As for Greeley, you too are a spinner and just because you are a priest, you too are guilty of parading the "truth". I am sick of these religious persons who declare to know the truth and expect others to believe in their creeds just because of their "credentials". There are just too many so called "experts" on God and religion in this cockamamy world who believe their credentials entitle them to speak the truth but when it comes to any religion, the truth can always be suspect. The Catholic Church has a lot to answer for when it comes to propaganda and this "religion" continues to dupe just as many starry eyed followers as any fundamentalist religion.

Jackals like Hagee and traitors like Wright play right into media's hands and grant them money with all the hype. What really bothers me is a relative who listens to this blasphemer Hagee because they believe he has the truth about the end. I have watched him, once, and on his background or pulpit is a painting of lions and a sexy woman riding on one. Hagee is a persuasive speaker and is full of baloney. I thought this type of ludicrous information died out years ago and so many people gave their money to the likes of Jim and Tammy Baker. Will people ever learn to read and think for themselves? Until our educational system starts giving out college education for free, we will be at the mercy of a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing and the likes of these con men will rule.

Bless you Father Andrew Greely, for you have told the truth! No penance for you...Our Father in heaven...Hail Mary full of grace...Glory be to the Father...

YOUR POST GRANT MAY IS COGENT!

The people of the USA have been so ill informed as to what a change would really do and mean to this country and the change in leadership that is necessary, they have forgotten that no one could be worse than George Bush . . . No one, not even a dogcatcher, at least the dog catcher has compassion for
Animals!

The future leaders, Obama or McCain, should discuss the problems America and the world faces. The problem of public ignorance of the issues caused by the media is serious. In the heat of elections the media panders to voter ignorance. The emphasis, as we see on nightly, so-called news, is constant repetition of candidate's miscues. The result of the media sensationalism becomes, the wrong problem and the wrong message at a crucial time in world history. The emphasis on having the politicians address a credible platform of ideas based on an American and global interaction in the world is critical.

There is not enough time left for civilization to focus on rubbish. The energy and environmental issues for example or food and health care are the problems the media should be focusing upon. But to use the Rev, Wright issue for one week, to try and hurt the candidacy of Obama is a travesty. The issues most pressing are once again avoided, those really important issues that must be put before the congress; the environment, continued funding of Iraq, energy issues, education, health care and so many others not dealt with, all impacting upon the economy, the failure of public dialog is outrageous!

The issue of this election will impact on the environment, economy and the future of the USA as no others. Still, if more than 50% of eligible voters cast their votes it will be a miracle, as a result of regressive US election laws and media obfuscation. It is compulsory for everyone to vote in Australia it should be so in the USA as well. Few of the candidates are really talking about the major points, even those who are the most erudite. The environment in association with the economy or health care and elections reform, to name some, are kept out of public dialog as a result of the nonsense punditry hours on end. The world looks at America and its "star struck reality" in wonder.

The political discussion rests on the complete lack of talking points in isolation, such as, Clinton's health package or the nonsense gasoline tax rebate and it's cost, rather than what is really at stake with energy issues, human survival. The candidates for the US presidency rarely talk about the complete interrelated package of the issues combined. Obama alludes to this deficiency in the media and public issues. When he asks for this to occur it lands on deaf ears because the media and special interests do not want this to occur.

The media reduces the public debate to its most simplistic level with pundits arguing about one inconsequential issue or another rather than the truly important issues of our time. The American people are kept from hearing and understanding the relationship of the entire package of issues, which a true leader must address and deal with for the very survival of America in the world within a global economy. The costs for the war would pay for every single need from health care to American infrastructure repair and education, as well as the alleviation of world hunger and energy research this is what is what is at stake.
The media deals with Rev. Wright and American Flag lapel pins instead.

The media keeps the public dumbed down for obvious reasons they represent the moneyed people. As a result the public becomes unable to talk about moving radically toward change and the related issues affecting their very life and the future. The issues of climate change, energy issues and the global economy not only American economy is the part of the mortgage crisis created by the "free market" system. All the other issues like people losing their homes as a result of Wall Street manipulation are tied to these fundamental problems. These is the first and major issue which affects all other issues and is completely related to the economic changes which must take place.

The media board rooms instruct their so-called journalists (news/opinion readers) to stay clear of those subjects that would attack advertising, consumption, tied together in the media collusion with special interests to maintain the consumer system killing the world. Media in collusion with government does not want the change that would result in the decline of their hundreds of millions of dollars in profits.

All environmental problems are in one way or another associated with the Western world's consumption based lifestyle led by the USA. These issues are affected by consumer advertising much of it coming from the millions spent on advertising of irrelevant product and campaign advertising. The media should be dealing with true American and global issues in this campaign affecting the very basis of the so-called American Dream, fast becoming the global nightmare. This is what the next president of the USA must address!

I'm not going to respond, I've said my piece and will just be repeating myself. I don't agree with your logic but realize that I cannot convince you otherwise. I agree that I can be rude, I didn't mean the personal things I said and apologize.

The media is out of control this election has shown us just how far it has gone to dumb-down the public. The recent move by ABC to remove candidates from the debates was outrageous. They are trying to determine the fate of the country and the world being mouthpiece for special interests and the government and to silence dissent.

Media censure is unheard, the FCC should rule for the public but like the EPA its teeth are continually drawn. The media has no right to exclude any politician who is running for office as happened recently with the ABC debate. The only exclusion under the rules used by ABC should apply to a candidate not sitting in public office. The license of ABC would be lifted if the rules were changed but the congress, with the exception of a few pushes for more media conglomeration supported by special interests. I hope that someone picks up on this thought. We have seen the obsession by FOX and CNN, particularly in the form of Wolf Blitzer, and the FOX rabid journalists constantly referring to the Rev. Wright controversy.

Blitzer's bias is clear. He is quick to use every possible negative he can against Obama from the Flag Pin to anything else he could get his mouth around. His support for Clinton has been clear and inappropriate, for CNN to call itself a "fair and balanced" news network. I quote Mr. Nichols: 
" The media pretense of being a fly on the wall has often been preposterous. In the real world of politics — where power brokers and manipulators proceed with the cynical axiom that perception is reality — the fly on the wall is the wall. The political press corps is not observing reality as much as redefining it while obstructing outlooks and constraining public perceptions."

As usual, few are able to see the stampede of the public sheep created by media. I support the change that Obama represents! He is intelligent and wants America once again to be looked upon as a great nation that it could still be and once was. The present "lack of experience" cry of Clinton is preposterous. Could anyone having been near the White house as long as Bush done as badly for the USA? There is experience! However, the discovery of a job approval rating for him at about 28% of the American people speaks volumes about experience. No one could have been as bad as the Bush team! There is experience!

A flight from entrenched American politics is necessary . . .it has ruined this country and made greed the single value of importance. The young people once again embrace hope as a result of the Obama campaign. The Hillary political group and entrenched politics have virtually destroyed America with its policies and exclusive power clubs. She has believed this form government is America.

Clinton recently morphed to the Obama populist message, it was called, "finding her voice" while at the beginning of her stump showing her Madeline Albright, bomb the children image. 
Can anyone truly think that change is unnecessary? I guess not since all the politicos have adopted his message including McCain? The mistakes that Obama may make as president cannot be greater than those of the past seven years. It is also necessary to give him a democratic congress to make certain that the programs that Americans want can be enacted.

Mr. Gore Vidal, has pointedly criticized mainstream media as one of the major problems, and what is wrong with the USA. The corporate media conglomerates control the message and that message is perversely distorted and panders to its advertising portfolio! Wolf Blitzer one of the glaring examples of this criticism and shows clearly those distorted ideas with his reporting, which is nothing more than partially factual opinion dictated by his bosses.

He is a person who has no right to shape public opinion far from being the "fly on the wall" he espouses to be. We must remember flies morph from maggots. He displays ignorance as a virtue for the entire world to see, an example of what is considered, by many in America to be news reporting. If Blitzer were billed as a CNN commentator, at least the public would not be hoodwinked to believe his reporting to be the truth, while it is lack of concern for accuracy, rectitude and fairness to be considered to be news rather than opinion.

And when we're talking crazy religious nuts with Republican buddies - don't forget the right Rev Moon.

http://wagelaborer.blogspot.com/2008/04/rev-wright-and-rev-moon-wheres-outrage.html

Grant, I enjoy reading your postings, you've obviously given a lot of thought and study to these subjects. But just some friendly advice -- you tend to ramble and you try to start a dozen different left vs. right debates (Colombia death squads?!), and I wish you could just concentrate on two or three points. And really, the personal insults are not necessary, I have a working brain, but it has arrived at a different conclusion. We disagree, but that doesn't mean one of us must be stupid and ill-informed.

We obviously see the media very differently. I think there's all sorts of evidence that both points of view receive time in the media. To take your example of MSNBC, Donahue was simply not popular. If GE really didn't want to air any anti-war opinions, then Keith Olberman would not have his own show where he gets to call for Bush's resignation and say things like "George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and shaped it to a razor-sharp point and stabbed this nation in the back with it" (July 3, 2007) or "Mr. Bush, you say that our ability to track terrorist threats will be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger, yet you have weakened that ability, you have subjected us, your citizens, to that greater danger." (February 14, 2008) Not sure how the airing of those widely-publicized comments fits into your theory -- a few crumbs to keep the sheeple happy?

Moreover, the fact that Donahue is able to talk about why he thought he was fired and speak out about it gives me reason to believe that if this was a common occurrence in the media, we would hear more stories about it. The media is more diverse now than it has ever been in the history of the world, and there are plenty of outlets where suppressed journalists could air their opinions. The article that started this discussion was published in a major American newspaper after all.

RuthK May 8th, 2008 10:21 am

"Why has politics become so infused with religion?"

Because Our(?) Constitution would be better off to have said"...Separation of State from a State Church (best example, though it's now getting challenged was Nazi Germany, of course the Emperor Sun God of Japan [also circa 1940's] is up there too).

And because the Church (Synagogue, Temple, Mosque, etc.) are in part where organizing principles are cultured. So - "We prayed that our leaders would be guided and let it go at that. We weren't told how to vote." - and thus you are cut off from one of your most powerful power sources - for Church, Temple, etc. is where your prayer, devotion, meditations consecrate your individual energy with your congregation so that you, or someone in your immediate support group, can stand with courage and composure at the town hall meeting and espouse how you feel your Congressional Representative should vote - not just once but in an on going conversation, not with absolutist demands, but with the intelligence of the civility of a living democracy.

Your social voice being cut off (this is the wound at the center of the conversation around Obama and Wright) from your most powerful power is why I fervently - to this minute and beyond stand - and call for impeachment hearings. I consecrate this stand and call with the true Spirit of Mother's Day and Protecting the Troops in my Church and Temple.

If you go to the Visions of Peace exhibit at Grand Circus Park in Detroit you will see this separation of power of Citizen to Representative depicted by Detroit Area students...right next to the Homage to a Fallen Soldier with the statement 9/11 Never Forget.

No! I Will Never Forget 9/11 And The Lies Preceding 9/11/01, and, The Lies Issuing From 9/11/01!

And this is why I invite anyone who would like to Consecrate their Power of Powers - in order to help suture the Wounds of this Nation - that in actuality have been gapping since before and after Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address - where he called on this Nation to "Bind up it's wounds" and in similar Spirit as Juliet Howe "...in a just and lasting Peace, among ourselves and all Nations."...

...I invite anyone who in that Spirit would go to the Plows Into Swordshares gallery at Grand Circus Park...view the Visions of Peace exhibit - soaking in not just the images above, but Picasso's Peace Dove as well as the Peace Dove's and the Color of Youth - then (if need be I'll walk with you evansdadop@aol.com): I invite you to walk the 5 City blocks to John Conyers, Head of the House Judiciary Committee's Congressional Office, and start, if not maintain, a conversation on the Impeachment Hearings of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney.

Good question.

Oh, yes, in the interest of egalitarianism, I guess I should mention Hillary's pastor, Doug Coe of "The Family". See HILLARY'S NASTY PASTORATE in The Nation, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich

MilitantLiberal 1:29pm. John McCain has called Rod Parsley his "Spiritual Guide". You need to read up on Rod, who inflames followers to Holy War, saying that America was created for the purpose of destroying Islam. Isn't it interesting that you have to really search for McCain's pastor and a lot of people have never even heard of him.
ROD PARSLEY: THE RAGING PROPHET
http://www.pfo.org/parsley.htm

The MSM battle cry: focus on anything but the issues, distract and deflect and, above all, get 'em too riled up to think!

You're not getting it, it isn't a conspiracy, it's how corporations work. If I told you that the Coca Cola PR department didn't print out reports on its labor and environmental abuses & made sure the public knew what they were doing, you wouldn't be surprised. They are supposed to make their shareholders as much money as possible, US corporate law says that that is their only duty, and being honest about their labor and environmental practices would not do that. The reporters are low on the totem poll, they could be as left wing as Lenin and it wouldn't matter, any more than a left winger working in the PR department of Coca Cola. Their INSTIUTIONAL role is to make money for their company. If they do something that causes a company to pull its advertising revenue because of a piece that harms its interest, the reporter will not be working their long. Phil Donahue, who had the highest rated program on his network at the time, was fired before the war started by a company, GE who owns NBC, that was set to make billions off of the war because he was against the war. MSNBC admitted as much. Do some research as to why

The news media does not make money by pointing out the truth on the issues. Again, how in the world could you argue otherwise? When the Wright story began to be pushed the news media had no idea if the public wanted it or not, there was no poll done beforehand, logically if you have a working brain and can simply read polls, the media DOES know what people are concerned about. They're concerned about healthcare, the war, the economy, environmental policy, the educational system, etc. The people who give the media their advertising revenue benefit from policies that have harmed the general public, the audience watching TV, and if the media DID cover the issues in a way that was honest they would by their nature be "anti-corporate". People, according to polls, are interested in and disagree with NAFTA like deals. We're set to sign one with the country, Colombia, that has the worse human rights record in the Western Hemisphere. American workers are going to have to compete for jobs with Colombians, who if they try to form a union are killed by the death squads more than the rest of the world combined. The US helped set up the death squads and paramilitaries decades ago and are basically the "sixth division" of the Colombian army. The Colombian government is run by a man who has a decades long connection to drug runners and right wing death squads, even according to our government. There is no way that anyone with a working brain can say that Wright's comments about AIDS means more to their lives than this. The Wright story isn't even as INTERESTING as the Colombia story for Christ sake. No one with a working brain, which it seams you're lacking. Yet, the networks didn't pay attention to this story, or healthcare or any other issues that they KNOW the public wants and ran with the Wright story when most people didn't know who he was. For you to be right you'd have to prove that people wanted to know about a man, Wright, that they'd never heard of more than these far more important issues. Again, who in the hell would argue such nonsense?

The media doesn't operate as they do because of a "conspiracy", they operate as they do because they need capital to make money for themselves and their shareholders and they don't make that money by reporting issues that benefit these elite groups but harm the general public. These elite groups and the general public do not have the same interests on the issues. The elites giving CNN their advertising revenue have benefited from "free trade", the general public hasn't. All of the news channels have to compete for the same capital, so they're confined institutionally from reporting on issues in ways that will harm those who give them their advertising revenue. Drug and insurance companies, who give the networks tons of advertising revenue, make a profit from denying service. The public has been harmed by this system and pays far more per capita than other countries for a system that performs on the whole much worse. Do you not think that is why there is never in depth discussion on the INSTITUTIONAL problems of the US healthcare system? Again, how could you argue otherwise? The media has not reported on the issues that DO matter to people and they do report not just on Wright but on endless other superficial stories.

Anyone who thinks Wright's comments on AIDS is more important that Hagee's comments on Iran is an idiot. Plain and simple. The fact is that Hagee and his kind do not threaten the economic interests of the media companies or who they rely on for revenue. People like himself, Robertson, Fallwel and the rest have actually made millions off of their religion and back the "free market" religion. Wright does not, he is close to someone with potential immense power and stands for policy positions that are in direct opposition to the media, who owns them and who funds them. If the media is acting in their economic interest they will neutralize Wright while giving a pass to people like Hagee. We've come to expect right wing WHITE preachers calling for the end of the world, we haven't with left wing preachers critiquing the very policies that have benefited the elites.

Your arguments are logically not at all convincing. Turning on the TV and watching what the press covers, comparing it to polls that show what matter to people and paying attention to the range of debate destroys your argument, right off the bat. It isn't a conspiracy what I'm saying, it's obvious reality if you THINK for a second about what you're watching on TV.

p.s. You'll get an interesting 'lesson' on American (revisionist) history. At least, was a surprise to me.

Like Hagee? You'll love Parsley. (McCain does.)

http://bravenewfilms.org/watch/21943889/38133?utm_source=rgemail

I'm sorry I can't remember the CDer who said this first:

"I wish the rapture would take place so the rest of us can get on with living our lives in peace."

or something like that.

@ Rimpinths: Occam's Razor is a tool of logic, not a "get out of bullsh*t free card". The principle says "Explanations ought not be multiplied BEYOND NECESSITY". Those last two words mean you can't (for example) "explain" rocket flight by an imaginary fairy lifting the rocket up, just because the imaginary fairy is a simpler explanation.

@ Grant: Bravo. You have made the point brilliantly.

@ Everyone: Could we please put an end to this deceitful meme? "Obama sat in the church for TWENTY years and has a close relationship with Wright!!!" This is an intellectually dishonest and bankrupt rationalisation for the Wright/Hagee imbalance. To my knowledge, Obama never got up in front of Wright's congregation after one of those youtube speeches to say "What that guy just said, I agree with it all! Count me in!!" On the other hand, McCain has stood at the podium in front of Hagee's church, and said basically that. It is on tape. You can find it here: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03072008/watch.html.

JOHN MCCAIN: "It's very hard trying to do the lords work in the city of Satan and I'm very grateful to have all of you here.... I'm very honored by Pastor John Hagee's endorsement today. He has been the staunchest leader of our Christian evangelical movement in many areas, but especially, most especially, his close ties and advocacy for the freedom and independence of the state of Israel."

So, please everyone, the next time someone says "b-b-but Obama sat there for TWENTY YEARS!!!", kindly explain the difference between "guilt-by-association" and "guilt-by-self-incrimination" and forward them these quotes by McCain - in which McCain accepts the endorsement of a "Christian" who wants to nuke Iran, who labels himself a Christian-Zionist, who calls Catholicism a "whore religion", who says that the death of thousands in New Orleans was God's retaliation for AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY failure to one-sidedly support Israel enough. How many videos of that did you see on MSNBC? How many times did NPR reporters cluck and fret responsibly over that?

So - I will now bow out and let the rationalisations continue. 3, 2, 1... "b-b-but Obama SAT THERE FOR TWENTY YEARS!!!"...

Did I remember to say - well said Grant.

COLLEEN: Given the top ten list you provided, small wonder that so many in America are on anti-depressants, obese or drunk. Food for thought has become the faux pabulum equivalent that passes for dietary nutrition in the land of everything, along with the sacred, for quick sale.

Why has politics become so infused with religion? When I was young, religion was very different than what it is now. We prayed that our leaders would be guided and let it go at that. We weren't told how to vote.

This is that first political campaign that has included debates and forums on religion. Why not have debates on political principles and ask questions like "Do you believe in the first amendment?" "What is your opinion of the Geneva Convention accords?"

Until we focus on political questions rather than religion, our political process will continue to be muddled.

What I don't understand is why anyone is surprised by this double standard. Of course Hagee will have a "tunnel to the White House" if McCain wins. Haven't we seen that in action for the last 7+ years? Of course we must assume Wright will have a "tunnel to the White House" if Obama wins. Haven't we seen for the last 7+ years how the White House is in the pocket of the "religious right" that helped it get elected?

Oh, wait. It's not a perfect parallel after all, is it? Obama doesn't have to pander to Wright in order to win the election. Oh well. No matter. It's still a good story that sells advertising on our television and radio stations and in our newspapers and magazines. And that, after all, is the vital function of the news media in a democracy. And there's no better story than a scary black man. Just ask Michael Dukakis.

"Obama is the front-runner and hence his destruction is raw meat even for the top journals in the country." - Greely is right here in that humanity as a whole still chooses the release of Barbaros (fear of looking at human failings) over Christ (touching optimal human potential)...

...and Greely goes on to pick up his hammer and nails of more racism to pound America further on the cross with his very next sentence...

"Surely both papers understand that many Americans are looking for a reason not to vote for a Kenyan American and that this gaffe will feed their hunger."

Hope you're having fun!

"Therefore, I charge the editors of both papers, and Gibson and Stephanopoulos, of intellectual dishonesty, flawed ethics and McCarthyism." as I charge you Andrew Greely:

"I suggest the difference is that the senator from Illinois is a Kenyan American and the senator from Arizona a white American." - Greely

If you are going to call Obama a Kenyan American and McCain a white American, instead of an Irish or Scottish (or whatever) American, you are upholding racism and American (white) Exceptionalism (and notice how the article spirals in mere numbers rationalizing with the only humanity being tones of harsh feelings).

It's harsh tribal humor, but some may be interested in Carlos Mencia's Take A Joke America. With in it is a comic rant on being a Mexican American vs. an American.

This is why I still push for impeachment hearings: as I see this as the most effective and expedient path to walk for discovering on a human basis the commonality to being an American regardless of roots.

Here's a piece (edited for inclusiveness) from Robert F. Kennedy's On The Menace Of Violence, spoken the day after Martin Luther King's assassination, that looks toward our common humanity, American or otherwise:

"Our lives on this planet are too short, the work to be done to great to let this spirit flourish any longer in this land of ours. Of course we can not banish this with a program nor with a resolution, but we can perhaps remember, if only for a time, that those who live with us are our brothers and sisters; that they share with us the same short moment of life; that they seek, as do we, nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment that they can.

Surely this bond of common fate, surely this bond of common goals can begin to teach us something. Surely we can learn in the least to look around at those of us, our common humanity, and surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us, and to become in our hearts: sister and brothers and common Citizens once again."

I'm reading a lot of white/black comments. While the fact that Wright is black may appeal to a certain racist undercurrent, I think the real problem is neocon/non-neocon. (Not right/left, as neither Clinton nor Obama qualifies as a 'lefty.') Kucinich does qualify as a progressive - which is why he was elbowed out by the MSM - and they attacked him, and continue to attack him, without him needing to be black or have a black firebrand preacher. [From what I have been told of people who attend(ed) black churches, 'black firebrand preacher' is redundant.]

These fanatics on the right will use/misuse/abuse just about anything to attack a non-neocon politician. I recently read a comment in which Hilary Clinton was described as a communist. (Can any progressive imagine either of the Corporate Clintons as a communist?!)

I don't/can't/won't deny the racial element - (I've lived in the US too long) - but it goes deeper than that, I believe. Remember: "If you're not with us, you're against us."

Rimpinths,
It is not unreasonble for some to question the nature of how rapid and widespread was the early HIV outbreak in Africa. One of the theories is the use of the monkey kidney as culture media for the development of the oral polio vaccine, with an unintentional contaminant being the HIV retrovirus, and subsequent infection into the African population during early trials of the oral polio vaccine. There as unanswered questions about viral types, and this is circumstantial, but not 100% disproven. Maybe the Rev knows something we don't.
Or is there concern that early on the HIV epidemic was treated more as a social problem than a true public health crisis, delaying help during a crucial time. What was coming out of the White House was 'just say so', instead of realistic information on containing and preventing this disease and the use of other prophylactic methods.
Or is there concern that the retrovial fighting vaccines were priced out of the reach of the third world indigenous poor population. Some may view this as genocidal, others as good for corporate profits.
Yes, the Rev may have some legitimate concerns in his impassioned speeches.
(sorry about the repeat, but I had trouble with the edit function)

Rimpinths (to continue),
Or is it possible there is concern that early on the HIV epidemic was treated more as a social problem than as a true public health crisis. What was coming out of the White House was 'just say no', instead of educational and preventative programs, and the need for other prophylactic methods.
Or is there concern that the retroviral fighting drugs were priced out of the reach of the third world indigenous poor population. May be this is looked at as genocidal, for others it is good for corporate profits.
Yes, the Rev may have some valid points in his impassioned speeches.

"Clemsy, I find it really hard to accept that you would be okay with the McCain-Hagee connection if only McCain would've just sat and listened to Hagee's sermons for 20 years like Obama did with Wright instead of seeking his endorsement. If you think it's okay to criticize McCain's relationship with Hagee, but you call Obama's relationship with Wright a "non-issue", then you are not being objective."

Don't know where you got that from, Rimpinths. You're reading quite selectively, and spinning to suite your own Wright=Hagee opinion which I think is incredibly uninformed.

To be plain, I'm not okay with any Hagee connection to anyone. Wright is just a pastor who the media have given a microphone to. Hagee is a political operative with high level connections in the Republican Party and the White House, and who actively uses his organization to lobby for war, war, war.

One is a fiery preacher. The other is the stuff of a Stephen King novel.

Why Media Fix on Wright and Ignore Hagee:

Because the corporate media is run by a handful of super-rich fascists.

Rimpinths

Viewership of news channels is declining. They are not satisfying the market.

(but nothing alienates me as much as what I have seen on tv..those are not my values..I am alienated from my own nation)

anyway..this article is about what people are watching...

http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=2&media=6

and a quote:

The Top 10 Cable News Shows
December 2006

The O'Reilly Factor
Hannity & Colmes
On the Record w/ Greta Van Susteran
The Fox Report w/ Shepard Smith
Special Report w/ Brit Hume
The O'Reilly Factor (repeat)
Larry King Live
The Big Story w/ John Gibson
Studio B w/ Shepard Smith
Your World w/ Neil Cavuto

..........................

No wonder America has a president like Bush.

I liked Jeremiah Wright. He was following in his namesake..Jeremiah from the Bible...

well, and the thing about Rev. Wright is that, in the main, practically every charge he makes against America is absolutely true.

And Obama flipped out by denying practically all of it. Is that guy living in America?

Someone should sit him down with a copy of the award winning Medical Apartheid. Here, Barack, this is your country. Let's start at the beginning and give you the education you obviously never got.

There is no one in the "Mainstream Media" sending out a daily memo saying "Cover This! Don't Cover That!" The media is, as has been said, like a bunch of 1st graders on a soccer field, running wildly in every direction, ever chasing the ball and not usually getting to it.

It's about as far from conspiracy as you can get and still be in the English language. It's also often far from perfect, but then hardly anything is.

There is a gaggle of reporters with Hillary, with Obama, and with McCain and every one of them is filing a report every single day. And every day there is an editor deciding which is the most interesting story. They're not saying "Oh, put that Hagee story in a drawer." They're saying "The ratings go up when we cover Wright, and they go down when we cover Hagee. Let's do more stories on Wright."

You think the editor of NBC, CBS, and ABC all get on a conference call and say "Let's downplay Hagee so we can bury the story!" ??? Each one, independent of the other (but remember the soccer ball analogy) decides what's most interesting to their audience, and they put it on the air. If you like Obama I'm sure that makes you unhappy, but that's the way it is.

They put on the air that which they think the audience will find most interesting, the same way Ford puts in the showrooms the cars they think the public will buy. They're not always right, obviously, but that's how it works. I assure you, if it was "what they want" then the Swift Boat or Alberto Gonzales stories would never have been broadcast or written except in the lunatic fringe media. And yet they were.

Newsrooms are populated by right wingnuts, screaming liberals, and mostly folks somewhere in between. And believe it or not, they don't write "what they want", they write "what will get them a byline or their face on TV" and, in most cases, "a responsible story" because that's how they were trained.

Let's face it, the Wright issue is more interesting than the insides of a wonkie white paper on some policy issue (at least to the general public.) And let's face it, a spat between Obama and Wright is more interesting (in our Paris Hilton world) than his third rendition of his opposition to NAFTA. That doesn't make it right, or a proud media accomplishment to cover it, but that's how it works.

You'll do yourself a favor if you please stop the "MSM is in a conspiracy" meme. It's too absurd for words. Remember the soccer ball. That's really how it works.

.
The Main reason that the Press/Media focus on the Reverend Wright is that there is TRUTH in his claims. Those accusations may be shocking, and his black-preaching style maybe uncomfortable for many, but the statements have not been evaluated fairly.

The Rev. Hagee is a well known "extremist" even by Religious Right standards.

Angry prophets have been killed for delivering God's messages of condemnation to immoral Kings and Nations.

In America and the World today to be a "Politically Correct Minister" is to be smooth and popular.

John the Baptist, Nathan, Jesus, Mohamad, Mother Theresa, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Martin Luther, Robert Kennedy, etc., all upset the ESTABLISHMENTs of their time........

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright's messages should be studied and embraced. They are, in the main, relevant social and moral sermons. God is working thru this man.........PAX

.PS...The New York Times and the Washington Post would do well to give him a weekly column !!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

Grant, you said it all so I'll just say "way to go"!

Rimpinths -

Your simple truths will only convince simpletons such as, apparently, yourself.

Your implicitly blind trust in the automatic democratic virtues of a freemarket mainstream news Media unfortunately roots in your blind trust [perceptual pretense?] that a freemarket mainstream news media actually exists in the US.

It's another matter as to how a society based on principles of private property, and guided by 1st Amendment principles of 'free speech,' is supposed to solve the problem of a centralized, corrput, Soviet-like, officialdom-succoring news media.

But that this problem (most clear thinking people would call it a crisis of legitimation of information), exists, is not in doubt for honest observers.

So, before you tell us that the average American is freely choosing political info and competitively opined interpretation from a functionally free marketplace of ideas, please consider checking-in for consultation with any competent, non-partisan psychiatrist. Your perception of reality might be improved thereby.

Hey Grant, Galen, gojack, Siouxrose et al, have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?

Your theories require a detailed explanation of how the media is controlled by six corporations, the media has an interest in suppressing Wright's views, the media is rascist, and for good measure, let's throw in the good old "the Jews control the world" conspiracy theory, blah blah blah. You have to connect five billion dots before your theories make any sense.

The answer is much simpler: the public thinks the Wright story is relevant, so people watch it, and the media sells more ads. The public doesn't think the Hagee story is relevant, so people don't watch it, and the media doesn't sell ads. Thus Wright gets more coverage than Hagee. End of story. It's really that simple.

I'm sorry if I'm rude, or personally attack, I'm just a little tired of election season in this country being determined by this nonsense and I'm tired of the press leading by doing this crap. This happens every four years and it's always the same strategy. There are real big issues facing the country, whoever gets elected should win because they have some ideas that will at least lead us in the direction of solving them. The media in this country is no different than Pravda, they simply aren't. They, like Pravda, are controlled by the interests who run the society and they allow information to get to the public that is in their best interest, not the publics. I'm sick of it.

Good comments: HOOTING, CLEMSY, EILEEN FLEMMING & GRANT.

RIMPINTHS: The advertising dollars are a piece of the cake, but not the whole thing. Guess you missed the part about 6 major corporations owning most TV & Radio & broadcast vehicles, and that some of these are directly involved with the defense contractors, a little thing known as the military-media-industrial complex, tightening its network of knots more day by day; or did you miss the article about the paid general sychophants, too?

Wow. Could it be that you don't know jack crap about Wright and only know what the media has shown you? Could it be that the issues that Wright focused on, the ones I addressed, are the reasons why Obama went to his church? The man has worked for the poor in Chicago for decades. Obama was a community organizer in the poor communities, couldn't have gone to that church for THAT reason, now could he have? He's critiqued US militarism, the unjust legal system (Obama went to law school), the unjust economic system, could it be that Obama was drawn to THAT? Of course not, the networks showed you a clip of Wright talking about AIDS, you know nothing of the man, so Obama must have joined for that reason. What the hell would you know otherwise? Hagee wants the end of the world by bombing Iran, McCain wants to bomb Iran. McCain sought the support of Robertson & Fallwel, who blamed 9/11 on gay people and asked for the killing of a democratically elected president of another country. The fact that these types of comments mean more to you than a few second clip by a man you don't know a damn thing about, while ignoring decades of work by Wright on issues you're also ignoring, is insanely irrational. It's this type of stupid logic that got Bush elected.

You keep on saying that people "want" the story. Based on what? None of the networks ratings went up, the polls show that people care far more about the issues than anything else and nothing that they've said they care about has been covered with nearly as much detail as this fake controversy. Polls now show that almost 60% of the public thinks the media showed too much attention to the Wright fake controversy. There has been an organized media blitz campaign and it had little to no effect, relative to the issues I'm talking about. What you're saying makes no logical sense. The media ran with the story far before they could ever get enough information to see if the public even cared. They had already shown the clip wall to wall for days, on every network, before it became national news. People had things like, I don't know, economic, the war and healthcare issues to worry about. Crazy, right? You ask why they would cover it, again, they are giant for profit corporations who receive most of their funding from other corporations. If this were any other industry you'd take it for granted, as you should because of corporate law, that the companies who own the media should act in their best interest. Are these media companies going to benefit by analyzing in detail "free trade" (which the public does value far more than the freaking Wright comments) when they and the companies who give them their advertising revenue benefit from the policies? Are they going to analyze in detail the healthcare system when they depend on drug and insurance company money? Do you need me to link examples of corporations pulling advertising revenue because media outlets ran constant stories against their interest? How many Coca Cola commercials would be on CNN if CNN talked about the FACTS regarding water usage at their plants in India? Or their connection to death squads in Colombia? None. The same holds true for every other issue. If the media needs capital to function then the media will be controlled by those with the most capital.

The internet is not controlled by capital and you see how free it is. If "net neutrality" fails it will be dominated by capital and you will see the same effect online.

Since all the media is owned by corporations and dominated by capital, people have no alternative. One network by run a story that isn't on another, the story might be about Brittney Spear's sister's new baby. THAT'S another story, right? Doesn't mean the people are going to understand ISSUES that networks ignore. Again, I can't see for the life of me, seeing that you can turn the TV on for a perfect example of what I'm talking about, what you can say otherwise.

I don't know why Mr. Greeley should be flabbergasted because Bishop Wright and Obama get pounded over and over in the media while Mr. Hagee rates only a tut tut with a passing mention of John McCain 1500 words later.

The explanation in a word is: Israel

Mr. Hagee fanatically supports Israel and hobnobs with Jewish powers that be in Israel and in the U.S. while Mr. Wright has expressed some sympathy for Israel's Palestinian victims. Ergo, criticizing Mr. Hagee is the same as criticizing Israel and Jews.

As we all know, criticism of Israel and its supporters is off limits in the American media.

But you knew that already didn't you Mr. Greeley.....but you were and are afraid to say so.

Because the Media is a whore. But if you continue paying attention to this whore then you have no one else to blame.

Americans just don't get that the media and the two party system is part of the problem, and yet the American Sheeple......

Maybe Americans are learning to read between the lines…

Americans canèt or wonèt read the lines critically never mind inuendos.

The Obama-Wright story outsells the McCain-Hagee twenty to one . Itès the profits , stupid . William Randolf Hurst sold the Spanish American war to a gullible American populace . MSM ( and WRH was definitely that ) hasnèt changed at all in ninety years.

Grant wrote: "If there are only four car dealerships in my town, I and everyone else wants a hybrid and the car dealerships don't sell them because it isn't in their interest, it's irrational to say there are no hybrids for sale because there is no demand."

And why would it not be in CNN's interest to talk about the Hagee-McCain relationship? If people thought it was important, CNN's ratings would go up, they would sell more ads, and they would make more money. Are you suggesting that CNN is deliberately forgoing potential profits because somebody behind the scenes is pulling strings and preventing them from discussing this story even though people want to know more? I don't buy it.

Grant also wrote: "If you have an oligopoly in an industry, they have the same economic interests and are funded and owned by the same rough group of people, you are going to have an end product (corporate media propaganda) that is in the interest of the owners."

The only thing that is in the interest of the owners is selling more ads and making more money. That's the beauty (and horror) of free markets. CNN and FoxNews are very, very competitive, and if CNN had a chance to make money off of a story that FoxNews refused to cover, then they wouldn't hesistate to do it.

I'm sure you can come up with a 200 page thesis of why the media is conspiring to kill the Hagee story, but the truth is much simpler: people don't think it's as important as the Wright story.

Grant, I enjoyed reading your comments, but there's no way I can find the time to respond to everything in your rant. You pretty much want to cover the whole right vs. left debate, from foreign policy to corporate media to healthcare. Nor am I interested in debating the accuracy of each one of Wright's views. If we were just comparing two crazy preachers, than I agree that Hagee should be locked up in the asylum long before Wright. But who's crazier is not the issue. The issue is their relationsip with the presidential candidates and the influence that they have had on those candidates' views. I don't think even you would argue that Hagee has had much influence on McCain, but Wright has had a tremendous influence on Obama's life, thus his views should be scrutinized.

Okay, this is getting really repetitive. Everytime I say, "The premise of the article is flawed," Somebody else says, "But Wright is right," which is really another issue altogether and one that even Obama himself isn't willing to defend.

To the white, middle class 'Merican majority, 'Pastor' Jon Haggee is like the slightly dotty chubby uncle that the family knows is a drunk who beats his wife, but is welcomed at family reunions and weddings because 'he doesn't really mean what he says', and his stories are entertaining.

To the same white, middle class 'Merican majority, Reverend Wright is that scary angry black man down the block (who's innocent father was lynched for looking at a white woman), who tells people exactly how and why his daddy died at the hands of an enraged mob led by their favorite dotty uncle.

And if you deny -that-, then I guess you like your chubby, dotty drunk of a wife beating uncle...

Um, it might have something to do with the fact that Hagee has an organization called CUFI, Christians United for Israel. Think they want to broadcast that the guy is a raving asshat racist?

I've seen too many "conspiracy theories" turn out to be true to say unequivocally no. I know nothing of the specifics of the case or the book Wright has referenced on the subject. So, no, it isn't far fetched. It is however much more open to debate than anything else Wright said and the issues that are being ignored are the issues the owners of the press, and the paid propagandists we see on the corporate owned stations, want to ignore. They're also the issues the public wants discussed but can't convince the press to, at least to discuss the issues in a way that would be in the publics but not their interest. When, for instance, "free trade" is discussed they do have "both sides" of the issue. The liberals are for it but want compensation when jobs are lost and more education, the conservatives want a savage capitalist economic system. No one is on, generally, who disagree with both polls, the two major parties, or "free trade" fundamentally, despite the fact that the system is a disaster and has nothing to do with the free trade they teach in economics departments.

My basic point is that if you throw out the few segments the press has shown, and have an honest discussion on the issues Wright spent the majority of his life and career discussing and working on behalf of, there would be no controversy. It's irrational to say the public "wants" what they get when the debate on the networks is equally narrow and they all ignore what the public wants in the first place. If there are only four car dealerships in my town, I and everyone else wants a hybrid and the car dealerships don't sell them because it isn't in their interest, it's irrational to say there are no hybrids for sale because there is no demand. If you have an oligopoly in an industry, they have the same economic interests and are funded and owned by the same rough group of people, you are going to have an end product (corporate media propaganda) that is in the interest of the owners. The media creates the end product, there really is no alternative, and people have a choice to either not consume it or to consume the same product with minor variations.

Grant Said: Take away the AIDS comment (the fact that that is all you pay attention to says a lot), what else that Wright said is so outlandish or not true? Is it not a minority of what he said?

Is it really so far-fetched to think AIDS started as a US Military bio-weapon?

Wright is right.

If the Reverend Wright himself were running for president, he would be one of the best candidates to vote for, taking a place with Mike Gravel and Ron Paul.

No more of this spin about Wright pegging him as an America hater like it's moot, such as in this article. The Reverend made accurate statements about US foreign policy and has the chutzpah to voice it "unashamedly"!

He is an American patriot.

I agree with Grant, and as for the original article, I have no use for "progressives" who engage in these ritual denunciations of scary leftists (or scary black people or in this case, both). Wright said some stupid things, but if the media did its job the Tuskegee project would be common knowledge and people would know why Wright is a little paranoid about HIV. Plus, his church was probably doing more for AIDS victims than the Federal government in the early years.

And Wright is correct about US foreign policy. This is what is so depressing about the Obama phenomenon--all the so-called progressives who run away screaming from Wright, when it is Obama who is the one betraying progressive causes.

Rimpinths ,

Take away the AIDS comment (the fact that that is all you pay attention to says a lot), what else that Wright said is so outlandish or not true? Is it not a minority of what he said? After all, the man has worked for DECADES on issues relating to poverty, criminal and economic justice, etc. When he critiques the criminal justice system, and its effects on his community, what counter could you possibly offer? Are there not endless studies on the differences in the legal outcomes between the black and the white community, and between the rich and poor? When he talks about the US government spending as we do on war (with our economy largely and increasingly reliant on war to function) while poverty is increasing and wealth concentration going through the roof, what possible counter could you or the millionaire pundits have? What could you or the rest say about his comments about 9/11 when our own intelligence community admits basically what he said? The term "blowback" is a CIA term and was originally used regarding the effects of our support of the Shah and the crushing of democracy in Iran. This has kind of had an effect on Iran, no? Who also attacked us on 9/11? Did Reagan and the right wing not support them previously? Did they not give Saddam the very weapons he used on his people and INCREASED funding to him after? How has this mindset and policy changed? We have had a murderous foreign policy, we have supported un-democratic policies (look at what we've done with the CPA in Iraq, you can not get more un-democratic or exploitive than that) and strong men in the Mid East and there is NOT a discussion by the elites or the people who need the elites to think about them to fundamentally change our foreign policy to correct this. So please, stick to the small fraction of what the man has said over decades of work because the media does and don't think critically about how ridiculous or hypocritical it is.

I find it interesting that you ignore all of that, and the vast majority of what Wright said and the issues that Wright has worked on for decades, because you have your AIDS comment. Throw that away and Wright is simply saying things that are correct, and people in this country don't want to hear. The press, and people like you, don't focus on the majority of what Wright said because these groups don't want to discuss these issues. The press is owned by groups who are benefiting from the policies that Wright is critiquing and are ignoring those issues because they have no counter. They focus on the AIDS comments because that is a wedge used to get the truth he speaks minimized. It's what the right wing is good at and people who fall for it never learn the basic lesson. If someone is saying something that is largely true, and you have no counter for the vast majority of what they're saying, focus on the small fraction that IS controversial, and the flimsiest evidence-wise, to nullify the messenger. Attack the messenger when the message cannot be largely attacked directly. Meanwhile, the corporately owned press, dominated by out of touch millionaire pundits, ignore the fact that their polices have gotten us a horrific and over priced healthcare system, a ridiculous and irrational environmental policy, an immoral, deadly and costly couple of wars, a crumbling economy reliant on the militarization of the rest of world to function, amongst other things.

The Republican Party focuses on this for a different but similar reason: they have no ideas that can win, especially now according to polls, and need these types of distractions in the hope that people won't realize this. The media, for their own reasons, go along with it. Why someone with a working brain in their head can't see this is beyond me.

By the way, are you arguing that if Obama didn't seek someone as radical on the left as Hagee is on the right that he wouldn't be attacked just as irrationally and unequally? Give me a break. If Obama was openly looking for the support of Hugo Chavez for a year, with no previous connection to the man, you're saying the corporate press here wouldn't be going ape $hit crazy? What if he sought the support openly from Noam Chomsky for a year and said he was happy to have his endorsement? You're telling me there would not be an uproar? If Obama sought out a candidate on the left who wanted the destruction of Israel to fulfill some wacky religious prophecy, you're telling me there would be no double standard? Hagee is calling for the destruction of Iran to bring about the end of the world while backing a man who wants to start a war with Iran. Forget some false equivalence you want to argue, THAT is more pertinent to YOUR life than some AIDS comment.

"I don't think the mainstream media manufactured this issue. The MSM is too competitive to be able to direct public's attention to issues that they are not sincerely interested in."

Really, do tell. The American public, more than anything, are concerned with healthcare, the economy, education, the war obviously, the environment, etc. ISSUES. How much has the press, owned by six corporations who receive the vast majority of their funding from other corporations, focused on these issues vs. Wright in the last few weeks? The only time the press has discussed healthcare in detail and compared it to other systems that work far better (all of them socialized in one way or another) is when they were forced to by Moore's movie, and even when they did (on CNN mainly) they were extremely dishonest. This couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the fact that the press is reliant on drug and insurance companies for advertising revenue now is it? What planet do you live on?

I appreciate this article, BUT the truth is that Hagee and his multitudes of minions are way more dangerous to we the people of the world than the outpouring of Wright's anger.

On November 6, 2007, I traveled to Miami's James L. Knight Center that was packed to the rafters with John Hagee's tribe of Christian Zionists and south Florida's right wing Jewish community.

Zion's Fire Banners, dancers, singers and a band whipped the crowd into a frenzy of spinning, jumping, clapping, twirling and moved the rotund Hagee to link arms with men in skull caps and dance the Hora-not to Hava Nagila, but to repeated choruses of:

Shout for joy and victory! Bat Yerushalyim

From one end of the stage to the other, the largest American and Israeli flags I have ever seen were draped side by side and by the end of the evening I imagined every star on the red-white-and blue had morphed into the Star of David.

[Photo on WAWA Homepage: http://www.wearewideawake.org/

Miami-Dade County Commissioner Joe Martinez pointed to the flags and exclaimed: "Isn't that beautiful up there together? I get goose bumps! All nations have been created by an act of man, except Israel was created by an act of God."

Rabbi Freedman delivered the Invocation, "We are all friends of the only democracy in the Middle East."

I immediately recalled what American Israeli, Jeff Halper, the Founder and Coordinator of ICAHD/Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions told me during one of my five journeys to Jerusalem:

"Israel is a not a democracy but is an Ethnocracy, meaning a country run and controlled by a national group with some democratic elements but set up with Jews in control and structured to keep them in control."

Rabbi Freedman continued on, "From Mount Sinai to Mount Zion to Mount Vernon we are all Zionists! Israel is second to America in how many immigrants we have absorbed."

Immigrant absorption in Israel comes with perks and is called Aliyah, ["go up"] and is a fundamental concept of Zionism enshrined in Israel's Law of Return, which permits any Jew from any where in the world the legal right to government assisted immigration and settlement in Israel, automatic Israeli citizenship, unemployment benefits, free medical, and subsidized housing. Young adult immigrants receive free room, utilities, and three meals a day for the first five months and 100 percent of their tuition is paid by the government.

Hagee's mastery of manipulating the fears of his audience garnered him a standing ovation as the shofars blew, "Israel was re-born by an act of God and Israel lives! The Jews have suffered great persecution and survived slavery and the Final Solution! God Jehovah will bury Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran! The flag of Israel will fly over the undivided Jerusalem and be the praise of all the earth! It's 1938 again and the new Hitler is Ahmadinejad! Radical Islamisicts are threatening to develop nuclear weapons in order to destroy Israel and then the USA! But we are indivisible and we are both here forever!"

The oft repeated comment ascribed to President Ahmadinejad, that "Israel must be wiped off the map," was addressed by Virginia Tilley, Professor of political science who wrote:

"In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word "map" or the term "wiped off". According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

"In this speech to an annual anti-Zionist conference, Mr. Ahmadinejad was being prophetic, not threatening. He was citing Imam Khomeini, who said this line in the 1980s (a period when Israel was actually selling arms to Iran, so apparently it was not viewed as so ghastly then). Mr. Ahmadinejad had just reminded his audience that the Shah's regime, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein had all seemed enormously powerful and immovable, yet the first two had vanished almost beyond recall and the third now languished in prison. So, too, the "occupying regime" in Jerusalem would someday be gone. His message was, in essence, "This too shall pass." http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html

Being a Christian of the Beatitudes-sticking to what Jesus actually taught and not worshiping any state or nation, I hope that the zeal of particular Christians for the state of Israel will pass and because of their love for the Jewish people, I have hope they will have ears to hear the wisdom of the American Jewish progressive political and spiritual community and organization, Tikkun.

Tikkun is Hebrew for mend, repair and transform the world.

Tikkun researched to discover that there are three distinct elements energizing the Christian Zionists:

1. A strong commitment to conservative and ultra-nationalist American politics (so strong, I believe, that if the U.S. were to decide to break with Israel, this part of the Christian Zionist leadership would go along with that and drop its defense of Israeli policies).

2. Dispensationalist religious commitments that lead many of the Christian Zionists to yearn for a cataclysmic "end of history" eschatological war in the Middle East that will precipitate the second coming of Jesus and the Rapture in which all true Christians will go to heaven and all Jews who have not yet converted to Christianity will burn in hell for eternity.

3. A widespread understanding among many Christians that atonement and repentance is needed for 1700 years of murder, rape, and oppression of Jews that was frequently generated by the Church (though, of course, the Evangelicals do not recognize that church as their church). In this category are many Christian Zionists who genuinely feel terrible about what has happened to the Jews and genuinely want to help the Jewish people. Their philo-Semitism is real and sincere. [Rabbi Lerner, Tikkun Magazine page 9, Nov/Dec. 2007]

But in Miami last November, multitudes of fear filled misled and misinformed Christians celebrated military occupation, violence, power and control and ignored the gospel Jesus preached: "It is the peacemakers who shall be called the children of God." –Matthew 5:9

Hagee repeatedly cited that all worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but neglected to mention that the first mention of Israel is in Genesis 32:22, when Jacob was renamed Israel for having wrestled and struggled with the Divine.

Hagee threw out the names of all the Hebrew prophets, but not the fact that God raised up prophets to speak truth to power and arrogance and to remind people of what God desires:

"What does God require? He has told you o'man!
Be just, be merciful, and walk humbly with your Lord." -Micah 6:8

God also raised up prophets to remind them they cannot know the mind of the Mystery of the Universe, for "His thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord."- Isaiah 55:8

God raised up prophets to admonish the "stiff necked people" [Exodus 34:9, Proverbs 29:1] and that "My people are fools, they do not know me! They are skilled in doing evil, they know not how to do good."-Jeremiah 4:22

Hagee invoked the "Torah Way" but neglected what the Torah commands:

"From Moses to Jeremiah and Isaiah, the Prophets taught...that the Jewish claim on the land of Israel was totally contingent on the moral and spiritual life of the Jews who lived there, and that the land would, as the Torah tells us, 'vomit you out' if people did not live according to the highest moral vision of Torah. Over and over again, the Torah repeated its most frequently stated mitzvah [command]:

"When you enter your land, do not oppress the stranger; the other, the one who is an outsider of your society, the powerless one and then not only 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself' but also 'you shall love the other.'" [Rabbi Lerner, TIKKUN Magazine, page 35, Sept./Oct. 2007 ]

IMAGINE when our politicians actually LISTENED to their constituents and supporters and Godspeed on the day when we the people rise up/intifada and regain COMMON SENSE and remember the vision and ideals that this republic was founded upon:

"Soon after I had published the pamphlet "Common Sense" [on Feb. 14, 1776] in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion... The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion."-Tom Paine

Now, IMAGINE when the media honors its mandate to seek and report the truth because:

"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends...I believe that as soon as people want peace in the world they can have it. The only trouble is they are not aware they can get it...You've got to get down to your own God in your own temple. It's all down to you, mate …All we are saying is give peace a chance…All you need is love…Imagine all the people living life in peace. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one."-John Lennon

IMAGINE that!

e
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

Don't forget the American icon: Billy Graham. Jon Stewart did a take off on this on the Daily Show a couple of weeks ago.

The truth is, the whole Rev Wright so called news story was all about the 'black boogy man.' This was put out there, and played 24/7 by FOX News to play to those people who have been saying: "There's just something about Obama I just don't trust." Here is what they don't trust: black people.

I think in our hearts many of us know that this is racism. America needs to admit that we are still not over our racist ideas. And, until we do, there are those who will never be comfortable with African Americans.

The real difference is that McCain's supporters agree with Hagee and hate Obama and all Blacks. The truth is that Wright told the truth. Even on the point of who created AIDS, it is more a question of whether it was possible or not. It was not at the point when the AIDS epedemic started. But, the reality is that if it had been possible, then the evil, foul, hateful leaders of our nation would have done it. And with the rapid advances in Biochemistry, the time is rapidly approaching when they will use that technology to exterminate the yellow, black and brown races except for those they intend to keep as slaves. And, in the process, they will be searching for ways to also eliminate all who are not Christian as well as those Christians they don't like such as Catholics, Mormons, Methodists, Presbyterians, and liberal Baptists. Ha! Can also see them searching for ways to wipe out all eggheads, trial lawyers, university professors, homosexuals, the poor, etc.

You people are really starting to bore me.

Wright's ego is his biggest obstacle.

His presentation and manner are apparently geared toward gaining attention towards himself more than towards the message he would convey.

Even still, I don't see Wright's ranting as dangerous as the kook's who blame 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina on liberals and gays. If the corporate media is offended by hatred, we'd see more scrutiny of the Falwells and Robertsons out there.

At least Wright was on to something real about our government's foreign policy being a factor. And that's the "bad thing" the media wants us to scorn.

There are American farmers running around thinking they are doing God's perfect will on Earth by tring to raise unblemished red cows for the temple in Jerusalem, when their own inner sanctuaries are stained with the blemishes of bibliolatry and refusal to love one another--the Golden Rule. Imagine that! They can't figure out the meaning of the Golden Rule and instead want to stir up a hornet's nest in the mideast. Why not instead read the beautiful Zoroastrain spiritual love poetry of the 10th century Persian, Iranian poet Hafiz...Why? Because they have no sense of beauty, no longing for the beautiful...They can't get that perfect red heifer for the temple because it's not part of nature and thus has no natural beauty, but they've managed, like some mad alchemists, to transform the Golden Rule into a Golden Calf...

Clemsy wrote "He's not alone in the black community with those beliefs."
I think he is not alone in the world with those beliefs

The difference is the things Reverend Wright says have the ring of truth while Hagee's rantings are just nonsense. Whoops, I forgot, the conservatives love nonsense.

Pastor Hagee should be investigated.

It's also that Hagee is not McCain's minister, and Wright was Obama's. I think in their minds that makes a big difference. I don't see it that way; I think Hagee and his ilk need to be exposed daily by the media, but we have to become the media since they aren't going to do it.

Clemsy, I find it really hard to accept that you would be okay with the McCain-Hagee connection if only McCain would've just sat and listened to Hagee's sermons for 20 years like Obama did with Wright instead of seeking his endorsement. If you think it's okay to criticize McCain's relationship with Hagee, but you call Obama's relationship with Wright a "non-issue", then you are not being objective.

McCain is a hypocrite, but so is Obama for talking about a post-racial political era while having a spiritual mentor that preaches that the US gov't created AIDS to kill blacks and that black and white children's brains are wired differently. I don't care how many in the "black community" believe those things, they are still vile and wrong. Hagee is not alone in the white fundamentalist community with his beliefs either, but that doesn't make them any more acceptable.

I don't think the mainstream media manufactured this issue. The MSM is too competitive to be able to direct public's attention to issues that they are not sincerely interested in. People can switch channels, go to different websites with ease, and they will gravitate towards those issues that interest them. And it's pretty evident that the American public thinks that the Wright isssue is an important one. If people cared about Hagee, I have no doubt that CNN and MSNBC would devote hours of coverage to that as well.

Why all this talk about religion anyway? What ever happened to separation of church and state? It shouldn't matter what any person's pastor says. It has nothing to do with one's qualifications to be President.

MSM - Murdoch Sponsored Media?
Actually, historically speaking, the "Great Whore of Babylon" is the Creator Goddess.
The Patriarchy demonizes everything.

Perhaps we should require all who claim a knowledge of "GOD'S WILL" regarding public matters to first demonstrate that their Diety actually exists?

Following that proof, we can then more reasonably consider His message ......... and the messager.

No I don't. Wright's relationship with Obama is a non issue as far as I'm concerend, whereas, McCain, who at one time labeled people like Hagee agents of intolerance, now panders to them thus legitimizing their extremely dangerous worldview.

Wright, although wrong on the AIDS thing, is a manufactured issue to beat up Obama with. Wright's comments are made to sound outrageous. They're not. He's not alone in the black community with those beliefs.

Clemsy, I don't doubt that Hagee has said things equally or more outrageous than anything Wright has said. But the difference is that McCain wasn't sitting in Hagee's pews for 20 years while he said those things, he didn't have Hagee baptize his children, and he's never said that Hagee was a spiritual mentor and advisor. Do you really think that their respective relationships are comparable?

Rimpinths- I think that is what makes this story worse for McCain than Obama. Obama has known Rev Wright for 20+ years, McCain sought out the endorsement of Hagee for political reasons knowing full well what his controversial positions were. Obama is being held responsible for the words of the pastor of his church, McCain is not being held responsible for the words of a guy he sought out for an endorsement...

Rimpinths, Wright is a day at the beach with a frosty drink compared to Hagee. Wright says American foreign policy has consequences.

Amazing that every time someone says that, people go nuts and the media has a feeding frenzy.

Of course American foreign policy has inspired a lot of anger at us, especially in the Middle East.

Hagee literally wants to set the world on fire.

Wright is of a generation of blacks who don't trust the white establishment for very good reasons. He lived in an America no one will ever know.

Paul,

Don't underestimate these guys. People like Hagee are true believers unlike most politicos who play act. It's these true believers, wholeheartedly dedicated to an obsolete worldview based on divine revelation, who are the most dangerous. They can't be reasoned with. It's an all or nothing deal. The world is black and white, good and evil. You're either in or out, saved or damned, with them or against them.

And they have no problem sending millions of souls to hell in order for them to get to their heaven.

Hagee may very well be the worst of the bunch. his Christian Zionist organization is dedicated to establishing Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel and frimly believes that war with Iran and Russia is inevitable.

He has tens of thousands of followers and the ears of high ranking Republicans... and a friend in the White House.

There is no double standard here. The relationship between Obama and Wright is much closer than McCain's relationship with Hagee. That is why Wright is under more scrutiny than Hagee.

If McCain had been a parishioner in Hagee's church for twenty years, if McCain described Hagee as his spiritual mentor and advisor, if Hagee was the minister at McCain's wedding, if Hagee baptized McCain's children, and if McCain used the title of one of Hagee's sermons as a campaign manifesto and the title of his book... do you really have any doubt that McCain's relationship with Hagee would come under just as much scrutiny as Obama's relationship with Wright?

Right on Clemsy! " A sane society would consider Hagee a madman ". These religious Reich, wacko nut jobs, are tolerated because they support the wealthy,corrupt,political elite. They are psuedo-religious hypocrites that remind me of the hypocritical, church people that supported Hitler.What is really scary is that they have so many ignorant and blind acolytes!

Here is the best justification one can make for all the attention to Wright:
1. Unlike Hagee, Wright has been the candidate's personal pastor. By the way, does McCain even have a personal pastor?
2. Obama has marketed himself as moderate, post-racial, and post-partisan while Wright holds himself out as a black liberation theologian. The clash of images is too much to resist.

That said, it's quite clear Wright has been only a pretext for the Republicans, the Clintonians and the media to play the "race" card over and over again. I haven't forgotten what Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro said before Wright's "God damn America" speech surfaced on YouTube.

The corporate media is involved in a broadly based hit-job on someone they believe will effect real change in Washington. Media consolidation, and the drift toward propaganda and Fascism will be in danger if Obama is elected. It's just the same as the hit-job they did to Howard Dean and the loops of his screech they played over and over... They brought him down because he threatened those in power, and they're trying their best to bring down Obama. Only this time, it doesn't seem to be working. Maybe Americans are learning to read between the lines...

I think this election season I'm going to start going to church. I think I'll attend services at a different church each week, and each service I attend will be at a church whose parishioners tend to be very conservative. I'll bring my pocket recorder, and record all of the sermons. And when the preacher starts making political references I'll have it. I'll make mp3s and start sending them to, well, maybe someone can help out here. And maybe the justice department can step in and start taking away tax exempt statuses for some of the worst offenders.

I read that after the last election there were only two churches that were targeted for abuses of this nature, both, of course, left-leaning.

I think we should all do this. Any ideas?

Monday, April 07, 2008

Here's a Fox News confrontational interview (about 10 minutes long) with Rev. Mike Pfleger, a (white) Catholic priest who strongly supports Rev. Wright by comparing his speech to Jesus.

"What if we took 30-second film clips of Jesus overturning tables in the temple? Or saying you must hate your parents in order to love me? We would have thought him a crazy man?"

Well worth watching and sharing before they pull it:

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?videoId=1fd1c0cf-5c80-4d75-996f-bd53b2461ae0&sMPlaylistID

http://www.saintsabina.org/

Should we expect anything less from the Corporate Media? The disconnected and misinformed have the sound bites entrenched in their skulls. Why bother seeking the truth when you have others (CM) doing the thinking for you. You might say they are practicing Green Thinking - (recycling the same old garbage).

Hagee is white, rich, Republican and a darling of the of the Christian right. The media is afraid of this particular demographic. Scary considering a sane society would consider Hagee a dangerous madman.