Tête-à-Tête-Tête

I would disagree.

Yes, it was inflamatory, but looking at his statements outside the puview of Mainstream white “manifest destiny” he did have underlying points.

Our country has killed many innocents overseas and did little in the way or paying reperations. Still does little. 9/11 was bad, but in they eyes of others who have been oppressed by America, either at home or abroad, 9/11 was a wake up call.

God Damn America? White children can follow all the rules and never be pulled over for “driving while black” or your sons be searched “just because”.

Tut tutting over voiced anger at injustice when you do not have to personally encounter it, is assinine. Black son’s are not fetishized by the adult industry and their daughters live under the ruberic that if they are ever attacked and or raped their is a statistical better chance that the chance their attacker will be caught and sent to prison is the same level as it was for white woment in 1945.

That minister was addressing an anger at injustice within the Black community. The person who looked at the issue in black and white is the person who owns this blog.

While I do not know the race of the owner of this blog, I will say that if you are African American you display a dazzeling level of innocense.

No wonder our religion has such problems with black recruitement. It is this level of incompetent mindlessness that results in black people entering our churches and saying “Oh Puulleeeze I do not need this foolishness”.

A. All that fluff press was NOT a good thing. The guy has never been tested, so let’s see what happens. Hey, he could come out smelling like roses….look, if Clinton can get elected with HIS baggage..I’m just sayin’.

B. We’re going to be fine no matter who wins. Trust me, we’ll still have civil rights and a Democratic form of gov’t and our military strength will stay the best in the world. The sky won’t fall if “the other guy” wins. In my case if Obama/Hillary wins, I’ll pay more in taxes but my life won’t change much at all…..few will if McCain wins. We’ll. Be. Fine. Heck, I remember coming here & seeing you & Buck go on about the theocracy that Bush was bringing to town. In short, we’re not a theocracy (or any closer to one than we were 5, 10, 20 years ago), we’re not going to lose our civil rights and we’re not going to SUCK if candidate X loses. We’re the USA and we have mechanisms to check things if the public starts to get antsy. I refer to the ‘06 mid-terms as a quick refresher. All the prose in the world can’t wipe away what this country is and people getting all melancholic over and election - an election! - is just melodrama and rhetoric, buddy. If McCain wins, we’ll be fine. If Hillary wins, we’ll be fine. If Obama wins, we’ll be fine. What’ll change is what we bitch about.

C. Come on, agree or disagree, love or hate, this title at Ace’s is comedic treasure: Michelle and Barack Obama Tarnished By What Apears To Be Clear Quid Pro Quo Political In-Your-Pocket Payoff;
Hope, Change Hardest Hit

That’s gold, baby. Gold.

9/11 was bad, but in they eyes of others who have been oppressed by America, either at home or abroad, 9/11 was a wake up call.

Yeah, whitey had it comin’.

Chuck - I’m white & I’m fully cognizant of and truly angered by racism as it continues even now to be practiced in this country. I am cognizant of and angered by our country’s past support of apartheid. I’m cognizant of and angered by our country’s policies that do not respect the lives of those overseas with whose governments we have conflicts. I don’t think any of that comes close to excusing a pastor for use of this type of rhetoric. It’s the same rhetoric Jerry Falwell and John Hagee used - blaming the victims for their enemy’s foul deeds. It’s dirty, juvenile, and useless.

RW - enjoy your rose colored glasses. I hope they don’t ever decide to pick up and render or intern people who wear them, because the Military Commissions Act says that if they name you “enemy combatant”, with or without justification, they can pick you up.

If you don’t think it’s bad now, you’re going to not think it’s even worse when the economic meltdown continues unabated after the next election ;D

p.s… about the taxes… somebody’s going to have to pay them eventually. these never-ending wars don’t pay for themselves & the chinese only have so much money to lend.

I don’t spend too much time wondering if I’m going to appear in the deserts of Iraq shooting bullets or RPGs at our soldiers or showing up at an airport with a dirty bomb on my person, so I think I’m in the clear. The big brother stye of government that worries me isn’t personified by the soldier in his/her uniform.

p.s… about the taxes… somebody’s going to have to pay them eventually. these never-ending wars don’t pay for themselves & the chinese only have so much money to lend.

Tax inlays haven’t been the problem, my friend. Don’t get me started on GOP spending……

Now, the IRS intruding on my life is something that worries ME.

I don’t spend too much time wondering if I’m going to appear in the deserts of Iraq shooting bullets or RPGs at our soldiers or showing up at an airport with a dirty bomb on my person, so I think I’m in the clear.

The military commissions act doesn’t say that you have to do something like that to get disappeared. You don’t have to do anything at all. It is the “magic words” that make you disappearable… “RW is an enemy combatant” (***note to goverment - RW isn’t really an enemy combatant. Please don’t arrest him. I was just showing him something. Hey - get away from me with that hood!)… that’s all it takes… someone just has to say the magic words. You are in the clear as long as no one says the magic words. Because, according to the MCA, they don’t have to provide any evidence that the magic words are true. They just have to say them.

:The remark that 9/11 represented the U.S. “chickens coming home to roost” was practically Falwellian & is indefensible.

A certain number of Unitarian*Universalist ministers preached post-9/11 sermons, or otherwise made public statements, that effectively suggested that 9/11 represented the U.S. “chickens coming home to roost”. Does that make them scoundrels too?

:Several of his specific criticisms of U.S. policy are presented in black-and-white terms that do not do the issues justice.

The same might be said about some specific criticisms of U.S. policy presented by U*Us, including U*U clergy and UUA administrators. Scoundrels?

Feel free to say yes.

I only personally know one UU minister… He is a great guy. He wasn’t at our church after 9/11, but I know him too well to think he would say anything like that. Yes, if there were others who placed the blame for 9/11 on its victims, then they were scoundrels.

Making specific criticisms too black & white - something else my minister is rarely guilty of (if anything, he is too cautious most of the time) doesn’t make one a scoundrel by itself. It’s just the mark of an underdeveloped set of critical thinking skills. In fact, even having tunnel vision and being unable to see *anything* that doesn’t relate to one’s personal anti-UU campaign doesn’t make one a scoundrel… just makes others grow somewhat weary of the particular idea fixee’ that one is obsessed with.

I’m not sure how to handle this. Is there really a fear on the left that US soldiers are going to rip them or other private citizens from their homes and they’ll be thrown in prisons & labeled “enemy combatants”?

That’s why we used to have laws against it… and that’s why the Constitution (supposedly) forbids it. If the power is there … legally, or at least “presumably” legally without other branches of government mounting a meaningful challenge to it, then it will be exercised sooner or later for the purpose of consolidating political power. I doubt that it will come to such a pass that *I* stand to be targeted in my lifetime… it will start with the disappearance of a lawyer for a guantanamo detainee or someone otherwise associated with scoundrels. When that has become accepted, the next step will be someone speaking some “inconvenient truth” that has some tie, however remote, to someone who is correctly or otherwise labeled an “ecoterrorist”. At the end, it will be any political “opposition”.

It’s the future here - it’s beoming the reality for those not fortunate enough to have U.S. citizenship. I don’t know if the story about an Australian Justice being “rendered” is true… but I know that after years of detention, innocent people from Afghanistan have had to be released from Guantanamo… or that they have to be kept there because it’s no longer safe to return them to their home country, now that they have been labeled “terrorist”. I know that many people were released, innocent… finally, from Abu Graib. I know the story of Canadian citizen Maher Arar.

The question isn’t whether it’s realistic to fear politically motivated denial of civil rights for ordinary, apolitical citizens, at this particular moment. The question is whether this or any country can afford to surrender basic protections against such action by the government. The fact is that - even if the current administration isn’t taking advantage of the fact widely - we have willingly surrendered the right to habeus corpus. We have willingly surrendered the right to security in our persons and property without due cause. And there’s likely no way to get those rights back now… if there is a way, his name is Barack Obama (Hillary isn’t going to give up that kind of power either)… and there’s no guarantee that he would even restore those protections. McCain? Forget it. His voting record clearly says that he likes concentrated power in the executive branch without protections for individuals.

The question is less whether the rights we had 8 years ago will be restored, than whether and at what rate they will continue to be eroded.

The person who looked at the issue in black and white is the person who owns this blog.

Man…all I can say is you done and gone messed with the wrong white boy.

Next time pick a fight with someone that ISNT on your side!

I get testy sometimes…sorry.

it will start with the disappearance of a lawyer for a guantanamo detainee or someone otherwise associated with scoundrels.

It will?

You seem sure that something that hasn’t happened & no one has come close to seeing, will come to fruition. Much like Boortz calling for Obama’s future ventures into communism.

How are you so sure?

I’m not a fortune-teller, but they say history repeats itself… And history is that if people let their guard down against that kind of thing, then sooner or later it will happen. People who have political power want to consolidate it - make sure they never lose it. That’s why we have such terrible partisanship. But if there is a way to consolidate power so that you don’t need to win over the voters to keep it, then someone is going to take that ball & run with it. I don’t know if it will be a Republican or a Democrat. I don’t know if it will be next year or 50 years from now. But I do feel it is inevitable. I certainly hope to be proved wrong.

:In fact, even having tunnel vision and being unable to see *anything* that doesn’t relate to one’s personal anti-UU campaign doesn’t make one a scoundrel…

Actually I see lots of things that don`t relate to my campaign against U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy not U*Uism itself as you and others like to pretend. But. . . when I do see something that does have close prarllels to U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy posted on a blog that is listed as a U*U blog I do chime in to make a valid point.

:just makes others grow somewhat weary of the particular idea fixee’ that one is obsessed with.

I can think of a lot worst idées to be fixed upon. . . In case youi hadn`t noticed U*Us are most responsible for dragging this war of words on and on and on by not only obstinately refusing to deal responsibly with the injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that I bring to their attention but by compounding those injustices and abuses by going to extreme and highly questionable lengths to silence me. If U*Us actually practiced what they preach about justice, equity and compassion in human relations this war of words would have ended years ago but U*Us much prefer to engage in victim blaming which, come to think of it. . . is very much on topic to the theme of this blog post. I dare say that the U*Us who are most directly involved in this conflict can be quite justifiably described as scoundrels. . .

Smijer - I don’t get why people are so lackadaisical about the loss of habeus corpus. I guess it just goes to show the power of propaganda. If enough people feel that *they* are safe? Well, what’s keeping them safe? NOTHING. Nothing except the grace of whoever is in power, and we don’t know who that will be 1 year from now, or 10 years from now, or 20 years from now.