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...
The BBC News has taken note that there is a wedge being effectively driven between the American Republican party and Christian fundamentalists.
America’s so-called “religious right” has been one of the pillars of Republican Party support in recent decades, but signs are emerging that those once secure foundations might be shifting.
In both George W Bush’s presidential victories, he managed to secure a vast majority of the evangelical Christian vote.
In 2004, the “hot button” policies curtailing abortion and same-sex marriage were seen as being crucial to Republican electoral success in, for example, the key swing states of Ohio and Florida.
But in last November’s Congressional races – where Democrats regained control of both the House and the Senate – some Republican defeats came at the hands of a new religiously-inspired movement, which some are calling the “evangelical left”.
Left unstated in this story, is the simple statement that this wedge-driving is accidental. We are left to simply assume this is the case…based on…nothing. Whether this was actually engineered by someone, whether there were some real dollars involved in it, is a fascinating subject but one that is — suspiciously, in my mind — completely untouched here.
Especially when you read passages like this:
“Questions like climate change, poverty and international human rights are coming to the fore, in a community that didn’t used to talk about these things at all,” [John] Green [of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life] said. [emphasis mine]
Just for the record, if I had to bet my own personal fortune on it, I would put my coin on the square that says we have some verifiable surface temperature readings that say the average temperature has increased between 0.8 and 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit over the last hundred years or so. I think that’s pretty well established. I do think human activity might have something to do with this…it can’t be ruled out. Does this then portend a future in which life on this planet is jeopardized? Or reduced? Or simply altered? Or do we have the wherewithal to prevent an injurious catastrophe now, and is our continuing foolishness about to thrust us past some point of no return where said wherewithal is to be diminished?
I don’t know that.
I don’t know of any hard evidence that would persuade me to think that.
I do know of lots of politically-motivated people and groups who would like me to think that. And here’s the really strange thing: If I show some reluctance to believing this, they consider me a lost cause, and start arguing with the next person in the queue. Perfectly sensible if you’re soliciting donations to a non-profit or to a political action committee. Not reasonable at all, if you’re really trying to save a planet from unbridled and reckless human activity. Not reasonable by a damn sight. If human activity is destroying the planet’s ability to sustain life as we know it, and I’m one of the sinners, you should be camping out on my front porch like a Star Wars fan waiting for a new movie to come out.
ANYTHING you can do…to get me to mend my ways. Follow me around. Shame me. Bribe me. Blackmail me. Eat a big bowl of penises in front of me. Whatever it takes — because if my neighbor buys up carbon vouchers like there’s no tomorrow, but I continue to do my damage, the cause is lost, and with the cause, the planet, and all persons and things upon it you hold dear.
That isn’t the way the global climate change Chicken Littles behave. They behave just like footsoldiers in a massive paramilitary super-political theater. They roam the streets, in vehicles that get half as many miles per gallon of gas compared to what I drive…trying to get people to vote differently. Not to live more cleanly, just to vote for different parties.
The continuing survival of our planet is supposed to depend on these efforts. Would any intelligent person really think so?
And here’s a BBC article that comes out and says — all this talk about anthropogenic global warming, is causing a rift between the Republicans, and the demographic groups they have been able to most consistently count on for support.
It was engineered that way…or not. The article won’t say one syllable one way or t’other.
Well — I think it was engineered that way. The notion that Christian fundamentalists vote for Republicans, and that this has an effect on the way elections come out, is hardly new. I’ve seen people argue that point my entire adult life, and I’m an old man now. What kind of money do we sink into elections…chump change? Hardly. It’s a billion dollar industry, one directly affecting the expenditure of trillions of dollars every year.
Here we have the outcome of those elections affected directly by all this talk about global warming. Nobody’s willing to put their balls on the block and say it’s an accident. Meanwhile — what do we really know about the global warming crisis? We got a bunch of pictures of confused looking polar bars floating around on presumably-diminishing chunks of ice…as if polar bears ever look like anything besides confused. And the temperature went up by a degree over the last century. We don’t know a lot besides that. And heavily-funded political groups stand to gain a great deal if we do a lot of talking about it.
I just think it’s somewhat interesting, that’s all. Oh, and one other little thing…it might explain everything we’ve been told, for a couple of generations now. It’s certainly worth looking at, anyway. Looks like a political stunt, sounds like one, smells like one…it just might be that, and nothing more.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.