Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

The Truth Shall Make You Mad

  • Mar. 15th, 2008 at 4:02 AM
Sinfest's Satan - I make this look good, Meme Sheep, Discordian, IA ADL Krakow's Kia, IA ADL female (Coop), Tarot - Temperence, Party Tiki, Gaming, Aeon University, Serenity - Bad Guys, Hellenic invocation, Tarot - 4 of cups, Blog Against Theocracy 2007, Arachnos, Regime Change Begins at Home, Voted for Dean, Why a Goat?, IA ADL Sinfest's Satan, CoH/CoV, IA ADL acronym, Sick Sad World, Heart - POLY IS LOVE, Shag - Red Wahine, Cthulhu, LiveJournal Blackout of 2005, IA ADL slogan, Dionysus, Pirate - Calico Jack's flag, Tarot - The Devil, Obama 2008, IA ADL Brad, IA ADL male (Coop), Necronom-Icon, Forbidden Lore, Tarot - 7 of rods, Polyamory, Black Rock City, Shag - Luncheon on the Grass, JFK2k4, Magritte - Treason of Images, J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, Shag - Blue Wahine, Drama Llama, Tarot - The Tower, Serenity - Misbehave, Serenity - Find Serenity, Red stapler, Heart - POLY 4EVR, Aberrational Behavior, V for Vendetta, Hail Santa, Brad @ Burning Man, Auto Assault
Presumably it was either Fox News or someone at Hillary Clinton's campaign who only just discovered that many of the sermons from Jeremiah Wright, the pastor who converted Barack Obama from atheism to Christianity were video recorded and are available online. Having seen them, they want everybody to see them, because it is 100% clear to them that the man was insane. They also take it for granted that when you hear what the man had to say, you'll also conclude that the man was insane. And, in fact, judging by Friday's news cycle, they were right about this; even Barack Obama himself has claimed that he strongly condemns some of Pastor Wright's statements, and did the rounds of every major news analysis show Friday night to make sure that everybody knows that he doesn't agree with what's on those clips.

I watched a bunch of those clips.

Jeremiah Wright is not insane.

He does, however, know a lot of things that fall under one of the main categories of Forbidden Lore: your own country's historical misdeeds. And by the public's standards, repeated exposure to Forbidden Lore has driven him "insane." As a matter of fact, I've heard nothing so far from pastor Wright that I haven't said myself. Most of it, in this blog. If you have been reading this blog for a long time and paying attention, you should be able to defend every single one of them. None of the history that pastor Wright talked about in those video clips, or that I've talked about in this blog, is particularly secret. The parts that once were, those secrets got "blown" at least a decade ago. Nor is he in any legal trouble for saying them, nor I for writing them, and neither one of us are going to end up in Guantanamo Bay for calling them to your attention. No, what makes these things "forbidden lore" is that they're the kind of things you think, mistakenly, that your newspaper, your TV news shows, your history teacher, and so forth would have told you about if they were true. So they must not be true.

That all those people would have "conspired" to keep you in the dark about history that you really ought to know about if it were true seems implausible to you. And if it were an overt secretive conspiracy involving all the people who ought to have told you these things and didn't, yes, it would be a logically impossible conspiracy. Some people do get obsessed with trying to figure out how such a conspiracy could have really worked, come to really foolish false conclusions, and actually make themselves not just socially insane but actually clinically insane, paranoid psychotic, looking for evidence of the vast conspiracy that made so many people lie to them. But no actual conspiracy is needed, not when everybody in America who counts as "sane" shares one important common interest: they want you to be proud of your country, and they think that means that you have to be proud of everything America has ever done or else you won't be. So if there is anything they know that they know would make you ashamed of your country if you knew about it, they mostly won't tell you. The reason that none of this stuff stays secret is that there still are journalists who merit the name, in America and elsewhere, who think that you can still be proud of America and what it stands for but you need to know this stuff. All of it's seen print, at least once. But the public, who just plain don't want to know it (there's that "forbidden lore" angle again), stayed away in droves, and those who accidentally heard it forgot it as fast as possible, so that they can stay "sane."

One more thing about this caught my attention. Here's one of the things that Senator Obama said about this in his appearance on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Friday night. (If you're looking at the video clip on the Countdown website, which thanks to MSNBC's crappy web design I can't link directly to, it starts at roughly the 4:40 mark, to about the 5:25 mark.)
Now, one thing that I do hope to do, is, to use some of these issues to talk more fully about the question of race in our society. Because part of what we're seeing here is, Reverend Wright represents a generation that came of age in the '60s. He is an African-American man who, because of his life experience, continues to have a lot of anger and and frustration, and will express that in ways that are very different from me and my generation, partly because I benefited from the struggles of that early generation. And so part of what we're seeing here is a transition from the past to the future. And I hope that our politics represent that future.
You know that argument that came up in black America, egged on by right wingers, over whether or not Barack Obama is "really black enough" to represent black America? If Barack Obama thinks that the only black men in America who grew up being called niggers were the ones who grew up in the 60s? If Barack Obama thinks that the only black men who get pulled over for Driving While Black and get patted down by police everywhere they go are those who grew up in the 60s? Then maybe he did grow up in a privileged (and largely outside-the-US) environment. Maybe the man really does need a wakeup call. Maybe he doesn't need to be repudiating Jeremiah Wright. Maybe Jeremiah Wright needs to be repudiating Barack Obama. Maybe Reverend Jeremiah Wright has more call to be ashamed of Barack Obama than Barack Obama has to be ashamed of Reverend Wright.

Because unless he's pandering to white ignoramuses who think that pastor Wright is "obviously insane" to blame the CIA's illegal war in Nicaragua for the crack cocaine epidemic, that he's "obviously insane" to think that the US's own CIA were the ones who originally trained al Qaeda and the Taliban in terrorism and sponsored their terrorist attacks against the then-pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan, that pastor Wright is "obviously insane" to think that Hillary Clinton can't fully understand the indignity of being called a nigger the whole time you're growing up or the indignity of being constantly pulled over and searched by police when you're doing nothing wrong because those things have never happened to her, that pastor Wright is "obviously insane" to think that America will be judged harshly by God for explicitly racist drug war policies, unless the people who think those things are people that Obama is dishonestly pandering to in order to allay their bigoted fears? Then that man needs a good, hard wake-up call. Because if he agrees with white ignoramuses and bigots that those ideas are all "crazy" and that only "crazy people" are angry over them, then I'm not ashamed of Obama for what his pastor preached, I'm ashamed of him for not believing it when he was told.

(Damn it, I didn't set out to be famous for writing about race. Telling the truth about race in America is turning out to be my version of taping bacon to the cat. One of the things that's driving up my in-bound link count lately is the last set of things I wrote about race in America. And in every single blog that linked to it, the commenters on those blogs have entirely justifiably pointed out that none of what I'm saying about race is new, or original, or even particularly controversial to professional historians. It saddens me that so many people think it is. To quote a line from one of my all-time favorite comic book limited series, Steve Darnall and Alex Ross's U.S., when a dilapidated and confused Uncle Sam asks a symbol of black America why he's tormenting him with memories of American slavery and racism, "Because you need to know! That's why! Because you have a tendency to forget these things.")

Comments

[info]nebris wrote:
Mar. 15th, 2008 09:43 am (UTC)
Catch 22
This is the political bed Barack has made. Whether he is capable of sleeping in it remains to be seen. Personally, I doubt he can because he seems not to have the psycho-emotional scar tissue of really growing up black in America.

~M~
[info]delphinios wrote:
Mar. 15th, 2008 10:03 am (UTC)
[info]kalima62 wrote:
Mar. 15th, 2008 01:43 pm (UTC)
Thanks for posting that.
[info]asim wrote:
Mar. 15th, 2008 11:06 am (UTC)
It's not that Wright is right, or wrong. It's the manner of what he said, and how he said it. It's throwing "nigger" around with regard to Hillary ("ain't never been a nigger"), or "Goddamn America", or any of his more virulent remarks. Yes, taken out of context, yet still angry speech -- right or wrong. It's the difference between me saying Bush has foolish policies, and me saying Bush is a fucking asshole. Wright, in essence, did the latter, and on top of latent, and virulent, racism, you just don't trash America like he did.

All this is the exact opposite of what Obama is saying, is trying to do, has based his campaign around. If he didn't repudiate the speech, he'd be a hypocrite. And hypocrisy is among the worst sins in Jesus' eyes, among other things.

Again, the point is, sadly, not the truth. It's the anger, it's the hatred, and the violence in his words. Obama can't square that circle with mainstream America, and neither could I, and I've heard this stuff all my life.

Point blank, for Obama to say "but it's all true!" is the end of not only his Presidential run, but flies in the face of every word he's written, and speech he's made. Much like myself, you can listen and understand that kind of anger, while trying your best to rise above it, both personally and in one's work. I can't be surrounded by "white people" and talking smack like "I hate America", no matter WHY I might have that hate. That's the reality of what Obama has said, and what he's clearly repudiating, not the reality of what Wright says as truth.
[info]guttaperk wrote:
Mar. 15th, 2008 11:32 am (UTC)
Seconded, sadly.
[info]brooklynite wrote:
Mar. 15th, 2008 12:17 pm (UTC)
Yup. Absolutely.
[info]bradhicks wrote:
Mar. 15th, 2008 12:23 pm (UTC)
Except that Jeremiah Wright isn't just anybody, trashing America. He's a man who voluntarily left a draft-deferred seminary in order to voluntarily sign up with the Marine Corps and serve a six-year term during the Vietnam War, out of love for his country. Would it be wrong of me to remind everybody here that this is the exact opposite of what the current President did around the same time, that we're being governed by a man who not only didn't volunteer, he dodged the draft? I know of no reason to think that Jeremiah Wright doesn't love America. That doesn't change his opinion, as a Christian minister, that as a nation we are literally damned for what our country has done since Reagan. And as an honest man of the cloth speaking from the pulpit, if that was what he believed, then it was his honest duty as a Christian and as a loyal American to say that.
[info]littlebreeze wrote:
Mar. 15th, 2008 12:54 pm (UTC)
"That's the reality of what Obama has said, and what he's clearly repudiating, not the reality of what Wright says as truth."


exactly.
[info]kimchalister wrote:
Mar. 15th, 2008 09:21 pm (UTC)
What is the origin and meaning of "talking smack"? I have heard it before but it always makes me uncomfortable. I used to know a guy one of whose nicknames was Smack, because he dealt heroin. (I met him in an English class.) So I associate the word "smack" with heroin, which is one of its names.
Does it mean something else in "talking smack"?
[info]kynn wrote:
Mar. 16th, 2008 05:32 am (UTC)
I can't be surrounded by "white people" and talking smack like "I hate America", no matter WHY I might have that hate.

In other words, in order for a black man to get elected to the Presidency, all of the other black people he knows have to sit there and lie about the way America treats black people, because that way white America can feel good about themselves.
[info]brooklynite wrote:
Mar. 15th, 2008 12:52 pm (UTC)
I haven't had the time to watch all the clips myself, but I did see where Wright was quoted as having said that the US government "invent[ed] the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color."

You buy that? And if not, doesn't it kind of complicate your argument?
[info]bradhicks wrote:
Mar. 15th, 2008 03:37 pm (UTC)
No, hadn't heard that one. I'd want to see/hear it in context; I suspect, in light of how much he's gotten right, it's being misquoted or misinterpreted. But if he did say that, he's wrong about that one.

But remember what I said above: knowing things that other people insist can't possibly be true, and knowing them beyond all shadow of a doubt, does cause paranoia in all but the most sturdy.
[info]ubiquitous_a wrote:
Mar. 15th, 2008 07:46 pm (UTC)
I saw the video clip of that as well. That was indeed the quote. Whether there is any truth in it (which while I find hard to believe, I certainly wouldn't rule it out), I think it is those kind of statements that make everyone believe he's a little "out there".
[info]kynn wrote:
Mar. 16th, 2008 03:44 am (UTC)
I think he's being held to certain standards that we don't apply to other people.

For example, millions of Americans believe the Earth was created in six days, and that God impregnated a Palestinian Jew two thousand years ago.

If nutty beliefs about HIV are enough to shoot down someone's opinions, I'd like to know why nearly every American politician claims allegiance to the Christian faith.

(I'm saying this as a Christian myself.)
[info]kimchalister wrote:
Mar. 15th, 2008 09:33 pm (UTC)
That may be another of those "We don't believe it could be true so we don't believe it is true, even in the face of evidence." things. I think he is wrong about the US government inventing HIV, but not about it being invented. I have indirect reason to believe this.
There is some evidence that people whose ancestors got(or were exposed to?) The Plague but survived, have some immunity to HIV. That would be not just non-black people but white people of Western European ancestry who would be immune. So IF it is invented, it would not just be a "plot" against blacks, but against everyone not of Western European ancestry.
[info]rozasharn wrote:
Mar. 16th, 2008 03:59 am (UTC)
The Black Death came to Europe from China. I bet there are a lot of people in Asia who also have that resistance.

I have not seen any evidence that HIV was 'invented'.

For a while there were rumors that HIV developed because of early mass immunization programs in Africa. The vaccines were cultivated in monkey bodyparts, and when scientists realized that HIV appeared to be a variant of a monkey virus, some people wondered if the immunization programs gave the virus its chance to leap across species. However, if I recall correctly, the monkeys they'd used to make vaccines were a different species from the ones that harbored Simian Immunodeficiency Virus, so that was a dead end.
[info]kimchalister wrote:
Mar. 16th, 2008 04:06 am (UTC)
Well, I ain't talkin'. Don't want to get into trouble.
[info]inquisitiveravn wrote:
Mar. 23rd, 2008 10:40 pm (UTC)
Dunno about that one. It's possible that it was taken out of context, e.g. he was citing someone else's claim along those lines before ripping it to shreds or using the fact that some people believe that story to make a point about how little trust black people have in the white.

I did find a link on [info]dark_christian that demonstrates how badly a different quote was taken out of context. The irony here is that Wright was quoting a white man.
[info]hick0ry wrote:
Mar. 16th, 2008 04:37 am (UTC)
I wouldn't want to say the US government was behind HIV, but there's plenty of room for a middle ground when it comes to HIV conspiracy theories. For example, Bayer conspired to infect thousands by selling HIV contaminated blood clotting factor outside of the USA after the contamination was discovered here.
(read more)
They settled with the 6200 victims in the USA.

Some of those discussing this case claim the FDA was involved in allowing it to happen and protecting Bayer-USA executives from facing charges. Given the government's history I don't understand why it's such a stretch to wonder if there were nefarious actors in the spread of HIV, though not the creation. The (colonial)government didn't need to create smallpox to use it as a weapon, either.

And remember, Bayer got caught. Who didn't?
Bayer is also in the news repeatedly for overcharging Medicare and Medicaid for drugs, including AIDS drugs, if you'd like to take the conspiracy portion further. The company is so scandal-prone I'm beginning to wonder if they were behind the anthrax mailings just to prop up sales of Cipro.

The Rev probably should have stuck to blaming the Bilderbergers for this scheme, though.
[info]roninspoon wrote:
Mar. 15th, 2008 02:07 pm (UTC)
A lot of people are asking the question "Is America ready for a black president?" And a lot of people are answering "I don't think so."

I think that's not the question they're really trying to ask though, or that they're really answering. Like Lunkwill and Fook, many Americans have arrived at the proper answer without framing the question properly.

The proper question should be, "Are Americans ready to face the fact that they were, and remain, racist, with a wealth of unfair legislation aimed concordantly with those racist ideals?"
(Anonymous) wrote:
Mar. 15th, 2008 03:17 pm (UTC)
THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE..
I have been asking myself these questions about all the statements that Dr Jeremiah has made in these video clips. 1- so far I have heard know one dispute what he said weather it true are not. all I hear these taking heads say it hate speech. knowing my American history every word he said is 100% true, our foreign policies, is one-sided when it comes to Isreal and the palestians and how we treat those who don't think like us and look like us. let us remember Martin luther King was condemned in his time for speaking out against the war in vietnam, and a high percentage of the American people disdained him for it. let us also remember Jesus was also condemned in time for speaking out against the religious leaders of his time he called them a "generation vipers" would that be consider hate speech. what we need today are more Jeremiah Wright, people who are not afraid to speak out, if you see your Nation going down the slippery slope to destruction why would you not want to warn the people. This Man Jeremiah Wright loves America that's why he is crying out..
[info]kimchalister wrote:
Mar. 15th, 2008 09:38 pm (UTC)
Re: THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE..
He may love America, but he clearly doesn't love Barack Obama or want him to be elected President.
He reminds me of people who want to vote for Ralph Nader -- they'd rather be right than do right. (there's a reason "ralph" means vomit....)
[info]kynn wrote:
Mar. 16th, 2008 03:47 am (UTC)
Re: THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE..
I have no idea how you can judge whether he loves Barack Obama or not.

The job of a minister is not to get his congregants elected to political office.

The job of a minister is to speak truth to power.

Nobody forced Obama to attend Rev. Wright's church. (A church which is part of my denomination, and which I'd love to attend, by the way.)

A politician choosing to attend a church should in no way compel the minister to change the way he preaches in order to be politically correct enough to get church members elected president.

What on earth are you thinking?
[info]kimchalister wrote:
Mar. 16th, 2008 04:11 am (UTC)
Re: THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE..
Is it the job of a minister to prevent his parishioner from getting elected President?

The job of a minister is to speak truth to power.

Is it? Maybe it would be better if the job of a minister were to make sure power speaks truth.
[info]kynn wrote:
Mar. 16th, 2008 05:29 am (UTC)
Re: THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE..
The job of the minister is unaffected by whether or not one of the 8,000 people who attend his church might potentially run for office and thus has to seem appealing to white people.

I don't get it. Do you really want every minister in the country sitting around going, "oh my, what if I say something today that will offend white people years from now when someone in my church runs for office"?

The 'problem' here isn't that Wright was wrong. The problem is that he was right, but white people don't want to hear it.

The job of a black minister in a black church is not to sit around worrying about racist white people so that his congregants (not 'parishoner,' btw) can get white votes.
[info]kimchalister wrote:
Mar. 17th, 2008 10:31 pm (UTC)
Re: THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE..
Just for the record, I am not objecting to what Wright said, but I think continuing to say things that middle America would find offensive after his congregant has started actively running for President is counter-productive. Wouldn't his ultimate dream be more likely to be aided by a black person as President than by him preaching to the choir? If this thing, which is definitely being blown up by the Right, ultimately prevents Obama from winning, isn't that a mistake to continue AT THIS TIME?
Or is all of this ancient history? I was under the impression that these quotes of Wright's were very recent.
[info]ubiquitous_a wrote:
Mar. 15th, 2008 07:54 pm (UTC)
While many of the things he has said may have viability, the problem is that his particular brand of extreme viewpoint isn't terribly helpful in getting Obama elected president. I suppose in a way its a relief that the candidates themselves seem to be behaving themselves (at least on the surface), and its the various supporters in their camps that seem to be making all of the screwups.

I do find it hard to believe that someone in the Obama camp didn't discourage this man's participation in the campaign, considering that anyone with an internet connection could dig this stuff up.

Just because something is (or might be) true, doesn't mean that anyone's going to take it well or jump on your bandwagon when you shout it from the rooftops. And while it's sad to consider, that's even more true if you're trying to get elected President.
[info]koogrr wrote:
Mar. 15th, 2008 11:04 pm (UTC)
I'm sorry you didn't get your sanity break, and ended up writing this. It is good. I did like the U.S graphic novel you linked; I frequently think of the convention with the speech that includes 'fear change'.

And... yeah, I see how one could go nuts thinking about these things.
[info]ponsdorf wrote:
Mar. 16th, 2008 05:14 am (UTC)
That Obama chose to publicly distance himself from Rev. Wright is a pragmatic, statesman like, act I can admire. It really doesn't matter if everything Rev. Wright says is true.

Although his message of 'hope' does wear a bit thin at times Obama has just demonstrated that he means what he says.

MLK had a dream, Obama has hope. I'll take that over nihilism any day.

Compare that act with Clinton's way of dealing with Ferraro.




[info]nationelectric wrote:
Mar. 16th, 2008 06:31 am (UTC)
Although not perfectly analogous, this reminds me a little of FDR:

Roosevelt's record on civil rights has been the subject of much controversy. He was a hero to large minority groups, especially African-Americans, Catholics and Jews. African-Americans and Native Americans fared well in the New Deal relief programs, although they were not allowed to hold significant leadership roles in the WPA and CCC. Roosevelt needed the support of Southern Democrats for his New Deal programs, and therefore decided not to push for anti-lynching legislation that might threaten his ability to pass his highest priority programs. Roosevelt was highly successful in attracting large majorities of African-Americans, Jews and Catholics into his New Deal coalition. Beginning in 1941 Roosevelt issued a series of executive orders designed to guarantee racial, religious and ethnic minorities a fair share of the new wartime jobs. He pushed for admission of African-Americans into better positions in the military. In 1942 Roosevelt made the final decision in ordering the internment of Japanese, Italian and German Americans (Many not released until well after the War's end) during World War II. Beginning in the 1960s he was charged[81] with not acting decisively enough to prevent or stop the Holocaust which killed 6 million Jews. Critics cite episodes such as when in 1939, the 950 Jewish refugees on board the SS St. Louis were denied asylum and not allowed into the United States.

... in that, you have a politician who seems sympathetic to minorities, and who has a strong social agenda that also benefits minorities, but falls far short of what he could do for them, and even does some terrible things. Why? Partly pragmatism, partly fear, partly... I don't know. Yet, for all his failings, FDR did more for minorities than many other politicians of his time probably would have done. What do you say about that? It's bittersweet.

Similarly, Obama. Obama doesn't come out and say that his pastor is crazy or disown him, but he does softly repudiate the comments. That's sad, and that's not right, but he probably had to do it to win, and he did no more than the absolute minimum necessary.

Is Obama willing to publicly whitewash history to get ahead? Looks like it. But maybe only publicly, maybe not privately. It looks like he heard these truths, to some extent, and he'll probably continue to hear these truths. Maybe the words of his pastor will help shape his public policy. That's not quite right, exactly, but maybe it's a little better than how we are now.

Obama's not a messiah, he's a politician. The leash on what he does (and even moreso, on what he says) is very short. The test of the character of a politician is what they do with the leeway that the public will give them. Hell, you've pointed that out.
[info]nationelectric wrote:
Mar. 19th, 2008 08:26 am (UTC)
Is Obama willing to publicly whitewash history to get ahead? Looks like it.

... Or maybe not. I think Obama's latest speech is incredible. I haven't seen this kind of clarity and honesty from a politician since... I don't know if I've ever seen it.

Edited at 2008-03-19 08:26 am (UTC)
[info]ambient_1 wrote:
Mar. 16th, 2008 09:05 pm (UTC)
Well said, and very good points made as well. The only part that I would disagree with, at least in part, is the part about Wright distancing himself from Obama, instead of the other way around. I agree in theory. But as a means of practicality, Obama has no choice. The reality is that the mainstream has much to learn about race issues and our dark history in this country. Which is why being able to see both sides is important.

It is wise not to cast pearls before swine, if you know what I mean?
[info]ponsdorf wrote:
Mar. 17th, 2008 03:01 am (UTC)
Race has become a complex 'chicken or egg' issue. Brad chooses to paint it in a way that MLK didn't. I see a bit of MLK in Obama, and he has the credentials. His experience is significant. Near as I can figure every black must vote for him unless they are fixated on what is rather than what might be.

We'll see what happens in a few months?
[info]ambient_1 wrote:
Mar. 17th, 2008 03:32 am (UTC)
Perhaps, but I think that it's important that every progressive vote for him as well. I mean if Barack suddenly becomes the "black candidate" he can't win. But additionally, it means that much hasn't changed in this country.
It's time to change, I think. Don't get me wrong, I like Obama a lot, but I'm as inspired by the movement that he has generated as I am the man.
Can't have one without the other. But that's the beauty of it.
[info]satyrblade wrote:
Mar. 17th, 2008 04:43 pm (UTC)
Compromise is part of life. If people are goning to harp about how Obama "must stand on principle" or else lose their vote, they will throw the White House back to the Republicans again.

I'm so fucking mad about those "Hillary or nobody" voters, like the ones who decided to boycott DailyKos because they felt it was too "anti-Clinton." Between them and the "he's not Black enough" loudmouths, we will once again have fallen to the "divide and conquer" game. Hell, a bit more of this bullshit and the 'Pubs won't even have to steal the election again. The rancor between Democrat/ Leftist/ Progressive hard-liners will have done their job for them!

Is Wright correct in his criticisms? Mostly, yes. Does he have a right to be furious? Absolutely. Will it cost him (and us) the first viable Black candidate for the Oval Office, and a real hope for change? Very possibly, especially if people keep insisting that Obama embrace phrases like "I hate America" in order to retain his integrity. As many intelligent reformers have learned over time, in order to change the furniture around, you first have to get in the fucking house. Note, I don't consider Wright an intelligent reformer. He's a firebrand. That may be great if you're a preacher, but it's not helpful if you want to actually change the problem rather than critize it.

Me, I'm wondering when the Democrats/ Leftists/ Progressives will get a fucking clue and do what the Right-wingers did: put aside petty differences, unite, waltz in together, and take charge (and then fuck things up...).

And I'd really love to see some brave journalist dig up choice quotes from John McCain's "buddies" Pat "raise the dead, kill Chavez" Robertson and the folks at Bob "white boys rule" Jone University. Y'know, maybe put the Republicans on the defensivewhere they belong. Because at the rate we're going, the Left is going to give us four more years of Right-wing domination.
(Anonymous) wrote:
Mar. 17th, 2008 09:20 pm (UTC)
What am I missing?

I keep seeing the idea that this is super-problematic for Obama, but I'm not seeing why this mud* is particularly likely to stick---why everyone thinks this will be so effective in persuading a big segment of society not to vote for him. It doesn't seem so to me; I'm having huge trouble modeling the voter in my head who was going to vote for Obama in the general, after all the other mud that will get thrown, but now won't, because of Pastor Wright. I mean, I'm sure there are hundreds, but are there really tens of thousands?

* where by "mud" I mean the cherry-picking "God Damn America" instead of "God Damn America for X" and the excessive focus on pastor Wright in the first place. Obviously the basic story that he has a pastor who uses strong words is true.
[info]kimchalister wrote:
Mar. 17th, 2008 10:42 pm (UTC)
Satyrblade -- you might want to read this three-part essay on learning from the tactics of the Right, by Sara Robinson:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/learning-cultural-conservatives-part-i-messing-their-minds

On John McCain ("John McSameasBush"), didn't he just associate himself with an off-the-wall preacher? A Rev Hagee or something -- shouldn't that be as much of a story as this one, at least?
[info]redrab wrote:
Mar. 18th, 2008 05:09 am (UTC)
Excellent post! Pretty perceptive for a white boy. Agree or disagree with Rev. Wright. He has the courage of his convictions, which is more than I can say for Barack.

Jonathan David Farley also had some interesting things to say:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_david_farley/2008/03/wright_was_right.html

So many are mistaking Obama for a leader but he is just another politician.
(Anonymous) wrote:
Apr. 24th, 2008 12:02 pm (UTC)
Hello, its Mario!
Hello guys! Its me, mario!
I just want to say that your site is amazing!
Good luck!