To kneel, or not to kneel
I ask a different question.
For the Party of Intellectualism — you might not get mocked so much if you listened to those who don’t listen to you.
A true intellectual welcomes the truth from friend or foe.
To conform to fact, we must agree that it was watermelon and consider what it means: Maybe nothing, maybe everything. But you pollute the debate when you won’t even acknowledge the irrefutable.
Worse than that — you poison your purpose.
This country needs critical thinking more than ever — and this crap is killing any chance of that.
It’s prejudice by definition
Speaking of prejudice, it’s also against the rules to refuse to take attitude and behavior into account — and how it shapes an outcome. Ya know — the rules you want others to follow when considering your concerns.
Chris Rock hilariously captures a serious part of the problem. The operative word is “part.” It would be preposterous for me to post me this and say: “Lookie here — if only they’d act accordingly, all would be well.”
I don’t do one-dimensional views — just like I don’t do slogans.
You do both — and because of that, you have no chance of ever making serious strides in addressing this problem (which precludes the possibility of solving other problems).
Chris Rock didn’t come up with this sketch out of thin air.
The Yellow Brick Road is the path of America’s pursuits.
When are you gonna come down?
When are you going to land? . . .
I travel a very different road
We cannot solve life’s problems except by solving them. This statement may seem idiotically tautological or self-evident, yet it is seemingly beyond the comprehension of much of the human race. This is because we must accept responsibility for a problem before we can solve it.
What if Kaepernick kneeled and acknowledged that they need to do their part while asking the police to do theirs?
“Hold the phone — you want us to share some responsibility?”
You wanna solve the problem or protest about it?
Kneel, but couple your message with Kobe’s — and you change the dynamics of the discussion.
I won’t react to something just because I’m supposed to, because I’m an African-American. That argument doesn’t make any sense to me. So we want to advance as a society and a culture, but, say, if something happens to an African-American, we immediately come to his defense? Yet you want to talk about how far we’ve progressed as a society? Well, then don’t jump to somebody’s defense just because they’re African-American.
The Right would still fuss over it — but they might cut ya some slack if you’re kneeling with a shared purpose.
Protesting in a wholesale manner shows you’re not serious about recognizing the realities of a problem. It says you want to see it only from your perspective.
That — will never work
Glaringly absent in your efforts is any sense of measurement — and the following quote makes that abundantly clear.
7 years of Black Lives Matter and the increasing level of attention is the first thing that comes to mind as a measure of success?
I actually disagree with your take. I think all 3 (1619, Kaepernick, and BLM) were extremely successful as far as attention being brought to what so many Black Americans have on their collective mind.
I like the gentleman who disagreed with me above. He’s polite, knowledgeable on things I’m not, open-minded, and makes for enjoyable conversation.
And I’m not bothered by his difference of opinion.
He’s held up his end of the bargain by the manner in which he conducts himself. He’s not being dismissive — he’s just not ready to see it yet.
At least he leaves the door open — that’s rarer than unobtainium on Pandora these days.
People don’t want to be informed, they want to feel informed
Nobody who wants to be informed — would consistently show contempt for facts that don’t that conform to their wishes.
As stated on The Yellow Brick Road:
Can you conclude what happened to Trayvon and Michael Brown with the same certainty as the death of George Floyd?
Someone replied that you could.
The gentleman who touted the “extremely successful” impact of BLM, disagrees with John McWhorter’s refrain that anti-racism has become a religion.
What would you call the claim of “someone” above?
It’s a belief entirely based on faith — which is why McWhorter is right:
Anti-racism, as currently configured — has gone a long way from what used to be considered intelligent and sincere civil rights activism. Today it’s a religion.
I don’t care that it’s not an official religion — that it’s organized faith-based belief is close enough.
Faith in what you cannot see is fine for what you find as divine. I respect that — and Ben-Hur is my all-time favorite movie.
Speaking of faith. There’s a kind of religion in believing that as long you keep up the good fight, eventually your message will get through.
No, it won’t — not in a culture where Crap is King.
You can congratulate yourselves by flooding the web with this stuff 24/7/365 — and it won’t make a dent:
I am worried that we lump all these situations in together. And I feel bad the young lady lost her life, but you know — we do have to take into account that her boyfriend did shoot at the cops and shot a cop.
So even though I’m really sorry she lost her life, I don’t think that we can just say we can put this in the same situation with George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery. I just don’t believe that.— Charles Barkley
“We do have to take into account”
For those on the Right:
- You agree that taking information into account is required to make sense of something?
- You agree that faith in the form of fashioning your perception is not a valid basis of belief?
Remember what you agreed to.
And steel is strong because it knew the hammer and white heat
The opening line in my documentary is “The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.” The rest of Orwell’s quote goes as follows:
When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.
America has gone totally off the rails in its worship of the wildly undeserving.
I wrote those words in 2014 — in my doc that was prompted by the aftermath of the Zimmerman verdict. I had just returned from interviewing a world-renowned nuclear scientist as research for my book — when I saw this scene below.
Hannity perfectly framed his “profile” inquiry.
It was so good that it gave me the idea for how I was gonna nail him to the wall with it — applying that profile principle to Dr. Houston Wood (the gold-standard scientist I just mentioned).
Tamara Holder contaminated the discussion by refusing to separate her support for even a second — to simply answer a question with integrity . . .
The great enemy of clear language is insincerity
Speaking of which — the other topic in my documentary deals with subject matter where 10 pages of reading trumps 10,000 hours of TV.
“How could you possibly know that?”
Good question! And with that alone — we’d plant the seeds for this thing called conversation.
Now we’re really goin’ old-school.
Then the ball’s in my court to come through on my claim.
But here’s the deal — once I fulfill my responsibility, you fulfill yours by taking that information account. At the very least . . .
“Just Roll It Around Is All I Ask!”
By all means, bring up your own questions — that’s the beauty of the bargain.
“10,000 hours of TV” is not hyperbole, I did the math — using my paid subscription to Nexis news. Just as my mea culpa should tell you something about me, so too should the specificity from here on out.
Let’s say you watched around 3 hours of news every day over the last decade. All the networks combined wouldn’t come close to what The Washington Post wrote in its August 10th, 2003 article called — Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting Evidence.
“His name was Joe” are the first four words.
Matching Scarborough’s record, the only time Hannity ever uttered the words “aluminum tubes” was in defense of Condoleezza Rice over the cartoon of her nursing the tubes. Clearly the image was racist, but I would think that her record of titanic deception would be of more concern.
Hannity’s co-host Alan Colmes brought up the tubes 9 times between January 29th, 2003 and December 12th, 2005 (8 of which were in Hannity’s presence).
In each instance, Hannity ignored the inquiry or deflected attention elsewhere.
More on the math later.
My doc is 2 hours and 40 minutes. I only need 5 to obliterate the bullshit that Bush apologists believe to this day.
This isn’t something I snatched off the internet — I wrote every word.
Trillion Dollar Tube
[Tuchman] also saw wooden-headedness as a certain proclivity for “acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by facts.” Wooden-headedness, said Tuchman, was finally — “the refusal to benefit from experience.”
Guaranteed, someone’s sitting there dying to inform me on intel investigation findings that “no deliberate lying took place on WMD.”
- It’s laughable that people who latched onto headlines about reports they didn’t read — think they can educate those who did
- Ever heard of the Ombudsman for Politicization at the CIA? Their definition of “politicization” is not what you think.
- Stick around — we’ll get to that. We’ll get to everything.
- I noticed you have a funny way of choosing which investigations you decide to believe
It was a picture perfect wedding
We had the whole world at our feet
Everyone thought we were
Heading down a lovers easy street
We’d have a house out in the country
A picket fence, the whole nine yards
They said our love would last forever
It was written in the stars
I should have known it all along
When the future looks too bright
Can’t be anything but right