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...
Imitation is the Sincerest Form XIII
This blog, which nobody really reads anyway, picks on Democrats a lot. Whether that is due to an unfair bias, is, I suppose, a matter of opinion. I will not go so far as to say that reasonable persons can disagree about it, however, because my own opinion is that there is a bias and it is exceedingly fair. I don’t trust Democrats. I don’t trust their policies, I don’t trust the philosophy that forms those policies, I don’t trust the value system. It’s a bias, not a prejudice; a prejudice is something you form before the facts are in. I’ve watched Democrats, and I’ve come to this conclusion. They think on things in certain ways. They’re interested in promoting this way of thinking about things, and I don’t think it’s good for the rest of us. Or for them.
This creates problems in the writing style for this blog. The writing style, to date, receives widespread praise from the farthest corners and I must say, being the mind behind the writing style, it’s difficult for me to see why. A week or two ago I received a personal e-mail politely chastising me, for using, too many commas, in, my, sentences, and, you know what, I’m going to, have, to, agree.
But the big problem comes up when a Democrat does a loopy and goofy Democrat thing. I lack the discipline to let it pass by uncommented-upon. And, once commenting upon it, I get into a little bit of a trap. I must say something about what the loopy goofy Democrat did, or the exercise is pointless of course. If I comment about this most recent example, and stay silent on the overarching trend of Democrats doing that very same thing, with minor variances, the exercise is similarly pointless. Because being a Democrat, it turns out, is “about” certain things.
And so I write about both. I end up walking a tightrope. No, it’s more like walking onto a large boat, as it is pulling away from the dock, and straddling an ever-widening chasm. I struggle with a handicap, which expands moment-by-moment, involved in throwing the gravitational mass that is my gluteus maximus over this growing gap into dryness and safety. Time is the enemy. It makes the gap wider, dissipating the leverage of my thigh muscles. Making the ass weigh more. Kinda like that. …kersploosh?
I still get compliments, but sometimes I wonder if the folks who give the compliments really absorbed the point I was trying to make. It’s a disturbing residual doubt from which I suspect no writer, living or dead, has ever truly escaped.
Example: Congressman John Murtha (D-Pa) is facing a lawsuit from Marines, who it seems may actually be guilty of slaughtering civilians in the Haditha incident. Murtha took to the floor of Congress and stated their guilt as an established fact — implied that it was an empirical fact — when, at the time, it was not. And it may never be that, ever. If the Marines (and one sailor) are innocent of what has been alleged, Murtha has committed a grave offense. If they are not…well, some of us would say he has still done something wrong.
And what should be worthy of comment, here, is those among us who say Murtha’s comments are wrong, regardless of the guilt-or-innocence of the persons involved, are simply standing on legal and moral underpinnings that have been advanced relentlessly by “classic” liberals, including modern-day Democrats, throughout most of the twentieth century. Namely, that an accusation is not a conviction. Thinking someone did something wrong, is not the same as knowing he did something wrong.
So yesterday I was making this point, and then — my derriere waggling more and more precariously between the dock and the boat — expanded my scope to discuss semantics in general. Justice, I noted, is followed up in both word and in spirit, with the words “for all.” Especially by the Democrats…who, by their subsequent actions, show they don’t really mean it. Innocent until proven guilty? Oh sure, we’ll say that applies to “all”; nobody remembers the last time it applied to a Republican. Congressman Murtha certainly didn’t think it applied to the Marines. I know of no Democrat who stepped forward, in the aftermath of Murtha’s comments when it would have been relevant to do so, and chide the good Congressman, or rebuke him, or state for the record lest anyone think otherwise that Democrats support the troops including the accused Marines.
And that’s my point. NOT “all.” That’s what I find really odious. Democrats act like they surrender the definition of “all” to the masses, to dictionaries yet-unwritten, to generations-yet-unborn. But they don’t. The definition of a word, is something they guard jealously. “All” is given the meaning, moment-to-moment, that helps them out best. [emphasis mine]
I do not know if Neal Boortz reads my blog. I would suspect hardly anybody does. But how, then, do you explain this gem which appeared this morning under the program notes posted on his website.
Liberals love to play with words. When the old words become clearly identified with failed policies, don’t change the policy, change the word! When it became clear that the government was spending too much money, the word suddenly became “invest.” Now we don’t “spend” more money on our hideous government schools, we “invest” more money. Liberals now call themselves “progressives,” a word that has its roots in the socialist/communist ideology of the 1950s. Who, after all, doesn’t like progress? The latest example? “Redeployment.” That’s the word Democrats are using to replace “withdrawal.” Withdrawing our troops from Iraq right now would be a sure sign of American weakness. So … instead of saying “withdraw,” the appeasers have come up with another word. “Redeployment.” [emphasis mine]
Looks like Neal came across my comments about liberal fakery with words, especially the part about changing the definition day to day to suit their political purposes, and the wheels between his ears just started churning. If so, he did a great job taking that ball and running with it. You could write reams and reams about this stuff, without half-trying.
I’ve been robbed, but I’m not calling the police. I’m quite flattered.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.