I found out something very interesting from some of my regular listeners who called in at different times and gave this information. Apparently the day I gave my comments on "Class Envy and Coveting"--that would have been May 4--one of my listeners was radio psychologist David Viscott. He was not happy with what I said and, according to one of my listeners who heard Viscott's show, (by the way what are you doing listening to another station?) he called me, brace yourself, an "amoral bigoted ass." Can we say "ass" on the air? No? Oh. Viscott did. It's in the Bible, so I guess it's okay. He did and he applied it to me.

Personally, I think we should use words to convey meaning and not just to incite feelings. I didn't hear any of Mr. Viscott's remarks, but I wonder if he spent any time trying to engage my position instead of just assailing my character. If some of you heard what he said maybe you can fill me in.

Apparently, he had heard a radio talk-show host, as he described it, on an evangelical station say that the riots were caused because people were coveting, and that prompted his flash character assessment. I can imagine what hundreds, maybe thousands of people thought when they heard that because they could just see this wild-eyed, Bible-thumping, fire-breathing preacher with a bloody ax in one hand and a fifteen pound Bible in the other saying that all these rioters are just coveters. They're just coveting. If that is the way Mr. Viscott viewed me, I'm not a bit surprised by his character assessment.

Just as a point of information, though, in case anyone hasn't looked in a dictionary on this point recently, an amoral person is one without moral sense or principles, one incapable of distinguishing between right or wrong. A bigot is a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to an opinion or a prejudice.

I got to wondering about those words, especially as applied to me. My comments themselves were moralistic, not amoral--maybe immoral in someone's view, but certainly not amoral. Second, my opinions weren't blind; I gave reasons for them. I don't understand how expressing a viewpoint in a reasoned way makes me a prejudiced bigot. It strikes me that the one who tries to silence the opposition by calling names is the blind, intolerant, prejudiced person. Everybody knows what an ass is, so I won't define it here. David Viscott is entitled to his opinion on that one.

They say there are three most important things in real estate; they are location, location, location. Public discourse has a similar rule, except its "location" is context, context, context.

Let me read you what I said, verbatim, from the transcript of that day: "What's wrong with our system? I'll tell you what's wrong, at least one of the things. I think the minority community has been robbed of its dignity, its self-respect and its initiative by misguided minority leadership who continues to inflame racial tension and foment class envy. That's the operative phrase: foment class envy. As Dr. William Allen put it, 'We insist on building race consciousness into every aspect of this country.' When people are told for years that they're entitled, of course they're going to get angry when there's no pay-out."

I continue quoting from my comments that day: "I think we should begin calling class envy what it is. This angry and self-indulgent class envy is nothing more than plain, old fashioned, unadulterated coveting--people earnestly desiring that which does not belong to them."

That was the verbatim comment I made. Obviously, I said more than that, but that's the heart and core of the coveting concept. This is why I said that.

Since there was some confusion on this and all someone saw in my comment was bigotry and amorality, I thought it might be helpful to take a moment to explain in more detail why I believe class envy and the attendant class conflict is a big factor in what's happened in the last couple of weeks. And in so doing, I present a perspective or a way of looking at something that might be a little surprising to some of you.

All I ask is this: I simply ask that you not be bigoted, intolerant and prejudiced and push the button and turn me off, but simply listen to what I have to say. If you think I am those things, that is your privilege, but I would rather have you assail my arguments than my character. If these arguments have merit, then please consider them.

Let me ask you a question, a very simple question. Was what we saw two weeks ago a race riot? Was it a race riot? Nobody's seems to be saying that because it wasn't just one race that was rioting. I don't say it was a race riot. Commentators aren't saying it was a race riot. No one is saying it was a race riot. Was it a minority riot? Was it just minorities that were rioting? No, there were Anglos involved. I even got word from a friend who goes to USC that a couple of USC students told him that they just joined in the fracas. They just wanted to have some fun so they went over there and started plundering. So there were some people who were willing to take advantage of this circumstance, but it certainly wasn't a minority riot. Okay, what was it then?

It seems to me that the only thing left was that it was a class uprising. How do I know? First, it wasn't those other things, clearly. Second, it didn't seem to be random people, just kind of disaffected people from all over the place. There were people in every community, of every color that were horrified by the verdict on the L.A. policemen, but those communities didn't riot and burn, even communities that were overwhelmingly black in demographics . So it wasn't just angry people who were rioting and burning because a lot of angry Black people and a lot of angry Hispanics and a lot of angry Anglos did not riot and burn. Those people in middle-class and upper class people did not burn, pillage and plunder. So it wasn't just rage either. Third, I've listened carefully to the rhetoric of the angry leadership supposedly representing the disenfranchised, and for those reasons I think this was a class response.

Now listen to me for just a few moments. I'm not an economist or a social theorist, but I think I can make some broad observations that have validity here.

The rhetoric has been that this has been a class struggle and I think that those observations that I just made support that. The idea that class struggle determines economic realities is a foundational tenet of Marxist ideology. It isn't the only place that you find the concept of class struggle but it is a foundational tenant. It's part of a very different system than we practice here. Now, I'm not trying to dismiss this alleged class struggle simply by labeling it Marxist, like "oh, they're all communists." That's not what I'm trying to do; that would be an ad hominem attack. Theoretically, there may be some merit in this way of viewing our problem. I just want you to know what you're dealing with. Understand what it is we're talking about, here. This is an appeal to supplant one system with another.

This other system is not the system we live in. In our system we have loosely stratified classes. It's not a caste system. There's stratification, but it's loose. There is mobility from one class to another. These stratified classes allow individuals, by individual effort, overcoming their personal obstacles, to make a sacrifice and a contribution and move from one class to another. Let me say that again. These stratified classes, these loosely stratified classes, allow individuals, by individual effort, overcoming their personal obstacles, to make a sacrifice and a contribution--mark that too--and move from one class to another.

The other model is very different. The other model is the class struggle model. The other model is for one class to struggle against another, the lower class against the upper class--in Marxist terms the working proletariat vs. the wealth-holding bourgeoisie. This struggle continues until the lower class overthrows the upper class, eliminating class all together by equalizing the wealth.

The basic appeal of this class struggle--read Marxist struggle--is to foment strife between the classes, and in order for this appeal to work there must be a we/they mentality; one must create an enemy.

At least this is the way it's supposed to happen in theory. We saw this kind of class conflict in the French revolution of the nineteenth century, the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and Mao's revolution in Red China.

The basic appeal of this class struggle--read Marxist struggle--is to foment strife between the classes, and in order for this appeal to work there must be a we/they mentality; one must create an enemy. In this case the enemy is the upper class.

But you must not only create an enemy, you must make the first group angry, and you must keep them victims because as long as they're down, as long as they're victimized, they can be angry at this other class and, therefore, you can use that anger and harness it and use it to overthrow this other class. That's why anyone who escapes this lower class is considered a traitor.

I was listening to the news today and apparently there is a group of entertainers who are working hard, a Black entertainers coalition to rebuild our inner-city. I think it's a great idea, with one caveat. I think that's a really great idea to band together and give their money and encourage the city to rebuild itself.

However, there was a comment that was made by one of the leadership as she talked about others who had come out of this background and made it good in entertainment and are now going back to help. She said something like: "No one can get out of the ghetto and succeed as long as others are left behind." Nobody is really out unless everybody is out. This has a lofty appeal to it on first hearing, much like the poetic, "No one is free as long as one person remains a slave." But a closer look reveals that this woman is making a particular kind of statement about this condition. She's saying that you can't get out unless you bring everyone out. Once lower class always lower class, if you will.

Essentially this turns into a caste system mentality . You can't break out. If the lower class derives its identity in it's conflict with the upper class, then when you leave that class you've betrayed it. One Black woman actually told me on the phone the other day that Clarence Thomas had betrayed his heritage. All he did was get out. That was viewed as betrayal.

Note this, friends. This system has no room for reward for anything, only for compensating for failure. Here's why. Once the lower class overcomes the upper class and they equalize wealth, how do you reward? Any reward creates a stratification between those that got rewarded and those that didn't, recreating some distinction between the have's and the have-nots. This mentality breeds nothing but mediocrity. If I can borrow a phrase, "spread the misery" is the mentality (my apologies to all you "Dittohead-phobes" out there). I think it works very nicely.

I saw this entire dynamic in operation as I watched Jesse Jackson address the "Save our Cities/Save Our Children" protest in Washington D.C., on C-SPAN earlier today.

Some of the things Jesse had to contribute were: "Let the rich pay fair taxes." Anybody read George Orwell's 1984? They had something in there called "double-speak." I think, if my memory serves me correctly, double-speak is when you say one thing and given it the exact opposite meaning that it really is. It's just twisting words all around. What does fairness mean? Doesn't fairness mean that everyone is treated equally? Then how does anybody consider that making the rich pay more is fair? It strikes me that if the rich have to pay x-percentage then the poor should have to pay x-percentage, the same thing. That would be fair. Now, it may not be a good system, but it's what's fair. I just don't understand calling the rich paying more taxes than anyone else "fair." You know when they proposed the 18% across the board tax, do you know who was in favor of it? All of the rich people because the rich would pay less taxes if everyone had to pay 18%. The people who opposed it were the people who weren't paying the taxes, the poor. Poor people don't pay taxes, friends.

Jesse Jackson said that our problems are not with the Japanese, but rather with "corporate greed and violence." He wants corporate work-fare, not welfare. He claimed that the top corporations have not created one new job in the last 12 years. Where does this man get his statistics?

How about this one? "Let the people run the businesses from the bottom up," he said. Now that's a statement right out of the Bolshevik revolution. Let me ask you a question. Do you want what you've seen of "the people"--I presume he means the underclass people, because the upper-class people are already running the businesses--do you want these people in charge of America's enterprise? These people he's championing are the ones you saw on T.V. two weeks ago.

He continued stating that, "Japan trains their children while we jail ours"--nice broad statement--noting that "There are more black men in prison in the US than in South Africa." His conclusion: "We are warehousing the souls of our children." If that logic is compelling to you, then I am deeply frightened for America.

His presentation was peppered with chants: "Keep hope alive! Keep hope alive!"; "Seize the power, seize the power!"; "Change the power. Change the power!"; "Pain to power. Pain to power!"

In all this there was not one single word about personal responsibility, not one suggestion that minority men should return to the mothers of their children, that people of color should study harder, work harder, prepare for this imminent transfer of power, get ready to be capable of running the businesses of America from the bottom up, as he suggests they should. Where is the responsibility?

The only reference to personal conduct was a veiled one embedded in another slogan: "Down with dope; up with hope."

Jesse Jackson ended with the chant, "Don't let them break your spirit. Don't let them break your spirit." We/they, the class struggle, coveting.

I know that there are a lot of listeners out there that are going to say "that guy is a racist and a bigot because he is taking exception with what Jesse Jackson is doing." Frankly, I don't care what color Jesse Jackson is. I am not responding to his color. I am responding to his ridiculous and destructive rhetoric. I'm trying to reason with you about a more sensible way to do things. And if you believe this kind of stuff, you are being ripped off. You are being ripped off and I am concerned about that.

Now my explanation isn't the only explanation. It may be only a part of what's going on and I readily admit that. And I'm interested in exploring some other avenues about how to solve this problem, how to make things more equal at the starting line, not at the finish line.

But this is a reasonable explanation for a significant part of the violence, and I don't think it's either fair or sound to call me amoral or a bigot because I won't agree that this was a righteous uprising of oppressed peoples. It simply was not. I may still be an ass in Mr. Viscott's eyes, but that's another discussion.

At least, that's the way I see it.