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...
Yet another reminder of why we aren’t supposed to be watching or reading Fox News. It seems you’re not supposed to be holding the powerful accountable unless you’re doing it the same way some other powerful people are also holding the powerful accountable.
“Violence has no place in our democracy,” [Congressman Pete] Stark said in a statement shortly after the shooting that killed six people, including a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl, and wounded 14 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz.
“While the details of the shooting are still coming to light, we can all agree that political rhetoric and imagery that condones or encourages violence — whether from activists, party organizations, or politicians — is unacceptable. We can have differences of opinion on policy and still treat each other with humanity,” Stark said.
But Stark’s own record of vitriol goes back a long way. In 2007, he infamously condemned Republicans for not supporting a Democratic-backed bill to expand health care for children from low-income families.
“You don’t have money to fund the (Iraq) war or children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people – if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.”
The column goes on with three other examples, all democrats.
We recall the blog comment of the day for January 10, noted that way by Instapundit. Comment-poster mesquito, posting at Althouse’s:
Anyone else find it creepy that new standard what me may and may not say is: How will it affect the behavior of an [o]bviously crazy person who may or may not hear it?
Everybody hates the politician who tries to figure out which way the crowd is moving, and then runs to the front of it so he can pretend to be a “leader.”
Why we work so hard to keep that figure around, and obnoxious as he can possibly be, is a real mystery.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Ever read Norman Cohn’s The Pursuit of the Millenium?
It was originally written in the 1950s, so it’s a bit out of date, but its original subtitle* is interesting: “Revolutionary Messianism in Medieval and Renaissance Europe and its Bearing on Modern Totalitarian Movements.” Cohn argues, in effect, that the most dangerous idea ever conceived is that of The Elect. Before about 1100, Cohn says, people accepted that the Biblical injunction to cultivate the kingdom of Christ meant to be the best person you could be, obey the commandments, etc. Around 1100, though, certain revolutionary mystics hit on the idea that we could make Jesus return to earth by killing off all the sinners. This is animating idea behind just about every revolutionary movement since: the world would be so much better without thus-and such; let’s just cut out the middleman and eliminate anyone who upholds it.
Our modern leftists consider themselves The Elect. Thus whatever they do — whatever they do — is justified, because it brings us that much closer to Heaven on Earth. That’s why they’re unfazed by what for normal people would be cranium-shattering hypocrisy. It doesn’t matter if we incite political violence with our words, the thought goes, because our intentions are pure (indeed, the best of all possible intentions).
- Severian | 01/13/2011 @ 13:43.
.
.
*note that there’s a new edition, where the subtitle is sanitized to “Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages.” Wikipedia doesn’t even mention the old title. Coincidence, I’m sure.
The fact that so many Democrat politicians are now calling for “civility” on both sides…is a dead indicator that the Left, not the Right, are the ones responsible for the overheated rhetoric that drives the already-insane to get violent.
Anyone else find it creepy that new standard what me may and may not say is: How will it affect the behavior of an [o]bviously crazy person who may or may not hear it?
I’ve been concerned about this for years. More precisely, I hear this rabid statements not just from members of Congress and the president, but from the leaders of left-wing special interest groups, liberal columnists and pundits, and others in positions of influence and megaphones over society.
And I wonder – do crazy people hear this stuff, get taken in by it, and then go do crazy things? Do you ever wonder what motivates groups like ELF to go burn down SUV dealerships or attack medical laboratories that do animal research? Or why groups like CodePink think it’s OK to vandalize military recruiting stations? Maybe these people just see one too many Michael Moore movies, get convinced that the time for discussion is over, and decide to take matters into their own hands?
And then, innocent people get hurt, and the media bends over backwards trying to find some way to pin it on a group of activists who want smaller taxes and less government, or another group that wants to secure the borders, or a major lobbying interest that tries to protect our 2nd Amendment rights.
- cylarz | 01/14/2011 @ 02:12