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...
Pretty awesome. The dude measurably ran circles around the fembot. I say “measurably ran circles” because she brought some sourced arguments to the table to help bolster this idea that America is a purely secularist nation, intended from its founding to prohibit at the federal level any connection whatsoever between private worship and public resources; since some of these arguments have been made before, Christian-Nation-Dude came prepared, with sourced arguments about the sourced arguments, as if there was some kind of pre-debate discovery process and only one side made use of it.
To me, you have to define the question before you can proceed with the debate. What’re we arguing about? Is there a wall of separation of funding that was intended from the very beginning of the nation? Is there a wall of separation of recognition? Should atheists be able to look around and not see any evidence of anybody else’s faith, anywhere at all? Are your rights being violated when there isn’t enough room for everyone to attend your son’s public-school commencement ceremony, and so the ceremony is moved to a church and it makes you feel creeped out being in there?
Are these things just sturdy, reasonable, logical interpretations of what was written at the very beginning?
If that captures the argument, then the first time you see a founder scribbling down pious words in his capacity as a public servant, especially as our nation’s President, her entire argument has imploded. If it wasn’t something being practiced at the beginning by the men who supposedly erected this “wall,” then she has nothing worthwhile to say about it. It’s a linear argument, and it’s demonstrable something was grossly misunderstood way back at the beginning of the line. It’s like saying “As I recite Pi to 50 digits beyond the decimal point, alright nevermind whether I got the twelfth digit wrong or not…this 47th one I got right, dammit, and you’re a fool if you disagree!” That’s why I say linear-argument. If you’re not on the same page way at the beginning, then as you trot out from there you’re just fabricating bullshit whether you realize it or not. Each digit of Pi has 9-to-1 odds of being wrong; it’s correct only by random chance.
Hat tip to Boortz.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
In all fairness, it seems pretty obvious that she had to go pee, something fierce.
- Deety | 06/12/2010 @ 12:13