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...
Yeah, she’s in my sidebar as a Wonder Woman pinup, and the better her future prospects, the better it is for the country. At this point, it is an impossibility that she’ll go away like some people want her to…and I’m glad for this. But it’s not healthy for EVERYBODY to be talking about ONE PERSON and to be talking about her ALL the time. We have national secrets scattered far and wide, you might as well load ’em into a cropduster and dump the payload over the most crowded street in Manhattan. DPRK is up to shenanigans and so is Iran, or have we forgotten this?
From here forward, no more about the Wonder of Wasilla — unless it’s something meaningful. The latest attention-whore who wants us to stop talking about her now! I really mean it! Stomp my feet and hold my breath until you stop talking about her! — this does not merit notice from anybody else, therefore it does not merit notice from us.
And yes, you can take this as criticism against Memeorandum. Have you been checking their scroll for the last two weeks or so? I just gave a fair description of the items pegged up at the top of it, during that timeframe. They need a check-up from the neck-up.
Back to Palin, when she points out something meaningful, or is imploded by the major scandal that has been so breathlessly anticipated by her enemies for over two years straight now. Or, when she turns out to be right about something and the O-Man turns out to be wrong…which is the trigger most likely to get tripped first.
But some whiny pussykins writing a meandering screed — thereby proving she’s relevant AND electable — is not going to get any notice from us for the foreseeable future. This is just stupid. Someone wants attention so they write “Palin Go Away!” and they just…get it? Enough is enough.
Meanwhile, a not-Palin-related (not quite anyway) question for you to mull over. Submitted: Presidents who are anticipated with a sense of “There’s no way he/she can possibly be electable, what a joke”…compared to other Presidents anticipated with a sense of “Aw man, take it to the bank, that’s our next President, he seems so Presidential, just fits into the office like a hand in a glove. Just so qualified.”
Generally, the former turn out to be better Presidents than the latter, after history has jotted down the final page. They are underestimated by their opponents, they tend to win more often when they are challenged (or do the challenging) over some issue, they arrive with a more discernible identity. The issues they confront, after they’ve worked them over, bear an imprint that says “the outcome is distinctly different because this is the person who had the power when the matter was decided.”
They are more fearless and capable leaders, they are less generic. Perhaps this is because they have more to prove.
But we’ve had a lot of people make it to the Oval Office just because they were really good at brooking compromises, giving speeches, selling things…just acting all dignified, and blandly “Presidential.” That, I submit, has been a long-standing failure. They weren’t even good at staying popular over the long term. Like the suitor of a young lady who tries to woo her over by agreeing with everything — “Oh, whatever you want to do.” The matters that couple decide together, reach an outcome without bearing his imprint, and his paramour becomes bored. That’s the American electorate. Without leadership, decisiveness, an individual imprint, there’s no reason to stay enthused and the presidency ends with a whimper rather than a bang.
My supposition is that all these gentlemen who have seemed “natural” for the office — with the exception of George Washington — have been fated for this pathetic legacy. I’ve seen just enough history to toss that one out there…it will take some research to prove it out some more (although I believe that it would).
Update 12/1/2010: Tammy Bruce notes the irony: To take Scarborough’s screed seriously, you need to re-define “manning up” as having something to do with getting together with the other boys, and beating up on the girl just because you don’t like her being there. Third graders have a better grasp of the manning-up concept.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.