Yea yea, I know. Different guy.
[tweetmeme source="Wuzhatnin_com" alias="http://bit.ly/21ZBfT"]Now that I’ve got your attention, who the hell is he anyway? He is the cretin who—speaking out against former Fox News Analyst Marc Lamont Hill—came out with this gem:
Hill is one of a community of black intellectuals promoted well beyond their abilities…
Sorry, there are times when you know a road is not worth following because given where you are starting from, it could not possibly lead to a place you want to go. So the context of that statement is not important. What IS important is that shallow, narrow-minded racists like Horowitz have always taken it upon themselves to sit in judgment of blacks of all walks of life in terms of their abilities or lack thereof, and what they think those individuals are capable of. When I read that statement, it reminded me of a line John Lithgow’s character uttered in the movie “The Tuskegee Airmen” when he referred to black intellectuals as, “a bunch of college-educated niggers.” Horowitz uses the term “black intellectual” as if he’s speaking about the Chupacabras. But then, what else would you expect in an article entitled: “Fox’s Affirmative Action Baby Whines?”
Affirmative Action Baby??? You’ve got to be kidding me man. What century are you from???
Bill O’Reilly was debating with Marc Lamont Hill, Ph.D about whether or not Barack Obama deserved his Nobel Peace Prize. O’Reilly was surprisingly pragmatic in saying it was good for America for various reasons. Hill disagreed saying that he is a traditionalist in that he assumes, “a Nobel Peace Prize winner should bring about peace.” He then added that he was “shocked and disappointed” that someone prosecuting two wars could win the prize.
This opinion is not unique to Hill. It was expressed by many in the days following the award by the Nobel Committee. It stems more from a lack of understanding of what the award symbolizes than anything else. This lack of understanding can trace its roots to European pragmatism and how the European decision making process confuses people who subscribe to American puritanism and its ‘damn the consequences’ decision making processes. (see the article “Obama brings honor to America” for a Rachel Maddow video clip that addresses this contrast)
To illustrate this concept, consider the argument over whether to distribute clean needles to heroine addicts. American politicians and religious icons point out that to distribute needles amounts to an endorsement of illegal drug use. Then in the full glory of their righteous indignation they block all attempts to implement such a plan, filibuster any further dialogue on the subject, and then viciously attack those who suggested it in the first place. The consequence is an HIV epidemic among drug users, which then infects partners of drug users or people transfused with blood donated by druggies trying to score cash for their next fix. Who cares how many people die? As long as we feel good about our decision and the dying happens to other people.
On the other hand, look at the European political paradigm. Someone points out that people are getting AIDS through no fault of their own and one possible source is heroine users. Experts in the fields of medicine, law enforcement, and social sciences all agree that handing out needles will mitigate the problem at least somewhat and will definitely save lives. That is all you need to prove in Europe. Saving lives is the primary concern so the pragmatic action is taken. Clean needles are handed out with everyone agreeing to deal with the moral implications as a secondary concern.
In order to understand why Norwegians do not feel that their perceptions of karmic justice have been grossly violated by giving awards to people who are “merely” trying as opposed to achieving, one must accept that effort has value. That working toward peace is worthy of merit because without the effort, the war profiteers win by default.
Hill either does not understand or does not agree with those principles. I cannot judge what he understands or does not understand or knows or does not know. Neither can Mr. Horowitz. By doing so, he demonstrates a profound level of ignorance. If he objects to the elevation of a man with a lowly doctorate in “education,”—as Horowitz points out—then perhaps he can explain what qualifies Bill O’Reilly to not only offer commentary on this issue but every issue on his own TV show? What qualifies anyone—for that matter—to offer an opinion? Isn’t that what freedom of speech is for?
If such qualifications should be prerequisite to offering such opinions on television, then why does Mr Horowitz have a picture of Glenn Beck on his webpage? You know, Glenn Beck the divisive college dropout. In fact, if you search Mr. Horowitz’ website for citations of Glenn Beck, there are—well I stopped counting at 100 but you get the picture. Why does Horowitz find Beck so compelling if an accomplished African American like Hill is unworthy of even the small pittance of prestige that the term “Fox News Analyst” would afford him? I hope Dr. Hill will achieve real notoriety by becoming an analyst for a real news source and not the partisan pessimism that masquerades as news on that channel.
What pessimism you ask? Where to begin…Here is an example of what can be expected by people whose minds are in the psychological gutter. Horowitz says,
My objection to Hill’s appearance as a rap professor pontificating about geopolitical issues is it fed the soft racism of low expectations and that it was in fact an insult to all those black academics who would actually have had something intelligent to say about the Iran crisis.
Interestingly, Horowitz neglected to offer any suggestions of the kind of “black academics” he would prefer hearing from. Perhaps he can’t think of any who don’t remind him of rap when they try to sound “intelligent.” Worse, this is a personal attack with absolutely no substance. He questioned Dr. Hill’s credentials but does not elaborate on which aspects of Hill’s opinions that he disagrees with. What academic attacks another without detailing why he feels the other is in error? I should perhaps thank him for so benevolently championing us poor, defenseless African Americans who fall victim to those “low expectations.” Better that he attack African American scholars directly rather than allow them to fall victim to “soft racism.” Naturally, there is nothing in our history that would lead him to believe we can overcome racism without his help. He is selflessly attacking Dr. Hill as a preemptive measure to save us the burden of having to watch someone else do it.
Let’s not stop there. The hits just continue. Try this little gem on for size,
Marc Lamont Hill, out of all the black intellectuals available, to talk about cultural issues (let alone international affairs.) Hill is one of a community of black intellectuals promoted well beyond their abilities — Michael Eric Dyson and Cornel West are two obvious others — who are poisoning the minds of black youth with the idea that politically correct murderers like Assata Shakur are heroes, and patriotic Americans are devils incarnate.
Marc Lamont Hill
Oh so now he wants to offer an opinion on who would be a proper role model for young African Americans??? He keeps talking about the community of “black intellectuals” but the only blacks he can think of are those he wants to disparage? Horowitz says that these personal attacks may cause him to be cast as a “McCarthyite.” I think that would actually be an elevation given that there is not a single substantive criticism in his entire article.
Wait, I can think of a black intellectual that Horowitz might find to be a sterling example for African American youth. He said, “I have studied the American left longer and know more about it than Professor Hill does about hip-hop culture or, for that matter, about me.” Again this hip-hop theme keeps coming back in his posts and is clearly something he despises. Maybe he is thinking of the mix-master M.C. of hip-hop bling-bling Michael Steele. The man who is taking the message of the Republican party to the streets and asking our youth, “What up?” After all, there is nothing African American youth like more than being patronized by middle-aged bling-slingers. Then again, Horror-wits (since we are being superficial) probably finds Steele too rap-like as well, nicht wahr?
In yet another article, Horror-wits offered another enlightened opinion,
“Hill is in fact a knee jerk leftist, a defender of ACORN and a man whose attitudes toward race are a throwback to the sixties. I wonder if O’Reilly understands that putting on such a lightweight feeds the racism of low expectations.”
As Horror-wits demonstrates, short-sightedness needs not be fed. “The racism of low expectations” is self-nurturing and self-replicating. Further, it would be a mistake to think that the hollow platitudes he offers recognizing black intellectuals that he cannot name and speaking repeatedly of “low expectations” cast any doubt as to why the idea of Dr. Hill as intellectual offends Horror-wits in such a personal way. Incidentally, I also defend ACORN. They have no credible opposition. Just bitter hypocrites who don’t like the part of democracy that allows low-income people to organize, vote, and try to build a better future for themselves.
I can go on and on. I have seen enough material with just a cursory glance at Mr. Horor-witz’s body of work to fill the encyclopedia of demagoguery. I will however, give props to Mr. Bill O’Reilly. I watched his show back when I considered myself a conservative. I stopped watching when I quit Fox after they hired Mark Fuhrman as an analyst. I have to give respect that O’Reilly did not abandon Hill solely by word of the vermin who oppose the idea of this Ph.D as an intellectual. O’Reilly clearly recognized this for the bigoted background noise that one might expect given the networks target demographic. Nevertheless, it seems Rupert Murdoch chose to appease the bigots by firing Hill.
Lastly, I will say that I have reviewed some of Dr Hill’s writings. I cannot say that I was that familiar with him before today, probably because I tend to give Fox News a wide berth these days. Fox does after all recruit anyone and anything that appears even slightly anti-black. I already mentioned the offensive hiring of the genocidal dreamer, Mark Fuhrman. Then, Fox could not wait to get its hands on Don Imus. Personally, I don’t think Imus is a racist but he said some insensitive things at the wrong time, in the wrong place. He said those things because that was his act, simple as that. Fox is hiring him because they know that people who feel a certain way will flock to watch him because they think he is a racist, whether he is or not. Alternatively, I believe that Fox hires an African American here and there solely for plausible deniability. I realize that a job is a job, but there are places to work where you don’t have to sell your integrity to provide cover for a radical agenda.
In any case, from what I have seen thus far I would disagree with Dr. Hill on many issues if we had a discussion, starting with the Nobel Prize award. I would not do him the disrespect of disparaging him and his credentials for superficial reasons. The ability to disagree respectfully is the foundation of productive discourse. I guess after this article I can forget productive discourse with Mr. Horror-wits as well. Of course when all is said and done, he is after all—a pinhead.
Comments
[tweetmeme source="Wuzhatnin_com" alias="http://bit.ly/21ZBfT"]
David Horowitz should stick to pianos
Yea yea, I know. Different guy.
[tweetmeme source="Wuzhatnin_com" alias="http://bit.ly/21ZBfT"]Now that I’ve got your attention, who the hell is he anyway? He is the cretin who—speaking out against former Fox News Analyst Marc Lamont Hill—came out with this gem:
Sorry, there are times when you know a road is not worth following because given where you are starting from, it could not possibly lead to a place you want to go. So the context of that statement is not important. What IS important is that shallow, narrow-minded racists like Horowitz have always taken it upon themselves to sit in judgment of blacks of all walks of life in terms of their abilities or lack thereof, and what they think those individuals are capable of. When I read that statement, it reminded me of a line John Lithgow’s character uttered in the movie “The Tuskegee Airmen” when he referred to black intellectuals as, “a bunch of college-educated niggers.” Horowitz uses the term “black intellectual” as if he’s speaking about the Chupacabras. But then, what else would you expect in an article entitled: “Fox’s Affirmative Action Baby Whines?”
Affirmative Action Baby??? You’ve got to be kidding me man. What century are you from???
Bill O’Reilly was debating with Marc Lamont Hill, Ph.D about whether or not Barack Obama deserved his Nobel Peace Prize. O’Reilly was surprisingly pragmatic in saying it was good for America for various reasons. Hill disagreed saying that he is a traditionalist in that he assumes, “a Nobel Peace Prize winner should bring about peace.” He then added that he was “shocked and disappointed” that someone prosecuting two wars could win the prize.
This opinion is not unique to Hill. It was expressed by many in the days following the award by the Nobel Committee. It stems more from a lack of understanding of what the award symbolizes than anything else. This lack of understanding can trace its roots to European pragmatism and how the European decision making process confuses people who subscribe to American puritanism and its ‘damn the consequences’ decision making processes. (see the article “Obama brings honor to America” for a Rachel Maddow video clip that addresses this contrast)
To illustrate this concept, consider the argument over whether to distribute clean needles to heroine addicts. American politicians and religious icons point out that to distribute needles amounts to an endorsement of illegal drug use. Then in the full glory of their righteous indignation they block all attempts to implement such a plan, filibuster any further dialogue on the subject, and then viciously attack those who suggested it in the first place. The consequence is an HIV epidemic among drug users, which then infects partners of drug users or people transfused with blood donated by druggies trying to score cash for their next fix. Who cares how many people die? As long as we feel good about our decision and the dying happens to other people.
On the other hand, look at the European political paradigm. Someone points out that people are getting AIDS through no fault of their own and one possible source is heroine users. Experts in the fields of medicine, law enforcement, and social sciences all agree that handing out needles will mitigate the problem at least somewhat and will definitely save lives. That is all you need to prove in Europe. Saving lives is the primary concern so the pragmatic action is taken. Clean needles are handed out with everyone agreeing to deal with the moral implications as a secondary concern.
In order to understand why Norwegians do not feel that their perceptions of karmic justice have been grossly violated by giving awards to people who are “merely” trying as opposed to achieving, one must accept that effort has value. That working toward peace is worthy of merit because without the effort, the war profiteers win by default.
Hill either does not understand or does not agree with those principles. I cannot judge what he understands or does not understand or knows or does not know. Neither can Mr. Horowitz. By doing so, he demonstrates a profound level of ignorance. If he objects to the elevation of a man with a lowly doctorate in “education,”—as Horowitz points out—then perhaps he can explain what qualifies Bill O’Reilly to not only offer commentary on this issue but every issue on his own TV show? What qualifies anyone—for that matter—to offer an opinion? Isn’t that what freedom of speech is for?
If such qualifications should be prerequisite to offering such opinions on television, then why does Mr Horowitz have a picture of Glenn Beck on his webpage? You know, Glenn Beck the divisive college dropout. In fact, if you search Mr. Horowitz’ website for citations of Glenn Beck, there are—well I stopped counting at 100 but you get the picture. Why does Horowitz find Beck so compelling if an accomplished African American like Hill is unworthy of even the small pittance of prestige that the term “Fox News Analyst” would afford him? I hope Dr. Hill will achieve real notoriety by becoming an analyst for a real news source and not the partisan pessimism that masquerades as news on that channel.
What pessimism you ask? Where to begin…Here is an example of what can be expected by people whose minds are in the psychological gutter. Horowitz says,
Interestingly, Horowitz neglected to offer any suggestions of the kind of “black academics” he would prefer hearing from. Perhaps he can’t think of any who don’t remind him of rap when they try to sound “intelligent.” Worse, this is a personal attack with absolutely no substance. He questioned Dr. Hill’s credentials but does not elaborate on which aspects of Hill’s opinions that he disagrees with. What academic attacks another without detailing why he feels the other is in error? I should perhaps thank him for so benevolently championing us poor, defenseless African Americans who fall victim to those “low expectations.” Better that he attack African American scholars directly rather than allow them to fall victim to “soft racism.” Naturally, there is nothing in our history that would lead him to believe we can overcome racism without his help. He is selflessly attacking Dr. Hill as a preemptive measure to save us the burden of having to watch someone else do it.
Let’s not stop there. The hits just continue. Try this little gem on for size,
Marc Lamont Hill
Oh so now he wants to offer an opinion on who would be a proper role model for young African Americans??? He keeps talking about the community of “black intellectuals” but the only blacks he can think of are those he wants to disparage? Horowitz says that these personal attacks may cause him to be cast as a “McCarthyite.” I think that would actually be an elevation given that there is not a single substantive criticism in his entire article.
Wait, I can think of a black intellectual that Horowitz might find to be a sterling example for African American youth. He said, “I have studied the American left longer and know more about it than Professor Hill does about hip-hop culture or, for that matter, about me.” Again this hip-hop theme keeps coming back in his posts and is clearly something he despises. Maybe he is thinking of the mix-master M.C. of hip-hop bling-bling Michael Steele. The man who is taking the message of the Republican party to the streets and asking our youth, “What up?” After all, there is nothing African American youth like more than being patronized by middle-aged bling-slingers. Then again, Horror-wits (since we are being superficial) probably finds Steele too rap-like as well, nicht wahr?
In yet another article, Horror-wits offered another enlightened opinion,
As Horror-wits demonstrates, short-sightedness needs not be fed. “The racism of low expectations” is self-nurturing and self-replicating. Further, it would be a mistake to think that the hollow platitudes he offers recognizing black intellectuals that he cannot name and speaking repeatedly of “low expectations” cast any doubt as to why the idea of Dr. Hill as intellectual offends Horror-wits in such a personal way. Incidentally, I also defend ACORN. They have no credible opposition. Just bitter hypocrites who don’t like the part of democracy that allows low-income people to organize, vote, and try to build a better future for themselves.
I can go on and on. I have seen enough material with just a cursory glance at Mr. Horor-witz’s body of work to fill the encyclopedia of demagoguery. I will however, give props to Mr. Bill O’Reilly. I watched his show back when I considered myself a conservative. I stopped watching when I quit Fox after they hired Mark Fuhrman as an analyst. I have to give respect that O’Reilly did not abandon Hill solely by word of the vermin who oppose the idea of this Ph.D as an intellectual. O’Reilly clearly recognized this for the bigoted background noise that one might expect given the networks target demographic. Nevertheless, it seems Rupert Murdoch chose to appease the bigots by firing Hill.
Lastly, I will say that I have reviewed some of Dr Hill’s writings. I cannot say that I was that familiar with him before today, probably because I tend to give Fox News a wide berth these days. Fox does after all recruit anyone and anything that appears even slightly anti-black. I already mentioned the offensive hiring of the genocidal dreamer, Mark Fuhrman. Then, Fox could not wait to get its hands on Don Imus. Personally, I don’t think Imus is a racist but he said some insensitive things at the wrong time, in the wrong place. He said those things because that was his act, simple as that. Fox is hiring him because they know that people who feel a certain way will flock to watch him because they think he is a racist, whether he is or not. Alternatively, I believe that Fox hires an African American here and there solely for plausible deniability. I realize that a job is a job, but there are places to work where you don’t have to sell your integrity to provide cover for a radical agenda.
In any case, from what I have seen thus far I would disagree with Dr. Hill on many issues if we had a discussion, starting with the Nobel Prize award. I would not do him the disrespect of disparaging him and his credentials for superficial reasons. The ability to disagree respectfully is the foundation of productive discourse. I guess after this article I can forget productive discourse with Mr. Horror-wits as well. Of course when all is said and done, he is after all—a pinhead.
[tweetmeme source="Wuzhatnin_com" alias="http://bit.ly/21ZBfT"]
Comments
from → Commentary, Politics, Rant