Gawker skewers Ruben NAVARRETTE, he who knows little of what he writes

[UTUSN]

The wider media outlets, supposedly Liberal, love to search out minority members to feature who harbor "non-traditional" (to their home group) viewpoints. Like Poppy BUSH's innovation of nominating Clarence THOMAS, a tactic of using a minority as a tool against the Dem umbrella. Iow, NAVARRETTE never has spoken for the vast majority of Hispanics, has waged chip-on-the-shoulder against "White Liberal males" in his preference for Old, White, Rethug males. Our own DUer "Maestro" waged valiant debate victories against him and the other-horrible Linda CHAVEZ 10 or more years ago. So CNN.com finds it original to feature somebody who does not represent the group he trades off of as opposed to somebody with the group's true identity.

This gnat (Bristol's lovely word) never saw Shrub in any position he didn't drool over, yet constantly delivers unasked-for lectures to the Dem Party about what their policies should be and who their candidates should be. He went into racist ecstasy that Shrub nominated other-houseboy Alberto GONZALES, racist, I say, because it was an appointment (like that of Clarence) based on tool-ism and NAVARRETTE's support was based on ethnicity not on fitness.

He claims to be a cafeteria-constituent, picking and choosing from the platforms of all parties, and basing his overall support on which one gives him more.

If anything, Gawker kept the gloves on in dealing with this "Poli-Dick" to use the Gawker coinage it unleashes upon with greater venom on other wingnuts than exhibited here. I wish it would go full-out on this prick.

Oh, his Before and After visages look like he reversed his "Chicano" and "Latino" personae.


<-Photo by Barry Myers.

*************QUOTE*************

http://gawker.com/5828370/columnist-not-quite-sure-who-millennials-are-just-knows-they-suck

Columnist Not Quite Sure Who Millennials Are, Just Knows They Suck

When he's not defending Sarah Palin from hypercritical monsters, Washington Post Writers Group columnist Ruben Navarrette Jr.'s hard at work offering "new thinking on many of the major issues of the day." Yes, that's right: "hard at work." Oh, you say you don't understand what that phrase means? You must be a millennial.

Navarrette's been thinking a lot lately about you twentysomethings and your sloth, your sense of entitlement, and your delusional life goals. Over at the CNN.com, he's posted a column that not only reinforces his role as "a fresh and increasingly important voice in the national political debate," but also describes what's wrong with you kids today in a most "meaningful and hard-hitting" fashion. Let us explore this ground-breaking new report on why today's youth are so defective!

First, it's important to note at the outset that Navarrette's encounters with millennials are few: "Most of what I know about millennials, I learned from my readers," he writes. But he has "experts" (and maybe MTV shows) to help him to better understand his subjects. One such helper is San Diego State University psychology professor Jean Twenge, who Navarrette says "has the advantage of being (a millennial) herself" even though she was “(b)orn in 1971" (which technically makes her a member of Generation X, but it's how young you feel inside that counts, and let's not obsess over details) ....

In conclusion, millennials are frightfully similar to the common pundit:

Speaking broadly, millennials are tech-savvy, highly educated and have incredibly high self-esteem even if they haven't done much to deserve it.

....



http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/Personal/Books/Navarrette-Darker-Shade-Crimson/
If you're tempted to read this book, be aware that it's largely an unrefined rant, excepting the odd fine phrase (which is likely to repeat a hundred pages later). Navarrette is in awe of Harvard, convinced it is the best educational institution simply on the basis of its reputation (curiously, we virtually never hear about a class, a professor, a transformative intellectual experience...). His awe translates to mention of it on nearly every page, and his constant expression of his own identity in terms of Harvard (it's hard to imagine how he describe himself before he went there—and write about himself he certainly must have). He is still in awe of it (search for some of his articles on the Web), even as he fears it and hates its pressures. And for someone who appears to have begun with so much promise, he seems to have done so little, other than tokenize himself (note that he's now a ``Latino'', no longer a ``Chicano''). ....

Indeed, as the book progresses, we see his development from simply a human to an explicitly racial being. But this also brings out the worst in him, as he chastises others in the very terms he hated being applied to him (eg, ``fellow Chicanos seeing acceptance by denouncing affirmative action benefits that they had already accepted'' (p. 103)—this from someone who goes to great lengths to argue he has received none himself). His work with the Harvard Chicano group RAZA (representing a population of only 125—a shockingly low number for the early 1990s) turns increasingly politicized, rancorous and turbid (in his own words (p. 221), ``an ethnic organization that had promised support had delivered only judgment''—a searing indictment that fails to fully acknowledge his own role in that breakdown). ....

The last part of this book is a descent into the ridiculous. Navarrette entirely loses sight of the big picture. We learn all too much about his sex life, about his cocky performance in a Yale classroom, about his brief flirtation with graduate education at UCLA (which shows up in what appear to be his older biographical sketches on the Web—but not in what seem to be newer ones, where instead we learn he returns to Harvard for a graduate degree). We are left with a very sad portrait of a disturbed, confused person with, perhaps, a great deal of untapped talent.

This book is sub-titled, Odyssey of a Harvard Chicano. In part, the prominence of Harvard on the very title is a reflection of Navarrette's own mind. But what he misses is that the Odyssey has both drama and a conclusion. His drama is always just a little shaky, and his conclusion is non-existent.

*************UNQUOTE*************

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. I wrote to Navarette once and he responded

I wrote that I had never read such drivel in my life about something he wrote about Clinton's blowjob. I offered he should try getting one sometime and maybe he wouldn't be such an asshole. He wrote back an email that would have made a sailor blush.

[UTUSN]

2. Yip, I've received some of his crap personally myself.

He resorts to ad hominem without a blink. But he bragged that he is a HUGH columnist on the national stage. I replied, "Nobody reads your crap."

But Maestro knew him and Linda CHAVEZ back in (college?) days and did battle with them and beat the crap out of them. Btw, what has become of Maestro?!1 Having seen any posts for a year or two or more. Fabulous photographer of wildlife.