Response to columnist, editor and bigotry

I generally avoid reading Mercy Quaye’s less than illuminating columns. Her Sept. 9th column (“What does ‘not black enough’ mean, anyway”) reminded me why; it was the single worst column I’ve ever read.

I’ll get right to the point and dissect the filthy mess that she dumped on us. Here’s the passage leading to the disgusting “warning” that was issued.

“I’ll let you in on a family secret, though I’m sure I’m not supposed to. Black people have a saying that most of us know well. The saying, mired in controversy and fraught with overtones of infighting, also bears wisdom twice its weight: ‘All skin folk ain’t your kinfolk.’”

“For me, there’s value in that adage. It’s that you should be wary of expecting the same things you believe in, in every black person you meet. It’s short, but in 33 characters it says that just because you’re from the same place, culture and background doesn’t mean that you have the same opinions or even the same outlook on life. It’s an earnest warning against the Omarosas, the Ben Carsons and the Candace Owens of the world — the black people who were more likely to be violent overseeing, rather than in the trenches doing the work with the other slaves.”

First off, Mercy Quaye just contradicted herself. She correctly stated that no race or ethnicity is a collective of clones. Then she effectively stated that if you’re “authentically black,” you need to walk in lock step with whatever her Democratic Party dictates. Not doing so puts you in league with the slave breakers who beat, tortured and sometimes executed slaves, and the slave drivers who drove their fellow slaves like sheep and issued punishment as necessary.

I could go all Thomas Welch on Hearst CT and ask “Have you no sense of decency?” but the answer is obviously a clear and resounding “No.”

Mercy Quaye likes to sell herself as an intellectual always asking the important questions in search of The Truth. This piece of cultural dry rot has shown her to be a Stepford Wife beholden to a callow political party whose goal is building a bureaucratic colossus that extends its tentacles into every facet of the lives of its subjects.

Shortly after I read this guano, I had an online exchange with Hearst CT Vice President of News and Digitial Content, Matt DeRienzo.

To his credit, he responded professionally to my ranting, which was something like what Keith Richards might have spat out in the midst of a threeday bender in 1972.

However, his response to me basically confirmed some of the suspicions that conservatives have about the biases of our orthodox media.

Here’s one example: “My hope is that columnists will take strong, provocative stances on important, timely and relevant issues, including stances that are unique to their experience. In my opinion, you and I would have no business in saying something like what Mercy said about Candace Owens, Dr. Carson and Omarosa, but it is well within bounds for her to do so.”

Oh, really?

So, as a deplorable white male, I “would have no business in saying something like” President Obama was out of line saying that although he didn’t know all the facts, the Cambridge, Mass., police acted “stupidly” after they arrived at Prof. Henry Louis Gates’ house after he locked himself out.

Wait, there’s more! He also said this:

“You (referring to me) also use the word bigoted, which Webster’s describes as ‘blindly devoted to some creed, opinion, or practice ... especially : having or showing an attitude of hatred or intolerance toward the members of a particular group (such as a racial or ethnic group).’”

Again, literally doesn’t apply to a black person criticizing someone of their own race. And it’s ridiculous to say that someone is, in a bigoted way, “intolerant of a creed, opinion or practice” when that creed and opinion is support of institutional racism.

So, Dr. Carson and Ms. Owens are champions of white supremacy. Just pathetic. And, yes, I think that when liberals reflexively dismiss conservatives as simply evil — and vice versa — that is rooted in bigotry.

A free press is not the enemy of our republic. But it is troubling when this sort of ideology is guiding a press that our Founders gave a wide berth to in our founding documents.