Wright said that the US government created the AIDS virus. I think it's safe to assume that Wright isn't suggesting any black people were involved in the production or distribution, therefore it's implying non-blacks, mainly whites, were and are responsible. Unless he has direct evidence to back up his claims, which should have been included in his "sermon", it's less about protecting fellow members of his race from a danger and more about pointing a finger. That's where I see the reverse racism. But to reiterate, I can't say I blame him. Yes, it's an unhealthy and irresponsible way to work out his frustrations, but I can't blame him for being frustrated. Between being victimized by real racism and seeing the AIDS virus ravage the home of his ancestors, he has plenty to be frustrated with.

well, we can just agree to disagree...in order for me to feel that his claim is racist it needs to target white people by something other than default.

I never called him a racist. Racism and reverse racism are not the same thing. One has an element of righteousness to it, and the other doesn't, and that makes all the difference in the world.

Here: Blames gov for AIDS, and says the government is “controlled by rich white people”, and he has called the US the "US- of KKK - A" His phantoms do have white skin, but again it's not racism, but reverse racism.

Something to listen to before going out an enjoying a beautiful spring day:

Nina Simone - I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel To Be Free

<embed src="http://xml.truveo.com/eb/i/374062664/a/58ef677afb89fc040e3dec6de7dd6c26/p/1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350" ></embed>

I wish I knew how it would feel to be free
I wish I could break all the chains holding me
I wish I could say all the things that I should say
Say 'em loud say 'em clear
For the whole wide world to hear

I wish I could share
All the love that's in my heart
Remove all the bars that keep us apart
And I wish you could know how it is to be me
Then you'd see and agree that every man should be free

Enjoy!

Now I am off to to lunch.....corn beef on rye before Passover!

***

Wait...one more.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...BL._AA240_.jpg

I dont expect otto to read the book....but we can all learn a little by watching the 3-part video interview with the author.

Damn, I'm off....I'm late, I'm late...for a very important date.

Do what? I don't really feel too badly about asking this potentially threadjacking question, as I get the feeling the thread is kind of played out...so huh?

What if I go to reverse-reverse racism? Would be theoretically be back at bad again? I think this terminology or semantic shift here is dangerous.

Racism is hatred towards another race motivated by fear and ignorance. Reverse racism is hatred or unreasonable mistrust towards another race fueled by racism from said race. It's not semantics at all, it's apples to oranges and that distinction is of paramount importance to the subject matter of the thread.

Yep, I linked to that book earlier in the thread. Didn't know there was an interview available on the internet though. I'll have to watch that.

EDIT: ooh, and from Democracy Now! even. Gotta love Amy Goodman.

I don't quite follow you, but regardless, his sentiment is hardly rare in the black community here in America and around the world and it is not so much a reaction to race as it is to power and authority. After all, I am sure you also aware of the suspicion that black people can sometimes cast on themselves, as well...

...especially when they assume positions of power and authority.

Therefore when the man talks about the 'US of KKK' or the US government creating AIDS, I don't feel as if I am the target of his accusations.

Is the government not controlled by rich, white people? I'm pretty sure it is. :lol:

There's really only one way to revolve this: I'm going to have to attend Trinity United Church of Christ.

And yes, the government is controlled by mostly white rich people.

this turn in the thread points back to what i posted in-what?--post 427 and 434.

it's a kind of demonstration of the argument.

I'm not saying that there isn't such a thing as black people who hate white people for the color of their skin. I have been a target of that...of course, the only instances of this have been in a place where white racism was still alive and quite well.

I'm just saying that I don't see it in this instance. I've no reason to believe that if I walked up to Rev. Wright today that he would look at me and hate me either for the color of my skin, or for any trappings of white-icity I may have about me.

funny roach: i had a whole post which essentially dovetailed into that post and the critique on the systemic nature of our political system. wright probably isn't a perfect man, obama may not be either, how this whole red-herring essentially does nothing for me in my analysis of the given candidates, etc....and my internet connection got zapped and i lost the post, and am now too lazy to repost. so i'll go have a beer and play some guitar. reasonable solution if you ask me.

I missed this before, will, I'm sorry.

But I fail to see how 'hatred or unreasonable mistrust towards another race fueled by racism from said race' can be designated as racism in any form. Sounds to me more like a 'reasonable reaction.' And this may make me a socio-political freak in this day and age, but I don't think this reaction reflects on the character of those who are reacting this way in the least.

Do I take it that you are withholding judgment on Rev. Wright for feeling that way, but just trying to pin a name on the views he purports? Or, are you saying that his views betray a flaw in his character? Should he be moderating his views? What exactly is the issue?

You know, I've seen all kinds of wild theories and speculations about what the Bush administration (and other conservative administrations) have done, are doing, will be doing...quite a bit of it right here at TFP. Should these folks be moderating their views, as well? Should they be viewed as hateful and threatening? Because if you line all the theories up side by side, in many cases I really don't see the 'AIDS' one as being all that more wild than many others. Only difference is this one comes from an almost exclusively afrocentric point of view and therefore seems to take on a more threatening, taboo distinction. Would you agree with that?

Reverse racism is not reasonable because not all white people are racist. I'd sooner shoot myself in the leg than mistreat someone due to the color of their skin or home of their ancestors. Some white people are racist, yes, but to act like all white people are racist because some are is racist. Reverse-racist, actually.

Yes, I am withholding my final or official judgment, but I do think based on the evidence it seems that he's probably got issues with his own reverse racism.

Of course none of this has anything at all to do with Obama, and he has been really open in answering people's questions regarding Wright. I'm satisfied with his answers.

I'm going to make this my last post.

You have no reason to believe that Rev. Wright thinks that all white people are racist.

And, with all due respect, since you glossed over all of my other comments, I will ignore the rest of yours, as well.

See you on another thread. :)

*unsubscribe...again*

Like I said, probably. Why would I think that? When he says "rich white men" control America, he's speaking in generalities that support the division of races. Condoleezza Rice is not white, but no one can argue that she isn't a part of those who try to control the US. Alberto Gonzales isn't white, but he was directly involved. His strong leftist leaning would suggest that he'd probably hate Rice and Gonzales as much as anyone because of what they've done.

His choice of words suggests, though does not prove, that he may have some reverse racism going on.

if/when Obama consults Wright during his presidency, we'll talk

That would be this man ...
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/2...dKdk00QHz2kQ--

Is Jeremiah Wright purposely trying to derail the Obama campaign?

I told you this wasn't going away any time soon.

It's not going away because none of you, in and out of the media, will let it go away.

He's been silent for weeks, while people demanded that he explain himself and his sermons. Now that's he's finally stepped on stage, these same people want him to shut up.

Folks couldn't get enough of Rev.Wright, you wanted him, now you've got him.

my "halfsies" sister just adopted this as her myspace icon


http://a153.ac-images.myspacecdn.com...7c2d78a810.gif

I think all this anti Obama trashing has gotten a little out of hand. I flat out asked her why and this is her response...

I linked her a bunch of obama stuff, for frak's sake, the least you can do when researching a candidate is RESEARCH A CANDIDATE

I am so disappointed.

she said she'd look at it at least.

Oh I like that.

And yes Obama is the same old same old, he does look good saying it though.

I go by his voting record though, words are cheap.

I'm going to try this again, with help from SteveS.
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/vie...php?f=4&t=1294

I, Willravel, am a "rich white person". Am I ruining America from his perspective? Probably not, since I'm a member of the ACLU and Amnesty International, I vote in favor of equality, and I actively engage racism in order to stop it.

I support the black community in many ways, but I'm a rich white person. He believes that I am racist, or he shouldn't use "rich white people" instead opting for a more accurate label.

Okay, well, it finally happened, folks. You won: Obama has denounced Wright.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24371827/
Doesn't get much clearer than that, does it? The question is: does this settle it for you?

If he had come out and condemned him from the start, and distanced himself before the political pressure it would settle it for me. Actually it does settle it in the negative for Obama for me. Your spiritual leader represents someone who helps to build your values, and if he was so close to him for 20 years and never condemned / distanced himself from him until now when it is a political issue, I have issues with it.

there days late-ish at night when i feel no more like reading or sitting in front of the monitor, i find myself looking at television.
generally, i watch things that are about television itself, and that because i don't think television talks about the world, but only about itself. once in a while, of course, you get segments of footage that appear to refer to the world without so much in the way of problems at the level of framing (what's in what's out) and voice-over (here's what to look at you idiot)--but that's rare. generally television is about itself.

from time to time over the past few weeks i find myself by mistake more often than not looking at cnn or faux news for brief periods and marvelling, until irritation sets in, at the extent to which television is able to generate and keep afloat soundbyte sized crises for seemingly endless series of soundbyte sized moments, just the same the same the same, talking head after talking head saying nothing about this "controversy" over and over and so it happens that this degenerate "situation" has managed to remain viable and has even acquired internal story lines of it's own, like a bad, stupid, one-dimensional potboiler novel.

blah blah blah blah blah.

you do realize that there's no there there, and that such there as people imagine to be there in the case of this there is only there because idiots on the 24/7 "news" networks have been saying there's a there there long enough that, hypnotized-like-some of you see a there there too. but there is no there there, folks. this is a pure example of television talking about itself. this is about television--not about anything outside of television. television.

you're better off watching e!. at least e! doesn't pretend that it talks about anything.

RB: maybe the only thing that cable news knows how to do is generate crisis precisely because 24-hour news only makes sense in a mode of crisis, because anything other than crisis would render the whole apparatus of 24/7 news completely incoherent. Under circumstances of normalcy, why would you ever need 24/7 coverage? Why would it exist?

So in order to operate inside a space in which its existence actually makes sense, it twists everything into a crisis.

I just read a very very good evaluation of the situation with this Wright person vis-a-vis Obama:That's from Noah Millman at The American Scene. Millman's pretty good.

WOW.... I truly hope the American publc is not as stupid or easily led as some wish to make us believe.

Obama, all of a sudden hears that Rev. Wright admires and believes much the same way as Louis Farrakhan. He all of a sudden finds out that Rev. Wright believes the conspiracy theory and propagates the theory the government created AIDS to kill the blacks. And decides to disavow the man.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt..... he never saw these sermons. Now what 3-4 weeks ago these were being played everywhere and Obama came out with that "great unifying speech and all those snippets of old Rev.Wright, well he's just a product from an old school belief system..... he is just a crazy old uncle, besides they were all taken out of context, this is a conspiracy to destroy my candidacy."

Meanwhile, Obama supporters called anyone who dare question or doubt the Messiah..... "RACIST.... (insert cheesy Invasion of the Body Snatchers scream and finger point)"

So one must ask:

was he that stupid as not see ANY of this for the past 20 yrs? If he has been in the pews for 20 years and sat through this and never noticed.... um what will he sit through in the oval office and never notice.

But what about all those who made excuses and claimed Rev. Wright was "right to have these feelings, and this was the African American church and HOW DARE YOU QUESTION, YOU RACIST?" How do they look now?

But now, even Obama disavows all this, the Messiah himself states Wright has preached racism, hate and divisiveness. He not only threw Wright under the bus he had a flat roller follow the bus. Or do you believe as Rev.Wright does that Obama is distancing himself just for politics?

Wow... if his man is elected....... wow..... just wow, how can anyone support this man now?

Its easy to support Obama. I like his policies, his intelligence, his willingness and interest in bringing people of diverse opinions together, and numerous other reasons.

This Wright controversy is irrelevant and overblown, except to those who continue to find Obama guilty of something (its still not clear what that might be) by association.

And I dont think I am "stupid or easily led."

hahaha, I laugh...

folks who are obviously following every beat of the media drum wonder...why? :lol:

I still laugh...

If the man wins the nomination I will vote for him, if not, I will vote for Hillary...I really don't see it as a 'won or lose' proposition...in any case McCain is being sent home with a goodie bag...dare you disagree? :lol:

Hmmmmmm......

Let me pose a true conspiracy question:

Clinton is running and knows she has a lot of Clinton haters out there.

Knows that her and Bill have powerful enemies in the party.

Knows that Edwards could hurt her, maybe even win full out (no Supers needed).

Now, you need a patsy.... someone that has charisma, no one really knows, someone that can speak for change and be a truly brand new face.... Hell, we'll even make sure he raises more money than the supposed greatest money raiser ever seen in the DNC Bill Clinton.

We'll even use our press allies to build this guy up to Messiah level, people will pass out at his speeches and the cameras will be right there for all to see his power.

Then we'll start the deconstruction. First a speech of unity.... then a speech of total hand washing.... we will make this man unelectable vs. McCain.

So what happens? The DNC will want a winner on he ticket, Hilary, will you lead us and maybe put Obama on as your running mate?

And of course Obama understands no matter what he is to drop out under scandal, but not so serious to totally destroy him, just his presidential hopes this year.

It brings the party together in support of Hilary as the nominee and she slid through almost the whole ear without any true scandals being brought out.

The only true scandal: Bosnia's faux pas. Let me ask you..... how many of you truly believe that Hilary would be that stupid to say something like that? Then have one of her very own supporters, tell the truth?..... After all we know about how great Hilary and Bill are at being so meticulous in everything they do so they can't get caught, she'd do something that stupid?????? Come on.

Just something to ponder.

Another question is, what if Obama started believing all his new found glory and said "fuck you Bill and Hilary, I ain't dong it anymore, I'm actually winning and I won't do it."?

OOOOOO Baby, then Wright truly brings out the skeletons, the Ayers' bring out the skeletons and so on. Then they just totally destroy him.

LOL...... ahhhhh the world of politics and the Clintons.....people will laugh, deny, tell me I'm crazy for even thinking such a thing..... but this is soooooo possible, and it looks to me as if the most probable scenario.

This would be a masterpiece if true and if the Clintons pull it off.

See ya in Nov. McCain.... and um W leave the H keys on the typewriters.

MM....wanna laugh?

McCain's response to a question about Rev, Hagee's comment claiming Katrina was retribution on New Orleans for its hedonistic, gay-loving, citizens:
Yep...he still accepts and wants Hagee's endorsement

Let's watch the polls and ummmm what happens..... genius Bill and Hilary sheer genius.

In the words of McCain....."its nonsense, its nonsense, its nonsense.......

No, wait...

it's nonsense if you're a white dude

it's fucking petrifying if you're a black dude...mommy. :p

Let me ask you, you say you would vote for Hilary NOW if she were the nominee.

But had you planned on it? would you have voted for someone else if they had had a chance in your state's primary?

If so, who?

Maybe not you MM...... but I am sure a lot of people did exactly that.

Edwards, maybe smene else would be in Obama's spot and not so willing to "step aside" because of scandal.... as Obama maybe.

Just a perhaps.

Not only what dc_dux said, no one ever said Obama was the messiah. Just because I support Obama doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he does. I think it was stupid of him to go on Fox News, and worse that he didn't hold them accountable for their shoddy journalism. I also think he's wrong here, though he's in a tough spot due to a number of closed-minded people in the U.S. I don't know whether he is genuine when he speaks out against Wright, and I don't really care. The sad thing is, I think he probably is, which is unfortunate since, like I said, I don't see much wrong - overall - with the things Wright has said and has been saying.

It should be noted that Rev. Wright has pointed out Obama is not an every Sunday church-goer. It's quite possible that Obama did miss Wright saying a number of these things - that is, unless you think every sermon Wright gives, every Sunday, consists of excerpts from the 30 second clips you've seen.

Bill Moyers recently did an excellent 50 minute interview with Wright on Bill Moyers Journal. (You need to click the link above the video for part 2.)

EDIT: Wow, lots of activity as I wrote that. I was responding to post #528 (and referencing dc_dux in post #529)

Nice childish response and intelligent discourse there man.

I've been an Obama enthusiast for a long time...so maybe it's best you ask this of a casual voter. I favored Obama over EVERYONE.

But I am a realist, and if Hillary wins the nomination I will vote for her seven days out of the week against John McCain.

No, pan, turnabout is fair play. You can't criticize Obama without being at least equally critical of McCain. And, really, you ought to be far moreso, because someone like Hagee has absolutely no excuse, whereas someone like Wright may be wrong, but at least it's easy to see where it comes from.

I'll bite: I was on the fence between Obama and Edwards, and I would've voted for Edwards over Clinton. That said, he wouldn't have had a chance.

"Conspiracy theorist" is a derogatory term for a reason.

But why were you an Obama enthusiast? That conspiracy scenario is not even possible in your mind?

Way too complex a plan, I enjoy looking for wheels in wheels, plans within plans, but there is a limit.

My guess is they just underestimated Obama.

When this is all said and done I can't see Obama not being the nominee unless, as you said more comes out than him politicing with a crazy minister.

I can't see McCain winning unless the democrats run an utterly inept campaign (again) like they did in 2000 and 2004. If they can't win after a 2 term, leaving on low popularity president with a weak economy, they might as well close shop.

Wake me for 2010, if the democrats get wacky like 92-94 you can expect another 94, and I hope this time the republicans remember why they were elected.

Edit:On a side note I'd vote for Wright before I'd vote for Edwards, how anyone who knows Edwards history as a lawyer can vote for him is beyond me.

What conspiracy? :lol:

I stand here now saying that I don't have a problem with what Rev. Wright said, while totally understanding the stance Obama has to make. In my opinion anyone who doesn't see it that way is a victim of 'conspiracy' if there truly is one.

Ummmmmmm excuse I have been VERY vocal that I was a solid Edwards supporter and chose Hilary after Edwards died out.

So don't pull me into this McCain BS and act like I have always been a McCain supporter.

I haven't been and you show me where I EVER said I was.

I will give you benefit of the doubt...... I did say if Hilary lost I was 100% sure I would vote for McCain..... because I elieve he is far better material than Obama. And the more all this builds the more, I would stand by that.

But I'm a Hilary supporter and I firmly believe that "conspiracy theory" is a lot closer to the truth than a lot of people will ever admit.

As usual, mixedmedia speaks the truth (sorry BOR, wherever you are :p)

I never said you were a McCain supporter, I said you are not being even equally critical of McCain's association with Hagee as you are being of Obama's association with Wright.

I think you underestimate the Clintons. We'll see, but I tend to believe that the way Obama dissed Rev. Wright..... ooooo the good Rev. won't take it lying down. It maybe Obama's candidacy.... but it's Wright's 1.whatever million dollar home in the gated white community at stake if he allows Obama to take him and his church down.

And NOONE disses Calypso Louie and walks away unscathed....... no this is just the beginning.

And we have to look at who the winner of a destruction of the frontrunner would be..... hmmmm Clinton? Maybe.

McCain doesn't stand a chance unless Obama is running against him.... Hilary will probably have a landslde vs. McCain.

With Obama it's way too clse and this probably iced it for McCain..... and the DNC is smart enough to see that.

Hilary/Obama vs McCain/Guiliani..... Hilary wins... 44 states .... we shall soon see.

pan....didnt you have a conspiracy theory (It has started...)about how the GOP leadership wanted to deny the nomination to McCain (and that his committed delegates really dont have to vote for him at the convention.)

Sorry, I cant help but laugh. It's hard to take all these conspiracy theories seriously.

Its not even a conspiracy when Ustwo and I agree on something.

It had started but it didn't really stick did it? Wright's is sticking.

Plus, these are all possible scenarios.... conspiracy theories are just those possible scenarios.

The sad thing is, that while I may come up with these and people believe (on LARGE SCALES) these or similar conspiracies it says something about the trust of our leaders.

Some of it can be written off as a natural distrust of government.... but not all of it. What we truly need are candidates we can start believing in and trusting again IN ALL LEVELS. We need to get out of the "vote for the better of 2 evils" frame of mind.

IMO, it says more about the intelligence of the voters....that includes the small percent who want to make Wright an issue, the 13% (latest Newsweek poll) who believe Obama is a Muslim and the small percent who will never vote for a black candidate (the three groups probably overlap to some degree).

There is no LARGE SCALE belief in this bullshit. Obama has the highest "favorable" ratings and lowest "unfavorables" among the three candidates.

I see soooo Obama by your own words "has to make this stance". That takes the whole "Change" label off him doesn't it?

Hmmmm....so what are his true views?

And if they are so "okay" with you then why does he have to distance himself the way he did?

Or do you believe you are so much smarter and much more read than the average voter? So you understand Obama has to say things he doesn't mean to appease the idiots?

So when Obama, himself states,You still believe and defend Rev. Wright and would support a president who believes these things that Obama has even himself declared,

You are saying that he is pulling away from Wright calling Wrights words the above, only for political gains and not because he is truly against those words?

WOW.......



I don't know ....

I think he is talking to you, pan. He is saying the things that YOU need to hear. Last I checked he was running for president and in this day and age that means pandering to whichever segment currently experiencing panty rash over the latest 'scandal' in the constant parade of media outrage.

I don't think he needs to take a stance on someone else's words or behavior. And I don't speak for him obviously, so I don't know where his true convictions lie. I'm not under the impression that politicians go around saying what's on their mind all the time, though. No innocent dreams dashed there...

I don't have a problem with what Rev. Wright said. And I really don't care what Obama thinks about it.

Note: the only reason I am back on this thread is because, well, I was drunk last night :shy:

Ever heard the term "beating a dead horse?"

Am I? You think? :lol:

Never underestimate the Democrats' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

MM....my guess is that you might not have been the only one.

44 states? Now that calls for a .....Wow!

Well the horse is dead and was never mine. So my interest is limited here at best. But in a word... yes.

well, then, please allow me to discontinue...beating...this...dead...horse.

I go back to bed and nurse my hangover now.

A plan they're currently fine tuning.

Go, nurse, sleep. This surely can't help your head. I wouldn't have popped into this thread had I not seen you posted again. Curiosity got the better of me and here I am. But not for long, this entire thread is a train wreck.

The issue is indeed silly, but because of the impact the "Wright" non-story is having on Obama's campaign, it is a curious phenomenon. And because it is as you say nothing, it doesn't change the fact that this dynamic can actually affect the outcome of a presidential election. This is what I find interesting. Notice how even the self proclaimed non-interested or the "it's not a story" types can't stay away from the controversy.

Welcome to circular logic. You treat your own echoing of the nothing as given, and then find the effects of that nothing interesting.

No, I didn't say it was nothing. I believe I said it was "silly". I also didn't specify what part (or parts) of this issue I believe are silly. My use of "non-story" was a sarcastic reference regarding attempts to relegate this phenomenon to nothingness when it is in reality "something". The something is an unintended embarrassingly distracting consequence of Obama and Wright's relationship, the hubbub in the press, the racial overtones, and the continuing controversy that continues to pull the democratic primary down to the lowest denominator. Unfortunately it makes news out of media drama. Why is this so-called non-issue of the 24 hour news cycle forcing everyone (including Obama) to weigh in? It's a very silly ... almost comical ... dance that (apparently) you are also participating in.

This might be true, but it just might be one of those coincidences, not orchestrated by the clintons. Hilary's campaign seems very poorly run, its hard to imagine that they could be so bad at the day to day stuff and so wonderfully Machiavellian with Obama.

If this is enough to bring down Obama, it would be his poor handling of the whole affair that does so. Clinton might end up winning because of it (off chance) but I don't think it would be orchestrated.

I feel its too early to make predictions either way. Nationally I do think Obama would be a bit weaker than Hilary at this point but not so much weaker that it would mean victory for McCain. McCain has an uphill battle IN the party. The one issue voters, and sadly one issue voters tend to dominate both parties, do not like him.

Personally I'd love a McCain/Liberman ticket, it would be a true moderate ticket, but but it would never fly with the party faithful.

Who knows... if they really want to win, this ticket would gain substantial mass appeal.

oh, and a bonus effect ... it would really piss off all the antisemitic idiocracies of the world.

i love the conspiracy theories about the Machiavellian Clinton's using Obama as a pawn. thanks for the laugh

I wonder sometimes about whether Hillary is behind the whole business of Wright going high-profile this past week, or whether it's just Wright looking to stoke his own ego because he knows he can get the attention now that he couldn't get before his congregant ran for President. In the normal course of things I'd think it's the latter, just because, well, people are people and they like attention. But then I hear Christopher Hitchens whispering in my ear his views about the Macchiavellian Clintons and I wonder........

There's a vast left-wing conspiracy afoot to take Obama down.

otto---tonight i am going to a playoff game in boston--it's a long story, but the outcome in this case will be mind-bending---i went to a game once before and sat in the same ridiculous seats as i will tonight---the boston garden is in a sense a temple of television--the enormous monitor dominates the court--the "reality" of the game is what passes across it more than what is happening in 3-d, in a curious way--whenever there is a controversial call, everyone looks up to see the replay. whenever anyone appears on the screen, they become a transient celebrity. it is the theater of the domination of television: lasers emanate from it and strobe across the stands--everything about the space is centered on the electronic tablernacle that floats over it, that determines it, that reflects as it determines.

the wright thing is about television, nothing more nothing less. it is about the power accorded it. it is singular only in the emptiness of the "situation"--but it is because of its situational emptiness that its nature is particularly evident. television is **the**ideological relay system in the united states. television is **the** apparatus of opinion management and co-ordination. in a television dominated context like the election cycle, it is really secondary how little is at stake in any given situation--it becomes something through repetition, and that repetition has effects. one of these effects is this thread. another is what this thread is about in the world. that world is also mediated by television.

that we are still talking about this is an indicator of the power of the medium and our collective servility in the face of it.

so it is nothing--but it is a determinate nothing, an indicator of the black hole at the center of american pseudo-democracy, the boundary condition machine that for the most part frames in what we think and frames out what we do not, frames in "legitimate" views and frames out everything else.

it is a joke, otto, but it's a really fucking big joke and you and i and everyone else lives that joke.

let's talk about hate... shall we.. ???
 

the reverend martin luther king would never talk, nor preach the hate that is black versus white... NEVER... he only wanted equality for all...

let's bring up jessie jackson and al sharpton and now throw in a mix of wright...

where is the rightiousness heading now???

yet, the sanctimonious bullshit that surrounds us is fueled by the media and those that will listen to this rhetorric are further engendered in hatred...

i will say this, those that follow the teachings of mlk and follow this crap in his name are nothing less than those that preach white supremacy...

hatred is all around us, yet the hypocrisy still lives in those that have no mind to grow, rather than accept the wisdom of our predeccessors that we all bleed the same...

let those that preach equality for all look at themselves first, and listen to the "holier than those" later...

it's your choice to be open minded or media driven...

i chose to choose for myself what i think is right rather than have someone else's beliefs forced upon mine...

have a nice life in the next election... :thumbsup:

Quoted for truth and accuracy!!!!!!!

And not just MLK but Lennon, Jesus, Buddha, and so many others...... their words are warped for others gains. How sad that people will follow the hate mongers and not see the truth.

Thank you Hanx for one of the best posts I have ever read!!!!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

No doubt, MLK was non-violent, but that doesn't mean he didn't have some very harsh words to say. Calling the United States - his own country - the greatest purveyor of violence in the world is just one example.

It's very true that the words and actions of historical figures are warped to benefit others. It's important, and necessary, for those in power to co-opt popular challenging figures in order to minimize their impact on the status quo. King is a great example of this, as we are constantly treated to selective exerpts of his "I have a dream" speech, while so many of his other words and actions are summarily ignored, because they do not fit into the status quo's preferred image of him. Jesus is another great example, as someone who led a movement which was distinctively political and cultural whose memory has now been integrated into the establishment and a happy-go-lucky dude who just wants us all to get along.

And as much as Lennon was a decent guy...listing him in the same sentence as King is just plain offensive.

You have your opinion and I mine, I see nothing offensive with putting Lennon, Jesus, Buddha and MLK together. They are all men I have great and deep respect and love for, and all I believe conveyed the same messages.

That is my belief.

I'm sorry if it offends you, but every day in our lives we all find something offensive that others may view as something entirely righteous.

So, I'll ask your forgiveness now, because I am sure I will mention and compare favorably those 4 men in sentences again.

But bear in mind, to some what Wright spews is more than just offensive, it is divisive, filled with while inspiring hate towards country and countrymen.

My having Jesus, MLK, Lennon and Buddha in the same sentence, while to you maybe offensive, it does nothing Wright's/Farrakhan's/Robertson's/ etc's words do. The 4 I value and list as heroes, preached love of ALL men.

The others listed preach hatred, divisiveness and jealousy.... and those who follow for 20 years cannot help but be tainted themselves.

I'll support and list my heroes as equals.... you go ahead and find it offensive, it is both of our right.

You happen to support Wright and Obama..... I find that offensive.... it is a right and opinion we are both allowed to have.

I guess we have offended each other..... such is life.

The entire media debacle covering Rev. Wright sickens me. I certainly think that the relationship deserves scrutiny, but the proportionality of media coverage to this event as opposed to others is staggering. Is Rev. Wright really that much more important than the economy? Iraq? The failures of the current administration?

And after the media (correctly) asserts that his remarks are ridiculous for months, they give the man an open forum to express his thoughts, and then replay the video thousands of times over. Can the agenda of the media be any more hypocritical?

And then you have Democrats lambasting Republicans for pushing the issue. Give me a break. As if the Democrats wouldn't do the same if it were McCain. I'm leaning Democrat myself, but it's clear that both parties are to blame for avoiding the tough issues.

I guess it's just easier to discuss a crazy pastor than it is the economy.