<br>apparently, also mojo's source from below. ;)<br><br>For those, who don't like to register with the MSM, here is a link from Spiegel International<br>http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,547157,00.html<br><br>or the old cut'n'paste<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>It’s one thing for Karl Marx to assert that “religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature” and another for Barack Obama to claim that we “cling to ... religion” out of economic frustration.<br><br>I haven’t read much Karl Marx since the early 1980s, when I taught political philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania. Still, it didn’t take me long this weekend to find my copy of “The Marx-Engels Reader,” edited by Robert C. Tucker -- a book that was assigned in thousands of college courses in the 1970s and 80s, and that now must lie, unopened and un-remarked upon, on an awful lot of rec-room bookshelves.<br>My occasion for spending a little time once again with the old Communist was Barack Obama’s now-famous comment at an April 6 San Francisco fund-raiser. Obama was explaining his trouble winning over small-town, working-class voters: “It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”<br><br>This sent me to Marx’s famous statement about religion in the introduction to his “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”:<br>“Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people.”<br>Or, more succinctly, and in the original German in which Marx somehow always sounds better: “Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes.”<br><br>Now, this is a point of view with a long intellectual pedigree prior to Marx, and many vocal adherents continuing into the 21st century. I don’t believe the claim is true, but it’s certainly worth considering, in college classrooms and beyond.<br><br>But it’s one thing for a German thinker to assert that “religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature.” It’s another thing for an American presidential candidate to claim that we “cling to ... religion” out of economic frustration.<br>And it’s a particularly odd claim for Barack Obama to make. After all, in his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, he emphasized with pride that blue-state Americans, too, “worship an awesome God.”<br><br>What’s more, he’s written eloquently in his memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” of his own religious awakening upon hearing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s “Audacity of Hope” sermon, and of the complexity of his religious commitment. You’d think he’d do other believers the courtesy of assuming they’ve also thought about their religious beliefs.<br>But Obama in San Francisco does no courtesy to his fellow Americans. Look at the other claims he makes about those small-town voters.<br><br>Obama ascribes their anti-trade sentiment to economic frustration -- as if there are no respectable arguments against more free-trade agreements. This is particularly cynical, since he himself has been making those arguments, exploiting and fanning this sentiment that he decries. Aren’t we then entitled to assume Obama’s opposition to Nafta and the Colombian trade pact is merely cynical pandering to frustrated Americans?<br><br>Then there’s what Obama calls “anti-immigrant sentiment.” Has Obama done anything to address it? It was John McCain, not Obama, who took political risks to try to resolve the issue of illegal immigration by putting his weight behind an attempt at immigration reform.<br><br>Furthermore, some concerns about unchecked and unmonitored illegal immigration are surely legitimate. Obama voted in 2006 (to take just one example) for the Secure Fence Act, which was intended to control the Mexican border through various means, including hundreds of miles of border fence. Was Obama then just accommodating bigotry?<br><br>As for small-town Americans’ alleged “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”: During what Obama considers the terrible Clinton-Bush years of economic frustration, by any measurement of public opinion polling or observed behavior, Americans have become far more tolerant and respectful of minorities who are not “like them.” Surely Obama knows this. Was he simply flattering his wealthy San Francisco donors by casting aspersions on the idiocy of small-town life?<br><br>That leaves us with guns. Gun ownership has been around for an awfully long time. And people may have good reasons to, and in any case have a constitutional right to, own guns -- as Obama himself has been acknowledging on the campaign trail, when he presents himself as more sympathetic to gun owners than a typical Democrat.<br>What does this mean for Obama’s presidential prospects? He’s disdainful of small-town America -- one might say, of bourgeois America. He’s usually good at disguising this. But in San Francisco the mask slipped. And it’s not so easy to get elected by a citizenry you patronize.<br><br>And what are the grounds for his supercilious disdain? If he were a war hero, if he had a career of remarkable civic achievement or public service -- then he could perhaps be excused an unattractive but in a sense understandable hauteur. But what has Barack Obama accomplished that entitles him to look down on his fellow Americans?<p><hr></blockquote><p>any comments? <br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
"Humor ist, wenn man trotzdem lacht" (Humour means laughing despite of it)
I had read those Spiegel editorials before and I was surprised how venomous they were, and how wrong. <br>Some Spiegel editors note:[color:blue]<br><br>When it comes to putting these ideas into practice, Americans quickly drop their idealistic gazes. Their eyes begin to narrow until they resemble the slits in a piggy bank.<br>...<br>There is probably nothing about which the Europeans are more mistaken than the unpopularity of President George W. Bush.<br>...<br>It is important to note that, for many Americans, their love of country is only exceeded by their affection for money. </font color=blue><br><br>Pretty condemning of some visiting German editors. America is wall to wall pig eyed money grubbers who elect a moron because he promises to cut taxes and screw the poor. The rich Americans want to stay rich and forget everyone else.<br><br>Well, that is not the America I live in Spiegel. It is not pride of place speaking but hope for the future. From the past nine years experience of who we have elected I can see how a Spiegel editor might have come to these conclusions but we are moving on. Obama is moving on. My hope is that he can help us all move on to something a little better than the caricature of the fat piggy eyed me me me American that Spiegel portrays. My hope is we vote the entire Republican party out of office. Then I might be able to read a Spiegel editorial and laugh instead of gag.<br><br>I fail to see how these editorials are to point out how we are being taken in by Obama unless you assume we are all slit eyed pigs who can't possibly vote for someone who is going to raise taxes so we must not be listening and are being conned. I would not agree with that assessment.<br><br><br><br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>any comments?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Sure, Marx had it right. Religion is the opiate of the masses. Shocking that a Presidential candidate would make a gaffe which would actually speak the truth about religion. It is the one thing anyone trying to become President has to lie about 24/7. It's too bad. In another century America might be able to move on and drop all this crap and elect an atheist who could say religion is a rubber crutch which allows politicians to keep the sheep in line. But not today.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Loc: Alexandria, VA
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>these comments (irrespective of their truth) were actually quite hurtful and definitely prejudiced.<p><hr></blockquote><p>You say "irrespective of their truth" -- how is making a factually correct statement prejudiced? You realize there ARE people in this country still who will not vote for him or even consider what he has to say because of his race and name? -- Who do you think calling him "Barack Hussein Obama" or just "Hussein Obama" is aimed at appealing to?<br><br>I don't get why anybody should be insulted or hurt by this truth unless they actually are one of those people and have guilty feelings about it ...<br><br>It's not even like he's calling out specific people on this. He mentions "a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania" because a) those are the states he was asked about, and b) because that's where a great deal of the pain of this economy has been felt ... the part about his blackness and "funny name" I think is far more widespread than just the rust belt ... it's as if I should feel hurt or insulted if he had said the same thing about Virginia, where I live and which certainly has had a fair amount of racism throughout it's history. But I wouldn't, because he wouldn't be talking about me, even though there are many around me who might fit the description ...<br><br>But this whole thing just goes to perfectly illustrate what he was talking about -- the leaders and candidates (and media) we're so used to having and with whom we are so used to being disgusted make THIS kind of thing a point of discussion rather that talking about how were going to try to make things better for this country moving forward.<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
<br>... you forget some of the lines leading into your quote:<br><br>[color:blue]The results say that America is divided, but not just into North and South, black and white, poor and rich. The two Americas appearing on the pollsters' radar screens coexist in the political brain of every voter. The findings are clear: the desires of American citizens contradict their fundamental convictions.<br>The overwhelming majority of Americans are troubled by the social injustices in their country. They dream of a nation in which bridges do not collapse and with a school system in which drug dealers are not the main authority figures. No one doubts that, politically at least, they want to see these shortcomings corrected.</font color=blue><br><br>Much less venomous in toto, eh? ;)<br><br>Now, Mr. Steingart is one of the more agressive writers, but his insights are always entertaining and often right on. Unfortunately, only a few of those editorials are translated into English. By the way that piggy eye slit thing sounds completely different in German. ;)<br><br>For some more articles, just peruse<br><br>http://www.spiegel.de/international/<br><br><br><br>
"Humor ist, wenn man trotzdem lacht" (Humour means laughing despite of it)
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>9 Years ago, I watched with utter disbelief, how a majority of Americans could be so taken in by a moron. 3 years later, during the Liberty Fries period, I was literally kicked out of here for maintaining that the Iraq war was a thoroughly insane adventure. I am once again bucking the trend by suggesting that you don't just listen to the words ..... "Paper is Patient" as one of our old sayings goes.<p><hr></blockquote><p>"once again bucking the trend??? i think most of us here voted against Bush both times and most of us here didn't want to fight the war in Iraq, so the only folks bucking a trend at MM got what they wanted. and i know i personally spoke out against the war in Afghanistan, so i hardly see you on a string a bucking trends. you're a male for Hillary. that's certainly a trend around here that you've bucked.<br><br>here's what Bill Clinton has said on this issue. Obama is noting that his comments were a mistake in how they came out (e.g., click here to see him last night). like i said, i don't think this hurts the people i grew up with as much as you think unless people don't like hearing the truth. in fact, i think you're being a bit elitist in trying to project how you think small town america will feel based on the comments.<br><br>Clinton has well over 100,000,000 dollars while Obama recently paid off his student loans not more than a few years ago. Clinton gets donors who give the max while Obama is getting millions of small donations from typical people, yet she's painting him as the "elitist" candidate after earlier trying to make him the black candidate and then Muslim candidate, etc. -- whatever can stick is all good, eh?<br><br><br><br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Loc: Alexandria, VA
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>any comments?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Other than it's amazing that someone could go through a line-by-line critique and still miss *entirely* the point of the speech in the first place, none.<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
I would call it more complex than my short hand but just as venomous. The American brain is divided. On the superficial outside the brain wants to look and act as if it gives a crap about the poor but the piggy greedy inner brain will always win. <br><br>A step further: From his position I would surmise that Republicans are truthful and of one mind. They are greedy and admit it. They want no taxes for the rich and they talk the talk and walk the walk. Democrats are just two brained idiots. They pretend to be selfless caregivers to the poor but when it comes time to vote Mister piggy brain wins out and we all end up with what we really want. A pile of money in a trough we can grunt and squeal in. The stupid Democrats have to pretend to hate it and this predicament creates gaffes like Obamas but in the end money rules.<br><br>Am I missing some more subtle point here? My piggy ears barely clear the trough so I might not have caught the hidden meaning. <br><br>
Hell in a hand basket I did not see the subject line and I read this whole thing by Bill Kristol without knowing who I was reading. I need to go gargle.<br><br>Kristol is off my reading list. Why he is not off Speigels I find baffling. Once someone has been proven wrong time after time isn't there a point in time where people should stop listening? Kristol is still looking for WMDs in Iraq! He is still looking for the Saddam OBL connection! The man helped to send America into the biggest mistake in the country's history. <br><br>There are certain people who need to be sent to journalism talking head purgatory where Judith Miller lives. Why is this erudite moron, this idiot savant not residing there also? The name of this purgatory is Fox News. He should never be allowed out except for the Daily Show so John can make fun of him twice a year.<br><br>If you are going to cut and paste idiots please place a flashing barricade about the paste.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
the comment certainly doesn't appear to be an issue when looking at all of the Sunday papers from across Pennsylvania.<br><br><a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/13/111644/425/469/494812">link here</a><br><br>snippet:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>When looking at what is being said in the local papers across PA we see there is no traction concerning this dumb ass story. It may be used as a smoke screen by Hillary to detract from her string of gaffes this week: Penn, Bill's retelling of Tuzla, Colombia, that nutty laughing fit, etc. As we now see, this week has been one of HRC's worse. And to get us to look the other way they are getting us to bite at "bitter." Well PA isn't bitting on the Nutter Butter sandwich.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.