Don't blog angry

I got very worked up about the Obama-Wright controversy - probably too worked up for my own good. I apologize for overreacting to some of the comments and for persisting in the argument after I should have let it go. Honestly I remain baffled that some people can see Wright's rhetoric as anything but hate speech; any defense of  his more extreme statements is simply incomprehensible to me, like saying the sky is green or fire is cold. But we all have our own mental maps of the world and those maps don't always overlap.

When I thought about why I got so angry, I realized there were two main reasons. The first is that I am a little tired - more than a little, actually - of hearing about the prevalence of white racism in America while black racism, of the sort embodied in James Cone's theology and Jeremiah Wright's diatribes, goes uncondemned. This ridiculous double standard has made it impossible to have an intelligent dialogue. It serves the interests of no one except the demagogues who insist on it.

The second reason is that Wright, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, gave a sermon arguing that America was to blame for it and that we should look to our own failings in order to understand the attacks. Here I think John Edwards was almost right when he said there are two Americas - only, the two Americas are not the rich and the poor, but those who felt personally affected by 9/11 and those who did not. This appears to be largely a question of geography. Those of us who live in the Northeast, and especially those who are fairly close to Ground Zero, simply have a different perspective from some of those who live in other parts of the country.

To people outside the Northeast, 9/11 was an event on television. It was not quite real. It inspired a certain amount of philosophical rumination and water-cooler chatter, but its impact was necessarily limited. For people close to the attacks, 9/11 was not a TV show. My most vivid memory of that day is seeing the debris cloud spreading south along the horizon of the Atlantic as I walked on the beach. I've spoken with two people (separately) who were at the World Trade Center that morning. A local couple lost their son, a firefighter, in the collapse of the towers (he was off duty but rushed to the scene to see if he could help). Another couple, who lived down the street from my parents, were on Flight 93.

And so I simply have no tolerance for any nonsense on this subject. I refuse to give any consideration to 9/11 conspiracy theories of the "Loose Change" variety. I don't take kindly to suggestions that the threat of terrorism is overblown or that we should be more worried about traffic accidents, global warming, or slipping in the shower. And I especially dislike being told that really it was all America's fault - "blowback," as Ron Paul likes to say - or chickens coming home to roost. Not only do I regard this analysis as faulty (because the jihadi movement predates most of the foreign policy moves in question and was inspired by quite different motives, as this book makes clear) but I see it as insulting - the ultimate example of blaming the victim, or I should say victims - the 3000 dead Americans whom one apologist for terrorism likened to "little Eichmanns." (And don't you think Ward Churchill and Jeremiah Wright would get along famously?)

Well, I can feel myself getting pissed off all once again. This is a subject that pushes my buttons. So I'd better stop.

Anyway, from now on I will try to stick to less controversial subjects, like ESP and life after death. At least nobody disagrees about stuff like that.

Comments

[Ginny]

Michael P, you seem to be under siege every time you open your mouth on politics. I don't wade into the fray because I'd like to keep the hide on my back (to mangle a few cliches). But I'm always cheering you silently from the sidelines. For what that's worth! HAHA And I agree with everything you've said on Wright-Obama.

I'd be curious to know about something you touched on - whether liberals or conservatives dominate in acceptance of psi and/or afterlife evidence. From this board I'd guess mostly libs. But (as in my case) silence on political topics doesn't always mean agreement, so .....

Happy anniversary, Art! Hope you put on some romantic Josh music to celebrate! ;-)

[william]

“whether liberals or conservatives dominate in acceptance of psi and/or afterlife evidence.”

It would be interesting to me to look at what percent of conservatives and liberals have parents that were/are conservative or liberal. My theory is that there is a larger percent of conservatives that have the same political leanings as their parents. Only a theory.

Both approaches conservative or liberal left unfettered are doomed to self-destruct.

What do those in the spirit world tell us about conservative or liberal when they come through a medium? It matters not.

What do the mystics tell us about conservative or liberal? It matters not.

What do the enlightened Hindus or Buddhists tell us about conservative or liberal? It matters not.

What did Jesus tell us about conservative or liberal? He did mention take care of the sick and needy and when it came to religion he appeared to have some problems with the conservative clergy.

It is a relative world with conservatives and liberals; what better way to polish the soul and make it a reflection of god?

Hope says, "This is not a one-off offense, she has a massive history of being caught out flat out lying, exaggerating and faking sincerity"

That she can do this suggests she must have a very low opinion of the American public, or of the electoral system. Not sure which. Perhaps both!

[Marcel Cairo]

I am with Michael Prescott on this. I was living in NYC and I watched both towers fall with my very own eyes in front of me and I have no tolerance for idiots who use 9/11 to espouse their own political agenda.

Still, I was also raised in Argentina, and I can also see my beautiful country (USA) from a foreigners perspective, and understand why so many around the world want to tear our ego down.

I voted for Obama in the Democratic primary, but after this whole Rev. Wright debacle, I have some serious doubts about my candidate.

Yesterday John McCain gave a great speech while visiting my current hometown (L.A.). I think he did a great job of differentiating his ideology from that of George W.

The media has only focused on his comments about continuing our commitment in Iraq, but if you haven't heard the entire speech, you should try to find it. McCain showed the world that you can lead like a superpower and not act like a cowboy. It was really a great speech.

Yesterday, I actually said to myself, "I can vote for this man (McCain). Unless Obama makes a clean break from the ideology of his pastor, I just may.

[Michael H]

The most recent WSJ/NBC poll results indicate that the Wright controversy has has little effect overall:

"The racially charged debate over Barack Obama's relationship with his longtime pastor hasn't much changed his close contest against Hillary Clinton, or hurt him against Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

"Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC polls with Republican pollster Bill McInturff, called the latest poll a "myth-buster" that showed the pastor controversy is "not the beginning of the end for the Obama campaign.""

The piece goes on to say that it was HRC who has fallen most severely in the voter's eyes this past week, with only 37% of respondents viewing her in a positive light.

The Wright controversy is the most significant ammunition Obama's opponents have unearthed to this point, and those who are screaming loudest about it are those who had no intention of supporting his candidacy to begin with.

I'm personally of a libertarian persuasion, but I'm pulling for Obama this time primarily because I think he understands, on a fairly high level, the primacy of thought as it impacts all aspects of our lives. The platform he is advocating is quite liberal, but my gut feeling is that he would reach across the aisle to bring about at least some sort of reason to domestic policy. Most importantly though, of the three candidates, it is Obama that strikes me as less inclined to reactivity in foreign policy. Given the damage that's been done to the United States' international reputation post 9/11, I'm just more comfortable with a candidate who is likely to embody a calm, reasoned approach in the global arena.

It is interesting reading the comments in a thread titled 'Don't Blog Angry'. Politics and religion remain among the most sensitive of topics, and the most difficult to see beyond.

[Leo MacDonald]

It really doesn't matter to me much because I live in Canada

[Leo MacDonald]

I hope Hillary Clinton wins

[Michael H]

For African-Americans and other minority citizens, it is “totally authentic to be angry,” declared the speaker. The “horrible institution” of segregation ruined the lives and crippled the future of African-Americans, not to mention Native Americans, he added.

He continued, “I do think there’s an authenticity and legitimacy to anger by many groups in America. Senator Obama said in his speech, quote: “That anger may not get expressed in public in front of white co-workers or white friends, but it does find voice in the barber shop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition.”

“I think that that’s right. And I think it’s important to recognize that anger can be a source of energy to create a better future, in which case it’s a good thing. But if anger is a self-inflicted wound that limits us, it is a very bad and a very dangerous thing. And we have to be very careful about the role that anger plays in our culture.

“Tragically what has happened is that cultural and political leaders have used anger as an excuse to avoid reality, as an excuse to avoid change, as an excuse to avoid accountability. Because everything that is wrong is somehow somebody else’s fault,” he said.

He went on to say that his comments were not meant to be an “answer” to Mr. Obama’s speech, just the beginning of a “serious conversation on our country’s future.”

“But Senator Obama’s the one who had the courage to start the dialogue, and that’s why I was responding to him — because I thought he had made a very thoughtful and very serious speech. But I would hope that Senator McCain and Senator Clinton would in fact engage at the same level.”

The speaker? Former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, in an hour-long address at the American Enterprise Institute, as reported in today’s New York Times.

[Greg Taylor]

Marcel wrote:

"Yesterday, I actually said to myself, "I can vote for this man (McCain). Unless Obama makes a clean break from the ideology of his pastor, I just may."

Hey, nice to see you Marcel! Hope things are well.

Do your comments also apply to McCain, who has done a serious job of sucking up to the religious right during his attempt to secure the Republican nomination (pretty much reversing his position from the 2000 attempt)?

18 months ago, I would have been interested in the idea of a McCain presidency - he seemed pretty damn independent. Since running for the nomination though, he seems to have realised the sad truth about securing the nomination - you have to whore yourself. Some of his fake smiles on the campaign trail have been downright creepy ("my friends"), and his pandering to Fundamentalist Christian leaders sickening.

Hopefully if he does win the Presidency, the old McCain will return. At the moment, he just looks like another war-drum beating tool of various special-interest groups.

Kind regards,
Greg

[Hope Rivers]

Hopefully if he does win the Presidency, the old McCain will return. At the moment, he just looks like another war-drum beating tool of various special-interest groups.

What a farce, there is no old McCain, he is fake that's just who he is, under pressure the real man shines.

You know the thing about Obama, he is half white and half black, that really shines through in his character also :-)

[Hope Rivers]

You want to see creepy Greg, look at McCain's wife's eyes!.......shudder.

http://www.care.org/about/boardbios.asp?id=13

[william]

With mc Cain I win either way.

If he wins the pres job he will no longer be the senator from az. (i.e. my state)

If he loses the pres race in nov well that is not only a win for me but for humanity.

Kind of a win win situation for me.

Of course I was kind of looking forward to nuking Iran. Darn back to the video war games for my entertainment if mc war loses.

In the end it does not matter a society and a nation pursues its existing paradigm until it is overthrown or the nation collapses under its existing paradigm. Soviet union is a classic example of an ideology (paradigm) that collapsed due to absolute ignorance of human behavior, soul development and the human need for spiritually.

Not far behind will be deregulated capitalism. Kind of see it now with Wall Street being bailed out with printed money and Chinese loans. What the communists are bailing out the capitalists? Darn maybe I need to take econ 101 again.

And Ron Paul wants to remove all regulation. Hey that should work.

[Marcel Cairo]

Hiya Back ,Greg. I've cut down my computer time by 65%, and I am trying to enjoy the kind of life that doesn't require a monitor or a keyboard. It's had a dramatic effect on me and my happiness. Let's see how long I can last. :-)

Anyway, I think McCain is doing whatever it takes and sucking up to everyone in order to unify the party and not stir up the republican hornets nest. Once the two political conventions are over and we get into debate season, you will see McCain return to a more moderate form, and try to sway the independent vote in his favor.

Frankly, I think there are as many nutcakes on the Liberal side as there are on the Republican side. Generally, I can tolerate the liberal nutcakes a lot more than the conservative ones.

I haven't given up on Obama, I still think he is a powerful choice, if he wins the nomination. However, I don't think just "pulling the troops out" is a "real solution." Yes, the whole war was an ill conceived misadventure, but we are there now, and we need to leave our friends in Iraq with a stable infrastructure, security on the ground and hope in their hearts. Otherwise, we will become the biggest war criminals of all.

[william]

“Otherwise, we will become the biggest war criminals of all.”

Iraq is kind of like a great big hornets nest. Dangerous but not too threatening until someone decides to walk up to the nest and hit it with a big stick. I.e. shock and awe.

It appears that we Americans will have to endure our own shock and awe from this ill-conceived war. Cain one even imagine the shock and awe every parent both Iraqi and American goes through when told their child has been killed in this war.

58,000 Americans and about one million Vietnamese died in another ill-conceived war called Vietnam. My cousin died in that war and his mother her only son never got over his death. His death devastated her until her death.

But you bring up a good point now that humpty dumpty has fallen how do we put it back together again. One can only hope the Chinese don’t run out of money to loan us or our printers don’t break down printing US dollars to fund wall street and this ill conceived war in Iraq.

"It appears that we Americans will have to endure our own shock and awe from this ill-conceived war."

Freudian slip? Anyone would think you weren,t a supporter of US warmongering.

[Leo MacDonald]

it appears a skeptic have done a review for the book god the evidence by Patrick Glynn
http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/glynn.html

[Michael Prescott]

I was traveling and hadn't checked in on this site for a couple of days. Imagine my surprise at seeing 66 comments on this thread!

I have nothing much to add about the Wright controversy, except to thank the few commenters who agree with me for their support. Thanks also to the majority who disagree for making their case. Oh, and I don't necessarily trust Hillary Clinton, but I like what she said about Wright.

I don't know if there is any correlation between belief in psi and political affiliation. I haven't seen any survey data on this.

One thing surveys have shown is that, as a general rule (no doubt with many individual exceptions), the more educated you are, the more likely you are to think that at least some psi phenomena are real. This contradicts the skeptics' view that only uneducated yahoos are pro-psi.

The trend breaks down with respect to people who have PhDs, who tend to be skeptical of psi. Otherwise, though, the pattern holds: people with a master's degree are more pro-psi than people with a bachelor's degree; people who've been to college are more pro-psi that people who didn't go; etc.

Why are PhDs different? It could be a statistical fluke, or maybe someone who has earned a PhD is so invested in the intellectual establishment that he is resistant to "heresies" like ESP.

This doesn't address the political question, of course. It's just interesting in its own right.

[Bruce Siegel]

>maybe someone who has earned a PhD is so invested in the intellectual establishment that he is resistant to "heresies" like ESP.

I think you may right about that, Michael. If so, it gives new meaning to the limerick:

A woman at college, Miss Keyes,
Weighted down with B.A.'s and M. D's,
Said her doctor, "My dear,
It's perfectly clear
You're killing yourself by degrees!"

[Bruce Siegel]

(Can't believe no one's posted here since my own post half a day ago!)

Mark Halperin writes a political blog called "The Page." Here's what he wrote today:

"Last year, shortly after Obama told his pastor he was withdrawing the invitation to have him speak at his presidential announcement event, Wright talked to the New York Times about Obama.

Read the Times piece here. (He gives link.)

Shortly after that story was published, Wright penned an extraordinary letter to the reporter who wrote the story.

If your only sense of the mind of Wright comes from YouTube and cable clips, this letter is essential reading."

Here's a link to Wright's letter:
http://thepage.time.com/text-of-letter-from-wright-to-the-new-york-times/

[Bruce Siegel]

I should have added that the letter fascinates me because of what it has to say about (a) The Times, (b) Obama, and (c) Wright himself. Enjoy.

[Hope Rivers]

Thanks Bruce for the Wright letter.

As I have said before reading this letter, Obama has integrity, it shines through, I see it, I feel it, he walks the spiritual walk, he is a rare gem in the Political aren, he will make positive leaps for America.

The letter clearly spells out media manipulation to influence the public, lies lies lies, I believe Wright, I would like to see what comes of it.

[Ross W]

Well, Hope, I'm not sure the anagrams agree with you... ;-)

Barack Hussein Obama

Caesar Omni Babushka
A macho Russian kebab
Cuban’s rakish amoeba
Bahrain backs a mouse
Soak a scabbier human
Amoeba snubs Karachi
Abraham bakes cousin
Cairo ambushes a bank
A bum chokes Arabians
Arabian shames a bucko
Sahara bemoans buick
A buck bashes Romania
Ukraine mobs a casbah
Arabia smokes a bunch
Arabians ambush coke

[Bruce Siegel]

Ross, I sure hope you haven't shared these anagrams with anybody but us!

>Abraham bakes cousin
Public awareness of this sinister message lurking in Obama's name would surely make the Wright controversy look like small change!

>A bum chokes Arabians
If this gets out, and Obama gets elected, there go his chances to broker peace in the Middle East.

>Arabia smokes a bunch
May help to explain the weird views of those fundamentalists.

[Ross W]

It's OK Bruce, I'm safe in the UK...whoops, what a giveaway!

[Ross W]

Osama Bin Cuba Shaker
Despite these dire anagrams, like you I think he's your last best hope.

[william]

One black man or one white woman or one war hero will not change the direction America is heading. If we had a dictatorship maybe, but not in a republic.

A country changes like an alcoholic changes. When it/they bottom out and when they have sunken to the lowest they can go; maybe then they are willing to do the internal work, challenge their existing beliefs, and apply the effort needed to change.

Right now we Americans are more interested in playing the role of the victim or blame the other side. A classic case of denial much like an alcoholic goes through. No country can stay on top and try to police the world, do nation building, and fund a mega military force, and industrial military complex without succumbing to financial and moral exhaustion.

Of all people it was Ike a general and a republican that saw our future if we did not detune our industrial military complex. One has to look far and wide to find a republican or democrat that wants to takes Ike’s advice

--"A country changes like an alcoholic changes. When it/they bottom out and when they have sunken to the lowest they can go; maybe then they are willing to do the internal work, challenge their existing beliefs, and apply the effort needed to change."--
Very wise. But a scary prospect.

[william]

“Very wise. But a scary prospect.”

What would the world be like if we did not learn from our “mistakes”? It appears that any action not inspired out of love and compassion has consequences that suggest a change in the motivation of our actions.

History provides us with enlightening examples of people and countries that have succumbed to selfishness and power. (I.e. superpower?) The “problem” is we humans tend to repeat history.

We learn most by our experiences and interesting enough we tend to learn more by our failures than our successes. We tend to succumb to pride with our successes but often humility with our failures unless of course we claim victim status.

It would be interesting to read an article that writes about the causal correlation between love, compassion, and capitalism. Should an economic system be based in love or the attainment of wealth or is it possible to have both. When I look at Wall Street it does not appear that both love/compassion and the attainment of wealth is on their agenda.

The reality show on TV called the biggest loser shows the possibilities when structures, systems, and nurturing is provided. Probably impossible to do for 300 million people but it is interesting to watch in action. Most people I suspect will believe it is the prize money that drives these people to lose weight but a closer look will reveal otherwise for most of the contestants.