Obama's spiritual advisor

[Fugu]

Yes, except in the case of Bush/Cheney and now McCain the conservative label has been taken over by a bunch of reactionary, close-minded, freedom-limiting, and religious zealots. McCain, in 2000, impressed me as someone who would work together with people from the other side. With his embrace of Bush policies domestically and internationally, all he has done has cemented in my mind that the only thing he will do is repudiate Bush's stand on torture. McCain was once a moderate-leaning Republican; he is now a full-fledged Bushite.

I think Bush is generally less "conservative" than Reagan. I know you hate the war in Iraq, but that doesn't make every one who supported it a reactionary, close-minded whatever.

Hillary voted to go to war in Iraq. So did lots of other Dems. They saw all the intelligence that Bush saw. They didn't have to vote to go to war in Iraq if they thought there was not enough evidence of WMD or that it was for other reasons a bad idea.

Bush misled everyone as Powell used doctored intelligence to support the war in Iraq before Congress. However, regardless of the initial vote to go into Iraq, even some Republicans have decried the way Bush pushed his agenda in Iraq and 2/3 of the American public think the war in Iraq was wrong in the first place. Honestly, I have never in the history of the US seen a President rush to war as quickly as Bush did.

Also, Bush is far more conservative than Reagan ever was especially in terms of diplomacy. Bush is a blight on US foreign policy. Bush is a reactionary religious person who uses "crusade" and "mission accomplished" as words that only incite the moralistic crowd who sing "God bless America" at every sports program.

[Darryl]

Bush misled everyone as Powell used doctored intelligence to support the war in Iraq before Congress. However, regardless of the initial vote to go into Iraq, even some Republicans have decried the way Bush pushed his agenda in Iraq and 2/3 of the American public think the war in Iraq was wrong in the first place. Honestly, I have never in the history of the US seen a President rush to war as quickly as Bush did.

Also, Bush is far more conservative than Reagan ever was especially in terms of diplomacy. Bush is a blight on US foreign policy. Bush is a reactionary religious person who uses "crusade" and "mission accomplished" as words that only incite the moralistic crowd who sing "God bless America" at every sports program.

Oh he we go again. Or should I say "there you go again?"

It would be interesting to see how you would define conservatism absent your obvious contempt for religious people. Our enemies, the ones with whom you wish to sit and chat, are far, far more religious than our president ever will be.

[Agnes Selby]

Perhaps I am naive and I definitely do not understand Americans or American politics

You're right, you don't.

--------------

So what are you saying, Fugu? Is belittling your own country
a particular American characteristic? Is it particularly patriotic to say that AIDS injections were given to Black men? Does "God damn America"
have a particular resonance with you? Is the accusation of 9/11
levelled at America's Government a correct assumption? Need I say more?

No, I do not understand those Americans who level such
accusations at the own country for the enjoyment of their enemies.
I am shocked. The Americans I knew while living in America were
different kind of people. Has my 20 year absence from the USA
changed it's people?

------------------------

You are naive because you have the same typically conservative view that Obama (or any Democrat) will themselves naively sell-out American interests by having little tea parties. Your thinking is naive because you seem to think diplomacy is simply a matter of showing who has the biggest guns. It is time to sit down with your enemies and have frank discussions. This isn't Chamberlain redux no matter how Barry, you, and others would like to paint it. Bush wouldn't ever think to sit down with his enemies and neither will McCain.

So, you want to be taken seriously? Get rid of the "little tea party" comments and make an effort to listen to Obama first as a man who wants to focus on the problems in America (which if dealt would have been for more important than going illegally into another country to depose a tyrant). Most Democrats I know viewed Afghanistan as the true threat and had Bush stayed that course he would have had the whole country (and the world) behind him. As it is, all he has done is escalate the cycle of hatred and increased the number of terrorists in the world who would just love to inflict as much pain on the US as possible.

------------------

My dear Fugu, what ultimately happens to America is a problem the American voter must solve. It should be of no concern to an Australian citizen. However, America, as today's super-power, has an influence on the rest of the world. As Australia is an ally of America, what happens to your Empire is of interest to us Australians. Please do not forget that Australian soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq as your allies.
If your "Empire" crumbles, it will influence our little world
here in Australia. Just imagine this, when Wall Street sneezes, we can
hear it all the way to Australia!

To be honest, dear Fugu I could not care less whether you take my opinions seriously or not. If you approve of Obama's future "tea parties"
well and good. If you think that Obama himself as President of the USA will personally sit down to have a discussion with the Taliban, you will be sorely disappointed. He will send his representative, and this is exactly how discussions have been conducted up to this very moment. I do recall, however vaguelly, a personal visit Mr. Bush paid to the Middle East just recently.

The greatest danger Obama faces is from people like yourself. Once
he is elected President, you and your kind will expect him to
fix the world's problems according to American desires. Now you will say, No!!! Obama would seek a compromise. Have a good look at the countries you would wish your new leader to compromise with, Fugu! Tell me what compromise could Obama reach with these nations? A compromise is - I give a little and you give a little. What would you like Obama to GIVE.

The Black population, no doubt, has unrealistic desires no human being could ever fulfil during a presidential term.

So good luck, Fugu and greetings all the
way from Australia.

Agnes.
-----------------

[greymouse]

First of all, I see a lot of people here who say Obama has a record as a knee-jerk liberal. I'll bet most of those who parrot this stuff that the RW commentators have spewed out would be hard pressed to give a single instance of a piece of legislation he has sponsored which demonstrates this. The fact is that when he was in the Illinois Senate, he headed a successful effort to get Illinois's death penalty system back on track so that it would be fair and equitable, and preserve the rights of defendants, after the Republican governor had commuted the sentence of everyone on Death Row to life, because he had had to release 13 Death Row inmates who had been proven innocent. That's not knee jerk liberalism, which calls for abolishing the death penalty.

During his whole public life, in his two books, in the Illinois legislature, in his keynote address at the 2004 DEM Convention, and in this presidential campaign, Barack Obama has always looked at the glass half-full part of white America. And we have been glad he did. But somehow, people are unwilling to apply the Golden Rule, and keep insisting that he look on Rev. Jeremiah A Wright as the glass half-empty.

Repeat after me:

Do unto others, including Jeremiah Wright, as you would have others do unto you, and as Barack Obama has always done unto everyone.

Keep repeating it until you believe it, even if it takes the rest of the year.

Posted on March 18, 2008, the 308th day before the end of the Cheney Administration. RebLem

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

I was referring to articles like this. I've never gone through his voting record, but having the most liberal voting record in the Senate in 2007, which has been reported in many places, hardly strikes me as supporting his "moderate", "cross the isle" speeches.

He's gifted, but still a snake oil salesman. Still, he's a good guy, who would be so much better forn the country in office than the corrupt devisive Hillary that it's no contest. Just don't believe for a minute that he will bring real "change." He won't get policy 1 passed.

I disagree that he won't get policy 1 passed. There's a very realistic chance that Sen. Obama could win by a solid margin and have a very friendly Congress. If he is coordinated during the honeymoon period with the party (with whom he still has good relations overall), he can ram a whole lot of bills down the pipe. Eventually this will subside as Congress gets an attitude; especially if there's a big recession or he botches the war and the Republicans get their act together 1994-style. But Obama can get stuff passed, and I don't think he'll be a slacker.

As regards reaching across the aisle, sure he's a very liberal Democrat. But he's done it already. Take for instance the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act that he co-sponsored with Coburn. That's arguably more substantive and useful than anything Clinton has accomplished in the last 7 years.

[JackC]

First of all, I see a lot of people here who say Obama has a record as a knee-jerk liberal. I'll bet most of those who parrot this stuff that the RW commentators have spewed out would be hard pressed to give a single instance of a piece of legislation he has sponsored which demonstrates this. The fact is that when he was in the Illinois Senate, he headed a successful effort to get Illinois's death penalty system back on track so that it would be fair and equitable, and preserve the rights of defendants, after the Republican governor had commuted the sentence of everyone on Death Row to life, because he had had to release 13 Death Row inmates who had been proven innocent. That's not knee jerk liberalism, which calls for abolishing the death penalty.

During his whole public life, in his two books, in the Illinois legislature, in his keynote address at the 2004 DEM Convention, and in this presidential campaign, Barack Obama has always looked at the glass half-full part of white America. And we have been glad he did. But somehow, people are unwilling to apply the Golden Rule, and keep insisting that he look on Rev. Jeremiah A Wright as the glass half-empty.

Repeat after me:

Do unto others, including Jeremiah Wright, as you would have others do unto you, and as Barack Obama has always done unto everyone.

Keep repeating it until you believe it, even if it takes the rest of the year.

Posted on March 18, 2008, the 308th day before the end of the Cheney Administration. RebLem

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

I was referring to articles like this. I've never gone through his voting record, but having the most liberal voting record in the Senate in 2007, which has been reported in many places, hardly strikes me as supporting his "moderate", "cross the isle" speeches.

He's gifted, but still a snake oil salesman. Still, he's a good guy, who would be so much better forn the country in office than the corrupt devisive Hillary that it's no contest. Just don't believe for a minute that he will bring real "change." He won't get policy 1 passed.

I disagree that he won't get policy 1 passed. There's a very realistic chance that Sen. Obama could win by a solid margin and have a very friendly Congress. If he is coordinated during the honeymoon period with the party (with whom he still has good relations overall), he can ram a whole lot of bills down the pipe. Eventually this will subside as Congress gets an attitude; especially if there's a big recession or he botches the war and the Republicans get their act together 1994-style. But Obama can get stuff passed, and I don't think he'll be a slacker.

As regards reaching across the aisle, sure he's a very liberal Democrat. But he's done it already. Take for instance the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act that he co-sponsored with Coburn. That's arguably more substantive and useful than anything Clinton has accomplished in the last 7 years.

Maybe you're right, if he gets big majorities in both houses of Congress. But THAT is hardly a "reach across the isle" let's "work together" approach. It would result in bitter partisan feuds of the type he is saying he wants to avoid.

[Fugu]

Bush misled everyone as Powell used doctored intelligence to support the war in Iraq before Congress. However, regardless of the initial vote to go into Iraq, even some Republicans have decried the way Bush pushed his agenda in Iraq and 2/3 of the American public think the war in Iraq was wrong in the first place. Honestly, I have never in the history of the US seen a President rush to war as quickly as Bush did.

Also, Bush is far more conservative than Reagan ever was especially in terms of diplomacy. Bush is a blight on US foreign policy. Bush is a reactionary religious person who uses "crusade" and "mission accomplished" as words that only incite the moralistic crowd who sing "God bless America" at every sports program.

Oh he we go again. Or should I say "there you go again?"

It would be interesting to see how you would define conservatism absent your obvious contempt for religious people. Our enemies, the ones with whom you wish to sit and chat, are far, far more religious than our president ever will be.

My contempt is for extremism in all forms--Islamic extremism, Jewish extremism, fundamentalist Christian extremism, etc. My religious beliefs are my own. My disgust is with those who used every opportunity to make this a matter of God's "blessing" on America as typified by the God Bless America crowd--you appear to be one of them.

[Fugu]

Perhaps I am naive and I definitely do not understand Americans or American politics

You're right, you don't.

--------------

So what are you saying, Fugu? Is belittling your own country
a particular American characteristic? Is it particularly patriotic to say that AIDS injections were given to Black men? Does "God damn America"
have a particular resonance with you? Is the accusation of 9/11
levelled at America's Government a correct assumption? Need I say more?

No, I do not understand those Americans who level such
accusations at the own country for the enjoyment of their enemies.
I am shocked. The Americans I knew while living in America were
different kind of people. Has my 20 year absence from the USA
changed it's people?

------------------------

You are naive because you have the same typically conservative view that Obama (or any Democrat) will themselves naively sell-out American interests by having little tea parties. Your thinking is naive because you seem to think diplomacy is simply a matter of showing who has the biggest guns. It is time to sit down with your enemies and have frank discussions. This isn't Chamberlain redux no matter how Barry, you, and others would like to paint it. Bush wouldn't ever think to sit down with his enemies and neither will McCain.

So, you want to be taken seriously? Get rid of the "little tea party" comments and make an effort to listen to Obama first as a man who wants to focus on the problems in America (which if dealt would have been for more important than going illegally into another country to depose a tyrant). Most Democrats I know viewed Afghanistan as the true threat and had Bush stayed that course he would have had the whole country (and the world) behind him. As it is, all he has done is escalate the cycle of hatred and increased the number of terrorists in the world who would just love to inflict as much pain on the US as possible.

------------------

My dear Fugu, what ultimately happens to America is a problem the American voter must solve. It should be of no concern to an Australian citizen. However, America, as today's super-power, has an influence on the rest of the world. As Australia is an ally of America, what happens to your Empire is of interest to us Australians. Please do not forget that Australian soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq as your allies.
If your "Empire" crumbles, it will influence our little world
here in Australia. Just imagine this, when Wall Street sneezes, we can
hear it all the way to Australia!

To be honest, dear Fugu I could not care less whether you take my opinions seriously or not. If you approve of Obama's future "tea parties"
well and good. If you think that Obama himself as President of the USA will personally sit down to have a discussion with the Taliban, you will be sorely disappointed. He will send his representative, and this is exactly how discussions have been conducted up to this very moment. I do recall, however vaguelly, a personal visit Mr. Bush paid to the Middle East just recently.

The greatest danger Obama faces is from people like yourself. Once
he is elected President, you and your kind will expect him to
fix the world's problems according to American desires. Now you will say, No!!! Obama would seek a compromise. Have a good look at the countries you would wish your new leader to compromise with, Fugu! Tell me what compromise could Obama reach with these nations? A compromise is - I give a little and you give a little. What would you like Obama to GIVE.

The Black population, no doubt, has unrealistic desires no human being could ever fulfil during a presidential term.

So good luck, Fugu and greetings all the
way from Australia.

Agnes.
-----------------

Obama never said he would sit down with the Taliban. I seem to recollect that there were some he would not sit down with and the Taliban was one of them. Compromise seems to be a dirty word for you. To me, it is a matter of working with those willing to discuss and reach consensus on the needs of that particular region. I don't expect Obama to fix the world's problems. However, I do expect the President not to make America into the pariah it has become on the world stage as Bush has. Bush has given rise to perhaps the complete and utter contempt other nations have toward the high-handed approach his administration has brought.

[greymouse]

Maybe you're right, if he gets big majorities in both houses of Congress. But THAT is hardly a "reach across the isle" let's "work together" approach. It would result in bitter partisan feuds of the type he is saying he wants to avoid.

Yeah, he talks a lot of good trash, haha, but in the end partisanship exists for a good reason and it will survive an Obama administration. Actually, one reason I like McCain (other than that he has always stood up for my beliefs) is that he'll keep a healthy gridlock in place. I'm not in the mood for a bunch of new programs and agencies.

As for the Wright controversy, I've taken the posts of RebLem, Obama's speech, and other appeals into account and feel he ought to be let off the hook. I was put off by the videos as an uptight white dude too, but ... I have close friends and family who've said pretty dumb stuff, and I would never publicly lash them. I've said dumb things that I'm lucky aren't available on DVD. Huckabee made the point on MSNBC that you have to cut some slack for people who've lived through harsh discrimination - it wasn't so long ago that this country was an unjust place. I also appreciate that you don't throw the guy who brought you to Jesus under the bus. That just isn't right and it would make me feel less of him.

[Fugu]

Obama is so right on this:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080319/pl_ ... olitics_dc

[Barry]

The man misspoke. I doubt even a majority of Democrats think Obama has a firmer grasp of foreign and national security policy than McCain does.

[Fugu]

The man misspoke. I doubt even a majority of Democrats think Obama has a firmer grasp of foreign and national security policy than McCain does.

Yep, and I'm sure Bush never meant to say "crusade" or "mission accomplished" either. Fact is he is so ignorant of the area he really only listens to his far-right hawks--thus the departure of Powell, etc. As for McCain, his foreign credentials only put him into a position of continuing the failed policies of the Bush regime. I don't want 4 more years of Bush/Cheney redux.

[Barry]

The man misspoke. I doubt even a majority of Democrats think Obama has a firmer grasp of foreign and national security policy than McCain does.

Yep, and I'm sure Bush never meant to say "crusade" or "mission accomplished" either. ...

Actually, I'm sure he did. I know you've said there is no difference between Bush and McCain. But I didn't think you meant it literally. My mistake. I should have known better.

[Fugu]

The man misspoke. I doubt even a majority of Democrats think Obama has a firmer grasp of foreign and national security policy than McCain does.

Yep, and I'm sure Bush never meant to say "crusade" or "mission accomplished" either. ...

Actually, I'm sure he did. I know you've said there is no difference between Bush and McCain. But I didn't think you meant it literally. My mistake. I should have known better.

Barry, as I have said before, I really believed that there was a difference between Bush and McCain in 2000 and shortly after. However, he has proven me wrong as he has sought to distance himself from the middle and gone farther right. I know that might be to bring in the far right, but really I think he's prostituted himself.

[Barry]

... Barry, as I have said before, I really believed that there was a difference between Bush and McCain in 2000 and shortly after. However, he has proven me wrong as he has sought to distance himself from the middle and gone farther right. I know that might be to bring in the far right, but really I think he's prostituted himself.

I know you think that, but I don't believe it to be a reasonable and objective analysis. McCain has continued to take stances on issues that have pissed off the right in recent years and even months. It was he who was one of those responsible for breaking the impass on voting for federal judges along with 13 other senators who cared more about getting something done than remaining dogmatically glued to their party leadership's positions; not Obama or Clinton. And while I may not fully agree with him on the issue, it's tough to deny McCain takes a position most liberals would be proud of on global warming, and that's today, not eight years ago; not to mention his stance on what are appropriate methods to interrogate prisoners with knowledge of impending attacks that goes against what most Republicans believe (as does his immigration stance). Oh, and then there is the fact that most movement conservatives can't stand the guy and will vote for him while holding their nose, if at all. And I haven't even touched on the extent to which he was critical of Bush's handling of the war right from the start up until he finally went with the surge McCain had been calling for. I'm sorry, Dan, but as I said the other day, when you can look to your right and see Marx, sure, McCain is going to look a little out there to you. But most people don't see things from that perspective.

And further, he's pandered no more to the right than the Democratic candidates have to the left. They all have to energize their party's base to an extent. But both Democrats refused to address the more centrist Democratic Leadership Council gathering, while making sure to go and speak in front of the more left wing Yearly Kos gathering.

[Fugu]

... Barry, as I have said before, I really believed that there was a difference between Bush and McCain in 2000 and shortly after. However, he has proven me wrong as he has sought to distance himself from the middle and gone farther right. I know that might be to bring in the far right, but really I think he's prostituted himself.

I know you think that, but I don't believe it to be a reasonable and objective analysis. McCain has continued to take stances on issues that have pissed off the right in recent years and even months. It was he who was one of those responsible for breaking the impass on voting for federal judges along with 13 other senators who cared more about getting something done than remaining dogmatically glued to their party leadership's positions; not Obama or Clinton. And while I may not fully agree with him on the issue, it's tough to deny McCain takes a position most liberals would be proud of on global warming, and that's today, not eight years ago; not to mention his stance on what are appropriate methods to interrogate prisoners with knowledge of impending attacks that goes against what most Republicans believe (as does his immigration stance). Oh, and then there is the fact that most movement conservatives can't stand the guy and will vote for him while holding their nose, if at all. And I haven't even touched on the extent to which he was critical of Bush's handling of the war right from the start up until he finally went with the surge McCain had been calling for. I'm sorry, Dan, but as I said the other day, when you can look to your right and see Marx, sure, McCain is going to look a little out there to you. But most people don't see things from that perspective.

And further, he's pandered no more to the right than the Democratic candidates have to the left. They all have to energize their party's base to an extent. But both Democrats refused to address the more centrist Democratic Leadership Council gathering, while making sure to go and speak in front of the more left wing Yearly Kos gathering.

Sorry man, but I am no socialist as much as you'd like to make me out to be one.

[Barry]

... Sorry man, but I am no socialist as much as you'd like to make me out to be one.

So you say. Yet I don't think I've ever seen another person exhibit such overt hostility towards people who you think have wealth and don't favor raising tax rates or who side with Bush on virtually any issue whatsoever. They immediately become "right wing sell-outs" or tools. If you want people to not think you're an extremist, you may want to watch how your categorize others who clearly aren't extremists.

[Fugu]

... Sorry man, but I am no socialist as much as you'd like to make me out to be one.

So you say. Yet I don't think I've ever seen another person exhibit such overt hostility towards people who you think have wealth and don't favor raising tax rates or who side with Bush on virtually any issue whatsoever. They immediately become "right wing sell-outs" or tools. If you want people to not think you're an extremist, you may want to watch how your categorize others who clearly aren't extremists.

Gee, Barry, feeling the heat or something? Getting testy over what someone thinks about your income status?

Barry, I grew up in the 60's and 70's in a time when I saw the focus on community, family, and close friends. The millennium generation has only convinced me of just how much greed has taken over most people's view on life. Personally, I couldn't care less how many millions a person has, but as it seems to dictate how they feel toward those "below" them, yes I do have a problem with that. And I have seen the gospel of wealth all too often preached from some of the most affluent of preachers; as if anything but being wealthy is somehow a sin.

What was interesting just the other day was an exchange I had with an 8th grader about her view on people and just how much I "was a nobody" and that I "didn't count for anything." Wonderful attitude there, but I've seen it all too often among the youth of America because I've seen it all too often among their parents and mentors.

[Fugu]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080320/wl ... uclearblix

LONDON (AFP) - Hans Blix, the former chief UN weapons inspector, slammed the Iraq war as a "tragedy" and blamed it on leaders ignoring the facts, in a comment piece published Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT

Writing in The Guardian on the five-year anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, Blix, who clashed with Washington in the run-up to the Iraq war, described the war as "a tragedy -- for Iraq, for the US, for the UN, for truth and human dignity."

In the sub-headline to the comment piece, Blix, who headed the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, wrote that responsibility for the war "must lie with those who ignored the facts five years ago".

At the time of the Iraq war, Blix accused the US and Britain of exaggerating the threat from Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's alleged "weapons of mass destruction" -- traces of which have never been found.

In his comment piece, he said the war was a "setback in the world's efforts to develop legal restraints on the use of armed force between states" and added that in 2003, "Iraq was not a real or imminent threat to anybody."

Blix wrote that had coalition troops not deposed Saddam, "he would, in all likelihood, have become another Kadhafi or Castro; an oppressor of his own people but no longer a threat to the world."

He said that one positive sign to emerge from the conflict was that "it may be that the spectacular failure of ensuring disarmament by force, and of introducing democracy by occupation, will work in favour of a greater use of diplomacy and 'soft power'."

Couldn't agree more.

[Barry]

... Sorry man, but I am no socialist as much as you'd like to make me out to be one.

So you say. Yet I don't think I've ever seen another person exhibit such overt hostility towards people who you think have wealth and don't favor raising tax rates or who side with Bush on virtually any issue whatsoever. They immediately become "right wing sell-outs" or tools. If you want people to not think you're an extremist, you may want to watch how your categorize others who clearly aren't extremists.

Gee, Barry, feeling the heat or something? Getting testy over what someone thinks about your income status?

Feeling the heat? Over what? I've already explained to you that civil people don't pester others about their income. I don't paint you as anything. You do it to yourself with your own words. You hate people who make it big financially and don't spend their lives apologizing for it or kissing the ass of people like you who are struggling. Your stereotype of the wealthy looking down on those who haven't made it is nothing more than that. As for greed, yes, it's a large part of what makes the capitalist system work. And guess what, it's also a large part of human nature. That's why virtually every country that's tried too hard to supress our greedy nature has been totalitarian and a disaster for its people in the long run. Even China didn't start to prosper more until they allowed for people's greed instinct to start to emerge. If you don't change your attitude, you'll merely go to your grave bitter, because the human race isn't going to evolve out of being greedy at any point doing your lifetime, and maybe ever.

[Fugu]

... Sorry man, but I am no socialist as much as you'd like to make me out to be one.

So you say. Yet I don't think I've ever seen another person exhibit such overt hostility towards people who you think have wealth and don't favor raising tax rates or who side with Bush on virtually any issue whatsoever. They immediately become "right wing sell-outs" or tools. If you want people to not think you're an extremist, you may want to watch how your categorize others who clearly aren't extremists.

Gee, Barry, feeling the heat or something? Getting testy over what someone thinks about your income status?

Feeling the heat? Over what? I've already explained to you that civil people don't pester others about their income. I don't paint you as anything. You do it to yourself with your own words. You hate people who make it big financially and don't spend their lives apologizing for it or kissing the ass of people like you who are struggling. Your stereotype of the wealthy looking down on those who haven't made it is nothing more than that. As for greed, yes, it's a large part of what makes the capitalist system work. And guess what, it's also a large part of human nature. That's why virtually every country that's tried too hard to supress our greedy nature has been totalitarian and a disaster for its people in the long run. Even China didn't start to prosper more until they allowed for people's greed instinct to start to emerge. If you don't change your attitude, you'll merely go to your grave bitter, because the human race isn't going to evolve out of being greedy at any point doing your lifetime, and maybe ever.

Oh, brother.

[Darryl]

Bush misled everyone as Powell used doctored intelligence to support the war in Iraq before Congress. However, regardless of the initial vote to go into Iraq, even some Republicans have decried the way Bush pushed his agenda in Iraq and 2/3 of the American public think the war in Iraq was wrong in the first place. Honestly, I have never in the history of the US seen a President rush to war as quickly as Bush did.

Also, Bush is far more conservative than Reagan ever was especially in terms of diplomacy. Bush is a blight on US foreign policy. Bush is a reactionary religious person who uses "crusade" and "mission accomplished" as words that only incite the moralistic crowd who sing "God bless America" at every sports program.

Oh he we go again. Or should I say "there you go again?"

It would be interesting to see how you would define conservatism absent your obvious contempt for religious people. Our enemies, the ones with whom you wish to sit and chat, are far, far more religious than our president ever will be.

My contempt is for extremism in all forms--Islamic extremism, Jewish extremism, fundamentalist Christian extremism, etc. My religious beliefs are my own. My disgust is with those who used every opportunity to make this a matter of God's "blessing" on America as typified by the God Bless America crowd--you appear to be one of them.

How about secular-progressive extremism?

[Fugu]

I'm a Christian, who happens to be left of center. Christianity is a private matter with me--it has no place in public policy.

[Darryl]

If you come to know something about Him, then you can relax about the exigencies of contemporary history.

[jack stowaway]

Interesting take on the Obama-Wright controversy today by a conservative Australian commentator, Andrew Bolt.

Bolt observes that Obama 'chose' to be Black in spite of being a product of white cultural influences following his black father's abandonment of his family. Obama, correctly, guaged that blackness was a political asset.

In his defence of Wright, and his own association with the radical preacher, Obama made reference to the white grandmother who raised him as follows:

"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occaision has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

Gee, I wonder how his beloved grandmother felt on being publicly 'outed' in such a manner and compared to a man who preached hatred and racism from the pulpit? Did she consent to being used in such a manner?

As Bolt puts it...

"...Obama denounced his own grandmother --still alive-- and likened her private fears to the public hate-mongering of his preacher. He's demonstrated that to defend a black preacher guilty of appalling bigoty he'd shop his own white relatives."

And as far as those private fears go, they strike me as rational. I remember a few years ago an Indian resident of the US writing that it was entirely sensible for taxi drivers, black as well as white, to avoid stopping to pick up black men in certain areas of Washington after dark.

One can demonstrate idealism by ignoring certain crime statistics or show prudence, and self-preservation. by exercising caution tempered by realism.

Melbourne taxi drivers are notorious for refusing to pick-up young white men on the night-club strip. Are they being discriminatory or have they simply read enough about the bashings that are routinely inflicted on fellow drivers every weekend by drunken revellers?

[Fugu]

If you come to know something about Him, then you can relax about the exigencies of contemporary history.

Sorry, but that is pure predestinationalistic fatalistic crapola.

God never meant for us to utterly abandon the earth as if all that matters is him coming again. Yes, as a particular Christian who believes in the imminent coming of Jesus and the ultimate destruction of the earth, I do know what will happen. However, that does not mean I should condone the attitude many have who think it doesn't matter what we do to or on the earth.

I still care about his creation because I believe he created it and left us to protect and preserve it.

[keaggy220]

The millennium generation has only convinced me of just how much greed has taken over most people's view on life. Personally, I couldn't care less how many millions a person has, but as it seems to dictate how they feel toward those "below" them, yes I do have a problem with that. And I have seen the gospel of wealth all too often preached from some of the most affluent of preachers; as if anything but being wealthy is somehow a sin.

What was interesting just the other day was an exchange I had with an 8th grader about her view on people and just how much I "was a nobody" and that I "didn't count for anything." Wonderful attitude there, but I've seen it all too often among the youth of America because I've seen it all too often among their parents and mentors.

I agree with you 100% here... Materialism is totally out of hand - much of it has to do with the fact that many Americans have access to more money now than ever in our history. I'm constantly telling my wife that just because we can afford it doesn't mean we need to have it - and she's really starting to get it now.. Stuff takes time away from things that matter like quality time with family and friends...

Conservative commentator Cal Thomas recently said, "Our houses are getting bigger and bigger not to accommodate larger families, but larger egos."

[Barry]

I don't have a problem with saying a lot of Americans are too materialistic and that it comes from a values problem in many homes. But that isn't related to the natural desire to make and keep more money, and enacting government policies that place too many restrictions on fulfilling that desire would be disasterous for the economy while not doing anything about the values problem.

It's the resentment of those who succeed and the constant villification of them by many on the left that I find problematic. There have always been snobs. But among the few very wealthy people I know or have known, I have never detected even the slightest hint of them looking down on those who have less.

[Fugu]

I don't have a problem with saying a lot of Americans are too materialistic and that it comes from a values problem in many homes. But that isn't related to the natural desire to make and keep more money, and enacting government policies that place too many restrictions on fulfilling that desire would be disasterous for the economy while not doing anything about the values problem.

It's the resentment of those who succeed and the constant villification of them by many on the left that I find problematic. There have always been snobs. But among the few very wealthy people I know or have known, I have never detected even the slightest hint of them looking down on those who have less.

But Barry, just how many 100's of millions does a disgraced CEO of a company need for his retirement? The gap between the ultra-rich and the poor is ever-growing. The gospel of greed has more to do with the belief that if you don't have millions, you won't be happy. I don't care if I ever have a million dollars--I just want a permanent position to pay for my house, feed my family, and give to my church.

As for the poor, Christ said they would always be with us. Learn to live with that fact.

[Barry]

But Barry, just how many 100's of millions does a disgraced CEO of a company need for his retirement? The gap between the ultra-rich and the poor is ever-growing. The gospel of greed has more to do with the belief that if you don't have millions, you won't be happy. I don't care if I ever have a million dollars--I just want a permanent position to pay for my house, feed my family, and give to my church.

As for the poor, Christ said they would always be with us. Learn to live with that fact.

I knew they'd always be with us before I found out Christ said it. As to having to live with it, you'll have to explain that one to me, Dan. I'm not happy about it, but it's not that difficult to understand that there is no practical way to eliminate poverty in the world; lower yes; eliminate no.

As to CEOs of major companies, just what percentage of the population do you think are in that position? Of course I don't like disgraced executives being rewarded with hundreds of millions of dollars for doing something improper. But there are probably more regular contributors on this board than there are people in that position.

If you only want the basics, more power to you. I don't look down on you and don't know anyone who would. In fact, I'll let you in on a little secret; that being that I live fairly sparsely (no cars ... walk to work, one tv and one bedroom; although I do like to eat out a lot). But you have exhibited anger towards those who do have the desire to make a lot more, and I don't get that. As I've said, I think you're way off base if you think most wealthy people look down on those who aren't wealthy. They may hang out mostly with other wealthy people because they live in the same areas and can afford to go to the types of places together than people who don't have a lot of money can't go to. But why should anyone resent that? You may say you don't, but the opposite impression has come through in your posts a number of times.

I also think it would do a lot of damage to the economy over the longterm if the government were to ever enact policies that discouraged people from trying to get wealthy. Not everyone seeks it (although I don't know many people who, even if they don't think about it all the time, wouldn't opt for making more money than they are if given the choice or if the opportunity arises), but if very few people had the desire to generate a lot of wealth for themselves, we'd be in trouble.

[Fugu]

But Barry, just how many 100's of millions does a disgraced CEO of a company need for his retirement? The gap between the ultra-rich and the poor is ever-growing. The gospel of greed has more to do with the belief that if you don't have millions, you won't be happy. I don't care if I ever have a million dollars--I just want a permanent position to pay for my house, feed my family, and give to my church.

As for the poor, Christ said they would always be with us. Learn to live with that fact.

I knew they'd always be with us before I found out Christ said it. As to having to live with it, you'll have to explain that one to me, Dan. I'm not happy about it, but it's not that difficult to understand that there is no practical way to eliminate poverty in the world; lower yes; eliminate no.

As to CEOs of major companies, just what percentage of the population do you think are in that position? Of course I don't like disgraced executives being rewarded with hundreds of millions of dollars for doing something improper. But there are probably more regular contributors on this board than there are people in that position.

If you only want the basics, more power to you. I don't look down on you and don't know anyone who would. In fact, I'll let you in on a little secret; that being that I live fairly sparsely (no cars ... walk to work, one tv and one bedroom; although I do like to eat out a lot). But you have exhibited anger towards those who do have the desire to make a lot more, and I don't get that. As I've said, I think you're way off base if you think most wealthy people look down on those who aren't wealthy. They may hang out mostly with other wealthy people because they live in the same areas and can afford to go to the types of places together than people who don't have a lot of money can't go to. But why should anyone resent that? You may say you don't, but the opposite impression has come through in your posts a number of times.

I also think it would do a lot of damage to the economy over the longterm if the government were to ever enact policies that discouraged people from trying to get wealthy. Not everyone seeks it (although I don't know many people who, even if they don't think about it all the time, wouldn't opt for making more money than they are if given the choice or if the opportunity arises), but if very few people had the desire to generate a lot of wealth for themselves, we'd be in trouble.

Sadly, being uber-rich is what many look for. I'm not talking about the people who work hard for their money, like you seem to be classified in that group; I'm talking about the rich who have become rich based on just how much they can squeeze out of those under them.

I'll give an example: my wife worked for Amazon for a few months and Jeff Bezos (the CEO) has made it clear that the billions he has (8.7 billion) is much more important to him and his little group of worshipers than giving his employees a decent salary, sick-leave (6 personal days a year and the 6 national holidays), and insurance coverage (poor to non-existent). Efforts to unionize Amazon has been met with forced layoff and Bezos still makes his workers listen to his motivational speeches virtually every 3 weeks. My wife was lied to when she went into work for them as they told her she would not have very much overtime (we live in a place where commuting by train is the best situation, but if she missed that train, I had to drive to pick her up). Well, after only 2 months, sure enough the overtime kicked into gear and she was coming home at 9 or 10 every night--forget the train or bus, I had to drive to get her. Bezos has built that company based on the sacrifices of the many who think they too might advance in the company. Turnover is about 50 per week.

Other examples, of course are those daytraders we all read about who have made their millions on the stockmarket.

[Barry]

There have been plenty of cut-backs at my company as well and increased healthcare costs (although I'm not sure that employer provided healthcare is the way to go when it comes to reforming). I wasn't sure if I'd make it at one point, but I'm still there. But again, the percentage of wealthy people who are getting wealthy by screwing a bunch of lesser-off people like this guy from Amazon is arguably doing is miniscule.

And in the case of my company, I understand that the people who bought it have to recover their investment and make a profit. My industry is hurting. People who own companies aren't running charities. They exist to generate profits.

I used to have your attitude with people who got rich by juggling investments. But they will then take that money and go to nice restaurants where the servers who wait on them will make huge tips; not to mention the increased job security for the makers of their nice homes, boats, etc.

[Fugu]

The gospel of prosperity:

http://gbgm-umc.org/global_news/full_ar ... cleid=3258

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4459571

The second one especially sickening.

[keaggy220]

For the most part you are describing extremes... I have everyday contact with people who make a lot of money. You notice I said "make" and not "have" because most of them spend it so fast that they have less money than a responsible person who makes a fraction of the income.

Anyway, the one consistent characteristic I find with people who make a lot of money in the business world is that they're smart. Once you look past their intelligence they have just as many flaws as the average joe on the street. However, since they are smart they have the ability to cover these flaws, but as you get to know them their flaws become more apparent. The guy who runs Amazon, as you describe him, fits this pattern that I've noticed. If someone interviews him they walk away and say wow, but someone who works for him walks away and says yuk... On a similar note, but in the world of entertainment, Al Pacino has never married and I read a person say that Pacino usually ends a serious relationship after 3 years - about the amount of time it takes her to stop treating him like a star.

Of course there are people on the other extreme - and I have the pleasure of knowing a couple these people, who are not necessarily rich or smart, but they live with compassion, work with the goal that everyone succeeds, put people above things, etc ... Inspirational...

[Barry]

For the most part you are describing extremes...

Bingo. For every individual case of someone who makes money dishonestly or in a way that turns one's stomach, there are thousands of people who have made a lot of money without doing a single thing wrong. But those people don't get media exposur because their stories aren't as interesting to read as the one in a thousand who made his money by sticking it to a bunch of innocent people.
But Dan, if you believe these extreme cases you're bringing up are the norm and not the exception, then I can see why you occasionally exhibit a lot of hostility towards those with wealth. I think it's a misguided belief though.

[Madame]

For the most part you are describing extremes...

Bingo. For every individual case of someone who makes money dishonestly or in a way that turns one's stomach, there are thousands of people who have made a lot of money without doing a single thing wrong. But those people don't get media exposur because their stories aren't as interesting to read as the one in a thousand who made his money by sticking it to a bunch of innocent people.
But Dan, if you believe these extreme cases you're bringing up are the norm and not the exception, then I can see why you occasionally exhibit a lot of hostility towards those with wealth. I think it's a misguided belief though.

Wouldn't you say most of our 'evidence' is anecdotal? I don't know enough people to come to a statistically valid conclusion about anything. However, if we always couch our words to say this is our opinion, rather than the absolute truth, our discussions might become boring and fizzle out after a few posts. And we can't have THAT, can we?

[Barry]

For the most part you are describing extremes...

Bingo. For every individual case of someone who makes money dishonestly or in a way that turns one's stomach, there are thousands of people who have made a lot of money without doing a single thing wrong. But those people don't get media exposur because their stories aren't as interesting to read as the one in a thousand who made his money by sticking it to a bunch of innocent people.
But Dan, if you believe these extreme cases you're bringing up are the norm and not the exception, then I can see why you occasionally exhibit a lot of hostility towards those with wealth. I think it's a misguided belief though.

Wouldn't you say most of our 'evidence' is anecdotal? I don't know enough people to come to a statistically valid conclusion about anything. However, if we always couch our words to say this is our opinion, rather than the absolute truth, our discussions might become boring and fizzle out after a few posts. And we can't have THAT, can we?

No . But seriously, if you or anyone else can present statistical evidence showing that even a strong minority of wealthy people got to be that way be doing the kinds of things Dan keeps bringing up in these individual cases, I'd admit I'm wrong. But I'd also be abolutely stunned if anyone can present such evidence because I doubt it's even one percent. I'm not talking about people who inherit their money or make it in the stock market. I'm talking about people who actually purposely screw a bunch of other people worse off than them. Because those are the examples Dan keeps bringing up, and I repeat that he can only find them because they're such unusual and sensationalist cases that the media reports on them. They don't mention the thousands of other people who have done nothing wrong.

[Darryl]

If you come to know something about Him, then you can relax about the exigencies of contemporary history.

Sorry, but that is pure predestinationalistic fatalistic crapola.

God never meant for us to utterly abandon the earth as if all that matters is him coming again. Yes, as a particular Christian who believes in the imminent coming of Jesus and the ultimate destruction of the earth, I do know what will happen. However, that does not mean I should condone the attitude many have who think it doesn't matter what we do to or on the earth.

I still care about his creation because I believe he created it and left us to protect and preserve it.

You're jumping to erroneous conclusions about the thoughts and motives of others based on your mental attitude, just as you did in your earlier posts. My statement had absolutely nothing to do with hyper-Calvinism, but I suspect you don't really care. The remainder of this post is not directed to you personally. I read you loud and clear, and I'm not interested in any further commentary from you on it.

I know a Christian, a fine young man serving with the Pennsylvania Guard who lost half of his face when an IED exploded during patrol near Tikrit in March of 2005. His father can recall the various calls during the stages of his son's evacuation when they kept telling him his son probably wouldn't make it through the night. Yet somehow, the young man survived. Today he's doing quite well. He thinks his sacrifice was worth it. He might even be tempted to stick his reconstructed skull in your face and tell you how strongly he feels about the matter. The last time he spoke to us his words were "the grace of God was with us." Clearly this is no ordinary young man. He's a Christian, but a Christian with a dynamic mental attitude, who had the character to learn some things about his God that prepared him for the greatest distaster in life. He has had genuine impact on unbelievers in his periphery. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with his personal views, I think he has earned the right to make public pronouncements about the God he loves. But most importantly for him, he's happy with his life.

[Barry]

If we're going to look at the extreme cases of the bad things that wealthy people do, let's look at the other end of the spectrum too:

Op-Ed Columnist
Thoroughly Modern Do-Gooders
NY Times
By DAVID BROOKS
March 21, 2008
Fashions in goodness change, just like fashions in anything else, and these days some of the very noblest people have assumed the manners of the business world — even though they don’t aim for profit. They call themselves social entrepreneurs, and you can find them in the neediest places on earth.

Go to Columnist Page » The people who fit into this category tend to have plenty of résumé bling. Bill Drayton, the godfather of this movement, went to Harvard, Yale, Oxford and McKinsey before founding Ashoka, a global change network. Those who follow him typically went to some fancy school and then did a stint with Teach for America or AmeriCorps before graduate school. Then, they worked for a software firm before deciding to use what they’d learned in business to help the less fortunate.

Now they work 80 hours a week, fighting bureaucracies and funding restrictions in order to build, say, mentoring programs for single moms.

Earlier generations of benefactors thought that social service should be like sainthood or socialism. But this one thinks it should be like venture capital.

These thoroughly modern do-gooders dress like venture capitalists. They talk like them. They even think like them. That means that aside from the occasional passion for heirloom vegetables, they are not particularly crunchy. They don’t wear ponytails, tattoos or Birkenstocks. They don’t devote any energy to countercultural personal style, unless you consider excessive niceness a subversive fashion statement.

Next to them, Barack Obama looks like Abbie Hoffman.

It also means that they are not that interested in working for big, sluggish bureaucracies. They are not hostile to the alphabet-soup agencies that grew out of the New Deal and the Great Society; they just aren’t inspired by them.

J.B. Schramm created a fantastic organization called College Summit that provides students with practical guidance through the college admissions process. Gerald Chertavian, a former software entrepreneur, created Year Up, which helps low-income students get apprenticeships in corporations and packages its fund-raising literature in the form of an I.P.O. prospectus.

The venture-capital ethos means instead that these social entrepreneurs are almost willfully blind to ideological issues. They will tell you, even before you have a chance to ask, that they are data-driven and accountability-oriented. They’re always showing you multivariate regressions or explaining why some promising idea “didn’t pencil out.” The highest status symbol in their circle is a Rand study showing that their program yields statistically significant results.

Bill Gates, who fits neatly into this world, came to dinner with journalists in Washington last week. He looked utterly bored as the conversation drifted to presidential campaign gossip. But when asked about which programs produce higher reading scores, the guy lit up and became a fountain of facts and findings.

The older do-gooders had a certain policy model: government identifies a problem. Really smart people design a program. A cabinet department in a big building administers it.

But the new do-gooders have absorbed the disappointments of the past decades. They have a much more decentralized worldview. They don’t believe government on its own can be innovative. A thousand different private groups have to try new things. Then we measure to see what works.

Their problem now is scalability. How do the social entrepreneurs replicate successful programs so that they can be big enough to make a national difference?

America Forward, a consortium of these entrepreneurs, wants government to do domestic policy in a new way. It wants Washington to expand national service (to produce more social entrepreneurs) and to create a network of semipublic social investment funds. These funds would be administered locally to invest in community-run programs that produce proven results. The government would not operate these social welfare programs, but it would, in essence, create a network of semipublic Gates Foundations that would pick winners based on stiff competition.

There’s obviously a danger in getting government involved with these entrepreneurs. Government agencies are natural interferers, averse to remorseless competition and quick policy shifts. Nonetheless, these funds are worth a try.

The funds would head us toward this new policy model, in which government sets certain accountability standards but gives networks of local organizations the freedom to choose how to meet them. President Bush’s faith-based initiative was a step in this direction, but this would be broader.

Furthermore, we might as well take advantage of this explosion of social entrepreneurship. These are some of the smartest and most creative people in the country. Even if we don’t know how to reduce poverty, it’s probably worth investing in these people and letting them figure it out.

They won’t stop bugging us until we do.

[RebLem]

Friday, March 21, 2008, 09:44 AM
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Huckabee on Obama, Wright: ‘Cut some slack to people who grew up on the back of the bus’

After a long, well-earned vacation, Mike Huckabee showed up on television this week.

He’s no longer a presidential candidate. But he remains the Republican of an unpredictable stripe. Huckabee appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Wednesday.

Below is the generous analysis that Huckabee — remember that he’s done time as a Southern Baptist pastor — gave of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s speech on race.

And while he didn’t defend the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s statements, Huckabee did try to put them in context.

But the former Arkansas governor, who carried Georgia in the February primary, also spoke as someone who grew up in the segregated South, and his observations at the very bottom of the transcript that follows are what might surprise you.

Huckabee said:

”Obama has handled this about as well as anybody could. And I agree, it’s a very historic speech. I think that it was an important one, and one that he had to deliver. And he couldn’t wait. The sooner he made it, maybe the quicker that this becomes less of the issue. Otherwise, it was the only thing that was the issue in his entire campaign. And I thought he handled it very, very well.

“And he made the point, and I think it’s a valid one, that you can’t hold the candidate responsible for everything around him that people may say or do. You just can’t, whether it’s me, whether it’s Obama, or anybody else.

“But he did distance himself from the very vitriolic statements. Now, the second story — it’s interesting to me that there are some people on the left that are having to be very uncomfortable with what [Jeremiah] Wright said when they were all over a Jerry Falwell or anyone on the right who said things that they found very awkward and uncomfortable years ago.

“Many times those were statements lifted out of the context of a larger sermon. Sermons, after all, are rarely written word-for-word by pastors like Reverend Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you’d say, ‘Well, I probably didn’t mean to say it quite like that……’

“And one other thing I think we’ve got to remember.

“As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say ‘That’s a terrible statement’ — I grew up in a very segregated South.

“And I think that you have to cut some slack — and I’m going to be probably the only conservative in America who’s going to say something like this, but I’m just telling you — we’ve got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie, you have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant, you can’t sit out there with everyone else. There’s a separate waiting room in the doctor’s office. Here’s where you sit on the bus.

“And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment, and you have to just say, ‘I probably would, too.’”

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared ... cut_s.html

Posted on March 24, 2008, the 302nd day before the end of the Cheney Administration. RebLem

[RebLem]

Next on Fox: ‘Obama-bashing’

Media spin on Barack is missing big picture

By Margery Eagan, Boston Globe
Sunday, March 23, 2008

“If Hillary or McCain spent 20 years with a racist pastor, it’d be all over.”

“If a white person talked about a ‘typical black person,’ they’d be run out of town on a rail.”

I heard remarks such as these all week. They drove me crazy. You likely heard them too, on talk radio or cable TV, at work or among family - all in reference to Barack Obama’s pastor problems and the candidate’s latest gaffe: calling his grandmother a “typical white person.”

The apparent, ridiculous point of such “double standard” remarks? That white racism - with all its historical power - is on a par with black racism - with no power.

Then you likely heard a dozen or more replays of Obama’s bellowing pastor, plus the bellowing Rev. Manning from Harlem. Their rants repeated over and over until the intent became clear: Make it seem as if all black pastors are nuts. Then you scare white people away.

It got so bad on conservative powerhouse Fox News that even some Fox stars could take no more. Veteran Chris Wallace chastised “Fox & Friends” morning hosts: “I love you guys, (but) it seems to me that two hours of Obama-bashing on this ‘typical white person’ remark is somewhat excessive.”

On the same morning, for the same reason, “Fox & Friends” co-host Brian Kilmeade walked off his own set. Was he joking, or serious? In either case, anchor Gretchen Carlson kept smiling and smiling, the full plastic, as if she didn’t get it. Of course Carlson had also gleefully announced, “Guess what? It’s the first day of spring! Woo-hoo!!!” while pictures of disastrous Midwest flooding filled the screen and she reported how 13 people had died. Maybe she didn’t get that either.

Meanwhile, “Fox & Friends” co-host Steve Doocy kept right on keeping on. “It just seems curious, because Barack Obama said this . . . but had Hillary Clinton said something on the other side, had she said, ‘Well, that’s a typical Irish person, Polish person, Italian person, Swedish person,’ whatever, it’d hit the fan!”

You know, you hear all this and wonder if people have short memories of history, no memory of history, or just want to race bait. Or perhaps Steve Doocy actually believes Italians and Swedes endured systematic discrimination at the hands of - I don’t know - Austrians and Norwegians.

You hear all this and wonder, even considering some nonvictims’ need to eke out victim status somewhere, who can seriously compare unfairness endured by white Americans - affirmative action, busing, whatever - to unfairness endured by black Americans?

It is 2008. Barack Obama is but the fifth black U.S. senator in our history, the third since Reconstruction. It is 2008. Look at the killing epidemic in segregated black neighborhoods across America and in Boston, where many victims are innocent child bystanders. In but a few months last year Steven Odom, 13, was killed walking home from a basketball game. Quinntessa Blackwell, 18, was killed outside a grammar school. Cedirick Steele, 18, was killed outside his uncle’s store. Rev. Michael Person lost his son, sister, nephew and niece on Boston’s streets. Police are overwhelmed. Think they’d get emergency reinforcement if the murders were on Beacon Hill? Remember when a stray bullet pierced a State House window and police immediately swept the Common?

Bottom line: It’s going to be a long, tense haul for Obama and Clinton. You might want to get a grip if you just can’t fathom a black guy winning, for it’s clear that’s what your pseudo-outrage and “double standard” talk are really all about. Get too hysterical - well, you could be out of town on a rail.

Good.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opini ... tion=rated

Posted on March 24, 2008, the 302nd day before the end of the Cheney Administration. RebLem

[Chosen Barley]

Much seriousness on this topic, when in reality it all changes when the president gets sworn in. Same here in Absurdistan, and virtually everywhere.

[RebLem]

I think there is are a few other things going on here. In the 60's, it was fashionable to comment on differences between the nature of prejudice in the North and the South. Most of the differences cited then were superficial, but the fact remains there were real differences. I would characterize the typical Southern white attitude as schizoid: Blacks were part of their lives, there were ways in which they liked Blacks, but always insisted they keep a subservient position. Northern whites, on the other hand, were paranoid--they disliked, distrusted, and feared Black people, there was no ambivalence about it, and they wanted as little as possible to do with Blacks.

Black people, historically, have been more familiar with the Southern model than the Northern, and therefore tend to be unaware of some of the origins of Northern prejudice. Most Northerners, in particular, belong to rather staid churches with subdued worship styles, and tend to look down on, shall we say, the ecstatic style practiced in many Black churches, so much so, in fact, that it becomes a barrier Northern whites have to overcome in order to relate to Blacks as fully equal human beings.

For Southern whites, on the other hand, this is much less of an issue. Lots of Southern whites belong to churches where people run around inside the church doing and saying all sorts of goofy things--jumping up and down like human pogo sticks, speaking in tongues, spreading arms and eyes heavenward, fainting out of sheer ecstasy, and under the guidance of pastors and ministers who say and do some pretty outlandish things. So Southern whtes are familiar with that kind of worship service; the Jeremiah Wright sort of service, even at its most extreme, holds fewer mysteries and fewer offenses for them than for most Northern whites.

Furthermore, Southern whites of Huckabee's generation often grew up in the midst of older relatives far more racist than they, people who bragged about having killed Black people just for fun or sport, or as a way of bonding with their buddies in their youths in the teens and twenties of the twentieth century, and earlier. And yet they knew other things about these relatives--that they were capable of great kindness, intelligence, and love. Such people understand Barack Obama and how he could overlook Jeremiah Wright's shortcomings in ways that completely mystify most white Northerners.

Posted on March 24, 2008, the 302nd day before the end of the Cheney Administration. RebLem

[Barry]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/opini ... ref=slogin
Let’s Not, and Say We Did
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
March 24, 2008
I shuddered only once while watching Barack Obama’s speech last Tuesday.

Times Topics: Barack ObamaIt wasn’t when he posed the rhetorical questions: “Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?”

The real question, of course, is not why Obama joined Trinity, but why he stayed there for two decades, in the flock of a pastor who accused the U.S. government of “inventing the H.I.V. virus as a means of genocide against people of color,” and who suggested soon after 9/11 that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

But orators often ask themselves the convenient questions, not the difficult ones. And Barack Obama is an accomplished orator.

Nor was I shocked when Obama compared Reverend Wright, who was using his pulpit to propagate racial resentment, with his grandmother, who may have said privately a few things that made Obama cringe, or with Geraldine Ferraro, whom “some have dismissed ... as harboring some deep-seated bias.”

After all, politicians sometimes indulge in ridiculous and unfair comparisons to make a point. And Barack Obama is an able politician.

And I didn’t shudder when Obama said he could no more disown Reverend Wright than he could disown the black community. I did think this statement was unfair to many in the black community, and especially to all those pastors who have resisted the temptation to appeal to their parishioners in the irresponsible and demagogic manner of Reverend Wright.

But ambitious men sometimes do a disservice to the best in their own communities. And Barack Obama is an ambitious man.

The only part of the speech that made me shudder was this sentence: “But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.”

As soon as I heard that, I knew what we’d have to endure. I knew that there would be a stampede of editorial boards, columnists and academics rushing not to ignore race. A national conversation about race! At long last!

Of course, memories are short. In 1997 President Bill Clinton announced, with great fanfare, that he intended “to lead the American people in a great and unprecedented [if he did say so himself] conversation about race.” That conversation quickly went nowhere. And just as well.

The last thing we need now is a heated national conversation about race.

What we need instead are sober, results-oriented debates about economics, social mobility, education, family policy and the like — focused especially on how to help those who are struggling. Such policy debates can lead to real change — even “change we can believe in.” “National conversations” tend to be pointless and result-less.

Or worse. Especially when they’re about race. In 1969, Pat Moynihan, then serving on Richard Nixon’s White House staff, wrote Nixon a memo explaining that “the issue of race could benefit from a period of ‘benign neglect.’ The subject has been too much talked about. ... We may need a period in which Negro progress continues and racial rhetoric fades.” Moynihan, who was reacting against the wild escalation of racial rhetoric on all sides, was unfairly pilloried when the memo was leaked in 1970. But he was right then, and his argument is right now.

Racial progress has in fact continued in America. A new national conversation about race isn’t necessary to end what Obama calls the “racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years” — because we’re not stuck in such a stalemate. In fact, as Obama himself suggests in the same speech, younger Americans aren’t stalemated. They come far closer than their grandparents and parents to routinely obeying Martin Luther King’s injunction to judge one another by the content of our character, not the color of our skin.

Over the last several decades, we’ve done pretty well in overcoming racial barriers and prejudice. Problems remain. But we won’t make progress if we now have to endure a din of race talk that will do more to divide us than to unite us, and more to confuse than to clarify.

Luckily, Obama isn’t really interested in getting enmeshed in a national conversation on race. He had avoided race talk before the Reverend Wright controversy erupted. And despite the speech’s catnip of a promised conversation on race tossed to eager commentators, it’s clear he’s more than willing to avoid it from now on.

This is all for the best. With respect to having a national conversation on race, my recommendation is: Let’s not, and say we did.

[Barry]

We had a highly publicized murder here yesterday. It involved a 36-year-old white coffee-shop manager who was attacked by a group of four black teens on a subway platform. He apparently died of a heart attack from the incident.

My question to Rob and others who feel as he does on all things racial, would this guy have been a racist if he had seen the teens walking to his general vicinity and quickly walked to another area before they got anywhere near him? It seems to me he would have been an aweful lot like Obama described his grandmother, exhibiting the kind of behavior that would make Barack cringe, had he done that. Of course, he'd also be alive.

[Ted]

who was attacked by a group of four black teens

Race is irrelevant here

For every one white male killed by a black there are 3 blacks killed by someone else who is black.

Yet "Hillary ain't ever been called a N er"

[Barry]

who was attacked by a group of four black teens

Race is irrelevant here

For every one white male killed by a black there are 3 blacks killed by someone else who is black.

Yet "Hillary ain't ever been called a N er"

Race most certainly isn't irrelevant to my point though, Ted. There are people who would infer, as Obama did about his grandmother, that it's wrong (i.e. racist) to be afraid and take action based on that fear when one sees a group of black teen males.
So does this guy get points from people who feel that way (I'm thinking of Rob most of all, because he is the one who relentlessly harps on white racism) for not behaving like that, and if he does, does that credit outweigh the fact that he's dead?

I read a column by a black conservative the other day in which he very bluntly said that if we're going to have a truly open conversation on race, it needs to be said that much of the still-existing white racism in this country is a direct result of the behavior of way too many AfricanAmericans, mostly in lower-economic inner-city areas. If they'd behave more responsibly, the racism would gradually diminish (of course, it will never totally be wiped out) was the man's point. He's black and obviously not a racist. But when a white person says the same thing, it becomes a problem.
That's not an open dialogue on race.

[Ted]

There you go Barry, arguing with yourself***

There should be a distinction between racism and a rational, pragmatic fear of being robbed or murdered.
My secy for 14 years was black and was no less paranoid than Obama’s white grandmother when she passed certain black men on the street.
It’s politically incorrect to admit there’s a reason to be fearful but that’s showbiz on planet earth

[Agnes Selby]

I have a few simple questions. Where was Obama when his children were
subjected to pastor Wright's sermons? What impact did these sermons have on his children? Will they now grow up believing that
white people inveted AIDS to kill Blacks? If the sermons had no impact
on Obama would the same be true of impressionable children?

------------------

[Daisy]

No Fugue, it has Obama written all over it.
If he is at odds with the purveyors of hate as demonstrated
by this church, he should resign from this church. There are other
churches where he can find religious sustenance.
After all, he has sat through these sermons for 20 years.
"It is time for a change".
-----------------

Don't forget it was Hillary's people who broke it to the news media first. We needed to know this, so I guess we should be grateful - but likewise we should be grateful that Obama responded by reminding everyone what a crass and shameless liar Hillary has always been.

In any case, as I have said before, I love it when Democrats eat each other for lunch. It reminds us who the real Good Guys are, despite the lies of Democrats and the Liberal media & schools, who have succeeded in brainwashing a couple of generations of gullible people.