The CNN host has made a scene after a supposed misinterpretation of Critical Race Theory. National Review summarizes the conversation:
Yesterday on CNN’s Starting Point, as Charlie alluded to, anchor Soledad O’Brien asked BigGovernment editor Joel Pollak why he believed the recently released video of student Barack Obama embracing Harvard Law School professor Derrick Bell was a “bombshell.”
In response, Pollak noted that Bell was the main creator and proponent of Critical Race Theory, which, in Pollak’s words, “Critical race theory is all about white supremacy. Critical race theory holds that civil rights laws are ineffective, that racial equality is impossible, because the legal and Constitutional system in America is white supremacist.”
The unfortunate part for O’Brien is that the conservative bulldog, Michelle Malkin has gone after the facts, and the result is quite revealing. Apparently according to Malkin:
Turns out that O’Brien, a Harvard grad, has a rather emotional connection to Bell. As documented at my new Twitter curation/aggregation site Twitchy.com, O’Brien tweeted that it was a “rough day” for her when Bell passed away last fall. She wrote that she had “just started re-reading” one of his books and mourned again: “RIP Prof. Bell.” O’Brien also shared tributes to Bell from fellow Harvard prof and friend of Obama Charles Ogletree. That’s the same Professor Ogletree who bragged that he “hid” the Obama/Bell video during the 2008 campaign.
The end result of this vociferous reaction is now obvious, as Malkin concludes:
Now you know the reason for O’Brien’s thin-skinned reaction to Obama’s critics. When you vet the president, you vet the media. And they don’t like the narrative table-turning one bit.
Jack Hunter observes Rush’s new position:
When American soldiers were killed in Afghanistan as retaliation for an accidental Quran burning earlier this month, Limbaugh asked, “It’s gotten to the point: Why are we there? If this is the end result of us being there, let’s get these people out, bring them home and the hell with the place over there.”
Here is what Rush said two years ago:
“The thing that bothers me about this is that we’re there, whether we should have done or what we’ve done here or for is now irrelevant. There’s only one thing to do: win. You know, ‘What about Afghanistan?’ Easy. We win, they lose.”
I know the campaign is not over yet. I know Romney still has a way to go to settle this issue, and I am aware that Romney is the farthest from the conservative candidate we libertarians would like, but at least Santorum is not going to be on the ticket should Romney seal the deal. If not Santorum, then who? Rand?
With the success of Portugal’s decriminalization, scholars have now begun to examine why it worked. As expected, some show skepticism. Here are two central perspectives:
Peter Reuter, a professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Maryland, like Kleiman, is skeptical. He conceded in a presentation at the Cato Institute that “it’s fair to say that decriminalization in Portugal has met its central goal. Drug use did not rise.” However, he notes that Portugal is a small country and that the cyclical nature of drug epidemics — which tends to occur no matter what policies are in place — may account for the declines in heroin use and deaths.
The Cato report’s author, Greenwald, hews to the first point: that the data shows that decriminalization does not result in increased drug use. Since that is what concerns the public and policymakers most about decriminalization, he says, “that is the central concession that will transform the debate.”