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...
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.
Quite sickening.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m not sure I agree with you on this one, Morgan.
I suppose a caveat is in order: I didn’t watch minute one of either convention. But that’s because I’m a high-info voter — I’ve been paying attention these last four years, and there’s pretty much nothing either party could do at this point to persuade me to change my stance.
For those low-info voters, though… well, I think “low-info” is a big misnomer. It should be “no-info” or, probably, “anti-info.” These aren’t the folks who watch conventions for the details*; they’re trying to be persuaded which team is cooler, which clique is the in-crowd. For those folks, trotting Bill Clinton out might be the big sell. Bill Clinton is “cool.” He wears boxers and plays the saxophone and was somehow involved with that internet thing that all the kids are into these days. Most importantly, Bill Clinton loves being a Democrat. Smug self-congratulation oozes from his every pore. There’s gotta be something that gets a guy like that so jazzed…. right?
Outside of a few college kids trying on an identity, by contrast, I have never seen a single individual truly pumped up about being a Republican. I consider myself a Republican voter, but that’s only because a) they piss me off slightly less than the Dems, and b) they seem to have at least one or two people in leadership positions who could pass Econ, Math, and History 101. The success of the Republican Party, let alone individual Republicans, means zero to me; I’d vote for a viable libertarian candidate in a second.
——
*Case in point: I saw a stat the other day on a poll of “undecided” voters. These clowns said they wanted more “details” from Romney at a close to 75% clip…. but fewer than 1 in 3 of them actually watched the convention.
- Severian | 09/06/2012 @ 09:02Hey Morgan…any chance you could “friend” me on FB so I can comment on your posts? I subscribed to you so I can see everything you post, but I can’t seem to comment….
- cylarz | 09/06/2012 @ 11:21This one is simple. It’s nostalgia, for the good old days when folks had jobs and Clinton got things done (because he had sense enough to move to center when the Dems lost the midterm elections.) Clinton is an old school political animal, one that is capable of compromise when needed. That’s why he had some success. Obama isn’t capable of doing the political things needed to truly move the country forward. As he says, if re-elected, the Republicans will just have to do what he wants. As usual, he can just ignore the fact that there are Americans that want things done differently.
- teripittman | 09/06/2012 @ 11:35…and was somehow involved with that internet thing that all the kids are into these days.
No no silly, that was Gore, remember?
- cylarz | 09/06/2012 @ 11:37Outside of a few college kids trying on an identity, by contrast, I have never seen a single individual truly pumped up about being a Republican. I consider myself a Republican voter, but that’s only because a) they piss me off slightly less than the Dems…
That’s because the GOP doesn’t brand itself as much based on what it wants to do FOR you. It brands itself – at least the more conservative candidates do – based on what it will get government to stop doing TO you. That’s not “cool” or “chic” or anything, but it’s important. The Republicans don’t hold townhall meetings packed with people telling sob stories about sick parents and lost jobs, and wanting to know what the candidate will “do for them.”
I threw up in my mouth a little watching this spectacle with Obama in 2008 and Kerry in 2004. Naturally each time, the candidate had a new federal program in mind or an expansion of an existing one. What wouldn’t have given to hear the candidate say, “I’m going to get the government’s boot off your neck so you can solve that problem yourself. Look to your family and community for answers if you need more help.”
and b) they seem to have at least one or two people in leadership positions who could pass Econ, Math, and History 101. The success of the Republican Party, let alone individual Republicans, means zero to me; I’d vote for a viable libertarian candidate in a second.
Sev, I love your posts, but I think you know as well as I do that the US is built on a two party system. Always has been, always will be. If it’s not one, it’s the other.
The libertarian platform is unpalatable to me because it has, what I think are some unrealistic assumptions about foreign policy as well as far too much of the “if it doesn’t affect you, it’s not your business” mentality as far as domestic policy. Ann Coulter once pointed out that the capital-L Libertarians should be marching with us, as we should be united on our common goal of getting government pared down to size, and save the petty squabbles about cannabis and whatnot for another day, after the Left has been defeated.
- cylarz | 09/06/2012 @ 11:44First question, Morgan: did you watch the speech? I did, all 48+ minutes of it, and some of the commentary from Fox News afterwards. I agree more with Britt Hume than Krauthammer: Clinton gave an effective speech, defending Obama and his administration better than ANYONE has to done to date. It was a reasonably scary performance from a conservative perspective, mainly because Clinton is so very GOOD at what he does. The people in the convention hall had every reason to get fired up about Clinton’s speech… it was among the best I’ve seen at either convention.
Granted, Big Dog might have played fast and loose with the facts… and I strongly suspect he did on at least three occasions, but he was MOST persuasive and rousing. I thought he was great.
One more thing: Democrat wimmen are UG-LEEE. As the cameras panned the audience for reaction they ALWAYS seemed to pick out the dumpiest, fattest, butt-ugliest wimmen they could find. You’d think that in a convention center that holds at least 25,000 souls there would be three or four hotties. There probably were, but none that I could see.
- bpenni | 09/06/2012 @ 13:01Agree on the frumpies versus hotties.
As far as the content of Sir William of Pedophilus’ wonderful fantastic speech: The magical lilt to the voice, generation-of-excitement, “Omigaw there’s just something about him!!” doesn’t do a lot for me. I’m skimming through for the what’s-known, what-to-make-of-it, what-to-do-about-it…and when Bubba got to the part about the “arithmetic not adding up” or however he put it, it was based on this misguided notion that a tax cut costs money. At that point, I tune out because if their very first premise out of the gate is all cocked up, the rest of it isn’t going to be any more sensible…
Frankly, I tire quickly of the code words. Clinton gave a “good speech” in the sense that he left a very solid impression of, when the party talks about “all in this together,” they’re talking about equal opportunity for all as opposed to the confiscation/redistribution of assets. But we know from Obama’s presidency as well as Bubba’s, and Carter’s, that equality of opportunity isn’t even on the agenda. They just want to confiscate and redistribute. Their “great” speechmakers seem to have it in common that they’ve just discovered fresh creative new ways to pull off the bait-and-switch.
Like I said, it’s just more feel-feel-feel. That doesn’t make a speech great.
- mkfreeberg | 09/06/2012 @ 13:14Clinton’s speech was the best one yet given in this election cycle in favor of the Democrats. There are two problems I see with that, however:
1. It wasn’t such a high bar to clear. Just about everything else so far has ranged from “not openly terrible” to “quote source for GOP campaign ads”. It’s like watching your baseball team upgrade from a bunch of never-weres to one bona-fide fading veteran star… you remember when the star was a great ballplayer, are grateful that the shell of himself is an improvement over the pathetic group now heading back to the bench or the minors – but in the grand scheme of things, the other team still has guys who are good NOW, much better than the fading star is, and who will be good for years after the fading star has retired. Sure, in his prime he was probably better than the other teams’ guys, but it’s not twenty years ago, it’s today. In other words, if I was still a Democrat, a bit of me would be saying, “Thank goodness Bill’s still got it” and a larger part would be saying, “If that’s as good as it gets we are royally humped on Nov. 6.”
2. It would have been far more effective if it was half the length. As he went on (and on and on on on on), it became plain that Bill Clinton is insufferably in love with his own self, and his own speechifying. Since he’s justifiably a good speaker – certainly much better than President Smails – that led to him keep going just to prove he could, and that the man he was nominating could not. It got to the point where the only people left watching were the ones who didn’t need the persuading, or those who were paid to sit through it, or those who watched the way people watch a fire to see when, finally, the roof will cave in. All the other people who were presumably the target audience, the voters to be pulled back into the fold, likely tuned out or turned off. To use Morgan’s criterion – the speech was meant to be felt, not thought about. Well, how did anyone feel having to slog through all 48 minutes? They could have watched an entire ST:TNG episode and gotten the same leftie warm fuzzies, only with explosions and BBC stage accents, and still been four minutes to the good. It was like being served four courses of fine food, and getting thoroughly sick of it because there were nine more courses to go.
To that end, I’m not seeing pull quotes from the thing right now, the way I saw with several of the GOP speeches, or even like I saw from Michelle Obama’s speech.
- nightfly | 09/06/2012 @ 13:40(para) “No one, not Obama, not me, could have totally fixed the mess (he inherited)”
Would it be too much “compromise” to attempt at least, say… HALF way out, instead of striving EXTRA hard for history’s
“Mos’ expensive political “team”… evah…EVEH”?
Question. Which State could Mr. Clinton legally represent against any offences against “access”, as described by recent a college grad (that very day, that very lecturn) in The Emporor’s New War on Women?
- CaptDMO | 09/06/2012 @ 14:41OK, ok, trick question.
Oops…undergrad.
(apparently under quite a few, at the claimed rate of HOW MUCH, per annum?) How come Pell/Rhodes don’t cover that…yet?
Oh, wait. NOW the extention, to the age of 26, for “children”, for the purpose of “insurance” of “health” care “access”, is clearer.
Too many disingenuous/amorphous words? Too long for appropriat rebuttal?
- CaptDMO | 09/06/2012 @ 14:58THAT was Mr. Clintons interpretive history lecture.
THAT is why Dems are unexpectedly eschewing actual “history” in school,
(well…maybe art history) for that icky, Title IX controlled- Math, Science, Chemistry, Engineering stuff that NOW seems practical for “positioning” for uh…jobs…and economy…and trade…and actual tax payers…and stuff.
I guess I’d say, then, that Clinton gave an effective speech.
Which was all he’s paid to do. He fired up the base and the media (BIRM, of course) with that special nostalgic glow that is really all the Dems have this time around. Even The Onion is busting on them now, fer chrissakes — the only chance they have, barring a catastrophic GOP meltdown, is to appeal to the memory of when liberalism was cool. They’re not going to swallow that straight from the horse’s mouth, but Clinton is (perceived as) sufficiently above the fray to pull it off. And yes, it was all feel, feel, feel…. but that’s all liberalism has ever been about. Do you really think that the same people who believe Obamacare will lower the cost of healthcare are amenable to reason?
This, too, is why I disagree with the idea that Clinton’s speech was too long. I’m open to persuasion on this — again, I didn’t watch it — but the kind of people the DNC desperately needs to buck up are the types of folks who will happily attend teach-ins, sit through excruciating “performance art,” watch 3+ hour propaganda films about the plight of the Palestinians, and who believe that camping out in the middle of a park for weeks on end is somehow sticking it to The Man. They’re virtue junkies; they fix on this stuff. It’s all about feel, feel, feel, and they want to make the feelings last as long as possible.
One of the more effective things the GOP could do, in my opinion, is simply to point this out. Play clips from Nirvana concerts and Reality Bites and then flash-forward to those same butt-ugly, flannel-slathered, multi-pierced stoners wandering around Charlotte venerating Bill Clinton. Hey, America: remember dial-up modems, “alternative” music, funny Simpsons episodes and Wynona Ryder? The Democrats still think we’re living there! If Clint Eastwood was some senile old fool in Tampa, then what do you call an entire convention that still thinks the Counting Crows are the future of pop music?
- Severian | 09/06/2012 @ 16:52This, too, is why I disagree with the idea that Clinton’s speech was too long. I’m open to persuasion on this — again, I didn’t watch it — but the kind of people the DNC desperately needs…
It wasn’t too long. Hell, I watched the whole damned thing and I’m about as liable to vote for The One as Paul Ryan might be. You’re right about Clinton’s effectiveness; even the pundits at Fox rated the speech very highly, except for Mr. Krauthammer. That sez a lot.
- bpenni | 09/07/2012 @ 13:31It’s like King Kong (187 min, 201 extended ed.) There are many other contributions that are a whole lot longer. As I said, the issue is why. Was there a purpose for each minute of the speech? For each five minutes? For each fifteen? No, no and no.
After twenty years, I’m quite fatigued with this. It isn’t even Clinton’s brand anymore. Some jackass gets a crowd of people all jazzed up babbling away with a bunch of marxist nonsense, and he has to be like a power player or something…treated like he’s won elections when he hasn’t yet, and may never. I guess it’s the software geek in me. The whole “perception is reality” thing. If for some reason we LIKE having that happen, well wait long enough, it’ll happen…why bring it on? Why jump on the opportunity? There’s some shortage of this? I really don’t get it.
- mkfreeberg | 09/07/2012 @ 14:09I honestly don’t get it either, but liberals love it. As I said, these are the people who think “Occupy Wall Street” was a real thing, with real messages and goals. Those of us who use Earth-logic simply can’t process this — why not say that camping out in a park will save endangerd Martian wetlands and restore balance to The Force while it’s bringing down postindustrial capitalism? All are equally likely to succeed, amirite?
It’s a peculiar personality configuration, nothing more. The Puritans had it — they apparently liked nothing more than to be harangued every Sunday for hours, even though each and every sermon could be summarized in one sentence: “You all suck and you’re all going to hell.” So, too, with Bollywood film audiences, readers of David Foster Wallace / Neal Stephenson novels, baseball fans, and dozens of others. The only difference between Puritans / Liberals and the other groups on that list is that the former somehow find that numb, leather-assed feeling morally uplifting, while the latter just want to watch a show.
Collectively, the Clinton speech was a snore to all but diehard virtue-junkie leftists. But from what I’ve read, he went through all the stations of the liberal cross. If you’re one of those otherwise-rational people who is amenable to some part or other of the agenda (Fluke and her ilk come to mind), the speech contains a soundbite for you. It’s the speech that launched a thousand campaign ads.
So I think, anyway.
- Severian | 09/07/2012 @ 15:03