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...
Hans von Spakovsky, writing in the National Review Online.
Given the apparent political motivations behind so many of the recent decisions at the Department of Justice (DOJ) — from the dismissal of the voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party to the re-investigation of CIA interrogators after DOJ prosecutors had already reviewed the matter and decided there was no reason for further criminal prosecution — the latest news about the dropping of the investigation against New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, Obama’s former nominee to be commerce secretary, raises a lot of questions. The Associated Press report cites a DOJ source saying that the investigation of pay-to-play allegations involving one of the governor’s largest political donors “was killed in Washington” by top DOJ officials.
For anyone familiar with internal Justice Department procedures, this is particularly suspicious. The DOJ has a manual called “Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses” (I helped edit the latest edition when I was at Justice) that sets out the rules and procedures for U.S. attorneys when they are investigating these types of public-corruption cases. It is the U.S. attorney in New Mexico who would normally make the final call on a local public-corruption case, not “top Justice Department officials” in Washington. The DOJ manual sets out the consultation rules for U.S. attorneys, who are required to “consult” with the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division in Washington. But only consultation is required; the Public Integrity Section does not make the final decision on whether an investigation should go forward. (Attorney General Eric Holder should not have forgotten this, since Public Integrity was the first place he worked at Justice.) So if the AP is correct in reporting that “top” officials in Washington killed the investigation, then political appointees within the department did not follow normal DOJ procedures.
There is a crude sort of Pascal’s Wager inspiring this ageless double-standard. Conservatives and liberals may be telling us the truth, they may be lying to us, or they may be getting duped, passing along bad information they’ve been duped to believe when they shouldn’t, as they get duped with us. I think, in spite of the rhetoric, most people are open to all six of these possibilities.
When conservatives and liberals tell us the truth and we choose to believe it, we’re relying on our rational thinking, so are they, and everything is humming along as it should.
But when conservatives lie to us about something, or choose to get duped by something and pass on their weakness to us by telling us untrue things and inviting us to get duped along with them, they manipulate us in this way because of our darker human instincts. Something about “fear.” Suspicion, mistrust, jealousy, bigotry, paranoia.
When liberals lie to us about something and we choose to believe it, or when the liberals get duped by something and pass along their failings by inviting us to be similarly duped…at least our intentions are noble. We can at least look ourselves in the mirror and tell ourselves that.
Now, the conservative mindset doesn’t put a lot of stock in that. To a true conservative, if you make the wrong decision, it really doesn’t matter a tinker’s damn why you made it. You got snookered, or you chose not to believe someone who was telling you the truth because you hated them, or you rolled dice. Who really cares? The outcome is the same: You made the wrong decision, and the consequences are going to have to be somehow sustained. They are not made kinder or gentler because of your good intentions.
This is why liberalism enjoys a mutual hospitality with those who make decisions in service of a social exercise, rather than an intellectual one. To a liberal, the final word is always about how good of a person you are made to appear.
And so, to hard-left socialist governments across the world and throughout modern human history, double-standards like this are natural, and they’re tolerated. They are but a means to an end. And it’s viewed that way both by the leftism-inclined ordinary folks, as well as by the leftism-inclined elected and appointed power-brokers, king-makers and puppet-masters.
That’s why there’s no outrage. Leftist politics and politicos get a pass.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[…] Questions For Nancy Phil’s Thing-I-Know #29 To Boldly Wear What No Dog Wants to Wear Where’s the Outrage Carly and Daniella Rematch “Strange Hypocrisy” Ezra Klein’s Confusion Over […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 08/29/2009 @ 09:13