Reflections on the Stanley Crouch, Mtume Debate on Modern Jazz

Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

Reflections on the Stanley Crouch, Mtume Debate on Modern Jazz

.

.

I recently watched the debate between columnist Stanley Crouch and percussionist James Mtume on the evolution of modern jazz with great interest. Crouch, the steadfast jazz purist, essentially took the position that much of what’s passing for jazz today is actually a corruption of the art form, while Mtume took the position that Crouch was simply out of touch with the new face of jazz.
.
In my opinion, Stanley Crouch was right, and James Mtume was simply remaining consistent with what his musical philosophy seems to advocate - playing to the audience and giving applause priority over substance. But Crouch made the mistake of not framing the issue in a way that would allow him to sieze the bottom line. It’s not about the new versus the old; what the discussion is actually about is quality versus lesser quality, and that can be measured.
.
First, just because something is new doesn’t mean that it’s better. The problem with a lot of electronic music is electronics is being used to camouflage a lack of technical competence. There’s so much noise and electronic distortion going on that it gives the musicians the "freedom" to play bad notes, be less than melodic, and play musical nonsense. Where, on the other hand, acoustic music is intimate. It’s purely about the musician and his technical ability. Period. If Bud Powell played a bad note, or played the wrong chord progression, it would stick out like a soar thumb. But if he was playing electronic music there’s so much chaos and distortion going on that nobody would notice.

.

.

Mtume was also talking about "technical exhaustion." He said that after a given time, in a given context, everything has been played that can be played in a given form of music. That’s also nonsense - in fact, the ability to do something new with the rhythm and chord progressions of "Stella by Starlight" is exactly what we mean by art.
.

Wattree's Chord Chart

There are only ten basic numbers known to mankind - 0 to 9. Yet we can take those ten numbers and combine them in an inexhaustible number of ways. On the other hand, there are TWELVE notes in music, and just like with numbers, you can build an infinite number of scales, chords, and rhythmic constructions with those twelve notes. So Mtume’s claim that you can "exhaust" the possibilities of what can be played on a saxophone is total and demonstrable nonsense.
.
The fact is, Miles started having problems with his chops so he went into retirement. But he loved music so much that he wanted to get back into the game, so being the genius that he was, he simply INVENTED a form of music that he could play. Then we had a generation of musicians who came along behind him, who didn’t have a vision of their own, that built an entire musical movement based on what Miles created to accommodate his old age and disability.
.
And finally, Mtume justified this "new music" by saying that it inspired young people who weren’t previously into jazz. But the fact is, art is NEVER suppose to lower itself to accommodate the tastes of the lowest common denominator of the people. Art is suppose to raise the consciousness of the people up to it. That’s why it’s called art.

.

.

But the fact is, there’s a very simple way of resolving this debate over the relative merit of this so-called "new thing" over what I'll simply call conventional progressive jazz.  Much like with good parenting, you can measure quality by what quality produces. So we can easily measure the relative quality of the two eras by measuring the quality of what the two respective eras have produced. Where is today’s equivalent of Charlie Parker, Thelonious Monk, Bud Powell, Miles Davis, Dexter Gordon, or Jackie McLean?  And where are today’s jazz standards, like 'So What,' 'Round Midnite,' 'Moody’s Mood for love,' 'Impressions' or 'A Night in Tunisias?' I’ll tell you where - they don't exist.
.
The great jazz standards of the past are no longer being produced because the towering jazz giants who produced them have become all but a thing of the past. I can’t think of one person of the stature of Dexter Gordon, John Coltrane, or Jackie McLean that’s been produced in over thirty years, and there’s a good reason for that - the quality of the music that’s been produced over the past thirty years is not conducive to producing people of that stature and creative ability. That in itself should close the case on this debate.
.

But now let’s look at how young some of the old-school giants of jazz were when they reached their musical maturity. Charlie Christian, the father of the modern jazz guitar - died at 25. Charlie parker - died at 34. Clifford Brown - died at 25. Booker Littler - died at 23. Paul Chambers - died at 33. Fats Navarro - died at 26. So John Coltrane and Eric Dolphy were relatively old men when they died - John Coltrane died at 41, and Eric Dolphy at 36. So many of the giants of the past made their mark on the world and moved on long before many of today’s musicians have even gotten all of their scales together. And there’s a reason for that - because in the past young musicians were held to a much higher standard and exposed to a far superior quality of music and musicianship.

.

The Jazz Crusaders as young up-and-comers

.

The musicians of the Bebop and Hard Bop eras understood from the outset that they weren’t going to get rich playing the music that they loved, so they sought to validate themselves through excellence, while many of today’s musicians are in a hurry to learn their chromatic scale so they can run out and achieve wealth and fame - they figure they can learn to play in Gb Maj while they're on the road. Then they get out and play distorted chord progressions, add a thunderous beat and loud electronic distortion to camouflage their limitations, and label it as "The New Thang." Thereafter, they slap one another on the back as brilliant, and dismiss those of us who recognize it as noise as being "out of touch."
.
So the bottom line is, many of the so-called musical "revolutionaries" never took the time to learn what jazz is really about. Jazz is more than just another form of music, and it's not just fun-n-games. Jazz is also a way of life. There’s a political component to it - a way of thinking that reflects a unique way of viewing reality. So jazz purists are not simply upset over a modified beat and the introduction of electronics, they're also upset over the caving in to mediocrity and the abandonment of the political principles and qualities that jazz represents.
.
After all, one of the greatest contributions that jazz has made to the black community is informing the world that we're not the frivolous and thoughtless people in which we'd previously been portrayed. The harmonic complexity of bebop served to bring the dazzling intellectual capacity of black people to the world stage. So naturally, jazz purist are both reluctant and hostile to going back to the people-pleasin' days of what is essentially a musical form of Steppin'-Fetchism.      
.
Jazz has traditionally been the cultural anthem of social revolutionaries - both Black and White - who are willing to fight the good fight. Thus, jazz purists resent the mongrelization and surrender of those principles in lieu of "Can we all just get along?" To them, that represents the selling of our principles. That's why the word "commercialism" is looked upon with such disdain by those of us who have come to be known as jazz purists. We're not merely fighting to defend our right to be snobs, we're fighting to defend excellence from sliding down the slippery slope of corporate profit and mediocrity; we're fighting for a way of life, and we're fighting a political battle against the dumbing down of America as a whole. Our fight is an essential part of our jazz tradition. It's expected of us, because that's what jazz is all about - pushing the envelop, and never caving in to convention.
.
So you can’t just put a funky beat behind noise and call it jazz, because once you go frivolous, the spirit of jazz has been abandoned. While jazz does kick up it's heels on occasion, it's a very serious form of music that’s designed to appeal to the mind, not just the ass. For that reason, a logical and organized structure is essential to its character. Without that, and it’s arrogantly distinctive swagger, it's not jazz - Period.

.
SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEN AND NOW? 
LOOK AT THE EXPRESSIONS ON THE FACES OF THE OLD-SCHOOLERS BELOW. THEY SAW THEMSELVES AS ARTISTS, NOT COURT JESTERS.

.

.

MILES
.
We knew him as Miles, the Black Prince of style,
his nature fit jazz to a tee.
Laid back and cool,
a low threshold for fools,
he set the tone
of what a jazzman should be.
*
Short on words, and unperturbed, about

what the people thought;
frozen in time, drenched in the sublime,
of the passion his sweet horn had wrought.
*
Solemn to the bone, distant and torn,
even Trane could scarcely get in;
I can still hear the tone of that genius who mourned,
that precious note that he couldn't

quite bend.
*

The old-schoolers had a word for many of the people we're applauding as geniuses today - students.  But the problem is, they can't seem to get beyond that point. 

.

Eric L. Wattree
Http://wattree.blogspot.com
Ewattree@Gmail.com
.
Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

Tavis Smiley and Cornel West: The Reign of Fools is Over

BENEATH THE SPIN * ERIC L. WATTREE

.

Tavis Smiley and Cornel West: The Reign of Fools is Over

.

While I clearly understand that I'm at severe risk of beating a dead horse, I'm still being emailed by a few diehard Cornel West supporters who have been so captivated by his performances over the years that they can't see why he's under such intense criticism. So for their benefit, I thought I'd take the time to do the Mr. Rogers version of current events:

.

The first thing that needs to be made clear is that the current uproar is not in reprisal to West's criticism of President Obama. Every politician bears watching, and that includes Obama. The firestorm against Dr. West was ignited by two factors.  First, many resent the totally disrespectful and hypocritical tone of his criticism. The implication seemed to have been,  "Who does that jigaboo think he is?" And secondly, other critics took offense at the blatantly transparent and self-serving motivation behind West's remarks.
.
Carnel West, along with his buddy, Tavis Smiley, have been using the umbrella approach in criticizing President Obama. Instead of criticizing specific policies when needed, they've been attaking his overall character, and thereby, his fitness to be president as a whole. It must also be understood that long before Obama even became president, Smiley and West suggested that the Black community ask him "how much do you love your people," suggesting, thereby, that he didn't.

.

They've been at this since the day Obama made the mistake of announcing his candidacy for president on the same day that Tavis threw his annual State of the Black Union soirée. In their eyes, what the impudent young Senator Obama did was unforgivable. You see, he engaged in a serious breach of protocol. He was supposed to come kiss Tavis' ring, and get Tavis' blessing as the self-appointed grand potentate of the Black community before he presumed to run for President. How dare he embark on such an ambitious endeavor without paying homage to the Grand Poobah?  So of course, he had to pay a price for these serious breaches of protocol, and President Obama has been under the gun of these two self-appointed icons of the Black community every since.

.
So who are these two iconic giants of the Blackness who see themselves as so important that they can dictate policy to the President of the United States?
.
Tavis Smiley is a television dicjockey with a genius for self-promotion.  He specializes in promoting corporate influence in the Black community in exchange for corporate sponsored tours to promote his books on political accountability.
.
Dr. Cornel West is a self-described "Socratic scholar" with a doctorate that embraces the proposition that Moses parted the Red Sea. He's also renowned for trying to be the coolest person in the room, and taking a long time not to say much. He specializes in telling anyone who will listen, or who happens to have a camera, a mic and an extension cord on hand, about his deep disdain for the oligarchs and corporate plutocrats.  He also has a fondness for the syncopated rhythms of multi syllabic words - he thinks it makes him sound like King Pleasure, so it enhances his street creds. They also serve to mask the vacuous content of his message.
.
So these two impressive personages have now come together as best friends.  They co-host a radio show together, and have declared themselves the self-proclaimed, and hip hop inspired, saviors of the poor, middle class, and minorities. They're sorta like the Dynamic Duo of the hood, or Mutt and Jeff, as it were.

.

.

But there's only one chink in their armor (and as you know, all superheroes have a chink - Superman's was Kryptonite). While Tavis is suppose to be fighting for accountability, and Cornel is suppose to be protecting us from the oligarchs and plutocrats, they're both irretrievably wedded to the very same people they're suppose to be protecting us from.  So they're like Batman and Robin with a crack habit. You see, Tavis is one of the most pronounced corporate shills in the Black community.  He has a tremendous jones for Walmart, Nationwide Insurance, and various other corporate entities.

.

.

Do you really believe that Nationwide is on the side of the Black community, or the poor, or the middle class?  Somehow, I don't think so. So these two superheroes have about as much credibility as a man ranting in the street against fascism after just having lunch with Mussolini.

.

There's a photo on my site of West suckin' up to Obama after the election - and this, after he and Tavis had been doggin' Obama all during the campaign. I haven't seen that kind of skinnin'-n- grinnin' since they took Amos n' Andy off the air. But the look that Obama is giving West says it all. It speaks volumes, and clearly shows that Obama has had West's number for some time. So one has to wonder how West could even have expected tickets to the inaugural or returned phone calls when he'd been jumping back and forth over the fence depending on which way the wind was blowing.

.

.

But I want to make it clear to all those people who think that West should be given a pass in the name of brotherly love, that it is not my intention to be vindictive. While I'm undoubtedly engaging in ridicule, it's not to be mean-spirited. As I see it, we shouldn't waste this disgusting moment in history without benefitting from it in some way.  So I see this as a teaching moment.  This is our opportunity to show our young people the importance of independent thought.  I also see it as an opportunity to demonstrate to all would-be opportunists among us that's it's no longer acceptable to try to demagogue the Black community. That gig has gone the way of the wagon train mechanic.

.

In addition, we should all use this moment as a lesson in why we should never take society's symbols and the accoutrements of knowledge and power at face value. We also need to recognize that we should never give anyone's character or ability to think priority over our own. Once we learn those lessons we'll render ourselves much less vulnerable to political manipulation. 
.
We should walk away from this moment with the clear understanding that Just because a person has letters behind their name, teach at a prestigious university, favor a garbled multi syllabic tongue, or host a television show, that doesn't mean that they have any more intelligence, or any more character than we do. We should always ignore the superficial, and assess the quality of a person on our own terms, and not allow the system to shove its carefully selected  "heroes" down our throats. 

.

And finally, we should allow this episode in our history to mark the moment where the crabs-in-a-barrel syndrome comes to an abrupt end in the Black community. The game that Smiley and West have been playing has been holding Black people down for centuries. So now's the time for it to stop, and we should mercilessly banish from our midst anyone we find engaging in it. Let us make it abundantly clear, that the reign of fools is over.
.

Dr Cornel West and Intellectual Rice Cake

. 

Eric L. Wattree

http://wattree.blogspot.com/

Ewattree@Gmail.com

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.

Sphere: Related Content

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

Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree
.

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

.

There are some in the Black community who feel that the controversy ignited after Dr. Cornel West slandered President Obama is counterproductive. Dr. West of Princeton University accused President Obama of being “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats.” He then went on to say that Obama was  threatened by “a free Black man.” Critics of the resulting firestorm against Cornel West dismiss it as nothing but an exercise in Black intellectual elitists contemplating their navels and airing the Black community’s dirty laundry in public.
.
In her article,“Cornel West: The Fallout Continues Over Obama Comments,” that appeared in TheRoot, Dr. Nsenga Burton says the following:
.
“Isn't it interesting that black male commentators are using stereotypes ascribed to black males to critique West, and diminishing his intellectual contributions in the process? Instead of a 'bloody lip,' in the game of dozens when one goes too far, West's virtual 'bloody lip' is the result of blogosphere gone awry.”
.
The above take on this issue is so far off the mark on so many levels that I feel obliged to address much of it in the first person.
.
While admittedly, many of us will feel an innate visceral attachment to Dr. Burton's argument, our commitment to logical thought should force us to reject it out of hand. First, every debate is a source of knowledge, so to say that any source of knowledge has “gone awry” is counterintuitive on its face. Secondly, I personally reject the entire concept of fixating on Black stereotyping. Allowing ourselves to become consumed by this issue is a gross waste of intellectual energy, since we should never allow our concern over what other people think to overwhelm our vision of how we see ourselves.
.
Instead of becoming obsessed with how others portray us, our energies should be directed toward living above any kind of negative stereotyping. That’s one of the things that Obama does so well, and it’s the primary reason why he’s hated so intensely by his enemies - both Black and White. To my knowledge, Obama hasn’t said a word in response to Dr. West’s tirade. He’s handling it just like he handled Donald Trump - instead of preaching us a sermon, he’s living us one. While there's room to criticize any president, and I too have criticisms of Obama, every person in America should take great pride in the way that young brother represented this nation during his recent trip to Europe. That's the way you address negative stereotyping, through excellence.
.
But even if we do take stereotyping into consideration, I don’t see what calling an idiotic statement idiotic has to do with Black stereotyping, that is, unless we consider Cornel West's behavior representative of the quintessential Black man. If we do, and we feel that we have to hide it as "dirty laundry,"  that suggests we feel that Black people corner the market on idiocy, a position that I would vigorously reject.
.
Dr. Burton’s position also seems to suggest that the ongoing debate occupies intellectual terrain that is somehow remote from the average Black person’s frame of reference. That's the worst kind of stereotyping. Such a position is not only condescending to the Black community, but it also betrays an intellectual elitism that grossly underestimates the intelligence of the Black community.
.
She quotes me in the Black Star News as saying,
.
"The fact is, anyone who considers West's remarks toward President Obama merely an objective and scholarly critique of the political environment needs to go back and take a refresher course in both freshman English and forensics. The comments directed at President Obama by Cornel West was nothing short of a racist and petty personal tirade by a woefully presumptuous and undisciplined mind. His comments were not only less than constructive and nonspecific, but they were also saturated with unsubstantiated personal attacks against the president. They were, indeed, Palinesque in both nature and intent."
.
I stand by every syllable unequivocally, and I challenge anyone to show me where I was in error. Yet, Dr. Burton says the following regarding my comments, and the comments of others, attendant to this controversy:
.
“But we do hope that this plantation narrative that is spiraling out of control in the new-media space will right itself and become a discussion about something meaningful - explicit policies to protect the poor - as opposed to an abundance of attacks on a brother, even West, who admittedly was dead wrong. Bashing West the same way that he bashed Obama is hypocritical and is not moving the discussion, the intellectual community or this country forward.”
.
I find Dr. Burton’s position quite curious. Why is it that every other group in America feels free to debate and criticize one another ad nauseam, yet the minute we point out that Cornel West made a damn fool of himself it becomes “plantation” mentality? If we are ever to move forward in the Black community, we must feel just as free as any other segment of the population to call a hat a hat, and a fool a fool. If we embrace that as a tradition, maybe the next Cornel West will be much more circumspect before making a foolish and self-serving idiot of himself.
.
Thus, instead of refraining from criticizing fellow Blacks, we should do it much more often. If we’d spoken out more aggressively against Clarence Thomas we probably wouldn’t be suffering from his ignorance today. And frankly, I don’t see a discernable difference - a demagogue is a demagogue, regardless of political persuasion. If Obama would have embraced West after his election, believe me, West would have undoubtedly been one of Obama's most enthusiastic cheerleaders. He's clearly demonstrated his character in that regard.
.
So the fact is, with the benefit of hindsight, I wish I’d been even more critical. Because if West is indeed as concerned about the Black community as he claims, he needs to resign from the rarified environment of Princeton and come teach third grade in the hood. If that's too big a price to pay for the people he claims to love, he needs to just shut up and write a book; that way we'll have a choice as to whether or not we want to listen to him.
.
And by the way, I am far from an Obama cheerleader: http://wattree.blogspot.com/2011/01/obama-supporters-vs-cheerleaders.html. The only reason I have to point that out is because Tavis Smiley and West have muddied the waters so badly that when we speak out, we must now convince one another that we’re not just lackeys for either one side or the other. That’s a gross disservice to both the Black community, and America.
.
Eric L. Wattree
http://wattree.blogspot.com/
Ewattree@Gmail.com
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.

Sphere: Related Content

Is the Attack on Prof. Melissa Harris-Perry’s Article Criticizing Prof. Cornel West Due to Male Academic Cronyism?

Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree
.

Is the Attack on Prof. Melissa Harris-Perry’s Article Criticizing Prof. Cornel West Due to Male Academic Cronyism?

.

It is a curious yet instructive phenomenon watching Black male academics rush to the defense of Dr. Cornel West after he called President Obama a “Black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs.” They also stood by when West went on to say that “Obama has a certain fear of free black men.” They said that it was perfectly legitimate for West to comment on the political environment as he saw it. But when Dr. Melissa Harris-Perry, West’s female colleague, indicated that West’s comment “smacks of birtherism,” they recoiled in shocked horror. How dare she publicly attack her colleague in that manner? They accused her of being motivated by either soar grapes or professional envy.  Hmmm, ok. But tell me, what makes Cornel West more sacrosanct than the President of the United States?

.

The fact is, anyone who considers West’s remarks toward President Obama merely an objective and scholarly critique of the political environment needs to go back and take a refresher course in both freshman English and forensics. The comments directed at President Obama by Cornel West was nothing short of a racist and petty personal tirade by a woefully presumptuous and undisciplined mind.
.
His comments were not only less than constructive and nonspecific, but they were also saturated with unsubstantiated personal attacks against the president. They were, indeed, Palinesque in both nature and intent. Thus, his behavior was both unprofessional and disrespectful to not only President Obama, but the office of the president itself. Then when you take into account that there is ample evidence that he was motivated by what he, in his own words, considered a personal slight, then combined that with his close association with Tavis Smiley - who is also smarting from what he considered a personal slight by the president - it is more than reasonable to view West’s behavior as the irate petulance of an embittered egomaniac.
.
On the other hand, Prof. Perry couldn’t avoid attacking West’s character, because it was his character that was at issue. So the fact is, Prof. Perry’s criticism of West was the more legitimate. Considering West's behavior, Prof. Perry's remarks constituted a detached and clinical assessment of the facts.  Her position was reasoned, specific, and substantiated with undeniable facts, while West’s criticism of Obama was reckless, overly broad, and filled with gross and unsubstantiated generalizations.
.
Yet, in his article, Melissa Harris-Perry’s Attacks on Cornel West: Melissa, Are You Hiding Something?, Dr. Boyce Watkins says,
.
“One of the interesting things about all the criticism being thrust at Professor West is that much of it presumes that Cornel is attacking President Obama for personal reasons. There are rumors that he is angry that he was never invited to the inauguration, or that he felt dismissed because the administration won’t return his phone calls. There is no end to the reasons that people are coming up with to explain why Professor West has done what he’s always done, which is to advocate for black, brown, poor and working class people.”
.
But the “rumors” that Dr. Watkins speak of are not rumors at all. West is quoted as saying the following:
.
“I used to call my dear brother [Obama] every two weeks. I said a prayer on the phone for him, especially before a debate. And I never got a call back. And when I ran into him in the state Capitol in South Carolina when I was down there campaigning for him he was very kind. The first thing he told me was, ‘Brother West, I feel so bad. I haven’t called you back. You been calling me so much. You been giving me so much love, so much support and what have you.’ And I said, ‘I know you’re busy.’ But then a month and half later I would run into other people on the campaign and he’s calling them all the time. I said, wow, this is kind of strange. He doesn’t have time, even two seconds, to say thank you or I’m glad you’re pulling for me and praying for me, but he’s calling these other people. I said, this is very interesting. And then as it turns out with the inauguration I couldn’t get a ticket with my mother and my brother. I said this is very strange. We drive into the hotel and the guy who picks up my bags from the hotel has a ticket to the inauguration. My mom says, ‘That’s something that this dear brother can get a ticket and you can’t get one, honey, all the work you did for him from Iowa.’ Beginning in Iowa to Ohio. We had to watch the thing in the hotel.”
.
So I don’t see how the fact that Prof. Perry worked down the hall from West at Princeton has any bearing on this matter. If Dr. Watkins is suggesting that she had an ulterior motive, what evidence does he present to support that claim? Absolutely none. That makes it clear that Watkins is stretching for an equivalence that’s just not there. On the one hand, Prof. Perry presents direct evidence from the mouth of West himself that clearly substantiates her position that West felt slighted by the president, which ultimately led to his reckless behavior, while on the other hand, Dr. Watkins doesn’t present a shred of evidence leading to the conclusion that Prof. Perry had an ulterior motive for her criticism of Dr. West. The only thing he presents is gross speculation and vapors.
.
I’m not surprised at all that Dr. West has engaged in such reckless behavior. His fixation on personal affectations suggests the vanity of an undisciplined mind. And apparently I’m not alone. Syndicated columnist Stanley Crouch pointed out in the “Daily News” that “serious black intellectuals privately dismissed West many years ago as no more than an academic loudmouth with a good show business game.”
.
But with respect to Dr. Boyce Watkins, I am indeed shocked to see a respected scholar engage in such sloppy thinking. His article suggests the following syllogism: All dogs have fleas. My cat has fleas. Therefore, my cat is a dog. What kind of logic is that?
.
Thus, at the risk of being presumptuous, I’d like to pass on to both of these gentlemen a piece of advice that was given to me by the very demure Ms. Immel in my freshman English class many years ago, and I quote: “Eric, if you expect to survive this class, every time you make an assertion, I expect you to start backing it up with compelling facts in the very next sentence, or no later than the following paragraph.”
.
That advice has served me well over the years, and it seems to me that both West, and Watkins, might benefit from it as well.
.

Dr. Cornel West and Intellectual Rice Cake

.
Eric L. Wattree
http://wattree.blogspot.com/
Ewattree@Gmail.com
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.

Sphere: Related Content