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...
The liberals have used the buckshot-approach to try to generate a scandal out of the reading of the Constitution in Congress, with dry-humping stories like this for example, and this. It seems they want to position themselves as being against this, and get themselves on record that way, but I got a feeling that if I say something like “liberals are against the reading of the Constitution in Congress” I’m going to get back a whole bunch of don’t-you-dare. It’s an old rule. I think Ann Coulter once observed that if it was possible to take an anti-American position in Scrabble or Parcheesi, liberals would take that position and then scold you with genuine hatred if you notice it & point it out.
You know, I didn’t think this going in, but…it seems to me the Republican establishment, breaking form from tradition, have thought this out better than the democrat establishment. The “Joe Six-Pack” voter, the guy whose vote means so much because he doesn’t know a single thing about Washington politics and doesn’t care to learn, has now seen it up close for two or three days solid: The democrat party wants to govern without any restraint. They think the Constitution is an obstacle, and not an authoritative one, just a pain-in-the-ass one. It’s undeniable now.
That was a good message to get out. Well done.
But let’s stop talking about the establishment. Let’s talk about the media…the liberals who claim not to be liberals. Chris Jansing — pretty girl, but what an airhead. Complicated? Really, Chris?
What kind of life do you need to live, in order to breeze through it in blissful ignorance of the complications the politicians hand down to the rest of us? It’s obvious Chris Jansing’s tax accountant gets the whole job done, presenting Ms. Jansing with not a single piece of paperwork other than the signature blocks…and that must be a short meeting. This must be an accountant who tried to explain some decision made to her, years and years ago, and got back the “I can’t hear you la la la” and since then has given up on it. I guess she’s never seen that U-turn sign that tripped me up a year and a half ago, or anything like it…maybe she rides in taxicabs, maybe she has a chauffeur.
I’m trying to envision this…how do you think it’s a problem when the lawmakers have to do something complicated? How do you not understand the law can be a complicated thing sometimes, and that’s just the way it is?
Or does she really think it should be complicated for the rest of us to follow the law, and simple to pass the laws? When, for the rest of us, following the law is something we just have to do to get our stuff done, whereas for those who make the law, making the law is what they do and they get paid handsomely for it.
I’m taking all these possibilities into account as best I can. But still, all the conclusions come to one single point: Jansing is intellectually anemic.
It’s a complicated process to pass laws now? Horrors. What a frightening thought. ::eyeroll::
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
There’s a big problem with the U.S. today. That anyone can say with a straight face that the U.S. Constitution is “Complicated”. Chrissakes the basic document takes about 17 3″x 6″ pages and it’s written in pretty plain language. The amendments take up another 16 of those tiny pages in my little pocket Constitution.
If you think the Constitution is “complicated”, you either haven’t read it, or you’re unintelligent.
More likely, though, these types want the MASSES to THINK it’s complicated, so they won’t bother to go read it for themselves.
This way they can continue posing as, or feeding us “experts” — to tell us what it all means and none of the masses will be the wiser.
The thought that went IN to writing the Constitution was some pretty deep stuff. The Federalist Papers goes over all of that and tells us why it was written the way it was. But the document itself? It’s pretty straightforward.
- philmon | 01/07/2011 @ 09:32Yeah, these people who call the Constitution “complicated” are the same ones who passed a 2,000 page health care bill without reading it. I’m not buying what they’re selling.
There’s some columnist over at the NYT – can’t remember his name – who never misses an opportunity to praise China because over there, the leaders simply do what they want by fiat. They don’t have to go through the democratic process and/or be restrained by a Constitution. This is superior, he says, because it means they’re a lot more efficient at “getting things done.” His type never stops to consider that maybe government has done plenty already.
It’s a bit like the guy at work, who awhile back, demanded to know why I support Palin. He asked, “What do you think she’s going to do for you?”
It’s not what she’s going to make government do FOR me. It’s what she’s going to make government stop doing TO me. But we’re dealing here with someone who thinks government’s role is to take care of him and everyone else, so he’s bound to begin with fundamentally wrong assumptions about me. I just want the institution out of my life – aside from protecting my natural rights – and otherwise leave me the hell alone.
- cylarz | 01/07/2011 @ 11:06The Constitution’s very simplicity is both the liberals’ greatest vexation and their greatest challenge.
It’s vexatious because it stops them from simply doing whatever they want, whenever they want.
It’s their greatest challenge because liberals are the types of folks who captained their high school’s debate team. You know, where you get praised for arguing that something doesn’t mean what it plainly does mean. They’ve spent their entire lives being “clever,” and being praised for being clever; subverting the Constitution is second nature.
And that’s why it’s “complicated.” Because nobody as Smart as a liberal could ever be stymied by something so simple.
- Severian | 01/07/2011 @ 13:25Astutely well put, Mr. Severian!
- philmon | 01/07/2011 @ 14:37[…] The Redacted, Sanitized Constitution Stealing Pensions The Anti-Constitution Party Democrats’ Goal is to Make Pelosi Speaker Again Women Laughing Alone With Salad Yikes! XIII […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 01/08/2011 @ 06:44