Gaston Bellemare

.....................................

I sketched this cartoon in 2001 or thereabouts.  In Quebec, Bellemare is the King of Poetry... and doesn't even write poetry.  Criticize the thin-skinned fucker as I did--the only poet out of 150 invited poets to dare do that, and be banned for life from his Festival international de la poesie de Trois-Rivieres.  No matter.  Rather be banned for life, than be a common poet sellout... in line with the herd of Quebecois poet sellouts...

Dwight Garner and Chelsey Minnis

Both Garner and Minnis surround themselves with the buffered walls of elitists.  Their email addresses are not available to the common public, so I could not send the following to them.  And one day, perhaps sooner than later, the following will not be available on the Internet.  And the great cleavage between the elite and the plebes will be complete.  

..............................................................................................

...................................................................................................................

Gibberish on a Silver Platter—

Clarity, the Great Taboo in Poetry

(My Wake-up Gift to National Poetry Month)

If a Pulitzer Prize* for gibberish were to be awarded, it ought to go to Dwight Garner of the New York Times for his gibberish encomium of gibberish poetry.  “In ‘Baby I Don’t Care,’ Drole and Fierce Poems Influenced by Film Noir,” Garner praises ad nauseam poet Chelsey Minnis.  One ought to wonder what provokes those like Garner to select the books/authors they select.  What are their biases?  One might suspect high-brow inanity to constitute one of Garner’s.  (BTW, in 2015, I wrote "Review of an Unusually Lame Review," unpublishable of course, regarding a different laudatory review written by Garner on establishment poet Charles Simic.)  

Fluff flurry of words to the point of gibberish characterizes Garner’s style, which certainly must be well appreciated by readers of the New York Times, as well as publishers, of course.  An interesting caveat, though not mentioned as a caveat, appears after the title of the review:  “Buy Book.  When you purchase an independently reviewed book through our site, we earn an affiliate commission.”  “Independently reviewed”?  Well, one would have to follow the money to make that determination!  Indeed, how much is the Times paying Garner for his review and how much “affiliate commission” is it getting?  How can that possibly be deemed “independent”?  And how can a review be negative?  Wouldn’t such a review inevitably lower the Times’ “affiliate commission”?  Why don’t/can’t other poets and readers question and challenge, as I do here?  Why have such citizens become a mass of open-wide-and-swallow robotons of thought, or rather non-thought?  That is the question.  Well, I digress… or sort of.

As a caveat, I did not read Chelsey Minnis’ book of so-called poetry and thanks to Garner’s so-called review, I will NOT be reading that book.  So, this is not a review of that book, but rather a review of Garner’s review of that book.  Are reviews of reviews even permitted in establishment poetry and writing circles?  Likely not!  After all, I have yet to see any such reviews published or mentioned in establishment literary journals and the media.  In any case, Garner begins his “review” with—surprise!—gibberish:  

Some poets are cutters, others are curers, showing up to every occasion like a condolence-wisher with a casserole.  Chelsey Minnis is firmly in the first category.  Her verse arrives well chilled. It is served with misanthropic aplomb.  

So, what does that even mean?  Minnis is a “cutter” of “well-chilled” verse.  Hmm.  Brilliant use of vocabulary?  But shouldn’t a “cutter” instead be a poet who cuts those like Garner and other such hacks of the poetry establishment?  If not, then what is being cut?  After all, to cut nonsense with nonsense is not really cutting at all!  Or is it?  And so, Garner quotes Minnis’ cutting verse, praising that  “Minnis is endlessly quotable, so one has to work hard not to quote her endlessly.”

I love to go to bed sober, 

which means I have to start drinking early.

I like it when two men take off their dinner jackets and fight

Next time you see me, I’ll be crashing Rolls-Royces.

Who, in reality, except the well-paid Garners, would ever quote such a verse?  And one must ask why poets like Minnis spend so much time writing meaningless crap.  Why don’t they instead, at least now and then, risk something by writing a poem or two highly critical of the academic/poetry establishment, Garner included?  Well, the reason is that Minnis was hatched from the establishment itself (University of Colorado in Boulder and the Iowa Writers’ Workshop).  And so, Garner lauds (and more readers “Buy Book”):  “one of the most unusual and persuasive books of poems I’ve read in some time […]” and “she’s a provocative thinker about gender and poetry and the erotics of dislike.”  

Yes, the “erotics of dislike,” unless of course dislike of the poetry establishment, Garner included.   To support his statement, Garner quotes the poet:  “Sometimes I try to please someone that I hate … / So that I can enjoy a range of satisfactions.”  Provocative?  How is any of that even remotely “provocative”?  “Her poems marinate in the sort of feelings you don’t like to admit you have,” states Garner.  But how does elite reviewer Garner know what kind of “feelings” we don’t like to admit we have?  Mind-numbing!  Does he really think everyone thinks like he does?    

And Garner eulogizes ad vacuitas, of course:  “In much of her early work, the poems comprise clusters of words that float in fields of ellipses, to intense if slippery effect. These ellipses function like cosmic versions of Emily Dickinson’s dashes.  At times, in ways both comic and deadly earnest, Minnis can seem like Dickinson broadcasting from hell.”  Hell in the fields of ellipses!  Oh, my!  I’m shaking in my boots!   Then somehow Minnis, hatched from the Iowa Writers’ Workshop, is a dissident!  Garner supports this odd thought by quoting from “Bad Bad,” which “reads like a dissident manifesto”:  

People say “nothing new” or “the death of the author” but, I am new and I am not dead.

If anyone thinks they need to write reviews, teach classes, edit magazines, or translate books in order to write good poetry … then maybe they should just take a rest from it.

Poetry is for crap since there’s no money or fast cars in it … 

But, in the thighs … I feel it.

You should not fall in love with your mentor, but you should try to punish him with your poems.

I fell in love with my mentor like a novice … 

I was a nude girl on a fire truck ringing a bell.

I cannot write poems to honor other poets … 

I do not think of them at all.

I am only sentimental about my drinks …

I will tell you what is poetry … 

It is a remote electronic claw picking up a stuffed bunny rabbit …

It is like bleeding from your anus in the snow.

Some dissident, eh?!  Solzhenitsyn ought to be rolling in his grave!  “Even better, Minnis may not be glad of this review,” argues Garner, as if Minnis didn’t want to sell any books at all.  To support his affirmation, he cites Minnis.  

I want to write a poem because I don’t feel very boring!

But I will feel like a stuffed leopard because of the praise.

Let me give you my feedback.

My feedback is arf arf arf.

Well, at least, that’s better feedback than the general silence of the lambs, or rather poet academics, that I usually receive.  Garner concludes his so-called review with a final desperate publisher pitch:  “Let’s say you haven’t bought a book of poetry in some time. ‘Baby, I Don’t Care’ and the reissues from Fence Books could make you come back. You could start here.”  Yes, “Buy Book,”  “Buy Book”!!!  

…………………………………

*It is truly amazing how the elite intellectual-establishment ream-fillers never—never, never, never!—wonder what the biases of the judge anointer-selectors might be.  Indeed, just state “Pulitzer” and the indoctrinated intellectuals open wide and swallow.  BTW, I’d send this to Garner, but he surrounds himself with a well-buffered wall like all elites.  Email address not available… 

Maren Ueland and Louisa Vesterager Jespersen

The following poem was rejected by The Humanist magazine because it did not meet editor-in-chief Jennifer Barda's "editorial needs."  How odd for a purported human rights advocate!   Where to send such a poem?  Well, I published it in the current issue of The American Dissident, #37.  So, that's where.

......................................................

A Post-Mortem Poem 

For Maren Ueland and Louisa Vesterager Jespersen

Their naivete is nothing less than breathtaking.

               —Bruce Bawer

The silence of the journalists astounds

—the free press is a bullshit slogan,

bellowed by enchained ideologues,

blind to the horrors hollered into their ears…

While hunting again in vain for news on the story,

not an iota to be found in the New York Times 

or Washington Post or Boston Globe or or or,

just the echo of Khashoggi ad nauseam and of course

more Hogg news—the high school kid

with the loudmouth soon to be at Harvard.

And this morning, I read another account of the horror, but

only in the alt-press, while the Times published Jen Gunter’s

dopey vagina crap:  “One year ago I wrote about my vagina 

and men’s opinions of it.  Things have not improved.”  Wow.

Offended I am… by the hypocrites and fluff writers of the press!

Offended I am… by the purposeful cecity of poets and artists!

Offended I am… by the CAIR muslims infiltrating in sheep’s clothing!

Offended I am… by the money that easily turns eyes so goddamn blind!

“You need to see that woman lying on her stomach,” wrote

an unmoderated voice, “after having been gang raped, 

not moving or speaking presumably too terrified and emotionally 

ruined to even whimper and then crying out in pure agony 

as they rip her throat out with a knife.”

But I have not yet watched; I’m not ready to have that in my skull.

“You need to see them turn her over on her back and put a foot 

on her head to keep her still as they saw her head off while 

her hand weakly tries to grasp for help…”

The journalists have not yet watched either, but they’re journalists!

And the journalists have decided to erase the event, for it might

soil and tarnish the “religion of peace,” to quote dear ex-leader.

For those innocent and fragile young women, butchered by Islamists,

we must watch, all of us must watch, we must witness the last breath

and not let it be hidden from the public eye by the overseers of society.

And so, I watch; and so, I watch, and so, will you watch?  Will college students 

like Hogg watch?  Will the politicians like Obama watch? Will the professors watch?

Will the journalists finally watch?  And if not, then they are not really journalists, 

but rather lowly propagandists pushing Pravda platitudes.

The silence of the journalists astounds

—the free press is a bullshit slogan

                                 bellowed by enchained ideologues

                                                               blind to the horrors hollered into their ears…

………………………………………………….

NB:  Humans devoid of compassion, devoid of soul, do exist.  They are here:  

www.bestgore.com/beheading/24-year-old-danish-female-backpacker-morocco-final-trek-beheading/.   

Best American Poetry

Scott Jaschik and Doug Lederman, Inside Higer Ed

The following essay was published in Journal of Information Ethics in 2018 (see www.proquest.com/openview/f4b8ffae2aca7dc1537f14989914e8bd/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2035668).

....................................................

To Censor or Not to Censor—Notes from the Censored

An Examination of Inside Higher Education’s Comment Policy

…the thing that I come to—I used this phrase on TV the other day—the rise of the “but brigade.” I got so sick of the goddamn but brigade.  And now the moment somebody says ‘Yes I believe in free speech, but,” I stop listening.  “I believe in free speech, but people should behave themselves.” “I believe in free speech, but we shouldn’t upset anybody.” “I believe in free speech, but let’s not go too far.”  The point about it is, the moment you limit free speech, it’s not free speech.

          —Salman Rushdie, post Charlie Hebo massacre

Higher education should, more than anything else, be a bulwark for freedom of speech and vigorous debate, cornerstones of democracy.  Instead, it’s become a bulwark for moderated speech and limited debate.  Censorship is bad.  Authoritarians thrive on censorship.  The more censorship they can get away with, the more power they’ll have.  Authoritarians know the term is bad, so have developed a euphemism for it:  moderate or moderation.  Far too many websites (the sign of the times), educational or other, contain a warning that comments will be “moderated” prior to being posted.  Is “moderated” speech free speech?  Certainly not!  It is controlled speech.  Period.  

Today, the warning of moderation has become a plague on freedom of speech and vigorous debate.  It encourages self-censorship and discourages the courage to express ones opinions and ideas.  It is shameful that the bulk of academics either are proponents of it or dare not question and challenge it.  The rules of moderation are normally quite vague, thus allotting more power to authoritarians who choose to censor.  Inside Higher Ed is itself a euphemism for Inside Moderated Ed.  Sadly, Inside Higher Ed, an online journal of news and “moderated” opinions pertinent to higher education, is, after all, part of what Salman Rushdie decried as the anti-free-speech “BUT brigade” (see quote above).  Editors Scott Jaschik and Doug Lederman note in their “Comment Policy”:

By its very design and nature as a freely accessible source of news and information about higher education, Inside Higher Ed embraces the small-d democracy of open access (with the occasional messiness that comes with it). But [my emphasis] the conversation into which we invite our readers has its limits—our editors moderate it, using their judgment—and participation in it carries with it some responsibility.

“Their judgement” constitutes a euphemism for “their ideological limitations.”  The “but” is, of course, quite vague.  In fact, vagueness is the key, for it allows fully subjective determinations by authoritarians, often faceless apparatchiks employed by authoritarians.  Normally, as in the case of IHE, their determinations cannot be challenged.  There is simply no mechanism in place to challenge them.  Jaschik and Lederman conclude their “comment policy” by stating  

"Due to the volume of comments on the site, we are not able to respond to individual inquiries regarding comments that were not approved. Inside Higher Ed reserves the right to bar commenters for uncivil behavior or repeated violations of these guidelines."

Thus, and in my particular case of having comments censored, one is left wondering what precisely in a posted comment turned it into a censored comment.  And that is bad because it is a debate killer.  Any errors in the comment will simply not be pointed out and any errors in the criticized op-ed or article will simply be ignored.  So, there is no chance of intellectual development on either side.  Note Jaschik and Lederman’s remark that 

"If a reader submits a paragraph-long comment and the last sentence contains an attack on

a person or group, Inside Higher Ed will not publish that comment."

What might constitute an “attack” is unsurprisingly not examined at all.  No examples are provided. In today’s aberrant, ideologically-driven world, some “attacks” are good, while others are bad.  An “attack” can even constitute an uncomfortable fact that angers “a person or group.”  If someone states, for example, that Islam is a religion of peace, a comment could be censored if it cited the Quran, “And fight with them until there is no more fitna (unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah.”  If an author evokes slavery as a horrible American white phenomenon, for example, a comment could be censored, if it evoked the facts that slaveholders and slavetraders included blacks and Muslims.  Censorship could thus be justified because likely some blacks and some Muslims would be offended and feel “attacked.”  Thus, Jaschik and Lederman act not only as censors, but also as protectors of the easily offended and/or ideologically protected.  

BTW, note that part of the IHE team includes two directors of corporate sales, a chief revenue officer, a director of institutional branding, a client services specialist, four marketing directors, a chief financial officer, and other such business—BUSINESS positions.  Evidently, behind the veil of higher education, IHE is in reality probably more a business than an arm of higher education.  In fact, that could certainly be said about the bulk of the nations colleges and universities.  Perhaps it is the business aspect (the bottomline) that prevents IHE from being an enthusiastic supporter of freedom of speech and vigorous debate.  

No less than nine points apt to provoke censorship are listed in the “comment policy.”  The first point is clear, though again highly subjective:  

1.  Commenters must not engage in libel.

Libel of course has a legal definition.  In fact, to win a libel lawsuit, one must prove that a statement is not only false, but that it damaged (usually monetarily) a person's reputation.  That is why such lawsuits are extremely difficult to win.  Sadly, Jaschik and Lederman replace the judge and jury with that regard to the extent that anything could constitute libel if it might be apt to upset the author of an op-ed or article, including fact and reason that might make the author’s statements seem absurd.  How can that be higher education?  

The second point is quite interesting because the author I criticized in my comment violated it herself, by attacking Trump and young white men… or are those somehow an exception to the rule?  

2.  Commenters must not engage in an attack on a specific person or group.  

Point #5, “Commenters must stick to the subject (or subjects) discussed…,” is equally interesting because the two examples provided can easily be proven to be poor examples of the point made:  

"A news article about a financial aid proposal put forward by congressional Republicans

does not clear the way for a derogatory comment about the GOP’s presidential candidate; a

blog post about cultural studies does not invite a comment blasting affirmative action."

In essence, if the GOP’s candidate clearly presents an opposite proposal to that of congressional Republicans, why can’t that be mentioned?  “Derogatory” is a highly subjective term.  Thus, simply pointing out the conflict could be viewed as “derogatory.”  As for the second example, what if in fact affirmative action might be partially responsible for the increase in cultural studies programs because of the possible resultant increase in the numbers of deans of diversity and inclusion?  Why should a comment be censored for evoking that possibility? 

Point #6 can clearly conflict with Jaschik and Lederman’s statement that “Inside Higher Ed strongly encourages comments to include real names and job titles. Many readers want to know who is making a certain point.”  

6.  Commenters must not post comments containing spam, commercially promotional material or self-promotional links.

Are not job titles inevitably self-promotional?  Point #8 seems also to contradict the statement:  

8.  Commenters may post comments containing links to articles that back up their points.  

In my latest censored comment, I noted the URLs for The American Dissident blog and website, while also including URLs to back and or illustrate points made in the comment.  Was the comment thus censored for that reason, despite point #8 because of point #6?  Well, I’ll never know because authoritarians never have to explain their decisions.  Point #7 is of interest because the censors, uh, moderators imply there is limited space for comments, when in fact essentially the space for comments is enormous.  

7.  If a commenter makes a point that has been made several times previously in the thread on that article, we may reject it.

Why might a little repetition from commenters be so terrible?  In fact, it might serve as emphasis and indicate that the idea put forth is not simply held by one solitary person.  Finally, the last point, #9, is also contradictory.  

9.  Commenters should be concise. We suggest keeping comments to 150-300 words or fewer.  Brevity is the soul of wit, after all.

If indeed, brevity were the soul of wit, then why provide so much more space to the author of an op-ed or article, than to criticism of it?  If a comment is longer than the maximum permitted, perhaps it should still be allowed if it takes the author to task, point by point.  This whole concern of seemingly highly limited space for alt-opinions is fabricated.  Long comments can easily be shortened by a “read more” link, for example.  

Finally, Inside Higher Ed has been censoring my comments for over a decade now.  It shamefully behaves in the same darkness as Google and other ideologically-bound business corporations like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.  Higher education needs to open up, not censor and ban in accord with some dubious model of ideologically-driven “comment policy.”  My latest censored comment, the one that really instigated this essay was emailed to the author of the criticized op-ed.  Surprisingly, she responded, though very briefly and only with epithets. For the censored comment and that email response, see http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2017/08/doug-lederman-and-scott-jaschik.html.  Rather than follow in the dubious footsteps of Trinity Washington University president Patricia McGuire, who chose to regress with a flurry of ad hominem-like adjectives, including “not publishable,” “incoherent,” and “vituperation,” why not progress into a point-by-point counterargument, including precise examples to back statements made?  The crux of Inside Higher Ed’s problem is not only that it will not publish criticism like mine, but even more seriously that it will not publish any criticism of itself…  

Stephanie E. Jones-Rogers

White Women Bad...

Although the media has always been left-leaning, we’ve abandoned our pretense or at least the effort to be objective today. We’ve become political activists, and some could argue propagandists, and there’s some merit to that.  Standards are out the window, I mean you read one story after another or hear it and it’s all based on one anonymous administration official, former administration official. That’s not journalism, that’s horseshit.

—Lara Logan, former “60 Minutes” correspondant, gang-raped in Egypt

“Powerful journalism on tap,” a self-congratulatory motto, is what the Boston Globe considers the product of its  journalists, who seem to be mostly ideology spinners, as opposed to unbiased rude-truth tellers. Now and then, I challenge the spinners.  “Black Racists with Press Badges” is one of those challenges, rejected by the Globe.  It concerned an anti-white racist op-ed authored by Renée Graham, assistant editor/columnist for the Globe.  Graham did not respond to it.  However, Marjorie Pritchard, Daily Op-Ed Page Editor, briefly responded:  

Since this is a direct rebuttal, I will forward it to our letters editor, Matt Bernstein, for consideration. Renée’s piece appeared in our opinion section. 

Bernstein did not respond.  For me, it seemed scandalous that an assistant editor for a newspaper, Graham, could continually write anti-white racist op-eds without being reprimanded.  For Pritchard, however, it was somehow excusable because, well, Graham publishes her racist diatribes in the opinion section.  Graham is a local Eugene Robinson (Washington Post), who also constantly scribbles unchecked anti-white, racist op-eds. Graham’s latest white bad/black good column, “White Women: from Slave Owners to Trump Voters,” argues: “Despite months of polls, few predicted that a majority of white women would shun Hillary Clinton in favor of a racist and misogynist who bragged about his non-consensual grabbing of women’s vaginas and faced multiple accusations of sexual assault and misconduct.”  Graham fails to wonder why those white women should have instead supported a proven corrupt political hack instead.  Not a word is mentioned about Hillary’s continuing saga of unaccountable corruption (e.g., bleach bit, the foundation, and the Mueller probe).  Also, Graham seems to believe that “accusations,” especially when they fit her narrative, are the equivalent of unquestionable guilt.  

When one is devoid of cogent counter-arguments, one tends to reach into the arsenal of ad hominem.  That’s what the Grahams tend to do.  The idea of “white supremacy,” “white privilege,” and “white fragility” has become an obsession for those like Graham, and obsessions always blind the obsessed to reason and facts apt to counter the obsession.  The latest Graham op-ed is an account of an interview with (a book advertisement for) black assistant professor of history (University of California at Berkeley) Stephanie E. Jones-Rogers, author of They Were Her Property: White Women as Slave Owners in the American South, apparently required reading for Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, Democrat-party blackface poster boy.  Graham, of course, does not mention the latter’s connection to that party, which is evidently her party.  

Jones-Rogers shares the same anti-white bigotry as Graham and states, “I see time and time again in my research that when white women are given a choice, they overwhelmingly choose to be empowered by whiteness, and to embrace white supremacy.”  Now, what does that even mean?  And why did white woman Elizabeth Warren not do that?  Affirmative Action preference treatment, that’s why!   And might some black women like Jones-Rogers and Graham choose “to be empowered” by blackness, and to “embrace” black supremacy?  And where are the statistics to back the Jones-Rogers’ assertion?  And why doesn’t Graham, as a journalist, pose that question?

Jones-Rogers argues that “A small majority, but nevertheless an important majority of white women embraced Trump and what he stands for—embracing, ultimately, white supremacy.”  Sadly, she provides no concrete proof of that claim.  Graham does not demand such proof and declares, “With each election post-mortem comes the same refrain: a majority of white women vote against their own best interest.”  In other words, Graham’s is nothing but a Democrat-party-line monologue in which somehow identity politics, pc et al constitute the “best interest” for white women.  Ah, but Jones-Rogers argues, “They’re making a choice, and the choice is to invest in white supremacy.  They’ve drawn a line, and the line is a racial one.”  In other words, vote against the Democrat party, and somehow you vote for “white supremacy.”  Might the Democrat party today therefore be the party of black supremacy?  But clearly in the South, it was once the party of white supremacy and slavery.  Have the Grahams and Jones-Rogers forgotten KKK Senator Robert Byrd hugging Hillary?

But the Grahams and Jones-Rogers will rarely if ever evoke the reality of slavery because that reality inevitably upsets their rigid black good/white bad ideology.  They will not mention the many black slave traders and even slaveholders (over 1,000 in Louisiana), the relatively few whites who held slaves (5% or less), and the whites who were slaves.  After all, the term slave comes from Slav.  The Slavs were white!  

Graham praises:  “With her book, Jones-Rogers captures the echoes of what happens when America’s greatest atrocity — and who participated in it — is deliberately misunderstood and unchallenged.”  But again who participated in it?  Who are deliberately misunderstanding it, if not Graham and Jones-Rogers?  Whites and blacks, though relatively few of both races, participated in it!  The Democrat party had wanted slavery to continue.  Graham fails to mention that!  The Republican party ended slavery thanks to armies of mostly white soldiers.  Graham fails to mention that!  After all, white bad, black good. 

Graham joyfully agrees with Jones-Rogers’ assessment that white women “were not passive bystanders.  They were co-conspirators.”  Some white women were co-conspirators, NOT all white women, as that sentence seems to infer.  Just how difficult would it have been to add the word “some” to it?  “That’s also what they [white women] were, centuries later, when they helped put Trump in the White House,” concludes Graham, whose logic is severely crippled.  Ideology always cripples logic.  Graham needs to somehow open her hermetically-sealed (racist-obsessed) mind and let reason enter into it.  She needs to denounce black supremacy and black participation in the slave trade and the existence of non-white slavery today in Africa.  Sadly, she will likely not do that.  Hardcore ideologues rarely change.

Finally, the divide is ever increasing in America, thanks to the Grahams and Jones-Rogers and their identity politics ideology, to the point where perhaps only one solution exists.  Intense left-wing indoctrination with its tools of censorship, banning, and shaming has been the purported solution for quite a while.  But indoctrination, no matter how severe, cannot seem to eliminate truth.  Numerous examples of its failure to do that exist from the USSR to Cuba, China, and North Korea.  Perhaps the only solution today is to divide America, once and for all, into two separate nations:  a nation of freedom and a nation of left-wing indoctrination.  Many free slaves formed a separate country in Africa:  Liberia.  Why did they leave America?  Or rather why did many others not leave America?  And what has become of black-ruled Liberia today?  The Grahams and Jones-Rogers use the past—distort the past—, to stoke the flames of dissension… and by doing so maintain the power they wield.  The Grahams and Jones-Rogers are examples of black privilege, black fragility, and probably black supremacy.   (Thankfully, all blacks do not think as they do.)  They have voice.  We, the plebes, do not.  This counter op-ed will likely not appear in the Boston Globe for that precise reason.