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...
A new poll has really got a lot of people chattering around the innerwebs and elsewhere. It says two thirds of self-identified Republicans believe President Obama is a socialist. Those who would like more people to be receptive to President Obama in general, and to His policies in particular, have responded the way they always do: Like a six year old who has no arguments. Yoooooouuuu’re Stooooooooopppiiiidddd!!!!
This argument was already hashed out a couple months into Obama’s term. Similar technique. Identify the attack as a “myth,” pick out some factoids that pose a little bit of a problem for the attack, and then act as if you’ve rained down a devastating salvo upon the argument and pronounce it “debunked.” Don’t treat it with any respect at all; that way, you can start out precisely where you want to end up, and not do any intellectual work at all.
OF ALL THE inane accusations about President Obama, the silliest has to be this: The president is a socialist.
Obama’s plans are “one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment,” asserts House minority leader John Boehner. He’s “the world’s best salesman of socialism,” says Republican Senator Jim DeMint.
“Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff,” declares Mike Huckabee. Sean Hannity derides his agenda as “socialism you can believe in.” Obama is “a radical communist,” warns kooky Alan Keyes.
“Epithets are substituting for thinking,” observes Marc Landy, professor of political science at Boston College.
Are they ever.
Well…funny thing about that. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the term rather broadly.
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
And I’m thinking Definition #1 qualifies Him pretty easily. President Obama is generally not neutral on the question of centralizing decision-making authority, particularly when it comes to running businesses. And He certainly isn’t generally hostile to such centralization.
If you want to assert that Obama is taking us down a road that would, if pursued to the end, ultimately lead to communism — and I’ve got a feeling a great many of those polled would say precisely that — then it becomes reasonable to qualify Him under the third definition as well.
The dictionary definitions all mirror each other so perfectly, it seems they are xeroxed from a common prototype. There is one exception: Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Unless the “mods” don’t like the edit that you did, in which case you are a “vandal” and they’ll revert it right back again.
Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.
Not centralized control, not collective control, not government control; worker control. Got their material out of a socialist pamphlet, it would seem.
Turn to the talk page, and you’ll find a real party goin’ down.
Barack Obama is not a socialist. Anybody with even the most basic knowledge of socialism is perfectly aware of that.
Like I said. Yoooooouuuuurrrr’e Ssstttooooooooooopid!!!
And there’s more.
And besides, “national socialization” is a nonsense phrase. Get an education!
If we’re calling Obama socialist, we’d might as well call Bush fascist by those standards
I think that the widespread description of Obama as socialist is an important factor in society, particularly among the political right, but at the same time I think that it should be noted as largely baseless accusations and not as widely accepted.
Obama is not particularly seen as a socialist. The political right just uses it as a meaningless buzzword for anyone they don’t approve of. Bill Clinton was called a socialist plenty of times as well.
Obama is no sort of socialist. Period.
That is the form and substance of the counterargument. Shut up!
But this one has gotta take the cake:
Another Vandal Oh dear. While we are over here on the talk page discussing the fact that Obama is nearly as far from Socialism as Reagan yet another vandal was linking Obama into the Socialism page. I can tell this one will be on my watchpage basically indefinately.
You don’t know whether to laugh or cry. I’m sure the ostensible reason for the “watchpage basically indefinately” [sic] is so that Wikipedia preserves its value as a resource, to enhance the reasons people would have for going there, and diminish the reasons they would have for going somewhere else. Simonm223‘s achievement, I’m afraid, is the polar opposite of the intent behind it.
And no, before anyone asks: I’m not the vandal. I guess there are quite a few of us getting snookered by this.
I’m still waiting for something to save me from being hoodwinked. So far I’m not saved. One thing you will not find at that talk page, or anywhere else so far as I can see, is this: What, exactly, do you have to do to fulfill a minimalist litmus test for this word, that the Obama administration has not, in fact, done?
The whole question, once evaluated logically, would boil down to essentially that. Wouldn’t it? What am I missing here?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.