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...
Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself… X
Isn’t this always the trouble when you have a narrow band of elites telling a broad mass of commoners what to be uppity, angsty and fidgety about. A bullying selectivity enters into the hidden criterion, subtle at first, then as time goes on raising more and more problematic questions: Why is this thing “beyond the pale”? Why is that other thing, not? Where exactly is this “pale”? Why do we need leaders to tell us things are beyond it? Why can’t we just be told where the pale is, so we can measure what’s beyond it and what isn’t, all by ourselves?
This is the kind of thing David Limbaugh, Rush’s little brother, presses in trying to figure out what, exactly, is so offensive about Ann Coulter’s new book. Ann Coulter says Cindy Sheehan and the Jersey Girls are enjoying their newfound attention; Sheehan says President Bush is a “filth spewer” and the “world’s biggest terrorist.” I’m supposed to be far more offended by what Coulter says, although truth and logic are far more offended by what Sheehan says. How come that is?
It’s like more than a “church,” says Limbaugh. It’s like a cult. I’m inclined to agree.
As usual, the liberals’ outrage is highly selective. It is not the people or their circumstances that are sacrosanct, but their liberal positions. Liberals accorded none of their precious war-hero deference to John O’Neill and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Indeed, they called them liars — when they weren’t — and much worse. They have savaged combat-decorated Marine Ollie North. They have no use for retired generals supporting Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Not on their lives would they defend 9/11 widows or mothers of war victims in support of President Bush’s war effort.
:
Coulter’s comments pale in comparison to the nastiness that routinely comes out of liberals’ mouths about conservatives, as when Sen. Harry Reid called President Bush a liar and Alan Greenspan a hack. So please, spare us the indignation.What really bothers most liberals is not Ann Coulter’s tone, but the substance of her criticisms. You dare not challenge liberal orthodoxy; otherwise, you are fair game for the very kind of mistreatment, abuse and intolerance they profess to decry in others. All of which further proves the thesis of Ann’s book: Liberalism is a religion whose sacred tenets may not be challenged; for some, it might even be a cult.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.