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...
Althouse can’t find anything wrong with it and neither can I. In fact, I have been wondering for a long time now: When our modern liberals talk up the importance of “building a strong middle class,” and steadfastly refuse to define such keystone terms within that phrase like “middle class,” “building,” “strong” and, I suppose, “a”; could this be the “middle class” to which they are referring?
We already know that when they’re talking about “working families” they’re not talking about families and they’re not talking about people who work. And we already know that they know their prospects in any election are related to how many among us are in the dependency class, and as a direct consequence of this incentive they’ve been working to increase the ranks of the dependency class.
I’m truly puzzled as to why it seems no one within their support structure is asking the question. Consider what the democrat politician is saying to his democrat followers when he says these democrat things:
- You are middle class;
- “The rich” either make more than you, or have more than you, or both;
- They are not paying their fair share (more terms that evade an actual definition);
- That is a problem I am going to fix;
- BUT — in my vision, you are to remain middle class;
- However I am going to make this middle class stronger.
What kinds of people absorb such a message without asking: Waitaminnit waitaminnit, does that mean my financial situation improves? Does my income go up? Do I get to keep more of it? Save more? Does it mean my kids can be rich someday?
As near as I can figure it, “strong” means one of two things, and perhaps both of these things: The class has more people in it, and when the class says “jump” the politicians in Washington say, “how high?” So the people who support this 1) are not asking what any of this means; 2) disagree with me (somehow) in what it means; or 3) are overly concerned with silly things that don’t matter, like when they’re in an economic class that limits their options in life, are their lots of other people in the same class and are the beltway politicians invested in keeping them in that limited economic class, and if it’s yes to both then all is good.
The other juicy point to gnaw on here is that the lefty journalist corps is now busily writing up their pieces for people to read tomorrow whose premise is going to be that when Romney asserted such and such number of people receive more than they pay from Daddy Government, he was insulting those people. But where’s the insult? one is tempted to ask innocently. So what if some people make use of popular progressive programs? Isn’t that good?
Anytime one gets ‘progressives’ to unanimously (if backhandedly) acknowledge there is shame involved in government assistance, right-minded people have got to consider it a win.
Could it really be that simple? These people live in a world in which the shame is not in the dependency itself, but rather in who else discusses it?
Ed Darrell is pretty upset about it, and shows it in his customary way, by defining “rational person” according to who does & doesn’t agree with him about things…the trend remains consistent, it is absolutely, completely kept secret what is to be so flawed and off-kilter in what Romney said. They’re awfully fond of the rib-elbowing, wink wink nudge nudge over on that side of the aisle. One is tempted to suppose they darn well know, if ever their ideas were to be discussed in any kind of technical detail it would be revealed how little sense they make.
Well, I’ll just state the obvious and let it go at that: Forty-seven is very close to fifty, and when close to half of the voters are, as it has been said, “signing the back of the check instead of the front” — that means close to half of the nation couldn’t possibly care less what the financial picture is as long as the gravy train keeps coming in. And that, boys and girls, does not make a nation stronger.
Now I’m going to go take a shower, because I feel like I need to when I say just completely self-evident stuff like this that shouldn’t need to be said.
Update: Ah yes, I had not thought of this. It’s difficult to put too much disciplined thought into what is being said, when those saying it refuse to say what it is they’re saying:
These “gaffes” (scare quotes necessary because the term has lost a definite meaning beyond “controversial statement that gets a politician off message”) rarely seem as devastating as partisan opponents hope (though don’t tell that to Todd Akin). During the 2008 cycle, Barack Obama was recorded, also at a fundraiser, saying that Democrats in western Pennsylvania were too bigoted and religiously deluded to consider voting for him. Complaints about that far more offensive “bitter clinger” stuff remain staples of conservative rhetoric. But there’s still no evidence I know of that it hurt him much at all. I suspect Romney’s statement will have even less of a shelf life.
Not sure of that last part of it. But it’s a good point to be made that, if the “clinging to guns and religion” remark was not terminal to a political career, perhaps it is then an exaggeration to speak with such ominous foreboding about the ultimate effect of the 47% statement.
I’m taking it as another incremental re-writing of the rules. Elections have to function in a certain way for progressives to have a chance of winning. You can’t have voter ID, you have to have Black Panthers strutting around the polling place with billy clubs in hand, fairy tales have to be told about women becoming gestation slaves if things go the wrong way, the panhandlers have to be given free smokes and free hooch for taking the trouble to go in, and the conservative politicians should not be allowed to talk about the swelling ranks of the dependency class.
Time to bring the graphic out again:
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.