(Extra points to anyone who caught the Ricky Fitz reference in the last paragraph.)
Back to business, now that I have announced that D-M will be changing its format, I thought it would be best to continue posting in the old format for as long as possible. As I'm sure many of you have seen, Harvard prof. Orlando Patterson (no relation to Lee "Best Video" Patterson, alas) had a compelling op-ed piece about the state of Black America over the weekend in the NYTimes. I thought it was a well argued, compelling editorial, except for one part:
O. J. Simpson, the malevolent central player in an iconic moment in the nation’s recent black-white (as well as male-female) relations, reappeared on the scene, charged with attempted burglary, kidnapping and felonious assault in Las Vegas, in what he claimed was merely an attempt to recover stolen memorabilia.Malevolent? Who the fuck do you think you are, Patterson, calling OJ malevolent? Have you even seen Naked Gun: 33 1/3? Anyone capable of the amount of dramatic sympathy inherent in the role of Nordberg is obviously so deeply steeped in the boiling tea leaves of life as to be beyond your simple Manichaeistic categories. And what's more, since we know OJ is a veritable vessel through which vatic spirits flow upon the dramatic stage, would it not be correct to grant OJ a similar spiritual inculpability on the world's stage as well? Of course it would. OJ has no "bad will." He has no will at all! OJ is not OJ. What you don't understand, Prof. Patterson, is that we all, black or white, male or female, Latino or transgender, or transgender Latino, we are OJ, and that is simply all there is to say about the matter. Now take your sermonizing somewhere else, because on this score at least, your dulcet tones strike pure discord.