Image of the day

Captured by
Terry Wood

Jupiter (clearer) Nov 5th 2023 w/Mewlon 180c

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Re: Linus

Started by ks1u, 03/05/2009 08:56PM
Posted 03/05/2009 08:56PM Opening Post
Jim:
Granted President Obama uses the teleprompter more than previous presidents, but they have all used them after its invention. Exactly how much teleprompter use would be ok with you and how would you determine the amount of usage?
On another unrelated note, I'd like to step away form the political pimp slapping for a moment, and I am sincere about this next observation and question. Most of us here on AM who post opinions on the political and other non astro topics also post on the Astronomy related subjects as well. Since your profile doesn't give a whole lot of info and the predominance if not totality of your comments here are of a political nature, do you in fact have any interest in Astronomy? Even if you don't, that's ok with me, not that you need my approval. I like to try an understand why a person feels the way they do rather than just listen to their viewpoint. Since you have no profile entered, no classifieds, no auctions, no ratings, I only know you are from NE. If you don't care to answer, I'll respect that, but this is an honest inquiry.

George
smile
Posted 03/05/2009 09:18PM #1
George Blahun said:

Jim:

Most of us here on AM who post opinions on the political and other non astro topics also post on the Astronomy related subjects as well...do you in fact have any interest in Astronomy?

George


George:

Someone asks Jim Babcock or Patrick Keafer this question every couple of months. Most people who ask this are not as gracious with their phrasing as you are.

Rest assured that Jim Babcock has at least two telescopes (a dob and LX200 if memory serves). He enjoys using them. I am not sure if he is able to use them yet, after his recent illness, but I hope so. Maybe Jim will let us know.

One of my favorite posts on this forum was from Jim Babcock many years ago. He said something about how the stars he saw in Iraq were the same as the stars he sees here. It struck me as a fundamentally and profoundly optimistic post.

I always wonder why people question another person's dedication to the hobby of astronomy on a politics forum. Unlike you, most folks who ask this question imply that the other chap is no more than a troll if they post here yet not also dedicated amateur astronomers. I think that is silly of course.

Jim
Posted 03/05/2009 09:46PM #2
Jim:
Thanks for responding to both questions and especially the second. You and I share one thing in common, my dad was in the Coast Guard for 38 yrs and I grew up on the grounds of the USCG Academy. While there were certainly many benefits to that life, by the time I was 18 I was so sick of it, I turned down (an error in retrospect) an appointment to the corp of cadets. Anyhow, I do believe you are as sincere about your opinions as I am and appreciate your willingness to share your background.
I am sure we will have many more debates about the things we each see, feel and think, but it's nice to know there is some commonality amidst the disagreements.

George
Posted 03/06/2009 12:34AM #3
Jim Babcock said:
Obama ran for President as a comparatively inexperienced politician. During the Bush years the left constantly said that Bush was just a puppet of various individuals and groups, and that he is an idiot. At the same time the left has constantly spoken about how brilliant their politicians are. Well he is President and since he only speaks using his teleprompter, it seems to me to be a fair question about whether he is just a teleprompter reader, a puppet, and whether he actually has a brain. So to answer your question directly, it depends. It is hard to know what the community organizer actually is thinking and doing, except reading (very well I might add) notes from others. Another politician (Clinton for example) it would not be as big of an issue.

The teleprompter issue is relevant enough. Strong speaking is fine but strong ideas have higher priority.

I'd rather hear strong ideas from a speech impediment, than drivel from an expert orator. But in reality if the speaking is sufficiently inexpert one can't stand it.

Glib delivery does seem to matter, but if we just want someone that looks and talks like a movie president, then why not ALWAYS elect actors? Perhaps the fellow who was president in "The West Wing", or maybe the guy who was president in "Independence Day"?

Is that becoming our problem-- Any candidate MUST look and sound like a movie president? Perhaps if we could find the best leader hidden away somewhere, it would turn out to be a fat short bald-headed homely fellow with multiple PhD's, coke bottle glasses, and cleft palette? A very bright feller who would make Nixon look handsome, or make W sound like a world-class orator?

Even Obama's strongest critics say he is a gifted orator (at least with the teleprompter), so I suppose it it true. The delivery bugs me for whatever reason. Of course he 'masterfully' delivers ideas that seem unwise, but dunno if that is the problem. If O was preaching libertarianism then perhaps it would be more tolerable, but I suspect that the delivery would STILL be somehow annoying. Perhaps the timing or inflection sounds wrong. Ferinstance, stress on inappropriate words, or terminating declarative sentences with a pitch rise which makes them sound like a question.

The ear of the listener... Hilliary fans complained of Palin's vocal tone. Sure, Palin's timbre ain't ever gonna compete with Ella Fitzgerald, but Palin did not sound nearly as annoying as Hilliary. Hilliary's timbre would be annoying even if she was delivering a speech awarding me with a million bucks .

The strongest speech I saw this election cycle, was Bill Clinton at the democrat convention. Got tired of hearing Bill Clinton during his presidency because of over-exposure.

I don't agree with Bill, but was never tempted to change stations or mute the audio on his convention speech. The man is GOOD! That old silver tongue devil just knocked it out of the park, regardless whether you agree with the content.

Public speaking used to be a better craft among politicians. Or so it seems. Maybe we only recall the better ones.

I used to 'greatly dislike' Spiro Agnew and have no reason to revisit the opinion. Didn't notice special eloquence at the time, but a few years ago saw some of his old speeches on TV. Spiro was not as good as Bill Clinton, but it it striking how good a speech that old crook could deliver, compared to current politicians.

It is difficult to divorce the content from the grammatical elegance and delivery. Spiro's ideas and history get in the way of listening for good construction and delivery. I quick-googled a few examples which may not be the best the scoundrel ever delivered. They are just samples, if you are young enough not to even know who he is. Maybe someone else would consider it very poor speechifying. Different strokes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcKMtNWB2u4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ty2hHaCU1o

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/spiroagnewtvnewscoverage.htm