In the 2004 election cycle, the Atlantis owners contributed (by my calculations) 59% to Dems and 41% to Repubs. This makes them "bluer," but certainly not
blue. They don't have a nondiscrimination policy -- does this make them "redder"? ... but they're on record as contributing non-monetary resources to HIV/AIDS causes -- does this make them "bluer"?
AFAIC, the Atlantis is neither red nor blue, but right in the middle.
There was a discussion here about Trader Joe's, which inspired me to research TJ's for
its PP entry (yes, that's one of mine). My
personal opinion is that it's fine and dandy to shop at TJ's... but my opinion came after considering all the data I found (and, I hope, presented in a comprehensive way).
You know, Open Secrets is one of a dozen sites I rely on heavily for campaign-donation information... and while it's obvious the folks at the Center for Public Integrity are as dead-set against bolstering up the military-industrial complex as I am, in the end OS presents the raw data
as is -- you can read OS's many anti-red articles as you like, but in the end, it's up to you to decide what the raw data means to you. I
assume CPI assumes, as I do, that people are smart enough to draw their own conclusions, and make a final judgment about whether or not they're ever going to buy Certo Pectin again (because it's made by Kraft Foods, which is owned by Altria/Philip Morris), or buy another car from GM (which makes Hummers), or watch CNN (because even though it's biased, at least it's not part of the Murdoch conglomerate).
Even when it's blatantly obvious that a business/company is against everything democratic and decent in this country (I'm thinking, oh, Raytheon, right down to the
Triple Creek Ranch in Montana), I don't think anyone should be in the business of
mandating whether or not people "support this business and boycott that one." Well, OK, if you asked me, I would advise you never buy Certo Pectin again... But it's just that we are
not supposed to be SHEEP, who need to be told what to do and what not to do. I honestly believe that anyone who calls him/herself liberal/progressive recognizes, by default, the myriad shades of gray between black and white -- or in this case, the myriad shades of purple between red and blue. (Heck, that's why visitors can rate companies on a 1 to 10 / blue-to-red scale!)
OK, that said -- it was just
one comment, on
one message board -- but it's been bothering me that anyone would expect a straight "support/boycott" list. This is not a black/white, red/blue world -- and to think it is strikes me as utterly... well,
un-democratic!
Thoughts?
In any case, thanks for letting me get this off my chest. :)