Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditBeware the Terrible Simplifiers
By Bill Moyers
May 3, 2008
I once asked a reporter back from Vietnam: 'Who's telling the truth over there?'
'Everyone,' he said. 'Everyone sees what's happening through the lens of their own experience.'
That's how people see Jeremiah Wright.
In my conversation with him and in his dramatic public appearances since, he revealed himself to be far more complex than the sound bites that propelled him onto the public stage.
More than 2,000 people have written me about him, and their opinions vary widely. Some sting: 'Jeremiah Wright is nothing more than a race-hustling, American- hating radical,' one of my viewers wrote. Another called him a 'nut case.'
Many more were sympathetic to him. Many asked for some rational explanation for Wright's transition from reasonable conversation to the shocking anger they saw at the National Press Club.
A psychologist might pull back some of the layers and see this complicated man more clearly, but I'm not a psychologist.
Many black preachers I've known-scholarly, smart, and gentle in person-uncorked fire and brimstone in the pulpit. Of course, I've known many white preachers like that, too.
But where I grew up in the South, before the civil rights movement, the pulpit was a safe place for black men to express anger for which they would have been punished anywhere else. A safe place for the fierce thunder of dignity denied, justice delayed.
I think I would have been angry if my ancestors had been transported thousands of miles in the hellish hole of a slave ship, then sold at auction, humiliated, whipped, and lynched.
Or if my great-great-great grandfather had been but three-fifths of a person in a Constitution that proclaimed: 'We, the people.'
Or if my own parents had been subjected to the racial vitriol of Jim Crow, Strom Thurmond, Bull Conner, and Jesse Helms.
Even so, the anger of black preachers I've known and heard and reported on was, for them, very personal and cathartic. That's not how Jeremiah Wright came across in those sound bites or in his defiant performances since my interview.
What white America is hearing in his most inflammatory words is an attack on the America they cherish and that many of their sons have died for in battle - forgetting that black Americans have fought and bled beside them, and that Wright himself has a record of honored service in the Navy.
Hardly anyone took the 'chickens come home to roost' remark to convey the message that intervention in the political battles of other nations is sure to bring retaliation in some form, which is not to justify the particular savagery of 9/11 but to understand that actions have consequences.
My friend Bernard Weisberger, the historian, says, yes, people are understandably seething with indignation over Wright's absurd charge that the United States deliberately brought an HIV epidemic into being.
But it is a fact, he says, that within living memory the U.S. public health service conducted a study that deliberately deceived black men with syphilis into believing that they were being treated while actually letting them die for the sake of a scientific test.
Does this excuse Wright's anger? His exaggerations or distortions? You'll have to decide for yourself, but at least it helps me to understand the why of them.
In this multimedia age the pulpit isn't only available on Sunday mornings. There's round the clock media - the beast whose hunger is never satisfied, especially for the fast food with emotional content.
So the preacher starts with rational discussion and after much prodding throws more and more gasoline on the fire that will eventually consume everything it touches. He had help - people who, for their own reasons, set out to conflate the man in the pulpit who wasn't running for president with the man in the pew who was.
Behold the double standard: John McCain sought out the endorsement of John Hagee, the war-mongering, Catholic- bashing Texas preacher, who said the people of New Orleans got what they deserved for their sins.
But no one suggests McCain shares Hagee's delusions or thinks AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality. Pat Robertson called for the assassination of a foreign head of state and asked God to remove Supreme Court justices, yet he remains a force in the Republican religious right.
After 9/11, Jerry Falwell said the attack was God's judgment on America for having been driven out of our schools and the public square, but when McCain goes after the endorsement of the preacher he once condemned as an agent of intolerance, the press gives him a pass.
Jon Stewart recently played tape from the Nixon White House in which Billy Graham talks in the Oval Office about how he has friends who are Jewish, but he knows in his heart that they are undermining America.
This is crazy and wrong -- white preachers are given leeway in politics that others aren't.
Which means it is all about race, isn't it?
Wright's offensive opinions and inflammatory appearances are judged differently. He doesn't fire a shot in anger, put a noose around anyone's neck, call for insurrection, or plant a bomb in a church with children in Sunday school.
What he does is to speak his mind in a language and style that unsettles some people, and says some things so outlandish and ill-advised that he finally leaves Obama no choice but to end their friendship.
We're often exposed to the corroding acid of the politics of personal destruction, but I've never seen anything like this - this wrenching break between pastor and parishioner played out right in front of our eyes.
Both men no doubt will carry the grief to their graves. All the rest of us should hang our heads in shame for letting it come to this in America, where the gluttony of the non-stop media grinder consumes us all and prevents an honest conversation on race.
It is the price we are paying for failing to heed the great historian Jacob Burckhardt, who said, 'Beware the terrible simplifiers.'
Watch the video here:
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Your comments are on target. Yet it appears main stream America is not ready for an honest conversation on race or many other subjects.
Posted by pastorhorace at 05/04/2008 @ 8:32pm
jeez, america.
wtf?
that's o.k.
i think "lost" is on.
nevermind.
you guys were getting soooo close to sanity.
were........
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/04/2008 @ 9:08pm
Coming on the heels of the innocent verdict of the police that unloaded their guns into an unarmed black man on the eve of his wedding. I actually felt that Pastor Wright was restrained. His only fault seems to be that he felt, and was arrogant enough to believe, that he was as good as white men. I watched all three of his appearances and found his honesty to be refreshing in this day of plausible deniability. I'm a seventy bear old white Catholic and I've heard much worse rhetoric from Catholic priests against protestants. Thanks again Ms. Vanden Heuvel for the courage and honesty.
Posted by julien38 at 05/04/2008 @ 9:32pm
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/4/2008
Yup. The liberals just don't get it...not surprising though...they probably still think Moyers is unbiased.
Posted by usc1 at 05/04/2008 @ 9:46pm
HAPPY
you're all riled up about this nonsense.
meanwhile, your country is flushing itself down the toilet......
wake up, dude.
Sunday, May 4, 2008 10:04:29 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/04/2008 @ 9:59pm
The Clinton-backing NYTimes reports today on the latest national poll showing Wright without effect on voters' opinions of Obama ... and this despite the best efforts of Billary backers & junk media. Tough luck, bigots, you're stuck with the black man.
Posted by sloper at 05/04/2008 @ 10:06pm
Before I push the "ignore this person," HAPPY3, I'm in such awe of being in the presents of such intelligents. Although being in such awe, however, I don't like chat rooms. I also find arrogance a frightening characteristic.
Posted by julien38 at 05/04/2008 @ 10:10pm
HAPPY3
you're obsessed with nonsense.
i suggest you turn your eyes toward REAL problems.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/04/2008 @ 10:32pm
It is a shame that for this "fabricated scandal" America should loose the opportunity to elect for the first time to the Presidency a man of African-American descent but more to that honest and with fresh ideas.
Wright's words, though sometimes poorly selected, are not about hatred but about redemption. He does not talk about killing or destroying somebody else as the right-wing white preachers over there. He is only pointing out that we are not perfect, and unless we recognize it, we cannot heal as a nation. Heal from the wounds of racism, heal from the pride of militarism, heal from the excessive materialism and/or selfishness of a society that -for example- does not pay living wages to the less affortunate.
It is so revealing of our "death culture" not to condemn anyone who says "let's go and kill the enemies of Israel", but when somebody says "damn...", then we tore our clothes. America needs to change in so many ways, and figthting for those changes is loving American and Americans.
Obama did the right thing when distancing himself from the pastor because Wright's presentation of some ideas is too extreme and provocative and may hurt the sensibility of several people. Obama wants respect for everyone, a preacher in a poor sector of Chicago must identify himself with the sufferings of his parishioners.
Obama needs to do yet another great speech so that the American people will turn again to him.
Posted by Frank42 at 05/04/2008 @ 10:48pm
Posted by Frank42 at 05/4/2008
"Obama did the right thing when distancing himself from the pastor because Wright's presentation of some ideas is too extreme and provocative and may hurt the sensibility of several people."
Even FRANK can't seem to disown the 'federal government created AIDS to kill black people' remark. It's funny how these liberals reactions to the outing of Wright's nuttiness seem to range from (and include, sometimes even in the same person) all manners of rationalization from 'we disown these hateful and irrational ideas, but understand the rage that creates them' to 'gee, these ideas are just not expressed very well' to 'how dare you criticize what you don't understand'. It's cognitive dissonance in its highest, most confused form. Kind of like complaining about high gas prices, high oil company profits, and vast trade deficits while your own policies, which prevent domestic oil production, create the very things you're most outraged about. Future historians will marvel at how this level of mass insanity was reached.
Posted by pontificus at 05/04/2008 @ 11:17pm
Posted by pontificus at 05/4/2008
What is it not possible to have varied opinions within a party? Should we all be of the same mind? Yes we should all bow to Conserves because you are all more intelligent than us. We should all go to you for advise and bow at your feet because you are better more intelligent people than us. Is that what you want to hear? That somehow your political beliefs make you better than someone? If you actually believe the bullshit you spout about conservatives being better than liberals then I just feel sad for you that you can commit to such ignorant thoughts.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/05/2008 @ 12:44am
Posted by pontificus at 05/4/2008
You seem to be of a slightly lesser intelligence than Happy. Why don't you ask for a few investment tips? You can ride this out. What are you, a loser?
Posted by Sorelish at 05/05/2008 @ 01:34am
Too smart to be prez? Well, I think like Bubba before him who denied having with rha woman, now Mr. Obama denies having any connection to that reverend. What good for the country could street-smart guys like Dubya and Oabam. God spare me. like
---------- Barack Obama gains after denouncing pastor: poll Sun May 4, 9:45 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama appears to be rebounding from sliding poll numbers in the wake the controversy over his former pastor, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll released on Sunday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Among Democratic primary voters, the Illinois senator now leads opponent Hillary Clinton by 12 points -- 50 percent to 38 percent -- the poll found. Obama led the New York senator by 8 points in a CBS/New York Times poll released just a few days ago.
Posted by HelenDAO at 05/05/2008 @ 02:17am
Thank you Bill Moyers for lending a sane and nuanced voice in this sea of regurgitated one liners. And for all you guilt by association mongers I feel sorry that there's no room for the complexities of the soul that make us all human.
Posted by Yell Fire at 05/05/2008 @ 02:22am
Hey Katrina, did John McCain also contribute $26,000 to Hagee, like Obama did to Wright?
Posted by pontificus at 05/05/2008 @ 04:20am
I must say, adding together Moyer's first three sentences:
"I once asked a reporter back from Vietnam: 'Who's telling the truth over there?'
'Everyone,' he said. 'Everyone sees what's happening through the lens of their own experience.'
That's how people see Jeremiah Wright."
...doesn't fill one with hope for any great clarity on the issue of state religion (fascist: used to crucify Wright) vs. freedom of religion -- giving Wright the right to preach God to heathen barbaric bastards any way he sees fit.
However, after even this none too promising diagnostic start -- 'ees all in how vee cee it' -- and even though he comes off like a crippled liberal shaking fist at total obliteration of Iran, sob sob -- one can't expect much hard talk on Israel's "right to exist". (Quotation marks because this is an illogical sign-use construct; non-existent things don't have predicates at all, much less "rights".) -- even though the CNN interviewer of Barack Obama just reiterated in so many words that that is what this election is unambiguously about -- I will wade through he 8 pages of his words here in order to see if he names the Jew in it anywhere. Get back to youse.
Posted by jones at 05/05/2008 @ 07:31am
It's not looking much better:
"A psychologist might pull back some of the layers and see this complicated man more clearly, but I'm not a psychologist."
I'm a psychologist.
Posted by jones at 05/05/2008 @ 07:39am
My god, it's going from bad to worse.
"... the pulpit was a safe place for black men to express anger for which they would have been punished anywhere else.."
The pulpit as stage to express black anger he would have been punished for if expressed anywhere else?
He is obviously no closer to naming the Jew; hell, he IS the Jew (-ish).
Moyers is a lizard in liberal clothing.
Radical anger is real. Moyers doesn't have to excuse Wright for it, for 8 pages no less. He has to try to let himself be consumed with a little of it, although downstate Long Island ambience makes that somewhat difficult, one supposes.
Posted by jones at 05/05/2008 @ 07:54am
Yep, here it is: My friend Bernard Weisberger, the historian, says, yes, people are understandably seething with indignation over Wright's absurd charge that the United States deliberately brought an HIV epidemic into being.
"People"? as in those who are ignorant of the factual basis of the claim and stidently react out of patriotic pride...?
"People like myself" I think one must understand Mr. Weisberger to mean.
Posted by jones at 05/05/2008 @ 08:03am
final comment
Well, my intuition proved 100% right again. He firt invokes Hagee's anti-Catholicism (justified, imho -- look at what the Pope did), despicable and condemnable as Wright's, and Billy Graham's alleged anti-semitism, I tell you! -- in order to come out with a "SHAME ON YOUSE DOUBLE STANDARD WHITE MALE FOX NEWS MEDIABOTS. Makes you almost want to be one, doesn't it. I think Moyers is in bed with al Kwaada.
Signing off. Get your truth from mask & zoom, you can trust them to say nothing to the point.
Posted by jones at 05/05/2008 @ 08:17am
Bill Moyers has said what needs to be said. His interview with the Reverend Wright is also highly recommendable, and it's available on the internet at the Bill Moyers Journal website.
I know that Wright can't possibly explain himself enough to get some White folks over their carefully nursed hurt and anger over his inflammatory remarks, especially since Fox News Corp never stops delivering the latter.
A lot of White people, you see, imagine that there is nothing more to racism than offensive speech, so that now, exulting in their umbrage over Wright's words, they are happily settling in to the role of "victim" that they find so oddly inappropriate for Black people. These White folks have forgotten about the economic and political structure of racism: redlining, ghettoized schools, arrests for driving while Black, perpetual harassment and occasional brutality by the police, and persistent racist patterns in hiring and admissions by White people who would never utter the N-word but just "wouldn't feel comfortable" with a new Black colleague.
We could talk about all that, and if we did, then that would be a large part of the conversation on race that we need to have. Instead, our media - well, most of our media - give us a perpetual tennis match of angry epithets.
Watch Bill Moyers, and you'll get a taste of what is missing from the rest of our media today. I'd surely recommend any Bill Moyers of the right, too, anybody who provided the same thoughtful context in an interview with or an essay about John Hagee or Pat Robertson. But I can't do this for two reasons: (1) There IS no Bill Moyers on the right in journalism today. (2) The media don't seem to regard it necessary to provide any defense of Hagee or Robertson, since they belong to the White establishment.
Posted by JakobFabian at 05/05/2008 @ 08:25am
JF
Paul Craig Roberts is the Bill Moyers of the right -- and far beyond his pusilanimous flacidity. T wit:
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts04292008.html
April 29, 2008
Repeating the Crime The Iraq War Morphs Into the Iran War
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
It is 1939 all over again. The world waits helplessly for the next act of naked aggression by rogue states. Only this time the rogue states are not the Third Reich and Fascist Italy. They are the United States and Israel.
The targeted victims are not Poland and France, but Iran, Syria, the remains of the Palestinian West Bank and southern Lebanon.
The #1 issue in America on the existential side is not race, but Israel. This exhuming of race, and "black man's anger from the pulpit" twaddle of Moyers is a substitute (displacement - Freud) of white-black relations for Christian (not: Catholic) vs. Jewish opposition as focus of radical anger. (The Pope is their supersuperlative shabos goy.)
Posted by jones at 05/05/2008 @ 08:48am
'I once asked a reporter back from Vietnam: "Who's telling the truth over there?" "Everyone," he said. "Everyone sees
what's happening through the lens of their own experience." -- Bill Moyers
'So what I have told you was true - from a certain point of view.' Obi-Wan Kenobi -- 'Return of the Jedi'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 05/05/2008 @ 09:00am
Posted by HonestLiberal at 05/5/2008
Darmok and Jalad, at Tenagra.
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2008 @ 09:06am
Sorry, "jones," but I asked for "a Bill Moyers of the right." If what you've quoted from Paul Craig Roberts is a representative sample, then he's neither a Bill Moyers nor of the right.
Posted by JakobFabian at 05/05/2008 @ 09:07am
Look the plain simple truth is....Wright doesn't sell, in fact he KILLS 'the sell'.
He may have "something important to say"...and Bill Moyers and the folks here at "The Nation" may offer apologia for him and what he says...
but with the vast majority of Americans (even some African-Americans), he's out in left field.
Now if you're SITTING out past third base (as Moyers, et al are), maybe it doesn't look too "off-center"....but Obama realizes the political truth of the Wright situation and had to cut the old dude off.
And by the way, Wright's got his own OTHER agenda too.
He could have played it down, laid low, or even tried to do what he did with Moyers at the NAACP meeting and the National Press Club...he didn't. And the reason is obvious...
Obama pissed him off and he was out for a little pay-back by keeping the story alive and up front in the news heading into Indiana and North Carolina.
But the main thing here is...this idea that folks like Ms vanden Heuvel (or whoever on the Left) have that somehow guys like Jeremiah Wright...or Noam Chomsky...or Howard Zinn are being "hurt by the MS Media" or whatever excuse, is crapola.
They are out of the mainstream of American politics and no sane Democratic politician wants to go near them for a very simple reason...they aren't going to LOSE the guys who like Wright, Chomsky, or Zinn (except in small numbers to Nader and not so much now anyway), but they CAN lose a lot of the Middle, even Middle Left, by embracing them.
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2008 @ 09:13am
"'The US government created the AIDS virus to commit genocide on the black population' don't get a pass. It doesn't matter that the kernel of truth is that the Tuskeegee experiment three generations ago, did kill blacks, this statement is bat-shit crazy and every sane person knows it and does not excuse the blatant use of lies to inflame peoples' emotions for political gain," said "marybretbrad."
There's nothing wrong with Wright's AIDS conspiracy theory except lack of evidence. In light of some of the other things the US government has done to non-White people in its history, there's nothing "bat-shit crazy" about it.
In fact, if it should happen that evidence WAS discovered to prove that Wright's AIDS historiography was CORRECT, I for one would not be surprised.
Let me stress, though, one more time: Evidence MATTERS. This goes for "weapons of mass destruction" and the "Iraq-Al-Qaeda connection" as well as it does for AIDS conspiracy theories. I am sorry to report that quite a few otherwise sane people seem not to assign the same value to evidence - or the lack thereof - when the "bat-shit crazy" theory under debate is their own.
Posted by JakobFabian at 05/05/2008 @ 09:20am
There's nothing wrong with Wright's AIDS conspiracy theory except lack of evidence.----Posted by JakobFabian at 05/5/2008
So the Far Right now has license for THEIR conspiracy theories and the claim that "there's nothing wrong with the theory that liberals want to indoctrinate our kids to be gay...except there's no evidence!"?!??!
Is that the new standard?
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2008 @ 09:31am
Yes, JK -- Paul Craig Roberts is very much of the Right. Don't you know amnything about him? Why would you say that? He is a favorite of the Original Dissent Forum bunch, than which there is no more right. You see, they have replaced the pusilanimous left.
As to whether he is a "bill Moyers" or not ...ah huh ... If you mean the Moyers of the first three sentences of this piece no, he's not one of those. God spews them out of his mouth.
Posted by jones at 05/05/2008 @ 09:40am
Mask,
Your political reasoning is intelligible, but flawed. (Grade of C)It depends on equating "sane democrat" with liberal lizards like Moyers. Those who will kow tow to public opinion instead of addressing it.
And while it is proper and obligatory to match the right's charge of leftists 'conspiracy theory' about AIDS, by citing their labelling truth about 911 as 'conspiracy theory', this reply moots the fact that MASSIVE EVIDENCE EXISTA THAT HIV IS A MAN MADE VIRUS FOUND IN AFRICA ONLY AFTER, AND FOLLOWING THE PATH OF, INFECTION FROM SALK POLIO AND SMALLPOX VACCINES ACROSS THE CONTINENT.
(See L.G. Horowitz, AIDS AND EBOLA. The Vmerging Viruses).
Whoever will not acquaint themselves with this material but condemns it from irrational bigotry is complicit in the cover up.
These ideas have been around quite a while, as I suspect you well know.
Posted by jones at 05/05/2008 @ 10:03am
Mask, you seem constitutionally unable to entertain the idea that there could be more than one cause for some effect.
Sure, Chomsky, Zinn and Wright are out of the American political mainstream, but that doesn't mean the mainstream media don't treat them differently from comparable figures in the Center or on the Right. There is a double standard for the left and for Blacks, in general. There are also double standards for certain issues, such as the Iraq War and trade policy. How do you think the political mainstream develops, anyway, if not partially from the mass media?
For instance, Paul Craig Roberts is a former Reagan Administration Treasury official, and a conservative on many issues (JakobFabian, just read his obituary for Milton Friedman if you want proof), but like others on the Right who opposed the Iraq War and argue for fairer trade policies, he was shut out of the debate over the Iraq War in the mainstream media, and the faith in free trade remains largely unchallenged.
Roberts is more of an essayist than Moyers who, while a liberal, is mainly a completely trustworthy and fair-minded journalist (see his interviews of right-wingers Richard Vigurie and Grover Norquist, among others, for evidence of that). I do think he went rather soft on Wright, though, even if the mainstream media and the Right are vilifying him in a completely unfair manner. One can generally act without prejudice and have friends within a group that, in your heart of hearts, you think less of.
C.S. Lewis is fondly remembered by some of his female students and associates, but the women in his novels were often sexist caricatures. A Black Nationalist like Wright can have white friends, teachers and parishioners, but still ultimately see the mass of white folk as unreconstructed bigots and servants of the powers that be. I wish Moyers had tried to explore these issues with Wright, rather than basically being satisfied with the fact that Wright has all of those associations with various white folk mentioned above.
Posted by cka2nd at 05/05/2008 @ 10:09am
Recognizing the evidence that AIDS may be man-made, or have spread from African monkeys to people due to human error (and imperialist arrogance) does not mean that one need buy the theory that AIDS was "injected" into the African or Black American communities on purpose.
Unlike the evidence presented by legitimate journalists like Gary Webb and Alexander Cockburn regarding the connection between CIA-funded and winked at Contra drug running and the crack epidemic of the 1980's, there is no credible evidence for the theories that the U.S. government purposely spread AIDS or that the U.S. or Israeli governments were behind 9/11.
Posted by cka2nd at 05/05/2008 @ 10:22am
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/5/2008
I see Jerry Yang is taking it from all directions today. I believe he is experiencing a little known phenomenon called 'hindsight'.
Posted by Benchrest at 05/05/2008 @ 10:47am
I wish Moyers had tried to explore these issues with Wright, rather than basically being satisfied with the fact that Wright has all of those associations with various white folk mentioned above.---- Posted by cka2nd at 05/5/2008
And WHY DIDN'T Moyers do that, CKA?
Could it be because basically he was lobbing softballs, either in agreement with Wright's assessment (thus foregoing his journalistic objectivity) or because he didn't want to "be associated with" the attacks on Wright that had already occurred (again, fear, leading to a loss of objectivity)?
So in the end, Moyers does a "How the OTHER Media is to blame" and of course the white liberal guilt trip.
None of which indicates a kind of journalism that needs to be followed.
As for the "double standard"...sure.
But the double standard for Hagee and McCain, or some right-winger treated as a serious analyst (my example would be Buchanan)....excuses the Left from their guys.
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2008 @ 11:27am
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/5/200
Well you could always answer all those questions with the theory that racist whites held towards blacks that justified slavery. They thought we were animals. Not the same species. So you could make the theory that the person thought a virus that killed blacks would have no effect on whites because we are a different species. Not to say the AIDs thing isn't nutty. Just playing devil's advocate.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/05/2008 @ 11:28am
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/5/2008
Oh and to your comment about whit and black preachers being treated the same. Why is it when Wright says "9/11 was the chickens coming home to roost" he gets called un-American and a traitor. When Pat Robertson and Falwell say that Hurricane Katrina was caused by the sins of New Orleans and saying 9/11 was caused by God's hatred of gay's they get away with it? Or how about when Hagee calls Catholicism the great whore? They all get away with it. Robertson's and Falwell's comment are basically the same exact thing Wright said. Yet they get away with it. If it's not a double standard then please explain to me why.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/05/2008 @ 11:33am
Wright will be forgotten by Nov. Remember, we're dealing with "mainstream americans"here. When Obama shifts the focus toward McCane & starts throwing haymakers, everything will change.Let the games begin. please?
Posted by Sorelish at 05/05/2008 @ 11:39am
Now we have little Marybratwurst refuting things she has not read and obviously knows nothing about, defined in her way for the purpose. Supported by the ignorant-but-unabashed okra2nd. They probably believe the official story about 911, too.
Do you?
Posted by jones at 05/05/2008 @ 11:44am
Cccomfi
It's not a double standard because Wright is anti0Israel, and Hagee is pro Israel. How many times do I have to keep pointing that out? Whatever is not 'anti semitic' is OK; let it slide. (yes, of course it's a double standard, idiot. How rude and stupid of you to point it out.)
Posted by jones at 05/05/2008 @ 11:51am
Wright will be forgotten by Nov.-----Posted by Sorelish at 05/5/2008
Not forgotten, but so "old news" that any 527 trying to use it will look ridiculous.
Plus, McCain can't keep his temper in check for 7 months...sooner or later, he's going to blow up at somebody and it MIGHT get caught on YouTube!
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2008 @ 12:05pm
'...the essential power of Barack Obama: that he is revealing for white America the quiet mass of black people who do not spend their days
calculating the wages of slavery.' -- Ta-Nehisi Coates -- 19 May, 2008 -- The Nation.
'To say "I am a Christian" is not enough. Why? Because the Christianity of the slaveholder is not the Christianity of the slave. The God to whom
the slaveholders pray as they ride on the decks of the slave ship is not the God to whom the enslaved are praying as they ride beneath the decks
on that slave ship.' -- Jeremiah Wright -- National Press Club -- 28 April, 2008
'I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.' -- Barack Obama 18 March 2008
Posted by HonestLiberal at 05/05/2008 @ 12:10pm
Posted by HonestLiberal at 05/5/2008 | ignore this person
I'm not really expecting a response considering your lack of posting original thought but I see nothing wrong in the quotes you just provided. If you disagree with the sentiment of those posts then please explain. If I'm to take you and your rambling quotes seriously then you must respond in your own words. To not do so only continues to diminish the power of your words/quotes.
Posted by k330k at 05/05/2008 @ 12:54pm
This idea that you can't have friendships, even close friendships, with those who hold radically different views than you own is ridiculous.
If the mainstream press is serious about this, they should investigate the views (and style) of all of Hillary and Bill's 20 year friendships. I think they will be just as shocked to find that many of these people have very different ideas than Hillary on a wide range of issues, but this doesn't mean she should terminate their friendship if the media creates a serious distraction with their scrutiny of these disparate views, should it?
The real double standard is not necessarily a racial one, although I think there is something to that as well. The real double standard is the failure of the media to vet the political views of the close friends of "all" of the candidates and scrutinize those views with all of the attention they have given to Reverend Wright.
I think if they wen tdown that path, they would find how ridiculous it was to even start this nonsense, as friendships and close bonds are formed for many different reasons, and not necessarily because one has identical views on culture, society, race, politics, or many other issues.
Posted by Metteyya at 05/05/2008 @ 1:18pm
Posted by Metteyya at 05/5/2008
You hit the nail on the head!
Posted by k330k at 05/05/2008 @ 1:23pm
I'm waiting Honestliberal. C'mon man, converse for a change.
Posted by k330k at 05/05/2008 @ 1:25pm
Do you think Hillary and Bill should terminate their relationship with Maya Angelo, for example? Certainly, there are things she has written that "white America" would be uncomfortable with, but so what?
The "caged bird" in her famous poem is clearly a reference to oppressed blacks, and the "free bird" to whites, but no one tries to make a big deal of how this analogy might offend mainstream white America?
A free bird leaps on the back of the wind and floats downstream till the current ends and dips his wing in the orange sun's rays and dares to claim the sky.
But a bird that stalks down his narrow cage can seldom see through his bars of rage his wings are clipped and his feet are tied so he opens his throat to sing.
The caged bird sings with a fearful trill of things unknown but longed for still and his tune is heard on the distant hill for the caged bird sings of freedom.
The free bird thinks of another breeze and the trade winds soft through the sighing trees and the fat worms waiting on a dawn-bright lawn and he names the sky his own.
But a caged bird stands on the grave of dreams his shadow shouts on a nightmare scream his wings are clipped and his feet are tied so he opens his throat to sing.
The caged bird sings with a fearful trill of things unknown but longed for still and his tune is heard on the distant hill for the caged bird sings of freedom. © Maya Angelou
Posted by Metteyya at 05/05/2008 @ 1:27pm
McCain has his own "crazy" spiritual advisor - Reverend Rod Parsley, who has a few thoughts on black genocide too. But he says Planned Parenthood is the culprit.
But, that's ok for conservatives, right?
Posted by Hman23 at 05/05/2008 @ 1:40pm
'Curious, but we have come to a place, a time, when virtue is no longer considered a virtue. The mention of virtue is ridiculed, and even the word itself has fallen out of favor.' -- Maya Angelou -- 'When Virtue Becomes Redundant'
5 November 2006 Chicago Sun-Times -- Interview with Barack Obama:
'Q: Why did you not publicly disclose the transaction after Rezko got indicted?
A: At the time, it didn't strike me as relevant. I did however donate campaign contributions from Rezko to charity. ...'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 05/05/2008 @ 1:47pm
"Obama described Wright, not as a friend, but as a spiritual adviser of 20-years. "
Obama has NOT described Wright as his "spiritual adviser", and Wright even objected to that characterization of their relationship.
They had a typical pastor/parishioner relationship in which Wright introduced him to the Gospel. Some people use their pastor as a "spiritual adviser" as well, getting regular "spiritual" advice from them. But that was NOT the case with Obama, and this has been confirmed.
And, no, I didn't miss the point, but wanted to make a broader point about people in one's life, the complexity of some of these relationships, and the inappropriateness of media scrutiny that ASSUMES these people share your philosophy on race, culture, politics, etc.
I have a right-wing engineering friend that go have a beer with every once in a while. He is born-again Christian and I am a practicing Buddhist. If the media shined a spotlight on this relationship and said "Metteyya must be a conservative asshole because he has a long-term friendship with this guy", they would be DEAD WRONG!
If they were a fly on the wall during many of my discussions with my engineering friend, they would see we have healthy debates about politics, religion, and often take OPPOSITE sides in the debate. But our friendship is not based on debates - I happen to think he has a great engineering mind and often consult him for new product ideas.
Rev Wright and Obama had similar debates, in which Obama tries to convince Wright of the wisdom of bringing whites and blacks together and Wright responds with separatist ideas of his own concerning HIS doubts about white America's willingness to come together.
These debates happen all over America, and to assume, as the mainstream press has done, that you MUST hold the same views of those you are associated with is just plain wrong!
Posted by Metteyya at 05/05/2008 @ 1:55pm
Do you?
Posted by jones
but what of the black jew?
Monday, May 5, 2008 2:07:49 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/05/2008 @ 2:03pm
seriously, america.
seriously.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bush seeks 70 billion dollars for Iraq, Afghan war
ST LOUIS, Missouri (AFP) -- US President George W. Bush on Friday formally asked lawmakers for 70 billion dollars to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into early next year, when his successor takes over.
for example.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/05/2008 @ 2:05pm
"Marybretbrad" said of Wright's AIDS theory:
(1) "The theory is inconsistent: Anyone in the US Government smart enough to engineer a virus is smart enough to know that the virus would kill white people too."
Well, no, not in the case of a virus that is sexually transmitted. Just set the virus free in the African-American community, and then revive all those "anti-miscegenation" laws (that is, laws prohibiting sex between the races, which were once WIDESPREAD in these United States), and you'd have a disease that killed Blacks and spared Whites (except for those "illegals" who broke the law, and who would shed a tear for them?).
We should not assume that a theory is implausible merely because it rests upon the assumption that racist scientists would presumably be "too smart" to think globally about the long-term consequences of their actions. There are a lot of people with highly specialized knowledge who cannot think globally, including (who can deny it?) a great many racists. The Germans call such people "Fachidioten," that is, "idiots of specialization." Such "Fachidioten" are aptly defined as specialists who "know more and more about less and less, until eventually they know everything about nothing."
(2) "The theory is incomplete: In order for this to lead to genocide of the black population, you also need to posit that an engineered virus would be the "best" method for killing. In fact, abortion kills 50% of all black children in the US."
50% of all pregnancies terminated by abortion? Show me the evidence! But suppose we assume that this astonishing statistic is accurate. In this case, wouldn't legalized abortion prevent the births of 50% of all White children, too? Certainly it would - unless we assumed that Black women and White women behaved differently, and I'm sure that we don't assume anything like that, do we, "Marybretbrad"?
So, no, legalized abortion is not, in fact, a better tool for establishing White supremacy than a sexually transmitted virus. Indeed, it does not favor any race or class over any other, despite what Margaret Sanger may have believed. It merely reduces the growth rate of the human population as a whole, which, frankly, is not a bad thing; and it empowers women to control their own economic destiny, which, frankly, is a good thing.
(3) "The theory is also incorrect."
Incorrect, yes, and for exactly the reason that I submitted in my last posting - because there is NO EVIDENCE for it.
Posted by JakobFabian at 05/05/2008 @ 2:15pm
<i>There is not double standard. It is just a grand failure on your part to recognize important distinctions.</i>
the only distinction you have made is that, on the one hand, obama had a "20 year relationship" with his former pastor; and on the other hand, mccain didn't have a 20 year relationship with his non-former pastor (i guess).
i can only deduce that 'length of relationship with a former pastor' is the criterion which distinguishes obama's relationhip with wright and mccain's relationhip with hagee. this is the only clear distinction you have made, and it's a tenuous one at best.
a cursory look at the facts reveals that there are far more <i>similarities</i> between obama/wright and mccain/hagee.
hagee and wright are both pastors with large congregations. hagee and wright both endorsed a presidential candidate. hagee and wright both have personal relationships with the candidates. hagee and wright both have said shit that is outrageous.
now, here's a distinction that i want to make: with the exception of the AIDS comments, wright is, for the most part, accurate on an entire host of issues. not only that, but unless you are african or african-americans, it would be pretty difficult to understand wright's passion and power.
Posted by darladoon at 05/05/2008 @ 2:21pm
gee, why would black people have a reason to be angry??
hmmm.....i dunno....
Posted by darladoon at 05/05/2008 @ 2:24pm
Posted by k330k at 05/5/2008
He only speaks in quotes. Hence my reference to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darmok
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2008 @ 3:40pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/5/2008
Sorry, hate to agree with MBB/Darin, but I don't think the "McCain-Hagee" thing can be made much of (don't think the "Obama/Wright" thing is important either, but it's more substantial).
McCain quite obviously CAN'T STAND the Religious Right and is using them to hold his base together, while he goes for the Center. Remember, this is a guy who called Falwell and Robertson "agents of intolerance" and compared them to Farrakhan.
The RRs are obviously just "useful idiots" to Maverick John and once in office (from supporting stem cells research to ending funding for Faith Based Initiatives), he'll cut them loose....he may throw them a bone on a Supreme Court justice, but if it looks like a fight in a strong Dem Senate...he'll go "Souter" and let them wail, and just scare them again in 2012 with another "anti-Christian" Democrat.
I think it's very likely McCain hugged the little dumpling Hagee...then promptly went to the campaign bus and showered.
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2008 @ 3:46pm
at least wright inspired obama to have some balls......
3:49
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/05/2008 @ 3:51pm
I have to agree that although there is a double standard you will never be able to draw a significant line. Unfortunately people like Robertson and Falwell are accepted by many because for some reason it's ok to hate gays and blame them for 9/11 but not to blame American foreign policy.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/05/2008 @ 4:05pm
I wish Moyers had tried to explore these issues with Wright, rather than basically being satisfied with the fact that Wright has all of those associations with various white folk mentioned above.---- Posted by cka2nd at 05/5/2008 And WHY DIDN'T Moyers do that, CKA? Could it be because basically he was lobbing softballs, either in agreement with Wright's assessment (thus foregoing his journalistic objectivity) or because he didn't want to "be associated with" the attacks on Wright that had already occurred (again, fear, leading to a loss of objectivity)? cka2nd: It seemed to me that Moyers basically wanted to give Wright a chance to explain himself and give some context to both his statements and the controversy over them. Moyers didn't agree with Wright on everything, but he is no Mike Wallace; he tends toward the conversation rather than the hard-hitting, gotcha interview, which is probably why right-wingers don't mind appearing on his shows, even as they try to cut the funding for them and don't object to groundless characterizations of Moyers as biased and unfair (Moyers has challenged his critics to come up with any lies or distortions on his old show, Now, and they failed to do so). Journalistic objectivity was long ago warped from keeping an open mind and being fair into being a stenographer for the powerful. The Economist is anything but objective – its journalists all share a similar worldview on trade and economics – but it is also widely considered the best English language news journal in the world because it gets its facts right most of the time. And why would any serious journalist want to be associated with the kind of vulgar and simplistic attacks that have so far characterized most of the mainstream and right-wing "coverage" of this non-issue? So in the end, Moyers does a "How the OTHER Media is to blame" and of course the white liberal guilt trip. None of which indicates a kind of journalism that needs to be followed. cka2nd: Well, heaven forbid anyone should point out lousy media coverage. Even though I think Moyers was too soft on Wright, I still got more useful information out of that one interview than 90% of the rest of the coverage I've seen, including in some of the more serious magazines I read. You seem to have the attitude that the media has no influence at all, at least not in a negative way. Or do you just make exceptions for the issues that you care about, such as the Iraq war? And if you don't think Moyers is one of the best mainstream reporters in America, print or broadcast, then you either haven't seen enough of his stuff or are blinded by ideology or cynicism, or both. As for the "double standard"...sure. But the double standard for Hagee and McCain, or some right-winger treated as a serious analyst (my example would be Buchanan)....excuses the Left from their guys. cka2nd: Are you saying that the Left – as usual in your worldview, the Left is monolithic and only has one opinion on an issue – wants the same pass on their analysts or religious types that the right-wing currently enjoys? I think most serious leftists, and most serious liberals, too, would like the same critical standards applied to all; i.e., that they are not essentially bought and paid spouters of opinions for hire, or hack shills for a given political party, viewpoint, industry or group; that they have serious knowledge of the issues involved; and that their predictions have a relatively high success rate. As usual, instead of addressing how an issue might be solved or at least engaged with – the double standard exercised by the mainstream media – you turn around and say that the people suffering from the ill treatment just want to reverse the situation and enjoy the same ill-gained treatment as those currently benefiting. Some may, but there are others in all camps who want the Right Thing (a standard you only apply to the war and a couple of other issues) to be done, no matter where the chips may fall.
Posted by Mask at 05/5/2008 | ignore this person
Posted by cka2nd at 05/05/2008 @ 4:15pm
Crap, sorry for the missing paragraph breaks. Let me try this again.
Posted by Mask at 05/5/2008 | ignore this person
I wish Moyers had tried to explore these issues with Wright, rather than basically being satisfied with the fact that Wright has all of those associations with various white folk mentioned above.----
Posted by cka2nd at 05/5/2008
And WHY DIDN'T Moyers do that, CKA?
Could it be because basically he was lobbing softballs, either in agreement with Wright's assessment (thus foregoing his journalistic objectivity) or because he didn't want to "be associated with" the attacks on Wright that had already occurred (again, fear, leading to a loss of objectivity)?
cka2nd: It seemed to me that Moyers basically wanted to give Wright a chance to explain himself and give some context to both his statements and the controversy over them. Moyers didn't agree with Wright on everything, but he is no Mike Wallace; he tends toward the conversation rather than the hard-hitting, gotcha interview, which is probably why right-wingers don't mind appearing on his shows, even as they try to cut the funding for them and don't object to groundless characterizations of Moyers as biased and unfair (Moyers has challenged his critics to come up with any lies or distortions on his old show, Now, and they failed to do so). Journalistic objectivity was long ago warped from keeping an open mind and being fair into being a stenographer for the powerful. The Economist is anything but objective – its journalists all share a similar worldview on trade and economics – but it is also widely considered the best English language news journal in the world because it gets its facts right most of the time. And why would any serious journalist want to be associated with the kind of vulgar and simplistic attacks that have so far characterized most of the mainstream and right-wing "coverage" of this non-issue?
So in the end, Moyers does a "How the OTHER Media is to blame" and of course the white liberal guilt trip.
None of which indicates a kind of journalism that needs to be followed.
cka2nd: Well, heaven forbid anyone should point out lousy media coverage. Even though I think Moyers was too soft on Wright, I still got more useful information out of that one interview than 90% of the rest of the coverage I've seen, including in some of the more serious magazines I read. You seem to have the attitude that the media has no influence at all, at least not in a negative way. Or do you just make exceptions for the issues that you care about, such as the Iraq war? And if you don't think Moyers is one of the best mainstream reporters in America, print or broadcast, then you either haven't seen enough of his stuff or are blinded by ideology or cynicism, or both.
As for the "double standard"...sure. But the double standard for Hagee and McCain, or some right-winger treated as a serious analyst (my example would be Buchanan)....excuses the Left from their guys.
cka2nd: Are you saying that the Left – as usual in your worldview, the Left is monolithic and only has one opinion on an issue – wants the same pass on their analysts or religious types that the right-wing currently enjoys? I think most serious leftists, and most serious liberals, too, would like the same critical standards applied to all; i.e., that they are not essentially bought and paid spouters of opinions for hire, or hack shills for a given political party, viewpoint, industry or group; that they have serious knowledge of the issues involved; and that their predictions have a relatively high success rate. As usual, instead of addressing how an issue might be solved or at least engaged with – the double standard exercised by the mainstream media – you turn around and say that the people suffering from the ill treatment just want to reverse the situation and enjoy the same ill-gained treatment as those currently benefiting. Some may, but there are others in all camps who want the Right Thing (a standard you only apply to the war and a couple of other issues) to be done, no matter where the chips may fall.
Posted by cka2nd at 05/05/2008 @ 4:21pm
Sorry, hate to agree with MBB/Darin, but I don't think the "McCain-Hagee" thing can be made much of (don't think the "Obama/Wright" thing is important either, but it's more substantial).
The RRs are obviously just "useful idiots" to Maverick John and once in office (from supporting stem cells research to ending funding for Faith Based Initiatives), he'll cut them loose....he may throw them a bone on a Supreme Court justice, but if it looks like a fight in a strong Dem Senate...he'll go "Souter" and let them wail, and just scare them again in 2012 with another "anti-Christian" Democrat.
Posted by Mask at 05/5/2008 | ignore this person
Are you saying that the Obama/Wright relationship is a more substantial public policy issue than McCain/Hagee, or a more substantial tool for endless political and media debate and distortion. If the former, I think you are dead wrong, as it is unlikely that Obama will govern as a Black Nationalist or a proponent of Black Liberation Theology. He's made it quite clear that he will govern from the center on any number of issues.
And another Supreme Court justice is just what the Religous Right is salivating over, and probably the main reason they are supporting McCain.
Another Roberts is hardly throwing them a bone. The chance of McCain nominating a Souter - a closet moderate with a limited written record - is approximately nil. The Republican Party and the conservative movement have made it very clear in practice that they won't stand for such an appointment, even when it's a relative lightweight who seems solid on most issues (a la Gonzalez and Myers). Besides, if there's one thing Bush did competently, it was stare down the Democrats on most judicial appointments. Maverick John has probably learned that lesson.
Posted by cka2nd at 05/05/2008 @ 4:34pm
"he tends toward the conversation rather than the hard-hitting, gotcha interview"---CKA
That's "code" for "softball questions".
Do you think that Bill Moyers (especially after many of the speeches he's made) is an "objective journalist"...with no ideology of his own? And would that ideology perhaps be more sympathetic to Rev. Wright than some (like, as you mentioned, Mike Wallace)?
And do you also think your high praise of him, might A BIT be like the praise the Right gives to the "high journalistic standards" of Chris Wallace or Brit Hume....simply for the fact that they are obliging you with a spin or bias that you ENDORSE?
As for McCain and Hagee, the come-back is obvious....McCain didn't sit in a Hagee pew for 20 years and "suddenly" discover he's a little round nutjob with an Armegeddon Power Point display. He's using him, and I think even Hagee knows it.
But that's not to say that the "Wright flap" is important, just has more substance as far as links between the two men.
And it doesn't matter...it'll be "old news" before the Convention and the 527s on the Right will look silly using it if they do.
As for judges, McCain will have a HARD Dem Congress to contend with.
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2008 @ 4:42pm
a little round nutjob with an Armegeddon Power Point display.
Posted by Mask at 05/5/2008
That's just awesome.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/05/2008 @ 4:54pm
Posted by Mask at 05/5/2008 | ignore this person
"he tends toward the conversation rather than the hard-hitting, gotcha interview"---CKA
That's "code" for "softball questions". cka2nd: No, it's not. It's usually means he's able to get his guests to explain themselves and provide information and opinion of interest to his viewers, rather than engaging in senseless sturm and drang. In other words, he usually gets the meat, not just the sizzle.
Do you think that Bill Moyers (especially after many of the speeches he's made) is an "objective journalist"...with no ideology of his own? And would that ideology perhaps be more sympathetic to Rev. Wright than some (like, as you mentioned, Mike Wallace)? cka2nd: As I said, "objective journalism" is a false standard. He is a fair journalist who airs conservative points of view and gets the facts right, even though he doesn't hide the fact that he is a liberal (though hardly an ideologue). Again, he might be compared to The Economist - good journalism that is honest about its point of view.
And do you also think your high praise of him, might A BIT be like the praise the Right gives to the "high journalistic standards" of Chris Wallace or Brit Hume....simply for the fact that they are obliging you with a spin or bias that you ENDORSE? cka2nd: How many times have I referred to The fricking American Conservative magazine on this website? Yes, I read it because I largely agree with its positions on the Iraq War and trade policy, but I come at both positions from a wildly different perspective than their writers do, conservative or libertarian. And I am objective enough that I can tell the difference between a serious conservative writer like a Paul Craig Roberts or an Andrew Bacevich (or even James Pinkerton before he took another shot of the partisan GOP Kool Aid) and hacks like Hannity, Snow and Hume.
As for McCain and Hagee, the come-back is obvious....McCain didn't sit in a Hagee pew for 20 years and "suddenly" discover he's a little round nutjob with an Armegeddon Power Point display. He's using him, and I think even Hagee knows it.
But that's not to say that the "Wright flap" is important, just has more substance as far as links between the two men.
And it doesn't matter...it'll be "old news" before the Convention and the 527s on the Right will look silly using it if they do. cka2nd: Experience says you're wrong. Gore originally used Willie Horton against Dukakis in the Spring, and then the Repubs used it in the Fall. The Swift Boaters were also out there by the Spring of 2004, and they're campaign to take down Kerry just got stronger and stronger, even after it was supposed to be "old news." I'm not saying that the Right will be successful in using the Wright issue against Obama in this time of war and stagflation, but they will use it.
As for judges, McCain will have a HARD Dem Congress to contend with. cka2nd: The House could possibley show some backbone if the Dems pick up enough seats, but unless Reid, Rockefeller, Schumer and Co. get spinal column transplants, or the Dems pick up 15 or more seats (I'm betting on 10 on the outside), their is a high probability that the Senate will bend and break for their former colleague, despised though he might be, just as they did for Shrub.
Posted by cka2nd at 05/05/2008 @ 5:17pm
Just wait 'till the real contest begins between McBush and Obama or Billary....then you will see Hagee's name come up again. Hagee is too much of a defect on Republicans for the Democrats to waste him in a Primary tit-for-tat over Rev. Wright.
Once the primaries are over, look for the anti-McBush commercials bashing his connection with the Evil pastor Hagee.
Did I say Evil? geez, that word doesn't even come close.
regarding the AIDS conspiracy. Perhaps it was the original intent for AIDs to decimate undesirables, however those who fostered it were unaware that a great deal of people co-mingled. Its spread could not be controlled as well as expected.
not to worry though, because Starvation is the new Plague. Controllable, explainable, and enforceble!
Posted by rrspyke at 05/05/2008 @ 6:19pm
Just wait 'till the real contest begins between McBush and Obama or Billary....then you will see Hagee's name come up again. Hagee is too much of a defect on Republicans for the Democrats to waste him in a Primary tit-for-tat over Rev. Wright.
Once the primaries are over, look for the anti-McBush commercials bashing his connection with the Evil pastor Hagee.
Did I say Evil? geez, that word doesn't even come close.
regarding the AIDS conspiracy. Perhaps it was the original intent for AIDs to decimate undesirables, however those who fostered it were unaware that a great deal of people co-mingled. Its spread could not be controlled as well as expected.
not to worry though, because Starvation is the new Plague. Controllable, explainable, and enforceble!
Posted by rrspyke at 05/05/2008 @ 6:20pm
Just wait 'till the real contest begins between McBush and Obama or Billary....then you will see Hagee's name come up again. Hagee is too much of a defect on Republicans for the Democrats to waste him in a Primary tit-for-tat over Rev. Wright.
Once the primaries are over, look for the anti-McBush commercials bashing his connection with the Evil pastor Hagee.
Did I say Evil? geez, that word doesn't even come close.
regarding the AIDS conspiracy. Perhaps it was the original intent for AIDs to decimate undesirables, however those who fostered it were unaware that a great deal of people co-mingled. Its spread could not be controlled as well as expected.
not to worry though, because Starvation is the new Plague. Controllable, explainable, and enforcible!
Posted by rrspyke at 05/05/2008 @ 6:22pm
And of course I Apologize for the triple post...computer a little sluggish today!
Posted by rrspyke at 05/05/2008 @ 6:23pm
I have not said I endorse Wright's comments about for example the AIDS virus. I do not though I understand his feelings derived from the "syphilis experiment" by the government some time ago. In one or two of his postures he is really off the board.
But he is essentially correct in his diagnoses of our reality and our society. His forms of expression are derived from the pulpit, the Afro American tradition of "burning in" the audiences: a little bit rough and extreme, especially in as I said, word selection.
And if you "Pontificus" do not believe it just conduct a poll all over the world to see what do they think about America.
Wright is right. He is misled in some points just out of his sourness and what he might see every day in his poor parish. But darn, he is so much nearer to Jesus than those other hate mongers as Hagee.
So, if you can understand, I am not making up any kind of intellectual elaboration. But issues in reality are much harder than right or wrong. Its Wright' style that may be "sensitive" to a fraction of the American public that has not thought about the issues, nor has been used to hearing them in such a tone. And that is what the media is exploiting not getting into the bottom line.
I only say
Posted by Frank42 at 05/05/2008 @ 6:37pm
THIS FORMAT IS UNREADABLE.
Monday, May 5, 2008 10:12:48 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/05/2008 @ 10:08pm
i hate the skinny column.
rrrrrrrrrrr.
Monday, May 5, 2008 10:20:24 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/05/2008 @ 10:15pm
butifyouwriteoneloooooooooongwordyougetlongcolumnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/05/2008 @ 10:42pm
As a reformed Catholic I'd like to point out that Catholic politicians are never criticized for hobnobbing with priests/bishops who helped cover up sex crimes against children. Why is that? Are those acts less offensive?
Posted by sharonlajolla at 05/07/2008 @ 4:31pm