Surviving the Rough Seas
As Anchor Rising readers know, tough times are looming in Rhode Island. Whether those times amount to a squall, a season, or an era depends in greatest part on the honesty and bravery of the General Assembly. Are we looking at a year of hardship? Three years? Even longer? Whichever it may be, the machine is in motion, and longer will almost definitely mean sinking lower, and I, for one, am not optimistic.
Therefore, it’s either a bad time or just in time for Anchor Rising’s contributors to get serious. This year, we’ll be stepping toward more official existence. We’ll be making plans to do more, to be more active, to have more of an effect. And that means raising more money.
As Anchor Rising readers also know, none of us are insulated from the hard times of the state. The months ahead threaten difficult decisions, and we’re going to need your help if we’re going to make those decisions in the way that we think (or hope) you’d prefer. It won’t take much money to keep us afloat, by the standards of organizational players at the state level, but it will take more than the occasional ad to which we’re accustomed. So in time-honored blogosphere tradition, we have no choice but to rattle the cup:
If Anchor Rising were a daily paper, a donation of $36.50 would be equivalent to a year’s subscription at 10 cents per issue. To those who donate $60 or more, we’ll send as a gift (in telethon lingo) this year’s AR apparel choice, a navy blue sport shirt with red collar trim and the Anchor Rising logo on the left of the chest:
Donations of any size can be made via PayPal by clicking the “Donate” button. Checks or money orders — made out to me (for the time being) — can be sent to:
P.O. Box 751
Portsmouth, RI 02871
We’ll be looking for donations year ’round, but the shirts are a limited-time offer for donations made before Monday, February 11. Be sure to provide an address and your shirt size.
Donations — I should note — are not tax deductible. But then, we’re not restricted by certain laws of dubious constitutionality.
In answer to a specific request, here’s a picture of the Anchor Rising logo as it was embroidered on the hats that we ordered last year, and as it will be embroidered on this year’s shirts:
Can you provide a photo that displays the logo?
A hand out? Your site offers so precious little. Frankly, it is tripe. If hard times end your ability to bash away at the keyboard like a cocaine addicted lab chimp, so be it.
You and your band of phloggers are the pied pipers of “laws of dubious constitutionality”.
I’ve set the countdown until Justin is forced to get a new hobby. Maybe brush up on your CB lingo.
Thank you for your kind words and well wishes, PDM. As the “pied pipers of ‘laws of dubious constitutionality’,” we intend to do our utmost to continue attempting to whistle those laws out of the public square (much as we intend to whistle those rats out of the public pocket).
Don’t fret it Justin. Apparently Kucinich dropping out of the race today has put PDM in a sour mood.
Dammit! That’s a serious set back for our ever learning the truth about Area 51.
I am Goldwater Conservative. A Paleo-Con, perhaps. I do not support Kucinich for President, however, I do support his right to speak, debate, and run for office.
I owned a home in the desert, northeast of Scottsdale. One morning, around 4am, there was a glowing round object hovering in the sky. Turned out to be a weather balloon. There is always an explanation. According to what I read of Kucinich reportedly seeing an unidentified flying object, he comes off as pretty silly. Even still, I am more inclined to call him out on his nutty, and hypocritical attempts to ban handguns. As you may know Dennis packed heat when he was in fear for life from the mob.
When you write “we intend to do our utmost to continue attempting to whistle those laws out of the public square”, I imagine you mean those pesky inalienable rights?
We intend to remove from the public square those laws that threaten our inalienable rights — as we agree: “those laws of dubious constitutionality.”
PDM, I stand corrected. Over at the other blog you seem to have a strong interest in Kucinich so I just assumed. Who do you like for president?