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...
Something is going on lately in our culture and I’m not entirely sure what it is. My best guess at this time is that it’s not one single causative event, but measurable metrics moving along, each in one direction over time, failing to course-correct or to check the speed. The attention span is steadily declining while the feral-hunger drive to WinWinWinWinWin all the time, is riding a vicious cycle and being carried upward.
That’s just a theory. There may be some other explanation, perhaps many other explanations. But the effect is something like this:
It’s certainly not a female trait, or at least, it isn’t that anymore. Of the five examples I’ve seen just since Friday morning, two of them are from males. One is embroiled in an entirely unnecessary legal fight because he thought the amount being demanded by a collection agency was so off-the-beaten-path, that their communications were unworthy of any response out of him. Last month, in the episode that probably got me to start thinking about all this, the woman who’d been using the in-house-built computer application the longest was explaining to me why it was throwing an exception. I knew it couldn’t be happening the way she was speculating on it because I’d been maintaining the source code on it, and I knew it didn’t process things in that order. I offered to bring up the project so we could look through it together and she said “Oh no, I don’t look at source code” — and insist that her theory of what was happening, was the right one.
Happened again last night. I shared a picture that had been put up on the Hello Kitty of Blogging by a buddy of mine, a picture of a woman’s gorgeous rack which was made (technically) work-safe because the lady in question had just finished immersing her appendages in some delicious, and reassuringly opaque, ice cream. One of Mrs. Freeberg’s friends accused me of objectifying women and I replied something like, oh good, maybe this is the part where someone can FINALLY explain it to me: Admiring a woman’s boobs, somehow, since womens’-lib and all that nonsense, reduces her to boobs and nothing more. How does that happen? It doesn’t work like that with a woman’s brain, or associated talents. Come to think of it, doesn’t work that way with a guy’s eyes, face, abs or butt. Why are we so easily controlled with this cultural-agitprop about “objectifying women”?
Some of my other Facebook peeps, equally curious, began to participate with similar questions and observations. Once the complainant saw she was outnumbered, she declared the discussion over. And, herself to be the victor.
For the better part of an hour.
Another acquaintance from work, years ago, resolves to hide — and announce to everybody that she is hiding — any and all posts with images of the likeness of Emperor Barack The First. She hates His policies so much, has personally suffered from their effects so much, she says she’s sick of looking at His face. This has been going on for quite some time, and since the “win all arguments by hiding from them” thing has lately piqued my curiosity, I asked for some clarification about this. He Who Argues With The Dictionaries is still our President, therefore remaining a real problem, regardless of who accepts and who refuses opportunities to look at His graven-image. Her response to this was that she just refuses to tolerate His regime. To that, I said something like: “Hiding is a form of tolerance,” and she came back with “No, it isn’t.” Now there, I think, may be the source of our cultural confusion; we’re having a disagreement about that question. And the harmony with which this issue integrates into military metaphors, sheds some light on how this came to be a male-female thing (to whatever extent it is one). Can an army declare victory on the battlefield, while retreating from that battlefield. It could have been a fascinating conversation, but while I was at work some other acquaintance accused the female of being a racist, the conversation got nasty, and by the time I was back at home it no longer existed anywhere but in recollection.
I have many other examples, but going through them one by one will just alienate people unnecessarily, which I suppose is something I might have done already.
So perhaps it is a gender thing. I have trouble seeing it that way because I’m noticing a lot of males doing it. It has gender origins, certainly. The retrograde man, the lowbrow, the paramilitary thought process, will get it immediately: The enemy appears, the enemy must be confronted and stopped or else the enemy will win turf. It’s one or the other. Go or stop. Can’t win the battle if you don’t prevail on the battlefield.
We’re moving out of that, rejecting the “cage match” two-go-in-one-comes-out mentality. However, in doing so we are not becoming more civilized. We’re becoming less so. You don’t reject things by running away from them; it may look like that within your limited sphere of perception, but whatever problem you don’t confront today will surely come back to confront you tomorrow. I remember when that was the very basis of what kids were supposed to be taught while they were still kids. Seems nowadays the parental wisdom is something different: If you feel like you should’ve won, that’s good enough, and if you feel like you did win, you did. Or…something.
It fascinates me that the very people who drone on incessantly about “sitting down with our enemies and talking out our differences with them,” are the very ones who don’t really do that. They’re the ones who seem to be most frequently relying on this “win it by running away” thing.
This isn’t making us more civilized, though. And it isn’t eradicating conflict, making us any less contentious. What it’s making us is unsure of reality, insecure, weak and bossy. And it is further supporting another theory I’ve had for quite some time now, of which I’ve written before: Barack Obama and His weird, corrupt regime do not represent the source of any particular problem. They are merely a symptom. The problem is cultural, it has been building for a very long time now, although the recent events it has been bringing about loom large on the nation’s landscape. Our continuing survival as a superpower, and our way of life, is being threatened by the savage impulses of the immediate-gratification generation(s). They talk of acceptance, but they don’t practice it because they don’t realize any power from accepting things. They only see how they can wield more power through rejection — they see rejection as the first step toward achieving a dictatorship. Not quite so much reject…perhaps the better word to use is dismiss. They achieve power, or something that feels like power, by way of dismissing. That’s why all these charges of “racism” are floating around, all day, every day. The ObamaBots are gulping big gulps from this Koolaid. They don’t know, or care to learn, how to properly argue the point they want to make, so the answer is to stretch out the perimeter of definition for this “racism” word, to include whatever has upset them most recently.
They just want what they want when they want it; they want to WinWinWinWinWin. That explaining-why stuff is just too hard. They’d rather skip that. It’s boring.
The very crucial distinction between victory and defeat is entirely lost on them. Run away!! And…We win.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.