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...
Morgan’s First Rule of Government: Life thrives in order but matures toward chaos. Government has a role as long as order and life serve the same purpose; where their paths diverge, government must yield.
We know what governments look like when they champion order over life. This is exactly the government from which the Founding Fathers defected. Don’t take my word for it, read the Declaration of Independence. Why can’t conservatives and moderates be consistent in the life-versus-absolute-order dichotomy? The hardcore, extreme liberals who now run everything, are: Abortion, global warming, federalism, higher taxes, allowing “sovereign” tyrants to run roughshod over God’s children unfortunate enough to live under them…gun-grabbing even in the aftermath of the Heller decision…the list goes on and on. They are consistent in championing order over life. Why can’t the rest of us be consistent in opposing them?
Morgan’s Second Rule of Government: Consensus thrives in logic but develops toward nonsense. Government has a role in deriving its policies from consensus, as long as the consensus is rational; when consensus becomes silly, government must remain logical.
It’s not that I see the global warming movement as being synonymous with Hitler’s Final Solution — but they ARE driven by the same energies. Raw, passionate populism. Mob rule. “Everybody knowing” things that aren’t really true. Now, look at what global warming is: A tax on progress, designed to deliberately stop things from happening, not to collect revenue. It declares “human activity” illegal. By human activity, they mean life, but they won’t talk about it that way. It would become immediately unpopular if talked about that way. It’s too accurate.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Morgan, federalism doesn’t mean a bigger federal government, which I think is what you were getting at. Federalism is precisely the opposite – states’ rights and more personal freedom. Maybe you’re harkening back to the Federalists who were writing the Constitution wanted a stronger central government, as opposed to the anti-Federalists who didn’t.
From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry:
fed·er·al·ism:
1 aoften capitalized : the distribution of power in an organization (as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units — compare centralism b: support or advocacy of this principle
Are you reading The Federalist? It’s a thrice-weekly e-zine delivered to your mailbox, and includes scholarly, well-researched articles from a conservative standpoint. Sign up for free at http://www.federalist.com. Check it out.
- cylarz | 03/08/2009 @ 23:23Yeah, I was going to say something to that effect myself, cylarz. In Morgan’s defense, it depends on what part of the world you’re in what “federalism” means. Here in America, it means what the defninition you gave says.
Totalitarianism is probably a better word, but people misunderstand what that means as well. It doesn’t necessarily mean dictatorship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism
- philmon | 03/09/2009 @ 11:42Oh, and thanks for the federalist link. I subscribed.
- philmon | 03/09/2009 @ 11:42Yes, I understand. I was referring to federalism as an issue, just as gun rights is an issue even though liberals are not in favor of gun rights, they’re just concerned about the issue…as in, making the rights go away. Were you able to somehow revive Thomas Jefferson, invite him over to dinner along with a band of the democrats who claim him as the founder of their party — better than even odds there would be a fight. Furniture would be broken before it was over. And the fight would be over federalism.
However, I see reading that sentence this is the only item in my list that is read that way, which is more than a little confusing. Should have picked my words better.
Now if you want to expand my knowledge base, here’s something I’m really missing: How come it iz, that the classic definition of Federalist, as in Chief Justice Marshall, President John Adams, and all the gang, refers to people who are, in fact, opposed to federalism?
- mkfreeberg | 03/09/2009 @ 11:48Linked you here, contrasting your ideas with one of Jerry Pournelle’s and the Sage.
- smitty1e | 03/09/2009 @ 22:54Government has only a few legitimate functions
1. To provide a uniform system of weights and measures. This is not just inches or meters but a sound monetary policy because money is a measure of time and value. These weights and measures must be enforced
2. To protect the weak from the strong but also to protect the few from the many. It is just as wrong for a government to steal from the rich as it is for a government to allow the rich to steal from the poor
3. To provide system of justice that is equitable (Notice I did not say fair or even logical) and administered without fear or favor.
4. To defend the population from external threats.
5. Because these activities require funding to perform taxation is a legitimate activity of government. But, the purpose of taxation is to support the activities of government not to redistribute wealth
- Fai Mao | 03/10/2009 @ 23:45