What was done to Rev. Wright in the media was basically a lynching.

[Political Heretic]

I was one of the ones who decided to sit down and listen to Rev. Wrights entire sermons, and a few others I could find that did not have snippets ripped from context by the media, after the controversy started. So I was aware of how twisted and distorted this 5 second clips really were.

But it wasn't until the interview with Wright that it really dawned on me what kind of total personal character assassination the media chose to engage in for the sake of creating false "drama" for the campaign saga. His body may not have died, but his life and career will never be the same. From now on he will always be remembered for the labels given to him by the media, that the public all-too-eagerly jumped at the chance to lap up, as if they were starving to be given a green light to exercise their pent up anger at loud-mouthed active black people. No one will ever meet Rev. Wright again without remembering the labels of "racist" "hater" "nutcase" "whackadoodle" "fanatic" and on and on and on.

The reason why some of us have such a sick feeling in the pit of our stomach is because this wasn't a political attack on a ruling class establishment political candidate, or a candidate at all. This was a media lynching - pure and simple. And it would absolutely not have happened in this way if Rev. Wright had a white face and not a black one. You notice that McCains crazy Paster endorser who said Katrina was caused as Gods vengeance on homosexuals has not been crucified in the media. I wonder why?

It's almost as if the media saw an opportunity to getting away with "letting off some racial tension steam" and did so, by lynching Rev. Wright, destroying his name, annihilating his years of devoted service to this country and to his community all in a matter of hours.

I think we should all remember that as we think about where we are in America.

[GarbagemanLB]

1. What's worse is that so-called 'liberals', 'Democrats', and 'progressives' on this board defend his

treatment by the media just because it hurts Obama.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

11. And they can't seem to decide whether they're genuinely offended by it or not.

OTOH, they're clutching their pearls over how "hateful" and "racist" and "unpatriotic" he is. On the other, it's this feigned "concern" over the effects on Obama's electability because of it.

Get your story straight, Pastorbators: Either you really are a jingoistic flag-humper who thinks white people are terribly oppressed (AKA Freepers), OR you are a cynical racebaiting political hack grasping at an opportunity to bring Obama down via his scary black preacher. Either way, you're an asshole but at least pick a spot and stick with it.

[cliffordu]

14. Fucking right!

:headbang:


That fits the little shits to a tee.

[Bake]

89. "Fucking right! Little shits" MY ASS!

Typical false dichotomy! "You're either A or B."

There ARE other possibilities, but of course that doesn't fit your argument. I reject the false dichotomy.

Bake

[JoFerret]

111. What are you on about?

.

[Political Heretic]

16. "Jingoistic flag-humper" .... I think I just fell in love with you!

:rofl:

I am totally stealing that by the way. Sorry. :P

[SeattleGirl]

42. I'm stealing it too!

Priceless!

[ClayZ]

29. Yeah!

K and R

[anniebelle]

45. You need to trademark that term. Priceless.

I watched, in thorough disgust, to see what CNN would have to add to the piling on of the Reverend Wright -- not disappointed, I might add. John King was sitting in the dummy chair that is usually occupied by pretty boy Anderson Cooper and I was appalled at their "in-depth synopsis" of what the Reverend "really" said. I have also listened to several of Rev. Wright's sermons and also am well aware of Dr. King's sermons. I find it frightening that our history books don't tell us about what has gone on under our name in this country against the Indians, the slaves (wherever they were imported from) and still have the balls to say, as an American, "this is the greatest country on earth" BULLSHIT! I think the chickens ARE home to roost right now. IMHO.

[loyalsister]

78. The real historical comparison is interesting

Rev. Wright and Dr. King preached sermons that were not so different, and the caricatures circulating surrounding this story are in direct opposition. Tucker Calson, et. al's Dr. King is a gently loving pastor. Why? Because he has been accepted as a hero by white people.

That in itself reveals how allegedly educated so many of our American professionals are and how much politicians count on it. If Hillary Clinton was offended by Rev. Wright and he would not have been her pastor, why would she revere Dr. King?

It's an example of the tilted American priorities noted in the OP, but what we are seeing that is really pathetic is the laziness that goes along with displaying and accepting ignorance as if it is knowledge.

[Tatiana]

81. Actually, Dr. Wright's position was that both his sermons and Dr. King's were similarly viewed

in their respective time periods.

Dr. King was absolute reviled, by both whites and black Americans for speaking out against the Vietnam war as well as his "Poor People's Campaign." Bill Moyers himself admitted LBJ was furious with King.

[loyalsister]

84. That was kind of my point

My reference was to current reflections of history, and how it is understood by the majority.

Dr. King is depicted (has been for some time) as a gentle fellow mostly because he is starkly contrasted with Malcom X and Black Panthers. The majority must remember history a certain way in order to make sure the heroes are "legitimate."
We can't be telling grade schoolers about a scary black man at the pulpit who talked about privilege and war. Only the religious man who nonviolently protested for a legitimate cause.

[Tatiana]

101. Got it. Thanks for the clarification, and I agree. n/t

[JDPriestly]

94. The problem with Rev. Wright and his church is their emphasis on

race. If Rev. Wright preached to all of the community and everyone in the community around his church, that would not be racist. If all of the people in his community happen to be African-American, it would still not be racist. The problem with Rev. Wright's approach is his emphasis on serving people and speaking to people of his own race based on their race, his seemingly exclusive focus on serving African-Americans, on African-American culture to the exclusion of anyone else in his community.

I heard the exclusivity and racism of his approach very clearly in his discussion with Bill Moyers. If he had substituted the word "white" for the word "African-American," (or "African" or I believe he used the word "Negro") in his statements, he would be accused of being a white supremacist, a racist white supremacist. (You may feel that is unfair, but it would be a very reasonable understanding of his statements. Mind you, Rev. Wright is a nice person, but then I met NAZI sympathizers in German and Austria who were otherwise lovely people, believe it or not. I still consider them to be racists.)

I believe that Martin Luther King received his PhD. from the seminary at Boston University, a primarily white seminary from which many social activist ministers, primarily Methodists graduated. Dr. King worked for civil rights because he felt deeply that the message of Christ demanded that he speak out about human rights. He spoke to the poor regardless of race. He spoke to the world about poverty issues. Dr. King was compassionate first and foremost. That is why he was able to inspire so many people of different races.

There were other activists in the African-American community at the time of Martin Luther King and after his death whose approach was more Afro-centric. They never received the acclaim, respect or love from the world that Martin Luther King earned and received.

Sorry, I oppose racism and injustice of any form very strongly. To me, Rev. Wright's approach to his role as pastor to his community is racist.

[RaleighNCDUer]

112. And to me, your refusal to see the man for who he is, is racist.

He has a lifetime career behind him that belies your misconception.

[earth mom]

122. Good points. I agree with you. nt

[MadMaddie]

127. Hmmm...I believe it was MLK who said the churces across

America are the most racially segregated places in America.

Now having pointed that out I can guarantee that a white individual would be more welcome in a black church than a black individual in a white church.

Rev Wright was speaking to a predominately black congregation and of the black experience, not the white experience. There are probably many poor people in his church also.

You can pretend that racism over the last 50 years didn't exist and you maybe one of those people that think that if something is uncomfortable you just don't talk about it.

Martin Luther King knew the ulitmate price of speaking out was possible 40 years ago. This is 2008 Rev. Wright is an American citizen and former Marine and he has the right to preach what he wants when he wants.

He made no death threats and he has not pointed out a segment of the population as the reason for disasters in theis country.

Finally, I still don't see the outrage over the White Preachers who hog up mainstream TV, and steal from their poor congregation and television audiences to live in palatial Mansions.

Racist and bigoted is hanging blacks from trees.
Blowing churches up and killing 4 little innocent black girls.
Dragging a black man behind a truck....

I could go on but this is probably pointeless to you....

[JDPriestly]

149. I don't think that your assertion that white people are more

welcome in black churches than black people in white churches is true at this time. My mother's church is mixed and, while mostly white, had a black minister a few years ago. My church is mixed. That simply is not true in my experience.

[MadMaddie]

167. I have witnessed that too, don't get me wrong change has

occurred over the last several years. That is a good thing.

There are still many churches that are segregated absent mindly.

[butterfly77]

85. I wonder what Hill is promising Stephanie Tubbs,,,

she really expects us to believe that Hillary has done nothing, and then she had the nerve to show an attitude because she was asked a question about it...

[Window]

52. LMAO!

Great post.:thumbsup:

:kick:

[Jed Dilligan]

87. Amen!

[ClayZ]

92. Links to the interview;

April 25, 2008

Bill Moyers interviews the Reverend Jeremiah Wright in his first broadcast interview with a journalist since he became embroiled in a controversy for his remarks and his relationship with Barack Obama. Wright, who retired in early 2008 as pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where Senator Obama is a member, has been at the center of controversy for comments he made during sermons, which surfaced in the press in March.


Part One: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html


Part Two: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch2.html

[Enthusiast]

136. This about says it all........

"Get your story straight, Pastorbators: Either you really are a jingoistic flag-humper who thinks white people are terribly oppressed (AKA Freepers), OR you are a cynical racebaiting political hack grasping at an opportunity to bring Obama down via his scary black preacher. Either way, you're an asshole but at least pick a spot and stick with it."

[Raine]

25. Yes that's the worst...

the "progressives" who will throw him under the bus and crawl over his body to further what they want. :-(

[Kolesar]

53. Sorry, I don't see any of that

But I do see a divisive hi-jack in progress

[goclark]

71. He will soar with book sales and speaking tours. after his interview with Moyers

It was one of the most dynamic interviews I have ever seen.

The MSM should be forced to play the Moyers interview after using clips like the ones they played night and day.

They could get the FCC to bash Janet Jackson but they will stand by and let a lie live on Rev. Wright.

[AvaMae]

129. What's worse is that so-called

It truly was a lynching..

It went from the freepers to Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity. Charles Krauthammer took a kick at it
in the WAPO, Bill O'Riley on is show. Chris Mathews, Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan at MSNBC flogged it for all they were worth. Lou Dobbs on CNN, who has a hurt on Obama due to Immigration too. Somehow Newt Gingrich got a piece of it... he was the first I heard come up with the 'if Obama has listened to this for 20 years. I think he does a free newsletter, and for the next week,
almost everyone was claiming Obama had listened to it for 20 years...

After almost a whole week, one single staffer on the CNN 360 tapped in that he pulled the whole sermon and listened to it and understood it was out of context.

As recently as just this past week, Rachel Madow on MSNBC was arguing with the several guys
they have on a couple of the afternoon shoes, including Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan, that
they had only heard a characiture of the sermon, and demanding Obama respond to it, rather than
the entire sermon...

Quietly I began to see oblique references to death threats to Wright, and the church... apparently the press grabbed a copy of the church bulletin, and where they listed sick and shutins and the phone number for other members to call with words of encouragement, the reporters began calling
the sick and shutins, one in hospice care even... I cannot imagine reporters callin the sick and shutins in a white church..

I am not aware of any time that anyone dared criticize a man of god for how he interprets the Bible and day to day events IN HIS PULPIT, IN HIS CHURCH. If Wright had not been a black man, it would
not have happened. Remember when Wright cites his source, Edward Peck, Ambassador to Iraq under Ronald Reagan? His was the 'chickens come home to roost' statement...but everyone believes
Wright originated it.

They fired Don Imis for a purely racist act..

They need to make sure those who perpetrated this lynching are at least fired.

Rush Limbaugh's program is broadcast over arms services network, tax supported radio, half of which is paid by democrats who are the object of derision and hatred for the entire of his show every day, day in and day out.

[MadBadger]

2. As Moyer's said, he has become the face of black anger that many white people fear

White people are just afraid of the man and its disgusting.

[MidwestTransplant]

6. That's exactly why Obama can't come out hard against this stuff. They want to make him the angry

black man.

[Political Heretic]

10. Yes. I don't fault Obama for his well-measured response to the media-created "scandal"

In fact, at a time when the easiest thing in the world would have been for Obama to totally disown Rev. Wright for political purposes, I appreciate the fact that he refused to do so, even if he could not defend comments of Wright that deserved to be defended in their proper context.

[EffieBlack]

58. That's why George asked him if he was hiding his "fire-breathing black man" tendency

That's why Chris Matthews feels perfectly comfortable saying, "The regular guy {i.e., white guy} in Pennsylvania asks two questions when sizing up a candidate. First 'Is he one of us?' And then, ' is he okay?'"

It's all part of the same sub-textual narrative: "We really can't trust this guy. He may may SEEM to be like us. He may SEEM to be one of the good ones. And he's never given us any reaoBut what if he's not? The minute we give him an inch, he might turn into one of THEM. And then WE'RE screwed!"

[RaleighNCDUer]

115. But he's a politician, and he'll do what he has to do.

Which does NOT mean, throwing a friend under the bus.

[maximusveritas]

3. We need to be careful about throwing around terms like that

but I do agree with your basic argument.

[Political Heretic]

4. Yes. And I carefully, thoughtfully, chose it. And it is correct.

[H2O Man]

44. It is correct.

That might upset some people. Good.

[me b zola]

80. You were right

...and I didn't have the courage to say so in your thread before it was shutdown. :( (they don't have an appropriate smiley to indicate the feeling of shame.)

[H2O Man]

102. That's okay.

Things are good.

[Rex_Goodheart]

76. So, if the media was justified in repeating Wright's words

he was justifiably LYNCHED? Oh, yeah, that would work well. Careful with that L word.

[cyndensco]

103. It wasn't that the media repeated Wright's words,

It is that they took the most inflammatory parts of his sermons and placed them on a continuous reel. Seeing the words in context, adding perhaps three minutes on each side of what was broadcast, totally changed the meaning of what he was saying.

"Lynched" seems to fit okay for me....

[MadBadger]

5. I think the word fits because much of the anger imo is race-based.

[Why Syzygy]

7. That's exactly right. But I feel he will be redeemed. In time.

There are a lot of wounds. It certainly was as you describe.

I'm not surprised. My cherry popped after the Dean scream crucifixion.
Look at him now.

He deserves our compassion now, but Rev. Wright will be okay. I'm so grateful to Bill Moyers.

[quantass]

39. .

[napi21]

8. You may see it that way, but the media has been doing this kind of "expose' "

for a very long time. The people who care about Rev. Wright will have listened to his entire sermon, and those who don't care won't. Like it or not, that's the way it is. Think about how they badgered Gore for claiming he "invented the internet", how they played the "Dean scream", how often you saw the swift boat ad against Kerry.

I really don't think this has hurt Rev. Wright at all. His congregation will still support him, and you know that.

Your problem is not about Rev. Wright, it's about the media concentration of sensationalism by the media.

The only way that will ever change is when it stops working. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening!

[Political Heretic]

12. Oh, I know the media has done similar things. Just look at Howard Dean.

However, this time the medias specific "analysis" of their own self-created "scandal" was that he was a racist. They created the race issue, they inflated it, they reveled in it, and the fueled it. Their eagerness to destroy Rev. Wright comes, I believe out of the ruling class's basic discomfort and fear of engaged, active, under-class leaders challenging favored truths.

[napi21]

18. I don't think they were trying to destroy Rev. Wright. I think they were after Barack.

Why would they even care about a black minister in Ill? That wouldn't get them any ratings. I see this as an attack on a Dem candidate...ANY Dem candidate. Try to think back to all the "breaking news" issues the media has had on both Barack & Hillary, then try to remember ANY about McCain. I remember ONE against McCain, and that was the one about the NY newspaper who screwed up the article about his involvement with the female lobbyist and possible sex scandal. The real issue there was his involvement with the lobbyiest, but they ended up retracting the story about the sex! Rev. Wright is not the center of this story, and I feel pretty sure that the Rev. doesn't really care what they say about him. He has his beliefs and he's not changing them because of some talking heads. MY concern is that many people are not going to hear enough of his sermon to recognize what he said was true.

[Political Heretic]

21. It;'s true, the only reason he came to the forefront was because of connection to Obama - but,

my point is that they may have discovered Wright because of his connection to Obama and how they could make that a story. But then, it became much more than that.

It's hard to gauge the media on McCain right now, because its sorta understandable that their ignoring him. Democrats are the sexy ratings story. All the drama is on our side right now.

[Usrename]

30. They would destroy the entire church if it suits their goals. They don't care!

They will never police themselves, or exercise any form of restraint. They don't even know why they should. It's monstrous.

[RaleighNCDUer]

117. But it wasn't about Wright at all.

Wright was just the mushroom on the corner that got popped as the media pulled a drive-by on Obama.

Think they REALLY give a crap about some Chicago preacher?

[EFerrari]

46. The reverend has gotten death threats and the church, bomb threats.

Yes, it has hurt them both.

[butterfly77]

86. The media also were tracking down...

the sick and shut ins to harrass them, these people are crazy..

[Ashy Larry]

9. I agree completely.

The media has been incredibly irresponsible with this issue. There was definitely a mob mentality and a rush to judgement. Its been really depressing to watch.

[EffieBlack]

60. Compare media's coverage of the black church re: Rev. Wright with coverage of the Catholic Church

re: the Pope's visit . . .

To cover the Pope's visit, the msm brought out Catholic scholars, Catholic priests, Catholic laypersons and numerous other experts on the Catholic Church (not to mention Catholic reporters and pundits, such as Pat Buchanan, Chris Matthews and Mike Barnicle) to offer respectful in-depth and comprehensive analysis, context and background of the Church for their viewers.

To cover Rev. Wright, the msm brought out their political reporters and pundits, including Pat Buchanan, Chris Matthews and Mike Barnicle, who spent weeks distorting, mocking, mischaracterizing, asking stupid rhetorical questions and offering ignorant, shallow analysis of the black church.

It was insulting and downright racist.

[Enthusiast]

138. Effie, you have it correct.

I didn't realize how far my country had fallen. How the media would be so "of one mind".

[jcla]

170. You have an "AMEN!" EffieBlack!

Reverend Wright belongs to a mainline organization... the UCC.. United Church of Christ. I think of him as mainstream... and not a fire (and brimstone) -breathing Black man. I think he gives a good shake when we become complacent. To have Reverend Wright trashed by Buchanan and that ilk means his message is getting under their soft skin. I just hope people are viewing the full message not the sound bites. Reverend Wright is worth listening to.

[Triana]

13. Yes it was. And the media attempted to politically lynch Obama on 4/17 too...

...it was thinly disguised as a "debate".

[Frank Booth]

15. I agree. They destroyed an honorable man. Completely disgusting.

[eridani]

17. Wonder why they don't spend as much time on the Rev. Hagee? n/t

[Political Heretic]

20. yup.

[bhikkhu]

19. K&R

If there was a final straw that demonstrated the lack of credibility of our media, that was it. Why anyone still pays any attention is a mystery to me.

[Enthusiast]

139. See, this is what I have been saying in nearly every post.

The media is lost, completely. The country is lost. I see no countervailing force to resist it. Basically anything bad you can project for the future of this country will probably come true or worse. I can see it coming.

[bhikkhu]

147. The new replaces the old.

Bad or good, it is a story yet to be written.

I haven't watched "tv" for five years, having ended the overpriced and overrated cable. The web is a far more useful and less controlled thing. The country is far less lost now than it was in 2003 and 2004. The countervailing forces to PNAC agenda are all about us, and the MSM is much more irrelevant to that than you might think.

[PBS Poll-435]

.

Dup

[PBS Poll-435]

22. Sadly, I guess people, don't really know what that word really means...

[Political Heretic]

31. I do, and do very well.

My social work background has helped with that some. One of the things many people don't know about historical lynchings is that for a time they were not middle of the night things done by angry mobs with pitchforks and torches. They were family outings - like picnics. Families would take their kids, and everyone would gather around and watch the murder of a black person. I put together a collection of postcards once for a project - they were postcards of lynchings sold in the south. Like, "wish you were here" postcards.

I do not accept that the horror of a historical term means that it should be erased from memory. In modern society, there is no longer as much capacity or potential to experience physical lynchings in the same what they were inacted historically. But that doesn't mean that same basic attitude isn't still there. The media and to a large extend much of the American public jumped at the chance to take their children and family, and gather round and watch a black man's life and legacy be public eviscerated for info-tainment. That's the modern lynching. I will not apologize for the appropriate use of the term.

[PBS Poll-435]

34. And you think that an unfair media frenzy equals an unjust hanging.

[MadBadger]

35. Unfair media frenzy? This man's entire life has been forever changed

From now on because of this unfair media pasturbation, the man's name to many will represent shame and hatred for one's country. This man has been slandered before hundred millions of people in the name of politics. I think its a damn good description

[PBS Poll-435]

36. I guess definitions change,

But a lynching?

No.

[Political Heretic]

37. It was the annihilation of a persons lifetime and the permanent alteration of his future.

The term is appropriate. I already told you I don't believe that the appropriate response to someone historically horrible is to lock reference to it away never to be used or discussed again. Two experiences do not have to be equal to warrant comparison. The experience of gathering around to watch the destruction of an African americans man's life and legacy for racial reasons appropriately warrants the description of a media lynching.

We disagree, that's fine. That's just the way it is.

[PBS Poll-435]

.

Dup

[PBS Poll-435]

38. Alright..

I can let this one go.

Have a pleasant weekend!

[bettyellen]

59. i think anyone who's actually had a loved one MURDERED would quibble with you

not the same thing. Wright lives on. Big difference, that.
But overinflated everything is the rule of the day here.

[Political Heretic]

64. That would be me.

And I'm not quibbling with myself. :(

[bettyellen]

69. that would be me, and i have to remind you Wright is alive. We are too. We're all a lot fucking

better off than anyone who has been murdered. Not at all the same.
False analogy, overblown rhetoric. Typical overwrought bullshit. Sorry, being slandered doesn't equal lynching, not even close.
It's an insult to those who have actually died.

[Political Heretic]

96. Sorry, I don't agree, which is my right.

Things don't have to be equal to deserve comparison.

I don't think its wrong to talk about the rape of the natural world by western greed by using the term rape. Do you? I didn't think so. I don't think its wrong for Willing Blum to write a book called "Killing Hope" to describe the history of the CIAs military interventions and home and abroad, even though it wasn't really "murder." Do you? I didn't think so.

And it is absolutely appropriate to refer to the ganging up of a bunch of white ruling elite and a black man and destroying his past, his legacy, his reputation, his career, his life as a media lynching. The reason the word in particular is appropriate is not because the emotional heartache and tragedy of having your life destroyed in front of the entire world is equivalent to losing your phsyical life. It's not less than or more than losing your life - it is its own kind of unique horror and injustice.

The reason the word is appropirate is because of the attitude and purpose of those who chose to do it - there's was the attitude of the lynch mob. Exactly the same, just evolved to fit "modern sensibilities" .... so no people with that attitude don't string blanks from trees literally - the just do it figuratively, with the same basic attitude in doing it.

Every time you protest you only prove my point of mission accomplished. You should be uncomfortable.

[bettyellen]

113. raping the earth, killing hope are metaphors about objects you cannot murder...

lynching is actually something you can do to a person, and it just didnt occur.
You can say they "lynched his career" perhaps, and it's awkward, but it makes sense. But no, this is overwrought wholly inaccurate hysterical bullshit- a lie and insult to all real victims- to say he was lynched. It's nonsense, and an embarrassment to say it's equivical because of the an attitude. I'm wholly comfortaable pointing out your gross exagerration, because Wright lives and breathes and is actually able to reach more people than ever, if that's what he choses to do. or he can retire quietly. maybe write a book. all options not available to those who actually have been murdered.
It's plenty bad what happened to him, but his "life" is not anywhere fucking close to destroyed. Get over it. More people than ever know who he is and waht he thinks, if he's proud of himself, that's a good thing in the end.
Sorry, it's a inflammatory bullshit to say it's a lynching.

[Political Heretic]

131. That's your opinion. You have no more or less authority in this matter than that.

Same with me. I don't agree with you.

[RaleighNCDUer]

119. Suppose he gets so depressed about this treatment that he commits

suicide. Would you accept 'lynching' then?

Funny how when the shame comes back on your side, you suddenly get all literal. 'Political whore' becomes 'whore'. And the deliberate destruction of a man's life and reputation doesn't live up to 'lynching'.

[bettyellen]

124. no, that wouldn't be a lynching either. Lots of people have bounced back from worse.

my brother jumped off a building. i know better than to blame any other individual for his suicide, and that's because life and death is not some fucking game to me. It seems to be to those who throw around lynching here. Sorry, but it makes you all look very immature, like you lack any sense of history.

[RaleighNCDUer]

128. You know, there is such a thing as cause and effect.

Who the fuck are you to judge what's "worse"?

What was done to Wright was pure McCarthyism, and FYI, more than a few people who were destroyed by McCarthyism DID commit suicide so maybe YOU need a little history lesson.

[Political Heretic]

130. Exactly

[Enthusiast]

141. Right on! nt

[bettyellen]

135. the law doesn't see slander and murder as equivelent... and it's kinda obvious why

there's no surviving one of those crimes. Doh!

[RaleighNCDUer]

137. Tell that to the people who drove that teenage girl to suicide

last year with their hate emails.

They WERE charged.

You are really pathetic, defending the indefensible.

[Jamastiene]

145. They weren't charged.

For the record, local officials have made special laws to defend them from cyber vigilantes.

[bettyellen]

159. not defending "slander" just not saying it's the ultimate crime- there are quite a few worse things

grow the fuck up and use your brain for heaven's sake. who can take this bullshit seriously anymore?
and they weren;t charged. because it's not murder to harass someone.

[Bake]

90. The Rev will be just fine.

He's got his mansion in Chicago ... he's still got an audience who will flock to him even more eagerly, even in retirement.

I think he'll be OK. Unlike the victims of actual lynchings. I think the use of this term for Wright is DISGUSTING.

Bake

[Political Heretic]

97. Sorry, I believe you to be wrong.

Things don't have to be equal to deserve comparison.

I don't think its wrong to talk about the rape of the natural world by western greed by using the term rape. Do you? I didn't think so. I don't think its wrong for Willing Blum to write a book called "Killing Hope" to describe the history of the CIAs military interventions and home and abroad, even though it wasn't really "murder." Do you? I didn't think so.

And it is absolutely appropriate to refer to the ganging up of a bunch of white ruling elite and a black man and destroying his past, his legacy, his reputation, his career, his life as a media lynching. The reason the word in particular is appropriate is not because the emotional heartache and tragedy of having your life destroyed in front of the entire world is equivalent to losing your physical life. It's not less than or more than losing your life - it is its own kind of unique horror and injustice.

The reason the word is appropriate is because of the attitude and purpose of those who chose to do it - there's was the attitude of the lynch mob. Exactly the same, just evolved to fit "modern sensibilities" .... so no people with that attitude don't string blanks from trees literally - the just do it figuratively, with the same basic attitude in doing it.

Every time you protest you only prove my point of mission accomplished. You should be uncomfortable.

[bettyellen]

116. everytime you cut and paste this bullshit it shows how much you really care. .

mission accomplished indeed.

[Political Heretic]

132. Personal attacks are irrelevant. You have your opinion, I have mine.

It's that simple.

[JDPriestly]

98. The lynchings are a horrible legacy.

But very few Americans living today have or had anything to do with those lynchings. White people of today are not to blame for those horrible lynchings.

Rather than divide people, guilty, not guilty according to race, people, all people should be judged "not by the color of the race," but by the quality of their own character.

I worked for an African-American woman at a non-profit for many years. It shocked me that any time some African-American, almost anywhere in the world, did anything wrong, she seemed to take responsibility for condemning it loudly and pointing out clearly that she did not approve of it. She seemed to need to disassociate herself from any bad act done by any African-American. I could never understand that.

She was a very good person. I certainly did not think she was responsible or had anything to with the bad acts of other people just because they happened to be the same race that she was. And I certainly don't feel responsible for every bad act done by every person who happened to be white.

The lynchings were abominations. Lynchings should not be torn from our national memory, but then neither should the courage of the abolitionists. My personal family was abolitionist way, way back. At the age of 12, my white great-grandfather accompanied his father, a Union soldier, to fight against slavery in the Civil War. My great-grandfather was shot while accompanying the Union Army. His courage and sacrifice also should not be erased from memory. The lynchings are not my responsibility. I am responsible for speaking out against the injustices in our society today -- including the lack of equal justice for African-Americans in our courts right now, today. That is our responsibility. Not the lynchings of yesterday.

Racism is bad, whether it leads white people to stereotype African-Americans as criminals or leads African-Americans to stereotype whites as lynchers. Racism is bad. Each of us is responsible for his or her own behavior. It is up to each of us, regardless of race, to do what is right, to speak out for what is just.

[RaleighNCDUer]

120. Jena. nt

[JDPriestly]

150. I'm not in Jena. Neither are you. I condemn what went on in Jena.

[RaleighNCDUer]

152. But I thought that lynching was something out of our dark distant past

and not worthy of consideration in these enlightened times.

Nice to know we can agree on that.

[JDPriestly]

153. Who was lynched in Jena?

[RaleighNCDUer]

158. If it was a thing of the past

the threat would not have bothered anybody.

Lynching has NEVER been about the actual killing. It is about the terror.

ON EDIT:

And they are NOT a thing of yesterday. When large numbers of prisoners die by 'suicide' in jail - they were lynched. When an unarmed suspect is shot 50 times - he was lynched. It is NOT a thing of the distant past. And THAT is why Jena resonated with the public. People who are honest with themselves know that. And THAT is why the deliberate destruction of a black pastor's reputation is a symbolic lynching.

I suppose if he were to be gunned down while walking his dog, that would be just an unfortunate coincidence. NO. It would be a lynching, justified in the mind of the shooter by what was done to him by the media.

[SeattleGirl]

23. Well, we pretty, delicate white people just can't TOLERATE the

black folk gettin' all outta line and all that stuff! I mean! "America's chickens are coming home to roost"???? What? Is there an egg shortage?

We pretty, delicate white people have NEVAH done anything wrong! The United States of Pretty, Delicate White People has never suppressed, oppressed, depressed, or repressed ANY of those dark people! Why, the IDEA! How DARE those dark skinned people bring up such a thing! It's a lie, I tell you! A LIE!

The Reverend Wright and his people must, I tell you, MUST be kept quiet! You SAW that sermon! You just KNOW he is trying to spread ugly lies about we pretty, delicate white people, just to make us look bad! We can't have it! We just CAN'T!

And :sarcasm: for those of you whose sarcasm detector thingy doesn't work any more.

[Why Syzygy]

41. That's right! lol

I'm soooo glad those Big Media Men and Hillary took care of the Scary Preacher!

We are just fortunate that the MEDIA is looking out for OUR BEST INTERESTS!

They would NEVER let a BAD MAN hurt us!

We can ALWAYS Trust them to Take Care of Us!

[East Liberty Denizen]

47. Obama is going to have to do better

Its a fact a lot of poor whites are offended by Rev. Wright. Whether or not its fair or not is irrelevant.

Unless Obama is willing to write off those votes, he's going to have to deal with the whole issue and that is what the Pennsylvanian results verified.

The idea here is to win the election.

[SeattleGirl]

48. I'm sorry, but it IS relevant.

It's relevant because the poor whites often do not see that they are being thrown into the same shithole that blacks have been thrown into.

They seem to think they may be immune because of the color of their skin, but they aren't.

THAT is one of the tragedies of pretending that race issues don't exist in this country.

While I think that poor whites get a better pass on things than poor blacks, on an economic scale, they are both in the same boat.

[East Liberty Denizen]

51. Obama has failed (so far) to deliver that message

The candidates lack of appeal to poor whites is an area that he has to address, if his intent is to win.

Just you or I or the Democratic Party as a whole recognizing that it is in poor whites best interest to support Obama isn't going to win the election. It is the voters themselves who have to recognize it, or at least the majority of them.

[EFerrari]

57. Obama won't get the vote of the 33%ers. And that Clinton did better

among blue collar workers isn't an indication that they won't vote for Obama in the general election. He also tends to do better over time with new constituencies, not worse.

[East Liberty Denizen]

61. Then there wouldn't be anything to worry about

Although Obama is really untested in his long term appeal to white constituencies.

His state senate district was overwhelming Democratic and majority African American.

His sole US Senate race was against another African American candidate.

[EFerrari]

62. Are you saying that over time, white people won't like him?

I guess I think better of American voters than you or Bill Clinton do.

[East Liberty Denizen]

63. I'm saying I don't know

Its an unproven fact, and the results from Pennsylvania would indicate that Obama might not have the appeal to white voters in the general election.

I'm just saying that the candidate has to work on it, between now and then. Other African American candidates have been successful in the past among white voters. If, God forbid, Obama were to fail to get poor whites behind his candidacy, it would be his failing not the voters.
The candidate bears the responsibility for setting the tone of the campaign and getting the electorate behind him.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

68. After a tough primary against several candidates

Including, *gasp* white ones!

BTW I hate to break it to you, but they actually let black people vote these days. Sometimes, they even count their votes! :sarcasm:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

66. And a lot of them were going to vote for McCain all along. Even if Clinton were the nom.

We have not won blue collar whites since Reagan.

[juno jones]

105. You throw around 'poor whites' so casually.

So meaningfully. You are racist and classist AND sexist by trying to divide the myriad personalities of the 'white working class' into a stereotype of a white trailer-trash male. HAH! There are more working people out there of no political party rooting for Obama than I have ever seen involved before. And I work with more than a few white males. they will not come out for Clinton OR McCain. But they will come out for Obama. BE VERY AFRAID! Go peddle that shit somewhere else. We ain't buying.

[truth please]

160. They will never recognize it because they make

themselves believe that they are in the same predicament as blacks because in their hearts they are better. Don't you remember the Katrina victims and how they were demonized for being poor. How some people didn't feel sorry for them because they felt they were poor not because of circumstances but laziness. So if you associate yourself with them then you have to say you're lazy too.

[RaleighNCDUer]

148. Immune, hell.

The entire system DEPENDS on the ruling class pitting poor whites against poor blacks. You know, the guys who run the media that keeps pumping the story while not covering how Obama has already answered it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

65. Okay I'm going to mark you down as a Feigning Concern Pastorbator.

Just know that if you lapse into Genuinely Offended Patriotic Pastorbator mode, I'm gonna call you on it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

146. He DID deal with it. It's just the media, and you apparently,

refuse to listen.

[fortyfeetunder]

70. Good one Seattle Girl!

nice sarcasm :hi:

[2rth2pwr]

24. You need to email your post to Obama, he has also repudiated the Pastor's words.

"I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Rev. Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain," Obama said. "Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely -- just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

"But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country -- a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."


There's more instances of Obama repudiating the words of his pastor, I really don't feel like citing every instance. But, I think it's

important that Obama knows that he is part of this character assassination.

[Usrename]

32. WTF is wrong with you?

How is it character assassination to disagree with someone? He isn't calling Rev Wright out as an angry, uppity racist. Is he?

[Political Heretic]

33. Obama did the best he could in the political arena.

There's no inconsistency in my position. The day Obama gave his speech I posted my praise for his courage in refusing calls to "disown" Rev. Wright, and my lament that he had no political choice but to distance himself from comments that did not deserve distancing. I disagree with Obama's condemnation of Wrights comments? Yes. Did I understand why he had to do it? Yes. And apparently, according to his interview with Bill Moyers, so does Rev. Wright.

Rev. Wright, in the Moyer's interview described it perfectly. It is a shame that our country continues to be so backward in race relations, even with all the progress that has been made, that a person who wants to have any hope of being elected president has absolutely no choice but to distance from people telling the truth in ways that disturb the sensitive ears of the ruling class and the ruling race. But that's the way it is. And there's nothing that wouldn't be better with Obama in the White House and nothing that wouldn't be worse with him out of the race.

[Heathen57]

40. Obama stated that he disagreed with the Reverend's words,

but he stood up for the man. That is much more than Clinton and her group would ever consider.

Obama stuck to his principals. He respects the Reverend, even though he disagrees strongly with the way he expressed his outrage on how the black population has been treated in this country. During his speeches and questions, he has pounded home the point.

Assassination by association is a republican trick and something that I would never have thought one Dem would do to another. At least until Clinton came into this race.

[Bake]

91. Unfortunately, the Obots disregard their candidate's words.

They DO see racism as endemic. They DO elevate what is wrong with America above what is right with America.

It's a shame they don't share his vision. I guess they weren't listening.

Bake

[RaleighNCDUer]

151. If you are really from mississippi and you don't think that racism

is endemic, then you don't understand racism, or endemic, or you are just shit-all stupid.

It is politically correct to say it is not, but it is factually incorrect. And it is not a matter of elevating the wrong, but simply acknowledging it - which too few seem willing to do.

I have a vision of when that might be true, but it is not this day - not by a long fucking shot.

[Bake]

156. So you're saying that Obama is a liar. Fabulous.

Why do you support someone who is so clearly deluded? Or if he's saying it only for political expediency, shame on him. You make me wonder if you really WANT us all to just get along.

Thanks for looking up my profile, by the way. Yes, I do live in Mississippi, moved here five years ago. I see racism here, of course. But I can tell you we've come a long long way from the 60s. I can't speak for NC, nor can I speak for you.

Bake

[struggle4progress]

26. The reason for the "Fairness Doctrine" was ... to put it simply ... fairness

The corporate media reflexively and habitually fills the airwaves with all manner of unfair characterizations

[SeattleGirl]

27. Not to mention the fact that usually for every "liberal" person they

have on, they think it's only "fairness" to have two Repukes on at the same time.

[midnight]

28. I agree with the fact that Rev. Wright was attacked.

Most white people do not entertain notions of racism and that is the good thing. There are to many though who's fear is manipulated via those in power and their bidders-the media. Not sure why the Media wouldn't explore the comments of McCains's ministers. Media has been an abusive power.

[DemVet]

43. As a Hillary supporter....

...I think it's good that Wright gave this interview.

Nothing like keeping an issue on the front burner.

Jeremiah Wright...the gift that keeps on giving. To Hillary, that is. :D

[tekisui]

49. Character assassination works! Hillary '08!

Because she can't win on her own merits!

[DemVet]

72. Politics is Politics.

I think Hillary has more achievements and merit on a national level than Senator Obama.

Besides, if you don't want to run with the big dogs, keep your ass on the porch!

[Enthusiast]

142. Faux News = Big Dogs

[EFerrari]

50. FYI: The New York Times is still calling his remarks racist, even today.

The text of their editorial, which is a denunciation of the ads being run in NC is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5692420

Letters to the editor can be sent here: [e-mail]. If you keep them short (under 200 words or so), they're more likely to be printed.

:kick:

[Kolesar]

54. Thank you for noting that

I don't what they were referring to in Wright's speech .

(P.S., that Wright segment on Bill Moyers' Journal last night was excellent)

[EFerrari]

56. I watched it twice all the way through.

I didn't realize he was a historian. :hi:

[IsItJustMe]

55. No doubt in my mind. This was a straight up racist high tech lynching by our msm. They can get

away with this it, as long as they do it subtly and don't say the N word.

[aquarius dawning]

67. I think he and BO got off easy personally. We'll see if the media is done with this though.

if BO is nominated.

[MadBadger]

73. I'm guessing you didnt see the Moyer's interview.

[Rex_Goodheart]

75. I saw the Moyers interview. What a joke.

All of a sudden the Reverend Wright is this soft-spoken purveyor of peace, love, and understanding. Didn't fly with me.

Why didn't Moyers ask Wright to justify his "US of KKKA" remark?

[MadBadger]

77. What was that Sean?

[butterfly77]

88. Yes, he is...

do you know what preaching is, did you expect him to sit there and magnify his voice for the interview, any excuse because you can't handle the truth...Don't worry he will be at the press club this week and you better believe it will be asked. Whatever his answer is he said it and will explain it it is not up to Obama to explain it or any other sermon...

[Political Heretic]

99. Not like it would be hard to justifiy

for anyone who's actually listened to his sermons, rather than just little snippets ripped from context.

[earth mom]

121. Bingo-Exactly right! Btw, This thread is a flamefest waiting to happen.

:eyes:

[jeffrey_X]

161. Really? So those sound bytes are a true representation of the man and his career?

If he is nominated, this will become an issue only for the racist biggots in this country. Only then will we realize we still have a long, long way to go.

[Rex_Goodheart]

74. Baloney

It wasn't "God abhors America's actions", it was "God damn America".

definition of "damn"
v : wish harm upon; invoke evil upon

It was the "US of KKKA"... as a white man I take GREAT offense to that declaration.

The media was justified in blasting that racist.

[RamboLiberal]

107. And you think there are times America shouldn't be damned

You need an avatar of the stupid elephant and not the democratic donkey!

Poor white man is offended that a black preacher dared to damn America for its sins. And while you may not be guilty and are offended by the KKK there are those in our history and today who allowed it to be spawned and who continue in its idiocy and racism today.

I always find it ironic that we Americans condemn other countries who fail to teach the full brutality of their history, for example Japan and WWII, yet as a child there was much of history I did not learn. I came of age during the 60's and it was in the context of that turbulent and historical decade that I came of age learning what the history texts and the popular culture did not teach me. Those times taught me to dig deeper to learn the truths I was not being taught. It was hard to let go of my myths that this country was always righteous and good.

I'll let Rev Wright explain better than I what he was referencing.

I think I come at that as a historian of religion. That we are miseducated as a people. Or because we're miseducated, you end up with the majority of the people not wanting to hear the truth. Because they would rather cling to what they are taught. James Washington, now a deceased church historian, says that after every revolution, the winners of that revolution write down what the revolution was about so that their children can learn it, whether it's true or not. They don't learn anything at all about the Arawak, they don't learn anything at all about the Seminole, the Cheek-Trail of Tears, the Cherokee. They don't learn anything. No, they don't learn that. What they learn is 1776, Crispus Attucks was the one black guy in there. Fight against the British, the- terrible. "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal while we're holding slaves." No, keep that part out. They learn that. And they cling to that. And when you start trying to show them you only got a piece of the story, and lemme show you the rest of the story, you run into vitriolic hatred because you're desecrating our myth. You're desecrating what we hold sacred. And when you're holding sacred is a miseducational system that has not taught you the truth. I also think people don't understand condemn, D-E-M-N, D-A-M-N. They don't understand the root, the etymology of the word in terms of God condemning the practices that are against God's people. But again, what is happening is I talk a truth. Reading the scripture or the hermeneutic of a people who have-

BILL MOYERS: Hermeneutic?

REVEREND WRIGHT: Hermeneutic is an interpretation, it's the window from which you're looking is your hermeneutic. And when you don't realize that I've been framed- this whole thing has been framed through this window, there's another world out here that I'm not looking at or taking into account, it gives you a perspective that-- that is-- that is informed by and limited by your hermeneutic. Dr. James Cone put it this way. The God of the people who riding on the decks of the slave ship is not the God of the people who are riding underneath the decks as slaves in chains. If the God you're praying to, "Bless our slavery" is not the God to whom these people are praying, saying, "God, get us out of slavery." And it's not like Notre Dame playing Michigan. You're saying flip a coin; hope God blesses the winning team, no. That the perception of God who allows slavery, who allows rape, who allows misogyny, who allows sodomy, who allows murder of a people, lynching, that's not the God of the people being lynched and sodomized and raped, and carried away into a foreign country. Same thing you find in Psalm 137. That those people who are carried away into slavery have a very different concept of what it means to be the people of God than the ones who carried them away.

BILL MOYERS: And they say, "How can we sing the song of the Lord of a foreign land?"

REVEREND WRIGHT: Correct.

http://stephencrosehome.blogspot.com/2008/04/full-transcript-of-moyers-wright.html

[Enthusiast]

143. Maybe you should have had a little dose of that syphilis, boy.

[EFerrari]

144. So, you don't know the biblical context or tradition.

You obviously haven't seen or read the whole sermon.

And how, by the way, do you get racism out that statement? He didn't say, God damn whitey, did he?

You know, willful ignorance has a way of turning you.

[JoFerret]

79. High tech or low tech?

(I think hyperbole here is misplaced. And a tad tasteless).
He was treated unfairly. That is for sure.

[Bake]

82. Isn't that the term Clarence Thomas used?

Interesting that the Obots who decried Thomas use his terminology ...

Frankly, I think using the term "lynching" for this desecrates the memory of victims of REAL lynchings in the not to distant past.

It's just another way for the Obots to throw the race card/victim card. And it's really gotten OLD.

Bake

[JoFerret]

83. CT called it a "high tech"

lynching. My feeling is that we should be careful before using that word too easily. It has a real historical power that metaphor can only diminish.

(I wonder if Anita Hill supports Obama. Some clever clogs could find out.)

On the subject of SCOTUS - Obama was about to support Roberts until someone pointed out it was not politically savvy.

[Political Heretic]

100. I don't agree with you.

Things don't have to be equal to deserve comparison.

I don't think its wrong to talk about the rape of the natural world by western greed by using the term rape. Do you? I didn't think so. I don't think its wrong for Willing Blum to write a book called "Killing Hope" to describe the history of the CIAs military interventions and home and abroad, even though it wasn't really "murder." Do you? I didn't think so.

And it is absolutely appropriate to refer to the ganging up of a bunch of white ruling elite and a black man and destroying his past, his legacy, his reputation, his career, his life as a media lynching. The reason the word in particular is appropriate is not because the emotional heartache and tragedy of having your life destroyed in front of the entire world is equivalent to losing your phsyical life. It's not less than or more than losing your life - it is its own kind of unique horror and injustice.

The reason the word is appropirate is because of the attitude and purpose of those who chose to do it - there's was the attitude of the lynch mob. Exactly the same, just evolved to fit "modern sensibilities" .... so no people with that attitude don't string blanks from trees literally - the just do it figuratively, with the same basic attitude in doing it.

Every time you protest you only prove my point of mission accomplished. You should be uncomfortable.

[JoFerret]

110. Crikey.

.

[Political Heretic]

133. Well argued.

[JoFerret]

169. Thank-you

Sometimes it is hard to know where to begin with a diatribe. So blasphemous expression seems like a good start.

[foo_bar]

171. "raping the land" isn't actually metaphorical, since the rapine/pillage meaning predates the sexual

Only the legal definition of rape is necessarily related to intercourse, owing to the British system's penchant for chusing the most inoffensive sounding euphemism for offenses (pardon me, lack of demeanors), thus violating a person ("viol", "violenza", "violencia" in Romance languages) became "rape" by virtue of resembling an ambiguous property crime (from rapere, to "snatch, grab, carry off"). Lynching (somewhat) similarly began with the larger meaning of collective punishment without due process, but became synonymous with murder because of what angry mobs almost always do without due process, but strictly speaking you aren't drawing a comparison so much as using the correct term. IMO.

[rainlillie]

93. Here are a few questions that people should ask those who continue to demonized Rev. Wright.

How would you feel if you fought for your country and once you returned home:

You had to ride in the back of the bus, and if a white person wanted your seat, you had to get up and give it to them.

You couldn't sit down stairs in a theater.

You couldn't sit at the counter and order food.

You couldn't swim in public pools.

You could only drink from certain fountains.

You could only go to certain hospitals.


Finally ,when you had enough you marched and demanded to be treated like human beings. The police beat you like an animal and fire hoses and dogs were unleashed on you

All this, after being shot at and risking your life to defend your country. Do you think you would have warm fuzzy feelings towards your government? I don't think anyone should hold on to angry, but it takes awhile for people to heal after being abused, and yes, Rev. Wright and many like him were abused by the state, local and federal governments.
Do you suppose, that Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly have ever suffered the way Rev. Wright has?

[truth please]

162. I know people say they are tired of hearing black people's

memories but, my daughter took my Grandmother who has Alzheimer's to the movie theater when she was 97. They sat down and my Grandmother looked around and saw white people and told my daughter, "baby we have to get up, we can't sit down here with the white people". My daughter tried to explain that it was okay now, but she was so scared of being attacked that they had to leave the theater. She is 102 now and still remembers the most horrible time in her life. When we were trying to sell our home, my Grandmother had to be sedated because she thought the white people coming in were going to take our house or burn it down. When she was in her twenties their family home was burned to the ground by white racists. So older people still have those horrible memories that the rest of America does not want to remember. If you are a Christian, do you really believe that America is not going to be damned for it's actions. Yes, this country does a lot of good but at the same time this country has done just as much evil.

[Road Scholar]

95. K&R nt

[barack the house]

104. I'm glad this has opened peoples's eyes to media time to press off and turn progressive radio on...

These are our friends headonradionetwork.com and novamradio.com

[WHAT]

106. It's trying to make it about race...

when it's really not. That's what I find so offensive. You only need to look a little bit to see Rev. Wright was trying to raise the awareness of his flock to Christian ideals. What happened in corporate media was a damning of Christian idealism.

It was wrong to do this to this man and I don't think it would have been done if he wasn't a black pastor.

I didn't watch the abc debate, but, I remember a few years ago the same two talked about "hosing" a black, conservative commentator. That, too, was offensive and racist.

I think they want it to be about race. I think the initial mistaken assumption was that Obama would not be a serious contender because of his race. They were mistaken and now are doing everything they can to invoke a contraction of sentiment and view in order to play the people thus manipulated. I don't think it will work because it goes against the grain of the greater good.

Anyway, I'm sick of this manufactured dispute and I'm done with any Wright threads. I will ignore the bs.

[dave123williams]

108. Do you REALLY think those culpable in the media give a damn?

Profit agenda driven fuckwits lower the bar on the Country, yet again.

[RaleighNCDUer]

109. We can be consoled somewhat in that his reputation was not destroyed

with those most important persons - those who actually know him.

He has the hatred of strangers, nothing more.

[groovytang]

114. Cut the hyperbole

[Political Heretic]

134. I will the moment I engage in it.

Because something is not a direct comparison does not make it hyperbole.

And it is absolutely appropriate to refer to the ganging up of a bunch of white ruling elite and a black man and destroying his past, his legacy, his reputation, his career, his life as a media lynching. The reason the word in particular is appropriate is not because the emotional heartache and tragedy of having your life destroyed in front of the entire world is equivalent to losing your physical life. It's not less than or more than losing your life - it is its own kind of unique horror and injustice.

The reason the word is appropriate is because of the attitude and purpose of those who chose to do it - there's was the attitude of the lynch mob. Exactly the same, just evolved to fit "modern sensibilities" .... so no people with that attitude don't string blanks from trees literally - the just do it figuratively, with the same basic attitude in doing it.

[1776Forever]

118. The MSM in this country are out of control and disgusting! They are crazed with gotcha soundbites

that go nowhere and don't help the little guy! It is getting to be so bad I cannot even watch much of it at a time.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

123. they are controlled by the right wing corporations, so.....

[GOPBasher]

125. I agree.

This man has dedicated his life to helping people. They attack him on a few soundbites.

[MadMaddie]

126. Amen.Amen....it can't be seen as anything else.

The Republicans will tell you that Black Americans are treated equal and there is no racial disparity. The Rev. Wright case proves them wrong.

We all know the truth!!

[Bluebear]

140. Serious question: how do Afican-Americans feel about "lynching" being used so broadly?

I'm only a progressive white guy, but it really rubs me the wrong way that all the people who were brutally murdered, hung from the nearest tree and REALLY 'lynched' would be trivialized by using the term in this fashion. Just wondering.

[Political Heretic]

154. I disagree with you that it is being applied "broadly" here.

I don't like it when the term is applied broadly. In this case, the term is relevant on multiple levels.

-- it is a racially motivated attack
-- it is a mass attack, gang up
-- its purpose was to destroy the life of a black man for entertainment or, if you're being really generous, "infotainment"
-- it was publicly accepted without objection

It is absolutely appropriate to refer to the ganging up of a bunch of white ruling elite and a black man and destroying his past, his legacy, his reputation, his career, his life as a media lynching. Calling it a media lynching by definition distinguishes it from a historical lynching.

But to bury that word in the past as though it can and should never be used to evoke the emotionally painful history of racist group attacks on blacks for entertainment is absurd.

The power of history lies in remembering not just the quantitative events (in this case the murder) but the qualitative motivations behind it - and the similarities between motivations then and now are striking. Thus, it is with great purpose and deliberate point that I call it a media lynching.

The reason the word in particular is appropriate is not because the emotional heartache and tragedy of having your life destroyed in front of the entire world is equivalent to losing your physical life. It's not less than or more than losing your life - it is its own kind of unique horror and injustice.

The reason the word is appropriate is because of the attitude and purpose of those who chose to do it - there's was the attitude of the lynch mob. Exactly the same, just evolved to fit "modern sensibilities" .... so no people with that attitude don't string blanks from trees literally - the just do it figuratively, with the same basic attitude in doing it.

[Algorem]

155. lynching has basically become an overused word

[Political Heretic]

164. Maybe, but not in this case.

[truth please]

157. I am 53 and for most of my life I have heard white people

say,black people need to fix their communities and stop looking for the Government to do it. So now this black church is doing just that and they are called racists. Rev. Wright never said they only help black people I can guarantee you that church will help whomever comes there that needs help. The church does not hate white people, the church and the members have a commitment to help the community. In the Church teachings they are taught that no matter how successful they are they should always take care of the least of them. So what that means is if I achieve then I must in some way help someone in my community. If all the churches did that the black community would have less problems. The problems in the black community are overwhelming, so they take a vow to help those in need. I read the comments and listen to racist Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the media spin the good that this church does into something evil. The good helps all because if they can reach one child and stop them from becoming a gang-banger, drug addict, drug dealer, unwed mother or welfare recipient, then they are helping not just black people but all people.

[frickaline]

163. So after your research, how would you characterize Wright's views?

What are his beliefs in your opinion?

I'd like to learn more about him but so far the videos/articles I've seen have been pretty partisan to one side or the other. From what I've seen his message tends to be pretty inflammatory, one-sided, and politically charged with an almost FOX-like tendency to leave out important information. But then I suppose he is meant to be preaching ...

[Political Heretic]

165. All I did was listen. You can too.

I listened to full sermons of wright rather than snippets. You can find them easily on the web. I read biographical information on Wright, also easily found on the web. I read interviews from his parishioners - simply by goggling wright congregation (or possibly Trinity Church congregation). I learned about the Trinity Church ministries in the community and its actions.

Inflammatory is in the eye of the beholder... the question is rather is he right, and the answer is usually yes.

One-sided is not really a criticism that matters... he's not a judge, he's a minister with an opinion. There's nothing wrong with that.

Politically charged.... that's what happens when you are a Christian of the liberation theological tradition, that believes being a Christian is inseparable from the work of social justice and resistance to oppression. Christians of the liberation theology persuasion are the best ones out there, so we shouldn't be throwing them under a bus.

FOX-like tendency to leave out important information... that's typically what people say when they don't like the message, but don't have specifics to refute any specific element of it. You'll have to make that abstract generalization concrete before I can address it.

[frickaline]

166. Well ...

I agree on the points about being inflammatory and politically charged. It is expected, and given his passion about such issues, there's nothing wrong with this.

However, I can't agree with you on the one-sided part/FOX like stuff. A one-sided religious education is very dangerous and its irresponsible to participate in that.

But, I'm not convinced he's necessarily doing this which is why I wanted a few links. If you can provide them great, if not, I'll just keep googling like I was before.

[Political Heretic]

168. I think my point there was that I dispute the characterization as "fox-like tendency"

In my listening, I'm not sure that I feel there is any attempt to distort truth by purposely withholding important information.

There are certainly many places where there are different opinions. But I haven't seen what I would consider to be fact manipulation a la Fox News.

[Hoof Hearted]

172. So, what about what Barack Obama just did to him? What was that?

[Bluebear]

173. Well that ended THAT discussion

:)