With tapes of his Jeremiah Wright being played ad-nauseum on every news channel, Barack Obama received his campaign’s first 3 AM call. He responded by giving "the speech": a genuine, brilliant, and anything-but-conventional political call for Americans to honestly address the subject of race. CNN pundit Jim Wallis probably summed it up when he stated: "…before Barack Obama’s speech this was a test of HIM. After the speech it has now become a test of US.". Unfortunately, our mainstream media has already failed that test. Sure, the media rightfully heaped generous praise on the historic speech with their words, but failed to honor those words with their actions. They agreed with Obama’s goal of elevating our national dialogue on race — right before they reduced that very discussion to where it was before Obama took the podium. Instead of delving into complex racial matters like our country’s segregated schools or our criminal justice system, we were treated to: 1) endless questions like "did Obama distance himself enough from Wright?"; 2) monumental out-of-context distortion about Obama’s subsequent "typical white person" remark[1] and 3) more questions like: "yeah, the speech was great, but did Obama sway ‘white working-class voters’ or ‘white blue-collar voters’ or ‘white fill-in-the-blank-with-any-euphemism-besides-bigoted’ voter[2]… And the "racial stalemate" continues… So if that is the case, then the least we could do is have that lowbrow discussion in an even-handed manner…
Like Malcom X did famously before him, Pastor Wright got himself in just a tiny bit of trouble by characterizing Al Qaeda’s 9-11 attacks on America as "chickens coming home to roost". Now it seems that the next chicken home-coming has now been brought back into John McCain’s own… front… yard. The weeklong verbal guilt-by-association attacks on Obama’s Pastor have changed the rules on how we monitor, assess, and judge our candidates. Preacher’s words were largely irrelevant last week – just not this week. Like the selective steroid attacks once did on Barry Bonds, Obama-attackers have now ruined it for everybody. And now it is John McCain’s turn to deal with such nonsense. Lets highlight alternet’s recent article on "The White Preacher Double Standard: How Hagee, Parsley, and The Rest Get Away With Everything" (and a big hat tip to frequent commenter Steady):
– Reverend John Hagee has called the Catholic Church the "Great Whore." He has said that the Anti-Christ will rise out of the European Union (of course, the Anti-Christ will also be Jewish). He has said all Muslims are trained to kill and will be part of the devil’s army when Armageddon comes (which he hopes is soon). John McCain continues to say he is proud of Reverend Hagee’s endorsement.
– Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam. Since this is such an outlandish claim, I have to add for the record, that he is not kidding. Reverend Parsley says Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" brought down from a "demon spirit." Of course, we are in a war against all Muslims, including presumably Muslim-Americans. Buts since Parsley believes this is a Christian nation and that it should be run as a theocracy, he is not very concerned what Muslim-Americans think. John McCain says Reverend Rod Parsley is his "spiritual guide."
– Jerry Falwell said America had 9/11 coming because we tolerated gays, feminists and liberals. It was our fault. Our chickens had come home to roost, if you will. John McCain proudly received his support and even spoke at his university’s commencement.
And it’s not just John McCain, in the article Rudy Guliani and Mitt Romney don’t exactly come up smelling like roses either. So now that the genie has been let out of the bottle, will the media hold John McCain and others to task? Will we get round-the-clock coverage of their fiery sermons? And finally, will John McCain be catapulted into a great leadership moment by giving an honest, nuanced and gap-bridging speech on the hot-button topics of say, "homosexuality" or "Islam in America"? …We are waiting with bated breath…
[1] This included CNN headlining with "Obama’s New Race Problem" and a Fox News broadcast that had host Chris Wallace railing against his own network’s "Obama-bashing";
[2] This is not to suggest that all "working-class" voters are bigots, but only that it would be so refreshing to hear at least one commentator state: "how will Obama’s speech play with white voters who may hold deep seated racial bias within them".
————————————————————————————————————————–
UPDATE: Related to Jeremiah Wright’s "9-11" Speech… as it turns out it went unreported that the famous passage with "the chickens coming home to roost" was actually A QUOTE from another man. And that other man is not named Malcom X. The long quote was actually of Edward Peck. You might be surprised at Peck’s background. He is white, he is the former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, and former deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force. How this information was not sought out or explained by any journalist until now constitutes an inexcusable oversight or monumental laziness, if not an intentional omission Lots of credit to CNN’s Roland Martin for doing the leg work to provide the larger context. Here is the full story. How much this changes one’s opinion of Rev. Wright is not the main issue here. It is our mainstream media’s job to provide information and seeking truth in its proper context, and they should be held accountable.
Modi
I think we should go back to the basic overstanding of the mechanism that is conceptionalized as “White Supremacy” with the forseen actualization of a New World Order.
Like any street fight, there is only one rule…that there is no rules. And changing the playing field when you are the owner referee and rule maker is on par with the machine that runs the incorporated United States political mechanism.
Ive already stated that Obama will not win, not based on his qualification, intelligence or charisma, or even hisaudacity of hope, but because big corporation runs the government and any figure head sitting in the “white” house.
These people not only thumb their noses at us but the also give us the middle finger and send out a loud fungule to the voters.
Sankofa,
Normally I would side on the merits from your point based on the American reality. America has wittnessed two stolen elections and have become more hypocritical in criticizing other nations’ botched elections. Not anticipating that we would ever rise to the levels of the “third world”, would the Democrats risk the absolescence of their party or sheer bedlum within it if they allow the Clinton cronies marked as superdelegates to undo the people’s will for change and elect Obama? Don’t you think that Obama’s voiced campaign pledge to invest in the military, US infrastructure and returning the US back on top among the nations will suffice the big guns/corporate America that you so correctly described? America should hope so.
Sankofa:
If Wall Street didn’t like Obama, they would say so loudly, regularly and in all of our media outlets. He has significant “big money” support – but he’s also developed a grassroots funding mechanism which has allowed him to reject funding from lobbyists. His policies have not been deemed anti-Wall Street. Some of his rhetoric is anti-Wall Street – but one could argue it’s Populist Politicking. After all, Bill Clinton struck a populist tone in his rhetoric but he CREATED the institutional capacity for the Sub-Prime Loan Scandal by eliminating the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which kept banks and financial institutions separate – and precluded the development of unregulated financial instruments like collateral debt obligations. He didn’t create this mess – greed and deception did that…but, it could not have happened without him.
So I’m not sure we can assert with confidence that his candidacy is up for the “business as usual” rejection. He’s had too much success getting dollar donations from Main Street and Wall Street.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2007-07-16-1571558437_x.htm
The money matters. Obama has the money. And the votes, and the pledged delegates.
Chenault, Parsons, and O’Neill?
MODI
Have you heard Rev. Wright’s speech in its full context? What do you think of Candidate BHO’s assessment of the comments and the idea that Rev. Wright’s words assumed a static image of America?
http://subrealism.blogspot.com/2008/03/are-jeremiah-wrights-sermons.html
Holla back. Thanks.
My appologies to all, I wasn’t able to finsih my thoughts because of my stupid computer acting up.
However I appreciate the feed back steady and Temple. However, i do think think that arrogance and the dictatorship mentality tends towards a blinkered view of reality.
At the end of the day, I believe the only way trhe corporations allows Obama in is because he has decided to be a “politician”. My cinicism is strong here due to my belief that this horse (the electorial system) is broken and to continue to ride a broken horse only gets you to the same place you were before.
My other concern is they make Obama the new face of the same old same old. I can be wrong, and I realy hope I am wrong on this but we will see.
Also temple I am effectively banned from viewing any videos at both my jobs. So I have to wait till I get home to view it.
sankofa, unlike you I am more hopeful for his presidency. As temple alludes to, so much of his financing comes from small donors that he may not be as subject to “the rules” as other candidates. In many ways he is “the people’s president”. I honestly don’t see how Hillary can overtake him. If superdelegates overturn it for Hillary, it will destroy the Democratic party. I think Bill Richardson’s endorsement is symbolic for things to come. If she doesn’t fuck things up too much, he has a 50-50 chance against McCain. I would say that he would win easily, but who knows what will be thrown at him by these 527s. It will get ugly.
Temple, thanks. That is the first time I saw the whole video. The speech does take on different meaning when you hear the historical list before the “God Damn America” statement and the conditional statement after it (as long as America tries to act like she is god and she is supreme). If you substitute something else for those three words, there is really little else that one can be argue against… unless one believes that the treatment of Native Americans, slavery, and Japanese internment camps have been good things..
…But to your question, Wright’s obvious repeated statements that “governments change” seem to go against Obama’s analysis in this case. Was Obama’s assessment right in general? Obama has been there 20 years and obviously knows the correct answer. Either 1) Obama truly believes what he said about Wright or 2) Obama embellished the point in his speech because he HAD to. While I think that it is the latter, I also think that there might be merit in the fact that Obama sees himself as more “hopeful” than Wright. In any case, I think that he handled the situation about as good as it could be handled considering the circumstances.
Temple, thanks. I just started watching Wright’s full 9-11 speech, noticed something, and did some digging. I just added the following update to the article.
UPDATE: Related to Jeremiah Wright’s “9-11″ Speech… as it turns out it went unreported that the famous passage with “the chickens coming home to roost” was actually A QUOTE from another man. And that other man is not named Malcom X. The long quote was actually of Edward Peck. You might be surprised at Peck’s background. He is white, he is the former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, and former deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force. How this information was not sought out or explained by any journalist until now constitutes an inexcusable oversight or monumental laziness, if not an intentional omission. Lots of credit to CNN’s Roland Martin for doing the leg work to provide the larger context. How much this changes one’s opinion of Rev. Wright is not the main issue here. It is our mainstream media’s job to provide information and seeking truth in its proper context, and they should be held accountable.
Here is the full article:
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/
Great find Modi. Since it’s on the MSM, maybe they will wise up. Still, the most useful thing that they can do is to really engage the discourse as opposed to attributing the topic to ramblings of the political season.
“My other concern is they make Obama the new face of the same old same old.”
— That’s exactly where I am on this. I still have tons of questions – but they cannot be answered between now and November. I have no questions about Shrillary or McCain.
MODI –
Nice job tracking down Peck on that quote.
I’m still waiting for someone to empirically reject his comments. Actually – I’m not.
Steady, I watched a lot of news and no one seems to have picked up on the Edward Pick quote. Perhaps CNN’s Anderson Cooper and Roland Martin have since they usually cover their blog points. At this point in time, I’m okay if it is not rehashed because it will just lead to another week of Wright talk which won’t be good for Obama’s poll numbers. Instead of focing on media responsibility, the focus will just come back to Wright.
Temple, Wright’s comments cannot be empirically rejected. You can’t argue with anyone who denounces slavery, Jim Crow, and prison policies. However, you just can’t say the words “God Damn America” in ANY context — unless, of course, you are a conservative white preacher talking about homosexuals or abortions…
White supremacist nationalists say it all the time. Of course, they believe they have the right as well. And, they’re not part of this conversation — but wasn’t Timothy McVeigh and his accomplices saying that very thing when they bombed the Murrah Building in OK City?
This thing is pure politics and pandering to the uninformed. It’s sad, but it’s an all-American tradition.
Remember Mencken’s words roughly paraphrased – that no one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
By the way – have you seen LeBron on the cover of Vogue?
About the Lebron photo — yes I did. I commented over at dwil’s site. I pretty much agree that it was ridiculous the photo passed through Lebron, Annie Leibowitz, and the Vogue editors. While dwil pegged Lebron as most culpable of the three, I had the sequence of anger going in the opposite direction…. I have no idea of how conscious Lebron is of the ramifications of this depiction at his young age. I’m not excusing him at all, but on some level, I also believe that he was exploited. I do not have one single doubt about the knowledge-level that Leibowitz and the editors of Vogue (where the buck ultimately stops). In their view controversy is ALWAYS good… and they KNOW it and probably intentionally selected it for that very reason. Whoever made the final decision at Vogue should have some explaining to do.
On the sports reporters today Brian Burwell also alluded to the depiction and also brought up a September issue of GQ with Jamarcus Russell as part of a pattern of “unflattering stereotypes†of black athletes. At AOL Fan House Michael David Smith wrote an article on it but oversimplified the subject and Burwell’s larger point. I commented over there today…
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/03/23/were-gqs-nfl-quarterback-photos-racist/1#c11187515
By the way–open up the Vogue magazine (as I did as my local grocery story), and there are two beautiful pictures of the two of them together (Lebron and Gisele). Go figure! I guess nicely posed photos where both of them look normal made too much sense for the cover…
And I have to disagree with your White Preacher double standard comment–difference between a few “odd” preachers endorsing McCain’s campaign, and Obama attending an “odd” preacher’s service for year after year.
MC, the white preachers in question are not merely “odd”. Their words are far more incendiary than Wrights. The only difference is that their targets of their ire are more vulnerable — and socially acceptable. Which also makes it acceptable for John McCain to seek out their endorsements without political retribution. …Of course, the larger point of the article is: why is our media going after guilt-by-religious-association of one man, but not others.
If you can, please check this out: “Obama’s Minister Committed ‘Treason’ but When My Father Did the Same Thing He was a Republican Hero”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html
If LeBron wasn’t a child, I’d agree. He’s a child (from the cultural-political perspective). He may be old enough to vote and go to war, but that’s hardly of consequence here. I would not expect my own children to agree to pose in such a manner – but that’s because I’d let them know all about the devil’s lair before I let ‘em loose. LeBron is free to do as he chooses – but has not been prepared or even properly introduced to the devil’s in his midst. He bears primary responsibility – but not primary blame. He didn’t initiate the pose sequence – he submitted to it.
It’s as if a robbery victim assumes the police are responsible for their safety – they are mistaken. The robber is to blame for the theft – but the victim has the primary responsibility for their own safety. LeBron should not expect Vogue to safeguard or respect his person…that’s his responsibility. He will be forever embarrassed by this. Somehow, I don’t think Vogue will be able to enlist his cooperation again for a long time.
I can only imagine the pain, anger and essential disgust felt by those men who were covered in Black Magic — their fight for all those years opened the doors — for this. In any case, it’s proof positive that despite the protests of many, there is a psychopathic racial personality with an insatiable demand for such imagery. In a sense – and in the minds of millions – it’s always 1808, not 2008.
MODI:
Thanks. I saw that. It was also posted on the Subrealism site I linked to above. There’s been some great stuff on the election coverage and the psychology behind it.
T3, Modi–The LBJ on Vogue fiasco speaks volumes to the nature of the Me Generation and Generation Xers. Black Magic? Black Magic? Black Magic? Are you talkin’ ’bout Voodoo? (Increase the pitch with wanton disbelief after each ?). LeBron had already said that his goal is to be the richest sports figure of all times and to surpass Air Jordan, Tiger Woods and any other athlete on the face of the Earth. When those pursuits define your purpose, then cooning and clowning for the buck become NORMAL. I agree that he alon is responsible for that depiction because if he saw the travails and hardships from whence we came, the shoulders upon which he walks, then he would not have succumbed to that buffoonery. With that said and noting his pursuits for the once-almighty dollar, we can’t assume that he will not allow himself to be cast in that light or have his image “denigraded” once more. Our purpose now is to make sure we give our children real options for heros and not this youths with God-given talents in sports and entertainment. Those youthful stars need role models too.
I maintain that he’s still a child – and I’ll wait before I pass judgment on him. I’m not going over the top on this one…he’s simply too young to make a necessary link between his pose and the history. I can think of a thousand contexts where he might have thought he was merely having fun.
One thing I know for sure…He’s never spent more than five minutes in an educational institution that taught him to understand and anticipate the structure and instances of white supremacist culture. The overwhelming majority of our children have never been educated about themselves.
I think it is wholly unfair to lambast a 20 year-old (or however old he is) who has never been educated about these complex machinations WITHOUT accepting responsibility for the education of him and his peers. This falls on the adults in the community.
I have a large number of close friends whose children I KNOW this would NEVER happen to. For one, they’d have smacked the photographer and shoot director upside the head…and that would have been the end of that. Those children, right now, are participating in Black culturally-grounded debate and public-speaking groups. They’re being taught about images and identity and are being provided with strong visual redirection so that the MSM does not dictate their preferences.
Of course, there are no ironclad guarantees, but this is an important step. If young Mr. James’ upbringing has been anything like so many other youth, he is fully enmeshed in the MSM image train of anti-Black “captures.” For all the people who want to bash the young man, I recommend taking a step back to remember your early 20′s and consider how “race” conscious you were and would have been in a photo shoot with a super model – likely conducted without adult supervision.
I recommend much more patience with one another – especially our most valuable “possessions” – our children.
Back to Wright issue, isn’t it amazing that this wasn’t the default position of the media as a whole, “As this whole sordid episode regarding the sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has played out over the last week, I wanted to understand what he ACTUALLY said in this speech. I’ve been saying all week on CNN that context is important, and I just wanted to know what the heck is going on”
Imagine that, actually wanting to get the facts surrounding a story that you’re reporting on 24/7. This concept is apparently so novel in the MSM that he actually had to explain himself. It’s like he was saying, “I know we typically don’t do this, but I wanted to try something different and give you a little context, and not just a sensationalized soundbite.”
The media loves Obama, they tried to sweep it under the rug but it wouldn’t go away. The fact is that Wright, did say that the US government put AIDS in the black community, he did say God Damn the USA, and for all intents and purposes is racists against whites, which is sad, being that he is supposed to be a Christian and also a pastor.
David, are you Sean Hannity? Cause that would explain a lot. You seem so concerned that Wright is racists towards whites, but racism towards blacks never seems to be a problem for you.
I haven’t heard Wright say anything that I considered racist, so I’d like to know how you drew that conclusion. He did say the US goverment put AIDS in the black community and there’s no factual evidence to back this up, but is that what the controversy is over, Wright making an incorrect statement about the U.S. government? And true he did say God damn America, but his full statement was
“God damn America, that’s in the Bible, for killing innocnent people, God damn america for treating her citizens for less than humans, God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is god and she is sumpreme. the united states government has failed the large majority of her citizens of african decent.”
To me this seems to be more a theological question as to whether or not the bible says that God will damn America for any of these actions. Further this ‘damnation’ appears to be conditional, and based on his entire sermon he seems to think governments can change. But this can be argued.
This was my earlier point, the media plays Wright’s “higlights” just as you did in post 24, devoid of context, and draws the conclusion that he is racist, and that he hates America, and then assumes this what Obama was hearing these exact statements for 20 years, and thus Obama must be racist and hate America too. I happen to think that that is an unfair characterization of both Wright and Obama. I think the media would do the country a service if they feel that Obama’s association with Wright should be of concern to voters, they should try and fairly present who Wright is, and what he preaches. This would obviously require context, and research which takes work, and it would make for a lot less compelling tv, than playing a loud black man yelling God Damn America over and over, which is why it’s not going to happen.
“He bears primary responsibility – but not primary blame”
I can accept that distinction. Makes sense to me…
DMac, Obama did anything, BUT tried to “sweep it under the rug”. He gave a speech tackling race head-on in the most politically risky and unconventional of ways.
And Jones is exactly right. Wright’s words may have been “reckless” or “wrong”, but after listening to the entire speeches in their full context, I did not get the sense that he is “racist against whites”. Fighting against racism itself is not the same as being anti-white.
As far as “patriotism” goes, one displays this through their actions, not words. It sure would be nice if some of the white evangelical churches tackled AIDS the way Wright has. Even a Nazi can scream “God Bless America” to the mountaintops. At the end of the day, your patriotism is “what have you done”.
Jones -
God Damn America is no where in the Bible I read. As for how blacks are treated in the US, what he is saying is a lie, blacks are given the greatest opportunity in the world in the US than they are in any other country in the world. As for the US killing innocent people, who?, treating citizens less than human, when? Thats hate talk to fire up the people and get those checks written and wallets opened. I’ve seen preachers like Wright, thankfully my parents never tolerated fools such as him when they got in pulpits speaking such garbage my parents would get up and leave the church. There is nothing he is talking about that is in the spirit of Christian love, and I’m coming at Wright as a believer in Christianity, nothing to do with politics.
Like I said about the media, there is no context for his comments to be taken out of, you can extend what he has said all you like the man was still in the pulpit speaking hate about America and hate about whites.
- Modi
Obama tried to ignore this situation until he couldn’t. The speech was the culmination of his preacher’s messages spreading, it was his last resort to stop his slide in polling.
As for tackling AIDS, what has Wright done and what makes you think “white evangelicals” have done nothing. This is an extremely ignorant comment. Evangelicals of all races reach out to victims of AIDS and those who suffer from other STDs, they also reach out to those who have been abused, the homeless, and others in need.
DaMac,
From your revelation about what your parents did/not do–try this on for size & see if it fits:
I think it is wholly unfair to lambast a 20 year-old (or however old he is) who has never been educated about these complex machinations WITHOUT accepting responsibility for the education of him and his peers. This falls on the adults in the community.
In other words, if noone ever took the time to share with you the impact of race and race-based decisions in the US and your community then right here and right now, it is too little, too late.
Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.
– Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell, Propaganda And Persuasion
—————————
So the anti-African Machine realizes that their chosen lackey is plastic woman besides an intelligent, well spoken, charismatic opponent who is on the verge of leading the Democratic party. So they fall back to the age old trump card of race baiting, n***er in the woodpile scare mongering to shake up the citizen sheeps.
——————————-
America Inc. is on record has committing biological warfare with Sitting Bull and his people (small px blanket). They have conducted genocidal experiment in the African community(Tuskegee syphilis experiment, South Central crack epidemic, the disproportionate amount of abortions in the poor and non-Anglo-Saxon communities, Genetic modified foods)
So it is noot far fetch in my eyes that the U.S. would delivere AIDS contaminated particles in certain neighbourhoods.
——————————–
DavidMac… how come you haven’t taken me up on my challenge of the Jesus Question?
Holla back at me now!
Context is ALWAYS necessary. You can’t seriously suggest that it might not be able to alter the meaning of what Wright said. Let me give you an example:
Ex. 1
Wright: On 9/11, the chickens came home to roost.
-Most logical intrepretation, Wright believes that on 9/11 was a result of U.S. foreign policy decisions
Ex. 2
Wright: I heard a man on Fox news say, that on 9/11 the chickens came home to roost
- Most logical intrepretation, Wright is relaying a story and not stating what his personal belief is in the matter.
That’s a HUGE difference, that’s the equivalent of me going around telling people you said God Damn America, because you wrote it in post 27. When in fact it is not your sentiment at all and you are relaying what Rev. Wright said. That’s how context drastically alter the meaning of a soundbite.
So for context, obviously the Bible doesn’t say God damn America, so logically it would make sense to try and interpret what Wright meant and not take all his words in the most literal sense. What does the Bible say about condemnation? What does the Bible say will be God’s judgement on people (or nations) that do certain things? Further if you had listened to the whole sermon, it’s point was that while governments can do wrong, and government can fail and change, God’s love is constant and doesn’t change. So it’s incredble ignorant to say, “There is nothing he is talking about that is in the spirit of Christian love”. It’s possible that after listening to Wright’s whole sermon, and UNDERSTANDING what point he is trying to make, you may disagree with his theology and his understaning of God and judgement and damnation. And then you would have a legitimate basis to disagree with him, but to say he said God damn America and therefore he is wrong and context is irrelevant doesn’t do you or rev. wright justice.
Further it is ironic that you don’t seem to be able to distinguish between ‘being critical of’ and ‘hating’. For instance you seem to be critical of African Americans, woud it be accurate to say that you hate blacks? Wright seems to be very critical of some America’s domestic and foreign policies, as he is of some of the crimes that white people have commitment, I think it’s immature to summarize his positions as hating America and hating whites. Republicans needs to allow for people to criticize America without resorting to charges of being unpatriotic and hating the country.
Jones, I think that the Wright quote of Edward Peck DEFINITELY changes the meaning of his sermon, however, I think that a more accurate interpretation lies somewhere in between your two examples. He was certainly quoting Peck, but was lending his implicit endorsement with his sermon’s overall thesis which he ended by saying:
“Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.â€
Here is the thing. From a logical perspective, the notion that “violence begets violence” and the bombing other countries increases America’s chances of getting bombed is pretty basic stuff. Not a revolutionary concept. You just can’t SAY IT OUT LOUD without first prefacing it with the necessary disclaimers… Wright’s flaw was more a “breach of etiquette” than anything else. Just as one’s first response to a rape victim should never be “what was she wearing”, it doesn’t mean that the subject shouldn’t be brought up in some tasteful way at some point as a future protection measure for that young lady. To beat a dead analogy, I know that I shouldn’t walk down dark alleys, but that is the last thing that I want to hear while I still lay in the hospital bed. That is where I hold Wright at fault more than anything. Having stated that, Wright’s faux pas has been severely blown out-of-proportion and completely distorted by the stifling “patriotic correctness” police.
In the end, considering that we subsequently went to war with Iraq, the 9-11 Wright conversation was a critically important one to have. If understood in the correct context, we would not have invaded Iraq. But the general rule of poor manners is that it trumps any knowledge that comes along with it. …This happened yesterday when an Obama aide Gordon Fischer made a very true statement about Bill Clinton but ended it with a little something about the Monica dress. Now the statement backfired because the last words received all the attention and the first words didn’t: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/obama-iowa-co-c.html
Y’all argued with David Mac.
What were you thinking?
I fully admit the weakness
MODI –
Check this out from Pat Buchanan…he’s actually co-signing exactly what Rev. Jeremiah Wright had to say about 9/11.
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_28/buchanan.html
Here’s the excerpt:
“The 9/11 killers were over here because we are over there. We were not attacked because of who we are but because of what we do. It is not our principles they hate. It is our policies. U.S. intervention in the Middle East was the cause of the 9/11 terror. Bush believes it is the cure. Has he learned nothing from Iraq?”
That’s the essence of the full context to Rev. Wright’s speech. And Buchanan recognizes that his party was hijacked decades ago.
Buchanan is just like your boy…they recognize that the real enemy is within – it’s never been the imagined enemies – but they’ve been so effectively marginalized (relative to their expectations – not relative to other “true” outsiders) that they have nothing left but mind-numbing hypocrisy. Just last week, Buchanan was assailing these very positions.
He’s a fraud of the first order.
T3, you are my f’n hero!!!
This is quite helpful on something that I wanted to put together tonight!!!
Was going to put out a Donnie Walsh piece (terrible move)… maybe this one first if I can’t squeeze out both…
I got it from http://www.prometheus6.org
Can someone show me what Rev Wright said that is Anti American, or Anti White?
I think his comments regarding Aids are silly, but no more silly than the comments made by more conservative clergy regarding sexuality or Aids.
I really woud appreciate being pointed to the specific comments cause I am having real difficulty with the mass media rejection of the rev and his church.
OOO:
His comments re: AIDS are far from silly. If you read the ongoing series I’ve been working on re: philanthropy, medical research and Africa, it would be clear that you cannot assume anything. There is a great deal more to this than is disclosed to the public. I don’t have the smoking gun, but the question is wide open.
Caution:
http://temple3.wordpress.com/2008/03/17/the-long-con-of-william-jefferson-clinton-part-vi/
It’s long – and you may only have a passing interest in the subject, but given what’s now at stake, I’d prefer you read it, criticize it, challenge it and reject it (or embrace it and take on the challenge of gathering additional information) before you categorically dismiss Rev. Wright OR lump him with folks lacking any discernible concern for the victims.
As I’ve said, I don’t have the smoking gun, but I know for sure that no entity has spent more time, money and effort than the US government in the areas of concern. The sources are US government sources, doctors and researchers with impeccable credentials and reputations, maps, investment patterns and more than a bit of intuition. Of course, those who reject the argument can amass a similar body of work. The question for you is, which work do you find most compelling.
Thanks.
ooo, the mass media rejection and video manipulation of Wright is horrible. I don’t see anything that is “anti-white” at all, and frankly, in context, don’t perceive him as “anti-American”. However, “God Damn America” is almost impossible to defend politically, even if you can make an intellectual case around the context. For me, the question is, when did Wright know that Obama had serious political aspirations? If he knew than his biggest error was recklessness more than anything else.
The larger problem is that conservatives have a stranglehold of “patriotic correctness” has hijacked the meaning of true patriotism — which is exactly what many of Wright’s deeds represent.
And I do strongly recommend Temples piece. It got me thinking. It is long and thorough. Wherever one’s position on the AIDS thing is, I think that it is ridiculous to be called “unpatriotic” for believing a government conspiracy. One is either right or wrong. Am I unpatriotic for believing in the Tuskegee experiments? No, I’m just right.
temple
this is my issue regarding AIDS?
i just don’t know? to the best of my knowledge AIDS is a diagnosis musch like ALS which isn’t made in an affirmative manner. It is an immunological disease that is come to by the medical community after it has exhausted a litany of other alternatives. therefore from my perspective there are possibly many different diseases or constructs that the medical community lumps into the category of AIDS.
now if you were to tell me that a specific disease was unleashed by the government (ala syphilis as in a few years past) then i could get my arms around that, but AIDS isn’t a specific disease.
the essense is that it is impossible to proove a negative. the diagnosis of AIDS is a negative, so i don’t see how it is possible for someone to show evidence that there is an entity (ie the gov’t) responsible for it.
For davidmac I ask was he as equally upset when David Dukes,Robert Byrd,Jesse Helms,Strom Thurmond,George Wallace, and others of their ilk were not only condemn but voted into office?!! Where’s was all the disgust when those blatant ‘racists’ were given jobs in public office beam me up Scotty!
zcpoddptfmmpvu, Phen 375, QzUxDeE, [url=http://phen375reviewblog.com/]Phen 375[/url], zTUahFM, http://phen375reviewblog.com/ Phen375, ljVqALG.