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...
Not sure where Lauer’s sense of priorities is here, or where anyone else’s is either, I can only speak for myself.
But if I had my way, I’d see to it we were all freakin’ drowning in all kinds of “outrageous statements” if it meant more kids were raised by fathers and mothers. Lauer may spend as much time and energy as he wishes to spend keeping us clean of such things, but where I came from, if you’ve got free speech you’re going to hear some stuff that goes “over the line” from time to time. And if you value free speech in any genuine way you aren’t going to very much care about that.
Also, if you’re so sure your way is right, you’ll let the other person finish a sentence now and then. Especially when you’re supposed to be giving an interview. That’s the way things work on my planet.
Hat tip to Rick for the clip.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
> you’ll let the other person finish a sentence now and then
- Morenuancedthanyou | 01/08/2009 @ 14:15From your mouth to Bill O’Reilly’s ear.
That’s different.
And it isn’t just my opinion.
- mkfreeberg | 01/08/2009 @ 14:47Frankly, that’s what I don’t like about Bill and most of those TV “interview” shows. I will hand it to Bill that you’ll hear him listen sometimes and say “you have a point there.”
Bill’s a great guy, I’m sure. I’m just saying if you’re gonna interview someone, let them get a few sentences of their answers out before you cut them off. Let them complete a coherent argument.
That’s why I don’t watch those shows. Or the Today show, or any of what passes for Journalism today.
- philmon | 01/08/2009 @ 16:20I don’t like Coulter, she’s too damned strident for my tastes and downright insulting most of the time. But she has a right, as you’ve noted, to say any-damned-thing she pleases. I also have a right to ignore her and I’ll exercise that right consistently and thoroughly.
As for Lauer? Just as much an asshat as Coulter, if not more so. YMMV. 😉
- Buck | 01/08/2009 @ 16:27I find Coulter’s arguing style soothing, actually.
No really. Hear me out.
Sarcastic? Sure. But the sarcasm is deployed for a practical purpose. This is what Limbaugh calls “illustrating absurdity by being absurd,” and it’s honest, because there is nothing reprehensible or ludicrous about it, that is not equally reprehensible and ludicrous about its target.
Coulter doesn’t even make value judgments about what she’s parodying. She leaves that up to the audience. Yeah it’s obvious what she wants them to conclude, but she doesn’t lead them there. In short — it’s impossible to pronouce her behavior out-of-bounds and pronounce Rev. Wright’s behavior in-bounds…and darned difficult to do that while pronouncing Obama’s behavior in-bounds. That’s the point.
People like Lauer neatly sidestep this, at least in the presence of an audience of enfeebled minds, by finding things “beyond the pale” (I think he used that specific phrase). Okay first, as I just noted, you can’t find Coulter’s words beyond the pale without finding Wright’s words beyond the pale. Secondly, by indulging in this “Appeal To Yuckiness” fallacy he’s leaving his argument unstated to those who do not agree the words are beyond the pale, or simply possess the forensic aptitude necessary to listen some more and pursue the argument further. He has no argument. His argument is simply “ZOMG! I’m outta the room, you come along with me!”
In short, Coulter’s being yuck-i-fied simply for (at least, this is very often the case) repeating the words of others. I think that speaks volumes. It just goes to show with the right steak sauce people can be fooled into wolfing down all kinds of rotten rancid meat. Yes, that’s an apt analogy for what’s happening here, I think. She’s washing off the sauce, feeding folks the same crap they’ve been chowing down by the pound already, they’re going “ew, gross!” and blaming her for it. Well…memo to Lauer and O’Reilly…if I need some help figuring out what’s so yucky and terrible that I shouldn’t be listening to it any further, I’ll ask for it, meantime I’ll make up my own mind thankyewverymuch.
- mkfreeberg | 01/08/2009 @ 16:48I like Coulter for the most part precisely for the reasons you’ve just stated. She’s out there drawing attention to the absurdity of the progressive narrative, and few people are doing it as effectively as she is. I wish she’d come off a little more polished in these “interviews” — because they’re out to MAKE her look like a kook and she ends up accomodating them to some extent.
Her problem is is that it takes more than a half sentence soundbite to explain to someone who has never even thought about something from the angle she’s coming at it from — what she’s actually getting at. It’s like trying to explain things to a small child, and there’s no getting around that. It doesn’t lend itself well in the “shout-over-each-other” soundbite opinion segments of so-called “news” shows. Her mistake is coming off as annoyed. She’s plenty witty to pull it off smoothly without the annoyed tone.
She was on O’Rilley’s radio show the other day, which I only hear when I’m in my car because the main difference between O’Rilley and Lauer is that I happen to at least agree with O’Rilley on a lot of things. Anyway, she pointed out that Dennis Miller doesn’t get beaten up for making comments in the same vein she does and that might be because he’s known as a professional comedian and she’s not. So the Left takes her literally, where they acknowledge that Miller is kidding. At least O’Reilly acknowledged that she may have a point there. But he interrupted the hell out of her, too.
She brings up stuff that the Left is simply shocked, SHOCKED — that anyone would bring up — something so offensive as the idea that people who subscribe to a particular religion might actually believe that their religion is correct and others less so in some way or another. In the Progressive New World Order, the “Right” position to take is that your religion is no more “right” than anyone else’s. And they see no irony there. Anyway, that’s why they hate her.
As for Miller. I like Miller. A lot. I’m a DMZ member. I would say to Coulter (as O’Rielly pointed out), Miller IS a lot more polished about it. But Miller’s Miller and Coulter’s Coulter. She’s smart. She’s funny. And yeah, a bit abrasive. We all have our flaws. But I see what she’s getting at, and most of the time, she’s right.
- philmon | 01/08/2009 @ 17:48Phil sez: But I see what she’s getting at, and most of the time, she’s right.
All too true, that. I’m in philosophical agreement with Coulter 99% of the time. But that doesn’t mean I’m in agreement with her methods, which I find reprehensible. P.J. O’Rourke is as much a proponent of the same causes as Coulter, yet HIS way of expressing the conservative POV is SO much more palatable than Coulter’s. My issue ain’t with the message, it’s with the messenger.
And Morgan: sarcasm doesn’t put me off, “insulting” DOES. Coulter is insulting 99% of the time. I say this as a guy who bought one of her books, once upon a time.
- Buck | 01/08/2009 @ 18:44But not too many people ever hear what P.J. O’Rourke has to say. At least not anybody who doesn’t already agree with him.
- philmon | 01/08/2009 @ 18:51Yeah, I think I’m understanding your complaint perfectly. The challenge I have in relating to it, is: How would PJ O’Rourke deal, exactly, with a motormouth twit like Lauer? I understand a lot of folks are put off to Ms. Coulter’s style who otherwise, with a different delivery & tone involved, would not be. But the same is true of “My Friend” McCain (who I tend to think of as the penultimate Anti-Coulter). His debating style didn’t go over too well did it?
- mkfreeberg | 01/08/2009 @ 18:58Much as I like P.J. O’Rourke, he is a lousy messenger, as philmon has pointed out. And I notice that “Treason”, caustic as it was, got a lot more notice then “McCarthy and his enemies”. The Left seems very good at snubbing the polite. I also notice that Coulter and Limbagh get a lot of grief over their tone, but very little over their facts. Could mean something.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 01/08/2009 @ 19:25Ugh… they are both so condescending and annoying
- Apollodorus | 01/09/2009 @ 20:43