BBC News - Herman Cain interview stumble 'due to lack of sleep'
Herman Cain: "I've got all this stuff twirling around in my head" - courtesy Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain's campaign says he had not slept enough when he stumbled on an interview question about Libya.
Mr Cain appeared confused as he discussed President Barack Obama's policy on Libya in an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
He said he had "all this stuff twirling around in my head".
The clip has been compared with Texas Governor Rick Perry's memory lapse last [...]
I don't care what he said or how he said it, I don't know what he did or who he did it to. His scandals will be untangled, or not, that should really be between him, the person accusing him, and whatever legal entities need to be involved. But the headline itself is what catches my eye. I want transparency in the government. I want these guys to put themselves in front of cameras and use social networking tools, I want to know who they are, since I pay their salaries. Not his specifically, but every taxpayer contributes to the salaries of government officials. I will say that Dude's employer, technically a state employer, gets no government funding; they deal with workmen's comp and crime victims' claims and their funding is established through non-government channels. I guess that means I'm addressing other taxpayers when I say we're their employers and have the same rights as any other employer to be up in the business of our employees in the ways we see fit (within reason) when they're on our dime. I guess a person or family that doesn't pay taxes would be a consumer in this instance and their voice would be limited in it's effect to the degree that the taxpaying population and whatever portions of the government's working it funds have the desire and motivation to respond to their needs. But they have to trust the media if that's going to happen, and we have to accept that they're human. If we focused on problem-solving instead of pickin' apart every little failing, we'd get a lot further. (On the other hand, public figures do need to have thick skins and an ability to say, "I was wrong," or even, "I am wrong," and, "I'm sorry.") He may have behaved inappropriately with someone or someones, is the gist I'm getting from the bits I've seen. That matters insofar as his inappropriate behavior indicates a lack of character (perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't), and/or if it caused harm to his accusers and we can help them in some real way. And those are the reasons to follow them around with cameras whenever they're on the public dime, or anytime they're speaking or acting on behalf of the public. If, during those times, they're doing the best they're able with what they've got, great, they've got proof of such. If not, then there's proof of that, too. Then all the endless, pointless speculation can cease, our curiosity will be satiated, and we can get on with things that will actually make positive differences in the lives of a majority (and that will hopefully give the option of the rest finding a positive impact too if they will, even if things don't go in what they initially feel is their favor). I prefer a politician who messes up from time to time (not in an on-purpose, aw shucks, good-ol-boy I'm-stupid-like-I-assume-the-rest-of-ya-are way, but an honest fumble) to one who's so smooth and polished that I'm pretty sure they've never spoken spontaneously in their lives. People who are well-rehearsed are great when we're talkin' about a comedy routine, or a political rally, or someone addressing a business conference where time is money and points need to be put across quickly and concisely, but politicians are supposed to listen, and they're supposed to tell us who they really are, and give us honest answers when we ask what they plan to do, and that means sometimes they're gonna screw up in their speaking. They're going to flip-flop, because people grow up and perspectives change. They're going to say stupid things from time to time 'cause they're responding from their real selves. Yes, we want a certain degree of cultivation in the people we put forth as our leaders to guide and represent us, but I for one don't want them so polished there's no sign of a real person in there. I don't want them crumbling at the seams, mind you, but there's a long way between cracked beyond usefulness or repair and a state of perceived 'perfection'. Perfection is completion is ending. We are perfect in each moment, for that moment, and when the moment ends so does the perfection of the state appropriate to it, so perfection in nature is both inevitable in each moment and unattainable for any longer. Perfection that remains unchanged is not natural, therefore the person untainted by mistakes or accidents is inhuman (as humans are a natural occurrence, at least on our planet, and subject to natural law). The day I'm perfect (not the fleeting kind, but the eternal kind where there's nothing left to know or experience that isn't already a part of the Universe I am) I'll start judgin' y'all, often harshly I'd imagine. Until then, I think I'll stick with giving attention to the things I appreciate and of which I approve (I'm thankful those things are many), spending my time and energy on changing what I think needs changing, and enjoying the many people and things in my life that are just right the way you are, in this moment, and this one, and this one. :) Thanks for being. And for bein' in my life. (And if you know or care what Mr. Cain is said to have done, since obviously he wasn't on camera and we don't have proof, perhaps you'll have a desire to give me the condensed version and explain why we care. By which I don't mean a weary, "Why do we care? *sigh*" but whether or not it's a thing that speaks poorly to his character. I'm not sayin' we should only talk about what's right and happy and good, just that if we're gonna bring up the negative stuff it might be good if it was purposeful and on-topic.)
Comments
Post a Comment