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...
Or rather, to be precise about it, this story about the feud. And all the other stories about the feud.
In the latest round of the increasingly heated intra-GOP feud, former Secretary of State Colin Powell Sunday defended his Republican credentials and fired back at radio host Rush Limbaugh and former Vice President Dick Cheney, saying the party had to expand beyond its conservative base.
“Rush will not get his wish and Mr. Cheney was misinformed – I am still a Republican,” Powell said in a much-anticipated interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation” two weeks after Cheney suggested on the same show that the retired general had left the party by endorsing Barack Obama last fall.
Powell suggested that there were a number of moderates in the party who shared his concerns but were hesitant to speak out “because if you are vocal you’re going to get your voice mail filled up and get lots of e-mails like I did.”
One such Republican did seem to take Powell’s side of the fight today, as Former Homeland Security Secretary and Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge also joined in the criticism of Limbaugh Sunday.
“I think Rush articulates his point of view in ways that offend very many,” Ridge said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
First question: How many times in this story, can you find, in which a reference is made to how many people find a thought appealing…how many people find a thought revolting…how many people are accepted…how many people are excluded.
I don’t know about you, but if I’m going in for brain surgery and there is some feud taking place among the doctors about how to slice up my lobes — I do not want it subjected to a vote.
Second question: How many times in this story, or in any other similar story, do you see a reference to which ideas are & are not right.
It seems relevant when things like this are being discussed —
Ridge also split with Cheney on the vice president’s claim that Obama’s policies were making Americans less safe. “I do not” agree with that, Ridge plainly told CNN’s John King, adding, “Yeah, I disagree with Dick Cheney.”
Gee, Tom. You seem to think it’s an important consideration when an idea is offered, how many people it ticks off. You seem to be putting that ahead of whether the idea is correct or not, in terms of priority.
So what does it matter that you disagree with the idea Obama’s made the country less safe? What does your disagreement say about anything? I mean, it could very well be true, couldn’t it — and you’d be exactly the kind of guy to disagree with it, just to make the folks in power happy.
In an appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” Karl Rove dismissed the dust-up between Cheney and Powell, since “neither one of those two are candidates,” and deemed the fight “a false debate that Washington loves.”
Asked if he agreed with Cheney’s contention that Limbaugh was better for the Republican Party than Powell, Rove said: “Yes, if I had to pick between the two.”
Mr. Rove is mostly correct here. On the false-debate-Washington-loves, I agree with him fifty percent. Washington really does the little puppet show, fer sure.
False debate? Not hardly. This is, I think, the Achilles’ Heel of those who took charge of Washington earlier this year. It’s the debate between what’s popular and what’s right. We saw, last fall, people will vituperatively oppose the eleventh-hour cosmetics — the thin veneer held aloft by those who know they are right, but can sense that what’s right has grown unpopular, and will try at the last minute to become “moderate.” It’s kind of like the high school nerd who tries to learn all about football and rock music halfway through his senior year. (Well nowadays I guess we’re talking rap, and who knows what else…what can I say, I’m an old guy.) It doesn’t work, of course. People understand you’re a nerd down to the marrow of your bones, trying to pretend to be something else, and for that you earn surplus, and well-deserved, scorn.
And you should. If it’s about right-and-wrong, you shouldn’t be moderating; this is widely understood, though not often discussed. “Extremism” is the attribute of those who see the issue linked to the well-being of people, and care about it. If we’re talking about whether it’s good to put sugar in a gas tank, we know you don’t have anyone’s welfare at heart when you’re advocating four ounces of sugar over the opposition’s quart-and-a-half. The sugar is bad, or else it isn’t. Period.
By Politico standards, this is just a horrible, horrible article. There are no specifics anywhere. I mean, about the offensive words spoken by those who ostensibly offend — or by their statements and deeds, ostensibly seek a tinier, more exclusive party. I mean, that is the story. That is the focus. That’s the point. And yet it is left up to me to fuzzily infer that they’re talking about Rush’s “I Hope He [President Obama] Fails” statement. It’s become famous and talked-about enough…but still. Why is the guesswork left in? The question is about whether the truth remains valuable if & when it offends people. Shouldn’t it be explicitly stated, then, exactly what caused the offense?
Leaving aside the other critique I have. That those who were offended, likewise, are similarly unmentioned. And that’s just as relevant, if not even more relevant. Who are these people who get ticked off, when it’s pointed out that harmful things are indeed harmful? What are their Republican credentials exactly? In fact, do these nameless-faceless-anonymous-stranger people even have hopes for the country’s long-term prosperity at heart?
What’s at stake here is nothing less than the intellectual ability of every man, woman and child in this supposedly free country to truly debate things. And the democrat party should be ashamed of itself that debate-about-debating has to take place entirely within the party of their opposition. It’s pretty damned simple: When half of us are afraid to face unpleasant truths, do the other half of us then labor under some kind of obligation to pretend true things are false, and false things are true, just to avoid honking off others? Some folks would say, yes we do. Okay then. Where’s it written that they should be allowed to call themselves Republicans?
As for General Powell, he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. It’s quite a legitimate opinion to have, that last year’s ticket was a bad one. Even a disaster. I disagree with that, but there are valid reasons to think so. And there are even some valid reasons to think the ticket was so bad, that a person of Powell’s stature could endorse the opposition and still retain his existing Republican credentials. But to marginalize the opinions of those who cross off his name when he endorsed Barack Obama, is nothing but putrid propaganda. I mean, seriously. A party’s tent can be just so big — but does it have to be so big, that one of the party’s positions is that the other guy should win the general election? If that’s one of the accepted platforms, what’s the point of having the party at all?
Powell isn’t arguing for a big-tent. He’s arguing for no-tent. That’s the long and the short of it.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.