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

    Is the GOP Manipulating Black Intellectuals to destroy the First Black President?

    By Wattree on Sat, 06/11/2011 - 11:00am |
    Unfortunately, the corporatocracy seems to understand Black people much better than we understand ourselves. But that’s fully understandable, since they’ve had centuries of experience in observing our behavior. They understand that since Black people are the product of the very same racist environment as White people, we tend to be just as racist toward other Blacks as any Hillbilly. That explains why we never see a drive-by committed by a person wearing a sheet. The Klan has learned, just like the powers that be, that we’re much more efficient at destroying one another than they could ever be.

    That’s what makes the phrase “airing our dirty laundry” such a joke. Everyone else in the world seems to see the skid marks in our dirty drawers but us. Take the matter of Barack Obama , for example. Those who specialize in manipulating the American people clearly understand that his rapid rise to become President of the United States tends to diminish the accomplishments of Black leaders and intellectuals all over the country. Thus, many of these leaders have become ripe, willing, and enthusiastic accomplices in the effort to drag this president down, regardless of the negative consequences to Black people, or America as a whole. So the manipulators know that all they have to do is suggest reasonable sounding grounds to criticize Obama, then sit back and wait for the envious Black aristocracy to till the fields and pluck the cotton.

    It’s the old crabs in a barrel syndrome. It’s a technique that has never failed in over three hundred years. It kept us in slavery, it was the foundation of CoIntelPro, and it killed Malcolm X. So it’s a technique that has been tried, certified, and true. But now, instead of slaves snitchin’ on slaves, we have so-called Black leaders and intellectuals engaging in 21st century arguments to justify 19th century thinking.

    Now don’t get me wrong, every politician deserves intense scrutiny and criticism when needed, and that includes Barack Obama. In fact, my very next article is going to do just that. But my complaint is going to be clear rather than amorphous, and it’s going to address a specific issue that the president is capable of addressing. Because I see it, it is one thing to hold a president accountable, and yet another to try to drag him through the mud without clear justification, and that’s exactly what I see going on.

    By now everyone is aware of Dr. Cornel West’s tirade against President Obama, so we won’t even bother to revisit that, but now Dr. Boyce Watkins of Syracuse University has written an article, “Black Unemployment Rises Yet Again: Yes, We Are in a State of Emergency,” that seems to lay the rise in Black unemployment directly at President Obama’s feet. Dr. Watkins said:

    “One has to ask this question: Just how high does the black unemployment rate have to be before the Obama Administration and Congress reconsider their policies against engaging in targeted action on behalf of black and brown communities? If the unemployment rate were 20 percent, would that convince them that there is a problem? What about 25 percent? Perhaps there is some hidden law against advocating for people of color?”

    Now, admittedly, I’m no scholar so maybe I’m missing an important detail here, but it seems clear to me that the Obama Administration and the congress are far from one entity, and there is absolutely nothing that President Obama can do to force a private corporation to hire workers if they choose not to. It is also clear that corporations have a vested interest in making sure that unemployment remains high - especially among Obama’s base. By doing so they enhance the chances of the GOP regaining power in the 2012 election, and thereby, reestablishing the status quo, a laissez-faire business environment where businesses have free rein to do whatever they like to increase profits.

    In addition, the Republican Party has done everything in their power to ensure that the American people remain miserable, divided, and angry until the 2012 election. Rush Limbaugh gave them their marching orders early in Obama’s presidency. Limbaugh said, “I don't want this to work . . . I hope he [Obama] fails." And the Republicans have been on a single-minded mission to ensure Obama’s failure every since.

    From that moment on, every initiative that President Obama has put forward to improve the economy and create new jobs has been met with fierce Republican opposition. They don’t care that America is suffering. They want America to suffer - the more the better. All they care about is making absolutely sure that President Obama doesn’t succeed in bringing relief to the misery they caused the American people under eight years of George W. Bush.

    To that end, the Republicans in congress have engaged in a record number of filibusters in an attempt to block every initiative that Obama has put forward to rescue the American people. Their determination is so fierce in that regard that any Republican who fails to go along with their strategy is in dire jeopardy of being banished from congress.

    And even those initiatives that did manage to miraculously survive were being blocked from implementation by Republican Governors across the country, under the pretense that rescuing America constituted “wasteful spending.” But their concern over the budget deficit didn’t prevent Republicans for a minute from holding the unemployed hostage to extend the Bush tax cut for the rich which, to a large extent, is what brought us to this point in the first place

    The Houston Chronicle reported Texas governor, Rick Perry, as saying, with regard to federal money to assist the unemployed,

    “The money would come with too many strings attached. Taking the half billion would require the state to assist qualified out-of-work residents seeking part-time jobs, an idea that Perry said the state has rejected before, partly because it could discourage them from seeking full-time employment. The federal money injection would also make Texas extend benefits to more low-paid workers, and Perry said the overall expansion would force business to make higher unemployment insurance payments.”

    Yet, after initially turning down federal money targeted at creating jobs, Perry eventually took the stimulus money. But instead of using it to create jobs and bring relief to the poor and middle class, he used it to plug his budget shortfalls and save his “rainy day fund.” CNN Money reports the following:

    "Texas, which crafts a budget every two years, was facing a $6.6 billion shortfall for its 2010-2011 fiscal years. It plugged nearly all of that deficit with $6.4 billion in Recovery Act money, allowing it to leave its $9.1 billion rainy day fund untouched . . . Now that the stimulus money has dried up, state lawmakers last week unveiled an austere budget for the 2012-2013 fiscal years that cuts $31 billion in spending. Schools, colleges, Medicaid and social services for the needy will be hit especially hard."

    Republican governors are showing the exact same kind of disregard for the poor and middle class all over the country, yet we have these Black academics pointing their collective finger at Obama. This carefully selected criticism among many Black scholars is quite curious to say the least. While this seeming inability, or refusal, to connect the dots is understandable with Cornel West, he’s essentially a Harvard anointed preacher, it is quite disheartening among scholars like Dr. Boyce Watkins. His Ph.D. is in the area of economics and finance, so one would expect much more insight from him.

    On Your Black World, Dr. Watkins’ own website, he quotes Ursula Burns , chairwoman and CEO of the Xerox Corporation, and the first African-American woman to head Fortune 500 company, as saying, “Families and our schools have failed in preparing [our young people] to compete.”

    Dr Watkins goes on to point out that in an interview with CNN’s Soledad O’Brien Ms. Burns indicates that “She is ‘panic stricken’ by the lack of qualified applicants coming out of American schools. She isn’t just speaking about black and brown children, but all young people. She goes on to say, ‘We have jobs open ... we can find better candidates in other nations and other places than we can here.’”

    So why are so many Black scholars continually pointing their finger at Obama instead of addressing these issues in the community? One doesn’t need a Ph.D. to whine. A high school dropout can do that. We need Black scholars to address the issue of the aversion to knowledge that pervades not only the Black community, but the nation as a whole. We, along with the corporate media, have produced a generation filled with mindless hedonists, and that's an issue that's hemorrhaging to be addressed.

    But instead of closing ranks to address this life or death issue, many Black scholars are using all of their intellectual resources to justify trotting out one after the other, and arm-in-arm with social bigots, to engage in America’s most beloved and enduring game - “Bring down the uppity nigga.”

    Eric L. Wattree
    http://wattree.blogspot.com/
    [email protected]
    Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

    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

    Very interesting, although I don't think it is just Black Intellectuals that the GOP is manipulating to bring this President down. Together, the two groups lead by the GOP will do their damnedest to make sure this President serves one term. The GOP is quite happy it is so easy to get folks all whipped up, because they can be in control and bring the country back to the roaring 1890's. We all know this is what they want.

    I liked the column Mr. Wattree, thanks.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 06/11/2011 - 2:19pm

    What you say is true, TM.

    The reason that I specifically mentioned Black intellectuals is because they're the ones that I'm speaking to in the article. I'm trying to get them to consider what might be motivating  them. Just because we're Black doen't mean that we don't harbor the same racist attitudes as any other group in America.


    by Wattree on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 6:24am

    Eric: 

    So here you write how the manipulation is implemented on the Black aristocracy.

    Those who specialize in manipulating the American people clearly understand that his rapid rise to become President of the United States tends to diminish the accomplishments of Black leaders and intellectuals all over the country. Thus, many of these leaders have become ripe, willing, and enthusiastic accomplices in the effort to drag this president down, regardless of the negative consequences to Black people, or America as a whole. So the manipulators know that all they have to do is suggest reasonable sounding grounds to criticize Obama, then sit back and wait for the envious Black aristocracy to till the fields and pluck the cotton.

    And then, as I understand your post, you present Dr. Watkins as one of the envious among the Black aristocracy who has been manipulated into criticizing Obama [he also blames Congress by the way] for not addressing high rates of unemployment in the black and brown communities.  But I don't understand how you can conclude that.  That is, I don't see how you have shown any direct connection between Watkins' scholarly critique of the president's economic policies--a critique shared by many on the left and the right--and some kind of manipulation from the GOP.  

    I guess I don't think you've demonstrated, at least in Watkins' case, the link you suggest between the manipulators and the manipulated.

    Bruce

     


    by Bruce Levine on Sat, 06/11/2011 - 4:10pm

    Bslev,

    You obviously didn't read the qoutation that you sited carefully. The GOP understands that as Black people, we harbor some of the very same racist attitudes toward other Blacks as any other group in America.  So they're using that knowledge, along with Republican talking points, to give envious Black "intellectuals" an opening to attack Obama. 

    Notice how these so-called intellectuals are using the high unemployment rates among Blacks to attack the president.  They, just like the GOP, are not even mentioning the GOP's role in ensuring that unemployment in America remains high.  So both Black intellectuals and the GOP are conveniently using the exact tactic to attack Obama. Don't you find those strange bedfellows just the least bit curious? 

     If Black intellectuals were actually the least bit interested in Black unemployment, instead of attacking Obama they would be in the very forefront in pointing out what's really causing high unemployment - Republican obstructionism. If it was their jobs on the line, I assure you, that's eactly what they would be doing. But since it's just poor and middle class Americans who are under the gun and not themselves, it's more convenient to use unemployment as a handy political tool than actually trying to do something about it.


    by Wattree on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 8:33pm

    You present an awful lot of food for thought.  I am not sure that any of the people you describe can be so easily manipulated and I think the relationship of the president to West has been fairly complicated for some time.  The fact is that many in the ostensibly liberal community have a surprisingly Bush-like view of the presidency, as if it is some sort of synonym for monarchy and not even today's British system, but the one that existed when, say George II was soverign in these parts.

    In the meantime, the Times reports:

     

    With equipment prices dropping, and tax incentives to subsidize capital investments...[w]orkers are getting more expensive while equipment is getting cheaper, and the combination is encouraging companies to spend on machines rather than people.

    “I want to have as few people touching our products as possible,” said Dan Mishek, managing director of Vista Technologies in Vadnais Heights, Minn. “Everything should be as automated as it can be. We just can’t afford to compete with countries like China on labor costs, especially when workers are getting even more expensive.”

    This is not President Obama's doing, nor his fault, but somebody has to do something about this instead of simply giving up.

     

     


    by Barth on Sat, 06/11/2011 - 2:54pm

    I agree, Barth.

    But it's not just automation that causing high unemployment. Corporations are also sending a ton of jobs overseas. But when they get in trouble, they come to the American tapayer to bail them out. 

    We need to vote with our dollars.  Eventually someone is going to come up with the good idea that they don't have to make billions by competing overseas.  They can make hundreds of millions by simply catering to an American market. But in order for that to be successful Americans are going to have to support such an effort.


    by Wattree on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 8:34pm

    Let me see if I have this right, Wattree: You claim that Black Intellectuals are envious of Obama, but with no evidence.  Do you not know how many people of any color would think his job is a horrid one?  And how many ‘intellectuals’ would prefer their own employment and contributions to society and education far more?

    Skipping to ‘manipulation by the GOP’ theme; I must be missing that step.  You’re implying that intellectuals are so jealous they (i) haven’t the intellectual rigor to assess the President by their own criteria and analysis (ii) they are racist, skipping past how criticism of a black President is racist, (iii)  they are stuck in 19th century thinking, and (iv) they listen to Republican wankers for their memes and critical cues to…’till the fields and pluck the cotton…all with no regard to how far down they are dragging the rest of black America.

    In one of your several West/Smiley blogs you said that all debate was valuable; now…not so much.  Or is it that you’re reading more ‘black intellectuals’ who are peeved that Obama’s economic policies haven’t worked, and that real black unemployment is almost double whites’?  Plenty are pissed, but I can’t see why you think it’s at all unfair of them to ask for solutions: lots of us are, and his economic team has decided over the last year to punt; Wall Street bank sheets are most important, the rest of us can eat cake.

    The way you see economics is foreign to me, so I’ll leave that lone for now.

    The ‘aversion to knowledge’ is a theme that might be addressed separately, IMO, as are mean Republican governors.  You might have tried to too many themes at once, but you’ve failed to support your thesis question, IMO. 

    Black unemployment has lots of causes, and as many opinions about it as writers, I’d guess. But that the governments, state, federal and municipal, have down-sized their work forces so much is one.  You seem to forget Obama’s announced agenda in his last SOTU; he didn’t mention the poor, and jobs only sorta pro forma, to my recollection.  He’s about austerity now; and tinkering around the edges with stimulus (payroll tax holidays for employees and employers. Wow.  Plenty of us are peeved.

    I have read that in this job climate blacks complain that they are passed over for jobs due to their skin color; that sucks.  But I'd think that it's a good thing that there are smart people of color critiquing the President's policies as well as his inactions on so many fronts; even his inner circle choices and appointees.  Color blindness, we might call it; not envy.  That dog just don't hunt, IMO.

     

     


    by we are stardust on Sat, 06/11/2011 - 3:01pm

    "But instead of closing ranks to address this life or death issue, many Black scholars are using all of their intellectual resources to justify trotting out one after the other, and arm-in-arm with social bigots, to engage in America’s most beloved and enduring game - “Bring down the uppity nigga.”

    Loaded paragraph, that one.  'These scholars' are (how many have you named?  I guarantee there are loads of black educators out there flipping out at the poverty of Armne Duncan's Race to the Top; you should make a case for how swell it is if you think so.

    Has it occurred to you that black critics do not have the same issues with the President as social bigots?  Clearly they don't; and I'll say that I'm offended on their behalf that you think they're engaged in what YOU call this nation's most enduring game. 

    Or that what black critics are attempting to do is cause Obama to change directions in ways that will not only help blacks, browns, but the rest of us non-elites?  And save the Republic?  Why in the world would you think it's about 'bring(ing) down the uppity nigga'?  Kinda like you hate the criticism, so are turning into a pretzel to find some reasoned ballast for your anger.  Backwards thinking, IMO.


    by we are stardust on Sat, 06/11/2011 - 6:12pm

    Stardust,

    The GOP understands that as Black people we harbor some of the very same racist attitudes toward other Blacks as any other group in America. So they're using that knowledge, along with Republican talking points, to give envious Black "intellectuals" an opening to attack Obama.

    Notice how these so-called intellectuals are using the high unemployment rates among Blacks to attack the president. They, just like the GOP, are not even mentioning the GOP's role in ensuring that unemployment in America remains high. So both Black intellectuals and the GOP are conveniently using the exact tactic to attack Obama. Don't you find those strange bedfellows just the least bit curious?

    If Black intellectuals were actually the least bit interested in Black unemployment, instead of attacking Obama they would be in the very forefront in pointing out what's really causing high unemployment - Republican obstructionism. If it was their jobs on the line, I assure you, that's exactly what they would be doing. But since it's just poor and middle class Americans who are under the gun and not themselves, it's more convenient to use unemployment as a handy political tool than actually trying to do something about it.

    Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of Black people in this country are middle class or above. African Americans are the second largest consumer group in America with a combined buying power of over $892 billion currently and likely over $1.1 trillion by 2012. In 2002 African American owned businesses accounted for 1.2 million of the US's 23 million businesses, and 47% of Africans Americans own their own homes.

    Thus, we have the resources to create our own jobs. That’s what these so-called intellectuals should be focused on. You don’t need a Ph.D. to whine - and that’s all they’re doing. They haven’t come up with one constructive idea.


    by Wattree on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 7:16am

    "Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of Black people in this country are middle class or above."

    The numbers say you're wrong, Eric.

    How about you pick a household income which you would define as "middle class?" 

    $75,000 - too high? $60,000 - that middle class? How about.... $50,000? 

    Well, the black MEDIAN income in 2009 was $32,584.

    So... to find what your "vast majority" of Black Americans made, it seems they'd just make it over the $25,000 bar.

    Pretty low for "middle class," seems to me.

    Unless, of course, your statement was completely wrong.

    Here's the most recent census, some useful numbers.

    I mean, it's good to aggregate these numbers up and make sure American business understands that black citizens have significant buying power, because $1 trillion ain't peanuts (though still only 7% or so of annual GDP.)

    But for individual black families, no... there's really not much way to say a vast majority of them are middle class or above.


    by quinn esq on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 10:06am

    There are real debates going on out there--mostly amongst the left, in my humble opinion.

    Now the road less traveled can sometimes bring one money and fame.

    So I am a Black professor of History/Philosophy/Political Science/Business Administration and I would like to be heard--just to be heard.

    Everytime that Black Congressman with the 50's butch hair cut talks about lazy no good welfare slime--he gets a snippet of his remarks published. He has taken the easy way out.

    Now Colin Powell grew up in the military and in the repub party. And to me he is and always has been an honorable man. So i am not painting all Black repubs as liars.

    On the other hand there are a lot of repub liars out there! hahahaah

    I would bet that if you are in a certain department in some grand elite school and you begin attacking Black politicians, you are going to be noticed...people will read your theses, people will invite you to speak.

    Look at the audience present at the 2008 repub convention.

    And Steele was the head of the repubs! Steele knew how to get ahead and now he is a token repub on MSNBC! ha

    Short cuts I guess would be a better a description of the path rather than road less traveled.


    by Richard Day on Sat, 06/11/2011 - 11:21pm

    Bingo! 

    I could start critiicizing Blacks, Obama, and the liberal agenda tomorrow and, especially as a Black man, be rich and famous by election day.


    by Wattree on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 7:23am

    Herman Cain, is that you?  Smile


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 4:59pm

    Yep,

    That could be me, RM. I could be livin' high on the hog and flirtin' with Sarah Palin (I have a feeling she's kinda easy).  So just think how much I'm sacrificing for my people - fame, fortune, and an easy hypocrite.   


    by Wattree on Wed, 06/15/2011 - 4:17pm

    Another good post Eric. I think perhaps you are trying to tie too many threads together at once.  There's a whole lot going on around Obama's Presidency and that makes it more difficult to bring the issues you raise into focus in a way that binds those issues together into a whole.

    Something, some x factor if you will, has caused much of this craziness.  Once things begin to come unglued in any kind of situation, things become highly complicated.  This is true in a hyper sort of way when discussing the extremely complicated nature of our political system, government, the racist backdrop for all of American life and the many voices taking issue with one another and the circumstances of the times.

    My own viewpoint is that Obama took office at a truly pivotal moment in our nation's history.  He had the opportunity to really change the dynamics of our national political conversation and of our national fortunes.  In order to seize that opportunity Obama would have to hit the ground running and demonstrate courageous leadership in the fight to fulfill his central campaign pledge which was to bring change to Washington and to the nation.  He failed at this in a big way primarily because he's just not a very good leader.  He is timid, cautious to a fault, and "conflict averse" which means he's afraid of fighting.  Well, unfortunately for all it ended up the guy was pretty much the opposite not only of what the nation needed, but he was also the opposite of what he had campaigned as: a bold leader who would go to Washington and fight for substantive change in the way things work in our government and by extension in our economy.  Instead, what we got was more or less a caretaker government dedicated to stabilizing and protecting the status quo.  As a result of his failure to lead we now are just beginning to see the kinds of criticisms that should have been made during his first six months or even six weeks.  This much is clear: now that Obama's pattern of behavior has been set he will not deviate from it.  He is fully invested in being Wall Street's Democrat.  He is fully invested in the snipe hunt of fighting the mythical war on terror.  He is fully invested in pursuing to the ends of the eart and beyond the fantasy of bipartisan cooperation.  In short, this President is just as out of touch as his immediate predecessor ever was.  The details may differ slightly but Obama clearly does not understand the depth of pain and destruction that has occured as a result of having 20 million unemployed people many of whom may never find another job comparable to the ones they lost in the past three years: ever.

    I believe that the kinds of criticism you are pointing out as in the case of Dr. Watkins are rooted in Obama's failure to seize the opportunity that was not only within his reach but in the palm of his hand.  I don't think that kind of criticism misses the massive resistance to any and every move he makes that the GOP has organized against him and the Democratic Party in order to do all they can to sink the good ship America simply to regain power.  But what Watkins and others believe, I'm sure, tha thad Obama focused on jobs instead of healthcare, had he stuck to his guns and not agreed to make the stimulus ineffectual and watered down with tax cuts, had he not chosen to escalate the war in Afghanistan that he could have won those battles early on.  Instead, he squandered his political capital on getting one iffy Republican vote on a the Romney Plan healthcare bill that primarily benefits the Insurance and medical professions while doing nothing to make healthcare more affordable for most American families.

    So, while the Republicans have done all they could to stand in his way, the fact that Obama turned tail and ran like a little girl every time they raised a stink was more detrimental to his own tepid, diluted plans for producing jobs in the private sector than the massive resistance itself.  Why?  Because the Republicans are bullies.  As you know, you can't win over a bully and reason with him.  If you want the bully to back down you have to stand up to him.  If you don't, he'll easily identify your weakness which is fear of fighting the bully and so he'll try and scare you with his bullying forever until you stand up and refuse to take it any longer.  Every kid in America knows how this works and every kid who ever stood up to a bully knows that it's not as hard to do as it appears to be before you stand up to the buillies.

    Now, why point the finger at Obama instead of addressing things at the community level?  One huge reason is that because of Obama's failure to lead as pointed out above, the task of addressing local issues locally is made exponentially harder.  The daylight the President could have created for a whole generation of innovation and creativity and success on a local level never came because he never made the necessary move to fight the Republicans and achieve the sort of spending and jobs programs that were and remain desperately needed in this country.  On the specific issue of education Obama is right there with the Republicans advocating charter schools and other school reforms that tend to undermine public schools, on the rare occasions he addresses the black community it is as much to scold s it is to inspire if not more so.  That doesn't help local leaders (regardless of race) improve education in our communities.  Failing to get the kid of funding needed in the stimulus bill has led to thousands of teachers, firefighters, cops and other to lose their jobs.  The list of negative consequences as a resultof Obama's failure to lead is a long one but rooted in his fundamental decision prior to taking office that he would not seek substantive change in our system but instead concentrate on looking for Republican cover on every major piece of legislation, judicial nomination, etc... just look at the shockingly timid posture he has adopted to the idea of making Dr. Elizabeth Warren head of that agency she herself thought of!  It's embarassing.

    I think I see your points, but they are complicated points to make.  Perhaps tackling them in a smaller point by point manner would help get your point across more clearly to more people.  But that's just my opnion and nothing more.  Keep up the good work!


    by oleeb on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 2:25am

    Another good post Eric. I think perhaps you are trying to tie too many threads together at once.

    Of course he is!

    Otherwise what is the point. hahahahahahaha

    You realize, unlike Eric who gets paid for what he does, and rightly so I might ad, I have spent three years attempting to tie too many threads together. hahahahaah

    It is just, he is so goddamn good at doing this. hahahahaahahah

    Ah the burden is heavy...but the tapestry is so damn complicated. ahhahahaha

    Eric is soooooooooo damn good and I am sooo damn incompetent.

    But I know this Oleeb.

    He is much better at it than I could ever be.

    And that is because the tapestry is soooooooooooo very damned complicated. hahahahaha

    Why am I laughing?

    What, me worry?

    This aint simple shite.

    I watched this:

    And a racist prick I know said something like:

    SEE

    It is not astrophysics.

    The poor bastard had to turn down a 50 million dollar contract because he knew...he knew he was appealing to white supremicists.

    It would be tough for a Black man not to face the dichotomies of cultural mandates.

    Eric could weigh on one side and be named a racist.

    Eric could weight on the other side of the same issue and be declared a traitor to his race.

    This is what tragedy is all about.


    by Richard Day on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 3:27am

    Good analysis, Oleeb.

    He really needed to bolt from the gate with boldness, before gatekeepers knew what had happened.


    by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 3:14pm

    Oleeb,

    I fully agree with much of what you've said here. With respect to the above article, however, it's really not an article about Obama.  What it's really about is the serious problem of self-hatred in the Black community, and the gross hypocrisy and self-service among our so-called leaders.  


    by Wattree on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 8:51am

    I saw this Eddie Glaude, Jr. piece published at The Root reprinted at Black Agenda Report, and he's speaking to the flip side of your argument, and to me makes his case pretty well.  He addresses both racial identity and racial solidarity issues.  This that he said about 'postracialism' seems right to me:

    "Postracialism is the latest effort to get rid of blackness; it is part of a neoliberal commitment to color-blindness. And it is often used to insulate Obama from criticisms about racial policy. Here, racial distinctiveness is denied. We are all just human beings. And any appeals to race constitute a holdover from a politics of old.

    So we're left with the New Deal rhetoric of "lifting all boats" -- a way of talking that is designed, in part, to evade the scorn of Southern Democrats and leaves intact an idea of whiteness that undermines genuine democratic transformation. Obama, when asked to address black suffering, is called the president of all Americans.

    Well, damn, aren't we Americans, too? The challenge in such an environment is how to address issues that actually involve race, and to do so without appeals to crude notions of racial solidarity or ideas that all black people hold the same interests because they're black."

    Lots more good stuff to read, but the wrap-us is great, IMO:

    "What I do know is that folks are really scared to talk about racial inequality in this country. That fear stems from the belief that any effort to address the suffering of black communities directly would trigger deep-seated prejudices that still animate American life. America would lurch even farther to the right and all hell would break loose.

    In 1903, W.E.B. Du Bois published The Souls of Black Folk. He dared to take on the power and influence of Booker T. Washington. Du Bois was concerned about Washington's style of leadership. He believed that it undermined democratic life within black communities. Too many cowered before him. Too many stood by silently for fear of reprisal.

    Du Bois wrote: "[T]he hushing of the criticism of honest opponents is a dangerous thing ... Honest and earnest criticism from those whose interests are most nearly touched -- criticism of writers by readers, of government by those governed, of leaders by those led -- this is the soul of democracy and the safeguard of modern society."

    He was right. What is at stake here is not some idea of race loyalty. Black people are suffering, and we need to engage that suffering publicly and directly. And that isn't an issue of whether someone is black enough. This is about genuine democracy, about holding to account anyone, including ourselves, who fails to muster the moral and political courage to respond to this crisis.

    Do the fact of blackness and the fact of Obama's presidency commit us to some kind of uncritical loyalty? Are we to stand by silently in the face of this devastation? Absolutely not! In these critical times, to borrow a phrase from the late Palestinian critic Edward Said, "Never solidarity before criticism" must be our cry."

     

    I think Said and Glaude said it right.

     


    by we are stardust on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 8:54am

    No matter how often I insist that my criticism of Cornel West and his cohorts has nothing to do with their criticism of Obama, but more, their motives for doing so, people still accuse me of lashing out against ANY criticism of Obama. But it’s just not true. There's nothing wrong with criticism, as long as it's purpose is constructive.  If it's not constructive, there's generally an agenda behind it that has nothing to do with the public good.

    As I've said many times before, I look at the world like I'm watching an ant farm.  So I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just as apt to being arguing one side as the other. I consider myself a soldier on bullshit patrol, so I don't take sides.  I simply point out bullshit when I see it - no matter if it's Obama's bullshit, or the bullshit on the other side.  That's why I call my column "Beneath the Spin."  I could have just as easily called it "Beneath the Bullshit":

    "There are two types of people who support president Obama. There are his supporters who want to see him be a success, and then there are the cheerleaders who simply go along with everything that he does and deeply resent his supporters who don't.

    "The president's supporters understand the importance of remembering that in a representative democracy the president, and all politicians, are elected to serve the people, and not vice versa. They understand that all politicians are employees, and their primary job is to represent and protect the interest and principles of those who hired them. Thus, when we place the importance of any one man above our own principles, we create a dangerous situation by corrupting the intent of our founding fathers, and turning the democratic process on its head."Cheerleaders on the other hand, tend to be followers - or loyal subjects, as it were. Instead of thinking for themselves, they tend to fall so deeply in love with individual politicians that they depend on those politicians to think for them. That's exactly what the founding fathers sought to avoid, because it creates a political class free to wheel-and-deal without any oversight. It also sets the people up to be demagogued, where politicians cease acting in the people's best interest, and begin to place their own interests before that of the people who elected them.

    "That's exactly why this country is dysfunctional today. We've embraced a cheerleader mentality that's made it much easier for the people to be exploited by special interests. Under the current paradigm, instead of special interests having to con an entire population, they simply have to corrupt a small handful of men. That explains why money is the life's blood of our political system."

    Obama Supporters vs. Cheerleaders

    * 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     


    by Wattree on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 9:57am

    If the "true" Progressives were in charge, everything would be better. "Progressives" would have stood up to the wingnuts and not have turned tail and run like a girl. They would have paid attention to the Black unemployment rate which has been double that of Whites for years.

    The Obama administration has done nothing to address the issue. One thing the WH could have done is analyze the impact of the loss of public sector jobs on Black unemployment. They might also have seen the growth in jobs in the tecnology sectors and note th need for redirecting people to develop skill sets in technological areas. Thy could have set out a report detailing these facts. Oh, wait, they did do that analysis.

    http://social.dol.gov/blog/a-wider-view/

    The administration might ask the Dept of Education to address the lack of production of students with skills that are useful in the workplace. The Sec of Education could ask for an overhaul of the NO Child Left Behind program which encourages schools to fudge test results rather than produce functional graduates. Oh, it seems that changes were requested by are being blocked in Congress.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/12/arne-duncan-no-child-left-behin...

    If Progressives were in charge, no barriers to change would exist and Black unemployment would magicallly equal or be better than that in the White community. The truth is that the solutons are not easy. It is also true that if Progressives were in charge, these Progressives would be making the same calls for change in some aspects of behavior within the Black community along with Bill Cosby and others.

    Criticism is easy. Dealing with the problem at hand is hard. Should we invest in make work programs that perpetuate low skill jobs, or shoud we be encouraging obtaining skills in areas that are experiencing job growth?


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 10:53am

    Isn't it time for progressives to do some soul searching about why...they are never in charge?


    by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 3:12pm

    I think you're misstating the question a bit. You need to distinguish social progressives from economic progressives. Social progressives have been in charge - look at gay rights (marriage, dadt, health care for couples), look at how the income gap between minorities and whites has narrowed for the past three decades up until Obama, look at how women surpass men in education and soon in income. Economic progressives - those framing things in terms of advancing the standards of living of the working class as a whole - are the ones who have had their hat handed to them. And that isn't surprising given the vicious cycle that occurs with rising inequality making the political system more plutocratic.

    See here for some good analysis. I've posted this before a couple of times, but again: the analysis shows that politicians for the past 30 years have listened only to the top 10% and ignored the middle and lower class, irrespective of how 'organized' or 'active' the middle and lower class are. Let me say that again: it doesn't matter how much the middle class organizes, how active they are, they get ignored. Because they are the junior partner in a coalition with rich social progressives who don't particularly care about the working class as a whole.

    The problem is a two-party system where both parties get the bulk of their funding from the rich and corporations. economic progressives should think about extracting themselves from a Dem coalition which since Obama took over now equals the GOP in corporate pac funding - and is likely to overtake the GOP in 2012. The only way this gets turned around is if economic progressives find a way to build a separate organization that isn't dependent on wall street cash.


    by Cho on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 4:02pm

    This is interesting. Thanks for posting it. I'll read the links when I can get to a computer with the proper software. (Don't ask.)

    This analysis would appear to point to unions as the key for the middle class. I can't remember where I read it, but unions are thinking about trying to organize people OUTSIDE the workplace, especially as they're having such a hard time organizing within it.


    by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 9:37pm

    Glad you found it interesting. If you like this kind of political science, there's also this piece. It argues quite convincingly that the dem and gop party coalitions are completely artificial. Artificial in the sense that people who are socially liberal are just as likely to be economically conservative and people who are socially conservative are just as likely to be economically liberal. The alliances between social conservatives and economic conservatives on the one hand and social and economic liberals on the other could just as easily be swapped out for alliances between economic liberals and social conservatives on the one hand and economic conservatives and social liberals on the other.

    The piece argues at the end that the GOP is likely to be transformed into an economically liberal/socially conservative party and the Dem party is likely to become an economically conservative/socially liberal party. Which looking at the current Tea party craziness sounds dubious, but if you look at how socially liberal the economic corporate elite is (cf. Wall Street/Silicon Valley) then it looks more plausible.

    I found this interesting, because it seems to me that there is a real possibility of a third-party challenge this election, one based on economic populism directed at frustrated econ liberals in the dem party and the social conservatives in the GOP. Not that it's necessarily going to be attractive, but it seems like the party elites are not very responsive to the desires of a big swath of their bases.


    by Cho on Wed, 06/15/2011 - 2:39am

    The system is rigged: fixed to make sure the left never gains power.  The system is very good at what it does.


    by oleeb on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 1:38am

    Yikers!  A report from the Labor Dept. drilling down into the causes and trends?  And all she has to go out and spin the terrible jobs report in May (30,000 of the new ones being McDogfood jobs) is this pathetic plea that business create some.  Same from Obama, who has just plain given up, and will keep his fingers crossed until the election.  Damn, you have to feel sorry for her.

    All Arne asked for was the power to keep giving more waivers to schools unable to meet the testing standards of NCLB.  He has a whole education department; maybe they could present something to Congress instead of just adding The Race.  Bah!

    Sorry; links fail, IMO. And how did Progressives come into the equation, anyway?  Just to poke some more in the eye?


    by we are stardust on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 5:14pm

    Sorry; links fail, IMO. And how did Progressives come into the equation, anyway?  Just to poke some more in the eye?

     .......Sigh. Who are lodging the complaints? Where would you place Cornel West? You have previously stated that nothing would change your position on West, so you are not unbiased in your position on criticisms of Obama. Perhaps part of my cynicism on "so-called Progressives" comes from a debate on TPM that involved Obama intervening on behalf of his "good buddy" Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson. Johnson misused funds from AmeriCorps and a fine was agreed upon by an Attorney General.

    An Americorps inspector general went bonkers and stated that Johnson had commiiited a crime, despite a lack of evidence. The inspector general was removed. TPM looked at the evidence and thought the firing was not out of bounds.

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/obama_removes_americor...

    It should be noted that the TPM article describes Johnson as an Obama ally. DailyKos notes that there is no indication that Johnson and Obama were even friends. The Obama critics on TPM concluded that Obama was involved in a massive cover-up. I think I've come to the conclusion that some Progressive critics have nothing else to offer but criticism. The DailyKos link appears below, The current meme is that Obama has "given up" on the Black community.

    Is there anybody who thinks "Progressives" are doing anything for the Back community other than criticizing from keyboards?

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/06/16/743313/-Republicans-Cry:-Politicized-Firing-by-Obama-WHUPDATED


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 9:01pm

    "You have previously stated that nothing would change your position on West, so you are not unbiased in your position on criticisms of Obama."

    Nope; sorry.  Fail again.  Please; I could givbe one flying fart about JMJ and Johnson.

    What you don't seem to be able to acknowledge, and you know how I hate to shout: OBAMA HAS GIVEn UP ON EMPLOYMENT FOR ALL OF AMERICA!  Not just blacks, Hispanics, LGBT, anyone of us without jobs!  About all you seem to have left is some victimization and Obama defense. 

    Try this one.

    http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/afrikanblack-apologists-preside...

     


    by we are stardust on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 9:56pm

    I give Black Agenda Report  their due for reporting on prisoner abuse When they celebrate China overtaking the US or become apologists for the treatment of Blacks in Cuba, they lose me. If you and they consider me a Black apologist, then I'll just tell them to look in the mirror and explain what they are apologizing for given prisoner and human rights abuses in China.

    LOL. I'm an apologist. Go read all of the things that BAR posts, then come back.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 10:58pm

    YOU missed the point, there were "Progressives" at TPM yammering about Obama protecting his good buddy Kevin Johnson over the AmeriCorps issue. The fact that a cover-up of Johnson's action was being concocted by these "Progressives" makes much of their current charges somewhat muted. The "Progressives" were ready to criticize Obama even in the absence of any facts to support the charges. People look for more credible sources.

    Breitbart got the picture allegation against Wiener correct. However, that does not mean that Breitbart should be considered a valid source the next time that he makes a charge. Breitbart's blather makes him damaged goods. Breitbart is biased and therefore other sources are needed to verify any charges Breitbart makes.

    I accept that Obama needs to be pressured to get out of Afghanistan. I don't accept the crap that Obama has become an evil corporatist. I think the military and intelligence services are giving him a lot of bleak outcomes from a rapid withdrawal and he has to weigh the validity of those arguments versus a potential danger to the United States. I don't agree that there is a large risk, but I don't consider Obama himself evil because the troops have not come home yet. I'm not rejecting ending the Afghanistan war, I'm rejecting the way some "Progressives" present Obama's motives.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 5:17pm

    RM,

    I just have one thing to say - Exactly.


    by Wattree on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 10:03am

    You obviously enjoy whining about Cornel West (what's this, 5 blogs now he's earned a central role?)... but to me, it's becoming a bit like those who are fascinated with Weiner's weiner.

    And meanwhile, you're moving out of touch.

    Because now even Gallup says that black people think - no if's and's or but's - that the #1 issue in the country is JOBS AND UNEMPLOYMENT.

    Which is just what Watkins and co. are talking about.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/148001/Subgroups-Say-Economy-Jobs-Important-P...

    Now, as far as that goes, I think your hate-on for West and Watkins and other black intellectuals is slowly turning your brains to jam. I mean, insofaras there's a logic in this particular blog, it's that Watkins and company's criticisms of Obama stem from them being MANIPULATED BY THE REPUBLICANS. 

    Which is a sad-ass way to attack the person, and not the message, and yet somehow cover your ass. But do go on, and tell me again how this is the way it's done in the black community, and how much you enjoy dissing them, and blah blah bullshit, while unemployment just gets worse.

    Or...... you could STOP CRITIQUING THE CRITICS, SMEARING THEM AND CLAIMING THEY'RE BEING MANIPULATED BY THE REPUBLICANS, and deal with their messages, or at least, the issues they're raising.

    As in... how about starting by reading the rest of Watkins piece you cited. Because oddly enough, Watkins DOESN'T just blame Obama, but in fact, looks much much more widely:

    "... Rather than simply blaming President Obama, we can do what makes sense:  Blame everyone who is not doing all they can to achieve a solution.  This might mean dealing with the Congressional Black Caucus, the Obama Administration, The Justice Department, Congress, the Senate, black community leadership and ourselves to determine whether or not we are demanding that our tax dollars be put to work by helping black men and women find gainful employment. There must come a time when everyone is held accountable, and all political loyalties are put on the table for negotiation.  If someone is not doing their job in advocating for the African American community, then black folks have no reason to support that official.  The accountability certainly starts at the top, but it must spread to any and all of us who have the ability to access federal and community resources. Such devastation cannot be allowed to continue and being silent is no longer an option."

    Why gee. Sounds to me like Watkins ISN'T just targetting Obama, but in fact IS looking for a wider response.

    Which would - for many bloggers - result in a correction, on the grounds that you completely misread (or misinterpreted, or misused) Watkins piece, which was in fact jumping off point for your piece.


    by quinn esq on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 4:29pm

    Quinn,

    Watkins' Ph.D is in the area of economics and finance, so what did he use his scholarship to specifically suggest that we do?  Did he suggest that Black people start patronizing Black businesses instead of driving out of the community to patronize WalMart?  Did he suggest that we get Black preachers to open up their churches during the week and hire unemployed mothers to provide low cost childcare centers for working mothers?  Did he suggest that we stop allowing our young people to be raised by BET and MTV, virtually insuring that they won't have either the demeanor or vocabulary to get through a job interview?  Did he suggest that we teach our bad ass kids to behave in school so badly needed funds won't have to be wasted on security, and so they won't disrupt  the efforts of  kids who are trying to get an education? Did he suggest that the Black community stop supporting Black athletes and entertainers who take money out of the community and run toTiffany's to buy bling instead of investing in the community?  Did he suggest that BET stop patting entertainers on the back and start giving awards to young scholars and people contributing to the community, then simply use the entertainers for the purpose of entertainment for the shows? No, I don't think he did.

    Those are the kind of ideas I expect to hear from a Ph.D. Any high school dropout can shake his fist in the air. But we haven't heard one constructive suggestion from these so-called scholars.  That tells me that there's an agenda afoot - and it has absolutely nothing to do with what's in the public good. 


    by Wattree on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 10:50am

    You blogged about black intellectuals doing the "crabs in a barrel" thing and attacking Obama - while failing to point out the wider groups or individuals who are contributing to the problem.

    You named Boyce Watkins as your leading example.

    I showed how you had failed to fairly represent the Watkins piece, because he had, in fact, covered off a much wider swath of decision-makers.

    Now, rather than admit you misread/misrepresented the Watkins piece, you want to move the goal posts. Now, you're critiquing the B-W piece because it's not about specific solutions to unemployment.

    Which is basically just a debating move you're using, an intellectual cover-your-ass maneuver by shifting the topic. Which is (isn't it?) just the sort of thing you attack the black intellectuals for.

    As for specific employment solutions.... I'm no expert on Watkins, but the site seems to me to have lots of articles on how unemployment might be reduced.

    If you disagree with them, on their content, then why not raise them and debate the ideas?

    Or, if you think it's important that Watkins DOESN'T discuss specifics, then raise that - but at least present a fair survey of the guy's work.

    And to run out statements such as "we haven't heard one constructive suggestion from these so-called scholars" is - without providing even the slightest backing - not helpful to anyone.

     


    by quinn esq on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 11:28am

    Quinn,

    You're not getting it. This is not a debate to me, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Barack Obama. If you'd take the time to do a little research you'd find that I've been on both sides of this issue, for Obama, and against. In fact, I've been accused of being "conflicted" on the Obama issue on this very site. But I'm not conflicted at all. It's just that I don't have a dog in this fight.

    I'm neither for nor against either Obama or Black intellectuals. As I've mentioned many times before, I look at the world like I'm looking at an ant farm, then merely report what I see, one issue at a time. I'm merely a soldier on bullshit patrol, so I report bullshit whenever I see it, regardless to its source. Many people are not used to that kind of thinking, so they assume that I have some sort of agenda, and you seem to be among them.

    But the fact is, I'm a firm believer in efficient thought, and efficient thought must be based on a foundation of truth. But ideologues - ALL ideologues, regardless of their political persuasions - are an impediment to truth. You see, efficient thinkers always give truth priority over ideology, while ideologues always give ideology priority over truth. They try to bend the truth to conform to their particular ideology, so by their very nature, ideologues are an impediment to finding logical solutions to our problems (The Conservative Corruption of Progressive Thought).

    That is why I attack ideological bullshit wherever I see it. That is also why I ignored your argument, because the point you tried to make was irrelevant. It was based on the unwarranted assumption that I was pushing an agenda, when actually, as you'll find in all of my writings, I was simply making a personal observation, so there is no debate. You can either accept my observation or you can reject it. It really doesn't matter to me.

    You see, you're scrutinizing a point that I'm using as a convenient example to find debating points, where I'm looking at a pattern of behavior to describe a disturbing trend in both the Black community, and the overall political environment. So while you’re trying to debate a hangnail, I'm trying to address the patient's heart disease.

    I'm not trying to smear Dr. Boyce Watkins. We've been interacting for many years, and I even write for his site, Your Black World, from time to time. So the fact is, I like him, but as I told him personally, he reminds me of Sitting Bull - while his heart was in the right place, he still led his people over a cliff.

    So your objection to my observation notwithstanding, the fact is, many of these Black intellectuals have bought into the GOP premise that Republican obstructionism is not the direct and primary cause of high unemployment in both the Black community, and America as a whole. So the entire thrust of my piece simply asks the question, why? I then attempt to answer that question by looking "Beneath the Spin," thus, the name of my column.


    by Wattree on Wed, 06/15/2011 - 11:41am

    Seriously Eric, this nonsense. We've all heard from you - many times - how you're above it all, detached, looking down on us all like we're "ants" in your farm. How you're a "soldier on bullshit patrol," reporting in. A truthteller, not an "ideologue." 

    The idea that you, somehow, miraculously, out of all humanity, have managed to levitate above human life and its weaknesses (sorry, "ant life" - nice one, that) is... kinda bizarre. And the idea that you're somehow free of ideological taint or constriction, is just... not to shine it up too much, but it's... farce.

    When you were on a week or so ago, you made clear how much you enjoyed slinging shit at West and company, and took real glee in it. Which is odd, when you think about it - petty even - to enjoy slinging shit down on the ants from such a godlike position.

    * 

    Just now, I made some very simple points about your bullshit-free, ideology-free words, showing how they were, in fact, a) containing bullshit, and b) containing ideology. Namely, that you misread and misrepresented Watkins piece, just so you could further your rant; and that you overstated (as you often do, odd in such a supreme being) your claim about black family income levels. Which you could have responded to quite easily, adjusting your course, and bringing out your deeper point, if that's what you wanted. 

    Instead, you reply not with facts, not with anything resembling reason, but like some sad-ass rapper, bleating on about how great you are, and the ants below, and a bullshit soldier, and ideology and efficiency, and .... how about you stop for a moment and give your head a shake?

    I mean no great offense Eric, just that these sorts of blogs aren't getting into the meat of what you want to say, and the defences that follow really aren't worth much more than a kid on the sidewalk going off about how big he is.

    Just MHO, but you can do a lot better than this. 

    Peace out.


    by quinn esq on Wed, 06/15/2011 - 1:52pm

    Quinn,

     I didn't say that I enjoyed dragging Cornel West through the mud.  I said, I enjoy dragging hypocrites through the mud, neither did I say or imply that I was above anyone. I simply recognize that we are all full of shit, so I've incorporated that fact into my philosophical approach to life.

    Now, as for whether you believe me or not, that's totally up to you.  I simply told you how I think. But whether you decide to accept or reject what I've told you is totally up to you. It's meaningless to me, because your ultimate decision in that regard will have about as much impact on my life as a germ committing suicide under a toilet seat in Bangladesh.   


    by Wattree on Wed, 06/15/2011 - 2:21pm

     "But whether you decide to accept or reject what I've told you will have about as much impact on my life as a germ committing suicide under a toilet seat in Bangladesh."

    LeBron couldn't have said it better  but he did say it first. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 06/15/2011 - 2:23pm

    Dude. Get help.


    by quinn esq on Wed, 06/15/2011 - 2:34pm

    Hey Quinn, I posted my comment above and then went out to do some chores. While mowing the lawn I thought about it and realized that my intended meaning was ambiguous at best because it could have been read, when I said that LeBron couldn't have said it better, that I agreed with the apparently dismissive spirit of the quoted comment by Wattree. My intention was just to note the similarity between the statement I quoted and the recent comment by LeBron James which got so much attention. But, come to think of it, I have never had any personal relationship with toilet seat germs in Bangladesh so I guess their life or death won't affect me either.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 06/15/2011 - 4:40pm

    Message received and understood.

    But me... sometimes I think about those poor poor germs... ;-)


    by quinn esq on Wed, 06/15/2011 - 5:48pm

    Quinn, thanks for replying for me somewhere on this junkyard of a thread.  I really just couldn't want to engage further.  You're a better man than I, Gunga Din. 

    signed, Lowly Ant

    p.s. I'm sure we will all be waiting with baited breath for the 'Obama critique' blog coming to a theater near us soon.  /snark


    by we are stardust on Wed, 06/15/2011 - 2:24pm

    Stardust,

    You're betraying your hubris. On whose authority are you declaring ants as "lowly?"  Just because they are smaller than we are doesn't mean thery're of any less value.  After all, unlike man, they do have sense enough to adhere to the laws of nature and not be self-destructive. Maybe we should try being more like them.


    by Wattree on Wed, 06/15/2011 - 2:40pm

                                         


    by we are stardust on Wed, 06/15/2011 - 3:10pm

    Ok Stardust,

    You reply with a cartoon. That alone makes my point regarding the mentality that we're dealing with in our political environment much more eloquently than I ever could in an essay. This nation is being challenged by the most serious threat it's faced since the Civil War, and it's being met with the formitable power of infantile mentality. That is the American dilemma in a nutshell.


    by Wattree on Wed, 06/15/2011 - 3:39pm

    So glad to have helped you draw a big white line between buffoons like moi and erudite ant farm analysts like yourself, Wattree.  Get a sense of humor one day, especially one that allows you to end being jealous of intellectuals and laugh at yourself just the teensiest bit.


    by we are stardust on Wed, 06/15/2011 - 6:01pm

    Perhaps Wattree is not in a joking mood on this issue at this time. He doesn't have to laugh on command.

    At any rate, the anti-Obama rant ante has been upped. Non-voting rapper Lupe Fiasco has called Obama a terrorist. Louis Farrakhan has called Obama a murderer. The GOP is suing Obama because the military is supplying support in Libya. Critics of Obama are proceeding apace.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/15/2011 - 9:09pm

    Stardust,

    I don't find anything funny about what's going on in this country. The fact is, that's our biggest problem. Too many of us do. 

    Am I jealous of intellectuals?  Maybe that's something I should take a good look at. I did fall short of my goal of becoming a clinical psychologist, so maybe that's a valid observation that I should explore, because when I say we're ALL full of shit, that doesn't exclude me.  I have many flaws, but I try to be just as proactive in exploring my own flaws as I am in examining the flaws in others. I see it as an opportunity for growth.  


    by Wattree on Wed, 06/15/2011 - 10:33pm

    I think this is disempowering discourse.  If people are told that their impulse to express dissent is only a product of the way they have been manipulated by their enemies, or that their criticism of their leader - who might happen to be the same race as they are - makes them disloyal "snitches", then they can lose their capacity to exress effective dissent and exert pressure on their leaders.

    Obama's approach to unemployment has been a failure by any objective measure.  He needs to be called out on it and pushed to do better.  Of course, Obama, Geithner and some of their Wall Street buddies might be counting on getting bailed out by African-American voters, some of whom might be guilt-tripped into voting on the basis of superficial racial identity and loyalty issues rather than on deeper issues of economic interest.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 9:04pm

    Bear in mind that Obama's first foray into politics was a primary challenge of Bobby Rush, a founding Black Panther who made it into Congress.

    Waytogo, slick.


    by jollyroger on Sun, 06/12/2011 - 9:51pm

    "Bear in mind that Obama's first foray into politics was a primary challenge of Bobby Rush..."

    Not even close:

    "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from Illinois's 13th District, which at that time spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park – Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.[40] Once elected, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws.[41] He sponsored a law increasing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare.[42] In 2001, as co-chairman of the bipartisan Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, Obama supported Republican Governor Ryan's payday loan regulations and predatory mortgage lending regulations aimed at averting home foreclosures.[43]

    Obama was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998, defeating Republican Yesse Yehudah in the general election, and was reelected again in 2002.[44] In 2000, he lost a Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives to four-term incumbent Bobby Rush by a margin of two to one.[45]"

     


    by brewmn on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 12:25am

    That's crap. West, Watkins, Glaude et. al. made their criticism known. Other people voice their opinions in opposition to the critics. Life goes on. I doubt that Cornel West, Glaude, or Watkins hone in on the dicussion occuring in this particular blog post.Boykins, Glaude and West will be able to voice their positions on blogs,television and radio as they have done before. Roland Martin pints out that those who serve as critics can expect to be criticized themselves.

    You seem to be arguing that an open field should be given to those who criticize Obama. Blacks who pose counters to the Obama criticism must remain silent out of some fear that if they criticize other Blacks, those other Blacks will be considered race traitors. Bull crap.

    Blacks disagree just like Whites disagree. Neither side is going to go silent. What utter nonsense.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 12:55am

    Snitches? Really?

    Are there any other groups who can't disagree?


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 12:56am

    You must be unaware that Black Republicans have tried to use a similar argument to deflect criticism from other Blacks. Michael Steele said that while he was campaigning for Lt. Gov. in Maryland, "Oriole" cookies were thrown at his feet. The cookie reference was used to suggest  that Steele was white on the inside and black on the outside, an Uncle Tom. No one who was at Steele events in Maryland could document the episode. It was an attempt by Steele to suppress criticism from other Blacks.

    The argument that Blacks can't publicly and vigorously disagree with West or Steele is pure nonsense. If Herman Cain continues his rise in the GOP Presidential race, he will use the same dodge of stating that he has been called an Uncle Tom to gain support from Conservative whites. It's a political ploy.

    Wattree can express his point of view. West can express his point of view. Others will make their own determination of ho is correct. Those peple include Black folks. It seems West is getting a vigorous defense from bloggers on this site.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 7:18am