I respond in multiple parts:
The following links are relevant to the videos:
- UPDATE: As of Tuesday the 15th, it’s official: MSNBC has decided to defend Etheridge’s assault on the grounds that the students being assaulted were probably Republicans. They have also determined that it is still unwise to manhandle someone, especially if you get caught.
- The Guardian has joined MSNBC in explaining that the Congressman’s actions were not terrible and criminal due to the fact that the gentlemen pictured were almost certainly Republicans who knowingly disagreed with the Congressman and chose to breathe his air anyway.
- The Washington Post has called the incident a “gaffe”, declaring that it will not significantly affect Etheridge’s campaign for re-election and equating it with off-hand remarks made by Michelle Bachmann and Joe Wilson. That’s right, the Washington Post thinks that this is all about what Etheridge said, and not the fact that he physically attacked innocent young men.
- The New York Times has decided today is a good day to remember why Republicans aren’t allowed to shove people.
- Bob Etheridge assaults innocent civilians: the original video.
- Bob Etheridge’s contact information.
- Renee Elmers’ self-professed views.
- Frank Deatrich makes it clear that the federal government’s policy of redistributing wealth and controlling lives is simply not okay through his answers to this questionnaire.
News and Observer Publishes Excruciatingly Stupid Article – Reveals Total Disconnect from Rational People and the Internet
The Triangle newspaper The News and Observer has never been known for providing spectacular insight into the economic and political dilemmas of our day, but the Saturday issue demonstrated a new low for journalism. In a painfully anti-intellectual front-page story on black people using Twitter, the N&O indirectly illustrated how far out of touch the papers are with the rational, individual-oriented thought process of most Americans, as well as how little they know of the personality of the internet itself.
The article begins with a headline that cannot lead anywhere meaningful: “For many blacks, Twitter enables a vibrant online life.” The obviousness of this hurts; it never would have occurred to most people to think that blacks didn’t enjoy Twitter just as much as everyone else. The body of the article opens as such:
Janelle Thomas knows how popular Twitter is among African-Americans.
The soon-to-be UNC-Charlotte graduate has 300 followers on the micro-blogging service, most of them young African-Americans like her. One friend sends out as many as 100 tweets – or messages – per day, enough to clog her account and eventually force Thomas to drop him from her circle.
To reiterate, this is on the front page of the Saturday issue of North Carolina’s second-largest newspaper, and it was written by a reporter for the Charlotte Observer, NC’s largest. Reading about the Twitter life of a person who uses Twitter in precisely the same way that almost everyone else does cannot possibly be an experience worth any money, yet this article is published in for-profit newspapers. The article goes on to state more straightforward truisms about the internet:
“Literally, some people will tweet ‘Got up’ or “Going to class’ or ‘This girl in front of me is crazy looking,'” said Thomas, a communications major.
I hope she does well in her major.
The purpose of this article is not to convey meaningful news; it is to disseminate an arrogant, racist sociologist’s baseless opinions about groups of people. “Some researchers have surmised that African-Americans might use Twitter more heavily because they use it in a more conversational way than other groups.” There is no reason to use the flattering title of ‘researcher’ for a person who merely ‘surmises’ pointless personal opinions about people’s behavior based on their skin color. This is not research, and it is not even reporting. It is uninteresting speculation on par with that of a teenage boy’s obscure political blog, but without the associated expansive vocabulary and familiarity with use of the internet.
The greatest aspect of American thought is an aversion to collectivizing behavior: every action is considered in the context only of the individual who performed it, and we don’t link individual traits to meaningless groupings such as the color of a person’s skin. The internet is especially a place to celebrate this, since the anonymity afforded by the online community forces each person to judge another’s postings only by their content, not by generalizations of society. Yet the sociology majors who now control the mainstream media cannot think like this. They insist on insulting individuals by interviewing and examining them for their role in an imagined collective. Only in a demented, anti-individualist, philosophically void world could a trend of more black people using Twitter be examined for its sociological implications, as if blacks are using the internet for any reason other than that they want to use the internet.