All Wright, All The Time!

So,when Fox tires of “We report, you decide!” they can use this slogan. (No charge.)

Why the Jeremiah Wright story deserves more attention - Glenn Greenwald

Why the Jeremiah Wright story deserves more attention

I think the most important thing to note about the Jeremiah Wright Story is that we’re a Nation plagued by exceedingly few significant problems; blessed with a quite healthy political culture and very trusted political and media institutions; composed of a citizenry that is peacefully content with its Government and secure and confident about their future; endowed with a supremely sturdy economic foundation free of debt and other grave economic afflictions; …

Comments

  1. David C. wrote:

    Yeah, because the presidential front-runner’s long association with a nut who continues to make inflammatory statements — at the national press club no less — just isn’t news. It’s so insignificant that Obama has only been forced to give two major speeches on the issue. I know, it’s all a big right-wing conspiracy led by the evil Fox News to distract Americans from the “real issues.”

    Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 8:54 am

  2. canuckistani wrote:

    It’s a pretty stupid issue. I’ll concede it might matter if anyone on the right will concede the badness of McCain actively seeking the endorsement of a man who believes that catholics and homosexuals are evil, and that God destroyed New Orleans as punishment for its sins. That’s worth a “God damns America when it commits evil”, isn’t it?

    Personally, I’m impressed that Obama is the only candidate not in favour of the idiotic gas tax holiday and has the guts to say so. How about that? Anyone want to debate an issue instead of guilt-by-association smears?

    Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 10:34 am

  3. David C. wrote:

    It’s a pretty stupid issue.

    Not at all. We judge people by their associations all the time, at least partly. Wright isn’t a casual acquaintance of Obama’s.

    I’ll concede it might matter if anyone on the right will concede the badness of McCain actively seeking the endorsement of a man

    There’s no comparison to the two situations. The relationships are far different. But yes, I agree with you that McCain shouldn’t be seeking endorsements from lunatics like Hagee.

    Personally, I’m impressed that Obama is the only candidate not in favour of the idiotic gas tax holiday and has the guts to say so.

    Any lessening of any tax is a good thing in my opinion. It would be nice if gas taxes were cut permanently. But even a temporary holiday is a positive. I do give Obama credit for sticking with his principles though, and not bowing to political expediency.

    Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 11:07 am

  4. BloodSpite wrote:

    We really don’t have a choice but to look at Wright, at least *somewhat*.

    You can’t explain sitting in front of an individual for *20 years* and then claim he never heard any of this before

    It’s like saying you went to school for 15 years and learned *nothing*

    Now I’m not saying we should judge Obama on solely that aspect, but we can’t discount it either. At the minimum one must at least consider the fact that Obama is being less than forthwright in such a statement.

    Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 11:32 am

  5. canuckistani wrote:

    Well, if you think that the character of a friend of a presidential candidate is more important than, say, a war which has killed 4000 American citizens to set up a shaky pro-Iranian government, or the fact that all your jobs and money are going to China, or that your government can declare you an enemy combatant and imprison you without trial, or that your roads and bridges are collapsing and ruined cities can’t be rebuilt, or that your next generation of scientists are being taught that the earth is 6000 years old, or that you can no longer afford the fuel your economy depends on, or rice rationing at Costco because of the massive drought related crop failures around the world, well, go ahead - go ahead and sweat about some preacher with a big mouth, or worry about who wears a flag pin. You’ll get the government you deserve, and in 20 years time, the US will be a nuclear-armed Brazil.

    Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 12:34 pm

  6. David C. wrote:

    Speaking of guilt by association, there is also the Obama-Ayers situation. Obama sat on a board with him, Ayers held a fundraiser for him, and apparently there were some other occasional contacts. This is a much looser association than with Wright, and Obama supporters can make a reasonable sounding case that this association was insignificant.

    But what if John McCain had had the exact same level of association with an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber — someone who had not actually killed anyone but just set off some bombs and claimed they wished they could have done more?

    What are the odds that the same Obama supporters now crying about guilt by association would be willing to give McCain a pass? I’m sure hacks like Greenwald would still be arguing that we needed to focus on more important issues. No doubt left-wing bloggers would be outraged if debate moderators dared question McCain about that association.

    Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 12:47 pm

  7. David C. wrote:

    canuckistani,

    If I actually believed all that sky-is-falling nonsense you are pushing, I might agree with you :). But at any rate, I’m not saying the whole Wright thing is more important than the issues. It’s not an either/or situation. We already know what Obama thinks about the issues. We can read about he ideas on his website, or listen to his speeches. Political candidates are evaluated and judged on more things than just their positions on the various issues.

    Btw, off topic but you mentioned it. As far as creationism goes, the U.S. isn’t the only advanced western country with a large number of creationists. According to the BBC, only 48% of Britons accept evolution. And you might not want to be too smug living in Canada. Only 59% of Canadians accept evolution. Better than the U.S. and Britain, but still not too good. Scientific ignorance is all too widespread.

    Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 1:43 pm

  8. canuckistani wrote:

    As far as creationism goes, the U.S. isn’t the only advanced western country with a large number of creationists.

    All too true. We almost had a Creationist Prime Minister a few years back, and I’m not a bit happy about it. Canada has more than it’s fair share of yokels and gomers too. My astronomy club does regular public outreach events, so I do what I can for scientific literacy. If you show people galaxy 2 million light years away, maybe they’ll think about the 6k timeline.

    Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 2:49 pm

  9. Alon Levy wrote:

    But what if John McCain had had the exact same level of association with an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber — someone who had not actually killed anyone but just set off some bombs and claimed they wished they could have done more?

    Likely, nobody would care. The Kossacks would be sure it means McCain wants to personally slaughter women, but nobody who’s important would give a damn. They didn’t grill him on Hagee, so why’d they grill him in this case?

    As far as creationism goes, the U.S. isn’t the only advanced western country with a large number of creationists.

    On many indicators of social development, Britain and Canada are often the worst countries in the developed world next to the US: they have the highest teen pregnancy next to the US; Britain is tied with the US for highest obesity in the world outside Mexico, and Canada trails narrowly; British and Canadian infant mortality rates are high by first world standards, and above every major developed country except the US and Italy.

    (And conversely, they also have some of the best race relations in the developed world, especially Canada… let’s just say you’d rather be a Muslim in Canada than in France.)

    Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 3:52 pm

  10. David C. wrote:

    Likely, nobody would care. The Kossacks would be sure it means McCain wants to personally slaughter women, but nobody who’s important would give a damn.

    You must be living in a different world, one in which presidential candidates aren’t under a microscope, and aren’t judged at least partially by their associates. Such an association would quite possibly have killed McCain’s presidential aspirations.

    They didn’t grill him on Hagee, so why’d they grill him in this case?

    Again, getting an endorsement from a disreputable person is something entirely different. Most people see it for what it is, a cynical political move. That’s the kind of thing that’s expected of politicians. Someone you get an endorsement from is not the same as a friend or other voluntary associate.

    If you show people galaxy 2 million light years away, maybe they’ll think about the 6k timeline.

    You would think. Unfortunately, instead they come up with theories about variations in the speed of light, or all sorts of other reasons why scientists don’t really know what they are talking about. I don’t think there is any way of convincing someone who is actually a young earth creationist. On the other hand, I believe that a large number of those who say they don’t believe evolution are simply ignorant, rather than hardened creationists. Our educational system is doing a rotten job when it comes to science.

    I’m 44 and went to what would be considered good public schools in a high-income area. I learned absolutely nothing about evolution. I spent four years in college and got a BA in history without having a single class that covered evolutionary theory, except peripherally. I got a masters in history and never spent any time on evolution, except from the historical perspective as an important scientific theory. The first I learned even the basics of evolutionary theory, was when I had to teach about Darwin to undergrads as a PhD student.

    If it took someone as overeducated as I am that long to get any real exposure to the basics of evolution, is it any wonder that we have tons of people that are completely ignorant?

    Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 5:35 pm

  11. Dan Kauffman wrote:

    The whole Wright issue is just a distaction from more damaging ones.

    Ayers, Rezko and why in the world he had to lie about Selma?

    Now that last seems to have been ignored to an amazing extent.

    Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 10:08 pm

  12. Pigilito wrote:

    Personally, I’m impressed that Obama is the only candidate not in favour of the idiotic gas tax holiday and has the guts to say so. How about that? ….

    Hey, finally something we agree on, Canuckistani. Nice to see him refraining from pandering on this subject.

    Posted 01 May 2008 at 8:32 am

  13. John the Marine wrote:

    The whole Wright flap is due to political expendiency. There was a time when Obama needed to be more “Black” and Wright and his radical church served that purpose and were beneficial. Fast forward to the present, and now in a national election being associated with a Black Liberation Theology nut job is detrimental so Barrack doesn’t seem to want the Rev. around anymore. Simply put: Is it reasonable to believe that Obama didn’t know what Wright was all about? Should we not be concerned that the potential next President of the U.S. has had a raving racist as a; close friend, mentor and spiritual guide? A lot has been made of the Hagee endorsement but think about this, if McCain had belonged to say the Aryan Nation Church which regularly preached hate of a god that accepts blacks and other hate and anti-Americanism how would you feel about that? Cannuckistani, all the panick laden BS above is so exaggerated and silly it can’t be taken seriously. The Issues are indeed important. However, when did the character, moral judgement, integrity and beliefs of a candidate stop being an issue? If some one attends a church for 16 years, has their children baptised there and claims the leader of that Church to have a profound influence on them spiritualy and morally is it just rightwing craziness to be concerned if both the organization and leader are racist and anti-American? I don’t know about others but for me the Wright association has been disturbing since the story first broke. I think it shows the at very least Obama is a rank political hypocrite and potetially far worse. As the old Gunny used to say,”If you sleep with the dogs you will catch the fleas”. Not to mention Birds of a feather flock together.

    Posted 01 May 2008 at 8:41 am

  14. libarbarian wrote:

    You must be living in a different world, one in which presidential candidates aren’t under a microscope, and aren’t judged at least partially by their associates. Such an association would quite possibly have killed McCain’s presidential aspirations.

    David -

    Then why have we yet to hear anything about McCains involvement with the Keating Five on any major news source? McCain was NOT corrupt himself, but he associated with and enabled (perhaps unintentionally) people who were corrupt and were involved in one of the biggest financial scandals to date. Yet Obama gets associated with Ayers because they sat on a board but McCains more intimate association with these criminals is not mentioned at all.

    I think its a kind of willful blindness to miss that association with “leftwing radicals” carries a proportionately more negative popular stigma than association with criminal businessmen or association with raving rightwing loons who blame hurricanes on gay parades.

    Posted 01 May 2008 at 12:00 pm

  15. John the Marine wrote:

    Then why have we yet to hear anything about McCains involvement with the Keating Five on any major news source? McCain was NOT corrupt himself, but he associated with and enabled (perhaps unintentionally) people who were corrupt and were involved in one of the biggest financial scandals to date.

    This is an excellent point. All I can say is that I agree.

    Concerning the association with Wright there seems to be something being left out. Obama stated himself that Rev. Wright was instrumental in shaping his person spiritually as his pastor and otherwise as a mentor. Rev. Wright has stated his view points on national television proudly and loudly for all to hear. He doesn’t deny any of it. Now, it doesn’t take a Rightwing loon to connect the dots and have some questions. Weather it is the Keating Five or Hagee there is no indication from McCain or anyone else that either shaped who he is or what he believes and this where the huge difference is. Who is Obama? The new man transending race and party? Or racist enabler who changes his political skin to suit his needs? First he was not Black enough, now he has got to latte up a bit to fool the heartland rubes and idealistic college kids. But that dog-gone Rev Wright just won’t shut his mouth so Barrack can get on with selling his political snake oil.

    Posted 01 May 2008 at 12:48 pm

  16. rabit wrote:

    bloodsprite writes:

    We really don’t have a choice but to look at Wright, at least *somewhat*.

    Oh yeah, really? Did you take a look at his entire sermon? Seems to me that everyone who does ends up agreeing with most of what Wright had to say. In fact, had we listened to Wrights advice back then, we would have reacted more intelligently and swiftly to deal with terrorism.

    Instead, we stupidly react to a single act of terrorism by shooting ourselves in the foot repeatedly, another 4050+ Americans are dead, hundreds of billions spent, terrorism flourishes, and America falls into the gutter. It’s like that scene where Luke Skywalker destroys the massive Death Star by shooting a single photon torpedo into a ventilation duct. Who the **** would stupidly design such a weakness? Republicans! We allowed a single, stupid act of terrorism turn America upside down while it appears that the next world superpower will be…China!

    Wait, WTF am I saying We for? It’s the people who think like YOU, Bloodspite, that screwed up and continue to screw up so miserably. It’s treasonous people like YOU who fail this country by ruthlessly attacking, smearing, lying about the true patriots like Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Joseph Wilson, and Reverend Wright, who saw exactly what was coming and warned us about it. You, Bloodspite, and those like you are an epic fail.

    Cheers! :)

    /rabit

    Posted 01 May 2008 at 12:55 pm

  17. David C. wrote:

    Then why have we yet to hear anything about McCains involvement with the Keating Five on any major news source?

    Because everyone knows about it and it’s really old news? McCain has been a senator a long time. Also, McCain is already the nominee and the current fight is for the Democratic nomination. I’ll be very surprised if Democrats don’t bring up the Keating Five in the general election campaign.

    I think its a kind of willful blindness to miss that association with “leftwing radicals” carries a proportionately more negative popular stigma than association with criminal businessmen or association with raving rightwing loons who blame hurricanes on gay parades.

    You can pretend McCain getting an endorsement from Hagee is somehow similar to the Wright situation all you want, but no one but Obama supporters is buying that. Repeating it over and over isn’t going to convince anyone. Most people know the difference between getting a political endorsement and having someone as a friend/mentor for 20+ years.

    As for the Keating situation, as I mentioned, I’m sure we are going to see that as an attack on McCain in the general. The only problem is that it happened a long while ago, while the Rev. Wright situation is still in progress with every speech Wright gives.

    And yes, I agree that having a presidential candidate tied to someone who is widely perceived as an anti-American, racist radical carries more weight than having one tied to old charges of corruption — and it should.

    Posted 01 May 2008 at 1:01 pm

  18. David C. wrote:

    Seems to me that everyone who does ends up agreeing with most of what Wright had to say

    Yes, if you are a racist nut.

    Posted 01 May 2008 at 1:06 pm

  19. rabit wrote:

    David C:

    Yes, if you are a racist nut.

    I’m afraid not the people I listened to it with. You lose, try again.

    Posted 01 May 2008 at 1:14 pm

  20. canuckistani wrote:

    Got to agree with rabit. I’ve never heard Wright say anything worse* than I’ve heard MLK say, and he’s a national hero.

    *The exception I’ll make is the govt. causing AIDS. But if I were a black man and lived in a country in which the Tuskegee experiments had happened in my lifetime, it’s not that huge a stretch.

    So how about the gas tax holiday, eh? Drop the tax, and either increased demand will drive the price back up again, or the oil companies will raise the price to cover their own increased taxes. Result - consumers don’t even get the $25 they were going to be bribed with.

    Up here in the GWN, we have longstanding traditions of politicians bribing us with our own money, and this is a piker’s attempt. If it were me, I’d offer a $5k rebate for everyone who crushed their gas guzzler and bought a fuel efficient car. Dropping demand is the only way you’ll get prices back down, unless Santa brings you new refineries.

    Posted 01 May 2008 at 1:30 pm

  21. libarbarian wrote:

    Now, it doesn’t take a Rightwing loon to connect the dots and have some questions……Who is Obama? The new man transending race and party? Or racist enabler who changes his political skin to suit his needs?

    It doesnt take a “rightwing loon” but, I’m sorry if this offends, I think it takes …. excessive suspicion or extreme cynicism, at least, to seriously wonder if Obama is a “racist enabler” based solely on his association with Rev. Wright when his own actions and words betray no evidence of such a thing.

    I have close friends, people I’ve known for a long time, who have racist attitudes (nothing violent or extreme). I also have friends who think the moon-landing was faked and that the gov’t let 9/11 happen - both of which I think are foolish. Perhaps if these things were the first thing I had ever known about them I wouldn’t have been their friends, but they weren’t and by the time I knew of them a personal bond was already formed. I don’t like that part of them but I’m close to them because we went through a lot of stuff together and they have been there for me and I’m not going to terminate that friendship because I disagree with their views.

    Plus, I think Obama would have to be one of the best actors around to have hidden Wright-ish views from so many people for so long. If he actually held those views they would be able to find something from his past that he actually did or said. Seriously entertaining the suspicion he isn’t a total complete con-artist from the single fact of a long-term personal friendship with a oddball seems a bit much to me.

    Posted 01 May 2008 at 1:33 pm

  22. David C. wrote:

    I’m afraid not the people I listened to it with. You lose, try again.

    I’m not talking about just one speech of Wright’s. Try reading up on Black Liberation Theology , which Wright subscribes to. It’s inherently racist. Wright’s rant about “rich white people” would have sounded great at a Nuremburg rally — just substitute “Jews” for “white people.” He thinks Farrakhan is a great man, maybe that should tell you something.

    Posted 01 May 2008 at 1:49 pm

  23. David C. wrote:

    It’s treasonous people like YOU who fail this country by ruthlessly attacking, smearing, lying about the true patriots like Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Joseph Wilson, and Reverend Wright, who saw exactly what was coming and warned us about it. You, Bloodspite, and those like you are an epic fail.

    I should have taken notice of this rant and realized I was attempting to argue with someone irrational. Sorry for bothering.

    Posted 01 May 2008 at 1:57 pm

  24. David C. wrote:

    libarbarian,

    I think it takes …. excessive suspicion or extreme cynicism, at least, to seriously wonder if Obama is a “racist enabler” based solely on his association with Rev. Wright when his own actions and words betray no evidence of such a thing.

    I agree. But his long association with Wright does raise questions about Obama’s judgment and integrity. It is very hard to believe that he wasn’t aware of Rev. Wright’s extreme views. His excuses that he missed the more inflammatory sermons is pretty lame, and it appears that he is just lying about what he knew about Wright. Wright obviously makes no secret of his views. He’s very eager to broadcast them to anyone who will listen.

    And despite the fact that extreme leftists may agree with Rev. Wright’s “America is evil” outlook and ignore his racist theology, most of the voting public doesn’t. Most people not already committed to Obama — and probably even some of them too — wonder why he would stay in a church pastored by Rev. Wright, and have such a close relationship with him, when he apparently vehemently disagrees with him. It would be different if Wright was just his friend. But he was more than that.

    Posted 01 May 2008 at 2:42 pm

  25. rabit wrote:

    I’m not talking about just one speech of Wright’s. Try reading up on Black Liberation Theology , which Wright subscribes to.

    Don’t you subscribe to Beat Your Wife Theology? Heard it on Rush, so it’s gotta be true. Have you no shame?!

    It’s inherently racist. Wright’s rant about “rich white people” would have sounded great at a Nuremburg rally — just substitute “Jews” for “white people.” He thinks Farrakhan is a great man, maybe that should tell you something.

    OMG, republican selective outrage! Hey, let’s move on another narrowly-defined-controversy-chiefly-suited-to-help-us-politically. Oooooooooh, how about Hillary once had a roommate who’s professor had once dated a girl that had attended a rally in support of the Weathermen.

    Nah, wanna talk about true America-hate, how about the fact that there are now two prominent republicans (including a former high-level Reagan appointee) charged with with a REAL crime against America, of attemping to send hundreds of thousands of dollars to Al Qaeda terrorists.

    So where’s your selective outrage now, David C?

    I should have taken notice of this rant and realized I was attempting to argue with someone irrational. Sorry for bothering.

    No apologies necessary. I enjoy arguing with irrational people. :)

    Posted 01 May 2008 at 3:13 pm

  26. David C. wrote:

    Don’t you subscribe to Beat Your Wife Theology? Heard it on Rush, so it’s gotta be true. Have you no shame?!

    I’m an atheist and I don’t listen to Rush. Wright himself makes no secret of his black liberation theology roots and his admiration for Farrakhan. Try looking it up before spouting nonsense.

    OMG, republican selective outrage!

    Who is outraged? I’m merely pointing out that Wright speaks like a racist and espouses a race-based theology, which tends to make him a racist.

    how about the fact that there are now two prominent republicans (including a former high-level Reagan appointee) charged with with a REAL crime against America, of attemping to send hundreds of thousands of dollars to Al Qaeda terrorists.

    I must have missed how that has anything to do with the Rev. Wright issue under discussion. I guess in crazy left-wing world we can’t talk about one issue without bringing in something entirely unrelated.

    Posted 01 May 2008 at 3:50 pm

  27. BloodSpite wrote:

    Seems to me that everyone who does ends up agreeing with most of what Wright had to say. In fact, had we listened to Wrights advice back then, we would have reacted more intelligently and swiftly to deal with terrorism.

    Is this some kind of bad joke, rabit?

    First off never mind the fact its hysterical an Evolution supporter arguing for a Reverend is in itself funny, the fact you would be willing to defend him, is in itself saddening.

    Transcript of Rev Wright from ABC
    We bombed Granada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel. We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenagers and toddlers, pregnant mothers, and hardworking fathers. We bombed Qaddafi’s home.

    We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

    The British government failed, the Russian government failed, the Japanese government failed, the German government failed, and the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian descent fairly, she failed.

    At the very minimum the fact that even the much heralded Obama ( and thats not meant as a snide comment) says that Rev. Wright:

    “His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church. They certainly don’t portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Reverend Wright thinks that that’s political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn’t know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought either.”

    I give Obama points were points are due for that statement.

    Wrights theaterics are beyond outlandish, and foolish nonsense. They are downright insulting.

    Posted 01 May 2008 at 4:00 pm

  28. canuckistani wrote:

    Wrights theaterics are beyond outlandish, and foolish nonsense. They are downright insulting.

    True enough. He also served as a Marine, and has helped poor people in Chicago for 30 years. Judge him by his words, and he’s a goofball. Judge him by his actions, and he’s a stand-up guy. But until you get a single word or action from Obama that indicates he believes the “hate speech”, it’s still a guilt-by-association smear.

    I like the way people highlight “Black Liberation Theology”, though. That makes it look extra scary. Boogity boogity! Where de white women at?

    Posted 01 May 2008 at 4:43 pm

  29. John the Marine wrote:

    It doesnt take a “rightwing loon” but, I’m sorry if this offends, I think it takes …. excessive suspicion or extreme cynicism, at least, to seriously wonder if Obama is a “racist enabler” based solely on his association with Rev. Wright when his own actions and words betray no evidence of such a thing.

    No, offence taken. The above is ment to illustrate a point. Me, personally, I think Obama is just another politician who adjusts to circumstances. He probably, but we don’t really know, hasn’t/doesn’t buy into the whole “Black Liberation Theology” Boogity, Boogity, but then again it didn’t seem to pose a problem when it was authenticating his cred, it only became a problem lately when he needs a broader appeal.

    I have close friends, people I’ve known for a long time, who have racist attitudes (nothing violent or extreme). I also have friends who think the moon-landing was faked and that the gov’t let 9/11 happen - both of which I think are foolish.

    Are any of these people running for President or other high office? More realistically, are any of these people your mentor or spiritual guide (philosophical guide for the athiest crowd)? Probably not. We all know people who fit the above description in relation to our own views however we don’t use them as a moral compass. Obama has in the not to distant past aknowledged Wrights profound influence on his own persona. Again I think that is much different than simple friendship, it is much deeper. Is Obama a racist? Probably not, after all his rebuke quoted above by Bloodspite illustrates that. Does Obama lack judgement? I think so. Is there a case to made for calling an opportunist and Hypocrite? Again, I think so. Since he is very Liberal perhaps I’ve been (and still am) looking for his flaws. On, the same note perhaps you Obama supporters suffer from a similar urge to sweep any negative under the rug.

    Oh, rabit FYI, Rev. Wright’s sermons, uncut and in context, are being presented on Glen Beck CNN 7:00 PM EST. I’ll be watching because even though good ole Jeremiah said that he does indeed believe and support the views he has been accused of holding I think it is important to hear the whole story as he, Rev. Wright, intended it to be heard. See you there my fury friend.

    Posted 01 May 2008 at 5:35 pm

  30. David C. wrote:

    But until you get a single word or action from Obama that indicates he believes the “hate speech”, it’s still a guilt-by-association smear.

    I don’t think Obama believes it. There’s no evidence that he does other than the guilt-by-association. But that still doesn’t explain why he stayed in that church and maintained such close ties with Rev. Wright for so long. His explanations just aren’t convincing. As John said above:

    it didn’t seem to pose a problem when it was authenticating his cred, it only became a problem lately when he needs a broader appeal.

    But he can’t say that because it makes him look like an opportunist and a hypocrite, staying in a church for so long, run by a man with whom he vehemently disagrees with. It makes his explanations look like evasions and/or outright likes. And it basically makes him appear to be a typical sleazy politician — compromising his principles in order to move up the ladder.

    Posted 01 May 2008 at 7:33 pm

  31. Alon Levy wrote:

    If it were me, I’d offer a $5k rebate for everyone who crushed their gas guzzler and bought a fuel efficient car.

    And I’d put a $6/gal tax on gas, and divert the money generated to mass transit, infrastructure repairs, and development incentives in dense city cores. No wonder Americans like their cars and low-density suburbs; they don’t really have other options. When higher-density developments fetch higher prices, pro-sprawl planners and zoning boards’ first conclusion is “See? Density is bad!” rather than “gee, there’s a lot of demand out there for higher densities…”

    Posted 02 May 2008 at 12:36 am

  32. Dan Kauffman wrote:

    And I’d put a $6/gal tax on gas, and divert the money generated to mass transit, infrastructure repairs, and development incentives in dense city cores.

    “gee, there’s a lot of demand out there for higher densities…”

    Yes if you use punitive taxes to make driving not an option for the average American so you can concentrate them in Urban Hives.

    Posted 02 May 2008 at 9:17 am

  33. canuckistani wrote:

    Urban Hives.

    We call them “cities” when we aren’t trying to skew the argument with loaded language. Cities are a more efficient use of land and resources than suburban sprawl, and, when properly run, are great places to live. I’d much rather raise my kids in a city than in some suburb or small town where there’s nothing for them to do but hang around and get stoned on Saturday night.

    Posted 02 May 2008 at 10:28 am

  34. BloodSpite wrote:

    or small town where there’s nothing for them to do but hang around and get stoned on Saturday night.

    I’m sure drive buys and gang membership are a much more educational form of entertainment these days.

    I mean these days you get shot even if your walking down the street and don’t say anything.

    Posted 02 May 2008 at 10:31 am

  35. David C. wrote:

    And I’d put a $6/gal tax on gas, and divert the money generated to mass transit, infrastructure repairs, and development incentives in dense city cores.

    Yeah, let’s completely cripple the economy and give the government more money to waste. Thanks for illustrating one of the many reasons I’ll continue to vote Republican. They may be pretty bad, but they aren’t so bad that you’ll hear proposals like that from Republicans. Are there any taxes left-wingers don’t like and don’t think should be higher?

    Posted 02 May 2008 at 10:39 am

  36. John the Marine wrote:

    I’d much rather raise my kids in a city than in some suburb or small town

    That’s nice, to each his own. You can keep your cities with their crime, polution, high taxes, high cost of living, and their overbearing leftist governments (can you say San Fransisco, NYNY, LA… I knew you you could)

    We call them “cities” when we aren’t trying to skew the argument with loaded language.

    And when we aren’t trying to control people because we know what is best for them perhaps we can go back to the idea of a free society. You can keep your lousy cities and the big brother mentality where it belongs, Europe & Canada. I prefer to go church, live in the country and own guns to my bitter frustrated heart’s content. But thanks for the Orwellian urban planning offer anyway.

    Posted 02 May 2008 at 10:41 am

  37. BloodSpite wrote:

    But thanks for the Orwellian urban planning offer anyway.

    Without a doubt John that is absolutely the best friggin comment I have read all week. LOL!!!!!

    Posted 02 May 2008 at 11:12 am

  38. libarbarian wrote:

    You can keep your cities with their crime, polution, high taxes, high cost of living, and their overbearing leftist governments

    I’m kind of itching to move out of the city myself, but to play the Devils Advocate ….

    You can keep your country living, you huge yards and your 20 minute drive to the Grocery Store ……but don’t resent me for opposing incentive-distorting policies that make it artificially affordable for you.

    This isn’t the old days when (to indulge in a little bit of a stereotype) rural folks were content to accept the concomitant lifestyle including such things as shopping at the local corner store and eating food mainly produced locally. Rural America now contains millions of people who, despite living well away the major transportation arteries, damn well expect to shop at a large modern Walmart superstore stocked with goods and food shipped in from all over the earth but without the price markup which would accurately reflect the cost of trucking all that stuff out to the boondocks. Likewise, it contains millions of people who want the freedom to live in a big house with a lot of land 20 minutes from that Walmart, and the freedom to drive that 20 minutes in a big pickup or SUV but who dont want to pay the true price of gas now that China is getting thirstier and bidding up the price.

    All of this means subsidies. Subsidies to oil companies to keep the price of gas down so that the goods can be trucked and the people can drive their big cars without bearing the true costs. “Economic development” subsidies and free give-aways to get Walmart to build stores in these small communities. Subsidies, for some, to keep their jobs safe when the market would otherwise ship them off somewhere else. These subsidies do not just come from the taxes of the people they benefit. They come from the taxes of people who live in the city too.

    This is ESPECIALLY irksome in the case of phony-rural “ex-urban” professionals who want the perks of the rural lifestyle like the big house in the country but dont want to pay the real cost of commuting 1+ hours in an gas-guzzler to their white-collar job in the city.

    I dont care if someone lives where they have to drive 20 minutes to get anywhere, or have their good trucked in for hundreds of miles, but it REALLY bothers me when they thump their chests about their rights to enjoy these things but refuse to own up to the responsibility to pay their fair share of the additional costs incurred by their lifestyle.

    Posted 02 May 2008 at 12:28 pm

  39. David C. wrote:

    libarbarian,

    but don’t resent me for opposing incentive-distorting policies that make it artificially affordable for you.

    Government meddling with the free market is what causes the problems you mention. The solution isn’t more government meddling involving forcibly extracting more money from some citizens. How about we have less government involvement?

    Posted 02 May 2008 at 12:38 pm

  40. John the Marine wrote:

    Bloodspite, thankyou for your compliment, I do what I can.

    You can keep your country living, you huge yards and your 20 minute drive to the Grocery Store ……but don’t resent me for opposing incentive-distorting policies that make it artificially affordable for you.

    You play this game well Libarbarian very funny I enjoy your humor. Your larger point about subsidies is right on, I couldn’t agree more. By the way I drive a small 34 mile/gal car for that commute to my white collar job. Also, I didn’t ask Hanafords or Walmart to open a store near me so forgive me for shopping there. The local produce around here (S.W. NH) is great I look forward to loading up this summer.

    Now, David C has the punch line right:

    Government meddling with the free market is what causes the problems you mention. The solution isn’t more government meddling involving forcibly extracting more money from some citizens. How about we have less government involvement?

    That is what I’m talking about, less is more when it comes to government in my life. Speaking of government and subsidies how about we do away with: affirmative action subsidies for minority/women business owners, for green technologies, for urban development, public housing, student loans, big agriculture, ans so on. I say burn it all down to the ground and get government out of everything but governing. Because all of us pay taxes right? Why should I have to subsidize other peoples’ and industries’ bottom lines? Makes ya think don’t it city slicker?

    Posted 02 May 2008 at 12:56 pm

  41. libarbarian wrote:

    Government meddling with the free market is what causes the problems you mention. The solution isn’t more government meddling involving forcibly extracting more money from some citizens. How about we have less government involvement?

    David,

    I agree, but I dont see anyone offering that choice. The choices I see being offered are (by Dems) a government that will socialize profits and costs and one (by Reps) which will only socialize costs while privatizing profits.

    I would love low taxes and no subsidies. However, if my choice is between subsidizing people and industries while taxing them lightly and subsidizing them while taxing them more heavily then I choose the latter because at least then I get my f-ing dividends on my investment. And, yes - this is about raw self-interest on my part.

    Besides, Socialism practiced openly can be seen for what it is and rejected. Socialism practiced in secret, as we currently do it, simply allows the rot to fester untreated.

    Posted 02 May 2008 at 2:41 pm

  42. BloodSpite wrote:

    I’m sorta lucky here.

    I have no wal mart in my town. The nearesy gas stations? 15 miles from my house. The grocery store? Local owned by a guy who has owned it for 52 years. We got our first fast foor restraunt last year. A McDonalds. Until then we had no restraunts to speak of. We have a 4 way stop in the middle of town. No Lights.

    Since I moved here in 2003 I’ve watched the little town grow. Since 03 this place exploded, now with folks who do anything in the town, but people who commute to the larger cities. The little town is no longer little.

    Which leads me to say, if city life is so gradiouse why are people leaving it in droves?

    The nearest Wal Mart for me is 30 miles.

    But it also happens to be the one that sitting directly in front of Wal Marts World Headquarters in Bentonville Arkansas. Heh

    Posted 03 May 2008 at 10:50 am

  43. Alon Levy wrote:

    Are there any taxes left-wingers don’t like and don’t think should be higher?

    Just because you asked… I’d zero out the 10% income tax bracket, and exempt the first $10,000 of income from FICA; my proposed gas tax should more than make up the difference.

    On the local level, I’d also shift the tax burden from property taxes to income taxes. Property taxes are convenient for the government: they remain steady regardless of how the economy is doing, while the taxpayers get bilked whenever there’s a recession or inflation. Income taxes are more volatile so local governments like them less, because they adjust themselves to what taxpayers can afford.

    Government meddling with the free market is what causes the problems you mention. The solution isn’t more government meddling involving forcibly extracting more money from some citizens. How about we have less government involvement?

    You’ll be surprised how much of suburbanization in America comes from government involvement. In no particular order:

    - Mortgages are tax subsidized; rent isn’t. This is a net money transfer from Harlem to Long Island (P.S. Harlem has about the same per capita tax burden as Staten Island…).

    - Federal subsidies to highways eclipse those to mass transit. American railways were perfectly profitable until the federal government started building publicly funded roads to compete with them. In Japan, where this process never happened, the railways are still profitable. Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor makes a profit as well.

    - From the 1930s till the 60s, the federal government encouraged clearing neighborhoods it didn’t like. It gave cities grants to destroy the buildings to build highways. It also designated some neighborhoods as slums and made it impossible to invest in them. Few of these neighborhoods actually were slums; most were just dense and mixed-use.

    - The designation of slums also contributed to redlining. People living in these neighborhoods couldn’t get federally-backed mortgages, since that was considered a form of investing in the neighborhood. In effect, the middle class was forced to move elsewhere. This practice still continues, though less than it used to.

    - Developers get grants for developing new land; they don’t get grants for renovating run-down buildings. Harlem has some of the highest rents in the country, but still has many vacant buildings.

    - Zoning restrictions prevent cities from growing upward. Manhattan grew upward without trouble before the 1930s. Right now politicians resist any upzoning, even though its population growth is the fastest in a century. A developer who owns a property tract on Central Park West might want to build a sixty-story building on most of the tract to maximize profits, yielding a floor area ratio of forty. But by law he can’t exceed a floor area ratio of ten. Nor can he build ground-floor retail, because the area is zoned for residence exclusively.

    - Zoning laws also prevent cities from growing outward. Long Islanders like their low-density, low-diversity, high-income-only area. So they passed zoning laws that mandate minimum lot sizes and maximum building heights, artificially reducing density and increasing housing prices, so that the lower middle class can’t afford living there.

    The first thing I’d prescribe to correct these governmental imbalances is to kill the mortgage tax credit. Reagan and Bush Jr. both formed commissions to study the US tax codes; both commissions recommended losing the tax credit, only for the Presidents to ignore the advice.

    The second thing is to reduce road subsidies. With highways, it’s reasonably easy using tolls. With other roads, it’s harder; I’d recommend gas taxes, since most externalities of road use, like pollution, are proportional to fuel consumption rather than miles driven.

    The third is to get around zoning restrictions. On the federal or state level, I’d go for a Developer’s Bill of Rights, abolishing zoning restrictions that aren’t necessary for environmental or health reasons. On the local level, I’d go the other way and let local communities design zoning laws, but require them to plan for a certain increase in housing, say 2% a year. This is because local government tends to be filled with corruption, while at least in New York the community boards often come up with very innovative development ideas that City Hall keeps ignoring.

    And finally, I’d establish uniform credit rules based on criteria such as the borrower’s income and savings, and whether he has a history of late payments of taxes or debts. Where he wants to get his mortgage shouldn’t matter, and neither should the myriad overfussy distinctions used by credit bureaus, which create an opaque credit system.

    Posted 03 May 2008 at 8:18 pm

  44. rabit wrote:

    bloodspite writes:

    First off never mind the fact its hysterical an Evolution supporter arguing for a Reverend is in itself funny, the fact you would be willing to defend him, is in itself saddening.

    No, it’s not really hysterical at all that I’m defending a religious man. To you it probably is, because you are attempting to understand a world full of complexities and subtleties through a monochromatic filter.

    See, humor is simply a neurological reaction to the brain attempting to make sense out of seemingly senseless stimuli. You can’t comprehend that an atheist could defend a religious man because it breaks from the typical need for conservatives to classify people into very specific motivations and behaviors.

    So, for you to comprehend my defending Rev. Wright as hysterical is perfectly explained as your inability to grasp subtle complexities that are present in all aspects of reality, where religious people will only defend religious people and athiests only defend athiests. You fail to grasp that I’m simply defending what I know is true.

    Oh, and this will probably make you bust a spleen! I’m not even an Obama supporter. I’m rooting for Hillary and I actually hope that she uses every dirty trick from the Karl Rove campaign book against Obama.

    Posted 04 May 2008 at 1:47 am

  45. The Sanity Inspector wrote:

    He sat there in that pew and soaked up that poison for 20 years. Damn right I’ll have him account for himself!

    Posted 07 May 2008 at 5:26 pm

« Giving new meaning to the permanent campaign
Magic Number: 283 »