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...
What a putz.
In full retreat, a humiliated and somber Ed Schultz opened his MSNBC show on Wednesday night by apologizing to Laura Ingraham for using, on his radio show, “vile and inappropriate language” to describe her, language he did not repeat. On Tuesday, the left-wing host had slimed the conservative talk radio host as a “right-wing slut” and a “radio slut.” (After Schultz’s statement, Thomas Roberts hosted the rest of the hour.)
Schultz pleaded: “I am deeply sorry, and I apologize. It was wrong, uncalled for and I recognize the severity of what I said. I apologize to you, Laura, and ask for your forgiveness.” He added that “I also met with management here at MSNBC, and understanding the severity of the situation and what I said on the radio and how it reflected terribly on this company, I have offered to take myself off the air for an indefinite period of time with no pay.” The official NBC management statement, however, said he had agreed to “one week of unpaid leave.”
But let’s be honest, this wasn’t Tourette syndrome or any involuntary spasm. There are a whole lot of people running around thinking something like — sexism is bad, racism is bad, we should enforce etiquette, we should end careers of people caught saying the wrong things, indeed we need to look for reasons to do so…but if you successfully advance a conservative agenda and you belong to a minority group, or you are a female, then all bets are off.
That’s what this is really about. That’s what it has always been about. Second-class citizens who aren’t entitled to the same things, namely the same expectations of respect, to which “normal” people are entitled. There is this sentiment out there, embraced by large numbers of people — they aren’t all on teevee — that women and minorities carry some special obligation to be liberals. A white male taking up a position somewhere to the political right of Hillary Clinton is a jackass and a jerk and a “teabagger” or something; but a homosexual or a woman or Hispanic or African-American doing the same thing, is to be subjected to the prerational curse of ostracism. You shall be shunned, whoever does not shun you shall be shunned, whoever does not shun he who did not shun you shall likewise be shunned.
In keeping with that, Schultz shunned Ingraham so he wouldn’t be shunned. He had to do it, and with the same events playing out again he’d do it again. We’ll see a whole lot more of this, because that is how it works.
Seems very contrite, very sincere. Just like Sean Penn in Dead Man Walking…but let’s take a look at the original crime.
See, I’m wondering: When Ed Schultz apologizes for using that word and promises never to do it again, does that mean — the Ed Schultz show is going to discuss the issues, the ramifications of doing A versus B? Or at least the ramifications involved of doing A versus not doing A? As opposed to the ritual garbage of attacking “the Republicans” for daring to support something other than ritual leftist dogma? I doubt it. There is symbolism involved in that word “slut,” and what is represented has absolutely nothing to do with being an indiscrete slovenly woman of ill repute. Laura Ingraham was sent down a chute into a refuse pile because she deviated from the expected thought process: Think about your “next-door neighbor,” spend the money, screw the taxpayers, and everything Obama does is wonderful. Anyone who wanders out of that rigid outline is sub-human and that’s all we need to discuss. If a woman or minority wanders out of that rigid outline then it counts double, in fact there’s a virtual perceived bounty to be awarded if you trash-talk them. Just make sure the right people are paying attention when you do it.
I’m glad there’s nothing but a smoking crater where he was standing a short time earlier, but that’s the leafy part of the weed. The root is fully intact, and it is this: Liberals believe in derailing any discussion that becomes thoughtful enough that their own ideas are treated with anything but instant acceptance. They believe in marginalizing the opposition as a primary means of exchanging ideas. They believe in prerationalism. “So, we’re all on board, right?” is the only sentiment they see as valid in any meeting-of-the-minds about anything…they don’t know what to do with dissent and they don’t even know what to do with questions. If they encounter any skepticism at all — even the talk-show dickheads, like Schultz — they pretty much wing it from that point, with far more concern about climbing their own little social ladders than bringing the situation to a beneficial resolution.
And sometimes…a lot of the time…the results are very ugly.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.