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...
I’m enjoying watching the Washington Post get their butt cheeks handed to ’em on a platter by the folks commenting on their blog.
A democrat congressman was approached outside a Pelosi fundraiser by some unidentified young camera-persons who claimed to be “students” working on a “project.” For reasons unknown, the congressman became immediately combative when they asked him if he supported the Obama agenda. The story is already a little bit old & worn-out by now: He claimed to have a “right to know who you are,” grabbed the person asking the question in a full body hold, grabbed him by the neck, and generally acted like a jerk. A drunk jerk. His intent was clearly to intimidate, and as far as the body contact people have been prosecuted for less.
Whoever runs the Washington Post blog thinks the big scandal is about who was filming this & why. If the persons commenting reflect the persons subscribing and reading, that dog won’t hunt.
According to Ben Smith at Politico, the democrats are going to use the talking points anyway:
1. There is always the part of the story that you can’t see in these gotcha style videos — what were these folks doing, how did they approach him, how were the cameraman and/or others off camera acting?
2. Why would any legitimate student doing a project or a journalist shagging a story not identify themselves. Motives matter — what was the motivation here? To incite this very type of reaction?
3. This is clearly the work of the Republican Party and the “interviewer” is clearly a low level staffer or intern. That’s what explains blurring the face of the “interviewer” and refusing to identify the entity this was done for. The Republicans know if they were caught engaging in this type of gotcha tactic it would undermine their own credibility — yet if it was an individual acting on his own there is no reason that person would have blurred themselves out of the video — and if it was the work of a right wing blog they would have their logo on the video and be shouting their involvement from the roof top.
4. This was a purposefully partisan hit job designed to incite a reaction for political reasons — but it is a tactic so low — the parties involved are remaining anonymous.
5. The fact that no one wants to take credit for this should raise real questions in the minds of voters and the press.
This further supports my theory that progressives are the kids you knew who got away with everything under the sun, now all grown up. Their mommas caught ’em red handed fishing a cookie out of the jar, and when “I was just putting it back” didn’t work, they went for the tried-and-true “Who ya gonna believe Ma? Me or your lyin’ eyes?” They think this will work, because it always has, and they could very well be right.
In their world, they can’t really be caught at anything. Anything. Ever.
Myself, I’m just trying to think of when a guard at Guantanamo was ever availed of such a defense. Or in Iraq or Afghanistan. Is that how we should have handled the Koran-toilet-flushing “scandal,” progressives? Thunder away with righteous indignation, demanding to know who came up with the story and what they were after?
Because it occurs to me, in that case, once the facts were all in it emerged that might’ve been the appropriate response.
There is a lesson here. When you’re no longer advocating a certain course of action because you think it’s wise, and instead you’re advocating a certain course of action because you think it makes people all better & wonderful, it has an intoxicating effect. People start to embark on this “ends justify the means” thing. While Congressman Etheridge is drunk on…whatever it is he drank…the Washington Post seems to be drunk on this stuff. Omigaw, we’re supposed to be objective journalists but our beloved progressive agenda is getting some abuse here, and we cannot allow that. Let’s go out and tell the sheeples what concerns they should really have. They’ll do what we say — they always have…
Great googley moogley, what breathtaking arrogance, presuming to tell us who the good guys & bad guys are while going through the motions of running an objective and unbiased newspaper. You don’t develop that kind of hubris overnight; this must be a longstanding habit. Really makes you wonder what was going on before the YouTubes, that nobody really bothered to show us at the time. Because they didn’t have to.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[…] Freeberg chimes in on the Case of the Combative Congresscritter. This further supports my theory that progressives are the kids you knew who got away with everything under the sun, now all grown up. Their mommas caught ‘em red handed fishing a cookie out of the jar, and when “I was just putting it back” didn’t work, they went for the tried-and-true “Who ya gonna believe Ma? Me or your lyin’ eyes?” They think this will work, because it always has, and they could very well be right. […]
- DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » “Who Cares Who Filmed It?” | 06/15/2010 @ 06:38You know, a cop here in Seattle punched a high school girl in the face yesterday. He was trying to cite her friend for jaywalking in a bad part of town (MLK Blvd, of course). The jaywalker tried to flee, and then resisted arrest, her friend attacked the officer, there were dozens of people around, and he was alone (had called for backup by now). When she attacked him, he punched her.
Oddly – I mean unsurprisingly – nobody here is wondering who shot the video and what their agenda might be. It’s just badcop-meancop-brutalcop gone crazy and abusing the populace. But a politician assaults someone asking a question about the President, and we’re supposed to assume it was some sort of staged provocation instead of wondering what kind of person just goes batshit like that.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/421775_officerpunch15.html?source=mypi
- Andy | 06/15/2010 @ 14:36Though I know it has little to do with your post here, I follow up on my previous comment for the sake of thoroughness and decency: That police story, after a day of simmering, is starting to get much more pro-police support than otherwise. My neighborhood blog is almost 100% in support of the cop, which I confess is pretty surprising to me. And reassuring.
Back to your regular programming.
- Andy | 06/16/2010 @ 09:28