Wow. Jimmy Fallon is quite entertaining

He does a damn good Bowie. Here is “Tim Tebow to Jesus Christ”


8 responses to “Wow. Jimmy Fallon is quite entertaining

  1. And he’s so likeable! Calls himself the least troubled comedian around – just sunshine and happy days since birth. Good for him.

    I’m reading John Adams….. but don’t quite catch what’s between the lines here… about his going to Paris and Holland. He was sent overseas to make an alliance w France, only to discover that it was already made before he left. He’s then kept in the cold while there, by both Franklin and the other guy, and he sends close to a hundred letters to Congress with no reply. Then they strip down the delegation to one person with no word to Adams what to do next.

    What is the subtext here? Was he sent out the country by his political enemies, and humiliated over and over – without realizing it?

    And then he goes to Holland as a private citizen, with no clearing, to ask for finances because he feels time is running out? Isn’t that overstepping a bit?

    And that defense of the Boston Massacre folks – what that really something that noble and important on principle?

    At times he just seems difficult, self-righteous and with a dangerous lack of sense of the bigger picture. His arbitrary line of stiff logic seems to trump everything.

    But maybe things will clear up a bit in the second half of the book… just wanted to hear your thoughts on this!!


    • Well, I never said John Adams was likeable; he was no bon vivant and was, yeah, quite the self righteous one. I seem to recall Abagail making a few stabs at humanizing him.

      What I loved was learning about those trips abroad – by him and Jeffereson and Franklin and others – and how much interaction we had in Europe at that time. I just hadn’t had an idea of that before.

      As for the Boston Massacre – I think that was exemplary. Wahtever his motive in defending them, he did set a gorgeous example for the principle of ‘innocent until proved’. I call that a good thing.

      But most importantly – are you enjoying the reading of it?


  2. Yep – a great read!

    And different times indeed, with Paris, Amsterdam and London “on top” of everything. And I love the details of diplomacy – with the slowness and inertia over several years. Very different from the usual romantic narratives of all-or-nothing and clear cut climaxes.

    As for Mr. Adams – it seems that both Franklin and Jefferson are pretty outspoken eventually – about his flaws and character, and his unhelpful attitudes at times. I think I know which of these folks I’d rather work with!


    • Another revelation was the impediment under which they had to operate – it took weesk, even months, for round trip communications with the Sec State or Prez or whoever and yet they often had to act in the moment. Quite the high wire act!


  3. Not to drag this out – but I’m reading on – and it gets more and more interesting.
    Jefferson is doing lots of questionable stuff behind the scenes, Washington is miserable with the job,
    Adams with both this presidential title mess and his sedition act a bit later on? “at times completely out of his senses”, in the words of Franklin, keeps coming back.

    And Hamilton, I’ve been avoiding him for a while, but is some of the expansive drive and energy of the 19th century in large part from him you think? A forceful and aggressive center-right personality?
    Lots of the others seem very frail and intellectual – some straying far away from pragmatism and more towards ideological absolutism.


    • Yes! I agree that Hamilton was hugely influential. He was so prolific with his writings and – perhaps more importantly – very very upbeat and energetic. Always pushing to move ideas forward. The engine of the Federalists.

      And he managed a major compromise with Jefferson (what was htat about? I forgot?). Pretty neat trick.

      I think he’s underappreciated for 2 reasons – he wasn’t American born and he died young.

      And I think he would have been dthe most fun of them all.


      • Ah, that was a good one! The deal was that all state debt be transfered to the federal level, to grow central goverment.
        In return, the south got the capital at the Potomac, and DC was made!
        With an interlude in Philly 1790-1800.
        The north thought a decade would quell the urge to move the capital any further, but not so.

        And this whole period gets more and more interesting – the more one digs into it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s