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...
Fellow Right Wing News contributor William Teach is beating the snot out of a hardcore lefty-loosey “progressive” type who’s suddenly interested in celebrating the Fourth of July.
As I discuss in my book, The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be, the Tories who opposed American independence were the conservatives of their day. They revered tradition, and proudly followed orders from the king and the aristocracy in London. They hated and feared the idea of democracy, and thought the idea of equality was laughable…
Um, no, Mike. You can spin it all you want, but, the Progressive movement hadn’t even been born at the time. It is actually a product of the late 1800’s-early 1900’s, which had massive links to and much in common with the rise of fascism in Europe.
Nor were [the Tories] really Classical Conservatives, since they were supporting a monarchy, part of an authoritarian model. America’s brave revolutionary founders were, in fact, somewhere between Classical Liberals and Classical Conservatives. American conservatism is otherwise known as neo-conservatism, ie, Classical Liberalism.
And, since you folks despised patriotism and everything Americana, denigrated your country, pissed on the Flag, and dismissed July 4 for 8 years, you can’t suddenly take it for your own.
Familiar Blog That Nobody Reads visitor and commenter Smitty has a bit more to add back at his home-turf, The Other McCain…
From Wikipedia, emphasis mine:
Progressivism is a political and social term that refers to ideologies and movements favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in a statist or egalitarian direction for economic policies (government management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice). Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative ideologies.
In the United States, the term progressive emerged in the late 19th century into the 20th century in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization.
As you watch the Obama Administration trainwreck pile up, the term “egalitarian” seems a jape, and “statist” seems to mean something akin to “banal Chicago thugocracy”, as Scare Force One is followed by the IG-Gate is followed by the Imaginary Legislation (HR-2454), etc.
There is much, much more there. Good learnin’s if you’re like Mike Lux…or, not quite quite so agendized and progressively-pious, or outspoken, but somewhat likewise ignorant, or not quite as ignorant but still could use a little bit of brushing up on this Independence Day.
How and why does a committed hardcore left-winger become interested in celebrating our country’s birthday? It certainly has to do with the proper people being in charge. But it’s still cause for serious introspection, I think, and given their less-than-accommodating reception to the true values of our nation, there’s something less than sincere about it. And more than a little bit silly. If you “love” something because of the potential it has to be remade into something else in your hands, it must be a surreal, incomplete kind of love, right? Why would you celebrate that object’s birthday? It’s somewhat akin to a junkyard owner celebrating the date one of his new additions rolled off the assembly line, or a seventh-grade biology student celebrating the birthday of a dead frog about to be placed under his knife.
Why bother? Other than to waste time…or deceive somebody about your true intentions…why bother?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It’s the “love” many women have for their men — the love of projection, the love of “how much will you change to please me?” The love of “one day you will see that I am right”.
Which is not love. At least not the love of the thing supposedly being loved.
It’s more of a self love, or a wish that the self was worth loving and a desperate search for evidence of it.
It’s the kind of love that makes women susceptible to it likely to “love” the asshole, the self-absorbed man that treats her and everyone else around him like dirt, ever waiting for the occasional bone, any sign, however misread, that he “loves” her.
- philmon | 07/05/2009 @ 11:19It’s the “love” many women have for their men…
That makes a lot of sense. In all cases it seems to have a lot to do with caboosification.
- mkfreeberg | 07/05/2009 @ 11:27