DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Rich on April 29, 2008, 06:31:27 PM
-
Wright Speaks for the Left
By Dennis Prager
FrontPageMagazine.com (http://FrontPageMagazine.com) | 4/29/2008
When Air America, the left-wing talk radio network, began, I predicted that it would not succeed. One of the main reasons I gave was that liberals already had their views expressed in the mainstream news media -- the major networks, PBS and NPR (National Public Radio), and just about every major city newspaper. Therefore, the need liberals have for liberal talk radio is nowhere near the need conservatives have for conservative talk radio.
To its credit, the New York Times -- through its public editor -- has acknowledged that the Times is liberal; and anyone intellectually honest understands this is true regarding virtually all of the news media. But for those still needing proof, Bill Moyers supplied it on PBS this past weekend during his interview of one of the most radically polarizing figures in America today, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Barack Obama's mentor and pastor for 20 years.
The Rev. Wright's decision to allow himself to be interviewed by Bill Moyers was, from his perspective, an excellent one. It is difficult to imagine a less challenging, more fawning, interview.
How bad was it?
Given that one of the most egregious of the Rev. Wright's statements was his charge that the American government developed the AIDS virus and inflicted it on black Americans, one assumed that the first major reporter to interview Wright since the comments were made public would ask him about it. Not Bill Moyers. Beyond mentioning in the opening introduction, "Wright repeating the canard heard often in black communities that the U.S. government spread HIV in those communities," the subject was never raised.
But Moyers did ask Wright tough questions like these:
"When did you hear the call to ministry? How did it come?"
"What does the church service on Sunday morning mean in general to the black community?"
Instead of challenging Wright's un-Christian, anti-American and immoral "God damn America, God damn America" statement, Moyers asked three questions about it:
Here they are (I could not make up such puffball questions):
1. "One of the most controversial sermons that you preach is the sermon you preach that ended up being that sound bite about God damn America."
Wright's response was to deliver a 300-word indictment of America for its violence against the world.
And how then does Moyers respond? With another killer question:
2. "What did you mean when you said that?"
So Wright then delivered another, 174-word, indictment of America for its evils.
But instead of challenging Wright or defending America, Moyers' third question was:
3. "Well, you can be almost crucified for saying what you've said here in this country."
Moyers changes Wright's "God damn America" to "Poor Rev. Wright."
And why not? It is soon clear that Moyers essentially agrees with Wright about America:
"What is your notion of why so many Americans seem not to want to hear the full Monty -- they don't want to seem to acknowledge that a nation capable of greatness is also capable of cruelty?"
For the many Americans who suspect that most Americans on the left silently agree with nearly all of Wright's views of America, Moyers provided proof.
Nevertheless, Moyers' total failure to confront the America-hating, race-preoccupied mentor of a man who may be the next president of the United States does not mean the interview was worthless. Any time Wright speaks publicly, even with the most sympathetic of questioners, we learn more about the two motivators of his thinking: race and contempt for America.
Here is Wright in his sermon the Sunday after 9-11 as replayed during the Moyers interview:
"Terrorism! We bombed Grenada 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 Gadafi's home and killed his child. 'Blessed are they who bash your children's head against a rock!' We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy. Killed hundreds of hardworking people; mothers and fathers who left home to go that day, not knowing that they would never get back 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! Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school, civilians -- not soldiers -- people just trying to make it day by day. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant? Because the stuff we have done overseas has now been brought back into our own front yards! America's chickens are coming home to roost! Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred and terrorism begets terrorism."
To which Moyers offered another lacerating response:
"You preached that sermon on the Sunday after 9-11, almost seven years ago. When people saw the sound bites from it this year, they were upset because you seemed to be blaming America. Did you somehow fail to communicate?"
Finally, as regards the Rev. Wright's Africa-centric form of Christianity, this was Wright's explanation to his young church members as shown during the PBS interview:
"We wanted our stained-glass windows to tell the story of the centrality of Africans in the role of Christianity from its inception up until the present day. We play some interesting games educationally with the kids to help kids understand -- 'Can you name the seven continents?' As a kid, you learn that in school. All right, on what continent did everything in the Bible from Genesis to Malachi take place?"
And, of course, the Reverend and his church's answer is: Africa.
Now, as it happens, the Middle East is not Africa. It is Asia Minor, or Southwest Asia, if one must have an identifying continent. And Jesus was not black, nor were the apostles. It's all racial pride. And not true. Africa in the Bible is overwhelmingly Egypt, which was not black and not a moral model.
In sum: PBS has done some wonderful programming. But when it comes to the news or anything controversial, it is as politically correct and liberal as the rest of the news media. As for Bill Moyers, had Mrs. Wright interviewed the Rev. Wright, the questions and reactions could not have been less challenging or even supportive. And as regards the Rev. Wright, the more he talks, the more one worries about Barack Obama's values.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show based in Los Angeles. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness is a Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is www.dennisprager.com. To find out more about Dennis Prager, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
-
.....How bad was it?....
Couldn't get much worse
-
Wright was not speaking for the left, he was speaking for himself.
Moyers has done better interviews. He should have asked about the bit where AIDS was allegedly invented to destroy Black people.
-
Wright was not speaking for the left, he was speaking for himself.
He epitomizes the left. Imparticular, the angry left that hates this great country
-
He epitomizes the left. Imparticular, the angry left that hates this great countr
=====================================
You are totally incorrect. First off no one hates the country: no one hates the purple mountains' majesty or the golden waves of grain.
There are those who see a vision for a more perfect society (as did the Founding Fathers) and seek to improve upon it. There are those who believe that the various travesties visited upon such minorities as the Indians and Blacks have not been adequately addressed. There are others who believe that the current movement by the oligarchy to turn the USA into a maximum security state, where everyone's mail and conversations are monitored, where the banks control everyone's money, where every year productivity increases, and none of the gain is passed on to those who do the actual labor, where troops are sent to occupy other countries so as to lay claim by the oligarchy to needed resources, thereby creating an empire, is not and should not be what the USA is all about.
Rev. Wright represents, at best a small segment within the Black community that sees every issue from the standpoint of Black people and their exploitation.
One can hate the oligarchy without hating the country. I see it as an obligation to despise the oligarchy. They are quite clever, and their hirelings are well-paid and diverse.
The greatness of the USA and the hugeness of ExxonMobil are not synonymous.
-
>>First off no one hates the country: no one hates the purple mountains' majesty or the golden waves of grain. <<
You are totally inncorrect. There are plenty of people who hate America. Your buddy mike is just one example.
-
One can hate the oligarchy without hating the country. I see it as an obligation to despise the oligarchy. They are quite clever, and their hirelings are well-paid and diverse.
If you stop hating my ogliarchy, I will stop hateing yours.
The greatness of the USA and the hugeness of CNN are not synonymous.
-
I don't have cable. I don't watch CNN. I neither like them nor hate them, or am I inclined to believe them when they do not make sense. They do not run the country. The oligarchy does that, and it does it to serve its own advantage.
America would be a far greater country if the oligarchy were deposed and forced to play by the same rules as everyone else.
-
I don't have cable. I don't watch CNN. I neither like them nor hate them, or am I inclined to believe them when they do not make sense. They do not run the country. The oligarchy does that, and it does it to serve its own advantage.
America would be a far greater country if the oligarchy were deposed and forced to play by the same rules as everyone else.
You deny that there is a Leftist ogliarchy?
Name a feature of the Right that I can't find a counterpart for in the left.
-
You deny that there is a Leftist ogliarchy?
Name a feature of the Right that I can't find a counterpart for in the left.
============================================
Oh, please. Of COURSE there is not a leftist oligarchy.
The Right has the money and controls the economy.
There are a few wealthy people on the left that may upon occasion, control several aspects of the entertainment industry.
Buy a copy of Forbes. See the biggest advertisers? The ones in the oligarchy that need publicity bought those ads. Some, like Cargill and Bunge & Borne, do not need publicity and do not advertise.
Now buy a copy of the Nation. The full page ads might occasionally be for recording and movie companies that might upon occasion decide what entertainment might be available.
The people who hired Rush and paid him $23 million to convince guys like you that there IS a leftist Oligarchy-- they are the Right wing Oligarchy.
-
You deny that there is a Leftist ogliarchy?
Name a feature of the Right that I can't find a counterpart for in the left.
============================================
Oh, please. Of COURSE there is not a leftist oligarchy.
The Right has the money and controls the economy.
There are a few wealthy people on the left that may upon occasion, control several aspects of the entertainment industry.
Buy a copy of Forbes. See the biggest advertisers? The ones in the oligarchy that need publicity bought those ads. Some, like Cargill and Bunge & Borne, do not need publicity and do not advertise.
Now buy a copy of the Nation. The full page ads might occasionally be for recording and movie companies that might upon occasion decide what entertainment might be available.
The people who hired Rush and paid him $23 million to convince guys like you that there IS a leftist Oligarchy-- they are the Right wing Oligarchy.
I need a link for the idea that Rush Limbaugh was hired.
But there is plenty of big money on the left and they are if anything more likely to colaborate than the guys on the right.
Al Franken was hired to be a counter to Rush Limbaugh , at that point the Leftist powers that be learned that it doesn't work to hire a pretty face to frount an unpopular idea even if you pay a lot.
-
I need a link for the idea that Rush Limbaugh was hired.
Well, DUH! He is being paid, isn't he? It's common knowledge that he is paid and how much he is paid. I hardly doubt that the oligarchy is going to say that they contribute that $23 million to Clear Channel for Rush's propaganda.
---------------------------------------------------
But there is plenty of big money on the left and they are if anything more likely to colaborate than the guys on the right.
Al Franken was hired to be a counter to Rush Limbaugh , at that point the Leftist powers that be learned that it doesn't work to hire a pretty face to frount an unpopular idea even if you pay a lot.
No, the left is different from the right. The Left consists of a variety of individuals who have specific social changes they wish enacted, and there is quite a bit of difference between them, so there is a lot of disagreement. Listening to political diatribes is not amusing to most Left wingers, and they don;t listen to Al Franken, nor do they take their attitudes from him for the most part.
========================================================
The Oligarchy wants just two things: More power and more money. They are for more exploitation of people and resources and they want someone else to support the government, because they own most of the property and most of the stock that is owned by individuals.
Luckily for them, there is a lumpenproletariat of wannabee oligarchs, who feel that someday, they will also be movers and shakers, ad they identify with the ruling oligarchy. In European nations, they would be royalists . And Rush is hired to tell these people what to think and how to think it.
When I get a letter from the Democrats, I get a questionnaire with a plea for money. They always ask for my opinion. Perhaps they don't pay attention to my opinion, but they ask for it. I don;t normally send money, but I do mail in the questionnaire.
---------------------
Because I own mutual funds, I used to get letters from the Republicans also asking for money. There was NEVER a questionnaire. The basic message was "We lowered your taxes, we strengthened the military, now PAY US" and they always told me how much they wanted, usually a hundred or more. I haven't heard from them since I wrapped a brick and other junk mail up and taped their postpaid mailer to it, back in the Reagan years.
As I see it, the Democrats are occasionally on my side, the Republicans never have been on my side.
-
I need a link for the idea that Rush Limbaugh was hired.
Well, DUH! He is being paid, isn't he? It's common knowledge that he is paid and how much he is paid. I hardly doubt that the oligarchy is going to say that they contribute that $23 million to Clear Channel for Rush's propaganda.
---------------------------------------------------
The diffrence is that Al Franken was hired by some dumb ogliarcs , Rush built his own empire by pleasing the common man.
In each particular that you state , there is an equal case for leftist ogliarcs . The biggest individual fortunes seem to be owned by leftists , the ingrates.
-
You know not of what you speak. No, not even a little bit.
Go ahead and believe Rush. No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public.
Politics is not really a form of entertainment, except for you and Rush. That is the essence of his genius: that the uneducated can be caused to think of themselves as potential bazillionaires and be entertained while engaging in this delusion.
-
You know not of what you speak. No, not even a little bit.
Go ahead and believe Rush. No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public.
Politics is not really a form of entertainment, except for you and Rush. That is the essence of his genius: that the uneducated can be caused to think of themselves as potential bazillionaires and be entertained while engaging in this delusion.
But you don't have any reason to believe that Rush was hired by ogliarcs , Al Franken was hired by ogliarcs in full public view.
If one is imaginary ,I credit your imagination.
Rush Limbaugh would be the same sort of failure Al Franken is if he were not speaking the mind of the common man.
Of course another factor is the perception that Al Franken holds the common man in contempt , while Rush speaks in agreement or not it is the powerfull that Rush holds in contempt.
-
I have every reason to believe that Rush was hired by the ruling oligarchy.
Franken was not, because, there is no ruling leftist oligarchy.
-
I have every reason to believe that Rush was hired by the ruling oligarchy.
Franken was not, because, there is no ruling leftist oligarchy.
Rush can make his own money , Bill gates would have to take out a mortguage to hire him.
Air America was started and maintained by a group of wannabe ogliarcs who really don't know much about how things work in spite of haveing a lot of money.
Where did you think Air America got seed money if there are no Liberal ogliarcs?
-
Top 10 Liberal Foundations
The HUMAN EVENTS®
TOP 10
The National Conservative Weekly® * Est. 1944
www.HumanEventsOnline.com
Compiled by the Capital Research Center
The 2005 Chronicle of Philanthropy annual survey of the largest private foundations (published March 23, 2006) found that 122 foundations provided asset figures that totaled $166.5 billion. The assets of just the top 10 foundations were $94.4 billion. The 10 largest "liberal" foundations that give substantial funding to leftist public policy and advocacy organizations are listed below.
1 Ford Foundation-New York City, N.Y.
Assets: $11,615,906,693
Grants: $532,579,756
2 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation-Princeton, N.J.
Assets: $9,105,401,000
Grants: $372,860,000
3 W.K. Kellogg Foundation-Battle Creek, Mich.
Assets: $7,928,000,000
Grants: $219,000,000
4 David and Lucile Packard Foundation-Los Altos, Calif.
Assets: $5,788,500,000
Grants: $176,137,000
5 John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation-Chicago, III.
Assets: $5,360,000,000
Grants: $193,000,000
6 California Endowment-Woodland Hills, Calif.
Assets: $3,729,571,524
Grants: $153,242,789
7 Charles Stewart Mott Foundation-Flint, Mich.
Assets: $2,490,000.000
Grants: $113,000,000
8 Heinz Endowments-Pittsburgh, Pa.
(2004 figures)
Assets: $1,399,462,836
Grants: $61,213,125
9 Rockefeller Brothers Fund-New York City, N.Y.
(2004 figures)
Assets: $773,436,060
Grants: $23,354,833
10 Soros Foundations Network/Open Society InstituteNew York City, N.Y.
(2004 figures)
Assets: $594,000,000
Grants: $97,000,000
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200605/ai_n17182040/print
-
Foundations are not oligarchies, not one of them.
There are no leftist oligarchies in the US.
Foundations are the crumbs from the rich people's tables
Bill Gates could buy and sell a hundrerd Rush Limbaughs, but the reason Limbaugh has been paid all that money is to warp the minds of people like you. quite good at it. The more you blather o about this, the more you are making my point.
-
Foundations are not oligarchies, not one of them.
There are no leftist oligarchies in the US.
Foundations are the crumbs from the rich people's tables
Bill Gates could buy and sell a hundrerd Rush Limbaughs, but the reason Limbaugh has been paid all that money is to warp the minds of people like you. quite good at it. The more you blather o about this, the more you are making my point.
It would help your point if you provided something more than your opinion .
You don't really have to , but you could.
If the Kennedy clan arn't Ogliarchs , if the Clintons havent joined that teir , if the people who finance liberal political causes just arn't ogliarcs then by what token is anyone an ogliarch?
And I haven't seen you produce a Xerox of Rush Limbaughs paycheck either , your opinion is as good as mine till then , but no better.
-
If the Kennedy clan arn't Ogliarchs , if the Clintons havent joined that teir , if the people who finance liberal political causes just arn't ogliarcs then by what token is anyone an ogliarch?
Anyone(s) that are Republican, Conservative, or support right leaning causes. Sheeesh Plane, didn't you get the memo? ;)
-
If the Kennedy clan arn't Ogliarchs , if the Clintons havent joined that teir , if the people who finance liberal political causes just arn't ogliarcs then by what token is anyone an ogliarch?
====================================================================
The less than 1% of the population that owns half of everything: land, money, stocks, bonds, companies. These are the people who constitute the oligarchy. Mostly, they do not reveal their names. The Waltons of Wal*Mart, Gates and Trump are some that don't seem to mind. Some of these people perhaps most of them, want you and me to pay all the taxes so they won't have to. TThey have lobbyists and propagandists galore top support their interests. These were the people who abolished the inheritance tax, for example, so they can die and pass all their power on to their heirs without having to take their companies public. Rush is their hireling. Those who follow Rush are their patsies.
The ones who finance 'liberal' causes might be the few among the superrich who actually have a conscience. There are few of these compared to the ones who really run this country.
So there you have it. Feel free to continue in your quest to spell the word oligarch in creative ways.
-
Some of these people perhaps most of them, want you and me to pay all the taxes so they won't have to. TThey have lobbyists and propagandists galore top support their interests.
Damn, they hire ineffective people, then. You'd think that with all that money at their disposal, they could do a better job.
After all, the top 1% in income of the US population pays 36.9% of taxes.
-
D'OH
-
If the Kennedy clan arn't Ogliarchs , if the Clintons havent joined that teir , if the people who finance liberal political causes just arn't ogliarcs then by what token is anyone an ogliarch?
====================================================================
The less than 1% of the population that owns half of everything: land, money, stocks, bonds, companies. These are the people who constitute the oligarchy. Mostly, they do not reveal their names. The Waltons of Wal*Mart, Gates and Trump are some that don't seem to mind. Some of these people perhaps most of them, want you and me to pay all the taxes so they won't have to. TThey have lobbyists and propagandists galore top support their interests. These were the people who abolished the inheritance tax, for example, so they can die and pass all their power on to their heirs without having to take their companies public. Rush is their hireling. Those who follow Rush are their patsies.
The ones who finance 'liberal' causes might be the few among the superrich who actually have a conscience. There are few of these compared to the ones who really run this country.
So there you have it. Feel free to continue in your quest to spell the word oligarch in creative ways.
Are not about 60% of this group Democrats?
-
Are not about 60% of this group Democrats?
============================
Get serious. I would doubt that MAYBE 2 or 3% of their relatives are Democrats.
The Oligarchy votes Republican. Perhaps they donate a few crumbs to Democrats in states where the Republicans never win, just to get an ear to their complaints in Congress. I have no idea how many actually are members of the party, but party membership is meaningless in the US.
-
Are not about 60% of this group Democrats?
============================
Get serious. I would doubt that MAYBE 2 or 3% of their relatives are Democrats. The Oligarchy votes Republican.
See Plane? It was in the memo
-
Are not about 60% of this group Democrats?
============================
Get serious. I would doubt that MAYBE 2 or 3% of their relatives are Democrats.
The Oligarchy votes Republican. Perhaps they donate a few crumbs to Democrats in states where the Republicans never win, just to get an ear to their complaints in Congress. I have no idea how many actually are members of the party, but party membership is meaningless in the US.
If the tax laws are written for their benefit , then they need some Democrats to be involved.
-
If the tax laws are written for their benefit , then they need some Democrats to be involved.
===================================
The custom of having earmarks for every district and state assures some support from members of a fractious party like the Democratic Party.
If it were not for earmarks, there surely would be states and districts that would get very little of their taxes back in the form of such deals.
For example, how would anyone justify spending as much per capita on residents of Utah or Western Kansas for homeland security? There is no real danger of Al Qaeda striking at the Mormon warehouses out to the W of Salt Lake or the grain silos in Smith Center.
North Dakota was getting so little of its own taxes back that there was a plan to build a shrine to Lawrence Welk in Strasburg.
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/NDSTRwelk.html
I don;t imagine that Strasburg's tax receipts amount to much, and the best thing the feds can do is to keep the roads maintained so the crops get to market and future Mr Wunnerful's can easily get the Hell out, just as Lawrence did, way back when.
The deal to make it a National Monument or whatever fell through, but there is a willing army of volunteers that keep the farmstead and its privy clean. They say they get 7000 visitors every year.
I bet if they did get their cookies from the government, it would be a better value than other government perks that serve no legitimate purpose, like maintaining the Blue Angels and other mega expensive military daredevil teams, that could do their publicity thing as well or better in more fuel efficient and more easily maintained planes that the latest multi-zillion dollar fighters. I mean, it does not really serve any function for government to provide these teams of daredevils, and if it did, slower aircraft would be even more entertaining.
-
I have every reason to believe that Rush was hired by the ruling oligarchy.
Could any of these reasons be described as factual?
-
The custom of having earmarks for every district and state assures some support from members of a fractious party like the Democratic Party.
For a party that everyone seems to think is "fractious" they vote in lockstep more often than the Republicans do...
-
Certainly this is not true of the really important issues.
-
Certainly this is not true of the really important issues.
Actually, the more important the issue, the more likely the Dems will vote in lockstep.
Feel free to look up the voting records yourself. In most of the votes, the Dems vote pretty much as a solid block, and more Republicans are likely to vote against the majority.
-
Actually, the more important the issue, the more likely the Dems will vote in lockstep.
Feel free to look up the voting records yourself. In most of the votes, the Dems vote pretty much as a solid block, and more Republicans are likely to vote against the majority.
-=====================================================================
You are basically saying that both parties do the same thing: the Democrats vote to do something, and the Republicans vote against it.
What you fail to say is that on most issues, the Republicans vote to hold a filibuster in the Senate, where 60% is needed to pass any bill. They block every proposal and nothing happens.
Then they complain about the "do-nothing Congress", when they are the chief reason nothing gets done.
-
You are basically saying that both parties do the same thing: the Democrats vote to do something, and the Republicans vote against it.
Perhaps some reading comprehension is in order. I said that Democrats do it far more often than Republicans. Virtually no votes have all Republicans voting in lockstep, whereas many votes (something like 80% of them) have every single Democrat voting the same way.
What you fail to say is that on most issues, the Republicans vote to hold a filibuster in the Senate, where 60% is needed to pass any bill. They block every proposal and nothing happens.
Then they complain about the "do-nothing Congress", when they are the chief reason nothing gets done.
Hmm. I seem to remember you being one of the ones that lauded the Democrats for holding filibuster after filibuster in the current administration's first term. After all, it was claimed, the minority party cannot get anything done without the filibuster.
Besides, the majority party can eliminate the filibuster anytime they want with a simple majority vote among ONLY the majority party (rules revisions do not require consent of the minority party). This was threatened by the Republicans more than once; surely the Democrats can do it if the Republicans could when they were the majority.
-
Besides, the majority party can eliminate the filibuster anytime they want with a simple majority vote among ONLY the majority party (rules revisions do not require consent of the minority party). This was threatened by the Republicans more than once; surely the Democrats can do it if the Republicans could when they were the majority.
===================================================================
The Republicans threatened to do this and did not for a reason. It was called the "Nuclear Option", as I recall.
The Democrats are doubtlessly not doing it for the same reason.