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...
Lately I challenged a “moderate” to come up with one, and she wasn’t able to think of anything. Maybe eventually someone will be able to think of a tactic…like for example the so-called “nuclear option” of getting rid of the filibuster in the Senate…but a tactic is not a position.
Something with an “all” or “always” or “never” in it, that isn’t necessarily appropriate. Something as strident and uncompromising as our current liberal president’s famous decree — “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”
Invading Iraq? That might seem a promising answer at first. But if it really passes the test, you need to be able to state the antithesis of it in such a way that the antithesis would be more moderate, and I don’t think that’s possible with the invasion of Iraq. Let’s see…”We have to demand absolute proof there are WMDs before we remotely consider any military action.” That doesn’t sound moderate to me. “Every sovereign nation on the entire earth gets to do whatever it wants, and nobody can touch it.” That doesn’t sound moderate either.
A lot of what I see in the Constitution is extreme. “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That certainly qualifies…but…is it really extreme to demand our elected leaders follow the Constitution? Also, there’s a difference between the Constitution providing a right, and merely recognizing a right that is already there. Don’t infringe — don’t encroach, don’t trespass. Are old men being extremist when they tell kids to keep off the lawn?
I notice this is a much simpler challenge if we try to point out an extremist liberal position. Abolishing the death penalty is extremist, because that would say you don’t care what the case is, who murdered who, how it was done, how sure we are of it. Doesn’t matter, capital punishment is off the table. That’s a good example of extreme. Also: There’s something wrong if the rich get a tax cut and the poor don’t get it…even if the tax cut is a rollback of a prior tax increase, that affected only rich people. Or, the state agency has to grant this concession to the union, nevermind what it costs or whether the budget is going to be a complete disaster at the end of the year — just do it. That’s extreme. Anything that says “just do this now, and let the details work themselves out later,” I think, you could fairly call extreme.
I keep hearing about these “extremist conservatives”; there has to be an extremist-conservative position somewhere.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Abortion.
They think we’re so extreme because we say, “only when the life of the mother is threatened.”
Their position is, “always when the lifestyle of the mother is threatened.”
Be a real feminist! Support the rights of unborn women!
- DarcsFalcon | 01/25/2011 @ 13:05Okay, that’s a good one. It’s worth half-a-point though because but the position, and the opposite position, could be fairly characterized as extreme…or absolutist. But as you point out, of the two, the more rigid dogmatic position is the liberal one — abortion should be permitted everywhere it possibly can be.
I’m looking for something where the conservative is living in always-never-land, and the liberal is not…just full of halfway-compromises. It should be easy, shouldn’t it? That is supposed to be the difference in thinking styles right there. Conservative says there’s only one way to look at something, liberal is full of exceptions…
…but by the time the actual positions are formed, something gets all twisted around and it’s the liberals who are the strident non-negotiators.
- mkfreeberg | 01/25/2011 @ 13:12How about we take the position of: no restrictions whatsoever on the ownership of firearms?
– Criminal history or history of mental illness? No problemo!
– No limits on caliber, magazine capacity, or cosmetic features (pistol grip, thumbhole stock, etc)
– Fully automatic? No problemo!
– Tracer and incindiary rounds OK.
– etc
– No room for federal, state, or local authorites to decide what Joe Gunbuyer “needs,” the only criteria is what he can afford to purchase.
I’d actually be OK with some of these. I fail to see why a guy who took a stranger’s car for a joyride when he was 19 or got caught with a bag of crank around that same time, should forfeit the right of self defense, hunting, or target shooting for the rest of his life. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution doesn’t contain any provision for the federal or state government to legislate away your right to a firearm, or to revoke said right through “due process.” What gives any government agent the authority to determine that someone has exercised poor enough judgment at one time or another, that this must mean he’s unfit to own a weapon ever again?
I also don’t appreciate the county sheriff presuming the right to decide whether I “need” to carry concealed. It’s not his decision, quite frankly. I don’t appreciate the state Legislature or the governor presuming the right that I don’t “need” a weapon that holds more than 10 rounds in a detachable magazine. Again, not their call to make. I don’t appreciate some stranger seeing a handgun on my hip, feeling “alarmed” or “threatened” and this suddenly becoming MY problem…when it’s me, not him, who has to deal with the police and answer a bunch of stupid questions.
- cylarz | 01/26/2011 @ 04:03