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...
Maybe showing class is an obsolete concept. Or maybe we can still show some class, but we forget how to do it once we’re discussing matters of life and death. I wish everybody could have it all the time, but if we have to be uncouth when we discuss grave matters involving people getting killed I can kind of see it. There’d be a certain nobility to that although it would still be a regrettable weakness.
But President Bush’s dad has more class in his toenail clippings, than Jimmy Carter has in his whole wrinkly terrorist-loving body.
One audience member asked the former president what advice he gives his son on Iraq.
Bush said the presence of reporters in the audience prevented him from revealing his advice. He also declined to comment on his expectations for the findings of the Iraq Study Group, an advisory commission led by Bush family friend and his former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee Hamilton. The group is expected to issue its report soon.
“I have strong opinions on a lot of these things. But the reason I can’t voice them is, if I did what you ask me to do – tell you what advice I give my son – that would then be flashed all over the world,” Bush said.
“If it happened to deviate one iota, one little inch, from what the president’s doing or thinks he ought to be doing, it would be terrible. It’d bring great anxiety not only to him but to his supporters,” he added.
Excellent as it is, the elder Bush’s explanation leaves out important things because he explains his reticence only from the viewpoint of someone who supports his son’s policies. A lot of participants are concerned about the interests of America, but are bitterly opposed to the Bush doctrine and have their reasons for being so opposed. They, too, are opposed to former presidents criticizing said policies in public — or should be.
Iraq is the frontal stage in a propaganda war. A propaganda war is all about confidence; getting more for your side, undermining the enemy’s. Iraq, in general, isn’t doing so hot. A lot of that has to do with confidence. A lot of our most publicly-visible and vocal Americans, for the last four years, have been rather apathetic about this concern. They’ve been too giddy and drunk on the elixir of “speaking truth to power,” in a nation where there is absolutely no civil or criminal penalty looming for doing so.
The preceding paragraph has just six sentences. They’re solid, all six of them — either factual, indisputable, or both. You’d have to be just-plain-nuts to disagree with any one of the six, and they lead unavoidably to one conclusion. That conclusion is this: If we’re looking for a good post-mortem process on Iraq, searching for ways to do it a little better next time, we need to take a look at keeping our stinky, halitosistic cakeholes shut. Share your criticism of our current President with other Americans, and concentrate on the things he does, not on who he is. He got elected. He invaded Iraq. Get over it.
One of the most persuasive arguments against going into Iraq in the first place, is that there were other menacing hoodlums all over the world who are supposed to be more threatening than Saddam Hussein ever was. Personally, I question that comparison, but the hoodlums are definitely out there. We’re going to have to do the Iraq thing a few more times. You disagree? Fine. Lay down some arguments — to Americans — about how the whole venture was doomed from the start in spite of all the things President Bush did right.
To say President Bush has messed up Iraq, and oh by the way he spends a lot of money and is letting in illegal aliens and ruining the planet’s climate and causing hurricanes and letting people whither and die in New Orleans and he’s too stupid to eat a pretzel and he’s a draft-dodger, and, and, and…why, that’s tantamount to arguing that Iraq didn’t succeed simply because the wrong folks were in charge. And if I’m some foreign guy and I’m hearing you go on about how Americans are ignorant and arrogant and your President is a dumb klutz, and I get in a discussion about some other foreigner about it…well…here’s a question. How are we supposed to see Americans in a good light, if they don’t see themselves that way? And what’s the most positive thought possible we can have about your President? Defending America’s reputation, begins with Americans.
Maybe…just maybe…the hot, pimply-faced, spittle-flinging anger at President Bush has found a little bit more of a voice than we should have allowed it to find. Isn’t that possible? No, I’m not talking about restricting speech. I’m just talking about visiting or revisiting the possibility: Maybe it’s had a bad effect. Maybe. It’s possible, right? You know, in forty years on the planet, I’ve noticed that people get only-so-angry about things when they know their position is the right one. Above a certain level of anger, you get into levels reserved only for people who know they’re wrong, and/or that it’s the other fellow who is right. It seems to me the anger at President Bush has long ago rocketed into that ionosphere, and is still gaining speed.
As for America’s situation, she’s in quite a pickle here. Our weapons won’t save us, and neither will our freedom-of-speech, our democratic republic, our money or even the dedicated individuals who volunteer to serve in our military. None of those things will see us through this crisis. I’m thinking class just might do the trick.
It’d be rather difficult to assert we’ve already tried it, right? Hello, former President Jimmy “mouth of the south” Carter! You’ve been something of a stranger lately to the whole leaving-things-unsaid dealy-bob. What say you?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.