On Oct. 20, Politico first approached Gordon about whether Cain had been the subject of complaints of sexual harassment.
Gordon didn’t respond for several days but emailed Politico on Oct. 24 that any dispute about Cain’s conduct at the restaurant association “was settled amicably among all parties many years ago.”
“These are old and tired allegations that never stood up to the facts,” Gordon said in an email response to Politico. “This was settled amicably among all parties many years ago, and dredging this up now is merely part of a smear campaign meant to discredit a true patriot who is shaking up the political status quo.”
Gordon added: “Since critics haven’t had much luck in attacking Mr. Cain’s ideas, they are trying to attack him personally.”
On Sunday, Cain told Politico he had “had thousands of people working for me” at different businesses over the years and could not comment “until I see some facts or some concrete evidence.”
“He was then asked, ‘Have you ever been accused, sir, in your life of harassment by a woman?’ the Politico story reported. “He breathed audibly, glared at the reporter and stayed silent for several seconds. After the question was repeated three times, he responded by asking the reporter, ‘Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?’"
Cain was head of the restaurant trade group after he left the job as CEO of Godfather’s Pizza. He frequently describes his running the pizza company but speaks less often about his tenure atop the association.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Politico: Two Women Accused Cain of 'Inappropriate Behavior,' Received Cash Payments
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
When Newsmax starts quoting Politico, you know it's all over for Cain......question....why the "Obama question" on the tag????????
Monday, October 31, 2011
Friday, October 28, 2011
"Fear, hate, and bigotry are pervasive"
UPDATED: see below
....................................................
This is a comment that should be saved lest an idiot mark it to be deleted.
....................................................
....................................................
....................................................
This is a comment that should be saved lest an idiot mark it to be deleted.
....................................................
........................................................
UPDATE:
........................................................
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/10/28/1855247/sharia-law-not-the-threat-some.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1c8Opdq8W....................................................
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Herman Cain approves of smoking? Tsk, tsk, tsk
..............................................
Bizarre Herman Cain ad features chief of staff smoking
By Brian Montopoli
There is an ad up on Herman Cain's official YouTube page that really needs to be seen to be believed.
The web spot features the Republican presidential candidate's chief of staff Mark Block, who is standing outside, offering fairly standard endorsements of the candidate. "I really believe that Herman Cain will put 'united' back in the United States of America, and if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be here," he says, calling on Americans to get involved in the Cain campaign.
But a number of factors make the spot itself very strange: Block's halting delivery, the close-up nature of the shots, a pair of rapid pans away from Block's face before the cuts. (The quick pans are actually an editing technique used to replicate the circular fast-switching of lenses on old three-lens 16mm cameras.)
And that's all a precursor to the most memorable moment: A close up of Block inhaling a cigarette and then wordlessly exhaling a thin puff of smoke as a woman sings "I am America" in the background. The spot then cuts to a close up of an unsmiling Cain turning toward the camera, the candidate gradually breaking out into a laugh:
The spot was posted on October 19th, according to its YouTube page, but because it was unlisted on Cain's main YouTube page it seems to have gone undiscovered until now. There has been some speculation online that the spot is a hoax, but the Cain campaign late Monday night confirmed to CBS News that it is legitimate.
Campaign spokesman J.D. Gordon said that the video was "just Block being Block."
"I've received quite a bit of positive feedback. Most folks I heard from said it was hysterical," he said.
It remains unclear what the campaign planned to do with the video, whether it was intended to be an ad, or why it wasn't publicly available on Cain's page with his other videos.
Block himself also told CBS News the ad reflects "Block being Block."
"I smoke," he added. "It's a choice."
Intentionally or not, the ad brings to mind Cain's history opposing smoking bans as a lobbyist with the National Restaurant Association, which the New York Times recently reported out.
A report from CBS News' Kaylee Hartung at the left.
"Under Mr. Cain's leadership, the restaurant association opposed higher taxes on cigarettes and the use of federal money to prosecute cigarette makers for fraud," the Times reported. The story also noted that "Cain argued vociferously that the decision about whether to go smoke-free was the province of individual restaurant owners, not the government."
..............................................
Bizarre Herman Cain ad features chief of staff smoking
By Brian Montopoli
There is an ad up on Herman Cain's official YouTube page that really needs to be seen to be believed.
The web spot features the Republican presidential candidate's chief of staff Mark Block, who is standing outside, offering fairly standard endorsements of the candidate. "I really believe that Herman Cain will put 'united' back in the United States of America, and if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be here," he says, calling on Americans to get involved in the Cain campaign.
But a number of factors make the spot itself very strange: Block's halting delivery, the close-up nature of the shots, a pair of rapid pans away from Block's face before the cuts. (The quick pans are actually an editing technique used to replicate the circular fast-switching of lenses on old three-lens 16mm cameras.)
And that's all a precursor to the most memorable moment: A close up of Block inhaling a cigarette and then wordlessly exhaling a thin puff of smoke as a woman sings "I am America" in the background. The spot then cuts to a close up of an unsmiling Cain turning toward the camera, the candidate gradually breaking out into a laugh:
The spot was posted on October 19th, according to its YouTube page, but because it was unlisted on Cain's main YouTube page it seems to have gone undiscovered until now. There has been some speculation online that the spot is a hoax, but the Cain campaign late Monday night confirmed to CBS News that it is legitimate.
Campaign spokesman J.D. Gordon said that the video was "just Block being Block."
"I've received quite a bit of positive feedback. Most folks I heard from said it was hysterical," he said.
It remains unclear what the campaign planned to do with the video, whether it was intended to be an ad, or why it wasn't publicly available on Cain's page with his other videos.
Block himself also told CBS News the ad reflects "Block being Block."
"I smoke," he added. "It's a choice."
Intentionally or not, the ad brings to mind Cain's history opposing smoking bans as a lobbyist with the National Restaurant Association, which the New York Times recently reported out.
A report from CBS News' Kaylee Hartung at the left.
"Under Mr. Cain's leadership, the restaurant association opposed higher taxes on cigarettes and the use of federal money to prosecute cigarette makers for fraud," the Times reported. The story also noted that "Cain argued vociferously that the decision about whether to go smoke-free was the province of individual restaurant owners, not the government."
..............................................
Monday, October 24, 2011
Perry's a "birther"!
.............................................
In wide-ranging interview with Parade, Perry talks birtherism, secession
Aman Batheja, OCTOBER 24, 2011
Parade, the well-read magazine inserted in hundreds of Sunday newspapers including the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, put Gov. Rick Perry on the cover of its latest issue and featured a lengthy interview with the presidential candidate.
Yet some of the most interesting parts of the interview were only available online and left out of the print publication.
The most newsworthy portion of the interview was likely Perry's response to whether President Barack Obama was born is eligible to be president.
Governor, do you believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States?
I have no reason to think otherwise.
That’s not a definitive, “Yes, I believe he”—
Well, I don’t have a definitive answer, because he’s never seen my birth certificate.
But you’ve seen his.
I don’t know. Have I?
You don’t believe what’s been released?
I don’t know. I had dinner with Donald Trump the other night.
And?
That came up.
And he said?
He doesn’t think it’s real.
And you said?
I don’t have any idea. It doesn’t matter. He’s the President of the United States. He’s elected. It’s a distractive issue.
Also in the interview, Perry defended his comments on secession:
In 2010, you hinted at the possibility of Texas seceding, although you never said that word.
Actually, I didn’t. Let’s not misrepresent it.
Okay, let’s say you become president and the state of Massachusetts says the same thing, what would you say to them?
You’re going to have to be more specific. Let’s say somebody stands up at an event and says, “Secede.” My response would be that we have a great country. I see no reason that we would ever want to dissolve it, but I do understand why people get frustrated when government does not work the way our Founding Fathers meant for it to. I totally understand why people would shout that out. Do I think it’s a realistic thing? No.
Perry also refuted allegations that he made up a much-reported incident that he shot a coyote while jogging:
Governor, you made the news last year when you said you were out jogging in Austin with your daughter’s puppy, and you came across a coyote that was threatening your dog. Did you really shoot it like you said you did?
Yes, ma’am. One shot right in the shoulder.
You saw him drop, but did he die?
Yeah, right there.
So how come there’s been so much controversy over it? For example, some people have said it’s simply not possible to jog and carry a gun at the same time.
One guy from upstate New York said [it couldn’t have happened because] “coyotes would run away.” Come to Austin. I’ll show you coyotes that will come and get in your backyard and eat your little puppy.
All three of these fascinating exchanges are sure to draw more attention.
However, none of them made it into the portions of the interview that Parade included in their Sunday magazine.
To read the whole Parade interview, click Here.
.............................................
In wide-ranging interview with Parade, Perry talks birtherism, secession
Aman Batheja, OCTOBER 24, 2011
Parade, the well-read magazine inserted in hundreds of Sunday newspapers including the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, put Gov. Rick Perry on the cover of its latest issue and featured a lengthy interview with the presidential candidate.
Yet some of the most interesting parts of the interview were only available online and left out of the print publication.
The most newsworthy portion of the interview was likely Perry's response to whether President Barack Obama was born is eligible to be president.
Governor, do you believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States?
I have no reason to think otherwise.
That’s not a definitive, “Yes, I believe he”—
Well, I don’t have a definitive answer, because he’s never seen my birth certificate.
But you’ve seen his.
I don’t know. Have I?
You don’t believe what’s been released?
I don’t know. I had dinner with Donald Trump the other night.
And?
That came up.
And he said?
He doesn’t think it’s real.
And you said?
I don’t have any idea. It doesn’t matter. He’s the President of the United States. He’s elected. It’s a distractive issue.
Also in the interview, Perry defended his comments on secession:
In 2010, you hinted at the possibility of Texas seceding, although you never said that word.
Actually, I didn’t. Let’s not misrepresent it.
Okay, let’s say you become president and the state of Massachusetts says the same thing, what would you say to them?
You’re going to have to be more specific. Let’s say somebody stands up at an event and says, “Secede.” My response would be that we have a great country. I see no reason that we would ever want to dissolve it, but I do understand why people get frustrated when government does not work the way our Founding Fathers meant for it to. I totally understand why people would shout that out. Do I think it’s a realistic thing? No.
Perry also refuted allegations that he made up a much-reported incident that he shot a coyote while jogging:
Governor, you made the news last year when you said you were out jogging in Austin with your daughter’s puppy, and you came across a coyote that was threatening your dog. Did you really shoot it like you said you did?
Yes, ma’am. One shot right in the shoulder.
You saw him drop, but did he die?
Yeah, right there.
So how come there’s been so much controversy over it? For example, some people have said it’s simply not possible to jog and carry a gun at the same time.
One guy from upstate New York said [it couldn’t have happened because] “coyotes would run away.” Come to Austin. I’ll show you coyotes that will come and get in your backyard and eat your little puppy.
All three of these fascinating exchanges are sure to draw more attention.
However, none of them made it into the portions of the interview that Parade included in their Sunday magazine.
To read the whole Parade interview, click Here.
.............................................
Sunday, October 23, 2011
I can't wait for the "Religious Freedom" people to comment....
SEATTLE -- A Hertz spokesman says the rental car company is disappointed 26 Muslim transport drivers at Sea-Tac Airport chose to be fired rather than agree to clock out for prayer breaks.
Spokesman Richard Broome says eight other drivers who had been suspended Sept. 30 were reinstated after they agreed to time their prayers.
Broome says clocking out is a reasonable requirement because some employees had failed to return to work promptly after prayers. The drivers move rental cars for cleaning and refueling.
Spokesman Richard Broome says eight other drivers who had been suspended Sept. 30 were reinstated after they agreed to time their prayers.
Broome says clocking out is a reasonable requirement because some employees had failed to return to work promptly after prayers. The drivers move rental cars for cleaning and refueling.
Teamsters Local 117 has filed an unfair labor practices complaint with the National Labor Relations Board. The union also is filing religious discrimination charges with the EEOC.
The union represents nearly 80 Hertz drivers who earn between $9.15 and $9.95 an hour. About 70 percent are Muslims.
The union represents nearly 80 Hertz drivers who earn between $9.15 and $9.95 an hour. About 70 percent are Muslims.
Read more: http://www.thesunnews.com/2011/10/21/2456363/hertz-fires-26-muslims-in-sea.html#ixzz1beVzemdB
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Do your members of Congress a favor-- unelect them!
*********************************************
This is a marvelous piece, and we should send a copy to every member of Congress. Getting them to read it would be yet another story, though.
*********************************************
.............................................
For politicians, election defeat is a fate worse than death
BILL HALL, Published: 10/22/11
Why is it that members of the military repeatedly risk their lives for their country but most members of Congress won’t even risk losing an election?
Why is it that policemen go out there in the night along lonely highways and down dark alleys daring death, but members of the House and Senate tremble at the thought of defying moneyed lobbyists and ignorant voters on matters of principle?
Why is it that members of the fire department dare run through flames to save a child, but most members of Congress don’t dare tell a menacing lobbyist with a pot full of cash to put it where the sun don’t shine?
Most members of Congress would rather become puppets of pressure groups than die a mere political death at the polls.
What is it that they fear?
They fear leaving Congress – their love, their ego drug.
They don’t fear for their lives or least of all for their honor. They fear anonymity. They fear going home and retiring among their grandchildren.
Most of all, they fear us. And they should. We voters today are a nasty, largely ill-informed and totally selfish bunch. We behave like rabid badgers, snarling at members of Congress, threatening to bring them back down to earth. That means the worst we can do is to remove them from office, a fate worse than next to nothing.
In many cases, we would be doing them a favor. We would be rescuing them from the ignominious life of rolling over on their backs like submissive dogs as they encounter each alpha lobbyist with its fangs full of cash.
But all the tea partyers, union kingpins, rabid environmentalists, overpaid corporate big shots, pharmaceutical lobbyists and other welchers too cheap to pay their full national dues can’t really hurt members of Congress that much.
Voters today don’t consume much uncolored news. Many among us watch heavily slanted cable channels and read narrow-minded Internet drivel that feeds us “facts” invented by people who are as ignorant and pig-headed as we are.
A generation ago, there were only three national television channels and stacks of newspapers that provided a ton of news and only a little opinion. If the president was giving a speech, it was on all three channels. If you watched television at all on that night, that was what you got. It was much harder then to avoid straight news and wallow in propaganda.
Today, we are hopelessly susceptible to the fantasies we want to hear rather than what we need to hear. Thus terrified members of Congress don’t dare speak their honest convictions for fear they will lose the holy grail of victory at the next election.
But is an honorable defeat for too much truthfulness such an awful thing for an ethical person? It’s not like members of Congress don’t have the golden parachute of lucrative pensions and better health insurance than what they have ever provided for the rest of us.
Losing your life in the military is a tragedy. Losing a congressional seat is a disappointment. It’s the difference between coming home to your family slightly embarrassed and coming home in a box.
But you should be embarrassed most of all these recent years that you lost the people’s legislative branch to the moneyed forces of greed who now own it.
It’s not like the military. When we voters defeat you, at least we bring you back alive. We give you back your old friends and your sweet grandchildren to keep you warm until you die of old age and join our real heroes in the cold, cold ground.
.............................................
Bill Hall can be contacted at wilberth@cableone.net or at 1012 Prospect Ave., Lewiston, ID 83501
.............................................
This is a marvelous piece, and we should send a copy to every member of Congress. Getting them to read it would be yet another story, though.
*********************************************
.............................................
For politicians, election defeat is a fate worse than death
BILL HALL, Published: 10/22/11
Why is it that members of the military repeatedly risk their lives for their country but most members of Congress won’t even risk losing an election?
Why is it that policemen go out there in the night along lonely highways and down dark alleys daring death, but members of the House and Senate tremble at the thought of defying moneyed lobbyists and ignorant voters on matters of principle?
Why is it that members of the fire department dare run through flames to save a child, but most members of Congress don’t dare tell a menacing lobbyist with a pot full of cash to put it where the sun don’t shine?
Most members of Congress would rather become puppets of pressure groups than die a mere political death at the polls.
What is it that they fear?
They fear leaving Congress – their love, their ego drug.
They don’t fear for their lives or least of all for their honor. They fear anonymity. They fear going home and retiring among their grandchildren.
Most of all, they fear us. And they should. We voters today are a nasty, largely ill-informed and totally selfish bunch. We behave like rabid badgers, snarling at members of Congress, threatening to bring them back down to earth. That means the worst we can do is to remove them from office, a fate worse than next to nothing.
In many cases, we would be doing them a favor. We would be rescuing them from the ignominious life of rolling over on their backs like submissive dogs as they encounter each alpha lobbyist with its fangs full of cash.
But all the tea partyers, union kingpins, rabid environmentalists, overpaid corporate big shots, pharmaceutical lobbyists and other welchers too cheap to pay their full national dues can’t really hurt members of Congress that much.
Voters today don’t consume much uncolored news. Many among us watch heavily slanted cable channels and read narrow-minded Internet drivel that feeds us “facts” invented by people who are as ignorant and pig-headed as we are.
A generation ago, there were only three national television channels and stacks of newspapers that provided a ton of news and only a little opinion. If the president was giving a speech, it was on all three channels. If you watched television at all on that night, that was what you got. It was much harder then to avoid straight news and wallow in propaganda.
Today, we are hopelessly susceptible to the fantasies we want to hear rather than what we need to hear. Thus terrified members of Congress don’t dare speak their honest convictions for fear they will lose the holy grail of victory at the next election.
But is an honorable defeat for too much truthfulness such an awful thing for an ethical person? It’s not like members of Congress don’t have the golden parachute of lucrative pensions and better health insurance than what they have ever provided for the rest of us.
Losing your life in the military is a tragedy. Losing a congressional seat is a disappointment. It’s the difference between coming home to your family slightly embarrassed and coming home in a box.
But you should be embarrassed most of all these recent years that you lost the people’s legislative branch to the moneyed forces of greed who now own it.
It’s not like the military. When we voters defeat you, at least we bring you back alive. We give you back your old friends and your sweet grandchildren to keep you warm until you die of old age and join our real heroes in the cold, cold ground.
.............................................
Bill Hall can be contacted at wilberth@cableone.net or at 1012 Prospect Ave., Lewiston, ID 83501
.............................................
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Hot damn! Somebody has glenn's number.....
..................................................................
Updated:
..................................................................
.........................................................
And more from and about glenn:
.........................................................
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/10/20/1844919/utilities-want-you-to-go-ductless.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1bN4NpNZL
...............................................................
The update:
...............................................................
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/10/21/1846505/designs-of-handicapped-restrooms.html#ixzz1bT9SpoYi
...............................................................
Updated:
..................................................................
.........................................................
And more from and about glenn:
.........................................................
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/10/20/1844919/utilities-want-you-to-go-ductless.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1bN4NpNZL
...............................................................
The update:
...............................................................
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/10/21/1846505/designs-of-handicapped-restrooms.html#ixzz1bT9SpoYi
...............................................................
Character counts!
...............................................
Matthew Dowd: It’s the Values, Stupid: Why Character Counts in 2012
By Matthew Dowd, Oct 20, 2011 4:00pm
After watching Fight Night in Vegas, or this week’s Republican debate, which heated up considerably, I was struck again by a truth in politics that is often missed in the coverage: Presidential campaigns are fundamentally not about issues; they are about gut values and impressions voters have of the man or woman running for the highest office. Policy points and positions and discussion on issues are merely indicators for voters of what a candidate’s values seem to be. The economy is the dominant concern in this election by far, but voters are looking for something much more heart-centered than head-centered in their president.
The Pew Research Center recently did a survey asking for one-word impressions of the candidates. When you look at the breakdown of words used about Herman Cain, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (especially among Republican voters), the vast majority of words used had nothing to do with issues and everything to do with character impressions or traits or even biography points.
For example, Republicans aren’t supporting Cain primarily because of his tax plan, they are supporting him because he is likable, smart, conservative, different, and a businessman. And Romney’s vulnerabilities (and why conservatives are reluctant to support him) don’t really have to do with issue positions; they have to do with character impressions related to trust and authenticity.
So let’s look at the debate this week among the Republicans and President Obama’s standing with the public with the dynamic of character impressions in mind, rather than issues.
Commentators keep discussing that the American public supports President Obama on nearly all points on his economic plan and on various issue positions he advocates, and he just needs to communicate that to the voters. He has been doing that and has gained not a point in the polls. His Gallup job approval seems to have a ceiling of 42 percent no matter what he does. Why is this? As I mentioned in a previous column, the public does not see President Obama as a strong and optimistic leader right now. Voters see him as beleaguered and a victim of political and global forces he can’t seem to control (and his recent interview with ABC news reinforced this). He doesn’t fix this problem by going around the country campaigning and acting like a candidate trying to sell policy. He fixes this “character” problem by being the president and strongly leading the country. He would be much better off staying in Washington, getting off the trail, and showing the public he has what it takes to lead at this time of tremendous anxiety and confusion.
While the media wants to write the narrative that Perry has come back after his feisty performance taking on Romney, Perry did nothing to fix his fundamental problem. After his series of bad performances, Republicans wonder if he has the capacity to lead the country. It’s not damaging Romney that will earn him supporters, but getting the anti-Romney supporters back, supporters who left Perry because of their impression that he wasn’t ready to lead.
Additionally, many commentators reported that Cain didn’t have ready answers on his “9-9-9″ tax-reform plan, and multiple candidates attacked him on this. He was not damaged thus far on the attributes voters see in him. He doesn’t need to have all the issue positions down perfectly. Republican voters feel he is an interesting, likeable, honest businessman who isn’t a typical politician and can lead in Washington. Cain has to be careful, in contrast to what Perry did, to not look over time as if he doesn’t have the capacity to be commander in chief. Interestingly, thus far in the campaign, when you look at the Pew poll, Cain is much better positioned among Republicans than Romney and Perry on the ratio of positive to negative attributes. It’s a long campaign, and Cain still has much to prove.
And on Romney, while his campaign and others in the media have tried to leave the impression that he did very well in debate by standing strong through all the attacks, over time the character traits revealed will continue to make it hard for him to win over reluctant Republican voters. His deficiency with those voters is on trust and authenticity, and he didn’t really answer those attacks at the debate. He also showed a bristling side to his personality (in contrast to previous debates where he calmly deflected attacks) that voters had not seen and may again create a sense that Romney doesn’t have a core they can count on.
Also, as I mentioned last week, watch out for former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who may begin rising in the polls and winning some of the anti-Romney vote because Republicans are starting to connect with his character attributes and values.
My advice is that while issue positions and policy detail are important, in presidential elections keep an eye on the character of the candidates and the gut values that are revealed to the voters (both positive and negative). It is those impressions that will likely tell us who the nominee will be for the Republicans and whether they can defeat Obama next November. Whoever touches the heart of America, not the head, will ultimately be the victor. The head will follow wherever the heart already is moving.
...............................................
Hmmmmph, Dowd thinks that Republicans are starting to connect with Gingrich's "character attributes and values." Has he really considered his character? In my estimation, a man who would have divorce papers served on his wife while she's in the hospital being treated for cancer has very low character!...............................................
Matthew Dowd: It’s the Values, Stupid: Why Character Counts in 2012
By Matthew Dowd, Oct 20, 2011 4:00pm
After watching Fight Night in Vegas, or this week’s Republican debate, which heated up considerably, I was struck again by a truth in politics that is often missed in the coverage: Presidential campaigns are fundamentally not about issues; they are about gut values and impressions voters have of the man or woman running for the highest office. Policy points and positions and discussion on issues are merely indicators for voters of what a candidate’s values seem to be. The economy is the dominant concern in this election by far, but voters are looking for something much more heart-centered than head-centered in their president.
The Pew Research Center recently did a survey asking for one-word impressions of the candidates. When you look at the breakdown of words used about Herman Cain, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (especially among Republican voters), the vast majority of words used had nothing to do with issues and everything to do with character impressions or traits or even biography points.
For example, Republicans aren’t supporting Cain primarily because of his tax plan, they are supporting him because he is likable, smart, conservative, different, and a businessman. And Romney’s vulnerabilities (and why conservatives are reluctant to support him) don’t really have to do with issue positions; they have to do with character impressions related to trust and authenticity.
So let’s look at the debate this week among the Republicans and President Obama’s standing with the public with the dynamic of character impressions in mind, rather than issues.
Commentators keep discussing that the American public supports President Obama on nearly all points on his economic plan and on various issue positions he advocates, and he just needs to communicate that to the voters. He has been doing that and has gained not a point in the polls. His Gallup job approval seems to have a ceiling of 42 percent no matter what he does. Why is this? As I mentioned in a previous column, the public does not see President Obama as a strong and optimistic leader right now. Voters see him as beleaguered and a victim of political and global forces he can’t seem to control (and his recent interview with ABC news reinforced this). He doesn’t fix this problem by going around the country campaigning and acting like a candidate trying to sell policy. He fixes this “character” problem by being the president and strongly leading the country. He would be much better off staying in Washington, getting off the trail, and showing the public he has what it takes to lead at this time of tremendous anxiety and confusion.
While the media wants to write the narrative that Perry has come back after his feisty performance taking on Romney, Perry did nothing to fix his fundamental problem. After his series of bad performances, Republicans wonder if he has the capacity to lead the country. It’s not damaging Romney that will earn him supporters, but getting the anti-Romney supporters back, supporters who left Perry because of their impression that he wasn’t ready to lead.
Additionally, many commentators reported that Cain didn’t have ready answers on his “9-9-9″ tax-reform plan, and multiple candidates attacked him on this. He was not damaged thus far on the attributes voters see in him. He doesn’t need to have all the issue positions down perfectly. Republican voters feel he is an interesting, likeable, honest businessman who isn’t a typical politician and can lead in Washington. Cain has to be careful, in contrast to what Perry did, to not look over time as if he doesn’t have the capacity to be commander in chief. Interestingly, thus far in the campaign, when you look at the Pew poll, Cain is much better positioned among Republicans than Romney and Perry on the ratio of positive to negative attributes. It’s a long campaign, and Cain still has much to prove.
And on Romney, while his campaign and others in the media have tried to leave the impression that he did very well in debate by standing strong through all the attacks, over time the character traits revealed will continue to make it hard for him to win over reluctant Republican voters. His deficiency with those voters is on trust and authenticity, and he didn’t really answer those attacks at the debate. He also showed a bristling side to his personality (in contrast to previous debates where he calmly deflected attacks) that voters had not seen and may again create a sense that Romney doesn’t have a core they can count on.
Also, as I mentioned last week, watch out for former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who may begin rising in the polls and winning some of the anti-Romney vote because Republicans are starting to connect with his character attributes and values.
My advice is that while issue positions and policy detail are important, in presidential elections keep an eye on the character of the candidates and the gut values that are revealed to the voters (both positive and negative). It is those impressions that will likely tell us who the nominee will be for the Republicans and whether they can defeat Obama next November. Whoever touches the heart of America, not the head, will ultimately be the victor. The head will follow wherever the heart already is moving.
...............................................
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
You probably don't want to believe this, but your bible translation contains flaws!
.......................................................
And not only is its translation flawed, but since god is imaginary and a delusion, the bible is also just plain wrong. See god is imaginary
.......................................................
Five Ways Your Bible Translation Distorts the Original Meaning of the Text
Dr. Joel Hoffman, Posted: 10/14/11 09:35 AM ET
From the Ten Commandments to the Psalms to the Gospels, English translations of the Bible distort the original meaning of the text: The Ten Commandments don't forbid coveting. Psalm 23 is not primarily about sheep or a shepherd. And God didn't give his only begotten son because he loved the world so much.
The problems stem from flawed translation techniques that haven't been updated in hundreds of years.
In particular, there are three common ways of determining what the ancient words of the Bible mean: etymology, internal structure, and cognates. But they don't work very well.
Two other factors further degrade modern translations: a general desire not to change historical translations and a misunderstanding of how to translate metaphors like "God's hand" (God doesn't literally have a hand) or "the Lord is my shepherd."
These five issues have conspired to create English translations that conceal what the Bible originally meant.
Familiar, modern languages like English or Spanish illustrate what goes wrong.
The English words "ballot" and "bullet" share an ancient source, but they mean completely different things. Likewise, "grammar" and "glamour" used to be the same word, but most students don't find grammar to be glamorous. These pairs are examples of how etymology is misleading.
Knowing what an office is does not shed light on what an officer does, even though "officer" has the word "office" in it, just as sweetbread is not sweet and it's not bread. These words demonstrate the danger of relying on internal structure -- roots, prefixes, suffixes and so forth -- to discern a word's meaning. (Also, a "strip mall" isn't what some people might suspect.)
There's a word "demand" in French and it confuses English speakers because it means "to ask," not "to demand." In Spanish, "embarazada," does not mean "embarrassed" but rather "pregnant." These kinds of related words (known as cognates) are common in various languages. It stands to reason that if the words are related they ought to mean the same thing, but it's not true. Cognates, like etymology and internal structure, are unreliable.
Proverbs 28:21 in the 400-year-old classic English translation known as the King James Version (KJV) cautions, oddly, that "to have respect of persons is not good." But 400 years ago, "respect" meant "to be partial," and the point was to avoid favoritism. Additionally, the KJV's "turtle" whose voice is heard in the beautiful imagery of Song of Solomon is a bird. These examples demonstrate a fourth problem plaguing modern translations: the power of history.
In part because of the generally conservative nature of religion -- "out with the old, in with the new" is not a particularly welcome sentiment at most seminaries -- these and other familiar but outdated translations often stick with us and continue to influence Bible translators. (One especially grievous case is the well known but widely misunderstood phrase "God so loved the world" in John 3:16. The meaning of "so" here has changed.)
Shakespeare writes that "Juliet is the sun." But even though melanoma comes from exposure to the sun, Shakespeare didn't mean that Juliet is that girl who causes skin cancer. Obviously, he meant that she has some very specific and culturally defined qualities of the sun, such as beauty. This represents perhaps the trickiest flaw in modern translations: missing the important parts of metaphor and other symbolic language.
Unfortunately, etymology, internal structure, and cognates are the three pillars of Bible translation. And with them, the power of history and a focus on the wrong parts of metaphor degrade all English Bibles even more.
So your Bible translation contains flaws as bad as: mixing up "ballot" and "bullet" (etymology), thinking that all officers work in offices (internal structure), mixing up requests and demands (cognates), thinking that turtles fly (history), and thinking that romance must involve cancer (metaphor).
Fortunately, more modern and reliable translation practices are available, though they haven't made their way into published Bible translations yet. Still, more than at any other time since the Bible was composed, we are better equipped now to understand the ancient words of Scripture.
.......................................................
And not only is its translation flawed, but since god is imaginary and a delusion, the bible is also just plain wrong. See god is imaginary
.......................................................
Five Ways Your Bible Translation Distorts the Original Meaning of the Text
Dr. Joel Hoffman, Posted: 10/14/11 09:35 AM ET
From the Ten Commandments to the Psalms to the Gospels, English translations of the Bible distort the original meaning of the text: The Ten Commandments don't forbid coveting. Psalm 23 is not primarily about sheep or a shepherd. And God didn't give his only begotten son because he loved the world so much.
The problems stem from flawed translation techniques that haven't been updated in hundreds of years.
In particular, there are three common ways of determining what the ancient words of the Bible mean: etymology, internal structure, and cognates. But they don't work very well.
Two other factors further degrade modern translations: a general desire not to change historical translations and a misunderstanding of how to translate metaphors like "God's hand" (God doesn't literally have a hand) or "the Lord is my shepherd."
These five issues have conspired to create English translations that conceal what the Bible originally meant.
Familiar, modern languages like English or Spanish illustrate what goes wrong.
The English words "ballot" and "bullet" share an ancient source, but they mean completely different things. Likewise, "grammar" and "glamour" used to be the same word, but most students don't find grammar to be glamorous. These pairs are examples of how etymology is misleading.
Knowing what an office is does not shed light on what an officer does, even though "officer" has the word "office" in it, just as sweetbread is not sweet and it's not bread. These words demonstrate the danger of relying on internal structure -- roots, prefixes, suffixes and so forth -- to discern a word's meaning. (Also, a "strip mall" isn't what some people might suspect.)
There's a word "demand" in French and it confuses English speakers because it means "to ask," not "to demand." In Spanish, "embarazada," does not mean "embarrassed" but rather "pregnant." These kinds of related words (known as cognates) are common in various languages. It stands to reason that if the words are related they ought to mean the same thing, but it's not true. Cognates, like etymology and internal structure, are unreliable.
Proverbs 28:21 in the 400-year-old classic English translation known as the King James Version (KJV) cautions, oddly, that "to have respect of persons is not good." But 400 years ago, "respect" meant "to be partial," and the point was to avoid favoritism. Additionally, the KJV's "turtle" whose voice is heard in the beautiful imagery of Song of Solomon is a bird. These examples demonstrate a fourth problem plaguing modern translations: the power of history.
In part because of the generally conservative nature of religion -- "out with the old, in with the new" is not a particularly welcome sentiment at most seminaries -- these and other familiar but outdated translations often stick with us and continue to influence Bible translators. (One especially grievous case is the well known but widely misunderstood phrase "God so loved the world" in John 3:16. The meaning of "so" here has changed.)
Shakespeare writes that "Juliet is the sun." But even though melanoma comes from exposure to the sun, Shakespeare didn't mean that Juliet is that girl who causes skin cancer. Obviously, he meant that she has some very specific and culturally defined qualities of the sun, such as beauty. This represents perhaps the trickiest flaw in modern translations: missing the important parts of metaphor and other symbolic language.
Unfortunately, etymology, internal structure, and cognates are the three pillars of Bible translation. And with them, the power of history and a focus on the wrong parts of metaphor degrade all English Bibles even more.
So your Bible translation contains flaws as bad as: mixing up "ballot" and "bullet" (etymology), thinking that all officers work in offices (internal structure), mixing up requests and demands (cognates), thinking that turtles fly (history), and thinking that romance must involve cancer (metaphor).
Fortunately, more modern and reliable translation practices are available, though they haven't made their way into published Bible translations yet. Still, more than at any other time since the Bible was composed, we are better equipped now to understand the ancient words of Scripture.
.......................................................
Pooooooor glenn......
..................................................
Gee, it hurts when someone copycats your name, doesn't it, glenn?
..................................................
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/10/17/1842079/judge-release-r-71-names-gay-rights.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1b7BpRQdh
..................................................
Gee, it hurts when someone copycats your name, doesn't it, glenn?
..................................................
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/10/17/1842079/judge-release-r-71-names-gay-rights.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1b7BpRQdh
..................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)