dagblog - Comments for "Does the West/Obama Controversy Constitute Blacks Airing Dirty Laundry?"

Quinn, I don't write hard

Wattree — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 04:40:22 +0000

Quinn,

I don't write hard news. I write an opinion column, and that is my opinion. Yes, I do make every effort to drive my point of view home, but I think that it is important in this case. The self-service and demagoguery of people like smiley and West are a highly destructive force in the Black community, and it needs to come to an end. The only way that's going to happen is if they have to pay a severe price for engaging in it. So yes, I've made it a point in these articles to rip out a pound of flesh.

LOL. Address that comment to

Obey — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 06:54:19 +0000

In reply to "...on the other hand his

LOL. Address that comment to Rmrd and the praise he extends for carrying out the PPACA measures.

More generally, you really need to decide on whether you choose the "presidential elections are important because Presidents have power" line or the "presidential elections don't matter because Presidents don't matter" line. You can't sprinkle him with credit for the half-decent things the Health Care bill does and absolve him of blame for the not-so-decent things the budget bills on things like Medicaid do. That was all I was pointing out.

Hilarious, brew. Just keep setting them up so I can knock em down. Have a good night.

"...on the other hand his

brewmn — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 03:22:23 +0000

In reply to Yes. That's great.But. as

"...on the other hand his failure to fund Medicaid beyond june this year..."

You really don't seem to understand how the US government works. Here, we have a legislative, judicial and executive branch. The legislative branch is responsible for passing legislation, including passing fiscal budgets. The executive branch carries out those laws, but doe not pass them.

Here. it seems your criticism would be more correctly focused on failures of the legislative branch. Hope this helps.

It demonstrates that every

Sandra — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 03:11:47 +0000

In reply to Does the West/Obama Controversy Constitute Blacks Airing Dirty Laundry?

It demonstrates that every person within any race is not a part of a monolithic stream of thought or consciousness.

So.... how does being

quinn esq — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 02:30:36 +0000

In reply to KGB, You said: One other

So.... how does being detached and fact-based and outraged at West's character attack stand alongside 3 posts full of rage at West, an apparent inability even spell the man's name without insult, comments all in bold, pictures apparently meant to show the fact that he's a suck-up, and descriptions comparing his integrity to that of a man dining with Mussolini?

Jeez. Cornel may very well be a shit - I haven't followed the twists and turns of his work and pronouncements closely enough to judge - but it's tough to argue that all this is about objectivity or "detachment."

So how about we run a poll on West. That seems democratic and proper, right? Okay then.

Cornel West is:

A demagogic suck-up.

A suck up.

An idiot.

A foolish and self-serving idiot.

A racist and petty person.

A woefully presumptuous and undisciplined person.

Palinesque.

A damn fool.

An arrogant and condescending man with an aristocratic sense of entitlement

Very much like a hypocritical fascist

An embittered egomaniac full of irate petulance

A pure hypocrite

Reckless and vain

An academic loudmouth full of gross speculation and vapors.

Tavis Smiley's puppet

All of the above, as described in my recent posts.

"Carnell skinnin' and

we are stardust — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 02:09:47 +0000

In reply to KGB, You said: One other

"Carnell skinnin' and grinnin'. Wow.

Tech tip: if an imported graphic is too large for you, click on it, and eight tabs will appear. If you click on a corner one, drag it diagonally with your mouse, you can resize it and keep the same height-width ratio. Check it in Preview; and if your're still not satisfied, try again.

KGB, You said: One other

Wattree — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 02:03:03 +0000

In reply to I don't think I said anything

KGB,

You said:

One other observation, I saw West's critique being more related to the impact of Obama's wider economic and trade policies and posture he has adopted in relation to the elite powers, not his budget items. In that regard, a list such as this doesn't appear to entirely answer his criticism very well unless it includes a major policy shift on economics or trade.

Carnel West, along with his buddy, Tavis Smiley, have been using the umbrella approach to criticizing Obama since the day he through his hat in the ring. Instead of criticizing specific issues they're attacking his entire presidency. They didn't even give the man time to get directions to the White House before they started making these charges.

In addition, if West has such disdain for the oligarchs and corporate plutocrats, why did he choose Tavis Smiley, the most pronounced corporate shill in the Black community, as his best friend? Look at the sign emblazened in the background of this photo:

Do you really believe that Nationwide is on the side of the Black community, or poor and middle-class people in general?

So Carnel West's credibility on this issue is equivalent to a man ranting in the street against fascism after just having lunch with Mussolini.

Have you ever seen such suckin' up - and this is after he and Tavis had been doggin' Obama all during the campaign. Look at him skinnin' and grinnin', and look at the way Obama is looking at him.

Carnel West is a self-serving demagogic suck-up who's not worthy of anyone's respect. He wraps himself in the misery of the poor, middle-class, and minorities in the exact same way that the GOP wrap themselves in the flag.

See upthread; I'm done.

we are stardust — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 01:48:16 +0000

In reply to Stardust, you heart is in the

See upthread; I'm done.

Okay, Gestalt (maybe) here.

we are stardust — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 01:45:15 +0000

In reply to Cornel West says that Barack

Okay, Gestalt (maybe) here. This conversation (and the previous two or three) remind me of the ones at the Cafe with you and Wheezie and the gang. Same narrative, same responses, and to me, too much of it ends up being about you being pre-disposed to taking offense, as with this crap nonsense that if kgb or anyone else indicated they'd lived in an urban area, or the ghetto, el barrio, that as whites, they were playing some kind of 'blacker than Obama' stuff.

'Black audiences' aren't monolithic, either; there are comedy clubs, PTA's, political groups, acitivist groups, groups who go expressly to hear Cornell West, groups to support the Prez, on and on. But you have one kind in mid, I think and all participants are like you. Another sortt of strawman you create in your head.

In real life, face-to-face, I have rarely seen from blacks or mixed-race blacks, the inherent bad will to miscontrue even the most innocuous comments that I do from you.

I guess I think it's all mixed up with defense of Obama, and you despised West like Wattree before he shot his mouth off so crappily, but I sorta doubt it, especailly if we leave Smileyu outta the mix. But for me, you make it impossible to have any sort of honest conversations about all this, like those of us who 'aren't black' have to tip-toe around lest we get it wrong. Get yourself a little humor, and especially self-deprecating humor; you'll live longer.

I hope I'm done here. ;o)

Eric. I'm not sure Burton is

quinn esq — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 01:38:53 +0000

In reply to Does the West/Obama Controversy Constitute Blacks Airing Dirty Laundry?

Eric. I'm not sure Burton is doing much more than pointing out the difficulty I pointed out the other day - that attacks on West could easily become too focussed on his "character." This is fair, to a degree, but it loses its value when it becomes the core response. After all, West's original sin was.... to attack Obama's character.

As we all know, character-based debates are incredibly interesting, but often end up with exchanges of slurs between opposed commentators - and so, unchecked, they spiral downward. With the result not just of both sides falling into a pit of rage, but also, a complete loss of the original point. (What was it again?)

To my mind, West messed up and shot his mouth off in an overly-personal and overly-totalistic way, and it blew up the force of his original criticism. So it's fair that he get smacked down for that. But in "character" debates, it's incredibly hard to pin anyone as being "all this" or "all that." Most of the people I've known have had major and minor elements and aspects to their personalities, they've changed over time, etc. Which means that West's one-sided character-based denunciations ignore a lot of evidence about Obama, and thus be at least partially wrong - but so too are the critics who aim the "character" gun back at West.

Therefore, even though I find it very difficult to do, it seems to me the most useful approach would simply be to smack down West for the nonsense bits, and then either move on to the substance of his comments about Obama, OR - if this sort of thing comes from West repeatedly - to show the PATTERN of him making these personal attacks.

As for whether it's a "black thing" or not, I donno. I think anybody who's pissed off or wants change or feels unjustly treated, and works on behalf of that group, is gonna periodically want to smack the idiots on his own side who aren't getting it right. Pretty common human trait, I would think. (See: Entire history of Scotland.)

That said, I'm not sure you're as detached as your comment further down would present. In the interests of honesty, when you concluded your post by blaming West and Smiley for muddying waters and making people think others might be "lackeys," I think you're probably letting your irritation with them personally show... just a tad. Because people have been creating distrust for a lonnnnnnng time now.

In a similar, vein, it struck me as unusual to see a completely out of the blue posting of someone's photo in the comments... Unless, of course, it was to hold that person's appearance up for ridicule (as it immediately received), since it fits a certain stereotype. Odd. ;-)