Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

RIP Andrew Breitbart,
you will be missed!

I wish an early death upon no one, but it seems to me that anyone who would miss the provocateur Andrew Breitbart's uncivil, vitriolic, and patently false "contributions" to public discourse is revealing things about herself or himself that I would think that person would want to keep private.

Alex Pareene, writing on Salon.com, categorizes Breitbart's "contributions" quite well:

• Scalp-hunting

Pareene describes this as "the elevation and demonization of some usually obscure liberal figure done in the hopes of getting them nationally shamed and fired." As an example, he cites the Shirley Sherrod video -- which "blew up in Breitbart's face -- and notes that this kind of false demonization is so much more successful when you do it "with dead people, like Saul Alinsky" (whose famous book, notably, is required reading for many of the Tea Party leaders, and not to "know one's enemy" but as an organizing guide).

• The false "proof"

Pareene notes, "It is a sad fact of online publishing that some ridiculous portion of readers only read the headlines and look at the pictures before moving on." He describes how Breitbart's websites exploit this fact: "'OBAMA MARCHES WITH NEW BLACK PANTHERS,' or something like that, goes the headline. The story can?t support the claim. It doesn?t matter. The headline means it?s true for the majority of the readership."

Notably, Breitbart's last, great "contribution" to our political discourse has just hit the streets. It's the video that he boasted would take down the president. In it, Obama -- then the president of Harvard Law Review -- is speaking at a peaceful rally on the Harvard campus in support of Derek Bell, the first black professor at the Law School. The rally was called in support of getting Harvard to offer tenure to black professors.

The full video was shown on Sean Hannity's show on Fox "News" Channel. He had Breitbart.com editor-in-chief Joel Pollak on as a guest. Pollak described Bell as the "Jeremiah Wright of academia."

You see, once you've said that, and counting on no one to pay much more attention, you've got the "headline" Breitbart was after. It's a headline that throws a bomb into civil discourse and upsets real discussion about real issues.

Yeah, Tracy Coxx, you should be very proud of your view that he will be "missed."

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Notably, Breitbart's last, great "contribution" to our political discourse has just hit the streets. It's the video that he boasted would take down the president. In it, Obama -- then the president of Harvard Law Review -- is speaking at a peaceful rally on the Harvard campus in support of Derek Bell, the first black professor at the Law School. The rally was called in support of getting Harvard to offer tenure to black professors.

Harvard should absolutely not deny tenure based on race. At the same time, they should not grant tenure based on race. Both those actions are by definition, racist.

But anyways, I'll grant that it's important to Obama that a black professor have tenure. It's interesting that he throws all his support behind this guy though. Is it because he identifies with prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Harvard should absolutely not deny tenure based on race. At the same time, they should not grant tenure based on race. Both those actions are by definition, racist.

But anyways, I'll grant that it's important to Obama that a black professor have tenure. It's interesting that he throws all his support behind this guy though. Is it because he identifies with prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

Congratulations. You already know the answers to these rhetorical questions, but it is a notable, new way of dodging the substance of the post about Breitbart.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Congratulations. You already know the answers to these rhetorical questions, but it is a notable, new way of dodging the substance of the post about Breitbart.

The current topic, with Breitbart dead and his video just released is the video. That is the substance, and you did address this in your response. Your frustration with the way people digest news is just that - your frustration, and not the current topic. So rather than whine about it I went straight to the relevant part of your posting.

You're quick to dismiss the two possible answers I listed rather than refuting them. I guess you're accepting at least one of them. Your response is that of the media's - ignore it and hope that it goes away. The president is endorsing a guy with this extremist racist ideology and the media is going to just shrug. This is the same media who stormed Alaska when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate and paid hackers for her emails and did exhaustive investigations on her family.

Oh well, that's my particular frustration if anyone cares. Breitbart is out of the way. Obama can go back to having MediaMatters dictate stories for the news outlets and strong arm all opposition for the rest of the election.

Back to one of the relevant topics. What does everyone think about Obama's support for Bell? Is it because he identifies with an extremist like prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The current topic, with Breitbart dead and his video just released is the video. That is the substance, and you did address this in your response. Your frustration with the way people digest news is just that - your frustration, and not the current topic. So rather than whine about it I went straight to the relevant part of your posting.

You're quick to dismiss the two possible answers I listed rather than refuting them. I guess you're accepting at least one of them. Your response is that of the media's - ignore it and hope that it goes away. The president is endorsing a guy with this extremist racist ideology and the media is going to just shrug. This is the same media who stormed Alaska when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate and paid hackers for her emails and did exhaustive investigations on her family.

Oh well, that's my particular frustration if anyone cares. Breitbart is out of the way. Obama can go back to having MediaMatters dictate stories for the news outlets and strong arm all opposition for the rest of the election.

Back to one of the relevant topics. What does everyone think about Obama's support for Bell? Is it because he identifies with an extremist like prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

I will respond later this morning to the bulk of your post; right now, I must leave for a short while. But the relevant part of my post that you did not answer is this:

I wish an early death upon no one, but it seems to me that anyone who would miss the provocateur Andrew Breitbart's uncivil, vitriolic, and patently false "contributions" to public discourse is revealing things about herself or himself that I would think that person would want to keep private.

And that is what you continue to ignore.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I will respond later this morning to the bulk of your post; right now, I must leave for a short while. But the relevant part of my post that you did not answer is this:

I wish an early death upon no one, but it seems to me that anyone who would miss the provocateur Andrew Breitbart's uncivil, vitriolic, and patently false "contributions" to public discourse is revealing things about herself or himself that I would think that person would want to keep private.

And that is what you continue to ignore.

Really? lol sorry I didn't consider that relevant at all

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Really? lol sorry I didn't consider that relevant at all

Of course, you didn't, because then you might actually have to answer for the destructive nature of Breitbart's participation in our national political discourse. And as we know, that part of your political perspective, expressed so often on this site, is not something you can defend ... at least judging from the fact that you ignore it whenever called out, or start whining about how you're being abused.

[smc]

To clarify, the protest in question was not to get tenure but to support Derrick Bell's call for greater diversity in the faculty and granting of tenure to minorities. Now, on to answer Tracy Coxx, as promised earlier.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Harvard should absolutely not deny tenure based on race. At the same time, they should not grant tenure based on race. Both those actions are by definition, racist.

Ensuring diversity in a university faculty has long required some form of affirmative action in hiring and tenure-granting. Your characterization of this as "racist" suggests that there is no real point in trying to have a real discussion about the issue, unless you are willing to acknowledge the disadvantage that people of color have generally had because of the discrimination they have suffered from an early age, which results in far fewer potential professors.

By the way, Derrick Bell was granted tenure (before the protest in the "Breitbart video," because he was an eminent scholar, first and foremost. Affirmative action for tenure is not about granting exclusively on the basis of race, but on making an extra effort to find qualified candidates who will bring diversity to a faculty ... because such diversity strengthens the educational process for students.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

But anyways, I'll grant that it's important to Obama that a black professor have tenure. It's interesting that he throws all his support behind this guy though. Is it because he identifies with prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

Obama, like most of the Harvard Law School students, identified with Bell's call for diversity in the faculty ... precisely because they saw it as good for their own educations.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

... You're quick to dismiss the two possible answers I listed rather than refuting them. I guess you're accepting at least one of them. Your response is that of the media's - ignore it and hope that it goes away. The president is endorsing a guy with this extremist racist ideology and the media is going to just shrug. This is the same media who stormed Alaska when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate and paid hackers for her emails and did exhaustive investigations on her family.

What a crock of shit. What a poor attempt to change the subject by making it about the media and bringing up Sarah Palin. (By the way, I think that the stuff about Sarah Palin's family was disgusting and shameful to have released publicly, regardless of whether any of it was true).

You should have worked with Breitbart, because by calling Bell "a guy with this extreme racist ideology" and then saying the "president is endorsing" him, you have done exactly what Breitbart did with the smear of Shirley Sherrod (I refer those interested to Google the words Breitbart and Sherrod)

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Oh well, that's my particular frustration if anyone cares. Breitbart is out of the way. Obama can go back to having MediaMatters dictate stories for the news outlets and strong arm all opposition for the rest of the election.

Get out much? How's the view with your head in the sand? The idea that "MediaMatters dictates stories for the news outlets" and that the opposition is being strong-armed is nothing but talking points. It's not real discussion Prove your patently false claim.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Back to one of the relevant topics. What does everyone think about Obama's support for Bell? Is it because he identifies with an extremist like prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

I refer all to the points above. Bell's tenure was not in question. And define "extremist" in this context. I think it means anyone who doesn't correspond to the TracyCoxx world view.

[Enoch Root]

Occupy Oakland:

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/01...veloping-story

[GRH]

SMC,

I'm curious how far you think affirmative action should be extended within academia. As you know, I live in Maine, and it is a VERY white state. Based on 2010 census data, over 95% of the Maine population is white. The remaining ~5% is divided almost equally between blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.

With these numbers in mind, if the racial profile of the academic institution is to match the wider state demographics, then approximately 1 out of every 100 professors should be black. One should be Asian, etc.

Is this acceptable? Given that we are a "white state," should our academic institution mirror the broader demographic that exists here? Or should the school go out of its way to ensure a "more diverse" institution than exists in the broader population? And if the answer is to be "more diverse" than our native population-- how far is enough? Two black professors out of every hundred? Three? Five?

I'm not asking this to be condescending or anything-- I'm really curious. I value diversity (especially in academia), but I've always had a tough time with affirmative action. I don't entirely disagree with it; however, neither do I completely endorse said policies.