Searching for an External Cause, When the Problem is Internal

Both McQ at Q&O, and James at OTB note the wailing from Susie Madrak.

Only because it’s handier, will use the comments of James to start this off;

Susie Madrak, under the attention-grabbing headline “No More Dead Bloggers,” laments “the utter injustice of a Democratic political system that is very, very happy to take the money and volunteers the blogosphere sends its way” and yet returns only “Bubkis” to the non-A-listers.

There is not even a little doubt in my mind that, if Rittenhouse Review’s Jim Capozzola had remained a Republican, he’d be alive now. He would have been in a well-paid think tank job, living the high life. (He did, after all, have a masters degree in foreign policy.) Most importantly, he would have had health insurance for the past six years.

James wisely gets into this, by quoting Capozzola himself, and rebounding  Madrak’s arguments therewith, saying:

It’s also rather ironic that Jim Capozzola is being invoked in defense of the position that bloggers should be taken care of by the Establishment

Yes, well, absent anything else, bloggers have attained the reputation they have pure lead because of their disconnection to the “establishment”. This would be particularly true of those on the left, at least in terms of image.

Having such people “taking care of” by “the establishment” would appear at least on the surface to be somewhat counterproductive to the accepted purpose.

To be perfectly Frank, however, Capozzola’s death ends up being nothing more than an opportunity for rabble rousing to Madrak in much the same way as John Edwards used the death of his kid.

And I wonder, if this call for such people to be taken care of by “the establishment” isn’t really the results of the long held secret wish of some bloggers on the left to be considered as part of “the establishment”.

Moreover; (And I know I’m going to be called insensitive over this. So be it…) Madrak claims Capozzola as a friend in her eulogy post, but if he was in such need, where were his friends? Are they, also, destitute to the point of not being able to chip in? It’s all the rage, to blame “the establishment” and it certainly does a fair job of raising the rabble. But I noticed no change of regret, that they failed in their responsibility to the person that they called “friend”.

And for some indication of consistency of position on the friends not chipping in, let me quote the response I gave to the post James cites a few months gone:

In watching what’s been going on on the left side of the sphere lately, the one conclusion that you can draw is that the left is anything but charitable, even to each other. The whole thing seems to be about personal power and satisfaction, and to hell with anyone else. They are all out for themselves.

If Madrak’s description of the situation can be considered anywhere near accurate, it would seem to be the logical conclusion of what I observed several months ago. It would also seem to reinforce my comments of this morning. in short, the primary aspect of the charity issue, would seem to begin with Madrak, herself.
And just as I go to post this, a thought occurs; What did he die from? I mean, Madrak seems to be looking for an extrernal cause for the cause of death. She seems to be blaming a lack of socialism for that death.  But think;   Was it possibly, as I suspect, lifestyle choices that brought this early death about? If so, it hardly seems fair to blame “the establishment”, even assuming his “friends” were pouring money into his pockets, which they apparently were not.