|
Post by Sue on Apr 27, 2008 22:02:12 GMT -5
Did anyone see Rev. Jeremiah Wright's interview with Bill Moyers on PBS on Friday night? Currently CNN is rebroadcasting the speech he made today in Detroit to the NAACP. I am enjoying it greatly. Personally, I like the flamboyant style of some African American preachers. And he is not (at least thus far) coming off as any kind of weirdo. I hope I can find a transcript tomorrow to read through the whole thing, but I'm guessing it will be MUCH flatter on paper than it is in person. His speech is being repeated in its entirety on CNN at 11 Eastern/10 Central if you have a VCR (or one of those new-fangled thingies). Probably too late to catch most of you. This is Obama's pastor. I found him fascinating, thoughtful and intelligent, and not at all like the clippets on YouTube. Not that he didn't also say those things but I appreciate seeing him fleshed out a bit. [ That said, the newsmedia irks me to death, because they don't seem capable of covering the event as an NAACP story, or as a Rev. Wright story, but ONLY ONLY ONLY in the context of it's impact on Obama. Good grief. Get some perspective, people. Oh, and he was also funny. [Of course, I was never terribly offended in the first place by a pastor saying "God damn America for the sin of racism" in the context of preaching about sin and repentance. Read the Old Testament prophets, people. Sheesh. (yes, he did hold some strange views, but then again some Americans worship food, vampires, sports heroes, etc. I don't find them necessarily totally sane either. ] He had 2 themes that he stuck to and hammered on: Different is not deficient.....it's merely different. He expanded on that quite a bit. His other theme was: Change is coming because we are going to accept those who are different (whether racially, religious, in speech, in background, in customs, etc) and we are going to change the way we treat those who are different and we are going to stop MIStreating those who are different. He did a decent job of preaching fairness, equality, forgiveness as secular concepts without denying his own POV as a Christian minister. I thought it was a lovely speech. In another context he would be receiving all sorts of kudos, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Apr 28, 2008 18:30:22 GMT -5
Very interesting about Rev Wright, Sue. I'll dig up the speech and the interview when I can. Right now I'm catching up on the presidential debates.
And I read the fine print of the voter's guide and turns out that North Carolina has a "semi-open" primary, meaning that unaffiliated voters can vote in either primary, but those registered in a party can only vote in their party's primary. So now I got to figure out who to vote for.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Apr 28, 2008 23:48:57 GMT -5
Very interesting about Rev Wright, Sue. I'll dig up the speech and the interview when I can. Right now I'm catching up on the presidential debates. And I read the fine print of the voter's guide and turns out that North Carolina has a "semi-open" primary, meaning that unaffiliated voters can vote in either primary, but those registered in a party can only vote in their party's primary. So now I got to figure out who to vote for. I'm finding some of the coverage (happened upon a snippet of Glenn Beck) to be so bizarre as to make me wonder if I am seeing and hearing and speaking the same language as some of the commentators. Can their/my POV be so wildly divergent as to read stuff into his text that I swear just WAS. NOT. THERE? It is really quite frightening.
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on Apr 30, 2008 12:47:56 GMT -5
Very interesting about Rev Wright, Sue. I'll dig up the speech and the interview when I can. Right now I'm catching up on the presidential debates. And I read the fine print of the voter's guide and turns out that North Carolina has a "semi-open" primary, meaning that unaffiliated voters can vote in either primary, but those registered in a party can only vote in their party's primary. So now I got to figure out who to vote for. I'm finding some of the coverage (happened upon a snippet of Glenn Beck) to be so bizarre as to make me wonder if I am seeing and hearing and speaking the same language as some of the commentators. Can their/my POV be so wildly divergent as to read stuff into his text that I swear just WAS. NOT. THERE? It is really quite frightening. I didn't get to see the Wright interview in it's entirety. I only saw sound bites played by the media, which means I really saw nothing at all. With that being said, no, it's not their "point of view." It's how they can manufacture a controversy out of anything. They supply context to words that didn't exist. They tell you that certain lines are "code" to their core group. They provide "in-depth analysis" so quickly that you swear they should be in split panel with the speaker like a sign language interpreter (or just dub the voice over like wearing a pair of UN headphones..."Hey, why aren't the words syncing to Obama's lips?") Glenn Beck is a personal non-favorite of mine. He is incredibly guilty of all of the above. It's much like the manufactured "bitter" and "clinging to guns and bibles" controversy that enveloped Obama jsut prior to the Penn. vote. If you actually listened to the speech that Obama made and listened to a speech given 2 years ago with Charlie Rose where he said the exact same things but in more detail, you can see how that was entirely twisted to be something he didn't mean. He wasn't deriding rural, blue collar folk. He was stating simple truths as he saw them (I agree with him, btw.) He wants to be a champion to these very people, but, since they tend to poll towards Clinton, the media jumped on it to make sure that they didn't drift out of her camp and into his. The media, more than anyone, wants this race deadlocked all the way to the convention. They are licking their chops over every little confrontation they can get. They are manufacturing news. I have always had a healthy disdain for our mainstream media. I could always definitely point to some bad apples. But truly, the last year and a half of election coverage has shown me that they, in the majority, are insidious liars and king makers. The only way to feel like you have any idea of what is really going on is to watch everyone and everything, discount all the spin, listen to speeches and discussions un-edited and go from there. Unfortunately, that leaves you with more a feeling of knowing what didn't happen than what did. It's like trying to determine what that green leaf in your salad is by noting what it isn't. You don't know it's Iceburg lettuce, you jsut are pretty sure it isn't Romaine or spinach. Now, while I haven't heard any of Wright's (I believe) 3 interviews over the last few days, I did watch the entirety of Obama's press talk yesterday, where he came out talking very specifically about Wright, how unhappy he was with him for doing this round of interviews, how his relationship with him was strained to the point of breaking. He was very clear and direct (for a politician) about entirely disowning him. He said Wright, in either his second or third interview, said things that he personally just did not believe and that it is causing him to take a really hard look at the man. Basically, he took it as an opportunity to further distance himself from the Reverend. It was actually an excellent press interview... he actually said things without mincing words (again, taking into account he is a politician and was careful in how he stated his thoughts.) He accused Wright of basically grandstanding, instead of defending himself. It's a really good talk with the press and I recommend watching it as a follow-up to the Wright interview(s). Here is the press conference on You Tube: Part OnePart TwoPart ThreeVlad
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Apr 30, 2008 17:33:11 GMT -5
Thanks, Vlad.
What I saw was the speech to the NAACP (the 2nd of 3 appearances).
I did not see the talk to the Press Club (#3) which apparently is where most of the objectionable stuff happened.
So, even having listened to one entire 90 minutes speech, obviously that didn't convey the whole story. Too bad he didn't stop there.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on May 2, 2008 12:17:38 GMT -5
Post on the Boing Boing discusion thread over Ben Stein's most recent public statement on science, with long quote from Jacob Bronowsky at Auschewitz: In response to the hateful rhetoric expounded in Ben Stein's documentary, P. Z. Meyers posted a powerful video clip from Jacob Bronowski's BBC documentary The Ascent of Man on the history of science:
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/antistein.php
In it Bronowski, who lost family members and friends to the concentration camps, stands at Auschwitz to discuss its very anti-scientific foundation. Here is a transcript, but watch the video. It is profoundly moving.
It's said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That's false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers.
Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance.
When people believe that they have absolute knowledge with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.
Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known. We always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know, although we are fallible.
In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
I owe it as a scientist to my friend Leo Szilard. I owe it as a human being to the many members of my family who died here, to stand here as a survivor and a witness. We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power. We have to close the distance between the push-button order, and the human act.
We have to touch people.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on May 2, 2008 20:23:32 GMT -5
Post on the Boing Boing discusion thread over Ben Stein's most recent public statement on science, with long quote from Jacob Bronowsky at Auschewitz: In response to the hateful rhetoric expounded in Ben Stein's documentary, P. Z. Meyers posted a powerful video clip from Jacob Bronowski's BBC documentary The Ascent of Man on the history of science:
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/antistein.php
In it Bronowski, who lost family members and friends to the concentration camps, stands at Auschwitz to discuss its very anti-scientific foundation. Here is a transcript, but watch the video. It is profoundly moving.
It's said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That's false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers.
Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance.
When people believe that they have absolute knowledge with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.
Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known. We always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know, although we are fallible.
In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
I owe it as a scientist to my friend Leo Szilard. I owe it as a human being to the many members of my family who died here, to stand here as a survivor and a witness. We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power. We have to close the distance between the push-button order, and the human act.
We have to touch people. I watched "The Ascent of Man" when it was first broadcast on PBS. I have the utmost respect for JB. This was magnificent.
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on May 2, 2008 22:11:12 GMT -5
Post on the Boing Boing discusion thread over Ben Stein's most recent public statement on science, with long quote from Jacob Bronowsky at Auschewitz: In response to the hateful rhetoric expounded in Ben Stein's documentary, P. Z. Meyers posted a powerful video clip from Jacob Bronowski's BBC documentary The Ascent of Man on the history of science:
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/antistein.php
In it Bronowski, who lost family members and friends to the concentration camps, stands at Auschwitz to discuss its very anti-scientific foundation. Here is a transcript, but watch the video. It is profoundly moving.
It's said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That's false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers.
<snip>
What the f...? OKay, it literally took me 5 minutes to figure out what you were going on about and why it was posted here. That subject hasn't been talked about since the middle of last March! Context people.. we need context! Vlad
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on May 3, 2008 15:17:45 GMT -5
Post on the Boing Boing discusion thread over Ben Stein's most recent public statement on science, with long quote from Jacob Bronowsky at Auschewitz: In response to the hateful rhetoric expounded in Ben Stein's documentary, P. Z. Meyers posted a powerful video clip from Jacob Bronowski's BBC documentary The Ascent of Man on the history of science:
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/antistein.php
In it Bronowski, who lost family members and friends to the concentration camps, stands at Auschwitz to discuss its very anti-scientific foundation. Here is a transcript, but watch the video. It is profoundly moving.
It's said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That's false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers.
<snip>
What the f...? OKay, it literally took me 5 minutes to figure out what you were going on about and why it was posted here. That subject hasn't been talked about since the middle of last March! Context people.. we need context! Vlad What, you don't live in my head and read everything I do? Julia, oops, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on May 8, 2008 9:08:35 GMT -5
Well...I'm officially off the HRC bandwagon. Mostly because I think the people have spoken, and it's time to accept the inevitable. And because she's nuts to keep spending her own money. Also, she pissed me off with her remarks about elitist economists and her getting on board with the "bribe us with a gas tax holiday that conveniently ends right around election time plan", which will only feed yet more profits to the oil companies and encourage consumption rather than conservation. So, Obama 2008 it is, then. Let's do this thing!
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on May 8, 2008 9:11:44 GMT -5
And in other news: The following is a HOAX, people!I assume most of us are smart enough to use snopes.com or MythBlaster when these e-mails hit our inboxes...I got this one forwarded from my Uncle Greg, to his entire e-mail list (most of whom are Democrats, though he's decidedly not). It's not true. In fact, it's a hoax that's been in the intertubes since 2006. And, yes, I did "reply all" with the links to the sites showing it to be a hoax. Public service, right?
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on May 8, 2008 9:58:39 GMT -5
Well...I'm officially off the HRC bandwagon. Mostly because I think the people have spoken, and it's time to accept the inevitable. And because she's nuts to keep spending her own money. Also, she pissed me off with her remarks about elitist economists and her getting on board with the "bribe us with a gas tax holiday that conveniently ends right around election time plan", which will only feed yet more profits to the oil companies and encourage consumption rather than conservation. So, Obama 2008 it is, then. Let's do this thing! I'm with you, for all of the above reasons, and also because the tone of her campaign has gone sour, and it's unworthy of her and of the voters. Obama 2008 it is, and seriously, the more I see of him (and of Michelle), the more I respect him.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on May 8, 2008 10:01:05 GMT -5
Well...I'm officially off the HRC bandwagon. Mostly because I think the people have spoken, and it's time to accept the inevitable. And because she's nuts to keep spending her own money. Also, she pissed me off with her remarks about elitist economists and her getting on board with the "bribe us with a gas tax holiday that conveniently ends right around election time plan", which will only feed yet more profits to the oil companies and encourage consumption rather than conservation. So, Obama 2008 it is, then. Let's do this thing! I'm with you, for all of the above reasons, and also because the tone of her campaign has gone sour, and it's unworthy of her and of the voters. Obama 2008 it is, and seriously, the more I see of him (and of Michelle), the more I respect him. He won me over because of the gas tax thing, and his speech on Tuesday night. I've always liked him; I still think HRC would be a good president, but right now, she's not nearly dissimilar enough from McCain for my comfort.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on May 8, 2008 10:50:17 GMT -5
Well...I'm officially off the HRC bandwagon. Mostly because I think the people have spoken, and it's time to accept the inevitable. And because she's nuts to keep spending her own money. Also, she pissed me off with her remarks about elitist economists and her getting on board with the "bribe us with a gas tax holiday that conveniently ends right around election time plan", which will only feed yet more profits to the oil companies and encourage consumption rather than conservation. So, Obama 2008 it is, then. Let's do this thing! Welcome, Anne and Rachael! I saved you both some seats. Seriously, though...I've been an Obama supporter since the beginning (which has a lot to do with having been an Illinois voter when he ran for Senate), but that didn't mean I was anti-Clinton. However, now the tone has as you so rightly put it, gotten sour, and it seems less about "let the people decide" and more about "don't tell me what to do." Am I being unfair in that categorization? I want to know, particularly from you two because you've changed your minds re: HRC (I almost typed HRG; good lord).
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on May 8, 2008 11:20:30 GMT -5
Well...I'm officially off the HRC bandwagon. Mostly because I think the people have spoken, and it's time to accept the inevitable. And because she's nuts to keep spending her own money. Also, she pissed me off with her remarks about elitist economists and her getting on board with the "bribe us with a gas tax holiday that conveniently ends right around election time plan", which will only feed yet more profits to the oil companies and encourage consumption rather than conservation. So, Obama 2008 it is, then. Let's do this thing! Welcome, Anne and Rachael! I saved you both some seats. Seriously, though...I've been an Obama supporter since the beginning (which has a lot to do with having been an Illinois voter when he ran for Senate), but that didn't mean I was anti-Clinton. However, now the tone has as you so rightly put it, gotten sour, and it seems less about "let the people decide" and more about "don't tell me what to do." Am I being unfair in that categorization? I want to know, particularly from you two because you've changed your minds re: HRC (I almost typed HRG; good lord). I agree with you. I think HRC has gotten frantic, and the results are... unfortunate.* I'm still sorry Edwards had to drop out, though. He would've done a good job too. Too many good candidates this time, who would've thought it? Back to the usefuls slayage. *And I am really disgusted with Bill Clinton - he's a loose cannon and badly needs reigning in, or least to be sat down and reminded who exactly is running for president this time. Get off my side, you're making us look bad! Assume the IMO and all that...
|
|