feran’s whereIstand Blog

Jeremiah Wright is the typical fanatical kook. Akin to the same types as Falwell and the televangelists, a zealot and a fool.

But let’s be honest here people – it is only self-evident that when you give a crazy man the stage, he will take it like wildfire. I’m sure that Wright in his lack of infamy was assuredly not as vocal about his mental defects while Obama was attending the church.

And if you’ve been attending a church for 20 years, yes, you will know that your pastor may believe in certain things that are contrary not to both your own, but the ideals of the Church and the bible in and of itself.

Regardless it doesn’t reflect upon you that your pastor is insane. As it does not reflect upon ourselves as Americans that George Bush slaughtered millions of Iraqi innocents in his crusade on Terror.

So Obama didn’t want to publicly deface and call his pastor a lunatic.

If your mom was a fanatical “Zionist” would you publicize that on television if you were famous?

Would you take the stand and say, “Hey guys, I just wanted you to know – my mother is a lunatic, so don’t listen to her.”

Is that the type of person we want as a leader or President? Someone with no compassion, no feeling, no sympathy for the people’s feelings?

The fact that he did not immediately denounce Jeremiah Wright shows a respect and sympathy for others that is not inherent in the militant and money-driven politician framework that we view today.

In fact I am glad to see that Obama is a human, and does share a sympathy or care towards others, and even if he doesn’t always come across in the greatest way, at least he tries, and he’s honest, instead of putting up a happy face and feeding people shit they want to hear.

I don’t see him as a fraud, or a liar. Admittedly you can’t stereotype all of Wright as a complete lunatic, assuredly there were at least a few valid things that he preached or taught. But people are so quick to generalize and mark.

At the end of the day – I don’t harbor any regret or anger towards Obama for having a lunatic pastor. It has nothing to do with him. What I would not condone however, is if the pastor began gaining publicity, and he was not denounced. America is supposed to be about “innocent until proven guilty”. Obama gave the man a chance. He took advantage of it. And it’s Obama’s responsibility to denounce him. And he did.

No damage has been done. No lives were lost, no net negative effect. The only result is that people are slinging mud like children, continuing to avoid the things that really matter, but hey – that’s what America’s all about right?

whereIstand Tags

• BarackObama
• Will Barack Obama’s association with Jeremiah Wright prevent him from winning the Democratic nomination?

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews/profiting-disaster-capitalism
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

Naomi Klein does raise good points. However it’s the natural course of order in the world. When something is lost, someone else is always gaining. When someone is gaining, someone else is always losing.

So let’s play devil’s advocate.

Given that you know a war is going to happen, who wouldn’t invest? Seriously.

Let’s take housing as it is today. Everyone’s freaking out about the housing market, people are going into foreclosure, prices are dropping. People are running around in fear like chickens with their heads cut off.

You know what I tell people? Now’s the best time to buy!

Let’s take the CEO of Moniker.com. He brokered wallstreet.com for millions of dollars — why? Because when the whole web thing crashed and went down the smart people turned the bankrupt companies losses into assets. He went out of his way to pick up the domain names of several bankrupt companies after the dot com bust and he brokered them later.

So let’s take the war. Someone bombed the WTC. Given that a war is going to happen, the business decision to do is to realize that there will exist companies that will benefit from the war, and then to invest.

Is it sick? Yes.

Is it wrong? Yes.

Is it reality? Unfortunately.

Next time a war comes around I’m going to invest too. Every single ‘loss’ or ‘crash’, someone else is benefitting. It’s just a matter of perception.

Is what I’m saying sick? Yes.

Is what I’m saying really messed up? Yeah.

But what can you do? We can all protest but no one gives a shit. The country’s been disarmed, the US is too huge, the media is too influential (in seconds you could be painted from a hero to the biggest piece of shit on earth), and the chance for rebellion is almost impossible.

So what can you do? People are conservative. People live in fear. People like what they’re used to. They’re afraid of the unknown. They want to be able to sleep at night. They’re selfish.

So what can you do?

Regardless my point is – screw the conspiracy theories. ExxonMobil does not rule the world. You can only have so much money. It’s illogical to assume that politicians are so money-hungry and greedy that they need to kill the lives of millions of innocent people just so an oil company can have a million dollars. You have to realize there is some ulterior motive.

Unfortunately that motive isn’t purely based on money. I don’t know what it is. If we all knew what it was maybe the world wouldn’t be so messed up. But please, don’t give me “new world order” “private banks rule the world” bullcrap. There has to be some ultimate goal. These people already have millions of dollars. They have to have a plan or want to do something with it.

I always wondered, how do people pride themselves on being a “member of the right wing”?

I think that over time humanity has begun to attribute generalized concepts into labels to differentiate themselves and reinforce the faulty integrity of their existences through defining characteristics that divide us as opposed to unite us.

But leaving my philosophical tangent, I state that obviously some Americans have forgotten what left and right mean.

Left-wing is characterized by items attributed to the people, and to social equality, power to the people. Therefore to embrace ‘democracy’ as Americans claim to do (and for some, worship, oddly), one must be left wing to begin with.

Furthermore, right-wing is attributed to authoritarian states.

The National Socialist German Workers Party was “far right”, by the way (the Nazis). So, if you believe in fascism, rule by the few, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism, then by all means take pride in identifying yourself with the right.

But if you believe that individual people have rights too, and that we should all be treated equally, then identify yourself with the left.

But rather than making up labels to divide us, I think that we should embrace the fact that moral ideals and judgments exist beyond generalizations of thought pools, and that we should all pitch in together to do what’s right (no pun intended), instead of creating nationalistic tendencies around concepts that don’t serve any productive purpose.

whereIstand Tags

• BarackObama
• HillaryClinton
• JohnMcCain
• Will the Left and Right ever find a way to live with each other in a civilized manner?
• What impact do political parties have on government?
• Should the U.S. have political party affiliations?
• Is the two-party system an effective means of governing?

So everyone (such as this lady as an example) is harping on about how Barack Obama is an elitist for his statements in Pennsylvania. Yet I’m still not 100% sure how attempting to sympathize with an assumed bitterness makes him elitist, nor do I understand how it makes him condescending.

I understand that elitist people are the type of people who think they’re better than other people, but I don’t understand how Barack Obama was openly claiming that he believed he was better than others, nor do I see how he was looking down upon people.

So he thought they may have been bitter. First of all, why would bitterness be considered an unwholesome trait? Why would being angry at being screwed or feeling taken advantage of be considered wrong? Being angry or bitter is a perfectly human, normal, and natural feeling and emotion.

I don’t think the statement in itself was condescending, but rather that people are choosing to take it that way. Suppressing your emotions and wearing a facade of happyglory isn’t the right way to go about life. We only solve problems through confronting them, not suppressing them. Bitterness is not an inferior feeling.

Arrogance would be a more appropriate word. Perhaps Obama was arrogant for stereotyping middle-class Americans as bitter. But elitist and condescending are out of the question.

Perhaps I’m missing something.

whereIstand Tags

• BarackObama
• HillaryClinton
• MichelleMalkin

I honestly can’t believe the stuff I’m reading on the news these days regarding the Olympics.

And what irritates me more is the obvious arrogance of all of the protesters.

The Olympics is supposed to be an event for the world to get together and compete, not have some morons get together protesting to inflate their own self-righteous world-saving egos believing that they’re making a difference.

Obviously provoking the Chinese government with flashy displays of handcuffs and claims about human rights is:

a) Beneficial!
b) Relevant to the Olympics

What protesters are doing is equivalent to terrorism. Obviously provoking the Chinese government isn’t going to help anything. If you want to help people you don’t tell them they’re pieces of shit and try to destroy other people’s lives and international events for public stunts.

Yes, obviously if someone shoots someone, you should shoot someone else in retort. Violence only begets violence.

What irks me more is that self-righteous arrogant attitude, though. Because people are so damn selfish they only see what they want to see, and only care about what they want to care about.

No one really cares about being productive. What the hell is boycotting the Olympics going to change anything?

So many horrible things have already happened in China, but is getting arrested to inflate your ego going to change anything? It’s just adding oil to the fire.

People are so dumb.

Yeah, great you made a statement on public display. You attention whored in front of the whole world. Thank you, oh great savior. Reality check –

Lives Saved Count: 0

You wanna save someone? Actually save them. Don’t be an attention whore, because then, it starts to become all about you, and your righteousness. While the real lives in suffering are being ignored. So it’s boycotted. So you complain. Everyone already knows everything you’re saying. What difference does it make? All I see is media and publicity, I see no real change. Where do I see “The actions of protesters against the Olympics has saved the lives of millions of Tibetans!”?

Do you -really- think it’s going to do anything? Are you really going to make a change? And if not, then why are you doing it?

whereIstand Tags

• Should the U.S. boycott the Beijing Olympics?

A lot of people like to fight terrorism in other countries, but refuse to acknowledge the terrorism at home. America is full of terrorism. Just not bloody terrorism. It’s a country where the rich can exploit the poor, where you can dumb down the masses with bright vibrant imagery and flashy lights while sapping the very life of their existences.

Terrorism. Isn’t terrorism when I can’t go outside because there are drug dealers on the street. Isn’t it terrorism when I, a hard working American business owner running a mortgage brokerage gets mugged in front of my house for money by the local delinquent thug teens.

Where there’s shooting, crime, and violence.

The people that like to tout their moral wonders are oftentimes not the majority. The majority of America is poor. There are millions of poor people barely able to make a living here, countless homeless, countless hungry. There is drug dealing, there are murders, there is still much here that could be worked on.

But people don’t want to face the facts. In denial they’ll help other countries, without turning to help their own.

There are a lot of problems in America. How could we forget?

whereIstand Tags

• Has the War on Terror been effective?