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...
Rick brings our attention to an article that overall, I find to be a bit of a yawner…except for one thing that pops out when you click open the Washington Post article to which he links.
[Sen. Hillary Clinton] was talking on the Senate floor about the burdensome cost of higher education. She was wearing a rose-colored blazer over a black top. The neckline sat low on her chest and had a subtle V-shape. The cleavage registered after only a quick glance. No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary. There wasn’t an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable.
It was startling to see that small acknowledgment of sexuality and femininity peeking out of the conservative — aesthetically speaking — environment of Congress. After all, it wasn’t until the early ’90s that women were even allowed to wear pants on the Senate floor. [emphasis mine]
As an ordinary, non-politician, non-felon, non-female American male guy, there are two prospects that really get me interested in a great big hurry: How to get elected officials to do what ordinary men want them to do, and how to get women to do what ordinary men want them to do.
It would seem that, until ten to fifteen years ago, we managed to accomplish both those things in one fell swoop. What the hell happened?
Nowadays, we can’t even get members of Congress, male or female, to live under the laws they so freely impose on the rest of us.
How did this happen? What brought it to an end? Who was in charge of sending female Senators back home to change? “You wear what you like on your own time, Missy, but this is the Senate. And let this be a lesson to you for next time!” Heady questions. What we call “journalists” lack the energy or curiosity to find the answers, and frustratingly, my Mad Google Skilz aren’t nearly mad enough to do their jobs for them this time. The world-wide web seems to have forgotten about the skirts-only rule, or whatever event brought it to an end.
But — just wow. Bringing lawmakers to heel, making them follow certain rules. It can be done.
How far have we strayed? Here it is 2007, and we can’t even get Senator Clinton to stop saying things that undermine our military operations overseas…once upon a time, Senate parking space or not, you’d be put up against a wall and shot for less.
Pentagon Slap A Boost For Clinton
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton seems to be getting some anti-war street cred on the left, with a little help from the Pentagon’s No. 2.
Clinton is ratcheting up a spat with Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman by going to his boss, Robert Gates. Yesterday, AP reported on a letter Edelman sent the senator in response to a letter she had sent him about the Iraq war. News organizations and bloggers (including this one) went to town on Edelman’s insinuation that asking the Pentagon to begin planning for a withdrawal scenario was akin to aiding the enemy.
Read in full, however, the letter is hardly the spanking AP made it out to be. At the same time, the “embolden the enemy” argument is there, so it’s not completely innocuous, either.
MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann devoted his end-of-show commentary to the letter yesterday, making references to the Civil and Franco-Prussian wars along the way.
This article, headline notwithstanding, makes absolutely no mention of anything resembling a “boost” for Clinton. No skyrocketing approval ratings, no increased campaign donations. Just Olbermann’s ranting. Olby, therefore, must be the point of the article.
I say go for it, Ms. Clinton. “Hillary for ’08: Olbermann’s Choice!” Oh yes, fire up the printing presses and let the bumper stickers flow. Let’s have a national referendum on the quality of Keith Olbermann’s favored presidential candidates. I’ll get the popcorn.
But meanwhile, the innernets are just bubbling over with righteous complaining about how just yesteryear — nobody, among those complaining, can name which year it is — female senators had to wear skirts. I can think of more than a few female senators I’d just as soon see in potato sacks, or even better not have to see at all. There are a few others who make a “mandatory Sailor Moon outfit” rule sound like a pretty neat idea…although that’s getting to be a more-and-more exclusive club.
Women prohibited from wearing pants. That does sound pretty bad. But if it meant that much, it seems we’d have a better collective memory about it. And I suspect part of the reason it sounds bad, is not because it forces women to do things, but because it’s got something to do with making legislators follow rules…a concept that has, tragically, become foreign and strange to us.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.