Thought I'd reinvigorate the discussion.

President Obama has resisted calls for investigations into wrongdoing by the Bush administration in the human/civil rights areas, saying that we should look ahead.  AG holder seems to be on a different course, and will likely start an investigation.

Is Obama a "bad President" in resisting these calls for investigation?

Sorry for the late reply to:

"Marxist intellectual, Thedore Adorne, the Authoritarian Mind, published in exile from German during the 1950s contends that American conservatism is a basion of fascism because the right-wing is schizophrenic as you claim. Is this another one of your Frankfort School neo-Marxist tactics Mark?"

It has nothing to do with being right-wing, Josh.  Psychotic personalities appear across the political spectrum.  In the minds of such unfortunate souls, fantasy and speculation become fact.  Fictional characters become real, especially when encouraged by unscrupulous people eager to manipulate their gullibility.

The Son of Sam "knew" that a demon told him to kill through a neighbor's dog.  Cognitively impaired readers of his novel "knew" that Davis experienced all of the "Sex Rebel" adventures, just as others "knew" that Gulliver actually was captured by Lilliputians.

"The way to combat noxious ideas is with other ideas. The way to combat falsehoods is with truth."  - William O. Douglas

Calling Davis a pedophile based on his novel makes no more sense than calling David Letterman a pedophile based on his joke.  Both lies are widespread in the right-wing blogosphere.  Both deliberately misrepresent the core values of artists with deviant falsehoods that gullible readers accept as truth, then propagate further in good faith.

Josh's 10:16 pm post is a cut & paste from AIM's web of lies (at  http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/) that kicked off their disinformation campaign against the Obama-Davis relationship.  I believe that even Josh has come to recognize AIM's deception (correct me if I'm wrong, Josh).

Have you served in the military, Josh?

Please elaborate.  What do you mean by "evidence of absence"?  Are you engaging in "specious speculation"?  That is inappropriate in serious historical research.  Always follow the evidence when you are seeking the truth, and rely upon primary sources whenever possible:

On the other hand, if you are a professional prevaricator more concerned with sowing disinformation and smearing reputations at the expense of truth, then speculation and outright fabrication are normal.

"Have patience awhile; slanders are not long-lived. Truth is the child of time; erelong she shall appear to vindicate thee."
   - Immanuel Kant

The only primary sources on the Davis-Obama relationship are the parties involved.  Davis is dead.  Obama is alive.  The points of contention are not whether or not Davis was a family friend or was mention in "Dreams."  The points of contention are:

Did Obama TRUST Davis's advice, and thereby established mentorship in the subject counseled?  This is a subjective opinion, and can best be answered by Obama.  He says no.  In the absence of conflicting evidence, case closed.

- Did Davis teach Marxism to Obama?  Professor Tidwell, accepted as an "expert on the life and writings of Davis" by both the Davis family and AIM, stated "to those attempting to make the specious stand for the concrete, there is no evidence that he instructed Barack Obama in communist ideology."

In the absence of "verifiable sources" that conflict with this evidence, case closed.  Follow the evidence!

If you are a person a integrity, you would accept verifiable evidence from any source.  Advocacy sources are leads to primary sources.

I agree, Marilyn M., that "one cannot use a person's book as the only source of information about said person."  Nevertheless, one should use primary source documents as empirical evidence.   Are there any primary source documents other than his book regarding the Davis-Obama relationship. 

Unless you have access to some heretofore undisclosed eyewitness accounts, "Dreams" is the only empirical evidence of this relationship.  Although a disinformation campaign has misrepresented this relationship based on conjecture rather than evidence, Professor Edgar Tidwell's analysis is the next best thing.

Follow the evidence.  Avoid the "post hoc" fallacy.

"Well maybe so Josh, but I think it interesting in that I in one part of my post supported Frank Marshell Davis in contesting that he was not a communist, but Mark choose to attack the fact that I suggested that his book might be a reflection of his actual life without acknowledging the support I offered."

Dan E:  It's a question of terminology.  There is compelling evidence that he joined the CPUSA during WWII as a "marriage of convenience."  By virtue of his membership, he may be considered a communist.  According to his economic views, however, he was not a communist because he did not believe in collectivism. 

That's the reason I did not address that comment.  But thanks for that support anyway!

At 5:37 AM I posted that I am researching election disinformation.  Those other issues do not fall within the purview of this research.  Because "half-coherent" is probably the best I can get from you, thanks anyway!

"in the case of Frank Davis Sex Rebel contains many incriminating and embarassing acts of sexual degeneracy involving the rape of a 14 yeat old girl by him and his wife as well as numerous homosexual encounters and group sex."

Once again, unsubstantiated accusations.  The book contains a sexual encounter between fictional characters.  The inability to distinguish between fact and fiction is symptomatic of schizophrenia.

It's a pity that estates of the deceased are not able to sue for slander in the United States.

Contray to the simplistic assertion that a "communist is a communist is a communist," FMD did not believe in collectivism.  According to Professor Tidwell, THESE were the "radical" goals of Frank Marshall Davis:

(1) integration of armed forces

(2) integration of AFL and CIO

(3)  fair wages and other benefits for workers

(4)  general dismantling of all laws supporting racial segregation

(5)  end to laws supporting anti-Semitism

(6)  end to atomic warfare

(7)  rights for soldiers in combat zones to vote in national elections

(8)  support for Fair Employment Practices Act

(9)  support for a broad United Nations (not just US and Great Britain
forming a world power union)

(10) end to restrictive covenants in real estate

You may have notice that these "radical" concepts are mainstream American concepts today.  This may be confirmed by examining primary source documents, such as posted in Dan E's link (thanks!), rather than the disinformation of the right-wing blogosphere.

FMD was not out of line.  He was just ahead of his time.

"Mark has claimed that the book Sex Rebel written by Frank Marshal Davis as Bob Green is fictional, yet in both the introduction by Dale Gordon Ph.D. and by Davis in the foreword, the book is proported to be based on the real life experiences of the author."

Evidently you have not been paying attention:

-  Davis did not write anything in the foreward.  Fictional character Bob Greene "wrote" the foreward and the rest of the book.

-  Like "Lolita," this faux foreword is written by a Ph.D impersonator who details the psychological significance of the memoir. 

-  All memoir-novels (see http://www.answers.com/topic/memoir-novel-1), whether pornographic (e.g., John Cleland's "Fanny Hill"), satirical (e.g., Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels"), or other genre (e.g., Daniel Defoe's "Moll Flanders"), are allegedly true but nevertheless fiction.   The fictional authors of memoir-novels, such as "Bob Greene," claim that such incidents actually occurred although they, too, are fictional.  Do you also believe these memoir-novels are also true?

- In a broader sense, ALL first-person narrative novels (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-person_narrative), such as Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn," claim authenticity despite obviously being fiction.  To claim that some memoir-novels are literally true (if convenient for one's political agenda), while acknowledging that other memoir-novels are truly fiction, is intellectual dishonesty.

JOSH WROTE:  "Davis may have done some of the things that he wrote about in the book, which would mean that he was a sexual deviant/homosexual who engaged in group sex that influenced our current president."

RESPONSE:  Anyone MAY HAVE done anything!  This is not evidence that he actually did ANY of those things.  You claimed that he actually did such things, which is unsubstantiated by the evidence.  As a law student, you should know the difference between possible actions and confirmed actions.  Follow the evidence!

To claim that he actually did such things just because it is POSSIBLE that he did such things defies comprehension!  Hopefully you will study deductive logic to keep you from jumping to conclusions based on possibilities rather than empirical evidence.

Do you believe that murder mystery authors actually committed murder, just because it is POSSIBLE that they did?  Do you believe that every suspect in a murder investigation actually committed murder just because it is POSSIBLE that they did?

Please!

CORRECTED COMMENT:

JOSH POSTED: 4) What about Gerald Horne he says that Davis was influential to Obama, are he and Mr. Kincaid in a grand conspiracy with one another?

John Edgar Tidwell backs these things up about Davis, hell he interviewed the man at least once because here is the site.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2904355?cookieSet=1

How can these people all be wrong? The FBI agents who followed Davis said he was up to no good, do you not think that they know Communist and political dissident when they see one Mark?

RESPONSE:  There is no question that Davis was "influential to Obama."  The issue is the TYPE of influence.  Horne only says Davis was influential in helping Obama with his RACIAL identity.   Influence, per se, is not a point of contention.

Let's concentrate on actual points of contention.  Right-wingers fabricated claims of POLITICAL influence without any evidence.  THIS is the misrepresentation that Professor Tidwell dismisses in his statement "there is no evidence that he instructed Barack Obama in communist ideology."

Once again, any FBI opinion that Davis was "up to no good" is irrelevent, because the FBI may have also felt that Dr. King was "up to no good."  Opinions are like navels.  In the words of Professor Tidwell, the "good" that Davis was up to was "gaining the constitutional freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for ALL Americans."

Once again:  "how did you reach the conclusion that FMD was his mentor?  Independent research?"

Most of the "specific misrepresentation" cited at that website proves deception by comparing source material with AIM's published posts that misrepresent that material. 

For example, the Congressional testimony of Edward Berman is posted online.  AIM's misrepresentation of that testimony is also posted online.  The cited link highlights AIM's misrepresentation of that Congressional testimony.

In an honest evaluation, any of these disclaimers should protect the author from literal interpretation.  The combination of all four should provide absolute protection from any culpability.  Unfortunately, Davis's accusers are dishonest. 

Like Mike Nifong, the disgraced ex-D.A. in the Duke lacrosse case, their campaign to demonize their target ignores exculpatory evidence in their reckless rush to judgment.  In order to smear Barack Obama through guilt-by-association with Frank Marshall Davis, they are virtually lynching Davis by grossly misrepresenting his character and influence.  Such misrepresentation may be symptomatic of the accuser's own psychological disorder, indicated by projection of the accuser's own pedophilic fantasies onto the author.

In "Sex Rebel," Davis's Bob Greene (not unlike Nabokov's Humbert Humbert) hesitates at a pubescent girl's sexual invitation, but foolishly relents.  Like "Lolita," Davis's faux foreword is written by a Ph.D impersonator who details the psychological significance of the memoir.  Like Nabokov, Davis wanted to write under a pseudonym to shield his reputation, but felt compelled to reveal his authorship.  As a result, however, Davis has been posthumously accused of pedophilia, while "Lolita" is "considered by many to be one of the finest novels written in the 20th century."  In 1998, it was named the fourth greatest English language novels of the 20th century by the Modern Library," despite also being initially dismissed as pornography, according to Wikipedia.

For  objective articles on this issue, please see http://wxxxnews.blogspot.com/2008/10/sex-rebel-black.html and http://iamthelizardqueen.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/the-national-enquirer-wingnuttery-and-autobiographies/#comment-5904

Please note that unlike your FALSIFIED extract, Davis's name is never used in the book  Further, there are at least four disclaimers that indemnify Frank Marshall Davis from literal attribution of this novel:  

 a.  All memoir-novels (see http://www.answers.com/topic/memoir-novel-1), whether pornographic (e.g., John Cleland's "Fanny Hill"), satirical (e.g., Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels"), or other genre (e.g., Daniel Defoe's "Moll Flanders"), are allegedly true but nevertheless fiction.   The fictional author of memoir-novels, such as "Bob Greene," claim that such incidents actually occurred although they, too, are fictional.  In a broader sense, ALL first-person narrative novels (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-person_narrative), such as Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn," claim authenticity despite obviously being fiction.  

b.  Scandalous memoirs such as "Sex Rebel:  Black (Memoirs of a Gash Gourmet)" have been a literary genre for centuries.  According to Wikipedia, such scandalous memoirs are allegedly factual, but are largely invented.  The title, alone, qualifies it as a "scandalous memoir."  It is the epitome of dishonesty to claim, without empirical evidence, that fictional characters' experiences actually occurred in their author's real life .  

 c.  The fictional character Bob Greene, not author Frank Marshall Davis, "changed names and identities" of other characters.  According to dictionary.com, "identity" means "condition or character as to who a person or what a thing is: a case of mistaken identity."  Changing name AND identities means changing names AND other "condition or character as to who a person or what a thing is," which may include biographical data such as age.  Further, "taken from actual experiences" does not mean they are accurate representations of any experiences.   

d.  Edgar Tidwell, the expert on the life and writing of Frank Marshall Davis, says the book is "semiautobiographical," which (according to dictionary.com) means "1. pertaining to or being a fictionalized account of an author's own life.  2. pertaining to or being a work of fiction strongly influenced by events in an author's life."  "Sex Rebel: Black" is therefore a fictionalized account of events in Davis's life.