The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Wattree's picture

    Black Sheriff, David Clarke, Says 'Black Lives Matter' Will Join Forces With Terrorists To Bring Down America

    Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

    Black Sheriff, David Clarke, Says 'Black Lives Matter' Will Join Forces With Terrorists To Bring Down America 
    *
    We Need to Nip This In The Bud By Demanding This Guy's Resignation - Or Recall
     

    I was having a discussion with an online friend over this issue, and he had the following to say: 

    "We strongly disagree on this. Conservatives always demonize black people. Blacks are illegitimate in the eyes of Conservatives. Martin Luther King Jr was a Communist. President Obama is not an American citizen and therefore isn't office illegally. Stop and Frisk was applied to all young black males because every black male was a threat. Black activists stuck with Martin Luther King Jr.and the Civil Rights Act passed in Congress. President Barack Obama was elected twice. Given the Republican Presidential it is likely that The President could be elected for a third term. Activists took down Stop and Frisk. There is a push to have police wear cameras because the public no longer trusts the police. Blacks are always under attack and have always fought back. 

    "Eric, no one knows this nitwit sheriff and his credentials are dust when compared to police organizations and elected officials working to end mass incarceration. The sheriff you fear so much may be a hero to wingnuts, but is dismissed by others. Herman Cain and Ben Carson carry the message that blacks should be feared. Both have no clout beyond the wingnuts. I have no idea why you focus on an impotent idiot. NEVER underestimate the strength of Black people. Always bet on Black."

    In response, I have to say the following:

    RM, I've never doubted the strength or intelligence of Black people - it's our focus that I'm concerned about. And while  I love your optimism, we haven't been doing so well so far.  If we were, a group called "Black Lives Matter" wouldn't be necessary. 

    The Washington Times has reported Black,Milwaukee Sheriff, David Clarke, as saying, “Before long, Black Lies [sic] Matter will join forces with ISIS to [bring] down our legal constituted republic. You heard it first here. . . . I have been right on every call I have made about these subversives. I will be right again." (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/28/david-clarke-black-milwa...)

    .
    You didn't see this coming, RM. but I did. As I told you, we can't out-scream the establish, because they control the the media; we can't out fight the establishment, because they control the military and arms industry; so the only way that we can deal with the White elitists establishment is to out-think them - or at the very least, not allow them to out-think us, and Black Lives Matter - and the Black community as a whole - is allowing them to do just that.
    .
    But I see why I can't through to you.  There are many concepts that you don't seem to get, or at least, accept. A Black Sheriff has credibility among many Americans, and especially conservative wingnuts, because he's saying exactly what they want to hear. So we can't afford the luxury of just writing this man off as another clueless Black man with a big mouth.  This guy has credible credentials.  Research him. This could very well be the beginning of a right-wing establishment attempt to demonize Black people as terrorist sympathizers in order to mount a campaign against all of us. That's exactly what they did to Muslims and the people of Iraq before they went in and killed and/or imprisoned a million of them.  I predicted that this could happen in our earlier discussion when I asked the question, was it possible that BLM had been infiltrated by the Koch brothers. That's a classic "cointelpro" tactic from the sixties. That's how they brought down the civil rights movement. 
    .
    Here's how it works.  First, the establish infiltrates a group with Judas goats who seem to be super-militant in pursuit of "the cause."  Then they use those Judas goats to convince the people within the group that the more level-headed people in the group are weak and ineffectual, so they should follow them. Thereafter, they start committing acts that will turn off the American people - like snatching microphones during events, and other stupid and seemingly thoughtless acts. That allows the establishment to demonize the group and paint their intentions in any way they like. And now they're extending the activities of the group to Black people in general by conflating the name of the group with the Black population as a whole  - after all, what Black person doesn't believe that Black lives matter?
    .
    That's a tactic that's been being used since the very beginning of this nation and before. We must never forget how they painted the Native Americans as "savages" and wiped them out for simply fighting for their rights. And now you're saying this sheriff is just a clueless Black man with a big mouth!!!?  You're being incredibly naive and dismissive of a history that's been repeated for centuries.
    .
    So with this final attempt to get through to you, I'm going to end this discussion, because I feel like I'm trying to teach calculus to a person who hasn't learned addition and subtraction. And I don't mean that in a disparaging way. I think you're a very intelligent person in many ways, but in this case, as I said before, you're betraying a propensity for being incredibly naive.  I can understand your wanting to defend BLM, but never defend stupidity, because their could be an underlying motive for it.  
    .
    In my last article, "Wake Up, Black People - The Holocaust Wasn't A Myth," I pointed out the following: 
    .
    "Many insightful Black people recognize the truth in what I'm saying, but our collective response to it is lackadaisical, indifferent, and completely inept. Just going after one bad cop after he's killed a Black child, and snatching microphones from like-minded people in order to grandstand on stage does absolutely nothing to correct the problem we face.What good has that done? Black people are still being slaughtered on the street, and their personal lives are still being made miserable in their homes, on their jobs, and in the courts. All we're doing with such behavior is showing the powers that be what pushovers we are. We've got to go after the system that spawned and protects that bad cop AS A WHOLE - and in order to do that we're going to have to organize our community, become serious and mature adults with an eye toward the future, and stop giving priority to Beyonce swinging her butt. But currently, we're allowing the social manipulators to keep us completely distracted while they're picking us off one at a time with complete impunity, and as they become more bold, they're going to eventually start coming after us as a group, and that day may be sooner than you think."
    .
    Now we have this Black Sheriff beginning to demonize Black people, and not just suggesting, but INSISTING that Black people are budding terrorists and a threat to America - and isn't it interesting that they found a Black sheriff?  It makes the claim seem a lot more credible, doesn't it?  It might even suggest to some that as a Black person himself, he might have some inside information. And isn't it a coincident that he's a rabid, Allen West-like conservative, one of those Black bligots (sic) that the conservatives love to trot out to say the things that they can't say themselves without revealing their bigotry? And do you think it's a coincident that this idiot's charge is being blared with banners all across conservative media? They're trying to see if the charge can get some traction.  If it does, Black people are in trouble, and our lives truly WON'T matter then. So we need to come down on this guy, with both feet.
    .
    This is what it means to allow ourselves to be out-thought by the establishment.  We're just sitting on our hands while they've trotted out a BLACK man starting to propagate the position that Black people are a terrorist threat to America.  How long do you think it's going to be before they start rounding us up, en masse?  They're laying the foundation for it as we speak.  Just think about the seriousness of that allegation. They're charging that Black people are going to become a part of ISIS!!! That's the most feared and hated terrorist group in the world. The mere suspicion of that will allow them to suspend the Constitution, round us up, and imprison us without any kind of due process or trial - ask any of the innocent people in Guantanamo. 
    .
    Again, please don't think it can't happen here, because every since the Bush/Cheney administration the United States has been becoming an increasingly more fascist state, and now that the demographics are against the GOP, they're becoming ever more reckless, dangerous, and oblivious to democracy.  The fact that they've already corrupted the Supreme Court, given the heads of foreign corporations more influence over our political system than American citizens in "Citizens United," and they're trying to reverse the Voter's Rights Act should speak volumes, even to the most politically naive.
    .
    The United States advocated executing people during the Nuremberg trials for doing far less than Bush and Cheney. And did you ever think you'd see the United States condone torture, or the Vice President the United States outing one of our own CIA agents, or 47 U.S. Senators singing a treasonous letter in an attempt to disrupt an American foreign policy initiative in order to promote the interest of a foreign power?  I don't think so.
    .
    So the United States is currently in a very dangerous downhill slide. Republican president, Ike Eisenhower, would have summarily executed people for committing any one of the offenses listed above, so if a fascist-leaning Republican is elected President in the 2016 election, rounding up Black people en masse wouldn't be nothing in the current political environment. Thus, every Black preacher, teacher, journalist, and community activist in America should be all over this, because as long as a Black man can get rich by claiming to take pride in being a gangster, and calling the very womb of our culture bitches and hoes,why shouldn't America believe we're capable of terrorism?
    .
    Wake up, Black people. It's time to take off our party hats and look at what's going on around us.

    .
    Eric L. Wattree 
    Http://wattree.blogspot.com 
    [email protected]
    .
    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

    Comments

    Eric

    Sigh. Where have you been? Conservatives (Reactionaries is a better term) have always had self hating blacks who are willing to say what they think white people want to hear. Jesse Lee Patterson tells white people that he is happy that black people experienced slavery.

    Jesse Lee Peterson on November of 2008 about African Americans
    …I thank God that He saw fit for me to get here. Never mind that, you know, (my ancestors) were sold… by Arabs and blacks to white folks… The ride over was pretty tough but you know, it’s like riding on a crowded airplane when you’re not in First Class. It’s a tough ride. But you’re happy when you get to your desitination… I thank God that he got me here and to show my appreciation to the blacks who suffered as the result of coming here, and Arabs and blacks who sold us to the white man, the white man for going there and getting us and bringing us here, I want to say, ‘Thanks.’”

    Conservatives love Jesse Lee Patterson and they love the sheriff. You may fear Patterson and you may fear the Sheriff, but rest assured the majority of whites in America find both men imbeciles.

    Ben Carson tells a story about teenage Ben Carson attempting to stab another teen in a fit of anger. The knife was a snake knife. The knife broke against a belt buckle. Does the physics of that situation make sense to you? Conservatives love the story of black brute as a teenager to the soft-spoken, non-threatening Christian he appears to be today. Ben Carson is no threat. Herman Cain was no threat. Jesse Lee Patterson is no threat. The sheriff is no threat. 

     


    RM, you said,
    .
    "Sigh. Where have you been? Conservatives (Reactionaries is a better term) have always had self hating blacks who are willing to say what they think white people want to hear. Jesse Lee Patterson tells white people that he is happy that black people experienced slavery."
    .
    You need to stop making unwarranted assumptions.  Show me where I said that there weren't always Uncle Toms willing to do the White man's bidding. We have rappers doing it now, but they're just too dumb to realize it. Why do you think the jury bought into the fact that because Trayvon Martin wore a hoodie that was grounds for stalking him and exacting the death penalty. We've been demonized, and that's EXACTLY why there's a NEED for a group like BLM. We've been demonized to the point where police and juries feel like killing one of us is a public service. And yes, this has been going on for centuries, but that started with demonization as well. I certainly hope there aren't many Black people who aren't as naive as you seem to be, because if there is, we're lost. Think, man!
    .
    If people weren't gullible there wouldn't BE a Republican Party.  Think about this.  We have millions of people across this country who are saying, "Barack Obama is un-American - he's engaged in a socialist plot to insure my family against catastrophic disease - and many of these people don't have, and couldn't get, insurance.  
    .
    You can get people to believe ANYTHING!!!  We have millions of Christians across the world who believe in walking dead men, talkin' snakes, and the Pope has dinner with God every evening. As long as we have people with that kind of gullibility, how can you possibly tell me what concepts they won't embrace?  Why do you think corporations pay millions of dollars to make commercials telling funky wimps with a face full of acne that if they buy this car they can get the beautiful model sitting on the hood?  Let me tell you why - because if you repeat something often enough people will start to believe it.  Ask any Jew.  Germany didn't become a fascist nation until they democratically elected a lunatic name Adolph who convinced them to be, by demonizing Jews.  

    .
    I'm done, man.  That's why I put my position in an article.

     


    You believe that there are enough people who will be influenced by the nitwit sheriff, I don't. You think that whites will round up blacks, I don't. There is an ongoing fight for the conscience of the country.I think that fight is a continuation of one that has gone on since the beginning of the country.In the past there were three TV news networks that told us what we were supposed to believe. Today we have a multitude of news sources.  We can fact check radio talk show hosts, Drudge, Limbaugh, the Blaze, and Fox News. 

    People have access to data on the Sheriff just like they have on Jesse Lee Patterson. The reason why they limit their appearance to wingnut outlets is specifically because they fear being exposed as nitwits to the larger public. The GOP is currently self-destructing because they have allowed the racist nitwits to take over their party. 

    The Ben Carson fable is under review. Has Carson ever named the fictional victim. Rational people are asking rational questions about the good doctor. Mainstream Seventh Day Adventists believe that the United States will usher in the end times by collaborating with the Catholic Church. Carson's religion will bring about his political end times when GOP Evangelicals realize that they support a cult. If you think that GOP Christians were reluctant to vote for Mormon Mitt Romney, watch them flee from Carson.

    A Democrat will be elected President and Democrats will gain seats in the Senate. You heard it here first. You fears about the Sheriff are unwarranted.


    You form a hypothesis that the sheriff is a clear and present danger. You imagine that Conservatives will infiltrate BLM and create the illusion of a tie to ISIS. You have talked about infiltration of BLM since the beginning of BLM's existence, so viewing the sheriff as part of the conspiracy is nothing new. If someone doesn't agree with your hypothesis, you are dismissive.

    I am not sure if your plan is that we reject BLM because it could be infiltrated, or if we confront those who would pay to infiltrate BLM on the basis that if they can silence BLM, they will do the same to other black activist organizations. If the idea is to reject BLM, isn't that a form of cowardice? Wouldn't it be akin to saying that Malcolm X was worthless? Isn't it our duty to confront the people who would infiltrate BLM?

    I continue to await details of your plan to confront the issues black people face.

    What is your plan?


    I am hard pressed to imagine anybody saying anything more egotistical than this:

    "So with this final attempt to get through to you, I'm going to end this discussion, because I feel like I'm trying to teach calculus to a person who hasn't learned addition and subtraction. And I don't mean that in a disparaging way. I think you're a very intelligent person in many ways, but in this case, as I said before, you're betraying a propensity for being incredibly naive."

    In my world, talking like that has serious consequences.It must be cool to be able to talk such trash without a worry in the world.

    Sometimes I think you forget that you are talking to actual people.


    Moat,
    .
    Fortunately, I don't live in your world.  I live in my own world, and in my world, it's important to be straight forward and honest in the way you deal with people - it saves time, and what you're thinking is clear. You hear that kind of rhetoric in the Black community ALL the time. So, frankly, I think it's egotistical of you to assume that I have some sort of obligation to conform to the social conventions of your world. You don't corner the market on what's acceptable communication.  My world is not filled with overly sensitive crybabies, so we're not required to bullshit. We simply say what's on our mind. That serves for effective communication, and the other party doesn't have to wonder what's on your mind, because he, or she, knows that you have no hesitation in expressing it.  It's called truth and honesty.  My motive is to either educate, or be educated, so I don't have time to babysit, and I refuse to do it. So there, and stop trying to engage me in a spitball fight, because it's a waste of your time. You can't insult me, because I don't care how you feel about me.  My mind is on other matters.  


    Your words are being read and disseminated by people not identified as RM. The fact that you are proudly egotistical surprises noone, but that you are becoming more and more inconsistent with your points might. Your focus on him beyond mere commentary belies the certainty that you are consistantly asserting - he has you rattled.


    Barefooted,
    .
    To you it may seem like I'm being egotistical.  To me, I'm just being a Black man with opinions that I have no hesitation in stating. I don't believe in tap dancing around what I think. If that's objectionable to you, so be it. 

    When I was 13 years old I was given a weeks detention. It was held in the school library. On the first day of that week of detention I ran across the writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson, and that encounter had a profound impact on my life.  It's probably responsible for why I'm writing right now. Emerson said something to the effect that, In the world, it is easy to live after the world's opinion, and in solitude, it is easy to live after one's own; but great is the man who, in the midst of the crowd, keeps with sweet perfection, the independence of solitude. So that's what I do. If I'm in a discussion, what I think, is what I say - and actually, it has served me well, because even before Emerson, that's why I was given detention in the first place. A teacher didn't like something I said, even though it was complete truth.  So to put it in societal terms, I've always been an asshole.

    So whether you think I'm egotistical or arrogant, means absolutely nothing to me.  Because by adhering to either your standards, or social conventions, limits MY ability to think, and I'm not going to allow either you, or society, to force me to do that. So you think and say what you want, and do me the courtesy of allowing me to think and say what I want.  Because, you see, from my point of view, your thinking that I should only think and express those things that you approve of, is arrogant and egotistical on YOUR part. I don't believe in group-think. So like me or don't like me, I'm going to say what's on my mind. So anyone who doesn't want to hear truth, as I see it, should either avoid talking to me, or confine our discussion to the weather.


    I'll wait until you've edited your comment once or twice before I respond. Oh, wait. Once already.


    Barefooted, 

    I'm done.  Now let me ask you, is their a social convention against editing too?  How do you keep up with all of these rules? Since I know that people generally hear what they want to hear, I think it's important to make myself clear, so I may edit several times. It seems to me that that's better than shooting from the hip, don't you think?


    That's the second edit. Still waiting.


    Barefooted,

    Talking about editing is petty.  Do you have anything relevant to say, or am I just wasting my time with you?  Because if you just want to throw spitballs, I gave up playing in the sandbox at 7 years old. 


    Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

     
     
    I've Known Bullshit

     

    In
    Every newspaper, every nook,
    I see blatant bullshit wherever I look.
    Prolific bullshit, 
    pro and con,
    Man deceiving man, 
    like human pawns.
    .
    We
    Bullshit our children 
    whenever we can
    On the role of government, 
    and the sojourn of man;
    We bullshit the people 
    regarding their lot,
    While failing to address 
    the conservative plot.
    And now I hear even Santa'a myth,
    So even my mother got caught up in this.
    . 
    So,
    My threshold for Bullshit is extremely low,
    I sense him wherever he hides;
    While Langston Hughes has known his rivers,
    I've known Bullshit in every disguise:

    . 
    I've 
    Known bullshit lovers of innocent women,
    Who fades with a piece a ass,
    I've known bullshit preachers who loved the Lord,
    But not nearly as much as your cash;
    I've known bullshit politicians, 
    who "Just want to help" 
    Right up til they get your vote,
    Then after reciting their bullshit oath
    can't wait to start cuttin' your throat.
    .
    Yes,
    Bullshit's a stalker who seems to haunt me;
    I see him wherever I go--
    On the street, in the store,
    In the eyes of my lover,
    Though I try to deny that it's so.
    .
    I used to 
    Simply shut my eyes, 

    so I wouldn't see him no more,
    But my ears betrayed me and--
    Knock, Knock, Knock--
    "It's Bullshit. Open the door!"

    .
    So
    I came up with a plan to take a stand, a
    nd 
    Confront Bullshit wherever he hides;
    Like the terrorist he is, you must weed him out,
    By confronting him where he resides.
    .
    I learned
    That shit will be shit because shit is shit's nature,
    So it's really not Bullshit's fault;
    It's the fault of the people for embracing ignorance,
    For the enemy of Bullshit is thought.


    Are you through?


    Changing the content of what you've written several times after someone responds is petty.

    Because, you see, from my point of view, your thinking that I should only think and express those things that you approve of, is arrogant and egotistical on YOUR part.

    I gave no impression that my "thinking" was such - you, however, do disservice to your assertion that you honor only truth.


    Barefooted,
    .
    You're giving yourself much too much credit.  You're not the reason I edit my comments:
    .
    Deep down inside, who do you write for?

    But now, due to the election of Barack Obama, I suddenly find myself poised at a seminal moment in human history. Future historians will be literally crawling over every syllable being uttered during this period, and thanks to the flawless memory of the internet, we are all now capable of leaving behind graffiti on the annals of time. So I’m taking this opportunity quite seriously. I see it as an opportunity for my children, grandchildren, and their grandchildren not to have to ask who was “Poppi”, and what was he like. I now have the opportunity to speak to them directly. I can now afford them the opportunity to see my time, through my eyes. Therefore, for some time now, every time I pickup my pen, I seek to speak to an audience that is yet unborn. As a direct result, I now shun the need to appeal to contemporary audiences. I am now determined that the record that I leave behind be clear and untainted by the tendency to bend, modify, and distort my views into a shape conducive to contemporary popular appeal. I think I owe that concession to my readers, who at this point, cannot speak for themselves.
    .
    http://www.whohub.com/wattree

     


    If you don't care what others think, then how were you going to form coalitions that you say are required for black people to attack those in power? Compromise will be needed. Sensitivities will have to be taken into account. If you don't put out a plan that takes other opinions into account, your plan is doomed to failure.

    I think the worst thing to do is to try to remove the nitwit black sheriff from office. The removal  attempt makes him a victim. Keeping him in place creates another example of police out if control. The county who elected gets identified as a wingnut controlled area. Right now, he is more useful in office. People get to compare self-hating blacks like the sheriff with men like President Obama and Eric Holder. There is no reason to expend energy on the sheriff.

     


    RM,
    .
    I said above that people tend to hear what they want to hear, and you just proved that.  I didn't say that I don't care what people think. I care very much what people think and have to say, as long as it's intelligent and relevant - even when it's critical, as long as it's constructively critical, because I can learn from it.  But I don't have time to babysit. That's why I don't spend a lot of time talking to children. I expect there to be a point to a discussion, where all participants have an opportunity to grow. I'm not interested in a battle of egos, because I believe that the only mature and constructive form of competition is to compete with your last best effort, and against the person you were the day before.  That's why I'm not interested in sports. I'd rather spend a day in jail than at any kind of sporting event, because at least in jail I can lay down and think, and that's what I enjoy doing. 
    .
    Is Our Competitive Spirit Helping or Hurting America?
    http://wattree.blogspot.com/2011/02/is-our-competitive-spirit-helping-or...
    .
    God - or whatever force is responsible for what we refer to as reality - has provided us with the most powerful computer in the known universe, and many of us waste it, essentially, playing video games. I'm not wasting my mind in that way, so I don't play games, and when I see that's what someone is in to, I dismiss them.

    I'm only interested in two things - to educate, and to be educated - because the pursuit of knowledge is the most important thing in my life. So I'm only interested in interacting with people who share that interest, and who are mature and adult enough where we can pursue our mutual interest efficiently. So I expect adults to be adults, and not waste my time playing in the sandbox. 

    So when I'm in a discussion, I want to address the issues relevant to that discussion, and not have to waste time having to nurse egos and petty sensitivities, and since I'm not mean-spirited person, I shouldn't have to. All I'm interested in is exploring the world of thought and gathering new knowledge - period. I'm a wonk in that way.  Some people confuse that with my being arrogant, but there's nothing I can do about that.  I can't live my life for them.

    And with regard to your contention that in order for people to come together we have to acknowledge one another's sensitives, or babysit. That's not true. In order for people to come together people simply have to educate themselves, and grow up to the point where they don't require a babysitter.

    So the bottom line is, while I'm never intentionally mean-spirited, I'm always going to say what I think needs to be said - regardless to who needs babysitting, because when you censor your thoughts, you're also censoring knowledge.
    .
    Wattree’s Pearls of Limited Wisdom
    http://wattree.blogspot.com/2011/06/wattrees-pearls-of-limited-wisdom.html

     


    The bottom line is that you are dismissive with those who have disagreements. You arbitrarily decide that those disagreements are not based in facts. You dismiss the facts presented as anecdotal. Yet you are talking about a plan not based on facts, but your opinion. You are guilty of the action you find in others.


    “Life is not so short but that there is always time for courtesy.”
    — Ralph Waldo Emerson

    For what it's worth, Emerson did not think defying the status quo required treating other people badly.

    I get that you are not interested in insults upon your person. But who are you to to denigrate people because they don't agree with you?  Apart from whatever is argued, if you can't answer challenges without resorting to certain methods, you will disappear. 

    Now I don't say that with the assurance that I am in anyway guaranteed of some other fate. But I do recognize when somebody is doing everything they can to get first in line.


    Moat,

    Show me where I've denigrated someone.  
    .
    For over 20 years I was paid by attorneys to research and write legal briefs. They paid me 33% of their fees to prejudice judges against the position of the opposing litigant. So being forceful in my arguments is just a part of my writing style. I have no interest in denigrating anyone. My only interest is in putting forth my position as forcefully as possible, and that's the purpose of writing, isn't it? 


    Denigrate

    to deny the importance or validity of ..........

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denigrate

    Sorta like the calculus thing


    RM,

    I told you that you miss a lot. I said, tell me a "PERSON" I've denigrated, not an argument - and no, denigrating a person's argument is not the same as denigrating the person.  If you're in a debate, denigrating their argument is your job.  


    Eric

    This has been a very sad experience for me. You put up a paranoid post about a wingnut black sheriff and warn of rounding up black people. The wingnuts get laughed at when they propose rounding up 12 million illegal aliens. It is an effort in futility. Since BLM came into existence, you have warned that it could be infiltrated and used against black people. If "they" are going to infiltrate BLM, wouldn't they do the same to any coalition you propose as a solution?

    You seem to be unaware of current events. The head of an NYPD police union tried to connect BLM and all who protested police abuse to murders of two NYPD officers. A white sheriff in Texas tried to connect the death of a deputy to BLM. Many police officers already blame BLM for increased scrutiny of police action. These attempts to suppress an activist group is nothing new. Read about the accusations local law enforcement and national legislators made about Martin Luther King Jr and his marches. If you are going to be intimidated about what "they" might do, your proposed plan has no chance to succeed.

    BTW, you are incorrect in stating that arguments cannot be civil. 

     


    RM,

    I think it was yesterday that I wrote you the following: 
    .
    "But we're going in circles here, so there's no longer any point to this discussion.  I told you I was done, and I'm done." 
    .
    Was there something ambiguous about that statement?

    .
    And by the way, RM, I'm not dismissing you, I'm dismissing the debate, because I don't just debate for the sake of trying to prove myself right; I debate to either educate, or be educated. I'd much rather "lose" a debate and come away more knowledgeable than to "win" one and only come away with bragging rights. But in this case we're just going in circles, so the discussion no longer serves a useful purpose.  Once a discussion gets to that point it becomes just an exercise in egotism, and that's a waste of time. 


    You asked a question and I responded. 

    I await the details of your plan.


    Okay, I will show you. The following are recent examples:

    "I did not provide link because I doubt that you would read them." That is not making a "forceful argument" but attributing a deficiency in your interlocutor's willingness to listen to your evidence. Fallacy: ad hominem.

    "So the bottom line is, while I'm never intentionally mean-spirited, I'm always going to say what I think needs to be said - regardless to who needs babysitting." I particularly like this one because of how you combine not taking responsibility for being mean with directly implying your interlocutor is merely a child. Fallacy: ad hominem.

    "I am now determined that the record that I leave behind be clear and untainted by the tendency to bend, modify, and distort my views into a shape conducive to contemporary popular appeal." With this formulation (which you have used as long as I remember reading you), you do not specifically attack your interlocutor but generally label all challenges to your positions as calls to be false to yourself. Fallacy: argument based upon authority combined with the straw man device of defining other people's motives in place of their arguments.

    "The reason we can't come together and get anything done is not because we're being insensitive, on the contrary - the problem is, we need to grow up and leave our sensitives and nitpicking at the door." This one employs a nifty passive/aggressive twist to it because you are not actually taking responsibility for anything that would make you a part of the "we." Without you, the "we" is all other people. Fallacy: circumstantial ad hominem.

    "Where is your head? You obviously have a very poor understanding of history. I'm done. This is a waste of keyboard time." This is a straight forward example of disqualifying the other person's argument because they do not know enough to have an opinion. Fallacy: ad hominem combined with arguments based upon authority since you assert by inference that you have a really awesome understanding of history.

    If you based your legal writing on employing fallacies, I am alarmed at the thought of the work being successful. But even if such tactics did the trick and weakened other lawyers' positions in cases, that is a far cry from arguing for your own points in a public forum. The methods are not doing anything for you, whoever the audience may be that you hope to influence.


    The comment about the links was mine. I got the feeling that Eric was dismissing the links as he did everything else. I also called his post paranoid as a shot cross the bow.


    Moat,

    How long did it take you to compile that!!!? I could knock all of them down, but there's nothing to be gained from it.  As I mentioned above, I don't play in the sandbox or engage in sword fights; that's for children who are more interested in winning, or ego-padding, than growth - and no, that's not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is a NON-FACTUAL personal attack. I'm simply stating a fact.  What we're engaged in here is non-constructive, immature, and a complete waste of time. I could be writing or researching another article, writing music, or playing my saxophone.  Don't you have anything better to do? 
    .
    I don't know about you, but I recognize that we only have so many minutes to look around and look upon God's creation, so I'm very frugal with that time, and I'm certainly not going to waste it on spitball fights. That's just not a part of my character.


    You asked for something and I provided it. I only went to the trouble of doing it because I think you have thoughts worth listening to. Your response makes me out as a person with petty motives. What I said is completely unimportant to you. I will leave you alone with your own thoughts from now on.


    Moat,

    I hope you don't do that, because I truly do respect your intelligence and think I can grow from listening to what you have to say. My intent is not to be condescending toward you, even though it may sound like it. I just want you to understand how I think, and that would help us to interact more efficiently. We don't have the opportunity to interact with one another face to face. If we did, what we're discussing now wouldn't be necessary, and  the same is true of RM, because if you knew me personally you would understand that I am just an eccentric, and a meticulous, and outspoken wonk. That's my blessing, and that's my curse.
    .
    My daughter got upset with me as a teenager when my late wife was going crazy over the death of our family pet and I told her that she was going more crazy over the dog than she did her father when he died. In hindsight, it was an insensitive thing to say, but it was an honest observation. That's how I am.  I'm a bottom line thinker.  So what I say doesn't have anything to do with you personally, it's just my nature. When I say something to you (or RM), it's not a personal attack; it's simply my honest assessment of the facts. So let's just explore the issues and leave our egos and sensitivities at the door.


    Most of us doubt that your late wife really cared more about the pet than she cared about her father's passing. There are those who doubt the validity of your bottom line assessments. It is not to be insensitive on our part, but many of us doubt your analysis of multiple events..


    Again, RM,
    .
    You're guilty of making unwarranted assumptions, and reading fallacious perceptions into what you've read. That's giving me a lot of insight into you.  How much garbage have you consumed as a result of inefficient thinking?  And since we make judgments based on the data that we've consumed, how valid are your judgments?
    .
    Was there anything that I said that indicated that I believed that my late wife loved the dog more than her father? No!  I was addressing her BEHAVIOR, and that was exactly my point in making the comment - how can you be acting so much more distraught over the dog than you did your father?  In other words, I know you loved your father more than our dog, so suck it up - and she did.  I knew the difference. Her father was sickly and we expected his death, but our dog died suddenly. I just went out in the back yard and found him. So my comment was designed to give her some perspective.

    Inefficient thinking is THE major problem that we have in this world - "All dogs have fleas; my cat has fleas; therefore, my cat is a dog."   "Black rappers claim to be gangsters; this man is Black; therefore, this man is a gangster."  The world doesn't think efficiently, and that's part of my plan - to encourage Black people to make efficient thinking a priority over just having "soul."  That will give us a leg up over the rest of society.
    .
     


    Get over yourself. You said that she was more concerned about the death of the dog than the death of her father. There is no problem with my logic, there is a large problem with what you said.

    Your words 

    " I told her that she was going more crazy over the dog than she did when her father died"

    I repeated what YOU said you told your wife. 

    Your words Implied that she loved the dog more than her father. It took hindsight for you to realize the insensitivity of your words.

    My thought process is intact. Your words and hindsight analysis speak for themselves.


    If we are being frank, you shoot first at ask questions later. You do not consider the impact of your words and justify your words as being a "bottom line guy". It comes across as not being thoughtful.


    RM,

    Your ability to understand and grasp the nuances of the English language is much more flawed than I thought it was. Your mind consumed me saying,  "She was more "CONCERNED" about the death of the dog than the death of her father."  You got that from my saying,  "I told her that she was "GOING MORE CRAZY" over the dog than she did her father when he died.  Can't you see the difference in the two!!!?  You can't see that one has to do with FEELING, and the other has to do with BEHAVIOR!!!?  It's no wonder we can't communicate.  You don't seem to have a grasp of the English language.
    .
    So I'm done with this, because It's become clear to me that I can't hope to communicate with you.  How can I try to communicate concepts with you when you don't even understand the nuances of the English language?  If I had known this in the beginning, I would have never gotten into this discussion in the first place.  Now everything is coming into focus.
    .
    I'm done, and you can have the last word.


    Once upon a time you said:

    As I mentioned above, I don't play in the sandbox or engage in sword fights; that's for children who are more interested in winning, or ego-padding, than growth -and no, that's not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is a NON-FACTUAL personal attack. I'm simply stating a fact.

    So if it's a FACTUAL personal attack then it's all good? Yea! You're an intelligent asshole. Can you prove that's not a fact?


    Barefooted,
    .
    I've already conceded that:
    .
     "If I'm in a discussion, what I think, is what I say - and actually, it has served me well, because even before Emerson, that's why I was given detention in the first place. A teacher didn't like something I said, even though it was complete truth.  So to put it in societal terms, I've always been an asshole."
    .
    But being an asshole can have its benefits - that teacher never treated me like a child again, and I got an "A" in his class.  He knew I was right; he was just shocked and embarrassed to hear it from a child.  But kids are people too.


    Eric

    I'll take the last word and say that your rebuttals are similar to the responses we get from Donald Trump. Your wife was grieving and you were insensitive. I said that your responses were dismissive, you agreed that your responses were dismissive, but then end up saying that the words weren't dismissive. Words are not my problem, they are your problem. I am not the only one who notices your problem. I point out the flaws in your comments and you hurl insults. The insults are personal attacks but in your mind they are not personal.

    You equate a horrific event, painful to Jewish people with a improbable event that is bouncing around in your head. You realize the event is a sensitive issue, but you are dismissive. American Jews distance themselves from Netanyahu, yet you have no empathy for Jews feelings about the Holocaust because Israeli Zionists are committing atrocities. You dismiss the feelings of American Jews because you lump all Jews together. Bill Mahrer cannot separate Muslims from Islamists. Mahrer says that the young Muslim boy who made a clock should have expected his arrest because Muslims make bombs.

    BLM can be infiltrated, but You have a plan impervious to infiltration by outside sources. Hopefully this organization differs from the large organization you suggested in the past because that group would have many portals for infiltration.

    We await details of your plan to correct the misguided ways of the black community.Show us some more pictures of stereotypical black people to shame the community, but realize that our young people realize the trick use to perpetuate negative images. NPR noted picture put up by black youth wondering which picture would appear in the media if they were gunned down by the police. The youth know the game that can be played with photos like the ones you use to insult the community.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/08/11/339592009/people-wonde...

    Thanks for the last word

     


    RM,
    .
    I wanted to give you the last word, but I can't allow the following lie, and blatant corruption of logic pass:

    You said,
    .
    "You dismiss the feelings of American Jews because you lump all Jews together." 
    .
    That was a very serious and reckless accusation to make just to try to win a spitball fight, that I don't even want to engage in. What evidence do you have to substantiate that reckless allegation?  I'm capable of making a distinction between Zionists and Jews, just like I'm capable of making a distinction between between Nazis and ordinary Germans. Should I have to worry about the sensibilities of every German in the world whenever I'm critical of Nazis? So what kind of logic led you to the conclusion that I "dismiss the feelings of American Jews because you lump all Jews together?"  All Jews are not Zionists. So just for you to make an unsubstantiated, and very serious, allegation like that clearly demonstrates that you're not only a reckless thinker, but you've bought into Zionist propaganda whole hog.  Here's a Instant Message discussion that I had with a bigot on Facebook:     

    .
    PORTRAIT OF A BIGOT

    WEBB:
    "The only difference between White people and any other group is that they have the power"  Nonsense... Jews run the media the cops and the courts.
    Monday 12:25pm
    .
    WATTREE:
    So, many have clout. That's a good thing. That doesn't make them collectively bad. It simply means that many of them are industrious. That's exactly what I'm trying to get more Black people to be. You shouldn't hate people because they're successful. What kind of mentality is that!!!? Should I hate ALL White people because some are successful?  That's flawed thinking - and I'm into efficient thought in a big way.
    .
    WEBB:
    They put folks like you in concentration camps...used to be  they had you picking cotton.
    .
    WATTREE:
    Man, I could say that about your people.  There are Black people who are criminals. Does that make me one? Any person with the least bit of common sense knows to assesses EVERY individual on their own merit, so you're wasting your time trying to feed me this dumb shit.
    .
    WEBB:
    You could say it about "my people" but you would be wrong.... It is not me that has the big hang-up about melanin content, YOU DO.  A Jew is an adherant of Judaism, a sick fucking ideology...  do you cut members of NAMBLA or the 'al qaeda' the same kind of slack?
    .
    WATTREE:
    You could say the very same thing about Christianity, but should I broad-brush everybody in a religion that believes in talking snakes, and believes that God gave them permission through "Manifest Destiny" to slaughter as many as 100 million Native Americans?  The fact is, Clifford, if given the chance, we can ALL be full of shit.
    .
    BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE
    Are Your Religious Beliefs Simply An Accident of Birth?
    .
    http://wattree.blogspot.com/2015/07/is-your-religious-beliefs-simply.html
    The Wattree Chronicle: Are Your Religious Beliefs Simply An Accident of Birth?
    DEDICATED TO THE PROPOSITION THAT MAN'S INNATE THIRST FOR KNOWLEDGE WILL SOMEDAY OVERWHELM HIS PASSIONATE LUST FOR STUPIDITY
    .
    WEBB:
    Relativist nonsense.. Christianity is the teachings of Jesus... so is Islam.. Jews nailed him to a board as a heretic for trashing the local Money Tree branch in the temple...
    .
    WATTREE:
    I'm done, man, because a bigot's a bigot as far as I'm concerned, regardless to whether the bigotry is toward Black people, a Jew, or an Eskimo, and I have absolutely no tolerance for it.
    .
    WEBB:
    It is what you trade in
    .
    WATTREE:
    Okay.
    .
    Chat Conversation End

    So you see, RM, I let him have the last word too, because I don't get into spitball fights, or play in the sandbox.  My ego, doesn't require it.


    See response below

     


    RM,

    I'm done with you.  You've revealed enough of yourself to me for me recognize that dealing with you is a waste of time, because I can't take anything you say seriously.


    Wattree,
    I can get behind leaving egos at the door. I have extensive experience at being a jerk. I am what one might call a work in progress.

    But the point of my going into detail in my answer to your challenge to me was not to impugn your character. The use of certain forms of rhetoric are what they are whatever may be our intentions employing them. The reference to fallacies is about what weakens an argument as an argument. The measure is either true or not. If the measure is not true, I want to know why.

    I haven't seen a lot of challenges put forward to bring the measure into doubt.


    Moat, you said,
    .
    "I can get behind leaving egos at the door. I have extensive experience at being a jerk."
    .
    I don't believe that. I don't know you personally, but from what I've seen of your comments, you seem to be extremely delicate in your interactions with others, as oppose to me, who simply says what I have to say, and hope people can see past the words to my intent.  As a writer, words are simply a tool for me to communicate what's on my mind, and not just on a superficial level, but what I actually FEEL. That's why I'm so blunt, because I'm trying to honestly communicate what I'm feeling inside.  
    .
    When I told RM that I feel like I'm trying to teach calculus to a person who has yet to learn addition and subtraction, for example. I was serious, but I didn't mean it as a slam. I was simply suggesting to him that he's probably not seeing what I'm seeing because there's probably a lot of things that I've seen in the past that he hasn't (and that was an assumption, of course). So I felt, based on his response, that I'd have to educate him, just to educate him, and that was my shorthand for telling him that. Then I began to try to do that.  
    .
    You see, it's a part of my personal philosophy that tap dancing around an issue is a waste - either say what you have to say, or drop the subject. Because for me, when a person starts to tap dance, it suggests that they may have malevolent intent. My attitude toward such people is, "Man, just tell me what you've got to say.  Black people tend to be What?"  Then once it's out, we can openly discuss the issue.

     


    Eric

    I'm preparing a post to address your fear of the nitwit black sheriff. You focus on nonsense and have completely missed the big picture. There will not be a massive roundup of black people. I'm still awaiting your promised plan.


    My point of view about the validity of certain kinds of argumentation is either correct or not. I propose that the standard becomes more important in proportion to the number of people who do not really know each other are involved.

    If you are in a meat space discussion with somebody you know well and start off by noting how little the other understands history, I get the style: Expressing certainty needs a little elbow room and patience with exaggeration. But in that instance, the interlocutor is overlooking a weakness in your argument as a kind of favor or lets it go as an appreciation of art for art's sake. Those acts of acceptance do not make the argument less weak.

    I propose that the standard cannot be overridden by any amount of good intentions. That isn't to say good intentions are not important. But at some point, in all exchanges, the form becomes the function. Not everything but always a lot.


    Okay, barefooted, so what's your point?


    So far down the thread, I don't know which comment you're referring to. And frankly, I'm too bored with your tirade to care.


    Eric 

    I strongly disagree with your diagnosis. You repeatedly state that black pathology is the disease. My diagnosis is that the elites have encouraged legislatures to attack the black community. The child who was ripped from her chair in school faced that police violence because a law was enacted to charge black teenagers as criminal for normal teenage behavior. According to the law chewing gum or taking out a cell phone is disrupting class and a crime. This law came into being after the flight of white students from public schools. White students are charged with crime for things like breaking windows, Blacks are charged for cell phones. The effect law is to push black teenagers into the school to prison pipeline. The pipeline is profitable because legislators have encouraged building of private prisons. The more laws targeting minorities, the more profits for prisons.

    We have seen how blacks are targeted for ticketing in cities like Ferguson. The NYT recently looked at traffic stops in Greensboro, NC and found that blacks were more likely to be stopped than whites. Blacks were more likely to have there cars searched compared to whites, despite the fact that illegal contraband was more likely to be found in cars driven by whites. The Greensboro experience is identical to the NYC experience of Stop and Frisk. Whites stopped by the NYPD had higher levels of contraband than blacks who were stopped. The percentage of Black drug use is identical to that of whites, yet Blacks are charged for drug at a much higher rate.

    Blacks are not pathological, they are targeted. Your response to the targeting of the Black community is to tell them to be cowards when faced with injustice. "Please don't attack Massa, he too powerful. Booker T Washington, WEB DuBois, and Martin Luther King Jr. would have cried if black people followed your advice. Reverend King openly criticized moderate white pastors and congregations for sitting on the sidelines.

    White people already see the injustice and if you look at most BLM events, you see multiple ethnicities. When BLM step over the line and interrupt a recent speech by Hillary Clinton, black people in the audience shut them down by shouting "Let Her Speak". Blacks told BLM what their limits were. Blacks understand what they need to do.

    You see targeting by the justice system, the housing market, etc as the result of black pathology. You reject the warnings of King about bowing to the elites. I tire of people coming out of their mouths with crap about black pathology. The sheriff you fear uses that meme to gain access to power in wingnut circles. His message has to be strongly rejected. Blacks are not pathological, that are targeted.

    Note: I did not provide link because I doubt that you would read them. You made your position clear and will not budge. I have made my position clear on the nonsense of black pathology and the clear and present danger of blacks being targeted by institutions. Your diagnosis of the problem is wrong, thus your plan is probably doomed to failure.


    RM,

    I said nothing about Black "pathology," that's your word, and you keep missing my point. My point is, EVERYTHING you mentioned above is a result of the Black community ALLOWING itself to be victimized. 
    .
    But we're going in circles here, so there's no longer any point to this discussion.  I told you I was done, and I'm done. 


    A person who allows abuse and does nothing is demonstrating pathological behavior. The Black community is fighting back. I do not budge from my position. The black community is NOT allowing abuse. Your diagnosis is incorrect.


    Okay, RM,

    You've had the last word.


    Eric 

    In your post on the Holocaust, you noted your heart noting bleeding about it like it did in the past because of atrocities of the Zionists.

     
    Explain this!*  And tell me in what way the Zionists are any more compassionate or moral than the Nazis - and these are people who had absolutely nothing to do with the holocaust and are only armed with rocks!!! So excuse me if my heart finds it hard to bleed like it once did over the "holocaust," but other images have taken its place:
     
    * Accompanied by pictures of Palestinian dead.

    RM,
    .
    I hate that the holocaust happened, but my focus is on the living, not the dead.
    .
    And that concludes this interaction.


    Eric your insults mean nothing to me. I refuse to be dismissed by you. You called me a liar regarding your words about the Holocaust. Now you try to divert from calling me a liar by stating that you care about the living. I forgive you for calling me a liar.


    TOS warning:  Give the insults a rest, Eric.  (Yes, they are insults.)  If you choose to put your work up here you can expect comments that will differ from your point of view.  Please refrain from belittling the people who comment on your posts.  It doesn't make them look worse and you better.  It detracts from whatever issue you felt strongly enough to write about, and your audience dwindles instead of grows.  Finish up the topic and move on.


    Ramona,

    Maybe I don't belong here if you're engaging in censorship. Tell me what I said that was either belittling, intentionally insulting, or anything other than my honest opinion. ANYTHING can be insulting to someone, and since I don't have any mean-spirited or have any malevolent intent, I have no intention of censoring myself. I'm not here to gain readership. I'm here to simply place my views in the public domain.  If those views are not welcome on your site, just say so, and I will move on. 


    Are you saying you have to censor yourself in order not to insult or belittle someone?  Well, yes, if that's the case, you'll have to censor yourself.


    Be specific, Ramona.

    What was my offense?


    Be specific, Ramona.

    What was my offense?


    Ramona,

    I'll be awaiting your response, because perhaps it's time for me and Dagblog to part company.


    By the way, this is not the "public domain".  This is Dagblog and not simply a place to park your product.  We expect all posters and commenters to read and understand our Terms of Service.

    http://dagblog.com/terms-use  


    Ramona,

    The "public domain" is any place that you place your views before the public, and I see Dagblog as just one of many places that I do that.  But again, what was my offense?


    This is not just "one of many places" to the rest of us.  It's a community and we strive to make sure our readers feel comfortable and welcome here.  We don't allow insults or belittling.  I won't go back through the comments, but you can.  In fact, you should.


    Ramona,

    You accused me of violating some rule.  For the third time, what was my offense?


    Dagblog Terms of Use:

    "Dagblog wants to be an adult place where adults can have discussions that are fun, rewarding, wide-ranging, interesting, anything good you want, about political or any other subjects of concern to its users.  At the same time, Dagblog is committed to being respectful.  So please consider the following.  Purely personal attacks are not respectful of others.  The blogs and threads are here for the discussions they start about issues of concern, not about each other personally.".

    The specifics are in the comments.  I won't repeat them here.  Just be careful with your comments.  When enough people complain about them being offensive, they're probably offensive. 

     


    Ramona Eric's words did not bother me. We disagree on substance.


    But RM, it's not just about you.


    Ramona,

    Whenever you accuse anyone of any offense, especially one that is so egregious that you see fit to admonish them, you should have evidence of that offense IN HAND.  Now, I've asked you three times to show me what offense I've committed, and you have yet to produce it. That's irresponsible. The only thing I'm guilty of is challenging Zionist propaganda, and failure to be ignorant and humble while Black, and I'm not going to change that. If that's an intolerable offense on Dagblog, just let me know, and I'll be happy to stop posting here.


    Spot on Eric. I live in the south where you can buy a Sheriff Clarke for a few dollars. The guys I grew up epitomize this attitude. They are a conflation of self hatred and the need to differentiate themselves from the Black community. 


    Thank you, Danny,

    What amazes me is the naivete of many Black people. We should be all over this.  This one guy could ignite a series of events into action that could devastate the entire Black community. But the clueless are just sitting back saying that "it can't happen here." Oh!!!? Ask the Japanese AMERICANS can it happen here?  That's what they thought, until there was a knock at the door, their property was confiscated, and they were rounded up and placed in concentration camps during WWII - and again, these were AMERICANS, and some of them had family members who were fighting valiantly for America in the war.  
    .
    I know how the establishment thinks. When I was in the Marine Corps, one of the VERY first things they taught us was to NEVER be so stupid that you make assumptions about what your enemy WON'T do. You always assume the WORST possible scenario, and prepare for it. It was thinking about that training that caused me to write this article in the first place - and then to have a BLACK man tell me that I was being paranoid?  It's frightening!  
    .
    We are completely unprepared for what we're facing in the current political environment. The mayhem that's going on on our street is no accident. The demographics in America has turned against the establishment, so it has become more devious, more corrupt, and much more dangerous.  But many Black people are so politically clueless that they're sitting around in their party hats watching reality television and not bothering to look around them.
    .
    If these radical Republicans manage to win the Presidency in the next election (they've already taken over the house, the senate, the Supreme Court, and the majority of states), with the demographics as they are, they can't ALLOW America to ever be the same again. Prior to WWII Germany was a democracy as well.  Then they DEMOCRATICALLY elected a lunatic name Adolph, and he convinced them of a "final solution" to their problems.  

    So Black people need to wake up, because the masses can be convinced of anything.  That's why corporations spend billions of dollars to convince funky nerds with a face filled with acne that if they go into debt by buying a $50,000 car, they can get the beautiful model sitting on the hood. In fact, the very reason that that brother feels so secure, is because he's a victim of that very same brainwashing.

    They're currently blasting this Uncle Tom sheriff's allegation all over the conservative media and waiting to see if it gains traction.  If it does, and then a conservative wins the White House, Black people are in trouble.  Black lives truly won't matter then. Ask anybody still alive in Iraq.


    Eric, we continue to disagree on this issue. We went through much more violent times. We had multiple riots in multiple cities. People are addressing the issue. The President is talking about the issue of police violence. There is not a case by case complaint about the judicial system, there is a national approach to the issue. People are all over it. 

    People are fighting voter suppression. There will be hot lines in every state to address problems at the polls. The system was in operation in 2008 and 2012, as well as during the midterms. Efforts are underway to get out the vote. 

    Instead of your constant complaints about blacks watching reality television and listening to rap, please tell us your plan to correct the situation. 

     


    The sheriff is nothing new. Ward Connerly was the most dangerous "turncoat", but we have seen Alan Keyes, Jesse Lee Paterson. Larry Elder, and Star Parker on Conservative airwaves. We have also seen Colin Powell and Arthur Fletcher get shown the door when they wouldn't go along with the Conservative line.

    My disagreement with Eric has to do with my belief that there are people working on injustice in the judicial system, voter suppression, education, housing, etc. I don't think people are just sitting home watching reality television.

     


    BTW Eric 

    Mass incarceration of blacks has been going on for eons. The round up has been ongoing. Efforts are underwent to change the numbers on incarcerated people and to reintegrate those who were imprisoned back into society.

     


    Eric

    The bottom line here is that you have a message that offers no hope. The premise is that black people are asleep. The truth is that the fight against slavery, the Underground Railroad, the slave revolts, the Niagra Movement and the fight against Jim Crow, and current day activism were all conducted by a critical mass of people. If the critical mass waited for all people to "wake up", we would still be waiting. 

    The Freedom Riders were small in number and traveled in a bus, yet forced President to address racism and injustice. Fannie Lou Hamer led a small contingent, but began a tide that changed the Democratic Party. The were fewer people at the March on Washington in August of 1963 (250K) than attended the Million Man March  in 1995 (837K), but the 1963 March sent a powerful message. Small portions of the community have always been the ones to effect large changes. Bree Newsome made the South Carolina civil rights leaders look pathetic when she scaled the flagpole on state government grounds in Columbia, South Carolina and removed the Confederate flag. BLM and Campaign Zero are filling a void. People are all over idiots like Sheriff Clarke, you just don't recognize that fact.

    The large awakening that you seek will not happen, it never has. Change has been forced by small groups. Large gatherings have given way to messages and meetings set up via social media. There was even a 20th Anniversary Million Man March that had thousands in attendance. It went virtually unnoticed by MSM. The revolution will not be televised.

     


    I guess i shouldn't be surprised that Eric used this crude Islamophobic attack on BLM by a compromised Black Sheriff  to insert his own crude attack on BLM for having the gall to  disrupt the sacred political theater we're subjected to every four years.

    His remedy is hilarious, burn the Black Witches and vote for the White Democrats!  They're sure to see their past errors in suppression, exploitation and incarceration of Black people this time and more abject begging will guarantee HRC will reverse Bill's mistakes and usher in a new era of liberty and prosperity.

     

     

     

     


    Peter,

    IT IS KNOWLEDGE THAT IS POWER, NOT VOCAL CORDS
    .
    You don't know what you're talking about.  I haven't even presented my solution yet.  So you're shooting from the hip, guilty of unwarranted assumptions, and obviously more interested in defending a preconceived ideology than searching for viable solutions.  I don't think like that, and I'm virtually CERTAIN that you're not qualified to know what I think.  First, I don't play in the sandbox or indulge in childish spitball or sword fights. Secondly, I ALWAYS give truth priority over ideology, and follow truth wherever it leads, and regardless to whose ox it gores, even if it's my own - ESPECIALLY if it's my own.  
    .
    I'm an adult, a thinking adult.  No, I don't corner the market on knowledge or wisdom, but teaching myself to think efficiently is my favorite sport - it's my only sport.  So the only form of competition I consider either mature, or constructive, is to compete against my last best effort, and the person that I was the day before.  So I'm not the least bit interested in obtaining bragging rights by "winning" a debate.  That's childish ego-padding, and my ego doesn't require that.  I pad my ego and self-esteem through personal growth,  not sitting up in my draws (sic) at the keyboard saying, "I can beat you."  There's nothing more childish and immature.  I'm not interested in beating you; I'm interested in beating me - and every morning, that's the first thought that crosses my mind.  That's why I spend so much time writing, and engaging in the two other things that I do.  Personal growth is my entire life.
    .
     So I'd rather "lose" a debate and walk away more knowledgeable, than to "win" one and only walk away with bragging rights any day.  That's why there's some people on this site that I don't even bother to respond to, because I don't consider them seekers of knowledge and truth. They approach discussions like it's a sporting event and they're trying to "win one for the Gipper," and like it's our team against your team.  But I'm not into sports; my only team is truth and knowledge.  So I consider just responding to such people a gross waste of my time.  Now, some people may consider that arrogant, but I don't.  I simply know how I want to spend my time, learning, and growing - because I'm convinced that virually ALL  of the problems that we're experiencing in this nation, and this world, are a direct result of humanity's tendency to be so immature and competitive that they fail to realize that "God" (or whatever force is responsible for what we refer to as reality) made, birds to fly, fish to swim, and man to THINK. 
    .
    So my solution to the problems we're experiencing in the Black community involves educating the community - making Black knowledge the new "soul", learning to plan and think efficiently, and not act so recklessly that we play into the hands of the enemy.  What BLM did (or at least, those who professed to be with BLM) was turned a lot of like-minded people off.  We should be SEEKING allies, not pushing them away. It was pure stupidity.
    .
    IT IS KNOWLEDGE THAT IS POWER, NOT VOCAL CORDS
    .
    Is Our Competitive Spirit Helping or Hurting America?
    http://wattree.blogspot.com/2011/02/is-our-competitive-spirit-helping-or...


    Another_____________________!

     
    Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, an outspoken critic of President Obama, Black Lives Matter, and LGBT rights, hosts a weekly podcast, “The People’s…
    WWW.RIGHTWINGWATCH.ORG
     
     

    COME ON, BLACK PEOPLE!!!
    .
    https://www.facebook.com/100001253861712/videos/vb.100001253861712/56008...
    .
    BLACK PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE UP. LOOK OUT GEORGE BENSON!!!
    IN RUSSIA!!! WITH RITA EDMOND. CHECKOUT THESE DUDES' CHOPS.
    .
    Black people need to wake up. People all over the world understand the value of our culture better than we do. We're going to end up being the only culture in the history of humanity who are incapable of playing what we invented. They're doing this, while we're busy scratching records to drum machines and reciting vulgar nursery rhymes. Come on, people!!!


    Eric

    What do you think of artists like Robert Glasper, Esperanza Spaulding, Trombone Shorty, and Cecile McLorin Salvant?

    http://www.npr.org/sections/bestmusic2012/2012/12/20/167726997/the-black...

     

     


    RM,

    I don't take contemporary musicians seriously, because most of them play either modes (play up and down one scale), or two chord chants.  I like to hear chord progressions and brilliant musicianship. You don't hear that anymore, because the listening public has become lazy-minded and can't keep up with the chord changes flying by so fast. The music industry is no longer controlled by musicians; it's controlled by accountants.  That's why I stopped playing publicly.  I love music, but I hate the music industry.  Rita's trying to change that - and she might - if she can get the public's attention on the kind of music we love to play - music that appeals to the mind, and not just the ass.  This is the kind of music I like to play:
    .

    .
    They were having a raging debate in jazz over old-school as oppose to contemporary "jazz,"
    and I wrote this article for Jazz Times and literally shut it down. So this should give you my take on virtually ALL current musicians in the public eye.  Mtume should have known better. He's the son of Jimmy Heath, one of the greatest saxophone players in jazz.
    .

    Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

    Reflections on the Stanley Crouch, Mtume Debate on Modern Jazz

     


    RM,

    I hope you take the time to read my link above. We don't hear that kind of virtuosity anymore, because we've been dumbed down.  What they've done to music, they've done to our minds in general - in fact, what we listen to in music is a reflection of the dumming-down process. People are just not as smart as they used to be.  During the sixties EVERYBODY was an intellectual. I received my entire education on the street. By the time I got to college I could debate any professor I had (except in math).  The reason for that is we learned to be curious and independent thinkers, and not simply go along with the popular opinion of the crowd:
    .


    RM,

    How do you compare this virtuosity with what you're hearing today?  I bought this album when I was 16, and many of my friends were into it too. That shows you the difference in the way we thought, and the way 16 year-olds think today.  We've been dumbed-down.

    .
    Listen to the seriousness of the tune below.  Jackie did this for Eric Dolphy after he suddenly died, and 16 year-olds we listening to this. We weren't running around listening to no dumb-ass nursery rhymes.  We were serious. That's why I'm very intolerant of bullshit today.
    .



    .
    Arriving in Belogrod for my second festival. These are some of the popular musicians on festival tour. From left to right Paul Van Kemenade, Rita Edmond and Lembit Saarsaw.
    .
    To quote. Jubilee 20-I "Jazz province". Leonid Vintskevich brings the outcome of the. Since the beginning of the festival in it was attended by more than one and a half of thousands of musicians and about 700 thousand spectators. At each statement - anshlagi and exits at BIS. The final concert was no exception. As always, the best artists, jazz standards and new melodies. To the sweet, the organizers of the "brought" Igor Butman's band.
    http://seyminfo.ru/na-dzhazovoy-provintsii-v-kurske-vistupi
    Automatically Translated
     
    Eric L. Wattree's photo.