He Died With A Microphone In His Hand . . .

From Catholic Bishop Robert Barron, writing in First Things:

To my mind, the single ugliest consequence of Charlie’s murder is the plethora of videos celebrating his death. And these are coming not just from weirdos in the fever swamps of the internet, but, in alarming numbers, from teachers, professors, professionals, medical personnel, and government officials. I don’t care how dramatically you might disagree with someone; if you celebrate his murder, you have lost any sense of the dignity of that person. And don’t we see, especially among the young who have been soaked in woke ideology, a sense that there are no objective norms of good and evil, truth and falsity, just plays of power between oppressor and oppressed? Just the other day, I came across a deeply disturbing statistic: 34 percent of college students feel that it is sometimes permissible to respond to campus speech with violence. That point of view makes sense if and only if one has given up completely on a shared matrix of meaning. If argument is pointless, bombs and bullets become inevitable . . . . Up until his dying moment, Charlie was engaging in a practice that goes back to Socrates and that informs the West at its best. And that is precisely why we all feel so unnerved by his death. We sense that something basic to our civilization, something axiomatic and fundamental, is teetering—and that truly fetid cultural influences have found their way into our institutions and the minds of our kids. My sincere hope and prayer is that we can take renewed inspiration from a courageous and religious man who died, not with a gun in his hand, but rather an instrument of communication.

How Great A Speech Could It Have Been?

Photos taken during Hillary's speech last night.
Top photo: Bill Clinton and son-in-law Mark Mezvinsky.
Bottom: Bill Clinton and vice-presidential candidate Tim Kaine.

Is It 'Shrillness?' Is That The Real Problem Here?

The final ratings for the climactic nights of both conventions are in.
Donald Trump won. Hillary Clinton lost.
Trump attracted nearly 35 million viewers while Hillary's speech barely broke 33 million.
Why did this happen? Let's face it: Trump had no "big stars, big attractions" leading up to his speech. He relied almost solely on his family. Hillary, on the other hand, had Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Katy Perry, Carole King, Alicia Keys, Paul Simon, Demi Lovato and a variety of other stars.
And yet, Trump won the day, even though his speech was quite long and delivered at an elevated volume.
Why is this so?
The answer is simple.
Hillary is just not a very good public speaker.
She's not a very good storyteller. She's not very convincing. She's not real enough when she's delivering a speech.
A great speech is a sleight of hand. Yes, it's a performance -- but it doesn't play as a performance. Great performances fool us that way, just as great theater naturally brings us to a suspension of disbelief. That's the difference that a true professional makes.
And one other thing -- Hillary is too shrill.
Now, some have said that calling Hillary "shrill" is sexist. But that simply isn't the case.
They never called Margaret Thatcher "shrill." Never.  Golda Meir -- was she "shrill?" No. She was never shrill. Margaret Chase Smith (the REAL pioneer) was never shrill. Ditto Millicent Fenwick. Claire Booth Luce? Never called "shrill." How about Jeanne Kirkpatrick? NOT shrill. All of these women were great speakers.

Having written hundreds of speeches and having taught public speaking for many years at the college level, I'll simply point out that, whether you're a man or a woman, the sound of your voice and your pitch and tone will directly impact whether or not you succeed in getting your message across. And you cannot separate the message itself from the delivery. 

The best public speakers, regardless of gender, almost never reach the highest and lowest octave levels. Their delivery is modulated and the pitch and tone are in sync with the cadence to add emphasis or limit emphasis. 

Taken all together, the most well-delivered speeches have an ebb and flow and they peak (both in form and substance) at about two-thirds of the way through. That's the climax or the peroration -- the "nut" of the speech. This is the moment when the speaker either finally wins us over or doesn't. 

We are drawn to people with pleasant voices who are able to master pitch, tone and cadence for ultimate impact. We want speakers to show that mastery -- we want them to to succeed. When they don't, we're disappointed.

Take a look at the brief clip of Thatcher before and after her voice training. She underwent a training program which included special humming exercises aimed at lowering the pitch level at which she formerly spoke. 

From tapes of speeches made before and after receiving training, you can hear a marked difference. Thatcher showed that she could master the art of public speaking When she spoke, she sounded self-assured and in control. These are qualities that people look for (and listen for) in a leader -- male or female.

Going back through history, Lincoln's voice was quite high-pitched. Daniel Day Lewis came closest to nailing it in the movie, Lincoln. Lincoln did not have a particularly pleasant voice. He might not succeed today. Teddy Roosevelt did not have a very authoritative voice but he was fortunate as his emergence predated mass radio broadcasts. If the pitch and tone of an amplified voice didn't matter, John Gilbert might have continued to be a great movie star after the emergence of talkies. It did and he wasn't.

In 1968 Hubert Humphrey sounded too chatty and in 1972 George McGovern sounded a bit like Liberace. Both lost to Richard Nixon who learned to moderate his tone and control his vitriol. 

Gender doesn't matter. Delivery does!

Revealed: The Really BIG Story Today

Ahem, Ahem . . . What Was THAT All About, Huh?

Hillary was constantly clearing her throat and/or coughing during last night's speech. What's with that? And, did you notice that she wore no American flag lapel pin? None!

Kerry Says America Allows You 'Right To Be Stupid'

John Kerry just can't help himself.

There's nothing he can do about it.

At his core, he's just a snob. A complete snob. And like many liberals, Kerry seems to think that anyone who disagrees with him (or who doesn't share what he thinks is his "enlightened" view of the world) is "stupid."

So now our newSecretary of State is barely into the job and he's already gone and made a fool of himself by telling students in Germany that "in America "you have a right to be stupid."

Yes, Kerry offered a defense of freedom of speech, religion and thought in the United States (as if one were needed) on Tuesday by saying that in America "you have a right to be stupid if you want to be."

"People have sometimes wondered about why our Supreme Court allows one group or another to march in a parade even though it's the most provocative thing in the world and they carry signs that are an insult to one group or another," Kerry added. 

Have you wondered about why we permit freedom of speech in America? We haven't. Have you found this concept hard to understand? Neither have we.

Anyway, Kerry went on: "The reason is, that's freedom, freedom of speech. In American you have a right to be stupid - if you want to be," he said, prompting laughter. "And you have a right to be disconnected to somebody else if you want to be."

Well, Secretary Kerry strupid is as stupid does.

And the right to be stupid starts with you.

Obama: Tedious, Boring, Failing

Michael Wolff (of Vanity Fair) on Barack Obama at Newser.com:
The guy just doesn’t know what to say. He can’t connect. Emotions are here, he’s over there. He can’t get the words to match the situation.This began, I’d argue, from the first moment. He punted on the inaugural. Everybody ran around like crazy trying to praise it because if Barack Obama couldn’t give a speech then what? But now, at week 11, we’re face-to-face with the reality, the man can’t talk worth a damn. . . .
He’s cold; he’s prickly; he’s uncomfortable; he’s not funny; and he’s getting awfully tedious. He thinks it’s all about him. That we want him for himself—that he doesn’t have to seduce, charm, surprise, show some skin.
It’s instructive and humorous to remember that Carter ran a brilliant campaign that succeeded largely because his voice was new. Simple, direct, basic, human. And then, of course, he turned into a sad-sack twit.
What happens when you move into the White House?
Well, shit, of course.
The true secret of the power of language is in quickness. Barack Obama can’t keep up. He evidently needs too much preparation. And then there’s the organization. He’s undoubtedly got too many people debating what he should say.
That’s the other secret of language: You’ve got to just go for it. Can’t think too much about it. It’s like hitting the ball.
And then there’s knowing who you want to be—which is different than knowing who you are. You’re on the stage. You’re acting. You’ve got to make yourself believable, cleverly make yourself up as you go along.
This guy is leaden and this show is in trouble.

Listen Tonight On 1210

We'll be on the radio tonight (Saturday) during the 8 PM - 8:30 segment with Christine Flowers on the Big Talker, 120 AM radio in Philadelphia.
We'll be talking about President Obama's Inaugural Address and how it compares with other inagural speeches in history.
We invite you to call into the Big Talker and chat with us.
Here are the call-in numbers: Philadelphia: (215) 839-1210; Suburbs: (610) 664-1210; New Jersey: (856) 541-1210; Cellular: #1210.

Inaugural Remarks: First Assessment

Inaugural addresses are not by their nature specific.
They are thematic.
They paint with broad strokes, setting a tone for what is to come.
President Obama's address today was no different. It contained the type of broad rhetoric that the new President is comfortable with: aspirational rather than operational.
Though he said that the real questions is not whether government is too big or too small but rather whether or not government works, Obama gave us no clues as to how he will decide which government programs work and which don't.
Yes, he hinted that he would get rid of certain government programs. But, which ones?
We just don't know.
And yes, Obama's remarks contained an implied answer to Reagan's declaration in 1981 that government is not the solution but government is, rather, the problem. Obama apparently assumes that government is the solution, no matter how big it gets. He just wants to make sure it works right.
Strong words of national defense in the speech were balanced by neo-liberal rhetoric about peace and understanding.
Still, while Obama seemed to reject "missiles and weapons" he lavished praise on our fighting men and women in the armed forces and pointed to their service as an example to all. Even though he stuck to his rhetoric on an eventual withdrawal from Iraq it was nice to hear him acknowledge the sacrifice of the military and to hear him evoke the memories of Washington and his army of the Revolution.
I think it was fine for President Obama to point to our diversity and to recognize as a source of strength and recognize the many faiths that practice in America. But I don't know why he felt the need to point out that that we are a nation of "non-believers" as well. Somehow that didn't sit right with me. It didn't settle well on my ears.
How can you criticize "cynics," challenging them and nearly mocking them while at the same time putting "non-believers" on the same plain as people of faith? We all know that so many of those "non-believers" are simply nihilists and/or cynics. Why grant them official recognition? Unfortunately, I must assume that this represented some morally fuzzy liberal thinking that crept into the speech.
This was certainly an historic occasion.
But was this an historic speech?
Will it be put alongside the four or five "great" Inaugural addresses: Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy?
At first blush I would have to guess "no."
It was a blessedly brief speech. And it was refreshingly non-egotistical, mentioning the word "I" only a few times. And it wisely Incorporated messages borrowed from our history and from scripture while striking classic themes.
But nothing really jumps out at me -- nothing that says: "Look at this. Study this. Think about this. Remember this. This is something to savor; something that sounds like it would stand the test of time."
Still, I'll read it again and consider it further.

Obama Inaugural: Key Passages

Here are some of the key passages from today's Inaugural address:

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real.

They are serious and they are many.

They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness. . . .

But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed.

Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America. For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. . . .

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. . . .

And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more. . . .

We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task. This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

We Said It First

Communication consultant and pollster Frank Luntz has been on several TV networks saying that Obama's remarks feel short and noting that Obama never looked directly at the TV audience, spoke too long and, for the first time appeared in front of eight American flags while still refusing to wear the falg on his lapel.
But we already said that here and here - and we said it on this blog before Frank Luntz. In fact, we said much of it moments after the speech ended.
So, maybe Frank's been reading our blog. If so, we don't mind him borrowing from us. Just give us credit, Frank!

Flagging

As far as I know, yesterday marked the first time that Barack Obama chose to give a speech in front of American flags instead of talking with bannered slogans and/or adoring fans behind him.
Obama walked onto a bare stage adorned only with American flags - eight behind him; four on each side.
So, the man who refuses to wear the flag on his lapel is only to happy to share the stage with eight big, bright flags - especially when he finds himself in a jam.

Speak Softly, But . . .

Obama came to the podium last night and knocked Hillary off the airwaves to deliver his victory speech.
Barack went ahead and talked for forty-seven minutes. Forty-seven minutes.
Hey, maybe he was paying homage to Fidel Castro who resigned yesterday. Or maybe he was giving one last wave to Bill Clinton who has always been known for undisciplined, long-winded speeches. Whatever . . .
On the other side of the political spectrum McCain delivered brief victory remarks and managed to slip in some good zingers. For example:
I will work hard to make sure Americans aren't deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change. . .
I have never lived a day, in good times or bad, that I haven’t been proud of the privilege [of being an American]. Don't tell me what we can't do. Don't tell me we can’t make our country stronger and the world safer. We can. We must. And when I'm President we will.
I'm also struck every time I hear McCain say "I have been an imperfect servant of my country." Sometimes, Big Mac's soft-spoken demeanor and gentle command can be every bit as compelling as the most lavish oratory.