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...
Toward the end of last year I had noticed, and since then I have made occasional reference to, a perfect quartet of “unavoidable flaws with liberal ideas.” They are derailment points on the railway; the liberal-idea-locomotive encounters one among the four, and chaos ensues. The mishap may be recoverable, but be that the case or be it not, the best-laid plan will come undone; any success realized after that point, will be realized by good fortune as a product of chance. And, interestingly, they make the same mistakes in the service of the interests of their agenda and their party, that they do in service of the interests of the country — which, to me, strongly suggests they are absolutely, genuinely, blind to the problems.
They really don’t understand them. Among the loyalists, I think they could be given a couple hundred years to make the same mistakes thousands and thousands of times…and…they’d just keep making them. That is what happens when you rationalize failure. You obviate the need to learn anything from it. And they are experts rationalizing away failure.
Time. They’re drunk on the elixir of friendly historians scribbling down such nonsense as, Franklin Roosevelt ended the Depression. And so they don’t worry about legacies. They’re very often caught neglecting the refinement of the message that would be handed off to history, opting to focus their attentions on the emotional rapture of the moment. The Occupy Wall Street movement, with its sloppy core message that never did quite gel into any useful form, is a perfect example of this.
Commerce. Considering how much arguing they do about wealth and who has it, it just blows my mind that they demonstrate so anemic a grasp on what it is. They show a complete ignorance of the difference between occupations that create it, and occupations that do not. They seem to think the occupations, themselves, are the wealth, and that when an economy moves it’s just thriving on its own built-up inertia, like some sort of perpetual motion device that doesn’t need any fuel. “Get it going” is all that is needed. When I had my first car, I was responsible for gas and repairs; I suspect most liberals just borrowed their parents’ other car whenever they ran into a problem, and then daddy went & had the repairs done and the tank topped off. They seem intractably dedicated to the notion that any engine not running, including the economic engine, will run just fine if someone just turns a key. They see motion the same way they see life — it’s there just because it’s there, and if you start asking chicken-and-egg questions about it it just means you’re a shallow stupid ol’ teabagger.
Incentives. Conservatives and libertarians have been screaming for generations, “If you want more of something, subsidize it, and if you want less of something, tax it.” Granting the benefit of the doubt that our liberals do really want to make things better, they must not be getting the message. They’re constantly advancing plans to subsidize lifestyles that, if improvement of society is the end goal, nobody would want to see becoming more widely practiced. I haven’t been able to get a liberal to define in clear terms what “prosperity” looks like; haven’t been able to get any one of them to say “more people would be rich”…
Abundance, and/or omnipresence. I see them constantly trapped in the thought-whirlpool that the goal must be to make something more highly regarded and highly valued, and the surest way to get there is to make that thing more plentiful, ideally, so that it becomes impossible to ever get away from it. This is a guaranteed fail because no person or thing has ever become more highly prized or cherished as a result of being more frequently seen. Natural laws of economics and human nature dictate that the opposite must be true.
Just noticed, over at my Hello Kitty of Blogging account, their vision for our society is most gravely in error precisely when & where it comes in closest proximity to almost making sense:
To understand liberals, you have to understand how their social contract makes sense, and it DOES make sense. In certain situations. Like, on a life raft, out in the middle of the ocean, with a dozen or fewer people let’s say. Water water everywhere, not a drop to drink…
In that situation, I agree with the liberals. If I find out one among us as been sitting on a hidden stash of chocolate bars and bottled water, that guy is a dick. And he should be fed to the sharks.
To understand the liberals, all you have to do is realize they live in this world ALL of the time. They lack the intellectual agility required to flex and adapt to different situations. We have legless people running races. Our kids all have cell phones. Our poor people are fat. They aren’t willing to factor these things in, to acknowledge they might have an effect on the social contract…ironic, since they say the Constitution is “living and breathing” but they want the unwritten social contract to be not only written, but carved in stone. They’re constantly accusing people of hoarding the C-rations and the chocolate and the water, when it makes no sense to do so.
So they react to a situation precisely the way a rational person would — but, not in that situation, in a different one. Let us call this one “Survival Staples” or “Starvation Imminent.” Without any supporting evidence at all, and without even any persuasive suggestion, liberals tend to behave as if the commodity-of-the-moment is in such short supply, and is so crucial to the continuing survival of the humans, be they in collectives or be they merely individuals — that an inexhaustible supply of the whatever-it-is becomes a “right.” Once they’re on this pathway, they get lost, instantly, for they adhere to the notion that mere difficulty involved in acquiring it, nevermind outright failure, constitutes an intolerable encroachment upon that right.
Crime…without an actual “bad guy.” So, of course, one has to be invented, that’s the next step.
STACI. Your five-part guarantee that liberal ideas, sooner if not later, will always turn out to be the wrong ones. One way or the other.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.