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

    WHY AM I SO FIXATED ON CORNEL WEST?

    Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

     

    WHY AM I SO FIXATED ON CORNEL WEST?

    .
    A lot of people ask me why I’m so fixated on Cornel West. The reason is simple. I grew up with brothers like West in the hood - they were a dime a dozen - so I know exactly what he’s about - nothing.
    .
    Contrary to popular belief, there’s a wealth of both knowledge and intellect in the Black community. Johnny Cochran came out of the hood - and so did Colin Powell, Barack and Michelle Obama, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr, and Charlie Parker. Langston Hughes came out of the hood - and hell, so did I. So contrary to what's reflected in the media, a large part of this nation's most valuable resource is lying dormant in the inner cities across this nation, because there, you've got to be sharp just to survive.
    .
    So what's generally reflected in the media are the dregs of the Black community. For every 'gangsta' in the hood, there are literally thousands of young people struggling to get ahead. But the problem is, far too many of us have allowed the media to define who we are, so we no longer have respect for our own intelligence. As a result, many young people tend to have more confidence in the intelligence of fools like Cornel West than they have in their own ability to think.
    .

    Many of our young people are simply taking the media's word for the fact that Cornel West is suppose to be this powerful intellect instead of actually assessing what West is saying for themselves. The problem is, they’ve been brainwashed into believing that the White man’s water is wetter than their own, so when they hear the words "Harvard" and "Princeton" connected to Cornel West’s name, they simply assume that he possess a greater ability to think than they do, and that he can see things that they can't. That's nonsense, and it didn't use to be like that. Brother's used to define themselves based upon their ability to think, not by how 'fresh' their tennis shoes look - in fact, unless they ran track, they didn't even wear tennis shoes, because their primary goal in life was to get away from having to wear tennis shoes.
    .
    I remember how much pride my grandparents took in me when I went off to college. And later, when I got my degree, they stopped debating issues with me at altogether. It was like all of a sudden I went from being one of the kids to becoming the head of the family. I remember my grandmother used to say, "Well, Eric, you’re educated, so you know about all that stuff. We don't understand it." They didn't understand it? They understood enough to waltz through the Great Depression while white folks were throwing themselves out of windows, and then managed to become financially secure in a world that threw every stumbling block before them that it could muster - and without busting a sweat bubble.
    .
    So I knew my grandmother was giving me much too much credit, but I didn’t say anything because my young ego had me soppin' up the props. But I knew within my heart that even though I’d gone off and gotten a degree, that she - and especially my grandfather - could think circles around me.
    .
    Because even back then, I understood that there was a big difference between innate intelligence and its attendant wisdom and knowledge, and simply going out and picking up a degree. You see, if a ghetto kid who dropped out of high school has an IQ of 140, and a brain surgeon has an IQ of 120, due to his education the brain surgeon may be in possession of more information, but he'll never be able to connect the dots as efficiently as that high school dropout, because the kid is smarter, and he always will be. Well, I had enough education to recognize that my grandfather was naturally smarter than me, and regardless to how much education I obtained, he always would be - in fact, he was so smart that he had the wisdom not to humiliate me by ramming that fact home.
    .
    Because the fact is, no institution of higher learning can confer either intelligence, knowledge, or wisdom upon any individual. The only thing that Harvard, Princeton, Yale, or any other institution can confer upon an individual is a receipt indicating that the individual paid his tuition and occupied a seat where knowledge was shared. While the receipt might also indicate that the individual was able to regurgitated the information once or twice, it cannot certify that any of the information was absorbed, or can be effectively manipulated.
    .
    So what my grandmother failed to understand was, my degree didn’t certify that they’d taught me to out-think her. The only thing it certified was that I had been exposed to, and learned to regurgitate, the thoughts of dead White folks. It said absolutely nothing about whether or not I’d learn to think for myself. After all, George W. Bush obtained a receipt from Yale, and we all have a firsthand knowledge of how little that was worth.
    .
    Therefore, it’s important that we in the Black community learn that the very same thing is true of Cornel West, Boyce Watkins, and many other so-called public "intellectuals." While we should have all of the respect in the world for education, we must also have a clear understanding of what constitutes an education. An education is the consumption of knowledge, regardless to whether we consume that knowledge at Harvard, or at the corner library. Knowledge is knowledge, and it's free. So Harvard's knowledge is no knowledgeable than anyone else's - you just pay more for it, and it comes with public relations support. So if you can't afford to go to college, you seek your knowledge somewhere else.
    .
    What most of us fail to understand is, a person cannot BE educated. Each individual must educate himself. Therefore, to allow someone else to educate you is not education at all - it's indoctrination. Thus, while having a string of letters behind one's name makes for a excellent calling card and has immeasurable economic value, it says aboulutely nothing about an individual's ability to think. Titles, robes, badges, and all of the other accouterments of alleged knowledge and stature are society’s way of dictating who we listen to, and that’s not always in our best interest. So unless we’re dealing with a highly specialized area of knowledge - like medicine, for example - we should NEVER give anyone else’s ability to think priority over our own, because when we allow someone to think for us, we're also allowing them to control us.
    .
    Consider this - simply having influence over the minds of other people is big business. It can be worth literally millions of dollars to any person who can convince you and others to let him control your attitudes, thinking, and behavior. During the 2008 primaries, one preacher in the south charged Hillary Clinton a specific dollar amount for every brian that he controlled in his congregation.
    .
    A perfect example of how valueable having influence over others can be, as we speak Tavis Smiley and Cornel West are on the road trying to portray President Obama as the Bogeyman in an attempt to get Black people to elect the Devil - the Republican Party. Can you imagine how much money the billionaires in the Republican Party would be willing to pay them, not to actually deliver the vote, but to merely keep Black people away from the polls? Now, I have no evidence to suggest that that's what's going on, but it wouldn't be the first time that Cornel West has engaged in the tactic of dividing the vote. West joined forces with Ralph Nader in the 2000 election and helped to get George Bush elected ("Once Again, Nader and West Team to Elect a Republican President").
    


    DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT NATIONWIDE IS ON YOUR SIDE?
    DO YOU THINK TAVIS SMILEY BELIEVES IT?

    But if you confront members of the Nader/West coalition with the fact that they helped to elect George Bush, they’ll immediately begin to obfuscate and engage in intellectual gymnastics in an attempt to avoid responsibility for the horrific fate that they brought upon this country. They’ll say things like, "It’s not our fault that Gore lost. He just didn’t fight hard enough for a recount." But by using such arguments what they’re actually saying is, "Gore just didn’t work hard enough to undo the damage that we’d done." But here are the facts - Gore lost the 2000 election to Bush in Florida by 537 votes, and the Nader/West coalition peeled off 97,488 votes from Gore in Florida alone. So don’t take my word for it, you do the math. The bottom line is this – Cornel West is more than partially responsible for the very poverty that he's reportedly being paid $10,000 a speech to complain about - period, and case closed.
    .
    That's why back in the hood we used to routinely dismiss people like Cornel West. We recognized them as self-serving individuals who couldn't be trusted, because they would do or say anything to get attention. So even if we allowed them to hang around, the minute they opened their mouths we’d simply tell ‘em to shut the hell up, and that would be that. But back then, people like West were simply a source of irritation, under the current circumstance, however, West’s propensity for self-service and chasing public attention is in direct conflict with what’s in the best interest of the Black community. So for that very reason, I try to drag his tired ass through the mud every chance I get. I have a Google Alert on both Tavis and West. I call it the Mutt and Jethro Alert - and I'm about to add Boyce Watkins to it as well, and change the name to the Treacherous Trio Alert.
    .
    At first I to prevent it, but this has become a personal thing with me. One of my primary missions in life has become getting Black people to see Tavis and West for who and what they are - two ruthlessly self-serving and dangerous individuals who crave public attention so desperately that they're willing to drag the entire Black community under a bus to get it. West is all affectation, contrived image, and gesticulation, and if you take off his costume and cut off all the fuzz from about his head and face, the only thing you’ll be left with is a goofy-looking little bucktooth punk who takes a very long time to say very little.
    .
    Think about it. Tell me one thing that Cornel West has said in his 30 years of public prominence that’s been either profound, or even the least bit memorable? let me answer that for you - not a damn thing. Cornel is best known for two things - slandering the first black President of the United States, and publicly calling his Black female colleague, Dr. Melessa Harris-Perry, a liar and a fraud. Never mind that it was grossly disrespectful to the President of the united States, Dr. Harris-Perry, and Black women in general, it got him public attention, and that's all he cared about - and this, from a 'brother' who claims to love his people, yet, has never taught at a school that the average Black person can even afford to eat lunch at in his career.
    .
    So in the hood we had a rule of thumb regarding people like West - "Never trust a brother who's always trying to be the coolest thing in the room, because he’s putting so much brainpower into his image that there’s nothing left for him to think with. Hood Rat Wisdom 101.

    *
    LESS WE FORGET
     
    Here’s a 2008 video of Cornel West calling himself giving, then, Senator Obama, a tongue lashing for deciding to announce his intent to run for president instead of postponing it so he could appear on Tavis’ dog-n-pony show. Think about that for a minute. Tavis was so big headed that he thought the democratic process should be put on hold just for him! I’ve never seen such presumptuous arrogance in my life. Who the hell do Tavis and West think they are!!!?


     

    *
    Here’s Old-schooler Dick Gregory, on the same show, essentially telling Tavis and West that they’re damn fools.
     

    .
    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

    I see what you mean about West being an empty suit.  (The audience seemed to love him, though.)  I've listened to him before and marveled at how many words he can use to say nothing.

    Can't say that about Gregory, though.  Love that man!


    Ramona,

    After what West did in the 2000 Election, the mere fact that he can walk on stage without having tomatoes thrown at him is an indictment against the American educational system.

     


    Tavis Smiley was the speaker at an event I attended earlier in the year.He spent about 40 minutes lashing into Obama. He ended by saying that he wasn't so crazy that he would note vote for Obama.Essentially, Smiley realizes that there is a great deal of money when the headline is "Why Obama is Bad for Black America". Artur Davis found rapid ascent to the RNC podium using the same position. Artur did not get the votes to become the Democratic Governor from Alabama, so he moved to Virginia to take up stakes as a Republican.Smiley and Davis, two peas in a pod.

    There is a very limited cast of Black guests on news shows and with few exceptions, they are limited to issues of race. I read  "The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation" by Jon Gertner.the book details the wondrous achievements made by the laboratory including the transistor.It weaves an inspiring story of achievement. I searched for more detailed information about Black scientists and engineers who had worked at the lab and came across A 2009 lecture by William Massey a Professor at Princeton, "the Legacy of the Black Scientific Renaissance of the 70s, 80s and 90s at Bell Labs". The plethora of people with connections to the lab and the multitude of academic and corporate positions they occupy was simply amazing the head of the Dept of Chemical Engineering at Duke was among the featured individuals.

    These are faces hidden from the public. Instead we are often fed an empty diet of people with nothing to say. Note, they would never have had Dick Gregory as a frequent guest.

     


    Rm,

     

    They're about to implode. I received this yesterday:

     

    A PUBLIC RALLY AGAINST WAL-MART, TAVIS SMILEY, AND CORNEL WEST

    A coalition of Los Angeles, Wal-Mart associates clergy ,civil rights and Community leaders accuse PBS Talk show host Tavis Smiley of hypocrisy and being a pawn of the Wal-Mart corporation.On Sept 12th Smiley and West are headed to the Presidential battleground states of Ohio,Pennsylvania,Virginia, and Florida to high light the issue of poverty in America.

    This is very hypocritical of Smiley and West. When the Wal-Mart corporation continues to be a major sponsor of Smiley's PBS show and other projects he has led with West.Wal-Mart continues to refuse to pay a living wage or provide affordable health care to it's employees. Wal Mart is a billion dollar corporation.They should be able to offer a better medical package for their associates and a living wage.

    The involvement of corporations like Wal-Mart in Tavis Smiley’s own PBS show is troublesome.Wal-Mart is one of the major sponsors of his show Therefore,Wal-Mart plays a major role in sustaining Smiley’s popularity.If Smiley and West want to address poverty shouldn't they involve Wal -Mart in the conversation and hold them accountable as well ? "

    Smiley and West have never spoken out against the policies of Wal-Mart against its own employees, most importantly, its denial of a living wage and affordable healthcare. Smiley and West continues to be significant pawns for corporate interests, to the detriment of the black community, while at the same time trying to undermine President Obama's re-election campaign in key battleground states.

    President Obama is responsilbe for health care reform one of the greatest accomplishments for the poor in our nation’s history," If Smiley and West want to hold President Obama accountable then we

    have the right to hold them accountable as well. We have to speak out against Smiley and West when they work with Wal-Mart and other corporations that continually oppress the Black working class and other Americans."

     


    Great


    Rm,

    I said the very same thing.


    Oh I like West and Smiley. Much better that the fake liberals in the democratic party who will support or fraudulent economic and political system for their own personal ends. Come hell or high water.

     

    Wall Street and their enablers can kiss my ass.


    cmaukonen,

     

    It's too bad I didn't have your comment earlier. Instead of wasting time writing the article I would have simply said, "Cmaukonen likes him."


    There's so much here, so forgive me for focusing on two observations that I think are central to your thesis, if not central to this post.  I love your take on education being something you do to yourself, not something that's done to you.  This is why, as you say, we so often don't notice the powerful self-made intellects of the inner city or in smaller communities outside of the mainstream.  When judging intellect, we take short cuts.  "He must be smart if he teaches at Princeton, or went to Harvard or has a show on NPR," we say.  "He wrote a book!" we say.

    There's a scene in Annie Hall where Alvy Singer (the Woody Allen character) has lost the love of his life to a romantic rival in LA.  He wanders the streets complaining to random strangers.  He remarks that she left him for an idiot.  "He graduated Harvard," counters one passer-by.  "Hey," he says.  "Harvard makes mistakes, too.  Kissinger taught there."

    The Ivy League has gotten this country into a lot of wars, hasn't it?  I don't recall any recent wars that were the result of a clamoring from the streets of Oakland, New York or Chicago.  New York City after 9/11 was remarkable to me for the absence of bellicosity.

    Of course, the people who know they will fight the next war, rather than direct it from afar, can be better trusted to pick their battles with care.  This, to me, is one of the better points that Al Sharpton has made over the last decade.

    Ultimately, following people based on their credentials rather than the substance of their words and thoughts, is a path that leads you right where you don't want to go -- fighting somebody else's battles, for reasons they might never even feel they have to fully explain to you.  It's a tendency that makes one vulnerable to fascism.

    I don't think you're unduly fixated on West.  When a "public intellectual" has an outsized influence that you think is negatively affecting society (I have my issues with David Brooks, Thomas Friedman, the whole TED thing and Malcolm Gladwell) then you have to at least say something about it.  You have to try to counter their influence.

    As West is your focus rather than mine, I'm not so qualified to argue the specifics.  But given the state of things and where our recognized intellectuals have led us, I think it'd be foolish not to side with the critics.


    Destor23,

     

    If I might, I'd like to urge you to generalize the focus of this comment and publish this sentiment as an article. People need to hear this point of view, because as you point out, we've got to come together and counter this madness:

     

    Flight Suit George

    The revisionists are out in force in an attempt to rewrite history regarding the rein of George W. Bush as president of the United States. But fortunately, the internet is brutally tenacious in recording how the vast majority of Americans really feel about this eminently corrupt and incompetent abomination of American governance. So let us set the record straight--not for vengeance, but for posterity:

    Oh,
    Sweet patriot, square of jaw, and demeanor of great command, you fearlessly stand in defense of America, and the savior of all God’s chosen men. Anointed by God as his personal envoy to all men, corrupt and blind, and charged with the swift and brutal destruction of heathens of other kind.

    You stand vigilant against all our enemies, both foreign and imagined within; you vigorously guard against all that is evil, and all that you see as sin. You define God’s needs and precious values, in the most unambiguous tones, and never once have you erred on behalf of truth, to reveal “God’s values” as indeed your own.

    You lead our troops in fearless glory, challenging Death to “Bring it on!” Never thrusting your sword on the field of battle, fearlessly leading the charge by phone.

    Oh,
    Sweet patriot, square of jaw, and demeanor of great command, how selfless your will to guard America . . .

    While hating the pillars upon which it stands.
     

    http://wattree.blogspot.com/2009/03/flight-suit-george.html


    I like it. Seriously. I think all our leaders should be looked at with such a clear eye as you demonstrate here describing Bush.


    Lulu,

    I agree - and Bush is not the only one I'm having a problem with in that regard. We've got to follow truth wherever it leads, and regardless to whose ox it gores. If we're ever going to make this country what it professes to be, we're going to have to start thinking like that.


    Bueno.


    I applaud your tenacity and unyielding informative, documented critiques.  It's refreshing to see one who, based  on factual research and regard for the wellbeing of our 'senses', doesn't hit and run, but keeps reminding us of how important it is to stay the course. 

    If only more would do the same, IMO, many of those who lie, spin and misrepresent would no longer be spewing their falsehoods to the masses.  And that would be a very good thing for us and ours.

    Thank you.


    Thank you so much, Aunt Sam.

     

    And here I was thinking I was just a crabby, aging hood rat. Thanks for placing my angry sentiment in an honorable perspective. 

     

    E


    I only hope that more will express outrage, anger isn't enough. 


    A minor point of query:

    Barack Obama "came out of the hood"? (childhood & adolescence in Indonesia & Hawaii)

    Langston Hughes "came out of the hood"? (childhood & adolescence in small midwestern towns)

    How do you define "hood"?

    That said, I often enjoy reading your West bashing, I find it amusing, the same as I get a kick out of Richard Day's winger-talking-points bashing. While it's true that a writer with a fixation can often grow tiresome, you don't have to read every example to enjoy some of it.


    Artappraiser,

    I don't define the world in terms of race. I've long since recognized that we're knee-deep in a class war, so when I speak of 'the hood' I'm not so much referring to a Black enclave as I am the existential experience of the poor and middle class in this country:

     

    The Hood Rat

    I’m sure you know I love you;

    You’re everything I need.

    You fit the bill of all my desires,

    a perfect match for all my dreams.

    You’re everything I’ve always craved,

    that luscious vision from across the tracks;

    that delicate flower, just beyond my grasp,

    and here you are at last.

    *

    But what you ask is foreign to me;

    You need something that I'm not.

    You said, if I'd tweak my nature, just a bit,

    you’ll give everything you’ve got.

    *

    But that "tweak" you need is who I am;

    It's my essence, can't you see?

    You want to abolish the hood rat from my life,

    the very thing that makes me, me.

    *

    While a hood rat may seem trite to you,

    a hood rat’s what you see;

    So forget about what the other’s say -

    here’s what it means to me:

    *

    I’ve been brutally dragged through the pits of Hell,

    yet, managed to survive,

    well educated and fully functional,

    when I came out the other side.

    *

    I scrounged the lessons taught at Harvard,

    because knowledge, I found, was free;

    But Harvard can't teach the lessons I've learn -

    that knowledge is unique to me.

    *

    While they've heard the sounds of a mournful Trane,
    and Miles moaning in the night,

    not against the backdrop of hunger and pain,

    or injustice, hatred, and blight.

    *

    Yet, these are the things you want me to purge,

    and spurn the life I’ve led;

    Well, I’m sorry sweet thing, as much as I love you,

    the soul of a hood rat is my edge.

    http://wattree.blogspot.com/2012/02/hood-rat-poem.html

     

     

     


    More of us share the hood than we're commonly told.


    Destor,

     

    That is exactly the point of everything I write.


    Re: Wal-mart. 

    #1. Hilary Clinton was a Board member for years. She was also a Board member of Lafarge, one of the most corrupt global corporations I know of. 

    #2. Michelle Obama was a board member of TreeHouse Foods, a $2 billion corporation whose #1 customer was... Wal-Mart. They make fabulous food products by the way, things like non-dairy creamer, salad dressing, etc. 

    So, ummmmm, whatever.

    Right? 


    But Rose Law firm & Vince Foster... and uh Sarajevo! 


    Ummmmmm, But West is the one who talks about folks who are black mascots and puppets of the corporate plutocrats

    So, whatever whatever 


    On May 14, during an AFL-CIO forum in Trenton, N.J., Sen. Obama was asked about Wal-Mart. “I won’t shop there,” he said. 

    So, you know, a shout out to the grand sniffers-out-of-hypocrisy and men of real learning and balance, how about you jump on that. 

    Whatever.


    Too easy

    Michelle Obama got WalMart on board with her healthy food initiative. WalMart supported the Affordable Care mandate for it's employees, breaking ranks with other companies. WalMart is a leader in energy conservation. It has taken a lead in carbon emission reduction and sustainability.

    Along with The President's comments, Michelle Obama resigned from the board of. WalMart supplier and the Hillary Roham Clinton campaign gave back a political contribution from WalMart. A great deal is different from 2007 when the President made his comment.

    WalMart has remained solidly against unions, so it is in no way perfect.But it has changed some after criticism by the President, First Lady and Secretary of State.

    Smiley and West have done nothing.

    What else ya got?


    Interesting when all the facts are known how it completely changes the 'story'!

    Good job.  Thanks.


    Thanks, but in truth, I was thrown a softball. 

    We still  need to repair the damage being done to people in unions to combat those other people (the corporations).


    Try to stay on target, ok? Labour. Wages. Walmart. 

    Hilary did precisely nothing in regard to Walmart and labour, wages, etc. (Neither did Michelle, through her supplier firm.)

    Now, it's a nice red herring - Walmart's actions on energy conservation and all. But - and this IS the field I work in - this had nothing to do with your friends (who were there 13 years earlier.) The simple fact is, Walmart can make money, big money, by saving energy. Plus it also makes them look good.

    But it has nothing to do with the wages they pay and how they treat unions. 

    As for Michelle's healthy food initiative, you ARE kidding right? I'm glad she's doing that positive, can do, 1st Lady thing, and glad she chose food, don't get me wrong, But this is a person who happily joined the board of a company that produces unhealthy slop, I mean NON-DAIRY CREAMER AND SALAD DRESSING, and did so because she could make/take $50-$100,000 a year for it. And she didn't budge until her husband went after Walmart, which he only did because it chopped Hilary off at the knees. As for Walmart signing on to reduce their salt and transfat usage over 5 years, voluntarily, let's just say there are a lot of companies who do voluntary things like this, and they're not grand sacrifices or big steps. If anything, they just stave off stronger action.  

    In sum, the Walmart connections and attacks, on each side, Clinton and Obama, had nothing to do with principle. So please, let's not pretend.

    If you all want to attack Smiley and West for this, that's fine. They may well be hypocrites. But people who attack them for their Walmart links, while defending Obama and Clinton?

    That's a laugh. 

    Anyway. I'll step back after this comment, as you remain someone I have no desire to engage with. My mistake. Have a nice day.


    I know it's frustrating.Walmart made changes. You argue that Barack Obama made a statement and Michelle resigned from the board of a subsidiary which is exactly what I said. Now you out you spin on why she resigned and expect everyone to buy into your story. You write a script based on your bias and consider it brilliant.

    I said that Obama made a comment about Walmart. Michelle resigned from the board of a subsidiary. That's fact. Hillary Clinton sent back a political donation from WalMart. That's a fact. You respond with a fairy tale.

    Before you run away. Why did WalMart sign on with the Affordable Care Act.I think you're going to shock by saying they are acting in their own corporate interest to save money. Isn't that part of the rationale for the ACA to get employers to sign on to the program to have people covered?

    I get it, Barack is bad. Michelle is bad and Hillary is bad.

    WalMart  is taking a stand on the ACA which is the first baby step to single payer. That's bad too.

    I know you've done your rant. You've given your opinion. Now you've run away.Very mature.


    1. I said Michelle resigned because Barack attacked Walmart. Apparently, that view is "biased." Apparently, the fact that she resigned 8 days after her husband said he wouldn't shop there was completely unrelated. Gee. I must just be naive and untutored in these things then. Thanks for the heads up.

    2. Hillary Clinton returned a $5,000 political donation. That's a fact. However, it is also a fact that she sat on their Board for years, and earned millions of $$$ worth of monies and stock options, according to the press. She didn't return any of them. I guess for some people, returning the $5,000 washes the rest away. I guess for me not to think so means I believe in fairytales. Oddly, I'm not sure the Walmart workers would agree.

    3. I don't go around making 100% sweeping judgments of Barack, Michelle or Hillary. For instance, I've already said I would vote for them over the GOP monsters, and that there are various of their policies I liked (like their green energy policies.) So for you to say I simply think they're "bad" is not my words or opinion, they're yours. Thing is, I have no problem at all seeing mud on my political heroes and heroines. I loved Jack Layton, but thought the media was probably correct for dinging him about going to rub 'n tug massage parlours. I loved Ken Livingstone, but thought his staff were too Trot, and he was too friendly with developers, and yes, he probably did push that photographer down those stairs. I loved Bill Clinton but he liked women too much, was waaaay too soft on the big MNC's, and later on.... got a bit lost in the land of the Lear Jets. 

    I have no problem saying and thinking these things. Same with pretty much all my heroes. From ML King to Nietzsche, Bob Dylan to Thomas Wolfe, Jim Ryun to Christine Sinclair. I don't need to write columns or blogs like this one, or get hooked into defending nonsensical positions because I have some purist stance on my politicians.

    In my books, that's at the heart of becoming politically mature.

    See, your pose on here is that since you don't swear online, you're somehow more adult, more fact-based. But you told me long ago how you'd pretty much say anything to goad people into getting angry. That was part of your street schtick. Remember? 

    And here you are, doing it again. You're the adult, the mature one, fact-based. Whereas I'm "ranting," immature, biased telling fairy tales, the one who runs away.

    Sorry, perhaps you've mistaken me. I'm not running away. You don't run away from putz's. You walk away.

    Because nothing good comes from arguing with them. 

    So please do go ahead and say what you like, I'm returning to my default position - putz avoidance. Glad we had this little chat.

    You have a fine day now. 


    I will have a very nice day. I have been very blessed. You have no problem participating in tag team commentary on Wattree's post.Then you get upset when someone disagrees with your position. You regurgitate the fact that Michelle left the company after The President made his statement. You present what had already been said as some amazing new revelation. Amazing. WalMart says that they reached out to the East Wing because of Michelle Obama. If the commitment holds up it is likely that other grocers will follow WalMart's lead. A definite plus.

    Hillary must return all her earnings from the board to meet your criteria for absolution. I find it a ridiculous criteria., but to each his own.

    Then you give a litany of some of the people you have judged. This is done to suggest others don't do similar things. Most of he time if  when we write about MLK, we write about his great work in Civil Rights, we leave off the womanizing part because we are talking about Civil Rights.

    You want us the believe that WalMart just out of the blue decided to work with Michelle Obama.WalMart magically decided to support the Affordable Care Act just as a coincidence.

    I have no problem with your judging people. The problem is your absolute refusal to believe that they participated in things that were good. WalMart's position on ACA  was just magic.

    You launch into your usually practice of name-calling. The reason that I think naming calling and profanity is futile is a remnant from my youth.We paid a game called the "Dozens". You would point out a defect in an opponent by physical feature in the person or a family member ("Your Mama") or something the person had done and make fun of that item. You were victorious when you got the other person to spew out a series of irrational statements or better yet, cry. PROS profanity-laced response with tears best the Gold medal.

    As I grew older, I saw that people who had to resort to name-calling and profanity realized that their arguments were jumbled and pointless. The best result was if you got an opponent to criticize you for objecting to profanity and name-calling as a "schtick" even as they resorted to their usual tired pattern of name-calling and/or profanity. It remained a sign of victory.

    Thanks for resorting to your default position. It was predictable.


    And you're proud of this? This Dozens routine? As an adult, you're proud of this children's game?

    Anyway. You've told me all this before. Remember? Only last time, you used it to justify why you felt great, even though you'd just been on a public forum calling me pro-slavery and supporting statements about how I'd like to have owned slaves.

    A black man - and yet you were willing to talk trash like that. To lie, like that. About that subject. Slavery. To use it as a part of a "game," where you felt you would "win", and be "victorious," in debate, if you could make me angry. 

    That's what blew me away, rmrd. That's what really blew my mind. How you think somehow that a rapper who talks about "whores" and "bitches" is lower than you - when you'd knowingly abuse the single most brutal period of African American history, to score points.

    It'd be like a Jew making Holocaust cracks at me, about me being a Nazi, to try and make me mad. 

    Well... in your terms, I guess you won. And from discussing it with you afterward, you said you felt great. Still do today. And nobody on here since has understood why I was so furious with you. Good for you, I guess. Fooled 'em all.   

    But I told you then, and I'll tell you now. Not once, not ever, has anyone on the internet behaved that poorly, hit that low, on me. Of all the scum out here, you managed to bet them all. Congrats.

    And you see, you did all that, with no idea what my life, in relation to black people, has involved. You would trash me like that, and be proud of it, as though you were still playing a kid's game. Your Dozens thing. But you see, I have a history you know nothing about, in relation to black people, and politics and South Africa. In the 1980's. When it was very violent. And very gloomy. And looked like it was a long way from being won. And I played my role, and I'm proud of it, and proud of what I risked, and why.

    But then, to have a seemingly educated, Democratic Party-supporting man, on a liberal'ish web-site, say that sort of stuff, and then brag about it to me, how he got my goat, and be proud? 

    Any such man, who would behave as you did, and who is still today gloating about his "victory?" Is a man not worth engaging with. 


    I thought you went away. You are predictable. A Pavlov dog.


    We are not going to rehash old discussions. People have moved on. The current discussion is about Tavis Smiley and Cornel West. Barack Obama, Michelle Obama were brought into the discussion. I referred you to an article that I felt offered a different point of view. You find things to dislike in The President, Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton. I saw that WalMart may be responding to actions taken by the aforementioned individuals. We disagree. That is the current discussion.

    I will not be rehashing the Slavery issue. You felt hurt and insulted, so did I. Our constant return to the issue damaged this website. The blogs have been better since that discussion was put to rest. That is the end of my discussion with you on that topic. You have the power to keep a sore from festering. I have healed and moved on.

    Have a nice day.