Tuesday, 12 February 2008


Not that anyone really needs at this point to be reminded what a FUCKING JACKASS Bruce Andrews is, but I think it's been a while since this one did the rounds, so...

"It's not about values, it's about understanding."

"That's not relevant to this issue."

"Justificatory discourse."

"Context is crucial."


On the obverse, judge ye also of MR ROLLINS' free-improv intimidation tactics in the following. It's as if an entire oppositional culture has spent too much time in its bedroom and cannot survive any mildly testing social interaction without histrionically shitting its drawers.


If (Arch-snob) {Apeman} said...

Andrews may sound pretty supine in that clip, but if he had been more confrontational, O'Reilly would simply have shouted him down. Left-wing figures are only invited on Fox News as ogres who need to be silenced, and the regular audience regards them as such. For that reason, I don't think Andrews should have agreed to go on the show at all.

PICO said...

I don't know, I think this guy exploited the opportunity pretty intelligently: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BAFb97L3KU

The mistake Andrews made was to try to reason with O'Reilly, to attempt to distinguish himself and his views from those of Sheer, distinctions which in the context of the media-circus defined political spectrum are absolutely trivial. Andrews would disagree that he represents a far-left position, presumably, because the terms of such a position and critique are inadequately represented in mainstream and particularly right-wing political discourse ("anti-american", etc.), but this is not a discrepancy that he was in any position to address on O'Reilly's show - and he should know this. Which is WHY, like Glick, he should have prepared the most lucid and aggressive synopsis of his actual analysis (supposing, that is, that he has one, that he was just being a chickenshit, that in the company of people other than O'Reilly he does still adhere to a leftist program of some kind). If he had done this even semi-competently the regular audience might at least have been presented with an argument. However many would scoff, a few might be forced to think, if only momentarily.

Merely alluding to the pedagogical content of his class - to his reading of global power politics - rather than actually STATING it, was the dumbest thing he could have done. The result is that even in the petty defense of his teaching methods - as well as the moderate-left position he should at least have had the balls to admit he represents - he failed abysmally.