What got me most about that video (besides the nuanced reading of MLK) was the shoddiness of the guy behind the microphone. That wasn’t reporting and it wasn’t journalism. It was pathetic and insulting.
I agree with Dennis and Crall–no pretense of trying to be impartial or objective in reporting. SO much editorializing in the questions. The guy wanted a debate not an interview.
Obama’s sense of judgment is at issue. He has listed as official clergy endorsers a rabid hate monger, Rev Wright, and a priest, Fr. Pfleger, who called for killing (”snuff out”)a business owner by name while speaking to a crowd demonstrting against the business. The Bishop rebuked him for this call to homicide. After the revelations of Wright’s remarks, he was removed from Obama’s website. Are these the kind of people an Obama administration would appoint?
I think that Obama’s administration would appointment individuals who are not afraid to voice their opinions on racial injustice in this country.
It’s interesting to see you calling Rev. Wright a “rabid hate monger” when a quick Google search shows that your words appear on VDARE.com, a thinly veiled white supremacist website. Your frequent use of the word “illegal” in referring to undocumented people is very telling. Take a look in a mirror if you would like to see a hate monger.
I hope that law students at Seton Hall don’t have to listen to you speak about people as being “illegal.”
My remarks are my own and have nothing to do with my employer and your involving my employer avoids the issue at hand: Obama’s judgment or lack thereof by his long term involvement with Rev. Wright and Fr. Pfleger. This may not be of concern to you but others may well decidre that Obama’s conduct raises questions as to his fitness to be president. You interject something not relevant to the discussion, i.e., issues concerning illegal aliens. I do l not use “undocumented” since it glosses over the federal misdemeanor (or felony for repeated violations) involved in illegally entering the US. See 8 U.S.C. 1325. Seeking enforcement of US law is not an act of hate. Rev. Wright’s invoking God’s damnation on an entire nation is. Fr. Pfleger’s calling on a crowd to “snuff out” another human being by name is.
I have occasionally visited VDARE and invite your readers to do so and see if they think it’s a “thinly veiled white supremacist website.” My conclusion that Rev Wright is a “rabid hate monger” was based what he has said and done and not any other person’s website. If you want to support Obama that’s your right but you do your cause more harm than good when you avoid addressing the issue of the soundness of his judgment.
Hi William - You involved your employer the second you used your Seton Hall University email address to place a comment on my blog. I would have never searched for you had it not been for the fact that I was curious to see who from Seton Hall was visiting and commenting on my site.
It’s easy for an educated, presumably middle to upper class white man to speak of the law as it is something that should simply be enforced. How many times have the majority created laws that harmed people in the minority?
Why is it not a legitimate opinion to say that things are messed up with this country and that those in power, historically speaking, white people, are to blame for years of injustice?
My interjection was based on that fact that it is not surprising that someone who uses the language of the oppressor to talk about undocumented people and who also has contributed to a white supremacist website would speak negatively of Rev. Wright, Fr. Pfleger, and Barack Obama. The scariest part of your comments is the identity and position of the commenter. I checked out your profile on the Seton Hall website and as a professor at a law school you have an immense amount of power.
You misunderstand the academic community when claiming that my expression of views involves my employer. The academic community has always had freedom to speak on matters of public concern. Views expressed are their own, not their employer’s any more than the views appearing in a law review published by the school. are the school’s views. The employer does not become involved when posistions are expressed in a different medium.
Many people both in majorities and moinorities have been harmed by law enforcement. Seeking enforcement of the law against illegal immigration is in the interest of all in this nation, whether minority or majority.
Things may well be “messed up” but it’s still inappropriate for a minister speaking to the congregation to call upon God to damn an entire nation. Such hateful, inflamatory language will divide and harden peoples’ positions, not bring them together to resolve social issues.
Calling aliens who entered the US in violation of its criminal laws “illegal” may not be how you would like to characterize them but it is truthful and accurate. See 8 U.S.C. 1325.
You continue to characterize VDARE as a racist website which I deny and ask the readers to check out the website and make their own judgments.
Reading and listening to Rev. Wright and Fr. Pfleger leads to the conclusion that these men have used their churches to perpetrate hate in Wright’s case and advocate homicide in Pfleger’s case. Both men have longstanding relationships with Obama and Wright was until recently and Pfleger still is included on Obama’s website as an Obama supporter. Other candidates have been called to task for those from whom they accept support. While Obama can’t control those who may endorse him, he decides whom to include on his website.
You exaggerate a faculty member’s power in a graduate institution.
1) I read Eric’s blog. I’ve seen VDARE, and it’s racist. Aside from the folks who wonder over here from Stormfront, I have to say, William, that asking Eric’s readers to make up their own minds is going to result in a lot of similar conclusions.
2) Why are we even having this conversation? Obama has repudiated Wright twice, while McCain has failed to repudiate John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, or Jerry Falwell, all of whom are far more popular than Wright or Pfleger, have advocated violence against American and/or stated that American deserved 9/11 for morally reprehensible reasons. And if nothing else, McCain supports the Iraq debacle, an occupation in which hundreds of thousands have died in the last five years because of the United States.
William, have you ever heard the phrase ‘concern troll’?
Dennis,
I have read VDARE and it is not racist.
Both Wright and Pfleger are men of hate and both have been featured on Obama’s website as his supporters. Pfleger called on a crowd to “snuff out” a particular person by name.
Hagee, Robertson, Limbaugh and Falwell may be more popular than Wright or Pfleger, but have any of them been includred on McCain’s website as endorsers? When has any of them urged a crowd to kill an particular person by name while demonstrating outside that person’s business? Pfleger has done so and Obama exhibits bad judgment in people by including him on his website as one of the clergy endorsing him.
That’s five minutes of work. Concern trolling about Obama and his connection to Wright without mentioning the larger picture is disingenuous. I know what Wright has said and done, and I’m a little annoyed Obama has distanced himself so much. The same goes for Pfleger.
[…] Intrepid reporting form FOX news Taken from Eric Stoller’s blog. That unfortunate FOX news reporter cannot deal with Father Michael Pfleger’is opinion on Jeremiah Wright. He speaks from his own experience, not from conclusions drawn from one sound byte. I like seeing members of the clergy taking an active role in combating racism and the desire to “repackage” Martin Luther King, Jr. in the way many people do today–reducing his message to whatever best suits their own immediate interests. This reporter just doesn’t seem to get it, as if the things we say, the ways we say them, and the people to whom we speak exist entirely free of context. […]
Wait until Friday, after Rev. Wright is on Bill Moyers. I predict many a Fox head to pop off.
Excellent find, Eric.
What got me most about that video (besides the nuanced reading of MLK) was the shoddiness of the guy behind the microphone. That wasn’t reporting and it wasn’t journalism. It was pathetic and insulting.
Who was that reporter? Talk about sloppy, bad journalism!
PRops to the Father. He held his own!
I agree with Dennis and Crall–no pretense of trying to be impartial or objective in reporting. SO much editorializing in the questions. The guy wanted a debate not an interview.
Heh heh. I love at the end where the Father is like “Dude, read the damn speech,” and the reporter goes “Well….um, thank you very much.” PWND!!1!
that was awesome
Obama’s sense of judgment is at issue. He has listed as official clergy endorsers a rabid hate monger, Rev Wright, and a priest, Fr. Pfleger, who called for killing (”snuff out”)a business owner by name while speaking to a crowd demonstrting against the business. The Bishop rebuked him for this call to homicide. After the revelations of Wright’s remarks, he was removed from Obama’s website. Are these the kind of people an Obama administration would appoint?
I think that Obama’s administration would appointment individuals who are not afraid to voice their opinions on racial injustice in this country.
It’s interesting to see you calling Rev. Wright a “rabid hate monger” when a quick Google search shows that your words appear on VDARE.com, a thinly veiled white supremacist website. Your frequent use of the word “illegal” in referring to undocumented people is very telling. Take a look in a mirror if you would like to see a hate monger.
I hope that law students at Seton Hall don’t have to listen to you speak about people as being “illegal.”
My remarks are my own and have nothing to do with my employer and your involving my employer avoids the issue at hand: Obama’s judgment or lack thereof by his long term involvement with Rev. Wright and Fr. Pfleger. This may not be of concern to you but others may well decidre that Obama’s conduct raises questions as to his fitness to be president. You interject something not relevant to the discussion, i.e., issues concerning illegal aliens. I do l not use “undocumented” since it glosses over the federal misdemeanor (or felony for repeated violations) involved in illegally entering the US. See 8 U.S.C. 1325. Seeking enforcement of US law is not an act of hate. Rev. Wright’s invoking God’s damnation on an entire nation is. Fr. Pfleger’s calling on a crowd to “snuff out” another human being by name is.
I have occasionally visited VDARE and invite your readers to do so and see if they think it’s a “thinly veiled white supremacist website.” My conclusion that Rev Wright is a “rabid hate monger” was based what he has said and done and not any other person’s website. If you want to support Obama that’s your right but you do your cause more harm than good when you avoid addressing the issue of the soundness of his judgment.
Hi William - You involved your employer the second you used your Seton Hall University email address to place a comment on my blog. I would have never searched for you had it not been for the fact that I was curious to see who from Seton Hall was visiting and commenting on my site.
It’s easy for an educated, presumably middle to upper class white man to speak of the law as it is something that should simply be enforced. How many times have the majority created laws that harmed people in the minority?
Why is it not a legitimate opinion to say that things are messed up with this country and that those in power, historically speaking, white people, are to blame for years of injustice?
My interjection was based on that fact that it is not surprising that someone who uses the language of the oppressor to talk about undocumented people and who also has contributed to a white supremacist website would speak negatively of Rev. Wright, Fr. Pfleger, and Barack Obama. The scariest part of your comments is the identity and position of the commenter. I checked out your profile on the Seton Hall website and as a professor at a law school you have an immense amount of power.
You misunderstand the academic community when claiming that my expression of views involves my employer. The academic community has always had freedom to speak on matters of public concern. Views expressed are their own, not their employer’s any more than the views appearing in a law review published by the school. are the school’s views. The employer does not become involved when posistions are expressed in a different medium.
Many people both in majorities and moinorities have been harmed by law enforcement. Seeking enforcement of the law against illegal immigration is in the interest of all in this nation, whether minority or majority.
Things may well be “messed up” but it’s still inappropriate for a minister speaking to the congregation to call upon God to damn an entire nation. Such hateful, inflamatory language will divide and harden peoples’ positions, not bring them together to resolve social issues.
Calling aliens who entered the US in violation of its criminal laws “illegal” may not be how you would like to characterize them but it is truthful and accurate. See 8 U.S.C. 1325.
You continue to characterize VDARE as a racist website which I deny and ask the readers to check out the website and make their own judgments.
Reading and listening to Rev. Wright and Fr. Pfleger leads to the conclusion that these men have used their churches to perpetrate hate in Wright’s case and advocate homicide in Pfleger’s case. Both men have longstanding relationships with Obama and Wright was until recently and Pfleger still is included on Obama’s website as an Obama supporter. Other candidates have been called to task for those from whom they accept support. While Obama can’t control those who may endorse him, he decides whom to include on his website.
You exaggerate a faculty member’s power in a graduate institution.
1) I read Eric’s blog. I’ve seen VDARE, and it’s racist. Aside from the folks who wonder over here from Stormfront, I have to say, William, that asking Eric’s readers to make up their own minds is going to result in a lot of similar conclusions.
2) Why are we even having this conversation? Obama has repudiated Wright twice, while McCain has failed to repudiate John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, or Jerry Falwell, all of whom are far more popular than Wright or Pfleger, have advocated violence against American and/or stated that American deserved 9/11 for morally reprehensible reasons. And if nothing else, McCain supports the Iraq debacle, an occupation in which hundreds of thousands have died in the last five years because of the United States.
William, have you ever heard the phrase ‘concern troll’?
Dennis,
I have read VDARE and it is not racist.
Both Wright and Pfleger are men of hate and both have been featured on Obama’s website as his supporters. Pfleger called on a crowd to “snuff out” a particular person by name.
Hagee, Robertson, Limbaugh and Falwell may be more popular than Wright or Pfleger, but have any of them been includred on McCain’s website as endorsers? When has any of them urged a crowd to kill an particular person by name while demonstrating outside that person’s business? Pfleger has done so and Obama exhibits bad judgment in people by including him on his website as one of the clergy endorsing him.
I think it’s fair to say we are using a different definition of racism.
Anyway, William…
Hagee endorses McCain.
John Hagee claims Qu’ran says to kill Christians and Jews.
That’s five minutes of work. Concern trolling about Obama and his connection to Wright without mentioning the larger picture is disingenuous. I know what Wright has said and done, and I’m a little annoyed Obama has distanced himself so much. The same goes for Pfleger.
[…] Intrepid reporting form FOX news Taken from Eric Stoller’s blog. That unfortunate FOX news reporter cannot deal with Father Michael Pfleger’is opinion on Jeremiah Wright. He speaks from his own experience, not from conclusions drawn from one sound byte. I like seeing members of the clergy taking an active role in combating racism and the desire to “repackage” Martin Luther King, Jr. in the way many people do today–reducing his message to whatever best suits their own immediate interests. This reporter just doesn’t seem to get it, as if the things we say, the ways we say them, and the people to whom we speak exist entirely free of context. […]