|To: American Spirit who wrote (1476)||6/6/2008 8:46:17 PM|
|Will you share your testimony of how you came to Obama?|
Also how has Obama made you different?
A Messiah in Our Midst?
By Jonah Goldberg
A Messiah in Our Midst?
By Jonah Goldberg
Is Barack Obama the Messiah?
Before we answer that question, let me vent for a moment. In 2000 I was cruelly denied the Pulitzer despite being the only columnist in America to ask the pressing question: Is Al Gore an alien? The evidence was there for all to see. He was born nine months after the mysterious alien sighting at Roswell, N.M. His weird syntax and verbal rhythms are otherworldly. He often refers to "earth" or "this planet" as if he's just passing through, and he once angrily complained to the Washington Post that it had printed a picture of the earth from outer space "upside down."
There is no "upside down" in space - unless Gore had his childhood view in mind.
At least I'm not in the wilderness this time. Lots of people have pondered the possibility that Barack is our Divine Redeemer. There are Web sites dedicated to the question "Is Barack Obama the Messiah?" Google that question and you'll get more than 35,000 hits. (Enter just the words "Messiah" and "Obama" and you'll get nearly 10 times that.)
But there's more concrete evidence. Since Obama declared his candidacy, there have been remarkably few biblical plagues. And lions and lambs seem open to bilateral negotiations.
Obama's apostles are hard to dismiss. Oprah simply calls him "The One," because "we need politicians who know how to be the truth." (Jesus says in John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth ...") Oprah goes on to say Obama will help us "evolve to a higher plane," which would put Obama in the role of our Intelligent Designer.
According to the New York Times, Obama's volunteers are taught to eschew discussions of the issues and instead "testify" about how they "came to Obama."
For many, he's no retro-redeemer, but a 21st century savior, a Matrix-messiah and Neo for our modern-day Nineveh. Self-help guru Deepak Chopra dubs Obama "a quantum leap in American consciousness," while prominent "leadership coach" Eve Konstantine assures us that, "He's our product out of the all-knowing quantum field of intelligence."
Obama willing, I will never be stuck next to these people on a plane.
Michelle Obama is arguably Obamanity's greatest evangelist, even though she has a streak of Old Testament smiting and wrath to her. She insists her husband has redeemed the entire nation (hence her newfound pride in America). She proclaims her husband is the sort of leader who will fix our broken souls. But don't hope for grace on the cheap. "The change Barack is talking about is hard," she insists, "so don't get too excited, because Barack is going to demand that you, too, be different."
Those of you who thought we had a Second Amendment to keep government from fixing your soul are so 20th century. Evolve already.
And then there's the Gospel according to Obama himself. In January, he told Dartmouth students that they will know to vote for him because "... a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack."
When asked in an interview what sin is, Obama defined it as "Being out of alignment with my values." Apparently, the editor failed to capitalize the "M" in "My."
But such mistakes can be forgiven, for Hillary has been cast out and the nomination is nigh. So we can get cracking on fixing America - and ourselves.
"I am absolutely certain," Obama proclaimed in his victory speech, "that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs for the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation ..."
Now, if you're under the mistaken impression that sick people had some care, or that a few jobs were to be found prior to June 2008, or that maybe - just maybe - the oceans don't rise and fall with the election returns, or that America itself doesn't need "remaking," you're not one of the "ones we've been waiting for."
But you might be one of the ones Al Gore has been waiting for. You'd understand if you realized "Earth in the Balance" is a cookbook.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|To: American Spirit who wrote (1472)||6/7/2008 12:36:42 PM|
|Democrats will weigh challenge to John Kerry|
By Associated Press
Saturday, June 7, 2008 - Added 5m ago
E-mail Printable (0) Comments Text size Share (0) Rate
Some 3,000 Bay State Democrats will gather inside a cool, dark arena in Lowell today with one question on their mind.
Does John Kerry, less than four years removed from being about 60,000 votes short of the presidency, deserve to face a challenger from his own party while seeking re-election to the U.S. Senate this fall?
A Gloucester attorney, some Democratic activists and a group called the Progressive Democrats of America think he does.
They alternately argue that Kerry has neglected his home state, ignored the will of his fellow Democrats by endorsing Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, or betrayed liberal principles by voting in 2002 to authorize military force in Iraq.
Edward O’Reilly, a Watertown native who worked first as a firefighter before putting himself through law school, decided to challenge Kerry for the Democratic nomination in part over the war vote.
“John Kerry voted for the war knowing the war was wrong,” O’Reilly said yesterday by telephone. “If we look at the past, we know that John Kerry did not vote his conscience.”
The 54-year-old Gloucester attorney also criticized Kerry for opposing same-sex marriage and for not expressing sufficient outrage over windfall oil company profits amid $4-per-gallon gasoline prices.
Another Kerry critic, delegate Charles Motta of Mattapoisett, said he’s concerned about a report Kerry is angling to become secretary of state in a potential Obama administration.
“Are we doing all this for nothing?” Motta asked. “Are we electing him to a senatorship and then he goes to serve in the Obama administration?”
The issue for delegates today is whether they award O’Reilly at least 15 percent of their nomination vote, so he can make the primary ballot.
Kerry campaign manager Roger Lau denies suggestions the senator is trying to keep O’Reilly off the ballot; in fact, he’s girding for a primary challenge
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|To: American Spirit who wrote (1476)||12/22/2008 6:31:07 AM|
|Limbaugh Is Right on the Fairness Doctrine|
Liberals don't need equal-time rules to compete.
By JON SINTON
Mr. Sinton is the founding president of Air America Radio.
Conservative talk radio has worked itself into a tizzy lately over the rumored revival of the Fairness Doctrine -- the FCC policy that sought to enforce balanced discussion on the nation's airwaves.
As the founding president of Air America Radio, I believe that for the last eight years Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have been cheerleaders for everything wrong with our economic, foreign and domestic policies. But when it comes to the Fairness Doctrine, I couldn't agree with them more. The Fairness Doctrine is an anachronistic policy that, with the abundance of choices on radio today, is entirely unnecessary.
Instituted in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine obligated stations to "afford reasonable opportunity" for opposing views on topics of "public importance." At the time, most cities outside of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles had only a few stations. AM radio was in everyone's car and home, but there were just three or four stations per market. FM radio was still a quarter of a century away from commercial success.
Policy makers who introduced the Fairness Doctrine were worried that crafty special interests could overwhelm the airwaves with one-sided propaganda and tilt elections, sway public sentiment or foment civil unrest. Their fears were understandable. Joseph Goebbels effectively used radio in service of the Third Reich.
Contrary to what some people would have us believe today, the Fairness Doctrine was primarily an issue on TV, since radio didn't have much talk. Until the 1970s, AM stations had a steady diet of music with a couple of minutes of news at the top of the hour. But by 1978, music had migrated to FM, leaving AM in a programming lurch. The history of media is replete with new technologies stealing the content of the ones they supplant. Motion pictures killed vaudeville; radio was full of dramas and comedies before Jack Webb and Jack Benny switched to TV. As for AM radio, it was not until Rush found an audience on WABC in New York City in 1988 that the AM operators knew what to do with their once mighty stations.
The conventional wisdom is that Rush's success depended on the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. Some say that if he had to make time for opposing opinions, Rush would have flopped. Personally, I think he is most entertaining when he is dismantling opposing arguments. He's successful because he is a superior entertainer.
Rush created the new AM template, and it spread like wildfire. When programmers and sales managers get a whiff of success, it is cloned in every conceivable way until the audience, once grateful for innovation, tunes out.
So why didn't liberal talk radio flourish as well? There are several reasons, none of which has to do with a lack of talent. Bill Maher, Al Franken, Stephanie Miller, David Bender, Janeane Garofalo, Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow all have the chops.
First, boring hosts made the occasional, unsuccessful foray (sorry, Mario Cuomo). Second, some talented lefties like Mike Malloy were cast into the abyss of right-wing talk radio where they were completely out of place. (Radio is a mood servicing drug; format purity rules.)
Finally, most broadcast owners are conservative. Programs like Rush's have made them rich, so the last thing they want is to mess with success, particularly if it entails airing opinions they don't share. Trust me, it took us years to get them to play rock 'n' roll.
No one tried a national, 24-hour liberal station before Air America Radio. When we founded Air America, we aimed to establish a talk network that lived at the intersection of politics and entertainment. Of course, we were motivated by our political leanings. But as a lifelong broadcaster, I was certain that at least half the American audience was underserved by conservative talk radio. Here was an opportunity to capture listeners turned off by the likes of, say, Sean Hannity. The business opportunity was enticing.
It never occurred to me to argue for reimposing the Fairness Doctrine. Instead, I sought to capitalize on the other side of a market the right already had built.
When conservative talking heads wave a red flag about the possible revival of the Fairness Doctrine, they know it's a great way to play the victim and rally supporters. But I'll let Rush continue with his self-righteous indignation -- and if I want, I'll tune into Rachel Maddow, or one of the thousands of other voices that populate radio today.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|
|To: Bill who wrote (1497)||1/10/2009 11:22:10 PM|
|From: American Spirit|
|Limbaugh and his 400 million dollar contract has been DEAD WRONG and clearlty dishonest on just about every single issue facing this country since he first went on air. He's also a total hypocrite and never practices what he preaches. He's not only a drug addict put either a gay or a straight who likes young girls. And his methods are no different from those of Hitler's propaganda artists. Tell big fat lies to divide and conquer. But he's totally failed at it.|
When are you people going to realize that Limbaugh and Hannity don't give a damn about people like you. They use you as suckers in a big con game for the billionaire corporate class so they can exploit you. That's the way it's always been, disguising their true elitist white collar criminal agenda in sensitve wedge issues, like keeping alive the confederacy, racism, gay-baiting, sexual phobia, xenophobia, distrust of foreigners, distrust of anyone and everything that might threaten the profits of the very same companies Bush-Cheney and Delasy were pimping for, all the industries which need to be regulated for the public good. That's all it's ever been about, basically pure greed. But it has totally backfired and now even clobbered the most greedy.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)|