More Ranting
I will tell you what I did yesterday.
I woke up kinda late. I made breakfast. Coffee, cereal with some stuff in it, and some sourdough toast.
I ate my breakfast and watched the news. I was quickly disgusted by the vapid and whoreish news media for covering Jeremiah Wright. Especially when they say, "So, Mr. Political Hack, how long is this gonna be a story?" Well, DOUCHEBAG, it's gonna be a story as long as you keep covering it!
Let me rant about television media for a minute.
I know there's a lot of controversy on whether the American news media has a liberal bias or a conservative bias. I actually agree with Jon Stewart. The big problem isn't political bias, it's ratings bias and laziness bias.
Several things are going on here. First, investigative reporting is hard and expensive. Sending correspondents to Iraq or Darfur or Tibet is dangerous, time consuming, and very expensive.
Second, the 24 hour news networks have lots of time to fill (24 hours in a single day!). When something like the Jeremiah Wright story comes up, they get to kill two birds with one stone. First, they get to fill their air time. Second, they get to do it extremely cheaply.
Basically, the entire political season is a wet dream for these news networks. They get to wrap their whoring in the guise of objective political reporting. They can cover the "horserace" aspect of these political gaffs without ever, not even once, in the hours and hours of talking heads they recruit to analyze them, discuss the substantive issues involved.
Never, ever, ever does anyone have to say, "Hey, does wearing a cheap American flag pin on your jacket mean you're a patriot?" Instead, they can endlessly discuss how voters will perceive the absence of a flag pin.
And the brilliant part of the Media's scheme here is that they create the very news that they cover! They create a self-perpetuating cheap time filler that has enough infantile junior high drama in it to capture the attention of the shallow anti-intellectual sheep who populate this country!
And obviously, i'm one of them, cause I've been watching this shit and getting increasingly disgusted for two days straight!
JEREMIAH WRIGHT IS NOT A FUCKING GODDAMN STORY YOU FRAT BOY PLASTIC MEATHEADED CYNICAL VAPID LAZY SHALLOW CHEAP PANDERING SORORITY SLUT BIMBO FUCKS!
oh wow...that felt good.
So, anyway, I did some administrative stuff and chatted online with some folks. Then I went up to the ranch and planted asparagus. Then Daniel and I went up to our friend's house further up the mountain and ate dinner. We watched a show about the Holocaust and World War 2 and a reality show about an aircraft carrier. It was fun.
posted by Joe @ 12:46 PM
14 Comments:
You don’t find the fact that Obama belonged to a church with a James Cone flavored Liberation Theology for 20 years troubling at all?
If only he was Mormon...
You don’t find the fact that Obama belonged to a church with a James Cone flavored Liberation Theology for 20 years troubling at all?
If only he was Mormon...
No! For serveral reasons.
1. Though I find all theology pretty ridiculous, I find Liberation Theology among the less ridiculous. That's exactly why I'd love to hear people discuss the substance of that theology rather than the public reaction to it. I've read the gospels many times over, and it turns out, Jesus was a poor dude living in an occupied, politically oppressed land. He actually talked a lot about helping the poor, being peaceful, and loving everyone. He really didn't seem to be a big fan of rich people or violence.
2. I was a very dedicated church goer for about 10 years of my life. I visited all different kinds of churches, from fundamentalist to liberal. All preachers say ridiculous things from time to time. Hyperbole is just one of their tools. That's because they give a new 20 minute speech once or twice a week for as long as they're working! Wright just happened to get caught on tape.
3. Other than the AIDS comment and the Farakan endorsement, I pretty much agreed with those soundbites from Wright. Hilary Clinton ain't never been called a nigger. This country IS ruled by white people. The CIA probably DID help allow coke into American cities to help fund the contras. And even if these assertions aren't true, they certainly are plausible enough that a person who says them should not be labeled a "nut." Keep in my mind, there are plenty of well known and indisputable examples of the United States doing evil, evil, evil shit. Such as 1. Slavery and 2. Jim Crow. So, criticizing the morality of the U.S. government is not that crazy of a position to take.
4. The United Church of Christ is a pretty mainstream church. It's not like he was handling snakes.
5. We have no clue how involved Obama was in that church.
If they're gonna talk about it, they should talk about substance, not politics! Why? Because they are in a position to influence the politics! They pretend that there's some magic "reaction" out in the ether of public opinion apart from their influence on that opinion.
Cover the substance of what the Wright said, and the substance of Obama's involvement in the church, and let the public opinion develop from that substance.
Oh wait...that takes research and time and effort. Ok, forget it.
Are you HIV-positive you’re not the one dwelling in the superficial? (Sorry, bad attempt at Rev. Wright humor). Because I think you’ll find if you dig a bit deeper you’ll find that Rev. Wright is not your typical black minister and Trinity is not your typical Church of Christ church.
Before getting deeper in the weeds -- are you saying it would not merit concern if a white politician belonged to an ethnocentric church where issues of racial grievance were a central part of church doctrine for 20 years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hal_Cone
“Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not”
As for Obama’s involvement in the church…he credits Wright for making him a believer, he was married there, had his kids baptized there, named his book after one of Wright’s sermons, is a generous contributor to the church financially and had Rev. Wright in an advisory position on his campaign until this media stuff blew up. That seems pretty involved to me.
Ok, Ok. I'll admit, it was a newsworthy story. I still don't think it was 6 weeks worth of 24/7 coverage worthy.
Just a point of clarification...the United Church of Christ is not the same as the Church of Christ. UCC is one of the more liberal Christian denominations and is sometimes jokingly referred to as "Unitarians Considering Christ." I think there are a lot of urban UCC churches with strong liberation theology tendencies.
And no, if a white politican were part of a White Liberation Theology church, it would certainly be a bigger deal. That's because black people actually have been historically oppressed and still suffer the effects of that oppression today, where as white racial grievances would ad a layer of ridiculousness to the already present ridiculousness of Christianity in general.
What part of that quote from Cone is that controversial? That white people have oppressed black people? Is that in dispute?
Or that God would favor the poor and oppressed over the oppressors? I seem to remember some parts of the Bible about God crushing the Babylonians and Egyptians who enslaved the jews.
I think there are two separate arguments to be made here; one political and one theological. For the sake of brevity I’m going to stick with the former.
A major, if not the major factor in Obama’s widespread appeal is the promise of him being the first “post-racial” candidate straddling but not defining himself by the nation’s racial divide. The identity/grievance politics of the past typified by the Jacksons and Sharptons has now crossed into the absurd and people have a desire for “unity” and reconciliation. Many feel electing Obama president would be an important milestone to these ends.
The Wright revelations were a huge blow because they suggest the possibility that Obama that transcends racial resentment is illusory. Take that away and there alarmingly little there to vote for.
Because I cannot abide the all encompassing definition of white people as “oppressors”, for a whole host of reasons too long to list, I find the philosophy of Mr. Cone to be abhorrent in every way. Ignorance is ignorance and racism is racism regardless of skin color and ancestral sins.
As I said, I admit that it's a newsworthy story for the reasons you mention.
But, how does that justify talking about and endlessly, endlessly disecting the political dimension of it?
I mean, instead of the story being "How will people react to Jeremiah Wright?", why can't the story be "Is Barack Obama really a black nationalist?"
And, to that end, they can look at Obama's stated and historical positions on a host of racial policy issues.
"Mr. Obama, what is your stance on affirmative action?" (which he answered during the Philadelphia debate)
"Sen. Obama, what is your stance on reparations?"
"Sen. obama, what is your stance on de facto school segregation?"
"Sen. Obama, what is your stance on urban renewal and gentrification?"
"Sen. Obama, how do you propose to tackle urban poverty?"
"Sen. Obama, how do you feel about prison reform?"
"Sen. Obama, how do you feel about school choice? Head start?"
"Sen. Obama, how do you feel about the drug war and gang violence? How can we keep young black men out of prison?"
Etc, etc, etc
There are much better ways to report on Obama's attitudes and policy preferences regarding race than to talk about his pastor.
And saying that all oppressors are white is not the same as saying that all white people are oppressors. I very much disagree that you can talk about race "regardless of ancestral sins." Culture and history matter. Colorblindness is bullshit. We can try to live in harmony without trying to pretend the past didn't happen or that the past is gone. It's not gone. It's been less than 3 generations since Brown v Board. Our sins are still with us.
I think there’s a difference between being aware of history and being a prisoner to it. In the context of the civil rights movement a lot of Cone’s rhetoric is more understandable and while this period is still fairly recent the lengths to which our society has gone to correct past these past injustices is unprecedented. Does this mean all our demons have been exorcised? No, but among the lengthy array of problems facing the black population ones attributable to “white oppression” are pretty far down the list. Despite this, adherents to Cone’s theology will still not let go of old resentments – however outdated -- letting their followers believe the all too comfortable lie that their destiny is in someone else’s hands. In fact, some cynics have speculated that Obama’s election would be so damaging to this racist “white oppressor” victim theology that Wright is purposely attempting to damage Obama politically.
As for what the media’s focusing on, I don’t think anyone’s candidate gets cast in the most favorable light. I would offer however that Obama’s relationship with Wright damages him on a deeper level than mere policy positions, As part of the effort to expunge ourselves of this nations history of racism our society has become hyper-sensitive to any appearance of racism. A single “macaca” moment can erase a lifetime of goodwill forever making suspect the internal workings of that persons mind. Within this context it strains credulity that Obama could sit in front of Wright for many Sundays for 20 years and not share a splinter of Wright’s racial vengefulness. I think Journalists are justified in examining the possibility that the next inhabitant of the oval office may be preoccupied by make-up calls.
But they're not really examining that possibility! That's precisely my point!
Instead, they're talking about voter's perceptions of that possibility and in the process are influencing those perceptions.
If they weren't so lazy, they would do real investigative journalism to find out more about Wright's history, the history of that church, the history of Obama's involvement with it, the history of Obama's involvement with civil rights issues, and the history of Obama's involvement with the church and with Wright. That way, their powerful influence on voters' perceptions would be valid and healthy.
But they don't do that. Instead, they invite a smattering of political operatives and poltical reporters to offer off the cuff opinions about political damage. The only effort they expend is to recruit political hacks from both sides of the issue who, if possible at all, will be black.
So, back to the original point, the coverage of this issue has been shallow and lazy and uninformative.
But, yes, Obama is not the only victim of this laziness. This particular incident is just the worst example of this lazy reporting that I've seen so far this season.
I agree the media is inadequate for a whole host of reasons however I doubt there are any collection of questions anyone could ask and any set of answers Obama could produce that would remove all doubt that he secretly believes some of the same things as Rev. Wright. For better or worse our society has made racism a mortal sin.
Besides there is no white equivalent to Jessie Jackson. Who could Obama pay off for racial absolution even if he wanted to?
Oh come on!!!! You are honestly imputing views on to a person because of what his preacher said? Whadda bunch of conspiracy theory crap!
GOTO Comment 1.
You guys should at least make up ridiculous pseudonyms! C'mon, how hard is that? That way we can tell the various anonymi apart.
We are legion!
Post a Comment
<< Home