Posts from the ‘Race relations’ Category

Newsweek/Daily Beast Poll Finds Majorities of Americans Think Country Divided by Race – The Daily Beast


Majorities of both whites (72%) and blacks (89%) believe the country is divided by race, the poll finds. But twice as many blacks (40%) as whites (20%) say it is very divided. And just 19 percent of whites say that racism is a big problem in America, vs. 60 percent of blacks.

Meanwhile, the killing of 17-year old Trayvon Martin has further polarized America along racial lines, the Newsweek/Daily Beast Poll finds. In the survey, whites are divided over whether they think Martin’s death was racially motivated. Thirty-five percent of whites say Martin’s death was racially motivated, while 30 percent say Zimmerman acted in self-defense and 35 percent are not sure. African-Americans, however, are convinced it was racially motivated (80% vs. 2%).

Whites also are divided on the question of whether Martin was targeted because he was a young black man–41 percent say yes, while 34 percent say no and 21 percent are not sure. Blacks are convinced he was targeted because he was a young black man (85% vs. 4%).

There also is a significant split over President Obama’s handling of the Trayvon Martin controversy—with a majority (52%) of whites saying they disapprove of the way he has handled the shooting while only 38 percent approve.

Blacks say the opposite—with near unanimous (87% vs. 5%) approval for the president’s handling of the shooting.

Nearly four years after the election of the nation’s first African-American president, majorities of both whites and African Americans surveyed say that race relations in the country have either stayed the same or gotten worse. Sixty-three percent of whites and 58 percent of African-Americans say race relations have either stayed the same or worsened—while only 28 percent of whites and 38 percent of African-Americans say they have gotten better.

Similarly, on the question of how Obama has handled race relations since he became president, whites disapprove (47% vs. 41%) while blacks are overwhelmingly positive (84% vs. 8%).

And when asked whether or not Obama has been helpful or not in bridging the racial divide in the country, whites say not helpful (51%) while blacks say helpful (69%).

The Newsweek/Daily Beast Poll found that both whites and blacks agree that racial stereotyping still occurs in American society today and majorities of both whites (72%) and blacks (89%) say America is divided on the basis of race.

But blacks and whites have fundamentally different perspectives when it comes to frequency, severity, and longevity of racial discrimination blacks face.

Whites and blacks disagree–and disagree fundamentally when it comes to when—blacks will achieve racial equality with whites. While a clear majority of whites (65%) say that blacks have achieved or will soon achieve racial equality, blacks are much less optimistic about the state of black progress. Only 16 percent of blacks say they have already achieved racial equality and nearly half of blacks (47%) say that they will not achieve racial equality in their lifetime or will never achieve racial equality.

African Americans were particularly sensitive to the economic downturn and were much more likely than whites to say that the prolonged recession contributed significantly to more discrimination in employment and housing.  Sixty-five percent of African-Americans surveyed said that the current economic situation today has played a role in promotion racial discrimination, compared to just 42% of whites.

And while 70 percent of whites think that blacks in America have the same chance as whites to get housing they can afford, only 35 percent of blacks agree.

Similarly, 70 percent of whites think blacks in America today have as good a chance as whites to get a job for which they’re qualified—a view shared by only a quarter of blacks.

And while virtually all whites (92%) and blacks (95%) agree that racial profiling occurs at least some of the time, the two groups diverge over whether profiling happens all of the time—a solid 63 percent of blacks say yes while less than one-quarter of whites agree.

Both whites and blacks agree that it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure that the courts and the police treat minorities and whites equally. But the two groups disagree fundamentally over whether it is ever justified for police to take factors such as race ethnicity and overall appearance into consideration when making an arrest. A majority (56%) of whites say that it is at least sometimes justified for police to use factors such as race, ethnicity, and overall appearance–a view shared by only 28% of blacks.

Nearly six times as many African-Americans as whites (29% vs. 5%) say they have been unfairly stopped by the police because of their race or ethnicity all or some of the time.

When asked whether the police and courts treat blacks the same as they treat whites in America today, 82 percent of whites say that police treat blacks the same as whites all or some of the time, and 86 percent say the same of the courts.  A majority of blacks however, say that blacks are rarely or never treated equally by the police (53%) or the courts (52%).

The Newsweek/Daily Beast Poll was conducted by telephone between March 30 and April 1 from a random sample of 600 registered voters and a separate oversample of 400 registered African-American voters. The margin of error for the first group is plus or minus 4 percent while the margin of error for the second group is plus or minus 4.9 percent.

 

 

 

 

 

Newsweek/Daily Beast Poll Finds Majorities of Americans Think Country Divided by Race – The Daily Beast.

Video Shows No Blood, Bruises on Zimmerman – No apparent physical signs to back up his beating story


(Newser) – Despite reporting that he was viciously attacked by Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman showed no apparent signs of abrasions, bleeding, or bruising when he was brought in for questioning by police the night he shot the teen. The handcuffed shooter appears untouched on a surveillance video—… More »

No blood, abrasions or bruises are apparent as George Zimmerman is led into the police station the night he killed Trayvon Martin.
(john832thetruth)
Popular Video Galleries
My TakeCLICK BELOW TO VOTE

6%
9%
20%
13%
8%
43%
To report an error on this story, notify our editors.

A snapshot of the day’s best news stories.
COMMENTS
Showing 3 of 237 comments
jenalyn_kurat
Mar 31, 2012 2:11 AM CDT
my neighbor’s step-mother brought home $14618 a week ago. she is making cash on the laptop and bought a $447900 house. All she did was get fortunate and make use of the advice reported on this link ………..MakeCash10.com
flameforjustice
Mar 29, 2012 9:56 PM CDT
Doesn’t matter if they fought or not,Zimmerman was the murdering aggressor and pursuer of an innocent young male.
JackNelsonSteward
Mar 29, 2012 7:36 PM CDT
“The Ed Show” is offering a timeline of the evening of the shooting, starting with Trayvon being on the phone with his girlfriend at 7:12 and the police arriving on the scene of the shooting  FIVE MINUTES LATER.  This video of Zimmerman arriving at the Sanford police station is from 7:51. This is the man who says he was in a fight in the rain, on his  back in the grass, who supposedly suffered bleeding wounds to the back of his head and a broken nose, whom the police said they had found bleeding from the head and nose THIRTY FOUR MINUTES earlier.

Video Shows No Blood, Bruises on Zimmerman – No apparent physical signs to back up his beating story.

Arpaio asks Selective Service System for assistance in ‘birther’ investigation | The Raw Story


Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Wednesday requested assistance from the U.S. Selective Service System as part of his ongoing investigation into President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

 

“While my office will continue pursuing this investigation, I have spoken of the need to enlist the aid of other agencies,” Arpaio said in a press release. “As a first step to that end, I am now requesting the assistance of the U.S. Selective Service System asking them to conduct a concurrent investigation to verify the authenticity of this document.”

 

Arpaio announced on March 1 that his six-month investigation into Obama’s birth certificate concluded the document was most likely a “forgery.”

 

The Republican sheriff now claims that Obama’s Selective Service registration form from 1980 was likely a forgery as well. Arpaio has asked Selective Service System Director Lawrence Romo to produce the original form so he can determine if it is authentic.

“Failure to register or otherwise comply with the Selective Service registration process is a serious offense,” A

 

 

Arpaio asks Selective Service System for assistance in ‘birther’ investigation | The Raw Story.

Luis Rodriguez–Always Running Accounts Of His Youth


Does O’Brien Know The Facts About Critical Race Theory


Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update:A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update:A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update:A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update:A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update:A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update:A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update:A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update: A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Update: A reader e-mails with another possibility: Maybe O’Brien came up with something off the top of her head and someone edited the Wiki entry for CRT afterwards to reflect that. Could be. Like I said above, she obviously does know the subject. She’s just poorer at defining it than Pollak is. In fact, Rebel Pundit notes in an update that CRT’s critique of “white supremacy” — the term mentioned by Pollak to which O’Brien objected — apparently was part of Wiki’s entry originally but was removed today.

Fox Regularly Uses The “Racial Code Words” Denounced By Fox’s Juan Williams


Fox News contributor Juan Williams recently wrote that “[t]he language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message,” citing such phrases as “entitlement society,” “food stamp president,” and “amnesty” for undocumented immigrants. But this language is not contained to GOP candidates; Williams’ colleagues at Fox News routinely employ or echo these “racial code words.”