tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post6764156313825597046..comments2024-03-22T02:37:10.429-05:00Comments on Political Friends: Obama’s High Water Mark?Andy Dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03659445086323172664noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-31405353561205652302008-06-05T06:14:00.000-05:002008-06-05T06:14:00.000-05:00I haven't forgotten about you. I think I am going...I haven't forgotten about you. I think I am going to take this discussion into a Post and see what comments you and I get from others based on that.Andy Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03659445086323172664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-81076793776572021442008-05-27T08:29:00.000-05:002008-05-27T08:29:00.000-05:00When I look at Wright's comment critically, it can...When I look at Wright's comment critically, it can't be categorized as hate speech.<BR/><BR/>If there is a community that might believe the government is "out to get them", isn't it of utmost importance that others should be very careful not to categorize the comments of one of their leaders as "hate-speech" when its not?<BR/><BR/>And just so we're clear, if you look back over the 57+ comments, I never once said that you shouldn't call Wright on his comments. All along I've been trying to make the point (probably not very well- given the number of comments we're up to) that critical thinking goes both ways. Meaning that you are absolutely right to take a stand against someone who is perpetuating a false belief. But it goes the other way, in that, it is of no help to an already emotionally charged issue, to call his viewpoint hateful when its not.<BR/><BR/>"It is one thing to criticize the government for valid points (for example policies and practices). But to make up a reason whole cloth to criticize the government..."<BR/><BR/>But see, he's not exactly making up a reason. Slavery, segregation, Tuskeegee etc. aren't made up.<BR/>Yeah, he doesn't have proof, and his logic may certainly be flawed, but he's not pulling his accusation out of thin air. To suggest that he's making up a reason "whole cloth", is like telling the whole community that those historical instances of racist governmental policies never happened. And I can certainly see how that wouldn't win you any points. (and thereby wouldn't get people to listen to and accept your viewpoint.)<BR/><BR/>I didn't say anything about communism. <BR/><BR/>I was talking about censorship. If you believe that ideas are dangerous, putting Wright aside, do you think it is ever okay to put limits on people who speak out on issues you think are patently false or that "breed mistrust?"<BR/><BR/>"The problem with allowing someone to attack the government, with no basis in fact, is that it does become hurtful."<BR/><BR/>What do you mean by "allow?"<BR/><BR/>Do you trust the American citizenry to think critically? <BR/>Or has it been so "dumbed down" by pop culture and news sound bytes that its pretty much hopeless?<BR/><BR/>So you wouldn't tolerate ANY anti-government speech that appears to be untruthful?<BR/><BR/>And what happens if a particular anti-government viewpoint later turns out to be true?<BR/><BR/>I think you might need to create another post for that article. I haven't answered the most recent "interview post" yet, but still plan to get to it.Mrs. Familymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13553523472636724001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-41120675941412262872008-05-27T04:27:00.000-05:002008-05-27T04:27:00.000-05:00Your last point is what I have been trying to get ...Your last point is what I have been trying to get to in a round about way. I have been trying to look at Wright's comments in a critical way, not because of his race, but because of the comments. <BR/><BR/>I think communism is a very hurtful idea. The problem with allowing someone to attack the government, with no basis in fact, is that it does become hurtful. Wright is preaching to a group that as you point out is already wary of the government. The more criticism that he heaps on, without any support and without anyone calling him on it, makes his congregation more suspicious of the government. <BR/><BR/>Here is the problem, if you think your government is out to get you, when the chips are down you won't defend it. That means in a war, in a "war" of ideas, or even between political parties. <BR/><BR/>It is one thing to criticize the government for valid points (for example policies and practices). But to make up a reason whole cloth to criticize the government for can lead to very real problems. I don't think Wright should be censured. I do think he should be called on his faulty arguments.<BR/><BR/><BR/>As an aside, <A HREF="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/mascot_politics.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> is an article that I am interested to hear yours and anyone else's comments on.Andy Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03659445086323172664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-25419139839163242452008-05-25T18:57:00.000-05:002008-05-25T18:57:00.000-05:00Okay then - That's why Wright's view - "The US go...Okay then - <BR/><BR/>That's why Wright's view - "The US government created AIDS to kill black people," doesn't meet the definition of hate speech.<BR/>His attack is not based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. His attack is based on historical instances (American Indians, slavery, Tuskegee experiments, segragation) where the US goverment has, in fact, had racist policies.<BR/><BR/>For me, this discussion stopped being about Obama and his relationship with Wright quite a long long time ago. - in the grand scheme of things there are much, much bigger issues underlying this whole discusion. <BR/><BR/>I'm more than a little uncomforatble when you suggest that anti-goverment ideas that "breed mistrust" are somehow "hurtful" or "harmful." Because when you start to believe that <B>ideas</B> are "hurtful," damaging or dangerous, you have taken the tiniest of baby steps down the path of censorship. That's what got people to start burning books, and worse.<BR/><BR/>Q: What's more dangerous than the ravings of one crack-pot pastor? <BR/><BR/>A: An American citizenry that never learned or refuses to think critically.<BR/><BR/>Given a chance, the truth will win. That's why its so important to foster an atmosphere where civil, reasoned dialogue can happen.Mrs. Familymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13553523472636724001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-43687863407832757822008-05-25T07:26:00.000-05:002008-05-25T07:26:00.000-05:00This is officially now the most commented on post ...This is officially now the most commented on post I have written. Who would have thunk it.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for the compliment about my feelings towards this country. I really do believe this is the "Greatest Nation on God's Green Earth." <BR/><BR/>I am sure one of the things that bothers me about Rev. Wright is his attacks on this country. I agree with you, he has the right to say these things. I have never once said he didn't. However, I have the right to call him on it, and to argue against what he has said with just as much passion and feeling as he argues with. <BR/><BR/><BR/>I don't think it should be considered "hate speech" to call someone a racists. You aren't attacking any of the classes you mentioned.You are attacking their opinion of another race.Andy Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03659445086323172664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-1042141887412962512008-05-23T22:55:00.000-05:002008-05-23T22:55:00.000-05:00Andy - you might not believe me when I say this, b...Andy - you might not believe me when I say this, but - <BR/>I really respect the pride, loyalty and love you have for our country. Your comments consistently show that this is part of the core of your being and you should be admired for it.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure that you find it extremely offensive that Wright is often quoted attacking America.<BR/><BR/>But please, please, please, don't let your feelings for our nation make you somewhat nearsighted.<BR/><BR/>Freedom of Speech guarantees that even crack-pots like Wright have the freedom to call whomever will listen to be mistrustful of the government.<BR/><BR/>There are plenty of people who have all sorts of reasons to be mistrustful of the government. A quick look at today's opinion polls will bear that out. I'm sure that there are plenty of Americans who are having discussions with their friends and neighbors who are also issuing a "call to be mistrustful of our government." The constitution says they have the freedom to do so. They may be right or wrong, have plenty of evidence, or none at all, but one of the great things about our nation is that they have the freedom to do so.<BR/><BR/><BR/>So here's the cross-post:<BR/><B>hate speech<BR/>–noun<BR/>speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.</B><BR/><BR/>Is it hate-speech to accuse a person or group of being racist?<BR/><BR/>Its funny you should mention that - earlier today, I was thinking that you'd relish a one-on-one debate with Wright.Mrs. Familymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13553523472636724001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-87447763519320006682008-05-23T19:37:00.000-05:002008-05-23T19:37:00.000-05:00I agree that it wouldn’t be productive to be perce...I agree that it wouldn’t be productive to be perceived as ignoring his point of view if you are trying to convince people he is wrong. I am for having a reasoned dialogue on this, but I would open it with asking Rev. Wright, “You have made some very bold claims. What evidence would you point to in order to support these claims?” And try to keep the discussion civil from there. I think I have tried something to that affect here, if I haven’t, I apologize.<BR/><BR/>I didn’t limit myself to physical action in my definition. I think Wright’s call is to be mistrustful of our government, and to assume it is out to get black people. I think in an open dialogue like you suggest, this is a terrible call for “action” by him.<BR/><BR/><BR/>For the record, I would love to debate Rev. Wright in the forum of his choice. I don't think it is likely to happen though.Andy Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03659445086323172664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-41237246251129964132008-05-22T09:40:00.000-05:002008-05-22T09:40:00.000-05:00I don't deny that you're right to call him on clai...I don't deny that you're right to call him on claims that have no evidence to back them up, especially if they perpetuate misguided beliefs in his community. You have every right to dispute his beliefs.<BR/><BR/>But here's the huge problem I have:<BR/>When you (and others) are extremely quick to describe his views as "hateful" without giving any weight to the cultural context of how the belief came to be, then you're effectively slamming the door on reasoned discourse.<BR/><BR/>Once you characterize someone like Wright as hateful, and therefore, not worthy of having his opinions considered, (whether they're right, wrong, or misguided) then why should he and his community listen to your point of view (i.e., the truth)? <BR/>To dismiss Wright as hateful does nothing productive towards creating an atmosphere where the truth can come to light - all it does is breed more resentment.<BR/><BR/>You say that what he is doing is hurtful because it breeds resentment. The first step toward diffusing that resentment is to get a dialogue going - not just with Wright, but with the community that believes in the same conspiracy theories. <BR/>An atmosphere where no one is interested in having a reasoned dialogue is also hurtful, because it takes no steps toward solving misconceptions.<BR/><BR/>What would I have you do differently?<BR/>I might suggest that you apply your own definition of angry speech vs. hate-speech, and see which applies.<BR/><BR/>"Hate speech is a public expression of a perceived outrage that blinds the speaker to evidence of the contrary. This form of discourse is different from what some have called “angry speech” because it is repeated over and over, often in order to incite others to some action."<BR/><BR/>You say yourself "Wright hasn’t called on any physical action by his congregation."<BR/><BR/>So by your own definition, I just don't see how you can categorize it as hate-speech.<BR/><BR/>Extremely angry speech yes. Hate-speech, no.<BR/><BR/>For the record, I agree with your definition except that I would add "...to incite others into <B>harmful or violent</B> action."<BR/><BR/>If he HAD incited his congregation to harmful or violent action, then we'd be having an entirely different discussion.<BR/><BR/>We can debate all day whether or not Wright himself is interested in having a reasonable discourse. Neither of us can truly know for sure. But when you dismiss his point of view as hateful, (especially since it doesn't truly meet the criteria of hate-speech) then you alienate the entire community that shares his belief, because you've shown that *you* have no interest in a reasoned dialogue.Mrs. Familymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13553523472636724001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-18553364109746288342008-05-22T06:40:00.000-05:002008-05-22T06:40:00.000-05:00I don’t deny we all have different experiences. A...I don’t deny we all have different experiences. And I understand that Rev. Wright has heard / read/ seen different things in the past that might color his view. However, he seems to have no evidence to support his theory. I am calling him on that. You and Anon, seem to believe that I shouldn’t question or dispute his belief that the U.S. Government created AIDS to kill black people. What would you have me do different? In your point of view, how am I wrong?<BR/><BR/>Wright hasn’t called on any physical action by his congregation. I don’t know what his endgame is in alleging these atrocities by the U.S. Government. Wright has the right to say what he wants. But I and others like me have the same right to call him on it, don’t we? I believe what he is doing is hurtful because it breeds a resentment and distrust of our government. It was one thing to hate / dislike/ be angry at our government when it messes us. But why should we allow people to tar and feather our government for a wrong it didn’t commit? I think there is a real danger in being tolerant of that.Andy Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03659445086323172664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-31507466066717972312008-05-20T17:56:00.000-05:002008-05-20T17:56:00.000-05:00The moment that angry/hateful/extremist (you can p...The moment that angry/hateful/extremist (you can pick one) rhetoric should not be tolerated is when it translates into actions that harm others.<BR/><BR/>Its that whole argument about "your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose"<BR/><BR/>In the course of 48+ posts I can say with certainty that you don't agree with Wright and in fact, find his rhetoric appalling. However, I don't see where he's rallied his congregation to attack government offices or take other action. Anon also made that point.<BR/><BR/>I think civil rights leaders would want us to accept each other's humanity as a factor in dealing with our differences.Mrs. Familymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13553523472636724001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-21945863073488976192008-05-20T17:48:00.000-05:002008-05-20T17:48:00.000-05:00The problem is that sometimes someone on the oppos...The problem is that sometimes someone on the opposite side of the spectrum is trying to change your mind too. <BR/><BR/>You're right, it certainly doesn't sound like you understand what I'm trying to say.<BR/><BR/>Not once have I said that you have to have the same experience as someone else to be able to criticize what they say. So there's no slippery slope at all.<BR/><BR/>I'm not even suggesting that you should consider the color of someone's skin and or that it should somehow entitle them to extra consideration.<BR/><BR/><BR/>If a small child is attacked by a dog, I can understand when that child is afraid of dogs even as an adult. It doesn't mean that *I* personally had to be attacked by a dog to understand that point of view. Even though it didn't happen to me, I can understand how that experience could be extremely frightening and might have an effect on one's opinions about dogs in general.<BR/>Another child who is attacked by a dog may grow up to love dogs. Not everyone will be shaped by similar experiences in the same way.<BR/>(And I'm not trying to compare an attacking dog to anything...sheesh..)<BR/><BR/>We all have different life experiences that factor into how our opinions and beliefs are formed. To deny that or not even to consider it when dealing with people we disagree with is rather closed-minded.Mrs. Familymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13553523472636724001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-71772343914131641292008-05-20T17:14:00.000-05:002008-05-20T17:14:00.000-05:00Another point to consider, at what point do you pu...Another point to consider, at what point do you put aside someones background and hold them accountable for what they said? There are terrorist that wish to kill us and have no desire to exchange any ideas with us. Is it better to expose the fallacy of their radical argument, and hope that it makes others see the lack of any humanity in their voice? Or should we consider the background of the terrorist and be sympathetic to his reasoning, even if we believe it is wrong?<BR/><BR/>I am not trying to equate Rev. Wright with terrorism, but at what point to you put aside a persons background, and simply react to the content of their ideas? Wouldn't the black leaders of the civil rights movement want us to examine the argument and not the color of the skin of the person making the argument?Andy Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03659445086323172664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-35493336908721464782008-05-20T17:10:00.000-05:002008-05-20T17:10:00.000-05:00I enjoy spending so much time talking to people wi...I enjoy spending so much time talking to people with a different point of view because I hope to change their mind.<BR/><BR/>It may not sound like it, but I do understand what you are trying to say. The problem is that you are on a very slippery slope. Is it fair for me to criticize Rev. Wright when I am obviously not an older Black man? I grew up with different experiences, and my life has been formed by different things. Do I have a leg to stand on when I say he is wrong with the things he says?<BR/><BR/><BR/>I have mentioned other black figures on here who grew up in much worse conditions than me, and new what real racism was. Does that make then better qualified to criticize Rev. Wright? They had a more similar experience, yet they don't accuse the U.S. government of creating AIDS. The slippery slope is when you require someone to have a similar background in order to criticize another figure. My brother and I both grew up in the same environment, but we also went to different colleges, so he and I have had different life experiences. Do we have the right to criticize each other even though we have had different experiences?<BR/><BR/>It is a slippery slope and so I prefer to criticize or agree with someone based on the content of what they say, and not the experience that led them there.Andy Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03659445086323172664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-76531184738579833732008-05-20T12:09:00.000-05:002008-05-20T12:09:00.000-05:00The article certainly gives us the opinions, but n...The article certainly gives us the opinions, but not much background of the author. How old is he? Did he grow up in a rural or urban environment? How and much and/or what types of discrimination and has he faced in his life? This author has not had a media spotlight shone on his life and career, so we're both missing the context to try to understand how he may have come to those conclusions.<BR/>As far as Wright goes - I'm just asking you to consider the context, and so far, you've refused to - I assume because you think it isn't relevant. But none of us form our opinions and beliefs in a vacuum.<BR/><BR/>Wright and others in the Af-Am community believe in a conspiracy theory with respect to AIDS. By definition, a conspiracy theory is secretive - and therefore, there isn't evidence to support such claims.<BR/><BR/>So how do we get people to see reason?<BR/><BR/>I agree with you that exposing the truth is a way to discredit someone who is making a dishonest, misguided, hateful or unfair argument.<BR/>Exposing the truth will even partly help to diffuse anger and hate and it is a very logical approach.<BR/>However, anger and hate are emotions. Many times emotions, especially strong ones, overshadow logic.<BR/>So once you've addressed the logical component, how do you address the emotional one?<BR/><BR/>Familyman and I question the wisdom of spending so much time on discussions with people who have diametrically opposed views to our individual viewpoints. Which is not to say that we don't appreciate that you've made an effort to stick to a certain level of respect for those with differing opinions. Because we do. We probably wouldn't comment if that weren't the case.<BR/><BR/>We just wonder if its worth the time we put in - (and I'm sure this experience has been similar for you) because at times it really feels like we're all trying to nail jello to a fence or to get oil and water to mix.Mrs. Familymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13553523472636724001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-2483389093603463832008-05-19T20:49:00.000-05:002008-05-19T20:49:00.000-05:00Mrs. Family, I was trying to use the article as pr...Mrs. Family, I was trying to use the article as proof I was right, I was simply adding it to the discussion. I wasn’t arguing two wrongs make a right, I was arguing that many of the things you asked me to do, the benefits you asked me to give to Rev. Wright should be applied to the author of the New Republic article. <BR/><BR/>You haven’t agreed with the text of Rev. Wright, only the fact that he got there. You don’t believe what he says is fact, but you ask me to believe he has a view that should be considered. I think the best way to combat hateful speech (whether from Rev. Wright, Al-Queda, the KKK, or whoever) is to expose the fault with the logic used in the hate speech. Expose the lies and half truths within the speech so it doesn’t get any real consideration. I am not talking about different positions on an issue, I am talking about people who warp and bend something for some twisted reason.<BR/><BR/>And by the way, I have rarely agreed with Familyman, but I have always respected him on here. I am sure he doesn’t have any problem with you spending time on my site .Andy Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03659445086323172664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-10900118015817789042008-05-19T08:20:00.000-05:002008-05-19T08:20:00.000-05:00Pack - I'm at least trying to use understanding an...Pack - I'm at least trying to use understanding and empathy to improve race relations.<BR/>I'd really like to hear your suggestions about solving the tensions either way.<BR/>If you think Imus was wronged, or that there's some reverse discrimination in Major League Sports,<BR/>how would you like to see that fixed?<BR/><BR/>What's the point of posting to an internet blog if you're just going to whine and complain?<BR/>I'm starting to spend a lot more time commenting here than I should - and it does take time out of my day. (Familyman is starting to wonder...)<BR/>By NO means would I call myself a political activist and nor am I patting myself on the back just for posting on our pal Andy's blog here. But if there's going to be a topic that reaches 40+ posts, wouldn't it be better if the commenters offered solutions rather than just complaining and bickering?<BR/><BR/>If I were you, I wouldn't presume to know how I'd react - how do you know I'm not Jewish? <BR/>Or haven't taken someone to task for making an offensive joke? Because I have.<BR/><BR/>So we disagree about whether Wright is a hateful racist, or just misguided and extremely angry. <BR/>We're both entitled to our opinions.<BR/><BR/>But is there any way to disarm hate, racism, and anger?<BR/><BR/>Because if posting to a blog is really only about complaining, bickering, and whining, then I'm out too.Mrs. Familymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13553523472636724001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-75996614012662632692008-05-18T22:00:00.000-05:002008-05-18T22:00:00.000-05:00anon,I do not have a quote. I was trying to under...anon,<BR/>I do not have a quote. I was trying to understand things from Rev. Wright's point of view. I was trying to understand the reason that he would say what he says. That is one of the reasons that I came up with. Notice the no quotation marks around the string of words...usually means not a quote.<BR/>Mrs. Familyman,<BR/>You have no ability nor interest in understanding another persons point of view or even accepting that somebody could listen to Rev. Wright's words with an open mind and try to understand his point of view and not agree with what you do about those same words. This discussion is pointless and I am out. And before you write back that me just leaving a discussion is no way to solve race relations I ask you, what and how are you trying to improve race relations? When somebody cracks a good Jewish joke at work don't you just laugh along...Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15095193381922042863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-71813800227507265112008-05-18T14:53:00.000-05:002008-05-18T14:53:00.000-05:00How is representing a view from the extreme opposi...How is representing a view from the extreme opposite end of the spectrum to support your argument fair? <BR/><BR/>I agree with you about the New Republic. Its not considered to be a conservative publication. It still doesn't mean that the piece was fair or unbiased.<BR/><BR/>"You can disagree with the piece all you want. However, I think Rev. Wright said many things much more ugly than anything written in the New Republic piece."<BR/><BR/>So by that argument, two wrongs make a right?<BR/><BR/>I'm getting a little frustrated that you keep implying that I agree with or somehow endorse Wright's exremeist rhetoric.<BR/><BR/>I DON'T. <BR/><BR/>But I really would like you to answer the question of how to address anger and hatred whether it comes from a controversial black pastor or extremist Islam.<BR/><BR/>Should we just "remove" all the angry and hateful people from the face of the earth, or should we just disassociate ourselves from them and not even TRY to solve misunderstandings?<BR/><BR/>What is your suggestion for a solution???<BR/><BR/>Denouncing it alone isn't going to solve it.Mrs. Familymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13553523472636724001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-26738315061040221652008-05-18T14:12:00.000-05:002008-05-18T14:12:00.000-05:00I don’t disagree with most of what you said in you...I don’t disagree with most of what you said in your latest comment, Mrs. Family. I have not concealed that I am a fan of both Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. I am also a fan of The Weekly Standard, Human Events, and Townhall. We can debate about Fox News all day, but I will concede all of the other groups I listed are conservative, or very conservative. <BR/><BR/>Like you, I try to get my news from a variety of places. If there is only one site I check in a day, it is Real Clear Politics. I think you would like that site. The post the best political writing each day, regardless of the way it leans. I have seen stuff defending and attacking the same issue posted the same day. Check it out for a week and you will probably be hooked.<BR/><BR/>In the list of comments for this post (which is now at 41, who knew?), I have linked to two articles. One talked about Rev. Wright and the Trumphet magazine. It was from the Weekly Standard, which is a conservative publication. The other one, the one I have been trying to get you to read the most and the one you reference is from The New Republic. The New Republic is definitely not a conservative publication. They are a left of center to liberal publication. Go to their website and just survey the headlines and see if you disagree with me or not. <BR/><BR/>I thought it was a very fair article. And it was written by a Hillary supporter , who is black, and who is attacking Obama. You can disagree with the piece all you want. However, I think Rev. Wright said many things much more ugly than anything written in the New Republic piece.Andy Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03659445086323172664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-40243118308999138692008-05-18T08:58:00.000-05:002008-05-18T08:58:00.000-05:00So here's my real beef with the article/opinion pi...So here's my real beef with the article/opinion piece. <BR/>I quote you, "Here was an article that tied into our discussion that was on the opposite side of the political spectrum from Rush or Fox."<BR/><BR/>I've made a concious effort not to assume where you get your news from. Whether or not the main-stream media is liberal, or Fox is *really* "Fair and Balanced" is not what I really want to agrue about here. My guess is that it would be a completely different long discussion and a huge tangent to this issue.<BR/><BR/>You've probably already guessed that I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, but nor do I listen to Air America.<BR/>The reason for that is because both of those are biased and opposite ends of the spectrum.<BR/><BR/>While my personal views are liberal-leaning, I'm constantly scrutinizing and seeking UNBIASED news coverage and analysis.(which by the way, can be a little tricky) I don't trust those venues that come right out and say that they lean one way or another to really give a clear and true picture. If I'm interested in diserning what the truth is, in this day and age of corporate-owned media, its imperative to think critically about the news coverage and opinion that is presented in any venue.<BR/><BR/>I have 2 kids and one VERY imporatant life lesson they've taught me is that the truth is usally somewhere in the middle.<BR/><BR/>So far, when I've followed links that you've supplied to support your arguments they've always appeared in conservative publications.<BR/><BR/>The article in question here came from a self-described conservative organization. To say that that opinion piece was from the opposite side of the spectrum is probably true. But is was so extreme as to be an ugly and inflamatory charicature of the other side of the argument. I just couldn't take it seriously. I guess I was wrong to expect that a piece that you purposely linked to that made "some good points" would be fair and reasonable in its approach.Mrs. Familymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13553523472636724001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-61519835219392360112008-05-17T21:23:00.000-05:002008-05-17T21:23:00.000-05:00Wow, wait a day or two and there are a lot of comm...Wow, wait a day or two and there are a lot of comments to catch up on… <BR/>Anon, I don’t want to sound like I never try to look at the world from anothers point of view (“think with”). However, and I hate to sound like a broken record, but Wrights comments should be attacked for what they are: bold allegations with no proof. I won’t go off on the tangent here, but I am starting to smell that I need to write and remind everyone of some of the very valid reasons we went into Iraq. <BR/>Pack04, I think you touched on something Anon was also hinting at. There is definitely political opportunism going on here, on both sides of the isle. And that was the theme of my original post, and both you and Mrs. Family touched on it. Obama was doing the political move in severing ties with Wright (or throwing him under the bus). My point was the he said he wouldn’t and couldn’t. But when the polls said he needed to, he sure did.<BR/><BR/>Mrs. Familyman, I think race relations at this day and age are the best they have ever been. Can there be more done? Yes. But I don’t think Rev. Wright or Obama are a race issue. I think Rev. Wright hates America for a long list of reasons. Many of them are in his head. I have listed other prominent black figures who came from tough backgrounds, have become successful in today’s world, and don’t share Rev. Wrights crazy talk. I reject the notion that Rev. Wright represents the black experience in America. I think he represents a racist experience that really doesn’t want anything to do with America. Rev. Wright doesn’t invite others to examine his viewpoint and exchange ideas. He demands people listen to him and accept what he is saying as the truth, or they become part of the problem. He has said himself that if Obama were to be elected president, then Obama would be part of the problem from day one. That doesn’t sound like the words of someone who has any desire to look at things from anyone else’s point of view. <BR/>As far as the definition of article, I quoted a Webster’s dictionary. If you want I can give you a full reference of it. Your definition leaves open that an opinion piece can be considered an article. I didn’t take an offense to your remarks on this point until you questioned whether or not I was using precise language on my blog. I never said the article was a nonfiction work. I wanted others to read it because it was a piece, written by an African American, who was critical of Obama and Rev. Wright. With all the “think with” talk going on, I thought this fit very nicely into our discussion. <BR/><BR/>I don’t know that there is any circumstantial evidence to link the U.S. government to the creation of AIDS. I will agree with you that the evidence that suggests Obama shares Wrights views is circumstantial. There is a lot of it, but it is all circumstantial. However, on policy issues, I still oppose Obama. I understand your argument claiming that Obama didn’t really throw Wright under the bus. However, I didn’t see any real difference between the Wright statements that “outraged” Obama, and those that Obama defended. That’s why I think it was a political maneuver. <BR/><BR/>I appreciate your apology. I won’t impose a religious test on Obama. And if I opposed Obama because of Wright, it wouldn’t be because of Wrights religion, or because he was Obama’s pastor. It would be because of Wrights political rhetoric and Obama calling him his mentor. Obama has gone to great lengths, up until recently, to show that Wright had a huge influence on him. It just happens that he is his pastor. I haven’t seen any real religious test place on Obama yet. <BR/><BR/>However, I will grant you one exception to the above. I read news stories claiming that people won’t vote for Obama because he is Muslim. Obama has denied that time and time again. I think voting against Obama for that reason is a terrible reason. If that is the only reason you can think of, write me and I will give you plenty more.<BR/><BR/>Please, let’s drop the silly talk of Bush wanting to blow up the whole world. That is simply nonsense.Andy Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03659445086323172664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-18973628734426572912008-05-17T16:41:00.000-05:002008-05-17T16:41:00.000-05:00Pack,If you have a quote in which Wright says that...Pack,<BR/><BR/>If you have a quote in which Wright says that "white people are doing this to black people because they are evil" I'd like to see it.<BR/><BR/>If you don't have a quote, then I suggest, out of decency and for the love of truth, that you stop putting words into the man's mouth.<BR/><BR/>By my own admission, he's got enough doozies for us all. We don't have to go making them up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-31517323425836299392008-05-17T02:01:00.000-05:002008-05-17T02:01:00.000-05:00Pack - When you say,"Just like I don't really put ...Pack - <BR/>When you say,<BR/><BR/>"Just like I don't really put much weight behind the people out there who want to blow up the whole world to solve the problems."<BR/><BR/>Does that include Geo. W Bush??? <BR/><BR/>just wondering.Mrs. Familymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13553523472636724001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-81319313932996836732008-05-17T01:57:00.000-05:002008-05-17T01:57:00.000-05:00Here's the definition that I found on Dictionary.c...Here's the definition that I found on Dictionary.com for the word "article"<BR/><BR/>1. a written composition in prose, <B>usually nonfiction</B>, on a specific topic, forming an independent part of a book or other publication, as a newspaper or magazine.<BR/><BR/>I tried to follow your link to the New Republic piece, but I had to wade through so much opinion and distasteful rhetoric that I didn't have the patience or the stomach to try to discern what specific points the piece made that you thought were tied into the discussion. <BR/><BR/>At the risk of having this devolve into the ever-effective "Is too!" "Is not!" kind of argument....<BR/><BR/>Wright has no evidence to support his theory about the Federal Government and AIDS.<BR/>(other than circumstancial evidence)<BR/><BR/>There isn't any evidence that Obama shares Wright's extremist views. (other than circumstancial evidence.)<BR/><BR/>That's where the line of reasoning IS the same.<BR/><BR/>That Obama shares Wright's views may not have been your argument in this post, but you and others have tried to surmise what views they have in common simply from their association.<BR/><BR/>As for your original point in this post - <BR/>I don't think Obama threw Wright under the bus, I would argue that it is the other way around. I think Wright had his feelings hurt and his ego bruised after his 20+ year career was unfairly distilled into inflamatory 15 second sound bytes that were played by the media over and over again. Wright did such a poor job of keeping his anger in check that when he addressed the Press Club and the NAACP, his comments were mocking and derisive. Obama had given him the benefit of the doubt until that point, but Wright blew it. And so came another round of press coverage. At that point Obama saw that Wright was more interested in lashing out than supporting one of the platforms of his campaign - bringing people together - so Obama was forced to break ties with Wright once and for all.<BR/><BR/>The "convenient" thing to do would have been for Obama to cut him loose at the very beginning - thus making a very different speech on race than he did. But that's not what happened. So the argument that Obama threw Wright "under the bus when it became convenient" doesn't wash.<BR/><BR/>Andy - you're absolultey right - You've haven't imposed any religious test on Obama. <BR/>At least not in this post. I was wrong there - sorry, my bad. <BR/><BR/>However, I do think there are plenty of Obama bashers whose reasoning goes something like this.... <BR/>Wright's angry and/or crack-pot comments must be Obama's opinions too, since after all, Wright was his PASTOR.... and since Wright is his pastor, then their religious beliefs must be the same...<BR/><BR/>Since such a monstrous, enormous, epic deal is made out of what Wright - OBAMA'S PASTOR - his former RELIGIOUS ADVISOR believes, then it may not be so much a religious test, but it certainly feels like a religious pop-quiz.Mrs. Familymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13553523472636724001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35366449.post-3116004549111631412008-05-16T23:42:00.000-05:002008-05-16T23:42:00.000-05:00Pack - The underlying message that I get from your...Pack - <BR/><BR/>The underlying message that I get from your and Andy's arguments is that you either:<BR/><BR/>a) don't really think that improving race relations is worth anyone's effort<BR/><BR/>or <BR/><BR/>b) you don't think race relations need improving, they're just fine the way they are.<BR/><BR/>I really hope its not either of these.<BR/><BR/>When any relationship, whether it is a personal or a political one, is strained, it doesn't really help to just repeat over and over again, "you're wrong and I don't care why you think the way you do - you're just wrong. - " <BR/><BR/>If you have an argument with your spouse, do you try to solve it that way? Does it get you very far?<BR/><BR/>Another unhelpful attitude is: "You keep doing a bad thing to me, so its okay if I keep doing bad things to you." (Here I'm referring to your Imus and MLB examples- and what I meant by keeping score)<BR/>You can call that a double standard if you want, but it still doesn't make it right. <BR/><BR/>So if you're trying to convince someone who is already angry or upset that the facts don't support what they believe to be true, what's the best way to get them to REALLY listen to what you have to say?<BR/><BR/>You'd make a lot more progress if you started a discussion by saying, "I can see why you think that, but......."<BR/><BR/>But you have to actually mean it.Mrs. Familymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13553523472636724001noreply@blogger.com