Pangloss

Obama did an interesting interview with Gwen Ifill (sp?) of PBS on the Lehrer News Hour tonight that I thought was really good. He put off most of it for his speech tomorrow, but he did talk a bit about how he believed in listening to disparate points of view, and how his background coming from a multiracial home had an impact on his ability to see all sides of an issue. I thought it was a pretty astute comment politically, but I have to say I also bought it on a personal level. It just made sense, the way he put it. I suppose I could say that it "resonated" with me (although I kinda dislike that word). It just stands to reason that he could be the kind of person who welcomes dissenting opinions, who doesn't automatically buy-in to sermons and preachings, and who thinks for himself. Exactly the kind of thing we WANT in a president. I hadn't really though about that aspect of it, but I intend to catch his speech today. One thing I've noticed about Obama is that a lot of things he says don't sound all that impressive if you see them in print or read about them in a newspaper, or even catch a sound bite or two. It's different when you hear him speak at length -- he's much more thought-provoking and convincing, and has a level of sincerity and honesty to it that reminds me of John McCain at his best, and lies in stark contrast with the likes of Hillary Clinton or George Bush.

Well, now we just have one more good reason to shovel leftover Katrinites out of those cleverly formaldehyde-laced FEMA trailers!

Why is it better that he would he want god to put a curse on America? Why isn't that an example of two wrongs making a right?

Calls for more answers from Obama are increasing, and they're not just coming from the right. Gerald Posner, a frequent Huffington Post columnist, Obama supporter and regular Bush critic, posted a column on Saturday calling for Obama to answer further questions about his associations with Wright. He focuses mainly on the 9/11 blame issue. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-posner/reverend-wright-and-barac_b_91693.html Obama pledged today to offer more answers on the Wright issue in a speech tomorrow. http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/obama_wait_until_tuesday_speec.html

Exactly. They start to look less ridiculous and more like held beliefs. Even if they aren't prevalent they could still influence his thinking, and I want to know how far that goes. I'm not likely to get that answer but I think it's a reasonable question. Well this may indeed change my opinion of Obama, but I agree with the sentiment here. I think that was really well put.

Yes we are, but that's politics for ya. Three great posts above, btw. These are tricky issues and you guys have tackled them head-on. I think iNow and Mr. Skeptic raise some very relevent and important points, especially the notion that once something goes public it becomes much harder to learn the truth, which is an odd little Catch-22. I also think ParanoiA raises a valid point about the concerns regarding this pastor:

Wait, you've read Alan Greenspan? I think iNow just picked up 13 Republican delegates in Pennsylvania.

Ok, I just wanted to make sure we didn't have a conflict there. Thanks for clarifying. Your conjecture... does it have any support, or is it just a conjecture? I am of the belief that if one is to be crucified by the populace that it should be (at the VERY least) for something that has hard and solid evidence backing it up. Your comments above seem to suggest that, "hmmm... maybe HE agrees!!," and I find that position as nothing more than heresay. It's not admissible in court for good reason... Oh I'm not making a conjecture. What I want to know is -- was he one of the ones chanting "Amen!" or was he hiding his disagreement and displeasure. The bit you mentioned earlier about how this is a popular position in black churches made me wonder if it might be more likely that he were the former than the later (i.e. this is well-known in the black community, and expected by incoming parishoners), but I really have no idea if this is the case or not. Not yet, at any rate. And maybe not ever. But I certainly won't find that out if we sweep this under the rug just because the press and right-wing idiots have grabbed hold of it. Makes sense to me. But it could still be that he is a "rabid" reverend and was a bad influence on someone trying to be the president. Of course, even if he was, that doesn't mean Obama is a secret Muslim Black Panther terrorist. But it could be relevent to the issue of whether he's being forthright and honest about his motivations and goals as president. I can understand why people see it that way. It certain has an air of swiftboat-ness about it. Unfortunately this is what partisanship has built in this country (thanks ABBers/Clinton-bashers, welcome to the direct result of your stupid, shortsighted ways!). We certainly agree on that. But there's also a great danger here in overcompensating by not exploring reasonable questions because they feel like swift-boating. I still want to know what his influences are, and what his opinions are, and if he's hiding some of them from us because they're unpopular. It's a valid question. And that's the great thing about the process you're bemoaning. Because everything you say about it, how frustrating and ill-targetted and ill-conceived it it, all that's true. But in the end the bright spotlight can still cast light on important, relevent information. All we can do is hope it'll shine through, for better or worse. That's a great point. And I think that's been happening more lately (the infatuation seems to be over), and is probably a good thing. He's been more clear recently about his positions regarding troop withdrawl, economics, and more, perhaps motivated by recent Clinton victories. It's not enough, but it's a step in the right direction. I wouldn't really know. I don't go to church. Never been a big fan' date=' really. I do go to work to socialize and to discuss what's on my mind and share ideas with my co-workers. I have the option of working completely remotely, anywhere. The company even pays for internet and phone at your house, but I still choose to go into the office and work from my desk. Why? Because my coworkers and I share stories, and help each other and hang out together outside of work... we are a social community that is close nit and share common desires and goals. We help each other when we're in need and we come together to get things done. I do get a paycheck, but is it really that different from church?[/quote'] Um, yeah guy, I'm afraid so. Most people don't go to work for spiritual enlightenment and direction, at least not in the same sense or to the same degree that they go to church for that. Sorry, but I think you're really reaching with that one. But I'm glad you have such a nice employer. Why does it matter that Bush is a born-again Christian with close ties to the christian conservative movement? That certainly seemed to matter to his critics. And maybe with good reason -- it seemed to affect his policy-making decisions at times. So wasn't it a valid question for voters to ask in 2000? And so why wouldn't it be a valid question to ask now? The answer is that it matters IFF it affects his policy-making decisions. But since we can't ever know what ultimately drives a politician's policy-making decisions, we have to settle for doing our best to understand their motivations and backgrounds, and ask idiotic questions like "How would/does your believe in god inform your presidency?", as if that question actually makes some kind of logical sense. We have not only a right but a responsibility to judge the character of our politicians running for office. That is a right, honest, normal thing to do. Seems likely, doesn't it? But I don't know that he was there when the reverend made the kind of outrageous statements we've heard, or what his reaction to them was at the time, or how it influenced his thinking, or how it influences his current thinking. Not yet, anyway. I hope to learn these things. By the way, I didn't ask those things about George Bush in 2000. I regret not doing so. I don't think he was the catastrophe in that department that some feel he was, but I blame myself for episodes like Terry Schiavo, partial-birth abortion bans, "the John Roberts Court" and the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. That is to say, centrists like me who fell under the attractive awnings of a really big tent. I won't make the same mistake twice. This time I pull out ALL the stops. This time I take NOTHING for granted. I think he clearly goes beyond that point. Two wrongs don't make a right, and that speech from him was all about two wrongs. iNow, do you join Obama in condemning this man's comments, and the comments of Louis Farrakahn, or do you support them instead? I think this is a really important question. Obama surely condemned them for a reason -- was it just to appease white voters? Isn't that what Obama is doing right now? We don't know that yet. That's what we're about to find out, though. Yes. Let's get the torches ready. It's time fer a hangin'! I don't live that far from Jasper' date=' where James Byrd was chained to the back of a pickup truck and dragged down the road, and I'm perhaps overly sensitive to this mentality because I've experienced it so frequently first hand during my life. I am, by no means whatsoever, suggesting that you are a racist or that your are bigoted. I am pretty confident you are not. What I am suggesting is that it is precisely this mindset... ... this burning of witches mentality... that leads to such atrocities, and we do it far too often in today's culture. I recognize that you don't mean me, and I do empathize with your frustration, but I think that's a very unfortunate direction, because it suggests that people cannot criticize Obama without being accused of "grabbing torches". I don't think that's really what you want any more than I do. (BTW, do I get credit at least for handling this thread a little differently?)

Interesting post. Why is the BBC interested in our subprime mortgage situation? /boggle I wonder sometimes if Brits even get local news. (grin) (Just kidding, of course -- I think the BBC is a first-tier source, and their international objectivity is often quite useful, it just strikes me as really odd sometimes!) Anyway, I saw Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on This Week today and one comment he made stood out in my mind. He said that 92% of the mortgage holders in this country are paying their loans on time, and only 2% are in foreclosure. That's not the way foreclosure statistics are generally reported, that's for sure. Obviously he's doing a bit of spin, because it only takes a relatively small percentage of foreclosures to wreak havoc on the economy, thanks in part to the use of those mortgages are collateral, which is what has gotten so many companies into trouble. I actually agree with you here to a large extent -- these companies are guilty of more than just those instances of mortgage fraud. Other companies knew about the fraud and bad lending practices, but used the loans as collateral anyway. Put another way, we may need to see a few of them fail for the same reason we may need to see a few $9/hr single-mom hairdressers lose their $350,000 homes -- as a warning against future stupidity. But I disagree with your last question -- we ARE bailing out some lenders, and it seems increasingly likely that we'll bail out even higher numbers than are currently planned. And we'll be bailing out banks and Wall Street firms too. (sigh) My only hope is that we learn a lesson from this and update the rules and regs that made this possible.

Obama's relationship with this particular pastor is closer than that of most "Christian Conservative" Republicans and the names you mentioned above. But more to the point, you can hardly say that the Bush administration has failed to come under scrutiny for those associations. Anything but -- it's been one of the biggest points of contention with the current administration. This makes it worse in my view, because it seems more likely he was one of the ones shouting "Amen!" than one of the ones hiding in the back row thinking how vehemently he disagreed with what was just said on the podium. As to whether they're expressing real resentment and frustration felt by others in the country, I'm not sure how this is relevent. You could say the same thing about Christian Conservatives, but we both lament their influence on Washington, don't we? I think this analogy is a poor one -- you don't go to work for the same reasons you go to church. You work for a company to take home a paycheck, not to receive spiritual enlightenment and encouragement. And many attend church to receive guidance and motivation as well. Was Obama one of those? I don't know, but I think I need an answer to that question now. I think where that analogy may work to some degree is in the notion that things are said in church that not everyone agrees with. I agree with that general notion, and I'm more than willing to admit it might be the case here. But if that were the case, why did he keep going there, have him marry the couple, have him baptize the kids, etc? And then why did he push him away when he announced his candidacy? These are legitimate questions that warrant full investigation. I missed that -- where in this thread did someone attack him as if he made these comments himself?

I have mixed feelings about the Jeremiah Wright situation, but I think more questions need to be asked. For those who haven't heard, he's Obama's pastor, who was jettisoned from the campaign last week after some of his more insensitive (but apparently quite common) America-bashing remarks became public. Here are some examples: Source here. Wright has also said that the US is responsible for 9/11 through its acts of "terrorism" against black people. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I guess he's entitled to his opinion. Wright helped organize the "Million Man March", and once visited Libyan president Qadafi with Louis Farrakhan, whom he's called one of the giants of the 20th century. Yeeeeesh. To his credit, Obama has denounced Farrakhan and his endorsement. Is this just a case of guilt by association? Can we really hold Obama accountable for the words of another person? Surely not, right? But I think we can ask whether these words influenced Obama. He claims to have been a member of that church for over 20 years. Wright wasn't just his pastor -- he officiated at his wedding and baptized his children! Surely it's reasonable to wonder what influence this man has had on Obama. Obama says he didn't know about anything more than "one or two remarks", which he says he felt in the past should not cause him to reject his pastor. But is that an honest comment? He knew enough to ask his pastor not to officiate at his announcement a year ago, according to this NY Times story. I'd like to know whether Obama sat through some of the seedier sermons from this man's repetoire. As a side note of some amusement, the link below goes to an article at Rolling Stone that USED to be headlined "The Radical Roots of Barrack Obama" (notice the link?) -- now it's called "Destiny's Child"! Rofl! I guess Rolling Stone has all the answers it needs! http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13390609/campaign_08_the_radical_roots_of_barack_obama Anyway, to summarize, I think it's reasonable for people to ask questions about this, and I'd like to know more about the influence this man had on Obama over the years. How close were they? Has Obama ever echoed his sentiments, even in the semi-conscious way that his wife has? If he has, will that adversely affect his ability to lead this country? What do you all think?

I think that's an excellent point. In fact, the recent unrest seems to support the notion that that approach is actually working. China was unable to keep cell phone video of the rioting off the Internet, for example -- with success comes transparency, whether the government likes it or not. China already has the largest middle class in the world, but has only managed to "upgrade" maybe a quarter or a fifth of its population to that level thus far. The rest of those people want the same success, and it's the biggest tiger that any government has ever had by the tail. They know they have to keep going and cannot crash back to the kind of society they used to have. We can continue to help them in two ways: Encouraging them when they get it right, and discouraging them when they get it wrong. Yes, that makes us complicit when they get it wrong. But it beats the alternatives, and it also means we're complicit when they get it right.

We're definitely in a bind when it comes to pressuring China on specifics. In general the relationship is definitely a two-way street (they don't want to anger us either). But they're pretty good at playing hardball, and can take a punch a lot better than we can. Boycott the Olympics and we're likely to find the dollar slipping even lower against the yuan, which we've been asking them recently to devalue.

There's also a Shiite side to the "argument", which presumably gets its recruits from Iran. But yes, I've seen a couple documentaries on this and they seem to focus on recruiting poor youths with few prospects for the future. It's pretty sad. Some of them do their best to police it, as you say, but it's a tough job -- we can't even fully police it ourselves, with all our resources. I think you also raise a good point about Iraqis not being prone to that sort of thing by nature. It's a wealthier country than many of its neighbors, even in its current mess, and it has a strong national identity in spite of the religious rifts. This is one of the underlying reasons why I think they have a chance (regardless of whether we stay or not; that's another subject). If they're really, really lucky, and with a lot of serious freaking hard work, they could pull it off.

No, I'm "Previously Lockheed!"

Seems unlikely, but I'd love to hear a good case for it, for the sake of discussion. It was wildly unpopular when Carter did it in 1980 (which, ironically, China participated in). The public perception was that it hurt US atheletes while accomplishing nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_boycott_of_the_1980_Summer_Olympics

The oil production infrastructure, bascule. As I said, its stock rise is due to the no-bid contracts they received from the Bush administration, not the rising price of oil or the reopening of Iraqi oil production, neither of which benefit Halliburton in any way. That's part of the problem with Halliburton -- the fact that they weren't held to their promised results. But none of this has anything to do with the geopolitics of oil-derived energy. It's a whole different kind of politics, though one that's just as old and corrupt. So I'm still waiting to hear your point. Do you have one, or are you just going to keep hiding behind elliptical hints?

Well I wasn't hoping for a split, but I was hoping for a shunning of the far right. Now it looks like the far right is accepting him. Gee, THANKS New York Times. Friggin right-wing media!

I appreciate that. This gets back to another subject, which is whether or not it's okay to (as I put it earlier) run dissenters out of town on a rail. You think it's not only okay, but desirable. But I would just point out that your rap sheet (which is the only one I've ever seen on this board that actually required two pages to store!) seems to testify to the fact that this isn't really what board leadership wants (and remember, I've only given you one actual infraction, ever!). We really do need a modicum of politeness and fairness, and I think there are valid reasons for that desire. But like I said earlier I think that your attitude is actually a positive, 99.9% of the time. I like the fact that you're ready to step up to the plate and knock one out of the park whenever it's required. We just have to continue to ensure that people are treated with fairness and respect. Yes, and I've gotten that point, and accepted it. Add: Well I seem to have last-worded this -- I thought that post was going to get merged with my previous, but a flurry of new ones appeared while I was replying to iNow and ecoli seems to have closed it. Anyway it wasn't my intent to get the last word here, so let me just say that I acknowledge the personal criticisms from iNow and bascule, and realize that I've earned a certain degree of that. I also feel I have also raised a valid observation about tendencies here, which I think has been supported at least in a general sense, even by iNow at a certain level, who at least acknowledges my opinion, and some who have suggested that I'm just using the wrong terminology. Let me just close by acknowledging that maybe it would be best for me to drop the "PC" monicker, at the very least, and work harder not to read between the lines. And my PM box is always open if anyone wants to discuss it further.

[copied by swansont: This came up in another thread] This is a good example of what I'm talking about, so I appreciate that you brought it up. You've done something above that even the IPCC couldn't do -- determine factually that global warming is caused by humans and declare the debate over. Millions of scientists can't do that, but here at SFN it's a proven fact that cannot be refuted. That's awesome. Can I get in on it when we publish? ... and you don't see a problem with that. Well okay, good on you, but I do. Sorry. Like I said, I don't think it ruins the board, because I've watched you hear people out on the subject and require that responders be polite. But I do think it colors and reduces the quality of discourse on the subject when we have adopted a foregone conclusion that isn't even accepted by the scientific community.

This is a good example of what I'm talking about, so I appreciate that you brought it up. You've done something above that even the IPCC couldn't do -- determine factually that global warming is caused by humans and declare the debate over. Millions of scientists can't do that, but here at SFN it's a proven fact that cannot be refuted. That's awesome. Can I get in on it when we publish? ... and you don't see a problem with that. Well okay, good on you, but I do. Sorry. Like I said, I don't think it ruins the board, because I've watched you hear people out on the subject and require that responders be polite. But I do think it colors and reduces the quality of discourse on the subject when we have adopted a foregone conclusion that isn't even accepted by the scientific community. So it's okay to be rude to someone so long as you're making a valid point? Isn't that what I've been talking about? People who are rude on certain subjects are allowed to let go, "because they're making a point". People who are rude in the other direction get singled out and admonished by the membership. (I'm not talking about infractions, btw, in case that's not clear. I didn't think bascule's post above deserved one. I'm talking about acceptance and admonishment from the membership.)

I'm talking about how they're defined. Fine, but it's a straw man in present context, if the purpose is to use it to dismiss my entire argument. Either I'm making my case on an objective basis, regardless of what I may or may not have done in the past, or I am not. And I note for the record that Bascule used rudeness multiple times in this thread, and was not challenged for it by anyone other than myself and ParanoiA.

Bascule, you've inserted "political correctness" in the place of the phrase that I've been using, which is "political incorrectness". I don't care why you're posting, or whether you're trying not to offend a social group. I care why you're trying to offend (a different) one. And that was an extremely rude reply, which I don't think was warranted at all. I've been forthright, impersonal and inoffensive in this thread, and you're attacking me on a personal level in response. Am I just failing to assume good faith here, Cap'n? Really?

I'm curious if there are there schools out there that actually do have rules about that sort of thing. I'm also curious if there's an historical context there. I've heard that it used to be common, but I don't think I've ever actually read it anywhere.

I don't know why it seems that way to you, but I think I've answered every question that's been put to me on this subject in great detail. If there's something I've missed or overlooked please feel free to bring it to my attention.