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...
Prof. Sowell, making sense, as usual.
So much of what has been said by various Republican candidates, as well as by the media, has been in the nature of unsubstantiated, peripheral or irrelevant talking points for or against particular candidates, rather than serious statements about serious issues confronting the nation.
So common has this approach become that even some conservative writers have come to the defense of John King, the CNN reporter who opened the South Carolina debate with a question about Newt Gingrich’s former wife. These writers have declared that question “legitimate,” in some undefined sense.
If all that “legitimate” means is that John King was not doing anything that many other reporters would have done in the same circumstances, that is making common practice a substitute for our own judgments about what is and is not relevant in a given context. Neither the audience in that room nor the millions watching on television were there to find out about Newt Gingrich’s marital problems. If it is a common practice for the media to focus on such things, so much the worse for the media — and for the country.
“The politics of personal destruction” — as Bill Clinton called it, and as he himself practiced it — is not the way to solve the nation’s problems. It has already poisoned the well of political discourse this season and claimed Herman Cain as its first victim, on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations by women with checkered pasts of their own.
You know what’s really upsetting about it all: The policies being advanced by the candidates, have nothing whatsoever to do with the cases that are being built against them, right before they go falling. And yet, each candidate that is selected for the roasting of the week or month, is the most ideologically sane out of all the contenders still in the running. Right up until he or she flames out, and then the crosshairs move on down the line to the next one. So ideological positions have nothing to do with it — but they do. Only the interested spectator who pays attention to long-term trends, can see it, but it’s unmistakable.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent column this week on this subject, too:
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/victor-davis-hanson/2012/01/26/fidelity-and-the-presidency/
I grew tired of hearing about Newt’s “marital difficulties” about three weeks ago. Can we move on? There’s plenty to criticize about the guy, but if this is all his critics have got, maybe he’s not such a bad candidate after all. I noticed that the media aren’t interested in his labeling Paul Ryan’s plan “right wing social engineering” or sitting on the couch with San Fran Nan or taking money from Fannie Mae.
The media calling attention to any of those would be slitting their own wrists…it would make people ask, “Hey, waitaminnit. You guys HATE the Paul Ryan plan. You guys LOVE Nancy Pelosi. Several prominent Democrats took a LOT more money from FM/FM than Newt did, most of all Bwaney Fwank. What gives?”
- cylarz | 01/26/2012 @ 22:12The media calling attention to any of those would be slitting their own wrists
Cylarz,
you assume here that the media cares one whit about their own hypocrisy. They only care about getting Democrats elected*. Besides, if it weren’t for grotesque hypocrisy and mind-bending cognitive dissonance, liberalism would cease to exist.
*to be fair, they really care about destroying conservatives; they love Democrats on the enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend principle (do the Germans have a word for that? Seems like they should).
- Severian | 01/27/2012 @ 05:47Love the new banner photo 🙂
- philmon | 01/27/2012 @ 09:00