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...
Wrong•scuse (n.)
An excuse to do something that is irrefutably wrong. Liberals chronically use it as a substitute for doing what everyone with working tissue topside of a brainstem, occupying any point on the ideological spectrum, darn well knows is the right thing to do. Usually, the thing that is wrong, is wrong because it violates the standards proffered and propagated by the wrongdoer himself. Justifying it, therefore, demands a distraction sufficiently powerful to triumph whatever level of brainpower is present in the spectator who must be convinced.
Effectiveness of the wrongscuse is inversely proportional to the sum of the intelligences of those involved: The person using the wrongscuse to convince others (along with himself), the person on whom it is being used, and any spectators watching. When the wrongscuse succeeds in its intended purpose, this brings discredit on the intellect of all those involved parties.
The conclusion toward which the wrongscuse-argument leads, is always the same: Yes something wrong and/or hypocritical has been done — and we should pay it no mind. Move along folks, there’s nothing to see here.
The concept demands a new word, because in 2009 it is high on the list of things that divide conservatives from liberals. It has to do with life and how to live it: Should we try to do what is right? Or should we devote our lives to stockpiling an inventory of excuses for doing the wrong thing?
The Wrongscuse comes in five distinctly separate flavors:
1.A dismissal on grounds of irrelevance (Clinton, and “public servant, private life”);
2.A distraction, imploring people to look instead at what some other guy did (“Whaddabout Bush??”);
3.An “Animal Farm” entitlement to special privileges, ostensibly related to some high responsibility being fulfilled for our own good (Al Gore has to fly around in his jet to warn us about global warming);
4.A false dilemma fallacy that a conviction of the suspect would doom the “freedom” the rest of us currently enjoy (Prof. Gates mouthing off at a cop);
5. Accuse-the-accuser (“You smoked it when you were my age, Dad!”).
Implementation of the wrongscuse is highly addictive. It re-wires the brain; the tinier the brain, the quicker the re-wiring, as was aptly demonstrated by Joy Behar when confronted by Michelle Malkin with President Obama’s various shenanigans. The poor dried-up has-been could only spout her one cliche, in the presence of a vastly superior intellect, Whaddabout Bush?? Whaddabout Bush?? Whaddabout Bush??, rather like an annoying little chihuahua with its tail caught in a car door.
Are you listening, Republican campaign strategists. Let’s have an election on this: Are we here to try to do good things, or are we here to try to find good excuses for doing wrong things, things that violate our very own standards? The democrat party seems to want to cast that as the definition of ideological positions: No one should try to do anything productive or decent, ever, except when it’s tokenized, meaningless, put into practice for the sole purpose of showing off. Never do anything truly good, don’t try to live a productive life, because that makes you guilty of that extra-special sin, “hypocrisy.” Humans are only decent enough to know their place; the pinnacle of our glory is reached when we wipe our butts with one sheet at a time, buy up our carbon credit vouchers, and sip from eco-cups. The only other good things we can do have to do with not doing things, like defending our families with guns, building companies, cutting down trees, and kicking Saddam Hussein’s ass. Human decency that actually means something, that can really help people — out of the question. Off the turf. Out of bounds. That’s the liberal position.
Give some thought to accommodating them; this could be good.
Animal Farm, by George Orwell, Chapter III:
The mystery of where the milk went to was soon cleared up. It was mixed every day into the pigs’ mash. The early apples were now ripening, and the grass of the orchard was littered with windfalls. The animals had assumed as a matter of course that these would be shared out equally; one day, however, the order went forth that all the windfalls were to be collected and brought to the harness-room for the use of the pigs. At this some of the other animals murmured, but it was no use. All the pigs were in full agreement on this point, even Snowball and Napoleon. Squealer was sent to make the necessary explanations to the others.
“Comrades!” he cried. “You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for YOUR sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades,” cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, “surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?”
Now if there was one thing that the animals were completely certain of, it was that they did not want Jones back. When it was put to them in this light, they had no more to say. The importance of keeping the pigs in good health was all too obvious. So it was agreed without further argument that the milk and the windfall apples (and also the main crop of apples when they ripened) should be reserved for the pigs alone.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[…] new word invented by House of Eratosthenes, often used by leftists, but can be used by anyone who has an agenda. Or even a burning desire. Or […]
- New word on the block | Autumn People | 08/04/2009 @ 19:08