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...
Yes, there are women who are successful in the Democratic party, but none of them are successful because of their feminine wiles, none of them have played up their sex appeal the way Palin has. MSNBC’s female host is Rachel Maddow, who is completely good in all manner of ways that good can be good–but still I must ask: Where are the policy babes?
I know, I know: all of you are saying that it’s a good thing it’s like that, it’s a sign that liberals have integrity and blah blah blah. But I think you are kidding yourselves. It’s a sign of another thing: that liberal men are wimps who can’t handle the hot potato that is a combination of feminine sexuality and female political brilliance. [emphasis Melissa's, and mine too]
Oh yeah. Hillary Clinton is a “policy babe” and so were Donna Shalala and Madeleine Albright — the liberal men can handle them. Hillary can deviate from the liberal playbook a little bit, too, if she wants.
But let’s just say, if you have a daughter at a dating age that looks like Sarah Palin, you might keep the shotgun a little bit handier than if she looks like Hill, Donna or Madeleine.
I think the issue is a compromising weakness. Not an overwhelming one, just one that makes a death blow possible. And convenient. A “reset switch” (heh), if you will.
Let Hillary and Donna and Madeleine and the two Janets run around saying whatever they want — if anything uttered by them is disagreeable, at least we know at the end of the day we’re all superior in one regard. Such a “kill switch” is an important feature to an insecure mind.
And so we get these oh so powerful women on the democrats side, who are also oh so capable and oh so articulate and oh so intelligent. But, they’re ugly. Not a beauty contestant among the whole lot of them. Throughout years, decades, generations. As I’ve observed before: Such a track record of consistency can only be achieved by means of constant, consistent and concentrated effort. Is it rude to notice it? It seems rather rude to ignore it!
In this “all Palin all the time” news cycle, which I state again was not my idea, not started by me, and I don’t even approve of it…there is a fascinating conversation going on at Daphne’s haven of jadedness. In which Joan of Argghh! makes a pointed observation:
Like Morgan’s last comment, I see way too many people swayed by the irresistible Narrative of the media and the blogosphere that says Palin is . . . whatever.
But you provide nothing about your own assessment based on what Palin has presented to your own personal sensibilities. How do YOU think about her candidacy? And why?…You point us to other accolades you’ve given about Palin as a person, but offer no thoughts except “hell no!” about a Palin candidacy.
This is being directed at conservatives who are slow to accept, not at liberals who are quick to reject. But I see the criticism fits both camps. There is a quick, surface-deep, almost lazy dismissal…actually, it is lazy. Just of a sentiment that could best be described as “of course, we all agree that she should go away” — when we do not all agree with that, if we all agreed it wouldn’t be necessary for anybody to say anything. Quite to the contrary: The ankle-biters are getting frustrated and frenzied because the good-looking doltish woman is hanging around too long. Won’t she just go away already!
She needs to go away already or else…what, specifically, is about to happen?
I understand the conservatives somewhat. The fear is easily defined: She’ll get further along in the nomination process than she should, and with all her baggage she’ll cause damage to somebody else. Maybe proliferate the reputation conservatives have for being unsophisticated, incurious buffoons. Obama will cruise on into the campaign season deciding all of a sudden He knows how to use a Blackberry once again, and pick up all kinds of votes from independents who yearn for a political leader who easily digests challenging details…which they then duck. Oh, who cares how it all works, those are votes, dammit!
Well, I disagree with the conservatives because being on the defensive has been shown to be a losing strategy. And anybody who dismisses that point reveals himself to be paying far less attention than he’s trying to project.
But the liberals on the other hand. They have been caught, once again, projecting. Fear Of Strong Women! That modern plague of misogyny, which is supposed to be the target of their glorious crusade, one of just a few.
They’ve got it worse than anybody. As Melissa puts it:
Liberal men suffer the worst Madonna-Whore complexes of all. They cannot handle mom and sexy in one package–mostly because that woman would never be interested in them, therefore, they reject what they cannot obtain. As betas they’re stuck with the mousy and miserable women. You know, the women at the Code Pink march or the Amen Pew at church. Either way, they don’t think of obtainable women as sexy. Sexy equals scary.
[T]hey need to recognize their impotent desire and juvenile objectification and start engaging real women. Take a class. Get some skills.
Isn’t it time to get over this? This fear, envy, loathing…it’s all so destructive and keeps good women out of politics on both sides.
In a more reasonable world, Sarah Palin wouldn’t be causing this fuss. Well, no more fuss than any other person in political life. But she’s breaking barriers. It’s time to let them fall and engage women in a real way.
It’s hurting our nation because it hurts our perception of strong leadership. Cowardliness in liberals who refuse to notice “hey, that woman is uglier than the South end of a dog facing North” — is perceived by other liberals as courage. This has been a constant liberal drumbeat for a generation or two now, that you’re a good person for not-noticing something.
A passionate interest in whether a woman is good looking or not, is perceived as some kind of noble apathy. People who care deeply are perceived as not caring at all.
It’s all done to define a selected demography, of straight men who notice if a woman has taken the time to look decent, and dismiss them. Not their perceptions or their inappropriate lustful desires or their chauvinistic worldviews, but them. As people. Such people are substandard, irredeemably so, and are to be dismissed from our society…as we “progress” toward making that society all-tolerant and all-accepting. So a perfect society being built for the benefit of some and for the neglect of others, is perceived as the perfect opposite of what it really is…as a society in which “everyone” has a home.
That isn’t what the vision really is. It’s a place where everyone has a home, only if you re-define what “everyone” really means.
And when you boot out the men who enjoy looking at pretty ladies, you have to boot out the pretty ladies as well. They can be tolerated, only grudgingly, but they aren’t allowed to count. And their opinions cannot matter.
Not very egalitarian-looking after you study it awhile, is it? But that’s the modern world we have been building, and so far, continue to accept.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.