Primaries

Remove all ads!

Yes, but that's GWB: "You are either with us or against us." Only 6 more months and - "Good Riddance!" to that BS.

 

Could anyone link what Wright said in the first place? The little that has sifted to my ears has been along the lines of "People were angry at the US due to our foreign policy that is why they crashed planes into WTC" that is a whole lot more accurate than "they hate us for our freedom". The first statement doesn't even put any value in what the foreign policy was, people can get upset about "good" foreign policy as well you know.

As for the "first time I have been proud of my country" line I do not see the controversy over that one either whether it was his wife or not who said it. The US has a whole truckload of skeletons in it's closet so from my perspective a line like that actually shows some refreshing detachement from the rampant ultranationalism gripping America. Heck, the only times I feel truly proud over my country is during sporting events otherwise it is just a group of people sharing a few things who sometimes do good things and sometimes bad things.

It seems though that these issues have shot a huge hole in the Obama campaign and seeing as Hillary is already mostly shot down I am getting more and more sure that McCain will win this fall. He doesn't even have to cater all that much to the right that elected Bush, they will most likely vote for him anyways due to lack of options and rabid dislike of anyone to the left of Genghis Khan and McCain has already good credentials among the independents for his years as a "maverick" where he have opposed partyline on a few choice issues while still being overwhelmingly conservative on majority of them. So prepare for at least four more years of a hawkrun, militarized country.

 

I would've sworn I'd linked to it already, but I can find the post. Anyway, this is the goddamn America bit.

Frankly, this bit is nowhere near as omgwtfbbqYou'reALunatic as, oh, Falwell/Robertson/Haggard/Hagee's bread and butter. But he's liberal. And black. And that, evidently, makes all the difference.

 

One thing that is clear from the posted link by AM, regardless of how one views American foreign policy, is that "race" is a defining issue for Wright. Even people jumping from the WTC, according to Wright, are seen as extensions of the race issue, rather than their shared humanity with other victims. Yet, Obama has tried to move us beyond thinking in those divisive terms. That has been Obama's real success with all kinds of voters. It's too bad that the debate over Wright, has brought all of us to this point....

This week, I've seen national polls ranging from Hillary being up by 8 points over John McBush and being as low as 1 point down from him (which is at least the margin of error). Since it is May, those polls are really meaningless, especially since the Dems have not even picked their real candidate yet. Check back in October and things may be a bit clearer....

 

I don't think that's accurate.

"I saw pictures of the incredible. People jumping from the 110th floor. People jumping from the roof [snip]. Black people jumping to a certain death, people holding hands jumping, people on fire jumping..."

Yeah, the inclusion of "black" people is jarring, but I really don't see how you make the whole thing a race issue. Or, more precisely, I don't see how you come to the conclusion that Wright made the whole thing a race issue.

 

It depends. If the race trouble thing is 1% of what Wright was saying - and I've heard several pastors, at least one white, say it is even less than that on their interview - then you might well agree with the other 99%. I myself have many friends with whose religious and political views I agree less than 100%, and I doubt I'm some kind of lunatic

 

And of course, you might partially agree with everything he says. Or partially agree with much of what he says, with stark differences over certain particulars, or....

There are infinitely many shades here. I mean, look, I listen to Wright's chicken's coming home bit and I think, okay, I agree with most of what he says. And those places where I diverge--his discussion of America's actions, say--I happen to think he's much more in keeping with Jesus' teachings than many, many 'less radical' preachers of all colors and/or denominations. Look to yourself, not to your enemy--that's exactly in keeping with Jesus.

Invading Afghanistan? Less so.

Look, I was and remain in favor of the Afghan op (although we've done a wonderful job snatching defeat from the jaws of victory), but then, I'm not a Christian. Wright is, and he actually talks the talk. Most Christians I know of and interact with are not, in my judgment, followers of Jesus, though they would doubtless disagree. Wright, in contrast, very much appears to be one who actually follows Jesus' teaching, rather than paying lip service to them. Or, at least, does a much better job of paying lipservice than most do.

War and Jesus aren't really too compatible. No matter how justified the war. And let's not get started on the difficulties reconciling "greed is good" and, I dunno, everything Jesus ever said.

 

I was pretty much ok with Afghanistan. As I saw it, the Taliban were helping, more or less, OBL, and after 9/11 the US understandably needed something - call it justice, revenge, an honor blow, all of the above, I don't care. Thousands of people had died, and yes, someone had to pay. Even from an ultrapragmatistic perspective, you don't mess with a superpower without it messing back.

Iraq though? Ugh. I was quite hawkish in high school, believe it or not. Guess what changed that.

Essentially, I can agree with, or at least listen, quite a lot in the Rev's speech. I can certainly imagine race still being a factor in the US and elsewhere - not to everyone, but at least to some people. I myself can't quite say I don't suffer from racial stereotypes - I try to view them objectively, but I do not always succeed. Then again, from the comments I've heard when viewing excerpts from US news it seems the most controversial statements were those considered "unpatriotic" - like how 9/11 could be traced to the US policies, or the US not acting fairly to other countries. Well, I certainly consider some of that true (I doubt radical islam would be as powerful if it the mujaheed didn't receive a massive backing to fight the Red army during the 80's), but the topic seems practically verboten in mainstream discourse.

Anyway, moving on to something else. Is it true that McCain said his policy will "prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East." Right. So much for the Iraq War not being mostly about oil. This guy seems to be more gaffe-prone than Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton combined

 

The WTC whole thing? or the bit about American Imperialism being racist? Or the whole thing about "Hillary being white" so she could not understand the race issue? Or that Bill Clinton was never that great to black people (because he's obviously white)? Or the part about the counrty "run by rich white people?" Or the part about the American Government developing AIDS to eliminate black people?" If you have a textual copy of the "sermon" we can break it down line-by-line (I'm a believer in textual evidence). Yeah, Wright is a "Christian" - within the same type of context of being a "Christian" as is John Hagee.

 

Well, at least he is right about one thing, the country (and the world) is run by rich white people, male white people.

Anyhoo, are you sure where your loyalties lie Chandos? You seem to be extremely torn between Obama and Clinton. You started out as a HRC supported, switched to support Obama and have lately seemed to attack him and his campaign. Just an observation that you seem to not quite know who to support which as things stand can be a pretty good thing. You are probably one of few American "lefties" who won't mind all that much no matter who wins the democratic nomination.

 

Not to nitpick, but, uh, this one's actually true. Take a look at congress or, say, every president we've ever had. How many minorities serve in our legislature? How many poor people?

Not that I speak for Chandos or anything, but since I'm already picking nits, it should be pointed out that, no matter what the pundits say, an attack on Wright is not an attack on Obama. Wright does see the world in racial terms. For him, its as if the civil rights act of 1964 or any of the other progressive reforms we've put in place over the last 50 years never happened. I see it all the time with children of the civil rights era. The world has moved on, but many of them have not, still viewing the world through that tainted lens.

 

The world is run by "rich" people, yes. But I'm not sure about the second part of that statement. Are the rich people in China white? Probably not. Are the rich oil barons of the ME white? I doubt it. Are the rich people in Japan white? Why no. America? That's a more interesting question, and certainly much more complex than the good pastor Wright would have us believe. It's not so much an issue of race, but one of raw capital and resource. As an example, the rich oil barons of the ME probably have a great amount of "private power" in the US - behind the scenes and behind "closed doors" type power with American politicians and businessmen than the average American citizen, regardless of race.

As to your second point: My loyalties are to whomever I believe will do the most good and the most competent job as prez. My loyalites are not to any individual. I still do like Hill and I think she would be an able and competent prez. I've just listened to Omaba over the last several months and have been impressed with him. This morning he was on MtP and I thought he did very well, again.

At first I was suspicious and skeptical of all the talk about "change" and "unity" from Obama. But as he has developed these themes during his campaign they have made more sense. You can accuse me of being a "flip-flopper," I guess, a useless and meanigless term. But it's a term that sells pretty well to some in the American public.

 

Yes and no. While some might disagree, it is empirical fact that social and economic status are, to a large degree, heritable. So the reason whitey runs America is that whitey's richer. The reason whitey is richer is because his ancestors enslaved and later 'merely' oppressed the ancestors of darkie. So that a disproportionately large number of black folks in America are impoverished is certainly a legacy of racism. Ditto the disproportionate power held by white people.

I point you to one of my previous posts, in which I transcribed the relevant bits about the WTC. Again, how do you get that he made it primarily about race? He singled out the race of jumpers once, whereas he said 'people' rather more than once.

 

I don't think anyone would completely disagree. I, for one, believe the issue is far more complex. Unfortunately, it is much easier to blame some nameless and faceless evil from the past than it is to accept personal responsibility for wealth (or lack thereof).

I personally think you are very close, but that the real issue is very closely tied to education.

 

...and education tends to be tied to socioeconomic status...

 

Well, no. "Whites" exploited, "enslaved" and "oppressed" other whites as well, AM. In the early 18th Century it was known as "Indentured Servitude." And many indentured servants were exported from GB to the new colonies. For a more fuller explanation and detailing of how this shaped the nothern colonies, and the Revolution itself, I would recommend Gordon Wood's book, _The Radicalsim of the American Revolution_.

 

That may be true, but indentured servitude wasn't always forever* and we ended the practice well before we ended the practice of slavery. Unlike indentured servitude, slavery was forever, and once it ended, former black slaves still had institutionalized racism to contend with. We didn't have anything even approaching racial equality until around 50 years ago.

* In theory, of course, it was never forever, but it often turned out that way in practice with unskilled laborers. Craftsmen and other skilled labor had little difficulty securing short indentures, but the unskilled labor was often more or less ****ed, stuck in contracts that heaped penalty upon penalty and leaving them little chance to regain their freedom.

 

Certainly, it's much more complex than I described. It may be possible to describe a complex issue completely and rigorously in one paragraph, but doing so is well beyond my abilities. For clarity's sake, I should have written "one of the reasons" rather than "the reason". Education would certainly be another reason, although, as Drew points out, education is linked to socioeconomic status, which doesn't have a whole lot to do with the merit of a given student.

This doesn't have any bearing on the point--unless you're aware, as I am not, of data demonstrating that indentured servants or their descendants comprised a portion of the 'elite' roughly equivalent to their representation in society as a whole.

 

To Drew mostly and others less:
I'm not saying Barack agrees with everything everyone around him has ever said, and I know that active members in churches don't have to agree with the official position on everything, but they are aware of it and generally agree with it on most things. If they didn't, they'd go to another church. It's not like we have a real shortage of them around here.

As to what other people around him have said, as I said, I know they aren't speaking for him, but they are the people that he has chosen to surround himself with. Basically, these things are indicators, not direct evidence, of what he truely believes himself. Honestly, I stopped listening to what he was saying on the campaign trail after he tried to sell himself as pro-gun (or at least, not absolutely anti-gun). That proved to me that he would be willing to say what it took to win the nomination, and the office, but that also means what he says is next to meaningless.

 

While this may be true, it's true of all three candidates.

Hillary: Uh, sniper fire. No, really. Oh, and don't listen to those 'elite economists' when they tell you the gas tax holiday is unbearably stupid.

McCain: I was kidding when I called Robertson and Falwell agents of intolerance. Clearly they're devoted servants of Jesus who strive to make the world a better place for all God's children.