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...
I’m slightly reworking the title Dr. Melissa Clouthier gave this one because I’d like to explore some things she just touched, kind of pick it up where she left it.
Michael Gerson Sums Up Obama’s Narcissism
On several occasions, Obama attacked American conduct in simplistic caricatures a European diplomat might employ or applaud. He accused America of acing “unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others” — a slander against every American ally who has made sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan. He argued that, “America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy” — which is hardly a challenge for the Obama administration, which has yet to make a priority of promoting democracy or human rights anywhere in the world.
The world, of course, has its problems, too. It has accepted “misperceptions and misinformation.” It can be guilty of a “reflexive anti-Americanism.” “Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone.” Translation: I know you adore me because I am better than America’s flawed past. But don’t just stand there loving me, do something.
And, wow again:
Twice in his United Nations speech, Obama dares to quote Franklin Roosevelt. I have read quite a bit of Roosevelt’s rhetoric. It is impossible to imagine him, under any circumstances, unfairly criticizing his own country in an international forum in order to make himself look better in comparison. He would have considered such a rhetorical strategy shameful — as indeed it is.
At the United Nations, Obama set out to denigrate American goodness so he can become our rescuer. The speech had nothing to do with the confident style of Democratic rhetoric found in Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy. It insulted that tradition. And no one is likely ever to quote the speech — except to deride it.
Here’s my take, though. President Obama is no different from candidate Obama. What did you moderates out there think he meant when he said that he would rise the tides and save the planet and BE the change you can believe in? Why do you think President Obama wanted to “remake America”?
I’ll answer it for you: Because he felt that America is fundamentally flawed. Because he believes HE is the fix. Pretty simple. And he’s no different today than he was a year ago. it’s just rather startling to hear the President of the United States apologize for his own country inherent badness and say that his inherent goodness is the cure.
Arrogant and narcissistic? Yep. But he had a lot of useful idiots help him get elected. His America-hating speechifying is nothing new. Some people are just hearing for the first time.
I’m not looking forward to a whole bunch of forehead-smacking as untold millions of American voters realize the mistake they’ve made and resolve to do better. Maybe the folks who voted for Obama in order to protest the Bush deficits — wow, that seems like so long ago, doesn’t it? — will do some of that. But even they won’t be stooping so low as to admit to an error. They’ll simply take the position that there was no better alternative, that McCain was “McSame”…it must be true, all those Saturday Night Live skits said so.
Nor do I think there is any grand prevailing viewpoint behind the idea that Obama is the fix. Modern Americans live far too comfortably to be overly concerned about “fixes”; our enthusiasm tends to be riveted on identifying the problem, and forcing an artificial patina of unanimity in acknowledging the problem is there. Quick, pop-quiz, someone tell me what our “fix” is for global warming. What’s the “fix” for a child with learning disabilities. Details, I want details! But I will not be getting details. No plan, no work-breakdown-structure, no steps, no methods of validation that any plan is working. Just a bunch of bullying rhetoric that such-and-such a child definitely has Aspergers and the planet is definitely heating up.
Obama is in a precarious situation here, and although many among his supporters fail to realize it, I’m pretty sure He Himself gets it. If the election were to be held today, He just might win…better-than-even-odds He would…He is awfully “cool,” and although it’s become embarrassing that His solution to every problem is yet another “wonderful” speech, He is certainly good at giving those. But if the election were to be held today, the vote upon which He would depend — utterly and completely — is the “ego” vote. The “It must be the right thing to do now, because it sure as hell was the right thing to do in ’08” vote. The not-ready-to-admit-a-mistake vote.
Which means the “This-Year’s-Hot-New-Trend” vote is deader than Charlemagne. Nothing remains of it, no headstone, no carcass to be exhumed because its grave is unmarked.
But this “Ego” vote is strong. People don’t like to admit their mistakes; and they can go a very long time displaying their interest in undeniable-truths…which, it is worth noting, would fail to capture such exuberant support of the truths really were undeniable. They can go a long ways without expressing any interest whatsoever in fleshing out any step-by-step plans for fixing the problems they say they want fixed so badly. And so, take it to the bank, come 2012 we will be hearing from all over the place that “This-or-that was so much worse when Bush left office, than it is now” and “It will be taking Him a long time to clean up that mess Bush made” and “Bush screwed the pooch so Obama needs eight years to take care of it properly.”
Support will be falling off. But very quietly. The next contest, and the next one after that, will be decided by turnout. Very few people will be admitting outright that they supported His Holiness last year, and have decided to stop supporting Him.
Best-case scenario is that Obama comes to be like the trashy tabloid you see in the supermarket: Nobody will admit to buying it, and yet, millions of people somewhere must be doing exactly that. Next-best-case scenario? That the defectors from the Obama camp fit into the tabloid metaphor that way. Nobody will admit to leaving the Church of Holy Barack; but we’ll have some elections proving millions of people must’ve done that very thing.
But I completely agree with Melissa about Obama’s campaigning. If anyone does want to express some discomfort over our President’s amazing narcissism, and they’re so lacking in self-restraint they are actually heard to mutter some words to that effect — they can bite it. It simply isn’t reasonable to show surprise here. Obama is governing, more or less, the way He campaigned. At least to such a minimal extent that He fleshed out what His plans were, while He was campaigning…which wasn’t much. You certainly would have a hard time making the case that He broke too many campaign promises.
Particularly in matters dealing with support or lack thereof, for the country He was campaigning to govern…or rule over…whatever. You thought Obama would give patriotic speeches on the world stage about America’s wonderful contributions to civilization and world peace? You thought He’d say something so that people in Switzerland and Sweden and Nigeria and Afghanistan and Russia and Indonesia would say to themselves “Wow, America is really great”? Really? You expected that? Based on what?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.