Skip to content
thepete.com - » free speech thepete.com

TheAdvertising:
:gnisitrevdAehT

Jeremiah Wright: What If He’s Right?

by ThePete 10:57 am 2008-03-20

One of the things I think everyone is missing in the middle of all of this controversy regarding Obama and his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, is the free speech issue. People are shocked and offended by Wright’s request that "God damn America" but no one is talking (or apparently even thinking) about Wright’s right to speak his mind. Also, no one is even considering that he might actually have legitimate concerns.

Granted, some of the things he says seem outlandish–I’ve seen no hard evidence for AIDS having been engineered by the USG, but if you take a hard look at the history and morality of America’s leaders over the past two hundred years you might come to think that it’s not impossible. The first thing that pops into my mind when someone talks about AIDS being created in a lab as a weapon is the practice of giving Native Americans blankets infected with disease during the early days of the colonization of North America.

Regarding his "God damn America" comments, I thought it would be a good idea to try to see past his anger and read his words. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a comprehensive transcript of his words, but I did find a bit more context in his Wikipedia entry (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/…iah_Wright ). Here’s a bit more around Wright’s "GDA" comment: "No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people…God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

Hasn’t America killed innocent people in Iraq? Hasn’t American treated many Americans like they are less than human (Katrina victims, Jose Padilla)? Doesn’t America march into countries that don’t do what we want them to do (Afghanistan, Iraq)?

The answer is yes on all fronts. America does act like it’s all-powerful and all-important. It’s a depressing and frustrating fact, but it’s a fact, nonetheless.

Do I think God should damn America?

I think America’s already been damned with an inability to easily face depressing realities. The fact that no one is talking about the meat of Wright’s comments is evidence of this (even "The Daily Show" and "Colbert Report" danced around Wright’s words).

In the last interview Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh gave before he was executed he told Diane Sawyer that he blew up that building and those people because he was trying to communicate with a government that understood just one language: violence.

I’m not saying he was right to do what he did–but the argument could be made that we could learn from his comments–godforbidweshouldlearnfromakiller!!

Any time someone says "911 was an inside job" or even something as simple as "racism is alive and well in America" too many people just write off said comments as coming from the "blame America first" crowd.

The thing is, what if there are things America should take the blame for?

How are we ever supposed to fix our problems if every time someone speaks up and points them out we dodge the issue entirely by playing holier than thou?

Is everything Jeremiah Wright says true? Well, we’ll never know until we look.
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz Replies.

Student Punished for Web-Based Douchespeak

by ThePete 1:10 pm 2008-03-05

The above screencap comes from: http://apnews.myway.com/…BKM00.html

Does this bother anyone else? I don’t see what a kid says about a school administration or official or teacher has to do with anything. I know they’re kids, but don’t they have the right to speak their mind?

Sure, the parents have the ultimate say, but forcing kids to muzzle themselves seems like we’re training them to be passive and silent when they become adults. Too many passive and silent adults are what allowed the Iraq war to happen (not to mention other things, not quite as bad).

When you consider the tameness of the student’s words, it gets even more oppressive sounding. It’s not like she dropped the F-bomb or called anyone a C-word–the last time I checked, the words she used could be heard on latenight TV.

Perhaps I’m biased since I’m not sure why people get so hung up about "swear" words. Words are just words, folks. They’re not magic spells, they don’t put a curse on you, they only have the power we give to them.

I understand that certain words are inappropriate in certain circumstances and I understand the social rules, but I don’t understand the legal ones. Dick Cheney told a member of Congress to "fuck off" for crying out loud. Our leaders are setting these examples and we get mad at a teenage girl for calling someone a douchebag?
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz Replies.

Wikileaks.org Threatened by "Legal" Action

by ThePete 12:10 pm 2008-02-19

So, I see an article at the BBC News website today (here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/…250916.stm ) and it reports on how a California court has ordered the website Wikileaks.org to be taken offline. From the article: "A controversial website that allows whistle-blowers to anonymously post government and corporate documents has been taken offline in the US.

Wikileaks.org, as it is known, was cut off from the internet following a California court ruling, the site says.

The case was brought by a Swiss bank after "several hundred" documents were posted about its offshore activities.

Other versions of the pages, hosted in countries such as Belgium and India, can still be accessed.

However, the main site was taken offline after the court ordered that Dynadot, which controls the site’s domain name, should remove all traces of wikileaks from its servers."

The catch is, that the above screencap was taken by me *after* I read the BBC News article. Seems like folks at the BBC, good as they are at reporting news with reasonable depth, still make mistakes. Of course, the real problem here isn’t that the BBC makes the odd mistake. It’s that a site like Wikileaks.org is being threatened in this way.

More from the article: "The case was brought by lawyers working for the Swiss banking group Julius Baer. It concerned several documents posted on the site which allegedly reveal that the bank was involved with money laundering and tax evasion.

The documents were allegedly posted by Rudolf Elmer, former vice president of the bank’s Cayman Island’s operation.

A spokesperson for Julius Baer said he could not comment on the case because of "pending legal proceedings".

The BBC understands that Julius Baer asked for the documents to be removed because they could have an impact on a separate legal case ongoing in Switzerland."

This makes no sense to me. So, a legal case in another country is grounds for people in the US (and the rest of the world) to go without information that they need in order to know who to trust or who to work for or who to avoid? This decision by the California court removes ALL whistleblower information that Wikileaks.org was hosting from the public–not just the stuff pertaining to this Swiss case.

This kind of censorship harms us all and it allows crimes to be committed and it allows the criminals who commit them to get away with it.

So much for freedom of speech.
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz Replies.

TheBlurb: "How can one talk about life without saying sometime it's going to end? It makes the value of life all the more precious."
updated on 11/01/08 14:45:18 Change it! Archives