What was it that Onion reporter was saying about how partial he was to Hillary's bullsh*t?
I guess she just wanted to give him more.
Friday, March 21, 2008
MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN OLBERMANN?
Wow. This is really an amazing clip.
Chris Wallace of Faux News uncharacteristically "calls BS" on the Fox & Friends gaggle of vacuous douchebags for harping for over 2 hours on Barack Obama's having used the phrase "typical white person" extemporaneously in an interview on a local Philly radio talk show.
The expressions on the faces of the Fox & Friends crew as they span the gamut from deer-in-the-headlights to disgust are priceless! Watch this:
Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but one gets the impressions both that Chris Wallace is perhaps plagued by the guilt of his arc from old journalism to sleeze and of having been truly touched by Obama's speech on race. It's great theatre at any rate.
Chris Wallace of Faux News uncharacteristically "calls BS" on the Fox & Friends gaggle of vacuous douchebags for harping for over 2 hours on Barack Obama's having used the phrase "typical white person" extemporaneously in an interview on a local Philly radio talk show.
The expressions on the faces of the Fox & Friends crew as they span the gamut from deer-in-the-headlights to disgust are priceless! Watch this:
Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but one gets the impressions both that Chris Wallace is perhaps plagued by the guilt of his arc from old journalism to sleeze and of having been truly touched by Obama's speech on race. It's great theatre at any rate.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
THE WRIGHT STUFF
So much has been made regarding Obama's connection with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright that I don't think I need to restate the controversy here.
What is completely overlooked here -even by Barack Obama himself- is that the criticisms of Obama regarding this issue show not just a fundamental misunderstanding of black vs. white issues, but a fundamental misunderstanding of religion.
Consider the chief argument utilized by Obama bashers: how could he sit in those pews week in week out for 20 years listening to that man and getting his spiritual guidance and yet disagree with his views?
Let's set aside for the moment the flawed assumption that every sermon by Wright was as filled with invective as the moments from the ones depicted in the circulating clips are. Even assuming that the clips were culled from services where the entire sermon was as accusatory (an unlikely premise in and of itself -I mean I assume the man had to take a breather at some point!) these are but 3 or 4 sermons in the entire 26 year career of Reverend Wright.
But for arguments sake let's assume that the above is true and that every Sunday Reverend Wright gave an agressive invective filled accusatory sermon from his pulpit. Why assume that anyone who sat in those pews must have instantly agreed with every word? This is the issue that the controversy brings up for me -that people assume that churchgoers are sponges soaking up religious messages to go out into the world and squeeze them out. It assumes that somehow religion erases intellect and that parishioners do not process sermons or even think about them but merely store them. In other words it assumes that churchgoers are only passive and not active.
As a practicing Christian I find that patronizing if not offensive. The same kind of thinking was what led people to fear that Kennedy would slavishly enforce the Pope's will in Rome. It's ignorant and bigoted.
As any Christian can tell you (and though I speak with only catholic experience I can safely assume is true of most denominations -they do all follow the same text after all) the people are the church. Not the pastors, not the heirarchy, not any one person. The community.
This means, of course that the community is going to be filled with a variety of people -they are as individual as a sub group as is any super-group.
For example, I have about as much in common politically with Bill Donohue of the Catholic League as I do with Rush Limbaugh. Donohue and I are both catholics and yet and I don't assume that the presence of either of us in the pews is a reason for the other to leave the faith or that either of us would be caught dead letting the other be assumed to be speaking for all catholics.
Closer to home there is a priest in my parish who actually proclaims himself to be the "Dr. Laura of the parish". Why this would be cause to brag is a mystery to any sane person, and yet he does a great job as a teacher and catechist for the confirmation classes. I have heard several sermons from him that I have disagreed with and even walked out on one (though truth be told I made an effort not to draw attention to myself in doing so). The point is that his objectionable sermons do not detract from the power of the messages of Jesus because I am able th reflect on both his words and Jesus' on my own and come to my own conclusion.
This is where Obama has missed the mark IMO: in not making plain or clear enough what his experience was in the church. Some might say that that is too personal and they'd be right, but at this time and in his present position he has no choice and cannot keep it private any longer.
Obama's speech on race was brilliant and will be talked about for generations to come, but the other door to be opened from this episode is one that Democrats seem to have even a harder time opening than the one about race -that is, the one about religion. We also need to have a serious discussion in this country between the religious and non-religious on the nature of religion and how it affects and whether it should or shouldn't affect both the religious and non-religious.
Take Obama's painting of the resentment felt by both blacks and whites and you can easily transpose it to religious vs. athiest. Without reciting the entire history of/ litany against the church, Atheists are resentful because they feel that the religious look down on them as somehow inferior, and amoral. While this was true in the past and is probably true in some quarters in the present, it doesn't mean that all religious or even a majority feel this way now. Religious (the majority -who don't view atheists as inferior and amoral) feel that athiests mock their faith as either unintelligent or insane. The resentments by both sides are real and justified, and that's where we are.
Personally, I don't want to convert anyone to my religion. I'm happy if they do, and I'm certainly happy to answer any questions about it, but it honestly doesn't affect my judgment of a person. I want to let my religion affect my life and prefer not to be lumped-in with every one else who claims my religion, my denomination or even my parish. To me that's as offensive as lumping me into some group based on the color of my skin or the sound of my last name.
Senator Obama has summed up his relationship with Reverend wright by saying in essence that the whole of the man should not be judged by the most offensive moments of a few of his sermons and this is undeniably true, but he should also challenge those who would criticize his relationship with the pastor of his church to reflect on their own relationships with their own pastors or conversely on how they think a person in a church is affected by that church and whether it is a fair or reasonable impression to hold him to.
What is completely overlooked here -even by Barack Obama himself- is that the criticisms of Obama regarding this issue show not just a fundamental misunderstanding of black vs. white issues, but a fundamental misunderstanding of religion.
Consider the chief argument utilized by Obama bashers: how could he sit in those pews week in week out for 20 years listening to that man and getting his spiritual guidance and yet disagree with his views?
Let's set aside for the moment the flawed assumption that every sermon by Wright was as filled with invective as the moments from the ones depicted in the circulating clips are. Even assuming that the clips were culled from services where the entire sermon was as accusatory (an unlikely premise in and of itself -I mean I assume the man had to take a breather at some point!) these are but 3 or 4 sermons in the entire 26 year career of Reverend Wright.
But for arguments sake let's assume that the above is true and that every Sunday Reverend Wright gave an agressive invective filled accusatory sermon from his pulpit. Why assume that anyone who sat in those pews must have instantly agreed with every word? This is the issue that the controversy brings up for me -that people assume that churchgoers are sponges soaking up religious messages to go out into the world and squeeze them out. It assumes that somehow religion erases intellect and that parishioners do not process sermons or even think about them but merely store them. In other words it assumes that churchgoers are only passive and not active.
As a practicing Christian I find that patronizing if not offensive. The same kind of thinking was what led people to fear that Kennedy would slavishly enforce the Pope's will in Rome. It's ignorant and bigoted.
As any Christian can tell you (and though I speak with only catholic experience I can safely assume is true of most denominations -they do all follow the same text after all) the people are the church. Not the pastors, not the heirarchy, not any one person. The community.
This means, of course that the community is going to be filled with a variety of people -they are as individual as a sub group as is any super-group.
For example, I have about as much in common politically with Bill Donohue of the Catholic League as I do with Rush Limbaugh. Donohue and I are both catholics and yet and I don't assume that the presence of either of us in the pews is a reason for the other to leave the faith or that either of us would be caught dead letting the other be assumed to be speaking for all catholics.
Closer to home there is a priest in my parish who actually proclaims himself to be the "Dr. Laura of the parish". Why this would be cause to brag is a mystery to any sane person, and yet he does a great job as a teacher and catechist for the confirmation classes. I have heard several sermons from him that I have disagreed with and even walked out on one (though truth be told I made an effort not to draw attention to myself in doing so). The point is that his objectionable sermons do not detract from the power of the messages of Jesus because I am able th reflect on both his words and Jesus' on my own and come to my own conclusion.
This is where Obama has missed the mark IMO: in not making plain or clear enough what his experience was in the church. Some might say that that is too personal and they'd be right, but at this time and in his present position he has no choice and cannot keep it private any longer.
Obama's speech on race was brilliant and will be talked about for generations to come, but the other door to be opened from this episode is one that Democrats seem to have even a harder time opening than the one about race -that is, the one about religion. We also need to have a serious discussion in this country between the religious and non-religious on the nature of religion and how it affects and whether it should or shouldn't affect both the religious and non-religious.
Take Obama's painting of the resentment felt by both blacks and whites and you can easily transpose it to religious vs. athiest. Without reciting the entire history of/ litany against the church, Atheists are resentful because they feel that the religious look down on them as somehow inferior, and amoral. While this was true in the past and is probably true in some quarters in the present, it doesn't mean that all religious or even a majority feel this way now. Religious (the majority -who don't view atheists as inferior and amoral) feel that athiests mock their faith as either unintelligent or insane. The resentments by both sides are real and justified, and that's where we are.
Personally, I don't want to convert anyone to my religion. I'm happy if they do, and I'm certainly happy to answer any questions about it, but it honestly doesn't affect my judgment of a person. I want to let my religion affect my life and prefer not to be lumped-in with every one else who claims my religion, my denomination or even my parish. To me that's as offensive as lumping me into some group based on the color of my skin or the sound of my last name.
Senator Obama has summed up his relationship with Reverend wright by saying in essence that the whole of the man should not be judged by the most offensive moments of a few of his sermons and this is undeniably true, but he should also challenge those who would criticize his relationship with the pastor of his church to reflect on their own relationships with their own pastors or conversely on how they think a person in a church is affected by that church and whether it is a fair or reasonable impression to hold him to.
OH DEAR
It just keeps getting better.
MCCAIN: PURIM = HALLOWEEN?
When McCain made a foreign policy gaffe in Jordan on Tuesday, it was Sen. Joe Lieberman who quietly pointed out the mistake, giving McCain an opportunity to correct himself in front of the international press corps. In Israel yesterday, NBC’s Lauren Appelbaum reports, Lieberman once again intervened when McCain made an incorrect reference about the Jewish holiday Purim -- by calling the holiday "their version of Halloween here."
BULLSH*T
couldn't resist:
Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters
And in other news:
BLACK GUY ASKS NATION FOR CHANGE
CHICAGO-According to witnesses, a loud black man approached a crowd of some 4,000 strangers in downtown Chicago Tuesday and made repeated demands for change.
"The time for change is now," said the black guy, yelling at everyone within earshot for 20 straight minutes, practically begging America for change. "The need for change is stronger and more urgent than ever before. And only you—the people standing here today, and indeed all the people of this great nation—only you can deliver this change."
It is estimated that, to date, the black man has asked every single person in the United States for change.
"I've already seen this guy four times today," Chicago-area ad salesman Blake Gordon said. "Every time, it's the same exact spiel. 'I need change.' 'I want change.' Why's he so eager for all this change? What's he going to do with it, anyway?"
After his initial requests for change, the black man rambled nonstop on a variety of unrelated topics, calling for affordable health care, demanding that the government immediately begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, and proposing a $75 billion economic stimulus plan to create new jobs.
"What a wacko," Schaumburg, IL resident Patrick Morledge said.
Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters
And in other news:
BLACK GUY ASKS NATION FOR CHANGE
CHICAGO-According to witnesses, a loud black man approached a crowd of some 4,000 strangers in downtown Chicago Tuesday and made repeated demands for change.
"The time for change is now," said the black guy, yelling at everyone within earshot for 20 straight minutes, practically begging America for change. "The need for change is stronger and more urgent than ever before. And only you—the people standing here today, and indeed all the people of this great nation—only you can deliver this change."
It is estimated that, to date, the black man has asked every single person in the United States for change.
"I've already seen this guy four times today," Chicago-area ad salesman Blake Gordon said. "Every time, it's the same exact spiel. 'I need change.' 'I want change.' Why's he so eager for all this change? What's he going to do with it, anyway?"
After his initial requests for change, the black man rambled nonstop on a variety of unrelated topics, calling for affordable health care, demanding that the government immediately begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, and proposing a $75 billion economic stimulus plan to create new jobs.
"What a wacko," Schaumburg, IL resident Patrick Morledge said.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
MC-IDIOCY
Apparently John McCain, just like his overlords Bush and Cheney, doesn't understand the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims. And I'm not talking about their doctrinal or historical differences -he just doesn't get who's who:
(video from ABC news via Raw Story)
"it's common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran"
Common knowledge? That Sunni Al Qaeda is going into Shiite Iran and receiving training?
Gee who knew those Iranian Mullah's were so tolerant?
And leave it to good ol' GOP BFF Joe Lieberman to have to straighten out ol "straight talk"
One final thought: This is the man Hillary thinks has passed the CIC "threshold" and, along with her, has the experience to be president?
UPDATE (3/20/08): Apparently this wasn't simply a one time slip but McSkippy has repeated this both before and since this "slip".
UPDATE II (3/20/08): Also apparently CNN has been re-christened "McCNN". One of their reporters, Kyra Phillips, shamlessly repeats McBush's "gaffe" and tries to get Petraeus to comment on it:
(from TPM)
(video from ABC news via Raw Story)
"it's common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran"
Common knowledge? That Sunni Al Qaeda is going into Shiite Iran and receiving training?
Gee who knew those Iranian Mullah's were so tolerant?
And leave it to good ol' GOP BFF Joe Lieberman to have to straighten out ol "straight talk"
One final thought: This is the man Hillary thinks has passed the CIC "threshold" and, along with her, has the experience to be president?
UPDATE (3/20/08): Apparently this wasn't simply a one time slip but McSkippy has repeated this both before and since this "slip".
UPDATE II (3/20/08): Also apparently CNN has been re-christened "McCNN". One of their reporters, Kyra Phillips, shamlessly repeats McBush's "gaffe" and tries to get Petraeus to comment on it:
(from TPM)
HISTORY IN ACTION
A few thoughts on Obama's speech today.
Definitely rivals Kennedy's speech to the southern ministers re his Catholicism and church v state. Doubtless, we'll someday be teaching Obama's speeches in history classes.
I especially liked how he didn't trivialize or talk down to the resentment both blacks and whites feel from their respective corners.
The two things that really emotionally hit me every time I hear one of his speeches are: 1) he makes me proud -really proud- to me an American and 2) He makes me want to strive to personally be better and contribute to that "more perfect union" he cited in this speech.
I'm seeing the chatter among his supporters change from "we need him in office" to "we'd better not miss this chance to have someone like him". Subtle shift, but important IMO.
I suffer "indigestion" on a regular basis about whether as a nation we'll actually seize this opportunity, attempt to heal as a nation, and move forward, or whether we'll capitulate to the SOS and continue toward what will, in that case, be a well deserved destruction (or at least diminution).
I'm confident that an Obama presidency would sharply alter the trajectory of our nation toward a better future. I just wish I could be as confident that an Obama presidency will in fact happen.
Definitely rivals Kennedy's speech to the southern ministers re his Catholicism and church v state. Doubtless, we'll someday be teaching Obama's speeches in history classes.
I especially liked how he didn't trivialize or talk down to the resentment both blacks and whites feel from their respective corners.
The two things that really emotionally hit me every time I hear one of his speeches are: 1) he makes me proud -really proud- to me an American and 2) He makes me want to strive to personally be better and contribute to that "more perfect union" he cited in this speech.
I'm seeing the chatter among his supporters change from "we need him in office" to "we'd better not miss this chance to have someone like him". Subtle shift, but important IMO.
I suffer "indigestion" on a regular basis about whether as a nation we'll actually seize this opportunity, attempt to heal as a nation, and move forward, or whether we'll capitulate to the SOS and continue toward what will, in that case, be a well deserved destruction (or at least diminution).
I'm confident that an Obama presidency would sharply alter the trajectory of our nation toward a better future. I just wish I could be as confident that an Obama presidency will in fact happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
