Questioning the Basic Premise of American Goodness
That, fundamentally, is what the media and political culture cannot accept.
Yes, one can say America made mistakes. But the concept that is completely verboten is that there is any sort of deep evil in this country-- particularly within its leadership.
This concept is behind the asinine flap over Jeremiah Wright's statements. What Wright said was completely accurate and should offend no one who has any intellectual honesty. But the media/political complex, in their quest to take down Obama because of his rather mild anti-war sentiments, have seized upon Wright as a mechanism to wound Obama.
Indeed, the Wright "controversy" put Obama in a bad spot. He could either stand by his old friend, and be honest-- but then probably lose his quest for the Dem nomination-- or he could denounce his friend-- sell Wright out and sell himself out-- to have a chance at getting the Dem nomination. A bad choice-- either way, Obama was screwed. And obviously, Obama sold out his intellectual honesty on the Wright issue, and once again has exposed himself as a fraud.
But again, note the basic problem with our culture -- it is simply not permissible to question American goodness and be a viable public figure.
Importantly, this dynamic applies very much to questioning 9/11-- to question 9/11 is to question basic American goodness, which is something that is just not allowed.
Yes, one can say America made mistakes. But the concept that is completely verboten is that there is any sort of deep evil in this country-- particularly within its leadership.
This concept is behind the asinine flap over Jeremiah Wright's statements. What Wright said was completely accurate and should offend no one who has any intellectual honesty. But the media/political complex, in their quest to take down Obama because of his rather mild anti-war sentiments, have seized upon Wright as a mechanism to wound Obama.
Indeed, the Wright "controversy" put Obama in a bad spot. He could either stand by his old friend, and be honest-- but then probably lose his quest for the Dem nomination-- or he could denounce his friend-- sell Wright out and sell himself out-- to have a chance at getting the Dem nomination. A bad choice-- either way, Obama was screwed. And obviously, Obama sold out his intellectual honesty on the Wright issue, and once again has exposed himself as a fraud.
But again, note the basic problem with our culture -- it is simply not permissible to question American goodness and be a viable public figure.
Importantly, this dynamic applies very much to questioning 9/11-- to question 9/11 is to question basic American goodness, which is something that is just not allowed.
posted by spooked at 8:31 AM
2 Comments:
Possibly.
Here is my take on this.
As the vast majority of Americans are against Bush, and the War on Iraq--as even doctored polls can’t help but demonstrate--this indicates an even greater majority of Democrats (leaving out the McCain/War lovers) actually agree with what Wright said, because they know it’s true. Therefore, saying and demonstrating that what Wright said is true would likely cause Obama to GAIN support, NOT lose it, IF the acccunting were honest. If Obama had said the truth, some Ron Paul and Nader supporters would have come to him too, as might have some who have dropped out of the “voting process.” So a true poll would likely show Obama’s numbers grow after a supporting statement from him, as Americans would believe a man of truth and courage had emerged after 45 years.
What Wright’s statements allow for is the following. They allow for it to LOOK LIKE the Democrats have switched to Shillary Clinton over this matter, WHENEVER the PTB make their final decision to GIVE the nomination to Shillary, and not Obama. (Note that it makes no difference as the two, and McCain, are totally owned by the PTB, and will act as “President” according to what they are told.) But the PTB sometimes like to wait till the last moment to decide who the “polls” and then the “nomination” and then the “election” will appear to yield. Or perhaps more likely, they so like it to LOOK LIKE there is a genuine “back and forth”, when they may have decided a long time ago who will be the nominee, and the election winner.
The Wright matter just gives the PTB their coveted “plausibility” to collapse Obama if, and when, they decide to do this. It is even possible, maybe even probable, that Wright himself is totally working for the PTB (as did many of the top “reverends” who were “with” Martin Luther King during his last moments.)
After all, Wright could have avoided saying such things publicly until after the nomination, or better still after the election. Was he ordered to say those things publicly now, because he actually is with the PTB? To create the above “plausible” scenario? I can not be sure; he may be genuine. But if his man was about to win it all, would he have given the PTB, their “plausible” excuse to end Obama’s candidacy, if he were not with the PTB?
Anonymous Physicist
You said "Note that it makes no difference as the two, and McCain, are totally owned by the PTB, and will act as “President” according to what they are told."
If that's the case, then the people that you call "the PTB" wouldn't seem to have much reason to take the risk of trying to co-op Rev. Wright. Savvy people are risk averse and not keen to draw attention to their machinations.
Post a Comment
<< Home