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...
Fellow Right Wing News contributor Melissa Clouthier on the new Supreme Court nominee:
Like most politically interested Americans, I’m gobbling up all I can find about Elena Kagan. And the portrait that’s emerging looks very familiar. In fact, Elena Kagan looks a lot like the man nominating her for the Supreme Court: She is young, smart, brash, inexperienced, possibly socialist, calculating, and affable.
The choice says more about President Obama than it does Elena Kagan. He likes himself and wants the qualities he possesses on the Supreme Court. [emphasis mine]
Update: Noticing the trend remains unbroken — that left-wing politicians consistently nominate homely white women to positions of vast power, not average women by any means…pulchritude-challenged women I wouldn’t be able to go out and find, on any day, on a bet. I think it only appropriate that we offer a nod to Arthurstone and immortalize in (virtual) granite his attempt to show us what a decent human being he really is, in a way that means the most to him:
The “fact” in question being that liberal women are ugly.
That just defines modern liberalism. It’s all about showing what a wonderful human being you are, over and over again, by ignoring facts. Ignoring…hmmm…ignoring…what’s the adjective form of “ignore”? What’s the intangible noun form?
Are liberals really ignoring the substandard aesthetics of their female nominees to positions of power? Number of acceptable-looking liberal women is constantly one-or-zero, depending on whether Alyssa Milano has allowed her hair to grow back or not. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Someone is trying to send a message. “Ignoring” it just seems like bad manners. But whatever turns your crank, Arthur.
Update: Guess who can’t look away from the gaydarscope.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Women are beautiful, and most women are liberal, so it may be only the women who are professional liberals which are exclusively ugly. If Arthur is correct that liberals take no notice of ugliness, then ugliness is selecting liberals. In Kagan’s case, what were her alternatives, realistically?
- jamzw | 05/10/2010 @ 21:07Why is anyone acting surprised by this nominee? Did we really expect Chairman Zero to send up someone like Scalia or Roberts?
No, he’s going to nominate someone who fits the template – prone to stoop low and reach high looking for a precedent on which to validate a pre-formed legal opinion (including looking to foreign court rulings if necessary), formulate rulings based not on the law, but on the presumed social consequences, substitute personal opinion for reasoned legal judgement, and adjudicate disputes based not on the merits, but on whether the defendant is a member of a class that deserves to be “punished” or the plaintiff a member of one that deserves to be “protected.” In other words, make law from the bench instead of interpreting it as prescribed by Article III in the Constitution.
Why we’d expect anything different from Mister Wonderful, is beyond me. What we need to do is make sure that this nominee doesn’t make it through Senate confirmation so that the president is forced to send up someone who could at least be called “the lesser of two evils.”
Personally, I’d like to see eight more Scalias. But that’s just me. In the meantime, I’d settle for some rule which forces justices off the bench after a certain number of years. There’s no reason we need 88-year-old men and women sitting up there having the last word on my Constitutional rights.
- cylarz | 05/11/2010 @ 04:05Oh, and Arthurstone is a douche nozzle. I really couldn’t care less what someone like him thinks. I liked the way you put it, Morgan – “asshole-ish quips” was it?
- cylarz | 05/11/2010 @ 04:08