On the issue of rims and hip hop culture, etc. I've lived in West Oakland for a long time, and I have to say if there was a way to get rid of the majority of hip hop culture, I would be all for it. I think white people are generally afraid to critique it and its excesses-- the obsession with style and accoutrements and possessions--to the exclusion of developing realistic goals. Obviously, for instapunk to get into the idea of n's vs. non, is the height of offensive absurdity. But that doesn't mean there is n't a lot of soul searching that urban communities (I include asians, latinos, etc.) need to do. One of the most overlooked things about hip-hop is that it is a corporate produced lifestyle, born and bred in white-run corporate board rooms. It has little do with people of color, but its sold to them with non-white spokespersons. It is a self-destuctive culture of waste and materialism, and has few positive attributes. There is real hip hop out there, its happening in little clubs and venues and on the streets, and it has very little do with twenty inch rims.

Hmmm....

A Preacher uses his freedom of speech and worship to call the nation to account for its actions precisely as envisioned in the Contitution and Bill of Rights.

It would appear that a hatred-ridden anti-American freak

rather more accurate descibes our current commenter.

Obama has a 20-year mentoring relationship with a hatred-ridden anti-American freak, and that's a moral and political problem.

What that Obama himself has ever said or done - besides merely being associated with Reverend Wright - points to his actually agreeing with Wright's statements about AIDS, 911 and the other soundbites endlessly repeated by the media?

To say nothing of the validity or invalidity of Reverend Wright's cherry-picked words, isn't Obama's speech on race a direct repudiation of the type of thinking exhibited by Reverend Wright?

Therefore, aren't people like you essentially calling Obama a liar when they mindlessly repeat that Obama's association with Wright implies that he shares the beliefs at issue?

Fear precludes rational thought.

Take away the fear and most people can get along just fine.

But we are fearful creatures by design so evolution must provide a solution.

Old habits die hard.

when they roll up beside you at a stoplight in their trashed old Hondas with 19-inch spinner wheels and rap recordings that shake the foundations of the buildings.

(Actually, most have 17" inch wheels with a few 16") fronts.I can't stand those CBRs, the 600s especially. And those white boys on their four-cylinder literbikes. And the awful graphics on their helmets! And the clothes they wear, and the language that he use!

Go to him now,

he calls you,

you can't refuse-

When you ain't got nothing,

ya got nothing to lose.

How does it feel?

Sorry, brain's all screwed up until I get an implant to replace that cerebro-molar which was pulled. Hell, I've been been grunting for four days, at least the English language is coming back. Still can't drive, or walk. I'll go back to bed.

Perhaps I'm not thinking of the term correctly but if you take individualism to its extreme, then you have accorded EVERYONE the same degree of rights and autonomy that you grant yourself

How could it be otherwise?

If you don't want other people prying into your life then you must be willing to stay out of theirs.

Evolution? Let's see if that will happen anytime in the next 65 million years.

Don't hold your breath.

"A spiritual guide" v. "HIS spiritual guide": What's the difference? A lot...

David Corn and Glenn Greenwald are deliberately falsifying McCain's words, in order to imply some equivalence between McCain & Obama.

Depends upon one's POV, I suppose. You evidentially wish to presume McCain has no actual philosophical or moral beliefs, hence his utilitarian use of these men's 'endorsements'.

If there is no guilt-by-association for McCain, why should there be any with Obama?

Similarly you wish to paint Wright as "a hatred-ridden anti-American freak" (your own words), when in fact the full text of the sermon in question belies such a description.

I don't actually expect you answer to any of the above points, but feel free to surprise us.

What explains the media's Obama/Wright fixation while virtually ignoring McCain's embrace of people like Rod Parsley and John Hagee is the assumption that the controversial behavior of any one black person is easily attributed to black people generally, while white political leaders aren't held accountable for the views of others solely by virute of shared race.

Even if McCain's personal pastor of 20 years had engaged in misogyny, anti-semitism, and a deep misunderstanding of the Sunni shiite divide, this would not be held against him. Because it's obvious that he doesn't share those beliefs, and who would expect him to?

Likewise if Clinton's pastor turns out to be someone who is homophobic, and has denounced AIDS as God's vengeance on sodomites, that too would not be linked to her.

In fact, the press has a long history of not writing about what the racist, homophobic, money grubbing hucksters say. They're not going to attribute those traits to their white parishoners or endorsees.

But in Obama's case, you're either a good [epithet] or a bad [epithet]. Moreover, up to now he's been trying to pass as a good one, and now it is revealed that he is a bad one.

By include Wright on his list, instapunk is putting Obama there too. Not with good ones like Clarence Thomas, but one of the bad 'uns.

And that's all there is. Sheep and goats.

who manufactures these "long shirts & baggy pants"?

it isnt the kids themselves.

Instapunk’s rants are merely a good example of what historian Hofstadter called the “paranoid style of American politics.” As long as blacks put up with the numerous social and political depredations against them, they were considered a passive people—except if they rebelled or rioted.

His “We're teetering at the edge of believing that you're a secret society, a massive collection of sleeper cells just waiting for your chance to do serious harm to the rest of us” is basically the atavistic white fear of slave rebellions.

His irrationality mirrors the same response that whites had towards the Nation of Islam 50 years ago. “Oh, my God! There are coloreds who hate white people!”

(And Mike Wallace is responsible for giving the NOI and Malcolm X a larger platform when he did a show on them called, “The Hate that Hate Produces.”)

Blacks have always been viewed as the soft underbelly of American democracy due to the simple reason that they weren’t treated as humans or respected as citizens of the republic. They have always been suspected by the FBI or targeted for special consideration by US propaganda apparatus during wartime because their station in American society undercut the rhetoric of American democracy.

But America’s racial practice and pattern always demands that blacks are under suspicion until they denounce or move away from the general “consensus” of other blacks. This is what Russert was demanding of Obama. Is he “safe"? Is he safe like Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice? How do you know they are safe? They’re Republicans. In a word, Conservatives. Notice how they did't make Instapunk's "nigger" list.

(If you doubt this, take notice of the blacks who are Fox News.)

What’s interesting about Obama’s response what that he didn’t defend Belafonte’s right to make such comments. After all, that’s what the First Amendment is for: free speech.

Russert and his colleagues are allowed to operate under it, and they can make all sorts of outrageous comments (e.g., Limbaugh, Fox News etc.) and practice bad journalism ad infinitum.

Or Obama could have argued that the First Amendment allows people to make fools out of themselves.