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...
It’s been called to our attention that Wednesday’s post was an example of poor marketing in the blogosophere. We believe this is true, and furthermore that we commit this sin quite regularly, which is one of many reasons why we call ourselves The Blog That Nobody Reads. The subject of the post in question was Michelle Malkin making fun of the Democrats by pretending to cheer them on, with white flags instead of pom-poms. But from reading our comments, you wouldn’t have figured that out…you had to go to Malkin’s web site and watch the video clip. Only then would you see what’s going on…
That, right up there, is how we would have played it up if we were true web-traffic-whores. Which we are somewhat — only to such an extent as we’ve developed as unhealthy an addiction to Sitemeter as any other blogger. Ooh, twenty hits in the last hour instead of ten. What did I do? From where did they come? It’s an intriguing question. But apart from a mouse-click or two of poking around, nothing is done about it. Life goes on.
When it comes to implementing all these tried-and-true techniques for boosting traffic, we rank below the folks who suck at it. We’re just not trying. Malkin herself is dancing around in a cheerleader costume, and we’re playing it up by analyzing the intellectual/sociopolitical merits of what she’s saying, and not even bothering to scrape any pictures. One can almost envision Malkin herself reviewing the finished product, wondering why we didn’t take the bait. Come on, I even had pigtails.
It’s in keeping with our mission. As we’ve pointed out before: Say things to get attention, pretty soon you’re saying things that make no sense, save for your objective of getting attention. And then you’re saying stupid crappy things like “there is no terrorirst threat” or “Bush went to Iraq to prove to his daddy he’s tough.” We’d rather stick to things we know to be true or genuinely believe to be true. That is the priority. Don’t be snookered — say things that, if you read them a year later, you won’t think to yourself “man, I really got fooled.” Let others troll for attention…and the web traffic will do whatever it will do.
But the timing was pretty good. We managed to link ourselves to a FARK thread in the moment as it was greenlit. This caused something of a spike. Maybe we’ll meet some interesting new folks because of that.
Anyway. We already have a new thought to ponder…although it is not completely an unblazed trail. FARK user juiceman_eyebrows would like to know…
Why are conservative women pundits so much prettier than than the Liberals? Seriously, what is it? Is it because they shave their legs? Wear deodorant? Keep the armpit hair to a minimum? Im just curious.
Well, I’d like to try to tackle this one. (Credit Six Meat Buffet for the picture.)
First of all, there are some exceptions. The left does have Alyssa Milano. But by-and-large, the trend does seem to hold true. Liberal women, now forty years into a movement of trying to find something unfair in society, and in the opportunities it offers them, so they can do some screeching…they don’t seem to want to be attractive.
At no time was this more evident than in the administration of Bill Clinton. Clinton was held up as the key to doors long bolted and sealed shut, imposing with a stuffy cobwebbed Victorian authority between strong, resourceful women and the opportunities that righfully should have been available to them. A messianic figure out to save women from oblivion in an unfair, patriarchal society that, but for him, would have relegated the best and brightest among our sisters and daughters to obscurity. And in the women came. Reno. Shalala. Albright. Bader-Ginsburg. And so on.
Did the message really stop at “you shouldn’t deny women opportunities just because they’re women?” It seems impossible to opine so. None among the gruesome foursome even remotely resemble the lovely Alyssa.
Oh yes, I understand — just as you shouldn’t promote someone just because he’s a man, you shouldn’t promote women just because they’re pretty. That argument would make a lot of sense — if two among the previously-named four resembled other-worldly creatures. But this was four-for-four. Women, by their nature, are beautiful. The average-looking woman looks a damn sight different from the average Clinton female appointee. No one’s ever bothered to explain this. Not to my knowledge.
So let’s face facts: Juiceman is on to something here. Something’s going on. You do not need to bribe me with booze and money to get me to sleep with Condoleeza Rice. Or Linda Chavez. Or Bo Derek or the lovely Michelle, or Peggy Noonan or Laura Ingraham. These women all have currency. Regarding their counterparts, especially the ones who achieved prominence in the Clinton cabinet — if you don’t mind, I think I’d rather just skip that part of the exercise.
Perhaps, among female persons who embraced the principles Clinton was trying to sell us, Janet Reno happened to be the best qualified to run the Justice Department. And given that, perhaps, Albright was best qualified to run the Department of State. But four-for-four, fugly-for-fugly?
Shenanigans, I say. There was another message there. There had to be. The Alyssa Milanos, you will note, remain safely confined to their Hollywood gigs. Our liberal politicians don’t even promote them to so much as spokeswoman-for-a-day in some fundraiser, political junket, million-whatever-march, or anything of the like. The pattern is clear: A genuinely gorgeous woman would cloud the message. The limelight is for…others.
Even in our movies, when we’re supposed to be appreciating women for being beautiful, our liberals still don’t think women should be appreciated for the gifts they naturally have. When the business at hand is to be “sexy,” their answer to it is Julia Roberts — a woman straight men don’t find sexy. Not in the way we find Ms. Milano sexy.
There seems to be something wrong with appealing to us, or being caught trying to. Clearly, there is some pipeline of support in the liberal community, and that pipeline is available to women who want to become famous — provided said women are not good-looking.
And there’s something else going on, too. The subject-at-hand is Michelle Malkin: funny; smart; beautiful; enchanting; conservative; Asian. Just as I can stump even the most seasoned politics-watcher by asking “Quick! Who’s the sexiest female political appointee or spokeswoman for the left wing?” — I can achieve the same results by asking, in the same urgent manner, who is the most prominent female minority among the left wing. Now, why is that? Our liberals are supposed to be all about diversity. Opportunity for the under-privileged members of designated minority groups. The non-WASPy, non-caucasian, non-euro-centric. Stickin’ it to Whiitey, if you want to think of it that way. And, at times, that last one does seem to be the most accurate description of what they want done…
…so where is the spokesgal? I’ve noticed a favorite leitmotif of the left is that Malkin lacks talent — she’s not as smart as people give her credit for, and she’s just plain mean. Some of them say this as if in a concentrated effort to convince themselves. Others behave as if they’re already convinced. Okay, if there’s nothing extraordinary to Malkin, then where is the left-wing counterpart? One would have to expect, if Malkin is so extraordinary in her mediocrity, it shouldn’t take long to answer this at all. Just find any ol’ liberal Asian chick, and mission accomplished. Give her something to do, maybe debate the real Michelle somewhere. Should be easy. So why hasn’t it been done?
How come these female-persons whom The Left would wish could demand more of my attention, are not only butt-ugly, but so consistently white?
I’ve been repeatedly instructed to believe that Rush Limbaugh was “mean” when he said the purpose of feminism was to make sure ugly women can get dates. Just going on the evidence that has come to my attention over the years — it was mean. He should have said it was to make sure ugly white women can get dates.
I’m sure that sets off lots of righteous indignation…but if anyone can get over it and catch their breath for a second or two, I’d really like an answer. It seems a fair question, and I have to think if it causes any offense in anyone, it can only do this until some quality thought is applied to it. The point of it is, after all, someone wants to get a message out and thus far, has only managed to get out a piece of it. How offensive can it be, to figure out there is more to be added? Our liberals have a beef with being too closely associated with women that straight men find pleasing, in face, body and mind. They’ve been encouraged to say a lot of things — some of it outlandish, some of it petty, almost all of it in some way hostile. On this matter, they’ve not yet fully opined. There’s something here that arouses shame in the shameless. PLEASE, liberals. Don’t keep your silence any further on my account. My curiosity is like an itch beneath a cast, with not one coathanger or chopstick in sight.
And there’s the matter of opportunity…still unaddressed. There are only so many ugly white women in the world. And I have to believe, if I were to start a company and staff it with ugly white liberal women with such remarkable consistency, with all the charter positions as well as the positions that become available from time to time, I’d eventually get busted for it. Because of some federal law that our liberals insisted we put on the books and keep in the books. To put it simply, I can’t do as a private citizen what these left-wing power brokers appear to have done for quite a long time with our taxpayer-supported advocacy positions and our positions of public trust. With nary a soul, outside of the conservative talk show hosts and bloggers, batting an eyelash about it.
No, I run a company with my own money…a liberal bystander who can’t show me two nickels he has to lose, in any decision I make, detects a lack of “diversity” and he can bring the whole operation to a screeching halt. Said lack of diversity is supposed to be compelling evidence of something awful and ugly. Well, I’ve noticed the same thing in the things our liberals like to do. I’m pretty far from the first guy to notice it. And hey, gorgeous women have to eat too.
So is it really all about equal opportunity?
Or is being liberal all about exchanging one form of prejudice, for a different one? It is possible for a woman to be charming, sexy and smart. I know this for a fact. Our liberals appear to be convinced it is not so.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.