“Never play chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are the bird is just going to shit on the board and act like it won anyway.”

In the ground breaking sitcom, All In The Family, the lead protagonist is Archie Bunker. Bunker is a dull-witted, but charismatic buffoon prone to frequent displays of malapropisms (look it up), ill-reasoned arguments, aspirations of grandiosity combined with a woeful ignorance of the dynamism of the real world around him. His arguments are disjointed and broken streams of logic held together with the glue of misguided indignation, which gives his ideas the feel of authentic pragmatism. As show creator Norman Lear often shows us, the reverse is true.

Such are the arguments posed by fellow columnist and You Tuber Mumia Obsidian Ali. In his latest slip-shod rebuttal to my previous article “Brenda Got A Big Ole Butt,” he attempts a paltry response by using a literal definition of words to combat my analysis of a common occurrence between black men and women throughout Urban America.

This is a continuing salvo in the discussion concerning select and non-select men. So let us dispense with the superfluous preliminaries and get right down to the BRASS TAX shall we?


His initial point is to claim that I was proven wrong on my article “Yes! There is a Such Thing as a NON-SELECT GUY TAX!” To disprove these unsound ramblings, one need go no further than the response written on HIS own column by one Ras EL which reads:

“WTF??!! Am I crazy? Nigga yall both right. You’re playing semantical acrobatics with the word “TAx” and over engineering the whole thesis my nigga.. What the fuck is the difference? Tax or Fee. My guy is using “Taxed”as a rhetorical concept and you made a whole bullshit argument about it being a fee, not a TAx because “Black Women” are in no position to…”

Apparently, his readers grasp the significance of the argument even if he can’t seem to quite get it. But nevertheless here we go. The argument goes something like this: A tax is compulsory, if you are not required to pay it, then, it is not a tax. This Bunkerian reasoning process is an appallingly misinformed application of the term. It is also evidence of a gross ignorance of not only taxes, but everyday common sense.

FOR EXAMPLE: Income Tax in America is compulsory only for those who earn taxable income. Those who make money under the table, receive some forms of retirement or disability pensions, or are unemployed, are not required to FILE OR PAY TAXES. So is INCOME TAX COMPULSORY?  IS IT STILL A TAX?  Secondly, Capital Gains Tax is compulsory only for those who make a profit on the sale of non inventory assets. IS THAT A TAX? It is for those who fall within the requirements. And that was the point in the first place.  He further attempts to use my words to undercut the argument. But my aforementioned words were based on the examples stated above. This rebuttal and his un-reasoned counterarguments are evidence of the fact that he has never heard of a metaphor. But never fear, i’ll even define it…lol

Metaphor:  a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable. Or, a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract.

While i’m accused of conceding my own argument, it is actually he who has bayoneted his own argument. He states as follows:

“Along comes Henry, who is interested in Big Booty Brenda as well, but is almost the exact opposite of D’Andre – he’s not “street”, tall, buff and is in fact kinda “lame and corny”. She really ain’t feeling all the ‘gina tingles that she feels when around D’Andre, but the fact of the matter is that D’Andre is kinda broke, whereas Henry more than makes up for his lack of overt physical prowess and appeal by being seriously successful, to say nothing of being kind and courteous – while D’Andre is something of a self-absorbed jerk…” Yes! He actually wrote this. While trying to disprove my argument, he actually corroborates it. HENRY COMPENSATES for his lack of physical prowess by being successful(Money).  So why would Henry’s success be a consideration if he didn’t have to compensate? Non-Select Guy Tax Anyone?

He also argues that I was proven wrong about the existence of a Big Booty Cartel. This is based on the fact that the body type that he and most black men are attracted to is not usually found in suburban communities. They are, in fact, women most commonly found in Urban America. (The Hood) This fact is axiomatic to the most casual observer; unless your name is Mumia Obsidian Ali.  With over 46% of our community in the working class to poverty strata of the society, is it probable that Big Booty Brenda will be found in the hood? I know what you are saying. That’s a silly question right? Somebody should give Mr. Ali that memo because he either doesn’t know it, or won’t accept it. Or, maybe he is just flat out disingenuous. It is also axiomatic that in economically deprived neighborhoods, these women are more often than not: single mothers, promiscuous, dysfunctional and involved in destructive relationships with incompetent, semi-literate, aggressive men that they find sexually attractive.


So why would he dispute a generally known and accepted fact. Here is why! Because Big Booty Brenda’s rejection is a self-fulfilling prophesy of a lack of physical attraction on the open dating market in Black America. Her sexual selection, as problematic, short-sighted and catastrophic as it is, is logical in the context of everyday Black America.

According to statistical data from the US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics (1994-2010) (revisited in 2013), black women from the age of 12 years old experience higher rates of violence and sexual molestation than other females. So it is such a stretch of imagination that they would be attracted to men with the appearance of aggression? Whether this is actually true or not is immaterial. What is true is that this is their perception of real masculinity. It also forms the basis of what they determine to be sexually desirable. Concurrent with this trauma is the age old fixation with the bad boy/rebel angle prevalent in their earliest years of adulthood. Among these women, intelligence is no substitute for the presence of genuine masculine aggression. This intangible is generally not found in the Obsidians. When faced with these factors in the open dating market, the Obsidians and men of their ilk fall tragically short. (NO! THAT’S NOT AN AD-HOMINEM!) So they will initially choose him (Look down)


Right of First Refusal is a provision in a contract that allows a purchaser to buy a piece property before the seller negotiates a certain offer. AND NOW A SIMPLE EXPLANATION FOR SIMPLE UNDERSTANDING. An Allegory is a poem, story or picture used to illustrate a hidden or deeper meaning. In rhetorical expression it is common to use both allegories and metaphors to explain the central idea behind a particular concept. In his column, Ali attempted to take me to task for my alleged misunderstanding of the concept of right of first refusal. In his article, he wheeled out his trusty right click function and with the extraordinary use of the cut, copy, and paste function, he recited the literal meaning of Right of First Refusal. He even chose to give us an example. WOW! Remarkable!. The problem is that there is no literal meaning for a term used allegorically. It is simply a tool for expression.

Shockingly, Ali consistently violates the same literal norms that he now accuses me of. Take for example, his misuse of the concept of the Social Contract. The Social Contract theory of the Enlightenment Philosophers is an organized society where people surrender some of their individual liberties to secure protection from the state for the general welfare of society.  Ali bastardized this definition to imply that man’s participation in society is directly related to whether he had own “private pussy.” This idea is more Freudian than anything else.  Misattribution is what happens when Google is the extent of your scholarship. By the way, it is extremely improbable that Hobbes, Locke, Kant, or Rousseau was ever specifically talking about pussy while ruminating about the relationship between man and the state. But nevertheless, he was granted allegorical license to explain a misattributed, though niggerized idea.

Obsidian’s argument consists of nothing more than static definitions and circular reasoning without the benefit of real life application. It is a pathetic attempt at one upsmanship on a score board where he is about 30 points behind. It is the product of an infantile understanding of relationships between men and women in the dynamic environment of the dating market. It is self-styled mechanical semantics cooked up to appear as legitimate intellectual discourse. Nothing more, Nothing less. It is the result of playing chess with a pigeon. He will just shit on the board and strut around like he won. By the way! Checkmate..NOW ADJOURN YOUR ASS!


Facebook Comments