♆ The Macho Response ♆: I Am The Who (But I Can See For Miles AND Miles Davis)

There's no hiding it now.

"It's as simple and clear as a child's math problem. The people who benefitted most from American racism weren't the white men who stole the penny. It's the people who held onto the penny while it doubled and doubled and doubled and doubled."

It's in there somewhere.

It's a marvelous thing to have a blog, sometimes, if you're like me:

Why patience - the ability to wait - is so important.

Discovering understanding, when other's don't, can make life difficult.

Give it a little time.

It feels good to look back, and see TMR was not just right, but also (because the proposition's - openly backed here - could seem so outrageous at one time) was just-as-clearly ahead of most everyone else today, when it comes to assessing the direction of Western culture.

We ARE Rollin' This Way.

That's extremely gratifying.

It seemed useless to convince when it was already happening.

And yeah:

TOLD YA SO!

And everything was already happening.

TMR saw the reparations tide turning on October 10, 2013.

"Miles Davis invented 5 genres of music - why do I exist?"

Conventional wisdom, on the direction any reparations discussions could be taking, has been delivered by conservatives in their traditional genteel fashion:

"Did you jerk off when you did this?  

Because that's about all you got out of it, right?  

No money.

  A few hits on the internet and a little ego gratification.  

Do you use a Kleenex or a paper towel?"

Pointing out the big issues of the day.

Try another:

"Get real, the check is never coming so quit your bitching if you ever want to get out of that pit of hell you seem to be stuck in."

"People You Share A Country With - That THEY Don't Want You To Know About!"

You get the idea - visions of American patriotism, one and all.

"People sleep. Sleep in the daytime. If they want to. If they want to."

But now, with The Case for Reparations by Ta-Nehisi Coates - lo and behold - Americans ARE talking about reparations, and how the time is right, and even how easy it would be to do it. Vox.com's Matt Yglesias says it plain:

"Monetary reparations are generally viewed as an extreme idea, but the reality is that financial leveling is one of the aspects of racial inequality that it would easiest to fix if the country wanted to."

I can be King.

Consequently, compiling a blog that has stressed culture - not politics - as the moving force in the world, reparations has naturally been TMR's focus for some time now (damn what came) because that's been the job.

Ushering TMR readers to the future.

We can be Heroes.

It's not a future many conservatives want to be part of. As of this writing, Hot Air, for instance, has said nothing about Coates' article - and they're not alone. There's been few Right-Wing comments in reply.

The Paw Paw Negro Blowtorch.

Glenn Reynolds mentioned it - of course - wondering if making whites talk about race is the "true reparations." The National Review even read it, and went so far as to praise Coates for "a corrective to the tendency to treat the systematic political and economic repression of black Americans as though it were a matter of distant history." But, then, they, too, dissed the article for encouraging a dialogue about race "as though we ever talked about anything else." Question:

"And he wore a hat, and he had a job, and he brought home the bacon, so that no one knew."

If whites are so well-versed on race - and have had so much dialogue already - why did The National Review praise Coates for a "corrective" to the history whites, alone, insist on?

Achtung Baby!

They're making no sense.

My Life In The Bush Of Ghosts.

Deliberately not reading Ta-Nehisi Coates' Case For Reparations (just as they deliberately avoided seeing the recent film 12 Years a Slave) yet feeling compelled to comment as though they have - that's the best we can expect from conservatives. Here's William A. Jacobson - a man I usually admire - proving he'd only skimmed the piece:

"Coates never gives the answer as to who gets what and how."

Charlie Brown never tried to hurt nobody.

Jacobson writes almost exclusively of slavery, as though it - and not housing discrimination - was the focus of Coates' argument. In other words, Jacobson - in true conservative lock-step fashion - either missed (or willingly ignored) what everyone else caught:

Just looking into things.

The article isn't about slavery, or "who gets what and how," it's about the desire and need for a study.

"Will America ever be ready for a Congressional commission to study reparations?"

What if someone's hiding something?

I doubt Prof. Jacobson would ignore as much about Benghazi.

Comment Moderation is On.

And what would make Ann Althouse say this to her readers?

"For those of you who are relying on the old argument that you (or your ancestors) did not own slaves, you're revealing that you didn't read the article. Coates is not arguing for reparations for slavery alone. He's talking about much more recent history. Reject his argument if you like, but show that you understand what his argument is."

"See, we can't have big government, because then we can't kill anybody."

Althouse said it because - and this has continued even after she said it - her readers also ignored what's in Ta-Nehisi Coates' article, and just kept on passing down their ancestor's kleptomaniac dreams of (continued) domestic terrorism:

"If this passes, a race war will launch and I feel it will be fully justified."

"I can't close my mouth or it'll stop saying racist things."

TMR pictures a group of white men, right now, trying to figure out what they're going to do to maintain white supremacy, as they feel it, finally, slipping through their fingers.