Eventually we'll all wind up ranting like Cosby. Hopefully, there will be enough people around who care about us to soften our landing.

There's just some different about them kids nowadays. Sounds like I heard that before. Crack snatched more souls than bling ever will. I understand what the author is trying to say but I think it rings hollow. You can't tell me that somehow it's somehow less compelling to kill someone for their gold chain for crack as opposed to shooting them to get some money for your grill.

I think there's three main things going on:

One, the rampant materialism that people are talking about when they mention bling is not new or unique to black people. We are a society of bling.

Two, the "back in the day" stuff nostalgia is part of the strange way our society converts everything to instant nostalgia. Yeah, we may have had entire neighborhoods that were mainly legendary for their violence (e.g. Do or Die Bedstuy) but hey at least we didn't have booty videos and Puff Daddy billboards. The nostalgia among some is really cover for what I think is discomfort with item three below.

Three, media image-wise, the "wrong" black people are out front. As I said in a previous letter about this subject, the 'hood image has overthrown the strivers image. The dirty little secret is that this is somewhat of a class war in the black community. The "loud, ignorant, gin and juice drinking low class ghetto niggahs" have pissed in the punchbowl at the Jack n Jill or NAACP reception and the latter are not amused at all.

Say what? I read the article and some of the letters. It was as you suspected. I can't believe they pulled it down.

Rob Anderson - Uh no, every generation is not getting worse. Before the recent crime spikes in some areas every indicator of "social ills" in the black community was going down while income and educational achievement (measured by test scores and and I think hs and college graduations and partcipation rates as well) have been going up for almost 20 yaers but all that doesn't matter because you are blinded by the bling and booty videos and Puff Daddy billboards. Yeah, right.

"isn't that what the author is saying? the article is chilling because he defines the new materialism as the ability to take "souls" instead of physical property."

No, he's not saying what you quoted from me. The "new" materialism? What pretentiously self-centered prattle. Again, this just the black version of the same old whine about the next generation. The community's going to hell in a handbasket, right? Given your background, it's not surprising you buy into the ego boost. After all, you're not like those other folks, right? Btw, your snide remark aside, I know Coates is a guy but he still captured it better than this author. Matter of fact, Chris Rock captured better than than either of them when he said: I love black people but I hate niggers.

Perhaps you should take your own advice instead of whining. So black men might be doing "worse" than black women in Baltimore therefore black men in general are doing worse than in the 80s and therefore the black community is doing worse in general? Sorry, that's not true. Go to the govt websites and look it up yourself. Why you need to feel that way is between you and your shrink. But, I love the idea that, for example, crime HAS plumetted since the 80's that somehow that plunge is empty or not valid because of the bling. Dumbass.

As I said, I did know Coates was a he. I just made a mistake earlier. So? All this precious stuff is grating. You can't point out any substantive quantitative facts that fit your argument so you're sticking with mutable and subjective "qualitative" nonsense. Somehow bling is "soul snatching" as opposed to the much more damaging, on a factual basis, crack craze, because ice is more expensive than kangols or Mr. T junk gold ropes, right? Neat. Nice way to wash away the past while spitting on the current generation. Cuz like you know when tens of thousands of kids were getting smoked in the streets and even more were drugged out or sent to jail that wasn't as bad as now because some folks now are doing dirty while they get after the ghetto version of the Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous? Nah... I mean I just love the thinking that "qualitatively" implies that it's worse for me to do you for bling rather than over crack. Hell, even Beyonce and Jay Z's upcoming wedding is a "problem".

About the name calling, the "professor" deserved it because he was pulling that pompous bs. You're doing it as well to a lesser degree but, in the spirit of brotherhood, I'll withdraw my dumbass comment. Also, so what we're arguing? At least we care enough to be bothered. Peace.

What a gutless move by Salon. I read the original article and some of the letters before it was pulled, but now, the Editors are trying to paint a difference in interpretation over whether legal protections are afforded to journalists who cover such stories as an inaccuracy on Nathan's part that requires them to pull the story?

It's even more of a gutless move especially since they were the ones who pulled a "NY Post" and sensationalized the opinion piece with a "catchy" headline and graphics. They owe Nathan an apology and their readers the truth. It seems like they are bowing to some sort of pressure. I'm not buying the current line and I'm disappointed in Salon right now.

Oh well, on the "plus" side I guess the Cosmofication of Salon will continue apace with even more stories about pubic hair, dating advice/issues and self-centered tales about the trials and tribulations of neurotic upscale parents.