Harvard Professor Charles Ogletree Hosts Obama at 'Social Event’

[Paslode]

y Darlene Superville, Associated Press

President Barack Obama has dropped in on his friend and former law school professor, Charles Ogletree, as he continues his Martha’s Vineyard vacation.

The president spent most of Saturday at his rented compound on the island. But in the early evening, he was driven by motorcade to Ogletree’s home in Oak Bluffs for what the White House called a “social event.” Aides declined to provide details of the evening, which came a day after Ogletree helped sponsor a Democratic fundraiser at nearby Union Chapel.

Ogletree is a Harvard Law School professor and authority on race and politics who became Obama’s mentor during his time at the school. Former students also include first lady Michelle Obama. She was not attending the event, but White House adviser Valerie Jarrett was.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/vacationing-ob...#ixzz1VgpBGtKf

What was it Obama....Judge me by those I surround myself with.....RADICALS

In 1970, Ogletree enrolled at Stanford University, at the time a center of black radicalism. Ogletree became a campus radical, organizing an Afrocentric dormitory, where he met his future wife, Pamela Barnes. He edited a campus Black Panthers newspaper called The Real News and traveled to Africa and Cuba with student activist groups. In 1973 Ogletree was president of the Black Student Union[2].

Ogletree earned a BA in political science (with distinction) in 1974 and an MA in 1975.

The former Black panther and Mentor of Barack and Michelle Obama , Ogletree was Professor Gates legal counsel and his daughter Rashida was recently assigned to Eric Holders Dept of Justice.

In 2000 Charles Ogletree joined the Reparations Coordinating Committee.

In 2005 Charles Ogletree, said that the community should protect the rights of the former Panthers with their lives.

"These gentlemen, Ray Boudreaux, Hank Jones and others have been victims of the most vicious forms of American terrorism and torture...It takes a village to protect its elders. We tell them today, through our presence here and through our commitment that we will provide a protective blanket over them. They will not come in this village and take these elders, except over our dead bodies."

[Sigaba]

IMO, research works best when it is done diligently. That way, one can find background information that challenges one's preconceived notions of a person and of a subject.

In regards to Professor Ogletree, more careful research also turns up evidence of the role he played in the rehabilitation of civil military relations and public confidence in the federal government.

But then, why bother? It is much easier just to go with the unsubstantiated rumors and innuendo propagated by employees of Rupert Murdoch <<LINK>>.

[longrange1947]

Media Matters?? Give me a break!!

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

IMO, research works best when it is done diligently. That way, one can find background information that challenges one's preconceived notions of a person and of a subject.

In regards to Professor Ogletree, more careful research also turns up evidence of the role he played in the rehabilitation of civil military relations and public confidence in the federal government.

But then, why bother? It is much easier just to go with the unsubstantiated rumors and innuendo propagated by employees of Rupert Murdoch <<LINK>>.

What a seemingly, unbiased and reasoned response.....NOT!

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

IMO, research works best when it is done diligently. That way, one can find background information that challenges one's preconceived notions of a person and of a subject. In regards to Professor Ogletree, more careful research also turns up evidence of the role he played in the rehabilitation of civil military relations and public confidence in the federal government.

Last I read, public confidence in the federal Government as a whole is at an all time low.

The man supports the equivalent of David Duke, Byron De La Beckwith, the KKK and the Manson Gang. He has supported the Black Panthers. He has played a role in the reparations movement and he assisted the NAACP in blackballing Clarence Thomas. It appears he may have assisted in the early release of SDS Member Marilyn Buck who was involved in the 1979 prison escape of Assata Shakur, the 1981 Brinks robbery[1] and the 1983 U.S. Senate bombing..

Originally Posted by Sigaba

But then, why bother? It is much easier just to go with the unsubstantiated rumors and innuendo propagated by employees of Rupert Murdoch <<LINK>>.

Media Matters belongs in the same company as the Huff Post, Infowars and the National Enquirer.

Now I know this will not qualify for the Sigaba indepth drill down, but it is were I started.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ogletree
http://keywiki.org/index.php/Charles_Ogletree


And BTW as far a being a preconceived notion,

Sorry to disappoint you but I had no knowledge of the man and I didn't find it on Fox, fact is I didn't know Fox News was involved until you mentioned it. And now I see it was your favorite Glenn Beck who was busting his balls.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by sinjefe

What a seemingly, unbiased and reasoned response.....NOT!

QP sinjefe--

With respect, if you're willing to disclose specifically what part of Professor Ogletree's moderation of the episodes dealing with military ethics and professionalism in the Ethics in America series you found objectionable, or why you disagree with his view that the descendants of American slaves should not receive individual reparation payments, or how your views on the historiography of the Black Power party differs from the emerging scholarship, I'm all ears.

Innuendo, invective, and sarcasm did not prevent millions of Americans for casting their votes for the current president. Is it wise to think that a similar approach will work in 2012?

[sinjefe]

The whole point of your comment was to paint Ogletree in a positive light, not just show the other side of the story. If it were anything else you, wouldn't have made the statement you made in your last line nor would you have used Media Matters as a source. I'm not as eloquent as you are, nor as intellectual. But I can tell a spade from a spade. The only thing of any importance to me is whether or not Ogletree did assist the Black Panther Party and some of the other deeds mentioned. One can google his name and within the first three pages tell that he did. Even Media Matters doesn't dispute it, they simply try and make it sound benign.

Bottom Line: Ogletree is a radical, in my opinion, and is in the same category as Ayers and Wright, which was the point of the thread to begin with.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by sinjefe

The whole point of your comment was to paint Ogletree in a positive light, not just show the other side of the story. If it were anything else you, wouldn't have made the statement you made in your last line nor would you have used Media Matters as a source. I'm not as eloquent as you are, nor as intellectual. But I can tell a spade from a spade. The only thing of any importance to me is whether or not Ogletree did assist the Black Panther Party and some of the other deeds mentioned. One can google his name and within the first three pages tell that he did. Even Media Matters doesn't dispute it, they simply try and make it sound benign.

Bottom Line: Ogletree is a radical, in my opinion, and is in the same category as Ayers and Wright, which was the point of the thread to begin with.

QP sinjefe--

With respect, the point of my post was to indicate that more in-depth research on Professor Oagletree would lead to resources that would provide a more complex understanding of the man and his past. And, potentially, lead to criticisms of him that are more nuanced and relevant. For instance, what are the pedagogical implications of a tenured professor who holds an endowed chair hosting an event for a national politician? Is this type of behavior common place or is it rare? Is it an activity that helps advance the perception of the Ivory Tower as a bulwark of intellectual freedom or does it counter to that concept? (Should eggheads strive to be rock stars?)

Previously, I have made similar suggestions by providing links and references to resources that are readily available. Today, I deviated from that practice for reasons made clear in post #5.

IMO, attacks on a guy like Ogletree are gifts to the current administration. These attacks just re-enforce the left's widely-helped perception that the president's opponents will say and do anything to get him out of office. This perception is enhanced because the 'radicalism' that some attribute to a person like Ogletree does not fit into the radical critique of the Ivory Tower, of the legal profession, or, for that matter, the current president.

MOO, the task at hand as we approach the 2012 elections is finding ways to get supporters of the president to question their own assumptions about and understanding of the man and his policy preferences. (Cornel West, among others, has been doing so for months.) A guilt by association 'connect the dots' approach is not going to work any better than it did when opponents of Bush the Younger tried painting his administration as a tool of corporate America.

Since the 112th Congress began, house and senate Democrats have been constructing a narrative to turn the 2012 presidential election into a referendum on the president's opponents rather than the man's own job performance. For his part, the current president has continued a pernicious form of race baiting that lies at the core of my dislike for that man. He knows how the 'connect the dot' approach of many of his opponents is going to resonate among many of his supporters (and also, some of his critics).

IMO, too many of the president's opponents are doing more to play into both of these dynamics than they realize.*

As for the Black Panther party, I specifically made available in a previous post a reference to a recent article on its history that works to the benefit of that organization's supporters and its critics.

• Does it at all matter that eggheads who have spent decades studying the Panthers are now saying that there's much more to this organization than we originally thought?
• Does it matter that this recent scholarship has altered permanently the debate over that party's ethics and efficacy?
• Does it matter what professional subject matter experts have to say about a topic?
• Or do we just hold on to old knowledge?

As for Professor Oagletree, I would refer your attention to his conduct in the Ethics in America series. The man stood across from men whom the radical left would call "the enemy"--including GEN Westmoreland--and consistently advanced a discussion of the ethics of armed service professionals from a position of genuine intellectual curiosity situated in a foundation of respect. While, as a moderator, he pushed the limits of the discussion, he never pushed the discussants' buttons. IME, radicals are simply unable to participate in these kinds of conversations with this level of civility. Also, as mentioned, I'd point to his view on reparations. He has made it abundantly clear that he wants discovery, dialogue, and debate at a national level. IMO, this approach is distinctly different than those who think .GOV should shell out greenbacks to the descendants of slaves.

My $0.02.

____________________________________
* An aside. I strongly believe that operatives of and consultants to the Democratic Party have spent a lot of time studying the Reagan Presidency. Much of what the Democrats are doing now is eerily similar to what the GOP did in 1980 and 1984.

[sinjefe]

Your last post was markedly different than your first post. It was reasoned. I still think you missed the point of the thread, "Birds of a feather flock together."

Oh, and with all due respect.....you're kind of strange.

[Pete]

So an ax muderer donates a dollar to a church. In some folks eyes that makes him a saint.

And no - I don't think people of today should be compensated for something that happened 150 years ago.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

MOO, the task at hand as we approach the 2012 elections is finding ways to get supporters of the president to question their own assumptions about and understanding of the man and his policy preferences. (Cornel West, among others, has been doing so for months.)

The truth to speak to them is clear; a challenge certainly to create the receptive listening environment in the first place. This is moving the puppy's dish.* Just remember that the puppy currently doesn't like being talked down to unless it's being given something. The other thing you might want to do is start a 3-step recovery program for those buffalo'd in Nov 2008; of course, like many recovery programs the first thing they have to do is admit (at least to themselves) that they had a problem, what the consequences were, but that it's eminently fixable.

A guilt by association 'connect the dots' approach is not going to work any better than it did when opponents of Bush the Younger tried painting his administration as a tool of corporate America.

It may not 'work' because of the aforementioned attention deficit; but it is no less valid. It is not connecting of a few dots; sufficient dots have been collected to provide more than just an indicator. I'm also a spade caller and have been around the big blue marble enough to know what a despot and his minders looks like. Kinda like art...

The fact that some Panthers are a bit longer in the tooth now and seemingly revered by him for their "elder-ness" doesn't move me. (Were he really serious about long-term solutions for anything, he'd have made his deals before Jan 2009 and explained that "I'm gonna have to disown you guys & gals for awhile in order to get some stuff done." Frankly, the whole gang just aren't that savvy apparently.)

He and his consorts are just flat-out dangerous on many levels and this doesn't really need to be intellectualized - they just need to be stopped. Part of that is recognizing the porous border across which they draw much of their strategy.

Reparations: "...discovery, dialogue, and debate at a national level" indeed.
To what end, if not money? Fostering race- and class-based polarization?


* There was an amusing sequence years ago in the old West Wing show, where the prez couldn't figure out why he was getting such push-back from the Cong Black Caucus over some program. The response from the caucus leader was a telling (and talking) point:
"The first generation of black millionaires is about to retire. And frankly, Mr. President, they'd like to keep some of what they've earned." [emphasis mine]

JFK would've approved; OTOH this prez & his controllers would just call the aforementioned millionaires a subset of those who they'd happily 'volunteer' to engage in shared sacrifice. "Please move over there into the Joe the Plumber column so I can continue to prosecute my advisors' class warfare strategy."

Communicate that.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Pete

So an ax muderer donates a dollar to a church. In some folks eyes that makes him a saint. And no - I don't think people of today should be compensated for something that happened 150 years ago

Obama mixes with a wide host of divisive characters, Bill Ayers, Van Jones, Rev. Wright etc. All of whom in my opinion get a white washing from the media that equates to burning crosses 4 days a week, but doing 2 days of community service and attending Sunday Service makes it all good. Most of these people Obama surrounds himself with are part of 'Groups' preach unity, but in reality are divisive and attempting to segregate.

I find it interesting how many of Obama's friends have ties with radical groups such as The Weather Underground, SDS and the Black Panthers.

As for reparations,

1. 150 years after the fact it is little more than throwing salt in the wound
2. It is redistribution of wealth
3. It continues the cycle of animosity
4. It continues the victim mentality

It would be interesting to see a survey of how the beneficiaries handled their proceeds. My bet it would be similar to those that win the lottery and within a couple years have nothing to show for it.

[alelks]

Hey, when my people came across on the ships many died, the conditions were very harsh. I think I need to be compensated for THAT shit. I mean it wasn't my idea to do it and it isn't affecting me now but heck I'll take a buck or two from wherever I can get it.

When does it end?

[Defend]

Originally Posted by Pete

So an ax muderer donates a dollar to a church. In some folks eyes that makes him a saint.

Saddam Hussein funded a food for the needy style program in several Middle Eastern countries, therefore his atrocities against the Kurds have no bearing on what kind of man he was. Besides, they were Kurds.

Child abductors sometimes participate in searches for there victims. Who cares if they were responsible for the terrible crime, they gave hours and hours to the noble search.

Some guy supported a radical racist organization, but he advocated respect of federal government, so he is clearly innocent.

The logic doesn't flow. If it makes sense in your mind, I guess more power to ya.


-out

[1stindoor]

Originally Posted by Paslode

It would be interesting to see a survey of how the beneficiaries handled their proceeds. My bet it would be similar to those that win the lottery and within a couple years have nothing to show for it.

Dave Chappelle had a good routine on his show a few years back that depicted what that might look like. I can't do youtube at work, maybe someone else can find it for me.