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...
Must-Tards II
Here’s a classic truism of the word “must”: Speaking of it in the general sense, it is a signature of the purest form of evil. There is very little reason to use it, and when you hear someone else using it, you should run like hell.
Think about it: Someone must do something. Well, the person pointing this out either has full and complete ownership over the decision, or he doesn’t. If he does, there is no reason to run around using the word “must”; he can simply do what he thinks must be done. If he does not own the decision, then he can state the case why the person who does own the decision, “must” do it the way he wants it done.
But the trouble with that, is, the word “must” does not state a case. The word “must” mandates complete unconditional acceptance on the part of the person who owns the decision, and anyone else who is within earshot. Now you could logically state the case in a number of ways, and then follow it up by saying “and in conclusion, you must do it my way.” Even then, the person using the word “must” is presuming to speak for all others concerned, in deciding what the desired outcome is. And who is that person, to try and do that? You say “you must take a right at this road to get to Grandma’s house” and you know, since I’m driving, maybe we’re not going to Grandma’s. Maybe we’ll see her after I get something to drink because I’m thirsty. Maybe I’m mad at Grandma and we’re not going there. If you feel so strongly about seeing Grandma, how come you’re not driving?
So when you hear the word “must,” or “cannot,” head for the hills.
That’s not an absolute rule, of course. It’s perfectly reasonable to say “You must slow way down and take a sharp left, or else we’ll end up in the ditch.” As the driver of the car, I have an interest in not ending up in the ditch. So the litmus test is, when you tell me I must do something, is it clear what happens if I don’t do it? And who the hell are you ordering me around, anyway? Even if you have the authority to tell me what to do, it’s polite to stick your neck out and make a statement as to why you want this thing done, what happens if it’s not. To just sit back and dictate like that, “green paint here red paint there” paint-by-numbers style, is just freakin’ insulting.
Most of the time, the word “must” is used used in a hollow way, in a dictatorial, “just do it the way I want or I’ll cry like a red-headed little bitch” way. Especially outside of the United States. Europeans, I notice, lately have been complete Must-Tards. I’m not sure when that started, but Europeans have diarrhea of the mouth with the word “must.” Unions, too. The United Nations, especially. And the European Union. And over on this side of the pond, left-wing zealots are particularly keen on that word “must.”
Kim Gandy has discovered the word “must,” and you can bet your bottom dollar she is up to no damn good. The President of the National Organization of Women, who somehow thinks her organization has not thoroughly worn out its welcome, popped the cap on her crustiest yellow bottle and let that sucker fly with a windy commentary about the nomination of John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Nomination of John Roberts as Chief Justice is an Outrage to Women
Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy
September 5, 2005The National Organization for Women has been outspoken in our opposition to the nomination of an anti-women’s rights, anti-civil rights judge, John G. Roberts, to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Now that Roberts’ attitudes toward women have been revealed, it is an outrage and an insult to the women of this country that George W. Bush has nominated such a jurist to be Chief Justice of the United States.
First, there cannot be a “stealth nominee” for Chief Justice. Bush must release every document from Roberts’ tenure as Principal Deputy Solicitor General under the first President Bush, and any remaining writings from his time as an advisor to the Reagan administration. How dare Bush nominate this candidate for the top position on the Supreme Court when his administration has deliberately concealed hundreds of thousands of pages of his writings, during a time that he was one of the top lawyers representing the people of the United States? If the Bush administration refuses to release these papers, we must ask ourselves what they are hiding. And the Senate must ask the same question.
The Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate must find its collective spine and not roll over for Bush’s favored candidate. They must refuse to move forward until all requested documents are released, and they must ask even tougher questions of Roberts because of the critical nature of the Chief Justice appointment.
Second, NOW is even more concerned that John Roberts, as Chief Justice, will have a greater opportunity to move the Court and our country backward. The Chief Justice plays a key role in leading the Court, including deciding who writes certain opinions, making numerous appointments within the judicial system, and presiding, alone, over presidential impeachment hearings. If Roberts is confirmed as Chief Justice, Bush will have established right-wing leadership of the Court for another 30 years-a lifetime legacy of the Bush presidency that women and girls will have a lifetime to regret.
Third, I am taken aback (but not surprised) by Bush’s cynicism and lack of compassion in nominating Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s successor even as his body is being prepared to lie in repose at the Court. Bush’s lack of sensitivity has been on prominent display this past month as he avoided Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan and was stubbornly slow responding to the humanitarian crisis in New Orleans and Mississippi. With the South still in turmoil from Hurricane Katrina, Bush is pressuring the Senate to rush through this very important process and confirm John Roberts to a lifetime as Chief Justice while the country is looking the other way.
Finally, Bush now has a second opportunity to honor Sandra Day O’Connor’s legacy by naming a moderate woman to replace her as associate justice. He can get it right this time, and if Bush needs any help finding a woman who will uphold women’s rights, NOW will be happy to help.
Now just go through this line-by-line and count out the word “must.” It’s absolutely incredible. This woman clearly has no interest, none whatsoever, in respecting any role on the part of others to help decide things against her particular desires, certainly no intention of sharing power in a democratic fashion within a constitutional republic. She just plain wants things her way, period.
Look at that word “must” just leap off the pages. Here, I put something together to help out with this.
I don’t understand why people think this gets them any traction. We’re designed to get fatigued, first of all, by one-syllable words, especially when those words are repeated over and over again. And the word “must”? That’s what your Mom tells you when she’s pissed off at you. Maybe Kim Gandy wants to inspire a feeling of guilt and obligation, by acting like everybody’s Mom on one of those days, like when Mom caught Dad giving the babysitter too big of a tip. That doesn’t seem like a smart tactic to use multiple times within a couple paragraphs, does it? Your Mom in a foul mood? You must pick up your clothes and then you must clean your room and then you must do the dishes like I told you to do this morning three times! Who the hell wants to listen to this? And why does Kim Gandy think anybody does?
It’s particularly offensive here, because by now most people understand the Supreme Court could overturn Roe v. Wade tomorrow and abortion would still be legal. So no, Kim ol’ gal, women and girls will not have a “lifetime to regret” this unless Roberts does something as Chief Justice that is completely outside the realm of what you’re talking about.
And anyway, anybody who’s paying attention to what is going on with our courts, knows what this is really all about is clarity. While the Rehnquist-Thomas-Scalia triumvirate was kept down to just three votes, confusion reigned. You could go into the Supreme Court with a law that says “Morgan’s guilty, he owes fifty bucks” — it could say it THAT WAY, in black and white — and the outcome would be anybody’s guess, with judicial activism & all. If the outcome is anybody’s guess, you’ve got to hire really good lawyers, and so do I. So lawyers make “Dictators of Society” type money, instead of simply “do stuff without screwing it up” type money made by schoolteachers, doctors, maybe some airplane pilots. Well, three guesses which way Kim Gandy wants it to work. Guess who she’s in bed with.
No, this doesn’t have much at all to do with women and girls. This has to do with payback.
And that is ANOTHER reason it pays to be suspicious around Must-Tards like Kim Gandy. You want someone to do something, you should at least provide a statement as to why. That way, if you’re lying, it’s easier to nail your ass to the wall. Anybody who wants to avoid that, I don’t trust.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.