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...
Mike has come up with the most valid reason to question the wisdom of voting for a ticket with Sarah Palin on it. The most valid one expressed so far.
That, of course, says very little. But the point is, Mike’s opened a dialog that I think is worth having, and I hope Gov. Palin is questioned on it. Firmly.
And he’s right — she did use that dreaded phrase 10:10 into this video.
I’m not going to brush this off or pretend it didn’t happen. I do think Mike’s reading way too much importance into this, since her small-government credentials are established now both in rhetoric and in fact. I just think it’s a phrase ripe for abuse, is all. She should address this.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
OK… maybe I’m dense, but I need a lil more specificity here. WTF did she say that causes you to think again? I heard nothing controversial, not even debatable. And I read Mike’s post, too. Is it the fact that Alaska’s oil just happens to lie under public land? So, by extension, said oil is owned by the people of Alaska? That’s a debatable point? How?
- Buck | 09/09/2008 @ 22:35Well, you have to read this tired ol’ 1100-page novel (of rice-paper thin pages full of microprint) in order to see the danger. Perhaps somewhere there are some papers from the Objectivist Society that state it in clearer and more concise terms. But I’ll give you the cliff’s notes here.
“Common Good” is a phrase that carries warm glittery feelings but no definition at all and because of that, no accountability. There’s no conflict until someone has to sacrifice something for it — but then what? If it’s the “common good” but someone has to sacrifice something for it, then it isn’t universal good. Therefore, it’s a moniker to be attached to something that, all reasonable participants would agree, is good for some folks and bad for others.
And therefore, the phrase ends up insisting that some people count and some people don’t. This goes against Libertarian principles…or at least, Objectivist principles…that rights are universal and non-negotiable. If you have to use phrases like “common good” you’re probably up to some shenanigans and need to be called on it.
Now that having been said, there is no “thinking again” going on here. Not unless Mike can continue his point with some firmer and more solid evidence. In my book, Gov. Palin was awesome yesterday, is awesome today, and will be awesome tomorrow. I’d just like to see her address this one head-on, that’s all.
- mkfreeberg | 09/09/2008 @ 22:41Morgan,
Dude, c’mon now. You know I’m a fan and I agree with ya’ an overwhelming majority of the time. So in that light…lighten up man! You’re over analyzing here.
Common good is all around us, everyday, in many situations. Nothing to analyze, nothing to think about, nothing to address, it’s there. It’s not affiliated with any particular political party, it’s not code word for anything, it is was it is- a standard of behavior acceptable by society as a whole.
What am I missing ? Willing to listen to but not analyze it to death.
- tim | 09/10/2008 @ 09:41C’mon, guys. It’s a political movement, not a church.
If Mike’s raised a good point, I think we should recognize it, and seek answers to the question he raises. Otherwise, you’re guilty of what the Obamamaniacs are saying: Raising a personality onto a pedestal as some kind of idol, and then worshipping it, right after accusing the other guys of doing exactly the same thing.
There’s a reason why Washington insisted Adams and Jefferson walk into the crowd in front of him, right after Adams won the presidency. This is America, where we question our leaders when other countries would not — even if the leader is a good ‘un.
- mkfreeberg | 09/10/2008 @ 11:30Everything is water if you look long enough.
- vanderleun | 09/10/2008 @ 11:49Anybody who has decided to vote for Obama doesn’t exactly have much to argue about here.
Go ahead, nitpick, find stuff to make your self doubt, I know who I’m voting for; there is no choice for me.
Don’t see the point in the mental masturbation at this point.
- tim | 09/10/2008 @ 12:22Hillary did use the same phrase. And while Palin’s intended meaning is obscure, Hillary’s was not.
I would expect Sarah Palin would be prepared for someone asking the question. She should want it to happen.
- mkfreeberg | 09/10/2008 @ 16:19