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...
BroKen, over at Rick’s place, heard an interesting and colorful phrase.
I think he’s learned about Yin and Yang, the idea that some among us perceive the world around us through facts and logic, and others among us perceive the world around us by means of social interaction with yet others. Which leaves us conflicted with each other, because it leaves some of us abhorring ambiguity, and others of us craving it.
He’s just come in contact with the world of those who crave it.
A few days ago I was watching a diplomat (I think she was retired) discuss the issues facing those seeking peace in the Middle East and she used a fascinating term. She said that agreements reached between the parties would need some “creative ambiguity.”
Do you see what that means? Since the parties have diametrically opposed goals, the only way to get them to sign a piece of paper is if each side thinks the paper says something different.
As Dennis Prager is fond of saying, “I’d rather have clarity than agreement.” Not everybody is willing to sign on to that one.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Do you see what that means? Since the parties have diametrically opposed goals, the only way to get them to sign a piece of paper is if each side thinks the paper says something different.
Ehh….
Doesn’t that merely postpone the inevitable violent clashes over “settlements” and all the other contentious issues in Israeli-Palestinian relations? If each side is getting what they think they want, but each has a contradictory understanding of the agreement?
Adding to the problem is that the side which lobs mortars and rockets, which sends suicide bombers to pizza parlors…can’t be trusted to negotiate in good faith.
- cylarz | 10/03/2009 @ 22:23