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...
My name is Morgan K. Freeberg and I’m a blogger.
Hi, Morgan!
Also — as of today — I am going back to being a Sarah Palin fan. Today concludes an experiment I have been doing. More on that below.
I’m the founder, CEO, chief fry cook & bottle-washer at House of Eratosthenes, colloquially known as The Blog That Nobody Reads. There is a reason why we have named ourselves after a guy who lived twenty-two centuries ago; it has to do with a measurement produced by that ancient, accurately stating the circumference of the Earth.
Now, you know how liberal college professors like to say something like “we don’t teach ’em what to think here, we teach ’em how to think?” And then it turns out to be a load of crap, of course. Well, our name is all about borrowing a page from that book. See, to live two centuries before Christ and conduct such an exercise without the benefit of space ships or satellites or really long tape measures or really tall ladders, you can’t be thinking just any ol’ way.
But if you think the right way, you can accomplish some amazing, mind-boggling things. Even without the space ships, satellites, tape measures or ladders.
Today, we live with some powerful influences that dissuade us from thinking in this productive way; and, because of this, meaningful achievements are beyond our reach as a society, beyond even our vision of what might be possible, that ought to be well within our grasp. I believe in this matter regarding the former Governor of Alaska, our situation is roughly akin to a man struggling to recover a grasp on the edge of a cliff as he dangles over an abyss, rejecting the efforts of one rescuer, frantically searching for some other who has yet to materialize. It’s as if he’s saying “no, I don’t want some pretty woman rescuing me, I’d rather fall.”
Many’s the time I’ve heard a Palin hater say “I don’t have a better candidate in mind, but I’m hoping one will emerge.”
Their thinking is that she will screw this whole thing up. Nominate Palin, they say, and it’s four more years of Obama — guaranteed. This is because she’s some kind of a “lightweight.” Well, how do we know she’s a lightweight? And here is where the thinking falls apart; this is where it is shown to be a different brand of thinking, than that which can figure out the size of the Earth two centuries BC. We know she’s a lightweight because…we just do. Because that’s what everybody says. Bandwagon fallacy all the way down the line. Also: These stories just keep coming out over and over again. Bad decisions that she made. Television interviews handled ineptly. Things she doesn’t know about world history.
It’s only when you
1) Dig down into the details of the stories as they come out, and
2) Activate and maintain your long-term memory, remembering what really happened
…that you can make the determination: Just about everything that suggests it’s beyond Sarah Palin’s ability to handle something, is a crock, or is based on something that is a crock. I say “just about” because, like anybody else, Palin does have some fails. However, I have noticed a great majority of these fails have occurred within those very few weeks that she was a VP candidate, within a campaign that was not handled by her. In fact, that campaign was handled by people who weren’t fond of her. See, again: details. If they change the situation, then it’s worth knowing what they are.
People who hate Sarah Palin, or think she’s likely to fail, don’t know her. They’re ignorant. I don’t mean that as an insult, I mean it as a neutral observation of fact. I ask them if they’ve read any of her books, which are not priced out of the market; in this Age of Amazon, they are readily available and can be had for a song. The answer always comes back toward the negative, and furthermore, they haven’t taken the opportunity to hear her side of the story about anything. I quote them things from her books, and for this, they make fun of me. That’s their response to everything, to make fun. And at that point, I have to ask: Does it even matter what facts they do have & don’t have, if they think like lunatics?
We live in a universe that is logical, which means you can measure the size of planets by peeking into water wells. It is a truly amazing universe. But it doesn’t permit you to know anything worth knowing, if you think in a diseased way with the “I laugh at it, it therefore becomes untrue” technique. In this universe, you have to think like a responsible grown-up before you can know anything.
In keeping with that, though, one week ago I recognized that I need to live up to my own hype. That meant conducting some honest experiments, evaluating the strength of positions I didn’t find palatable, and it also meant being receptive to the outcome, whatever it might be. The Palin haters have all these arguments to present about her various deficiencies that have to do with — that rely completely upon — third parties. These people won’t approve of you if you like Palin. Those people over there will be convinced you’re as stupid as she is, if you support her. She will lose the election. If she is nominated no one will show up to vote and Obama will get a second term.
Nobody seems to be able to find something wrong with her, it seems, without speaking out in proxy for somebody else.
So I decided to put it to a test. Does liking Palin have an effect on what others think? Can I win some new friends, maybe, by renouncing Palin and making it known that I am open to another candidate?
Therefore, I put up a post last weekend declaring that I am no longer a Palin fan. I linked to it on Facebook, so that people there would know I am now a reasonable, intellectual, respectable human being who doesn’t like Sarah Palin. On June 4 I joined the swelled ranks of people who don’t have the slightest clue who the nominee should be, but gosh darn it it can’t be her! Judging by how much talking they do and how loud they are, it seems to be a big group.
Also, I put together a list of requirements of what we are looking for, for this candidate who is more acceptable than the Governor. I came up with twenty-five. It ended up being a very silly list, because I based it on these various complaints I’ve been hearing that supposedly make her unacceptable. Requirement Number One is that the “good candidate” should be a man, or a woman who is very ugly. Obviously, pretty women, for some reason that I have yet to understand, are absolutely unacceptable.
Today ends the experiment. I am ready to announce the results.
Number of new friends: ZERO.
Number of honest compliments I have received, for seeing the light that Palin is unacceptable: ZERO.
Number of new additions that have been recommended for my silly list of candidate requirements: ZERO.
Number of corrections I have received for silly requirements on my silly list that shouldn’t be there: ZERO.
Number of likes on my Facebook posting: ONE…not from a Palin hater, but from a Palin fan, who I suspect saw the irony of what I was doing. So I guess that wouldn’t count.
Number of friends I expect to lose by liking Sarah Palin again: ZERO. Hey, I try to think like Eratosthenes, but I’m still human. We all like to see the world through rose-colored glasses.
Conclusion to my experiment? I wouldn’t be able to avoid this even if I wanted to: Palin haters don’t care about the Republicans nominating a “better candidate” who would “stand a better chance” or who might be missing “all this baggage.” They don’t care about any of that; it’s all a smoke screen. They don’t have any new ideas to offer here and they won’t have any.
They are a bunch of bitter scolds. Nothing more. They just like to bitch and complain. Probably because of what Palin reminds us of, every time we think about her. They find all that stuff unpleasing so they make fun of it, in hopes that it goes away. It is no more complicated than that.
I suspected that much before. Now that I have taken my one-week sabbatical from being a Palin fan, I know for sure.
I know for sure because I thought like Eratosthenes. Now I will grant you that this it outside of my field of expertise; a professional software engineer in Sacramento really doesn’t have any business trying to figure out who does & doesn’t have a chance in a presidential election. But then again, a library administrator in Alexandria doesn’t have any business figuring out the size of the Earth.
I don’t perceive things to form opinions that will win me friends. No responsible thinking adult does; not with the questions that really matter. It’s got to do with how you think when you gamble the first of your million dollars, versus how you do your thinking as you gamble with your last dollar. Well, even if you do like to think with bandwagon fallacy, like you have a million bets you can afford to lose, and form your inferences to make friends — guess what? You can’t make friends this way. I’m not speculating on this. I gave it a more than fair try. Someone get the word to the Republican delegates?
My name is Morgan K. Freeberg and I’m a Palin fan.
And yes, as a matter of fact, I am serious, and I do know what I’m doing. I know that much very well, thank you. I made sure.
Cross-posted at Brutally Honest, Right Wing News and Washington Rebel.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“Honest experiment?” In the immortal words of John McEnroe… “You can’t be SERIOUS!” But I’m here to help, Morgan. Here’s your plan… and I’m told it has GREAT results in other, similar applications:
It’s a spiritual thing, Morgan. And the first step is admitting you have a problem.
- bpenni | 06/12/2011 @ 10:52[…] to thinking about this while discussing Sarah Palin’s presidential chances on another blog. Morgan contends that Palin has all the goods to be President, and that Palin haters don’t care about […]
- Sarah Palin, Consumer Psychology, and Why Barack Obama Will (Probably) Still be President in 2012 | academiczoology | 06/12/2011 @ 16:48Except…during my “trial period” becoming a Palin loather, I didn’t get any congratulatory notes complimenting me on my belated wisdom, or any atta-boys from your folks for finally seeing the light.
Actually, if memory serves you embedded an Arty Johnson video clip calling the whole move stupid.
So if this is just another “perception is reality” thing…where we know Palin would manage the economy and foreign affairs better than Obama, but it really doesn’t matter because perception is that she’s a daffy twit even though the subtle reality is that she’s not…oh and by the way, if I like that, I can get loads of it at the office any time I want, thankyewvery much…but when you refudiate Palin nobody likes you better anyhow. Then what’s the point of refudiating her? That’s my question. There doesn’t seem to be an upside anywhere. At all. Obama still gets a second term, everyone still stays mad at everybody else, nobody makes friends with anybody. What are we getting out of nominating this other person?
Who, I might add…you can’t identify anyway.
- mkfreeberg | 06/12/2011 @ 18:31It is a weird thing, but not new. I think it started with W. He got so much right, and did it rather then “sell” it, while still working with the other side, rather then playing “Gandalf on the Bridge”. It would seem that many on our side have gotten quite comfortable with just screaming “it won’t work!” and getting steamrolled by the Democrats. W got them out of their comfort zone and they hated him for it. Most, I think, Still do. Look at how many “Republicans” still froth about W’s deficits (which were going down, down, down until the Democrats got Congress. Not a one we wouldn’t turn cartwheels if presented by Obama.). Remember the tantrum over Miers? I think that’s the best example, for the stupid frothing over “qualified” is shared by both Palin and Miers. I wonder who many argue against Palin because they can’t face by slitting W’s throat over Miers lack of qualifications, they stripped him of enough power he was not able to deal with Freddie and Fanny before the implosion (He tried. Look it up!), giving us the hated bailout and getting Obama elected (Rank speculation on my part, but quite possible, I believe).
So Palin is getting hit two ways I can see. She seems very “W” like in getting things done (Both seem to share a style and both were scarily competent Governors, and oh, so quick about it.). Who would want to see their mealy mouthed treason(Mark II) inescapably center stage for eight years? Not a lot of options there…..
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 06/12/2011 @ 20:44Except…during my “trial period” becoming a Palin loather, I didn’t get any congratulatory notes complimenting me on my belated wisdom, or any atta-boys from your folks for finally seeing the light.
About which, see Arte Johnson (Ibid.). You were wholly transparent in your “I’ve seen the light, Hallelujah!” post, not to mention the intellectual dishonesty used in order to “prove” a point. But we’ll let that slide, coz it WAS cute. 😉
- bpenni | 06/13/2011 @ 09:53Agree on the cute part, but it also makes a good point:
Everyone paying the slightest bit of attention understands intuitively: Romney doesn’t have a better chance than Palin. Even if he polls higher among Republicans. No milquetoast, vacillating, “what’s he stand for again?” Republican has EVER won. The pattern has never been disrupted and there’s nothing promising to disrupt it this time.
If you examine Republicans who’ve managed to win second-terms, they are not Republicans who are charming or liked; they are simple people, whose value systems are simple, whose positions are clear. If you examine the Republican challengers who prevail, they are challengers with agendas that can be defined easily who have demonstrated fidelity to those agendas. They are not suave sophisticated types. They’re just clear.
So. Logic and common sense say Palin has the best chance (assuming she runs). Rejecting her is suicide; accepting her is not.
Let’s step away from logic and common sense into the “perception is reality” world. Maybe she should still be discarded because so many people are mistaken, we might as well all be making the same mistake. Pretend we’re all part of a large bureaucracy — and we all somehow want more of it even though some of us have to work with it 40 hours a week, it’s all we’re used to. So let’s take the “as a matter of fact Mom, I *would* jump off a bridge if all my friends do it too.”
My post that says, I’m abandoning Sarah Palin, got zero likes.
My post that says, just kidding, I’m her fan again and this is what I like about her — got five.
So. Logic and common sense say don’t abandon her…the selfish, preening, non-sensical bandwagon peer pressure says exactly the same thing. With even more enthusiasm.
Buck says I don’t care…Buck says, abandon her anyway because I don’t like her. Because………..
What’s the point of this exercise again? It won’t win us anything and nobody will like us any better. So what’s your rationale?
It’s lookin’ more and more like a Thing I Know #372 moment here, m’friend.
- mkfreeberg | 06/13/2011 @ 10:01“I am serious, and I do know what I’m doing. I know that much very well, thank you. I made sure.”
Ah, but don’t you see? You can’t possibly know what you’re doing, because if you did you wouldn’t be doing it. To the rejectors, it really is just that simple.
So what if you thought you “made sure”? So what if you’ve demonstrated your record at careful hard-hat logic in every other decision you’ve made? Some conclusions are so obviously, self-evidently wrong that no amount of detail, care or work can make them right, and no amount of earned reliability or respect can make someone consider “what if he’s right?”. In Architect terms, you’ve written a hundred-page thesis asserting that 2 + 2 = 5. Nobody needs to “prove” you wrong by reading, understanding and carefully falsifying your argument; the very nature of the conclusion is self-falsifying, and inexplicable by any motivation save irredeemable malice or incorrigible stupidity, thus undeserving of further time or consideration.
As the old saw goes (and is always used by those who think it doesn’t apply to them), you can’t argue someone out of a position they didn’t argue themselves into.
- Stephen J. | 06/13/2011 @ 11:07Nobody needs to “prove” you wrong by reading, understanding and carefully falsifying your argument; the very nature of the conclusion is self-falsifying, and inexplicable by any motivation save irredeemable malice or incorrigible stupidity, thus undeserving of further time or consideration.
Then my reply is, simply: Where were you when I was conducting my experiment? Where is your “like” on my Facebook entry declaring Sarah Palin to be an unacceptable candidate?
You can see from the protests of our friend in New Mexico — he doesn’t have an answer for this. Nobody else does either. Their argument is reduced to one of…here, trust us…nobody likes you right now, but they’ll start liking you as soon as you do what we say. Up against a counterargument of — well, I tried that and it’s a fail.
This is the trouble with bandwagon fallacy: It always seems to work great until you expect things out of it, and then it doesn’t.
- mkfreeberg | 06/13/2011 @ 11:16“Where were you when I was conducting my experiment? Where is your “like” on my Facebook entry declaring Sarah Palin to be an unacceptable candidate?”
In the words of the Marquise de Merteuil from Dangerous Liaisons: “One does not applaud the tenor for clearing his throat.”
When someone clinging bitterly to a (blindingly obvious) wrong answer out of (what else can it be?) sheer stubbornness finally appears to admit the right one, the overwhelming impulse is not to congratulate the person on seeing the light, and welcome them in honest joy to the ranks of the Enlightened, but merely to think smugly, “Told you so.” That is, if you believe the admission at all and don’t dismiss it as a fakeout. (Which, to be honest, yours was.)
You have to realize that this bandwagon’s attitude is essentially Gnostic, not ecumenical or evangelical: the whole point is to provide a mechanism to control the ridership, not broaden it to just anybody who wants to climb on board.
(BTW, for the record, I’m a Palin fan like you; I’m merely attempting to understand the opposing mindset.)
- Stephen J. | 06/13/2011 @ 12:52(Yes, I get that.)
Of course if I’m to be denied applause (friendships, atta-boys, likes) for clearing my throat, then I’m failing to see how the Republican party can count on any votes for doing the same thing. That, too, would be clearing the throat wouldn’t it?
Like I told Buck, it’s a Thing I Know #372 moment. Perhaps it’s more precise to say it’s a rehash of the 2008 election. Nominate the candidate who stands for nothing, and the voters will respond by giving nothing in return. A message that says nothing finds no support.
What really perplexes me is: I learned to think this way through the school of hard knocks. It really isn’t just a punch line. I did things people expected me to do…it turned out pretty much this way, with me holding my dick in my hand wondering why, far from applause, I seemed to be gathering nothing more than ancillary abuse; so it’s self-evident to me that it works this way. I wasn’t surprised by my “findings,” not even a little bit. Smug, self-righteous “I’m smarter than you are” people tend to stay that way even after they successfully teach their “lessons.”
Why does anybody else, anywhere, have a different perspective? I guess that’s my honest question. Are they having different experiences? Because, from where I sit, this is pretty much as reliable as the sun coming up. You do what people cudgel and bludgeon and dick-whip you into doing, and they don’t act like you’re growing or learning or intelligent, they act like you’ve somehow insulted them. It’s just the way people are wired. So how come anyone’s expecting it to go any differently?
- mkfreeberg | 06/13/2011 @ 13:19“Smug, self-righteous “I’m smarter than you are” people tend to stay that way even after they successfully teach their “lessons.” Why does anybody else, anywhere, have a different perspective?”
Well, I could be wrong, but I suspect it’s because quite often, the one time jumping on the bandwagon does get applause is usually the first time we do so: first for us, and first time for the bandwagon.
In addition to first experiences often being the most powerful and influential (q.v. myself; I acquired my taste for coffee from a vending machine and have never had much ability to tell good from bad since), most people already on the bandwagon do have some ability to tell the First-Time Awakeners from the skeptically curious or the timidly self-serving sheep. People always react better to someone who says, before you’re popular, “I’ve made up my mind; I like you!” than to someone who says after you’re popular, “I’ve changed my mind; I like you after all.” Knowing you weren’t the first choice, even if you both now agree you’re the best, always rankles; and someone who changed their mind once when you weren’t expecting it may change it again as unexpectedly, so you’re never quite certain of them either.
Some people may have been lucky enough that they’ve never been called on getting off any old bandwagons, or be genuinely so convinced of their bandwagon’s greatness they expect simply being on it to be considered its own reward; they thus honestly don’t see, or understand, the resentment and ingratitude their attitude produces, because they themselves felt none of it when they first jumped aboard.
- Stephen J. | 06/13/2011 @ 14:16You can see from the protests of our friend in New Mexico — he doesn’t have an answer for this.
Sigh… DEEP-fuckin’-sigh. We’ve worn a rutted path round this rosebush and I ain’t goin’ there any more. I’ve given you my reasons, I’ve given you links to people who share my reasons, you reject them all with self-constructed “five cents, please” Peanuts pop-psychology arguments, none of which I buy… including the somewhat novel Archbishops and Masturbators stuff.
So. We shall agree to disagree, or at least I will. Don’t misconstrue this as a concession speech, think of it simply as a simple “I refuse to talk to the wall any longer” statement on my part. You may continue to rant in this space all ya want: it IS yer blog.
We each have one vote in next year’s primary, you in the Once-Golden State and me in Texas. And we shall see what we see. I’ll wager a case o’ St. Pauli Girl against a six-pack of Chimay Blue (coz I’m ALL about equality of price in wagers) that I’m right and you’re wrong, Morgan. To further clarify: I bet Palin loses, and that’s assuming Yer Girl runs, which I think she will.
- bpenni | 06/13/2011 @ 14:30Bpenni, your bet proves Morgan’s point. If you were right, you would be betting a six-pack that your guy would win. To bet that Palin will lose, but not against anyone in particular, is to admit she is currently the most qualified candidate. the minute she is out, the next guy’s flaws will rend him unable to win, etc, etc. Going down that road gives us an empty suit we can project our hopes and dreams onto like a drive-tru theater, AKA, Obama and Weiner. Do you really think we can win that game? Are you ok with being governed by sociopaths a typo away from collapse?
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 06/13/2011 @ 16:34Bpenni, your bet proves Morgan’s point. If you were right, you would be betting a six-pack that your guy would win.
I don’t have a “guy” at the moment. I’m waiting to see how the field shakes itself out, to listen to what the various and sundry candidates have to say, yadda, yadda. And this proves what? That Palin is the most qualified candidate? I don’t think so.
Back away from the Kool-Aid, Robert, and no one will be hurt.
- bpenni | 06/13/2011 @ 16:47I don’t have a “guy” at the moment. I’m waiting to see how the field shakes itself out…
Which was my point. You don’t have the guy, you don’t know what we’re looking for as we find that guy, you don’t know what we’re trying to avoid exactly, except that it’s Palin. You won’t argue with my earlier statement “I’m not losing any friends by supporting her and I’m not making any new ones by rejecting her”…you object to my noticing that…but you don’t take factual issue with any of it.
It seems the whole “Palin is unqualified” argument is missing — pretty much everything it possibly can, really. The people advancing it make known what they want other people to do, which is reject Palin. If she runs, Obama wins…got it. But beyond that there’s absolutely nothing. You say people are drinking “kool aid” if they don’t straighten up fly right and do what you tell them to do. Is the election of 2012 winnable if we choose the right candidate? The argument doesn’t even go that far. If we do as you say, we don’t become any more popular; we aren’t assured that it makes sense on any level, that it helps to fulfill some vision we share in common. Which I would see as one of making Obama a one-term president.
Just to clarify on my end. I cannot guarantee at this point “nominate Palin and Obama’s history.” But from what I see, looking at it from history, if this is a goal to be taken seriously she’s got the best shot because she is emblematic of the Republican challengers who have won. No Republican has been victorious because he was perceived to be — moderate, sophisticated, or moderate-and-sophisticated. You’d have to go back to Nixon for that example, and then you’d have to evaluate very, very generously. It just doesn’t work, m’friend.
Republicans that won because they were clear and consistent with the message? Heh heh. Those are the only kind. Everyone else has flopped. Oh, and there was a loud, noisy, obnoxious contingent screeching at each one, all the way to past the finish line.
The “oust her now because she’s unqualified” just doesn’t work. Calling it an argument is like calling some piston ring you found in the junk pile, a car. So much missing, it’s less trouble to list what isn’t. Here I am, leaving this big gaping flesh wound in the argument itself, simply by taking it seriously…that’s a sure sign of a bad message.
- mkfreeberg | 06/13/2011 @ 17:06I’m not the one drinking the Kool-aid Bpenni. Kool-aid comes in positive and negative, and you seem to have drunk a lot of negative. Right now, for you (not me, I am actually waiting) Palin is the most qualified candidate. Someone (Palin) beats Nothing. Until you can say that (Fill in the blank) is a better candidate, then, by definition, Palin is best. Pick one. Pick two. But until you make a positive choice, you are proclaiming, loudly, that Palin is the best choice, because a better candidate would overshadow her.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 06/13/2011 @ 17:42This whole fucking thing has devolved into some sorta theological argument and who am I to stop ya if all y’all wanna genuflect at the altar of St. Sarah. But I’m not gonna kneel and pray.
I have more important stuff to do right now (game Six of the Stanley Cup Finals is on as we speak and the B’s are kicking ass and taking names), so please excuse me. All y’all just keep on keepin’ on… I’m done.
- bpenni | 06/13/2011 @ 17:56If anyone is worshiping at the altar of St. Sarah, it’s you, Bpenni. You have turned the cross upside down, true. But the fact that all you can do is belittle one candidate, without a hint of a candidate you do approve of, is a Clue……..
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 06/13/2011 @ 18:29Well, you do have to agree with the point that it’s still awfully early. The odds that a “better” candidate might emerge, are pretty decent…almost fifty-fifty. Not quite, but almost.
But you are absolutely right, Robert. Even among these Palin detractors, Palin possesses special significance. To put special effort toward any one particular candidate, even if the energy is destructive, is to acknowledge special significance within that candidate. Or, like Ann Coulter said, there is no “stop Lamar Alexander before it’s too late!” web site.
- mkfreeberg | 06/13/2011 @ 19:26Yes. It’s really weird. It’s like a perverse moment out of Doctor Seuss. “I will not eat green eggs and ham!”. “Ok, fine. But this is my house, you came to me. What do you want to eat?”. “I Will Not Eat Green Eggs and Ham!!!!”. He doesn’t want Palin, fine. But he comes into your house to tell you what not to eat, with no suggestion of what you should eat, just a naked veto, he’ll let you know when you have it right, but he’s not here to tell you what to eat? Weird and such a Democrat passive aggressive move. The closest thing like it I’ve seen is the local “Architectural Review Board”. No help at all, just a veto. Man I hated those guys…..
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 06/13/2011 @ 20:32If I were to judge a candidate only by his enemies, Palin is the clear choice. To this point, Republicans have done little else to distinguish themselves.
- jamzw | 06/14/2011 @ 10:14A short play in one act…
Green Eggs and Ham. Right.
- bpenni | 06/14/2011 @ 11:21Time to cue ‘er up again.
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2011 @ 11:25It’s good to see that at least ONE of my contributions are useful. 😉
- bpenni | 06/14/2011 @ 11:33Dude, I feel so bad for that waiter named Morgan. What a job.
He’s got to deal with customers named Buck, who literally go years and years without figuring out exactly what it is that they want…
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2011 @ 11:38Dude, I feel so bad for that waiter named Morgan.
I feel bad for him, too. I’ve seen what happens to guys who go through life knowing ALL there is to know and it ain’t pretty. But age has this habit of making one realize the more you know the more you realize how much you DON’T know. I suspect he’ll get there, later rather than sooner.
…who literally go years and years without figuring out exactly what it is that they want…
Are you a card-carrying member of the Church of the Presumptuous Assumption?
- bpenni | 06/14/2011 @ 11:48No, I’m a card-carrying member of the church of “waiting for Buck to tell me who’s got a better shot at it.”
Ready to commit apostasy on that church any time…all I need is a bit of evidence…
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2011 @ 11:51I’ll be SURE to let you know just as soon as I’m done reading the menu. You already know I’ve eliminated Yer Girl, Newt, and that Paul guy from Tejas. I remain open-minded as to the rest of the field. Winning is ALL, M’friend.
- bpenni | 06/14/2011 @ 12:01Well, you waiter is…….waiting.
Eliminating is the easy part. And it’s easy to look sleek, suave and sophisticated while you’re criticizing things. It’s a no-risk move, really. It’s the choosing that separates the men from the boys. That’s when someone else can criticize…
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2011 @ 12:06Erudite thread. Weird experiment.
Excuse me if I’m a little rusty at blogger threads, been taking long break from our various playgrounds.
Morgan, I don’t believe you’ve ever stated, in 300 words or less, exactly why you think Palin would be a good president and what you believe she would do for the country.
We’re in a complicated mess, precisely how would Palin address and rectify our failing state ship?
You have the floor.
- Daphne | 06/14/2011 @ 15:35That’s what’s weird Bpenni. The “rest of the field” includes Biden and Obama. Given the state of the country, you would vote for them if the other choice was Palin? Really? I can’t see what’s so bad about her that it trumps the Golfer and the Dunce. I have seen this sort of thinking before. As a rule, it leads to yet another failed right wing third party, and another victory for the Democrats. Can’t stand the good, so you clear the field for the Perfect, which never comes, and cede the field to the Evil. Hasn’t changed since old TR opened that door. Painful to watch every time…..
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 06/14/2011 @ 15:45That’s what’s weird Bpenni. The “rest of the field” includes Biden and Obama. Given the state of the country, you would vote for them if the other choice was Palin? Really?
re: my emphasis. I never said that. In fact I said I would hold my nose and vote for Mrs. Palin in another thread. You need to pay attention, Robert. My exclusionary examples… Palin, Gingrich, Paul… are all GOP contenders. That was your second clue. But Hey! I suppose ya gotta spell it out for some people.
Daph: 300 words or less? Heh. 🙂
- bpenni | 06/14/2011 @ 15:55Daph: 300 words or less? Heh.
Yeah, I intend to jump at the challenge tonight at beer o’clock, but that was my thought as well. Only 300? What if I say pretty-please?
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2011 @ 15:56Nope. I’m gonna hold you to succinct, darlin’.
Make your short case and I’ll listen.
I’ve heard why she should run and why she could win.
Time for you tell me her plan to fix this God awful mess.
- Daphne | 06/14/2011 @ 16:03Robert, you do realize Palin isn’t on the presidential slate?
- Daphne | 06/14/2011 @ 16:18…gonna hold you to succinct, darlin’.
It’ll take time. I’ll buy a box of 12 St. Pauli just for the occasion.
I suspect someone lacking my rep for loquacity might have been put on a longer leash, like say 550. But okay.
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2011 @ 16:31I’ll buy a box of 12 St. Pauli just for the occasion.
Beer affects us differently. I find the more I drink the more I have to say. And the less sense it makes. But that’s just ME. Could be the slurring, too. 🙂
- bpenni | 06/14/2011 @ 16:36Yes, I got that Bpenni. But why would you hold your nose to vote for Mrs. Palin? What has she done or not done that you have to “Hold your nose”? Can you give me an example of anything from before she became “Public enemy number one”? You have a clear list of excluded people, and they’re all Republicans. You are against Democrats in the abstract, but it’s the Republicans who seem to hold your loathing. Very odd given that any of the Republican choices would be better then any of the Democrat choices and we aren’t in a position to be picky. It would be one thing if you were pushing a candidate. But to argue against Palin, Gingrich, Paul as not fit for the nomination, while stating that all of them are, of course, better then Obama, well, that’s just weird. Very negative advertising.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 06/14/2011 @ 16:37Cheers, Buck!
- Daphne | 06/14/2011 @ 16:45But to argue against Palin, Gingrich, Paul as not fit for the nomination, while stating that all of them are, of course, better then Obama, well, that’s just weird.
And yet, he’s in great company.
I find the more I drink the more I have to say. And the less sense it makes.
No that is true of me as well, actually. But it does take awhile for the effect to kick in, I hope. Of course, you and I partake in different brands. I am not planning to respond to Daphne’s challenge after a pounder or two of Chimay blue label…that would be just plain foolish.
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2011 @ 16:46Ah, Robert. Morgan and I have been arguing about Mrs. Palin for at least six months now, if not longer. Had you been following along you’d know the answers to your questions… but I don’t expect everyone or anyone to read everything posted on The Blog That Nobody Reads.
So, just your benefit… let me recap, briefly. I do not believe the woman is qualified to be president (one half term as governor of a state with a population a fraction of New York City’s and a budget of commensurate size is not sufficient experience), I question her commitment (the “she quit” argument), I think her policy positions are fuzzy at best, and, finally, she has the highest negatives of any declared GOP candidate or potential, undeclared candidate. The last point is prolly the deal breaker for most conservatives who haven’t jumped on Mrs. Palin’s bandwagon… we need a candidate who can WIN. Her numbers simply suck.
As for loathing Republicans: you are simply wrong on that count. I find what you read between my lines interesting, to be kind. I’d stay home and NOT vote at all if Paul were the candidate, but the possibility of him bein’ the GOP nominee ranks right up there with the proverbial snow ball’s. The same goes, to a lesser extent, for Newt… although I prolly would vote for him. I don’t know enough at this point to opine on the rest of the GOP field, but I’m working on that. And I still have time. The primaries are seven months out, right?
- bpenni | 06/14/2011 @ 16:54I’m well aware of that Daphne. Makes the hate all the odder, doesn’t it? I defend her for the same reason I defended McCarthy, Reagan, and W and many, many other Republicans. It’s another Goldstein moment pushed down our throats and I don’t like it. Why should I support the lie or let it slide? If Palin steps aside, they’ll just move on to the next Republican, so why not fight now, on ground favorable to us? After the Email fiasco, has any person been better vetted for office? Why not let the Democrats explain why they hate this woman so much? Are you worried she will get caught toe tapping?
As to “The Plan”, well, if plans worked we wouldn’t need executives. The plan never includes reality, which is why we want someone competent in charge, someone able to adapt. W had no plan that included 9/11, but he did just fine. Obama had a trillion dollar+ plan to fix the economy. Vetted by all the Top Men. How did that work out?
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 06/14/2011 @ 16:55And backatcha, Daph! I missed your oh-so-short comment, at first.
- bpenni | 06/14/2011 @ 16:57I have been following Bpenni. To start, I don’t think anyone is qualified to be President, but that’s not what we vote on anyway. The vote is over which of the two choices is better. We don’t know that Palin is qualified. We do know that Obama is not. We do know that Biden is not. To say that you would stay home if Paul were the candidate is the same as saying you would vote for Obama. Very odd since you don’t seem to like Obama at all(which is why I talk about your loathing of Republicans. I have never heard you say that Obama is so bad that no matter the Republican, you’re voting for them.). As to policy positions, why would you care? Obama ran against everything W did and kept them all once elected. This is nothing new. What’s important in Politics is not the silly ass “policy positions”, it’s the team. And the Republicans are a better team the the Democrats. I’m not so worried about the “she quit” argument because she came from a state so corrupt that the Democrats were able to pervert the Justice Department and take out a sitting U.S. Senator (Ted Stevens). The negatives are important if you believe the polls. Why would you do that, in this age of push polls and Journolist? We have caught the press faking news to destroy Republicans. So why not wait for the actual primaries? Maybe she won’t run. Maybe she won’t win. Why let the Press pre-select the Republican when we know that whoever we pick will turn out to be Stupid or Evil or both? Not that it’s important to me, I’ll vote for any Republican over any Democrat, but that’s one of Palin’s big selling points. Her numbers are at their bottom. They can only go up, for the press has shot it’s wad. As opposed to any other Republican, who will find themselves the new Goldstein the minute they win the nomination.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 06/14/2011 @ 17:15Wet kisses and big hugs, Buck.
Robert, I can lay claim to being any early Palin fan. The governor caught my eye shortly after she was elected and I was a big cheerleader well before and after McCain’s moribund campaign tapped her for VP.
I no longer care to see Palin in any elected position, much less head of state. She has her talents, leading the nation is not one of them. I prefer to see Sarah prospering off her her private gigs and wish her much success selling her populist brand of wares.
- Daphne | 06/14/2011 @ 17:32I understand that Daphne, I’m just trying to track why. What scandal, what fiasco turned you? I’ve seen the “Three Minute Hate”, I’ve seen the “Goldstein” moment, but I don’t remember what she did wrong. “I no longer care to see Palin in any elected position, much less head of state.”. Is this the new rule, that Democrats are to have an absolute, unexplained veto against Republicans? Cause that seems to be what’s happening here. You liked Governor Palin, she got tapped for VP, the Democrats threw a tantrum and now you don’t think she’s fit for any elected position. Am I tracking that right?
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 06/14/2011 @ 18:21For you, Daphne.
—BEGIN—
I’ll start by critiquing our nomination process since it’s directly related to our problem. We’re getting ready for another lap on a stupid-go-round. Before we extinguish the fire, let’s stop pouring gas.
The comments I’ve been hearing about these candidates have been dangerously juvenile and they have me mighty concerned. Bottom line? We seem poised to pick the country’s champion salesman for our government’s highest office. Again.
The “stimulus” debacle neatly demonstrates the problem. It reads like a fable. You can recite the events in iambic pentameter, without even losing a charming rhythm.
We elected a wonderful salesman and he told us what salesmen tell all their “marks”: Put your money in this pot and your problems will go away. My point is not that this was expensive and dumb. That’s obvious. My point is, after we made our national decision to elect a salesman, all that happened subsequently was predestined. Always do what you’ve always done, always get what you’ve always got.
You see, the results delivered by excellent salesmen are indistinguishable from the results produced by mediocre salesmen. Unless — this point is key — what is being sold is crap. So a champion salesman has nothing to offer except crap. A country electing a good salesman is demanding its own poisoning.
The presidency is a job for cunning buyers, not shrewd salesmen. That is the job description.
Voters need to choose, therefore, not the candidate who can sell with sultry seduction; but rather, who can look past it while buying.
If you don’t agree with that, then I can’t explain the matter to you with a thousand words, or a million. But if you do see the logic here, I refer you to “Going Rogue” to see exactly what kind of experience Palin has filling this role.
Nobody else has equivalent levels of this experience.
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2011 @ 19:10—END—
I don’t disagree with a single word you’ve written, Morgan.
Are you going to write the Palin plan now?
- Daphne | 06/14/2011 @ 20:01It exceeds my authority. I can give you President Freeberg’s plan though:
I would make it known to Congress that I will veto any budget that commits one dime more than 2008. I was reading somewhere the greatest amount of cash the government has raised in any one year, was either that or 2009…and it was about a trillion dollars short of what we’re disbursing each year now. Fix that first. Don’t fix it — nothing else matters.
My first SotU will demand a repeal of ObamaCare. The President carries a reservoir of “soft” authority with the State of the Union that is directly proportional to the popularity of his message…that particular demand would enjoy more of this than most, I think. Employers aren’t hiring because they don’t know what an employee really costs.
Repeal all corporate income tax. Enough of this insanity. If we think the corporations are up to shenanigans, we investigate and we address the skulduggery on a case-by-case basis.
Abolish the Department of Education.
Build the dang fence.
In short, be an anti-democrat…which means when a Freeberg policy has an effect on costs and prices, the effect it has is to bring them down. You’ll notice moonbat policies, where they effect the ease with which commodities can be acquired, they consistently make them more expensive unless they’re providing them for “free” with complements of the beleagured American taxpayer.
How similar are these initiatives to what a Palin administration would do? I don’t know, I’m not her. But I’d wager they’re not too different.
Sorry I didn’t address what you wanted me to address in your last. I had to interpret your assignment very tightly. You didn’t give me much latitude.
- mkfreeberg | 06/14/2011 @ 20:15I would point out that purging the rice bowls of all the people who got on the “Stimulus” gravy train is something we all agree needs to be done, and quickly. I think we all agree the job of the next President is Less, Less, Less. Given this, what would an announced Plan from any Republican do other then tell the Democrats where to build the walls and what lies need to be told and what papers need to be shredded? Big Plans are what the Democrats do. National Health Care! Social Security! Big Plans, Big Money, and bankrupt. Reforming them or getting rid of them will have to be done in the dark of the night. We know this, for we saw what happened to W. when he tried to reform Social Security. So, Daphne, what’s more important to you? Knowing the plan, or having the plan work? Cause it doesn’t seem that we can have both. Not a Palin issue, something that all Republicans have to deal with. Remember the “They’re coming for the Children!” speech, given over a reform so mild that Clinton still claims credit…..
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 06/14/2011 @ 20:48Indeed no one is qualified to be President, because that office and government itself have disqualified themselves from all republican principles. What we have is a choice in elected monarchs, and that is what we are getting. Our second choice is in making Congress compliant, or quibbling .
What we, we not happy few, are seeking is a candidate that entirely changes the scope of government–like non-candidate Morgan- not one that makes it work less horribly. Less horribly is the fallback position.
When we are reduced to hoping we know what a candidate is thinking, we may be sure it doesn’t much matter what he is thinking.
- jamzw | 06/15/2011 @ 10:47