Letters to the Editor
-
re: All and Nothing!
The USA will be worse under an Obama rule than under Bush. Obama will rule like another Mugabe and the his win would be revolutionary and be the beginning of the end of the United States. How do you like that for Wrightian hyperbole?
Excellent! You and WES advance to the semi-finals
-
The problem is Obama, not Wright
Salon.com is correct that Rev. Wright isn't the problem, but then misses to identify the problem. The problem is Obama who looks up to Wright as a spiritual leader while seeking to become POTUS under the banner of unity.
-
just a realistic observation...
9/11 didn't happen because some American politicians were just doing some serious jaywalking in the middle east, and if it makes some people uncomfortable to hear that pointed out, then I pity the "patriotic" fools, and they sould be uncomfortable at just how ignorant they really are.
-
@rtf100
Eliot Sptizer has a better chance of bouncing back than Obama does because the average person finds Sptizer's problems amusing while they view Wright as downright scary.
--rtf100
Sure...
...if you define "the average person" as "the average white person who still fears that the uppity blacks are gonna rise up and get even."
As has been pointed out many, many times before: Wright hasn't said anything more extremist than Rev's Robertson, Hagee, or Parsley, all of whom have a very dim view of America. Robertson said America deserved 9/11 for being too tolerant of gays and feminists. Wright linked 9/11 to some actual historical events. To my mind, Robertson's statement was more radical and hateful, but then he's white, so it's not scary. At least, not to "the average person." To an average gay person, or feminist, it might be VERY scary.
If you read the comments here, you'll find there's a significant number of people saying, "I don't agree with everything Wright said, but I didn't find it shocking or even that far off." I realize Salon is not a representative sample, but I have been wondering: what do most Americans really think of Wright's sentiments? In my (admittedly liberal) circles, most of what Wright said would be decidedly uncontroversial. I think there are more people who think like this that you realize, because we just don't get the media coverage, except when the 0.01% of us who have the time get a few seconds of TV time at a protest. Polls show that a majority of Americans oppose the war, but you'd never know it from reading the Times or watching CNN. What other silences are the media enforcing?
-
Blunders and halos of the dead
I don't recall that kind of language from Martin Luther King or Obama for that matter. It was a political blunder to have Wright in the campaign and it was a political necessity to run him off.
I agree that it was a blunder to have Rev Wright around, although others may disagree. I haven't heard Obama say anything close to that. But MLK said some firey stuff in his day. If I was cynical, I'd say that we have turned him into a saint so that we don't have to listen to the harsh stuff and make any changes in our lifes.
Here's a quote and a link to a recent article on MLK:
Feb. 4, 1968: "God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war. . . . And we are criminals in that war. We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it. And we won't stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place." King then predicted this response from the Almighty: "And if you don't stop your reckless course, I'll rise up and break the backbone of your power."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032003021.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
-
@prabhata
Would you mind fleshing out your argument for us?
What's the nature of the problem, as you see it?
You assert "the problem" as if it's self-evident, but it's not.
I, for one, am interested in what you mean, exactly.
-
What if Hillary Clinton gave a speech about gender? (And why she won't.)
http://www.slate.com/id/2187189/pagenum/2/
By Melinda Henneberger and Dahlia Lithwick
-
Kamiya 110% correct
What he writes about immediate post-9/11 is EXACTLY what I instinctively felt and thought AT THE TIME. I watched in horror as the country willingly swallowed the "patriotism" opium and threw away it's ability to reason and see the lies. I could see SO clearly EXACTLY what was happening just as Kamiya explains it. It was just like what I had read about Nazi Germany. It was quite an education in the stupidity of the masses.
And now Kamiya is 110% correct on the Wright uproar. Skimming through a few of the letters here just reminds me once again how Americans can't think and reason very well. And I wonder how many who are spouting off on the issue ACTUALLY READ Obama's speach. Clearly many have not.
-
Thanks Uncle Fester
Lots of Americans think that King was just always a docile and domesticated "house negro." He wasn't, he spoke some plain truth that plenty of people didn't want to hear.
-
@ sesanders
Thank you so much for your response!
I can appreciate your discomfort with the fire and brimstone thing.
Not much I can say about that other than I share it myself, but in this context it just doesn't alarm me. If Wright had been ranting about striking down faggots or niggers or communists, I'd be alarmed, but not for the brimstone per se, but the hatred, especially because in my example, that's rhetoric that pretty directly leads to physical violence.
I think it's more rational to fear such things because when open season is declared on marginalized people, broken individuals actually do take up the call and beat and harass and dehumanize such people.
In the case of Wright (and admittedly, I've not watched the sermon), I just don't see any realistic danger of such words translating themselves to violent recriminations. But I do fear such anger because yes, I do tend to associate anger with violence, largely because of my own history being harassed, dehumanized and assaulted.
So for me, there's a genuine difference in context.
Not for you, I guess. FAir enough, but I'd humbly encourage you to consider that maybe there's a significant difference.
Maybe there isn't, but I do think it merits deliberation, if you'd care to do that.
Again, thanks for responding. It's important that we keep talking and perhaps over time, we'll come to some kind of honorable consensus on the matter, each one of us having learned something from the other.
May I ask for more details about the sort of church you're referring to, if you feel comfortable sharing?
For my part, I'm an Episcopalian and if you know anything about the Episcopal church, you'll know it's the polar opposite of fire-and-brimstone, so for what it's worth, I do understand your discomfort. I share it myself.