Deconstructing Liberal Spin on Capitalism and Socialism

Attempting to redefine the debate

Many liberals claim that conservatives are trying to redefine socialism's and capitalism's definitions.

One of their myths entails conservatives labeling socialism as the government taking over everything. They claim that conservatives want to label capitalism as patriotism. They also dismiss the fact that the most successful, the rich, create jobs.

Those claims are straw man attempts to redefine a debate.

Conservatives label increased government control, of the economy, as moving closer towards socialism. This is socialism as it's actually practiced in the real world, not socialism in its true sense.

More regulations and red tape hamper economic progress. A look at the two Koreas could tell you which system does better. One of the Koreas practices socialistic economic policies, the other practices many capitalistic economic principles.

A "from space at night" perspective will tell you that the capitalistic Korea is doing far better.

Conservatives don't label capitalism as "patriotic."

People succeed better, economically, under capitalism. Free market forces reward people for coming up with the best method to meet customer demand. People do succeed in socialistic societies, but not as frequently, or as easily, as they do in capitalistic societies.

Free markets create the conditions needed to create a true "land of opportunities." Isn't that what people come to America for? That's where the patriotism comes in.

Capitalism isn't just an economic term; it's a concept

Capitalism facilitates people making money... if they want to.

If people want to start a business, they invest in equipment and items they'll need. They'll spend money to hire people to work in their business. Since the business owner purchased the equipment, materials, buildings, etc., those items belong to his business, as assets.

These items shouldn't also belong to the employees, unless they also paid money to obtain the business' equipment.

The business owner invested money in a venture he, or she, hopes would bring profits. If that business brings profits in, the business owner has rights to what's left over after expenses are paid. Payroll is one of those expenses.

Employees are entitled to what they agreed on during the employment negotiation. They're not entitled to anything more than that.

In a capitalist system, employees have a role over who they work for. They can work for one employer; then work for another one that pays them more. If a business doesn't pay people enough, workers can work for someone that does.

Our founders had the free market/capitalist system in mind when they wrote the constitution. This system allowed our type of democracy to evolve into something the rest of the world wants to copy.

It allows more people to succeed. That's the American way. The system liberals want would make it harder to achieve the American dream. This is what conservatives mean when they argue patriotism.

Most people that start successful businesses, and corporations, are loyal Americans that won't hesitate to put their hands over their heart when they see the passing U.S. flag.

Socialism looks good on paper, but fails to factor real life variables

The idea that socialism doesn't advocate free market's "termination" is another liberal myth.

Under socialism, everybody involved with a business organization owns that organization. They own the operation, the decisions and the profits. Gone is the pay scale that pays people according to their skills and hierarchy. Under socialism, everybody shares the profit according to their needs.

That's not how human nature, and the free market, works. Let's say that a person wants to work for a business organization.

He has skill sets that this company needs, so he submits an application. Human Resources, HR, reviews his application, and calls him in for an interview. He's offered employment, so they negotiate his wage. Once they reach an agreement, they sign an "employment contract."

When it comes to employment, workers agree to contribute their labor in exchange for monetary compensation. This compensation covers labor over a period of time. What workers get will depend on many variables, including supply and demand, as well as skill level.

Capitalism rewards people according to merit, and value to the organization

This is why white collar workers generally get paid more than blue collar workers. This is why people working in technical, engineering and construction tend to get paid better than cashiers or fast food floor employees.

More people know how to mop a floor compared to the number of people who could successfully run and manage a business operation. The higher you go on the corporate ladder, the more impact you have. The higher you climb, the more specialized skills, and experience, you'll need.

The pay scale reflects that reality.

For a floor employee, their worries are restricted to their job descriptions, and the time they're on the clock. Once they clock out, they could put their job out of mind until they clock back in. Salaried managers don't have this convenience.

Progressives claim that a business can operate, temporarily, without the manager. This same business would grind to a halt if a low level employee doesn't show up for work.

The restaurant serves as a popular argument piece. Say the busboy and dishwashers decide not to come in. That restaurant's business operation has to come to a halt. But, if the shift supervisor doesn't show up, business still goes on.

Now, what happens if the manager, usually the one that gathers data for the accounting books, fails to gather this data? What if payroll data isn't submitted to the agency that processes pay? What if the business owner failed to pay space rent, local, state and federal taxes, etc? What if the restaurant owner fails to make sure that accounting is done?

Not only would the employees not get paid, but the business would come to a screeching halt.

The cold hard reality is that busboys and dishwashers are more expendable than the manager. There are more people who could spray water on dirty dishes, then shove them through the washing machine, than there are people who could successfully manage a restaurant.

Contrary to liberal myths that a dishwasher and busboy are as important as the management, thus should get paid as much, they're easier to replace than the manager.

Can government funded services improve if the free market took over?

Many progressives argue that the police, fire protection, prisons, education, health care, parks, electricity, water supplies, sanitation, roadways and other services, shouldn't run for profit. Since everybody needs these, no organization needs to be profiting from them.

The free market has consistently provided superior services than the government.

Schools serve as a perfect example. Our universities rank among the best in the world, yet our K-12 school system is among the worst. How could one country hold both extremes in education?

The free market system places a strong influence on our universities. The Government manages our public K-12 schools. Their standings shouldn't come as a surprise.

Children attending private schools tend to do better than their counterparts in public schools. The free market has more influence on private schools than the government.

Liberals also argue that the government can do as good, or better, than the free market when it comes to health care.

Military healthcare, on military posts, is an example of why that assumption is wrong.

Many military hospitals, on large bases, near large urban centers, have Emergency Room waiting lines. Patients sit in the waiting areas, sometimes for hours, to get attention for minor ailments and injury.

Go to a clinic in that same urban area. The chances are great that the waiting time is real short, and you'll see a doctor. Many of these clinics advertise having both, doctors on shift, and the ability to quickly take walk-ins.

A few years ago, Walter Reed made the headlines. Their health care was nothing but a nightmare. Incidents, like a recovering soldier falling from his bed, and not being discovered till later... or where a soldier was able to see the bathtub, for the room above him, through a shower ceiling hole... rightfully resulted in an outcry.

Liberals tried to attack George Bush, but they missed a major point: Walter Reed was an example of a health system that that fell under the government's domain.

This isn't unique to US military hospitals. Canada had some issues where ambulances had to be turned around, and sent to another hospital, because of backlogged Emergency Rooms.

Commercial optometrists hardly use the machine that "puffs" materials into your eyes. Many optometrists, and their nurse assistants, consider those machines as archaic. Yet, this is standard equipment in military optometry clinics.

Free market hospitals tend to have more advanced equipment than government ran or military hospitals.

Health care, offered in the free market, costs more for the consumer than health care that the government subsidized. Liberals don't understand that government funded and managed healthcare also costs a lot. They don't see that, as the government pays it, not the consumer.

In countries where the government funds "universal" healthcare, the tax payers pay a really high tax rate.

Why is it that free market organizations tend to do better than their government funded counterparts?

It's survival of the fittest in the free market. Those that satisfy consumer demand, more efficiently and effectively, do better than those that don't. Those that fail to meet consumer demand, better than the others, lose business. If they continue to not be effective, they go in the red, or go out of business.

It's imperative for a "for profit" organization to provide a better product, or better service, than its competitors.

Not so for a government ran and funded organization.

An organization that receives money, "no matter what," doesn't need to have the best business operation to survive. Bad decisions, poor organization, ineffectiveness, multi dimensional red tape, etc., don't drive government organizations into the ground.

If you privatize many of the above services, economic competition will force those services to get better.

Try driving on a "toll road," compared to a "non toll road." You drive a substandard road until you get to a machine that issues you a ticket. You drive pass the stations and get back on the road. It's not long before the road quality improves. You get to the end, and pay your toll. Not long after that, the road's quality goes down.

If the government puts most its highways under a toll system, and quits using taxpayer money, that part of the tax system becomes fairer. People who use the highways more often pay most the money that's paid to highway improvement.

Now, there are some exceptions.

The military, police, and other first responders are properly placed under government control and provided government funding. You want the military's loyalty to be to the people, and to the country, and not to the highest bidder. Likewise, you want the police to be loyal to the community, and not to the highest bidder.

Credit unions aren't examples of Socialism, they're examples of free market at work

Liberals talk about credit unions being great examples of socialism at work.

Credit union employees get paid according to position, and where they're at in the pay scale. People, that bank with the credit union, generally own a part of that institution. They get a percent of the profits via dividends paid to their accounts. However; the employees and customers aren't "playing boss" for every aspect of the operation.

An employee runs the overall operation during a given shift. This supervisor works for a general manager, who works for someone that oversees several banks. The credit union still has a "corporate ladder" that pays higher the further you are in the chain of command.

Under socialism, employees on the lower rungs would get as much, or more, than the CEOs. This'd be the case if no other factors were involved. Employment compensation, under the credit union, doesn't match socialism's "everybody is the owner" concept.

Credit unions tend to be more user friendly than regular banks. If credit unions ride out recessions better than regular banks, this is why. Again, under the Free Market, you do better if you cater to the market better.

Government shouldn't be a hedge against poor personal economic decisions

Liberals argue that "basic necessity" demands are non negotiable. Organizations that provide basic necessity items should be protected from the free market's ups and downs. Since everybody needs gas to go to work, progressives argue that gas prices shouldn't be raised.

The point they miss is that it's not the government's job to protect them from facing rising gas, electricity and food prices.

Food prices go up?

It's time to start becoming economical. Maybe the $10.00 T Bone steak isn't a good idea. That $1.50 beef slice, enough to feed two people, is a better idea. Maybe it's not a good idea to constantly have boxes of soda when regular water could suffice. Maybe the junk food could remain on the store shelf, in favor of more natural foods.

You have food that the rich can afford, you have food that the middle class can afford, and you have food that the poor could enjoy. If your income lowers, then you should adjust your food selection to match your income reality.

Gas prices go up?

Maybe it's a good idea to start car pooling. Liberals love to argue that we should take care of the environment. Here's a good chance for them to do just that. If the workplace is close enough, maybe they could take a bike or go for a walk. If the city has public transportation, then they might save on gas money.

Basic household utilities become too expensive? It's time to stop that magazine subscription, cable subscription, internet subscription, fancy phone features, and other "want base" expenses.

If cutting unnecessary expenses still doesn't do the trick, a person could always find a second job.

Know someone that thinks that this isn't doable, given the current economic climate? I know a woman that works three jobs. She won't have sympathy for those that refuse to get additional jobs to help make ends meet.

As long as there are establishments with "help wanted" signs and advertisements, there's an opportunity for a second job.

Many liberals argue that since there are household services that everybody needs, these prices shouldn't go up. They must understand that they're not entitled to government guarantees for these services, simply because they're human needs.

Higher taxes and government red tape drives jobs out of this country

Our economy doesn't sit still. It's constantly growing and evolving. This has been the case throughout US, and Western, history.

Corporations and businesses in the United States aren't restricted to the U.S. The whole world is their option. Businesses are constantly measuring their performance in the economy. Business owners are looking at what they have to spend in order to make money.

If they could achieve a net gain in profits, by going overseas, they'll go overseas.

Companies have to pay tax expenses. If tax expenses go up, their break even point goes up. The higher their expenses, the les profits they make.

Companies pay payroll expenses. If the government forces them to pay higher wages, payroll taxes go up. Again, this eats into their profits. Companies react by not hiring more, by laying people off, or by going overseas.

Healthcare related laws, that force a company to pay more toward employee health insurance, increases healthcare related expense. The reaction is similar to increasing payroll taxes.

CEOs and business owners offset increases in these expenses by outsourcing. They'll move some or all of their operations to a country that charges fewer taxes on earnings. They'll move to a country where labor costs are lower.

When a company moves operations overseas, they cut both tax and labor expenses. They produce the goods, then ship them back to their American markets. This arrangement helps them meet customer demand while increasing their profit margin.

The American people's purchasing habits also force companies to move jobs overseas

The vast majority of the American public doesn't discriminate between what's made in the US, and what's made overseas. Their main concern is getting the best quality at the best prices.

A company can provide similar quality, at lower costs, if they could reduce labor and tax expenses. American companies achieve this by going overseas.

What would happen if US based manufacturing companies refused to move their operations overseas? Foreign manufacturers would wipe them out, since they're also moving their manufacturing operations outside their home countries.

Free market forces governments to make business friendly decisions

A government that wants to create jobs needs to create a business friendly environment. This includes low tax rates, and minimal laws that drain cash from these operations. When companies move in, they bring jobs with them.

You can't prevent jobs from going overseas with tax hikes on the businesses and companies that create those jobs.

The liberal's myth that the wealthy don't create jobs

Free market works when people make money by meeting customer demand.

Remember Bill Gates and Paul Allen?

Their venture had humble beginnings. They built from these beginnings and ultimately created Microsoft. Just think of the numbers of people who work for Microsoft. Corporations and businesses hire employees to do basic service and manufacturing jobs.

Many liberals claim that it's demand that creates these jobs, and not the corporation. They argue that it's the customers, and not the corporate and business owners, that are the true job creators.

That's like saying that you don't need chickens to create chicken eggs. You need both, rich's ability to hire new employees, and consumer demand.

Corporate and business ability to hire is key.

You don't want demand that becomes possible with government handouts. You want demand that becomes possible when businesses and companies hire employees... and provide them with a constant paycheck.

This happens when companies and businesses see the financial environment getting better. This includes corporations seeing increased profit potential... with increased hiring as a needed ingredient to achieve those profits.

And get this. The rich and super rich are also consumers. They're able to buy more than the average consumer. This means that they're able to place more money into the economy than the average consumer.

When times get tough, the average consumer reduces spending. This includes average employed consumers. If these consumers get more money, they either save it, or reduce their debts. This is less money entering the economy.

But those making more than the average consumer are still able to spend money during a recession.

Why businesses and corporations would hold onto their extra cash... and the catalyst that could cause them to open their money coffers...

People who run businesses and corporations constantly look ahead. They want to see how their business will do down the road. They weigh government actions heavily. Is the government going to raise taxes on corporate earnings? Is the government going to let reduced tax rates expire? Is the government going to do something that'll affect its credit rating?

CEOs and business owners understand that they're taking risks. They're not willing to spend more money when the business and economic environment risks getting worse.

One tactic they could utilize is to wait and see if the political landscape changes in Washington. If politicians are known for pushing for business friendly policies, and these politicians have numerical advantage, expect corporations and businesses start expanding.

This expansion would include hiring new employees.

TSA Treats an Iraq War Veteran like a Suspect

The walk down the terminal went smooth.

Four cordoned paths lead to a lone TSA agent sitting behind a podium. A couple of girls walked ahead of me and reached the agent first. I stopped and waited. He cleared them and they went to the security check area. I walked up to the agent and handed him my ID and boarding pass.

He scanned my ID card, signed my boarding pass, then said, "Thank you for your service Sergeant!" I said, "thanks," then moved into the security and scanning area. I pulled a couple of bins from the stack. I also grabbed a jewelry bowl for my watch, dog tags, wallet, and other personal items.

I threw my shoes into one of the bins, my laptop into the second bin. All smaller items went into the jewelry bowl. After I got all my items in line, I checked all my pockets a second time. "I had to miss something!" I thought. Then I stopped. I had my shirt stays on. I pulled them off quickly, and placed them in the jewelry bowl, on top of my watch, wallet, dog tags, belt, pens, car keys and other belongings.

Some TSA agents didn't look like they wanted to be there.

I pushed the items toward the scanner. The African American TSA agent looked at me, then my stuff. The look on her face suggested that she didn't feel like working that day. I could understand the feeling. It was Memorial Day, a time that most people go to the beach and enjoy a barbecue.

Memorial Day 2011 did start off with the perfect beach weather conditions.

After a little pause, she started the conveyer. I pushed one of my items after another in. First, the jewelry bowl, then my army assault pack.

My assault pack's story started in Iraq. Soldiers from the unit that we relieved didn't want it. "Sure!" I said, "I'll take it!" Can't hurt to have two assault packs!

After the assault pack went through the scanner, I sent my laptop case, my laptop and my shoes through.

After the last of my items went through the carry-on baggage scanner, I turned toward the personal scanner. Two to three TSA agents, all Caucasian, stood waiting for me on the other end. There was another scanner line, also manned by mostly Caucasian agents. Traffic started to pick up. I stepped through the scanner and overheard one of them say, "You're good!"

The TSA agent provided an ineffective body search

Three seconds after clearing the scanner, it happened. The scanner made a "beep" sound. I heard another TSA agent say, "Oops, we've got to check you!" A TSA agent directed me towards a search box, with foot prints placed where they wanted people to stand. The TSA agent said, "Turn to your stuff and raise your arms!" I asked him if I could get something from my bag.

Naturally, he was afraid that someone, with an Army assault pack and Army dog tags, might pull an M249 out and go Rambo on him. So he said, "No!" All I wanted to do was to grab my military medals, and to hold them up in the air as I was being searched.

Then he commenced the search. I gave him an "A" for professionalism. He didn't show anger or malice; he told me precisely what he was going to do next. However; I gave him, and Norfolk Airport's TSA team, an "F" for search quality.

I had this issue happen to me in January 2008, at this airport.

I set the scanners off; which caused a TSA agent, an African American, to grab a manual scanner. He swept it over me and found the problem... I had forgotten to remove my shirt stays. "Where was this hand scanner now?" I thought. That hand scanner would've limited the area on me that needed to be searched.

I have a theory as to why I got flagged for a follow on search.

That Friday, while at the Kansas City, MO (MCI/KCI) airport, I set the scanner off. Both, the 27th and 30th of May, I rushed to remove my shirt stays. It could've been the way I removed the shirt stays... pulling them off instead of unsnapping them.

The KCI TSA agents used common sense and reason in my case. They checked my laptop bag instead of me.

I guess they didn't think that I was going to go Rambo on them.

But, a hand scanner would've zeroed in what caused the main scanners to go off in the first place. Those hand scanners were nowhere to be found, at the Norfolk International Airport TSA area.

And get this. I didn't have anything on me that would set the scanners off. The TSA hand search didn't find the problem.

A second reason I gave him an "F" for search is that the way he searched me wouldn't have turned any items up. In some parts of the search, he formed his hands with all fingers and thumbs pointing outward. Then he brushed the area my body meets my legs. He did the same in my rear end area.

In the Army, we call that the credit card swipe. Our search methods, and this guy's search methods, were different like night and day.

I could've had a penny taped where my leg met my torso, and he wouldn't have found it. Soldiers doing a detainee search would've found it though. Bottom line, the agent's pat down served no tactical value when it came to preserving security.

A Hispanic and African American in the search box, with most TSA agents and travelers being white.

I looked right next to me, and there was a second passenger receiving a pat down. He was an African American male. I was prior Navy. I could tell, by looking at his haircut, his personal appearance, and by the way he carried himself, that he was either in the Navy, or was a Navy veteran.

The look on his face told me that he saw this as an inconvenience... not as having any tactical value.

After the pat down, I thought, "Really?"

I collected my items, put the laptop bag into the laptop case, put my belt on, reloaded my pockets with the wallet, pens and car keys. I slapped my belt back on, then, once I got all my stuff together, I walked to the waiting bench within the search area.

Iraq War veteran responds to the TSA's treating him like a suspect.

I grabbed the zipper on my laptop cover flap, then reached in. I pulled my medals out, then stood up. I looked around, then did the "throat clearing" speech start. I noticed that the majority of the TSA agents, and travelers, were Caucasians. I noticed this fact even when I turned around during the search.

I raised my medals in the air.

My Iraq Campaign Medal, with a campaign star, was on the first row, all the way to the left. It hung adjacent to my Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal. Under my fingers, but still visible, was the National Defense Service Medal, with bronze star. My Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal led the barely visible follow on row.

I said, "Ladies and Gentleman, Iraq War Veteran here, I just got treated like a suspect in my own country!" I had barely finished that statement when the lady running the carry-on baggage scanner gasped at my audacity.

One of the agents responded, "Sir, we're just doing our job, just like you did yours, we thank you for your service!" I did what I had to do, and didn't want to follow on with the agent's reply.

I could've replied that I'll believe that they're doing their jobs, like we did ours, the moment I see a TSA agent get subject to the same criteria the rest of us get subjected to. Come to think of it, I didn't even see any ground crews go through security.

I could've also said something about how troop deaths would've been higher if we did our jobs like the TSA did. But I didn't, I had a flight to catch. Besides, I didn't want security to follow up on my choice to exercise my freedom of speech... on a day dedicated to those that gave their lives to preserve our rights and freedom.

I intend to put more visual drama to this the next time I fly. I've purchased an "Iraqi Freedom Veteran" T-shirt that I've designated as my "flying" T-shirt. I want people to see me in that shirt the next time I get searched. I also want a future search as "ammo" for those looking for material to use to criticize shady TSA airport searches.

The Army No Longer Offers Warrior Transition Course

Three service members, one in the Navy, one in the Air Force and one in the Coast Guard, want to cross over into the Army.

The three want more excitement, like kicking doors down and doing mounted and dismounted patrols. In their minds, that's better than being cooped up in a ship at sea, or in a Forward Operating Base during the whole deployment.

But one big worry crosses their minds. Will they repeat basic training?

A search of eHow's articles raises their hopes. One of their articles, on attending Warrior Transition Course, gives them the basic scoop.

They learn that since they're prior service, they'll attend Warrior Transition Course at Fort Knox, KY. They'll have 4 weeks of hard training.

All they have to do is go to the Recruiters office to see if they have to attend Warrior Transition Course. If they have to, the recruiter schedules their training. The eHow article explains what to expect while going through the course. The author directs them to a couple websites to get more information.

Good to go? Yes, as of the time that this eHow article was written.

However; when I went to Warrior Transition Course in 2009, that eHow article was mostly inaccurate.

As of 2009, Warrior Transition Course could only be found at Fort Sill, OK.

The eHow article left out the fact that one would have at least 4 days of in-processing at 95th AG. Depending on seating availability, Soldiers waited at 95th AG for at least a week. Some had to wait two or more weeks before shipping out to Warrior Transition Course.

The eHow article also left out the fact that Non Commissioned Officers had to attend Warrior Transition Course Phase II. So, after the rest of the Soldiers shipped out to AIT, the NCOs stayed behind for an extra week of instruction.

Non Commissioned Officers generally attended Warrior Transition Course for 6 weeks. Everybody else attended Warrior Transition Course for 5 weeks. That's if everything went well.

These were the minimums.

If you failed a critical test, after given ample opportunity to retest, you didn't graduate with the rest of your battle buddies. They kept you around to watch the graduation; then shipped you to "Fox Battery." You stayed there until you passed the evolution you failed.

If you fail to pass those graduation milestones, while at Fox Battery, you faced separation from the Army.

If you got injured, you got sent to "Fox Battery," to recover. For many, this meant being recycled into the next Warrior Transition Course Class. This increased their time at Warrior Transition Course.

Nowhere in the eHow article's "Tips and Warnings" sections did it warn that the above could happen.

The eHow article emphasized that you had to have at least three years of military service to qualify for Warrior Transition Course. As of the Army Regulation in effect in 2009, AR601-210, you only needed 180 days of active duty to qualify.

The advice about talking to the recruiters wasn't always the best one either. I helped a poster, on a Warrior Transition Course related forum; get Warrior Transition Course in his contract. His recruiter was about to send him to Basic Combat Training.

So, where does that leave our three friends?

That eHow article leaves them in a position to receive a major disappointment at the recruiter's office.

Warrior Transition Course is no longer offered.

If you're not a prior Marine or Soldier, and you've never attended Warrior Transition Course, or Basic Combat Training, expect to start over along with the newest Private.

There are some exceptions, but it's up to the Army to give them.

This is true as of the time of this posting. The outdated eHow article is still active as of this writing.

If you're interested in joining the Army, refer to their latest AR 601-210. That's the Army Regulation covering active and reserve enlistments.

Letter to Demand Studios Editorial Team

Thanks for sending me the best message you've ever sent me.

You didn't need to say that you "regret" to let me know that I lost writing permissions. I didn't take that message as bad news, but as good news.

Why?

I stopped writing regularly for you guys back in early 2009. Since then, I wrote two articles for you. I wrote the first one in the fall of 2009. I wrote the second one in July 2011.

Your editors kicked both back, I subsequently abandoned both articles. I did so because of the history I had with you guys the last weeks I wrote for you.

After the first article abandonment, Demand Studios sent me a survey. You tried to gage why I wasn't writing for you guys. Though I was tempted, I didn't want to tell you guys what I really thought.

Lucky for me, your survey found me while I was combat deployed to Iraq.

All I had to say was that I was deployed, and that I didn't have time to write. That seemed to satisfy you guys. That was a legitimate excuse. I honest to God didn't have time to write for you guys.

But, it wasn't the main excuse, nor was it the only excuse.

What was my first reason?

Many of your Content Editors are incompetent when it comes to article subject and audience.

I say "incompetent," because many of your Content Editors didn't have working knowledge on the topic they were editing. Many also didn't understand the audience.

For instance, I wrote an article on moving household goods to a specific country. Your Content Editor requested that I provide specific, for that country, moving procedures.

My previous logistics experience, with the military, dictated that including those procedures was unnecessary. International moving companies take care of the "specifics." They provide guidance to their customers.

These "specifics" were also too broad for a simple "how to" article for eHow.com. They required articles of their own.

And, depending on new laws, or laws being repealed, those specifics could've poisoned the article's accuracy.

This is just one, of many, examples that lead me to give a reaction. This involved dropping my jaw, raising one eyebrow, and giving the "Huh?" reaction to their feedback.

Many of your content editors consistently failed to understand the target audience. For them, this was guesswork. This was something they did while working as staff editors.

Or, they relied on your reports on reader trends.

That's nothing like going to unedited "how to forums" on the internet, seeing what's highly rated, seeing what tone and structure works best, and seeing what the audience wants to see.

Consequently, your Content Editor's requests didn't meet the, "would this keep the reader up at night," litmus test.

That's just one example of audience research. Your software may get numbers and trends, but they won't capture human emotion. We're talking about the very thing that motivates people to read the article through.

You're not going to get that through guesswork, or by saying, "I think the audience would want this."

The audience doesn't care if you're trying to win the Pulitzer Prize in journalism. They don't care about your editorial contributions to the article. They care about getting information that'll enrich them, or help them solve a problem.

They want to receive it without the article talking down to them, or treating them like they're retarded.

They want to receive that information as if it were coming from a normal person... speaking with conversational English... not some point Dexter sounding like a library hermit.

Conversational English doesn't always lend itself to strict grammar rules. Your "quality and standards," don't allow for the normal rhythm and flow of conversational English.

What was my second reason?

Your content Editors are anonymous to the writers.

I've written content for publishers and marketers. I knew their names, and what they looked like. Their feedback, professionalism, and people skills are far superior than what I've received from your content editors.

Their feedback was both, professional and actionable. They treated me like an adult, and didn't talk down to me.

Now, there were some Demand Studios exceptions. I've received respect from three of your editors; Richard Lally, Soren Bowie, and the editor that responded to my survey comments. They presented their names to me.

Since CE's are anonymous, they could act in ways they wouldn't act in public. I'm not the only one that has had issues with the CE's abrasive attitudes.

There's a website that former and current Demand Studios Writers frequent. That website is chock full with writer complaints over CE behavior. This includes feedback delivery. These complaints are legitimate. I received better treatment from editors whose names I knew.

What was my third reason?

Many of your content editors don't do as they preach.

It's true that their comments won't be published. But, as Content Editors, they're in a leadership position. They have to lead by example.

Don't like the leadership concept?

Well, as the subject matter experts on formal writing, they need to lead by example. If they have issues with a writer's writing, they should express it with comments that follow proper grammar, structure and spelling.

I don't know about you. If someone is going to give me a grammar lecture, while writing like a D+ average 5th grader, I'm going to give him/her a grammar lecture. So will many other writers.

Here are some ways to lift moral among your writers.

* Assign CE's to subject areas or assign writers to CE's.

* Require CE's to have a profile, with their real name, accessible to the writers. This is important. Writers have the right to know who they're working with when they receive feedback.

* Remove the two strikes and you're out penalty with article kickbacks.

* Allow for a way that writers can evaluate their content editors. These ratings should be averaged, and have an impact on the CE. Assign rating levels to the CE, partly based on this feedback.

Good luck with your future operations... you'll need it.

The writers at the website that I referenced are just the tip of the iceberg. Most won't tell you about your shortcomings.

Many need your money. Angering you will risk that cash flow. Many hope that things will get better with you. They'll give you more chances, like I did.

My last two, sporadic, articles, was me giving you two more chances. With, or without, your "writing permissions removed" message, I would've never written another article for you.

If you guys continue on your trend, many of your writers will "slip into the foggy mist" and quit writing for you.

A happy writer is a productive writer. Your business depends on having a legion of writers producing your content for you. Without your writers, you'll have to produce your own content.

Since many of your Content Editors think they could write better, that probably wouldn't be a bad arrangement for you.

If your writers aren't happy, you're going to end up with a high turnover rate.

Best Regards,
/S/

P.S. Doesn't meet your standards of quality?

The more accurate term is, doesn't meet your subjective criteria.

Let's face it. Ehow.com has become the tabloid version of Wikipedia, holding as much credibility. Your recent Ehow.com articles leave plenty of room for improvement.

P.P.S. Please delete my Demand Studios Account. Thanks.