PDA

View Full Version : Shirley Sherrod Thread 2


bjkeefe
07-22-2010, 09:17 AM
Got tired of looking at the lie in the title of the other one. Continuing from where it left off:

Story at same URL has been extensively updated. Now linked to from the home page with the flag "33 minutes ago." Here are some excerpts from how it now appears.

[...]

I'm about ready to faint that the NYT is finally showing enough stones to state such facts as appear in those last paragraphs (shoutout to Sheryl Gay Stolberg, who will no doubt have O'Reilly, Hannity, Breitbart, etc., calling for her resignation tomorrow), so I'll leave you to read the rest (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/us/politics/22sherrod.html).

Also, here's the tweet (http://twitter.com/UOJim/status/19041158347) that made me think I ought to go back to check on this article:

UOJim (http://twitter.com/UOJim) Cause they're lying sacks of shit? RT @daveweigel (http://twitter.com/daveweigel) "Why is there no Sherrod correction at Big Government right now?"

Also bhead, Frum on the conservative reax:
http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/205190/shirley-sherrod-and-the-shame-of-conservative-media

On a closely related note, see Digby's bust of rePubOLITICO co-founder Jim VandeHei (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/teachable-moment-vandehei-says-right.html), as he joins the rest of the right-wing noise machine in (1) defending Breitbart, (2) blaming the NAACP, and (3) howling about the straw man that "all Tea Partiers are racist."

Never thought there could be anything more nauseating than his outfit's habits of typing up GOP press releases and giving Dick Cheney tongue baths, but it appears that VandeHei has once again Won The Morning.

(h/t: Twin, via PM)

bjkeefe
07-22-2010, 11:47 AM
Dave Weigel has it on his personal blog: "NAACP: We were snookered by Fox News (http://daveweigel.com/?p=2390)." (Original here (http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-statement-on-the-resignation-of-shirley-sherrod1/).)

bjkeefe
07-22-2010, 01:23 PM
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/9116/coulterheartsbreitbart.jpg

(from (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/07/22/2010-07-22_andrew_breitbart_was_victim_of_fraud_in_shirley _sherrod_story_says_ann_coulter.html))

Lyle
07-22-2010, 01:30 PM
How did Fox News "snooker" the NAACP? First, Fox News didn't release the video and second, the NAACP had the whole video in its possession the entire time.

That part of the statement from the NAACP makes no sense whatsoever.

bjkeefe
07-22-2010, 01:32 PM
How did Fox News "snooker" the NAACP? First, Fox News didn't release the video and second, the NAACP had the whole video in its possession the entire time.

That part of the statement from the NAACP makes no sense whatsoever.

I'd answer, but you've already demonstrated that you're unable to read, so what would be the point?

Lyle
07-22-2010, 01:41 PM
So how was the NAACP "snookered" by Fox News then? Fox News didn't actually cover the story until she had already resigned. Why didn't they just watch the whole tape of the speech before condemning her?

Please, illuminate us.

Lyle
07-22-2010, 01:53 PM
Haha. What a statement to end their, "Fox News snookered us and we aren't racists" statement.

Finally, we hope this incident will heighten Congress’s urgency in dealing with the well documented findings of discrimination toward black, Latino, Asian American and Native American farmers, as well as female farmers of all races."

That covers everyone... just not the horrible white man, like the now octogenarian white man Ms. Shirley Sherrod helped out. Haha.

bjkeefe
07-22-2010, 01:53 PM
... from Josh Fruhlinger (http://wonkette.com/416843/shirley-sherrod-doesnt-want-terrible-job-fixing-racism-everywhere).

The penultimate paragraph is FTW.

[Added] Here's another option (http://twitter.com/pourmecoffee/status/19268849887), delivered via the Twitter:

pourmecoffee (http://twitter.com/pourmecoffee) Nightmare convergence scenario for @andrewbreitbart (http://twitter.com/andrewbreitbart) -- Shirley Sherrod organizes New Black Cougars.

bjkeefe
07-22-2010, 02:02 PM
... this piece, written around midnight between Tuesday and Wednesday by new Wonkette Jack Stuef, is a brilliant rant (http://wonkette.com/416799/tom-vilsack-fires-shirley-sherrod-as-the-summer-of-firings-over-nothing-continues).

uncle ebeneezer
07-22-2010, 02:50 PM
Good Rosenberg piece (http://www.salon.com/news/andrew_breitbart/index.html?story=/opinion/feature/2010/07/22/media_response_breitbart_sherrod_open2010) on Breitbart.

If there is any remaining doubt about how fully Breitbart deserves a full-on shun from the entire media world, just take a look at the laughably inadequate correction notice he has appended to the original report on his site about Sherrod:

While Ms. Sherrod made the remarks captured in the first video featured in this post while she held a federally appointed position, the story she tells refers to actions she took before she held that federal position.

The implication is: "Our story holds up, Sherrod said what we said she said, but we goofed on this little detail of her employment at the time." Whereas a real correction would read more like "Our original story was wrong. We quoted Sherrod to suggest that she drove an old white couple off their farm because she was a racist. In fact, she helped that couple hold onto their farm and used the tale to argue against racism."

Really, though, if Breitbart had any self-respect he would withdraw the whole story and apologize to Sherrod. Since he's never going to do that, why should he have a future as a participant in public discourse?

Wonderment
07-22-2010, 03:04 PM
ROFL.

Wait a second... does Breitbart actually have a paying job at the NYDN? And if so, why on Earth hasn't that clown been fired? He is definitely buffoon número uno and by far the most egregious asshole in this story of at least three stooges (Breitbart, Ag stooge and White House stooge).

bjkeefe
07-22-2010, 03:21 PM
ROFL.

Wait a second... does Breitbart actually have a paying job at the NYDN? And if so, why on Earth hasn't that clown been fired? He is definitely buffoon número uno and by far the most egregious asshole in this story of at least three stooges (Breitbart, Ag stooge and White House stooge).

I don't think Breitbart gets paid by the NYDN. Why would you think he was?

bjkeefe
07-22-2010, 03:28 PM
Good Rosenberg piece (http://www.salon.com/news/andrew_breitbart/index.html?story=/opinion/feature/2010/07/22/media_response_breitbart_sherrod_open2010) on Breitbart.

Thanks for the link, although I fear it has exposed another seekrit conneckshun in our Vast Liberal Democrat Media Get Your Story Straight Complex:

Rosenberg:

What's wrong with Breitbart's work has nothing to do with the fact that he is a partisan journalist rather than an "on the one hand, on the other hand" style journalist. The problem with Breitbart is not that he is an activist in journalist clothes, but rather that he is a serial purveyor of deceptions who is somehow still viewed as a legitimate source by some of his colleagues in the media.

Moi:

They have in the past, and more importantly, they are viewed that way by their core audience. But your quibbling over a label [journalist] is comically irrelevant.

What's important is this: Both Breitbart and Carlson are part of the media, they make it their business to publish and promote information that they represent as factual, they claim to present analysis and commentary based on facts, and they spend an enormous amount of time railing against the MSM for being "liberally biased," "suppressing the truth," etc. And they frequently do these things in a manner that can only be called disgraceful.

I don't know about you, but as far as I am concerned, saying "I'm not a Journalist™" does not equate to possessing a license to lie.

;)

==========

[Added] I await the howling from the usual suspects that ROSENBERG IS JUST LIKE WEIGEL (http://gawker.com/5572314/should-matt-drudge-set-himself-on-fire) WITH THAT TITLE THERE!!!1!

Wonderment
07-22-2010, 03:44 PM
Why would you think he was?
__________________

My bad (i.e. my deepest apologies to you and all other victims of my dumbnicity). I jumped to a Vilsack (neologism for outrageous, unsubstantiated and politically ultra-toxic conclusion) by clicking here. (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Andrew+Breitbart)

I now have done my due diligence and read the context (one paragraph to the right) and discovered:

Andrew J. Breitbart is an American publisher, commentator for the Washington Times, author, and an occasional guest commentator on various news programs. He may be best-known for serving as an editor for the Drudge Report website. He was a researcher for Arianna Huffington, and was employed by her as "the primary developer" of her website, the Huffington Post. He currently runs his own news aggregation site, Breitbart.com, and four other sites: breitbart.tv, Big Hollywood, Big Government, and Big Journalism.


Do "commentators" at the Washington Times get paid? I mean, Mickey K was paid 80K annually for his drivel at Slate, so I'm assuming anything is possible.

bjkeefe
07-22-2010, 04:09 PM
My bad [...]

No prob. We all make misteaks.

Do "commentators" at the Washington Times get paid? I mean, Mickey K was paid 80K annually for his drivel at Slate, so I'm assuming anything is possible.

Heh. I would expect that Breitbart gets something, but if Charles "Bell Boy" Murray (http://blog.american.com/?p=15647) (via (http://allisonkilkenny.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/white-supremacist-bemoans-low-pay-from-new-york-times/)) is to be believed (sketchy, I know, but play along), the going rate for op-eds will not exactly buy you the good flake and the bling anymore:

I got my check from the New York Times for an op ed that was published a few weeks ago. It was for $75.

It's possible, I suppose, that wingnut welfare is still more gravy-like than writing for a company trying to make a profit, but somehow, I would be disinclined to believe (http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/washington-times/) the WaTi has much to give (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/business/media/03paper.html) anymore.

P.S. You were correct to use the past tense regarding Mickey's salary. Wonder if kausfiles.com (http://kausfiles.com/) will ever be a paying concern again.

kezboard
07-22-2010, 06:18 PM
There's something wrong with you, Lyle.

Lyle
07-22-2010, 08:56 PM
What exactly, sweetheart?

Lyle
07-22-2010, 08:58 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/21/AR2010072106708.html


Ousted official Shirley Sherrod blamed Fox, but other outlets ran with story

Sherrod ripped Fox in an interview Wednesday with Media Matters, saying the network would "love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person."

Clemente, the Fox executive, said in an interview that Sherrod "certainly could be forgiven for being confused." As for other critics, he said that blaming Fox is "a comfortable reflex for some people."

AemJeff
07-22-2010, 09:06 PM
What exactly, sweetheart?

Well, you're a disingenuous clown who thinks it's funny to provoke people, and that it's ok to only do that, probably because either you aren't bright enough, or lack the emotional maturity to make a sensible argument, dear.

One suspects that we don't have to choose just one explanation.

Lyle
07-22-2010, 09:27 PM
Oooh... name calling from Jeff. Oh my. How am I being disingenuous again Jeff? Disagreeing with people is provocation? I'm stupid? What?

Come on big boy, let's have at. Make you an argument man, make you an argument. :)

TwinSwords
07-22-2010, 09:43 PM
Steve at No More Mr. Nice Blog complicates Howard Kurtz's defense of Fox News -- by responding with the truth (http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2010/07/kurtz-carries-foxs-water-in-washington.html).

Lyle
07-22-2010, 09:46 PM
Haha... Media Matters and the "the truth". The Washington Post journalist wins this one, I think.

Lyle
07-22-2010, 09:50 PM
... for bullying her out of her job in the Federal government.

Hat tip, Mr. President. Hat tip. :)

bjkeefe
07-23-2010, 11:43 AM
Steve at No More Mr. Nice Blog complicates Howard Kurtz's defense of Fox News -- by responding with the truth (http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2010/07/kurtz-carries-foxs-water-in-washington.html).

Thank the FSM for Steve M. and people like him, who labor on against the whitewashing and grotesque laziness of Villagers like Howie Kurtz. It is an utter disgrace that Kurtz has the platform he does and is so irresponsible in his neglect of the whole truth.

And thank you, for the link.

bjkeefe
07-23-2010, 11:44 AM
Well, you're a disingenuous clown who thinks it's funny to provoke people, and that it's ok to only do that, probably because either you aren't bright enough, or lack the emotional maturity to make a sensible argument, dear.

One suspects that we don't have to choose just one explanation.

Yep. And you could add this one: an almost pathological need for attention.

On the upside, we know how best to deal with that one.

Lyle
07-23-2010, 02:20 PM
Yep. And you could add this one: an almost pathological need for attention.

Really, that's why I have 16,000 posts here? Who are you talking about, me or you? Projecting you on to me, doesn't make me you, bjkeefe. :)

bjkeefe
07-23-2010, 03:21 PM
Really, that's why I have 16,000 posts here? Who are you talking about, me or you? Projecting you on to me, doesn't make me you, bjkeefe. :)

That I am a blabbermouth does not equate to your constant posting of extremely stupid shit that is clearly intended for the sole purpose of bugging people by its very stupidity.

bjkeefe
07-24-2010, 10:09 AM
Demands people grow some spine (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/opinion/24herbert.html):

“It’s sad that we don’t have a roomful of whites and blacks here tonight,” she said, “because we have to overcome the divisions that we have.”

There is no way we’ll overcome those divisions if people who should know better keep bowing before and kowtowing to the toxic agenda of those on the right whose overriding goal is to foment hostility and hate.

Whatfur
07-24-2010, 10:51 AM
Demands people grow some spine (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/opinion/24herbert.html):

I am surprised you actually got to the bottom of that article...Mr. Herbert said some pretty spot-on things before that too.

The most obvious and shameful fact is that the Obama administration, which runs from race issues the way thoroughbreds bolt from the starting gate, did not offer this woman anything resembling fair or respectful treatment before firing and publicly humiliating her.and
Even the N.A.A.C.P. rushed to condemn Ms. Sherrod, calling her actions “shameful,” without bothering to seek out the facts — which, incredibly, had unfolded at an N.A.A.C.P. event!

Black people are in a terrible condition right now — economically, socially, educationally and otherwise — and there is no effective champion fighting for their interests. Mr. Jealous and the new edition of the N.A.A.C.P. have shown in this episode that they are not ready for prime time, and President Obama seems reluctant to even utter the word black. Or poor, for that matter.

bjkeefe
07-24-2010, 01:13 PM
I am surprised you actually got to the bottom of that article...Mr. Herbert said some pretty spot-on things before that too. [...]

Hard as it may be for you to believe, I do not shy away from righteous criticism of Obama or anybody else I admire.

#thingsthatmakeliberalsdifferentfromwingnuts

bjkeefe
07-25-2010, 09:46 AM
... has a column up (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/opinion/25rich.html) about the Sherrod nonsense. As with some other commenters -- another shoutout to Jack Stuef (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=171159#post171159) for saying most of things first, at least that I saw -- he has plenty of blame to go around.

Later, he ties the recent unpleasantness in with previous events. This bit will give you a sense:

... the N.A.A.C.P. was wrong to demand that the Tea Party disown its racist fringe. It should have made that demand of the G.O.P. instead.

Whatfur
07-25-2010, 10:26 AM
Hard as it may be for you to believe, I do not shy away from righteous criticism of Obama or anybody else I admire.

#thingsthatmakeliberalsdifferentfromwingnuts

Oh...ok.

#idontthinkihaveevermetsomeonewiththislargeofafals esenseofhimself

bjkeefe
07-25-2010, 10:32 AM
Oh...ok.

#idontthinkihaveevermetsomeonewiththislargeofafals esenseofhimself

A mirror would solve that.

bjkeefe
07-25-2010, 01:14 PM
... which doesn't go where some of you think it might.

Shirley Sherrod and Me
By VAN JONES (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/opinion/25jones.html)

(h/t: @siouxeeq (http://twitter.com/siouxeeq/status/19505148886))

kezboard
07-25-2010, 02:22 PM
Something to do with a persecution complex and unjustified bitterness. But I can't say I'm qualified to determine exactly what it is.

Wonderment
07-25-2010, 03:33 PM
I'm sure some bloggers have explored this issue, but at the core of the Breitbart lies is the presumption by the radical right that blacks are "just as racist" as whites.

This is a huge misunderstanding of what racism and discrimination is about.

The right is the heir to this anti-civil rights movement that has been an undercurrent in the USA since affirmative action began. It's basic premise is that while desegregation of schools and Southern bathrooms was ok, every other black grievance was bogus whining.

Whether Breitbart is shunned as a lying scumbag (as he ought to be) or not, the mistaken political movement remains a force on the right.

Of course some black people have negative attitudes about whites, but attitudes do not equate to institutional power. If black hold negative stereotypes about whites, there are few, if any, political consequences; if whites hold negative stereotypes about blacks, however, the inequities in our system remain; they are more likely to be blamed on blacks than addressed.

Lyle
07-25-2010, 05:39 PM
No, actually you people are just intolerant of differing opinion. Y'all's problem, not mine.

Lyle
07-25-2010, 05:40 PM
Doesn't Shirley Sherrod have institutional power though? Isn't that the point?

bjkeefe
07-25-2010, 05:58 PM
No, actually you people are just intolerant of differing opinion. Y'all's problem, not mine.

Lyle, don't try to ally yourself with people who would undoubtedly blanch at the thought. "Differing opinion" has nothing to do with it. We're talking about your incessantly childish behavior here. Yours. Not anyone else's.

You in fact do have a problem: your statement in response to what I just said, especially in light of the many, many occasions where I and others ("us people," presumably) have respectfully and enjoyably debated with still others holding differing views, can only mean one of two things: you're even more disingenuous than I thought, or you're even stupider than I thought. And neither case would have been something I would have believed possible, until now.

I guess that old saying (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=170149#post170149) is true.

Lyle
07-25-2010, 06:18 PM
You're a bigot (very much in need of attention), just admit it and move on. :)

Wonderment
07-25-2010, 07:58 PM
Doesn't Shirley Sherrod have institutional power though? Isn't that the point?

No, that's not the point. First of all, it was a lie that she abused the power she had. Second, it goes without saying that in the USA today, some people will have black bosses and some people will have white bosses; civil rights laws exist to protect people from abuses in the workplace. Third, institutional racism consists in endemic problems in housing, health care, judicial system (stops, arrests, charges, convictions, sentencing, paroles, probation, access to attorneys, etc.) and education.

If an official in the Ag dept. thinks white people are a-holes, s/he should be fired. Everyone agrees on that. But that's a relatively trivial kind of racism in a system that has not fully addressed the consequences of centuries of white supremacy (slavery and segregation). Claiming that when Joe Black dislikes Jane White it's the same as when Jane White dislikes Joe Black obscures the big issues. It's a reactionary stance.

bjkeefe
07-25-2010, 11:42 PM
You're a bigot (very much in need of attention), just admit it and move on.

Okay, I admit it. I'm bigoted against racist, misogynist, stupid, lying troublemakers, like you.

Happy?

Lyle
07-26-2010, 01:25 AM
Yeah, I don't really believe in institutionalized racism anymore. Once upon a time in your life it was the truth, but not anymore... I mean, the government is choke full of blacks, Asians, and whatever else in it... and they've got the power.

Last cop to pull me over was a Hispanic female.

... and Shirley Sherrod had the power to not help that white farmer (she didn't initially) way back when (not as a government official, but as the agent of an institution that had the power to).

... now Obama is President. Institutionalized racism is kaputt, I'm afraid. Going to have to hate on something else, me thinks.

bjkeefe
07-26-2010, 02:06 PM
Institutionalized racism is kaputt, I'm afraid.

I can understand why someone like you would have this fear, but rest easy: it's not completely gone yet (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/whats_happening_in_orlandos_air_marshals_office.ph p?ref=mblt).

Also ...

Last cop to pull me over was a Hispanic female.

... if you want to argue from personal experience, you might ask around and see how many people you are in contact with know what DWB means. If you can't find any that do, I'd say you live in an even more insular environment than I previously had thought. (And spare me the droolingly disingenuous "Haha Doctors Without Borders? :)" response I'm sure you'll contemplate after you Google those three letters.)

You are right about the decline of state-endorsed racism. But the problem lives on, in all sorts of nooks and crannies of petty officialdom, and that doesn't even begin to address the lingering cultural manifestations. Which, I would argue, are de facto as institutional as anything governmental, and perhaps even more so.

Lyle
07-26-2010, 02:16 PM
I disagree. I think the system just has capricious and petty officials in it.

Democrat Senator Jim Webb (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703724104575379630952309408.html) is even arguing for the ending of affirmative action (once upon a time a good and decent thing).

The President of the United States is also Barack Hussein Obama. Oh, e, Oh... institutionalized racism is dead.

bjkeefe
07-26-2010, 02:34 PM
And oh what a Roy-al pleasure it is:

Rightbloggers on Shirley Sherrod: "You Fucked up -- You Trusted Us!"

Intro here (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2010_07_25_archive.html#1700482782304972881), full column here (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/07/rightbloggers_o_11.php).

bjkeefe
07-26-2010, 03:41 PM
Democrat Senator Jim Webb (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703724104575379630952309408.html) is even arguing for the ending of affirmative action (once upon a time a good and decent thing).

Adam Serwer's response (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=07&year=2010&base_name=so_there_are_a_number) to Webb begins as follows.

Webb And "White Privilege."

There are a number of things about Senator Jim Webb's op-ed (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703724104575379630952309408.html) "The Myth of White Privilege" to dislike, starting with the fact that one of the awesome things about the existence of white privilege is that you can be part of a body like the U.S. Senate, which has a total number of zero elected black members, and write something titled "The Myth of White Privilege" without anyone batting an eyelash. That said, Webb's op-ed is considerably more nuanced than the title, acknowledging that "The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history," although he makes the same mistake as Ross Douthat in repeating the conservative frame of zero-sum competition between whites and people of color.

It's quite good. You should read the whole thing (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=07&year=2010&base_name=so_there_are_a_number).

TwinSwords
07-26-2010, 06:09 PM
The moral depravity of the wingnuts (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=07&year=2010&base_name=by_far_the_most_pathetic_thing) is truly mindblowing.

nikkibong
07-26-2010, 06:43 PM
The moral depravity of the wingnuts (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=07&year=2010&base_name=by_far_the_most_pathetic_thing) is truly mindblowing.

That is just depressing.

At least other Spectator writers have come out and criticized Lord's indefensible screed:

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/26/sherrod-story-true

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/26/taking-issue-with-jeff-lord

And many of the Spectator commenters are flaying Lord - lynching Lord? - as well. And rightfully so.

TwinSwords
07-26-2010, 06:47 PM
That is just depressing.

At least other Spectator writers have come out and criticized Lord's indefensible screed:

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/26/sherrod-story-true

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/26/taking-issue-with-jeff-lord

And many of the Spectator commenters are flaying Lord - lynching Lord? - as well. And rightfully so.

Very interesting. Thanks for the links.

bjkeefe
07-26-2010, 07:52 PM
That is just depressing.

At least other Spectator writers have come out and criticized Lord's indefensible screed:

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/26/sherrod-story-true

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/26/taking-issue-with-jeff-lord

And many of the Spectator commenters are flaying Lord - lynching Lord? - as well. And rightfully so.

An additional shoutout to John Tabin, at your first link, for also linking to Radley Balko's fine protest (http://reason.com/blog/2010/07/26/the-american-spectators-mistak).

bjkeefe
07-26-2010, 11:51 PM
The moral depravity of the wingnuts (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=07&year=2010&base_name=by_far_the_most_pathetic_thing) is truly mindblowing.

Probably worth noting Roy's observation (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/07/rightbloggers_o_11.php) of something else this same author said in an earlier piece:

Winning this week's Chutzpah Trophy, the American Spectator's Jeffrey Lord (http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/20/the-naacp-becoming-mel-gibson) actually compared the NAACP to racist screamer Mel Gibson. "Mel and the NAACP. What stories. What legends," wrote Lord. "And what both now appear to have in common is that each has been living a very sad lie."

bjkeefe
07-27-2010, 12:41 AM
Not sure why it didn't occur to me to look for the unedited version of Shirley Sherrod's speech to the NAACP earlier, although I suspect the source of the edited version probably had something to do with pushing the urge to search way down on my priority list, but in any case, for the record, here it is (http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/video_sherrod/).

(h/t: Roy Edroso (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/07/rightbloggers_o_11.php))

listener
07-27-2010, 09:03 PM
Thank goodness Jon Stewart is back from vacation to put all this in perspective (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-26-2010/lost-in-race).

Lyle
07-28-2010, 12:20 AM
Yeah, I don't really agree with Serwer. That the Senate is universally white at the moment means jack all. Most of America is still very much white and Senators get elected by the entire state, which means a white official is more likely to get elected.

Again, conversely, the President of the United States is bi-racial, and it is the President who is in charge of enforcing the laws of the land, not the all white Senate. And since a bi-racial, self described black man is enforcing all the law (Federal laws, at least), ipso facto, there ain't institutionalized racism in the federal government... unless Obama is enforcing institutionalized racist laws himself. And I don't think that is the case, especially since it hasn't been the case for a good while, when there were even white Presidents. I mean, George W. Bush, had the most racially diverse cabinet in recent memory. That's people of color in power... running the very political, tax money distributing, institutions of America.

edit: I do agree with some of his more specific points about affirmative action today though, and that there should less or no race based programs, but more "class" based programs. There are myriad class problems today and they're a greater problem than racial discrimination is now (like the criminal justice system, which isn't in my opinion racist, but cannot fully be utilized by the financially under privileged).

bjkeefe
07-28-2010, 12:31 AM
Yeah, I don't really agree with Serwer. That the Senate is universally white at the moment means jack all. Most of America is still very much white and Senators get elected by the entire state, which means a white official is more likely to get elected.

Thanks for setting all of our minds at ease that skin color has ceased to be a factor in America and its government.

iltos
07-28-2010, 03:18 PM
one thing is certain: it's a savvy bunch at fox news.....EVERY lead-in to the story on the network had the host using the word "apparently"; in stark contrast to the banners that filled the screen below them, and the statements of their commentators.

so -technically, imo- fox news (the network) can successfully backslide, blaming breitbart (who can then be excused by coulter for being pathetically "innocent" and oh, i dunno.....how about "so clearly without a motive of his own?") and just ignore its comrades in arms on the web....respinning the story to show how foolish the administration was to jump the gun (something they did get right, imo).....

all the while standing above it all, as the masters of infotainment.....
sorry....."the news"

popcorn_karate
07-28-2010, 04:03 PM
Of course some black people have negative attitudes about whites, but attitudes do not equate to institutional power. If black hold negative stereotypes about whites, there are few, if any, political consequences;

and it is still racism. If a racist white guy gets dropped off in kenya is he suddenly not a racist until he crosses a border into a white dominated country?

yes, the magnitude of the effect is different based on the cultural and historic background for any situation, but it is still the same underlying pathology.

iltos
07-28-2010, 04:17 PM
not racism....unless you can demonstrate an attitude that believes one's skin color is indicative of native (as in genetic) intelligence, etc.

plenty of stories of that kind of thinking during slavery....still exists, i'm sure, but what is so often labelled racism in this country is prejudice based on culture or behavior.

when its comes from ignorance and is applied to entire group, it doesn't make it any more forgivable, imo.....but it isn't racism.

listener
07-29-2010, 10:20 PM
I just noticed this item in my news feed:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/ap_on_re_us/us_usda_racism_resignation

Speaking Thursday at the National Association of Black Journalists convention, Sherrod said she would definitely sue over the video that took her remarks out of context. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has since offered Sherrod a new job in the department. She has not decided whether to accept.

Sherrod said she had not received an apology from Breitbart and no longer wanted one. "He had to know that he was targeting me," she said.