I understood the story about his grandmas birthday. Something lost in translation for you ?

What seems lost in translation for the left is, the "evil" corporations as well as the little guys have little choice but to ALL have lobbyists pursuing their own interests. Why?

Because government is too large and too powerful.

You can take your pick of which is the greater evil: 'greedy' corporations which can and do fail, or a permanent class/army of government bureaucrats untied to quality performance or market demand, and which has lobbyists to shame even the corporations.

I'd rather take my chances with the market.






>> ^westy:

>> ^quantumushroom:
People who get "free" stuff usually like things being "free", and a corrupt government is more than happy to seize the money from the producers to buy the votes of the ignorant. Why should the producers continue busting a$$ only to have their 'extra' hard work taken away? Socialist paradises like mexifornia have been great for Utah and Arizona, which are more than happy to receive the fleeing companies voting with their feet.
Europe is in deep sh1t because of socialism, which sooner than later always fails. Even if you could tax everyone at 98% the unlimited wants of the people would outrun any government's ability to redistribute wealth.
Capitalism works, socialism 'sort of' works until it's literally too big NOT to fail.

Europe is in deep shit because USA DEREGULATED THE MARKETS and the whole of europe and USA are all tied into the same big banks.
In reality we live in a coperate run socity and thats because for the most part its a FREE MARKET in the sense that whoever has the most money can do what the fuck they like by lobying the goverment thats what you get when you let companies and money dictate things the people with the money own and run the goverment its as close to free market as you can get and hense why everything has fallen apart for the menny and benofited the few super ritch.
also look at crime rates and quality of helth care for countries that have better distribution of wealth you will find they are among the top.

thanks for the response my friend.
though you are still using bullet form..ewww.

understand i use the term gnostic to give people a reference point,but that is all.
i am not ritualized like a sophian or strict adherence like a rosacrucian,but i would still be considered an apostate by the church...any church.

your response was long and the first half just reiterated me being a gnostic but i am what some may consider a "christian" gnostic.
so i dont see god as a failure nor evil.
i view god very much like the trinity.
father,son,holy ghost
or..
mind,body,spirit.
both work fine.
also if you changed the word "matter" to represent "ego"
then you would be closer to how i view the battle of "good" vs "evil"
i would say it is ego vs spirit.
you would say god vs devil,but we would be saying the same things.

the inherent differences in our philosophy are simply this:
internalization.
externalization.
i believe the teachings of christ (and others) hold the key to free ourselves from the ego (which is the ultimate liar).salvation starts when we realize we are spiritual beings with the spark of the divine.the creator if you will.spirit,soul,chi work also and that the ego seeks to dominate the spirit,pulling us ever further from our true self and our creator.(indivisible btw).

you view this dichotomy in a totally different light.jesus/god are outside.seperate and only through humility and acceptance that christ is lord and savior and died for your sins can you (or anybody) achieve salvation.(be saved)

so when you ask if i believe christ was savior i would answer yes..most certainly,but i come to that conclusion by a different path and different tools.
yet we both use the bible.
pretty neat huh?
but you ONLY use the bible as your authority and that is fine but i tend to use..well...everything..but thats another conversation.

so now we come to what do i tell these lost and broken people who have experienced a crisis of faith.
well...
i dont attack their religion.
i allow them to talk and let that spike of uncertainty bubble to the surface so i can get a better look at it.if i am going to help anyone i have to know where the pain is yes?

you have to realize that the majority of the people i deal with came from very strict,authoritarian and fundamentalist families.they were usually sheltered from the real world (not always a bad thing) and the culture shock alone is a trauma in itself and many times the parents are not exactly curious people but their children are (or the ones that came to me).

the first thing i do is hand them a scofield study bible (i have a stack of them) and tell them to read JUST the words of jesus and get back to me when they are ready.scofield has all the words of jesus highlighted in pink,cant miss em.

now you may ask "why would enoch do that"?
simple.many religions have a long LOOOONG list of doctrine and dogma by having that person read just the words of jesus we get to cut 80% of that crap out and focus on the words of jesus.

there have been a few times that is all i have had to do.set them on a path that is simple and not so laden with hail mary's and guilt and 'supposed" to's.

baptists are the ones where i have to address sin.
they read the bible and they think they understand sin.
oh hell no.they dont have a clue and while there are some great passages in the bible that address sin..something gets lost in translation sometimes and the church does not help.

here is what "sin" actually is.this may not sound biblical but it actually is.jesus spoke of it often.
sin is when you KNOW/FEEL something is wrong and you CHOOSE to do it anyways.

and dont get me started on "original sin" utter nonsense that piece of garbage.the church was unable to make its case centuries ago and still has failed to make the case for original sin.
i suspect you disagree...thats ok but dont engage me on this one.i aint budging.

i mean.
what do you tell a 22 yr old boy who is gay that god has not forsaken him?
that he is not some abomination?
that his father is wrong for beating him with a pipe in a rage and throwing him out of the only house he has ever known?
how can this boy who was raised in a god fearing house believe for a second that god loves him when according to the bible he would not?raised to believe god was not only all-knowing but all-loving except him.

well you point to the scofield bible and ask that boy to find a verse where jesus says he hates fags.thats what you do.
because it jesus doesnt say that.

or the girl who was raped and the family convinced her it was her fault because she had sinned against god and that was her punishment.

or one of my most precious whose family member had molested her for years and when she finally got the courage to say something about it only to be told to shut up.that she was a liar (not even possible with this girl) and again...her fault and punishment from god.

i could go on and on and on.

what i do for these very special people is get them to understand they are spirit.
that they have a spark of the creator (made in "his" image) and that spark is their true selves.
and to cherish that spark.
i show them love.
true love of the spiritual kind.the altruistic love our spirits crave to give and receive.
that it is possible to love themselves and to forgive those who rejected them.judged them and forsook them.
i teach them the power of forgiveness.
to forgive themselves..for to forgive yourself you first have to KNOW yourself and to do that...well..you have to swim through a river of your own shit to truly know yourself.
i teach them to be free.
and in the doing they become free to love others as openly and honestly as they were meant to and to understand that many people,most actually,do not understand the true gift jesus gave us:love and forgiveness=freedom.

i do not use dogma nor doctrine to teach these things.
i do not seek these people out,they find me and my obligation is to honor that path they found to me as the will of the creator.
some have needed a room to stay and heal their wounds.
i give that place of security for them.( i do this for addicts also)
i do not charge money for i do not consider helping another human being out to find themselves a service but rather a kindness in recognizing another spirit.
and here is the neat part that has always tickled me:i have never wanted for anything.car dies? i get gifted a new one a week later.
short on the electric bill? i find a lottery ticket with almost the exact amount i needed.
needed a vacation to go back home?
friend offers out of the blue to buy me a plane ticket.

a few that i have helped went back to the church.
one woman i counseled for 12 yrs (really abusive husband) who is now a devout baptist like you!
aaand she is studying at a bible college,which of course i have to mess with her cuz they dont allow women to perform mass but i do help with her homework sometimes.

ok..now im just rambling.
it is late and im stupid tired but i wanted to respond before i went to bed.busy day tomorrow.
hope this gives you a clearer picture.not gonna proof read so it may just be gibberish.
in any case..
always a pleasure my friend.

Video makes me smile.

I can see why you're enthusiastic about that video. It makes me laugh that you messed it up so bad.

Much love from my house,
marinara

In reply to this comment by enoch:
>> ^Confucius:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/enoch" title="member since April 22nd, 2009" class="profilelink">enoch...why the hell would you post such personal backstory about this girl?


because danny made me realize that the post alone might leave it open to ridicule.that people would see it for far different reasons than what my intentions were.
i should have anticipated this but my imagination failed.
i was rummaging through my old archives and came upon this old video and was just flooded with such great memories and wanted to share.
i thought the video was funny and the whole idea behind it just cracks me up but after my conversation with danny i realized that it doesnt make much sense without a backstory.

why would it be a bad thing?because it is personal?
this is my dear heart and knowing from where she came to where she is now is one of my greatest success stories and i am so very proud of her.

but now i am beginning to question my initial exhuburence.while my desire was to share, much is lost in translation and the thought of people ridiculing this wonderful person sickens me.
i was her protector for years and i find the instinct to protect her is still strong.

i live my life openly and honestly so the idea of personal information does not hinder my courage to just throw it out there, BUT the thought of people ridiculing this lovely free-spirit is a whole different matter.
i know she wouldnt care.she would most likely laugh.
but i care.
i think i may have made a mistake by posting this.
ah..
hindsight you are a bitch.

>> ^Confucius:

@enoch...why the hell would you post such personal backstory about this girl?


because danny made me realize that the post alone might leave it open to ridicule.that people would see it for far different reasons than what my intentions were.
i should have anticipated this but my imagination failed.
i was rummaging through my old archives and came upon this old video and was just flooded with such great memories and wanted to share.
i thought the video was funny and the whole idea behind it just cracks me up but after my conversation with danny i realized that it doesnt make much sense without a backstory.

why would it be a bad thing?because it is personal?
this is my dear heart and knowing from where she came to where she is now is one of my greatest success stories and i am so very proud of her.

but now i am beginning to question my initial exhuburence.while my desire was to share, much is lost in translation and the thought of people ridiculing this wonderful person sickens me.
i was her protector for years and i find the instinct to protect her is still strong.

i live my life openly and honestly so the idea of personal information does not hinder my courage to just throw it out there, BUT the thought of people ridiculing this lovely free-spirit is a whole different matter.
i know she wouldnt care.she would most likely laugh.
but i care.
i think i may have made a mistake by posting this.
ah..
hindsight you are a bitch.

I hope for the sake of Swedes, that's not what passes as humor in Sweden. It was simply not funny. Maybe a lot gets lost in translation, I don't know. But most of it wasn't even jokes, it was something along the lines of: "the bible says this, that's stupid, and I don't agree".

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^entr0py:
Personally, all my life I've stayed away from marijuana because it's illegal.

Wow, you are in the huge minority.

Well, I second what entr0py said. Huge minority is not really wrong per se; in fact--you are a freakin liberarian! So you know all about huge minority.

I didn't make an opinion about his comment one way or the other. I'm always impressed to see someone who's not tried pot specifically because it would be breaking the law.


Whoops, I meant that as sarcasm/humor over the fact that libertarians are regarded lesser than perhaps they should be--and so are those who have not tried drugs. I meant to put in a -- -- but lost the translation.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bill murray, japanese, making out in japanese' to 'bill murray, japan, making out in japanese, behind the scenes, lost in translation' - edited by lucky760

From the Lost in Translation DVD extras, IIRC.

One of my favorite quotes about math comes from that Einstein dude. Math and the sciences are pretty pivotal on how people see the world by and large. Which is why, when one of the greatest contributors to the shaping of that idea said this,

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

I was taken back a little. Later, as I started to learn more and more, I came across the same type of though in my own education. Math can be perfectly consistent when talking about itself, but when you start to translate that over to the real world you have to consider you are mapping one system onto another and some things might be lost in translation. For example, calculus is beautiful, but does it actually answer the question how finite objects move through infinitely divisible space in a time that is finite? Drat you maths! You bring us beautiful proofs and no understanding!

(ohh hey maths, I know I was just talking some mess, but can you help me see if the tensile strength of this cable is enough to support this bridge...hey thanks man, I'll buy you a drink...(as x tends to infinity..eheheh sucker))

(edited 4 times for spelling, I fail at life!)

He seems to be talking about something else and using the word neoliberalism, or that is what I was getting out of his talk. Academically speaking, neoliberalism dates back much, much further than 1980 which he seemed to propose, moreover there is hardly a consensuses on what is "correct" neoliberalism. Perhaps something was lost in translation and he meant to say this is when the last real bastions of classical "libertarian" liberalism died (the USA) and "central planned" neoliberalism took its finally ideological rival captive?

I tried to find some information on things this person has published to clear some light on the subject, but alas I don't speak french so my search is slightly stymied.

Edit: Here we go, found a whole bunch of his stuff. http://www.jourdan.ens.fr/levy/biblioa.htm#AN1992
Going to read some and see if I can find some insight

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I thought the dialog was great in this film. I like a lot of dialog in my movies. I liked Lost in Translation. :0 !
>> ^JiggaJonson:
>> ^JiggaJonson:
Another dialog driven scene from this pretentious piece of cinema trash. (I watched it again to double check) (trash confirmed)

It's not that I hate dialog, actually "After Sunset" directed by Richard Linklater is one of my favorite films of all time and it's composed of ONLY dialog. The problem with this film is this dialog has little to no substance. If you're going to have a film driven by nothing but the script then your character's conversations should be consistently meaningful. The conversations in "Inglorious Basterds" frankly, are not.

Can't find a replacement. Here's the transcript in case some lonely wanderer wonders what this video was about:

Oct 14, 2008
"MADDOW: Coming up, Academy Award-winning director, Oliver Stone, joins us here in the studio to talk about his new film “W” or “double-u” if you‘re one of those east coast media elitists. Hopefully, I can persuade Mr. Stone to share his opinions about the life and career of President George W. Bush, but you know how shy Mr. Stone is. I will do what I can.

First though, it‘s time for a few underreported holy mackerel stories in today‘s news. Ready for the first one? Quote, “In the beginning of the timing of the laws, I said there is no difficulty‘s base.” What? Huh? What I said was, “In the beginning of the timing of the laws, I said there is no difficulty‘s base.”

Does that make any sense to you? Yes, me neither. And neither did it make sense to the judge, the military officers, or lawyers working one of the tribunals at Guantanamo recently, when an American paid Arabic translator dictated to them that nonsense sentence, as if it made sense in English.

Does the phrase “lost in translation” spring to mind? Five key defendants charged in conjunction with 9/11 are moving towards jury trials. The U.S. military lawyers assigned to defend them say that translation services have been done so on the cheap that they estimate about half of what a defendant stated in the hearing room was mistranslated and a ¼ of what was said in English in the courtroom never made it back to the defendant. There are standards for these sorts of things, you know, at, say, federal courts or the international criminal courts but at Guantanamo, apparently? Not so much.

Remember the case there about Osama bin Laden‘s alleged driver? That actual phrase, “bin Laden‘s driver” was repeatedly translated as “bin Laden‘s lawyer.” What‘s the difference?

And time is running out for American troops to be in Iraq legally. The United Nation‘s mandate that allows our troops to be there expires at the end of this year. What happens when that mandate expires? Well, the Bush administration has long expressed confidence that the Iraqi government and the White House could sign a status-of-forces agreement—a country-to-country, one-on-one plan for keeping our troops there.

But after months of a stalemate and trying to reach such an agreement, one of the Iraqi vice presidents this week finally said that he doesn‘t think it‘s going to happen in time. So, that means after December 31st, it will be illegal for American troops to be on Iraqi streets.

Karen DeYoung from “The Washington Post” reports today that American officials are looking for a plan B if the status-of-forces negotiations really don‘t work out. What is plan B? Apparently, the Bush administration might try to get that U.N. mandate extended. That would require a vote in the U.N. Security Council where Russia holds a veto and Russia, you may recall, would just love an opportunity like that to shove us our locker and steal our lunch money.

So that makes me think “B” in that plan stands for “bad,” as in if that‘s your only plan, that‘s a bad plan. Karen DeYoung suggests that a few other plan Bs might be in the works as well, though Plan B-1 - I guess we‘d call it. A plan B-1 would be, quote, “a simple handshake agreement between Bush and the Iraqi prime minister to keep troops around until the next president takes over and starts negotiating again.”

A handshake deal? You would ride 150,000 American lives on a handshake deal? Maybe I could suggest a plan C, “C” as in “see you.” If the Iraqi government doesn‘t want us to stay enough to sign a deal for to us stay, how about we leave?"

>> ^bmacs27:
Is it me, or is it impossible to assassinate a citizen, unless that citizen also happens to be a high ranking public official of some sort?


Assassination to me has always been essentially murder of a state or public official. But it has been slagged out to mean a "hit". Basically an murdered that has some organization behind it be it the mob, or the government. So where you are right to be puzzled by its use; the use of assassination to mean a "hit" is fairly common place.

and to address griefer_queafer. As I have mentioned in a early part of this thread, more people have been executed by totalitarian governments than by terrorists. It is right to be afraid of many things, bears, lions, tigers, and even terrorists. But, the plain and simple truth is the deaths from those things pail in comparison with dictator states. The fear of the latter should be mountains greater than any of the former. There is a different between raising the alarm and being an alarmist. Were Peter Schiff, and Ron Paul alarmists when they warned of the impending house recession crash? It is one thing to be unjustifiably angry with Obama as you point out. But to do as Dr. Paul is, whom is legitimately concerned about the direction of this country, and call him out takes a bit of gumption. Would you of said the same to all the Bush haters?

Also, if you didn't get my hyperbole in my caption I am sorry. Most things are lost in translation from my head to words. However, Obama isn't about transparency...at all. All the closed door meetings that lead to the bail out of the banks and the rush job to pass legislation through before his touted "7 day for Americans to review legislation" policy flew right out the window. Make no mistake, Obama is better at dressing up the turd that is our current government. But a large pile of poo it still is.

And for something completely different. By 2022, by my limited projections; at current spending levels (which will actually go up because of medicare) the interest on the federal debt will be equal to the entire federal budget of this year. Bad stuff happens then.

Read the article, and I gotta say, I'm a bit surprised. Some details and emphases might have been lost in translation, but I was still almost unable to grasp why this article seemed exceptional to you, demon_ix. This is because on your (I'll say brief, but it's also been quite prolific) stay here on the Sift you've displayed great intelligence, empathy, multicultural awareness and a wealth of knowledge on a variety of issues as well as popular culture. I feel like I can identify with you easily. So yeah, to me this article comes off as a piece which was written by somebody whose IQ must be noticeably lower than yours and whose form of expression leaves much to be desired. Then there was the paragraph gwiz already highlighted, which is probably the worst example of culturally insensitive journalism (apart from Fox News) that I've seen or read in months, possibly years.

In the end though, while I've been sort of nit picking on the details, I guess the national (&international) sentiment was the centerpiece of the story, right? I suppose nobody had nailed this down until today, had they?