It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. … Mark Twain
We live in a land where, officially anyway, we cherish freedom of speech. But notice on the blogs an odd phenomenon: People use fake names – very few actually say who they are in real life. There’s a reason for this: people want to express their true ideas with passion, but they are at work, on company time, they have a boss, or don’t want to be Googled in the future when they are looking for a job.
Freedom of speech is a nice concept. I’m in favor of it.
Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot John F. Kennedy. Any damned fool can plainly see this. Yet today, 45 years later, if you work in or around the news media, you cannot say this or even hint that you suspect it. America’s elections have gone haywire – exit polls very seldom buttress official results, and those results are almost always skewed towards Republicans. No one in media (save Olberman) talks about it. During the 1990’s, the United States of America imposed onerous sanctions on the country of Iraq, this after bombing them into oblivion, and as a result over one-half million children starved or died of preventable disease. That’s written out of history now. We’re trying to rescue that country from …. us, I suppose.
These thoughts, these realities, are in the backdrop. Few of us but ever give voice to them. It’s a silent backwater. On some level, cloaked in denial, there is awareness of the ugly reality that is America, but it’s our alter-ego, our Mr. Hyde. We know these things. As evidence look at the screaming and breast beating that goes on whenever someone says openly what we know privately. It’s like a child caught doing something wrong – his first reaction is to blame his sister.
Well, someone has done it. Someone has spoken openly and truthfully. And the results are predictable – indignation, accusation and spurning, marginalization and shunning. That someone is the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Read his words:
I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday, did anybody else see him or hear him? He was on Fox News, this is a white man, and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out, did you see him John, a white man, and he pointed out, an ambassador, that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Mohammed was in fact true, America’s chickens…are coming home to roost. We took this country by terror, away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Arowak, the Comanche, the Arapahoe, the Navajo. Terrorism. We took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism. We bombed Granada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel. We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenagers and toddlers, pregnant mothers, and hardworking fathers. We bombed Qaddafi’s home and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children’s head against a rock. We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to payback for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hardworking people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they would never get back home. We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye. Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children from school, civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.
We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and Black South Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.
The British government failed, the Russian government failed, the Japanese government failed, the German government failed, and the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian descent fairly, she failed. She put them on reservations. When it came to treating her citizens of Japanese decent fairly, she failed. She put them in internment prison camps. When it came to treating her citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. The government put them in chains. She put them on slave quarters, put them on auction blocks, put them in cotton fields, put them in inferior schools, put them in sub-standard housing, put them in scientific experiments, put them in the lowest paying jobs, put them outside the equal protection of the law, kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education, and locked them into positions of hopelessness and helplessness. The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strike law, and then wants us to sing God Bless America…no, no, no
Not God bless America, God damn America. That’s in the Bible, for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating her citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme. The United States government has failed the vast majority of her citizens of African descent. Think about this, think about this.
For every one Oprah, a billionaire, you’ve got 5 million blacks who out of work. For every one Colin Powell, a millionaire, you’ve got 10 million blacks who cannot read. For every one Condoskeeza Rice, you’ve got 1 million in prison. For every one Tiger Woods, who needs to get beat, at the Masters, with his cap, blazin’ hips playing on a course that discriminates against women. God has his way of bringing you up short when you get to big for your cap, blazin britches. For every one Tiger Woods, we got 10,000 black kids who will never see a golf course. The United States government has failed the vast majority of her citizens of African descent.
It’s an emotional expression of opinion backed by fact and anecdote – he let his eagle soar. Slave ships were real, Indian genocide was real, bombs dropped in a Panamanian barrio killing … how many?… don’t know. We don’t count. (These were not important people, after all.) To be an American is to live in denial, to constantly have to reinforce doubt by extolling patriotism to block out the ugly reality of who we really are. A true-blue American never looks in the mirror.
The Reverend Wright is not “really proud” to be an American. He’s going down, and I assume he will be taking Barack Obama with him.
It’s a sad spectacle. This November we’re going to elect a man who made his reputation bombing cities and killing innocent civilians in a country that hardly had an air force. He was justly held captive for those crimes, yet we lionize him and demonized those who imprisoned him. We speak no evil of this man who graduated at the bottom of his class, lost three aircraft by means of stupid accident, who has an ugly temper. He is protected by the media. He has a false reputation, yet his veil will not be pierced. It will carry him all the way to the White House. While there, he will never say anything that is true. He’ll be safe.
In the meantime, as Reverend Wright has learned, speaking truth to power is not allowed. It will get a man lynched.
Piece of Mindful 
Go ahead and say what you think!
And while at it you can also explain Wright’s words you deemed as truth when he said Israel is apartheid state while printing out propaganda material of the notoriously antisemitic terrorist group Hamas that want Israel wiped out of existence, not actual real peace and reconciliation. And while at it you can explain Wright’s words you deemed as truth when he said Italians looked down their garlic noses at Galileans in the days of Christ, in reference to Romans when Italians and Romans are not even one and the same (Romans were Latins, Estrucans, Sabines, and Italians came from Germanic tribes that took Italian peninsula from Romans, such as Lombards, Ostrogoths, etc., so he slurred the wrong ethnic group!). And while at it you explained how he can turn the gospel narrative as not only excuse to slur Italians but as another example of “rich white men” killing “poor black men” as if that has to do with anything there. Or while you are at it you can explained that we were at war with Japan during WW2, and how Wright’s words you deemed as truth when he made Japan out to be innocent in regards to nuclear weapons when it had every chance of surrending and the loss of life would have been much far greater had the US invaded Japan and not bombed it. And while at it you can explain Wright’s words as truth when he mocked missing victim Natalie Holloway in ways that were both racial and sexist.
Yeah, keep defending Wright there.
And let’s get real here. The US didn’t even exist when Africans first sold fellow Africans to Europeans. Slavery was already planted on American soil way before the founding fathers even existed. So you explain how Wright’s words can be accurate that the founders planted slavery in this country when they were not even born when slavery was actually planted? Or explain actions of many founders who had slavery eradicated in Northern states and NW territory. Or explain the part about founders agreeing to have slave trade banned by 1808 as compromise with Southern interests.
Wright telling the truth? His conspiracy theory that the US government invented AIDS to kill the black population? Or planted drugs in black community?
And you call criticism of what he said lynching.
Pitiful. It is like saying you are lynching those that disagree with you on this issue!
Freedom of speech is NOT freedom from criticism of others on that speech. You have the freedom to criticize those who criticized Wright. And people have freedom in turn to criticize Wright. Freedom of speech involves protection from the government.
I am no big fan of McCain. But let’s get real here. You throw all sorts of attacks on him for DOING HIS JOB in wartime (and yes, I am Vietnamese).
According to your logic, EVERY WAR any nation ever engaged in is terrorism.
Let’s not ignore some facts here: Africans and Islamic forces are still engaged in slave trade and still enslaving others.
But we don’t hear that from Wright, do we? I wonder why.
Maybe because it ruined his narrative of how history is about “rich white people” keeping “poor black men” down. Or maybe it is his hypocrisy since he is so aligned with Islamic hate groups like Nation of Islam and Hamas.
LikeLike
And before you claim I am defending the actions of the US where it is wrong, I am not. If Wright had sticked to just the objective facts like sins of America like slavery, segregation, Jim Crow law, lynchings, etc., I would have no problem. America does have an ugly past. But Wright chose to spout his antisemitic, anti-Italian, anti-white comments in ways that are destructive. And his humping acts in his role of pastor does not help either. And he chose to make things up, fudge facts, and in case of Middle East conflict, call evil (terrorist groups) good and good (Israel which has been trying to fight for its existence since it was founded) evil.
Heck, many conservatives, who find Wright offensive, are OPPOSED to many of the wars the US have been in recently, be it in Vietnam or in Iraq.
There goes your bogus claim that the only people criticizing Wright are blind to the sins of America.
LikeLike
The term for conservatives who opposed aggressive US militarism like against Iraq btw is paleo-conservatives.
LikeLike
Speaking of rhetorical flourish …
Are you a self-hating Vietnamese?
LikeLike
Nice retort. Don’t have the historical facts- so call me a self-hating Vietnamese.
No, I am history decreed Vietnamese. So I know alot of things Wright said is plain rubbish and that he either does not know what he is talking about and hence should not in role of pastor pass out as if it is truth. Or he knows and still passes out as truth to inflame his congregation against whites, Jews, and God know who else. Which makes his actions even more appalling.
And one tidbit for you- the first amendment was check against the federal government. It does not say that if someone says something controversial, his free speech is violated when people call him on that.
And again, you call criticisms of what he said lynching?
LikeLike
Wow. That has got to be the stupidest rant I’ve read in a long time.
And nice going, assuming that the other commenter is Vietnamese. Stereotype or pre-judge much?
LikeLike
David,
Actually, he knew I am Vietnamse because I said so (and also because my name is common Vietnamese name).
But I agree with you otherwise though.
If anything, me being Vietnamese makes his words even worse since he is slurring me there, in ways that conservative blacks today are called “sell-outs” by liberals. Not that I am upset at him. More like pity. 🙂
LikeLike
Mark: You so often say the dumbest damned things, which throws everything that follows into a dubious light. Where did you ever get the idea that it was remotely controversial to say that Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t kill JFK? What fantasy land do you inhabit?
And then you get a reasonable, thoughtful response from somebody and you ask him if he is a self-hating Vietnamese. Why don’t you just lynch him and get it over with?
LikeLike
“I thought it odd that he would accept that a man like McCain would bomb his country. I’m not so forgiving of that as Thuyen is.”
That is because I know something about the military. We do as what we are told. Especially when it comes to bombings of other countries. It is no different from what militaries from other countries do.
And you assume Vietnamese think alike. Many of us Vietnamese are grateful to America for fighting the Communist threat. See what the Communists did to Vietnam and worse to Cambodia after the war.
Say what you want about what I wrote being a “rant.”
I proved a tons of things Wright said are factually inaccurate. Any decent student of history can tell you that as well.
It is one thing to call my post thoughtless and rant, but another thing to rebut it.
Care to rebut any of the points I made?
Wright is notoriously bad at either ancient or American history.
LikeLike
Well it’s been my experience that one must accept the official truth of the Warren Commission Report if one wants to operate in American media. Aren’t those of us who don’t accept it caught up in “conspiracy theories,” as if there is only one possible explanation?
Tell me the truth Ed – would you ever breach etiquette and write a column exposing your doubts?
The self-hating Vietnamese crack was meant to reflect back on Jews who are critical of Israel as being “self-hating Jews”. It was an off-hand remark that probably doesn’t set well. Ah well. I’ve said worse, but I thought it odd that he would accept a man like McCain who would bomb his country. I’m not so forgiving of that as Thuyen is.
Say what you want, Ed, I didn’t get “thoughtful” out of this.
By the way, I’ll say what should be obvious – if I wanted to wax patriotic, and say all kinds of false things about America, like how we’re trying to rescue the Iraqi people or how we attacked Vietnam to save it, how our eagle soars, how America is the greatest country that ever existed, no matter how unreasonable that might be, I would be accepted as normal. It is only when one speaks ill of America that one’s emotions are judged and the content of one’s thought condemned. The is an oppressive cone of silence over all of us – we must never speak ill of the motherland. It’s rigidly enforced in politics – look at Michelle Obama, no matter her personal experience, she has to be “really proud” all the time, or she’ll take a pounding. That’s oppressive thought control.
And the Reverend Wright broke the code. He spoke ill of America, he committed thought crime. That’s all that’s going on here.
LikeLike
And, no, I am not a big fan of McCain. He is better than either Hilary or Obama, but to me, that is not saying much. If I believe Alan Keyes is running or has any chance of winning, I would vote for him.
LikeLike
“By the way, I’ll say what should be obvious – if I wanted to wax patriotic, and say all kinds of false things about America, like how we’re trying to rescue the Iraqi people or how we attacked Vietnam to save it, how our eagle soars, how America is the greatest country that ever existed, no matter how unreasonable that might be, I would be accepted as normal. It is only when one speaks ill of America that one’s emotions are judged and the content of one’s thought condemned. The is an oppressive cone of silence over all of us – we must never speak ill of the motherland. It’s rigidly enforced in politics – look at Michelle Obama, no matter her personal experience, she has to be “really proud” all the time, or she’ll take a pounding. That’s oppressive thought control. And the Reverend Wright broke the code. He spoke ill of America, he committed thought crime. That’s all that’s going on here.”
Oppressive thought control? No more than when Imus, Falwell, Lott, or any not so PC talkers get hounded.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.
People from the right get hounded all the time, too. Some of them deserved it, too.
But I don’t see any of them play the card their free speech got violated.
Do you know why? Because it would look ridiculous.
People can say what they want here without governments coming down hard on them.
If you say those things in Nazi Germany, imperial Japan during WW2, or in Iraq under Hussein, you’re dead meat. Now, that is form of thought control.
I will tell you why people are patriotic here.
We are patriotic here because America for all its faults remain the only country in the world that has a standard from founding fathers we are trying to live up to and trying to correct itself throughout the course of its history.
We still have slave trades going in most of Africa and large parts of Asia. And guess what? Many of those countries or those involved don’t have the notions we have as standard from Constitution and Declaration that all men are created equal.
We live in a country where we can criticize the government freely without fear of retribution.
Our countries made a lot of mistakes and did some terrible things.
What country has not?
Our country has been willing to admit its mistakes of the past.
How many countries do that?
LikeLike
“And the Reverend Wright broke the code. He spoke ill of America, he committed thought crime. That’s all that’s going on here.”
Wrong. People also took offense to his slurrings of Italians. His insults of missing victim Natalie Holloway. His remarks about Israel being terrorist state and his church promoting antisemitic Hamas literature.
It is not so much he spoke ill of America. But that he make things up alot to do so. AIDs invented by US goverment? Drugs passed to blacks by America? Or his claim founders planted slavery in America when slavery predated founders there by centuries? Or his equating Jefferson with what he said about damning America, which btw is inaccurate and also misleading.
And the best part of playing race card when it comes to attacking America is try to use the gospels as case of crime done out of white on black racism. Nice.
LikeLike
Thuyen – when I first read your comments I was on my way out the door and put down my first and only thoughts. Now you are sounding better to me, so I’ll try to sound better too.
American politicians cannot speak evil of America or be critical of her motives for any of her activities, ever. Sure, they will talk about Iraq or Vietnam being a “mistake”, but our intentions are always good. You can never say we ahd bad intentions, even though that’s pretty much apparent. That’s thought control. People on the margins are free to speak their minds, but look at what is happening – Obama is remotely connected to a man who spoke his mind from the margins, and he is being pounded for it. His wife dared to admit that she was not “really proud” of America all of her life, and the right wing is having at her.
It is true that over here on the left we are very critical of right wingers like Jerry Falwell, but we are marginal and do not control the media as the right wing does. The fact that such extremists as Falwell are thought of as a normal part of our everyday discourse says a lot. Falwell was honored by virtually everyone on the right wing when he died, and only in passing over here on the margins did anyone question his true beliefs or the goodness of his heart.
In a free country with free speech. Reverend Wright woudl be able to speak his mind, and people would say “Hey, that’s interesting, but I disagree and here’s why…”. And then we debate, and the Reverend Wroght should be part of the debate, but he’s not. He’s left out. He’ll be on Bill Moyers tonight, and that will be the only time he’s been invited out to defend himself. Instead what we get is this hounding and pounding without people ever even reading all of what he wrote or knowing his background. It’s a noise machine meant to drown out thoughtful criticism.
Anyway, I welcome your thoughts and apologize if I was discourteous.
LikeLike
And Mr. Kemmeck, put up. I challenge you to direct me to the words of any mainstream journalist who has ever questioned the official findings of the Warren Commission. It’s just not done.
LikeLike
I agree Ed, I always stop reading after the grassy knoll theory comes out. I like Penn and Teller’s explanation of what happened to JFK.
LikeLike
“It is true that over here on the left we are very critical of right wingers like Jerry Falwell, but we are marginal and do not control the media as the right wing does. The fact that such extremists as Falwell are thought of as a normal part of our everyday discourse says a lot. Falwell was honored by virtually everyone on the right wing when he died, and only in passing over here on the margins did anyone question his true beliefs or the goodness of his heart.”
Everyone?
Surely, you jest. You mean maybe the Baptist wing of the evangelicals. Falwell belongs to the Baptist fundamnetalist POV. Not necessarily shared by evangelical Christians who are Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Anglicans.
And are you really kidding me about the ring wing controlling the media? Falwell gets raked over the coals on regular basis while he was alive by the media in general.
LikeLike
Thuyen, I’ve been debating Mark in email exchanges for quite some time, and have met him personally, and one thing I noticed quite a while ago that you may have by now picked up on…he tends to ignore facts he can’t refute, all the while becoming rabid in his attacks on any idea right of his stance. Just as an example of how far off the scale he is to the left, he claims Bill Clinton is a right winger. Goes to show you, my friend, that you are right to pity him rather than get upset at him. To put it in the common vernacular of the area in which I grew up, “he caint hepp it”. ‘Nuff said. (Hi Mark)
LikeLike
“In a free country with free speech. Reverend Wright woudl be able to speak his mind, and people would say “Hey, that’s interesting, but I disagree and here’s why…”. And then we debate, and the Reverend Wroght should be part of the debate, but he’s not.”
IN a free country, he can expressed his thoughts. But in a free country, others can expressed theirs, too.
If people say things you don’t like, guess what? You have as much right to criticize them for that as they have the right to criticize Wright.
The reason Wright is not part of debate is by his own choice. People have asked him to be interviewed. He refused and only went for one who would throw softball questions at him. Not much integrity there.
“He’s left out. He’ll be on Bill Moyers tonight, and that will be the only time he’s been invited out to defend himself.”
That is untrue. Wright tried to play victim card many times by claiming his life was threatened as excuse to cancel many appearances and chances to speak to defend himself.
“Instead what we get is this hounding and pounding without people ever even reading all of what he wrote or knowing his background. It’s a noise machine meant to drown out thoughtful criticism.”
First off, I don’t consider criticism that falsely accuses America of inventing AIDs and passing out drugs to kill blacks as thoughtful criticism. Those are flat out lies intended to inflame a segment of population (blakcs) against another segment of the population (whites). Secondly, it is not thoughtful criticism to claim every one of those who are against the US are victims of us. It might appeal to those whose hatred of the US runs so deep that they buy what he said as kool aid. But it lacks objectivity and understanding of history.
Thirdly, if you want to claim it is thought control, then you will have to be consistent.
The media would then by your logic be wrong to hound Imus out of his job. The media would be wrong to write negative articles many times against Falwell, Robertson, and so on. The media would be wrong to write negative articles agaisnt Trent Lott over a toast he made to Thurmond.
But since you want to talk about his background, he is into black liberation theolgy that wants to kill God if God does not submit to black value agenda, and sees white people as the enemy. It is pure racism to the core
It is not much different than white racism against blacks in the past that also twists theology to its own end.
And people have more than read what he said. His church material has been read. His church has to change its mission statement to cover up what church is about once Obama ran, to make it look racist. But people still caught it.
So your claim that all the people don’t understand Wright is untrue.
In fact, the media covered up Wright’s material for over a year while Obama made a name for himself.
A year ago, conservative bloggers, including black ones, have pointed out the racist overtones not only of Wright’s sermons, but also his church’s mission statement, and the church’s ties to Hamas, Libyan dictator, NOI, and other racist, antisemitic organizations.
LikeLike
I suggest you read some writings by Christian conservatives, before you assume Falwell is necessarily considered “normal” in many of his discourses. Ralph Reed’s Active Faith strongly criticized Falwell back when Bill Clinton became President for first time, for Falwell’s attacks on Clinton, that became outright personal and slanderous. He and Bill Bennett also spoke through the media that Falwell was wrong in his tactics to character assassinate. And in his book, Reed said that we are to love the sinner, but hate the sin, and if Clinton had blind spots that troubles even some liberals, it does not make him a worse sinner than Reed or Falwell or anyone else.
So, yes, Christian conservatives do criticize fellow Christian conservatives when they are out of line.
All you need to know is that Falwell APOLOGIZED for his words on several occasions.
LikeLike
“In a free country with free speech. Reverend Wright woudl be able to speak his mind, and people would say “Hey, that’s interesting, but I disagree and here’s why…”.”
Well, replace Wright’s name with that of a white supremacist. Would you now say the same as you are saying?
Free speech is not same as freedom from criticisms from many people.
Last I check, Wright still has like a ten million dollar home. He still can go anywhere he wants. He does not have to be afraid of government taking away his liberty.
To claim his free speech is violated because most people criticized him is to totally distort the essence of what free speech under the first amendment is about.
LikeLike
And let’s also be consistent here. If you going to say it is hounding to refer to Wright as extremist, then what is calling Falwell an extremist doing on your part?
LikeLike
Jim,
Blll Clinton a right-winger? ROFL
LikeLike
And Mark, apologies accepted.
LikeLike
Yes, I do maintain that if you take Clinton in total and weigh what he did in office, he accomplished more for the right than the left – in fact, you find him placed well to the right of Richard Nixon. I don’t say he is a flaming right winger – if he were in the Republican Party, he would come off as sort of a Arlen Spectre kind of guy – bright and thoughtful, but instincts definitely rightish.
That’s another debate. You put up a lot of stuff. Trahan even chimed in. I’m going to go to bed now, and in the morning maybe the welts will have recovered enough that I can blog some more. It’s been a rough week.
LikeLike
Well, as it turns out, I am up this evening and have time to answer some of the many comments you have made. I’ll do what I can – Trahan claims I ignore those points made that score a goal. I’ve never thought of him as having scored a goal – he’s a legend in his own mind.
You’re splitting hairs. From a leftist perspective, these people all vote for right wing politicians, en masse, like sheep. They may have fights among themselves over the number of angels on a pinhead, but from our viewpoint, they are one.
I’ve not seen it. They might admit he was controversial, but he was mainstream. He was Moral Majority, he brought us Reagan. He was not wingnut, from a media perspective. He got a lot of airtime.
Regarding right wing control of the media, it’s an ongoing debate. I maintain that the right wing controls, and allows just enough criticism from the left to be able to claim they are balanced. But thoughtful left wingers are excluded. Instead we get Allan Colmes.
I’ve not heard this. I’ve not heard that Fox has asked him on, or CNN – I have seen excerpts from his sermon in continuous loop, and nothing more.
Again, I’ve not heard this. It has a rumor-feel about it. Wright is soft-spoken but comes from a time when blacks were hit hard and has many resentments. He does a good interview. I’d be surprised if he let one go by.
There you have it. You made my point. If you criticize America, you hate America. You cannot, you will not discuss details, and only deal in wild accusation – you deliberately drown out thoughtful debate. Yes, there are many victims of the US, and the US has never apologized to one of them. I said that, therefore I hate America. Good line of reasoning.
You’re bringing in extraneous material that I am not familiar with, and have to accept you at your word.
There is a part of the black community, older, that is full of resentment over past treatment. It’s hard to heal old wounds. I accept them for what they are, and so does Obama.
So deal with it. Racism is real – black people feel it, taste it, touch it, while you analyze it as if it were an abstract painting. I’m understanding and accepting of it all, and think the reverend’s criticisms of American foreign policy were dead on. I guess I hate America.
It is noted here for posterity that the only racism that you are concerned about is black towards white, and that you have ignore every other aspect.
Enough. Bed Time.
LikeLike
“So deal with it. Racism is real – black people feel it, taste it, touch it, while you analyze it as if it were an abstract painting.”
And so is black racism against others. His words about Italians, Jews, and Natalie Holloway revealed his racism against other races. His words about white people as those who keep poor black men down, not just in America, but using Bible to support, that is racism. To him, his theology is all about black men vs white men. His idol James Cone defines that theology in those terms and he follows him there!
I’m understanding and accepting of it all, and think the reverend’s criticisms of American foreign policy were dead on. I guess I hate America.
LikeLike
“I’ve not heard this. I’ve not heard that Fox has asked him on, or CNN – I have seen excerpts from his sermon in continuous loop, and nothing more.”
I have plenty of times. Wright simply refused to come on. O’reilly asked him plenty of times to come on, but Wright preferred to attack him in a funeral eulogy no less.
“You’re splitting hairs. From a leftist perspective, these people all vote for right wing politicians, en masse, like sheep. They may have fights among themselves over the number of angels on a pinhead, but from our viewpoint, they are one.”
First off most Republicans are NOT right-wingers. Is everyone to the right of you is right-winger? No wonder, you can justify claiming Clinton is right-winger like you do. Secondly, from your viewpoint type of statement is like me saying lumping Clinton, you, Wright, and all the others. Given your statements on Clinton, I doubt you like being lumped with him. Thirdly, you assume from a distance that Falwell never gets criticized by fellow Christian conservatives. Fourthly, there is a lot of times the media do criticize Falwell. You have much less of an argument to say Falwell never gets criticized, then you do saying you never heard people asked Wright to come on air. At least with Wright, his case just occurred this year. Falwell has been criticized for years.
LikeLike
“It is noted here for posterity that the only racism that you are concerned about is black towards white, and that you have ignore every other aspect.”
In other words, try to shift the debate. You made the claim those who critcize Wright knows nothing about context of what he said, his messages in general, and his POV. I totally rebut that so rather than deal with it you accuse me of ignoring racism of whites on blacks and other things.
That is also untrue as well.
Let me quote myself earlier in this debate with you:
” And before you claim I am defending the actions of the US where it is wrong, I am not. If Wright had sticked to just the objective facts like sins of America like slavery, segregation, Jim Crow law, lynchings, etc., I would have no problem. America does have an ugly past.”
Care to take back that asinine accusation you make against me?
LikeLike
“There is a part of the black community, older, that is full of resentment over past treatment. It’s hard to heal old wounds. I accept them for what they are, and so does Obama.”
One thing to have resentments. It is another thing to use pulpit to continue those resentments.
“Again, I’ve not heard this. It has a rumor-feel about it. Wright is soft-spoken but comes from a time when blacks were hit hard and has many resentments. He does a good interview. I’d be surprised if he let one go by.”
Rumour feel?
You need to watch more news than just every liberal pundit.
LikeLike
http://media.www.tcudailyskiff.com/media/storage/paper792/news/2008/03/27/News/Wright.Cites.media.Frenzy.Security.Issues.For.NoShow-3286186.shtml
Five days before TCU moved an appearance by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright off campus for safety reasons, his Chicago church received a bomb threat, Chicago police said. But TCU officials said that event didn’t weigh on the decision to not host the pastor.
Wright, whose sound bites have stirred controversy after being aired repeatedly on national TV in past weeks, canceled three appearances in Dallas scheduled for this weekend. Two of those events were scheduled to be held on TCU’s campus but were moved by the university March 19 because of security concerns.
LikeLike
“There you have it. You made my point. If you criticize America, you hate America. You cannot, you will not discuss details, and only deal in wild accusation – you deliberately drown out thoughtful debate. Yes, there are many victims of the US, and the US has never apologized to one of them. I said that, therefore I hate America. Good line of reasoning.”
More untrue accusations. I already pointed America’s sinful pasts. For the record, I am also a Civil War buff, so I know all about slavery. And I also know the same rhetorics used to justify slavery was also used to justify segregation. So nice try there.
I was pointing out to irrational criticisms of America to where every conflict it involves in is its fault. Wright basically wants to blame America for Pearl Harbor, too, and also has America as evil for bombing Japan when those two were going at it, and America did not want to lose lives of its soldiers and kill off population of Japan so it tried to get Japan to surrender and did give it chances to surrender before dropping the A-bomb. I pointed that out earlier.
So you accusing me of not discussing the details is a lie. In fact, you did not interact with ANYTHING I wrote above that pointed out where Wright made UNTRUE statements. So nice try at making wild accusations. Try reading my first like three posts here first where I went into details.
“You’re bringing in extraneous material that I am not familiar with, and have to accept you at your word.”
You never heard of what happened to Lott, Imus, etc., for when they said things the media don’t like?
I see why you want to claim Wright is victim of first amendment rights by the media and I can see why now you want to claim media as controlled by right-wing. You don’t pay attention when the media takes down alot of right-wingers and anyone else who is not PC in the past, be it in politics, sports, or whatever.
LikeLike
“Regarding right wing control of the media, it’s an ongoing debate. I maintain that the right wing controls, and allows just enough criticism from the left to be able to claim they are balanced. But thoughtful left wingers are excluded. Instead we get Allan Colmes.”
Sorry, but FOX news is not only news station. There is MSNBC, and many there, except for maybe Joe Scarborough, tend to think Wright is treated unfairly. And CNN is right-wing as well? The only one there who is right-wing is Glenn Beck.
LikeLike
And America never apologized for some of its sins of the past?
Examples that show you are wrong there:
http://redblueamerica.com/topic/2008-03-27/florida-apologies-slavery-should-united-states-2056
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/nj/20080108_N_J__offers_an_apology_for_slavery.html
LikeLike
More proof that your claim that America has never apologized is not true:
http://www.lawbuzz.com/tyranny/snow_falling/america_appologizes.htm
JAPANESE-AMERICAN INTERNMENT
CHAPTER 13 – AMERICA APOLOGIZES TO HER CITIZENS
At the time Japanese-Americans were “relocated” to various camps in the west, even senior government officials were concerned about what the United States was doing. Milton Eisenhower, Dwight’s younger brother, was head of the War Relocation Authority until distress over the whole process caused him to resign. He could no longer sleep at night.
After the war was over, Americans who had been dislodged from their homes and businesses were allowed to make claims for compensation. But Executive Order 9066 remained on the books for another 31 years.
On February 19, 1976 President Gerald Ford issued Proclamation 4417 which terminated Executive Order 9066. It was 34 years to the day that the infamous Order had been issued. Calling February 19, 1942 “a sad day in American history” and the action uprooting over 100,000 American citizens a “setback to fundamental American principles,” the President said:
We now know what we should have known then–not only was that evacuation wrong, but Japanese-Americans were and are loyal Americans. …I…do hereby proclaim that all authority conferred by Executive Order 9066 terminated upon the issuance of Proclamation 2714, which formally proclaimed the cessation of hostilities of World War II on December 31, 1946.
Years later, in October of 1990, President George Bush sent letters to citizens whose lives had been uprooted by the relocation camps:
A monetary sum and words alone cannot restore lost years or erase painful memories; neither can they fully convey our Nation’s resolve to rectify injustice and to uphold the rights of individuals. We can never fully right the wrongs of the past. But we can take a clear stand for justice and recognize that serious injustices were done to Japanese Americans during World War II.
In enacting a law calling for restitution and offering a sincere apology, your fellow Americans have, in a very real sense, renewed their traditional commitment to the ideals of freedom, equality, and justice. You and your family have our best wishes for the future.
LikeLike
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/13/AR2005061301720.html
The U.S. Senate last night approved a resolution apologizing for its failure to enact federal anti-lynching legislation decades ago, marking the first time the body has apologized for the nation’s treatment of African Americans.
One-hundred and five years after the first anti-lynching bill was proposed by a black congressman, senators approved by a voice vote Resolution 39, which called for the lawmakers to apologize to lynching victims, survivors and their descendants, several of whom watched from the gallery.
LikeLike
“You cannot, you will not discuss details, and only deal in wild accusation – you deliberately drown out thoughtful debate.”
Exactly what you do when you make the claim that Wright’s freedom of speech is denied and he is getting lynched simply because what is seen by many as hate speech is criticized. Words like lynchings of Wright as you make it out to be is exactly an attempt to drown out thoughtful debate.
At least, as I pointed out, I went into details where Wright got it wrong on history, especially in first few posts here, none of which you took time to even make an attempt at rebuttal.
LikeLike
More examples of criticism the likes of Falwell (in my mind many times Falwell DESERVES to be criticized) gets from liberal media:
http://newsbusters.org/node/12784
Dan Rather: “One issue that is sure to come up in the fall campaign that has already surfaced is Bush cozying up to the self-described religious right, including the Reverends Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.”
Richard Schlesinger: “….Pollsters and pundits and politicians like to describe the primary season as a search for the soul of a party. Now the question is: Did George Bush sell his soul to the wrong group?” — March 13 CBS Evening News.
“Goldwater was always honest, even when honesty didn’t pay. My appreciation of Goldwater came in his and my later years when he called on Nixon to resign and when he said that Reagan was either a liar or incompetent for not knowing about Iran-Contra. He told the party to let abortion alone and to quote ‘boot Jerry Falwell in the ass,’ closed quote. He summed up gays in the military brilliantly. ‘You don’t have to be straight to shoot straight.’ You don’t get more honest than that.”– Time’s Margaret Carlson, May 30 CNN Capital Gang.
“Preachers often mix religion and politics. In recent years, this temptation has arisen most prominently on the right, you know — Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and those guys with celestial phones to God’s ear. Back in 1992, after the hard-shell Republican convention in Houston, and humiliating defeat of President Bush, it looked like the religious right’s influence might be waning. Not so…These righteous rightists are sure to be a major force in the fall election…Voters are blessed with common sense and free will. They customarily reject extremes of either the left, or the right.” — Former ABC Washington Bureau Chief George Watson in a commentary on the overnight newscast World News Now, June 23.
LikeLike
“You’re bringing in extraneous material that I am not familiar with, and have to accept you at your word.”
No relevent points. The fact that the media has consistent criticized the likes of Falwell, and has come down hard on the likes of Imus, Lott, etc., over the years, blows holes in your arguments the media is controlled by the right and would go after someone like Wright for what he said.
And you also rather than deal with my point that for a year since campaign began, media ignored Obama’s involvement with Wright, when many conservative sites pointed out Wright’s racist church activities, you resort to falsely accusing me of for as you say “posterior” that I only care when it is black on white crime (when anyone reading my posts, even here, know that claim is untrue).
If you don’t know these things, I sugget a bit more research before you make all these claims like no one but Wright gets criticized or that the media would never go after someone that is on right. Or your claims that people don’t know what Wright’s messages and church are all about when criticizing Wright. Or your claims that nothing Wright said is untrue. A decent student of history can easily point out errors in his claims about Romans/Italians, founding fathers especially what Jefferson said about God, America, and slavery, etc. Or your claims America has never apologized for past sins. Or your claims Vietnamese as a whole hates America for the Vietnam War (when the first country Vietnamese wanting to flee Communist regime would be AMERICA!).
LikeLike
That’s all very interesting – out of the mass of punditry that has passed before our eyes, you have cherry-picked a few snippets and are using it to paint broad brush. And I’m curious about the people selected – Dan Rather, for example, was not free to speak freely until recently. Is the snippet from him recent or old? Just curious.
But I’m losing track of the debate here. What point are you trying to make? That Falwell was hounded by the left wing media? Not hardly. He was a “regular pundit”, as the article you linked pointed out. He was on all the cable shows on a regular basis. Tell me what politician has ever been criticized for embracing him? They went to him on a regular basis for his favors. Did anything like the media circus surrounding Wright ever occur? Anything remotely resembling it?
I’ll try to stick to the larger point I was making here – Barack Obama will be killed and grilled for sitting in the Church of a man who made some emotional, but largely defensible comments in an emotional fashion, Because the comments were critical of America, people have gone wild about it. Had the pastor done a wildly emotional sermon about how much he loved America, nothing would have happened. So it’s not about emotionalism for sure, and has to be about content. But we are never allowed to hear the content – only the emotionalism.
So I thought it would be nice is someone actually put up the content. I did – largely I agree with it, though you must remember it was a Sunday sermon, and black churches are not the place for non-impassioned reason, anymore than Falwell’s was.
I await the day that Reverend Wright becomes a “regular pundit” on American TV. Then you will have comparable treatment between him and Falwell.
LikeLike
Good grief! I responded to your last post, but now realize that there are like fourteen more before that. I’m not ignoring all of that, but will pick and choose, you understand, as I do not want to devote all my time to this.
I said America has never apologized to its victims. You brought out the fact that we did apologize to the Japanese we interred during World War II. You are correct. One time we did apologize. Now, you are Vietnamese – American killed over three million of your fellows in that awful war – has American ever apologized? To Iraqis? Panamanians? Sudanese? Iranians? Nicaraguans? Grenadans?
No, of course – but it’s not just no. Americans have the attitude that we were doing all of these people a favor when we attacked them, and that they should be grateful. Vietnam was especially telling – after the war, and all the destruction we wrouoght on your homeland, we embargoed the place for 25 years. Far from apologizing, we twisted the knife.
Nagasaki, Hiroshima – there’s nothing on record to support your contention that those bombs were dropped to save American lives. That’s an assumption people make, but in the official record, people don’t talk about that. There’s no estimates of troop casualties from a land invasion that would justify these actions. That’s all made up.
Americans dropped the bombs on Japan to hasten the end of the war and prevent the Russians from entering the Asian theater. Joe Stalin had boots on the ground in eastern Europe, and was going to lay claim to real estate there. He had promised to enter the Asian war 180 days after the end of the European conflict. That time expired in August of 1945.
LikeLike
“Nagasaki, Hiroshima – there’s nothing on record to support your contention that those bombs were dropped to save American lives. That’s an assumption people make, but in the official record, people don’t talk about that. There’s no estimates of troop casualties from a land invasion that would justify these actions. That’s all made up.”
Not dropping atomic bombs would not save American lives? Nothing to support that? How many war means fighting, and fighting means killing? And being killed for that matter? Or the fact the hard lessons the American military learned that Japanese troops would rather commit suicide than surrender hence all thse planes flying into American forces?
LikeLike
“No, of course – but it’s not just no. Americans have the attitude that we were doing all of these people a favor when we attacked them, and that they should be grateful. Vietnam was especially telling – after the war, and all the destruction we wrouoght on your homeland, we embargoed the place for 25 years. Far from apologizing, we twisted the knife.”
You don’t speak for many Vietnamese people in general. Not even close there.
See this link for example:
http://www.vietquoc.com/0010ART.HTM
In this case, it is not Americans telling Vietnamese people to be grateful. We are GRATEFUL on our own.
But even if the war is so evil and unjust as you claim, take the beef up with the governments.
You are bashing soldiers like McCain simply for doing their soldierly duties that every other soldier from other nations including Vietnam would have done.
“I said America has never apologized to its victims. You brought out the fact that we did apologize to the Japanese we interred during World War II. You are correct. One time we did apologize.”
And you ignore the times America did apologized for slavery and lynchings as well.
But let’s see here- America was also wrong in Mexican War and Spanish-American war. I don’t deny that. It conquered lands in wars that it was wrong on. But guess what? It is the ONLY COUNTRY I know that conqured lands of other nations then PAY millions of dollars to those lands that it took at ends of those wars when it could have taken the mindset it conquered those lands, so it does not have to pay anything.
What other nations, even when in the wrong, do that?
“Now, you are Vietnamese – American killed over three million of your fellows in that awful war – has American ever apologized? To Iraqis? Panamanians? Sudanese? Iranians? Nicaraguans? Grenadans?”
And Communists didn’t kill anybody in Vietnam War, right? The war only occurred because America got involved in it? Oh please. It was a civil war with or without American involvement. If there was a war that deserved title war of northen aggression, that was it.
Wars exist. Americans saw Communism as a threat. Many Vietnamese also saw Communism as a threat. Do the math.
Iranians? Sudanese? Iraqis? Nations and sponsors of terrorism and worst of human rights violations? Surely, you jest.
LikeLike
“I await the day that Reverend Wright becomes a “regular pundit” on American TV. Then you will have comparable treatment between him and Falwell.”
I await the day when he does not hide behind his church to spew his hate and stop making excuses so he can blow off appearances. Or stop refusing to be interviewed by those who he knows won’t throw him softballs for questions.
Falwell is not afraid to face a hostile media. Wright time and time again refused to face a hostile media but instead chose one interview with someone he knew would not throw challenging questions at him.
And Falwell also had to apologized for his post-9/11 remarks because of all the criticisms he took, from both left-wingers and right-wingers alike.
“But I’m losing track of the debate here. What point are you trying to make? That Falwell was hounded by the left wing media? Not hardly. He was a “regular pundit”, as the article you linked pointed out. He was on all the cable shows on a regular basis. Tell me what politician has ever been criticized for embracing him? They went to him on a regular basis for his favors. Did anything like the media circus surrounding Wright ever occur? Anything remotely resembling it?”
The difference is none of the politicians claim Falwell as a pastor. None of them have him for 20 years as spiritual advisor. Nor have him married them and baptized their kids.
And you claim I took snippets? I took many examples of what I have seen cricitism of Falwell from the media (and there is much more but it is redundant to post the same types of criticisms over and over again). Regardless, those snippets say Falwell is way out there, according to the very media you say see him as mainstream. More proof you don’t want to deal with what is actually stated.
Let’s not even count the times conservatives like Reed and Bennett have critiicized Falwell. Keep telling yourself that the media don’t criticize Falwell at all. He is seen as a loon by the media in general. The fact that they have on is to paint him in a way to make any politcian who supports him look bad!
And so you can claim Falwell is invited by the media for interviews as proof he is mainstream and as proof media is right-wing?
By your logic then the media is left-wing and sees reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as mainstream since they are on so often as well. Want to go there?
And you sure ignore MSNBC mentioning repeatedly about Falwell’s antics and not Wright’s after 9/11.
So you want to keep claiming the media in general is anti-Wright?
If it is then it would not have waited so long to come up with info about him when conservatives knew all along about him!
“Because the comments were critical of America, people have gone wild about it.”
You are not listening here why people are mad. It is not just hatred of America that Wright comes across. It is the racism he spewed at different groups of people, not just whites. Would your feelings be different if he started spewing racism against Asians?
You keep trying to make it is only about issue of patriotism. It is about alot of issues. It is about how can Obama claim to be a uniter when he goes to a church that promotes anything but unity. How can he say he transcends race when he is guided by a spiritual advisor who preaches racial seperation.
And it is about racism that rears its ugly head in some black churches. Racism not just against whites either, as you want to make it to be about.
LikeLike
And let’s get real here- I know there are blacks that are offended by claims liberals make that Wright’s church is reflective of black churches in general. Maybe, the far left black churches at best.
LikeLike
And what nation has ever apologized to another nation for wrongs of the past? You want to hold America up to a standard so you can say how bad and evil it is, as excuse to say it is a horrible nation. Would you say that about all the other countries you make out as victims? Has any of the Middle East and other Islamic nations you speak for as victims of US ever apologize for their actions in sponsoring terrorism that kill civilians, not just US ones, for decades?
LikeLike
Man! You sure lit his fuse.
LikeLike
Hard-hitting debates lit my fuse. lol
LikeLike
OK, enough said. Please?
LikeLike
I ran across some very good research on Hiroshima, and I’ll put up something soon, Thuyen. Your enthusiasm is welcome here at this moribund site, but I cannot keep up with you.
On Hiroshima, it’s two questions: 1) would the war have ended on its own without the bomb, and 2) did our leaders know that.
Answers: yes and yes. It’s contentious, but scholarly.
LikeLike
“On Hiroshima, it’s two questions: 1) would the war have ended on its own without the bomb, and 2) did our leaders know that.”
I didn’t disagree the war would have ended on its own without the bomb.
Yes or no? Would invading Japan to end the war require loss of American lives when those could have been avoided any other way?
LikeLike
The other question is how many cities American troops would have to go through and capture before Japan surrendered? How many lives of Japanese will that require before that happens?
LikeLike
That is the question. Scholars have been debating it now for 60+ years, and papers released tend to support the idea that the war was going to end, the bomb wasn’t necessary, and that American soldiers and Japanese civilians were not at great risk, and taht American leaders knew this.
More later.
LikeLike
Mark: You are probably better at googling than I am. I haven’t written a column on the JFK assassination, mostly because it seems like old hat, and I’m no specialist, but on Nov. 22, 2002 (too old for electronic archives), we ran my story on a Roberts High School teacher who takes his senior-year class on a thorough tour of the whole JFK assassination, and has even taken classes to Dallas on several occasions. As he said in the story, after 10 years of teaching the class, he had only one student who accepted the findings of the Warren Commission.
True, it’s not as though I endorsed that belief personally, but I don’t think we heard from a soul about that story — it’s simply not terribly controversial to believe that the Warren Commission was either criminally inept or intentionally misleading. The trouble is determining who really did kill JFK and why. That question always lead to a muddle, which is a good description of Oliver Stone’s movie.
LikeLike
Yeah – Stone took it too far one way. He concluded that people who wanted us to go into Vietnam were blocked by JFK, who then killed him. But at the time of his death only 100 or so Americans had died over there, and it was not really on the radar screen. Cuba was.
I’ve read many books on the subject, but one, Ultimate Sacrifice, by Waldron and Hartmann, blames it on the mob, but with an interesting twist. they say that mobsters like Giancani and Trafficante and Hoffa and others, who were being pursued with vigah by RFK, also knew about and had infiltrated US plans to invade Cuba on or around 12/1/63. Oswald worked for US intelligence on a very low level, and was being set up as the patsy for Castro’s assassin, a high-level Cuban official they don’t name. These mobsters, who also tried to take out JFK in Chicago and Tampa (each time having an Oswald-like patsy ready to take the fall), finally succeeding in Dallas by using the CIA’s own plan. In the aftermath, the US government was forced into a cover up for fear of exposing the Cuban invasion plans, CIA involvement with the mob in going after Castro, monumental Secret Service ineptitude, and fear of jeopardizing US-Soviet relations (Oswald had been to Russia), which could have led to deadly consequences.
Anyway, after the cover-up, inquiries stopped, offialdom and the media agreed to go along with it, and the lid has been kept on all these years.
That’s as good an explanation as I’ve ever heard, so I’ll go with it until someone better comes along. It allows for ineptitude and intrigue both. But I love a good murder mystery, and I’ll read the next book that comes out too.
LikeLike
One thing we shouldn’t accept as fact is the mafia connections of JFK. If the assination was a conspiracy it would have come from within the political structure of Washington. J. Edgar Hoover would have been well aware of any mafia connections and Kennedy would never have been elected in the first place. Most likely scenario would have been a right wing and Southern Democrat joint venture. The most visible change in Politics after the assination was the takeover and assimilation of Southern Democrats into the GOP. That power structure remains today and is being seriously challenged by the Obama factions. The ultimate insult to the weakened right wingers would be to elect a black. Do not underestimate these people, they will use all their resources to destroy their adversaries. Racism has been the main tool used by these opportunists, to divide and loot America for generations. Don’t fall for it this time.
LikeLike
As for “speaking truth to power,” I was just reading Hitchens today and he said, “Chomsky has dryly reminded us that power often knows the truth well enough.”
LikeLike
I’ve heard him say that, and he makes a good point. What I see, however, is that we seldom give voice to truth, period, so that power is never troubled to have to listen to it.
Example: McCain “hinted” today that Iraq was about oil. Can you imagine that? Something so painfully obvious, and anyone who says it is relegated to the margins. That’s what the phrase is about.
LikeLike