Hate Speech Left and Right

Katherine Hilzoy has a superb post up about double standards in the media and blogger war over the content of some of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s sermons. She starts out by quoting from Terry Moran’s interview with Obama after the Big Speech:

Obama gave a very good interview to Nightline about his speech on race and the Wright controversy. Here’s one excerpt:

I think there are a lot of African-Americans who would love to be able to not worry about race, but somehow it encroaches upon them.

You know, it’s the classic example — and this is a common experience. I think most African-Americans will share it. If there is some horrendous crime out there, black people are always a little nervous until they see the picture, hoping that it’s not a black person who committed it.

A white person never thinks that way, because you, Terry Moran, would never assume that if there is some white male who fits your description who, you know, went on a rampage that somehow people are going to think of you differently. Black people, they worry about that.

So that’s an example of how those realities are different…

In a similar fashion: if a white candidate is affiliated in some fashion with a white religious figure who preaches incendiary sermons, he’s a nutty preacher, and it’s a one day story or doesn’t make the TV news at all. The white candidate can say: “if he said insulting things about Catholics or Jews, I strongly disagree,” entirely ignore hatred of Muslims, and that’s that. If a black candidate is affiliated with a black religious figure who preaches incendiary sermons, he’s a nutty BLACK preacher, and it’s a weeklong story & a huge threat to his candidacy. Repeatedly denouncing the preacher’s excessive remarks–in specific terms–and giving the most thoughtful speech about race in America in decades & exhibiting no hatred of whites or anyone else, is not sufficient. A lot of people say there is nothing that Obama can do or say that can excuse his association with a black man who would say those things. Never mind whether Obama was there. Never mind when Obama found out about them. Never mind whether they’re typical of Wright’s sermons–the media cannot be bothered to explore that question at all. Never mind that Obama specifically denounced those remarks, repeatedly. Never mind that Obama obviously doesn’t share those views. Never mind that there is absolutely no evidence in his entire public record that he hates America or hates white people, or that he has ever pandered to those sentiments. He is guilty of fraternizing with an angry, scary black man; he is therefore unfit for the presidency.

That is, as far as I’m concerned a huge double standard which is quite obviously a function of Obama’s & Wright’s race–and the fact that Wright’s remarks were directed at the United States & against white people, instead of against a hated minority like Muslims or gay people.

The stock response to this is that Obama knows Wright better than McCain knows Parsley or Hagee, or than other GOP politicians know Tony Perkins, Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, etc. But that only gets you so far. First of all, I think Wright’s comments are less typical of the man than the widely-quoted Hagee remarks. Second, and much more importantly: Obama may know Wright better, but he has far LESS impact on policy than other controversial ministers have on Republican policy. Has Obama proposed or supported any anti-white amendments to the constitution to gain Reverend Wright’s favor? Do you think he’s going to consult with Wright about Supreme Court nominations? Did he call speak at or endorse any events where black militants discussed how they “don’t just want to impeach judges. I want to impale them”? Is there a realistic possibility of him starting wars against countries that Rev. Wright wants him to go to war against? No, no, no, and no.

Glenn Greenwald runs down the list of pastors on the religious right who have built entire careers on bashing America and expressing their hatred for, and certainty of God’s violent judgment on, this country:

The statement of Wright’s which seems to be causing the most upset — and it’s one of two singled out by Douthat — is his suggestion that there is a causal link between (a) America’s constant bombings of and other interference with Middle Eastern countries and (b) the willingness of some Middle Eastern fanatics to attack the U.S. Ever since the 9/11 attacks, we’ve been told that positing any such causal connection is a sign of vicious anti-Americanism and that all decent people find such questions despicable. This week we learned that no respectable person would subject his children to a pastor who espouses such hateful ideas.

But the idea that America deserves terrorist attacks and other horrendous disasters has long been a frequently expressed view among the faction of white evangelical ministers to whom the Republican Party is most inextricably linked. Neither Jerry Falwell nor Pat Robertson ever retracted or denounced their view that America provoked the 9/11 attacks by doing things to anger God. John Hagee continues to believe that the City of New Orleans got what it deserved when Katrina drowned its residents and devastated the lives of thousands of Americans. And James Inhofe — who happens to still be a Republican U.S. Senator — blamed America for the 9/11 attacks by arguing in a 2002 Senate floor speech that “the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America” because we pressured Israel to give away parts of the West Bank.

The phrases “anti-American” and “America-haters” are among the most barren and manipulative in our entire political lexicon, but whatever they happen to mean on any given day, they easily encompass people who believe that the U.S. deserved the 9/11 attacks, devastating hurricanes and the like. Yet when are people like Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, Inhofe and other white Christian radicals ever described as anti-American or America-hating extremists? Never — because white Christian evangelicals who tie themselves to the political Right are intrinsically patriotic. …

Unemployment Up Again Today

The U.S. Department of Labor announced today

In the week ending March 15, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 378,000, an increase of 22,000 from the previous week’s revised figure of 356,000. The 4-week moving average was 365,250, an increase of 6,000 from the previous week’s revised average of 359,250.

Not surprising. Here in western Ohio, the local newspapers will carry a story here about ABC Corp laying off 22 employees and there about XYZ Co. laying off 41 employees. In all fairness, it does not make any headlines when any company hires workers. Bad news sells papers.

Food – as in Food Banks

This is not new news. This is an on-going disaster that is “below the radar” with the election season and the war in Iraq. Federal government policy, or lack of policy, regarding surplus food is sorely lacking.

Food pantries, also known as ‘food banks’, some are shutting down and some others are running low on food. There are two prime reasons for this. First, according to the NY Times

In part, food banks are suffering because farmers are doing well. The food banks rely on supplies from the federal Agriculture Department’s Bonus Commodity Program, which buys surplus crops like apples and potatoes from farmers.

“Right now, the agricultural economy is very strong and the surpluses aren’t available for us to purchase,” said Jean Daniel, a department spokeswoman. “Certainly we’re empathetic, but unfortunately we cannot count on those bonus commodities every year.”

The Senate Finance Committee is working on a new farm bill

Food bank operators are lobbying for passage of a farm bill currently stalled in the Senate that would raise emergency aid for food banks to $250 million a year, from $140 million. That figure has remained steady since 2002.

Second Harvest which is “the largest charitable domestic hunger-relief organization in the United States” submitted these comments to the Senate in response to delays in passing the Farm Bill.

America’s food banks are challenged to meet this increased need for food
assistance as working Americans have less to spend on the necessities of life.
The food shortages at food banks nationwide are largely due to dramatic
declines in food aid from surplus commodity purchases by the federal
government.

The second reason has to do with better, more efficient inventory management by super market chains and food distributers

Further complicating the picture, Ms. Morgan and others said, is tighter inventory monitoring, which has left many stores with less to donate.

“They know exactly what they have, down to the can,” said Darren Hoffman, a spokesman for the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, whose supplies are down 11 percent this year. “They can track a lot better and don’t order in bulk. Efficiency has kind of been the enemy of the food bank.”

Extra food — items that are not selling or seasonal inventory that is no longer needed — is now often sold to low-cost retailers, said Tim Viall, executive director of the Greater Stockton Food Bank in Stockton, Calif.

“We’re getting fewer canned goods than last year from retail grocers, because they’re selling it to warehouse food stores,” Mr. Viall said.

Folks, people absolutely do not go to a food bank because they want to eat fillet mignon or tiramisu. They go to a food bank because they are hungry, because their loved ones are hungry. As part of the social contract, we have an obligation to help those of us who are going through difficult times.

Fool on Bernanke

Here is a link and here is the article in its entirety:

Ben Bernanke Is Destroying Our Financial System

By Chuck Saletta March 20, 2008

Were he a private citizen rather than the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke would have been thrown in jail for what he just did to Bear Stearns (NYSE: BSC). He literally stole the company from its rightful owners and handed it to JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) for pennies on the dollar.

And no, Bear Stearns’ prior shareholders weren’t the victims of this theft. Their stakes were well on the way to becoming worthless, thanks to Bear Stearns’ overleveraged positions. They should be writing Bernanke personal thank-you letters and pledging their undying loyalty to him for handing them a little something along the way. I’m talking about Bear Stearns’ bondholders. The people who should most immediately feel victimized by this theft are the ones who held the $65.7 billion in long-term debt that Bear Stearns had borrowed.

When a company fails to meet its debt obligations, it goes bankrupt. Its bondholders get first dibs on the assets — not some bank that has a powerful politician in its pocket. For those of us watching this particular horror unfold on the sidelines, that may seem like an academic distinction. But it matters. A lot.

What hell hath Bernanke wrought?
First, there’s the minor matter that Bernanke’s actions severely perverted the market’s natural checks and balances by socializing risk and privatizing profit. If ever there was a signal to other large banks and investment houses to take unwarranted and unwise risks in the future, this would be it.

Second, not every bank will go under because of the subprime mess. Fifth Third Bancorp (Nasdaq: FITB) proudly had this to say in its recent annual report: “The Bancorp maintains a conservative approach to both lending and investing activities as it does not originate or hold subprime loans, nor does it hold collateralized debt obligations (‘CDOs’) or asset-backed securities backed by subprime loans in its securities portfolio.”

Even among the banks that were exposed to this mess, there are varying degrees. Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC) and US Bancorp (NYSE: USB) seem to have intelligently limited their exposures so as not to sink their businesses.

Why should they and their shareholders be punished for behaving prudently? And yes, they’re suffering from Bernanke’s bailouts, just like the rest of us. Keeping the more poorly managed banks from failing makes it much tougher for the companies that should survive to take market share. That directly rewards failure, punishes success, and damages the market’s ability to cleanse itself through such bankruptcies.

Third and finally, lost amidst all of Bernanke’s heavy-handed government intervention is the fact that, if left alone, the markets still work. If there’s still some semblance of real value in a failing institution, someone will step in and buy it, without sticking taxpayers with the risk. Just look at Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) and its proposed buyout of Countrywide (NYSE: CFC). The last time I checked, that offer was made without the Federal Reserve kicking in $30 billion in guarantees.

With the Fed throwing around that kind of cash to guarantee loans, why would anyone risk his own?

The law of unintended consequences
Whether he wants to admit it or not, Bernanke’s actions are:

• crowding out private money, thus exacerbating the lending crisis;
• rewarding failure, thus assuring more and bigger shenanigans later; and
• signaling that there are no (immediate) consequences to making bad financial decisions.

That’s a long-term disaster unfolding right before our very eyes. Once we get through this mess, the risk/reward trade-off that ultimately governs financial interactions will be forever damaged. In a market economy, the fear of failure and its consequences provides the discipline that keeps risks reasonable and their aftermath contained. If the Federal Reserve keeps bailing out failures, the only limit to the size of the risks will be based on the willingness of people around the world to accept the dollar as currency.

Or in other words, if you think things are bad now, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Much more comprehensive than I could ever be.

Thought of the Day

The future has a way of arriving unannounced.

George Will