ellen wrote:
> On Mar 21, 11:20 am, FurPaw <furrealpaw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Peahen wrote:
>>> "ellen" <epdps...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>
news:cb222b53-fbd6-4265-bec6-e02508591979@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> you all have probably caught this one already, but since it just came
>>>> to my attention, i'll toss it out. it's a bit long, but classic. i
>>>> think it is authentic, but we never know, do we?
>>>>
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/video-interviewer-...
>> Impressive young man! I would have punched out that
>> interviewer's lights for all the interruptions, but he kept his
>> cool and was clearly better informed that most - including me, on
>> some points.
>>
>>>> his emotional response, that you can access from that link, is also
>>>> quite good & moving, as he talks about his background, democracy,
etc.
>>>> i will always be cynical.
>>>> i will always want to believe.
>> Me too.
>>
>>> I listened to Obama's speech on unity, and was again much moved. I
would so
>>> like to have a leader who can speak in paragraphs again (and Obama
does so
>>> much more than that). I'm afraid, though, that typical voters won't
have
>>> heard or seen the speech, and if they had, that so many won't have
heard
>>> what I heard in that speech.
>> I'm appalled by the news coverage of the speech - 95% focus on
>> his relation****p to Wright, a scant 5% (if that) on what he
>> discussed about the problems of race in America. And I thought
>> he presented a very balanced view of the lingering problems.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I'm married to a lapsed Catholic, but still a
>>> staunch Catholic who would never leave his church even though he
recognizes
>>> so much of the wrong done within the Church, and even though he does
not
>>> agree with all the tenants of the Church.
>>> I myself am an agnostic, more so now than before, so I don't much
listen to
>>> preachers, priests, rabbis, or any other organized religious leader,
since I
>>> think I can form my own opinions, and, in my humble opinion, since my
views
>>> are much more humanistic and inclusive than most believers in
organized
>>> religion. But I can't color all believers with the same brush. I
>>> disappointed my in-laws when I wouldn't convert. It wasn't that I was
>>> agnostic then; it was simply because I couldn't convert knowing very
well
>>> that I planned to take birth control and believe in pro-choice. My
>>> sisters-in-law, baptized as babies, had no compunction about going
against
>>> the tenants to practice birth control. I suppose it's a stretch to
equate
>>> birth control with Wright's sound bites, but it's just another example
of
>>> people not always agreeing with religious leaders but staying with
their
>>> Church anyway.
>> Most of Hubster's family are cafeteria Catholics, like your
>> in-laws, who pick and choose what they believe and which 'rules'
>> they follow. And yet they can't tolerate the picking and
>> choosing that Obama clearly has done. I think they're pretty
>> typical in their responses, especially when their being 'told' by
>> many folks in the media that attacking Obama for not breaking
>> all ties with Wright is quite the acceptable thing to do.
>>
>> I'd like to see equally strong attacks on McCain for not
>> repudiating Hagee and the other "evangelical" hate-mongers that
>> he has so recently aligned himself with. (Evangelical in quotes
>> because that's their self-appointed label, not because they are
>> representative of Evangelicals. Well, they are representative of
>> some who call themselves Evangelicals.) And McCain doesn't even
>> have a long-term multi-dimensional relation****p with them, like
>> Obama does with Wright.
>>
>>> I have to note that my in-laws are all strong, conservative
Republicans with
>>> whom I most generally disagree, but do not voice my dissent for the
sake of
>>> peace (believe me, when my husband is silly enough to get into a
political
>>> argument with them, it's ugly). They are also pretty overtly racist,
esp.
>>> the parents. But I love them. so I understand sticking by people you
don't
>>> agree with.
>>> It's amazing to me (well, not really so much) that people come off so
much
>>> holier than thou about not disavowing someone you've cared for for 20
years.
>>> It's also amazing to me the number of people who say "He's only been a
>>> Christian for 20 years, what was he before that?" Must have been a
Muslim.
>> The hate-mongering wrong-ist media folks have been fostering that
>> by repeatedly referring to him as "Barack HUSSEIN Obama." And
>> what if he had been Muslim before that? Bush was a party boy for
>> 40 years before he was 'born again' 20 or so years ago. Hmmm...
>> OTOH, maybe more voters SHOULD have defined Bush in terms of what
>> he was then, rather than what he (claimed that he) became.
>>
>>> I've been an agnostic (can't go as far as atheist) for 20 years,
wonder what
>>> I must have been before that? My families are both horrified when I
say
>>> that, but I know I'm a good person.
>>> Anyway, I guess all this rumination is a result of my growing
>>> "hope"lessness. I think the Democrats have managed to snatch defeat
from
>>> the jaws of victory again. I think all this arguing back and forth,
all
>>> this finger pointing at Obama's secret "hate-mongering," at Clinton's
11,000
>>> pages of "not much there," is handing a close victory to McCain (for
all his
>>> confusion about who's who in the middle east terror game).
>> I'm afraid that will happen, too. Too many folks stirring the
>> **** up, setting Democrat against Democrat. Some of them are
>> even Democrats, but I think they have a lot of help. If the
>> Democrats can't get it together to present a united front, I
>> think their campaign will implode. Again.
>>
>>> I'm hoping very much to be wrong.
>> So am I!
>>
>> FurPaw
>> --
>> "Every gun that is made, every war****p launched,
>> every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
>> a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
>> those who are cold and are not clothed."
>> - Dwight D. Eisenhower
>>
>> To reply, unleash the dogs.
>
> i haven't really caught the way the media has covered all this, but
> i'm not surprised about what you ****trayed. i may have asked this at
> some earlier point, but that's the fun of crs - do you think younger
> people are any more media savvy?
I think that in general, they are more media aware, and more
comfortable using lots of whiz-bang technologies, but I don't
think they are any less influenced by distortions of the content
than the rest of us. (Except for that guy who was interviewed
about Obama.)
> or, i suppose that is like asking if they are better equipped with
> skills like analysis. & i am afraid i know the answer to that one.
I haven't seen any evidence that younger people have better
critical thinking skills than their parents. I just wish they'd
recognize the need for developing them...
> too many relatives of mine/my dh's have rather black & white adherence
> to things like religion & well, most of life. so the path is always
> clear & unencumbered by too much thought.
Unencumbered ... yes, good way of putting it. Many a
conversation with Hubster's relatives (with Hubster asking the
difficult questions, like, "So do you think that Jesus would have
turned the Haitian refugees away?") ended with the words, "I
don't want to think about it."
> i am somewhat amused at envisioning you punching out that
> interviewer's lights.
Well, that would have been figuratively, I guess. I'm sure the
words, "Why don't you stf up and let me finish my sentence!!!"
would have been used at least once during the interview.
FurPaw
--
"Every gun that is made, every war****p launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense
a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
To reply, unleash the dogs.
|
