Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
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 an intriguing guy...[he] asks great questions and answers others with style, flair, reason and wit. On the blogroll he goes. Make him a part of your regular blogospheric reading. I certainly will.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Common Sense Junction: Misha @ Anti-Idiotarian never ceases to amaze me. He keeps finding other good blogs. I went over to A.I. this morning for my daily Misha fix and he had found this guy named Morgan Freeberg in Fair Oaks, California, that has a blog, House of Eratosthenes. Freeberg says its "The Blog That Nobody Reads" but it may now become the blog that everybody reads.
Jaded Haven: Good God, Morgan, you cover a topic from front to back with a screwy thoroughness I find mind boggling. I'm in awe of your thought proccesses, my friend, you're an exceptional talent. You start by throwing in the kitchen sink, tie in someone's syphilitic uncle, bend around a rip tide of brilliance and bring it all home in a neat, diamond dripping package of an exceptionally readable moment of damn fine wordsmithing. I love reading you.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
Philmon: When Morgan meanders, stick with him - he's got a point and it'll be worth it in the end. He's not a hit-and-run snarky quip kind of guy. The pieces all fall into place like tumblers in a lock and bang! He's opened a cognative door for you.
Rightlinx: Morgan at House of Eratosthenes is one of the best writers out there. I read him nearly every day because he manages to provide an interesting perspective, even though I don't always agree.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
…something. Let’s get through the background info first. Some Republican candidate somewhere fell into a trap, answering a question that is hopefully mostly-useless and should be all-the-way-useless, about what is to be done about a pregnancy caused by rape. The correct answer is, of course, that he would represent his Indiana constituency in the United States Senate in strict accordance with upholding the U.S. Constitution, as required by the oath he would take upon being sworn in. But he was goaded into saying…
I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.
Well, problem: You have to be a whole lot more careful around the zoo tiger that has missed its last two or so feedings, and the Obama re-election beast is so starved with any kind of case it can make to the American voters that its bones are starting to stick out from its fur. So…lights, camera, action! You have the floor, Mr. President!
“Let me make a very simple proposition. Rape is rape. It is a crime. And so these various distinctions about rape don’t make too much sense…”
“This is exactly why you don’t want a bunch of politicians, mostly male, making decisions about women’s health care decisions,” Obama said. “Women are capable of making these decisions in consultation with their partners, with their doctors, and for politicians to want to intrude in this stuff often times without any information is a huge problem.”
Yes, by all means. When our overriding concern is politicians sensibly staying out of matters that do not concern them, and leaving intimate decisions up to the wise and capable voters, then of course our standard bearer has to be Barack Hussein “My wife is bored and wants to tell your kids what to eat” Obama! <eyeball roll>
Which brings us to Cassy’s remark:
Gee, that’s funny. I seem to recall Obama — a male politician — weighing in on abortion in the past. Let’s see… there was his pro-infanticide vote. That’s one notable example. So I guess what he really meant to say was, male politicians can weigh in on abortion, but only if they’re on the “right” side of the issue. Otherwise, keep your mouths shut!
It isn’t just Obama, though. I see this all over the place: Men making this claim that men should not have opinions about abortion…but if another man pipes up and says “It should be legal!” they don’t get in that guy’s face and say “Hey, you! That’s an opinion about abortion, you’re a man, so you just stuff a sock in it pal!” To the last man, it seems this professed abortion-issue agnosticism is entirely phony. “Men should not have opinions about abortion” — means — “Men should not oppose abortion.”
I notice something else, though. When a politician takes charge of something and, next time he’s up for re-election he doesn’t have any good results to offer and has to head back to the “re-elect me so we can keep abortion legal” thing…you know what, President Obama? Those politicians are “mostly male” too! Mostly male, and mostly silly, since a lot of these guys never had anything to do with abortion being allowed (or not) in the first place.
Cassy then goes on to raise an interesting question:
Also, if men aren’t allowed to make decisions on abortion, then why should they be forced to pay child support for children they don’t want? I mean, think about it. Men can’t have a voice on abortion, and they can’t have a choice on whether they want children or not. How is that right?
I can field that one. It goes back to my previous post, in which I said, simply:
I was going through a litany of favorite left-wing issues, categorizing them according to how they meshed up with what I perceived to be three primary base human impulses. Those three impulses being: Resentment, desire for a centrally controlled and micro-managed nanny-state, and belief in a godless universe. Abortion is godless, not only in the act, but in the beliefs upon which it is based. The baby is “tissue.” To those who then ask, if the baby is nothing more than a clump of cells and the rest of us labor under no moral obligation to preserve it, then how are any of the rest of us more worthy of protection than that “tissue”? And the honest answer is: We’re not! Boys, girls, gays, straights, babies, old people, every year in between we’re all just randomly growing and regenerating carbon-based stuff. Stuck here on a tiny rock in space by unplanned cosmic forces. Nothing glorious about us at all. Certainly no reason for being here, no mission, no purpose. Just sit around and be happy. Play a video game and chow down a Happy Meal. Do whatever pleases you.
This is a view of our cosmos, and all the things in it, that is loaded up silly with glaring, unworkable contradictions. Like — now that we’ve been deposited here by random forces, without glory, without purpose, without mission and unworthy of any kind of respect…somehow, we have this [blank]-given right to a more-or-less equal distribution of the wages and assets. We have rights to all sorts of things. Representation at negotiations between labor and management; the job itself; the fruits of the negotiations; health care; using the other bathroom when we’re about to go in for gender reassignment surgery; minimum wage; voting, maybe food, maybe a car…dammit, we have rights!
Right to vote. Right to abort. Neither one of them can ever be infringed upon, because, GRRRR ANGRY HULK SMASH!! Well, when there are two rights that are to take supremacy at all times, and they do not run parallel to each other, they in fact intersect — something’s gotta give. Here, we reach that point when we ask an intriguing hypothetical I’ve posed before: The powers that be fail to pay proper heed to Roe v. Wade, and a referendum question ends up on my ballot asking if I want to outlaw abortion. Do I have the right to cast a vote? Do I have a right to vote yes? To have this vote counted…to see it prevail, if it turns out I’m in the majority? Bounce that one off your liberal friends sometime. Get ready for a deer-in-the-headlights look that will put any real deer to shame.
But I suppose that sounds like, liberalism is in fact anarchy. We have no purpose here, therefore we have no obligation, including obligation to follow the law. How then do we resolve Cassy’s question: The men who are not to have any say about abortion, are to be obliged to pay support when they didn’t have a say in whether the pregnancy would continue. How do we square that circle? The answer is that liberals do not see “child support” the way real people do. You’ll notice they’re very free and easy talking about “obligations” people have, like rich people and corporations paying their “fair share,” humans being kind to the “environment,” giving health insurance to the poor, poor, pitiful poor. Mitt Romney should hire more women. But Thing I Know #52 kicks in…
52. Angry people who demand things, don’t stop being angry when their demands are met.
Liberals don’t see child support the way you and I do, because they don’t see any other kind of “obligation” the way you and I do. The issue with the obligation is not, it has to be met because someone somewhere is counting on it. If that were the case, then the obligation being met, would be a meaningful event. On Planet Progressive, this is not happening. No, the obligation is assigned to help underscore the idea that the person who has the obligation, is not as good a person as somebody else. You’ll notice these people the liberals want to make good, and force everyone else to respect; they never have any obligations. Obama Himself is the extreme example. Everyone who expects Obama to do anything, including maintain a consistent position on gay marriage, or closing Guantanamo, or produce a picture of bin Laden’s corpse, or Obama’s own college transcripts — is a r-r-r-r-acist. Which, in turn, simply means that they are to be shunned by all good liberals everywhere.
So of course men have an obligation to “pay child support.” But the liberals who say so, don’t give a hang about the kids. They just want a reminder that the men aren’t good. So put some obligations on them, because to a liberal, that’s how it’s done.
Another contradiction that is unworkable: The men, mentioned above, who don’t want men to have opinions about abortion. Such passion! But if it’s honest passion, how is it sustained? How do you go about being so opinionated, that you should not have an opinion about something? I call shenanigans. I don’t think the human mind is capable of tying itself in to such a knot. If it is, then it isn’t very suitable for its intended purpose…uh oh…there I go, offending the godless universe again, for how can the human mind be intended for something in its design and implementation, without someone doing the intending, designing and implementing?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.