Rich Power MMA Photo Shot by Darin Codon in San Diego
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Rich “Super” Power – A Force to Be Reckoned With
By Taff Davies
With so much focus on MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) these days, more and more people are being drawn away from the United States’ original combat sport, Boxing. If you asked fight fans to name the top 3 pound for pound fighters in MMA, many would be able to name BJ Penn, George St. Pierre, and Anderson Silva. Would they be able to do the same for Boxing? It’s gotten to the point where some sports experts are predicting that Boxing will eventually drift off into obscurity while MMA continues its dizzying climb as the world’s fastest growing sport.
However, as MMA and its practitioners have evolved, the game has changed. No longer is the sport dominated by ground fighters and no longer does Grappling win the majority of the matches. Jiu Jitsu and Wrestling are still very important skills for fighters to have in their arsenal, but now Boxing is just as important for success in the Octagon. MMA fighters’ abilities to neutralize ground attacks are constantly increasing, which is why there are more and more knockouts as the level of Boxing increase. Ironically, as long as MMA continues to grow, the need for solid Boxing abilities will continue to grow with it.
Enter Rich “Super” Power, San Diego’s newest addition to the professional fighting scene. At 6’5” and 245 lbs., Power stands out in a crowd. But what really sets him apart are his Boxing skills. Currently managed by the same group who managed former Heavyweight champion Lennox Lewis, Power is being looked at as a potential star in the Boxing world. A Southpaw, Power is currently 10-0 as a Pro Heavyweight, with 7 wins coming by way of Knockout.
He recently moved from his hometown of Detroit to San Diego to further advance his career in Boxing. Although not as well-known for Boxing as it once was, there is still some great Boxing training to be found in San Diego with local trainers like Ernest Johnson Sr., who is father to well-known San Diego boxer Ernest “EJ” Johnson Jr. and trainer to numerous professional and amateur boxers. There is also access to some tough sparring in the So Cal region in gyms like The Rock and Wild Card, where Manny Pacquiao trains.
But Power also plans a career in MMA. Seeking the best gym in the country for MMA training, Power chose The Arena, the San Diego MMA gym that houses the largest professional fight team in Southern California. There, Power gets the opportunity to work with numerous high-profile MMA athletes such as 6x World Jiu Jitsu champion Xande Ribeiro. At The Arena, Power instructs these athletes in the finer points of Boxing while getting some hard-core MMA training in return.
Power has also had the chance to do some serious sparring at The Arena, including going rounds with UFC striking standout Junior Dos Santos, who is being viewed as a potential heavyweight champion in MMA. During these sparring sessions, Power learned there is a big difference between pure Boxing and MMA. But Power is a natural athlete who was both a collegiate boxer as well as collegiate basketball player. He is quickly picking up the skills needed for success in MMA and anticipates launching a professional MMA career within the next year while continuing his quest for Boxing glory.
Like his fellow teammate at The Arena, Professional fighter K.J. Noons (former MMA champion and boxer who now fights in Strikeforce), Power wants to blaze a trail across both sports. With his determination, athleticism, and access to some of the best training in the world, one thing is certain. Rich “Super” Power is a force to be reckoned with and will be making a big name for himself in the near future, whether in Boxing, MMA, or both.
For more info or to contact Rich Power or The Arena, go to http://www.TheArenaMMA.com or call 619-222-5554.
Huckabee Responds to 2008 Republican Caucus win in Iowa
Saturday, January 05, 2008
JIM LEHRER: Judy Woodruff was on the flight with Huckabee to New Hampshire this morning and spoke with him again early this afternoon.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Governor Huckabee, congratulations.
MIKE HUCKABEE (R), Presidential Candidate: Thank you.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The first question, is you had a lot less money.
MIKE HUCKABEE: Yes.
JUDY WOODRUFF: You had a much smaller organization.
MIKE HUCKABEE: Mm-hmm.
JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you think you did it in Iowa?
MIKE HUCKABEE: I think we did it because we had a message that people resonated with.
And they wanted to believe that there was still a place in American politics for a person who didn't come at them with a lot of money and razzle and dazzle, but came at them with an authenticity that they felt like was about them, not about the campaign, but about the people, who are supposed to be the very recipients of all this message we create.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you think that what happened in Iowa translates to the state of New Hampshire, where we are right now, a very different state...
MIKE HUCKABEE: Sure.
JUDY WOODRUFF: ... everybody has started to point out?
MIKE HUCKABEE: Americans different in some maybe thoughts or emphasis still have the same ideas. They want a government that lets them be free, that leaves them alone, that doesn't interrupt and interfere with every aspect of their life, that lets them go to work and keep more of what they've worked hard to have.
Those are principles that I think are valid anywhere. Now, there may not be as much focus, for example, in New Hampshire on the sanctity of life or maybe even traditional marriage, as you would see in Iowa. But on issues like lower taxes, less government, and then a more efficient government, that'll be a focus here in New Hampshire that I think is universal anywhere.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Why do you think there's less focus on those issues here?
MIKE HUCKABEE: It's probably just because of the demographics of the state.
There are a lot of conservative people on social issues -- values voters I think is now the vogue term -- a lot of them here in New Hampshire. But this state has a long history, dating all the way back to the fact that it was the state that declared independence six months before the rest of the country did.
It's an independent state. Their motto, live free or die, and they mean it up here.
Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee
Presidential Candidate
There's this sort of myth that Christian conservatives only care about God and gays. Well, you know what? Christian conservatives care about their families eating. They're concerned about energy independence.
Despite N.H. polls, Huckabee fights
JUDY WOODRUFF: Now, you're coming in here competing in a place where the polls are already showing Governor Romney and Senator McCain neck and neck. You're way back. Are you going to compete all the way here?
MIKE HUCKABEE: We'll compete. Whether or not we can win New Hampshire, that's never been something that we said we had to do. We knew that we needed to do well in Iowa. We didn't think we had to win there to stay on our feet.
But we're running first place in South Carolina, first place in Florida and in Texas and a lot of other states. And, so, what we want to do is to still be one of those people that are competing in these early states, and then start winning in places like South Carolina and Florida.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, you...
MIKE HUCKABEE: In essence, we ended up doing better than we thought in Iowa, better than we should have done, by anybody's conventional standards of how politics is supposed to play. We might even surprise some people in New Hampshire.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, Governor Romney, among other things, this morning, he complimented you on your win, but he went on to say that you were helped, in his words -- and he used the word unusual several times -- unusual strengths. And he mentioned the fact you're a pastor.
Your base, something like 80 percent, or maybe even more, of the vote that you received in Iowa was from Christian conservatives. And they are saying you don't have that situation in New Hampshire. You don't have it in a lot of other states.
MIKE HUCKABEE: You know, there's this sort of myth that Christian conservatives only care about God and gays. Well, you know what? Christian conservatives care about their families eating. They're concerned about energy independence. They're concerned about functional government.
And so the fact that they're Christians, there may be a lot of them in Iowa, doesn't mean they're not also fiscal conservatives, doesn't mean they also want a strong national defense and they want a strong position on terror. Those are issues that are also important to them.
So, I think it's the same mind-set that said all along when you say, the commentators say that this is why it was, these are the same commentators that said, if I didn't have $100 million by the end of the year, I wouldn't make it. Well, I made it, so they were wrong. And I'm still here.
Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee
Presidential Candidate
I felt that the positive approach worked better for us there. And people appreciated it. His ads hurt us, there's no doubt about it, because he attacked me.
Negative campaigning backfires
JUDY WOODRUFF: Governor Romney also ran some pretty tough ads.
MIKE HUCKABEE: He did.
JUDY WOODRUFF: He might say they're not so tough. He would say just that he's pointing out the facts...
MIKE HUCKABEE: Yes.
JUDY WOODRUFF: ... about your record, being lenient with illegal immigrants in the state of Arkansas.
Do you expect that kind of a campaign here over the next few days? And, if so, are you going to run ads that are critical? You ended up pulling one back in Iowa.
MIKE HUCKABEE: Yes.
You know, I felt that the positive approach worked better for us there. And people appreciated it. His ads hurt us, there's no doubt about it, because he attacked me. He ran over 14,000 ads in Iowa -- that's a lot of ads -- many of them targeted toward me.
In addition, Washington special interest groups, like Club For Growth, hammered me with over half-a-million dollars of negative, nasty television ads.
But I think, at the end of the day, a lot of people in Iowa just said, you know, this political dumpster-diving has got to stop. It demeans all of us and the system. And no matter what they said, people just got to the point they said, I'm not believing this stuff.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And does that mean you're not going to be criticizing him? I mean, what exactly does that mean in this campaign?
MIKE HUCKABEE: Well, I certainly reserve the right to defend my record. I reserve the right to point out where he's been completely inaccurate when he's portrayed things on my record, which he has on many occasions.
Senator McCain's doing a pretty good job of taking him on here in New Hampshire, because he did the same thing to Senator McCain here that he tried to do to me in Iowa, and that's just act like, "Well, we're both good men, but" -- and then relentlessly hammer away and make up things about our records, which I found very offensive.
It's one thing to say something about my record that I have to say, hmm, boy, he got me on that one. I really did it.
But when he said things like that I had cut the sentences for methamphetamine dealers, when, in fact, I had doubled the sentences, and they were four times harsher than his in Massachusetts, meth labs went down 48 percent in my state during the time I was governor, when he said that I increased spending, and The New York Times called him out on that, and pointed out that his figures were totally made up, and that, in fact, my expenditure increases during the 10-and-a-half-year tenure was pretty much in line with what he had done in his four years in Massachusetts.
JUDY WOODRUFF: You mentioned John McCain. The two of you are saying pretty nice things about each other. Some people are wondering if you have reached some kind of a pact, where you're not going to -- where you're basically going to let each other alone.
MIKE HUCKABEE: It's not about a pact. I think it's about the fact that both of us believe that the discourse of politics ought to be more civil.
We both believe that we have unique positions that we ought to stand for. We're not so weak in our own positions that we have to attack somebody else as to kind of do the political sleight of hand, so, watch this hand, so you don't see what I'm doing with this one.
I think both of us have records that we can proudly stand on and defend. So, I don't have to attack John McCain. John McCain doesn't have to attack me.
Besides that, I do -- I like the guy. I think he's an honorable guy, and I've said that publicly. I've said it in debates. I will say it to you. I will say it to anybody.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Are you going so far as to say as you would cede New Hampshire to him, that you wouldn't compete as much here?
MIKE HUCKABEE: Oh, I don't know about ceding anything. I think he's in a very strong position. He's a well-known commodity here. I'm not that well-known here.
He's spent a lot of time, has deep relationships here. He'd be the favorite to win it. But five days is a long time in New Hampshire. I'm not giving up yet.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And, finally, the turnout in Iowa last night, big turnout -- bigger turnout on the Republican side...
MIKE HUCKABEE: Yes.
JUDY WOODRUFF: ... much bigger on the Democratic side. In fact, the turnout in the Democratic, almost twice what it was among Republicans, even though the voter registration is about even.
Does that say something nationally that should be a cause for concern for Republicans?
MIKE HUCKABEE: Not yet. No, I don't think so.
We had a much bigger turnout than was predicted. Some people thought that the turnout would be as low as 80,000. It was clearly over that. We saw that. We went to Waterloo, almost couldn't get in, got stuck in traffic, didn't think I'd get in or get out and get back to Des Moines.
In fact, when I got back to Des Moines, I landed, my BlackBerry was lighting up like crazy when we got to turn it on. Turned out, while we were gone, flying around, trying to get back there, I'd won the doggone Iowa caucuses.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Governor Huckabee, thank you very much, and congratulations, again.
MIKE HUCKABEE: Thank you, Judy.
Judy Woodruff
Judy Woodruff
Senior NewsHour Correspondent
I was told by one of McCain's very close friends in Iowa. He said: Just watch. When we get to New Hampshire, we're holding nothing back. And, sure enough, you're seeing that here in the ads that they're running.
Huckabee, McCain vs. Romney
JIM LEHRER: More from Judy now and to Margaret Warner.
MARGARET WARNER: Hi, Judy.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Hello, Margaret.
MARGARET WARNER: In that interview, very interesting interview, you just did with Mike Huckabee, he seemed to be tamping down expectations for himself in New Hampshire.
But what are his people saying privately? What kind of an opening do they say they see and how hard a fight are they saying they're really going to mount there?
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we spent time talking to them on the plane last night, Margaret. And then, just a few minutes ago, I talked again with one of his leading -- Governor Huckabee's leading strategists, who said -- very clearly, he said: We are in third place right now. Our internal polling shows us. We think we can come in second here if everything goes right for us.
He says: We've got the resources. We've got the money. He's been able to raise money that he couldn't raise before. He said: We are up on television. We will be for the next few days.
And he says, very blatantly, very openly, they are working a coordinated strategy, you might say, with John McCain to go after Mitt Romney. They don't want Mitt Romney to win New Hampshire, and they're doing everything they can to prevent it.
MARGARET WARNER: And then what about Romney and McCain, who, at least up until this eve-- up until last night, were leading in the polls in New Hampshire? How were they adjusting today to the post-Iowa reality?
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, I don't know if it's the shoot-out at the OK Corral, but it may be the modern-day equivalent of that.
JUDY WOODRUFF: You talk to the McCain people, and all -- they can barely get the words out. Many of them are personally angry at some of the ads that you heard Governor Huckabee refer to.
And they say -- I was told by one of McCain's very close friends in Iowa. He said: Just watch. When we get to New Hampshire, we're holding nothing back.
And, sure enough, you're seeing that here in the ads that they're running and in what John McCain is saying himself. He commented today -- he said, for Mitt Romney to call himself an agent of change is just laughable.
And, then, for Romney's part, the Romney campaign part, I just, within the hour, spoke with one of his senior strategists. And they say, look, we know Iowa was a blow. We know that it's been a setback for us, but we still see a path to success. And it's kind of like a chess game.
They say that, in fact, Huckabee doing well hurts McCain. They also say Obama doing well hurts McCain, because he takes away some of the independent vote here in New Hampshire. And, finally, they say: We're running ads. We're going after McCain on immigration. We're going after him on opposing the Bush tax cuts.
They have a very specific strategy that they say will lift them up. So, they're all very clear, and it's not very pretty.
MARGARET WARNER: Well, Judy, I'm sure you're going to have a great time covering it this weekend. And we'll see you Monday.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Thank you. See you.
David Brooks
David Brooks
New York Times
I think Romney spent $1 million on one radio station here in Iowa. I think - I read he spent $237 a vote. It doesn't get you there if you don't have the message. And that's something that needs to be - we need to be reminded of from time to time.
Huckabee threatens establishment
JIM LEHRER: And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, who's in New Hampshire, and New York Times columnist David Brooks, who's in Iowa.
David, any new insights overnight as to why Mike Huckabee did so well in Iowa?
DAVID BROOKS: No, I don't think so.
I mean, there are some big stories. The money is a good story. Huckabee talked about it with Judy. And we all -- people in Washington place so much value on money. It's not that important. Message is so much more important.
I think Romney spent $1 million on one radio station here in Iowa. I think he -- I read he spent $237 a vote. It doesn't get you there if you don't have the message. And that's something that needs to be -- we need to be reminded of from time to time.
JIM LEHRER: Mark, on the point that Huckabee made that he's not ceding anything in New Hampshire to McCain or anybody else, what are his prospects? What do they look like in New Hampshire at this point?
DAVID BROOKS: He could come in second and that would be...
MARK SHIELDS: New Hampshire is not a good fit for Mike Huckabee. He...
JIM LEHRER: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, David. I was going to ask -- I was going to bring Shields in for a -- just a moment or two.
DAVID BROOKS: Oh, that's...
JIM LEHRER: OK. Go ahead. I'm sorry.
MARK SHIELDS: Thanks, Jim.
JIM LEHRER: Go ahead, Mark.
MARK SHIELDS: And thank you, David.
He's not -- Mike Huckabee is not a natural fit with New Hampshire, either stylistically or ideologically.
He is -- perhaps stylistically is unfair, but ideologically and philosophically, he is not. This is a state that has been not terribly friendly to Southerners in the past, including John Edwards most recently in 2004.
But I think, most of all, Jim, he put his finger on it. I mean, it's a state that is different in its libertarian impulses than are the religious values voters, who gave him his great victory in Iowa.
But I think he's hot right now. He's already had an enormous impact on this race. He took the well-oiled, well-disciplined, almost inevitable machine of Mitt Romney and dismantled it in Iowa. And he gave John McCain a new lease on life by so doing. So he's changed -- and I'll tell you this. He has struck terror into the Wall Street tax-cut, tax-break cadre of the Republican Party. They will do anything to stop Mike Huckabee.
JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with that, David; the Republican establishment will do anything now to stop Mike Huckabee?
DAVID BROOKS: I don't know if they would do anything, but they do want to stop him. And that's why I think ultimately they'll go to McC--
JIM LEHRER: Why? Why? Why is it so important to stop him, David?
DAVID BROOKS: Well, (A), they think he's unelectable. They think someone who doesn't believe in the theory of evolution is not going to win in the fall.
But, (B) -- and Mark and I have talked about this in the past...
JIM LEHRER: Yes.
DAVID BROOKS: ... he is not your classic free-market Republican. He is someone who really pays most attention to people earning $30,000 to $50,000 a year. And those people sometimes need some security. And that security has to come from government.
And that doesn't mean he'd structure it the way the Democrats do. It's overstated to say he's a socialist, which Romney and other people have implied. But he does not share the same old "libertarian government is always the enemy."
But I think what he does have to do right now is saying: I'm not running against the Republican Party.
This would be a mistake. He has taken on Rush Limbaugh. He has taken on the Club For Growth, but he can't go for the next two and three months saying: I'm against Republicans.
He's got to pivot and talk about the conservative stuff, the economically conservative stuff he did in Arkansas. That's the only way he's going to get this thing.
JIM LEHRER: Mark, how do you think Huckabee has handled himself so far in the interview with Judy and other things he's said since he won last night in Iowa?
MARK SHIELDS: Jim, I think he's been superb.
And I thought, in one passage there in his interview with Judy, he put his finger on his success. At Franklin Roosevelt's funeral, there was a radio reporter along Pennsylvania Avenue, where people were packed 30 deep, and he saw one well-dressed man who was just bereft. He was in tears.
And the radio reporter asked him, he said: Did you know President Roosevelt?
And he said: No, but he knew me.
And Mike Huckabee put his finger on it when he said, campaigns are not about the candidates. They're about the voters.
And that's the kind of campaign he's run so far. And that is a secret. It isn't about: I'm ready. I'm fit to be president. I'm qualified to be president. I want to be president.
I mean, it really is about the voters. And I think Mike Huckabee understands that probably better than anybody else in this race.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Governor Huckabee, congratulations.
MIKE HUCKABEE (R), Presidential Candidate: Thank you.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The first question, is you had a lot less money.
MIKE HUCKABEE: Yes.
JUDY WOODRUFF: You had a much smaller organization.
MIKE HUCKABEE: Mm-hmm.
JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you think you did it in Iowa?
MIKE HUCKABEE: I think we did it because we had a message that people resonated with.
And they wanted to believe that there was still a place in American politics for a person who didn't come at them with a lot of money and razzle and dazzle, but came at them with an authenticity that they felt like was about them, not about the campaign, but about the people, who are supposed to be the very recipients of all this message we create.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you think that what happened in Iowa translates to the state of New Hampshire, where we are right now, a very different state...
MIKE HUCKABEE: Sure.
JUDY WOODRUFF: ... everybody has started to point out?
MIKE HUCKABEE: Americans different in some maybe thoughts or emphasis still have the same ideas. They want a government that lets them be free, that leaves them alone, that doesn't interrupt and interfere with every aspect of their life, that lets them go to work and keep more of what they've worked hard to have.
Those are principles that I think are valid anywhere. Now, there may not be as much focus, for example, in New Hampshire on the sanctity of life or maybe even traditional marriage, as you would see in Iowa. But on issues like lower taxes, less government, and then a more efficient government, that'll be a focus here in New Hampshire that I think is universal anywhere.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Why do you think there's less focus on those issues here?
MIKE HUCKABEE: It's probably just because of the demographics of the state.
There are a lot of conservative people on social issues -- values voters I think is now the vogue term -- a lot of them here in New Hampshire. But this state has a long history, dating all the way back to the fact that it was the state that declared independence six months before the rest of the country did.
It's an independent state. Their motto, live free or die, and they mean it up here.
Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee
Presidential Candidate
There's this sort of myth that Christian conservatives only care about God and gays. Well, you know what? Christian conservatives care about their families eating. They're concerned about energy independence.
Despite N.H. polls, Huckabee fights
JUDY WOODRUFF: Now, you're coming in here competing in a place where the polls are already showing Governor Romney and Senator McCain neck and neck. You're way back. Are you going to compete all the way here?
MIKE HUCKABEE: We'll compete. Whether or not we can win New Hampshire, that's never been something that we said we had to do. We knew that we needed to do well in Iowa. We didn't think we had to win there to stay on our feet.
But we're running first place in South Carolina, first place in Florida and in Texas and a lot of other states. And, so, what we want to do is to still be one of those people that are competing in these early states, and then start winning in places like South Carolina and Florida.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, you...
MIKE HUCKABEE: In essence, we ended up doing better than we thought in Iowa, better than we should have done, by anybody's conventional standards of how politics is supposed to play. We might even surprise some people in New Hampshire.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, Governor Romney, among other things, this morning, he complimented you on your win, but he went on to say that you were helped, in his words -- and he used the word unusual several times -- unusual strengths. And he mentioned the fact you're a pastor.
Your base, something like 80 percent, or maybe even more, of the vote that you received in Iowa was from Christian conservatives. And they are saying you don't have that situation in New Hampshire. You don't have it in a lot of other states.
MIKE HUCKABEE: You know, there's this sort of myth that Christian conservatives only care about God and gays. Well, you know what? Christian conservatives care about their families eating. They're concerned about energy independence. They're concerned about functional government.
And so the fact that they're Christians, there may be a lot of them in Iowa, doesn't mean they're not also fiscal conservatives, doesn't mean they also want a strong national defense and they want a strong position on terror. Those are issues that are also important to them.
So, I think it's the same mind-set that said all along when you say, the commentators say that this is why it was, these are the same commentators that said, if I didn't have $100 million by the end of the year, I wouldn't make it. Well, I made it, so they were wrong. And I'm still here.
Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee
Presidential Candidate
I felt that the positive approach worked better for us there. And people appreciated it. His ads hurt us, there's no doubt about it, because he attacked me.
Negative campaigning backfires
JUDY WOODRUFF: Governor Romney also ran some pretty tough ads.
MIKE HUCKABEE: He did.
JUDY WOODRUFF: He might say they're not so tough. He would say just that he's pointing out the facts...
MIKE HUCKABEE: Yes.
JUDY WOODRUFF: ... about your record, being lenient with illegal immigrants in the state of Arkansas.
Do you expect that kind of a campaign here over the next few days? And, if so, are you going to run ads that are critical? You ended up pulling one back in Iowa.
MIKE HUCKABEE: Yes.
You know, I felt that the positive approach worked better for us there. And people appreciated it. His ads hurt us, there's no doubt about it, because he attacked me. He ran over 14,000 ads in Iowa -- that's a lot of ads -- many of them targeted toward me.
In addition, Washington special interest groups, like Club For Growth, hammered me with over half-a-million dollars of negative, nasty television ads.
But I think, at the end of the day, a lot of people in Iowa just said, you know, this political dumpster-diving has got to stop. It demeans all of us and the system. And no matter what they said, people just got to the point they said, I'm not believing this stuff.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And does that mean you're not going to be criticizing him? I mean, what exactly does that mean in this campaign?
MIKE HUCKABEE: Well, I certainly reserve the right to defend my record. I reserve the right to point out where he's been completely inaccurate when he's portrayed things on my record, which he has on many occasions.
Senator McCain's doing a pretty good job of taking him on here in New Hampshire, because he did the same thing to Senator McCain here that he tried to do to me in Iowa, and that's just act like, "Well, we're both good men, but" -- and then relentlessly hammer away and make up things about our records, which I found very offensive.
It's one thing to say something about my record that I have to say, hmm, boy, he got me on that one. I really did it.
But when he said things like that I had cut the sentences for methamphetamine dealers, when, in fact, I had doubled the sentences, and they were four times harsher than his in Massachusetts, meth labs went down 48 percent in my state during the time I was governor, when he said that I increased spending, and The New York Times called him out on that, and pointed out that his figures were totally made up, and that, in fact, my expenditure increases during the 10-and-a-half-year tenure was pretty much in line with what he had done in his four years in Massachusetts.
JUDY WOODRUFF: You mentioned John McCain. The two of you are saying pretty nice things about each other. Some people are wondering if you have reached some kind of a pact, where you're not going to -- where you're basically going to let each other alone.
MIKE HUCKABEE: It's not about a pact. I think it's about the fact that both of us believe that the discourse of politics ought to be more civil.
We both believe that we have unique positions that we ought to stand for. We're not so weak in our own positions that we have to attack somebody else as to kind of do the political sleight of hand, so, watch this hand, so you don't see what I'm doing with this one.
I think both of us have records that we can proudly stand on and defend. So, I don't have to attack John McCain. John McCain doesn't have to attack me.
Besides that, I do -- I like the guy. I think he's an honorable guy, and I've said that publicly. I've said it in debates. I will say it to you. I will say it to anybody.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Are you going so far as to say as you would cede New Hampshire to him, that you wouldn't compete as much here?
MIKE HUCKABEE: Oh, I don't know about ceding anything. I think he's in a very strong position. He's a well-known commodity here. I'm not that well-known here.
He's spent a lot of time, has deep relationships here. He'd be the favorite to win it. But five days is a long time in New Hampshire. I'm not giving up yet.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And, finally, the turnout in Iowa last night, big turnout -- bigger turnout on the Republican side...
MIKE HUCKABEE: Yes.
JUDY WOODRUFF: ... much bigger on the Democratic side. In fact, the turnout in the Democratic, almost twice what it was among Republicans, even though the voter registration is about even.
Does that say something nationally that should be a cause for concern for Republicans?
MIKE HUCKABEE: Not yet. No, I don't think so.
We had a much bigger turnout than was predicted. Some people thought that the turnout would be as low as 80,000. It was clearly over that. We saw that. We went to Waterloo, almost couldn't get in, got stuck in traffic, didn't think I'd get in or get out and get back to Des Moines.
In fact, when I got back to Des Moines, I landed, my BlackBerry was lighting up like crazy when we got to turn it on. Turned out, while we were gone, flying around, trying to get back there, I'd won the doggone Iowa caucuses.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Governor Huckabee, thank you very much, and congratulations, again.
MIKE HUCKABEE: Thank you, Judy.
Judy Woodruff
Judy Woodruff
Senior NewsHour Correspondent
I was told by one of McCain's very close friends in Iowa. He said: Just watch. When we get to New Hampshire, we're holding nothing back. And, sure enough, you're seeing that here in the ads that they're running.
Huckabee, McCain vs. Romney
JIM LEHRER: More from Judy now and to Margaret Warner.
MARGARET WARNER: Hi, Judy.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Hello, Margaret.
MARGARET WARNER: In that interview, very interesting interview, you just did with Mike Huckabee, he seemed to be tamping down expectations for himself in New Hampshire.
But what are his people saying privately? What kind of an opening do they say they see and how hard a fight are they saying they're really going to mount there?
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we spent time talking to them on the plane last night, Margaret. And then, just a few minutes ago, I talked again with one of his leading -- Governor Huckabee's leading strategists, who said -- very clearly, he said: We are in third place right now. Our internal polling shows us. We think we can come in second here if everything goes right for us.
He says: We've got the resources. We've got the money. He's been able to raise money that he couldn't raise before. He said: We are up on television. We will be for the next few days.
And he says, very blatantly, very openly, they are working a coordinated strategy, you might say, with John McCain to go after Mitt Romney. They don't want Mitt Romney to win New Hampshire, and they're doing everything they can to prevent it.
MARGARET WARNER: And then what about Romney and McCain, who, at least up until this eve-- up until last night, were leading in the polls in New Hampshire? How were they adjusting today to the post-Iowa reality?
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, I don't know if it's the shoot-out at the OK Corral, but it may be the modern-day equivalent of that.
JUDY WOODRUFF: You talk to the McCain people, and all -- they can barely get the words out. Many of them are personally angry at some of the ads that you heard Governor Huckabee refer to.
And they say -- I was told by one of McCain's very close friends in Iowa. He said: Just watch. When we get to New Hampshire, we're holding nothing back.
And, sure enough, you're seeing that here in the ads that they're running and in what John McCain is saying himself. He commented today -- he said, for Mitt Romney to call himself an agent of change is just laughable.
And, then, for Romney's part, the Romney campaign part, I just, within the hour, spoke with one of his senior strategists. And they say, look, we know Iowa was a blow. We know that it's been a setback for us, but we still see a path to success. And it's kind of like a chess game.
They say that, in fact, Huckabee doing well hurts McCain. They also say Obama doing well hurts McCain, because he takes away some of the independent vote here in New Hampshire. And, finally, they say: We're running ads. We're going after McCain on immigration. We're going after him on opposing the Bush tax cuts.
They have a very specific strategy that they say will lift them up. So, they're all very clear, and it's not very pretty.
MARGARET WARNER: Well, Judy, I'm sure you're going to have a great time covering it this weekend. And we'll see you Monday.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Thank you. See you.
David Brooks
David Brooks
New York Times
I think Romney spent $1 million on one radio station here in Iowa. I think - I read he spent $237 a vote. It doesn't get you there if you don't have the message. And that's something that needs to be - we need to be reminded of from time to time.
Huckabee threatens establishment
JIM LEHRER: And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, who's in New Hampshire, and New York Times columnist David Brooks, who's in Iowa.
David, any new insights overnight as to why Mike Huckabee did so well in Iowa?
DAVID BROOKS: No, I don't think so.
I mean, there are some big stories. The money is a good story. Huckabee talked about it with Judy. And we all -- people in Washington place so much value on money. It's not that important. Message is so much more important.
I think Romney spent $1 million on one radio station here in Iowa. I think he -- I read he spent $237 a vote. It doesn't get you there if you don't have the message. And that's something that needs to be -- we need to be reminded of from time to time.
JIM LEHRER: Mark, on the point that Huckabee made that he's not ceding anything in New Hampshire to McCain or anybody else, what are his prospects? What do they look like in New Hampshire at this point?
DAVID BROOKS: He could come in second and that would be...
MARK SHIELDS: New Hampshire is not a good fit for Mike Huckabee. He...
JIM LEHRER: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, David. I was going to ask -- I was going to bring Shields in for a -- just a moment or two.
DAVID BROOKS: Oh, that's...
JIM LEHRER: OK. Go ahead. I'm sorry.
MARK SHIELDS: Thanks, Jim.
JIM LEHRER: Go ahead, Mark.
MARK SHIELDS: And thank you, David.
He's not -- Mike Huckabee is not a natural fit with New Hampshire, either stylistically or ideologically.
He is -- perhaps stylistically is unfair, but ideologically and philosophically, he is not. This is a state that has been not terribly friendly to Southerners in the past, including John Edwards most recently in 2004.
But I think, most of all, Jim, he put his finger on it. I mean, it's a state that is different in its libertarian impulses than are the religious values voters, who gave him his great victory in Iowa.
But I think he's hot right now. He's already had an enormous impact on this race. He took the well-oiled, well-disciplined, almost inevitable machine of Mitt Romney and dismantled it in Iowa. And he gave John McCain a new lease on life by so doing. So he's changed -- and I'll tell you this. He has struck terror into the Wall Street tax-cut, tax-break cadre of the Republican Party. They will do anything to stop Mike Huckabee.
JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with that, David; the Republican establishment will do anything now to stop Mike Huckabee?
DAVID BROOKS: I don't know if they would do anything, but they do want to stop him. And that's why I think ultimately they'll go to McC--
JIM LEHRER: Why? Why? Why is it so important to stop him, David?
DAVID BROOKS: Well, (A), they think he's unelectable. They think someone who doesn't believe in the theory of evolution is not going to win in the fall.
But, (B) -- and Mark and I have talked about this in the past...
JIM LEHRER: Yes.
DAVID BROOKS: ... he is not your classic free-market Republican. He is someone who really pays most attention to people earning $30,000 to $50,000 a year. And those people sometimes need some security. And that security has to come from government.
And that doesn't mean he'd structure it the way the Democrats do. It's overstated to say he's a socialist, which Romney and other people have implied. But he does not share the same old "libertarian government is always the enemy."
But I think what he does have to do right now is saying: I'm not running against the Republican Party.
This would be a mistake. He has taken on Rush Limbaugh. He has taken on the Club For Growth, but he can't go for the next two and three months saying: I'm against Republicans.
He's got to pivot and talk about the conservative stuff, the economically conservative stuff he did in Arkansas. That's the only way he's going to get this thing.
JIM LEHRER: Mark, how do you think Huckabee has handled himself so far in the interview with Judy and other things he's said since he won last night in Iowa?
MARK SHIELDS: Jim, I think he's been superb.
And I thought, in one passage there in his interview with Judy, he put his finger on his success. At Franklin Roosevelt's funeral, there was a radio reporter along Pennsylvania Avenue, where people were packed 30 deep, and he saw one well-dressed man who was just bereft. He was in tears.
And the radio reporter asked him, he said: Did you know President Roosevelt?
And he said: No, but he knew me.
And Mike Huckabee put his finger on it when he said, campaigns are not about the candidates. They're about the voters.
And that's the kind of campaign he's run so far. And that is a secret. It isn't about: I'm ready. I'm fit to be president. I'm qualified to be president. I want to be president.
I mean, it really is about the voters. And I think Mike Huckabee understands that probably better than anybody else in this race.
Unanswered questions for Gary Groman
Friday, August 03, 2007
Since the Ole Seagull (Gary Groman) has referred to Terry Dody as "Darth Vadar" (per bransonmissouri.blogspot.com/2007/07/what-about-terry-dody.html), maybe the City could put on a Star Wars skit at the Landing with the following cast:
Terry Dody: Darth Vadar
Mayor Presley: Princess Leia
Stan Barker: Luke Skywalker
Jack Purvis: Han Solo
Paul Link: Obi-Wan Kenobi
Sandra Williams: Luke's aunt
Dick Gass: Luke's uncle
Bob McDowell: R2-D2
Stephen Marshall: C3PO
Or, maybe have Stephen Marshall pay Luke Skywalker, which could lead to this interesting dialogue (per bransonmissouri.blogspot.com/2007/07/education-leads-to-heated-debate-over.html):
Luke (S. Marshall): Darth, you are pigheaded!
Darth (T. Dody): I'm not pigheaded, I'm your father!
Last edited by bgroman : 07-30-2007 at 10:10 AM.
BransonMoTiger is offline
Bookmark only this post: Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Yahoo Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl Reply With Quote
BransonMoTiger
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BransonMoTiger
Unread 07-30-2007, 05:25 AM #3
TheOleSeagull
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 271
BransonMoTiger - Anonymity - Codon
Quote:
Originally Posted by BransonMoTiger View Post
Since the Ole Seagull (Gary Groman) has referred to Terry Dody as "Darth Vadar" (per bransonmissouri.blogspot.com/2007/07/what-about-terry-dody.html), maybe the City could put on a Star Wars skit at the Landing with the following cast:
Terry Dody: Darth Vadar
Mayor Presley: Princess Leia
Stan Barker: Luke Skywalker
Jack Purvis: Han Solo
Paul Link: Obi-Wan Kenobi
Sandra Williams: Luke's aunt
Dick Gass: Luke's uncle
Bob McDowell: R2-D2
Stephen Marshall: C3PO
Mercy, what people will do to take something out of context and distort a fact to fit their own purposes. However, in the context that the the Ole Seagull actually made a Darth Vadar comment about Dody, he would suggest that to get the best performance from the actor suggested for the role of Darth in BransonMoTiger’s post, Terry Dody, the show would have to be done behind closed doors in a secret executive session. Don’t know how this would fit in with a performance on the Public Square in Branson Landing.
The following is an explanation of the “Darth Vadar” comment referred to in the post in an effort to add context to the above "quote" and comment.
Darin Codon, apparently the author of the blog entry in question, for whatever reason, has a propensity to refer to the Ole Seagull in various the posts he makes. In this particular case Codon elected take select certain words, from a particular sequence of words that the Ole Seagull wrote, out of context, to apparently create his own version of a “fact” to suit his own purposes. Codon wrote, “Branson's city administrator Terry Dody has been most discussed by local journalist Gary Groman who has alluded to him (among other less flattering descriptions) as the Darth Vadar of Branson.”
The Ole Seagull wrote an April 2007 column entitled, “A little sunshine on Darth Vader, a plaque, a name, a laundry, a fountain, etc?” In that column he said, “In the Ole Seagull’s opinion, the leadership in this area [Missouri Sunshine Law] of the man that the Ole Seagull considers to be the Darth Vader of Missouri’s Sunshine Law in the city of Branson, its current administrator, Terry Dody, has been one of exclusion rather than inclusion.”
Last edited by bgroman : 07-30-2007 at 09:47 AM.
TheOleSeagull is offline
Bookmark only this post: Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Yahoo Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl Reply With Quote
TheOleSeagull
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by TheOleSeagull
Unread 07-30-2007, 05:34 AM #4
TheOleSeagull
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 271
Big Veterans Show during Veterans Homecoming
How about a huge free morning veterans show during Veterans Homecoming, with as much participation from Branson Shows, entertainers, and attractions as possible?
TheOleSeagull is offline
Bookmark only this post: Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Yahoo Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl Reply With Quote
TheOleSeagull
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by TheOleSeagull
Unread 07-30-2007, 11:25 AM #5
lakecity
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4
How many events can the City use the town square for per year?
lakecity is offline
Bookmark only this post: Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Yahoo Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl Reply With Quote
lakecity
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by lakecity
Unread 07-30-2007, 11:59 AM #6
BransonMoTiger
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 20
"Landlord shall be entitled to periodically hold Landlord sponsored and paid for events or activities on the On-Site Public Improvements and up to 12 events per calendar year which are not more than 2 days in any 30 day period sponsored by another group as specifically designated by Landlord subject to appropriate scheduling through Tenant and the payment by Landlord or the sponsoring group for event designated by Landlord of Tenant’s actual direct costs for providing the necessary services and facilities for the Landlord, event or activities.”
BransonMoTiger is offline
Bookmark only this post: Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Yahoo Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl Reply With Quote
BransonMoTiger
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BransonMoTiger
Unread 07-30-2007, 12:04 PM #7
ggh
Super User
ggh's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: 1 hour from Branson, SW Missouri
Posts: 4,714
Where does the city propose that folks park if the city is going to use the landing as a city gathering spot for attractions?
I've been down there on a w/end when there wasn't a big celebration going on, and had to search for half an hour for parking... if there WAS a big celebration, where would folks be expected to park? Is there a local shuttle from another parking spot?...
ggh is offline
Bookmark only this post: Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Yahoo Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl Reply With Quote
ggh
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by ggh
Unread 07-30-2007, 01:19 PM #8
Donsgal
Senior Member
Donsgal's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Reeds Spring
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Branson EDGE View Post
Mayor says Branson Landing is legally required to host civic events.
Since she's busy, if you were in charge of choosing events at the Landing, who would you choose? How do you think we should choose what events happen in our town square?
Town square? A stip mall is your town square?
donsgal
Donsgal is offline
Bookmark only this post: Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Yahoo Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl Reply With Quote
Donsgal
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Donsgal
Unread 07-30-2007, 10:23 PM #9
CowboyChef
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 125
In order for this production to be approved as an actual Branson City 'Show', somebody has to put on the fake teeth.
aside: why does EVERY SINGLE SHOW have a guy wearing the fake goofy teeth????
CowboyChef is offline
Bookmark only this post: Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Yahoo Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl Reply With Quote
CowboyChef
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by CowboyChef
Unread Yesterday, 07:57 AM #10
Branson EDGE
Branson EDGE
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Branson
Posts: 113
Gary is that you?
Howdy y'all. Wow things really got going a different direction than I'd hoped for in here......
Donsgal - Town Square - That's a really funny comment - yes our town square is in an outdoor mall. What's so funny is that it took a long time for anyone to say it. One paper called it the 420 million dollar "insert thrilling description" here. The other required an insertion of TIF funded into every article relating to the project. A third publication used the first approach constantly.
----
Ole Seagull Said- How about a huge free morning veterans show during Veterans Homecoming, with as much participation from Branson Shows, entertainers, and attractions as possible? - Great Idea
On the comments relating to the article "What about Terry Dody"
Mr. Gary Groman,
Long before I ever published a picture in the paper (a little over a year ago) or published a printed word in Branson, I studied press politics. It's a scholarly interest of mine. There are certain actions and positions you've taken that I disagree with - but:
By far, of any journalist in our region - you have shown extroadinary courage. It's served as an inspiration for me and I think our local publications should show more of it. I can't tell you how much I appreciate this aspect of your character and prose. I see you as a man of conviction with extraordinary talent as a journalist.
You're also by far the most visible voice in the community. The sheer diversity of mediums which you've been able to achieve success is astounding. Once again, I stand inspired.
You've always been friendly and our open discussion about the workings of our community are something that I have valued. Our debates, though sometimes heated ,were always in the spirit of friendship - and a quest for greater truth. That's our job - what we search and write for, right?
I can say I've benefited from these interactions.
In many papers, an editorial board exists. By committee, I believe the Springfield News-Leader has 12, positions on the editorial review board before unsigned editorial positions are chosen in this fashion. In the committee market, you're the only opinion voice (I'm considering Gary Groman and the Ole Seagull) as the same person. In some cases I'm really upset about that. In my opinion, we should have covered more before the election. I think we did a diservice to the public by not publishing all the issues and sides (we as a working group of journalists)
When I discuss pubished opinions relating to editorial, it's for the benefit of the community. After all, one voice is a dictatorship, many a democracy. I try to provide food for thought and balance the sides of the issue for an intelligent person to make an opinion. I understand this to be one of the fundamental purposes for a news outlet.
The written word helped communicate the information we need to be free and self governed.
As you know, I've fought hard for more open government. I've championed, at great cost, for greater access to public documents and more open government. Right?
As the sole published "opinion" voice of our areas most well read paper, I've taken the opportunity to exam and challenge specific assertions. That is what your trying to do when you right editorial right? You are trying to initiate public dialogue and debate ...right?
As you well know, remains well established and documented fact, you've published many articles - many of which you re-publish here - asserting your distaste for Mr. Dody.
I'm neither confirming nor denying what you've said about Mr. Terry Dody is true or false. What I'm saying is - exactly what I said. No journalist has addressed Dody in the pages of the community paper more than you have.
I respectfully ask you to review your statements and beg you to reconsider if my assertions are "distortions of fact" to establish true attitudes opionions and circumstances or rather an accurate summary to inform and debate the question, "What about Terry Dody" posted a week before Terry Dody's departure.
You write as if you don't know me. So I ask you here, - "Do you know Darin" (it sounds to me like you don't) and "Is Darin a man of integrity" Is he without honor?" and lastly, if I make the statement, Darth Vadar as one of the nicer descriptions - would this be true?
Branson EDGE
Terry Dody: Darth Vadar
Mayor Presley: Princess Leia
Stan Barker: Luke Skywalker
Jack Purvis: Han Solo
Paul Link: Obi-Wan Kenobi
Sandra Williams: Luke's aunt
Dick Gass: Luke's uncle
Bob McDowell: R2-D2
Stephen Marshall: C3PO
Or, maybe have Stephen Marshall pay Luke Skywalker, which could lead to this interesting dialogue (per bransonmissouri.blogspot.com/2007/07/education-leads-to-heated-debate-over.html):
Luke (S. Marshall): Darth, you are pigheaded!
Darth (T. Dody): I'm not pigheaded, I'm your father!
Last edited by bgroman : 07-30-2007 at 10:10 AM.
BransonMoTiger is offline
Bookmark only this post: Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Yahoo Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl Reply With Quote
BransonMoTiger
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BransonMoTiger
Unread 07-30-2007, 05:25 AM #3
TheOleSeagull
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 271
BransonMoTiger - Anonymity - Codon
Quote:
Originally Posted by BransonMoTiger View Post
Since the Ole Seagull (Gary Groman) has referred to Terry Dody as "Darth Vadar" (per bransonmissouri.blogspot.com/2007/07/what-about-terry-dody.html), maybe the City could put on a Star Wars skit at the Landing with the following cast:
Terry Dody: Darth Vadar
Mayor Presley: Princess Leia
Stan Barker: Luke Skywalker
Jack Purvis: Han Solo
Paul Link: Obi-Wan Kenobi
Sandra Williams: Luke's aunt
Dick Gass: Luke's uncle
Bob McDowell: R2-D2
Stephen Marshall: C3PO
Mercy, what people will do to take something out of context and distort a fact to fit their own purposes. However, in the context that the the Ole Seagull actually made a Darth Vadar comment about Dody, he would suggest that to get the best performance from the actor suggested for the role of Darth in BransonMoTiger’s post, Terry Dody, the show would have to be done behind closed doors in a secret executive session. Don’t know how this would fit in with a performance on the Public Square in Branson Landing.
The following is an explanation of the “Darth Vadar” comment referred to in the post in an effort to add context to the above "quote" and comment.
Darin Codon, apparently the author of the blog entry in question, for whatever reason, has a propensity to refer to the Ole Seagull in various the posts he makes. In this particular case Codon elected take select certain words, from a particular sequence of words that the Ole Seagull wrote, out of context, to apparently create his own version of a “fact” to suit his own purposes. Codon wrote, “Branson's city administrator Terry Dody has been most discussed by local journalist Gary Groman who has alluded to him (among other less flattering descriptions) as the Darth Vadar of Branson.”
The Ole Seagull wrote an April 2007 column entitled, “A little sunshine on Darth Vader, a plaque, a name, a laundry, a fountain, etc?” In that column he said, “In the Ole Seagull’s opinion, the leadership in this area [Missouri Sunshine Law] of the man that the Ole Seagull considers to be the Darth Vader of Missouri’s Sunshine Law in the city of Branson, its current administrator, Terry Dody, has been one of exclusion rather than inclusion.”
Last edited by bgroman : 07-30-2007 at 09:47 AM.
TheOleSeagull is offline
Bookmark only this post: Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Yahoo Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl Reply With Quote
TheOleSeagull
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by TheOleSeagull
Unread 07-30-2007, 05:34 AM #4
TheOleSeagull
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 271
Big Veterans Show during Veterans Homecoming
How about a huge free morning veterans show during Veterans Homecoming, with as much participation from Branson Shows, entertainers, and attractions as possible?
TheOleSeagull is offline
Bookmark only this post: Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Yahoo Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl Reply With Quote
TheOleSeagull
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by TheOleSeagull
Unread 07-30-2007, 11:25 AM #5
lakecity
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4
How many events can the City use the town square for per year?
lakecity is offline
Bookmark only this post: Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Yahoo Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl Reply With Quote
lakecity
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by lakecity
Unread 07-30-2007, 11:59 AM #6
BransonMoTiger
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 20
"Landlord shall be entitled to periodically hold Landlord sponsored and paid for events or activities on the On-Site Public Improvements and up to 12 events per calendar year which are not more than 2 days in any 30 day period sponsored by another group as specifically designated by Landlord subject to appropriate scheduling through Tenant and the payment by Landlord or the sponsoring group for event designated by Landlord of Tenant’s actual direct costs for providing the necessary services and facilities for the Landlord, event or activities.”
BransonMoTiger is offline
Bookmark only this post: Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Yahoo Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl Reply With Quote
BransonMoTiger
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BransonMoTiger
Unread 07-30-2007, 12:04 PM #7
ggh
Super User
ggh's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: 1 hour from Branson, SW Missouri
Posts: 4,714
Where does the city propose that folks park if the city is going to use the landing as a city gathering spot for attractions?
I've been down there on a w/end when there wasn't a big celebration going on, and had to search for half an hour for parking... if there WAS a big celebration, where would folks be expected to park? Is there a local shuttle from another parking spot?...
ggh is offline
Bookmark only this post: Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Yahoo Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl Reply With Quote
ggh
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by ggh
Unread 07-30-2007, 01:19 PM #8
Donsgal
Senior Member
Donsgal's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Reeds Spring
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Branson EDGE View Post
Mayor says Branson Landing is legally required to host civic events.
Since she's busy, if you were in charge of choosing events at the Landing, who would you choose? How do you think we should choose what events happen in our town square?
Town square? A stip mall is your town square?
donsgal
Donsgal is offline
Bookmark only this post: Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Yahoo Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl Reply With Quote
Donsgal
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Donsgal
Unread 07-30-2007, 10:23 PM #9
CowboyChef
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 125
In order for this production to be approved as an actual Branson City 'Show', somebody has to put on the fake teeth.
aside: why does EVERY SINGLE SHOW have a guy wearing the fake goofy teeth????
CowboyChef is offline
Bookmark only this post: Submit to Digg Submit to Reddit Submit to Yahoo Submit to Furl Submit to Del.icio.us Submit to Spurl Reply With Quote
CowboyChef
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by CowboyChef
Unread Yesterday, 07:57 AM #10
Branson EDGE
Branson EDGE
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Branson
Posts: 113
Gary is that you?
Howdy y'all. Wow things really got going a different direction than I'd hoped for in here......
Donsgal - Town Square - That's a really funny comment - yes our town square is in an outdoor mall. What's so funny is that it took a long time for anyone to say it. One paper called it the 420 million dollar "insert thrilling description" here. The other required an insertion of TIF funded into every article relating to the project. A third publication used the first approach constantly.
----
Ole Seagull Said- How about a huge free morning veterans show during Veterans Homecoming, with as much participation from Branson Shows, entertainers, and attractions as possible? - Great Idea
On the comments relating to the article "What about Terry Dody"
Mr. Gary Groman,
Long before I ever published a picture in the paper (a little over a year ago) or published a printed word in Branson, I studied press politics. It's a scholarly interest of mine. There are certain actions and positions you've taken that I disagree with - but:
By far, of any journalist in our region - you have shown extroadinary courage. It's served as an inspiration for me and I think our local publications should show more of it. I can't tell you how much I appreciate this aspect of your character and prose. I see you as a man of conviction with extraordinary talent as a journalist.
You're also by far the most visible voice in the community. The sheer diversity of mediums which you've been able to achieve success is astounding. Once again, I stand inspired.
You've always been friendly and our open discussion about the workings of our community are something that I have valued. Our debates, though sometimes heated ,were always in the spirit of friendship - and a quest for greater truth. That's our job - what we search and write for, right?
I can say I've benefited from these interactions.
In many papers, an editorial board exists. By committee, I believe the Springfield News-Leader has 12, positions on the editorial review board before unsigned editorial positions are chosen in this fashion. In the committee market, you're the only opinion voice (I'm considering Gary Groman and the Ole Seagull) as the same person. In some cases I'm really upset about that. In my opinion, we should have covered more before the election. I think we did a diservice to the public by not publishing all the issues and sides (we as a working group of journalists)
When I discuss pubished opinions relating to editorial, it's for the benefit of the community. After all, one voice is a dictatorship, many a democracy. I try to provide food for thought and balance the sides of the issue for an intelligent person to make an opinion. I understand this to be one of the fundamental purposes for a news outlet.
The written word helped communicate the information we need to be free and self governed.
As you know, I've fought hard for more open government. I've championed, at great cost, for greater access to public documents and more open government. Right?
As the sole published "opinion" voice of our areas most well read paper, I've taken the opportunity to exam and challenge specific assertions. That is what your trying to do when you right editorial right? You are trying to initiate public dialogue and debate ...right?
As you well know, remains well established and documented fact, you've published many articles - many of which you re-publish here - asserting your distaste for Mr. Dody.
I'm neither confirming nor denying what you've said about Mr. Terry Dody is true or false. What I'm saying is - exactly what I said. No journalist has addressed Dody in the pages of the community paper more than you have.
I respectfully ask you to review your statements and beg you to reconsider if my assertions are "distortions of fact" to establish true attitudes opionions and circumstances or rather an accurate summary to inform and debate the question, "What about Terry Dody" posted a week before Terry Dody's departure.
You write as if you don't know me. So I ask you here, - "Do you know Darin" (it sounds to me like you don't) and "Is Darin a man of integrity" Is he without honor?" and lastly, if I make the statement, Darth Vadar as one of the nicer descriptions - would this be true?
Branson EDGE
Pope Speech to Alma Mater
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Your Eminences, Your Magnificences, Your Excellencies,
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a moving experience for me to be back again in the university and to be able once again to give a lecture at this podium. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn. That was in 1959, in the days of the old university made up of ordinary professors. The various chairs had neither assistants nor secretaries, but in recompense there was much direct contact with students and in particular among the professors themselves. We would meet before and after lessons in the rooms of the teaching staff. There was a lively exchange with historians, philosophers, philologists and, naturally, between the two theological faculties. Once a semester there was a dies academicus, when professors from every faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, making possible a genuine experience of universitas - something that you too, Magnificent Rector, just mentioned - the experience, in other words, of the fact that despite our specializations which at times make it difficult to communicate with each other, we made up a whole, working in everything on the basis of a single rationality with its various aspects and sharing responsibility for the right use of reason - this reality became a lived experience. The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.
At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God’s nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the 8`(oH". This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, F×< 8`(T, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.
In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and simply declares "I am", already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates’ attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy. Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: "I am". This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature. Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria - the Septuagint - is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with logos" is contrary to God’s nature.
In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God’s voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God’s freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God’s transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions. As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which - as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated - unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, "transcends" knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul - "8@(46¬ 8"JD,\"", worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).
This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history - it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: this convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.
The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a dehellenization of Christianity - a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age. Viewed more closely, three stages can be observed in the programme of dehellenization: although interconnected, they are clearly distinct from one another in their motivations and objectives.
Dehellenization first emerges in connection with the postulates of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system. The principle of sola scriptura, on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this programme forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.
The liberal theology of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries ushered in a second stage in the process of dehellenization, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this programme was highly influential in Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal’s distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In my inaugural lecture at Bonn in 1959, I tried to address the issue, and I do not intend to repeat here what I said on that occasion, but I would like to describe at least briefly what was new about this second stage of dehellenization. Harnack’s central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to his simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of hellenization: this simple message was seen as the culmination of the religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favour of morality. In the end he was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message. Fundamentally, Harnack’s goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ’s divinity and the triune God. In this sense, historical-critical exegesis of the New Testament, as he saw it, restored to theology its place within the university: theology, for Harnack, is something essentially historical and therefore strictly scientific. What it is able to say critically about Jesus is, so to speak, an expression of practical reason and consequently it can take its rightful place within the university. Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant’s "Critiques", but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences. This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology. On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: this basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature. On the other hand, there is nature’s capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield ultimate certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side to the other. As strongly positivistic a thinker as J. Monod has declared himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian.
This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.
I will return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology’s claim to be "scientific" would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: if science as a whole is this and this alone, then it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by "science", so understood, and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective "conscience" becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.
Before I draw the conclusions to which all this has been leading, I must briefly refer to the third stage of dehellenization, which is now in progress. In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was a preliminary inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures. The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not only false; it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed. True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.
And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is – as you yourself mentioned, Magnificent Rector - the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.
Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world’s profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought – to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: "It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss". The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur – this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a moving experience for me to be back again in the university and to be able once again to give a lecture at this podium. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn. That was in 1959, in the days of the old university made up of ordinary professors. The various chairs had neither assistants nor secretaries, but in recompense there was much direct contact with students and in particular among the professors themselves. We would meet before and after lessons in the rooms of the teaching staff. There was a lively exchange with historians, philosophers, philologists and, naturally, between the two theological faculties. Once a semester there was a dies academicus, when professors from every faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, making possible a genuine experience of universitas - something that you too, Magnificent Rector, just mentioned - the experience, in other words, of the fact that despite our specializations which at times make it difficult to communicate with each other, we made up a whole, working in everything on the basis of a single rationality with its various aspects and sharing responsibility for the right use of reason - this reality became a lived experience. The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.
At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God’s nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the 8`(oH". This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, F×< 8`(T, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.
In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and simply declares "I am", already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates’ attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy. Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: "I am". This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature. Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria - the Septuagint - is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with logos" is contrary to God’s nature.
In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God’s voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God’s freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God’s transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions. As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which - as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated - unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, "transcends" knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul - "8@(46¬ 8"JD,\"", worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).
This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history - it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: this convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.
The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a dehellenization of Christianity - a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age. Viewed more closely, three stages can be observed in the programme of dehellenization: although interconnected, they are clearly distinct from one another in their motivations and objectives.
Dehellenization first emerges in connection with the postulates of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system. The principle of sola scriptura, on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this programme forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.
The liberal theology of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries ushered in a second stage in the process of dehellenization, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this programme was highly influential in Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal’s distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In my inaugural lecture at Bonn in 1959, I tried to address the issue, and I do not intend to repeat here what I said on that occasion, but I would like to describe at least briefly what was new about this second stage of dehellenization. Harnack’s central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to his simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of hellenization: this simple message was seen as the culmination of the religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favour of morality. In the end he was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message. Fundamentally, Harnack’s goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ’s divinity and the triune God. In this sense, historical-critical exegesis of the New Testament, as he saw it, restored to theology its place within the university: theology, for Harnack, is something essentially historical and therefore strictly scientific. What it is able to say critically about Jesus is, so to speak, an expression of practical reason and consequently it can take its rightful place within the university. Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant’s "Critiques", but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences. This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology. On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: this basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature. On the other hand, there is nature’s capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield ultimate certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side to the other. As strongly positivistic a thinker as J. Monod has declared himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian.
This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.
I will return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology’s claim to be "scientific" would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: if science as a whole is this and this alone, then it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by "science", so understood, and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective "conscience" becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.
Before I draw the conclusions to which all this has been leading, I must briefly refer to the third stage of dehellenization, which is now in progress. In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was a preliminary inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures. The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not only false; it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed. True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.
And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is – as you yourself mentioned, Magnificent Rector - the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.
Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world’s profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought – to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: "It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss". The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur – this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.
Branson, Missouri Airport 'Understanding' sparks county friction
Friday, March 10, 2006
Airport ‘understanding’ sparks county friction
By Brandon Cone
BDN Staff Writer
During the Taney County Commission’s weekly meeting Monday, the assessor questioned a “memorandum of understanding” with Branson Airport Authority, LLC, signed by commissioners last week.
“I come before this board today not as the Taney County assessor, but as a Taney County taxpayer,” James Strahan said. “I am disappointed that this commission signed a document paying my taxpayer dollars directly to the owners of an airport.”
Branson Airport is a proposed $93 million commercial airport that would be located near U.S. 65 north of the Arkansas border. The group Branson Airport Authority has been trying to get the project off the ground since 2001.
The memorandum proposes that the county pay $5 of incremental tax money to the airport for each passenger that comes to the area from the airport, with a cap of $1 million each year for 10 years.
“That’s money the county is going to gain in sales tax, because when people come here, they’re going to spend money,” Commissioner Ron Herschend said. “If the airport doesn’t bring anyone in, then we don’t owe them a dime.”
“All that document shows is that we're not opposed to this plan,” Presiding Commissioner Chuck Pennel added.
The airport group approached the commission in mid-2005 and requested the tax money, generated by visitors, to help offset certain expenses. Commissioners said they just recently were presented with a plan they could agree with.
“It wasn’t easy for me to come to this decision,” Pennel said. “I have done a lot of research and talked to many people before getting to the point where I would say yes to this document.”
County Attorney Bob Paulson said the memorandum is not contractually binding.
“This is not a contract,” Paulson said. “This a document that the airport's attorneys can take and begin composing something more official from.”
The assessor’s brother, Commissioner Danny Strahan, was the only commissioner who did not vote in favor of the plan.
“I didn’t vote for this memorandum of understanding because I didn't understand it,” he said. “I’d hate to think county tax money was benefiting a private owner.”
Herschend said the tax money would not be used for private benefit.
“The money would help public infrastructure, not private,” he said.
James Strahan questioned why the commission did not approve the document during a public meeting.
“Why didn’t you sign it here at this meeting now, instead of in your office, if there wasn’t something to hide?” he asked.
Paulson said that if the document had been a contract, it would have been voted on during a meeting.
“All this says is that they feel this plan might be workable,” Paulson said. “No one is obligated to pay any money based upon this document.”
By Brandon Cone
BDN Staff Writer
During the Taney County Commission’s weekly meeting Monday, the assessor questioned a “memorandum of understanding” with Branson Airport Authority, LLC, signed by commissioners last week.
“I come before this board today not as the Taney County assessor, but as a Taney County taxpayer,” James Strahan said. “I am disappointed that this commission signed a document paying my taxpayer dollars directly to the owners of an airport.”
Branson Airport is a proposed $93 million commercial airport that would be located near U.S. 65 north of the Arkansas border. The group Branson Airport Authority has been trying to get the project off the ground since 2001.
The memorandum proposes that the county pay $5 of incremental tax money to the airport for each passenger that comes to the area from the airport, with a cap of $1 million each year for 10 years.
“That’s money the county is going to gain in sales tax, because when people come here, they’re going to spend money,” Commissioner Ron Herschend said. “If the airport doesn’t bring anyone in, then we don’t owe them a dime.”
“All that document shows is that we're not opposed to this plan,” Presiding Commissioner Chuck Pennel added.
The airport group approached the commission in mid-2005 and requested the tax money, generated by visitors, to help offset certain expenses. Commissioners said they just recently were presented with a plan they could agree with.
“It wasn’t easy for me to come to this decision,” Pennel said. “I have done a lot of research and talked to many people before getting to the point where I would say yes to this document.”
County Attorney Bob Paulson said the memorandum is not contractually binding.
“This is not a contract,” Paulson said. “This a document that the airport's attorneys can take and begin composing something more official from.”
The assessor’s brother, Commissioner Danny Strahan, was the only commissioner who did not vote in favor of the plan.
“I didn’t vote for this memorandum of understanding because I didn't understand it,” he said. “I’d hate to think county tax money was benefiting a private owner.”
Herschend said the tax money would not be used for private benefit.
“The money would help public infrastructure, not private,” he said.
James Strahan questioned why the commission did not approve the document during a public meeting.
“Why didn’t you sign it here at this meeting now, instead of in your office, if there wasn’t something to hide?” he asked.
Paulson said that if the document had been a contract, it would have been voted on during a meeting.
“All this says is that they feel this plan might be workable,” Paulson said. “No one is obligated to pay any money based upon this document.”
Branson Considers Transportation Alternatives
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Branson considers transportation alternatives
By SBJ Staff
3/7/2006
Branson is holding a public meeting this week to consider transportation improvements – including a possible “sky train” – to alleviate traffic congestion.
The meeting will be held 4:30–6:30 p.m. Thursday at the Municipal Courtroom in Branson City Hall, 110 W. Maddux. The public is invited to the “open house” meeting to review proposed transit alternatives and provide input.
The meeting is part of a transit study that began in 2004 when Branson received a $450,000 federal grant, used to hire consultant and study leader Jacobs Civil Inc. The study will produce an Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement at the end of this year.
At Thursday’s meeting, the public will be able to review the results of a 2005 travel patterns survey of Branson’s visitors, employers, employees and attractions; learn about proposed transit alternatives and express their preferences; and discuss the potential ridership of each alternative.
Jacobs has begun to detail the city’s transit alternatives, and choices include creating a Transportation System Management alternative or a series of build alternatives.
The Transportation System Management option would provide a shuttle bus service on Main Street and Route 76, as well as several loop bus service routes on the city’s color-coded streets.
The build alternatives include adding bus routes and a 6.5-mile elevated fixed guideway system, or “sky train,” with 11 stations, or adding bus routes and a 7.5-mile guideway system with 13 stations.
According to Jacobs’ pre-study report, Route 76 remains a major travel artery that cannot be widened easily and is constrained by its pedestrian-unfriendly environment. There is currently no public transit system available in Branson.
“Avoided trips ultimately translate to reduced business revenues and fewer jobs, because the inability to easily and reliably get to venues reduces paying customers and diminishes visitor potential,” according to Jacobs’ pre-study report.
In addition to the open house meeting, the city has plans to gather input several other ways. A Project Oversight Committee has been established that includes representatives from the city’s Transportation Advisory Committee, the city’s hospitality industry, the tourism industry, downtown representatives, property owners and the development community. Also, federal, state and local resource agencies will be invited to several meetings to review the study as it develops.
By SBJ Staff
3/7/2006
Branson is holding a public meeting this week to consider transportation improvements – including a possible “sky train” – to alleviate traffic congestion.
The meeting will be held 4:30–6:30 p.m. Thursday at the Municipal Courtroom in Branson City Hall, 110 W. Maddux. The public is invited to the “open house” meeting to review proposed transit alternatives and provide input.
The meeting is part of a transit study that began in 2004 when Branson received a $450,000 federal grant, used to hire consultant and study leader Jacobs Civil Inc. The study will produce an Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement at the end of this year.
At Thursday’s meeting, the public will be able to review the results of a 2005 travel patterns survey of Branson’s visitors, employers, employees and attractions; learn about proposed transit alternatives and express their preferences; and discuss the potential ridership of each alternative.
Jacobs has begun to detail the city’s transit alternatives, and choices include creating a Transportation System Management alternative or a series of build alternatives.
The Transportation System Management option would provide a shuttle bus service on Main Street and Route 76, as well as several loop bus service routes on the city’s color-coded streets.
The build alternatives include adding bus routes and a 6.5-mile elevated fixed guideway system, or “sky train,” with 11 stations, or adding bus routes and a 7.5-mile guideway system with 13 stations.
According to Jacobs’ pre-study report, Route 76 remains a major travel artery that cannot be widened easily and is constrained by its pedestrian-unfriendly environment. There is currently no public transit system available in Branson.
“Avoided trips ultimately translate to reduced business revenues and fewer jobs, because the inability to easily and reliably get to venues reduces paying customers and diminishes visitor potential,” according to Jacobs’ pre-study report.
In addition to the open house meeting, the city has plans to gather input several other ways. A Project Oversight Committee has been established that includes representatives from the city’s Transportation Advisory Committee, the city’s hospitality industry, the tourism industry, downtown representatives, property owners and the development community. Also, federal, state and local resource agencies will be invited to several meetings to review the study as it develops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
