Saturday, February 4, 2012
Public Relations: SGK, Ur Doin It Wrong
A great deal has been said about the Susan G. Komen Foundation's massive PR debacle in de-funding and then nominally re-funding their support of breast exams performed through Planned Parenthood outlets. I won't try to replace a good Google search for the latest developments, but I'll say a few things from the perspective of someone who has worked in marketing her whole adult life, including intersections of various sorts, paid and not, with several non-profit organizations.
Observation #1: Whether you are a commercial or a non-profit concern, the moment you conclude as management thereof that you and/or your board of directors are involved with the organization for the same reasons that your customers or donors support you, you are deeply in denial and on the road to disaster.
If you're a nonprofit, your management probably has a certain level of passion for the mission, whatever it is, but also wants to make a living and perpetuate some personal job security. Your board - more often than not - wants something spiffy to add to their resumes while doing as little tangible work as possible. With the rarest of exceptions, non-profit boards are there to see-and-be-seen.
That's not why your members and supporters donate their money or time or involvement. They do it because it makes them feel good about themselves.
Same thing for commercial companies. If you successfully sell a widget or a windmill, that sale will have happened because the customer feels better about buying from you than buying from someone else. They won't have a passionate conviction that your product and yours alone fulfills their needs because of your fabulous technology, legendary customer support or attention to detail. They just somehow like you better.
That's the core mistake the Komen Foundation made to begin with: they assumed that just because the makeup of their board and management structure had changed to include a different political attitude, those changes could be successfully reflected in their external mission, without any fallout. They failed utterly to understand their audience/support base or to take that base's concerns into account.
Observation #2: Don't just make shit up in a vain attempt to have your cake and also eat it when you change - or change again - a policy or a product or the story you're trying to convey about either. It never, ever works. You have to be straightforward and provide factual information and a plausible reason, not smoke and mirrors. No, we're not supporting this position any more because x-y-z. Yes, we're phasing out this product's support for format a-b-c because we believe j-k-l is the path of the future. Will you lose friends, supporters, customers? Undoubtedly. That's why you need to understand your base (Item #1) and choose carefully which segments of it are most important to your success.
Komen blew it here because they wanted both to hang onto the broad, bipartisan, largely apolitical base they had cultivated for a decade, and at the same time to appease the anti-choice fringe crowd whose whispers seem to be having an impact on the organization's current CEO and new Senior VP. As a result of their waffling walk-back of the PP de-funding decision (with, as others have ably noted, completely toothless language that does nothing to confirm that any actual funds will be forthcoming), Komen has now lost substantial chunks of both groups. A double blunder from which I see no way back that doesn't involve executive-level resignations, a massive restructuring effort, and, above all, time.
Observation #3: It's a brave new world out there. You'd better understand the Internet sandbox well before you go there to play with your pail and shovel.
Not that there isn't still a place for traditional media. It's nice to be able to send the CEO a clip file of warm, fuzzy ads; cover stories; glossy feature article reprints. But, let's admit it - most of the real work of forging public opinion, especially for an organization as prominent as Komen (or, for that matter, Planned Parenthood), is going to happen online. That's not a place where you can bury a story on Page 12 of Section C and have it reliably fade out with the weekly recycling. Just the reverse: it's a place where your offhand comment or major misstep can be in front of hundreds of thousands of people within a matter of seconds. Very often, in places where you can do nothing to mitigate it. Scrub your Tweet or a blog post? Doesn't matter. Astute netizens will have already grabbed, archived and shared copies. Huge, amorphous networks of connection spread the word and translate into action very, very quickly. Just ask Planned Parenthood, who received roughly 1 million dollars in donations within the first 24 hours of this circus act. Ask anyone who has ever gleefully joined in one of Stephen Colbert's pranks.
You need to be regularly present, you need to be engaged, and you need to draw a sharp, clear distinction between an individual's private expression and one made on behalf of the organization. Komen did the first two, but in the same kind of unconvincing, inauthentic language I mentioned above. Their online voice doesn't read as genuine, and it must. And, clearly, the third thing did not happen.
What I would have done, had I been the marketer presented with the task of conveying something like this to the public? (Well, had I not resigned in disgust. Always a possibility - it wouldn't be the first time...) I would have moved heaven and earth to persuade the brass that more research was needed, both of our affiliate organizations and our supporters. What did they see as being most effective? Where did they feel our most important support was being delivered? In this case, the results of that kind of investigation might well have turned up data so persuasive as to trump ideology and avoid the whole debacle.
Yes, that's a long shot. But at the bare minimum, much more should have been done to anticipate the likely fallout. Newbie-level mistakes were made here.
Observation #4: When apologies are called for, they need to be real ones. Hardly any company ever gets this one right. Just say you're sorry. Not sorry if, not sorry that, not sorry for any (your epithet of condolence here). Just sorry.
This, again, is part of the genuine voice remarked on in Item #3. Just as you can always tell when somebody is issuing an insincere, non-apology apology, so can your base. That's true whether or not you're apologizing directly to them or to a third party. Words matter. Use few, choose them judiciously, and be factually and emotionally honest. If you don't, and the insincerity bleeds through - as it is doing, with Komen's reversal - whatever goodwill you hoped to regain will just become more elusive.
So, there you have them: my four basic rules. Know your audience, tell the truth, understand/respect the power of the Net, and be sincere. Doesn't sound that hard, does it?
I have absolutely no idea whether Komen will survive this PR fiasco they built for themselves...or, indeed, whether or not the organization should. But I do know one thing for sure. If they're hoping that Super Bowl hoopla will bury the story, they're really fooling themselves. The Count noted that the group has some male supporters on Facebook. They'll likely be watching the big game on Sunday. But the millions of women who have invested donations, volunteer time and their own personal stories/lives, and those of their friends or families, in what Komen has historically been about? Not too many of them will be gathering with the guys for beer and buffalo wings. They're the core constituency Komen needs to be concerned about here. And, come Monday, they'll remember.
Observation #1: Whether you are a commercial or a non-profit concern, the moment you conclude as management thereof that you and/or your board of directors are involved with the organization for the same reasons that your customers or donors support you, you are deeply in denial and on the road to disaster.
If you're a nonprofit, your management probably has a certain level of passion for the mission, whatever it is, but also wants to make a living and perpetuate some personal job security. Your board - more often than not - wants something spiffy to add to their resumes while doing as little tangible work as possible. With the rarest of exceptions, non-profit boards are there to see-and-be-seen.
That's not why your members and supporters donate their money or time or involvement. They do it because it makes them feel good about themselves.
Same thing for commercial companies. If you successfully sell a widget or a windmill, that sale will have happened because the customer feels better about buying from you than buying from someone else. They won't have a passionate conviction that your product and yours alone fulfills their needs because of your fabulous technology, legendary customer support or attention to detail. They just somehow like you better.
That's the core mistake the Komen Foundation made to begin with: they assumed that just because the makeup of their board and management structure had changed to include a different political attitude, those changes could be successfully reflected in their external mission, without any fallout. They failed utterly to understand their audience/support base or to take that base's concerns into account.
Observation #2: Don't just make shit up in a vain attempt to have your cake and also eat it when you change - or change again - a policy or a product or the story you're trying to convey about either. It never, ever works. You have to be straightforward and provide factual information and a plausible reason, not smoke and mirrors. No, we're not supporting this position any more because x-y-z. Yes, we're phasing out this product's support for format a-b-c because we believe j-k-l is the path of the future. Will you lose friends, supporters, customers? Undoubtedly. That's why you need to understand your base (Item #1) and choose carefully which segments of it are most important to your success.
Komen blew it here because they wanted both to hang onto the broad, bipartisan, largely apolitical base they had cultivated for a decade, and at the same time to appease the anti-choice fringe crowd whose whispers seem to be having an impact on the organization's current CEO and new Senior VP. As a result of their waffling walk-back of the PP de-funding decision (with, as others have ably noted, completely toothless language that does nothing to confirm that any actual funds will be forthcoming), Komen has now lost substantial chunks of both groups. A double blunder from which I see no way back that doesn't involve executive-level resignations, a massive restructuring effort, and, above all, time.
Observation #3: It's a brave new world out there. You'd better understand the Internet sandbox well before you go there to play with your pail and shovel.
Not that there isn't still a place for traditional media. It's nice to be able to send the CEO a clip file of warm, fuzzy ads; cover stories; glossy feature article reprints. But, let's admit it - most of the real work of forging public opinion, especially for an organization as prominent as Komen (or, for that matter, Planned Parenthood), is going to happen online. That's not a place where you can bury a story on Page 12 of Section C and have it reliably fade out with the weekly recycling. Just the reverse: it's a place where your offhand comment or major misstep can be in front of hundreds of thousands of people within a matter of seconds. Very often, in places where you can do nothing to mitigate it. Scrub your Tweet or a blog post? Doesn't matter. Astute netizens will have already grabbed, archived and shared copies. Huge, amorphous networks of connection spread the word and translate into action very, very quickly. Just ask Planned Parenthood, who received roughly 1 million dollars in donations within the first 24 hours of this circus act. Ask anyone who has ever gleefully joined in one of Stephen Colbert's pranks.
You need to be regularly present, you need to be engaged, and you need to draw a sharp, clear distinction between an individual's private expression and one made on behalf of the organization. Komen did the first two, but in the same kind of unconvincing, inauthentic language I mentioned above. Their online voice doesn't read as genuine, and it must. And, clearly, the third thing did not happen.
What I would have done, had I been the marketer presented with the task of conveying something like this to the public? (Well, had I not resigned in disgust. Always a possibility - it wouldn't be the first time...) I would have moved heaven and earth to persuade the brass that more research was needed, both of our affiliate organizations and our supporters. What did they see as being most effective? Where did they feel our most important support was being delivered? In this case, the results of that kind of investigation might well have turned up data so persuasive as to trump ideology and avoid the whole debacle.
Yes, that's a long shot. But at the bare minimum, much more should have been done to anticipate the likely fallout. Newbie-level mistakes were made here.
Observation #4: When apologies are called for, they need to be real ones. Hardly any company ever gets this one right. Just say you're sorry. Not sorry if, not sorry that, not sorry for any (your epithet of condolence here). Just sorry.
This, again, is part of the genuine voice remarked on in Item #3. Just as you can always tell when somebody is issuing an insincere, non-apology apology, so can your base. That's true whether or not you're apologizing directly to them or to a third party. Words matter. Use few, choose them judiciously, and be factually and emotionally honest. If you don't, and the insincerity bleeds through - as it is doing, with Komen's reversal - whatever goodwill you hoped to regain will just become more elusive.
So, there you have them: my four basic rules. Know your audience, tell the truth, understand/respect the power of the Net, and be sincere. Doesn't sound that hard, does it?
I have absolutely no idea whether Komen will survive this PR fiasco they built for themselves...or, indeed, whether or not the organization should. But I do know one thing for sure. If they're hoping that Super Bowl hoopla will bury the story, they're really fooling themselves. The Count noted that the group has some male supporters on Facebook. They'll likely be watching the big game on Sunday. But the millions of women who have invested donations, volunteer time and their own personal stories/lives, and those of their friends or families, in what Komen has historically been about? Not too many of them will be gathering with the guys for beer and buffalo wings. They're the core constituency Komen needs to be concerned about here. And, come Monday, they'll remember.
The View From My Ass
Man it's been awhile has it not? How's tricks? I have stayed out of the Susan G. Koman fiasco for the most part for one simple reason. in a battle between 2 organizations whose primary purpose is women's health I just don't particularly feel as if it is my battle to fight. Although I will say this. A look at the Koman Facebook page shows that supporters of the organization, which right now are are far fewer than detractors, have names like Michael, Charles, James and William. Now I do not doubt that many of these men who suddenly stand behind Susan G. Koman 100% have an interest in women's breast but somehow I doubt that many of them care about cancer.
My only real "take" on the Koman fiasco was this. You are an organization whose primary goal is women's health. Why in the world would you alienate another organization that has the same primary concern not to mention millions of women? And to pacify a fanatical religious fringe group that is made up overwhelmingly of men. To me the decision seems maddeningly ignorant and so completely ill thought out. Did they put any thought into the decision at all? Did they think women wouldn't care? Honestly there are people at Komen who haven't a clue of how to run an organization if they thought this was a wise idea. And if that organization wants to at least try and get it's name back they should take a good long hard look at themselves and then do some house cleaning. (No don't go PC on me you know what I mean)
A word of advice to Aria. Aria you are a dear friend and I was wondering how to tell you this: Don't take a fight started on the internet off of the internet. To battle with morons like Sewell, and Peters on the net is one thing and one thing that is probably not worth a lot of effort. But don't get into with them on a personal level with emails to friends and that shit. I say this for 2 reasons. 1. I like you a lot. 2. These clowns might be dangerous. They are certainly unstable. I've had to deal with internet stalkers myself. I know how dangerous they can be. To start tracking down their friends and exchanging emails and whatever else is a losing battle. At the end of the day Sewell got what he wanted. Some publicity for his 93 blogs. I'm sure I'll write about him and others of his ilk here and other places many more times in the future. But I haven't got time for exchanging Emails and getting into personal wars with crazed jerkoffs and their sycophants. And I think you should also save yourself the hassle by not taking these battles off the net.
I know that Bias is in the eye of the beholder but tonight for the nationally televised Boston Celtics-NY Knicks game on ESPN the announcers were Mike Breen and Jeff Van Gundy. Now this is suppose to be an unbiased sports broadcast on ESPN. Breen is a Knicks play by play man Van Gundy a former Knicks coach. In other words the broadcast was as unbiased as your typical ESPN Duke Basketball broadcast with Dick (Duke) Vitale and Mike Patrick calling the game.
Sunday is the big day Man's official holiday The Super Bowl. The biggest football game of the year that amazingly is packaged and sold to people whom for the most part hate football. There will be the usual 30 hour pregame show. Randall Terry wanted to run an ad with dead fetuses. I say let him if you let Planned Parenthood also run adds. CBS for the record said no to dead fetus adds. I guess we'll have to struggle through with the other dumbass ads we'll be bombarded with. For the record the Count mutes the ads anyway. He's also rooting for the NY Giants. Although he picks the Patriots. The law of averages would suggest we're in for a dud of a game. We've had 5 pretty good games in a row and the last 4 have all been great. Really even before this latest stretch many of the games have been competitive and enjoyable. Certainly the old myth about the Super Bowl being a lot of hype and a lousy game is no longer true. I will say this maybe if I were in Romney's real or Ranger Bob's imaginary income bracket I would feel differently. But I could not justify paying $1000 a piece face value for a football ticket. I had a hard enough time justifying $175 a piece for Nebraska-Wyoming $137 a piece for Nebraska-Minnesota.
Another prediction for the game. Kelly Clarkson will deliver a serviceable if unmemorable national anthem. I don't think it will be great for sure but I doubt it will be Steven Tyler, Christina Agulara bad either. it will be just another of a million rendition of a song that in all honesty is really a pretty bad piece of material. That will get me in trouble. The Plan Sunday is to get up watch the Nebraska-Minnesota basketball game settle in Watch some football, eat some Pizza , should the snow stop in time and the pizza man can either get here or we can get there, And watch some more football. Oh and find something else to do that 20 minutes while Madonna is on. Madonna the safe uncontroversial choice. What has the world come to?
KTF
Count Istvan
Friday, February 3, 2012
The State Of Georgia Rules In Favor Of Obama Against The Sam Sewell's Of the World
Barack Obama will be on the ballot in Georgia. Now somebody is going to have to read the ballot to Blackflon so he doesn't vote for Obama by mistake. Reading the ruling here
Credit our good friend Domenica Iacovone* for bringing this to our attention.
*Our "friend" Sam Sewell said he wouldn't trust anyone who called themselves "Domenica Iacovone" As Domenicapointed out she calls herself that because that is her name.
Credit our good friend Domenica Iacovone* for bringing this to our attention.
*Our "friend" Sam Sewell said he wouldn't trust anyone who called themselves "Domenica Iacovone" As Domenicapointed out she calls herself that because that is her name.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Nebraska Vs Northwestern Real Time Thoughts.
Grrr my computer is acting like a real Sewell tonight. Finally here.
Northwestern's arena does look like a large High School gym.
9-8 Northwestern 15 Minutes in. Northwestern has hit 3 3pt baskets
All Northwestern does is shoot 3's. We have to not get into a 3 contest with them.
There you go get and run. 13-12 Nebraska.
Come on guys you're wearing red jerseys. Throw the ball to the guys in the red jerseys.
14-13 Northwestern.
21-19 Nebraska and they had the ball on a break but Spencer double dribbled.
Crap Northwestern is like the greatest 3 pt team of all time.
and a turnover Northwestern up 3.
There you go Jorge! let's get that ball in deep.
Oh for fuck sake guys guard the perimeter.27-23 Northwestern.
30-23 Northwestern. You wouldn't think Northwestern would be that tough to defend all they do is shoot 3's.
All they fucking do is shoot 3's. how tough is that to defend? Apparently real tough judging by Nebraska's defense. 36-25 Northwestern.
UH OH! Last Thursday Yoga Frog caps posted a Ilia Calderon cap set where she was wearing red and Nebraska won. Tonight he posts one of her wearing purple and we are playing Northwestern who wears purple and we are down 38-26. I won't blame him though if this thing don't change. He's not the one leaving guys wide open to shoot 3's.
Sweet! Nebraska fouls a man with 2 tenths of a second left shooting a 3! That's winning basketball. 41-26 Northwestern at halftime.
The only good news is if Nebraska can figure out all Northwestern does is shoot 3's and actually start to defend the perimeter maybe Northwestern can shoot Nebraska back into this game.
Nebraska Vs Minnesota in Lincoln Sunday. $5 Tickets for upper seats. $5 for chair backs for season ticket owners. Special prices on concessions. I wonder what is going on on Sunday that makes them so worried about getting a crowd. Between Super Bowl XLVI (though the game will end early enough for people even in Omaha to be home in time) and the forecasted blizzard this weekend there should be oh 30 people at that game.
Spud keeps staring at me ha he knows I am less than pleased.
Sometimes Bo Spenser is really good sometimes he not. So far tonight...he is not.
That was pretty ticky tac. Not gonna complain about officials. Nope not gonna do it.
Northwestern finally starting to miss 3's?
Nebraska down 42-33 and Bo Spencer has 2 free throws. He got them both 7 point run by Nebraska 42-35 Northwestern.
Uh remember what I said about Bo Spencer a minute a go? Bo hit's a 3 and the lead is down to 4.
Like I said earlier this is good Spencer tonight.
God Damn turnovers.
How can a guy not miss a 3 and not make a free throw?
Turnovers killing us.
Richardson hit's a 3. 52-49 Northwestern 11:19 left. At first they wouldn't call anything now they are calling everything.
Northwestern getting nervous? Never-mind they just hit a 3.
Grrr Northwestern gets the basket and the foul. 60-53 Northwestern.
Back up to 10 that fast. Just a second a go Northwestern looked like they were folding.
Not looking good . 73-61 Northwestern less than 5 minutes left.
There we go Bo Spencer a basket and the foul 73-66 Northwestern 3:03 left.
And a bad foul on Nebraska.
Dylan Talley hits a 3. then Nebraska get's a turnover and Bo Spencer hit's a 3. 75-72 Northwestern 1:34 left.
And McCray misses a huge 1 and 1 77-72 Northwestern
Why did we just foul there?
84-74 Northwestern final. played well in the second half but you can't wait until halftime to start playing. game was pretty close in the second half. Late Nebraska fouls made the score more lopsided than it was for much of the second half.
Northwestern's arena does look like a large High School gym.
9-8 Northwestern 15 Minutes in. Northwestern has hit 3 3pt baskets
All Northwestern does is shoot 3's. We have to not get into a 3 contest with them.
There you go get and run. 13-12 Nebraska.
Come on guys you're wearing red jerseys. Throw the ball to the guys in the red jerseys.
14-13 Northwestern.
21-19 Nebraska and they had the ball on a break but Spencer double dribbled.
Crap Northwestern is like the greatest 3 pt team of all time.
and a turnover Northwestern up 3.
There you go Jorge! let's get that ball in deep.
Oh for fuck sake guys guard the perimeter.27-23 Northwestern.
30-23 Northwestern. You wouldn't think Northwestern would be that tough to defend all they do is shoot 3's.
All they fucking do is shoot 3's. how tough is that to defend? Apparently real tough judging by Nebraska's defense. 36-25 Northwestern.
UH OH! Last Thursday Yoga Frog caps posted a Ilia Calderon cap set where she was wearing red and Nebraska won. Tonight he posts one of her wearing purple and we are playing Northwestern who wears purple and we are down 38-26. I won't blame him though if this thing don't change. He's not the one leaving guys wide open to shoot 3's.
Sweet! Nebraska fouls a man with 2 tenths of a second left shooting a 3! That's winning basketball. 41-26 Northwestern at halftime.
The only good news is if Nebraska can figure out all Northwestern does is shoot 3's and actually start to defend the perimeter maybe Northwestern can shoot Nebraska back into this game.
Nebraska Vs Minnesota in Lincoln Sunday. $5 Tickets for upper seats. $5 for chair backs for season ticket owners. Special prices on concessions. I wonder what is going on on Sunday that makes them so worried about getting a crowd. Between Super Bowl XLVI (though the game will end early enough for people even in Omaha to be home in time) and the forecasted blizzard this weekend there should be oh 30 people at that game.
Spud keeps staring at me ha he knows I am less than pleased.
Sometimes Bo Spenser is really good sometimes he not. So far tonight...he is not.
That was pretty ticky tac. Not gonna complain about officials. Nope not gonna do it.
Northwestern finally starting to miss 3's?
Nebraska down 42-33 and Bo Spencer has 2 free throws. He got them both 7 point run by Nebraska 42-35 Northwestern.
Uh remember what I said about Bo Spencer a minute a go? Bo hit's a 3 and the lead is down to 4.
Like I said earlier this is good Spencer tonight.
God Damn turnovers.
How can a guy not miss a 3 and not make a free throw?
Turnovers killing us.
Richardson hit's a 3. 52-49 Northwestern 11:19 left. At first they wouldn't call anything now they are calling everything.
Northwestern getting nervous? Never-mind they just hit a 3.
Grrr Northwestern gets the basket and the foul. 60-53 Northwestern.
Back up to 10 that fast. Just a second a go Northwestern looked like they were folding.
Not looking good . 73-61 Northwestern less than 5 minutes left.
There we go Bo Spencer a basket and the foul 73-66 Northwestern 3:03 left.
And a bad foul on Nebraska.
Dylan Talley hits a 3. then Nebraska get's a turnover and Bo Spencer hit's a 3. 75-72 Northwestern 1:34 left.
And McCray misses a huge 1 and 1 77-72 Northwestern
Why did we just foul there?
84-74 Northwestern final. played well in the second half but you can't wait until halftime to start playing. game was pretty close in the second half. Late Nebraska fouls made the score more lopsided than it was for much of the second half.
Question for the Count
Exactly, what the hell is this fight all about on Newshounds and who the hell is Sewell?
Count's Answer: On a Newshounds birther thread a birther named Sam Sewell showed up and began his introduction to the group by patting himself on the ass bragging about being a member of Mensa, a navy officer, a reverand, a worker with gifted children. What rubbed many of us the wrong way was not so much that he was a another crack pot birther but that he insisted on telling us with every post how smart he was while of course misspelling words like big and tried and talking down to other members of Newshounds.
You can find some of his early work here on BAD below as I copied it. He's been posting for at least 48 hours straight so to copy all of his posts would take up 6 pages. A quick search of credentials on the net found most of his claims to be dubious at best. Bottom line he's a bogus reverend at a church where they sit around drink coffee, and sing Kumbaya and he get's to claim the tax deduction. He is also a peddler of a snake oil which he claims if you follow his plan you'll never have to see a Doctor again.
His trolling style is eerily similar to one Bob Peters even down to the fake threats, embellishments of his life accomplishments, his threats of law suits, and the fact he is originally from Iowa. However a search of Sam Sewell shows he is a totally separate moron from that moron Bob Peters.
Count's Answer: On a Newshounds birther thread a birther named Sam Sewell showed up and began his introduction to the group by patting himself on the ass bragging about being a member of Mensa, a navy officer, a reverand, a worker with gifted children. What rubbed many of us the wrong way was not so much that he was a another crack pot birther but that he insisted on telling us with every post how smart he was while of course misspelling words like big and tried and talking down to other members of Newshounds.
You can find some of his early work here on BAD below as I copied it. He's been posting for at least 48 hours straight so to copy all of his posts would take up 6 pages. A quick search of credentials on the net found most of his claims to be dubious at best. Bottom line he's a bogus reverend at a church where they sit around drink coffee, and sing Kumbaya and he get's to claim the tax deduction. He is also a peddler of a snake oil which he claims if you follow his plan you'll never have to see a Doctor again.
His trolling style is eerily similar to one Bob Peters even down to the fake threats, embellishments of his life accomplishments, his threats of law suits, and the fact he is originally from Iowa. However a search of Sam Sewell shows he is a totally separate moron from that moron Bob Peters.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Florida Primary Thread.
Edit by Jonathan (4:06 pm PT): Looks like the Count beat me to the punch. At any rate, the polls for most of Florida close at 8 pm ET. And just when the war between Romney and Gingrich couldn't get more heated, Newt unleashed this latest attack ad, claiming that Mitt forced survivors of the Holocaust to eat foods that were non-Kosher.
Here's video of said robocall:LAKELAND, Fla. -- The Newt Gingrich campaign has a robocall out in Florida claiming that Mitt Romney once took kosher food away from Holocaust survivors.The allegation made in the call,obtained by anti-robocall activist Shaun Dakin, is undoubtedly targeted at Florida's large Jewish and elderly populations.
Edit From The Count 6:18 PM CT: Doesn't sound like there will be too much suspense tonight. Leslie Blitzer says they'll call it at 8 Eastern. That's 7 Count Time 5 Jonathan Time. The winner will be...come back in 40 minutes if you honestly don't know.
Edit From The Count 7:00 PM CT. Leslie acts like this is huge news...It's WILLARD! WHAT A SHOCK!
Edit by Jonathan (5:13 pm) PT: Here's the delegate count, for those who aren't keeping score at home:
Romney - 84
Gingrich - 27
Paul - 10
Santorum - 8
The next stop on the Republican '12: 'This Means War!' U.S. Tour is the Nevada Caucus. Stay tuned, folks!
Monday, January 30, 2012
How Dare The President Not Show Up At A Georgia Nut Case Rally!
God bless Georgia Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi for exploring the
merits of the charges that President Obama was not and is not eligable
to have been instated as President of the United States. Had the press
investigated Obama as they have veted all the Republican front runners
in presidential primary, maybe Joe Biden would now be president. Instead
of being forthwith , Obama has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars
to keep his shady ,little known, past hidden. Hopefully our next
president who will have parents that did not hate America and what it
stands for! Apparently Obama has time for golf and expensive
vacations but he does not have time to appear at birther hearings. He
and lawyer were no shows!
Cigar Review Gurkha Assassin Toro
Now first thing when it comes to Cigars size CAN matter. Two cigars same brand, same line can taste vastly different if they are two different sizes. As a personal preference I am not as big fan of Churchill sized cigars as I am medium sized cigars. It's not that I dislike Churchill's so much as I find them to often be just too big for my preference. The Toro which comes in at 6X50 is a about a perfect size of Cigar for me. The first thing that grabs you about the assassins or any Gurkha line cigar for that matter is the box. This thing weighs a good 10 pounds and is to use a lame phrase super cool. Even if the cigars were duds the Box would be something anyone would be proud to own. Still people don't spend $140 or more for a bitchin' cigar box.
The Assassin is a full bodied cigar. Draw is excellent. This thing puts out the smoke output of your average 1977 Harlem arson fire. And the fact that I prefer a Maduro which is a darker wrapper that makes the cigar even fuller than say a lighter Connecticut wrapper. However it is also a very smooth smoke. Don't confuse strength of flavors with the strength of Cigar. A cigar with mild flavors can knock you on your ass and make you sick if it's a strong cigar and you aren't ready. And a full bodied cigar can by nice and smooth. The Assassin is case in point. As I said earlier LOTS of smoke. If you want to get your wife out of the house and she doesn't like cigars...just light this thing in front of her and she's gone. (NO I don't do that! I have a designated cigar room in the house where I smoke and the animals are not allowed in.)
The Assassin is a quick burner, which I prefer I don't like having to smoke for 2 hours to get halfway though a cigar, burns evenly and stays lit. Some Cigars I fight all the way to either keep it lit or have the thing burn evenly that is not a problem at all with the Assassin.
The ash holds up well on the Assassin. It's not a cigar that will catch you off guard with falling ash every other minute. The Ash will become quite long before falling if left unattended and most smokers prefer that. Construction is good. I had one cigar where the wrapper fell apart. That is a real pet peeve of mine. A Cigar that costs $10+ SHOULD have a solid construction and not fall apart. Yes with a handmade cigar sometimes it's bound to happen but it shouldn't happen as often as it does with many lines of Cigars.
So if you've read this far as you can probably tell I am very much a fan of the Gurkha Assassin Toro Maduro. It's joined Hoyo De Monterrey Excalibur #II and La Gloria Cubana Corona Gorda as my favorite smokes.
Don't Take A Hollywood Bio Pic As Gospel...
I hate to take a break from Rev. Sam. to ask a question. Do people really take hollywood Bio-picture that seriously? In 2005 Ron Howard made a bio pic of the Boxer James J. Braddock's life called Cinderella Man. I was one of about 1 of 10 people who actually saw the film in the theater and thought it was excellent. However it was not without controversy. The movie depicts Max Baer Sr, whom Braddock won the heavyweight title off of, as a mean thoughtless blood thirsty savage. This portrayal greatly upset the Baer family. Mainly Max "Jethro Bodine" Baer Jr. Whom threatened a law suit. In truth Baer Sr. Was a fun loving, good guy whom lost to Braddock, and other fights he should have won, not because he was a blood thirsty savage but he because was in fact the opposite. Baer Sr. was a good time guy who would rather laugh, drink and "grab a broad" instead of train for a fight. His famous quote after losing the title to Braddock "He needed it more than I did. he's got 3 kids I don't know how many I've got." gives us much insight to Baer Sr's true personality really was. Also upsetting however to the Baer family was the Portrayal of Baer's attitude about killing a man in the ring. (which happened) In the movie Baer again is portrayed as a blood thirsty savage reveling in the death. In truth the incident bothered Baer until he own death at the relatively young age at 50 and may have contributed in Baer's seemingly nonchalant attitude towards his own fight career.
If the only movie we had to base Baer's true personality and character off of was Cinderella Man maybe the family would have more of a point about the false portrayal. However it is not. There was another movie thinly based on the life of another boxer named Primo Carnera made in 1957 called The Harder They Fall. Unlike Cinderella Man which flopped, The Harder They Fall was and is still one of the most popular "fight pictures" of all time. The film would be Humphery Bogart's last was an expose of the way fighters are exploited by criminals in the fight game. It was Carnera whom Baer would beat for the title. And who would play the character Buddy Branned whom was clearly based on Max Baer? Max Baer! That's right. Baer played the role of a boxer based on himself whom was every bit mean, blood thirsty, and rotten, not to mention also reveling in the fact he killed a man, as his character would be in Cinderella Man. And he had to have known that the role he was playing was based to be himself.
So even before Ron Howard took the life story of James Braddock and embellished many aspect of the story including the true personality of Max Baer Sr, to make a better movie, Baer playing himself did the very same thing some 50 years earlier. In fact you could make a very good argument that The Harder They Fall showing Baer acting in such a fashion did more to harm the legacy of the man than Cinderella Man did where Baer's character was embellished to make Braddock's achievement look that much more impressive. Would Cinderella Man have the same emotional ending if the film had shown Braddock beating a fat out of shape Baer who spent the fight clowning as was the truth instead of making it look as if Braddock beat some unbeatable brute against all odds?
I say all of this to ask this question. Should people or their families really get that upset over their portrayal in a Hollywood film? The way I look at is most people, if they have any smarts at all, are going to know to take what they see on the screen with a grain of salt no matter how truthful a biopic purports to be. All movies, even ones based on the truth are going to at least 30% fiction. They have to be or they would never have hold your attention.. Baer certainly didn't seemed to mind taking money to play himself as in such a fashion Why did his family have such an issue when Craig Bierko did? My own personal answer as somebody who liked both Cinderella Man and The Harder They Fall is I'm smart enough to know that both Baer and Bierko were making an Hollywood version of a real event. Based on truth but was embellished to tell a story. Others watching these films and other bio pictures like them are also smart enough to take what they see on the screen as face value. And if they are not that says more about themselves and their own intelligence than it says about the people being portrayed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
