http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html

It was better than i thought, very smart man. It will probably go over the heads of the average "pennsylvania-type" everyones been talking about lately but it was good.

If there was a left version of Fox, the left version of Fox would have defended Wright even though Obama could not defend Wright. It would have helped Obama if someone defended Wright. And Wright was defendable. All Wright did wrong was tell the truth.

OK the AIDS bit was weird but not as weird as it sounds if you know about Tuskegee/syphilis and know about the history of the scientific debate on Aids including the monkey blood polio vaccine Philadelphia to Africa story. Every other clip I heard from Wright was the truth. Blacks should have the right to say "god Damn America" in the context in which Wright said that without being accused of being anti-American.

How can you call a guy who works so hard to make America a better country anti-American just because he refuses to pretend that the USA is much better than it really is. Every country has it's problems. The USA's accomplishments are great but the USA's flaws are very real and serious. The USA's flaws matter more than other countries flaws because the USA is so much more powerful than any other nation for now.

9-11 was our chickens coming home to roost. Is it really more patriotic to lie about why 9-11 happened, than it is patriotic to face the truth and fix our mistakes?

Moyers already lost his job once at PBS for opposing the Iraq war. Bush may decide to take Moyers off the air again if Moyers keeps doing things like putting Wright on the Air. Conservative Pat Buchanan is the only national TV news/opinion guy that I am aware of who opposed the Iraq war in 2003 without getting fired for opposing the war.

What "context", exactly, were the comments about the CIA creating AIDS and spreading drugs in black communities taken out of? What's a "Pennsylvania-type"? Someone who doesn't agree with Wright and Obama? Would they be some kind of "typical" person?

Best,

Geoff

The CIA did spread heroin and cocaine in black communities, it's what broke up various black power movements in the 60's.

The CIA did spread heroin and cocaine in black communities, it's what broke up various black power movements in the 60's.

Yes, and I am secretly the President of the Galaxy! Shhhh, don't tell Zaphod.

Heroin is a refinement of opium and would have some about anyway. Cocaine was much older and abuded long before the sixties. The CIA had nothing to do with their spread amongst black communities. The same as they had nothing to do with the spread among white communities. It was just the fad of the time free love and drugs.

What "context", exactly, were the comments about the CIA creating AIDS and spreading drugs in black communities taken out of? What's a "Pennsylvania-type"? Someone who doesn't agree with Wright and Obama? Would they be some kind of "typical" person?

Best,

Geoff

Can anybody find the exact quote of Wright on AIDs? I don't think the "CIA" was part of the quote. The Right wing media and blogs in the USA have extremely low standards for accuracy so finding the original quote won't be easy.

I read a blog quoting some study that said about 25% of blacks in the USA believe that the government and or white people created aids. The blog said an additional 25% of blacks thought that "maybe the government and or white people created AIDs. This idea is also common in Africa.

I read (The New York Review of Books circa 1997) that Consensus Scientific opinion was that AIDS probably came from Monkeys in Congo or nearby parts of Africa. The leading theory was that somebody hunting for Bush meat was bitten by an infected monkey. This Idea is based on the alleged fact that the viruses most similar to HIV are found in monkeys. Some serious scientists resisted the Idea that HIV was the cause of AIDS for decades.

One serious scientist in the 1980s believed he may have traced AIDS to a batch of Polio Vaccine made utilizing monkey blood in Pennsylvania and distributed by health care charities exclusively in Africa. Of course the Polio vaccine manufacturer strenuously denied the allegation.

It seems that AIDs spread from Africa to Haiti; From Haiti to Miami Haitians; From Miami Haitians to American gays; From American gays to IV drug users, and from IV drug users to the heterosexual American Black population. American blacks are currently being hit harder by AIDs than other US ethnic groups are.

I believe that CIA protected Mafia drug traffickers were selling Heroin into Harlem in the 1950s at a time when the Mafia refused to sell drugs to Italian Americans.

CIA protected Nicaraguan drug traffickers sold cocaine to Black LA drug dealers in the 1980s.

The US government conned some American blacks into unnecessarily dying of Syphilis for research purposes from 1932 to 1972 in the Tuskegee experiments. It seems they found it OK to let blacks die unnecessarily of Syphilis but did not do the same thing to whites even though it would have made for a better experiment if they also killed whites.

Given the above I can see why it is correct for blacks to be suspicious about AIDS. Going to the next step and thinking you know that AIDS was created to harm blacks is stupid. Without the actual quote I don't know if reverend Wright was merely expressing suspicions or if he was actually alleging a conspiracy.

When my sister visited Guatemala five years ago she was warned to be careful because Guatemalans were upset at Americans because they believed this crazy rumor that Americans were stealing Guatemalan babies. This year I learned that the rumor was not 100% crazy. Guatemalans were in fact stealing babies to sell to sleazy adoption agencies who then sold them to Americans who wanted to adopt babies. The Americans adopting the babies did not know the babies were stolen. They thought they were orphans. They thought the high fees they were paying to adopt a baby was normal.

Many American conservatives believes that liberals want to confiscate their guns. That seems like an absurd conspiracy theory to me.

That idea that Muslim extremists hate our freedom and therefore want to kill us seems like an absurd conspiracy theory to me despite the fact that President Bush promoted that conspiracy theory.

Every American subculture has their own set of conspiracy theories that they sort of believe.

If there was a left version of Fox, the left version of Fox would have
LOL. There is. It's called the mainstream media, PBS, and NPR.

Blacks should have the right to say "god Damn America" in the context in which Wright said that without being accused of being anti-American.No, they shouldn't. When you ask for God to damn a certain country, you can not reasonably claim that your prayer for divine vengeance upon that nation is because you love it, regardless of your race.

If any pastor where I live said that, he'd soon find himself preaching to an empty church.

Free speech is a given right here in America. His opinions are his own. It doesn't have to be right, nor does he have to prove he is right. There are a lot of prominent white people who are wrong about things from racism to science that are in the same boat. Look at President Bush, he thinks he is right but most of us can see through his bullshit. So when someone spouts off about the government, give them the benifit of doubt, they could be right.

Free speech is a given right here in America. His opinions are his own. It doesn't have to be right, nor does he have to prove he is right. I never questioned his right to say whatever he wants. I simply said that he can not simultaneously condemn American before God and claim he's a patriot. Or, at the very least, he should not be surprized or indignant when others question his patriotism based upon the things he says.

You are free to say whatever you want. Others are free to make judgements about you based upon what you say. It's a double edged sword.

LOL. There is. It's called the mainstream media, PBS, and NPR.
Listen to NPR and watch PBS don't just listen to Limbaugh talk about them.

They are not the PBS and NPR of 1979. They are pro war. They are pro corporate. They favor low tax rates for capital gains. They lie for Bush. They lie for Israel. Listen to Charlie Rose kissing Negroponte's butt. The fluff pieces about gay writers, ballet in the ghetto and dying polar bears have little impact on politics. They do swing a little to the left when they beg for donations.

No, they shouldn't. When you ask for God to damn a certain country, you can not reasonably claim that your prayer for divine vengeance upon that nation is because you love it, regardless of your race.

If any pastor where I live said that, he'd soon find himself preaching to an empty church.
You probably never heard the sentences that preceded the "damn America" quote.
You don't live in a place where people want to hear any criticism of conservatives. Could you say damn the liberals in your church without losing members? Liberals are Americans too.

Saying Damn America is a tactical flaw. It would be better to accuse every faction you don't like of being unAmerican and unpatriotic and damn them rather than damning America as a code way of expressing anger at all the people who you feel are harming your community.

Free speech is a given right here in America. His opinions are his own. It doesn't have to be right, nor does he have to prove he is right. There are a lot of prominent white people who are wrong about things from racism to science that are in the same boat. Look at President Bush, he thinks he is right but most of us can see through his bullshit. So when someone spouts off about the government, give them the benifit of doubt, they could be right.

There is freedom of speach, true. Congress can pass no law saying you can;t say such and such. However there are such things as slander and libel. These come about when someone deliberately abuses the spoken word solely to hurt and cause pain. Neither of these are a crime, but they are civil matters. this prevents someone from broadcasting that their exboyfriends has AIDS and does hard drugs, if in truth he does not. the Exboyfrioend can sue for damage based on the grief this brings into his life.

People like Wright, limbaugh, Coultier, Sharpton and so on should be called on their abusive use of language. the public should sue them for the pain and suffering they have brought through false accusation, lies and just general thoughtless words. Then maybe you will see people actually think about what they say, just like they should.

If you want to be so literal - "Damn America" should mean the whole North and South America. Context be damned....:D

The CIA had nothing to do with their spread amongst black communities. That isn't true. The conspiracy theory folks are one thing, but the foundation of thier exaggerations in the actual behavior of the CIA should be recognized. They were complicit in drug smuggling in the US, in ways that - for whatever reason - did preferentially damage black communities.

If any pastor where I live said that, he'd soon find himself preaching to an empty church. But so many have, and the churches are still full - Falwell's and Hagee's and Parsley's and Graham's and Robert's and on and on and on - but of course these are Christian churches, in which God's judgment on Ceasar's institutions are common fare.

I simply said that he can not simultaneously condemn American before God and claim he's a patriot. On the contrary, as a Christian pastor he must do exactly that, whenever warranted. And of course he can praise America before God and claim he's a Christian - somewhat more dubiously.

Before one of the Republican debates, a choir sang "why should God Bless America?", and went on to list what they consider as our collective sins. It was really no different than what Wright said, but it wasn't done in the passionate-black-man tone.

People like Wright, limbaugh, Coultier, Sharpton and so on should be called on their abusive use of language. the public should sue them for the pain and suffering they have brought through false accusation, lies and just general thoughtless words. Then maybe you will see people actually think about what they say, just like they should.

Does that mean, any church gathering or bowling alley or bar is a public place such that we must record all coversation and punish the language abusers? We now have the technology to do that like they showed in the movie "Demolition Man". Yes, it is time to create a perfect society. Make sure the new TVs have recording devices to upload those abuses to a central authority. I like that....no more fake Orgasms.... :D

Listen to NPR and watch PBS don't just listen to Limbaugh talk about them.
I listen to NPR all the time. In fact, it's number one on the presets in my car. Hell, I've even donated a few times. I love Car Talk and This American Life. And I'd rather listen to news while I commute (even left wing news) than mindless drivel.

I listen to NPR all the time. In fact, it's number one on the presets in my car. Hell, I've even donated a few times. I love Car Talk and This American Life. And I'd rather listen to news while I commute (even left wing news) than mindless drivel.

Same. I love catching the "BBC World News" in the early morning or "World Have Your Say" during a late commute. I haven't heard "This American Life" (about as liberal as you get, eh?) in a while, though I did hear "Car Talk" this past Saturday. Just those guys' laughter is funnier than anything on TV.

~String

The CIA did spread heroin and cocaine in black communities, it's what broke up various black power movements in the 60's.

Bullshit.

You can't trust NPR, even - much less PBS - to avoid quite blatant rightwing and authoritarian bias.

When Pollack brought back his rightwing hackwork on Iraq, for example, both NPR and PBS ran it whole on prime time - he was introduced on NPR as a "former critic of the Iraq War and the surge " , who has been on the ground in Iraq doing investigative reporting, and seen things in Iraq that have changed his mind.

Both NPR and PBS have been employing disproportionate numbers of rightwing and authoritarian associated "experts", from corporate and administration friendly think tanks, for their commentary.

And in this recent Jeremiah Wright controversy, both of them have carried water for the Clinton and McCain campaigns, in defiance of simple accuracy even, let alone honest presentation.

The center-lefty - what would be called the "moderate left" if there were a glimmer of honesty and competence in the national media - casual rule of thumb (used for jokes, etc) is that about 16% of NPR and PBS stuff is delivered from even a slightly left perspective.

The only way you can reasonably refer to NPR or PBS as biased left is if you not only simply accept the extreme right-authoritarian's definition of where the center is and what "left" means (hint: the existence of global climate effects from an anthropogenic boost in atmospheric CO2 is not a left/right issue)

but also go along with a concept of "balance" that involves assuming every controversial issue has two equivalently valid sides, represented by the two political parties or other visible public organizations, and balance consists in giving each side a fair hearing as measured by face time with self-identified spokesmen for those organizations.

You can't trust NPR, even - much less PBS - to avoid quite blatant rightwing and authoritarian bias.

LOL.

When Pollack brought back his rightwing hackwork on Iraq, for example, both NPR and PBS ran it whole on prime time - he was introduced on NPR as a "former critic of the Iraq War and the surge " , who has been on the ground in Iraq doing investigative reporting, and seen things in Iraq that have changed his mind.

Still got your panties in a wad the Pollack piece? Ye Gods, that was a year ago now wasn't it? I suppose it matters not that Pollack's piece has been backed up by what actually happened on the ground? That things, did in fact, lurch noticeably for the better in the weeks and months after his "hackwork" appeared in a paper that routinely has little or nothing positive to say about the War on its editorial pages.

Both NPR and PBS have been employing disproportionate numbers of rightwing and authoritarian associated "experts", from corporate and administration friendly think tanks, for their commentary.

Tell me, Ice. Is there ANYONE in your mind who isn't "in on it"?

Tell me, Ice. Is there ANYONE in your mind who isn't "in on it"? Your stupid conspiracy-baiting aside, there is no left-biased (or libertarian biased) wide audience mass media news outlet in the US.

As my examples demonstrate - much as we are apparently supposed to forget things from one year to the next, one month to the next, soon one week to the next ?

Are we supposed to accept, for example, Moyers' interview with Jeremiah Wright

- which would have been step one in ordinary, unbiased, responsible coverage of a controversy regarding selected clips of Wright's comments over the years -

as left-biased balancing of the irresponsible crap we've been fed for many days now ?

It's the crap that reveals the bias, not the responsible reporting. It's how the outlet goes wrong when it goes wrong, the pattern of its errors, not the stuff it does a reasonable job on, that shows the slant.

IIRC it was Molly Ivins who pointed out, many years ago, that simply having a good memory would make almost anyone look like a radical lefty in the US. That apparently holds true for news organizations, as well.

Wow. Some genuine paranoid delusions being displayed in this thread. And it's almost happening in real time too.

Reverend Wright is on CNN TV on the West Coast right now giving a speech.

I really this guy.

LOL. There is. It's called the mainstream media, PBS, and NPR.

Oh for fuck's sake, the mainstream media is right wing and nobody listens to PBS or NPR...

But I agree, when your ass is so far to the right, even somebody in the middle seems like to be on the left....

I think talking in ideological terms, especially about this issue, is almost silly.

Regardless of where one thinks the media is on some imaginary scale, it is demonstrable that they are rabidly partisan, both in the way they vote, in the programs they attend and the causes they identify with. So if one applies that to the issue of Obama and his pastor, one can see how the "controversy," which was picked up on by the Media after partisan web sites brought attention to it, has since been "contextualized" and defused in a fashion one can't imagine if Obama were a Republican.

And here one sees how the Media is self-loathing. It didn't "like" the pastor story, but it rushed to report it and drum up the controversy all the same. Ratings and copy trump ideology when something gets "legs" and "scandal" trumps all. Then, after Obama made his speech that supposedly addressed the issue, the Media was shamed into undoing what it shamelessly had already done. Or trying to anyway...

...

But I agree, when your ass is so far to the right, even somebody in the middle seems like to be on the left....

Oh SNAP!! :roflmao:

Does that mean, any church gathering or bowling alley or bar is a public place such that we must record all coversation and punish the language abusers? We now have the technology to do that like they showed in the movie "Demolition Man". Yes, it is time to create a perfect society. Make sure the new TVs have recording devices to upload those abuses to a central authority. I like that....no more fake Orgasms.... :D

No, that would be idiotic and paranoid, which might explain why you are worried about it. What we should do is if an untrue statement causes harm we should not scoff at the idea of a suit. of course the plaintiff would have to prove harm was caused, but that is easy nowadays.

1) I think talking in ideological terms, especially about this issue, is almost silly.

2) Regardless of where one thinks the media is on some imaginary scale, it is demonstrable that they are rabidly partisan, - - -

3) And here one sees how the Media is self-loathing. It didn't "like" the pastor story, but it rushed to report it and drum up the controversy all the same. Believe it or not, the "rabid partisanship" referred to in zig "2" there is pro-Obama. The media are demonstrably rabid in their pro-Obama partisanship. That's the claim.

The injury you will suffer by interpreting that wonderful zigzag in modern dance is called "whiplash".

And how is the media's complete failure to behave in any way predicted by such rabidity and partisanship, most obviously in the very incident under discussion, explained ? By its character flaws - it's sensationalistic and self-loathing, see. It secretly wants to be rabidly partisan for Obama, but it can't help going way out of its way to spread lies and slander and bogus guilt by association on him, while fawning all over McCain on his amazingly brazen and ripe for sensationalizing visit to Katrinaville, because it has psychiatric problems and neuroses.

That's called "objective", that view. You cannot parody it. I defy you to try.

LOL. There is. It's called the mainstream media, PBS, and NPR.

(chortle!)

The mainstream media serves the Bush agenda, helps push a war, helps float the paranoia, and even actively abets the McCain campaign in its push for the White House, and you're still complaining about the liberal media conspiracy?

Helen Thomas (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/04/24/BL2008042401889_5.html) could only wish right about now. After all, when the White House's explanation of how they don't torture is "we don't call it torture", and the press corps sits idly by, that's the liberal media conspiracy for you.

Earlier this month, Glenn Greenwald posted this Nexis result:

Here are the number of times, according to NEXIS, that various topics have been mentioned in the media over the past thirty days:

"Yoo and torture" - 102
"Mukasey and 9/11" -- 73
"Yoo and Fourth Amendment" -- 16
"Obama and bowling" -- 1,043
"Obama and Wright" -- More than 3,000 (too many to be counted)
"Obama and patriotism" - 1,607
"Clinton and Lewinsky" -- 1,079

(Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/05/media/index.html))

Greenwald noted that the mainstream media "don't need Drudge to rule their world because they are Matt Drudge now."

Think about it this way: if you were a high government official and watched as -- all in a couple of weeks time -- it is revealed, right out in the open, that you suspended the Fourth Amendment, authorized torture, proclaimed yourself empowered to break the law, and sent the nation's top law enforcement officer to lie blatantly about how and why the 9/11 attacks happened so that you could acquire still more unchecked spying power and get rid of lawsuits that would expose what you did, and the political press in this country basically ignored all of that and blathered on about Obama's bowling score and how he eats chocolate, wouldn't you also conclude that you could do anything you want, without limits, and know there will be no consequences?

(ibid)

And in addition to that, the liberal media conspiracy also happens to denounce Democratic candidates as elitist while helping paint the Republican candidates as being part of the common people:

Barack Obama is an exotic elitist freak because he went to Harvard Law School and made $1 million from his book. Hillary Clinton can't possibly have any connection to the Regular Folk because her husband, who grew up dirt poor, became quite wealthy after being President. John Kerry was completely removed from the concerns of the Regular People because his second wife was rich.

By contrast, George W. Bush was a down-home, salt-of-the-earth Man of the People despite being the grandson of a U.S. Senator, the son of a President (who greatly magnified his riches in his post-presidency), and the by-product of an extremely wealthy, coddled life. Ronald Reagan was pure Americana despite spending most of his adult life as a very wealthy Hollywood actor (and converting his post-presidency into far greater riches still). And John McCain is as Regular a Guy as it gets, even though he dumped his first wife (the mother of his three children) after she was disfigured and disabled by a near-fatal car accident so that he could marry his much younger, much prettier, and extremely wealthy heiress-mistress, whose family riches then launched his political career and sustained a life of luxury for almost three decades (that's how McCain's rustic "Sedona cabin" -- i.e., his sprawling compound -- came to be).

(ibid)

There's your liberal media at work.

The Wright controversy is, to be certain, its own situation. But conservatives still waving the liberal media red herring are simply attempting to avoid the broader discussion.
______________________

Notes:

Greenwald, Glenn. "The U.S. establishment media in a nutshell". Unclaimed Territory. April 5, 2008. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/05/media/index.html

See Also:

Froomkin, Dan. "White House Watch: Putting the War on Autopilot". WashingtonPost.com. April 24, 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/04/24/BL2008042401889.html

What if instead of "God damn America", an American said: "The world damns America for starting an illegal war, that's resulted in a less secure Middle East"...?

Why does invoking "God", along with "damn America", mean more than just "damn America"? Or: "Iranians damn America", or: "Iraqis damn America"?

What if instead of "God damn America", an American said: "The world damns America for starting an illegal war, that's resulted in a less secure Middle East"...?

Why does invoking "God", along with "damn America", mean more than just "damn America"? Or: "Iranians damn America", or: "Iraqis damn America"?

BECAUSE MANY AMERICANS ARE DUMB,DONT PAY THEM ANYMIND,WE LIVE IN A COUNTRY WERE THE JUDGEMENT IS PATHETHIC.

THOSE ANGERED BY THE WRIGHT COMMENTS SUFFER FROM IGNORANCE,DENIAL OR THE GOOD OLE SUBCONSCIOUS UNAWARENESS OF FEELING GUILTY.

The speech was breathtaking. I watched it last night.

BECAUSE MANY AMERICANS ARE DUMB,DONT PAY THEM ANYMIND,WE LIVE IN A COUNTRY WERE THE JUDGEMENT IS PATHETHIC.

THOSE ANGERED BY THE WRIGHT COMMENTS SUFFER FROM IGNORANCE,DENIAL OR THE GOOD OLE SUBCONSCIOUS UNAWARENESS OF FEELING GUILTY.

If JW is a Christian, he's supposed to ask that god to forgive his enemies.
If he's a concerned patriot, he would be better served to ask god to help the leaders make good decisions.

The statement "God damn America" can say two things. 1." I know/care nothing about Christian teachings" and 2. "I'm a bitter revolutionary".

Neither reflect well on BHO.

My point is that there are a million ways to convey the point he was trying to make.And there is one very wrong way, which is one he chose. The proof is all of you trying to reword it to sound more acceptable. All of this points to Wright being a complete idiot, harmless or not, an idiot.

Now, if most blacks react or identify with that talk, I don't know (I highly doubt it). But it would offer a third motive,job security.

Believe it or not, the "rabid partisanship" referred to in zig "2" there is pro-Obama. The media are demonstrably rabid in their pro-Obama partisanship. That's the claim.

No, the claim is the Media is pro-Democrat — and Obama happens to be that party's likely nominee. But they also like Obama for all sorts of trendy multicultural reasons, many of which were wonderfully addressed in a Wall Street Journal piece you trounced.

And how is the media's complete failure to behave in any way predicted by such rabidity and partisanship, most obviously in the very incident under discussion, explained ? By its character flaws - it's sensationalistic and self-loathing, see. It secretly wants to be rabidly partisan for Obama, but it can't help going way out of its way to spread lies and slander and bogus guilt by association on him, while fawning all over McCain on his amazingly brazen and ripe for sensationalizing visit to Katrinaville, because it has psychiatric problems and neuroses.

Ever heard about how a reporter would "run over their mother" to get a good story? The adage is applicable here. The Media, despite being largely Democratic and pro-Obama, could not help but jump all over this story, because it loves scandel, regardless of who is involved (see Clinton I), and loves something that is outrageous and has enough "legs" to carry through several cycles.

Also implicit in all this is the audience equation. That is, the Media, like any other business, tries to pander to the customer. When the outrage about these comments became palpable, and I do think a heap of Americans were outraged by them, the Media could do little else than serve this fellow up on a platter. It's what the masses wanted.

McCain? McCain is a sideshow right now. None of the top journalists want to be covering him. The big tent with the three rings is Clinton/Obama. They'll worry about McCain later.

The statement "God damn America" can say two things. 1." I know/care nothing about Christian teachings" and 2. "I'm a bitter revolutionary". But since Wright is neither a bitter revolutionary, nor ignorant and uncaring about Christian teachings, this time it said neither of those things.

Of course, it wasn't addressed to people assumed to be searching for youtube clips to take out of context, use for slander, pretend to misunderstand, and lie about. Foolish man, to have anticipated only a Christian congregation familiar with the language and meanings of his Christian preaching.
But they also like Obama for all sorts of trendy multicultural reasons, many of which were wonderfully addressed in a Wall Street Journal piece you trounced. It was ridiculous, true. One of those throwback pieces (to the era of 60s psychobabble) that are the entire traditional content of modern self-identified "conservative" political thought in the US.

But another point made was that your repeated claims about getting your views from "objective" sources tend to alternate - sometimes within the same paragraph - with your finding "wonderful" and informative articles in places like the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.

And so you end up explaining things by reference to assumed attitudes, forays into mindreading, and so forth. And soon the forays are supplying you with the things - the explanation has gone searching, and arranged perceptions of events to suit its needs.

Meanwhile, the events in need of explanation are the media's disreputable complicity in various swiftboating programs against Obama, and lack of similar efforts against McCain (who was being coddled back when he was gaining the advantage in the Rep race, not just recently), or even Clinton this time around, or in fact anyone else in the past two years of this election season.

In the latest, for example, we have the scene of a preacher saying, as most Protestant, Catholic, and Mormon American preachers have, in strong language of various kinds according to their traditions, that America's treatment of its poor, of its racial minorities, of its young, etc, America's pursuit of riches and immoralities and forsaking of God's way in violence, is worthy of God's damnation.

And that's a scandal, somehow, and relevant to Obama ? Obama is supposed to secretly despise America, be less patriotic or something, because his preacher said what most preachers say, what any Christian preacher is called to say at times, one way or another ?

Going back to the Rep race: the respect with which the media treated Romney's religion, overlooking dozens of opportunities for this kind of BS,

the respect accorded McCain's pandering to various religious crazies - people who have called for bombing Iran as the necessary next step in the age-old Crusade against the infidels, have then endorsed McCain after receiving his personal assurances and promises.

Huckabee - Huckabee !?

is not given to Obama. Why not?
When the outrage about these comments became palpable, and I do think a heap of Americans were outraged by them, the Media could do little else than serve this fellow up on a platter. Well of course, facing an outraged audience of consumers who demand lies and bias from their newscasts, the media have no choice but to become scandal mongers and panderers to the misinformed. We understand.

But there remains the pattern of these re-occurring national shit-flingings. The mysteriously founded outrage that must be pandered to and boosted, as opposed to the outrage that must be handled responsibly and not amplified, is of a kind.

And the observable pattern of these perennial outrage fests, fed by media scandal-mongering and extraordinarily irresponsible, biased presentation of the issues , is that they afflict the least corporate friendly, most dangerous to the military/industrial complex, most populist political figure available in a given national election,

over and over again, every election cycle.

But another point made was that your repeated claims about getting your views from "objective" sources tend to alternate - sometimes within the same paragraph - with your finding "wonderful" and informative articles in places like the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.

Your crossing threads here. I talked about objective news reporting elsewhere regarding Iraq. I never claimed an opinion piece from the Journal, which I tend NOT to read, was objective. By its nature, it isn't. This is obvious.

And so you end up explaining things by reference to assumed attitudes, forays into mindreading, and so forth. And soon the forays are supplying you with the things - the explanation has gone searching, and arranged perceptions of events to suit its needs.

Well, what we're talking about here isn't objectifiable. It's totally subjective. Duh. The only thing I have claimed that I could probably back up with facts is the Media's partisanship, which is verifiable through party registration, voting patterns, donations and so on. That you're trying to posit that I have arrived at my opinions through means not to your liking is a cheap stunt that has no real baring on the issue at hand. You don't like what I read? So what. I think your socialist publications are a joke. The opinions built on them are what matter. But then, arguing about arguing is what you spend most of your time doing anyway, right?

Meanwhile, the events in need of explanation are the media's disreputable complicity in various swiftboating programs against Obama, and lack of similar efforts against McCain (who was being coddled back when he was gaining the advantage in the Rep race, not just recently), or even Clinton this time around, or in fact anyone else in the past two years of this election season.

And this is another perfect example of subjective appreciation. You claim these things, all of which are opinion, pure and simple. Apparently, you think Obama was never supposed to suffer scandal and view the fact that he has as some public confirmation of your subconscious ubermensche's media hatred that continually manifests in these "biases" you moan about. The possibility that the Media is much dumber than you give them credit for and generally just more interested in serving up sensationalistic crap just doesn't fit your template does it? Everyone has to be "righty" or "authoritarian" and in on it, right?

In the latest, for example, we have the scene of a preacher saying, as most Protestant, Catholic, and Mormon American preachers have, in strong language of various kinds according to their traditions, that America's treatment of its poor, of its racial minorities, of its young, etc, America's pursuit of riches and immoralities and forsaking of God's way in violence, is worthy of God's damnation.

That's your take on it. Other people view it very differently.

And that's a scandal, somehow, and relevant to Obama ?

Yes, it is. Scandal is as scandal does. For whatever reason, it resonated and got legs where Huckabee's comments about Mormonism and McCain's ties to lobbyists haven't. But that's hardly the Media's fault.

Obama is supposed to secretly despise America, be less patriotic or something, because his preacher said what most preachers say, what any Christian preacher is called to say at times, one way or another ?

I never said that. And positing that this preacher said what "most preachers" say is patently ridiculous. The story never would have resonated and gotten legs if people weren't shocked — or at least surprised — by Wright's remarks.

Going back to the Rep race: the respect with which the media treated Romney's religion, overlooking dozens of opportunities for this kind of BS,

Funny. I seem to recall Romney having to make a speech about his religion to end the negativity surrounding it.

the respect accorded McCain's pandering to various religious crazies - people who have called for bombing Iran as the necessary next step in the age-old Crusade against the infidels, have then endorsed McCain after receiving his personal assurances and promises.

It all comes back to McCain doesn't it?

Huckabee - Huckabee !?

What about him?

But there remains the pattern of these re-occurring national shit-flingings. The mysteriously founded outrage that must be pandered to and boosted, as opposed to the outrage that must be handled responsibly and not amplified, is of a kind.

Like the Imus remarks? Trent Lott driven from office? The two GOP gay sex scandals? Where's the pattern again? Shit sells. It matter not what the shit is or where it came from. But you, of course, see a bias in the selection of the shit. That's your right, I suppose.

And the observable pattern of these perennial outrage fests, fed by media scandal-mongering and extraordinarily irresponsible, biased presentation of the issues , is that they afflict the least corporate friendly, most dangerous to the military/industrial complex, most populist political figure available in a given national election, over and over again, every election cycle.

Let me know when the black helicopters stop circling your house.

For whatever reason, it resonated and got legs where Huckabee's comments about Mormonism and McCain's ties to lobbyists haven't. But that's hardly the Media's fault. Of course not. The media are merely leaves blowing in the wind of public demand for lies and bias.

So the reason Fox News didn't run a teaser with something like "Has McCain traded in on a younger model again ? Details at ten" or "McCain's jetsetting lobbyist companions - is there a hidden motive?"

is that there was no public demand - the story didn't have legs ?

And the reason the media ran fifty times as many stories mentioning Obama's bowling score, as mentioning Condileeza Rice's explicit White House torture briefings, is that torture stories involving powerful and glamorous black women aren't as easy to sensationalize as bowling ? They just don't have legs ?

If JW is a Christian, he's supposed to ask that god to forgive his enemies.
If he's a concerned patriot, he would be better served to ask god to help the leaders make good decisions.

The statement "God damn America" can say two things. 1." I know/care nothing about Christian teachings" and 2. "I'm a bitter revolutionary".

Neither reflect well on BHO.

My point is that there are a million ways to convey the point he was trying to make.And there is one very wrong way, which is one he chose. The proof is all of you trying to reword it to sound more acceptable. All of this points to Wright being a complete idiot, harmless or not, an idiot.

Now, if most blacks react or identify with that talk, I don't know (I highly doubt it). But it would offer a third motive,job security.


Wright made perfect sense with his speech,the idiot is not Wright.The idiot is those with no backbone that fall for the propaganda that is displayed on Wright.

Wright made perfect sense with his speech,the idiot is not Wright.The idiot is those with no backbone that fall for the propaganda that is displayed on Wright.

The only speech I've watched is the NAACP gathering in Detroit. The point I was making was that "goddamn america" would leave any pastor with, in the words of Ricky R. "lot a splainin to do".

Why? America isn't in the Bible.

The only speech I've watched is the NAACP gathering in Detroit. The point I was making was that "goddamn america" would leave any pastor with, in the words of Ricky R. "lot a splainin to do".

The only explaining that needs to be done is the idiotic actions of Americans placing so much emphasis over WORDS!!!!!,without seeing the entire bigger picture and the result of such statements,anger,rage,or etc.

Wright made perfect sense with his speech,the idiot is not Wright.The idiot is those with no backbone that fall for the propaganda that is displayed on Wright.

Bullshit.

Wright said the US government invented AIDS to kill black people. That's a lie. There is no context and no carefully crafted Media tour over the weekend that makes such dispicable demagogery acceptable to me.

Wright said the US government invented AIDS to kill black people. That's a lie. Does anyone have an actual link to a video or transcript of what Wright actually said ?

The point I was making was that "goddamn america" would leave any pastor with, in the words of Ricky R. "lot a splainin to do". I'll bet every preacher in the US more than ten years in the pulpit has said things with the same meaning - and in strong words, adapted to their congregation - as what Wright said.

Try this montage...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ38N8OUg3Q

I'll bet every preacher in the US more than ten years in the pulpit has said things with the same meaning - and in strong words, adapted to their congregation - as what Wright said.

LOL. Sure. OK. Been to church lately?

I'll bet every preacher in the US more than ten years in the pulpit has said things with the same meaning - and in strong words, adapted to their congregation - as what Wright said.

I'm far more worried about the pastors like Hagee that say things with little meaning at all. I recently remembered watching this nutcase on TV describe in detail his diagram of cosmology.

http://www.biblelife.org/dispensations-big.jpg

Wright said the US government invented AIDS to kill black people. That's a lie.
- - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ38N8OUg3Q That's ballpark close. We'll cut some slack and call that one confirmed -

although what it actually looks like is that Wright is talking about the US government's deflection of the possible role of US backed vaccination programs several researchers have been seriously considering as sources of the adapted, human-virulent forms.

Which deflection and delay did, if that was the source of the plague spread of HIV, contribute to something resembling genocide in Africa.

But Wright said the word "invented", implying that the US government had some kind of active, positive role in inventing HIV, and further implied that the genocide was the purpose. So that would be a nutcase conspiracy theory, entertained by a Christian pastor.

Does anyone think Obama shares that belief, or anything like it, today ?

The rest of Wright's montage there seems standard, run-of the-mill Christian perspective on stuff, delivered in the dramatic language of the Bible Belt revivalist and black churches everywhere.

LOL. Sure. OK. Been to church lately? Not Falwell's, Graham's, Hagees, Haggard's, Parsley's, Robertson's, Roberts's, or any other of the many preachers' I've seen, heard, and read deliver generically indistinguishable invocations of God's damnation on Ceasar's sins, no.

I think the whole AIDS thing is that they don't want to be blamed for it. AIDS came most likely from Africa.

I'll bet every preacher in the US more than ten years in the pulpit has said things with the same meaning - and in strong words, adapted to their congregation - as what Wright said.I've never heard anyone outside of Osama or Ahmadinejad denoucing the United States with such enthusiasm and vigor. I heard a clip of him reading from the declaration of independence and his voice was filled with nothing but contempt He is not just unpatriotic, he is anti-American.

I can't see Obama ever being elected with this albatros around his neck.

I've never heard anyone outside of Osama or Ahmadinejad denoucing the United States with such enthusiasm and vigor. I heard a clip of him reading from the declaration of independence and his voice was filled with nothing but contempt He is not just unpatriotic, he is anti-American.


That's why he's such a hero to the radical left. You can tell they're radical leftists too, because anyone that speaks out against what Wright said is considered a "radical right-winger" to them. Sorry, but you don't have to be a "radical right-winger" to be disgusted by what Wright said.

I've never heard anyone outside of Osama or Ahmadinejad denoucing the United States with such enthusiasm and vigor. I heard a clip of him reading from the declaration of independence and his voice was filled with nothing but contempt He is not just unpatriotic, he is anti-American. So your own preacher's denunciations have been in a more acceptable, civil tone of voice. And that makes him patriotic and pro-American.

I see.

I wonder that you would choose Osama or AJ for comparison, though - they seem to be quite civil and temperate in their tones of voice, much more like your own preacher's presumably.

I heard a clip of him reading from the declaration of independence and his voice was filled with nothing but contempt.

Why wouldn't his voice be filled with contempt? The people who wrote the Declaration owned Jeremiah's ancestors and used them like animals in slavery. I wouldn't like those people too much, either.

He is not just unpatriotic, he is anti-American.

For speaking out about America's well-documented, heinous crimes? I think the people who are truly unpatriotic are the ones who ignore their government's history and allow for these injustices to continue over and over again.

It's OK if someone like Bush uses our founding documents to wipe his ass, as long as he talks about it quietly.

I just saw the Constitution and Bill of Rights last week, and I didn't see any shit marks on them ! ;)

Does anyone think Obama shares that belief, or anything like it, today ?

Doubtful, but then how much do we know about what Obama believes. He rarely talks about it in concrete terms. In this, he is no different than most politicians. The difference is that in the case of the other two candidates we have something of a resume to persue. Obama not so much.

There are, of course, other radicals that Obama seems close to. And as Anthony has suggested, at some point, his associations begin to paint a picture of the man — even if that picture is something of a crude cartoon.

The rest of Wright's montage there seems standard, run-of the-mill Christian perspective on stuff, delivered in the dramatic language of the Bible Belt revivalist and black churches everywhere.

I still can't believe you posit this as reality. If people heard Wright's remarks before, if they are "standard," then they wouldn't have had the impact they have.

If people heard Wright's remarks before, if they are "standard," then they wouldn't have had the impact they have. Bunch of white folks who don't recognize their own preacher's sermons in black rhetoric.

That is where responsible journalism comes in. These interviews with Wright are weeks - or months - too late.

Likewise with Barack's background. Why are you making cartoons out of hysterically presented montages of youtube clips and speculative "associations", rather than thorough, responsibly researched and presented journalism ?

Because it's hard to find ?

Bullshit.

Wright said the US government invented AIDS to kill black people. That's a lie. There is no context and no carefully crafted Media tour over the weekend that makes such dispicable demagogery acceptable to me.

Doubtful, but then how much do we know about what Obama believes. He rarely talks about it in concrete terms. In this, he is no different than most politicians. The difference is that in the case of the other two candidates we have something of a resume to persue. Obama not so much.

There are, of course, other radicals that Obama seems close to. And as Anthony has suggested, at some point, his associations begin to paint a picture of the man — even if that picture is something of a crude cartoon.



I still can't believe you posit this as reality. If people heard Wright's remarks before, if they are "standard," then they wouldn't have had the impact they have.

There you go running your mouth blabbering stuff that is far from truth.Obama has done nothing but offer plans and concrete plans on how shit will change.Thats why he has a massive support base.You ULTRA CONS are just nit picking and ignoring the fact that the mans entire campaign has been increasing because of his plan that he elaborates a great deal regarding change.Stop saying stuff that is not true.You speak from either delusions or pure ignorance.

Bullshit.

Wright said the US government invented AIDS to kill black people. That's a lie. There is no context and no carefully crafted Media tour over the weekend that makes such dispicable demagogery acceptable to me.

DONT BE BULLSHITTING ME DUDE.

Can you prove the Reverend wrong? FUCK NO! You been running your mouth the whole time yet you aint said shit of facts,links,references to deflect Wrights sources,references,links to back his argument.You see this is the problem with you ULTRA CONS,You say things you cannot prove,you say things that you wish to be true because of your subconscious unawareness of you living in a colorblind government perfectly operated society.You wouldnt stand a chance in a debate with those who have links,facts and references to back there argument.You ULTRA CONS stick with claiming things are false,untrue with absolutely no knowledge on the subject at all,without even seeking to see if the theory presented or statement was true or not.This is a big problem.

STOP SAYING THINGS YOUR INCAPABLE TO PROVE WRONG.WRIGHT BACKED HIS ARGUMENT UP WITH SOURCES,YOU HAVE BACKED YOUR ARGUMENT UP WITH NOTHING BUT YOUR OWN WORDS FROM YOUR MOUTH.

Why wouldn't his voice be filled with contempt? The people who wrote the Declaration owned Jeremiah's ancestors and used them like animals in slavery. I wouldn't like those people too much, either.

For speaking out about America's well-documented, heinous crimes?
Did America invent slavery? Did the United States government bring the institution of slavery to North America? Of course not.

The fact is, we inherited slavery from the British and even came within one vote of abolishing it back in 1776. Failing there, we then fought the bloodiest war in our history to put an end to that evil institution.

It then took us another 100 years or so to grant negros the full civil rights they deserved, but even that was done almost 50 years ago. And that brings up an interesting point. Shall we compare the words and tone of Martin Luther King when he quoted the declaration of Indepence in his famous I have a dream speech?

He spoke of them reverently, as one should. He shamed us into living up to the ideals we were founded upon. Yet the rev Wright, living at a time when negros enjoy full civil rights courtesy of MLK is full of only contempt.

Well fuck him. MLK was a patriot. A good man. Rev Wright is an anti-American bigot who's greatest accomplishment will most likely be preventing the election of Obama.

Rev Wright is an anti-American bigot who's greatest accomplishment will most likely be preventing the election of Obama. And how, exactly, would he manage that ?

Do you mean the US electorate is incapable of seeing through this kind of swiftboating garbage, guilt by association, and general BS ?

Even so, that would not be Wright's accomplishment, and he would deserve none of the credit. Fox and their fellow slander spreaders masquerading as "news" sources would be the appropriate honorees.

Did America invent slavery? Did the United States government bring the institution of slavery to North America? Of course not.

Your point being? America still practiced slavery for hundreds of years. Even after America ended slavery, it did everything in its power to undermine and assassinate influential Black leaders. If you think Blacks have equal rights because they are no longer slaves, then you're only fooling yourself.

He spoke of them reverently, as one should. He shamed us into living up to the ideals we were founded upon. Yet the rev Wright, living at a time when negros enjoy full civil rights courtesy of MLK is full of only contempt.

The ideals you were founded upon? You realize that those ideals espoused the idea of using black people as subhuman slaves? Is it that fucking hard to understand? He doesn't have to pay tribute or respect to America's Declaration, because of the ideas and practices associated with it.

Well fuck him. MLK was a patriot. A good man. Rev Wright is an anti-American bigot who's greatest accomplishment will most likely be preventing the election of Obama.

Funny, they called MLK the same things you're calling Wright. Speaking out against the crimes your government commits is not anti-American, nor is it bigotry. Considering the current state of affairs, we could use more people like Wright.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/the_full_wright_transcript.php#more

MODERATOR: In light of your widely quoted comment damning America, do you think you owe the American people an apology? If not, do you think that America is still damned in the eyes of God?

WRIGHT: The governmental leaders, those -- as I said to Barack Obama, my member -- I am a pastor, he's a member. I'm not a spiritual mentor, guru. I'm his pastor.

And I said to Barack Obama, last year, "If you get elected, November the 5th, I'm coming after you, because you'll be representing a government whose policies grind under people." All right? It's about policy, not the American people.

And if you saw the Bill Moyers show, I was talking about -- although it got edited out -- you know, that's biblical. God doesn't bless everything. God condemns something -- and d-e-m-n, "demn," is where we get the word "damn." God damns some practices.

And there is no excuse for the things that the government, not the American people, have done. That doesn't make me not like America or unpatriotic.

Bunch of white folks who don't recognize their own preacher's sermons in black rhetoric.

Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Call it anecdotal, call it what you like, but I have never — not once in my entire life — been to a church, black or white, where the pastor damned America. In fact, just the opposite. Every church I have ever been to asked people to pray for the country.

You're also overlooking the ideological basis for this pastor's beliefs. The church and the ideology it espouses is the product of radical Marxists, some of whom were black panthers.

So please, quit pretending this is run-of-the-mill stuff.

Likewise with Barack's background. Why are you making cartoons out of hysterically presented montages of youtube clips and speculative "associations", rather than thorough, responsibly researched and presented journalism ?

I'm not. I know all about his voting record and his lack of experience. That's enough for me, was enough for me a year ago. This stuff, with Wright and with the radical terrorist who bombed government buildings, is just icing.

Because it's hard to find ?

Maybe I should read Obama's book? You know, the one whose title is based on a something from a Wright sermon?

Call it anecdotal, call it what you like, but I have never — not once in my entire life — been to a church, black or white, where the pastor damned America. In fact, just the opposite. Every church I have ever been to asked people to pray for the country. And if you had been in Wright's church and heard that sermon - the whole thing - you would have been asked to pray for the country there as well - for its reconciliation. The theme of the sermon was reconciliation - according to Wright, whom your sources of judgment never interviewed or made inquiries of, or even quoted in full.

So it's not "the opposite" - it's part of the same sermon, on one coherent theme. And if you have never in your life heard a preacher bring in God's judgment invoked on Ceasar gone wrong, before the standard call to prayer and forgiveness of the heart and loving thine enemy, you've been spending your time in the basement with the jello and marshmallows - or maybe never been in an active, community-involved church at all ?

I listed above, in alphabetical order, some nationally well-known white preachers I can think of offhand who have invoked God's damnation on the US in their style, one way or another. Spidergoat mentioned the choir's lyrics at a recent Republican event. It's standard, boilerplate, Christian reaction to the corrupt affairs of Ceasar and his minions.

Meanwhile, you are taking the word of known liars, linking to video montages on O'Reilly's show, echoing crass slander and ludicrous presumption as if it were information.

You're also overlooking the ideological basis for this pastor's beliefs. The church and the ideology it espouses is the product of radical Marxists, some of whom were black panthers Which somehow is all but indistinguishable from Bible-based Christianity. But no doubt they found inspiration in Marx's well-known reverence for the teachings of Christ.

I agree that Christianity is an uncomfortable religion for an American adherent of of certain political dogma, but that's no reason to refuse to even recognize it.

I'm not. I know all about his voting record and his lack of experience. That's enough for me, was enough for me a year ago So all that stuff about trying to get an idea of his character through making uninformed assumptions about clues to his associations and formative environment - you were just kidding: you already had your mind made up ?

Maybe I should read Obama's book? I doubt you would learn a thing from it, about Obama or anything else.

btw: We can do a little statistical patriotism. If someone were to count, which religious group would you guess had the most members serving in the military in Iraq: Wright's congregation, or the sum total of all the congregations in all the churches attended by W and his Cabinet ?

And if you had been in Wright's church and heard that sermon - the whole thing - you would have been asked to pray for the country there as well - for its reconciliation.

Yeah. That makes sense. Damn something, then pray for it. Oh, wait. Damn what it is and pray for what you want it to become. OK. I get it. I guess it's just too bad for Obama, who, let us not forget, was also offended by Wright's malarky, that America doesn't agree with that approach.

The theme of the sermon was reconciliation - according to Wright, whom your sources of judgment never interviewed or made inquiries of, or even quoted in full.

Right, it's all about context. There's a context where lying about the US government trying to exterminate a race of people is understandable and OK, right? Wrong.

And if you have never in your life heard a preacher bring in God's judgment invoked on Ceasar gone wrong, before the standard call to prayer and forgiveness of the heart and loving thine enemy, you've been spending your time in the basement with the jello and marshmallows - or maybe never been in an active, community-involved church at all ?

There is an important difference of degree here that you continue to fail to understand. Again, if most Americans heard tirades such as this every Sunday, then the story would not have resonated. The fact they hear complaints or criticisms of politics (not so often) and society (very often) in no way, shape or form puts this somewhere in the mainstream. Sorry.

Meanwhile, you are taking the word of known liars, linking to video montages on O'Reilly's show, echoing crass slander and ludicrous presumption as if it were information.

I'm not taking anyone's word. I am making up my own mind. I don't think there is any context where "God Damn America" is rationale. I don't think there is any context where lying about the US government, AIDS and genocide is anything other than demagogery. Sorry.

As for O'Reilly, I hate the man. Never watch him. But you asked for a link, so I went to youtube and linked to the first one that contained the relevant comments. So quit trying to dismiss my opinions by wrongly alleging that I am being duped by slander and subtley suggesting that I have a Factor hat or something on my desk. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Which somehow is all but indistinguishable from Bible-based Christianity. But no doubt they found inspiration in Marx's well-known reverence for the teachings of Christ.

I agree that Christianity is an uncomfortable religion for an American adherent of of certain political dogma, but that's no reason to refuse to even recognize it.

I'm not Christian so I have no desire to become embroiled in a theological dispute. Suffice to say my point was that Wright's ideology is radical in nature. The fact you seem to think that a doctrine founded by members of a racist organization is somehow mainstream speaks to nothing but your own warped political inclinations.

We have, for example, this from the New Yorker to consider:

"In 1969, a thirty-one-year-old theologian named James H. Cone published “Black Theology & Black Power,” a short, astringent book that Wright would use as a blueprint for Trinity. Cone proposed a reciprocal arrangement: just as the Black Power movement could find redemption in the Church, so the Church—dominated and distorted by generations of white men—could find redemption in the Black Power movement."

The New Yorker piece gushes and contextualizes, too. It also doesn't really tell what "Black Theology & Black Power” says. One has to go to "righty" sources to learn that — or buy the book, if you they can find it. There's some pretty "mainstream" stuff in there, don't you know?

Meanwhile, Obama, in another less dramatic example, has other friends with lovely connections to radical 60s movements...

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0423ss.html

So all that stuff about trying to get an idea of his character through making uninformed assumptions about clues to his associations and formative environment - you were just kidding: you already had your mind made up ?

Yes, I made my mind up way back. I looked into his voting record and assessed his experience. I found both lacking. Little that has happened in the campaign since then has swayed me otherwise, though I do credit Obama with skillfully managing said campaign, which shows he has some executive ability. And I've said as much on this Web site. Beyond that, Obamania is a fluke, a phenomena, largely based on easy to see factors that you dismiss outright.

Again, the Wright incident is just icing really. It's nothing that is make or break for me, because it's trivial. Not substantive. My only interest in the discussion about Wright is the rampant bullshit people are conjuring up to make an obvious demagogue seem more fuzzy and nice. It's disgusting.

Obama came down pretty hard on the Reverend Wright today.

Right, it's all about context. There's a context where lying about the US government trying to exterminate a race of people is understandable and OK, right? Wrong. Well, if you eliminate the context, what Wright asserted was that the government had lied about something, and he's almost certainly correct. It's only from the context that you obtain the implication that referring to the government's lying meant such and so was being claimed. And in context, then - the only way any of this means anything - what Wright is referring to is not too much of a reach from what is likely and reasonable, given his actual references, and is in any case a minor point in his sermon.

Wright's language seems to imply more deliberate conspiracy than is reasonable, but as we know from his reference to sources elsewhere his actual beliefs are not that wild. So we consider the context.

It's fairly common around here for people to jump from observations of the inevitable result of patterns of action to asserting the intention and conspiracy of the actor - or be taken as doing that. The slip in the language used is small.

Yeah. That makes sense. Damn something, then pray for it. Oh, wait. Damn what it is and pray for what you want it to become. OK. I get it. I guess it's just too bad for Obama, who, let us not forget, was also offended by Wright's malarky, that America doesn't agree with that approach. America hasn't heard Wright's approach, except in its own churches and in its own rhetorical style (where it's common). Wright's approach is not visible in the video clips taken out of context.
Oh, wait. Damn what it is and pray for what you want it to become. OK. I get it. No, you don't. You've missed the point that Wright wasn't actually damning America, for starters. But since you haven't bothered to pay attention to what Wright is actually saying, instead getting your interpretation from knee-jerk reactions to context-free video clips, after already having made up your mind about Obama's relationship with all this, that is to be expected.

There is an important difference of degree here that you continue to fail to understand. I think I understand how tone of voice and culture-dependent style has been manipulated to imply different degree and objectionable nature of argument, by using a video clip missing most of the actual sermon, and priming the audience with innuendo.

Abetted by a scandal-whore media already primed to swiftboat Obama.
I 'm not taking anyone's word. I am making up my own mind. I don't think there is any context where "God Damn America" is rationale. That's too bad. Well you're incapable understanding Wright's sermons, then. He intended them for a somewhat more sophisticated audience, mostly adults familiar with Biblical preaching.

Maybe this is where the charge of "elitist" comes from - people capable of following and comprehending one of Jeremiah Wright's sermons are putting on airs in consequence ?

Well, if you eliminate the context, what Wright asserted was that the government had lied about something, and he's almost certainly correct.

Now you're just playing games. You and I both know that he was talking about AIDs and genocide. And we both know that what he alleged is patently ridiculous. So quit parsing.

It's only from the context that you obtain the implication that referring to the government's lying meant such and so was being claimed. So in context, then - the only way any of this means anything - what Wright is referring to is not too much of a reach from what is likely and reasonable.

Bullshit. And Obama thinks so, too.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90BMTNO0&show_article=1

Wright's language seems to imply - in context - more deliberate conspiracy than is reasonable, but as we know from his reference to sources elsewhere his actual beliefs are not that wild.

Bullshit. And Obama thinks so, too.

America hasn't heard Wright's approach, except in its own churches and in its own rhetorical style (where it's common). Wright's approach is not visible in the video clips taken out of context.

Yes, it is. He's a screaming, baiting demagogue. I mean, how many clips of his outbursts does one have to see before they become an expert?

No, you don't. You've missed the point that Wright wasn't actually damning America, for starters.

I must have missed it when he was busy saying "God Damn America."

But since you haven't bothered to pay attention to what Wright is actually saying, instead getting your interpretation from knee-jerk reactions to context-free video clips, after already having made up your mind about Obama's relationship with all this, that is to be expected.


Bullshit again. I've read up on Wright, as the link to the New Yorker piece shows. I've read, what I can find, about his kooky ideology. The man is a kook, and apparently, Obama thinks so, too...

That's too bad. Well you're incapable understanding Wright's sermons, then. He intended them for a somewhat more sophisticated audience, mostly adults familiar with Biblical preaching.

Oh, please, Ice. Get over yourself. It's not that I am incapable of understanding the sermons, it's that I don't agree them. Understand this distinction and quit trying to posit that failing to agree with you, and apparently, this kook of a pastor, somehow denotes a lack of sophistication...

Wright could not have done a better job of showing how different he is than Obama. Wright's conspiracy theories aren't that much more absurd than some Republican ones like human-caused global warming was invented by environmentalists- we are winning in Iraq- New Orleans is being restored...

Now you're just playing games. You and I both know that he was talking about AIDs and genocide. And we both know that what he alleged is patently ridiculous. Yeah, but you're trying to push the guy's conspiracy bent too far.

Wright is far from the first pastor to get in over his head on some kind of complex biological matter, and start thinking government intention instead of reality and screwup. We've got an entire political Party in the US pandering to a stable of Creationists who want private schools where the government conspiracy to indoctrinate their kids in Evolution can be resisted.

And that is not a major prop of his approach, which is right down the middle Christian fastball, God damning Ceasar and all.

And the reach of this - digging these snippets of old video out and blowing them up for weeks now, all the time calling Obama - who apparently is guilty not of excessive mentor worship but of somewhat less regular Sunday attendance than implied - to account for them, is absurd.

But then, not unexpected or strange, eh? When will the first frontrunning comparatively corporate-friendly national candidate get this treatment, do you suppose ?

Yeah, but you're trying to push the guy's conspiracy bent too far.

No, I'm not. He's a person who lies, distorts the truth and presents his outrageous opinions as facts in order to fire his audiences up. This approaches the very definition of demagogue. The fact, like most demagogues, that he has some "basis" for his perversions doesn't change or excuse what he is, it only helps explain it.

Wright is far from the first pastor to get in over his head on some kind of complex biological matter, and start thinking government intention instead of reality and screwup. We've got an entire political Party in the US pandering to a stable of Creationists who want private schools where the government conspiracy to indoctrinate their kids in Evolution can be resisted.

You keep trying to make this about McCain or about other pastors or about conservatives or anybody else you don't like. That's a rhetorical ploy people who have nothing to argue tend to rely on. That is, they can't really defend something so they point to other examples of that same "something." Turn as many cartwheels as you like. It doesn't change a thing about Rev. Wright.

And the reach of this - digging these snippets of old video out and blowing them up for weeks now, all the time calling Obama - who apparently is guilty not of excessive mentor worship but of somewhat less regular Sunday attendance than implied - to account for them, is absurd.

I've never, not once, argued that this isn't sensationalism. I've acknowledged as much, multiple times. Where you and I part company is that you seem intent on "contextualizing" Wright and trying to tell people they shouldn't be bothered by what he said, that what he said is not that unusual and that anyone who disagrees with either does so out of stupidity or political bias — and I think that is a big, boiling pot of poppycock...

He's a person who lies, distorts the truth and presents his outrageous opinions as facts in order to fire his audiences up. Do you think he is saying things he doesn't believe ?

Aside from his HIV conspiracy theory - which if he is being honest in referring to his sources (Medical Apartheid, etc) is not what you make it to be - what of his opinions do you find "outrageous" ?

You guys seem to be reading a hell of a lot into his "tone of voice", as far as I can tell.
You keep trying to make this about McCain or about other pastors or about conservatives or anybody else you don't like. Just trying to get some kind of relevance to slide in - you keep trying to make this about Obama somehow, and that would automatically bring McCain and Clinton into the picture, no?
I've never, not once, argued that this isn't sensationalism. The pattern of this sensationalism is the problem. This type of BS has been predicted for Obama for months now, based on what happened to Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. And here it is, right on schedule.

This is dishonest and destructive, and it favors - once again, for the tenth consecutive national campaign season - the corporate friendly "conservative" candidates for public office.

Rachel Maddow asked the question, today: what would it take to get the media off of the subject of non-candidate Jeremiah Wright's years-old video clips ? It's been weeks now. This is beyond merely silly - this is serious dysfunction.

What is so funny is that i was watching a copy of portions of that interview and it was copied a few times but still was good quality and i couldnt tell which one was the 'black' one.

Edit: as a matter of fact they were pretty even as far as skin tone. i would even go so far as to say greyish in appearance.

We're into the second week of shit like this:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200804290007?f=i_latest
[E]very time you have a problem with Barack, because you don't really know him and he seems a little foreign to you, you think of -- you think of him as both these guys. They're different faces of the same guy. Jeremiah Wright, to a lot of people, is Barack Obama."

This is swiftboating, and this is how we could get stuck with a race between the most irrationally hated woman in the US - possibly the world - and one without demonstrated executive ability, and Reagan redux likewise executive handicapped.

Rachel Maddow asked the question, today: what would it take to get the media off of the subject of non-candidate Jeremiah Wright's years-old video clips ? It's been weeks now. This is beyond merely silly - this is serious dysfunction.

Is not this amazing? Same media that supported Obama exclusively is now turning against him. Perhaps they think he is too smart and has to be cut down. The same thing happened with Miley Cyrus case. When is bare back Porn? There is no watch dog for the media....

Do you think he is saying things he doesn't believe ?

Whether he believes what he says doesn't matter. If a person is lying, they are lying. Again, you're playing rhetorical games.

This man is a demagogue, pure and simple. He is inciting his audience, playing on their fears and encouraging their prejudices. The fact you continue to parse and overlook this says, to me, that you either largely agree with him or are just being stubborn and refuse to cave on an argument out of some bizarre sense of pride. I mean, seriously, what about Rev. Wright is worth defending?

Aside from his HIV conspiracy theory - which if he is being honest in referring to his sources (Medical Apartheid, etc) is not what you make it to be - what of his opinions do you find "outrageous" ?

What I make it out to be? Oh, please. He accuses the US government of creating AIDs to kill black people. This is patently false. You admitted as much several posts ago. Now you're trying to go back and contextualize this again? To what end?

Just trying to get some kind of relevance to slide in - you keep trying to make this about Obama somehow, and that would automatically bring McCain and Clinton into the picture, no?

I've consistently said Obama has little to do with this. I said I don't think Obama agrees with this crap — and Obama said as much yesterday. My interest here, as has already been stated, is: "My only interest in the discussion about Wright is the rampant bullshit people are conjuring up to make an obvious demagogue seem more fuzzy and nice. It's disgusting."

And you, like several others in this thread, continue to parse and hedge and to try to make this demagogue appear sane and rational? Why?

The pattern of this sensationalism is the problem. This type of BS has been predicted for Obama for months now, based on what happened to Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. And here it is, right on schedule.

Wow. You predicted that "dirt" on a presidential candidate would come out? What a fucking crystal ball you have! Can you tell me who will win the derby this weekend? There's still time to lay a bet...

This is dishonest and destructive, and it favors - once again, for the tenth consecutive national campaign season - the corporate friendly "conservative" candidates for public office.

Rachel Maddow asked the question, today: what would it take to get the media off of the subject of non-candidate Jeremiah Wright's years-old video clips ? It's been weeks now. This is beyond merely silly - this is serious dysfunction.

They can stop whenever they like.

But the fact there are no less than four threads on this site about the Reverend should tell you people are talking about it, and if people are talking about it, the Media will oblige them with more coverage. It's a hot issue, legitmately or not...

Whether he believes what he says doesn't matter. If a person is lying, they are lying. So there is no moral or ethical difference in honest, vs dishonest, expressions in error ? An honestly wrong conspiracy theory is a lie ?
Wow. You predicted that "dirt" on a presidential candidate would come out? No, dozens of people have been predicting that non-dirt would come out misrepresented as dirt and blown way out of proportion, and that this would dominate the public media discourse at the expense of useful and informative political coverage, and that it would be used to slander and trash the front-running Democratic candidate in particular - not the front-running Republican candidate.

Hillary has even been running on that expectation - claiming acquired immunity to this kind of dishonesty and flagrant media bias (she calls it "experience"). It's taken for granted.

What I make it out to be? Oh, please. He accuses the US government of creating AIDs to kill black people. This is patently false. It's not that clear what he believes the US government actually did. He's been unclear, and I suspect deliberately for some reason (he talks about himself in the third person, a symptom).

His reference to the "invention" was in a context (there's that word !) of retailing examples of US governmental dishonesty and betrayal, and the sources he later referred to (Medical Apartheid, etc) speak of gross negligence and willingness to enable injury in pursuit of other goals bringing about predictable great harms, rather than overt malign intent.

It could be Wright is just one of those people who interpret all descriptions of predictable injuries and criminal betrayals and bad motives as descriptions of intentional conspiracies to accomplish the consequent harm. You should have some empathy with that reflex - it's your defining characteristic on this forum.

Here's your context iceaura:

Wright said, “The government lied about the Tuskegee experiment. They purposely infected African American men with syphilis. Governments lie. The government lied about bombing Cambodia and Richard Nixon stood in front of the camera, ‘Let me make myself perfectly clear…’ Governments lie. The government lied about the drugs for arms Contra scheme orchestrated by Oliver North, and then the government pardoned all the perpetrators so they could get better jobs in the government. Governments lie. The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. Governments lie. The government lied about a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and a connection between 9.11.01 and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Governments lie.”

The government perpetrated the Tuskegee experiment.
The government bombed Cambodia.
The government sold weapons to Iran and sent some of the money to the Contras.
The government created a connection between Sadaam and 9.11, Iraq and Al Qaeda.

In all of those instances, the government was directly responsible for what Wright mentions. So when Wright says: "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. Governments lie."

What could possibly make you think he isn't directly implicating the government? It certainly isn't the context.

What could possibly make you think he isn't directly implicating the government? It certainly isn't the context. I still don't know what he thinks the government lied about actually doing. I have my suspicions, in the case of a preacher of evangelical Christianity - biological sophistication, especially in the area of something like "inventing" an evolving virus, is not their strong suit - but clarity is not what we have there.

So the question would be: directly implicating the government in what, exactly ?

Note that the same kind of question could also be raised in those other examples, if someone wanted to make accusations of conspiracy theory. Suppose I accused Wright of believing that Reagan conspired to increase Iran's terrorist capability by furnishing them missiles. That would probably be wrong - Wright probably has a somewhat different conspiracy in mind, and his main point is that governments lie when they've been doing wrong, anyway.

Which point is well taken, agreed ?

So there is no moral or ethical difference in honest, vs dishonest, expressions in error? ... An honestly wrong conspiracy theory is a lie ?

Certainly, there is. And let me take a moment to rejoice that you have suddenly woken up to the idea of moral nuance, something you normally eschew in our conversations.

But however honest — or ignorant — intentions are, putting forward falsehoods as truths is advancing a lie. Thus, the 9/11 "Truthers" are liars. The fact they don't know it doesn't change the fact that they are lying to people. Or to think about it another way, consider the phrase "being made a liar of." That is, you tell someone something you believe to be true, but later you learn it's a lie or the person you told it to learns that. Either way, a lie was told.

No, dozens of people have been predicting that non-dirt would come out misrepresented as dirt and blown way out of proportion, and that this would dominate the public media discourse at the expense of useful and informative political coverage, and that it would be used to slander and trash the front-running Democratic candidate in particular - not the front-running Republican candidate.

I would suggest being connected to a wacko preacher, one who is your mentor, who you name your book after and how married you, is indeed "dirt." Dirt by its nature isn't terribly substantive and typically it doesn't inform the overall debate. You outrage at this seems to agree with this. The only difference is you choose to see it as an orchestrated effort by a bunch of people who are Democrats at the end of the day. It's fascinating, but dead wrong...

It's not that clear what he believes the US government actually did. He's been unclear, and I suspect deliberately for some reason (he talks about himself in the third person, a symptom).

Ice, this has been addressed. You conceeded the point several posts back when I provided a link, now you're parsing and trying to back out of it. This is typical. Your obfuscation has been noted. The matter, apparently, is still up for debate to you. How silly.

It could be Wright is just one of those people who interpret all descriptions of predictable injuries and criminal betrayals and bad motives as descriptions of intentional conspiracies to accomplish the consequent harm. You should have some empathy with that reflex - it's your defining characteristic on this forum.

LOL. Yeah, that's me. A belly full of conspiracy, I am.

But however honest — or ignorant — intentions are, putting forward falsehoods as truths is advancing a lie. Now you say that, months after I apologized for calling you a liar over all those stupid conspiracy theories you attribute to me.

Oh well.
LOL. Yeah, that's me. A belly full of conspiracy, I am. Pretty much every post addressed to me, yep - like seeing the same owl in all the inkblots, or something. It's a falsehood you put forward as truth in a majority of your posts on this forum.
The only difference is you choose to see it as an orchestrated effort by a bunch of people who are Democrats at the end of the day.

We're now in the second week of derailment over the essentially irrelevant Wright, and essentially the entire news media has been involved in discussing the connection between misrepresentations of old video clips taken from Wright's sermons and Obama - who apparently was not even in attendance. Nothing like this has happened to the Republican candidates, front running or not, in any of the past ten Presidential campaigns. I predict nothing like this will happen to John McCain in the rest of this one.