Re: POLITICS: Greedy Zionists Bankers--Thank you Sharon

[Guest guest]

Thanks - as soon as I saw 'Fox News' credited, I figured that it might

be taken out of context.

> Chris-

>

>> He talks more about institutional redistribution and not about

>> handing

>> out checks, but he calls it redistribution and he refers to " major

>> redistributive change " favorably.

>

> As usual, context matters a great deal. Here's a compelling argument

> that as usual, Obama's comments in that interview are being grossly

> misrepresented by the right-wing press and the McCain campaign and its

> surrogates.

>

> " He's Not Robin Hood; What Obama really meant by 'redistributive

> change.' " http://www.slate.com/id/2203237/

>

> Here are a few highlights.

>

>>> In that interview, Obama was talking in law professor-speak, and in

>>> a couple of places in his discursive remarks he refers to

>>> " redistributive change. " When he used the term, he was speaking

>>> against the backdrop of an old debate in the legal academy, which

>>> was not about who should pay higher taxes. So, what's the real

>>> context for Obama's remarks? It is both storied and, in the end, ho-

>>> hum.

>>>

>>> In 1964, law professor Reich wrote a hugely influential

>>> article called " The New Property. " Reich's idea was that some

>>> benefits, once conferred by the government, couldn't be taken away

>>> without some sort of legal process. Reich's " benefits " weren't

>>> necessarily for the poor. " When he was a law clerk to Justice

>>> Black, Charlie was struck by the injustice that a doctor, licensed

>>> to practice law in New York, could lose his right to practice—in

>>> this instance because of allegations he'd fought against Franco—

>>> without any procedural protection, " says Yale law professor Judith

>>> Resnik, who taught the civil procedure class I read Reich's article

>>> for in law school. Reich's idea was that a government license could

>>> be a form of property, in the sense that, once granted, it

>>> shouldn't be taken away without a fair hearing.

>

>

>>> What comes through far more clearly in the interview is a tactical

>>> point: Obama thinks it's a mistake to rely too much on courts to

>>> further any broad agenda. He says, " I think one of the tragedies of

>>> the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became

>>> so court-focused. I think there was a tendency to lose track of the

>>> political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to

>>> bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about

>>> redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that. "

>>> And then he continues, " Maybe I am showing my bias here as a

>>> legislator as well as a law professor, but you know

> the

>>> institution just isn't structured that way. "

>>>

>>> This is a whole separate, bitter, ongoing fight in legal circles—

>>> over when to turn to courts as a means of change and when to turn

>>> to the legislature, which is directly accountable to the voters and

>>> so perhaps the safer and more stable route. It's a truism that

>>> conservatives favor legislative change and see the courts as an

>>> undemocratic end run around it. They especially think that about

>>> any push for " redistributive change, " Obama's subject here. In this

>>> interview, Obama comes down on the traditionally conservative side,

>>> albeit for presumably different reasons. He thinks the civil rights

>>> movement misjudged the courts' utility—they were good for providing

>>> for a right to vote and for black people to sit with white people

>>> at a lunch counter, to use Obama's examples, but they're not good

>>> for deciding who's entitled to what government benefits or property

>>> rights. " Obama is with Bork on this, " Cass Sunstein, an Obama

>>> adviser, told me, referring, of course, to the arch-conservative,

>>> famously not-confirmed-to-the-Supreme Court Judge Bork.

>

> -

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

> As usual, context matters a great deal. Here's a compelling argument

> that as usual, Obama's comments in that interview are being grossly

> misrepresented by the right-wing press and the McCain campaign and its

> surrogates.

>

> " He's Not Robin Hood; What Obama really meant by 'redistributive

> change.' " http://www.slate.com/id/2203237/

Well of course he isn't Robin Hood. Wasn't Robin Hood against

taxation? Weren't the " rich " he was " stealing " from " stealing " from

the poor he was giving to through taxes?

Anyway, I don't really understand the argument from the snippets you

posted. This person is arguing that by " redistribution of wealth and

sort of basic issues of political and economic justice " Obama means

whether someone can take away your government license? Obama is quite

obviously talking about wealth equality as a civil right.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 11/3/08, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> Thanks - as soon as I saw 'Fox News' credited, I figured that it might

> be taken out of context.

So the link to the full transcript was taken out of context? LOL.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 11/3/08, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> So, my guess is that in the context of the rest of his career, he uses

> 'major' for self-aggrandizement - in other words, if something is

> good, you want credit for advocating it in a major way. Kind of like

> he takes credit for being against the war in Iraq. His politics have

> always been quite moderate, and I don't see anything to suggest that

> he is for a major redistribution of wealth. But I'm sure that you dug

> this up on some right wing site - well, of course you did. Fox News.

Right. Obviously the full transcript of the interview would come out

quite different if it were posted on a left-wing web site.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Obviously.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Masterjohn " <chrismasterjohn@...>

> On 11/3/08, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> > So, my guess is that in the context of the rest of his career, he uses

> > 'major' for self-aggrandizement - in other words, if something is

> > good, you want credit for advocating it in a major way. Kind of like

> > he takes credit for being against the war in Iraq. His politics have

> > always been quite moderate, and I don't see anything to suggest that

> > he is for a major redistribution of wealth. But I'm sure that you dug

> > this up on some right wing site - well, of course you did. Fox News.

>

> Right. Obviously the full transcript of the interview would come out

> quite different if it were posted on a left-wing web site.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

Sharon

> Maybe some

> Americans are just against electing someone who isn't forthright and

> truthful about what he is.

If that were true then the office of POTUS would be empty today <g>

--

Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

" If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist

[Guest guest]

> On 11/2/08, Idol <paul.idol@...> wrote:

>> And I don't believe for a second that Obama is

>> actually a Muslim or is being in any way untruthful in saying he's not.

>

> I don't understand how anyone can consider this plausible. What was

> the point of him attending 's church all these years?

While it doesn't speak to the plausibility of Obama being a Muslim,

Protestant Black Liberation theology is very much interested in the

ways of the African " homeland " of which Islam is considered to be the

primary religious influence historically.

Also in " mainstream " Protestant Christianity, while not the norm, it

is not unusual to find people who profess to be both Christian and

Muslim, and/or encourage cozy relationships with faiths/religions

whose basic theological framework are fundamentally antagonistic.

There was a rather high profile case in my area of an Episcopal Bishop

who claimed that she was both a devout Christian and a devout Muslim,

and didn't see any antagonism between the two.

--

Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

" If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist

[Guest guest]

,

>> He talks more about institutional redistribution and not about handing

>> out checks, but he calls it redistribution and he refers to " major

>> redistributive change " favorably.

>

> As usual, context matters a great deal. Here's a compelling argument

> that as usual, Obama's comments in that interview are being grossly

> misrepresented by the right-wing press and the McCain campaign and its

> surrogates.

>

> " He's Not Robin Hood; What Obama really meant by 'redistributive

> change.' " http://www.slate.com/id/2203237/

Baloney.

I listened to that interview. Obama is clearly talking about wealth

redistribution. If he isn't then he ought to be chastised for not

providing a context for talking about an esoteric legal debate that

most listeners would take to mean something else.

At any rate, we now know how you cast your ballot <g>

--

Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

" If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist

[Guest guest]

-

> Also in " mainstream " Protestant Christianity, while not the norm, it

> is not unusual to find people who profess to be both Christian and

> Muslim, and/or encourage cozy relationships with faiths/religions

> whose basic theological framework are fundamentally antagonistic.

> There was a rather high profile case in my area of an Episcopal Bishop

> who claimed that she was both a devout Christian and a devout Muslim,

> and didn't see any antagonism between the two.

You're lumping two radically different things together -- people who

profess to be both Christian and Muslim (an extremely rare phenomenon

AFAIK) and people who encourage non-antagonistic relationships between

the faiths.

-

[Guest guest]

-

> At any rate, we now know how you cast your ballot <g>

I don't make a habit of obscuring my beliefs. <g>

-

[Guest guest]

I didn't read the rest of this thread, but it just always

amazes/amuses me that certain people rail against some kind of

" redistribution of wealth " only when that redistribution goes from the

wealthy to the non-wealthy. You don't hear a peep out of them about

all the redistribution going the other way -- all our tax money that

goes to the wealthiest American corporations (and of course that means

the m/billionaire CEO's and other officers), for all kinds of " reasons " ...

Joy

--- In , <slethnobotanist@...>

wrote:

>

> ,

>

> >> He talks more about institutional redistribution and not about

handing

> >> out checks, but he calls it redistribution and he refers to " major

> >> redistributive change " favorably.

> >

> > As usual, context matters a great deal. Here's a compelling argument

> > that as usual, Obama's comments in that interview are being grossly

> > misrepresented by the right-wing press and the McCain campaign and its

> > surrogates.

> >

> > " He's Not Robin Hood; What Obama really meant by 'redistributive

> > change.' " http://www.slate.com/id/2203237/

>

>

> Baloney.

>

> I listened to that interview. Obama is clearly talking about wealth

> redistribution. If he isn't then he ought to be chastised for not

> providing a context for talking about an esoteric legal debate that

> most listeners would take to mean something else.

>

> At any rate, we now know how you cast your ballot <g>

>

>

> --

> Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

> For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

> conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

> about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

>

> " If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

> Dave Von Kleist

>

[Guest guest]

Joy,

> I didn't read the rest of this thread, but it just always

> amazes/amuses me that certain people rail against some kind of

> " redistribution of wealth " only when that redistribution goes from the

> wealthy to the non-wealthy. You don't hear a peep out of them about

> all the redistribution going the other way -- all our tax money that

> goes to the wealthiest American corporations (and of course that means

> the m/billionaire CEO's and other officers), for all kinds of

" reasons " ...

I could not agree with you more! Well said.

Tom

[Guest guest]

I, too, agree with Joy. 

Deb

 

[Guest guest]

Joy-

> I didn't read the rest of this thread, but it just always

> amazes/amuses me that certain people rail against some kind of

> " redistribution of wealth " only when that redistribution goes from the

> wealthy to the non-wealthy. You don't hear a peep out of them about

> all the redistribution going the other way -- all our tax money that

> goes to the wealthiest American corporations (and of course that means

> the m/billionaire CEO's and other officers), for all kinds of

> " reasons " ...

I think that's because the attitude underlying some of those people's

complaisance is that it's right and proper and natural for the strong

to take from the week and unnatural and unacceptable for anything else

to happen.

-

[Guest guest]

Joy,

> I didn't read the rest of this thread, but it just always

> amazes/amuses me that certain people rail against some kind of

> " redistribution of wealth " only when that redistribution goes from the

> wealthy to the non-wealthy. You don't hear a peep out of them about

> all the redistribution going the other way -- all our tax money that

> goes to the wealthiest American corporations (and of course that means

> the m/billionaire CEO's and other officers), for all kinds of " reasons " ...

Had you read this and the related thread(s), you would have noticed

that was exactly the point that I, and later made in reference

to McCain. I specifically used an example of McCain

" redistributing " money to a big American corporation.

--

Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

" If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist

[Guest guest]

,

> -

>

>> Also in " mainstream " Protestant Christianity, while not the norm, it

>> is not unusual to find people who profess to be both Christian and

>> Muslim, and/or encourage cozy relationships with faiths/religions

>> whose basic theological framework are fundamentally antagonistic.

>> There was a rather high profile case in my area of an Episcopal Bishop

>> who claimed that she was both a devout Christian and a devout Muslim,

>> and didn't see any antagonism between the two.

>

> You're lumping two radically different things together -- people who

> profess to be both Christian and Muslim (an extremely rare phenomenon

> AFAIK) and people who encourage non-antagonistic relationships between

> the faiths.

I'm all for non-antagonistic relationships between people, no matter

their faith, after all I'm a voluntarist. What I mean by cozy

relationships are those that seek to blunt or remove the differences

between the faiths and act like we are all " one " or no real

differences exist, like the Protestant Ecumenical movement for

example, or people who think that genuine faith commitments don't

matter or won't show up in a marriage, etc, when the heat from the

crucible of everyday living starts bearing down on a couple. That has

nothing to do with non-antagonistic relationships per se and I should

have explained that more clearly.

--

Buffalo too, has beautiful summers but not this year. Cool and rainy.

For the first time in ten years, we never installed the air

conditioners. My line on all this is, somebody better do something

about global warming before I freeze to death. - Ostrowski

" If you're not on somebody's watch list, you're not doing your job " -

Dave Von Kleist

[Guest guest]

-

> >> Also in " mainstream " Protestant Christianity, while not the norm,

> it

> >> is not unusual to find people who profess to be both Christian and

> >> Muslim, and/or encourage cozy relationships with faiths/religions

> >> whose basic theological framework are fundamentally antagonistic.

> >> There was a rather high profile case in my area of an Episcopal

> Bishop

> >> who claimed that she was both a devout Christian and a devout

> Muslim,

> >> and didn't see any antagonism between the two.

> >

> > You're lumping two radically different things together -- people who

> > profess to be both Christian and Muslim (an extremely rare

> phenomenon

> > AFAIK) and people who encourage non-antagonistic relationships

> between

> > the faiths.

>

> I'm all for non-antagonistic relationships between people, no matter

> their faith, after all I'm a voluntarist. What I mean by cozy

> relationships are those that seek to blunt or remove the differences

> between the faiths and act like we are all " one " or no real

> differences exist, like the Protestant Ecumenical movement for

> example, or people who think that genuine faith commitments don't

> matter or won't show up in a marriage, etc, when the heat from the

> crucible of everyday living starts bearing down on a couple. That has

> nothing to do with non-antagonistic relationships per se and I should

> have explained that more clearly.

Fair enough, but I still think you're lumping two extremely different

things together. People who profess both Christianity and Islam are,

I think, vanishingly rare -- and exceedingly peculiar, too, for all

that both are Abrahamic religions. The Protestant ecumenical

movement, by contrast, is not exactly tiny, and I gather you're

talking about more than just its members, too.

-