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...
Anakin, my allegiance is to the Republic, to democracy. — Obi-Wan Kenobi, Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith (2005)
What is democracy, anyway?
Wisconsin Crying Man Mike seems to believe it is dead & done, whenever his fellow Wisconsinites participate in an election and a majority of them vote for something he doesn’t like? That would tend to indicate “democracy” is…um…well…Mike getting his way, contrary to the wishes of a majority of his peers. Funny, I thought that was something else.
But E.J. Dionne (hat tip to Terri) evidently is on Boo Hoo Mike’s side on this thing. “It’s called democracy,” says Dionne, finishing strong after going three garrulous and creepy paragraphs, describing in intricate detail how our elections are to be run to Dionne’s liking.
…so here is a modest proposal: A small group of billionaires, aided perhaps by a few super-millionaires, should form an alliance to offset the spending of the other billionaires and super-millionaires. They might call themselves Billionaires Against Billionaire Politics. These public-spirited citizens would announce that they will match every penny raised by the various super PACs on the other side.
In principle, they could commit themselves to balancing off whichever side — conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat — is dominating the airwaves and the fundraising. The idea would be to destroy the incentives for the very rich to buy the election. If shrewd wealthy people realized that every $10 million they put up would be met immediately by $10 million from the other side, they might lose interest in the exercise.
As a practical matter, it’s conservative dollars that need to be offset, so this balancing act would likely be financed by non-conservatives. George Soros, Warren Buffett and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg come to mind. But there may be other, less high-profile wealthy folks who want to do their patriotic bit. The hope is that this would be a one-shot deal. After one nuclear winter of an election, rich partisans could agree to mutual disarmament.
“Should form…might call…would announce…could commit…the idea would be…would likely be financed by.” Reminds me of that sock-puppet group-identity “person” who was on here, insisting over and over again, “best estimates are 3.5 to 5.0 C increase” in the global temperature over the next century. Things got weird when I started to focus on what exactly that word “best” meant, in that context; did it really mean “most likely”? Or something else?
Progressives have a strange relationship with the time stream, just as they have a strange relationship with that word “democracy.” Just as they seem to define “democracy” as “everyone does everything my way, whether they want to or not” — they speak of future events as if they have occurred in the past. More specifically, they speak of them as if it is entirely responsible & safe to forget all about probability.
And the idea of a bunch of billionaires gathered around a big table, led by the erstwhile George Soros, as if re-enacting the famous Thunderball scene, cracks me up. Especially the part where “Number One Soros” announces his displeasure and uncertainty about whether the group is headed in the right direction or not, and the time has come for a quick conference call to E.J. Dionne to make sure they’re doing everything the right way.
My goodness…proggies do so love to hand out these commands about what other people should do with their money. And their votes. And they’re always absolutely certain about what is going to happen — occasionally, in very impressive detail. The question naturally emerges: Is Dionne predicting what is going to happen, or simply communicating his wishes? I am absolutely certain that if I were to critique and attack his rambling missive based on one of those premises, he or his apologists would insist that he really meant the other (and I’m an overly simplistic dolt for not immediately recognizing it). If you read his words carefully, you’ll see he describes both wish (“the hope is that this would be a one-shot deal”) and likelihood (“it’s highly unlikely that any of this will happen before November, so…”). So which of those two purposes emerges as the primary one? I don’t think E.J. himself knows. He’s just indulging a lazy midsummer fantasy. Hey, if you could make a living at it, you’d do it too!
The more I learn about the left-wing set, the more I think there is a part of the brain missing, damaged, or under-developed. Think about it: What is your reaction when you hear someone say “Hold it, let’s settle this democratically and put it to a vote”? What is the first thought in your head? Normal people hear that and think “Oh great…I’m gonna get screwed here.” Second thought, more sober and more sluggish: “Well, I should trust in the judgment of my peers if we’re going to be living in proximity to each other, and if my position is correct, I should be able to present it in a compelling way.” But your first thought is: Darn it, I’ve taken the time to figure out the right answer, I know it’s right…why are we opening it up to a decent chance that the wrong answer might carry the day, just to make everyone feel like they’re participating, when they might not even care. In sum: Normal people with fully working brains, see “democracy” as what it really is. It’s an exchange. We’re all going to give up a lot of control, now, so that later on we can say “right or wrong, this was the decision of those who took the time to participate.” It does not make the final outcome more correct, or even more virtuous, nor is it supposed to. It solves no problem at all, other than the complaints that might properly be aired, later on, that so-and-so was not consulted.
In fact, democracy is like money that way. Somewhere I read a quote from someone about money: If you happen to receive a whole lot of it, whatever problems you have that are money-related, will be helped, and whatever other problems you have, won’t. Seems so simple — why even bother to say such a thing? Later on, when I had some personal experience with this, I got a whole new perspective. That’s what it takes, you have to live it yourself to see what’s really being said here. Well, democracy is like that. Whatever problems you have that are related to resentments about this person or that person not having a say, will be addressed, and all the other problems will not be. All this is self-evident to those of us who see democracy as what it really is; those of us who are not brain damaged.
On the left, people are missing that. Maybe they’re conditioned to bypass that circuit altogether — or, they’re accustomed to this word “democracy” referring to something other than what it really is supposed to mean. They never seem to think anybody, who counts for anything or has a bearing on the outcome, will ever disagree with them. Perhaps they have a plan in place to make sure of it…putting the deceased on the registration rolls, stuffing ballot boxes, et al.
They want things put to a vote, but it is contrary to their way of living & perceiving life, ever to be prepared to lose.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.