I should say, now that I've cooled off a little, that Obama's speech was brilliant. This was the speech we've been waiting for him to give: a thoughtful, brutally honest, and deeply respectful treatment of a major issue. This was the best political speech I've ever heard a politician deliver--admittedly a low bar. I would be happy to have that in the White House.
But because I am greedy, I want Obama to give us even more. I want him not to demagogue foreigners as the source of our national problems. I want him to recognize what a great contribution immigration continues to make to our society, including Barack Obama himself. I want him to say that our problems are of our own making, and that the solutions are within us.
His speech today was brilliant precisely because it didn't play to either side's desire for an easy scapegoat. But I don't want him to unify us against foreigners; I want him to unify us for some better purpose than keeping the world out. And it makes me mad that he doesn't, because I feel like if anyone could, it would be him.
Right after he comes within 5 in Pennsylvania, you'll have your wish.
His speech today was brilliant precisely because it didn't play to either side's desire for an easy scapegoat.
Except, as you mention, for the oldest scapegoat in the book, Johnny Foreigner. I guess at least it was mostly a side reference.
"I want him to recognize what a great contribution immigration continues to make to our society, including Barack Obama himself."
when's he going to even mention someone like George Washington Carver?
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventors/carver.htm
In my opinion, Obama did not hit the home run needed to either diffuse the Wright issue or salvage his candidacy.
The Reverend Wright’s statements go far beyond the racist, and include condemning America as intrinsically corrupt (“God damn America”), to speaking from the pulpit just days after the 9/11 attacks and blaming the atrocity on American policy.
Reverend Wright is also on church video tape simulating sexual intercourse FROM THE PULPIT while screaming that President Clinton “screwed” blacks “the same way he screwed Monica Lewinski”.
Obama promised yesterday, as he ducked reporter’s questions about Wright at a PA press conference, that he would answer everything about Wright and his relationship to him.
But aside from offering slavery and “Jim Crow” as an excuse for Wright’s bitterness, and repeating the same disavowal of non-specified remarks by Wright he has been parroting all week since the scandal broke, Obama offered nothing new. Nor did Obama explain which SPECIFIC comments by Wright Obama was aware of and PRECISELY when.
Obama’s candidacy is a fraud. He promises the new politics of reconciliation, but his wife Michelle admitted she has never been proud of America until 2007 and hates corporate America. God knows what Obama says in private moments with Wright, his wife, and former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers (who told the NY Times in 2001 that he does not regret the bombings) about the country he seeks to lead.
Barack Obama's speech left me moved and grateful, and in awe of his intellect and ability to communicate even on very sensitive matters.
I keep remembering Oprah's comment, something like, "I don't support Barack Obama because he's black, I support Barack Obama because he's brilliant!"
I have the hope that, somewhere, the real Megan is in hiding, and that an impostor has taken her place. That would be the only way to explain this exercise in hagiography from a previous model of rationality and evenhandedness.
I don't know what's more mockable here: the idea that a politician comparing his own grandmother to a racist demagogue is both honest and respectful, or the idea that we, as a country, should be "unified". "Unity", as I take that word, means the absence of difference of opinion on some set of issues. As a free-marketer, I would think you would be all for diversity of opinion on political issues, and in fact would fear a situation when public opinion was tightly focused around one viewpoint - after all, what if it was the wrong one? And how could we tell?
It is sad how easily seduced you are, Megan.
You don't bring us together by rejecting the hatred and bigotry while sending your children to listen to the racist week after week.
When this speech is given, mutatis mutandis, by some one who attended some white racist congregation for 20 years, loves its bigoted leader (though disagrees with some of his more inflammatory words), what will you say then?
I don't want him to unify us against foreigners who benefit from outsourcing, foreign companies which outsell US firms, rich people who aren't sufficiently philanthropic, corporations which make profits, CEOs who have golden parachutes, and the miser who thinks others' health care and education is not his problem.
Unifying us to thoughtfully consider, at our own leisure, the merits and demerits of our prejudices is a fine goal.
As a French Canadian who closely follows U.S. politics, I long ago gave up on hoping that an American President could be a true, open internationalist; cheezy nationalism seems to run too deep in American culture.
Yet Obama gives me an unexpected faith that the voices of American reason, humanism, peace and progress might for once outnumber and out-vote their small-minded compatriots -- to everyone's benefit. To us voteless onlookers, Obama, might even make up for the decades of crooks, actors, teenagers and chimps you've chosen to lead our world just because they pushed the right sentimental buttons with enough deeply gullible voters in enough deeply gullible states.
If America wastes this rare chance to forego jingoism and elect a smart, honourable and open minded President, I suspect I won't be the only foreigner who writes Uncle Sam off as heading towards inevitable decline and irrelevance.
We all get the politics you Americans deserve. This time I'm hoping America's better, smarter, more open voters will fight hard enough to deserve better.
Wright's rhetoric is apparently boilerplate Black Liberation Theology. Most people who attend churches where this is a fairly common thread aren't going to feel as if it's particularly remarkable, and it's not. Born in the heat of the civil rights movement in the 1960's, it expresses feelings that are real enough, and, withholding judgment on whether they're still appropriate, certainly were forty years ago.
The disingenuous screaming for "what did he know and when did he know it!?" is cynical nonsense being tactically deployed by the same old partisans who scream for effect in response to every triviality that comes to light regarding every Democratic candidate for high office. One easy way to measure this is to read The Corner, Malkin, et al... and compare that to reaction anywhere else, from left- to non-partisan. The phrase "right-wing noise machine" is no distortion of reality.
Jacques,
Keep hoping in vain. If the screeches from National Review and the above comments are any indication, they are plenty of dumbasses who are going to hate on Obama no matter what he does or says.
Well done Megan. Sometimes it is refreshing to hear some unvarnished enthusiasm. It was indeed a great speech. Of course he can't get too far ahead of the electorate--politics is after all the art of the possible.
I can understand people having other preferences or reservations about Obama, but it is sad to see the cynicism, which is truly corrosive--it's why Obama's run is so exciting to some of us, and long, long overdue.
Megan, please correct me if I'm wrong, but when has Obama ever vilified immigrants? I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with calling for our own government to at least in some way favor companies' hiring Americans as opposed to growing foreign operations, just as foreign governments work to incentivize such overseas investment by U.S. companies in their own countries. But he has time and again, in debates with HRC and elsewhere, said that immigrants should not be a scapegoat for joblessness, among inner-city blacks and elsewhere.
I hopefully don't need to point out that, yet again, Jane Galt has no idea what she's talking about.
Obama is quite a supporter of all TypesOfImmigration, even going as far as doing things like this or this: tinyurl.com/2vjlqc (compare the language here: tinyurl.com/2mfp3c ).
If The Atlantic wanted to do some real reporting, they'd ask some questions about this: tinyurl.com/2xjjrc What exactly did they discuss?
Or, they'd ask Obama why he had to speak in code when he came out for Bush's SPP, aka "NAFTA on steroids": tinyurl.com/23nfhb
Needless to say, The Atlantic has shown no interest in doing any real reporting, featuring "voices" that continually show how little they know about this topic, including our host who had never heard of "comprehensive immigration reform" until a few weeks ago.
That term - when enclosed in quotes - has over 380,000 google hits.
plenty of dumbasses who are going to hate on Obama no matter what
As Obama said, we are making progress. Jeremaiah Wright may find that difficult to acknowledge, just like the posters above. But time will leave them all behind.
RICKM wrote: they are plenty of dumbasses
Priceless.
When this speech is given, mutatis mutandis, by some one who attended some white racist congregation for 20 years, loves its bigoted leader (though disagrees with some of his more inflammatory words), what will you say then?
Several grafs of Obama's speech were devoted to explaining why these situations aren't at all parallel. Wright, after all, probably formed his political views around the time when Ross Barnett was giving his "I Love Mississippi" speech.
As a French Canadian who closely follows U.S. politics, I long ago gave up on hoping that an American President could be a true, open internationalist; cheezy nationalism seems to run too deep in American culture.
As an American who grew up in Quebec during the 90's, I felt exactly the same way about La belle province.
"As Obama said, we are making progress. Jeremaiah Wright may find that difficult to acknowledge, just like the posters above. But time will leave them all behind."
Amen to that!
"As Obama said, we are making progress. Jeremaiah Wright may find that difficult to acknowledge, just like the posters above. But time will leave them all behind."
Amen to that!
TLB write: TypesOfImmigration
What the hell is up with your style? What is with putting a bunch of random words together all the time? Are you just crazy or is your space bar an asshole? You want to know why people don't take you seriously and treat you like the nutjob you are? It's because when you write like this, you sound like a conspiracy theorist.
Barack Obama is an intelligent, charismatic, eloquent man.
He's demonstrated that again.
Doesn't mean he's a man of good character. Duke Cunningham was a damn good fighter pilot and a great guy to be around. He was still a crook, and in his own way Barack Obama is just as dishonest.
Having read his speech instead of listening to it, I guess I wasn't swayed by his delivery. I don't really care "what exactly he knew and when"... the fact is that he can't possibly have been so close to Reverend Wright for 20 years without knowing him. So Obama is apparently happy enough with the bitter, angry, racist, America-hating Wright to consider him a religious mentor and to have him perform his wedding and baptise his children. You don't do these things with someone who fundamentally disagree with on important things like hating white people.
Obama did not explain why Wright is so important to him in spite of being a racist demagogue. Nor did he justify choosing him as a religious advisor for his campaign. Nor did he even distance himself from Wright. He criticised some of the things he said, as though words just pop out of his mouth sometimes or he just says stuff without thinking. Reverend Wright is a preacher at a big, popular church. He's not just making stuff up for his sermons. He thinks about what he is saying. He means what he says.
Reading about Obama's past in Chicago and some of his activities, I can't imagine how a real liberterian would be willing to support him in any way. He's a radical leftist and an opportunistic politician. He's not going to unify anyone, he's not going to bring meaningful change, but he does bring people (unjustified) hope that he'll do something wonderful.
I don't particularly like any of our current Presidential candidates. While I lean Right more than Left, I agree with both sides on some issues and neither side on other issues. Regardless, a President Obama will be a disaster for this country. Not only that, but his image is a total fabrication.
It is sad to see a historically sensible Megan McArdle (and other intelligent people) being suckered by this guy.
Is this post title an Arrested Development reference?
I could be completely wrong here...
In general, you provide careful, methodical, fair and insightful analysis.
However, I feel that you give Obama the benefit of a lot of doubt.
I feel that he is a Rorschach that you choose to view most favorably.
I feel that your strongest argument is that you believe he will make others feel the same way you do. His mantra of hope and change will therefore be self-fulfilling.
I think that my feelings-based comment may not be persuasive.
In my opinion, I feel that Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Newt Gingrich treated many issues with more "thoughtful, brutally honest, and deeply respectful" treatment.
But your mileage may vary.
Wright, after all, probably formed his political views around the time when Ross Barnett was giving his "I Love Mississippi" speech.
Well then I look forward to my dotage, when I can rant and rave about John Kerry's dishonorable discharge coverup or Halliburton's profiteering or Bill Clinton murdering Vince Foster or hanging chads or whatever grabs my fancy at the time, chant "God damn America" for all these sins.
Raghav,
As an American who grew up in Quebec during the 90's, I felt exactly the same way about La belle province.
I knew I was walking into that one. But let's face it: our cheezy nationalism barely impacts us, much less the whole world. Canada is still one country, Quebec has after some difficulty peacefully found it's place, most of us are bilingual now and reasonably happy and prosperous.You couldn't pay me to live in the States -- well, maybe NYC for a couple of years.
In any case, our leaders have pretty much all been internationalists - of necessity. And most Canadians are nationalistic one day a year, if that. Your President impacts the world for chrissakes, not just some backwater like Quebec or Canada. He should know something about it.
I for one won't start resenting the U.S. if it justifiably tries to protect its own workers; but I do care when it encourages its corporations to treat the world like a larder for American consumption. As far as I can tell, Obama has seen first hand what that attitude does to places like Indonesia. And he didn't like it.
If only I could vote for him.
I knew I was walking into that one. But let's face it: our cheezy nationalism barely impacts us...You couldn't pay me to live in the States -- well, maybe NYC for a couple of years.
You could probably pay me to live in the fifty-first state, since metric roadsigns are easy enough to adjust to and the old Canadian bloodlines have an inexplicable tendency to produce hot women. It would get kind of boring after a while, though, since so many of the talented Canadians have already moved to the US in order to access enhanced economic opportunities.
Any others you'd like to 'walk into', be my guest. Also, based on your comments, I'm not sure you've ever even met an Albertan.
I think you’re right about that. The last time that Megan endorsed a presidential candidate, she actually went through issue by issue where she agreed or disagreed with each candidate and what she thought they would actually try to do and accomplish on each issue.
This time around it’s pretty much consisted of (a) she liked one of Obama’s economic advisors who seemed to have no influence on him and was recently chucked under the bus, (b) she doesn’t like that John McCain is a product of a military culture, (c) John McCain may have said that there is “strong evidence” of a possible link between increases in autism and vaccinations and (d) Obama’s speech today.
That’s it.
No mention of controlling federal spending, entitlement reform, health care reform, anthropogenic climate change, foreign policy, free trade or the myriad of other issues that she routinely blogs about and which she went through in 2004 when she decided to vote for Bush for the first time.
Mousy,
This is what I'm saying ... even crazy assed Texas-style Albertan nationalism barely has an impact. As for enhanced economic opportunities, there's no doubt if your purpose in life is to chase after obscene amounts of money, America's your destination. But gee shucks, I'll just settle for a decent quality of life and les filles. I'm kinda French that way. BTW, you can keep Celine Dion and her McMansions. Gives me the creeps.
Sorry for getting off topic.
You must be one of those tolerant, inclusive and sophisticated progressives we keep hearing about. Welcome to this blog. We look forward to your commentary, which is revealing and illuminating, albeit about yourself. Unlike you, we will not generalize about your countrymen.
What Kevin P said.
TH is right. Obama explicitly admonished us NOT to fear foreigners, but rather our (presumably domestic) employers.
"This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit."
Thanks for the most kind words of welcome.
And what can I say, I'm Canadian. We all generalize about ourselves.
I'll try to stick to topic from now own. Just wanted to point out that this Canadian, at any rate, has been given hope by not by Obama's rhetoric, personality or even his policies; but by his seeming calm, intelligent openness and apparent competence.
BTW, why don't we hear anything about good old boring competence in this campaign? I know it 's a boring (dare I say a Canadian) question but shouldn't it count for more when choosing a president? Shouldn't the candidates talk at least a bit about how they are going to run things and with whom? I want to know who's on the short list for state.
did you watch the same speech i did? when did he scapegoat "foreigners"?!
Sorry, I didn't see it. He started off well by describing a vision far more generous and accurate than is the norm for leftists. But he immediately wasted it by downplaying Wright's racism.
I still don't get it. I read the speech, and it didn't get me hot or make me cry. Perhaps listening to it would evoke a more emotional reaction, as Obama is supposed to be a gorgeous orator. But if we're supposed to evaluate candidates on their ideas and their positions, having too silver a tongue seems like a bug and not a feature.
The more descriptive parts of the speech were interesting. The basic discussion of black anger and white resentment was honest. I was disappointed that he threw his grandmother under the bus, the woman who raised him as a son when he was an adolescent, by equating her to Wright. Why not his father, who could charitably be called a drunk and a cad, and who seems to be by his absense largely responsible for Obama's own conflicted feelings about race?
I was not impressed by the ideological aspects. We are united across races by our problems with the health care system? The problem isn't black and white racial divides but the corporate looters, Wall Street fat cats, lobbyists, and "special interests" x 2? Replace race consciousness with class consciousness? This is a new kind of politics? And I say this as one who agrees that the Constitution was indeed "stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery."
Megan,
I would love to sell you a broken down used car. You fell for the old bait and switch.
The controversy is about Black Liberation Theology not overall racisim. I have dated enough career oriented black women to know they won't go near a BLT church. BLT is about more than race, it is about a bizarre world view that includes a "goal" of anti-achievement for the black middle class. A college education is looked down on etc.
For Obama to attend this church requires a much more detailed response then "It's time for America to deal with racisim". No. It is time to find out just what Obama found attractive about this BLT church.
If anything this episode gives us a view of Obama's bait and switch capabilities. One wonders in what manner he would pull B & S as president.
Yes, this was, in fact, the single best, most honest political speech I've ever seen. And I read most of it -- only saw a few clips from the delivery. His understanding of the reasons for white working-class anger at affirmative action was just penetrating, empathetic and clear. This is a problem that's evolved between two mutually suspicious communities, white and black, and Obama is doing his damnedest to speak to both of them. Of course, for extremists, there's always political hay to be made by attacking the mediator, as we're seeing now on this thread.
I attended a synagogue for my first 18 years at which I routinely heard bigoted anti-Christian sentiments during my rabbi's sermons. Ultimately, the congregation split over the rabbi's homophobic refusal to allow a lesbian woman to read from the torah. But if some Christian jerk came up to me and demanded that I renounce Rabbi Abramowitz, I'd tell him to go stick it. One would hope that more people in America would realize how stupid this whole ginned-up issue is.
I don't want to be unified.
I don't want to be led.
Honest? Wright didn't just start recently taking his positions due to onset of senility (and Obama's attempts to insinuate otherwise are lies). He's been this way for decades and dishonest Obama knows this.
That's all well and fine, brooksfoe, but suppose Pastor Schicklgruber is advocating making lampshades out of Rabbi Abramowitz's flock?
Wouldn't it be kinda nice to have Pastor Schicklgruber's parisioners follow some Jewish jerk's suggestion to renounce the Pastor's views?
I think you're reading too much into that comment. There is truth to shipping jobs overseas. There is truth in a competative disadvantage that American worker's have for a variety of reasons. I have him say that American's are up for the competition.
I don't think I've ever heard him say that we need to throw the treaties away.
My readings of his policies and his statements tell me that he's a prudent man who won't do anything silly like calling for a "time-out" on trade.
I also think there is nothing wrong with reviewing trade treaties made over ten years ago. Which is at the core, the only thing he really promised to do.
Oh, and you "TEH BEST POLITICAL SPEECH EVAR!!!11!" kids definitely haven't heard enough speeches.
Or, maybe you have, which makes me nervous.
Jacques Wilson: Bonjour. Je me crois que vous avez enlevee votres > d'une commercial de Molson. C'est vrai?
brooksfoe - Agree, but that will happen at about the same time we'll grow up enough to have a presidential candidate who can say "I respect the right of Americans to worship freely, but I don't attend any church because, frankly, it didn't offer me anything I couldn't get on my own."
We might be waiting awhile for either.
Wouldn't it be kinda nice to have Pastor Schicklgruber's parisioners follow some Jewish jerk's suggestion to renounce the Pastor's views? - Occam
1. By "Schicklgruber" you mean Hitler, so according to normal rules you're out of bounds.
2. But I'll let you take a Mickey. First, Obama has denounced his Pastor's views, over and over and over, and does so again, at length, in this speech. He hasn't "renounced" them, because you can't renounce what you never agreed with. I don't really see why he should have to denounce Wright's comments at all; I haven't watched much of them, but what I've seen strikes me as routine misguided ethnic-nationalist extremism (not "racism", as most people keep misstating), and the kind of thing Obama and any other responsible leader obviously eschews.
And that's the second point: Wright didn't advocate making lampshades out of anyone. He said the power structure in America is white and historically discriminates against blacks. Which is true. And in decrying this fact, he said "God damn America." Now, in a Jewish congregation, references to ongoing discrimination against Jews by the bloodthirsty goys (who, by the way, are superstitious, possibly genetically inferior, have low levels of education, and are irredeemably anti-semitic) end on a note of "God bless America," because America has done pretty well by the Jews, notably at protecting us against Christian Americans. But America hasn't done well by blacks. That, certainly, should not be a controversial point. How surprising is it that a pastor coming from that community should occasionally cuss out the US of A?
I mean, really, are we children? We can't handle hearing anyone cuss us out or make a crack at our expense? In a Dutch election you could have politicians calling their own countrymen "f*cking cheeseheads" and it'd be no problem.
AT: I still don't get it.
Other people do.
Watch it now, or watch it years from now. This one's going to go down like JFK's speech on Catholicism.
Brooks, that's some major league dissembling.
If Wright had said, "God damn the Jews, they had the Inquisition and the Holocaust coming" you'd be up in arms - don't deny it. It's precisely analogous, particularly since, according to Hugh Thomas, the slave trade was financed by Jews (starting with Portuguese conversos), lending at interest being forbidden to Christians of that time.
I'm just now reading about some "routine misguided ethnic-nationalist extremism." Last night's chapter dealt with Lebensraum. No mention of lampshades - yet.
You may be right. We'll see. I don't predict history, which helps explain why I'm not an Obama booster. It will help if he wins the nomination and the election first. Otherwise, he's like that team that had an 18-0 season then lost the Superbowl. They're from Worcester or something.
As a European citizen living in the United States I thought today's speech was inspiring, honest, and showed back bone, something Democrats have needed to do so badly - and if it is all a game, so be it. After seven VERY long years of observing American political indifference, this man is the first sign of hope, for this country and for the relationship of the United States with the rest of the world! I am in awe how he gets people excited, here and across the ocean. He is eloquent, diplomatic, articulate. What a refreshing change this is.
This is just another example of how Obama isn't different, though. He is part of a typically anti-White, anti-American BLT church. He has been for 20 years. He has been influenced by his racist preacher to the point of naming his book for one of his speeches and appointing him as an adviser to his campaign.
If you read some more about his career in Chicago, you'll see that he is just another career politician, no more honest or sincere than any other. Probably much less so than McCain.
It's not "obvious" that he eschews the views of a well respected pastor at his church who he practically considers family. You don't choose your actual family, but you do choose your church, your pastor, and your adopted family. He didn't grow up in that church, he joined it specifically because of Rev. Wright as an adult.
The sad thing is how taken in so many people seem to be, calling him brilliant and different and a new hope, etc... His policies are very similar to Clinton's and in many ways typical Leftist Democrat. They are quite anti-Libertarian.
I expect Democrats to support him, but I'm baffled by Libertarians who do so. As a moderately conservative with libertarian tendencies, I find the thought of him being President to be terrifying. McCain isn't even that good, but he'd be better.
And yes, I did read his speech and yes, I have read his issues on his website.
I love you Occam. You just Godwinned twice in one thread.
GENIUS!
Occam, you are way, way into Godwin's Law territory here. And as usual, that territory is full of poor analogies.
In fact, if Wright had said that, I wouldn't be "up in arms," because, as a Jew in the US, I don't really feel threatened by black anti-semitism. It's the anti-semitism of the majority culture that's threatening. For the same reason, I'm not really that interested in Farrakhan. He leads a tiny cult, and I don't care about his bizarre beliefs or demand that people denounce him.
Most of the people with bizarre, threatening views in the US are minor, fringe figures. Except for people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, this Hagee guy, Tim LaHaye, and arguably Bill Donovan (though he too seems to be one of those ultimately hapless guys who unsuccessfully tries to rally a disintegrating bloc through extremist showboating).
What I find the most objectionable of all is the resentment and anger of the majority culture when it hears itself maligned by someone in the minority culture. Because that is the resentment-based extremist majority nationalism of the Black Hundreds or your friend Schicklgruber. For a Jew, the Cossack isn't Wright. The Cossack is that white dude saying, "Whaddayoo, hate America? Hate white people?" He's the scary guy; he's the one who's ultimately going to be forcing you to spit on a magen david and swear fealty to the Tsar on a Christian Bible.
Christiane:
Yikes! Did the Germans take over the place again?
Anyway, can we agree that we shall each merely express our preferences for political outcomes in each other's countries and not imply that they must vote a certain way or else their national character, honor, and intelligence are forfeit?
Earnest Iconoclast: One does not measure a person by one aspect - although Wright's speeches were incendiary, he is also reputed to have done lots of charity work, built the community, emphasized self-reliance, etc. I have family members who are genuinely nice, generous, giving people who are also anti-semetic. Many people do - which is why Obama's speech resonated.
BTW, perhaps a non-sequitor, but speaking of Liberterianism, didn't Ron Paul basically say the same thing about 9/11 (albeit much more tactfully)? That is, that terrorists don't hate us because of our freedoms - they hate us because of our imperialist policies? He was also right.
Obama made a good psychological point that people who experience shame may relieve it by demonizing others. Black anger in Chicago may have been celebrated for awhile; Hubert, my Irish-Americn grandfather, was mugged for his WWI bonus money as he was passing through there. This anger can be a kind of narcissistic manipulation. As an example of narcissistic manipulation, Jack Kerouac wrote of riding on a bus across America and a 'young virgin started talking to me, and I didn't talk to her for 2 hours until I had her and then I began to tell her about herself,' and she was eager to yield herself to him. In his method, he made himself unapproachable until her neediness and his grandness was accepted. This is how the accused 'racist' is to deal with the anger instutionalized in the black community and celebrated by Jeremiah Wright. It is, however, not the way to racial healing just as stealing from my grandfather probably primarily led to more shame.
Obama's speech was indeed brilliant and exhibited a level of intellectual depth not usually seen in politics.
And notice the critics...Limbaugh...Hannity...Gingrich...they all want to steal our hope. Keep in mind these people would have all criticized Martin Luther King mercilessly if they had been on the air during that time. These people would have criticized mercilessly people like JFK, RFK, FDR, if they could have...
And as for Hillary, she goes along with them if it serves her political career. I wonder how many Clinton aides have been working the phones today to try to get the media to not play up Obama's speech as well as it deserves.
I'm not afraid of black racism nor am I afraid of Wright and his church. I don't feel threatened by them. I just don't want a President who is influenced by someone like that. I also find his ability to lie smoothly and convincingly to be terrifying. He tells everyone exactly what they want to hear. I've read his policies and they are a mixed bag of reducing taxes and spending money on more and more programs. And mandating equality (yeah, that works... why didn't anybody think of that before?). And magical wand-waving to make government intervention somehow able to improve existing systems.
The more I learn of Obama's past in Chicago, the less different he seems. He's a devious, sneaky politician.
Martin Luther King didn't preach hate for Whitey or the evil of government conspiracies.
Jacques,
You couldn't pay me to let you in.
Maybe you could talk him into moving to Quebec and running for office there. Vote for him all you want in those circumstances!
"But what if he said bad things about jews?"
Well actually, Wright is a vicious anti-zionist, but hating Israel is Super Cool on the Left. Plus, Zionism is racism, so anti-zionism is anti-racism. Those are Anti-Racist(tm) Katyusha's, Anti-Racist(tm) bricks through the synagogue window, and Anti-Racist(tm) boots to Chaim Goldfarb's skull.
I am devastatingly disappointed in Megan. Sullivan is the emotional schoolgirl on this website, while Megan provides cool, thoughtful, intelligent analysis. I guess DC really does rot your brain, as does hanging around with the communist youth front of Yglesias et. al.
If you want to give a conciliatory speech on race, give a conciliatory speech on race! Obama instead decided to use the leftist trope that being afraid of groups of young black men is evidence of deep seated racism as he threw his dead grandmother - the woman who raised him while his mother was off being irresponsible - under the bus. Nearly everyone is right to be afraid of groups of young black men, because they are groups of young men and are hence a boiling cauldron of testosterone and adrenalin with a significant risk of violence and criminality. 6 men between 14 and 30 hanging around on a corner or in a subway station - unless impeccably dressed in suits without a detail out of place - need to be treated as a threat by anyone.
This speech is evidence of the Angels sitting on Barack's shoulders if you were already a convert of the Obamessiah. However, it falls flat for those whom it needed to convince. For someone who went to church so much, Obama never learned the dangers of preaching to the choir. Yet another reason why Wright and Trinity were a deeply flawed choice!
I also find his ability to lie smoothly and convincingly to be terrifying.
You are extremely persuasive in one regard:
You are definitely terrified.
"As a European citizen" - Yikes! Did the Germans take over the place again? -- AT
Christiane is entitled to say anything whatsoever about American politics. If it were me, I would begin by noting that AT's above comment evidences both ignorance about Europe and a streak of bigotry. And that these attitudes, and the unawareness of Americans like AT that they possess them, are among the things that have rendered Americans less than popular abroad in recent years.
I agree, it was a good speech. But he still should have chosen a church more in line with Martin Luther King, Jr.
I really don't think it's unreasonable for me to say so. I mean, we celebrate MLK Day for a reason. We will never celebrate Jeremiah Wright Day, nor will we celebrate anyone like him. It is neither possible, nor desirable.
Nearly everyone is right to be afraid of groups of young black men
followed by
However, it falls flat for those whom it needed to convince.
You're going to need a lot more than a speech, Hey.
Again: if I'd had one Christian grandmother, and she had occasionally said things like "There are so many Jewish bankers, and they use it to influence politics," I would have been deeply upset. Even though the statement is perfectly true, it's still a dangerous expression of racialized sentiment. And I would tell her, "Grandma, you can't say things like that." But God knows I wouldn't disown her.
This is what Obama's talking about. He's a black man, and his grandmother is saying she's afraid of black men. Does she mean she's afraid of him? Does she not think of him as black? Can't she see the position she's putting him in? Naturally, he's going to tell her he can't agree with that kind of racial stereotyping. But he's not going to disown her. She's his grandmother. If you listened to that speech and thought he "threw her under the bus", you need to listen more carefully in the future and try to understand what people are actually saying.
Funny how people like "Hey" feel like they are the ones that Obama needed to convince. No, you're not. If you believe that Obama is a stealth Black Panther because his pastor sometimes rants about white people, you weren't going to vote for Obama anyway.
In fact, I would say that continued outrage over statements that Obama didn't make and doesn't agree with, makes you something of a hack.
I want him to unify us for some better purpose than keeping the world out. And it makes me mad that he doesn't, because I feel like if anyone could, it would be him.
Don't worry, he will disappoint you just like all the others. It's what Presidents do.
But there's the issue here. Nobody "heard" that in the speech; some cynic realized it might be a good meme and threw it up against the wall to see if it would stick. Now it's being repeated endlessly in the hope that it and other similar diversions can become the main narrative in the conversation about this speech. It's this season's version of "Swiftboating."
"We can't handle hearing anyone cuss us out or make a crack at our expense?"
I've never seen so many pathetic defenses of racism. It's interesting how racism goes from the worst sin one can commit to something slightly amusing we should just live with depending on the accused.
AemJeff: you're right. But I tentatively think that what the Obama campaign has been showing so far is that if you very patiently stay above these kinds of smear jobs, and respond to them directly but with amused ridicule, then they slip and fade.
I mean, yeah: Obama insulted his white grandmother. Right. He came out on national TV and insulted his own grandmother. Does this make any kind of sense? Anybody who's been hearing that from talk radio or other sensationalist "news" outlets needs to stop, think for a second, and then go listen to what the man said.
mj: in what sense is the statement "God damn America" racist?
You seem to me to be confused.
"if I'd had one Christian grandmother, and she had occasionally said things like "There are so many Jewish bankers, and they use it to influence politics," I would have been deeply upset."
But that's not even close to what Wright has said. It would be more comparable if you had a Christian grandmother that regularly claimed that 'those Jews really made up the Holocaust as an excuse to take over Israel'. Would you, under those circumstances, turn to her as a spiritual advisor?
I think that a lot of us are waiting for something important from this guy, and we will be sad about it not happening. All the unity, and feel good speeches from Obama are nice and all.
But eventually you have to stand for something.
How can a savvy politician not realize that aligning himself with a firebrand religious leader won't eventually come back and bite him? Being within that congregation was probably instrumental in getting him elected at the local level... He just didn't think it would bite him at the national level, and he was an idiot for thinking so. If he had changed churches before his going to congress a few years ago, this wouldn't have been an issue at all.
But he didn't. Maybe that shows that he is not as cynical a politician as I think he is, or it shows a stunning failure to grasp how such things would be viewed by a national audience. Maybe he IS very loyal to his pastor even if he thinks his pastor wrong. If that is the case, he certainly allows too much from his pastor. I HAVE had words with pastors on my way out of their congregations when I thought they were allowing their personal views on things to cloud their need to preach to the existance of their whole congregation. I usually had a biblical reference to go with it. Your preacher is, after all, another f'd up human being just like you, and you fail in your responsibility to them as a fellow believer if you don't correct them when you feel it's needed.
The thing is, Obama would have had to have done that years ago. That he didn't either shows that he was part of the congregation for it's connections and political clout, and didn't care what was being preached.
Or he accepts what is being preached, either agreeing on face, or not DISAGREEING.
ALSO? Family and his grandmother, ARE DIFFERENT than who you know at church. You can't change your family. You can stop talking to them if their beliefs are totally opposite yours, and people often do this, but they are still family. Church people are a step outside family even when you are very close to them. If they do something that you are really against, you have to tell them you don't agree, and then break with them. Otherwise you are enabling them.
Coming full circle, Obama was part of a very racist congregation for 20 years. He either agrees with what they are saying, or worse he doesn't care, but any change or distance made would have had to be years ago. If he makes a change now, he is just an opportunist.
Just like when he tries to explain about a racist pastor, and ends up making it a speech about something else entirely. He give it that suave political edge, but does he stand for anything? Is he willing to just say he is wrong, and take his lumps for being wrong?
mj, the problem with your argument is that you fail to distinguish between two very different things. If your ancestors were those with chains around their necks, a lingering, angry reaction is not comparable to the feelings expressed by the descendants of the owners of the chains. If you can't see that, or if you think that in 2008 everything is just hunky-dory for blacks (even despite a viable black candidate for the highest office in the land) then I think you have either a cynical or a benighted view of the world.
brooksfoe, I think one the interesting things about Obama is the competence with which he deals with sort of attack. Let's see if he's good enough to survive.
No, Ann. Nothing Wright has said is comparable to "those Jews really made up the Holocaust". You know why? Because America, as such -- white America, anyway -- has never experienced a Holocaust. The insult becomes qualitatively different when it refers to a monumental trauma which actually happened to you or your people. "I know you had your wife killed" is just insulting and bizarre if your wife is still alive; but if someone really did kill your wife, then it's a whole different category of hateful.
9/11 was not the Holocaust. AIDS is a holocaust, but it is a holocaust whose greatest victims are Africans and gay men. It is infuriating, wrongheaded and damaging to public health for Wright to repeat the crazy myth that HIV was invented by the CIA to kill black people; but the equivalent of "those Jews really made up the Holocaust" would be "the Africans are responsible for HIV" or "gays are responsible for HIV" -- both of which, of course, are things that people actually do say, without being hounded out of public life. Because those are acceptable majority prejudices.
not to sidetrack, though:
"The others used their time to raise doubts about Obama's fealty to Israel. "Senator Obama has said that he commits in his first year as president to meeting with President Ahmadinejad of Iran," Lewis said. McCain, Eagleburger added, "will not talk with the Syrians, will not talk with the Iranians, will not talk with Hamas and Hezbollah. . . . He isn't going to push the Israelis."
"The others"= "Representing John McCain: former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger. Representing Hillary Clinton: former White House official Ann Lewis."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702440.html
"to raise doubts about Obama's fealty to Israel"
fe·al·ty (fl-t)
n. pl. fe·al·ties
1.
a. The fidelity owed by a vassal to his feudal lord.
b. The oath of such fidelity.
2. Faithfulness; allegiance. See Synonyms at fidelity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English fealtye, from Old French fealte, from Latin fidlits, faithfulness, from fidlis, faithful, from fids, faith; see bheidh- in Indo-European roots.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
If Dana Milbank was as honest, and forthcoming, as Rev. Wright, the idea of 'presstitute' might be a non-starter..
Heaven forfend that Wright has a few ideas that might make the Polity blink and rub the sleep from their eyes.
Yeah, it's a good speech. Pretty, pretty, pretty good. It reminded me a lot of the John Kerry's "reporting to duty" speech. I think Obama is almost as good a presidential candidate as John Kerry was.
BTW, Megan, you and your faux-libertarian friends prefer to advocate for high levels of immigration from the point of view of immigrants, and not as something beneficial to the American interest. You argue it is our moral obligation to open our borders in order to help the world's poor.
Yep, wouldn't be an MM thread without MEH posting unprompted, off-topic complaints about Israel or central bankers.
What the hell are people smoking? This speech wasn't delivered out of context. He was responding to the fact that people started to pay attention to his close association with a BLT church. I'm not sure there is a white / Christian equivalent, but it would sink McCain or Hillary if they had the equivalent affiliations.
And then to segue into the normal left-wing stuff. "Mill workers" ... etc.
But I do think he makes a point - we have to keep out those Canucks. Takin' our job's! Full cavity searches for them when they cross the border and let's back out of NAFTA right away; let's make a nice big moat at the border.
""the Africans are responsible for HIV" or "gays are responsible for HIV" -- both of which, of course, are things that people actually do say, without being hounded out of public life."
Brooksfoe -
You have a point that in my example, the 'grandmother' was accusing the victims of being responsible, whereas in the AIDS accusation, Wright wasn't accusing the victims. On 9-11, it isn't the equivalent of the Holocaust, but Wright said that the US asked for it and deserved it. On AIDs, he's accusing whites of deliberate mass murder.
Regarding your comment above, saying that 'the Africans' or gays are partially responsible for the transmission of a disease because they've engaged in behavior that makes them more likely to get it is very, very, very different from saying that it was deliberately invented and spread in order to kill entire groups of people. Your comparison is much farther off than mine was.
AT,
I hear ya, it really is Funny.
The point is simple: The creation of Fiat Currency is a powerful tool, like Fire.
Used properly, it, theoretically, at least, can be put to fine service. Problem is, that, throughout our History with it, it has burned far too many in comparison to the few that it has warmed.
Our Ignorance of this fact, seemingly acquired wholesale, is costing us our Liberty, at retail prices.
The Silver & Gold that made our small denomination currency was to aid the vast majority from the vicissitudes of Financial Market mechanics, and provide a check, through reserve requirements, on the creation of Liabilities.
Today, it's a different story..
This current schema needs unending series of Greater Fools to keep from Imploding, I think it may be time, for more of us, to start thinking about what's next..
It was a very effective speech by all accounts. It fooled the people it needed to fool.
Obama is a charlatan the likes of which I have not seen in my lifetime. It is shocking how even intelligent and thoughtful people like Megan McArdle are taken in by it, though.
Speaking as a middle aged, middle class white male, the speech was fine and I can live with Wright's rhetoric and opinions. The truly frightening thing about this was the unanimity and response to Wright's comments in the church. The agreement and enthusiasm with which the congregation responded to Wright's sermons shocked me. It reminded me of the time I stood in bafflement when crowds of blacks cheered OJ Simpsons acquital. I think this will considered one of the worst moments, along with Simpson's acquital, in black-white relationships. It won't get any press but people will quietly remember the hooping and hollering that accompanied God Damn America, just like they quietly remember the high-fives that accompanied Simpson's acquital of the brutal murder of the mother of his children.
Obama seems no better or worse than any other politician and I don't care about him any more than I care about Hillary or McCain. What I saw in the sermons was a frightening look into black culture and thought that does not bode well for the future success of blacks in the US.
Obama can't change that. He is riding a tiger he can't control.
How in the heck does anyone believe that Obama is going to unite people? He's got a hard left agenda... do they think that conservatives and the Right will suddenly see the error of their ways and adopt his agenda? Or do they believe that he'll compromise with the Right and meet them in the middle? I seriously doubt that his supporters on the Left are excited because they think he'll compromise.
If McCain or Clinton went to a church where the pastor preached that the presence of blacks in society was causing high crime and poverty and pointed out that the numbers of blacks who are poor and in prison proved his point, he or she would be a pariah and would not be electable, period.
Here's Obama on Don Imus:
And here's Obama on Rev. Wright:
So his pastor who makes repeatedly racist and anti-American comments is okay because he's part of the black community and has some good qualities, too. His white grandmother is okay because, well, she's his grandmother. But Don Imus isn't okay because . . . he's white, I guess.
Oh, and Obama is the one who made the comparison between his grandmother and Rev. Wright. And his defenders are emphasizing the comparison... it's not out of line to see that his grandmother has been lumped together with Wright, even if that's not what he intended.
AemJeff:
First, many of my ancestors had chains around their necks, and I am not a descendant of anyone who held the chains you limit your concern to.
Second, the only common element between those specific chains and modern whites is skin color. People who suffer from discrimination have every right to be pissed at those perpetrating the act. They do not have the right to transfer those sins to others who share superficial traits.
Third, you really expect anyone to accept your "things are imperfect for blacks so we have to accept racism" theorem? Is this a joke?
Fourth, How did you get from "racism is bad" to "everyone who believes racism is bad believes everything is "hunky dory" for blacks"? If this type of leap is required to convince yourself leftist race theories are correct I'm perfectly comfortable laying this choice in front of the public. Why don't you come back after you've spent some time trying to understand why that leap came so naturally.
mj: in what sense is the statement "God damn America" racist?
You seem to me to be confused.Posted by brooksfoe
Really? Among other statements, Wright blamed an assortment of world ills on "white arrogance".
Why are you defending racism?
How does your personal history have anything to do with the distinction I was making?
"Racism," broadly defined, is pernicious, but not exactly the same thing as the specific institutionalized, white on black oppression which occurred in this country starting with, but not ending with slavery; and which, although mitigated as a matter of institutional evil, certainly still has an effect on the lives of blacks in this country to this day.
Your charge of "leftist race theory" directed at me is horse manure. The history of minority, and specifically black oppression in this country is an obvious, extremely well documented thing. Implying that recognition of something as obviously true as that is ideologically determined is silly and rhetorically weak. Most of the rest of your post is based on fallacious interpretation of what I initially said.
Did the NYT offer you a column or something?
backwater like Quebec or Canada
Non non non! Canada n'est pas un water de bacque!
And neither is Quebec.
"How does your personal history have anything to do with the distinction I was making?"
You claimed Wright deserves a different standard of judgement because some of his ancestors "had chains around their necks". You also attempted to pass guilt to modern whites as "descendents" of the perpetrators. When I point out that Wright's circumstance is hardly unique and your pathetic attempt at passing guilt is inaccurate you in turn disclaim your own assertion? Do personal histories matter or not? Obviously I understand you want them to matter only when the benefit your argument, but pretty much everyone else sees how inappropriate that is.
The rest of your drivel is another logical misstep. Instead of simply admitting your previous assertion that anyone believing Wright's racism is inappropriate also believes "everything is just hunky dory for blacks" is a complete strawman you create another logical fallacy to defend the first. This time you claim historical white on black racism is real and pernicious, as if anyone were disputing that or it were relvant to the specific issues under discussion.
You probably get away with such sloppy thinking in the church choir, but don't expect the rest of us to accept it.
How about building lots of really big pyramids? That's a better purpose, no? They would look cool, and we'd be "unified" (which I'm told is the important thing).
Among other statements, Wright blamed an assortment of world ills on "white arrogance".
And you're saying whites are never arrogant, or that such arrogance has never had any negative consequences?
Again: where does Wright's racism come in here? I'm waiting.
Your difficulties may be tied to your failure to distinguish between "racially divisive" and "racist". Wright's comments were certainly racially divisive. But I haven't seen anything he said that was "racist". And, of course, your comments on this thread are also racially divisive, as are the attacks on Obama for attending Wright's church.
I was not swayed by his speech, but I don't think he was insincere either. I was struck by how confused this man seems to be. He is truly African-American, and not a descendant of slaves. He raised by white relatives. He received an Ivy League education. He had the world on a string.
Yet clearly Rev. Wright's preaching had (and has) strong appeal to him. He joined a church that demonizes the family and culture that raised him, the society that's made him ridiculously wealthy, and the polity that is strongly considering him for president. This church provides something he wants to pass on to his children. The contradiction is something he's clearly struggling with and has yet to resolve internally. I wish him well.
But I don't want him as president.
I'll try to be as explicit as possible:
Using the same word to describe institutionalized abuse against a group of people, and the reaction of the abused toward members of the class of people associated with perpetrating that abuse is conflating a pair of things which ought not to be mistaken for each other. Issues of "guilt" aside, so-called black "racism" is not the same thing as so-called white "racism." Black "racism" may not be a good thing, but its nature is a great deal more excusable than white "racism" simply because in this instance blacks are the victims of a long history of oppression at the hands of whites, while the reverse is not generally the case.
If you want to take offense at the words of Reverend Wright and his peers, you're free to do so. If you describe your offense in terms that are easily confused with Jim Crow, then you should be called out on the carpet for at best sloppy usage, and more likely an Orwellian attempt at doublespeak.
brooksfoe, I've often disagreed with your position on things, but to say there is no evidence of racism in anything that Wright has been quoted as saying is truly baffling.
"Just wanted to point out that this Canadian, at any rate, has been given hope by not by Obama's rhetoric, personality or even his policies; but by his seeming calm, intelligent openness and apparent competence."
Jacques, as a (western) Canadian my big concern in the US election is protectionism/NAFTA, and I certainly see no reason for hope in any of Obama's rhetoric on that front. Likewise, his anti-corporate tendencies and apparent desire to emulate Canada's health care system also give me pause. He may or may not be good for the States, but I see no reason for optimism that he would be particulalrly good for Canada.
And doesn't Quebec have two very successful political parties whose entire reason for existence is "cheesy nationalism"?
Regarding your comment above, saying that 'the Africans' or gays are partially responsible for the transmission of a disease because they've engaged in behavior that makes them more likely to get it is very, very, very different from saying that it was deliberately invented and spread in order to kill entire groups of people. Your comparison is much farther off than mine was.
Ann, you're still comparing the wrong parts of the equations. As I said, saying that Africans or gays are to blame for AIDS is analogous to saying that Jews were responsible for the Holocaust. "The CIA invented HIV to kill blacks" is more closely analogous to "the government is has a secret plant to build a giant highway to bring up Mexicans and take away all our jobs", or "the ATF is part of a secret liberal-UN conspiracy to take over America".
"Among other statements, Wright blamed an assortment of world ills on "white arrogance".
And you're saying whites are never arrogant, or that such arrogance has never had any negative consequences?"
Wow, more excuses for racism. Is Wright saying some whites are arrogant some of the time? If so, it's a statement so devoid of information as to be meaningless. No, he's saying something quite different. Let's analyze this: If I said America's economic ills are due to "black laziness" would you conclude there was nothing meaningful about this statement because it is undeniably true that some blacks are lazy some of the time. Or would you, as I, deem this evidence of racism?
Racially divisive in your usage is a meaningless term.
Regarding your "I'm waiting" comment: The goal is not to convince you, a racism enabler. So don't kid yourself that you are the arbiter of anything. The goal is to make explicit the beliefs required to arrive at the conclusions you support. Your comments have been illuminating to say the least.
AemJeff:
My position is that Wright's racism is inappropriate, and it's disappointing to see Obama downplay and accept it. You responded in part that "if you think that in 2008 everything is just hunky-dory for blacks (even despite a viable black candidate for the highest office in the land) then I think you have either a cynical or a benighted view of the world."
You obviously believe your statement relates to mine since you intended it as a rebuttal. Now you want to claim the relationship doesn't exist? Why did you write it? Let's face facts: you were trying to imply anyone disagreeing with your concusion is one of those kooks who deny racism. This only works when everyone agrees with your conclusions.
It seems that the problem with The Reverend Wright is that his speeches seem very similar to the rantings of the KKK. They just reverse the colors in their rantings.
Extremism is extremism, regardless of the side of the pendulum that it is on.
The far left is just as wrong as the far right.
mj, there was an “or” in the sentence you quoted. As I see it, to justify an equivalence between the points of view I’ve been at pains to define and distinguish here, you need either to believe that there is no real distinction, or that there no longer a need to make the distinction. If you read that sentence I think you’ll see that that’s how it parses.
Or you can take the widely held view that being against white racism does not require excusing black racism.
Really? What about Muslim anti-Semitism? Some proportion of Muslims are perfectly prepared to resort to violence to express their anti-Semitism (e.g., the shooters at LAX, and in Seattle). A minority can pose a serious threat, and in addition might someday turn into a majority. Recall that Islam started as a tiny cult. So did Bolshevism, Fascism, Nazism, and Ba’athism, to name a few.
Furthermore, the solipsism of your perspective is breath-taking. “If it doesn’t affect me, then it’s not a problem.” Can’t you see that the obverse side of that coin is “So what? It only affects the Jews.” Someone who hates America – as Wright by his own words does – undermines the society that is protecting …the Jews, such as yourself. So self-interest alone (I guess patriotism is out of the question) would suggest that you identify your interests with those of the nation as a whole, and reject someone who says “God damn America,” and also to reject someone who looks to that person for guidance. Note that by holding your interests separate from those of the nation as a whole you invite the nation to return the favor.
Every movement with bizarre, threatening views starts out with minor, fringe figures. The US has largely nipped them in the bud – so far. And that’s where we came in. This one needs to be nipped in the bud. Electing a President who had no problem with this crap until daylight shone on the problem is not on.
Your intellectual (shall I say) “flexibility” continues to astound. How is America’s lack of a holocaust relevant? You seem almost wistful.
You’re defining everything in terms of being a Jew. In essence, your position seems to be “Bad for the Jews is bad, anything else is OK.” Wright’s words “chickens coming home to roost” applied to the US were the sentiments if not the words another fiery orator (as well as the Cossacks) applied to the Jews. I’ll reiterate my earlier point: suppose Wright had said, “The Jews had it coming, it was chickens coming home to roost” to whoops and hollers of delight from the congregation of 8000. Would you vote for one of his congregants?
And btw, bugger Godwin. The parallel is exact.
The bottom line: it is imperative that we stamp out racism at every level, every time it raises its head. No excuses, no prevarication, no dissembling. Mighty oaks from tiny acorns grow, and all that.
Truly, white racism is exactly the same as black racism. A jew who distrusted Germans in 1946 is exactly as bad as a German who distrusted Jews in 1946.
Thank you, Laurens.
I still haven't seen a single comment from Rev. Wright that was actually racist.
Occam: The view that the attacks of 9/11 represented "chickens coming home to roost" is perfectly defensible. The US was attacked on 9/11 by an organization it had funded, sponsored and trained. I've never heard anyone argue that the author of "Blowback" was racist. You may consider this view wrong, extremist, or unpatriotic, but it requires bizarre ideological contortions to imagine it to be racist.
Brooks, I really appreciate your tendentiousness. It wouldn't be an MM comment thread without you deliberately missing the point of opposing comments.
Saying that since Obama didn't convince me, I'm just a hater who doesn't matter misses the entire point of running for election - you need to convince people to like you. Reassuring people who had already declared their love for you can help, but isn't all that useful when you're trying to get to a plurality of the entire country. As such, I'm just a wee bit better of a judge than your or Megan are.
The best comments so far have come from people saying "I agree with Rev. Wright about America, and Obama's speech did a great job". The very definition of a self-refuting statement.
If I were to say that any speech convinced me of the need for free markets, or to take an exceptionally aggressive foreign policy, it would be idiocy of the first order. Likewise, people who never really saw a problem with Rev. Wright in the first place (brooks, Laurens, etc) can't discuss the quality or effectiveness of a speech aimed to distance the candidate from the Rev and to perform a subtle non-denunciation denunciation of his beliefs. Try and display a shred of integrity and honesty (I know, a futile request).
Brooks, what exactly would it take for you to consider a comment racist?
Suppose that instead of Jeremiah Wright it had been Pat Robertson that had referred to "rich white people" as pulling the strings in this country. Whom would you take him to be referring to?
Mike Huckabee via David Freddoso:
Trying that link again as plaintext:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MThlZDRjZTBmM2UyNDcxZDM0MzhlMGI1MzRkN2RjZmU=
Occam, are you seriously telling me you don't think that rich white people pull the strings in this country? Seriously?
"White people are ice people" is a racist statement, in the classic sense of the term. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to hear that Wright had made some racist statements. But what's surprising to me, here, is that in all these long disquisitions about Wright's racism, you guys seem to be having a really hard time coming up with anything he's said that's actually racist. I'm not saying I like the guy or agree with his brand of critique; the CIA-HIV thing is really criminally stupid. But you're accusing him of "racism", and you can't seem to make your case.
"And I'd get on a pulpit and pass that chip on to thousands of others who never experienced those things, to keep the resentment alive in perpetuity. Otherwise they might forgive, forget, and move on with their lives."
There, finished that for ya.
Some Reverend Wright quotes:
There's more in video form and excerpts from church bulletins if you Google around. Rev. Wright and his crazy sermons were apparently pretty normal for his church.
He's pretty crazy... racism isn't his biggest problem. It's his paranoid ravings against whitey and the US gummint. It sure makes me want to embrace my black brothers to be told that I'm oppressing minorities, creating deadly diseases, spreading oppression and war and death throughout the world, etc...
To be fair, I won't blame black people in general for the ravings of one man. He is the only one responsible for his words.
I don't assume that Barack Obama holds the same views as Rev. Wright. I am bothered by the fact that Barack Obama apparently has a great deal of respect for Rev. Wright, considers him a mentor and advisor, and is obviously influenced by him.
Hey: Nothing that Obama could have said, would have convinced you to vote for him. So by your own logic, you should refrain from commenting on his speech as well. Or, we could agree that everyone can have an opinion on the speech.
Occam's Beard: Could you imagine why some black people might be angry about some things? Hint: Maybe some black people who lived in the 1950s and 60s in the South?
If you can't, are you ready to argue that the current inferior position of the black community in the US is entirely their own fault?
Of course rich white people pull the strings in this country, but let me spell it out for you: if Pat Robertson ranted about rich white people pulling the strings in this country, you'd be howling about anti-Semitism, because you'd take it as code. (And let's face it, given that Wright's church gave Farrakhan an award, Wright may have meant it as code too.)
The point is that you give Wright a skip simply and solely because he's black. Period. If a white minister said exactly the same thing, you'd want his head on a pike. And any white candidate who even admitted knowing such a minister - much less was one of his congregants for a generation - would be toast.
That's the point.
Newsflash: anyone who lived in the South and was and was, say, 10 in 1960 is pushing retirement age pretty hard. Today's twenty- and thirty-somethings don't get to use the 50s as an excuse.
Nice straw man, slipping in the "entirely." Let me turn it around on you: are you prepared to say that the black community is entirely blameless for their currently inferior position?
Again, back to the point. Wright should jettison the race hucksterism and stop cultivating victimhood, the unmistakable warble of the loser.
Instead he should be exhorting the flock to work hard, take care of themselves and their families, to be good citizens, and save the ringing denunciations for gangsta culture.
Everyone who makes excuses for Wright's kind of rubbish bears some responsibility for holding blacks down. Nurturing grievances from back when is not a recipe for success.
Wow what a load of self-righteousness. You've achieved the right to deliver this lecture how, exactly?
I don't know you, obviously, but I'm guessing you're not black; nor am I. I was quite a bit younger than 10 in 1960 and I remember an awful lot of obvious racism living in the DC suburbs. Bringing twenty- and thirty-somethings into the discussion wass a bit of a non sequitur given that it has been about Obama and Wright; but, nonetheless their fathers and grandfathers have a plenty to remember. Even assuming that the sons have experienced no meaningful racism in their lives - an obviously risible assumption - don't you think that some of the resentment will have trickled down, and don't you think they have some right to that?
No, I don't.
And if they're smart, they won't think so either. Nurturing grievances is a loser's game, as is making excuses for those indulging themselves in it.
A healthier perspective is to recognize that what's done is done, pull up your socks, move on, and build a better life for yourself. Wallowing in self-pity and resentment and victimhood guarantees continuing failure (see, e.g., the Palestinians vs. the Israelis), and is maladaptive.
Put it another way: whom are the angry blacks and Palestinians hurting more, the focus of their resentment - or themselves?
But let's face it: our cheezy nationalism barely impacts us, much less the whole world.
Jacques, you're living in a dream world. Compare the relative size and economic importance of Montreal and Toronto in 1976, versus today. You'll see the tremendous economic cost of Quebec's ethnic nationalism.
You're answering a moral question with a pragamtic argument. There's no doubt that the above is true. That fact doesn't speak to whether they have a right to that point of view or whether the point of view is understandable.
If Obama is supposed to bring Hope and Change, why does he attend a church where the message is stuck in the past? I wouldn't be surprised by Al Sharpton being buddies with Wright, I'm just "surprised" that someone like Obama who is supposedly going to bring a fresh new honesty to politics is going to a church that is more of the same.
OK, let me address your moral point first. (I don't subscribe to that distinction or characterization, but let that pass). Only someone who experienced injustice firsthand has any right to feel aggrieved. Sins of the father and all that. People at greater remove might feel aggrieved, and it's understandable that they might, but they have no right to do so.
I would argue, however, that my point is a more moral one than the one being defended, which boils down to extending to bystanders the right to be petulant over something that happened to someone else.
While I'm a straight-up atheist, I'm echoing a philosopher who advocated exactly the course of action I'm recommending here. Forgiving others' transgressions is not only the right thing to do, it's the smart thing as well. It's sound advice on how to live, and for my money, there's nothing more moral than that.
Only someone who experienced injustice firsthand has any right to feel aggrieved
You mean someone like Rev. Wright?
I don't know Wright's history, but let's assume, yes.
Does he have the right to spread the contagion to the young? Is a sermon about catharsis for the speaker, or the moral benefit of the audience?
In my foolish, naive way, I thought a pastor's imprecations were supposed to be...uh...pastoral, and not a form of public self-therapy. To exhort the congregation to live better lives, not to become race warriors.
But that's just me.
if Pat Robertson ranted about rich white people pulling the strings in this country, you'd be howling about anti-Semitism, because you'd take it as code. - Occam
What are you talking about? If Pat Robertson said "Rich white people pull the strings in this country" I'd think he had somehow transformed into Mike Huckabee or some other evangelical populist. There's no code that reads as "Jews" in that line.
You don't seem to have your dialects very clear. But more important, you're confused about the whole point: when people speak in code, who they are is precisely part of the message. It means one thing for a Nazi to say "most of western Poland was historically part of Germany" and something else for a British historian to note, neutrally, that historically, most of western Poland was part of Germany. Do you see?
Having read through all the quotes you put up, Earnest Iconoclast, I see a lot of stuff that's quite wrong, a lot that's economically illiterate, and a lot of stuff that, if you accepted it as your worldview, would seriously hamper your ability to participate responsibly and effectively in society. I see nothing "racist" and nothing advocating or celebrating violence -- in stark contrast to, say, John Hagee, a "pastor" who celebrates a vision of righteous, worldwide slaughter in which one will be massacred and damned or victorious depending on which religion one belongs to, and who welcomes the prospect of the destruction of the Jewish, Arab and Russian peoples.
Basically you're saying that Rev. Wright's political views, however effective they may have proven at mobilizing his community for political and social action, are in the long run destructive of the welfare of the black community. So you agree with Barack Obama.
But let's take one more look at something Rev. Wright said that EI finds offensive:
"No black man will ever be considered for president."
Do we think Rev. Wright is right? If you want to be a successful black politician in America, you have to have genuine roots in a black community along with the roots you may have in other constituencies. If you don't have a genuine black constituency you can be a token, but you'll never get elected to anything important.
But the black community in the US has a political culture that's very different from the media-standard white one. There are ludicrously inaccurate myths held as axioms in both cultures, but the ludicrously inaccurate myths are different. Any politician who wants to represent both communities is going to have to associate with people on both sides who say things that the other side finds outrageous.
The question is whether we can bring ourselves to live with this. Can we accept someone who is willing to reach across that political and social divide, or will we destroy him for trying to reach across it? A black politician who runs for president only has a hope of being elected by trying to bridge that gap, not by rejecting one side or the other. If you savage Barack Obama for trying to bridge that gap, you're effectively saying that Rev. Wright is correct: no black man can be elected president in the United States of America. I happen to think that in this, as in so much else, Rev. Wright is wrong.
"I see nothing "racist""
Only because you are wilfully blind. He repeatedly references "white greed" and "white arrogance". These descriptions can mean two things. 1. These types of sins are endemic to whites. 2. There is something special about the type of sin as exhibited by whites which makes it unique.
Both meanings are racist.
From what I have read and seen of Wright's sermons, they are clearly hate-filled. Does Wright have a justifiable excuse for this? It doesn't matter. Wright has the right to his views, and the right to state them. What matters is that Obama has associated himself with this person, has lauded this person on more than one occasion, and is only now disavowing these sorts of comments. There is no evidence he has ever condemned these sermons in the past, and he has certainly not distanced himself from their purveyor until now.
It seems clear that one of two things is true- either Obama stuck with this pastor and church because it was a requirement for gaining and holding office in that particular precinct early in his political career, or he really did have no objection to these sorts of comments. Neither of these explanations is flattering in regards to his character.
Yancey, why would you assume that any politician running at this level in American politics hasn't engaged in kinds of cynical political machinations to get to the point where he's competitive? If it's true of everybody (and it is) then it's not an issue for any specific politician. Obama's ability to project in a way seems to belie this is a measure of his competence as a politician. His "character" can only be measured in comparison to his rivals. Do you want to believe that either Clinton or McCain are any less cynical?
Racism is not only advocating violence against members of a certain race. Wright repeatedly ascribes various motives and activites to "white" people as a whole. He talks about white people as though they are all the same and then ascribes to them certain evil motives and blames them for the ills of the world. That is racism.
Obama has already proven that a black man can be considered for President. He's one of two front runners for the nomination for Democratic candidate. He has done this with very limited experience. In fact, I suspect that the fact that he is black has helped him.
Obama and his followers clearly and repeatedly state that he is different and wants to bring change and clean up government and not do things the way they've always been done. I don't think that people are surprised that he's a normal, corrupt politician... he's just added an extra layer of hypocrisy over and above the normal level.
An example of this is the fact that he still gets earmarks placed in bills. McCain actually puts (or doesn't put) his money where his mouth is on this one. Calling for Clinton to disclose her earmarks is a step, I guess... but if he were serious about change and about cleaning up government, he wouldn't get earmarks.
But he's not. He's all (very smooth) talk.
EI, I think we've determined that you don't like Obama. My guess is you don't like Democrats, generally. Other than that, I don't see what you're trying to say.
That's not yet proven. All that's been shown so far is that a Black man can be competitive in Democratic primaries. We'll see where this leads.
A few quotes from the man the magazine published by Wright's church honored last year as someone who “truly epitomized greatness:”
Let me save you some typing, Brooks, because your response is predictable. Yes, it was the church magazine, not the church per se or Wright himself, that honored Farrakhan. That’s the good news. The bad news is that Wright’s daughters serve as the publisher and the executive editor.
Do you detect any racism yet? Maybe just a whiff, a scintilla that might conceivably be misconstrued as racist here?
So now Obama is guilty by association of association of association? He can't be trusted because his pastor (1) has praised Farrakhan (2) who has praised Hitler (3). This is fun!
Bush has praised Rumsfeld who associated with Saddam Hussein -- OH MY GOD!
McCain has praised Hagee who has said the Jews had the Holocaust coming -- OH MY GOD!
I suppose it's quite easy to find similar reasons why Ronald Reagan was a stealth Hitler admirer, but what's the point really?
In the end, it comes down to two points: (1) Does Obama agree with any of the controversial comments?, and (2) If he didn't, should Obama be mistrusted anyway because he showed bad judgment in associating with Rev. Wright?
The answer to (1) is clearly No, but we can disagree on (2). My opinion is that you cannot hold someone accountable for their pastor if they did not choose the pastor because of his controversial opinions; in fact, it seems that Obama chose Wright in spite of these opinions.
Now, if you think that Rev. Wright's opinions are so awful that nothing can redeem the man, no hard feelings. But in that case, I hope that you will look into some of the egregious statements that were made by several important leaders of the religious right, and reconsider your support for the GOP.
I don't agree with all of this, posted by David; but its thoughtful and a welcome relief from all of the reflexive "Wright is evil and Obama is guilty by association" stuff being pushed so hard:
http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmJmZTEzMWQ3NjA1YmJkMmNiZjVhZDIyYzczMDM5NTk=
Dropped a word there: posted by David Frum is what that should have said.
Hell, whites are being held accountable for slavery, and that ended seven generations ago!
Most white people are at least partly descended from people who emigrated to this country after the Civil War, and yet they're held responsible for slavery simply and solely because of their race.
And now you're asserting the connection between Obama and a galloping racist of the first water is tenuous because we don't have footage of them taking long showers together? Wow.
I give up. Your willful obtuseness defeats me.
Look, I'm not arguing that Rev. Wright should be considered for Obama's cabinet or anything. Obviously, as Obama said himself, there is no excuse for Wright's racist words.
But if you want to use these words to imply that Obama is a racist too, your logic makes John McCain an antisemite. If anything, McCain's association with Hagee is more troublesome than Obama's association with Wright. Obama didn't choose Wright as his pastor for his racist opinions but in spite of them; there were many other reasons why Obama joined TUCC. Now, why did John McCain choose to seek the endorsement of Rev. Hagee?
Minimizing racism is just guilt by association? Will this be followed up by apologies to those previously criticized for speaking at BJU? Is Trent Lott going to get an apology?
No, minimizing racism is distasteful as are your efforts to whitewash it.
Trent Lott did not minimize racism, he endorsed it. If Trent Lott had said, "I didn't always agree with Strom Thurmond, but on the whole he is a great man", that would have been just fine. The problem is that Trent Lott praised Thurmond for his racist opinions.
In fact, many historical figures are praised in spite of some very wrong opinions -- think Robert E. Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Ford,...
Is it really impossible to love or admire people who did some great things, but also some very bad things?
"he endorsed it."
Only in the sense that minimizing is endorsing, which kills your point. He was complimenting the man just as Obama has.
"But if you want to use these words to imply that Obama is a racist too"
I don't think anyone is saying his minimizing Wright's racism means he's a racist. It's possible, but this event isn't evidence of such nor do I believe he is. In my opinion Obama is a conventional left-liberal with all the double standards, prejudices, and misconceptions that position entails. I suspect those defending him here are also, which is why they are perfectly comfortable themselves minimizing Wright's racism in addition to defending Obama's having done so.
Regardless of whether my opinion is correct, the fact is that minimizing racism has been held out by the very political spectrum Obama appeals to as something so abhorrent as to require public shunning.
As we see now though, they meant EXCEPT when that person agrees with their political positions. Then it's "guilt by association".
He repeatedly references "white greed" and "white arrogance". These descriptions can mean two things. 1. These types of sins are endemic to whites. 2. There is something special about the type of sin as exhibited by whites which makes it unique. Both meanings are racist. - mj
And you, above, referenced "black racism". Did you mean that racism is endemic to blacks? Or that there is something special about the type of sin as exhibited by blacks which makes it unique? Are you ready to apologize for your racism now?
mj, you should just let go of this point. Rev. Wright doesn't actually seem to be a 'racist' in the way that Louis Farrakhan is a racist -- that is, someone who believes that whites and blacks are actually intrinsically different, and that one is innately evil or inferior. He's racially divisive; he exploits racial antagonism. That doesn't make him "racist", any more than Trent Lott is "racist" or Geraldine Ferraro is "racist". You want to use the "racist" label for one of two reasons: you like the symmetry of it, it gives you a little vindictive kick; or you think it'll be more effective at damaging Barack Obama, in the classic Rovian tactic of slandering and smearing a candidate at the heart of his strength.
If you want to be an independent thinker, and are willing to consider this rationally, then we can have a discussion about this. But if you're just looking to be a foot soldier in a Swiftboat-style smear campaign, if you're just following marching orders from the Party Commissariat, then we have nothing to say to each other.
Racism is inherently related to race in the context where you and your allies are claiming race based double standards should exist. Explain how greed and arrogance relate differently to whites and blacks. You apparently think you can claim racism when someone uses your own framework to engage your arguments. Dishonest to the core.
Then you say racism is ok as long as it isn't a virulent as Farrakhan's. This seems like a winning argument, especially when you reference Lott and Ferraro who were in fact called racist for their comments. I wonder when the Farrakhan standard will be adopted generally? Not soon I'm guessing. Did we allow Trent Lott a pass because his comments aren't as bad as Farrakhan's? Anyone trying to excuse them in this way would be both accused and guilty of minimizing them, just as you are continuing to minimize Wright's racism.
The rest is just name calling. Sad, pathetic, but not particularly surprising.
I wasn't particularly offended by Wright's lunacy. My interest in the controversy is motivated by wanting to understand what Obama's ideological world is, since he has a fairly limited public record. This controversy supports my conclusion - along with his limited voting record and things about his mother (re-married to a prominent Indonesian Marxist among other things) - that he springs from a far-left background and very probably carries many of those far-left assumptions with him now. I don't believe for a moment that he's a closet racist and he's a very intelligent guy but I also think his political grounding is far outside the US mainstream. That makes him unacceptable to me as a candidate.
Long thread. Two posts are must reading:
Earnest Iconoclast 3/19 at 5:36pm. Wright is a loon.
jbb's post at 3/19 at 9:59am perfectly expresses my feelings. Well done.
Racism is inherently related to race in the context where you and your allies are claiming race based double standards should exist.
This may mean something, but I am not sure what it is.
Jeremiah Wright says racially divisive things in his speeches. That's not "racism". In fact, in the quest to paint him as a racist, people are having to go find statements by Louis Farrakhan and then note that Farrakhan was celebrated by the church magazine, which is published by Wright's daughter. Hence, Wright is a racist. This is highly unconvincing. You like to use the word "racism" to describe Wright, but you're doing so for political reasons.
What Wright is guilty of is more like what Ronald Reagan did in his 1980 Presidential campaign, when he used a series of rhetorical devices which clearly referred to underlying, prejudiced racial narratives he knew his audience to hold. That's racially exploitative. It's racially divisive. It doesn't mean Ronald Reagan was a racist.
So now you claim Wright's not a racist because he doesn't believe what he says. He's just saying it because he knows his congregants are racist. To be clear, are you including Obama in your accusation?
No, the truth is Wright's a racist, and it's diappointing to see Obama minimize it.
No, mj, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that Wright is not a racist; he's someone who uses racially divisive rhetoric to fire up his congregation. In fact, if you've read any of the more in-depth characterizations of Wright and his church that have appeared over the past week, you'll find that Wright is basically a community activism-oriented preacher with a strong focus on self-help in the black community, and there are plenty of whites who go to his services and don't feel any hostility or exclusion. He veers, on occasion, in his sermons, into this realm of leftover '60s-'70s-style racial rhetoric, and that's where it gets uncomfortable and he should be chastised -- as Obama has chastised him.
But if you've ever consistently attended a church or synagogue, you ought to know that your pastor is going to say things you definitely don't agree with -- usually things that have to do with affirming the identity of that congregation, and denigrating others. I have that experience in my background, through attending Jewish congregations; I don't know whether you've ever been a regular churchgoer, but I'd think if you had, it would help you get a handle on this. In any case, when you attend a congregation, you weigh a lot of things in the balance, and one is the kind of energy and community enthusiasm a pastor brings to the place. Sometimes good community energy is unfortunately wedded to a dismissive or exclusionary attitude to those who don't belong to the community, and then you have to decide which is more important. I wouldn't second-guess Barack Obama's decision that in South Chicago, in this case, strong positive community energy was more important than Wright's occasional expression of wrongheaded, ignorant opinions on global issues that he really couldn't affect anyway.
And more important, I respect Obama's decision that, having been a part of that community, he's not now going to repudiate the guy he's worked with for all this time, even though that guy has some messed-up opinions. Not sure if you were a fan of "Friday Night Lights," but it's comparable, to me, to Coach's decision not to fire an aging white assistant coach who made some comments about black athletes' abilities that are no longer acceptable in modern racial discourse. I think the upright and moral thing to do is to recognize that contemporary American political discourse is insanely oversensitive on these questions, and that while it's good to explain why a particular position is wrongheaded, it's bad to vilify or excommunicate people who express those opinions just because those are the ways they grew up thinking and talking.
Brooksfoe,
It is astonishing to see someone embarrass themselves the way you have with these series of comments. Who intentionally says racially divisive things without being a racist? MJ asked the correct question- are you really claiming that Wright is not a racist because he doesn't really believe the racially divisive things he says, but is only trying to fire up his congregation?
Again, truly astonishing.
Who intentionally says racially divisive things without being a racist?
mj does. If I let you run on a little while longer, you will too.
There is exactly one line, in everything that's been presented so far, that makes Wright sound like a racist. I mean "racist" as in "racist", not "someone who says things that offend white people". One line, as far as I know, out of 40 years in the pulpit. That line is "White greed runs the world." Which is the equivalent of "The black victim mentality is holding that community down." Is a speaker of the latter sentence clearly a racist?
You know for a certainty that Wright is a racist, but that's because you've created, for yourself, a confused understanding of the term "racist" -- one just as ludicrous as the one that would hold that Obama's grandmother is a racist. It's as ludicrous as the expansive use of the term "anti-semite" favored by Martin Peretz and the rest of those who condemn any criticism of right-wing Israeli policies as anti-semitic.
Republicans employ the term "racist" against fiery black nationalist rhetoric because it seems to even the playing field, to absolve whites of responsibility and guilt. What Obama said, in his speech, is that white resentment at being expected to feel guilty for black suffering is legitimate resentment: most whites have no family heritage of involvement in slavery or Jim Crow, and even for those who do, is guilt supposed to be herited unto the tenth generation? We don't believe that in America. Obama is saying, rightly, that America needs to find a way to get past the current situation of guilt, suspicion, and buried resentments. But the way to do that isn't by running around accusing each other of racism.
Wright repeatedly ascribes various motives and activites to "white" people as a whole.
This isn't true, as far as I can see. He doesn't do this in any of the citations I've seen. If you have some quotes in which he does this, I suggest you present them.