geronimo p. ashbar is tall and has long curly hair. do not talk to him. but you may chat online with him, or write letters to him. also beware of the lone electron that bonds ionically with sodium and chlorine.
fair enough, i guess, uncle ron. although it seems like maybe he should just appoint fair-minded, intelligent judges that are swayed by no political ideology. Conservatives thought they were getting a conservative judge back when reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor, but look what happened to that...
I thought at first listen/read it was a very effective speech. But reading it more carefully, there were several points that really upset me, probably the most egregious being when he equated his grandmother and her very benign, arguably NON-racist remarks to the horrifying vitriol of Reverend Wright. Obama is a great Orator, that is very true. But his great charm and oratory skills mask very clever verbal sleights-of-hand that are only uncovered with careful examination. Sadly, very few Americans (particularly Obama supporters, it seems), are capable of, or even interested in such careful examination. I found this article (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1689619,00.html) to be very interesting, although it's not entirely related to his speech today.
gabrielle, I'm a little confused as to what you mean when you say that his grandma's remarks were arguably non-racist? we don't know the remarks she made, other than the fact that she is sometimes has an inexplicable fear of black men who pass her on the street (not sure how that can be construed as not being racist). he did say that she has 'uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes' that are cringeworthy. his point was just to say that reverend wright is human, and made mistakes, and said some things that were wrong. he said some things that show a problem in the way he views america, and in the way some in the black community view america.
now, i by no means want to excuse some of the things reverend wright said (although both ron paul and i agree with him that american foreign policy probably did a lot to bring about 9/11), but it seems strange that the right wing attack machine (do you like my oversimplification of what is going on?) jumps on barack over comments made by his reverend. if we were to hold mitt romney to every thing uttered by his church leaders, surely he would have encountered problems (and he did) at which most conservatives balk. For example, as mormons, i'm going to go out on a limb and say we would be upset if someone were to give mitt a hard time about not distancing himself from his church in the late 60s/early 70s when it didn't extend the priesthood to blacks. surely some of the comments made by a then Apostle Ezra Taft Benson (the civil rights movement is an arm of communism, and Martin Luther King Jr. was an agent of communism) were very incendiary. But, of course, we realize that just because you belong to a church does not mean you accept every single thing taught by every single one of its constituents.
for some reason I couldn't access the time article.
i know it doesn't say much to cite the new york times with ya'll, but they put it very nicely here on why obama's speech was so well delivered today. On one particular point, and I have told this to paul before, i especially agree, and that is the comparison between Romeny's faith speech and Obama's race and religion speech:
"Mr. Obama had to address race and religion, the two most toxic subjects in politics. He was as powerful and frank as Mitt Romney was weak and calculating earlier this year in his attempt to persuade the religious right that his Mormonism is Christian enough for them." read the entire editorial and come back here to vent.
hello. i'm a little late on the debate. but i finally got a chance to watch to speech last night.
i'm currently reading "the audacity of hope."
call me naive or duped or misinformed. but i can't get over the candid, honest approach of barack obama. i understand that much of what happens in politics is calculated. but i still can help but belief him, find him to be sincere, and appreciated the reality in which he speaks.
when other politicians speak. it is hard for me to feel (any of the above descriptions) towards them.
i thoroughly enjoyed and respected the speech. completely different from mitt's. mitt was speaking to a small like minded group of people. obama was generally speaking to all americans. trite as it sounds, he was addressing all of us.
I listened to his speech, then read it about three times and I am torn. Do I think at moments he was speaking from the heart, yes; do I think most of it was calculated politics, yes. I do think that he feels for his family and the hard times that they went though. And yes there are still predigest people in this country but it goes both ways and I feel like they don't like being called out on that issue. I have a strong belief in my gospel but as much as I believe in and love the bishop of my church, if I were to hear something like "we live in the US KKK of A" or that "the white race purposely infected the black race with aids" I know that I would have to get up and leave.
how have i missed all the fun. i was corresponding with stevie over email and need to catch up here.
stevie is caught up in the leftist silliness that says that whoever thinks the way they do is 'fair-minded, intelligent' by definition. all others are rigid, ideological and un-intelligent.
so yes, obama would be appointing judges 'fair-minded and intelligent' by his peculiar definition.
mitt didn't write a book defining himself to the world with a direct quote of harold b. lee's as the title and he certainly did not claim any racist church leader as his life-long mentor. mitt did speak of his father who marched with martin luther king and was seemingly on the right side of civil rights. please don't muddle the picture here with silliness.
i tell you what i feel his most egregious pandering is. he grew up in a suburban, middle class to upper middle class neighborhood in hawaii and he claimed his wife's slave heritage as his own genetics. this is not pandering stephen?
this speech was certainly politically calculated he had to say what he said in this speech because the same book you are reading peter, is a book with the title pulled from his life-long mentor and black supremacist pastor. i'm sorry, but this speech often sounds nice, but there's nothing brave here. this is self-serving stuff--not to denigrate the power of his words--but they were self-serving nonetheless. it gets back that age-old philosophy question of whether a decision is actually morally good if there was a self-serving benefit. there was little in his speech that was not PC and that the times wouldn't eat up (as demonstrated by stevie's article where the times trips over themselves to give him the love.)
his prior actions (little to no viable legislation coming from his office and one the most liberal voting records in the senate) speak volumes more than a politically motivated speech made to counteract a sinking campaign because his life-long mentor is being examined.
barack's life is piece by piece being examined to a lesser degree than other candidates who had to endure the hatred--not love--of the media...
barack dug this pit when he chose to name his book after a pastor who is vitriolic. obama would have to be exceeding naive not to have known this about his pastor.
did barack's comments convince you that he doesn't agree with wright, particularly when he said the following:
"Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all."
I have never felt that Obama agreed with all of Reverend Wright’s comments and I want to believe that many don't. But after 20 years of listening to the same man say these kinds of things over and over I really have to wonder if in this case actions speak louder then words. He can say that he does not agree with him but his actions show that he just might. To be honest that scares me. I would never allow my kids ever to hear those kinds of things on purpose. What kind of an example would that be? And..for Obama to compare his white grandma to Reverend Wright just does not seem right unless she is out there saying the same things. Just my opinion. I was excited for change, but at what cost?
paul paul paul, i know you don't really believe all that vitriol you are espousing. I know in the end you'll come around and vote for 'the one.' so, i'm not sure if i should even respond to some of your comments.
but here goes anyway: first, barack never claimed slavery in his genetics. however, i think it's fair for any african american (whether or not your particular ancestry goes back to slavery) to claim slavery in your past. it is something that influences race today.
while political expediency may have forced barack to give this speech, he transcended such expediency or self-serving purposes when he was able to nimbly analyze the problems of race in our country today, and push us all to focus on the actual issues and problems with what is going on in race relations today.
it's funny how you are able to forgive our dear mitt for anything, but you jump on the smallest things about barack. The fact is, we are all friends with people with whom we disagree. certainly america is not about disowning anyone who teaches something that is against our political leanings. I heard many people question why mitt did not distance himself from the church during the 70s when the church refused to extend the priesthood to black people. of course you thought that was ridiculous. but now that the tables have turned with barack, and even though he has denounced the reverend's views, you still can't get over it. but, it's always something, isn't it?
you have an uncanny ability to turn something that is grey into something that is either black or white.
one more thing paul: i never said, nor do i hold, that someone who is fair-minded and intelligent is necessarily liberal. you paint things in a way that makes it easier to make your point. that's a little thing we call a straw-man argument. there are many conservative people whom i find smart, fair-minded, and intelligent.
stevie: unfortunately, your love for obama has clouded you ability to understand the grave difference here.
barack took the title of his book from the words of this pastor. he embraced this man actively. this is not a matter of passively witholding public condemnation while actively promoting equality in actions (which mitt's family did.) you can bet that if barack's had marched with martin luther king that the times would be all over that month in and month out. beating the drum of obamalove.
tamara hit the nail on the head when she said this issue is more like hearing your bishop say these negative things and rather than walking out of the meeting...you make your bishops other statements the title of a book that is defining who you are to the world. the difference is not hard to see. your navel-gazing view of this issue is clouding the reality of the differences clearly apparent here.
and also, barack's views on race are not new. the wrods of this speech have been said by 100's of politicians before now. isn't it racist to say that barack's words are so novel and powerful because he is a black man?
nice talking stevie. the banter is good...audacious even.
truth is, neither your father, your mother, your grandparents or any of them walked out on the church when it wouldn't give blacks the priesthood. and don't for one second act like you wouldn't quote a saying of theirs that perfectly embodies what you stand for.
i'm not point fingers at those before us, i'm just sticking my finger in your eye of relative reasoning.
you both are conflating active passive. omission and comission. advocacy and passivity.
many of my fore bearers may have met less than 10 african-americans in their entire lives. this was not a daily problem that vexed them. they may not have ever thought about without news report and pronouncements over the pulpit.
this type of passivity is far different from obama embracing a preacher-man living in a multi-cultural city who spouts race-supremacy and divisiveness. and then to think nothing of quoting him for the title of his book.
i'm not defending the racist policy of the lds church. that's not the point here.
petey's insinuation that my parents and this preacher are similar is silly, insulting and non-productive...
Ok, a few points. 1. Why is it racist to be afraid of black men? Under certain circumstances, it's entirely logical. If she was afraid of all black men, she was a fool. If she was afraid of some black men, she was human and intelligent. I find it absurd to equate that, and other "cringe-worthy" statements she might have made to the absolute vileness that came out of Wright's mouth. 2. I loved how he said that his disagreement with Wright was "just like" disagreements anyone might have with their pastor or clergyman. Ok, it's true, I've heard a few things I don't 100% agree with over the pulpit, but if anyone said anything like what Wright has said, I can GUARANTEE you that every single person sitting in the Chapel would have stood up and walked out, if the Bishop didn't remove him before that. I may have some minor differences of opinion with my clergymen, but to equate those minor disagreements with the moral outrage I have at what Wright has said, is, again, absurd. 3. I find Obama to be incredibly hypocritical to defend Wright to such an extent but then to blast Don Imus for a statement made in HUMOR (terrible taste, yes, but it was said to be funny). Watch this Youtube clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQkP5cCsWn4), and then compare that to his defense of Wright. I concede that Wright's incredibly anti-American and racist statements were probably a small percentage of his overall statements. But so was Don Imus's statement. It was ONE sentence in a 20+ year career. But what is good for the goose I guess is not good for the gander. 4. It's amazing the pass Obama is getting for this. Well, it's not really amazing, it's really sort of predictable, but still tiresome. Trent Lott said ONE THING at some guy's birthday party, and he was forced to resign. If this were a white guy who had such a LONG and CLOSE association (Wright is essentially Obama's father-figure) with such a vile and hate-filled racist against blacks, he would have been absolutely crucified. 5. I found it pathetic how he blamed everything, yet again, on corporate America. It's pretty clever how he's deflected the justifiable outrage people have over Wright and his statements, onto the same whipping horses the democrats always use-- schools, healthcare, greedy corporate America. Yawn. 6. It disturbed me how he never really condemned what Wright said. The worst thing he said was that he "strongly disagreed" with him, that Wright was a "fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy," and that his statements were "distorted" and "divisive." He never said that he completely rejected his statements, that he found them vile and hateful, that they represent everything that is WRONG with race-relations in the U.S. Instead he spent the rest of his speech trying to make us "understand" Wright and where he's coming from. I'm so sick of liberals telling me that we need to "understand" evil. You know what? Evil is evil. I already understand it. I just want to spend my energy fighting it. I already understand the weak human tendency to blame all our problems on everyone else, and to refuse to accept any personal responsibilty. I understand fully that this is exactly what Wright was doing. End of story. 7. The genius of this speech was that most of it was stuff that any decent person would agree with. He said so many nice and fair things, in such a persuasive way, that you are lulled into thinking that the key elements of his speech were also nice and fair. But they weren't.
paul. i made the point that i was NOT comparing our parents and their peer to rev. wright with the phase: "i'm not point fingers at those before us," so you don't need to act offended and "insulted." playing the victim in this conversation is also counterproductive.
gabrielle. i'm sorry you hate liberals so much that you can see the candid way in which an intelligent national figure has tried to honestly and accurately characterize the thought and feelings of many, many americans, on both sides of the spectrum.
the main problem which his speech, people like us sit around on our arm chairs of wisdom and experience and try to decipher exactly what he was "really" saying in his speech. yes, he had points to be made. but does barack really believe his grandmother's cringing words were as divisive and vile and rev. wright's? who are WE to try to answer that. just because he mentioned them both in a period of ten minutes, doesn't mean his assigning equal moral/social magnitude to each of them. my point is this: maybe he truly does believe that. maybe he doesn't. but WE for sure do not know what the true intents of his mind/heart while he wrote this speech.
let's be real here. he has an hour or so to address and explain and somewhat define a issue that has plagued this nation since its inception. quick anecdotes and analogies will necessarily be used to keep our attention. oh yeah, did i mention he's running for president? of course he's going to string in his platform within these anecdotes and explanations. none of this should be surprising, offensive, deemed as cunning and evil.
seriously. look at the task before him. to tell the american tale from a unique perspective of a very multiracial background. given the enormity of the task, i think he did an excellent job and am willing to forego piecemealing his speech and draw conclusions and comparisons to add intent and purpose when we do have the insight into his head to do so.
i sorry that i disagree with those that don't see it this way. i still respect your opinion. like i said, gabrielle, you made some very valid point. i see many of them in a very different light.
Here is a question that I have been asking and nobody seems to have an answer, maybe you can help:
Are the comments that we have been hearing from Reverend Wright thoughts that he said a couple of times after being upset by something or are these words that he has been preaching the whole 20 years?
i agree with the reverend michael lerner from your article peter.
There have been other efforts to stimulate a national dialogue on race. A commission on race relations was appointed in 1997 by President Bill Clinton with the historian John Hope Franklin as chairman. But that effort produced few concrete advances, and those who said they had been inspired by Mr. Obama’s speech said a different approach was needed.
“This has got to be more than a speech because these things don’t just happen spontaneously,” said Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of the Jewish magazine Tikkun and a founder of the Network of Spiritual Progressives.
this is more of the times fawning. they site you-tube viewing hits--where rihanna, souljaboy, and avril lavigne far outpace obama.
then the article talks with a few liberal pastors and professors who say they talked about it with their staff and that more people should definitely talk about it.
sure, we all need to talk about this more and we need better solutions for race inequities in america. i appreciate that you acknowledged that there is more at work here than 'the one' bringing salvation to the masses through powerful rhetoric and solutions. he was stumping for re-election and said some politically correct and nice things about both races in hopes of getting elected.
paul: using italics in your arguments helps nothing. also, it's strange that you continue to talk about all the love that the times has for obama, when they have come out in support for clinton. also paul, please show me another politician who has so well addressed the problem of race. You claim there are 100s. so please, show me.
about this thing with Barack taking the title of his book from the words of his pastor. you claim he is different than mitt because of this point. i guess technically, you are right. mitt never wrote a book and titled it using words from a church leader. however, I would guess that mitt took upon President Benson's mantra to flood the earth with the book of mormon. how would he do this, even after President Benson was a known sympathizer with the John Birch Society, and claimed that Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist agent?
i think it's clear that we don't expect our candidates to belong to a church where they agree with every single thing taught there. also, it's as if you didn't even read the following from Barack:
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way
But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
i really don't think this leaves any more room on the subject. You calling revered wright a black supremacist is not helpful and takes the dialogue nowhere. it leads people to think barack is also a black supremecist, which obviously he is not.
1. the idea that one is afraid of anyone based on the color of his or her skin shows a hidden (or not so hidden) bias and/or prejudice. i think it is an obvious sign of a sort of racism. it's just as bad as the attitude of an most inner-city school teachers who see a school full of black and hispanic kids, and decide that they can't achieve anything. it's the same bias that stops a black man or woman from getting a job they may deserve because the employer may be afraid of what that person may do. being afraid of someone only because of the color of his or her skin is not entirely logical. perhaps if you are on 168th and grand concourse in the south bronx, and you see a heavy-set black man dressed in gang colors, then it's logical to be afraid. but it would seem that is based much more on your location and other signs than only the color of the person's skin.
2. i agree that if reverend wright were to get up in a mormon congregation and said the things he said, most people would have walked out. it doesn't work to compare a mormon congregation with almost any black church in america. they are dealing with a different set of people, a different set of histories, and different set of cultures.
3. i really can't take the comparison of don imus and reverend wright seriously. don imus is a shock jock whose whole purpose is to get ratings. reverend wright is a person trying to honestly help people.
4. i disagree that wright is a 'vile and hate-filled racist.' he is responding to years of bad treatment and racism. his response isn't the greatest, and is wrong, but is much different than something coming from a white person.
5. not sure how he did this. guess i'll take a closer look. although it seems like schools and healthcare are pretty good whipping horses, as they need a lot of reform.
6. Barack unequivocally condemned Reverend Wright's comments. Not sure how you get much stronger than that, without sacrificing a long-term friends for merely political gain.
7. The genius of his speech is that he took a full frontal approach to racism, and didn't tip-toe around it like so many other politicians do (i guess paul may prove me wrong here). he performed a great analysis of the reasons for the black plight in america today (paul called it whining, i disagree) and offered solutions. he reproached reverend wright's way of thinking and showed that a belief in the goodness of america is what is going to heal the racial divide.
Tamara: i suspect reverend wright has been saying these things for quite a while. although i doubt he said these sort of things in every sermon on every day.
here you go stevie. one of more like thousands of speeches made across the country by politicians whose self-interest aligns with the ideas in obama's speech...
skinny: we are all racist at some level. we all have prejudices and biases. so, yes, at many points in our history, the church had racist policies most likely implemented by racist people. the mormon church is an american church. america has a long history of racism and segregation. it doesn't follow logically that that would make people in the church racist, but certainly we didn't dodge the bullet. There was a certain member of the quorum of the twelve in the sixties who said as long as he was alive the priesthood would not be extended to black people. he was the prophet right before Pres. Kimball. i think it's problematic to believe everyone in the church, including the prophet and other leaders, is perfect.
paul: the situation of this speech is such that it doesn't really work to compare it with obama's. clinton was president when he delivered this speech. obama is running for president. also, the caliber of clinton's speech does not stand up to the caliber of obama's.
paul and gabrielle: do you agree with this guy? his anger and vitriol really rub me the wrong way? is that because i'm blinded by 'the one'? maybe. but i don't think so. i think krauthammer is choosing to ignore key parts of obama's speech and not trying to actually understand why obama would stay in the trinity church (has krauthammer not gotten the memo that wright is no longer the pastor?).
say what you will, but this is a great paragraph, "This contextual analysis of Wright's venom, this extenuation of black hate speech as a product of white racism, is not new. It's the Jesse Jackson politics of racial grievance, expressed in Ivy League diction and Harvard Law nuance. That's why the speech made so many liberal commentators swoon: It bathed them in racial guilt, while flattering their intellectual pretensions. An unbeatable combination."
thanks for the reference stevie.
wright was finally forced out in part due to this maelstrom of his own making in recent months.
and once again, all your navel-gazing guilt about your own religion is different from barack's current dillema. john-birch society, king as a communist--you only know these facts about benson because of recent historical inquiry. this was not widely known nor was it the subject of his speeches. this is a worldwide church and barack's little parish has maybe 20,000 people. barack ate at this guy's home. gave him large sums of money to prop up his church and his continued speeches.
paul: you are wrong in so many ways. but you'll come around. i believe in you. and i'm pretty sure benson's link to the john birch society was quite a well-known thing. also, his views on the civil rights and communism were given in talks that were widely publicized and made many members of the church (leaders and non-leaders alike) cringe.
not quite sure what navel-gazing means. please explain. let's try not to argue, and try, rather, to figure out what's best for america right now. is it mccain? I think you'll agree that it's not. Is it Clinton? Again, i think not. so please, let us all know that you will, in fact, come around to barack in the end.
one way to describe the navel-gazing on the left is this: you take on excess, or even deserved, guilt and allow it to color your worldview to the point of bad policy decisions.
example: you revel in the guilt for actions 5 generations ago of white men to whom you aren't related. therefore, you give hand-outs to a group of people that are uniwittingly crafted to incentivize sloth. you wanted to help but made things worse.
my final thoughts: and then I will leave this conversation.
stephen/peter = obama [seeking to find common ground and move past old hang ups]
paul = rev. wright. [stuck in the past with old grievances, divisive, seeking to keep wounds festering, like mitt while insisting to keep the good fight going]
let's move on. obama did the best he could. I respect that with all its imperfections.
good paul, good. way to push things to either extreme. it's very helpful how you label anyone who disagrees with you a 'liberal.' i don't think, however, that my relationship with my church can correctly be defined as navel-gazing, at least according to the way you described it. first, thirty years ago was not that long ago. second, the problem still exists. but that's not what this little debate's about. we are still waiting for you to confess your love for the one.
stevie: i'm not saying there aren't race problems in the church. i want mormon doctrine pulled from the shelves of deseret book every bit as much as you do.
i don't believe the miracle of forgiveness is scripture (or even nominally binding).
yes, we had prophets who were wrong on the race issue.
sure, the belief that prophets are perfect is counterproductive to church governance and personal faith.
your relationship with the church isn't navel-gazing. i'm very comfortable with your relationship with the church and with me:)
but your continued desire to equate a lay member's relatioship with benson and barack's relationship with wright belies your willingness to distort and overstate mormon issue...navel-gazing.
paul, i was never equating. you once again mischaracterize my position. i posit that we should not hold barack accountable for something his pastor said. i used the mormon thing to show that some of us (by that i mean you) are willing to excuse a member of our own faith if they belong to our own political party, but are willing to jump all over a member of another faith for *almost* the same thing. i do not equate it. but i do feel there are some very similar aspects, and in some ways we as mormons might even have more to deal with than barack.
one more link. this reporter/writer hits it right on. obama has challenged us to have a real conversation on race, and i'm not sure we're quite stepping up to the plate. i'm guilty as well.
The authentic conversation that Obama wants requires a tolerance of imprecise language; a recognition that we haven’t accomplished anything by demanding that public figures speak in a sterile, meaningless language whose primary aim is to avoid giving offense to anyone for any reason. This national conversation can only take place if we resolve to stop playing gotcha with quotes and to begin exploring the context around the quotes that tend to make headlines.
a conversation would be nice. both sides are certainly guilty of playing gotcha with words...isn't gotcha the foundation upon which the politically correct movement has built its platform?
i have to agree with peter on this one. i thought his speech was intelligent and shouldn't be parsed out on a line by line basis. maybe it's an older generation thing........ love, uncle ron
i am a fan of the kornacki article, stefan. i think he (and mr. b-rock) are right about the need for a new dialog and increased openness about the race issue is overdue. and, based on my personal experience and those whose experiences i have witnessed, most people who don't find this dialog necessary have never had to deal with race first-hand.
even still, it may be true that this is not one of the weightier matters of this election. this may be more a matter of principle than of practice this time around.
who is signing in on my name and signing in as uncle ron? Peter? you and mom are the only ones who know my password???? parse is not my word. do we have a secret interloper? love, uncle ron
paul. I'm just about done with audacity of hope. I *really* think you should read. for several reasons, notwithstanding I think you would really enjoy it.
Of all the comments made by Stephen and Petey that I find disturbing, foremost of them is the Obama - Richardson ticket.
Richardson is my state gov.
He has no integrity. He strong-arms everyone to get his way. He wants to make your decisions for you, because you are not capable of deciding what to do with your time, money and property.
His one talent is one of diplomacy. He is good at getting people together and talking, so send him back to the UN. Everywhere he has had some executive authority, he has governed poorly. This I know from his time as Secretary of the DOE and Gov. of NM. I say this as an employee of the DOE living in NM.
Gabrielle's and Paul's thoughts make a lot of sense to me, and Petey's attempt at deception was disturbing, not to mention that it undermines his 'sincere' and final appeal as he left the conversation.
matt: welcome to the dominion. i don't think i ever supported richardson as obama's runningmate. i just asked about the possibility. so, kind of a strange thing to find disturbing....
another thing i find strange is that you cite your being a NM resident as sufficient enough authority to claim Richardson as a poor executive. However, he won reelection with the highest percentage of votes in any of gubernatorial election in the history of NM (68-32%). Obviously, some other NM 'experts' feel differently about his ability to govern.
peter's final 'dishonest' attempt was obviously a joke, and made with the recognition that it would come out in the end.
Paul: you'll probably like the fact that richardson legalized medical marijuana.
the point is, the 'conservative' types that frequent this weblog for some reason parse the language of b-rock instead of accepting his invitation to join in a frank, honest, and open dialogue about race. of course, i've been guilty of the same thing during our little conversation, and i'm trying to do better.
True, I was assuming that your suggestion meant that you felt it wasn't such a bad idea, which to me is disturbing. My assumption could be wrong... or right...
True also that Richardson was re-elected by a large margin, but you are assuming that this means he is popular.
You are forgetting that most voting percentages are not merely reflective of one persons popularity, but also reflective on the opposition's popularity. The other candidate was a republican hit-man sent to begin the derailment of Richardson's presidential bid. There was no true opposition for the office.
once again i must repeat that living in a certain place does not give one authority to speak exclusively on a subject. are you really claiming that someone who won with a 68-32% margin was not popular?
also, your description of richardson would perfectly fit bush, mccain, and even romney (aside from the part about being a good diplomat). it looks like to me that richardson is a fiscally responsible (the cato institute consistently ranks him as among the most financially responsible governors), diplomatically skilled (a good characteristic for a vp, no?), and morally minded (he extended civil rights to LGBT's).
I claim no "exclusive" authority. Perhaps I am claiming more authority than the statistics you google before writing your comments.
I would concede you the same authority for place in which you live. After all, you see the results of the politics and policies everyday, don't you? That is more substantial to me than the opinion of some columnist I don't know from Adam, and a bunch of statistics... and I am sure you are familiar with the Mark Twain quote concerning statistics.
If not, why don't you google that?
Of course you can claim that you don't know me from Adam, but that isn't true. We shared a game of 500 in Las Vegas, remember?
I didn't say he was unpopular. You know I didn't. Blanket statements one way or the other will always be untrue. I am saying the stats you quote don't speak as loud as you think. Most of the working-class people I am surrounded by are very dissatisfied with him. When I say most, that means a statistical majority....
I have already mentioned that he had no true opposition (a no-name, mudslinging, republican hit-man). The main race that got people out to vote in my area was a senate seat. There was general disinterest in the governor's vote because we all knew what the outcome would be.
As for fiscal responsibility, you must not know about his disaster of a health-care plan for our state, the fight over red-light camera money, or the RailRunner that I am bound to begin paying and never use... but why would you? You don't live here.
matt. you epitomize what stevey and I are trying to get past. hyper-sensitive and myoptic to the point to that you fight every word or sentence written, all the while missing to over lying general theme.
"obama seeks to work through and past our messy race history."
that is the point of this whole debate.
stevey and I have defended his attempt and somewhat his ability to do this.
don't lose sight of the grand picture. else we will be doomed and stuck in the echo chamber of the last two or three decades, especially in the areas of racial tensions.
but if you want to take offense and stay hung up on perceived offenses, than it would only make sense you wouldn't support the illustrious senator from the state of my birth.
I met Bill Richardson once in a parade in Los Alamos in 1986. He came over and shook my hand. He was very nice. I would vote for him any day of the week.
i don't think i ever supported richardson as obama's runningmate. i just asked about the possibility. so, kind of a strange thing to find disturbing....
the irony is thick as you two lay into matt by parsing his words and then call him myopic for not seeing the larger picture.
it is also classic nyc hipster style to tell a resident of a state how they should feel about their governor.
matty's jabs about your google knowledge were 'spot on' (the wire anyone?) and a lot of fun.
petey: your snarky bit at the end about 'living' in the birth state of obama was...funny. snarky and snide, but funny.
inreality, dear peter, your comments, 'matt. you epitomize what stevey and I are trying to get past. hyper-sensitive and myoptic to the point to that you fight every word or sentence written, all the while missing to over lying general theme.' epitomize what you claim to be trying to 'get past'...
paul: aren't you and your conservative friends so awesome? isn't it going to be so awesome when we have john mccain in office? you'll be so happy when we're able to stay in iraq for another ten years. i can't wait, either.
paul. seriously. why do you persist? your last comment had nothing to do with obama and his attempts to address racism in real terms. your last comment did have unnecessary digs and both me and stevey. that's all i'll say. i don't need to talk about your debate tactics or anything like that. just to say that *did* manage once again to avoid to real issue at hand.
for the record. i was born in chicago and have never claimed more or less. except to hit on girls from the midwest back in undergrad.
stevey. ten years? come on. give big mac more credit than that. he's a man of dreams. why stay ten when you can stay hundreds of years...? let big mac dream big. even he can have the audacity to hope like *the one*
i've been pwned by petey. fine. i'll give the big mac the benefit of the doubt and let him keep our guys over there for 10x10 years. i can't wait. so much to look forward to...
peter: i'm sorry, but when have you made substantive comments that apply to an issue at hand. not to generalize, i'll give you 10% of your comments here as relevant...fair?
i think so.
ironic that you both know that one of my few hesitations regarding mccain is his foreign policy. despite that, you feign superiority for the last few comments hammering an issue that we agree on. an issue on which you know we agree. tsk, tsk.
paul. tsk. tsk? we ALL know you will vote for obama. quit playing the opposition party for the sake of an argument or in the defense of your brother in law.
if you re-read my comments, you'll notice that i purposefully have not engaged in all the minutiae of this thread to emulate a mister obama. my approach to this debate is perfectly mirrored in my opinion of this debate and barack.
as stevey always points out, please stop (mis) defining me, my opinions, and/or tactical points to further your argument.
seriously. what is your real opinion of barack? do you really believe he would further the cause of black supremacy if elected to this nation's highest office?
stevie, i found the following comment to paul quite funny:
"aren't you and your conservative friends so awesome? isn't it going to be so awesome when we have john mccain in office? you'll be so happy when we're able to stay in iraq for another ten years. i can't wait, either."
brother, it was less than a year ago when you and i sat eating mexican food in a restaurant just south of gunnison when you criticized me for supporting mitt because of his tendency to flip-flop on issues. during this conversation you whole-heartedly backed mccain and thought he would make a great candidate for president. i find it ironic, brother, that you would criticize mitt for flip-flopping when you have done the same.
if it is okay for you to have a change of heart in the course of a year, then why wouldn't it be okay for mitt to change views in the course of a decade?
paul. i may be way off. but i don't think you've really tried that hard (by your own admission) to try to get to know barack's heart. its much easier to blame the media for their fawning than to take an honest look at his life work or ideals or world view.
seriously. i think you should read his book. written three years ago and incredibly apropos to this whole dialogue.
paul the actual ironic thing is that you keep disagreeing with us, when you agree with us. is this this tsk worthy, brother?
ahh jonny, great to have you commenting again. have you ever heard of ad hominem attacks, jonny? that's when you focus on the person, instead of the actual issues. funny you should attack me, instead of really delving into what's at hand. no matter, i let it run off my back like drops of water. mitt is the worst; mccain slightly better, but still bad. in relation to mitt, i do think he would be a better president. of course, that was before i fully understood his stance on the war, which of course, makes it impossible for any reasonable person to vote for him (i put the reasonable person part in, just to give paul something to whine about).
jonny, your comparison of mitt and me is so obvious a false analogy, i'm not even going to address it (besides using the words i've already used to address it).
i pwned you with with a boo yeah of my boo yeah of jonny's pwn...
stevie: how's this for lack of delving, jonny, your comparison of mitt and me is so obvious a false analogy, i'm not even going to address it hypocrisy and irony abound on this here webloggert.
I hereby declare this thread officially closed. Too personal. Comments of substance have vanished. I want to maintain the semblance of outward love in my family.
is dad trying to take over my web log and officially declare my threads closed? hmmm...sounds like censorship. but he does make a good observations: all comments of substance ended as soon as paul jumped in with his anti-obama tactics. however, we are still waiting for libby's two bits.
this being the 100th comment on this thread, i want to point out that each of you commenters has heeded b-rock's call to have a national dialogue on race. thank you very much for supporting 'the one.'
101 comments. good post stevey! i've missed the dominion. :)
i love that you love obama. are you one of those people who keeps fainting at his rallies? (i'm developing a little crush myself!)i agree he gave a great speech.
thank you for never using the word "posit" again. and i'm pleased that the word "snarky" continues to get some play.
102 comments:
and this commentary.
great talk, and i have to say i agree with most of it. now, if he would just appoint conservative judges................. love, uncle ron
fair enough, i guess, uncle ron. although it seems like maybe he should just appoint fair-minded, intelligent judges that are swayed by no political ideology. Conservatives thought they were getting a conservative judge back when reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor, but look what happened to that...
i thought the definition of conservative was fair-minded and intelligent. love, uncle ron
snap uncle ron, you are on one lately. I'm afraid i have no comeback. i think i've been pwned by ron.
I thought at first listen/read it was a very effective speech. But reading it more carefully, there were several points that really upset me, probably the most egregious being when he equated his grandmother and her very benign, arguably NON-racist remarks to the horrifying vitriol of Reverend Wright. Obama is a great Orator, that is very true. But his great charm and oratory skills mask very clever verbal sleights-of-hand that are only uncovered with careful examination. Sadly, very few Americans (particularly Obama supporters, it seems), are capable of, or even interested in such careful examination.
I found this article (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1689619,00.html) to be very interesting, although it's not entirely related to his speech today.
gabrielle, I'm a little confused as to what you mean when you say that his grandma's remarks were arguably non-racist? we don't know the remarks she made, other than the fact that she is sometimes has an inexplicable fear of black men who pass her on the street (not sure how that can be construed as not being racist). he did say that she has 'uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes' that are cringeworthy. his point was just to say that reverend wright is human, and made mistakes, and said some things that were wrong. he said some things that show a problem in the way he views america, and in the way some in the black community view america.
now, i by no means want to excuse some of the things reverend wright said (although both ron paul and i agree with him that american foreign policy probably did a lot to bring about 9/11), but it seems strange that the right wing attack machine (do you like my oversimplification of what is going on?) jumps on barack over comments made by his reverend. if we were to hold mitt romney to every thing uttered by his church leaders, surely he would have encountered problems (and he did) at which most conservatives balk. For example, as mormons, i'm going to go out on a limb and say we would be upset if someone were to give mitt a hard time about not distancing himself from his church in the late 60s/early 70s when it didn't extend the priesthood to blacks. surely some of the comments made by a then Apostle Ezra Taft Benson (the civil rights movement is an arm of communism, and Martin Luther King Jr. was an agent of communism) were very incendiary. But, of course, we realize that just because you belong to a church does not mean you accept every single thing taught by every single one of its constituents.
for some reason I couldn't access the time article.
anyway, that's enough for now. time for bed.
gabrielle, paul, and ron and tracy:
i know it doesn't say much to cite the new york times with ya'll, but they put it very nicely here on why obama's speech was so well delivered today. On one particular point, and I have told this to paul before, i especially agree, and that is the comparison between Romeny's faith speech and Obama's race and religion speech:
"Mr. Obama had to address race and religion, the two most toxic subjects in politics. He was as powerful and frank as Mitt Romney was weak and calculating earlier this year in his attempt to persuade the religious right that his Mormonism is Christian enough for them." read the entire editorial and come back here to vent.
hello.
i'm a little late on the debate.
but i finally got a chance to watch to speech last night.
i'm currently reading "the audacity of hope."
call me naive or duped or misinformed.
but i can't get over the candid, honest approach of barack obama. i understand that much of what happens in politics is calculated. but i still can help but belief him, find him to be sincere, and appreciated the reality in which he speaks.
when other politicians speak. it is hard for me to feel (any of the above descriptions) towards them.
i thoroughly enjoyed and respected the speech. completely different from mitt's. mitt was speaking to a small like minded group of people. obama was generally speaking to all americans. trite as it sounds, he was addressing all of us.
I listened to his speech, then read it about three times and I am torn. Do I think at moments he was speaking from the heart, yes; do I think most of it was calculated politics, yes. I do think that he feels for his family and the hard times that they went though. And yes there are still predigest people in this country but it goes both ways and I feel like they don't like being called out on that issue.
I have a strong belief in my gospel but as much as I believe in and love the bishop of my church, if I were to hear something like "we live in the US KKK of A" or that "the white race purposely infected the black race with aids" I know that I would have to get up and leave.
Thanks for your blog, I enjoy reading it.
how have i missed all the fun. i was corresponding with stevie over email and need to catch up here.
stevie is caught up in the leftist silliness that says that whoever thinks the way they do is 'fair-minded, intelligent' by definition. all others are rigid, ideological and un-intelligent.
so yes, obama would be appointing judges 'fair-minded and intelligent' by his peculiar definition.
no comparison can be made to mitt here stevie.
mitt didn't write a book defining himself to the world with a direct quote of harold b. lee's as the title and he certainly did not claim any racist church leader as his life-long mentor. mitt did speak of his father who marched with martin luther king and was seemingly on the right side of civil rights. please don't muddle the picture here with silliness.
i tell you what i feel his most egregious pandering is. he grew up in a suburban, middle class to upper middle class neighborhood in hawaii and he claimed his wife's slave heritage as his own genetics. this is not pandering stephen?
this speech was certainly politically calculated he had to say what he said in this speech because the same book you are reading peter, is a book with the title pulled from his life-long mentor and black supremacist pastor. i'm sorry, but this speech often sounds nice, but there's nothing brave here. this is self-serving stuff--not to denigrate the power of his words--but they were self-serving nonetheless. it gets back that age-old philosophy question of whether a decision is actually morally good if there was a self-serving benefit. there was little in his speech that was not PC and that the times wouldn't eat up (as demonstrated by stevie's article where the times trips over themselves to give him the love.)
his prior actions (little to no viable legislation coming from his office and one the most liberal voting records in the senate) speak volumes more than a politically motivated speech made to counteract a sinking campaign because his life-long mentor is being examined.
barack's life is piece by piece being examined to a lesser degree than other candidates who had to endure the hatred--not love--of the media...
barack dug this pit when he chose to name his book after a pastor who is vitriolic. obama would have to be exceeding naive not to have known this about his pastor.
tamara: welcome to the dominion.
did barack's comments convince you that he doesn't agree with wright, particularly when he said the following:
"Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all."
I have never felt that Obama agreed with all of Reverend Wright’s comments and I want to believe that many don't. But after 20 years of listening to the same man say these kinds of things over and over I really have to wonder if in this case actions speak louder then words. He can say that he does not agree with him but his actions show that he just might. To be honest that scares me. I would never allow my kids ever to hear those kinds of things on purpose. What kind of an example would that be? And..for Obama to compare his white grandma to Reverend Wright just does not seem right unless she is out there saying the same things.
Just my opinion. I was excited for change, but at what cost?
paul paul paul, i know you don't really believe all that vitriol you are espousing. I know in the end you'll come around and vote for 'the one.' so, i'm not sure if i should even respond to some of your comments.
but here goes anyway: first, barack never claimed slavery in his genetics. however, i think it's fair for any african american (whether or not your particular ancestry goes back to slavery) to claim slavery in your past. it is something that influences race today.
while political expediency may have forced barack to give this speech, he transcended such expediency or self-serving purposes when he was able to nimbly analyze the problems of race in our country today, and push us all to focus on the actual issues and problems with what is going on in race relations today.
it's funny how you are able to forgive our dear mitt for anything, but you jump on the smallest things about barack. The fact is, we are all friends with people with whom we disagree. certainly america is not about disowning anyone who teaches something that is against our political leanings. I heard many people question why mitt did not distance himself from the church during the 70s when the church refused to extend the priesthood to black people. of course you thought that was ridiculous. but now that the tables have turned with barack, and even though he has denounced the reverend's views, you still can't get over it. but, it's always something, isn't it?
you have an uncanny ability to turn something that is grey into something that is either black or white.
one more thing paul: i never said, nor do i hold, that someone who is fair-minded and intelligent is necessarily liberal. you paint things in a way that makes it easier to make your point. that's a little thing we call a straw-man argument. there are many conservative people whom i find smart, fair-minded, and intelligent.
stevie: unfortunately, your love for obama has clouded you ability to understand the grave difference here.
barack took the title of his book from the words of this pastor. he embraced this man actively. this is not a matter of passively witholding public condemnation while actively promoting equality in actions (which mitt's family did.) you can bet that if barack's had marched with martin luther king that the times would be all over that month in and month out. beating the drum of obamalove.
tamara hit the nail on the head when she said this issue is more like hearing your bishop say these negative things and rather than walking out of the meeting...you make your bishops other statements the title of a book that is defining who you are to the world. the difference is not hard to see. your navel-gazing view of this issue is clouding the reality of the differences clearly apparent here.
and also, barack's views on race are not new. the wrods of this speech have been said by 100's of politicians before now. isn't it racist to say that barack's words are so novel and powerful because he is a black man?
nice talking stevie. the banter is good...audacious even.
barack's father had marched
paul.
quit picking a fight.
truth is, neither your father, your mother, your grandparents or any of them walked out on the church when it wouldn't give blacks the priesthood. and don't for one second act like you wouldn't quote a saying of theirs that perfectly embodies what you stand for.
i'm not point fingers at those before us, i'm just sticking my finger in your eye of relative reasoning.
you both are conflating active passive. omission and comission. advocacy and passivity.
many of my fore bearers may have met less than 10 african-americans in their entire lives. this was not a daily problem that vexed them. they may not have ever thought about without news report and pronouncements over the pulpit.
this type of passivity is far different from obama embracing a preacher-man living in a multi-cultural city who spouts race-supremacy and divisiveness. and then to think nothing of quoting him for the title of his book.
i'm not defending the racist policy of the lds church. that's not the point here.
petey's insinuation that my parents and this preacher are similar is silly, insulting and non-productive...
Ok, a few points.
1. Why is it racist to be afraid of black men? Under certain circumstances, it's entirely logical. If she was afraid of all black men, she was a fool. If she was afraid of some black men, she was human and intelligent. I find it absurd to equate that, and other "cringe-worthy" statements she might have made to the absolute vileness that came out of Wright's mouth.
2. I loved how he said that his disagreement with Wright was "just like" disagreements anyone might have with their pastor or clergyman. Ok, it's true, I've heard a few things I don't 100% agree with over the pulpit, but if anyone said anything like what Wright has said, I can GUARANTEE you that every single person sitting in the Chapel would have stood up and walked out, if the Bishop didn't remove him before that. I may have some minor differences of opinion with my clergymen, but to equate those minor disagreements with the moral outrage I have at what Wright has said, is, again, absurd.
3. I find Obama to be incredibly hypocritical to defend Wright to such an extent but then to blast Don Imus for a statement made in HUMOR (terrible taste, yes, but it was said to be funny). Watch this Youtube clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQkP5cCsWn4), and then compare that to his defense of Wright. I concede that Wright's incredibly anti-American and racist statements were probably a small percentage of his overall statements. But so was Don Imus's statement. It was ONE sentence in a 20+ year career. But what is good for the goose I guess is not good for the gander.
4. It's amazing the pass Obama is getting for this. Well, it's not really amazing, it's really sort of predictable, but still tiresome. Trent Lott said ONE THING at some guy's birthday party, and he was forced to resign. If this were a white guy who had such a LONG and CLOSE association (Wright is essentially Obama's father-figure) with such a vile and hate-filled racist against blacks, he would have been absolutely crucified.
5. I found it pathetic how he blamed everything, yet again, on corporate America. It's pretty clever how he's deflected the justifiable outrage people have over Wright and his statements, onto the same whipping horses the democrats always use-- schools, healthcare, greedy corporate America. Yawn.
6. It disturbed me how he never really condemned what Wright said. The worst thing he said was that he "strongly disagreed" with him, that Wright was a "fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy," and that his statements were "distorted" and "divisive." He never said that he completely rejected his statements, that he found them vile and hateful, that they represent everything that is WRONG with race-relations in the U.S. Instead he spent the rest of his speech trying to make us "understand" Wright and where he's coming from. I'm so sick of liberals telling me that we need to "understand" evil. You know what? Evil is evil. I already understand it. I just want to spend my energy fighting it. I already understand the weak human tendency to blame all our problems on everyone else, and to refuse to accept any personal responsibilty. I understand fully that this is exactly what Wright was doing. End of story.
7. The genius of this speech was that most of it was stuff that any decent person would agree with. He said so many nice and fair things, in such a persuasive way, that you are lulled into thinking that the key elements of his speech were also nice and fair. But they weren't.
agreed
agreed
agreed
agreed
agreed
agreed
and
agreed.
paul.
i made the point that i was NOT comparing our parents and their peer to rev. wright with the phase: "i'm not point fingers at those before us," so you don't need to act offended and "insulted." playing the victim in this conversation is also counterproductive.
gabrielle.
i'm sorry you hate liberals so much that you can see the candid way in which an intelligent national figure has tried to honestly and accurately characterize the thought and feelings of many, many americans, on both sides of the spectrum.
the main problem which his speech, people like us sit around on our arm chairs of wisdom and experience and try to decipher exactly what he was "really" saying in his speech. yes, he had points to be made. but does barack really believe his grandmother's cringing words were as divisive and vile and rev. wright's? who are WE to try to answer that. just because he mentioned them both in a period of ten minutes, doesn't mean his assigning equal moral/social magnitude to each of them. my point is this: maybe he truly does believe that. maybe he doesn't. but WE for sure do not know what the true intents of his mind/heart while he wrote this speech.
let's be real here. he has an hour or so to address and explain and somewhat define a issue that has plagued this nation since its inception. quick anecdotes and analogies will necessarily be used to keep our attention. oh yeah, did i mention he's running for president? of course he's going to string in his platform within these anecdotes and explanations. none of this should be surprising, offensive, deemed as cunning and evil.
seriously. look at the task before him. to tell the american tale from a unique perspective of a very multiracial background. given the enormity of the task, i think he did an excellent job and am willing to forego piecemealing his speech and draw conclusions and comparisons to add intent and purpose when we do have the insight into his head to do so.
i sorry that i disagree with those that don't see it this way. i still respect your opinion. like i said, gabrielle, you made some very valid point. i see many of them in a very different light.
say what you will, but the fact that this is happening, already makes the speech a *huge* success in my mind.
Here is a question that I have been asking and nobody seems to have an answer, maybe you can help:
Are the comments that we have been hearing from Reverend Wright thoughts that he said a couple of times after being upset by something or are these words that he has been preaching the whole 20 years?
say what you will peter.
if you weren't comparing and the two aren't comparable then why did you write it?
if you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding...
i agree with the reverend michael lerner from your article peter.
There have been other efforts to stimulate a national dialogue on race. A commission on race relations was appointed in 1997 by President Bill Clinton with the historian John Hope Franklin as chairman. But that effort produced few concrete advances, and those who said they had been inspired by Mr. Obama’s speech said a different approach was needed.
“This has got to be more than a speech because these things don’t just happen spontaneously,” said Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of the Jewish magazine Tikkun and a founder of the Network of Spiritual Progressives.
this is more of the times fawning. they site you-tube viewing hits--where rihanna, souljaboy, and avril lavigne far outpace obama.
then the article talks with a few liberal pastors and professors who say they talked about it with their staff and that more people should definitely talk about it.
sure, we all need to talk about this more and we need better solutions for race inequities in america. i appreciate that you acknowledged that there is more at work here than 'the one' bringing salvation to the masses through powerful rhetoric and solutions. he was stumping for re-election and said some politically correct and nice things about both races in hopes of getting elected.
enjoyable and thought provoking dialogue. love uncle ron
paul.
you got me.
I should have made the distinction:
comparable on the surface, NOT comparable in magnitude.
fair enough petey.
i thought you'd like the pink floyd reference.
we're not so different you and i.
paul: using italics in your arguments helps nothing. also, it's strange that you continue to talk about all the love that the times has for obama, when they have come out in support for clinton. also paul, please show me another politician who has so well addressed the problem of race. You claim there are 100s. so please, show me.
about this thing with Barack taking the title of his book from the words of his pastor. you claim he is different than mitt because of this point. i guess technically, you are right. mitt never wrote a book and titled it using words from a church leader. however, I would guess that mitt took upon President Benson's mantra to flood the earth with the book of mormon. how would he do this, even after President Benson was a known sympathizer with the John Birch Society, and claimed that Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist agent?
i think it's clear that we don't expect our candidates to belong to a church where they agree with every single thing taught there. also, it's as if you didn't even read the following from Barack:
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way
But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
i really don't think this leaves any more room on the subject. You calling revered wright a black supremacist is not helpful and takes the dialogue nowhere. it leads people to think barack is also a black supremecist, which obviously he is not.
Gabrielle,
to your points:
1. the idea that one is afraid of anyone based on the color of his or her skin shows a hidden (or not so hidden) bias and/or prejudice. i think it is an obvious sign of a sort of racism. it's just as bad as the attitude of an most inner-city school teachers who see a school full of black and hispanic kids, and decide that they can't achieve anything. it's the same bias that stops a black man or woman from getting a job they may deserve because the employer may be afraid of what that person may do. being afraid of someone only because of the color of his or her skin is not entirely logical. perhaps if you are on 168th and grand concourse in the south bronx, and you see a heavy-set black man dressed in gang colors, then it's logical to be afraid. but it would seem that is based much more on your location and other signs than only the color of the person's skin.
2. i agree that if reverend wright were to get up in a mormon congregation and said the things he said, most people would have walked out. it doesn't work to compare a mormon congregation with almost any black church in america. they are dealing with a different set of people, a different set of histories, and different set of cultures.
3. i really can't take the comparison of don imus and reverend wright seriously. don imus is a shock jock whose whole purpose is to get ratings. reverend wright is a person trying to honestly help people.
4. i disagree that wright is a 'vile and hate-filled racist.' he is responding to years of bad treatment and racism. his response isn't the greatest, and is wrong, but is much different than something coming from a white person.
5. not sure how he did this. guess i'll take a closer look. although it seems like schools and healthcare are pretty good whipping horses, as they need a lot of reform.
6. Barack unequivocally condemned Reverend Wright's comments. Not sure how you get much stronger than that, without sacrificing a long-term friends for merely political gain.
7. The genius of his speech is that he took a full frontal approach to racism, and didn't tip-toe around it like so many other politicians do (i guess paul may prove me wrong here). he performed a great analysis of the reasons for the black plight in america today (paul called it whining, i disagree) and offered solutions. he reproached reverend wright's way of thinking and showed that a belief in the goodness of america is what is going to heal the racial divide.
Tamara: i suspect reverend wright has been saying these things for quite a while. although i doubt he said these sort of things in every sermon on every day.
stevie: your italics didn't help anything..:)
stevie: if your #1 is true then your #4 is racist.
here you go stevie. one of more like thousands of speeches made across the country by politicians whose self-interest aligns with the ideas in obama's speech...
i hate politics.
love skinny
p.s. so if the lds church had racist policies, does that mean the head of the lds church was/is racist?
skinny: we are all racist at some level. we all have prejudices and biases. so, yes, at many points in our history, the church had racist policies most likely implemented by racist people. the mormon church is an american church. america has a long history of racism and segregation. it doesn't follow logically that that would make people in the church racist, but certainly we didn't dodge the bullet. There was a certain member of the quorum of the twelve in the sixties who said as long as he was alive the priesthood would not be extended to black people. he was the prophet right before Pres. Kimball. i think it's problematic to believe everyone in the church, including the prophet and other leaders, is perfect.
paul: the situation of this speech is such that it doesn't really work to compare it with obama's. clinton was president when he delivered this speech. obama is running for president. also, the caliber of clinton's speech does not stand up to the caliber of obama's.
paul and gabrielle: do you agree with this guy? his anger and vitriol really rub me the wrong way? is that because i'm blinded by 'the one'? maybe. but i don't think so. i think krauthammer is choosing to ignore key parts of obama's speech and not trying to actually understand why obama would stay in the trinity church (has krauthammer not gotten the memo that wright is no longer the pastor?).
say what you will, but this is a great paragraph, "This contextual analysis of Wright's venom, this extenuation of black hate speech as a product of white racism, is not new. It's the Jesse Jackson politics of racial grievance, expressed in Ivy League diction and Harvard Law nuance. That's why the speech made so many liberal commentators swoon: It bathed them in racial guilt, while flattering their intellectual pretensions. An unbeatable combination."
thanks for the reference stevie.
wright was finally forced out in part due to this maelstrom of his own making in recent months.
and once again, all your navel-gazing guilt about your own religion is different from barack's current dillema. john-birch society, king as a communist--you only know these facts about benson because of recent historical inquiry. this was not widely known nor was it the subject of his speeches. this is a worldwide church and barack's little parish has maybe 20,000 people. barack ate at this guy's home. gave him large sums of money to prop up his church and his continued speeches.
omission and commission.
paul: you are wrong in so many ways. but you'll come around. i believe in you. and i'm pretty sure benson's link to the john birch society was quite a well-known thing. also, his views on the civil rights and communism were given in talks that were widely publicized and made many members of the church (leaders and non-leaders alike) cringe.
not quite sure what navel-gazing means. please explain. let's try not to argue, and try, rather, to figure out what's best for america right now. is it mccain? I think you'll agree that it's not. Is it Clinton? Again, i think not. so please, let us all know that you will, in fact, come around to barack in the end.
one more. this kind of honesty about feelings and shame, etc. are much more productive than krauthammer's invective.
one way to describe the navel-gazing on the left is this: you take on excess, or even deserved, guilt and allow it to color your worldview to the point of bad policy decisions.
example: you revel in the guilt for actions 5 generations ago of white men to whom you aren't related. therefore, you give hand-outs to a group of people that are uniwittingly crafted to incentivize sloth. you wanted to help but made things worse.
my final thoughts: and then I will leave this conversation.
stephen/peter = obama [seeking to find common ground and move past old hang ups]
paul = rev. wright. [stuck in the past with old grievances, divisive, seeking to keep wounds festering, like mitt while insisting to keep the good fight going]
let's move on.
obama did the best he could. I respect that with all its imperfections.
good paul, good. way to push things to either extreme. it's very helpful how you label anyone who disagrees with you a 'liberal.' i don't think, however, that my relationship with my church can correctly be defined as navel-gazing, at least according to the way you described it. first, thirty years ago was not that long ago. second, the problem still exists. but that's not what this little debate's about. we are still waiting for you to confess your love for the one.
peter: nice.
stevie: i'm not saying there aren't race problems in the church. i want mormon doctrine pulled from the shelves of deseret book every bit as much as you do.
i don't believe the miracle of forgiveness is scripture (or even nominally binding).
yes, we had prophets who were wrong on the race issue.
sure, the belief that prophets are perfect is counterproductive to church governance and personal faith.
your relationship with the church isn't navel-gazing. i'm very comfortable with your relationship with the church and with me:)
but your continued desire to equate a lay member's relatioship with benson and barack's relationship with wright belies your willingness to distort and overstate mormon issue...navel-gazing.
neo will always and only be 'the one'...
peter: incidentally, your position in this debate is one big 'hang-up'...you ought to seek help.
paul, i was never equating. you once again mischaracterize my position. i posit that we should not hold barack accountable for something his pastor said. i used the mormon thing to show that some of us (by that i mean you) are willing to excuse a member of our own faith if they belong to our own political party, but are willing to jump all over a member of another faith for *almost* the same thing. i do not equate it. but i do feel there are some very similar aspects, and in some ways we as mormons might even have more to deal with than barack.
also, i want to apologize for using the word posit. i hate that word, and most the time i hate people who use that word. so i'm sorry.
oh paul: you still haven't let us know that you will, indeed, end up voting for barack. still waiting.
how about richardson for obama's runningmate?
how about mcain/romney.
with mccain's age and health we would be very close to having a real president.
richarson is a tool. he and huckabee are equal in their toolness on different ends of the political spectrum.
one more link. this reporter/writer hits it right on. obama has challenged us to have a real conversation on race, and i'm not sure we're quite stepping up to the plate. i'm guilty as well.
The authentic conversation that Obama wants requires a tolerance of imprecise language; a recognition that we haven’t accomplished anything by demanding that public figures speak in a sterile, meaningless language whose primary aim is to avoid giving offense to anyone for any reason. This national conversation can only take place if we resolve to stop playing gotcha with quotes and to begin exploring the context around the quotes that tend to make headlines.
a conversation would be nice. both sides are certainly guilty of playing gotcha with words...isn't gotcha the foundation upon which the politically correct movement has built its platform?
paul: i agree with you. and obama's rising above this, or at least trying to help us rise above this.
this guy shakadal is a spammer. don't click on his links.
erase his comment stevie.
add word verification brother.
see the r-rated discussion at the bottom of the thread here
i have to agree with peter on this one. i thought his speech was intelligent and shouldn't be parsed out on a line by line basis. maybe it's an older generation thing........ love, uncle ron
i am a fan of the kornacki article, stefan. i think he (and mr. b-rock) are right about the need for a new dialog and increased openness about the race issue is overdue. and, based on my personal experience and those whose experiences i have witnessed, most people who don't find this dialog necessary have never had to deal with race first-hand.
even still, it may be true that this is not one of the weightier matters of this election. this may be more a matter of principle than of practice this time around.
who is signing in on my name and signing in as uncle ron? Peter? you and mom are the only ones who know my password???? parse is not my word. do we have a secret interloper? love, uncle ron
peter = guilty as charged.
sorry, i thought it would be funny.
and it was.
dad.
you have to admit, i expressed your opinions pretty well.
The 'Audacity of Dishonesty!'
you were up late pops...
paul.
I'm just about done with audacity of hope.
I *really* think you should read. for several reasons, notwithstanding I think you would really enjoy it.
Wow.
I was linked here from "Residents", and I had no idea what I was getting into. You should have put up a warning, Paul.
Of all the comments made by Stephen and Petey that I find disturbing, foremost of them is the Obama - Richardson ticket.
Richardson is my state gov.
He has no integrity. He strong-arms everyone to get his way. He wants to make your decisions for you, because you are not capable of deciding what to do with your time, money and property.
His one talent is one of diplomacy. He is good at getting people together and talking, so send him back to the UN. Everywhere he has had some executive authority, he has governed poorly. This I know from his time as Secretary of the DOE and Gov. of NM. I say this as an employee of the DOE living in NM.
Gabrielle's and Paul's thoughts make a lot of sense to me, and Petey's attempt at deception was disturbing, not to mention that it undermines his 'sincere' and final appeal as he left the conversation.
matt: welcome to the dominion. i don't think i ever supported richardson as obama's runningmate. i just asked about the possibility. so, kind of a strange thing to find disturbing....
another thing i find strange is that you cite your being a NM resident as sufficient enough authority to claim Richardson as a poor executive. However, he won reelection with the highest percentage of votes in any of gubernatorial election in the history of NM (68-32%). Obviously, some other NM 'experts' feel differently about his ability to govern.
peter's final 'dishonest' attempt was obviously a joke, and made with the recognition that it would come out in the end.
Paul: you'll probably like the fact that richardson legalized medical marijuana.
the point is, the 'conservative' types that frequent this weblog for some reason parse the language of b-rock instead of accepting his invitation to join in a frank, honest, and open dialogue about race. of course, i've been guilty of the same thing during our little conversation, and i'm trying to do better.
one more thing
Stephen,
True, I was assuming that your suggestion meant that you felt it wasn't such a bad idea, which to me is disturbing. My assumption could be wrong... or right...
True also that Richardson was re-elected by a large margin, but you are assuming that this means he is popular.
You are forgetting that most voting percentages are not merely reflective of one persons popularity, but also reflective on the opposition's popularity. The other candidate was a republican hit-man sent to begin the derailment of Richardson's presidential bid. There was no true opposition for the office.
I live here.
once again i must repeat that living in a certain place does not give one authority to speak exclusively on a subject. are you really claiming that someone who won with a 68-32% margin was not popular?
also, your description of richardson would perfectly fit bush, mccain, and even romney (aside from the part about being a good diplomat). it looks like to me that richardson is a fiscally responsible (the cato institute consistently ranks him as among the most financially responsible governors), diplomatically skilled (a good characteristic for a vp, no?), and morally minded (he extended civil rights to LGBT's).
*person ( forgot to end my sentence).
I claim no "exclusive" authority. Perhaps I am claiming more authority than the statistics you google before writing your comments.
I would concede you the same authority for place in which you live. After all, you see the results of the politics and policies everyday, don't you? That is more substantial to me than the opinion of some columnist I don't know from Adam, and a bunch of statistics... and I am sure you are familiar with the Mark Twain quote concerning statistics.
If not, why don't you google that?
Of course you can claim that you don't know me from Adam, but that isn't true. We shared a game of 500 in Las Vegas, remember?
I didn't say he was unpopular. You know I didn't. Blanket statements one way or the other will always be untrue. I am saying the stats you quote don't speak as loud as you think. Most of the working-class people I am surrounded by are very dissatisfied with him. When I say most, that means a statistical majority....
I have already mentioned that he had no true opposition (a no-name, mudslinging, republican hit-man). The main race that got people out to vote in my area was a senate seat. There was general disinterest in the governor's vote because we all knew what the outcome would be.
As for fiscal responsibility, you must not know about his disaster of a health-care plan for our state, the fight over red-light camera money, or the RailRunner that I am bound to begin paying and never use... but why would you? You don't live here.
matt.
you epitomize what stevey and I are trying to get past.
hyper-sensitive and myoptic to the point to that you fight every word or sentence written, all the while missing to over lying general theme.
"obama seeks to work through and past our messy race history."
that is the point of this whole debate.
stevey and I have defended his attempt and somewhat his ability to do this.
don't lose sight of the grand picture. else we will be doomed and stuck in the echo chamber of the last two or three decades, especially in the areas of racial tensions.
but if you want to take offense and stay hung up on perceived offenses, than it would only make sense you wouldn't support the illustrious senator from the state of my birth.
Petey,
I believe the word is myopic.
How is that for validation of your assessment of my character?
You seem to know me so well, although we have never met...
I met Bill Richardson once in a parade in Los Alamos in 1986. He came over and shook my hand. He was very nice. I would vote for him any day of the week.
willy: 1986 doesn't really compare to either 1842. come to think of it, it doesn't really hold up to 1924 either.
i don't think i ever supported richardson as obama's runningmate. i just asked about the possibility. so, kind of a strange thing to find disturbing....
the irony is thick as you two lay into matt by parsing his words and then call him myopic for not seeing the larger picture.
it is also classic nyc hipster style to tell a resident of a state how they should feel about their governor.
matty's jabs about your google knowledge were 'spot on' (the wire anyone?) and a lot of fun.
petey: your snarky bit at the end about 'living' in the birth state of obama was...funny. snarky and snide, but funny.
inreality, dear peter, your comments, 'matt.
you epitomize what stevey and I are trying to get past.
hyper-sensitive and myoptic to the point to that you fight every word or sentence written, all the while missing to over lying general theme.' epitomize what you claim to be trying to 'get past'...
sheesh, i stay away for a day and what do you two pull?
paul: aren't you and your conservative friends so awesome? isn't it going to be so awesome when we have john mccain in office? you'll be so happy when we're able to stay in iraq for another ten years. i can't wait, either.
paul.
seriously. why do you persist?
your last comment had nothing to do with obama and his attempts to address racism in real terms.
your last comment did have unnecessary digs and both me and stevey. that's all i'll say. i don't need to talk about your debate tactics or anything like that. just to say that *did* manage once again to avoid to real issue at hand.
for the record. i was born in chicago and have never claimed more or less. except to hit on girls from the midwest back in undergrad.
stevey.
ten years? come on. give big mac more credit than that. he's a man of dreams. why stay ten when you can stay hundreds of years...? let big mac dream big. even he can have the audacity to hope like *the one*
i've been pwned by petey. fine. i'll give the big mac the benefit of the doubt and let him keep our guys over there for 10x10 years. i can't wait. so much to look forward to...
oh and paul (and matt), wikipedia is the source of my information, not google.
peter: i'm sorry, but when have you made substantive comments that apply to an issue at hand. not to generalize, i'll give you 10% of your comments here as relevant...fair?
i think so.
ironic that you both know that one of my few hesitations regarding mccain is his foreign policy. despite that, you feign superiority for the last few comments hammering an issue that we agree on. an issue on which you know we agree. tsk, tsk.
paul.
tsk. tsk?
we ALL know you will vote for obama.
quit playing the opposition party for the sake of an argument or in the defense of your brother in law.
if you re-read my comments, you'll notice that i purposefully have not engaged in all the minutiae of this thread to emulate a mister obama. my approach to this debate is perfectly mirrored in my opinion of this debate and barack.
as stevey always points out, please stop (mis) defining me, my opinions, and/or tactical points to further your argument.
seriously. what is your real opinion of barack? do you really believe he would further the cause of black supremacy if elected to this nation's highest office?
stevie, i found the following comment to paul quite funny:
"aren't you and your conservative friends so awesome? isn't it going to be so awesome when we have john mccain in office? you'll be so happy when we're able to stay in iraq for another ten years. i can't wait, either."
brother, it was less than a year ago when you and i sat eating mexican food in a restaurant just south of gunnison when you criticized me for supporting mitt because of his tendency to flip-flop on issues. during this conversation you whole-heartedly backed mccain and thought he would make a great candidate for president. i find it ironic, brother, that you would criticize mitt for flip-flopping when you have done the same.
if it is okay for you to have a change of heart in the course of a year, then why wouldn't it be okay for mitt to change views in the course of a decade?
pwned by jonny little steevo...boo yeah!
petey: barack is a rockstar...it's hard to get to know the rockstar's inner heart amidst all the headbanging, guitar strumming, fan loving hoopla.
BOO YEAH.
paul.
i may be way off.
but i don't think you've really tried that hard (by your own admission) to try to get to know barack's heart.
its much easier to blame the media for their fawning than to take an honest look at his life work or ideals or world view.
seriously. i think you should read his book. written three years ago and incredibly apropos to this whole dialogue.
paul the actual ironic thing is that you keep disagreeing with us, when you agree with us. is this this tsk worthy, brother?
ahh jonny, great to have you commenting again. have you ever heard of ad hominem attacks, jonny? that's when you focus on the person, instead of the actual issues. funny you should attack me, instead of really delving into what's at hand. no matter, i let it run off my back like drops of water. mitt is the worst; mccain slightly better, but still bad. in relation to mitt, i do think he would be a better president. of course, that was before i fully understood his stance on the war, which of course, makes it impossible for any reasonable person to vote for him (i put the reasonable person part in, just to give paul something to whine about).
jonny, your comparison of mitt and me is so obvious a false analogy, i'm not even going to address it (besides using the words i've already used to address it).
paul: did you boo yeah yourself? hmmm....
libby: are you going to jump in the fray?
i pwned you with with a boo yeah of my boo yeah of jonny's pwn...
stevie: how's this for lack of delving, jonny, your comparison of mitt and me is so obvious a false analogy, i'm not even going to address it hypocrisy and irony abound on this here webloggert.
paul: ?????
I hereby declare this thread officially closed. Too personal. Comments of substance have vanished. I want to maintain the semblance of outward love in my family.
is dad trying to take over my web log and officially declare my threads closed? hmmm...sounds like censorship. but he does make a good observations: all comments of substance ended as soon as paul jumped in with his anti-obama tactics. however, we are still waiting for libby's two bits.
stevie: i'll close you down if you're not careful...
this being the 100th comment on this thread, i want to point out that each of you commenters has heeded b-rock's call to have a national dialogue on race. thank you very much for supporting 'the one.'
101 comments. good post stevey! i've missed the dominion. :)
i love that you love obama. are you one of those people who keeps fainting at his rallies? (i'm developing a little crush myself!)i agree he gave a great speech.
thank you for never using the word "posit" again. and i'm pleased that the word "snarky" continues to get some play.
peace.
dee dee, so good to have you back at the dominion. congrats on your looming nuptials. we miss you in the nyc.
Post a Comment