I should have written my reaction to Reverend Wright on Friday night. But it was a very revealing hour; the finer points of what seemed like a few hours in content are still fermenting in my young mind.
He appeared across the table from a person I revere as a balanced and talented interviewer on the Bill Moyers Journal (PBS). Luckily for those of you who were occupied, the complete interview is viewable by the grace of a Holy Tube.
Everyone knows the preface to the interview. Having been swiftboated, this American veteran has been devoured by a ravenous corporately-owned media. That's my opinion. Here's Reverend Wright's perception:
“It’s to paint me as something: ‘Something’s wrong with me. There’s nothing wrong with this country . . . for its policies. We’re perfect. Our hands are free. Our hands have no blood on them.’ That’s not a failure to communicate. The message that is being communicated by the soundbites is exactly what those pushing those soundbites want to communicate.”
The other topic I think Wright aptly moved to discuss was the history of Martin Luther King, Jr. He didn't simple make references to him or establish a petty ethos among the black community. He drew, what I feel, was a larger link. A link between the current specificity of our news media in reporting the soundbites of Church sermons in 2008 to the underreported issues that MLK brought to the fold in the late 1960s. The War. The Vietnam fucking war, which he was morally and logically inclined to call the "tragic war."
Polls reveal that almost fifteen million Americans explicitly oppose the war in Vietnam. Additional millions cannot bring themselves around to support it. And even those millions who do support the war [are] half-hearted, confused, and doubt-ridden. This reveals that millions have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism, to the high grounds of firm dissent, based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Now, of course, one of the difficulties in speaking out today grows the fact that there are those who are seeking to equate dissent with disloyalty. It's a dark day in our nation when high-level authorities will seek to use every method to silence dissent. But something is happening, and people are not going to be silenced. The truth must be told, and I say that those who are seeking to make it appear that anyone who opposes the war in Vietnam is a fool or a traitor or an enemy of our soldiers is a person that has taken a stand against the best in our tradition.
This is likened to the writing of David James Duncan's Citizen Dissent.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE of how the New America forces literature into a dissident position is Bush's presumption (stated in the National Security Strategy, page 5) that it is the New America's "clear responsibility to history" to "rid the world of evil." As a lifelong student of the world's wisdom literature, it is my duty to inform students that "ridding the world of evil" is a goal very different from any recommended by Jesus, Buddha, or Muhammad, though not so different from some recommended by the Josephs Stalin and McCarthy and by Mao Tse Tung.
And so we see the very rich culture of American dissent fly to the nest of a fledgling democracy. We see Reverend Wright's comments in a greater, more compassionate context. We see the inextricable link between a war in Vietnam (and a war in Iraq or any war for that matter) as a war against standard of living.
As Martin Luther King, Jr. commented himself, "...you may not know it, my friends, but it is estimated that we spend $500,000 to kill each enemy soldier, while we spend only fifty-three dollars for each person classified as poor, and much of that fifty-three dollars goes for salaries to people that are not poor. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor, and attack it as such."
I must admit I didn't know, before this media eruption about Wright, of the overwhelming dissent King had extended to this war. I think part of our mission as a society is educating people on the history of a culture. And I submit to you that is exactly what Reverend Wright has done. That's what he's already accomplished with the help of Senator Barrack Obama. What potential he can achieve in his presidency I can only dream. Shux.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I saw this interview and I agree with GU about Bill Moyers. The man has principles and a perceptive mind. He is a generous intellect, as well, and treats his viewers with respect. That is, he anticipates they have their own intellect and do not need to be spoon-fed ideas. I also saw somewhere today that Bill O'Reilly has already gone on the warpath BEFORE he had even seen the interview.
What the interview tells us, even more than what Jeremiah Wright is about, is the unqualified demands Christ puts on his followers to live lives of love, compassion and forgiveness. Christ never taught how to wage a war in God's name. He never told his followers which people should be slaughtered and subjugated. Christ preached love, compassion and forgiveness for EVERYONE. Jeremiah Wright heeds Chist's commandment to love his neighbors. His church has ministry for the hungry, seniors, those in prison, those with HIV/AIDS, and others. He walks the walk.
Such a man can speak with authority when he dissents from the nation's policies. To impugn his patriotism (I believe he was a Marine in his younger years!) as he dissents is the whining bleat of small-minded, ungenerous, and un-Christian people. Our country and its philosophic DNA are better than that. We can handle dissenting ideas by voicing better ideas--if we have them. Those who criticize Jeremiah Wright should demonstrate how they are better Christians than he is. If they can do that, I will give their ideas about patriotism, faith and how they go together more weight.
Nice writ-up there, GU.
Taylorbad
"The person who defines Reality wins."
Did you see Wrights speech in Detroit at the NAACP Banquet?
"my first name must be, "He aint sh@t", cause everytime I come through, yall be like "He aint sh@t"!....I'll be dat" --Redman
"Anything that can go wrong, Will go wrong"----Murphy's Law
I haven't seen it yet. What did you think about it?
"Children, parents, senior citizens (with a good back and great kneecaps) neeed to get on a BIKE!!! A BIKE!!!!! A BIKE!!!!! A BIKE !!!!!" -- NASAscifi
I missed the speech to NAACP as well as to the National Press Club Breakfast this morning (4/28/2008) Here is a link to the Press Club blog:
http://blog.press.org/?p=599
My sense is all the hubbub is in the same vein as flag burning. It is so totally in your face but NOT the issue that needs addressing. As long as we sweat the little stuff, we can never deal with the big stuff. Sounds like a summary of comments about primary election campaigns.
Taylorbad
"The person who defines Reality wins."
I thought it was interesting to see Obama throw Rev. Wright under the bus yesterday. He denounced him in pretty strong terms. Apparently, Obama's internal polling revealed that the American people did not perceive Rev. Wright's rantings on the Bill Moyer interview or at the NAACP and the Press Club in quite the same positive light as the blogger or some of the other posters on this thread. In any case, Obama pretty much pee'd in Wright's cornflakes.
It took Barrack 20 years to come around to it but he apparently now agrees with ME and is saying pretty much the same thing that I have been posting in blogs about Wright since the content of his sermons first came to light.
I have a few questions though:
1) Did it really take 20 years for Obama to figure out that Wright was a virulent anti-american and, in Obama's words, "offensive"? That speaks to judgement.
2) What changed in the last 30 days? Just last month Obama was telling us he "could no more disown Rev. Wright then he could disown his own family"? I didn't hear anything new in Rev. Wright's recent comments. Just more of the same. So why suddenly did Obama figure out that his anti-american lies were "offensive"? It seems that at the end of the day Barack is just another cheap politician who's lofty principles take a back seat to political expediency.
3) Rev. Wright tells us that bringing up his offensive comments is not an attack on Obama or him but rather it is "an attack on the Black Church". Now that Obama has called Rev. Wrights words offensive and thrown his former spiritual advisor under the bus, is Obama attacking the Black Church?
4)Has Obama apologized to his Grandmother for comparing her to the "offensive" Rev. Wright?
This stuff is starting to look like a pattern with Barrack Obama. His wife is anti-American and in her whole life has "never been proud of her country". He attends an anti-American church. He drags his daughter to that Church to have her brainwashed with offensive, hateful and racist lies. And he hangs out with a notorious terrorist from the Weatherman who has never renounced his multiple murders and in fact recently stated that he wishes he had done more.
I hope that pretty soon Barrack Obama's "chickens come home to roost".
Regards,
Jack
I'm curious: did you see the Bill Moyers interview?
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
I saw excerpts of the Moyer's interview. I saw bits and pieces of NAACP appearance and I saw almost all of the Washington Press Club performance. Basically Wright confirmed almost everything that was said about him after the excerpts from his sermons came to light 6 weeks ago.
I do my best to avoid Moyers because I can't stand him. Despite the glowing review you gave him above he is a self-admitted leftest. There is nothing balanced or even objective about his reporting.
It is shameful that the taxpayers are forced to fund a propaganda wing of the government that is so obviously slanted towards one point of view that is out of sync with the views of half the American populace.
Interesting that you didn't allow Wright to explain his "unamerican views" for thirty minutes.
If you don't mind me asking, where should our collective funds go, if not to a project designed to inform the public? Personally the $66 million (which was 2.8% of the total not for profit revenue) that went towards that end in 2005 benefited citizens more than a war thousands of miles away.
I submit to you that the Public Broadcasting Station and the act LBJ signed in 1967 contribute to the wealth and knowledge of our society more than any other channel on television, and, since the dismantlement of the Fairness Doctrine, there has not been such a station solely devoted to the interest of the public.
But please-- point out which, other than the program you've singled out, of these programs institutes the claim that PBS is a propaganda wing of the federal government?
* Fine arts (Great Performances, Live from the Met, Live from Lincoln Center, and Evening at Pops)
* Drama (Mystery!, American Playhouse, and Masterpiece Theatre)
* Science (Nova and Scientific American Frontiers)
* History (American Experience)
* Public affairs (Frontline, NOW, The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, Nightly Business Report)
* Independent films (P.O.V., and Independent Lens)
* Arthur
* Sesame Street
* The Electric Company
* Villa Alegre
* ZOOM
* 3-2-1 Contact
* Barney & Friends
* Shining Time Station
* Dragon Tales
* Reading Rainbow
* Mister Rogers' Neighborhood
* Puzzle Place
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?
Why should I bother watching for 30 minutes when I can figure out that the man doesn't merit listening to in 5 minutes? Would you devote 30 minutes of your life to listening to David Duke justify his disgusting views? Obama probably watched the whole sad performance and he came to the same conclusion I did: "offensive".
As far as PBS goes, I don't object to it existing. There are hundreds of TV channels and I don't care if it is one of them. My objection is that they are reaching in my pocket to fund programming I don't watch and worse, which I vehemiently disagree wtih. It is not like there is any shortage of channels on which the public can hear the news. And that is particularly true if you like your news flavored with a heaping spoonful of liberalism like you get from PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC. The Propaganda is almost everything which you classify as "Public Affairs" The conservative point of view is entirely missing from that programming. There is apparently a market for PBS programming that funds 97% of its budget. I think they should either tap that market for the other 3%, sell a little advertising, or cut their budget by 3% because it is an inappropriate use of public funds.
As far as what to do with the $68 million, how about using it to not further expand the deficit. I'm no fan of the war either and I would dearly love to have that trillion dollars back.
I saw that Obama denounced Rev. Wright. I don't think he enjoyed it and I, too, think it was something that his political reality compelled him to do. Obama, a black man, has found his way in the world that is still pretty much dominated by white culture. He has proven to be acceptable to many white voters because his message is one that resonates with Americans who are ready for politics based on hope and less on fear. He has proven that white culture is his culture.
But what about all the other black men and women who have not been as successful? How many of them are rooted in an American black culture because it is the only culture that accepts them? I think some of what Wright has said is pretty nutty from my perspective, but I think I understand why he says it. I feel inclined to give it at least that much legitimacy even though I am not ready to agree with him. And that is the point. The culture of our politics almost automatically requires us to demonize the people who disagree with us, or whose experiences are not ones we share. Ultimately it must fail because the oppression it sponsors will be endured only so long.
My father once remarked to me that change happens through evolution, revolution or rebellion. If we stop evolving toward something sustainable, we will get the product of change that comes from the other two means. I see Wright's comments as an invitation to understand someone's experience so that we can continue to evolve. Even though I don't agree with him on everything, we have to keep guys like that on the bus.
Taylorbad
"The person who defines Reality wins."
I can agree with that. Keep him on the bus, meaning let's not call him anti-American and the like. He can share a seat with Mr. O'Reilly.
The Once-ler: Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?