I’m sure you do, dear. But the rest of us don’t necessarily follow your lead. I’m pretty good about making mindful choices about my statements and behaviors–I recommend that strategy to you as well! It’s fun! It’s surprisingly easy! And it’s the right thing to do!

Perhaps now it has caused me to be too careful when analyzing situations, but that is why I am trying to do just that. Because some things really do need to be analyzed. The times that I have seen Matthews-mostly during primary nights-he has played devil’s advocate more than anything else (going back and forth between positions in the same show even to get the guests to talk about it from different angles). That’s why I stressed the importance of many examples in their contexts.

And HK, really? You DON’T think that everyone does or says racist or sexist things without realizing it? If that’s the case, then I suggest you really evaluate yourself and the people around you. You’ll find that once you really pay attention, you’ll find a lot of things to start thinking critically about. Did you miss Bitch Ph.D.’s Playing Cards post? I certainly didn’t mean it makes everything excusable, so if that’s what I led everyone to believe, sorry about that!! It doesn’t make a damn thing more “right,” it simply reinforces the fact that everyone needs to evaluate themselves on a regular basis for anything to ever change. I grow every day, don’t you?

veryone says or does rac/sexist things all the time, whether they notice it or not and whether they admit it or not

…O rly?

Also, uh, do you really want to be bringing up the “Everyone does it!” tired old horse here?

So the last thing I’d like to say is this: If Chris Matthews honestly has no idea that what he’s doing is buying into racism (or sexism in other instances, etc.) and exploiting it, he has to be the world’s shittiest political analyst. It’s his job to understand how language is used in politics. If he can’t figure out what the hell he’s saying, how the hell is he supposed to listen to candidates and dissect the cues that politicians are sending through speech? There’s a hell of a lot more to this job than saying “I agree/disagree!” It’s “who was so-and-so talking to? What is the message that he wants them to take away? Was this phrase a reference to such-and-such? How will X demographic perceive it? Is he being condescending? Patronizing voters and telling them what they want to hear? In the context of the debate last week, these comments are definitely designed to . . .”

So. Either Chris Matthews is vastly stupid, has no concept of the power/use of language in politics and therefore cannot do his job. Or, Chris Matthews, as I argued, knows exactly what he’s doing, can do his job rather well, and is simply using it to his own benefit, knowing that stoking fear and hatred makes money and not giving a damn who he harms in the process.

As I said, I think it’s the latter. But if you want to go with the former, fine (though I hardly expect it). Either way, the man should be off the air. But personally, I think that suggesting a man who has made his career off of politics has no idea about the way that racially-charged language is used in politics is rather insulting to him. And I definitely never expected to tell someone that they were overly-insulting Chris Matthews.

Perhaps there should be some research done on stereotypes about African-Americans…like “these are racist stereotypes 101″ or something.

I see why it is a stereotype, but that doesn’t make him racist for saying it. It isn’t even the same thing as if we had never heard of Obama playing basketball ever, and then Matthews says something like “oh he’s horrible at bowling, but I’m sure he plays a mean game a basketball.” Even that would be a better example of how he might be racist. But the basketball thing was already out there, so him linking it to a stereotype doesn’t mean he is a racist.

I’m not saying that Matthews is not a racist or sexist. What I’m saying is that people keep saying that he is racist and sexist while taking many of his comments out of context (no way to examine anything), relying solely on the past (people change), or just not having any real examples.

It is one thing to say that something somebody says or does is racist or sexist, but it is another thing to then say that person IS a racist or sexist. It is a slight, but important, difference. Everyone says or does rac/sexist things all the time, whether they notice it or not and whether they admit it or not– even feminists and civil and human rights supporters. Nobody is immune to it. But to then say that all of those people are not actively working on that is incorrect. To say that they are the things they hate is unfair. I am simply saying there needs to be a critical eye for every situation on a case-by-case basis, or else we all live in a world where we point fingers and never truly examine ourselves or each other.

Bush, for example, went to Yale and Harvard but was a C-average student and later drove several businesses into the ground. While those two facts say nothing about his intelligence, they do say a lot about his ability to handle a company, his dedication and hard work, motivation and drive.

Several of our arguably greatest Presidents never had a college education or were mediocre performers while in higher ed. For instance, George Washington , Abraham Lincoln, and Harry Truman never went to college. Though FDR did attend Harvard College, he also graduated with a similar mediocre academic record…and like Bush…managed to get into Columbia Law most probably due in part to his family wealth and connections. Yet, they are all remembered as some of the better presidents we’ve had in our history.

Either way, I do think having an education is important, so I was really just irked that people think it’s okay to bash people who go and get one by calling them elitist. Whether you’re rich or poor, having an education is admirable. While money can get you into school, it can’t give you an education.

Though I agree with most of this, so long as a candidate does not bash higher ed and those who are educated through its institutions, I am not going to hold his/her lack of a college education against him/her.

If the person did attend college/university, I am only going to be looking to see if s(he) took maximum opportunities and examine that in the larger context of the candidate’s subsequent accomplishments.

If the candidate was a c- student, yet had substantial subsequent accomplishments in his/her life, I am willing to overlook that blot of mediocrity. On the other hand, if a candidate had few major accomplishments beyond merely graduating from college…even with a 4.0+ GPA, that’s just a sign that the candidate does not have the accomplishments and demonstrated ability necessary for higher public office.

On the other hand, Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard. When I hear that, I think that this is a man who is passionate and dedicated and isn’t going to let hard work get him down. It’s hard to maintain a high GPA, so I feel more impressed by his achievements and convinced he’ll carry the same passion into the presidency.

Depending on which institution, the ease/difficulty of maintaining a high GPA is highly variable depending on educational institution and even which schools/majors within a particular university. For instance, I’ve heard from too many friends who attended/TAed at MIT and UChicago that graduating with a 3.0+ GPA is a great accomplishment there because the grading is so tough that most students graduate with C-level averages.

On the other hand, the high school classmates who attended and graduated from Harvard College as undergrads all said maintaining high GPAs and getting honors is so easy, especially if one is not a science major that many Harvard undergrads regard it almost as a joke. This was underscored by several news reports citing Harvard College’s grade inflation problem which was confirmed by those very classmates.

Obama’s accomplishments ARE impressive not because he graduated from Harvard with high honors, but because he graduated from Harvard Law School with high honors where competition for honors is extremely fierce in comparison to Harvard College from what I’ve heard from friends who attended both institutions.

“[T]his gets very ethnic, but the fact that he’s good at basketball doesn’t surprise anybody,”

is racist?

Perhaps there should be some research done on stereotypes about African-Americans…like “these are racist stereotypes 101″ or something.

We all know Obama is half African. We can see it…So what’s the point of bringing up how “very ethnic” this gets…in relation to a sport? Here’s a convenient wiki about it

How much context would you like? All of the links to all of the quotes I provided come from Media Matters. They always provide full context, presenting the entire conversation from beginning to end.

And in the context, I don’t see how most of those statements are racist. For example, when he made the comment a while back about Obama playing basketball, the only reason anybody was talking about that was because of his abysmal bowling and his talking about playing basketball throughout his campaign.

Also, I would argue that if you think it’s okay to make blanket statements about, for example, black people as a whole group, or women as a whole group, you are indeed racist/sexist. It may be the case that you don’t understand that it’s wrong to lump all people into one group, but if it’s what you do, it’s still a prejudice. Whether you intend it or not.

Actually, blanket statements about groups isn’t sexist or racist. We rely on schemas for everything (situations, people, places, social roles, etc.) to make generalizations every moment in our lives. Social psychologists argue that intent IS important (whether conscious or subconscious). Explaining to people what is behind their words/acts when the intent is not present is important to make them question their behavior, which is the only way to prompt anybody like that to eventually change their behavior. It’s a slow process, but it is effective.

You should check out Why So Slow by Virginia Valian for more info about schemas, stereotypes, racism and sexism. While schemas do not need a negative motivation, but racism and sexism does.