[lbo-talk] more "who"

[Chuck Grimes]

In one of the Micheals related threads, Chuck Grimes commented that 'no
one was fooled by the Bush admin's rainbow appointments.' This
observation, which so smoothly meshes with standard left thinking on who
is and isn't racist (with the implication being that those Bush-era
crackers were only making token appointments) entirely missed the new
thing right before our eyes: racially and gender diverse
neo-conservatism. .d.

----------------

That's pretty insulting. 

Do you really think I am not aware that a President, Secretary of State,
National Security Adviser, Attorney General, and Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff don't command tremendous power? Well and are definitely
part of the power elite?

Do you really think I was fooled by the color of their face or the
superficial appearance of their heritage and background? (Obama, Powell,
Rice, Gonzales, Holder, Clinton)

Do you really think I expected to smoothly mesh into a standard left
thing about racism or that these appointments were mere tokens of power?

They are quite obviously real power and constitute the exact examples of
the trivialization of liberal concepts of diversity. Are you really
attributing to me the belief this sham diversity constitutes a `left'
that I believe in?

Because I will not cow-tow to the meaningless discourse of Precious Sir
Walter Benn Micheals, I am suppose to put up with this shit? 

Precious Sir Walter Benn Michaels is a careerist who makes it his
specialty to be provocative. It's his trade. He sells his books on this
pablum. Do you want to link yourself to his so-called star in the
perception of what is the problem today?

CG