I invoked Oprah only to point out what should be obvious: The existence of millions of very successful, middle-class African-Americans refutes the idea that the deprivations of the black underclass are, in fact, caused by any historical forces like slavery and segregation.

Hutchinson ignores most of my arguments, and distorts many others. He contends, for instance, that I claimed only “a handful of Southern planters were responsible for and profited from slavery.” Actually, I didn’t make this claim at all. Instead I argued that if America’s wealth was built on the free and exploited labor of black slaves, as reparations-proponents claim, then those blacks who are alive today (and are thus the proposed beneficiaries of reparations) are also the beneficiaries of slavery and slave labor.

Identifying slave-owners as a small cohort in the population was intended to demonstrate that the vast majority of living Americans who aren’t black, but who were not the descendants of slave-owners are in the same boat, morally, as the descendants of slaves — both are innocent of the crime of slavery, and both have benefited from the fruits of slavery. The attempt to ignore this fact (as Hutchinson does) is a form of racism. Why are only whites supposed to pay reparations, since the benefits they allegedly received from slavery are no different from the benefits that blacks enjoy when they participate in the bounties of Americas wealth?

Hutchinson doesn’t even deal with the point that there were more than 3,000 black slave-owners, and no one is proposing to deprive their descendants of reparations payments, or to make them pay reparations. His statement that whites and non-whites who came after slavery (and therefore had no role in it) did not experience “racial terror and legal segregation” is not even a half-truth.

Discrimination — and job discrimination in particular — against Jews, Poles, the Irish, Asians and Hispanics (to cite a few minorities) certainly caused significant economic hardship to these groups and put significant obstacles in their path. Hutchinson’s dismissal of their suffering is just an example of the narcissism and self-pity that reparations proponents promote.

Both slavery and legal segregation, as reparations-proponents tend to ignore, was confined to the South. To make a case that these historic outrages led to a permanent handicap of blacks alive today, one would have to conduct a sociological study to show a significantly greater economic deficit among blacks and the descendants of blacks who were subjected to legal segregation. Nobody appears to have done this. Nor is there any other sociological study or comparable evidence provided by reparations proponents to support any of their claims.

Instead, there is rhetorical bombast like this: “Through the decades of slavery and Jim Crow segregation, African-Americans were transformed into the poster group for racial dysfunctionality that Horowitz giddily reminds the world of.” Of course this is simply false. The 80 percent out-of-wedlock birthrate in the inner city — to take one important example — is a post-1960s phenomenon that has no links to slavery or segregation. Black families were 90 percent intact in the 1940s, and as late as 1965 were 75 percent intact.

Hutchinson’s version of my next argument is an amalgamation of several arguments, all of which he muddles and misrepresents. I raised the fact that slavery is so far in the past to point out that those who claim that it still has effects on present generations have a heavy burden of proof, which none of the proponents — Hutchinson included — has even attempted to provide.

He then imputes the claim to me that “blacks are living better than ever.” As usual, I never made the claim. Some blacks — the majority — are indeed living better than ever. But others - inner-city blacks in particular — are worse off. Those who are living better show that history, even a history of suffering is not necessarily an obstacle to success. Those who are worse off, are suffering the effects of welfare dependency, drugs and other urban ills that have nothing to do with slavery or segregation. I also pointed out that very poor Mexicans and Vietnamese come to America and despite immense language barriers and ethnic prejudice do better than inner-city blacks. Hutchinson does not even address this argument.

Instead he invokes a “poll” by the National Conference for Community and Justice that finds that “blacks are still overwhelmingly the victims of racial discrimination.” What is this supposed to mean? Who was polled? What evidence was provided that most blacks are discriminated against? If most blacks are discriminated against, and most carry with them the legacy of slavery and discrimination, how come some black communities are economically thriving while others are not?

According to Hutchinson, one result of “the hideous legacy of slavery” is that blacks make up more than half of the 2 million prisoners in American prisons. Come again? When young black males form gangs in the inner city and shoot other young black males, are we to understand that slavery made them do it? Why didnt they do it in the 1920s, when the KKK had 20 million members? Why did they choose the era following the triumph of the civil rights movement — the 1970s and ’80s — to launch these homicidal assaults? In Hutchinson’s hands, obviously, “slavery” is no longer part of a rational argument, it is a magical incantation invoked to explain every ill and pathology suffered by inner-city blacks. Which is pretty much what I said about the logic of reparations proponents, generally, in my article.

Hutchinson claims I argued that “reparations will make everyone hate blacks more.” Once again, I never said this. I did say that the reparations claim will be racially divisive and will self-isolate blacks even more than they already are. I specifically singled out the separatist — racist — currents in the black community and said that this grievance-mongering coupled with the attack it represents on blacks’ American heritage will have a destructive effect on the black community itself.

Hutchinson is right when he says that most Americans agree that slavery was morally wrong. I would add the obvious fact: Most Americans agree that racial discrimination was and is morally wrong. But that’s very different from agreeing that we should make everyone responsible for slavery, and guilty for slavery — especially those of us who abhor and oppose it, which is exactly what the reparations claim does. How much more resentment do black leaders want to create?

Hutchinson also claims I said, “There’s no precedent for paying blacks for their suffering.” Once again this is a thorough misrepresentation of my argument. I said the precedents invoked by reparations claimants were inapt, because they involved payments to people who were directly harmed. The victims of the Tuskegee experiment were actually surviving victims of the Tuskegee experiment.

Since Earl Ofari Hutchinson is not a slave, he is not an obvious “victim” of slavery in any actionable sense. Since he has provided no evidence that he has suffered actual damages from slavery (e.g., that he would be earning more money now if his great grandparents — or is it great-great-grandparents? — had not been slaves), why should I or Lola Martinez, or Nguyen Van Troi pay him reparations? This is the actual argument I made and that Hutchinson hasnt answered.

Finally, I disagree with David Ben Gurion on the question of “collective reparations” for past suffering. Insofar as the past involves the dead, its injustices cannot be redressed. Moreover, the attempt to do so is likely to cause problems for the living that are incalculable and that extend into the future.

At the same time, the relationship between Germany and Israel is very different from the relationship between the African-American descendants of slaves and America. The German government — a government elected democratically and overwhelmingly supported by the German people — set out to exterminate the Jews. In a few years, they succeeded in exterminating virtually all the Jews of Europe. Israel is a country that was created specifically to provide a refuge for the survivors of this holocaust that no other country would. Therefore, a collective guilt is certainly attributable to the German government and its people, particularly since in 1952 the members of that government had all been adults during the years in which the extermination was carried out.

America, by contrast, did not create slavery. Moreover, America designed itself as a nation dedicated to the propositions that all men are equal and should be free. Over the course of four-score and 20 years America did in fact fulfill this promise. As of 1807, America outlawed the slave trade, in which it had been a participant, and helped to destroy the slave trade internationally. In a civil war that cost the anti-slavery free states of the North 350,000 young men, African-Americans were freed. They were freed in America before they were freed in Africa. The present government of the United States is lineally descended from the free states of the North, not the slave South. So the analogy and the Ben Gurion quote are inappropriate in this case.

Unfortunately, Hutchinson has chosen mainly to ignore what I wrote in my article and to invent a series of other arguments to “refute.” In addition to the above, he has ignored the entire corpus of arguments I put forward as to why the reparations claim is 1) bad for blacks and 2) racist, too. Was this an oversight? A failure of comprehension? I wouldnt know. But his obtuseness does not bode well for the course of this debate.

Meanwhile, Amy Poehler isn’t the only cast member of “Parks and Recreation” keeping herself in the spotlight. While the comedian is off giving speeches at Harvard, her costar Nick Offerman (who plays her boss and meat-lover Ron Swanson) has been wooing Oprah to come play his first ex-wife next season.  As he told the Huffington Post:

“I think Oprah would be the only, she’s the only person we can think of that might be intimidating to Megan Mullally. It would be so good.”

He then added, “I can assure you if it’s not Oprah, I will quit.”

And while that’s doubtful, Oprah should actually consider it. She did cameo on “30 Rock,” so it’s only fair.

Rounding out the news cycle is Danny Pudi, who plays Abed on “Community.” Anyone who still thinks that show isn’t being taken seriously should check out Variety right now, where “Abed” has been given a column in-character for Emmy season. He’s predicting who will win the awards based solely on his extensive knowledge of television and film (despite never having seen the shows in question), as well as his more savant-like tendencies:

I sort the last four into two groups: a) shows that have won an Emmy, so it seems like they’ll win again, and b) shows that haven’t won yet, so it seems like their turn. Sorting every winner since “I Love Lucy” in 1953:

 B A B B A B A B B AA B B AB B A A B B AA A B A A B B A B B A B AB                              A A B B A A A A B B B B B B A B B A A B

The “ABBA” pattern emerges soon and repeats often, as people’s urge to shake up a system always results in systemic shaking. I totally get it: I once missed a week of school by trying not to touch my chin 7,000 times. The stretches of non-ABBA you see are “cable scares,” like when we just kept giving Emmys to “Frasier” until “Larry Sanders” went away. Think of TV as Rain Man getting through HBO’s smoke alarm by chanting “I like the guy from Cheers.”

The whole article is amazing, and by far my favorite post-finale offering from an NBC comedy actor. Then again, I’m a little biased.

2. Abed from “Community” shows up on “Cougar Town”:

Easter egg for the super fans and the people who love Subway.

3. OWN picks up new series, “Don’t Tell the Bride“: Groom and future wife are separated for a month before the wedding; he has to make all the decisions about planning the event. Hope she likes nachos and a boob-shaped cake.

4. Student makes Chanel bag out of beef jerky:

(Photo by Nancy Wu)

Oh what? It’s all cowhide, no matter which way you look at it. Calm down and take a bite.

5. Museum-going men are happier than their counterparts: That 2 percent of the male population must be having a blast.

6. This mommy kitten is hugging her baby kitten:

Yes, dear, it’s very, very cute. Please let me go back to bed now, I have work in the morning. Well, if it’s so great, take a video of it! I’ll watch it later.

7. “Pop-Up Video” is coming back to VH1: Though now it’s just called “tweeting during music videos.”

8. “Jersey Shore’s” Ronnie and the Situation get into a fistfight in Florence: Really, guys? Really? Italy was ready to boot you out before you even showed up, and this is how you show your good behavior?

9. Mark Zuckerberg, woodsman: The Facebook CEO will only eat food he kills himself. His private message to friends on FB just read: “I just killed a pig and a goat.” And not on FarmVille.

10. “True Blood’s” fourth season trailer: “Oh great, now I have to deal with witches?“

Our thoughts exactly.

No, wait, scratch that. Her show wasn’t truly about Oprah at all. It was about you. All of you. But especially you, the individual sitting there watching her “every day,” as she said.

She had a message for you, the individual. Several messages, actually — and they were all intertwined: Take responsibility for your life. Be honest with yourself and others. Be responsible for the energy you put out in the world, because that energy comes back around eventually. Also: There is a God, or a life force, and you should get to know him/her/it, because he/she/it can improve your judgment and guide your life.

There was a clip reel of people admitting things on TV that they had never told close friends and family members. They said they were alcoholics or drug addicts, that they had HIV, that they had endured or inflicted spousal abuse. The confessions had a snowball effect and became collectively cathartic, Oprah said: “Little by little, we started to release the shame.”

One of the clips was of Oprah herself circa 1986, revealing that she herself had been sexually abused as a child. Another clip referenced the recent broadcast in which actor-director Tyler Perry said he’d been sexually abused as a child, then led an audience of 200 fellow sexual abuse survivors, all men, while they stood together holding pictures of themselves as kids.

Long sections of Oprah’s final syndicated broadcast, which amounted to a 42-minute monologue interspersed with video clips, suggested a church service, though precisely what kind varied from moment to moment.

Sometimes it felt like Sunday school for kids. Other times it felt like a sermon, or the opening remarks of a self-help group leader opening a meeting in a church basement.  “Don’t wait for anybody else to fix you, to save you or complete you,” she said. “‘Jerry Maguire’ was just a movie. [But] no one completes you. We have seen that with guest after guest. When you accept that you are responsible for your life, you…get….free.”

Still other times the broadcast evoked the famous sequence in “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” where Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, presumed dead, attend their own funeral service and hear themselves eulogized. But here was Oprah doing the eulogizing. In an especially unfortunate moment, she suggested that God was responsible for the meeting of her father’s sperm and her mother’s egg. That may very well be true, but if so, it’s true for every other human being as well — and when you put it in the words that Oprah chose, it can’t help but sound oddly messianic.

Oprah’s last words before exiting stage left were, “to God be the glory.”

She talked about how, deep down, she really wanted to be a teacher, and near the end of the broadcast, she introduced her very first mentor, her fourth grade teacher Mrs. Mary Alice Duncan, who was sitting there in the audience, tearing up and grinning.

She said that her guests taught her that there was “no need to feel superior to anybody” because “there is a common thread that runs through all of our pain and all of our suffering, and that is unworthiness, not feeling worthy enough to own the life that you were created for…Your being here, your being alive, makes worthiness your birthright. You alone are enough.”

She said that within each person, no matter what his or her race, creed, color or life experience, is a little voice that asks, “Do you see me? Do you hear me? Does what I say mean anything to you?” That voice, Oprah said, was what she hoped to answer, encourage and embrace over the course of 25 years and 4,561 shows.

It would have been nice if, at some point during the telecast, even a single audience member had been permitted to utter one syllable. There was no dialogue, only monologue interspersed by cheers, laughter and applause. The key to Oprah’s success, she assured us, is that she knows that deep down, everyone wants to be heard. But in this last broadcast, nobody else got a word in edgewise.

It was a final summation in a career which, judged in terms of social good and emotional healing, required no defense. Oprah is a force for good, period. She may inspire love, loathing, bafflement, amusement, irritation, you name it, but there is no possible way to evalute the sum total of her career on TV without concluding that the world is a somewhat better place because she was in it. And yet here she was making a case for herself, Oprah Winfrey for the defense, as if she wasn’t worthy of all this attention and acclaim. As if she didn’t get her own memo. It was poignant in ways she herself probably didn’t intend.

She left her stage, her classroom, her pulpit, unfinished. A work in progress.

So perhaps the biggest surprise of today was a heartfelt speech by Oprah’s silent partner Stedman Graham. Looking nervous, Stedman said that he didn’t know of anyone else who could change so many people’s lives and also bring a bagged lunch to work.

Meanwhile, Dr. Maya Angelou’s contribution to the ceremony was a new poem, which she read accompanied by Alicia Keyes on the piano:

“Unplanned and unrehearsed, this big-eyed black girl from Mississippi, showed the world how to look at itself … She listened to the rich and the poor, the famous and the infamous … For 25 years she listened. … She said, ‘Be strong, be kind, and call me Oprah.’ I can. I will. And I shall. Be Oprah. I am. Oprah. Oprah. Oprah.”

Of course, not everyone took the same approach to honoring the living legend. Jerry Seinfeld used his five minutes to complain about his marriage, women in general, and how it’s Oprah’s fault that ladies mock their husbands. Then Jerry took his seat, directly next to Oprah, because they are best friends anyway.

Simon Cowell introduced a musical number where Rosie O’Donnell sang a reworked version of “Fever,” with special appearances by Dr. Phil, Nate Berkus and Dr. Oz (the last of which said Oprah’s gift to the world was teaching everyone about S-shaped poop). Usher, Kristin Chenoweth and Aretha Franklin filled out the non-ironic singing portion of the show.

The oddest moment of the episode was when Maria Shriver joined Oprah onstage with Gayle King to thank her friend for “giving me  … the most important gift of all … telling me the truth.” It was a loaded moment, though if Arnold was watching, the camera didn’t cut to him. This was Oprah’s day, after all.