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...
The pundits think it was just wonderful, which just goes to show why I don’t listen to pundits.
Charles Krauthammer was not so impressed. Everybody was watching the same speech, so it is clear there are different criteria being applied.
Might I suggest — we inspect those criteria. We have “engaging,” we have length (48 minutes I’m told), “detailed rebuttals,” we have predictions of what is ultimately going to happen when Paul Ryan debates Joe Biden, and how much the whole thing is going to have an impact on the elections in two months. Things that were mentioned and things that were not.
I think there’s something not being acknowledged about this. I’ll not criticize the length, directly, for I am a garrulous blogger and I would have little ground upon which to stand. And I’m not terribly sensitive to this part of it. What interests me is why. Why does the speech go on and on and on…the answer is, of course, that Clinton loves giving speeches. He is a very charismatic and exciting speaker, because giving the speech is something he likes to do and it shows.
Now, to the thing everybody knows but few are willing to admit: We can safely exclude, as a possibility, any idea that such speakers have worthwhile things to say. We see this in President Obama Himself. Speakers who love giving speeches, have a tendency to fail to come to the point. Why would they?
Can we even view Bill Clinton’s remarks in that kind of a lighting, from that sort of a perspective. You know, I don’t think we can. His “point” was that we should vote for Barack Obama, which he stated several times…and he based this on what? “[I]f you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibility, a we’re-all-in-this-together society…” It doesn’t make sense because it isn’t what we’ve been seeing for the last three and a half years.
But also, if that is the point, then there’s no reason for the speech to take 48 minutes. Again, I do not criticize the length, I question the why. Just as I don’t question the length of the Lord of the Rings movies, I question the why. The ratio is off. Not that much story to be told.
And the answer is: To Bill Clinton, a speech is not a chore. It’s like a foot rub, or a massage, or a — oh, I’ll just let that go. He doesn’t want it to end. No, I’m not buying Krauthammer’s idea that it was some kind of revenge against President Obama. Or at least, I just don’t care about that. Obama is not the injured party here, it’s the audience that is injured, and the country.
I’ve had much to say to criticize our modern culture. One of the things I don’t believe I’ve mentioned is, we aren’t bored by the right things. We select badly when we figure out what bores us. It’s not particularly easy, or difficult, to get us bored, we’re just bored by the wrong things. A more mature society would find Bill Clinton the most boring speaker ever, because such a society would be listening to his speeches with the questions in mind that everyone understands are the right questions: What is the point he’s trying to make, and does he manage to provide quality support for it? And it would come away with, well, we-don’t-know and not-really, plus it took us the better part of an hour to take it all in and we’re kinda pissed about that.
But things the way they are, Clinton is graded on how much fun it is to listen to him, when you happen to agree with what he wanted to persuade you to do. How does it feel to listen to the former President give the speech. There it is again: feel, feel, feel, nothing else matters.
A speaker just wasting time, searching for a high, chasing the dragon, droning on to an audience that is doing the same.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.