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...
Burt Prelutsky makes an interesting point.
One of the amazing things about those on the Left is that they switch words around so often that it’s hard to keep track of what they’re blathering about. People got so upset with ACORN once they discovered that the group was quite happy to help fund a brothel that was going to be populated by underage Guatemalan girls that they insisted that their tax dollars no longer be allocated for their loathsome activities. No problem. ACORN simply changed its name.
When the scandal at East Anglia revolving around scientists destroying evidence that suggested that “global warming” was a hoax came out, Al Gore and his enablers, reluctant to allow their favorite cash cow to be slaughtered, simply started referring to “climate change”.
When American taxpayers finally had enough of Obama and his crew trying to raise taxes during a recession, a move that Senator Obama had insisted was goofy, and a move that helped prolong the Great Depression when FDR did that very thing twice during the 1930s, the liberals simply started referring to taxes as fees and revenues.
When they lose an election, or just start to lose some approval which indicates they might soon be losing an election, you aren’t going to wait very long before hearing one among them lament that the job of communicating the message is not quite yet done. I saw it after Bill Clinton left office and, until the democrats recaptured the Senate with a 51st seat, Republicans took over all of Congress as well as the White House. I saw it when George W. Bush won re-election. I’m sure seeing a lot of it right now. How hard it is to communicate the message; only smart people can understand it, and maybe America is just too stupid. In fact, it often seems to me that part of this liberal “message” is that it makes better sense to try to put out a house fire with gasoline, than to try to put it out with water, as long as you’re recommending the gasoline in a number of different languages. Our progressive friends seem to be endlessly fascinated in the process of communicating ideas but not quite so keen on hanging around long enough to assess whether the ideas turn out to be any good.
And so it’s interesting that they like to change the words around, which essentially hits the reset switch on any process that was underway to get an idea communicated. Either they just like to do it, and aren’t considering the consequences upon the process of idea-communication, or there’s a cynical calculation that has been done somewhere: An altered vocabulary will gain three converts, and alienate one, netting two.
I think it’s the latter. I notice the typical liberal idea will be strongly appealing to the person who has only just recently heard about it, and strongly revolting to the person who is waiting for it to produce positive results. Or to put it more concisely: Liberal ideas are salable to the audience that awards them the benefit of doubt, not to anybody else. Look how many people strongly believe that humans have to “do something” — yesterday! — or else, the ability of the planet to sustain life over the next century, cannot be assured. Now, how do you prove that? We’ve got an awful lot of people walking around going through the motions of using “science,” but while everyone’s acting all science-y, the point is lost that real science is going to have to be dropped like a hot potato, somewhere, before we get to the cool, exciting part: Our great-grandchildren are going to be living in a desert wasteland, like a scene out of a Terminator or Mad Max movie, fighting each other to the death for road kill. And yet that last part is going to have to be included in the message, since in the political realm, it is a vital ingredient. Have to give people a reason to care. But problem: The science does not support it. Solution: Sell it to people who think in terms of “what’s the worst that can happen?” but don’t consciously realize that they think this way. Just make quota. We only need 51 percent.
The battle to get socialism sold has been particularly dizzying. Use that S-word around a liberal and he’ll scold you for using it, insisting that there is some necessary ingredient an economic model must have before it can ever be called socialism by any knowledgeable person. Ask him to define what exactly that necessary ingredient is, and you’ll be pelted with a hailstorm of evasion tactics. None of this would be happening if “socialism” was not a dirty word; and, indeed, it didn’t happen a century ago, when it was not. And so as they continue to try to sell exactly the same product, The Left must become much more picky about how it is described.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[…] Nomenclature and Audience Names Veterans Day, 2011 The Morgan Female Empowerment Rule Three Axioms Bialek Doesn’t Pass the […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 11/11/2011 @ 06:19