2016 Movie - Who is Obama?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]smh23 wrote:
…Columbia Journalism School attracts some of the best people from the field.
[/quote]

Radicals on the faculty. Victor Navasky was formerly the editor of The Nation - a radical leftist rag.

Helen Benedict - radical leftist:

Thomas B Edsall senior political reporter for the Washington Post and radical leftist. Author of ‘Building Red America: The New Conservative Coalition and the Drive for Permanent Power’

A number of other leftists who work at the New York Times, The New Yorker, The Washington Post and other left-wing rags.

62

For anyone interested here’s Bill Buckley interviewing smh’s Commie professor Victor Navasky:

He’s defending the CPUSA at the height of the cold war - the main Stalinist/Soviet organ in the United States. The Nation magazine under Navasky’s editorship(and before) was a radical pro-Soviet rag that disseminated Soviet propaganda and featured a congo line of radical contributors including Leon Trotsky and Cloward and Piven(of Columbia.) Navasky’s more recent ‘work’ includes this gem:

They really love to hate on poor old dubya don’t they?

63

Yah clearly its the Democrats only that hate on W. He was a featured speaker at the RNC right?

Here’s the final proof for you guys that Obama is a commie.

[photo]37461[/photo]

64

groo,

As my Mom used to say “the proof is in the pudding.” That means we don’t need any photo’s with Obama in (or not in) them to prove that he leans so far left he can be accused of wanting socialism in the US.

-He grabbed 1/6th of the US economy with Obamacare.

-He claimed that businesses did not build their own success but that “someone else built that for them.”

-He slapped Joe the Plumber on the back and said “we want the spread the wealth around.”

If America gives Obama a second term and we are not blessed with a republican Congress we will get even more proof that Obama leans socialist.

65

[quote]ZEB wrote:
groo,

As my Mom used to say “the proof is in the pudding.” That means we don’t need any photo’s with Obama in (or not in) them to prove that he leans so far left he can be accused of wanting socialism in the US.

-He grabbed 1/6th of the US economy with Obamacare.

-He claimed that businesses did not build their own success but that “someone else built that for them.”

-He slapped Joe the Plumber on the back and said “we want the spread the wealth around.”

If America gives Obama a second term and we are not blessed with a republican Congress we will get even more proof that Obama leans socialist.[/quote]

You are all over the place. I gave you your proof and it was even a bit funny I thought.

I do support a national health care program wish it would have been a bit more ballsy.

So all business owners owe their success to merit and the invisible hand? There is nothing random about sliding out of the right golden vagina? While certainly rewarding the lazy is bad policy, entirely ignoring the fact that there is an element of chance that should be minimized is stupid as well.

66

[quote]groo wrote:

So all business owners owe their success to merit and the invisible hand? There is nothing random about sliding out of the right golden vagina? While certainly rewarding the lazy is bad policy, entirely ignoring the fact that there is an element of chance that should be minimized is stupid as well.
[/quote]

You are drinking the kool-ade man. No one, and I mean not a single business owner would deny that we live in a society, and that society has many moving parts. Not a single business owner will deny that when society has quality human talent, quality infrastructure and a sense of unity the economy is in a better place. No single business owner will deny that without a good labor force and without good dependable customers they wouldn’t have the opportunity to be successful.

But that isn’t what obama said. The Harvard graduate picked the words, and the order of them very carefully. He fueled the “labor” portion of the population’s entitlement, and set up a situation where they would turn on their own providers (buisness owners) and rather trust the government. He did this by insulting the work it takes to make it as a business owner, and when those owners got insulted, the “people” got mad because they want to feel entitled to some of the glory.

When in the real world, they get a large part of the glory every few days in the form of a pay check, and the taxes the business and owner pay.

Obama could have said it in a way that brought us all together, or said it in a way that divides us, and makes the government seem like the champion of the people. He picked the latter.

Oh an, you belong to the government.

67

[quote]groo wrote:

I do support a national health care program wish it would have been a bit more ballsy.

[/quote]

For sure. I reckon his run on the treasury, mounting debt and unfunded liabilities could’ve been greater. Maybe even bring down the world economy. Obama hasn’t done enough.

68

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
…Columbia Journalism School attracts some of the best people from the field.
[/quote]

Radicals on the faculty. Victor Navasky was formerly the editor of The Nation - a radical leftist rag.

Helen Benedict - radical leftist:

Thomas B Edsall senior political reporter for the Washington Post and radical leftist. Author of ‘Building Red America: The New Conservative Coalition and the Drive for Permanent Power’

A number of other leftists who work at the New York Times, The New Yorker, The Washington Post and other left-wing rags.[/quote]

I know them both well. Navasky is certainly radical (and kind of a dick too), Benedict is a leftist for sure but isn’t really comparable to Navasky and is a great lady. They are both extremely fucking good at what they do.

They don’t have anyone from the far right to counterbalance those two. But every other professor I had extensive dealings with was a few inches to the right or left of center and no more. The best professor I had all year was a Texas-born moderate Republican who was–get this–an editor at the New Yorker. And, to be honest, you glean these things only in passing: the program has nothing to do with politics or bent or prejudice or anything like that. People in the business often disparage it as the “Vatican of old-school journalism” etc. Outside of the editorial courses, which are fun, if something you write looks like it kind of could be something like an opinion, you’re spending a lot of time rewriting that night.

But anyways I’m not going to defend the school any more. There is some stupid shit there, but all in all it is a collection of extremely intelligent and successful people and its reputation as the undisputed best of its kind is not undeserved.

69

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I know them both well. Navasky is certainly radical (and kind of a dick too), Benedict is a leftist for sure but isn’t really comparable to Navasky and is a great lady. They are both extremely fucking good at what they do.

They don’t have anyone from the far right to counterbalance those two. But every other professor I had extensive dealings with was a few inches to the right or left of center and no more. The best professor I had all year was a Texas-born moderate Republican who was–get this–an editor at the New Yorker. And, to be honest, you glean these things only in passing: the program has nothing to do with politics or bent or prejudice or anything like that. People in the business often disparage it as the “Vatican of old-school journalism” etc. Outside of the editorial courses, which are fun, if something you write looks like it kind of could be something like an opinion, you’re spending a lot of time rewriting that night.

[/quote]

That’s interesting. I would’ve thought they’d be more into the ‘new journalism’ style of Truman Capote, Norman Mailer, Hunter S. Thompson, Tom Wolfe etc.

70

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I know them both well. Navasky is certainly radical (and kind of a dick too), Benedict is a leftist for sure but isn’t really comparable to Navasky and is a great lady. They are both extremely fucking good at what they do.

They don’t have anyone from the far right to counterbalance those two. But every other professor I had extensive dealings with was a few inches to the right or left of center and no more. The best professor I had all year was a Texas-born moderate Republican who was–get this–an editor at the New Yorker. And, to be honest, you glean these things only in passing: the program has nothing to do with politics or bent or prejudice or anything like that. People in the business often disparage it as the “Vatican of old-school journalism” etc. Outside of the editorial courses, which are fun, if something you write looks like it kind of could be something like an opinion, you’re spending a lot of time rewriting that night.

[/quote]

That’s interesting. I would’ve thought they’d be more into the ‘new journalism’ style of Truman Capote, Norman Mailer, Hunter S. Thompson, Tom Wolfe etc.[/quote]

There’s kind of a split. The power players at the school are old-school, Edward R. Murrow types. Some of the less powerful/respectable faculty sometimes take off-handed swipes in class at the way things work. They’ll maybe give a suggestion to “experiment” in the Thompson style or to play it a little fast and loose like MSNBC or FOX and then say something like, “I know that’s not what they teach here, but that’s how it actually works.” They have a point if you’re thinking just in terms of finding a paying job, but the real established dynasty there is the real old-school crowd. And they are much cooler, much more likable, much smarter, and much more effective.

And yeah, Navasky is a serious dick. The only professor with whom I ever had a confrontation. I wrote a story about extremely high local abortion rates in NYC, Navasky got pissed that the pro-life people looked so much better and more reasonable than their opponents (they were). The school gave it an award though, so it really does come down to which part of the building you’re in.

Did you see the James O’Keefe video where he confronted Sree Sreenivasan? While I’m not a huge fan of O’Keefe’s obviously, Sreenivasan is an arrogant and insufferable asshole and he came across as such in the video. I know that the big hitters at the school were really embarrassed about it.

71

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Did you see the James O’Keefe video where he confronted Sree Sreenivasan? While I’m not a huge fan of O’Keefe’s obviously, Sreenivasan is an arrogant and insufferable asshole and he came across as such in the video. I know that the big hitters at the school were really embarrassed about it.[/quote]

Yeah I just watched it. He seemed overly concerned with O’Keefe’s clothing.

72

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I know them both well. Navasky is certainly radical (and kind of a dick too), Benedict is a leftist for sure but isn’t really comparable to Navasky and is a great lady. They are both extremely fucking good at what they do.

They don’t have anyone from the far right to counterbalance those two. But every other professor I had extensive dealings with was a few inches to the right or left of center and no more. The best professor I had all year was a Texas-born moderate Republican who was–get this–an editor at the New Yorker. And, to be honest, you glean these things only in passing: the program has nothing to do with politics or bent or prejudice or anything like that. People in the business often disparage it as the “Vatican of old-school journalism” etc. Outside of the editorial courses, which are fun, if something you write looks like it kind of could be something like an opinion, you’re spending a lot of time rewriting that night.

[/quote]

That’s interesting. I would’ve thought they’d be more into the ‘new journalism’ style of Truman Capote, Norman Mailer, Hunter S. Thompson, Tom Wolfe etc.[/quote]

There’s kind of a split. The power players at the school are old-school, Edward R. Murrow types. Some of the less powerful/respectable faculty sometimes take off-handed swipes in class at the way things work. They’ll maybe give a suggestion to “experiment” in the Thompson style or to play it a little fast and loose like MSNBC or FOX and then say something like, “I know that’s not what they teach here, but that’s how it actually works.” They have a point if you’re thinking just in terms of finding a paying job, but the real established dynasty there is the real old-school crowd. And they are much cooler, much more likable, much smarter, and much more effective.

And yeah, Navasky is a serious dick. The only professor with whom I ever had a confrontation. I wrote a story about extremely high local abortion rates in NYC, Navasky got pissed that the pro-life people looked so much better and more reasonable than their opponents (they were). The school gave it an award though, so it really does come down to which part of the building you’re in.

Did you see the James O’Keefe video where he confronted Sree Sreenivasan? While I’m not a huge fan of O’Keefe’s obviously, Sreenivasan is an arrogant and insufferable asshole and he came across as such in the video. I know that the big hitters at the school were really embarrassed about it.[/quote]

Good post.

It’s always interesting to hear the inside of academia.

73

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

No, I have respect for people from Ivy League schools, always have. Agree or disagree with me, it doesn’t matter. The course material is largely the same college to college, but the network, which includes professors and admin, is very much better at Ivy League.

[/quote]

I had better professors at a state school for undergrad than I did at Columbia for grad school. And the former cost almost nothing while the latter has me saddled like donkey.

In the end, the Ivy League leaves you with the same education you’d have gotten at a small public liberal arts college. But employers fawn over the name and in certain situations connections abound.

That said, it is ridiculous for anyone to use the term Ivy League as a derogatory moniker. College is good, good colleges are good.[/quote]

Mmm, I disagree somewhat. I do not by any means think Ivy League means much for any given individual (considering documented grade inflation, and other BS). However, there are a number of fields where Ivy means the very top of the line, including in many instances biology, physics, biochem, chem, psychology, law, and sometimes business (MBA that is, not undergrad). Particularly in hard sciences there is a very real difference in quality–as far as undergrad goes certain Ivy schools excel more than others…however the grad schools for those programs and any research is definitely top notch. As are the connections. There’s a big reason why people go there for sciences…nobel laureates.

Certain other departments, like say sociology, are definitely not as “above the curve” from state schools on the whole.

As to the general point you make, i tend to agree however.

74

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

No, I have respect for people from Ivy League schools, always have. Agree or disagree with me, it doesn’t matter. The course material is largely the same college to college, but the network, which includes professors and admin, is very much better at Ivy League.

[/quote]

I had better professors at a state school for undergrad than I did at Columbia for grad school. And the former cost almost nothing while the latter has me saddled like donkey.

In the end, the Ivy League leaves you with the same education you’d have gotten at a small public liberal arts college. But employers fawn over the name and in certain situations connections abound.

That said, it is ridiculous for anyone to use the term Ivy League as a derogatory moniker. College is good, good colleges are good.[/quote]

Interesting.

Was there a tenure difference between the two sets of professors?[/quote]

I think the real difference, and it sounds funny to say this disparagingly, was that Columbia Journalism School attracts some of the best people from the field. With that kind of success comes an arrogance that you can barely believe. And an extremely astute investigative journalist may not be a great professor–in fact, he/she is probably more comfortable sitting up all night in a cold lonely archive going through decades-old legal documents than in front of a classroom giving a lecture. Whereas in my undergraduate school, I had real professors. Still learned a lot in grad school, but I would probably tell my own hypothetical kids to think long and hard about the Ivy League if that were an option.[/quote]

I can definitely vouch for the prevalence of extreme hubris, having met and dealt with a number of them. And also your point about them not making the best professors, as strange as that may sound given my last post. I was accepted to a couple of them and thought long and hard about it before deciding against it for more or less the same reasons you give (but the debt factor was huge as well).

75

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

No, I have respect for people from Ivy League schools, always have. Agree or disagree with me, it doesn’t matter. The course material is largely the same college to college, but the network, which includes professors and admin, is very much better at Ivy League.

[/quote]

I had better professors at a state school for undergrad than I did at Columbia for grad school. And the former cost almost nothing while the latter has me saddled like donkey.

In the end, the Ivy League leaves you with the same education you’d have gotten at a small public liberal arts college. But employers fawn over the name and in certain situations connections abound.

That said, it is ridiculous for anyone to use the term Ivy League as a derogatory moniker. College is good, good colleges are good.[/quote]

Mmm, I disagree somewhat. I do not by any means think Ivy League means much for any given individual (considering documented grade inflation, and other BS). However, there are a number of fields where Ivy means the very top of the line, including in many instances biology, physics, biochem, chem, psychology, law, and sometimes business (MBA that is, not undergrad). Particularly in hard sciences there is a very real difference in quality–as far as undergrad goes certain Ivy schools excel more than others…however the grad schools for those programs and any research is definitely top notch. As are the connections. There’s a big reason why people go there for sciences…nobel laureates.

Certain other departments, like say sociology, are definitely not as “above the curve” from state schools on the whole.

As to the general point you make, i tend to agree however.
[/quote]

Point well taken. You can’t beat studying under the world’s best physicist or evolutionary biologist. Sociology, American studies, etc. are a somewhat different story.

I guess my original point was more along the lines of: people at Columbia spend a lot of time reminding you and themselves that you’re studying in the world’s best journalism school. But that kind of lofty rhetoric was often made to look silly. We were all obligated to do at least one major piece on Occupy Wall Street, and one of my classmates fulfilled that obligation by tweeting his random thoughts over the course of a fawning 5-hour visit to Zuccotti Park.

76

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Good post.

It’s always interesting to hear the inside of academia.
[/quote]

Thanks man, happy to share my thoughts.