Posted on 03/11/2023 8:22:42 AM PST by CFW
Testifying with Michael Shellenberger before a House Subcommittee was one of the more surreal experiences of my life. I expected serious attacks and spent a nervous night before preparing for them. Then the hearing began, and an episode of Black Adder: Congress broke out. The attacks happened, but it was more farcical horror and a parade of self-owns that made me more sad than upset.
The Democrats made it clear they were not interested in talking about free speech except as it pertains to Chrissy Teigen, seemed to suggest a journalist should not make a living, and finally made the incredible claim that Michael and I represented a “direct threat to people who oppose them.” Of all that transpired yesterday, this was the most ominous development — perhaps not for me but for reporters generally, given our government’s recent history of dealing with people deemed “threats.”
(Excerpt) Read more at racket.news ...
For those who missed Matt’s reference to “Black Added: Congress”, I asked ChatGPT.
Based on the context of the statement, it appears that Matt Taibbi is saying that his experience testifying before a House Subcommittee was surreal and unexpected. He anticipated serious attacks and was nervous about them, but instead, what he encountered was something unexpected - an episode of “Black Adder: Congress.”
“Black Adder” is a British sitcom that satirizes historical events and figures, and it’s known for its humor and absurdity. So, when Taibbi says “Black Adder: Congress,” he is likely describing the surreal and absurd nature of the hearing, which he may have found amusing or bizarre.
In essence, Taibbi is saying that the hearing didn’t turn out as he expected, and it was more comical and surreal than he could have imagined, like an episode of the satirical comedy show “Black Adder.”
I listened to part of his testimony, and may listen to some more. But his delivery was IRRITATING, IRRITATING. He spoke WAY too fast. Not as bad as Ben Shapiro, but IRRITATING.
Why doesn’t someone take these two (and there may be others) aside and teach them how to speak? It would not be difficult. There’s nothing wrong with what they’re saying, it’s all in the delivery.
I once heard a tape of Ben Shapiro where they had artificially slowed it down and lowered his pitch. He sounded good. As it is, I CANNOT listen to him.
Unfortunate one has to register in order to read the article.
Enjoy Shellenberger when I see him in Fox prime time exposing the left’s climate alarmism. Still, disturbing that he voted for Biden. Tells me he’s got a somewhat screwy thought process outside of environmental extremism.
Ooops.
Here is an excerpt:
*****
A longtime editor once cracked that the Democrats have been stuck since the mid-sixties trying to run Kennedy clones in elections, cranking out one toothy, tallish facsimile after another, from Gary Hart to John Kerry to Beto O’Rourke. Goldman is one of the latest, a literal handsome Dan who’s an heir to the Levi Strauss fortune, worth over $250 million, and who opposed Medicare for All and the Green New Deal while marketing himself as “tough on crime.” All of these qualities make him the kind of quintessential born-on-third-base triangulator the party loves.
* * * * * * * *
This made the end of Goldman’s foray in this direction all the more confusing:
GOLDMAN: Because you said earlier, I believe that you did not see Russia— you could not confirm that Russia interfered in our election in 2016, that you don’t believe that. Is that your testimony here today? You don’t believe that they did?
TAIBBI: I think it’s possible that they may have on a small scale, but certainly not to what’s been reported.
GOLDMAN: What’s been reported or what’s been included in the indictments?
TAIBBI: Well, again, indictments are allegations. They’re not proof.
GOLDMAN: I understand. It’s pretty detailed allegations…
TAIBBI: And the Mueller indictment, by the way —
GOLDMAN: You should go back and read the indictments, and tell us if you think there’s no proof of it.
Here I was going to point out that the second of the cases Goldman cited had been dropped by prosecutors because Concord showed up in court, but Goldman stepped on that quickly:
TAIBBI: Some of those defendants, by the way…
GOLDMAN: Let me move on. Please, let me move on. That’s how this works. You should know this by now.
The irony is that what Goldman was doing, confusing accusations with proof — as Thomas Jefferson said, the phenomenon of people whose “suspicions may be evidence” — was the entire reason for the hearing. Michael and I were trying to describe a system that wants to bypass proof and proceed to punishment, a radical idea that this new breed of Democrat embraces. I think they justify this using the Sam Harris argument, that in pursuit of suppressing Trump, anything is justified. But by removing or disrespecting the rights to which Americans are accustomed, you make opposition movements like Trump’s, you don’t stop them.
Yesterday was memorable for other reasons, but a depressing eye-opener as well, forcing me to see up close the intellectual desert that’s spread all the way to the edges within the party I once supported. There are no more pockets of Wellstones and Kuciniches who were once tolerated and whose job it is to uphold a constitutionalist position within the larger whole. That crucial little pocket of principle is gone, and I don’t think it’s coming back.
Democrats never had the plot, they are a plot. I’d like to keep reading the article but I’m not signing up.
Very good, I hope Matt doesn’t choke trying to swallow his red pill.
“There are no more pockets of Wellstones and Kuciniches who were once tolerated and whose job it is to uphold a constitutionalist position within the larger whole. That crucial little pocket of principle is gone, and I don’t think it’s coming back.”
E-gad, pretty interesting until he dropped that turd.
Yeah—good point about speech patterns.
I listen to a lot of podcasts—and nothing is more frustrating than a speaker that is hard to understand.
In my school days I was on debating teams. Our coaches trained us—speak slowly, speak clearly, speak in short sentences, stick to a coherent narrative—don’t jump around timelines. Pronouns are another “don’t”. Identify people by name—multiple pronouns in a sentence make it very confusing for the listener to figure out who “he” or “they” are.
One other trick—no lengthy introduction, no summary at the end.
Say what you have to say—honor the time of your listener.
The other rule—the more complex the topic the more critical it is to be clear and concise.
It works.
Before I retired I had to discuss highly complex topics with professional audiences.
After I covered a particularly difficult point I would pause and look out at the audience—make sure I still had their attention.
Those tips were critical—because communication is not what you say it is what your audience understands.
Was it really necessary to post an AI-generated explanation of a completely obvious TV reference? Please don’t post that crap.
Lenin: “Telling the truth is a petty-bourgeois prejudice. Deception, on the other hand, is often justified by the goal.” He later added that socialism justifies deception in every case.
I can do that on my phone, at least when I listen to podcasts, or maybe it’s only some podcasts. TBH, I’ve only done it by accident, but now I see that might be helpful at times.
You could check your device(s) and see if any enable you to do that.
I don’t watch a lot of British TV. I had no idea what “Black Adder” referred to. Dan is much better than an Internet search at finding information like this.
Thought I had seen it all until I got my invitation to the Lunatic Ball (My salute to Democrats & their Lunatic Balls). 🤣
I would love to testify before Congress like Matt Taibbi, I may get arrested afterwards but when Debbie Wasserman-Schultz talked about the money I’ve made from the Twitter files I would respond by asking her if she profited from being DNC chairman before she got dumped
Here is Shellenbergers article in today’s NYPost.
https://nypost.com/2023/03/10/censorship-industrial-complex-uses-power-to-threaten-democracy/
“In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned of a growing “military-industrial complex,” with public policy “the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Yet today, American taxpayers are unwittingly financing the growth and power of a censorship-industrial complex run by America’s scientific and technological elite, which endangers our liberties and democracy.”
Read full article at link.
The networks didn’t spend any time reporting on the Twitter files or the hearings, but spent 44 minutes on previewing the Oscars. Does anyone actually watch that show where the entitled Hollywood climate-cultists and TDS-addled leftists tell everyone how special they are?
Half of all the people in power have no interest in the truth anymore. Probably more than half. Most of them are ideologues. You can see it in their eyes, you can hear it in the tone of their voices... What is especially scary to me is knowing that these people are training more and more new ideologues to fill up the bureaucracies, the legislatures, and most worringly, the courts.
Our side is notoriously averse to public service. It’s in our nature to want to live our own lives, to live free and independent from government intrusion. But these people are threatening all that. We need to do all we can to start encouarging the next generation (on our side) to commit themselves to public service, as much as that is antithetical to our instincts...
If we don’t take back our government and the courts with highly trained professional defenders and advocates of American and Constitutional principles, in a few decades there won’t be a private sector - or even a private life - left to defend.
Their decreasing audience would indicate no one is interested
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.