"...his connection with Black "Liberation Theology" will come to be the most significant issue in the general election campaign."

As well it should be, for, as you point out, it is more a political than a religious philosophy, and will likely influence his decisions as president to a great degree.

If Reverend Wright and Fr. Pfleger and their opinions as expressed on the Unity pulpit are representative of Black Liberation Theology, Americans need to be asking hard, pointed and direct questions of candidate Obama before casting their votes for him.

"Add your comment, speak your mind"

Oh, I'm sure. We'll see how long it stays.

What I find bizarre is that Pfleger who advocated 'black liberation theology' is a white man.

Dave

The thing I find amazing the is anyone quoting FOX NEWs contributors on anything,
Why on earth would you believe anything that comes from a Republican front,and given the amount of plain outright crooks in said party why would you bother.
Some one once said 'there's one born every minute" judging by GW Bush he was not far wrong

The problem I have with Obama and his church is him trying to claim that he never heard any of the crap that Rev Wright spewed while he was in attendance. It seems to me that Wright didn't have to be the preacher of the day for that kind of ugliness to be spewed from the pulpit, they all spew it! All you have to do to know that Obama heard that shit is listen to his wife and her "first time I'm proud of my country" kind of statements to know that it was spewed there all the time.

Also, it just seems to ring hollow when someone spews about entitlements...if you're spewing that kinda crap you probably believe that you're the one that's really entitled...it sounds like a little kid crying...johnny got a bike, why can't I have a bike!??!?! And it sounds even worse if the crying little kid got his buddy to spew it for him...

And lastly, I wasted a lot of time in churches when I was younger and I don't ever remember politics being spewed from the alter.

Zedd once informed me that I don't understand liberation theology...this condition is not improved by reading this

John Ryan

I agree that Fox has a lot of commentators who are way off base. There are, however, exceptions to most every rule, and I have discovered that I can find some pretty good stuff even in sources I generally find appalling. The trick is to sort the wheat from the chaff.

If you haven't read Father Jonathan's commentary, linked in the article, I would encourage you to do so. Even as an Atheist/Agnostic, I find that I agree with many of the things he has to say. He is no Father Coughlin.

Dan

What I find bizarre is that Pfleger who advocated 'black liberation theology' is a white man.

Yes Dave he is white and he learned how to become black when his white church I believe it was St Sabinas became black when whites moved out because blacks moved in,,,He transformed himself and became an activist black preacher .He now acts and talks just like a black preacher..One might compare him to Al Sharpton because he is always marching on city hall with one agenda or another .
I am shocked that the media never brings up how easy he became a Senator..He never wa expected to win because no one ever heard of him but the truth is it was given to him because every one of his opponents shot themselves in the foot ..both Democrats and republicans had major scandals so bad that they had to bring in a black man forgot his name who was not even from Ill to run against him ..Makes you wonder if he really is a man of Destiny.

Here's a great line from Thomas Sowell's column, Irrelevant Apologies, published today on Real Clear Politics:

Senator Obama's foreign policy seems to be somewhere between Rodney King's "Can't we just get along?" and Alfred E. Neuman's "What, me worry?"

WE should see those typical comments here shortly...I mean, after all, his name is Tom...I'm sure he's somebody's uncle!

Georgio, it does seem like a real step forward in erasing racial barriers that Pfleger can be so obviously white and yet act like and be accepted as essentially a black man by other african americans. It's bizarre, but it's kind of enouraging. I imagine it helps that he seems to be soms sort of anti-establishment cryptomarxist too.

Dave

Dan,

What is Liberation Theology?

Zedd,

There are a couple of links in the article, and here is another. If you wish, look up James H. Cone in Google. He is acknowledged as a principal founder of Black liberation theology

As suggested in the article, it is a theology -- or to my lights a social or political movement-- which does not seem appropriate to be espoused by someone who seeks to be the President of the entire country, which has many races, because it tries, consciously, to divide rather than to unify. There is already more than enough disunity, and exacerbating it would be very bad. For everyone, Black, White, and Purple.

My views count for very little. However, Senator Obama's evidently persistent attachment to liberation theology should become a focus of the campaign, so that we don't vote for or against him in the absence of a clear understanding of his perceptions of race and the potential impact of those perceptions on the country, should he become the President.

Dan

Dan,

WOW!

I'm astonished!

1.The basic idea behind Black Theology is that a religion which does not unequivocally denounce all racist and oppressive practices is not a religion worth following. Crazy!

2.It says that Christianity as it has been dispensed by Whites suggests that one not focus on their misery on Earth but to focus on their gain in heaven. (Think about our history and the extent of oppression by White Christians towards Africans). I wonder why we were told to focus on heaven. Chuckle.

3.It says that Jesus was a revolutionary. His message of liberation was radical.

Not sure where the terrible aspect is?

I think that some people have tried to understand it (or suppress it) and have latched on to every nut case who happens to be Black or who quotes Black Theologians.

Zedd,

Several comments:

1. Either your question was rhetorical, or you read very quickly. I could not have read the cited articles and responded in eleven minutes.

2. Since I am not a Christian, the Christian lack of focus on misery here on earth and the extreme focus on life in Heaven, with Jesus, Mary and all the angels, seems odd to me as well.

3. There are lots of nut cases around, of all races. Would you classify The Reverend Mr. Wright (Black) or Father Pfleger (white) as nut cases? How about the Rabid Father Coughlin, from back in the '30s?

Dan

What is sad is that Whites in America are so ignorant about everyone else.

Whites in America see themselves as the standard and that anyone who doesn't view the world like them to be BAD or suspect. We are in Iraq because of that childish arrogance. Whites don't know or care to know what really interests or bothers anyone else. They just believe that their world view represents what is good and right.

It is unfathonable that people would think that Blacks would NOT think that Christianity as it has been taught is RIDICULOUS considering their experience. Who would go along with that and WHY?

Perhaps what supports the notion of White supremacy is that Whites believe that Blacks buy their ideas and don't value themselves or their vantage point. Who knows. I am perplexed.

Take a look-see at this site it may give some perspective!

Side note: Obama is Black AND White. We are not OKAY with a Black President YET. Poor guy he is more White (raised by Whites, in a Whites world)than Black but he has to claim something that does not fully define him because of this country's madness.

Dan,

I don't know the teachings of Right or Pfleger. Quite frankly, neither do you. You saw a few snippets from these men's decades of ministry. I'm sure you would hate it if someone took a few seconds of something you said without discussing the context or spirit of the speech, blasting it all over the globe for people to decide if you are a good person or better yet, sane. Especially people of a different culture.

Zedd,

Thank you for making my point for me, much more clearly than I apparently was able to make it myself. You are correct. I don't know the teachings of the Reverend Mr. Wright or the Reverend Father Pfleger, and you say that you don't either. I suspect that most of us are in a very similar position.

Yet, we are being asked to decide whether to vote for a candidate who has long supported their teachings, whatever they may be. My guess (I don't know for a fact) is that Senator Obama knows quite a lot about their teachings. Since he has embraced them for a very long time, I think those teachings, and his perceptions of them, are important: they may well affect the country for better or worse should he be elected President. Doesn't it make at least a bit of sense for us to find out what those teachings and his perceptions of them actually are?

That was the basic thrust of the article: Black liberation theology should be fair game during the general election campaign. Right now, I must confess that I do not particularly like what I have heard of those teachings; I am not irrevocably wedded to that position because, as you say, I am not fully informed. Perhaps, if adequate illumination is shed upon them during the campaign, I may decide that they are just fine.

Dan

Dan,

I just watch the stream of Father Pfleger and I don't get what the problem is?

We know that Hillary IS getting a lot of the votes that she is getting because she is NOT the Black one candidate. We know that Hillary thought she had it sewn up. We know that in our history, Black men DON'T become President. Hillary WAS stunned by Obama's assent. Heck we were all stunned and YES his race was a large part of it.

I believe you agreed to the notion that Hillary behaves as if she is entitled to the position of President. I also felt like the tears may have been a about being misunderstood but it also seems that they may have been about exhaustion and her becoming aware that it wasn't going to be easy to beat this guy (who happens to be Black and Blacks aren't supposed to win YET).
Where is the outrageous part????

I wish that we didn't have just snippets in order to put the entire message in perspective. However, preachers are supposed to leave no stone unturned. They are not politicians.

Again, Zedd

There is a lot we don't know about Black liberation theology. Perhaps we will know more before the general elections. I hope so.

By the way, did you read Father Jonathan's cited article on Father Pfleger's sermon and background? I hope you will. Father Jonathan is a very temperate man, and when he gets as vocal as he was in his article, it suggests something to me.

Dan

Father Jonathan's article was interesting, and far more in keeping with what I was always taught was Catholic theology than that bizarre performance from Fr. Mike. (And yes, Zedd, I know it was "only a snippet," but it was a very disconcerting snippet.)

If nothing else, it was mean spirited. Downright vicious, even.

I thought Pfleger's performance was reminiscent of a stand-up comedy routine, and it was fairly amusing. A bit creepy once I realized he was white, but rather like a Chris Rock routine otherwise. My impression has always been that there's a higher element of entertainment in black churches when compared to most white/anglo churches, and if nothing else, Pfleger is entertaining.

Dave

You gotta love the media.

Post-Wright, Hillary has won PA by almost 10 points, won WV by 40, won KY by 35, and won 99%-Hispanic PR by a surprising 35-point landslide.

Then tonight, she shocks Obama by winning SD by ten points, and in her speech she refuses to concede. And then there are all the rumors swirling around (from fairly credible sources) that a potentially-fatal "Whitey" video (from Michelle Obama's lips) is about to be released.

But through all this, the media has been saying that Hillary is finished, Obama is the certain nominee, and that anyone who disagrees is akin to a Ba'athist dead-ender.

Folks, there are still another two-and-a-half months to go until the Democrat national convention in Denver. And the "superdelegates" who seemingly handed Obama the nomination today could still change their minds.

If the media wasn't completely in the tank for Obama, I wouldn't have to point all this out. But since they are, here I am.

"If Reverend Wright and Fr. Pfleger and their opinions as expressed on the Unity pulpit are representative of Black Liberation Theology, Americans need to be asking hard, pointed and direct questions of candidate Obama before casting their votes for him."

I'm glad to see you've changed your tune, Clavos. Welcome aboard! :)

Black Liberation Theology:

Barack Obama's suddenly radioactive pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has defended himself against charges of anti-Americanism and racism by referring to his foundational philosophy, the "black liberation theology" of scholars such as James Cone, who regard Jesus Christ as a "black messiah" and blacks as "the chosen people" who will only accept a god who assists their aim of destroying the "white enemy."

"If God is not for us and against white people," writes Cone, "then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community."

Sounds like a reasonable and unifying spiritual message to me. Vote Obama!

Does anyone else think comment #16 is overtly racist and inflammatory? (Although, coming from an apologist for Robert Mugabe, perhaps not all that surprising...)

RJ,

As I've pointed out elsewhere, your country faces a terrible moral crisis, and most of you are running away from it, picking on dumb things like Black liberation theology instead of looking at the ugly face in the mirror.

One of the elements of the moral crisis your country faces is racism - not white racism, but racism, period. Obama is the appropriate scourge for you - a white man in black skin - a live version of the "black-faced" entertainers so common a century ago in America.

Granted his nomination has not been locked up yet, but nevertheless, the media in America, like the Praetorian Guard in Rome did, has the power to crown or un-throne emperors.

I don't like him for my own reasons. But also, for my own reasons, I think he is the best fellow you can elect, and if indeed he is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for him. Obama is also the best goyisher prince for us in Israel as well.

Is Zedd being racist? No, not really. She is telling it the way she sees it and not censoring her words. That's what I do, RJ.

Hmmm...

Well, Ruvy, I think your perspective isn't particularly pro-survival, considering where you are, and what you have for neighbours.

Seriously. National Suicide ain't cool, and I rather suspect that if god exists, he or she or it doesn't tip the dice except in close rolls.

Israel against the Arab world without SOME kind of external support isn't strategically viable in this era of good-enough military hardware spread across the entire globe, and that's what you get with Obama.

AS for the article itself: There were some good points made here-a man can be measured by both what he embraces, and what he opposes. Barack Obama attended Trinity United for over 20 years. For most of that time, the Pastor was Rev. Wright. It's worth it to know where Rev. Wright stands, what his theology IS, and how it relates to the rest of the country.

It's also worth knowing what Barack Obama thinks of those teachings, his motivations for attending if he did NOT believe in those teachings, and what THAT says about him as a man.

It provides the context that looking at his Legislative record can not, because he has virtually none to speak of. We can evaluate Hillary's record in the senate to get a grasp of what SHE might do, we can look at McCains' record, contrast it with his public relations stunts, and evaluate what HE is made of.

Barack Obama? No record. We have to evaluate him on other terms-like where he goes to church, how he spends his time, who his friends are, and such minutia.

To that end, it's rather important to see what kind of Theological ideals he had prior to running for president, what kind of friends he had before they became inconvenient, and what kind of man he is when he isn't trying to persuade, or you might say, when he isn't using his "Sunday Manners".

What churches a man attends and supports, what kind of personal advisors he has, who his friends are, and what he says when he isn't tailoring to a crowd are all rather important measures of the man himself. Considering that the Presidency carries that briefcase with the nukes in it, it's kind of important to know who you're giving the codes and keys to.

Cannonshop,

Israel against the Arab world without SOME kind of external support isn't strategically viable in this era of good-enough military hardware spread across the entire globe, and that's what you get with Obama.

This is just one of several weaknesses in your comment. You tend to think in terms of what help we should seek against the Arab enemy without considering that there might be other enemies to counter.

The second thing you assume is that the reason that one supports one goyisher prince over another is for what favors and kindness he can dispense here. This too, is a weakness.

My preferences are not built on the conventional "what can we get from America" analysis so common to Jews who do not really believe in the faith that has sustained them for over three millennia.

Their loss of faith will be, if uncorrected, their death sentence.

So, why should I support Barack Hussein Obama? What benefit does a man surrounded with Israel and Jew-haters give me, as opposed to John McCain or Hillary Clinton?

Obama comes closest to enunciating the true foreign policy of the United States with respect to Israel.

McCain and Clinton are also surrounded with Israel and Jew-haters, but they will lie their heads off to us, making Itzik Israeli think that he really has a friend in the American administration. When in fact, he doesn't.

Or, in the alternative, they will surround the poison pill of national suicide with so much sugar of praise figuring that most American Jews will buy it. That is what Condaleezza Rice did in front of AIPAC a bit ago. Her bit about "Palestine" being an urgent priority did not get applause, by the way, but silence.

So, with Obama, I get something approximating the truth - that we Jews are alone in the world.

But I get something more. Itzik Israeli sees that the American régime pulling the strings here is truly a pack of Jew-haters - and decide to ditch the American puppets here - folks like Netanyahu, Livni, Barak. Who knows? Maybe we'll get a bonus, and Israelis will ditch European toadies like Beilin, Mazuz and Peres.

Clavos, Dave,

You've never worshiped with Black people have you?? You comments reflect that you have no clue about this huge segment of America. Dave you claim to be patriotic but you just don't KNOW your country all that well. That Priest preaches like a Black preacher. That to me was the ONLY astounding thing. He got the inflection, body language and rhythm of it all just right. As for his message, he is hitting things that we as a nation ignore. Hillary did not expect that this would happen. THAT is a fact. Hillary didn't expect that this would come from a Black man. THAT is a fact. Hillary behaves as if she is entitled to the throne. Many have stated that on these boards. This man says that the emotions that she had were not just passion about her mission but disappointment because of her predicament. While I can't agree with his assessment because i cant guess what Hillary was thinking about, we have to look at the larger issue which is why are we all stunned that a Black man will probably be President? Who are we at our core and why are we that?

Bottom line, this man says "We must be honest, to expose White entitlement and supremacy where ever it raises its head". Does that upset you? Do you find this notion frightening or dangerous?

RJ,

If it were anyone else, I would be surprised. You don't know what racism is. You believe that when a race is mentioned and the statement is not positive that THAT is racism. It's not. I realise that you won't understand what I am saying but am just posting in case someone else reads my response to you.

Stating that something that someone does or has done that is bad is not racism, especially when we all agree that that "thing" IS/WAS bad.

It's an IQ issue for you. I think were all on board with that, all races and all genders.

"You've never worshiped with Black people have you??"

I don't worship, anything or anyone, period.

"You comments reflect that you have no clue about this huge segment of America."

12% is not a "huge segment," Zedd, but that's not the point.

I have been friends with, worked with, and even lived with and fought a war alongside Black people most of my life, Zedd. I understand.

"That Priest preaches like a Black preacher"

I wasn't speaking of his style, Zedd. Style is unimportant; his content is what is disturbing. That priest, in that segment, was preaching it's OK to mock and deride others; it's OK to hate, and I doubt very much that very many Black preachers do that.

Is that what Black preachers preach?

again--what does obama have to do with black liberation theology? has he ever said anything that smacks of it? didn't he publicly (and painfully) resign from attending that church?

it's A CHURCH for god's sake. does any self-respecting democrat believe everything that is spoken in a christian church?

"it's A CHURCH for god's sake"

Aren't most of them?

And then there are all the rumors swirling around (from fairly credible sources) that a potentially-fatal "Whitey" video (from Michelle Obama's lips) is about to be released.

RJ, in your breathless eagerness to spread rumor still further, did you stop to note that your 'fairly credible source' is of the opinion that this video doesn't exist?

Well, kids, get used to it. Obama is the nominee presumptive, and unless something untoward occurs to him, he'll be nominated later this summer.

It's that something untoward that keeps me interested. In the meantime, when they hold registration for us ex-pats later this month, I'll be going.

I expect my e-mails to be littered with all sorts of crap hustling McCain.

Zingzing,

I really don't know. Here is an article written back in 1995, when now candidate Obama was first entering politics. The article points out that he rejected both integration of Blacks into White society, and the ineffectual fiery rhetoric of some Black leaders. On the other hand, his primary associations seem to have been with rather fiery proponents (for example, the Reverend Messrs Pfleger and Wright) of the thesis that "whitey" is bad, that AIDs was created as a form of genocide, and that sort of thing.

Some people associate with people with whom they strongly disagree; I certainly enjoy doing so, but I don't on that account necessarily come to agree with them. I don't attend church, but if I did, I would probably not continue for twenty years to attend and support one where the long time pastor greatly offended my sense of decency.

Your question, what does Obama have to do with black liberation theology, is a good one. The thrust of the article is that the question is not only a reasonable and important one, but one which is fair game for discussion. It must be addressed during the general election. To my mind, Senator Obama has not answered the question yet. Maybe he will, and maybe he won't. I very much hope that he does.

Dan

"Post-Wright, Hillary has won PA by almost 10 points, won WV by 40, won KY by 35, and won 99%-Hispanic PR by a surprising 35-point landslide...But through all this, the media has been saying that Hillary is finished, Obama is the certain nominee, and that anyone who disagrees is akin to a Ba'athist dead-ender...the "superdelegates" who seemingly handed Obama the nomination today could still change their minds."

So...as a Hillary supporter, what's your opinion of how she's enabled her husband's philandering all these years? I mean, if she won't even take a stand against adultery in her own marriage, what kind of leader of our country would she make?

"It [black liberation theology] must be addressed during the general election. To my mind, Senator Obama has not answered the question yet. Maybe he will, and maybe he won't. I very much hope that he does."

here's my idea of obama's connection to that church. he's a politician. a black politician. he HAS to go to church somewhere. he joined this church 20 years ago. a united states senator should be able to keep church and state separate. maybe he heard some rather awful things at the church. maybe he didn't. maybe he didn't pay that much attention in church. but he went to that church off and on for 20 years. he had friends there.

he didn't want to make his church an issue when he ran for congress. so he didn't. when it did become an issue, he didn't want to condemn his friends, but he condemned the hateful words that were being quoted and he said he didn't believe them.

then it became an issue again, and by this time, the attention was hurting the church, his friends, his family, and his campaign. so it was time to walk away from the church for the good of all involved.

he didn't do it lightly, because he was walking away from people he had known for 20 years. but he didn't believe that the church's teachings were worth defending (and he never did defend them). so he made his choice.

black liberation theology is just a red herring in this election.

"a united states senator should be able to keep church and state separate."

So, you'd have no problem if, say, John McCain had attended a Christian Identity church for 20 years, wrote a book based upon a sermon he heard there, and had a close personal relationship with the head pastor, who praised David Duke and given him a "lifetime achievement" award?

Somehow, I doubt that. And I can assure you the MSM wouldn't dismiss such a thing.

Obama is also close pals with an unrepentant left-wing domestic terrorist names William Ayers. Oddly enough, this isn't mentioned much in the MSM. I suspect the coverage would be markedly different if, say, John McCain had been buddies with Tim McVeigh.

I cannot read Obama's mind. I cannot know his heart. But I do know that some of the people he has surrounded himself with over the years, some of the people who were closest to him, are out-and-out racists, and openly hate this country.

And he's getting a pass for it from the MSM because he's a left-wing Black Democrat. I think it's fair to say that a conservative White Republican would get ... dissimilar treatment, shall we say.

Clavos,

"was preaching it's OK to mock and deride others"

That is my point, you don't understand the style of preaching. There is much more nuance in what he was doing. If you understood the WAY that a lot of Black preachers preach you wouldn't utter that comment. It is naive and out of place. You sound like a White guy (I know you like that... but it's not in a good way even though I adore you). Pinch!!


It's like what you experience when some goofy White guy walks up to you trying to speak Spanglish (pronouncing EVERYTHING wrong) and they are all loud and nodding and grinning like you are retarded. It's just off and you want to tell them, "just stop, your embarrassing yourself". Well, same thing. You don't know what you are talking about. It wasn't what you think it was. I can't explain. Perhaps there is a site or article on "hooping" (preaching style in some Black churches). It is an amazing thing to behold. It may shed some light a little bit, not sure.

Close pals?

As in they met occasionally at Woods Fund of Chicago dinners and lived in the same neighbourhood? Nothing like a little muckraking to amp things up, huh RJ?

I suppose it also doesn't matter that Ayers is on record as improving Chicago schools or that he's essentially renounced what he did in the 70s.

"Is that what Black preachers preach?"

Clavos,

Personal anecdote warning: My father works for a Black guy who is a devout Christian. And he has said that he is going to vote for McCain in November, and that one of the reasons for that is the Rev. Wright debacle. According to him, that is not how most Blacks worship, and it deeply offended him.

Now, I don't know if he's representative of the "Black community" or not (probably not, since he's said he's going to vote for McCain). But I think it's safe to say that not all Black churches are like Obama's. Probably not even most.

But let's pretend for a moment that all Black churches are like Obama's, and that all Black preachers are like Rev. Wright. That wouldn't at all excuse the venom, the hate, and the lunatic conspiracy theorizing that goes on there. Divisive rhetoric and outright lies are divisive rhetoric and outright lies, no matter how commonplace and "typical" they might be.

Jordan:

He has not "renounced" his actions:

'I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago. The long curly locks in his Wanted poster are shorn, though he wears earrings. He still has tattooed on his neck the rainbow-and-lightning Weathermen logo that appeared on letters taking responsibility for bombings. And he still has the ebullient, ingratiating manner, the apparently intense interest in other people, that made him a charismatic figure in the radical student movement.

Now he has written a book, ''Fugitive Days'' (Beacon Press, September). Mr. Ayers, who is 56, calls it a memoir, somewhat coyly perhaps, since he also says some of it is fiction. He writes that he participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972.

Oh, and they didn't just "meet occasionally at Woods Fund dinners." Obama hung out at the guy's house and received campaign donations from him.

And I don't know (or care) if he's been involved in "improving schools" or not. What does that have to do with the fact that he's a terrorist bomber? Should we be willing to forgive Osama bin Laden if he agrees to volunteer his time tutoring kids at an inner-city school?

Nice one, RJ. I could cull the depths for stories from September 11, 2001 as well, but I'd rather be...I dunno, current.

I find it interesting in your attempts to build the characterization you want that you neglect to include reference to the "Letter to the Editor" Ayers supplied four days after the original article from the New York Times. Part of the letter read:

"This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."

In subsequent years, Ayers has clarified what he meant about saying "we didn't do enough." He has said on his personal blog that he meant that he (we) didn't do enough to stop the Vietnam War.

Also, in the same article from Slate you linked to, it states that the Clintons pardoned Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg, two members of WU, during Bill's term in office.

Of course, we can contrast that with one dinner at the guy's house and a $200 donation and drum up all sorts of lame McVeigh comparisons if you'd like. I still find it apples and oranges.

Ayers is still a commie:

"I organize and I participate in the never-ending effort to build a powerful movement for peace and social justice"

"my book Fugitive Days, a memoir of the revolutionary action and militant resistance to the Viet Nam War--the years of miracle and wonder"

"Regrets. I'm often quoted saying that I have "no regrets." This is not true. For anyone paying attention--and I try to stay wide-awake to the world around me all/ways--life brings misgivings, doubts, uncertainty, loss, regret. I'm sometimes asked if I regret anything I did to oppose the war in Viet Nam, and I say "no, I don't regret anything I did to try to stop the slaughter of millions of human beings by my own government." Sometimes I add, "I don't think I did enough.""

"A bombing in a café in Israel is terrorism, and an Israeli assault on a neighborhood in Gaza is terrorism; the September 11 attacks were acts of terrorism, and the U.S. bombings in Viet Nam for a decade were acts of terrorism."

"I've never advocated terrorism, never participated in it, never defended it. The U.S. government, by contrast, does it routinely and defends the use of it in its own cause consistently."

"Capitalism played its role historically and is exhausted as a force for progress: built on exploitation, theft, conquest, war, and racism, capitalism and imperialism must be defeated and a world revolution--a revolution against war and racism and materialism, a revolution based on human solidarity and love, cooperation and the common good--must win."

This is the kind of moonbat Obama hangs out with.

Yeah, he sure is offbase....

Dan,

"fiery proponents (for example, the Reverend Messrs Pfleger and Wright) of the thesis that "whitey" is bad."

I am shocked at you. These men say racists and racism is bad and you take it personally? WOW!

There is no thesis which says that "whitey" (60's term) is bad. Your response and take support EVERYTHING that they are saying. You cant accept the notion that Black people don't like what is happening and has happened to them. You take it personally that they dare say OUCH! You respond as one who would hope that race matters are barely noticeable. They are THE cancer which ales this country. The race issue is in our foundation. The denial, is part of our basic fabric. It is what America is. Just because you don't think about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because we know not to speak of it for fear of economic and professional reprisal doesn't mean that it does not lay there and that we don't think about it or talk about it.

Fair warning, I am rant mode. I am right but ranting none the less.. (see I feel apologetic for being so open about race matters)

What is sad is that Whites (in the media) choose who they want to speak for us, so the message and the issues are distorted. However, they go back to those "leaders" to get answers about the distortion and the message gets more distorted, then they comment exclusively about what the issues are and the message gets even more off. In the end the answer is always, there is no REAL problem. Guess who that serves? Could rant further but I'll save it.

Zedd #41:

I've often thought you never really read the comments to which you respond; now, I'm convinced of it.

I said, in #32:

"I wasn't speaking of his style, Zedd. Style is unimportant; his content is what is disturbing." (emphasis added)

Which you apparently didn't even see, or worse, totally ignored, for you answered (in #41):

"That is my point, you don't understand the style of preaching."

Trying to have a reasonable discussion with you is akin to attempting to punch one's way through a fog bank. In the words of Gertrude Stein, "There is no there there."

Clavos,


Pay close attention, I am saying that the content IS the style. Confusing? What he said doesn't mean what you think it means because of your cultural unfamiliarity. There is nuance that changes the tone of the speech. Also, while it is a definite indictment, it is not a mocking per say. I see it as an admonishment of the larger issue, White privilege.

"What he said doesn't mean what you think it means because of your cultural unfamiliarity. There is nuance that changes the tone of the speech."

Crap.

I know what I heard. What I heard coming out of that Roman Catholic priest's mouth was totally counter to everything the Church teaches. The man should be defrocked.

And while I'm at it, that whole "you can't know what Blacks feel/think/are saying because you're not Black" shtick of yours is crap, too.

I'm done, Zedd.

As I said, there's no point in trying to discuss rationally with you.

Clavos,

OR you can show respect to a people, THEIR humanity and their culture and demonstrate SOME curiosity (a sign of intelligence). Your insistence on defining the situation on your own experiences shows that you don't respect Black culture and you see it as irrelevant, which is precisely what I said initially.

For an individual who pretends to be curios about other cultures, yacking on about Australia, asking a multitude of QUESTIONS yet expressing NO interest in people (a large population which surpasses that of Australia) that are the founding groups of this nation, who demonstrate the most astounding resilience, who ARE the embodiment of the American dream. SHAME.

Wright and Pfleger demonstrate what happens when mere humans start to believe they are gods, or at least that they speak for gods. Next thing you know we'll elect one president (oh, we already did that). Their vanity and ego runs amuck and thay cause damage to everyone. they answer to nothing and noone because they believe they already know their gods will.

Maybe the revulsion this will produce among the general unprivileged population will put an end to religion, or at least diminish it in politics, relegating superstitious belief to a personal sin, best kept out of sight and not admitted to, like reading porn magazines.

"So, you'd have no problem if, say, John McCain had attended a Christian Identity church for 20 years, wrote a book based upon a sermon he heard there, and had a close personal relationship with the head pastor, who praised David Duke and given him a "lifetime achievement" award?"

well, yeah, if that happened, mccain would be crucified. now, what does that have to do with obama? you're stretching pretty far with all this. christian identity is far worse than what goes on at trinity, which is just small potatoes anyway. the book obama wrote has nothing to do with racism. wright is not david duke (or wasn't always).

"Somehow, I doubt that. And I can assure you the MSM wouldn't dismiss such a thing."

ha. so this is the msm dismissing something? jeez. never heard a thing about it.

"Obama is also close pals with an unrepentant left-wing domestic terrorist names William Ayers. Oddly enough, this isn't mentioned much in the MSM."

yes it is. what do you read? it's all over the place. and ayers is an individual with good intentions, but who had some rather questionable ideas about how to get things done WHEN HE WAS A KID.

"I suspect the coverage would be markedly different if, say, John McCain had been buddies with Tim McVeigh."

jesus. ayers is not mcveigh. and wright is not duke. streeeeeeettttttch.

"I cannot read Obama's mind. I cannot know his heart. But I do know that some of the people he has surrounded himself with over the years, some of the people who were closest to him, are out-and-out racists, and openly hate this country."

maybe. but he's not and he doesn't. but, you know, there's nothing wrong with talking to those kind of people. he's going to have to do that when he's president. (look what happens when we don't talk to those who hate us.) and no, i'm not saying that mccain could get away with joining the kkk in the name of diplomacy. but ayers and wright does not equal some sort of america-hating, racist agenda.

"And he's getting a pass for it from the MSM because he's a left-wing Black Democrat."

total pass, yep. no one is talking about this stuff. no one. nowhere. never heard of it.

"I think it's fair to say that a conservative White Republican would get ... dissimilar treatment, shall we say."

actually, didn't mccain get endorsed by some raving loony homophobe? i can barely remember. was briefly mentioned somewhere... but then it kind of disappeared...

Biffle,

Can you explain what you mean by:

" Wright and Pfleger demonstrate what happens when mere humans start to believe they are gods, or at least that they speak for gods."

I think ministers "speak for God". It's in their job description. :o)

Also, when is the last time you went to church?

Lastly, are you African American?

zedd, is pfleger?

(and i don't buy your idea that wright is saying something different than the words that come out of his mouth because he is black. or that white people don't understand the nuances. if he's saying something different than the words that come out of his mouth, he should know that he comes off as a racist. which kind of sucks for him, if he's not. it sucks for him even if he is a racist, i suppose... either way, if he's saying something else, he should just say that. it would make his life easier, i assure you.)

What zingzing said.

"He now acts and talks just like a black preacher..One might compare him to Al Sharpton because he is always marching on city hall with one agenda or another ."

Or you could say he practices what he preaches. I supposed if Mr. Smith actually went to Washington we would call him a rebel rouser and trouble maker.

Also, I'm assuming you KNOW Black preachers.

Zingzing,

Amen. If the Reverend Messrs Wright, Pfleger et al are interested in being understood correctly beyond their designated audiences, perhaps they might consider using words and phrases we can all understand correctly. Not an easy task, perhaps, but one worth undertaking; but only if they are interested, of course. Perhaps someone will volunteer to provide simultaneous translations?

What they should not do, however, is to mimic politicians and say different and inconsistent things, depending on the demographics of the current audience. Zedd notes, ministers "speak for God." If there is a God, presumably He (or She or It) offers the same messages to all without regard to race; or at least does not offer very inconsistent messages on that basis.

If we (the non-designated audience) bother to listen but can't understand what these folks are saying, how can we avoid putting a skewed interpretation on it? I should think that a speaker who wants to be understood has an obligation to make that easy, not impossible.

Dan

Dan,

We all speak English.

One can inflect nuance and subtlety into one's speech, but we're not talking different languages here. For anyone who is reasonably fluent and literate in English, there are a limited number of meanings (in some cases only one) for all the words in the language.

To imply that there are hidden cultural meanings in the speech of different ethnic groups sharing a common language and culture is simply a form of obfuscation and an attempt to invalidate all POVs other than those of the group, which is both logically and epistemologically fallacious.

Simultaneous translation is not necessary.

Zing,

If in 1960 a holocaust victim in the middle of discussing things that we as humans do that are deplorable said he hates Germany and the German mindset , we would certainly not say that the holocaust victim is being divisive or even hateful for saying so, especially if he is saying it to a crowd of holocaust survivors in Yiddish.

If an American said the same thing to a crowd of Americans at an "American event", we would wonder what his problem was.

Dan,

Those speakers weren't speaking to you.

If you want to understand ask questions.

Zedd,

Thanks again for helping to make the point I tried to make in the article: We need to ask questions, and Senator Obama's take on Black liberation theology should be at least a minor focus during the general election campaign. Maybe there will be some answers; maybe there won't be. Maybe the answers will be satisfying; maybe they won't be. But the questions are appropriate.

Dan

but zedd, it's not 1960. even extending your metaphor out to include... current realities, it doesn't work.

now, i don't take that much offense to what wright has to say. some of it is rather questionable, and focusing so much on race as the entirety of america's problems is... kind of stupid.

i understand the weight of all those centuries of racism. and i know that it wasn't that long ago that america started to emerge as a more pluralistic nation.

but, dammit, we've made so many huge steps towards actual equality--think about it, a black man is the favorite to win the presidency--that focusing so much attention on race is a step backwards. obama's campaign and shot at the white house is one of the hugest steps forward we have left to take and wright's crazed mumblings are becoming the biggest hurdle in the way of that actually being accomplished!

i don't care if wright hates this country or despises white people. shit, sometimes this country and white people deserve it. but, for fuck's sake! if he ruins obama's chances with this crap, i'll be mighty pissed at him.

and the right-wingers will fall down laughing at the irony of it all.

Clav,

Well, maybe. Ezra Pound used the English language, but I found him very difficult to read and therefore to understand. Ditto e.e. cummings. I thought I understood Robert Frost, but a professor of English who tried to teach me in freshman year managed to convince me that I didn't. It took several years for me to decide that he (the professor, not Frost) was full of beans.

I still don't understand Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time, even though he wrote it in English and even though his concepts are easily understood, at least by him.

As to Zedd's comment #62, perhaps if we ask the right questions, the meanings will become crystal clear and we can all have a common understanding of Black liberation theology.

Hope springs eternal in the human breast. I shall omit to mention the next line from the poem.

Dan

One more point(?). Then I will stop. I promise. Until the next time.

In Yes Prime Minister by Lynn and Jay, PM Hacker has to decide between candidates to be proposed to the Queen for appointment as Bishop of the Diocese of Bury St. Edmunds. Hacker had overridden the commission which recommended two potential candidates, because one was a "modernist," code word for Atheist. Hacker deemed the other candidate unsuitable as well. Then two other candidates were presented. Hacker was told that one of them was against oppression and persecution in Africa. Hacker thought was fine; so was England. It was further explained that the gentleman "is against it when practiced by black governments as well as white ones." Hacker saw the point immediately: "So he's a racist!"

So there are code words, even in plain English; we just need to break the codes, maybe.

Dan

Dan, Clav,

It's not just Ezra Pound, e e cummings and Jonathan Lynn.

Our very own Zedd uses words that are English, but strung together in such a way that often makes very little sense in terms of the English language, except presumably to herself.

"Ezra Pound used the English language, but I found him very difficult to read and therefore to understand. Ditto e.e. cummings. I thought I understood Robert Frost, but a professor of English who tried to teach me in freshman year managed to convince me that I didn't...I still don't understand Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time, even though he wrote it in English and even though his concepts are easily understood, at least by him."

Not quite the same. Zedd is claiming that we as whites, don't understand what Black people (one of whom is white) are saying because we're not Black.

Your examples are all (with the exception of Hawking) poets writing about their personal visions of (mostly) abstract concepts; theirs is an art, open to a myriad of interpretations, depending on the viewpoint of the beholder, and even the poet himself will tell you there is no one, "correct" interpretation of his art. What Zedd is saying is that the only VALID interpretation of what those two "men of God" were saying is the Black one, which can only be gained by being Black (though, again, one of them is white). I focused (deliberately) on one only: Pfleger, because he's white, and because he's (nominally) Catholic; two categories of humans in which I'm qualified. As a white man and an ex Catholic, thoroughly indoctrinated in that faith, I clearly understood what he, at least, was saying.

As I mentioned before, what Pfleger said in that speech was flagrantly in violation of Catholic dogma, and was vile and demeaning, not only to Clinton, but to his Church and himself, as well.

Your point about Frost supports my contention: in point of fact, Frost is a plain-spoken, almost transparent poet, who speaks clearly and unequivocally to all who trouble to read him. Your professor was doing exactly what Zedd is attempting here, creating an artificial "insider" milieu from which you were excluded and your understanding of Frost was invalidated.

Hawking is a physicist, and speaks of physical concepts which are real, not some mystical semi-private collective group experience. I don't see a parallel there.

Clav,

Sometimes, when the discussion gets too deep and perhaps mystical for me to understand, I become just a tad sarcastic. Beats crying.

Dan

Doc,

In line with your thought, I frequently appeared before a judge who was fond of commenting, "Mr. xxx, I understand every one of the words you just used. I use them frequently myself; but when you put them together in that fashion, I have no idea what you mean"

Dan

Dan,

Point taken. I'm often to intense to see the sarcasm, especially on a monitor.

My bad.

Doc,

Amen.

Dan,

Were yo that much of a miscreant you had to appear "often" before the same judge? :>)

I need new glasses. Two typos in as mant comments!!

Aaaaarrrggghhhh!!!

Yet another typo in your last, I'm afraid, Clav. It's "Aaaaarrrrggghhhh".

Doc,

#75 gets my vote for funniest comment of the week.

I'm still laughing!!

"What I heard coming out of that Roman Catholic priest's mouth was totally counter to everything the Church teaches. The man should be defrocked."

Clavos, I saw that Cardinal George of Chicago has asked Father Pfleger to "step back from his obligations". The cardinal's announcement goes on,

"Fr. Pfleger does not believe this to be the right step at this time. While respecting his disagreement, I have nevertheless asked him to use this opportunity to reflect on his recent statements and actions in the light of the Church's regulations for all Catholic priests. I hope that this period will also be a time away from the public spotlight and for rest and attention to family concerns."

Gentlemen,

You all KNOW that you know little about African American life. What are you arguing. If the idea is that you don't understand, what's to argue.

If the idea is that you are arrogant about your understanding of EVERYONE else because of White supremacy, which you cant help, then why would you say, but I do know and understand better than Blacks about how to discuss their challenges. I do know BETTER what the REALLY mean.

Not one question has been posed YET boys. Get to it.

Think all four of you are Whitish, why would you KNOW. What are you arguing about exactly? Is it that you FEEL you know? Is it you SENSE that you know? Better you, (best guess) you believe you SHOULD know because of who you are and what the subject is about. Sorry, you are wrong. Now ask.

Zedd, I don't know if you were talking to me, but I'll tell you this much: if a person were talking about how much he hated Germany in 1960, he'd be a lousy choice for Chancellor.

True. None of these men are running for President. Did you miss that? They are men of the cloth. Their JOB is to admonish society; not just Satan worshipers, and silly rock lyrics. They get to highlight oppressive elements in the society and speak boldly about them whether society likes it or not. It's their job. You missed that too.

What you want them to be is political and play the opinion poll game. For a minister, THAT is evil.

If you would have seen Jesus demolishing the vendor booths in front of the synagoge, you would have branded him with the same stroke as you are these gentlemen. Jesus defied the Pharisees and with passion (anger) healed on a day when the law said not to. God Himself gets angry.

So get over it and try to understand what racism is so that you are no longer acting it out without knowing it.

This nation is build on denial about racism. It is our fabric; one of the basic elements of who we are. It needs to stop. Judging from these comments, it is deeeeeeep. God bless you guys. Buckle down.

Clavos

"In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables."

I suppose this guy should be excommunicated too.


Zing:

"i don't care if wright hates this country or despises white people. shit, sometimes this country and white people deserve it. but, for fuck's sake! if he ruins obama's chances with this crap, i'll be mighty pissed at him."

Can you be cloned?

Now... If America doesn't vote for a good President because of Wrights comments, they are not ready for real diversity, they are dumb, they don't deserve a good President.

Also, Obama is just as White as he is Black, actually more White... Let's not get carried away. We will have a Black and White President.


Just because people have decided to see this person Obama for being just a man and not an inferior whatever, doesn't mean we get to stop dealing with real issues that affect America. The fact that it is an issue that we finally see someone who is Black is being capable of leading says we have some MAJOR problems. We are ill Zing. Racism is what we are. The signers declared liberation and Democracy while in deny about the people they owned. We are still in denial. America has functioned under denial since it's conception and doesn't know how to be anything else. When people say something, it really feels as if they are disturbing our fabric, and they are. We need to be something different and that is difficult. Obama's candidacy wont cure that but its a step.

The errors above have to do with editing then changing my mind, then forgetting to change the correction... in other words, oops!

#68

Clavos,

Wow, man. That was deep. Great comment.

(And I'm not being a smart ass at all here, either, which is a rarity for me.)

Were you an English Lit major? (When you used the word "milieu" I knew that you weren't speaking from ignorance here...)

So tell me: What was your academic interest as a youth?

#78

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but...

Is Zedd like M*c D*va's less-intelligent cousin or something?

At least M*c D*va's hateful and offensive Black Nationalist rants were generally well-written... :-/

@#83,

Sorry, RJ, I've been away from my 'puter most of the evening.

Thanks for the kind words. I was an English major, with a minor in writing. I still enjoy poetry (reading, not writing; as a poet I suck), and reading prose, as well as a little writing, mostly here on BC.

No need to break codes. Ask questions.

Doc,

Not sure where the personal "attacks" keep coming from and how they serve the discussion. Do they help you advance your knowledge or expand your thinking capability? Are you simply having fun with the jabs or is it passive aggression?

The only suggestion that I have is that you go to your local Community College and take a Critical Thinking class, perhaps even a Logic class. You may even desire to take things further. However Critical Thinking is a good place to wet the appetite. Once you have, please don't feel embarrassed about the comments that you have made to me. You are a nice guy, take the class, it will change your life and open the window to an expanded way of processing ideas. However let me warn you, if you understand the class, and actually "get it", you will run into a problem in that many people will respond to you the way you keep responding to me. You too will have to ignore the illogical mish mash (not nec on this thread) as I do.

You've set the bar pretty high for the rest of us, Zedd. For that, I applaud your logical understanding of the dialectic methodology and your relentless pursuit of the asking of questions.

Jordan,


It's important for me to be balanced and to be understood. I am working on that.

Zedd,

It's not so much this particular thread - I agree with your position here more than with that of most other commenters. My issue with you is what happens when you are confronted with vigorous, well-argued logical positions from your opponents. In those cases you invariably retreat behind ad hominem attacks, obnoxious condescension and obfuscatory language, and declare yourself the winner by dint of being an intellectual giant wrestling with pygmies. You seem to hope that by doing so you will convince your opponents (or perhaps yourself?) that they are no match for you.

You assume a lot - such as that I haven't taken critical thinking courses. If you have, and your grasp of the dialectic is as masterful as you seem to think it is, then I'm at a loss to understand why it is you argue the way you do. What course did you take where you were taught that belittling your opponents is a valid argumentation tactic? Most of us can get past that, but what makes you most difficult is that your style is not clear and it's not incisive. Perhaps you just need to work on your written English a bit, but it just comes across as... well, illogical.

I dunno, Dread. I've been arguing with liberals on this site for a while now, and while Zedd's positions are bolder, her style isn't much at odds with the average. The tendency to celebrate after a perceived rhetorical victory is pretty common around here. She's condescending - less so than me, but I set the bar pretty high.

It seems like the only time anyone objects to her style is when she's dismaying a liberal. Like when she writes against gay marriage. Her writing doesn't change, but suddenly it elicits all sorts of criticism. The left has never been able to deal with dissent among its ranks.

I guess we can't understand Zedd any better than we can the preachers at Trinity?!??! Might as well not even talk to black people anymore...I'll never be able to understand them anyway...

maybe we can get the "Beav's" mom from airplane to translate for us....

I guess we can't understand Zedd any better than we can the preachers at Trinity?!??! Might as well not even talk to black people anymore...I'll never be able to understand them anyway...

Alright Zedd here are some questions.

Can you name for me some specific policies or societal issues that block some ones ability to be considered a success in the county based on their race?

How much of a role do you see ones born economic status playing when it comes to becoming successful in this country?

Success is in the eye of the beholder. So if a person aspires to be a drug dealer, and they manage to stay out of jail and or the morgue, I would consider that a success.

Do you see poverty being self perpetuating for any race or just African Americans?

Is America moving in the right direction in regards to race?

Please read this article and tell me what you think.

It seems like the only time anyone objects to her style is when she's dismaying a liberal. Like when she writes against gay marriage. Her writing doesn't change, but suddenly it elicits all sorts of criticism. The left has never been able to deal with dissent among its ranks.

"Lefts," "rights," and us "middles" all pretty much disagreed with her concepts in that discussion, though.

Well, Baronius, Clavos is hardly a liberal (well, he is, but with a capital L - not as the term is principally used in the US these days!), but he's expressed such exasperation with Zedd and her approach on these threads that he for the most part will no longer even debate with her.

DRUXX,

Can you name for me some specific policies or societal issues that block some ones ability to be considered a success in the county based on their race?

- Attitudes and perceptions

How much of a role do you see ones born economic status playing when it comes to becoming successful in this country?

Success is in the eye of the beholder. So if a person aspires to be a drug dealer, and they manage to stay out of jail and or the morgue, I would consider that a success.

- Not sure if you are looking for stats. But overall, economics plays a significant role.

Do you see poverty being self perpetuating for any race or just African Americans?

- Neither

Is America moving in the right direction in regards to race?

- Yes but too slowly

Doc,

We do agree most of the time.

You say that I dodge "well-argued logical positions from your opponents". The problem is that NO THEY ARE NOT. I realise that they may seem cogent but the comments are usually irrelevant to the topic and are simple rants. The people do not ask questions they just respond to what they think I am saying. They are wrong so there is nothing to respond to.

Example:

I say, "there is no biological basis for thumb sucking."

Zedd you think people should not be comforted.

--------

As for the attacks, I don't think you realise that after days of reading that I advocate the most odd ball stuff and having different people chime in to yell at me based on the wrong assertion that was made by a poster that it gets old. After a while is just "you are dumb", done! Cause it's true and I've been too embarrassed to say it.

The good thing about banging your head against a stone wall?

It sure feels good when you stop...

Example:

I say, "there is no biological basis for thumb sucking."

Zedd you think people should not be comforted.

Zedd, this is exactly the kind of response that exasperates us. You've cherry-picked an example for its intellectual weakness while disregarding stronger ones.

I realize that there have been some adversaries of yours (Jet comes to mind) who responded in this way to your claim about homosexuality (I presume this is the discussion you're alluding to), but there were also others who addressed and refuted your claim directly. You don't have to agree with them, but you should acknowledge that you're not the only one who can argue around here.

Doc,

I am being sincere.

I enjoy a good debate. I am on this site because I am looking for something interesting to discuss and learn. I am not afraid of throwing myself into a good tête-à-tête. I REALLY enjoy it. I have not encountered any dialogue which has intimidated me. Graham challenged me and I LOVED it. I looked forward to his contributions because I was challenged to think. However, I agreed with much of what he had to say. Because he was so deep, I had to ask him to be patient with me while I processed what he was saying, then where he was going. It was fun.

Not sure what happened to Graham. I know he was pretty deeply immersed in his university studies. There was also some idiot stalking and threatening him here over some imagined slight to Israel in one of his articles.

Hope he pops up again one of these days.

#92

Andy,

Oh, how I laughed... ;)

Druxx,

I read the article. Are we saying that Blacks are working harder than they did in years past or that America is recognizing their efforts more? Are we saying America is good because it is doing a better job at recognizing Blacks' effort or that it needs to simply recognize peoples efforts regardless of race? Are we saying that Blacks should be happy that their effort is BETTER recognized? Should that be insulting?

thank you RJ...I'm here all week!

Don't forget to tip your waitresses...