Welcome, Michelle Malkin readers.
Michelle linked to my March 5 column, "Fr. Pfleger's black heart," in her post yesterday on Rev. Jeremiah Wright's surprise appearance Friday night at Pfleger's southside Chicago Catholic church, St. Sabina's.
What a nonsurprise.
Click on graphic below for link to see the reception Wright received:
Reported the Houston Chronicle...
Barack Obama's former pastor, who canceled several public events after an uproar over his incendiary comments, surprised a Chicago congregation by attending an event to celebrate poet Maya Angelou's birthday.
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright got a raucous standing ovation when he entered Saint Sabina church on the South Side on Friday night, video from WBBM-TV showed. Members yelled "Hallelujah!" as Wright embraced the Rev. Michael Pfleger, Saint Sabina's pastor.
The smiling Wright accepted an invitation to give the benediction at the Roman Catholic church but did not address the furor over his past sermons. He also sang "Happy Birthday" to Angelou, whose birthday is April 4....
Wright has not spoken publicly since the controversy over his sermons began. He recently scrapped plans to receive an award in TX and to speak at churches in Houston and Tampa, FL.
FetusFascist, scat. You're welcome back when you can comment respectfully.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 30, 2008 12:35 PM
No, it's your tone and intent, FF, which is simply to hatefully disrupt.
I'm flattered that you can't stay away from this site. Read all you want. Just don't speak unless you can control yourself.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 30, 2008 12:59 PM
Oh, and thank you for not insulting pigs and/or dogs while you were at it this time.Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at March 30, 2008 2:04 PM
So what FF? One discounts the other...if we DID say anything about it, would it make Rev. Wright's comments ANY better? NO!
But really...good point. NOT.Posted by: Elizabeth at March 30, 2008 3:32 PM
Lol, as usual FF, you have missed the point. Nope that's not what I said.
Wright saying racist comments=BAD!
McCain saying racist comments=BAD!
Sorry that's as basic as I could put it for you dear.Posted by: Elizabeth at March 30, 2008 3:51 PM
Laura, if Jeremiah Wright wants to speak racial slurs against the people who imprisoned and tortured him and his friends for several years, then that's OK with me.Posted by: John Lewandowski at March 30, 2008 4:10 PM
People like who John?
Or are we talking about slavery? Cause um, I didn't have any part in that. AT ALL. I'm pretty sure you didn't either.
I'm not okay with anybody saying racial slurs, and I will say something about it every time.Posted by: Elizabeth at March 30, 2008 4:15 PM
@Elizabeth: John is referring to the fact that McCain was tortured for 5 years in Vietnam... and therefore has the "green light" to make racist comments against his captors.
On the other hand...Rev. Wright was never enslaved and was probably not tortured by white people (however, guessing from his age, I imagine he was probably poorly treated by whites, but "poor treatment" while bad is nowhere on par with torture).
Regardless, I don't think racist comments are necessary, no matter the situation and only makes situations worse and really add nothing valuable to the conversation.Posted by: Rae at March 30, 2008 4:23 PM
Elizabeth, Laura is trying to deceive us into thinking that John McCain is a racist. It's true that John McCain spoke a racial slur against Asians, but he clarified that he was specifically referring to the men who held him as a prisoner of war in Vietnam for five and a half years. Our enemies felt that they had the right to torture McCain and his fellow POWs (and they couldn't even blame it on Abu Ghraib).
So, as I said, I don't mind if someone has harsh or profane language for the people who imprisoned and tortured him and his friends for five and a half years.
I said that I don't care if Jeremiah Wright speaks racial slurs against the people who imprisoned and tortured him as a jest; obviously that never happened to him.Posted by: John Lewandowski at March 30, 2008 4:25 PM
John McCain used a racial slur in order to attack people who tortured him and his friends for five years. It was an unfortunate choice of words, but doesn't indicate that McCain is racist against Asians.
Jeremiah Wright has accused "white people" of killing Jesus, inventing AIDS to kill blacks, arbitrarily nuking the Japanese for no good reason, and committing acts of terrorism on an even level with al Qaeda.Posted by: John Lewandowski at March 30, 2008 4:32 PM
Laura, as usual, you have no sense of context, and you don't care what the context is. As I have explained, McCain was talking about his captors:
Retreating from his adamant defense of his use of an ethnic slur, Sen. John McCain has apologized and issued a statement renouncing ``all language that is bigoted.''
The GOP presidential candidate and former prisoner of war said he regretted any pain caused by describing his Vietnam War captors as ``gooks.''
The apology was apparently released Monday, a federal holiday, but came to light only Wednesday as the Arizona senator arrived in California, a state where one in four residents is foreign-born. He landed in Sacramento on Wednesday night and planned to attend a rally this morning as the presidential race heads into the ``Super Tuesday'' primaries.
On March 7, voting in California, New York and nine other states will determine the allocation of about 60 percent of the delegates needed for the Republican presidential nomination.
McCain said his original use of the slur stemmed from the intense feelings he still harbors as a result of being imprisoned, held in solitary confinement and tortured so severely that he attempted suicide. Even now, he cannot raise his arms above his head because of the injuries he received.
``For 5 1/2 years, I was mistreated by Ho Chi Minh's henchmen. My fellow prisoners were treated even worse,'' McCain said in his statement. ``Although I will never forgive my prison guards for the atrocities they committed against my cellmates, I have always held the people of Vietnam in the highest regard and have worked in support of the Vietnamese-American community in this country at every opportunity.
``I will continue to condemn those who unfairly mistreated us. But out of respect to a great number of people whom I hold in very high regard, I will no longer use the term that has caused such discomfort.
I deeply regret any pain I may have caused by my choice of words. I apologize and renounce all language that is bigoted and offensive, which is contrary to all that I represent and believe,'' McCain said.
In an interview with the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday, however, McCain suggested he did not view the matter as a misstep.
``You can view that as a misstep if you want to,'' he told the paper. ``I'll call sadists and murderers a lot worse than that.''Posted by: John Lewandowski at March 30, 2008 4:44 PM
Oh alright, John, thanks for clarifying, I wasn't sure what you meant by your comment.
I really don't find any sort of racial slur necessary ever.
But Jeremiah Wright...whoa is all I can say about that man. He takes racism to a whole new level..and what's sad is I bet a lot of black people believe him. Which is terrible, because HE IS THE ONE who increases the divide between white and black people.
Makes me very sad.Posted by: Elizabeth at March 30, 2008 4:45 PM
@John: So, if a white person was tortured and beaten or whatever by a black person, would that give them license to use the n-word as long as they were referring only to that one person?
I don't think so.
NO ONE ever has the right to make racial slurs. I don't care what they've been through with whom. It is inexcusable. Both Wright and McCain are guilty.
@Elizabeth: I agree that Wright only serves to widen the gap between black and white people. People like him who preach "reverse racism," if you will, are only holding themselves and others of their race back. I acknowledge that a certain amount of racism exists in our society today, but for heaven's sake, slavery ended 150 years ago!Posted by: Leah at March 30, 2008 6:46 PM
NO ONE ever has the right to make racial slurs. I don't care what they've been through with whom.
Leah, until you've been tortured in a POW camp you need to shut up.Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at March 30, 2008 7:43 PM
Just curious...what would you call a certain type of people that tortured you and your friends? Would you love them?
I would call them "evil soul-sucking [insert colorful swear word here]" as I think that's more accurate...
LOL! I was thinking I would probably use AT LEAST seven or eight not-nice adjectives before the bombshell really-not-nice noun!!!
McCain was WAY too nice!!!Posted by: JLM at March 30, 2008 8:40 PM
@JLM: Well, I prefer to avoid racial slurs no matter what. I can think of many more flavorful/creative terms that don't involve race.
I can swear like a Marine...most of my colorful phrases I learned from "Full Metal Jacket"...
*cough*Posted by: Rae at March 30, 2008 8:55 PM
Laura's pretending that she doesn't "get it". Isn't that cute? I'd inform Laura that McCain specifically said that he only hates the people who tortured him and his friends, but Laura already knows that. Laura isn't the idiot she pretends to be.Posted by: John Lewandowski at March 30, 2008 9:16 PM
I agree that Wright only serves to widen the gap between black and white people. People like him who preach "reverse racism," if you will, are only holding themselves and others of their race back. I acknowledge that a certain amount of racism exists in our society today, but for heaven's sake, slavery ended 150 years ago!
Leah, I suggest you read a little article about white privilege...Posted by: Edyt at March 30, 2008 10:07 PM
"Should diabetics hate all Christians?"
Um...oh, ummm... sure?
I read that article (well most of it, but I paid particular attention to the listed items) and I just have to completely disagree with most of the things within that list. I could go through each of them and explain to you WHY I disagree with them, but it's 11:00, and that could take a while. I also just spent two hours reading and taking notes on photosynthesis, so my brain's a little fried at this point. But maybe tomorrow when I've had some rest, I can discuss this "white privilege" issue with you more. :)Posted by: Anonymous at March 30, 2008 11:12 PM
Sorry, Edyt...above was me!Posted by: Elizabeth at March 30, 2008 11:13 PM
I'd love to hear your arguments when you have more time.Posted by: Edyt at March 30, 2008 11:16 PM
FF, I left the computer yesterday or would have deleted you as you posted. STOP POSTING. YOU'RE BANNED.Posted by: Jill Stanek at March 31, 2008 3:54 AM
I have unpublished all of FF's entries and will continue to do so, now that I am back to the pro-life debates.
Sorry I missed this yesterday, Jill. I'm on it again!
Hehehehe. These posts are pretty funny considering the thread the other day where you all were congratulating yourselves about not censoring posts like those "liberal" websites.
Laura spewed her hateful speech here long enough. I think Jill has been fairly patient. She gave Laura fair warning. My comments are not even posted on some PC blogs.
Hehehehe. These posts are pretty funny considering the thread the other day where you all were congratulating yourselves about not censoring posts like those "liberal" websites.
We do not censor simple dissenting opinion as the liberal websites do. However, nasty comments, intended only to inflame (trolling) can and will be deleted.Posted by: Bethany at March 31, 2008 9:53 AM
What is an Internet Troll?
An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.
Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.
Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.
Why does it Matter?
Some people -- particularly those who have been online for years -- are not upset by trolls and consider them an inevitable hazard of using the net. As the saying goes, "You can't have a picnic without ants."
It would be nice if everybody was so easy-going, but the sad fact is that trolls do discourage people. Established posters may leave a message board because of the arguments that trolls ignite, and lurkers (people who read but do not post) may decide that they do not want to expose themselves to abuse and thus never get involved.
Another problem is that the negative emotions stirred up by trolls leak over into other discussions. Normally affable people can become bitter after reading an angry interchange between a troll and his victims, and this can poison previously friendly interactions between long-time users.
Finally, trolls create a paranoid environment, such that a casual criticism by a new arrival can elicit a ferocious and inappropriate backlash.
The Internet is a wonderful resource which is breaking down barriers and stripping away prejudice. Trolls threaten our continued enjoyment of this beautiful forum for ideas.
The Webmaster's Challenge
When trolls are ignored they step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave. Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them. Alternatively, they may protest that their right to free speech is being curtailed -- more on this later.
The moderator of a message board may not be able to delete a troll's messages right away, but their job is made much harder if they also have to read numerous replies to trolls. They are also forced to decide whether or not to delete posts from well-meaning folks which have the unintended effect of encouraging the troll.
Some webmasters have to endure conscientious users telling them that they are "acting like dictators" and should never delete a single message. These people may be misinformed: they may have arrived at their opinion about a troll based on the messages they see, never realizing that the webmaster has already deleted his most horrific material. Please remember that a troll does have an alternative if he has something of value to say: there are services on the net that provide messaging systems free of charge. So the troll can set up his own message board, where he can make his own decisions about the kind of content he will tolerate.
Just how much can we expect of a webmaster when it comes to preserving the principles of free speech? Some trolls find sport in determining what the breaking point is for a particular message board operator. They might post a dozen messages, each of which contains 400 lines of the letter "J". That is a form of expression, to be sure, but would you consider it your duty to play host to such a person?
Perhaps the most difficult challenge for a webmaster is deciding whether to take steps against a troll that a few people find entertaining. Some trolls do have a creative spark and have chosen to squander it on being disruptive. There is a certain perverse pleasure in watching some of them. Ultimately, though, the webmaster has to decide if the troll actually cares about putting on a good show for the regular participants, or is simply playing to an audience of one -- himself.
What about Free Speech?
When trolls find that their efforts are being successfully resisted, they often complain that their right to free speech is being infringed. Let us examine that claim.
While most people on the Internet are ardent defenders of free speech, it is not an absolute right; there are practical limitations. For example, you may not scream out "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, and you may not make jokes about bombs while waiting to board an airplane. We accept these limitations because we recognize that they serve a greater good.
Another useful example is the control of the radio frequency spectrum. You might wish to set up a powerful radio station to broadcast your ideas, but you cannot do so without applying for a license. Again, this is a practical limitation: if everybody broadcasted without restriction, the repercussions would be annoying at best and life-threatening at worst.
The radio example is helpful for another reason: with countless people having a legitimate need to use radio communications, it is important to ensure that nobody is 'monopolizing the channel'. There are only so many clear channels available in each frequency band and these must be shared.
When a troll attacks a message board, he generally posts a lot of messages. Even if his messages are not particularly inflammatory, they can be so numerous that they drown out the regular conversations (this is known as 'flooding'). Needless to say, no one person's opinions can be allowed to monopolize a channel.
The ultimate response to the 'free speech' argument is this: while we may have the right to say more or less whatever we want, we do not have the right to say it wherever we want. You may feel strongly about the fact that your neighbor has not mowed his lawn for two months, but you do not have the right to berate him in his own living room. Similarly, if a webmaster tells a troll that he is not welcome, the troll has no "right" to remain. This is particularly true on the numerous free communications services offered on the net. (On pay systems, the troll might be justified in asking for a refund.)
Next time you are on a message board and you see a post by somebody whom you think is a troll, and you feel you must reply, simply write a follow-up message entitled "Troll Alert" and type only this:
The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.
By posting such a message, you let the troll know that you know what he is, and that you are not going to get dragged into his twisted little hobby.
Read whole article:
Excellent, Bethany. I should have read this before I commented on something TR said. :)Posted by: Carla at March 31, 2008 11:21 AM
Interesting - you post TO her (FF) but dont let HER posts stay up to show to what youre making reply or allow her to defend herself. If youre going to delete her posts and 'ban' her from posting then you either shouldnt post to her or you should delete the posts to her.Posted by: TexasRed at March 31, 2008 11:25 AM
Pretending anyone who doesnt agree with the antichoice position has to be a "troll" is laughable - but its one more way for antichoicers to hide.Posted by: TexasRed at March 31, 2008 11:28 AM
I think TR was feeling left out. ;-)
Carla, it probably would have helped me 6 years ago when I first had an encounter with TR too! LOLPosted by: Bethany at March 31, 2008 1:02 PM
Well, TR, you're still here...so obviously your dissenting opinions are still okay with us. Laura is just mean and offers nothing to the conversation except hate and negativity.
That's why she was banned, and I don't think ANYONE cares.Posted by: Elizabeth at March 31, 2008 2:08 PM
Leah, until you've been tortured in a POW camp you need to shut up.
Oh cry me a bloody river, HIM. I don't buy into that "you haven't been there so you don't know" bull sh*t. You disgust me. You have no sympathy from me.Posted by: Leah at March 31, 2008 6:07 PM
Leah, how can you possibly know that kind of thing?
If people were torturing your closest friends, doing unimaginable things to them, would you not also think of them in the worst light for the rest of your life?
How can you have anything but respect for what John McCain endured? He may not be perfect ( I certainly don't agree with everything he says), but he definitely is a hero for what he had to suffer through and endure. And those people who were torturing deserve to be called "gooks" for what they did to him and his friends, in my opinion. I'd probably call them much worse, had they done it to MY friends.Posted by: Bethany at April 1, 2008 7:38 AM
Look at what he went through:
In August of 1968, a program of severe torture began on McCain, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery, and McCain made an anti-American propaganda "confession". He has always felt that his statement was dishonorable, but as he would later write, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine." His injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head. He subsequently received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements. Other American POWs were similarly tortured and maltreated in order to extract "confessions" and propaganda statements, with many enduring even worse treatment than McCain.
And you're going to tell me he has no right to call those people "gooks" for what they did to him and his friends?Posted by: Bethany at April 1, 2008 7:43 AM
though when you say "those people" its still such a generalization.... one guy here on campus got mugged by some black guys a couple years ago, now it affects the way he feels about all black guysPosted by: Down with PD Sk8tr at April 1, 2008 7:56 PM
It's interesting in all this discussion of John McCain, who professes to be a Christian, that no one has mentioned the Christian's number one example. Remember...the man who said..."Love those who hate you, do good to those who persecute you...If a man strikes you on your left cheek, give him your right....Blessed are those who are persecuted."
This conversation is disappointing. The fact that someone in awful circumstances fails to live up to the ideal is understandable, but wrong behavior is still wrong.
What makes a hero is his ability to maintain the highest degree of human dignity in the worst of circumstances. One prisoner of war who has done that is Jeremiah Denton, author of "When Hell was in Session." I have never heard him use a racial slur or any discourtesy. He is a true gentleman.
Would that all of us could live up to his example and that of his role model, Jesus Christ.
(Please don't throw things at me; I'm an old lady.)Posted by: Mary Ann Kreitzer at April 4, 2008 5:42 PM