Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Wisdom, again, from my Hello Kitty of Blogging account (seems these links require membership/registration before you can follow them)…
So we’ve got anti-war people on the left and anti-war people on the right. Then we have the other. The anti-war people make two glaring mistakes: They presume that, in a conflict, one side or the other can unilaterally decide (without surrendering) the conflict should stop. The other mistake they make is to presume anyone not in their camp, must be completely lacking in any respect for human life whatsoever.
Both of these suppositions are demonstrably false.
And the irony is this: As anyone who’s been present can attest, when anti-war and pro-war people get together, a mini-war erupts right then & there. And then the anti-war people consistently show the worst pro-war tendencies in that mini-war. They dehumanize the opposition, marginalize it, trivialize it, and in sum, just state their viewpoint of the situation over & over again with little or no effort made to exchange or evenhandedly-evaluate ideas.
Their oikophobia is demonstrated easily, when you observe how frustrated they become that the “real” war and the mini-war drag on and on, and they clearly think the solution to BOTH conflicts is a simple one. But within the real war, even though they often insist there aren’t any meaningful sides defined, they consistently want one side to do all the appeasing; that would be the side made up of their purported fellow countrymen. The more alien side, according to them, doesn’t need to do any compromising at all. Obviously you have to recognize sides in order to consistently favor one over the other.
Perhaps, here in the United States, our anti-war movement is more irrational than most because our military is still a mighty one compared to other countries. Think on it; you have two countries, A and B, and a conflict erupts and let’s just arbitrarily say B is making a demand of A that happens to be an unreasonable one, and A possesses a distinctly superior military force. In that case, B’s acquiescence to A is the logical solution to the conflict. An anti-war movement sincerely motivated by a desire to see the end of the conflict, would choose that position to advocate.
But if the anti-war zealot happens to belong to country A, by pushing for this solution, he would meld his rhetoric into the rhetoric used by the pro-war movement of country A. Which would be an inconsequential consideration for someone who wants to end the conflict and thinks logically about actions and consequences. It wouldn’t matter.
Therefore, the anti-war zealot who calls for A, his own country, to do the compromising while B, the foreign country, sits back and enjoys the fruits of the conflict — must be motivated by a desire to distinguish himself from the “real enemy,” meaning, fellow countrymen who are not part of his movement. This would be the polar opposite of the coming-together-as-one-world that anti-war people say they want, and here in the states we get to watch them exercise it consistently.
And by rewarding the more belligerent entity in the conflict, with concessions and bounty that would not have been forthcoming had the conflict not started, they provide a clear incentive for more, future, conflicts.
They aren’t anti-war at all, when you look into it. Not in America they aren’t.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
They presume that, in a conflict, one side or the other can unilaterally decide (without surrendering) the conflict should stop.
You can extrapolate that out to liberalism in toto. Compared to the liberal faith in the power of words, mere words, the Spanish Inquisition was sorta blah on Catholicism. To them, words like “dialogue” and “engagement” are intransitive. We hold out a hand to Iran, Iran tries its best to cut the hand off, and liberals just can’t figure it out. “But…but… but…. we’re having a dialogue!” they splutter.
Same thing with “health care.” You will notice that the United States now has “health care,” because there’s President Obama’s signature on a bill that has “heath care” in the title. See how easy that was? And it must be working, since that whole “finding out what’s in it after we pass it” thing we were promised hasn’t happened (I assume that’s because everything is going swimmingly).
Such is the liberal faith in words. When candidate Obama said that his election would cause the seas to fall and the planet to cool, he actually meant it. The 2012 election will hinge on how many people realize this.
- Severian | 01/02/2012 @ 10:41Nothing new about this. When you oppose the liberal prescription for some problem, they automatically extrapolate that you also must be opposed to their goals (feeding kids, world peace, ending animal cruelty, etc). It never occurs to them that well intentioned people exist on the other side, who might know something they don’t.
- cylarz | 01/03/2012 @ 00:17