The President is a disaster!!!! So says Dr. West......

[Professor C. L. Sanders]

Dr. Cornel West in calling the President a disaster is no surprise. Afterall, when one considers that he was the preeminent intellectual who everyone admired and talked about, next to his sidekick Tavis Smiley. Now here comes that darn Senator from Illinois who had the audacity to become the President! Now they are not getting as much attention as they used to receive. So what do you do to counter that reality? You attack the perceived opponent with old issues that should have been addressed years ago but were never discussed. Issues like poverty-been around for over 50 years but under the Obama presidency, you have a poverty tour! Interestingly enough, there was the State of Black America where the issues that plagued black america was discussed, a book was published by Tavis smiley but no solutions have been proposed to the Obama administration, only complaints from jealous schoolboys who cannot handle their emotions. Where were this dynamic tag team during the Bush administration? Where were they during the torture of prisoners of america? where were they when Troy Davis was murdered? Where were they when the hate language and subtle calls for the assassination of our President over the past 3.5 years took place? Where were they when Newt called the President a food stamp president? Maybe they can weigh in on these questions or admit that they are jealous of the success of another intellectually astute black man who transcends race and is trying to help others and is not sitting in his ivory tower and condescending to the less fortunate. Jealousy is an ugly thing and America will always remember their labor of hate.

[Sandra Phillips]

I agree with you Jonathan!

Jonathan Brown said:

Ok, I'd like to jump in here. 

I'm not going to even pretend to get in the middle of the "discourse" going on between the OP and Brother Wilson. 

To respond to the professor on your OP.

I am not sure where Dr. West and Brother Smiley have been in the last 3.5 years. I will not have an answer that satisfies, mainly because I am neither Dr. West or Brother Smiley. To be honest, I don't even think the point matters that they were or were not doing something 5 or 7 years ago. What does matter, however, is that they are doing something. There are plenty of black "leaders" that have sat by passively allowing so many ills ravage their communities. 

These two men are only 2 men. We should honestly be asking where was I. I'll start....Where have I been in the last 3.5 years when I could have been lobbying? I was at my jon, where we work with low-income first generation kids that seek to acquire a college degree, and aided them through the process to where they have low or NO debt. 

We all need to do our parts. The only difference between leaders and the others in the black community is that some wait to be lead; while others lead before there are ever followers. I don't know where Dr. West and Brother Smiley were, but it doesn't matter. We have to be accountable for ourselves, and document what we were doing and where we plan to be in the fight for our communities. 

[Deborah Dills]

Obama is a real live disaster:

Just click on the light colored boxes to go to next slide:

http://whatinthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

[Christine R. Rickett]

Sanders and Wilson,

It is just my observation about the two of you.

I am trying to get an education so that I can help my people. You two seem to have yours and instead are using your interlectual energies to debate each other.

I spoke with T. C. Vivian, the 1960"s civil rights activist this weekend about Martin Luther Kings strategies back then. I told him we have more educated minorities today than back then and so we should have more strategies.

Yes, I am purposely leaving out what he said.

You two would serve us without an education well if you two put your heads together and come up with some strategies like the Tea Party has.

We all have heard that a divided house "FALLS".  They don't care about America, because their emotions are so wrapped around their hatred of a black man in the white house. It's like the war of the Roses. They just want the President Obama to "FALL".  It's just like a husband and wife fighting and they won't be happy until no one gets the house because it has burned to the ground and gone.  The Republicans want the United States to be too afraid to ever appoint a black man to the White House again, because they want people to believe a black man is incompentent, which is the same reason why it was forbidden in the past during slavery for blacks to learn how to read or write. It is also the reason why if a Tea Party President gets into office, the education system will be attacked. They don't ever want a black man in office again.

So, they have banded together in every state, getting rid of every "wife" who will compromise with her "husband", so the house will "FALL", and they will put in place "prostitutes", to take down the man. We can read about it in the bible with "Solomon". Then they will put in as "Head" who they want.

It is for this same reason that the "EAST" Muslims nations don't like "Caucations", because they have a history of dividing and conquering people.

Are you two showing signs of division?

When was the last time you two read Co-intell pro?

We need our intellectuals, "like you two", putting your heads together to come up with "solutions", and "STRATEGIES" to get us to those "Solutions".

Thank you so much for your time!

 

james wilson said:

Professor,

So what I understand you to be saying is I do "not have a grasp on intellectual discourse" in my dissecting your zealotry, but you do have such a grasp in presenting a stream of delirious, emotional, baseless, nonsense.

Those like me, you wrote in your latest response, have always had a place in our history: "It is on the plantation in the massah's house doing his bidding for him." In my crisis of sanity post, I wrote how people like yourself are supporting Right-Wing social policies (outlined in my above post), and Neoliberal economic policies that result in the enriching of the already rich, under the guise of market deregulation and tax cuts (Dec. 2010) for the already rich, while imposing austerity on the already poor.  I further stated that your ilk support these policies while believing that such support is in opposition to these policies because the policies have been associated (stimulus-paired) with a personality of cult- worship via a scientific process of behavioral modification known as classical conditioning. 

Given this theoretical model, it is predictable that your derisive, delusional, statements of " massah's house," and other nonsense would be leveled at those who oppose such policies, while those who support and implement such policies (some who actually live in massah's house) would be considered heroes and good for "our people." This, you steadfastly contend, despite the "disastrous" impact of the policies on African American communities. You view the situation upside down. Unfortunately, situational delirium will not allow you to do an assessment to determine things otherwise. So you are content in assigning guilt to the innocent, and innocence to the guilty. But that's fine with me. Such behavior on your part only serves to substantiate the veracity of my assessment of your mind state, as evidenced by your behavior.

Please be advised that you will be challenged every time you come on this site trying to reinforce zealotry delirium by exhorting ad hominems (in an avoidance of policy facts) and unprovable, abstract, allegations. If you thought you'd have an easy ride, think again. You can whine "foul" all you want to. You might want to seek reassignment, because it's too hot for you over here. Tell Sharpton to send you some place else.

By the way, you never did state what subjects you teach. And as far as name calling goes, I've never name called anyone. My use of the terminology zealotry delirium is not name calling. It is a diagnostic impression, consistent with an established criteria-set, universally used to classify your (and other) psycho-political behavior. Given this, my behavior in this regard is consistent not only with the principles of psycho-political analysis, but "civil debate" as well. You should be the first to know that, your being a "professor" and all.

I'm listening. Please, tell me more. Or, more accurately, please provide further proof of my thesis as outlined in : "Is there a Crisis of Sanity in Much of Today's Black America?" You do an excellent job in that regard.

Please, tell me more.

 

[Christine R. Rickett]

Last thing,

During the "Great Depression", President Roosevelt put in place things to help the common man. He never got the chance to put "Health Care" in place because he took ill. You both know that it was at this time in history blacks turned from Republicans to Democrats. Every Democrat legislature has tried to put it in place since then in honor of Roosevelt to honor him. Republicans were angry since that time because that president and his wife Elenor was on the side of the poor and middle class and not big business and their policies brought America out of the 25% "Great Depression".

Republicans "Big Business Tea Party Republicans" can't stand the fact the the President and first black one managed to get it through on their watch!  That's why it is so important for them to take it "DOWN".

The health care is "SYMBOLIC", OF Roosevelt. Lincoln and Rooselvelt. Rooselvelt was a Progressive and opposite of "Darwinism".

America will become as the "Roman Empire" if it continues. It will make the terriorist "very happy".

The Tea Party is the terrorist within and are too blind by hatred to see it.

 

[james wilson]

Ms. Rickett,

Thank you for your feedback. I salute your courage in stating your thoughts.

However, I believe the exchanges between Mr. Sanders and I are very educational. If by education you mean the truth.

Mr. Sanders consistently attacks with false ad hominem rumors the character of the hosts, simply because they have expressed disagreement with presidential policies. They have expressed their policy disagreement in defense of the poor. I support their work in that regard. Why then should I remain silent and allow him to obfuscate facts with ad hominem delusions under the cover of his being a "professor"? 

True education begins with understanding facts. And truly educated people have the responsibility to challenge lies. And if lies are not lies, then there ought to be evidence some where to establish them as facts.  He should know this better than most people, his being a professor and all. Therefore, the professor's propensity to spread rumors about people with malice prepense (just because they advocate for the poor and disagree with his idol of personality-cult worship) is unacceptable.

I will continue to appropriate challenge him.

You referenced Dr. King. Dr. King fought for the poor. He loved people, but he hated poverty. He hated war, and understood that it drained resources away from the fight against poverty. As quiet as it's kept, Smiley and West are perhaps the only two well known voices of today standing in the tradition of Dr. King in their anti-poverty advocacy. Were Dr. King here today physically, I am certain -- beyond the possibility of contradiction -- that he would be standing with Smiley and West; as millions of decent people are doing.

Others mouth about Dr. King, but disrespect his legacy by hustling and cunning their way to fame and fortunate--for sale to the highest bidder. Whether that bidder is a "pay-day-loan" shark preying on poor Blacks, Comcast cable company co., privatizing the schools, or insincere politicians (unlike the professor's, these charges are documented). No wonder they refer to Dr. King's legacy as a "dream." Legacies are to be adhered, dreams are for the asleep.

Finally, you wrote that passing "health Care" was the fulfilment of FDR's dream. I don't think so!

FDR was a Democrat. The Democratic versions of health care reform, "single-payer," or, at least, a "public option," were not allowed to be discussed doing the debate of 2009. The only plan the president allowed for discussion was the Right-Wing Republican (AKA RomneyCare) version which gives Wall Street 40 million additional customers by force of law. And if anyone doesn't pay Wall Street, they will be punished by a tax fine of thousands of dollars. FDR would be ashamed of such a thing.

They try to sell it by claiming that it prevents insurance companies from denying coverage for "preexisting conditions," but don't tell people that they will still be denied payment if they do not tell insurance companies about preexisting conditions, even if the patient didn't know about the condition. (Look it up.) And how will insurance companies know about "pre-existing conditions"? Health care systems will have a universial computer data bank system. Remember? Or, were you paying attention?

What we need is a Democratic version of health care reform that addresses sky rocketing costs that often leads to bankruptcy. The current Republican version, which was concocted by The ultra Right-Wing Hertiage Foundation and pushed through out the 1990s by the likes of Newt Gingrich, et., al., provides no fundalmental change the status quo.

No matter which decision the High Court reaches, the fundamental issue of real health care reform will not be addressed, becuase it was never passed.

You also mentioned the "Tea Party." There is no such thing. That charade was / is strictly a media (Fox News) creation. They played the role of distracting from real health care reform while working for the Wall Street finance, insurance, and real-estate (FIRE) industries.

And the part about their not wanting to see a Black man in the White House and all that--that's their problem. Not mine. African Americans have our own issues that we should be concerned about: Unemployment (that destroys individuals and families); Home foreclosures (that destroys inter-generational wealth building); increasing federal incarceration budgets, rather than prevention programs (of which jobs are a fundamental component); protecting free primary / secondary education (which won't be free if schools are given to Wall Street), etc.

These are issues that must be confronted and resolved no matter which Republican wins in November. Whether it's a republican that some whites don't like and we do, or a Republican we don't like but some whites do.

Again, thank you for your feedback.

[james wilson]

james wilson said:

Ms. Rickett,

Thank you for your feedback. I salute your courage in stating your thoughts.

However, I believe the exchanges between Mr. Sanders and I are very educational. If by education you mean the truth.

Mr. Sanders consistently attacks with false ad hominem rumors the character of the hosts, simply because they have expressed disagreement with presidential policies. They have expressed their policy disagreement in defense of the poor. I support their work in that regard. Why then should I remain silent and allow him to obfuscate facts with ad hominem delusions under the cover of his being a "professor"? 

True education begins with understanding facts. And truly educated people have the responsibility to challenge lies. And if lies are not lies, then there ought to be evidence some where to establish them as facts.  He should know this better than most people, his being a professor and all. Therefore, the professor's propensity to spread rumors about people with malice prepense (just because they advocate for the poor and disagree with his idol of personality-cult worship) is unacceptable.

I will continue to appropriately challenge him.

You referenced Dr. King. Dr. King fought for the poor. He loved people, but he hated poverty. He hated war, and understood that it drained resources away from the fight against poverty. As quiet as it's kept, Smiley and West are perhaps the only two well known voices of today standing in the tradition of Dr. King in their anti-poverty advocacy. Were Dr. King here today physically, I am certain -- beyond the possibility of contradiction -- that he would be standing with Smiley and West; as millions of decent people are doing.

Others mouth about Dr. King, but disrespect his legacy by hustling and cunning their way to fame and fortunate--for sale to the highest bidder. Whether that bidder is a "pay-day-loan" shark preying on poor Blacks, Comcast cable company co., privatizing the schools, or insincere politicians (unlike the professor's, these charges are documented). No wonder they refer to Dr. King's legacy as a "dream." Legacies are to be adhered, dreams are for the asleep.

Finally, you wrote that passing "health Care" was the fulfilment of FDR's dream. I don't think so!

FDR was a Democrat. The Democratic versions of health care reform, "single-payer," or, at least, a "public option," were not allowed to be discussed doing the debate of 2009. The only plan the president allowed for discussion was the Right-Wing Republican (AKA RomneyCare) version which gives Wall Street 40 million additional customers by force of law. And if anyone doesn't pay Wall Street, they will be punished by a tax fine of thousands of dollars. FDR would be ashamed of such a thing.

They try to sell it by claiming that it prevents insurance companies from denying coverage for "preexisting conditions," but don't tell people that they will still be denied payment if they do not tell insurance companies about preexisting conditions, even if the patient didn't know about the condition. (Look it up.) And how will insurance companies know about "pre-existing conditions"? Health care systems will have a universial computer data bank system. Remember? Or, were you paying attention?

What we need is a Democratic version of health care reform that addresses sky rocketing costs that often leads to bankruptcy. The current Republican version, which was concocted by The ultra Right-Wing Hertiage Foundation and pushed through out the 1990s by the likes of Newt Gingrich, et., al., provides no fundalmental change the status quo.

No matter which decision the High Court reaches, the fundamental issue of real health care reform will not be addressed, becuase it was never passed.

You also mentioned the "Tea Party." There is no such thing. That charade was / is strictly a media (Fox News) creation. They played the role of distracting from real health care reform while working for the Wall Street finance, insurance, and real-estate (FIRE) industries.

And the part about their not wanting to see a Black man in the White House and all that--that's their problem. Not mine. African Americans have our own issues that we should be concerned about: Unemployment (that destroys individuals and families); Home foreclosures (that destroys inter-generational wealth building); increasing federal incarceration budgets, rather than prevention programs (of which jobs are a fundamental component); protecting free primary / secondary education (which won't be free if schools are given to Wall Street), etc.

These are issues that must be confronted and resolved no matter which Republican wins in November. Whether it's a republican that some whites don't like and we do, or a Republican we don't like but some whites do.

Again, thank you for your feedback.

[Christine R. Rickett]

Mr. Wilson,

One thing I have learned over my life time, and that is to not argue with people when they are determined to believe what they believe and their minds are made up. I consider my energies valuable and try to take it where it can be used in a positive way.

And name calling among intellectuals is not proper. It's a sign of immaturity and doesn't matter how old the person is. I have a big sister who can make a person feel small, and she scares people, but she never calls them a name or put them down, and she do not have a BA or MA. She knows how to make people look small with kind but strong words. Nice and nasty at the same time. She leaves people looking confused. They are angry but she was too nice for them to jump on her.

The point I was making about the two of you is that both of you are "VERY" intelligent. You too can surely come together on some common ground. African Americans are plagued by many things and surely you two can not only agree on some things but even figure out some strategies to solutions.

Everyone may not agree on the solutions, but they should respect each other for having a solution, because many people complain but offer "no solution".  According to T.C. Vivian, if a person has a solution, they must work out a strategy to accomplish it.

The Tea Party has. We have black intellectuals in America working hard to educate young black men, in business skills and other areas. Their strategy is educating.

What about intellectuals in other areas? Are there other areas black intellectuals can be to work at in building black communities instead of spending time tearing another black intellectual down?

One black barber could be the greatest in his profession, but he will tear down a black grocer, and the black grocer could have the best products in town, but he will tear down the black bowling alley owner, and that owner will tear down the black sheriff and the sheriff will tear down the black elected officials, and so our we wonder why there are black on black crimes with our youths.  If all they see is black "intellectuals" treating each other with disrespect, how do they know what brotherly love look like?

That is why we have black on black crime. They see black on black crime - "hi-tech" lynching among black intellectuals.

We always tell children to do one thing and complain that they don't, but they do what they see being done by those who are suppose to be role models.

That saying "Let's agree to disagree" is great, and it should be done with respect because that is what the youths are looking at.

 

[Christine R. Rickett]

Black women commit black on black crime too. When I see black women attacking President Obama, I wonder what her man is doing for the community or country or if she even has one. Some women don't have a happy or meaningful life, so they gossip and put forth negative things and get all tangled up about what another woman husband is doing, instead of doing good things in their communities.

Christine R. Rickett said:

Mr. Wilson,

One thing I have learned over my life time, and that is to not argue with people when they are determined to believe what they believe and their minds are made up. I consider my energies valuable and try to take it where it can be used in a positive way.

And name calling among intellectuals is not proper. It's a sign of immaturity and doesn't matter how old the person is. I have a big sister who can make a person feel small, and she scares people, but she never calls them a name or put them down, and she do not have a BA or MA. She knows how to make people look small with kind but strong words. Nice and nasty at the same time. She leaves people looking confused. They are angry but she was too nice for them to jump on her.

The point I was making about the two of you is that both of you are "VERY" intelligent. You too can surely come together on some common ground. African Americans are plagued by many things and surely you two can not only agree on some things but even figure out some strategies to solutions.

Everyone may not agree on the solutions, but they should respect each other for having a solution, because many people complain but offer "no solution".  According to T.C. Vivian, if a person has a solution, they must work out a strategy to accomplish it.

The Tea Party has. We have black intellectuals in America working hard to educate young black men, in business skills and other areas. Their strategy is educating.

What about intellectuals in other areas? Are there other areas black intellectuals can be to work at in building black communities instead of spending time tearing another black intellectual down?

One black barber could be the greatest in his profession, but he will tear down a black grocer, and the black grocer could have the best products in town, but he will tear down the black bowling alley owner, and that owner will tear down the black sheriff and the sheriff will tear down the black elected officials, and so our we wonder why there are black on black crimes with our youths.  If all they see is black "intellectuals" treating each other with disrespect, how do they know what brotherly love look like?

That is why we have black on black crime. They see black on black crime - "hi-tech" lynching among black intellectuals.

We always tell children to do one thing and complain that they don't, but they do what they see being done by those who are suppose to be role models.

That saying "Let's agree to disagree" is great, and it should be done with respect because that is what the youths are looking at.

 

[james wilson]

I like this poem: http://blackagendareport.com/content/hooked-hopium .

[Professor C. L. Sanders]

Actually i am doing quite a bit. I have written a book predicting how everyone would behave to date after Mr. Obama was elected. I was right. I have never witnessed such vitriole in my life. I teach and mold minds to do their own research instead of listening to rhetoric such as this. I work as a grassroots organizer with the Obama admin. I work as a volunteer with the national action network as a civil rights worker. So yes i am working and talking. One thing that i find interesting is that the cbc has been around for decades but i never heard this issue come up. That is why the Negro will always be ignored and disrespected because they don't respect their own. Advice to many of you look past the words for their deeper meaning.

[james wilson]

Professor,

Thanks again for the treasure trove of evidence supporting the fact that your comments are phony in character and zealous in nature.

Let's dissect your latest one above, as we continue this debate (in love of course).

You wrote: "I teach and mold minds to do their own research instead of listening to rhetoric such as this."

Oh, yeah? Well, do you follow your own teachings when you write slander about the hosts of this site being "jealous," and "haters," and all that kind of crap? Did you arrive at those conclusions as a result of research? If so, what type of research was it; causative-quantitative (hypothesis testing), qualitative (experiential), or simply literature review? And what methodology did you use to determine your conclusions, and what are the limitations of you findings? Moreover, where is your evidentiary source?

What is interesting about zealotry delirium is those afflicted often can't agree on the same abstractions. That's why one finds so many different versions of the same religion-denomination. Political zealotry is consistent with this pattern of inconsistency. For example, you wrote (earlier above) that the administration has an "open door policy" and instead of writing a book, Smiley and West could have simply requested a meeting with the president and it would have been granted and there would have been no need to write a book because the president would have ended poverty if they would have just met with him and made him aware of poverty, etc. At least that was your delusional implication.

But Steve Harvey (your intellectual co-leader and fellow zealot) has another version: "Them there two Uncle Toms jest mad 'cause dee president ain't got time to meet wit' them. They is want ah meeting wit' dee president but him ain't got dee time for they self." (He's gotten super rich imitating Stepn' Fetchit, but he calls others "Uncle Toms.").

Which version is correct, yours or Harvey's?

Do you now see my point? If not, why not?

You also stated that you "have written a book predicting how everyone would behave to date after Mr. Obama was elected," and that you were right because "I have never witnessed such vitriole (sic) in my life."

What confuses me about that statement is your timeline. The election was in November 2008. But as recently as January 3, 2012, while complaining on this site about racist statements by Republican presidential candidates in Iowa and comparing them to Jim Crow lynchings (which I thought was an inappropriate analogy), you wrote: "Just when we thought that America has advanced to the point of getting past hate, race, and classism," etc. That's a contradiction! How could you have predicted the white backlash, and at the same time think that the country had achieved post-racialism?

Do you now see my point, and if not, why not?

You also proudly proclaimed that you are a "volunteer" with the [N]ational [A]ction [N]etwork. This you did right after stating that you teach research. First, you didn't have to tell me that. I'd already assessed that you are a Sharpton operative. That's why I explained above the difference between paid hustlers and zealous volunteers. I also suggested that you ask Sharpton to reassign you to another site.

I have taken great diligence, as a credentialed behavioral / social scientist, in explaining how too many Blacks are working against their own interest while believing that they are working for / in their interest.

You would know this if you really did "research rather than believe in rhetoric," as you accuse others of doing.

Let's briefly discuss that point. Here's some research for you:

In 2004, your "civil rights" leader ran a campaign for U.S. President that was managed, paid for, and otherwise controlled by Roger Stone (See, A GOP trickster rents Al Sharpton, by Joe Canason, Salon.com, Feb. 3, 2004. Also see,Is Bush Covert operative Behind Sharpton's Campaign?; DemocracyNow, 2004). If your "research" hasn't informed you yet who Roger Stone is, I'll help you out--Roger Stone is the Right-Wing Republican who led the fight to have the vote-count in Flordia stopped during the Bush-Gore 2000 election dispute.

You like research? Here's more! A year, or so, ago, your "civil rights" leader was running around the country arm-in-arm, buddy-buddy, with Newt Gingrich claiming to support "better education." What he was really doing was earning a $500,000 salary to assist the administration in handing over the public schools and their $trillion budget to Wall Street (See, among many other sources, Sharpton's $500G link to education reform, New york Daily News, April 1, 2009, by Juan Gonzalez.

You like research, here's more: Your "civil rights" leader has even promoted Pay-Day Loans to poor Blacks. A racket that everyone knows takes advantage of the poor by charging up to 500% interest on desperation loans (See, http://nocredit-required-loans.blogspot.com/2006/02/ sharpton backs away from car loans).

You like research, here's more: Comcast Gives Obama & $500,000 Charter Schools shill Sharpton a Permanent MSNBC Gig, April 29, 2011. (This is an especially informative read.)

In closing, I love you like a brother, man. But I cannot sit idly by and not challenge you when you lie on and distort the truth and reputations of others. And then call others, including me "kneegrows, Uncle Toms," etc., and accuse me of "living in 'Massah's house,' while you worship those who meet the definition of "Uncle Tom," (actualy the updated term is "Sambo") and literally live in Massah's house which has pissed-off a bunch of white folks who argue that a Black has no business living in "massah's house." And that's what this whole thing is about.

Because of their behavior, those you follow contend that African Americans must not speak of our own suffering. That unemployment and poverty, for example, are not big deals because "it has always been that way."

They suggest that we focus on the racist words of nutjobs instead. But if duration is the primary factor (or independent variable) dictating whether or not we respond, and if we should not respond to economic issues because they have "always been that way," but haven't racist attitudes "always been that way"? So why do they advocate responding to racist rants and not Black socioeconomic deprivation?

There can only be one answer--hush money coupled zealotry delirium.

Do you now see my point, if not, why not?

I have made my charges, and supported them with documentation. Since you consider my comments to be "rhetoric", Where's your documentation?

Again, the reason I focus on challenging you is because you claim to be a professor. A claim that you use to validate your nonsense--a fallacious appeal to authority of knowing.

Some have suggested that we work together. But there's nothing we can do together until you get well.

 

 

 

 

 

[Professor C. L. Sanders]

What are you doing to change the atmosphere and public policy. Also since everyone is so enlightened then talk intelligently about romney. Tell us about your civil rights work. Unless you are like many blacks and cannot speak about white men because of fear.