Wattree's picture

    AMERICA IS LITERALLY DYING OF A LACK OF CHARACTER, INTEGRITY, AND MORAL SUBSTANCE

    Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

    AMERICA IS LITERALLY DYING OF A LACK OF CHARACTER, INTEGRITY, AND MORAL SUBSTANCE 
    .

    Most Americans have embraced a philosophy of "go-along-to get-along," and that's a philosophy that has never served minorities, or the working class, well. It's a philosophy that only serves to maintain the status quo. So if you're at the bottom of the ladder, not being paid a living wage, and being treated unjustly, helping to maintain the status quo virtually guarantees that you'll remain in that condition. On the other hand, if you're one of those lucky few who have managed to accumulate a few of the finer things in life, you're doing a gross disservice to all those people of high moral character and integrity who came before you and made your lifestyle possible.
    .
    Go-along-to-get-along is a philosophy that's based on self-service, greed, and a disregard for your fellow man, so it not only fosters division within the minority and working-class community, but it negates all of the finest qualities of the human spirit - those qualities that inspired many White men to embrace the ideals of freedom and justice so passionately that they left the love and comfort of their families to go die in the bloodiest war this nation has ever fought.  We rarely see that kind of moral substance today - today it's everybody for themselves, and everybody chasing "the American dream," which is rapidly becoming an American nightmare starring the Corporate/GOP Alliance.
    .

    We cannot get through this world alone.  If you're not prepared to go out on a limb to help be your brother's keeper, who's going to have your back when the boots arrive outside your door?  Yes, it's good to be self-reliant, but there's a very big difference between being self-reliant and being just plain selfish. But that's the bill of goods that the social manipulators have sold many Americans - "It's all about me and my life; to hell with everybody else; that's the American way."  By embracing that philosophy we make ourselves vulnerable to social exploitation, because the powers that be can exploit us one at a time instead of having to face an opposing force that dwarfs them in its numbers.  
    .
    The concept should be so easy to grasp - the American people are the source of their own misery. Why do we simply sit back and pour billions of dollars into corporations that claim to be patriotic yet send millions of American jobs out of the country to improve their profit margin?  What kind of patriotism is that?  It's not.  It's all about their indulging in the philosophy described above - "It's all about us, and to hell with the American people," and we're quietly embracing that philosophy.  The American people are living like Stepford wives.  We're begging for crumbs from a table that belongs to us.

    .

    Frederick Douglass said, "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." Douglass' words have proven to be even more true today than when he uttered them. For over thirty-five years, every since Ronald Reagan - the backlot cowboy - found that the American public will accept almost anything if you wrap it in John Wayne's persona, Republicans have been donning cowboy hats and boots and chipping away at American rights, jobs, and our moral sense of outrage over injustice. It's gotten so bad that today if we happen to stumble over justice and fair treatment, we consider it a gift rather than a right. I've said the following before, but I think it bears repeating:  
    .

    It's Time To Enact A Workers' Bill Of Rights - And Boot out Any Politician Who Refuses To Go Along
     

    The American people have been sold a bill of goods. We've allowed the one-percenters to convince us that completely unrestrained capitalism (or greed) is "the American way." Says who, the one-percenters? The "American way" should be what's good for America, not just a handful of industrialists, political cronies, and Wall Street manipulators.
    .
    Think about the average American's response to the word "socialism." Corporatists have conditioned us to revile even the mention of the word. Most Americans react to it like Count Dracula reacts to a cross. We've been so thoroughly conditioned that it's used as a pejorative to slur President Obama.  It conjures up images of dictators, Red China, the former Soviet Union, the government taking over our lives, and the loss of freedom, but it doesn't actually mean that at all. What it actually means is giving the average citizen a fair shake and not stacking the deck against them by promoting unfettered greed.
    ..
    Yes, socialism has undoubtedly been used as a pretext to take away freedoms and create closed societies, but that was the ABUSE  of socialism, just like the abuse of capitalism led to slavery and the extermination of over a hundred million Native Americans. So it is not the economic systems that are  evil; it's the closed-minded and self-serving motives of the people who implement the systems who are evil.

    .

    Child Labor During Great Depression
    Capitalism Run
    amok

    Thus, with that understood, common sense would seem to dictate that the best system for America would be a democratic socialism that is based on capitalistic principles. That is, we should continue to pursue our current capitalistic system, but with an eye toward not allowing unfettered greed to run so amok that it brings misery upon the American people, as it did under George W. Bush, and continues do to this day

    Entrepreneurs should be free to make as much money as they can manage, but responsibly. So we need  a workers' bill of rights in this country. If a company wants to do business in the United States it should have to pay workers a living wage and  maintain a level of employment based on, and commensurate with, the amount of profits that they're pulling from the economy. If the company doesn't want to do that, they should clear out and go do business in another country.  That will open the market up for others who are willing to settle for a mere one billion dollars in profit instead of a hundred billion.

     

    REAGANOMICS AND THE GOP CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE MIDDLE CLASS

    Our economy (for the average worker) is currently depressed because, starting with the Reagan administration, it has been based on unrestrained greed, and the average American is being constantly squeezed by the one-percenters to give up an ever larger share of America's pie.  The GOP used Ronald Reagan, with his "Aw shucks, Ma'am," John Wayne-like persona, to convince the American people to buy into "Trickle-Down" Economics - or in other words, "Give us your money and we promise to take care of you." That was the biggest scam ever perpetrated against the people in American history, and we should be mad as hell about it. 
    .
    They not only stole our money, but destroyed our industrial base by breaking up and selling off some of our most important corporations. In addition, they tripled the national debt in the process! As a direct result, the American middle class has been careening downhill for the past 35 years, or every since.
    .
    I've related the GOP's grossly irresponsible economic history in several articles, but the head-scratching result of the 2014 midterm election clearly suggest that the American people are just not getting it, so it bears repeating.


    The Great Depression

    From the moment that Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt put "The New Deal For the American People" in place to rescue the American people from ever having to suffer the ravages of the Great Depression again, the GOP and conservatives have been determined to dismantle it - even as I write they're mounting an assault on Social Security, Affordable Health Care, and every other program designed to bring relief to the poor and middle class. The closest they've come to succeeding started during the Reagan administration with Supply-Side Economics, or, "Reaganomics" - and the battle is currently raging in Washington D.C. as we speak.
    .
    Supply- Side Economics was a scheme hatch by U.S.C. economist, Arthur Laffer, and the Reagan crowd which was supposed to cut the deficit and balance the budget. The theory behind Reaganomics was ostensibly, if you cut taxes for business and people in the upper tax brackets, and then deregulated business of such nuisances as safety regulations and environmental safeguards, the beneficiaries would invest their savings into creating new jobs. In that way the money would eventually "trickle down" to the rest of us. The resulting broadened tax base would not only help to bring down the deficit, but also subsidize the tremendously high defense budget. When the plan was first floated, even George Bush, Reagan's vice president to be, called it "voodoo economics."
    .
    Reaganomics, for the most part, sought to undo many of the safeguards put into place during the Roosevelt era and create a business environment similar to that which was in place during the Coolidge Administration. What actually took place, however, was even more like the Coolidge era than planed.
    .

    Instead of taking the money and investing it into creating new jobs, the money was used in wild schemes and stock market speculation. One of these schemes, the leveraged buy out, involved buying up large companies with borrowed funds secured by the company's assets, then paying off the loan by selling off the assets of the purchased company. This practice cost the citizens of this country its industrial base. In addition, the bottom fell out of the stock market. On Monday, October 19, 1987 the Dow-Jones Average fell 508.32 points. It was the greatest one-day decline since 1914 - 15 years before the Great Depression.
    .
    And what about Ronald Reagan's promise to balance the budget and lower the deficit? By the time he left office he was not only the most prolific spender of any president in history, but he also added more to the deficit than all of the other presidents from George Washington to his own administration combined. And what did the Republican Party propose to do about that? One of the Republican proposals was their "contract with America," a capital gains tax cut - for the rich.
    .
    Heaping ever more money on the rich seems to be the GOP's answer to everything, and as they're doing it, they're telling the poor and middle class that if they had just a little more, the economic conditions in this country will turn the corner for everyone. They've been telling the people this lie for 35 years, and the conditions for the poor and middle class is getting ever worse with every day that passes.
    .
    Due to the continued freewheeling fiscal policies of conservative Republicans, between 1986 and 1989, spanning the presidencies of Reagan and Bush Sr., the FSLIC had to pay off all the depositors of 296 institutions with assets of over $125 billion.
    .
    Then in 1988 Silverado Savings and Loan collapsed, costing the taxpayers $1.3 billion. It was headed by Neil Bush, brother of George W. The investigation alleged that he was guilty of "breaches of his fiduciary duties involving multiple conflicts of interest." The issue was eventually settled out of court with Bush paying a mere $50,000 settlement.
    .
    Then there was the Lincoln Savings and loan scandal in 1987, involving John McCain. He was one of a group of senators dubbed "The Keating Five" involved in a scandal by the same name.
    .
    In 1976 Charles Keating moved to Arizona to run the American Continental Corporation. In 1984, shortly after the Reagan era push to deregulate the savings and loan community, Keating bought Lincoln Savings and Loan and began to engage in highly risky investments with the depositors' savings. In 1989 the parent company, which Keating headed, went bankrupt, and it resulted in over 21,000 investors losing their life savings. Most of the investors were elderly, and the loss amounted to about 285 million dollars.
    .
    After having received over a million dollars from Keating in illegal campaign contributions, gifts, free trips, and other gratuities, the Keating Five - Senators John Glenn, Don Riegle, Dennis DeConini, Alan Cranston, and Sen. John McCain - attempted to intervene in the investigation into Keating's activities by the regulators. Later, they were admonished to varying degrees by the senate for attempting to influence regulators on Keating's behalf. Charles Keating ended up being convicted for fraud, racketeering and conspiracy, for which he received 10 years by the state court, and a 12 year sentence in federal court. After spending four and a half years in prison, his convictions were overturned. But prior to being retried, he pled guilty to a number of felonies in return for a sentence of time served.
    .
    Then came the George W. Bush administration that caused close to a million people to die uselessly in an illegal war in Iraq, robbed the American people blind, whose fumbling ignited the longest war in American history in Afghanistan, and whose greed came very close to sending the nation into yet another Great Depression.
    .
    Now, after all of their repeated efforts to deplete the national treasury, they're unanimously voting against every piece of legislation that the Democrats propose to repair the damage they created and to bring relief to the American people. Then they have the audacity to claim that they're doing it because they're concerned about deficit spending.
    .
    They're against affordable health care for American families; they're against any kind of spending to put Americans back to work, and they're against extending unemployment insurance to relieve the burden of America's unemployed. What's particularly telling, however, is they're also against any kind of strong legislation to prevent the financial community (them) from being able to rob the American people in the future.
    .
    The fact is, what they really want is to maintain the status quo, and make damn sure that the American people remained miserable, hungry, and divided until 2016 elections so they'd have a better chance to regain power and raid the treasury again. Republican Senate minority leader (now majority leader), Mitch McConnell, was frustrated and reckless enough to say it out loud prior to the 2012 election - "Our No. 1 priority is to make this president a one-term president" - not to save America, or to bring relief to the American people, but to make Barack Obama a one-term president. Flag pens in lapels and patriotic rhetoric notwithstanding, that says it all about the GOP's lack of concern for America, or the American people.
    .
    After they lost the 2012 election, their agenda has shifted to making sure that President Obama is not successful, because if he is, and you combine that with the rapidly changing demographic, that could spell doom for the future of the GOP - and it should, because they're grossly out of touch with reality, and, America's best interest. They're out to create a corporate feudalist society. The government shutdown, their repeated obstructionism, and their unconscionable attack on voters' rights clearly demonstrated that they have absolutely no respect for democracy.
    .

    And this is not just political rhetoric. Here is the activity of the Republican congress who ran in the 2010 election on their claim that their number one priority was to bring economic relief, and create jobs for the American people.
    .
    History is clear. The conservative Republicans don't mind spending money, they just don't want to spend it on those who need it - us. Remember, they're the party of Alexander Hamilton, one of this country's founding fathers who believed that only those who owned property should even be allowed to vote. He also said:
    .
    "All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and wellborn, the other the mass of the people.... The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government." Debates of the Federalist Convention (May 14-September 17, 1787).
    .
    In 1965, CEOs were paid only 20.1 times more than the average worker. Today they make 231 times the average worker (http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2012/09/redistribution-wealth-h...).  As a direct result, the top 5% of the population now control 82% of the wealth, while the bottom 80% only control 7%. That's dangerous, and it's a direct threat to our democracy.  As a matter of fact, a study by Princeton University declares that the American government can no longer be called a democracy - it is now an oligarchy that's controlled by the rich.
    .
    So again, we need to stop buying into the ridiculous proposition that if we just make the one-percenters just a little bit richer they'll take care of us. We need to take care of ourselves, and our lower and middle-class workers. Thereafter, when they spend their money on goods and services, they'll create a thriving economy again. When we put money in the pockets of the poor and middle class it circulates - they go on vacations, which creates jobs; they buy their children toys and clothes, which creates jobs; and they buy new homes, which creates jobs. When we give our money to the rich, it goes into offshore accounts and we never see it again. That's why the bottom 80% of the people now only have 7% of the wealth.
    .
    We're being sold a bill of goods.  Corporations are making more profits than they ever made in their history, so there's no reason for unemployment to be so high. The reason that it is, however, is because the corporatists are purposely keeping unemployment high in order to strangle the American middle class into accepting a lower standard of living that will be more in keeping with the global economy.
    .
    Thus, we need to vote many of these demagogues out of office and vote people in who are willing to pass a Workers' Bill of Rights. Then we need to inform these corporatists that they're going to have to dance to a different drummer if they want to do business in the United States. If they don't want to comply, they'll have to do business elsewhere and make room for others who will happily take their place, and for far less money.

    .

    Eric L. Wattree
    wattree.blogspot.com
    .
    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

    As usual I'm with you Wattree.  I especially share your view on the primacy of economics in driving policy whether it's the economics of greed embraced by the Republican party or economic justice that drives progressives.  I also agree that "go along to get along" is not a moral response to the terrible unjustness of poverty.  People of good will must unite politically behind those who support real solutions to unemployment, impoverishment, and enormous wealth and income disparities.


    Thank you, Hal.
    .
    I don't understand why everybody don't get it.  It seems like simple common sense to me, but I suspect the problem is, people generally only see what they want to see, because truth is often inconvenient.


    I just discovered this little ray of hope today.

    I just cannot find where I originally discovered it.

    Anyway, this news is all over the web:

    http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/mississippi_college_republican.html

    There is so much evil being posted that I just felt good about one goooooooood item.

    Great post by the way!

    I just keep playing this song of despair:


    Thank you for this, Richard.
    .
    It reminds me of a different time, a time of love-ins when hundreds of us used to just sit in the park and simply enjoy one another, and when complete strangers would greet one another like old friends - and often became such.  Where did it all go?
    .
    Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree
     

    ONE FOR BOOMER
     
    Receding hairline, failing vision,
    hair now turning grey,
    an aging boomer in final protest,
    Father Time his foe this day.
     
    Donning his headband, tie-dyed jeans,
    and scorched draft card of protests past,
    he set out for one last battle,
    as in his youth that had quietly passed.
     
    Ode to an aging Boomer,
    a different kind of man;
    colleagues all now in the wind,
    as he makes his final stand.
     
    But he found no placards or the sound of Trane,
    no passionate speeches in the gentle rain,
    no pretty girls wearing mini skirts,
    and no solemn guards on pig alert.
     
    All he found was a new America,
    and more freedom across this land;
    the fruit of his struggle
    for women's equality,
    and the rights of his fellow man.
     
    He found Martin, Chavez, and Malcolm X,
    all standing by his side;
    He found Thomas Jefferson
    and all his forefathers
    beaming down with pride.
     
    He found minority children across this land
    whose reach now exceed their grasp;
    He found Jim Crow angrily cursing him,
    as he took his final gasp.
     
    He found pride as an aging boomer,
    more hero, than common man;
    He found a quirky old fart embraced by history,
    for having the courage to take a stand.
     
    Alone, an aging Boomer,
    fellow travelers now in the wind;
    but one last time he limps to his trench,
    to defend his fellow man.

      Eric L.Wattree


    Okay, Wattree, I guess I'll confront this a little bit because it is a little too easy, especially for those of us on the left in America, to say "there's no way he's talking about me."  As I changed professions about five years ago, I've definitely experienced changing fortunes and I try to remain cognizant of how quickly things can change back.

    Class in America is a funny thing.  Earnings are really skewed.  In terms of earnings, you might be in the top ten percent, but you're still have a lot of problems.  You'd have so many, in fact, that you wonder how everybody else even makes due.  So the question of reform gets tricky. When Obama floated the idea of eliminating the tax benefits from investing in a 529 college savings plan, for example, I was as outraged as anyone in my neighborhood with kids.  We're all good liberals, you know.  Just don't take anything away from us.  Go after the hedge fund managers who own all the buildings and rent to us.  But not us.  Right?

    These questions become exceptionally difficult when I consider  the question, "what would you give up?"  It's more difficult when you're choosing not just for yourself but for a family.


    Michael,
    .
    I'm talking about the need for us to stand firm for justice for everyone, instead looking the other way and saying, "That his, her, or their problem." I was a union rep for 28 years, and one of the biggest problems that I had was getting the workers to stand up for one another: "Yeah, I saw it, but listen man, all I want to do is come in, do my job, and go home. I don't want to get involved in all of this."  But then, a month later, when that same person is under the gun and I can't get his co-workers to stand up on his behalf, he says: "Where's the union!!!? If you can't help me, why am I paying union dues!!!?"  So my point was, we have to be willing to help others in order to protect ourselves.

    The reason I wrote this piece is because I've become completely frustrated with my own woman for taking that very same position. Some things took place during her three-week tour in Russia involving a powerful international promoter that she was going to speak out about - until she saw the devastating article that I wrote on him. But now she has cold feet, because she says my article is so brutal that she's worried about it antagonizing the "Good Ole Boys Club" and having a negative impact on her career - and Michael,  it is brutal.  It even involves an associate of Vladimir Putin that she met and became friends with. The promoter called him, "A slave puppet of Putin."  He saw the immediate friendship that developed between Rita and the other promoter, and that was his way of protecting his turf.

    The article involves pettiness, racism, misogyny, unfaithfulness, and disloyalty, and I have it all documented through text messages that the promoter thought was destroyed when my woman's cell phone "mysteriously" came up missing after he saw her distaste for his behavior. But there was one thing he overlooked - AT&T keeps a record of all text messages - and I managed to get them ALL, with his picture on every one of them, which I included in the article.

    Now she's saying that I'll destroy him, and his family. But my position is, why should she care after he slandered another Black artist as "Looking like a gorilla, and who he couldn't even see after he turned out the lights; and she drinks a whole bottle of wine, and then passes out and snores like a hog?"  And he's saying this to entertain an entire busload of musicians. Then he goes on to slander several other well-known artists, and also another promoter who's one of Putin's associates - and who's suppose to be his friend!!!
    .
    So as I see it, we have a moral responsibility to protect the interests of others as though they were our own. If we don't, those who wield power will subjugate us, exploit us, and eventually destroy us, one at a time.  So I want to get that bastard, bad!  But she's more concerned about her career. I think that's a flaw in her character that I deeply regret that I ever had to see, and I told her as much.  What if Rosa Parks had taken her position?  But thank God Rosa didn't. She stood on character and principle - and every Black person in America has benefited from her courage.
    .


           


    So let me get this straight:  "Your woman" is asking you to stay out of something that only involved her, but you decided to use HER text messages to go after someone SHE asked you not to.   And then you write a public blog comment about how bad Rita is because she's asking you not to do something you really, really want to do.  

    And then you say, without any sense of irony, your article is fair because it involves "pettiness, racism, misogyny, unfaithfulness, and disloyalty" so she should be able to understand why your need to expose someone you dislike is more important than her career.

    And Rosa Parks.

    Yes, I know Rita's name, because you used it in your comment and at other times before. I know she's a singer and she went to Russia to perform.  You have promoted her career here and on other sites and now, because she's balking at something you've done to her without her permission, you've publicly humiliated her.  

    And you still don't get what a raging misogynist you are.

    All I can say, is I hope to God she does.

     


    Thank you, Ramona, for saying what I believe the vast majority of people -men and women- think of this. And he thinks she has a character flaw.


    Unbelievable.


    Ramona,

    Stop reaching.  I haven't done anything without her permission.  The article hasn't been published, and we agreed that we would do just what I'm doing to get the opinions of other people.  In addition, initially she ASKED me to write the article. So you're right - you should try to wrap your head around the facts and get it right. 
    .
    And wait a minute.  Aren't you suppose to be the "thought police" here on Dagblog?  Yet you're on here indulging in ad hominem attacks.  What kind of hypocrisy is that!!!?  In the future will you PLEASE simply address the issue instead of indulging in childish attacks without having any idea what you're talking about?  I'd really appreciate it. 


    If you're trying to convince anyone that she agreed to your disputed comment, as opposed to your original post, then you are the one who is reaching.


    Did you get her permission to talk about her here on Dagblog?  I'm responding to some ugly and unfair attacks on "your woman" (In quotes, in case you once again don't get it, because "my woman" is deeply offensive to every woman I know.)

    You want to know what's childish, Wattree?  This is childish:

     So I want to get that bastard, bad!  But she's more concerned about her career. I think that's a flaw in her character that I deeply regret that I ever had to see, and I told her as much.  What if Rosa Parks had taken her position?  But thank God Rosa didn't. She stood on character and principle - and every Black person in America has benefited from her courage.

    What a cruel thing to say about the woman you supposedly care about.  If you don't want me to respond personally to your misogyny then don't bring it here in such a personal way.  Because I'm always going to defend a woman who is being attacked unfairly.  Especially if she isn't here to defend herself.


    Ramona,

    It's cruel to you, but to her it's her man being honest with her. We ALWAYS say what's on our minds. That's how we educate one another and grow as individuals, and as a couple. MOPP (Manual of Political Propriety), which you obviously subscribe to, only serve to stifle knowledge, and there's no such thing as bad knowledge.  It leads to women like yourself CLAIMING to want to be treated as equals, and then when you are, going in the corner weeping, and claiming that a man is a misogynist because he spoke to you with the exact same forcefulness that he would another man.
    .
    If it weren't for MOPP,  someone would have long since informed you that you were indulging in the height of hypocrisy, and you might have benefited from that.  And by the way, what's the MOPP term for when a woman is brutally honest with a man?  There isn't one.  So as a woman, you want your cake and eat it too - either you want to be treated with equality or you don't; make up your mind.  My woman does, and by the way, she also refers to me as "my man," do you have a problem with that as well?  If not, why not?  And finally, have you conjured up any other rules that mankind should feel obligated to adhere to?  You're living by a philosophy of backward-thinking and complete hypocritical nonsense. You're PROMOTING a double standard instead of ridding the world of it.


    I assume you know that suggesting a woman will take criticism by running off to the corner weeping is HIGHLY insulting and sexist. Before Ramona bans you, I was just curious WHY you're behaving like an asshole when even by the old-school manners you often evince it wouldn't be acceptable to insult women. Are you so thin-skinned you can't take a punch or a tap without losing all of your professed values? (aside from "alarmingly exaggerated sense of self-worth"). Maybe you won't answer me, but perhaps in your drifter days ahead you can ruminate over it. You are a misogynist - a man is not "misogynist" just for speaking forcefully, but for speaking in a rude, sexist and female-hating way - to women or about women.


    Peracles,

    I'm simply treating Ramona like an equal, or like I would treat you. So just to imply that I should give her some kind of pass simply because she's a woman, is to suggest that she's not really quite equal, so we should treat her with kid gloves.  If I told you the exact same thing, nobody would be the least bit offended by it, so what's the difference, is she an equal, or isn't she?  I don't play these MOPP games.  


    How can anyone form an opinion when there's insufficient data to weigh the risks or the possibilities of positive outcomes? I think you've already got the only possible opinion you could get here, She who takes the risks get's to decide whether to take them.


    Ocean-Kat,
    .
    As usual, you've missed the entire point of this discussion. It goes without saying that Rita is the one who's going to make the final decision. The point of this discussion is the pros and cons of what decision she should make. Re-read the first three paragraphs of the article.  I assume that you're not Black, so what you don't seem to understand is how important it is for Black people to think collectively, and of the bigger picture.


    CHARACTER
    .
    WE SHOULD NEVER TRY TO DELUDE OURSELVES. FAILING TO COME OUT AGAINST INJUSTICE, AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY, SERVES THE EXACT SAME PURPOSE AS PROMOTING IT. THE PEOPLE WHO QUIETLY WATCH A LYNCHING ARE NO BETTER THAN THOSE INVOLVED.

    Eric L. Wattree

    This guy said that another Black woman looked like a monkey.  The minute he uttered those words, all thoughts of self-interest should be set aside. That's the point I'm trying to get across to "my woman."


    Eric, I planned to stay out of this discussion but I cannot. Rita traveled to Russia to advance her career. Her tour seemed to have gone well. Your article seems explosive and you revealed that a promoter close to Putin made statements that could put him in danger. Tracking the promoter tied to Rita's tour should not be difficult. Does she face danger if she receives a request to return to the country?

    The response to the article here at Dagblog was predictable. There have been hundreds of views of your post, not just a few of your close trusted friends. You did not go to Russia. Is it now unwise for her to return to the country. Is she at risk if she receives requests to perform in Europe or Asia?


    RM,

    No it isn't. The Russian people loved her.  They took her to the Kremlin, and assigned her an English-speaking escort that took her all over Russia, and attended to her every need.  But this particular promoter is self-serving, and once he saw that Rita was making connections outside of his sphere - and above his sphere - he was doing everything he could do to prevent that from happening, and one of his tactics was to try to intimidate Rita by showing her just how vicious he could be toward other Black artists who proceeded her in touring with him. Then, once she made connections with people in Russia who were above his pay grade, he tried to make Rita feel like she would be unpatriotic as an American if she had anything to do with them. That's where he made his mistake, and that's why Rita doesn't want my article to come out.  She feels that it may place HIM in jeopardy. But I say, to hell with him. This dude said the following while Rita was on a bus filled with not just musicians, but GREAT international musicians, about GREAT female and African American artists:
    .

    "But it was on a long bus trip that I saw just how ugly, petty, misogynistic, and racist Robert could get.  Now, just imagine this!  We're on a long bus trip and the bus is filled with musicians. I'm the only Black person, or woman, on the bus, and Robert starts to denigrating previous women and Black artists that he'd toured with. He denigrated  Kevin Maghony, Sharon Clarke, Anita King,  Kathy Kosin, Deborah Davis and others.

    "He said of one artist, 'She wants to sleep with me but I don't want her because once the lights are out I couldn't find her in the dark. She looks like a black gorilla, a Monkey.' He went on to say.  'She drinks a whole bottle of wine, gets drunk, passes out, and snores loud like a hog. She's dependent on me because she doesn't have a job and her husband left her for a younger, prettier woman.  I told her fuck you and she took it. Then she told me that she loves me, and she's looking forward to our next tour'  - and this is of a fine artist that Rita talks to on a daily basis!

    "Regarding another artist he said, 'He's big and fat, and he ate himself into a stroke so he can't tour anymore - he walks too slow. He eats two steaks, potatoes, cake, pie, and drinks liquor. He's going to die eating.'  And of one female singer that he setup on a tour, he said, 'She cannot sing. She sounds bad, but she looks good, so club people hire her. I set her up on a big tour with a famous musician and everyone called me asking why did you send us this singer who cannot sing.'

    "Of yet another singer Robert said, 'She's is a good singer, but she's a crazy Jewish woman. It was the first and last time I hired a white singer. She acted like she was a Diva, gave the band problems, and made too many demands. She would get paid and then 5 minutes later she'd ask to be paid again. She also had substance abuse issues. I will never hire a white singer again.'

    "This went on interminably.  It got so bad that I put on a headset to keep from having to hear it, because I knew some of the people he was talking about - and then he would lapse into Russian and I noticed some of the musicians looking over at me.  One musician who greeted me warmly and told me how much he enjoyed my singing on one day, simply glared at me and barely wanted to speak the next.  So Robert will do, or say, anything to promote his own interest. He told one artist that a very prominent musician and promoter - who I met, and like, very much - was a 'slave and puppet of Vladimir Putin' - and the promoter in question was suppose to be his friend!!!"
    .

    So this guy is a pig, and I want to out him so bad I can taste it - and I have connections with jazz magazines and other publications all over the world, so I can do it - and the above is the LEAST damaging thing in the article. You should see his text messages. They would blow you away.  But Rita has gotten cold feet because she's worried about this asshole, and the impact it would have on his family, and her career as the one who destroyed him. I say, "Shit, let him become a mechanic." And believe it or not, now he's blowing the phone up (15 calls in one day) trying to get Rita to go on a tour of Israel in February, but she turned him down.
    .
    I have a close friend by the name of Playthell Benjamin.  He's a world renown historian, and he's taught at universities all over the world. He's also the editor of Wynton Marsalis' Lincoln Center Magazine. He also dragged the late Christopher Hitchens through the mud
    in a New York debate.  He's a friend of both Rita and I, so he took an evenhanded approach to our disagreement, but here's what he had to say:
    .

    Playthell Benjamin

    Dec 3 (3 days ago)
    "Eric, this is A BOMBSHELL!!!!!  However I can see why Rita is hesitant to publish it. He sounds like a powerful guy on the international scene and I doubt that it will help her career....but one never knows.
    .
    "By the way, your reporting and composition on this piece is OUTSTANDING!!!!  I felt like I was there.  It is a powerful mix of reportage and critical commentary...very powerful!!   It would destroy this guy in the eyes of any OBJECTIVE observer.
    .
    "Of course, my natural inclination would be to publish it.  BUT GIVEN WHAT IS AT STAKE THAT IS A DECISION ONLY RITA CAN MAKE!!!
    .

    "And I suggest that despite your righteous anger you should not PUSH HER TO PUBLISH!  You have done the good work now let her DECIDE!  However, the next time he is performing in the U.S., you should just roll up on him AND BREAK YO FOOT OFF IN HIS ASS!!!!!  Don't say Shit!!!  Just knock that fat Russian Cracker on his ass!!!!"

     

     

     


     

    Being as I'm a huge fan of sucker punching people as the most appropriate reaction to offensive speech I have to say you've done your friend a big favor publishing his correspondence with you here. Consequently with his advocating such a sneak attack I've no doubt everyone reading it has gained a new found respect for Playthell Benjamin as a public intellectual from reading your post.

    I'm sure that just like Rita, Playthell also gave you permission to publish his correspondence with you on a public forum.


    Ocean-Kat,

    Wake up, man. Haven't you realized by now that people like Playthell and I don't give a flyin' shit what you think?  Anything that we think, or say privately, we'll say publicly. We don't play "socially polite" parlor games, or by the standards of MOPP (Manual of Political Propriety). MOPP was designed to accommodate those with covert and untrustworthy motives. Take you, for example, since you find it necessary to hide behind a screen name, you obviously don't have the courage of your own convictions, so how can anyone take you seriously?  Playthell and I live by our own standards - "Say what you think, call a hat a hat, and be willing to stand by your convictions. It makes life much simpler, and people never have to wonder what's going on in your mind.
    .
    "It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion, and it is easy in solitude to live by one's own; but great is the man who, in the midst of the crowd, keeps with perfect sweetness, the independence of solitude."  - Ralph Waldo Emerson.

    Image result for Say what you think   


    What if Rosa Parks had taken her position?

    How could that be a problem? There were plenty of men around Rosa Parks that could have outed her, forced her, and used her to forward their agenda without her consent just like you.


    I remember when the local Ukrainians were having a turf war, and a few storefronts got blown up. That's minor leagues compared to Russians. I'd suggest she's not in Kansas anymore, and perhaps adjusting expectations might be as sane an approach as American Cub Reporter.

    Peracles,

    While they were in Russia, he's an international actor.  In addition, treating people with dignity, respect, and simple human courtesy is an international standard, or should be - at least, in most civilized nations.  


    You said Russia, not a "civilized nation". I'm also amazed you note she's making connections to go behind her promoter's back but don't understand why the promoter would be displeased. Strange stuff. Yes, promoter's are often pigs - first week in the biz?

    Peracles,

    Who said anything about going behind anyone's back? The promoter was there. When other promoters who had more clout in the country came to hear Rita sing they'd just brushed him aside. That's the way they do things in Russia.  That's why Robert made the mistake of starting to bad-mouth them.
    .
    And you said,
    .
    "You said Russia, not a 'civilized nation.'"

    Are you implying that America IS civilized?  If you are, you must have just emerged from a cave.

    .


    Ok misspoke - going around him with him knowing - that would make any promoter happy, no? Put up the expense to bring an unknown act to Russia, knowing someone else will get the follow-on engagements if successful? Everyone loves lose-lose situations. " But this particular promoter is self-serving, and once he saw that Rita was making connections outside of his sphere - and above his sphere - he was doing everything he could do to prevent that from happening, and one of his tactics was to... "

    Peracles,
    .
    First, Rita is far from unknown. She started touring Europe as far back as the eighties, and her music is being played all around the world.  When she arrived in Russia they already knew who she was, and many people came to her with her CDs for her to autograph. In addition, they sought her out while she was there to do a Russian television commercial.
    .
    Secondly, the promoter hired her to do one tour, and not as part of an affirmative action program, but as an opportunity to make money. So the only obligation that Rita had to him was to give him what he paid for - and by all reports, she did that, and more. So the bottom line is, Robert was trying to corner the market on her services, and Rita had absolutely no obligation to limit her access to other opportunities in order to allow him to do that. Since she's returned home the guy has called her 15 times in just one day to try to get her to tour Israel in February, but he proved to be such a pig, she turned him down.
    .
    So Rita is far from an indentured servant. She's performed with some of the greatest jazz musicians in the world as her sidemen. She uses Nancy Wilson's piano player, Lew Matthews, routinely, and Barbara Streisand's multi-grammy award winning musical director, and the composer of "Here's To Life," Artie Butler, contacted her to explore the possibility of doing a project with her. He wrote a review saying, "When she song my song, I felt like she was singing directly to me."  So Rita is not just some novice that this promoter picked up off the street, and she didn't appreciate the tactics that he employed that tended to treat her like one. First he tried charm; when that didn't work, he tried bribery; when that didn't work, he went to threats and extortion; and when that didn't work, he tried humiliation - and the latter is why I want to destroy his ass, and I have everything I need to do just that.  But unfortunately, Rite has a soft spot, a compassion, that I lack.
    .
    Finally, regarding misspeaking, don't worry about it. We're all human, and we all do it.


    Peracles,

    While they were in Russia, he's an international actor.  In addition, treating people with dignity, respect, and simple human courtesy is an international standard, or should be - at least, in most civilized nations.  


    Peracles,

    While they were in Russia, he's an international actor.  In addition, treating people with dignity, respect, and simple human courtesy is an international standard, or should be - at least, in most civilized nations.  


    Ocean-kat,

    See the above comment to Ramona.

     


    Michael - my response is that you shouldn't need a tax benefit to help you pay for your kids education since state colleges and universities should be free or virtually so for all academically qualified admittees.  Likewise, healthcare should be viewed as a right.  Food, shelter, transportation, and clothing are more problematic since the free market does, in general, work pretty well producing and distributing these essentials.  So, we do need programs to ensure that the least well-off are easily able to afford them without socializing their production/distribution/sale.


    Hal,

    I completely agree.  The things you mentioned are called an investment in our future.


    I agree as well.

    I actually managed to get something like that, by going to a pubic university where I was a resident (UNM, Go Lobos!)

    But I may want my son to go to a private college, if it suits him.  It would have suited me, but I couldn't afford it. I want him to have the choice.  I don't expect that taxes should get in the way of that.

     

     


    "But I may want my son to go to a private college, if it suits him.  It would have suited me, but I couldn't afford it. I want him to have the choice.  I don't expect that taxes should get in the way of that."

    Honestly Michael - I don't have much sympathy for this viewpoint.  If your tax payments make great public colleges/universities affordable to all including your children then to me that is enough.  I would add that one of the primary drivers of more expensive private colleges and universities is more expensive state schools.  The Harvards and Stanfords of the world can only price themselves so much higher than the Michigans and Cals.  If the latter are basically free, Harvard and Stanford will have to cut their tuition which they can do since they have multi-billion dollar endowments. 

    One other point, private schools are right now often cheaper than public ones for top students.  Couple of examples, many years ago a former intern of mine - with excellent grades - got such an enormous tuition break from USC that it was cheaper for her than Berkeley.  Currently, a friend's daughter attends one of the Claremont Colleges but because of her family's moderate income - ca $60,000 - they effectively pay no tuition.


    Sorry, but I'm shutting down this thread before it gets uglier. dagblog is not a place for discussing people's personal relationships.


    Latest Comments