Shirley Sherrod says this about Andrew Breitbart:
On Andrew Breitbart: I know I’ve gotten past black versus white. He’s probably the person who’s never gotten past it and never attempted to get past it.
I think he would like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That’s where I think he would like to see all black people end up again.
Well, that doesn’t sound much like the post-racial enlightened uniter the MSM has packaged her as, but I’m confident this seemingly damning quote is also perfectly innocuous “in context,” no doubt part of an inspiring story in which she learns to overcome hyperbolic accusations of yearning for America’s days of slavery, and focuses on the things that bring us together as Americans.
And I think that’s why he’s so vicious against a black president, you know. He would go after me. I don’t think it was even the NAACP he was totally after. I think he was after a black president.
Well, anyone who thought she was obsessed with race certainly ought to apologize.
“It’s not so much about white…” (catches herself, says), “It IS about white and black.”
I know I’m inspired.
Something else that’s been underplayed in all this is that it’s extremely unlikely Sherrod was canned because of anything anyone on the right said; I mean, come on, this is the Obama administration. That decision was almost certainly precipitated by the NAACP’s denunciation of Sherrod — and remember, the NAACP always had the full tape, as it was their event.
UPDATE: Glenn has more, including this from Jonah Goldberg: “Shirley Sherrod, who didn’t know who Andrew Breitbart was 72 hours ago, now knows him well enough to say that he wants to put all blacks back into slavery. If I were David Axelrod, I’d be calling this woman and beg her to stop talking.”
No kidding. Every time she opens her mouth, we get a little more “context.”
And remember — the Obama admin now owns Shirley Sherrod. There’s no way for them to look good on this anymore. If they fired her, then apologized and offered her a promotion, then found out she was someone whose wildly inflammatory accusations make Reverend Jeremiah Wright look like the soul of racial unity and reasonable dialogue… the already oil-drenched competence myth is now taking a slash to the jugular.
{ 39 comments }
she says she might sue him too.
:)
Those are some ugly shoes. The Manolo would be horrified.
Yours,
Wince
Andrew Breitbart has been caught red handed and shown to be a reckless hyper-partisan blogger. Andrew Breithbart bore false witness against Shirley Sherrod, and he has not repented for that sin.
Obama and Tom Vilsack have apologized to Shirley Sherrod, but Andrew Breithbart will not.
Give it up Dave. The more you try to talk about this, the more you look like just another unrepentant, ends justify the means, hyper-partisans hack.
Of course, mikeca,
Only Republicans and right-wingers can be “hyper-partisans”.
Unlike the rest of you, and on either side of politics, I don’t expect public repentence from government officials, newsgeeks, or, for that matter, even my own kids. In any case, I;m more interested in what people do than what say they think they will do, depending on circumstances and who’s looking over their shoulder to push them into doing it.
When you get old enough, you come to a point where you’ve seen, read witnessed or maybe participated in enough bullshit for nine lives. (Sort of like the cats who keep me and my wife as pets. Except they whine about nothing at all unless we forget to feed them, of if one of us accidentally steps on one of their tails.)
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I can’t wait for her next interview. They’ve struck a rich vein in Sherrod, and you can bet the right is going to be mining it straight through Election Day.
mikeca,
Your analysis leaves much to be desired.
They both seem like interesting people who would be fun to be around, as long as I refused to give my own political beliefs to Sherrod.
This is all, on all sides, except for one thing, a tempest in a teapot.
That one thing is that the NAACP is a racist organization. Not very racist, but too racist for their mission. They need to fix that. Time may do so, but if time is allowed to do the job a wonderful organization’s effectiveness will be compromised while it still has useful work to do.
Breitbart’s sin was either a small amount of carelessness or a small amount of haste. Big deal.
Sherrod has an inspirational story, but was, is and probably will remain, a disgustingly slanderous and ignorant racist and bigot. She has reduced her racism somewhat by converting it to classism.
This is not an improvement. The worst form of bigotry around is Jew hatred. The second worst is classism. Classism has killed far more people than racism, probably by orders of magnitude. The third worst is probably nationalism and various forms of tribalism, all deadly. Racism is a distant fourth. Replacing racism with classism is not an improvement.
Truthfully though, Sherrod’s bigotry is also small potatoes, and she surely has a good excuse. Big deal.
Yours,
Wince
I don’t believe that for a second, and if you really do, you are being naive.
Andrew Breitbart obtained a bit of video that appeared to show Shirley Sherrod discussing discriminating against white people. It did not matter to Breitbart if the video had been edited to completely twist what Shirley Sherrod actually said. Breitbart could post the video on his site and use it as a basis for a diatribe against the NAACP and the Obama Administration. He knew FOX and other conservative media would pick the video up and put it on the air without bothering to verify it. If the video was a clever bit of editing, FOX would already have broadcast it over and over before anyone realized it.
When the Lame Stream Media finally verified that the video had been edited to completely misrepresent what Shirley Sherrod said, Andrew Breitbart refused to apologize. FOX News, expect for Bill O’Reilly , did not offer any apology. Andrew Breitbart acts like it is no big deal that he slandered Shirley Sherrod.
The video worked to drive traffic to Andrew Breitbart web site and to get Andrew Breitbart on all kinds of conservative TV and radio shows. That was the whole point of posting the video. There was simply no requirement for the video to be truthful for it to accomplish that goal. Andrew Breitbart is still appearing on conservative media claiming the NAACP and the Obama Administration are racists.
It does not matter whether the video was a total fabrication. The video has done what Andrew Breitbart wanted. It has allowed him to plant or re-enforced the idea in conservatives minds that the Obama administration is engaging in reverse discrimination against white people. What happened to Shirley Sherrod did not matter to him.
Andrew Breitbart and his conservative media allies are using very ugly racial politics to try to scare the white conservative base to oppose Obama administration.
This statement of course makes no sense, but then the video was edited to completely distort it in the first place, so nothing conservatives say about it is required to make any sense. It is just an excuse to continue shameless racially tinged politics.
Here’s the short form of mikeca’s arguement:
Racist, racist, racist.
Brietbart must be motivated by a desire to use racism and racial politics. Any other reason is inconceivable.
I will concede that other motives are inconceivable to you. That does not mean they do not exist.
There is no point in trying to explain to you something you cannot conceive. I’m sorry, but your brain just won’t bend that way. Not without shattering your paradigm first. There’s no point in trying.
When you tell me what my motives are because you can’t conceive them being otherwise, there’s really no point in trying to talk.
Brietbart is a partisan hack. His motive is to promote conservative policies, promote conservative politicians, and, of course, to promote himself. Racial politics is just a tool he is using towards those goals.
mikeca, not everyone care about this alleged “race” thing as much as you do.
> When the Lame Stream Media finally verified that the video had been edited to completely misrepresent what Shirley Sherrod said
Given Sherrod’s later comments, I am convinced that the video editing did her no disservice. Sherrod still treats white people who disagree with her pretty much solely on the basis of race. She has no business working for the American people. In fact, given her later comments, I would not be surprised if the real reason she was fired so fast is that the people who knew her knew she was a race baiting loose cannon. I am sure they pray her fifteen minutes will be up soon.
> Brietbart is a partisan hack.
Based on your comments on this blog, you look like a partisan hack to me, but I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Yours,
Wince
> Racial politics is just a tool he is using towards those goals.
Wrong. Racial politics is a tool that Democrat / liberal / leftist partisan hacks abuse to advance their goals. The NAACP has devolved into a group of partisan hacks (witness their behavior towards Byrd) using racial politics to advance Democratic party goals. That’s a shame. It would not take much for the NAACP to cease being partisan hacks. They would simply have to embrace and promote Republican and conservative blacks and policies which help blacks along with the Democratic and liberal ones, instead of treating Republican and conservative blacks as race traitors and Republican and conservative policies which help blacks as trojan horses.
Brietbart is not using racial politics to advance his goals. He is destroying the ability of leftist partisan hacks to abuse racial politics.
The most dangerous abusers of racial politics are Democrats. They risk white backlash which will set back race relations in this country.
Yours,
Wince
Meh, the worst part of it to me is the whole “Uncle Tom” thing, which doesn’t work the way people are saying.
It seems to me that there’s a large segment of the population which has, based upon its skin color, fallen to little more than vote slaves for the Democratic party. They get told over and over that the shackles that hold them down are for their own good, and to help them in their battle. That’s all backwards, though. It’s just rotgut, to keep them out of the way of the elites.
That’s no way to treat a human being.
There is no question that most blacks now vote Democratic, and you could argue that at times the Democratic party takes those votes for granted.
However, things like the Fox NBPP coverage, the treatment of Shirley Sherrod by Andrew Breitbart and Fox, and the general level of disrespect with which the right wing media treats the first black president is doing nothing to appeal to black voters. It is doing exactly the opposite.
mikeca,
> However, things like the Fox NBPP coverage, the treatment of Shirley Sherrod by Andrew Breitbart and Fox, and the general level of disrespect with which the right wing media treats the first black president is doing nothing to appeal to black voters. It is doing exactly the opposite.
They are treating him the same way they treat all liberals. You are correct that liberals don’t find that persuasive. I don’t find the way Sherrod insults me and people I admire very persuasive. I don’t find the the way you insult me and people I admire very persuasive. I’m sure that when I insult you and the people you admire you don’t find it very persuasive either. If you were less ridiculously partisan in your view of the right wing it would be easier. Sometimes I make the effort to step back and remember what it was like to be liberal and all my liberal friends and relatives and I can step outside of my own ridiculously partisan view of the left wing. On this subject, however, I don’t think you are trying to understand your opposition and, most importantly that they are a principled opposition at all.
This includes Breitbart, Fox, Sherrod and the NAACP, who are operating according to strong principles for the public good in the very matter you are complaining about. All also have noticeable flaws. In this matter the flaws of Sherrod and the NAACP are more egregious. I’m sure there are other matters where the flaws of Breitbart and Fox stand out more.
Yours,
Wince
What are their strong principals for the public good for Fox and Breitbart? As far as I can see they have received wisdom that Republicans are good and Democrats are bad. Those are not strong principles. They believe that they are fighting a war and if they have to publicly slander an innocent woman to win, well that is just politics. When their slander is shown to be a total fabrication and they are reveal as having no journalistic or moral standards, they refuse to apologize and instead start to make up new excuses to justify their action.
They have violated the 9th commandment, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” They are unrepentant sinners and and a total journalistic joke.
> What are their strong principals for the public good for Fox and Breitbart?
If you cannot figure this out you are not trying. Try.
> As far as I can see they have received wisdom that Republicans are good and Democrats are bad. Those are not strong principles.
I see I am right. You are not interested in giving people a fair shake. For example, in this case, Fox only ran with the story after the other cable news outlets did. Oddly, you are uninterested in giving Fox a fair shake.
> They believe that they are fighting a war and if they have to publicly slander an innocent woman to win, well that is just politics. When their slander is shown to be a total fabrication and they are reveal as having no journalistic or moral standards, they refuse to apologize and instead start to make up new excuses to justify their action.
None of this is true. She is not innocent. There was no slander. The “total fabrication” turns out to be true and based on real facts.
> They have violated the 9th commandment, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”
Have not. You aren’t paying attention. Both Sherrod and the NAACP are behaving just as badly as Brietbart said they were, maybe even worse.
Good lord, mikeca. When it comes to slander and total fabrication and complete partisan bias you make me, Breitbart and Fox look like polite, complimentary, wildly scrupulous centrists. Do you really believe all this utterly false claptrap that you write?
Yours,
Wince
P.S. I believe that you have strong principles for the public good, mikeca. You are simply in the grip of unthinking anger and hatred. Happens to the best of us.
Althouse on context: A question about the Shirley Sherrod incident and taking things out of context.
mikeca,
I’m sure you’ve spent your entire adult life complaining about how slanderous reporters consistently take quotes out of context to sell papers and air time. I’m sure the bitterest words you have ever heard uttered are “sound bite”.
It is to laugh that you seize on Breitbart’s use of a fairly long clip and pass on the selective editing that 60 Minutes was famous for, for example.
Try harder. Much, much harder.
Yours,
Wince
It keeps coming!
Oliver Willis, at Media Matters, writes a shamefully dishonest post about me.
I await mikeca’s indignant rant about the slanderous Oliver Willis and Media Matters and out of context quotes.
(Charles) Sherrod: “We Must Stop The White Man And His Uncle Toms …”
Ha! Those shoes are dropping like an earthquake at a Nike factory!
I’m thinking that fast firing by the White House was a badly thought out response to what was, for them, a truly no win situation. Every time someone shines more sunshine on the Sherrod family, or we give them a chance to actually speak, Obama looks worse.
Yours,
Wince
The video posted on Breitbart site has text in big block letters at the beginning saying “Ms. Sherrod admits that in her federally appointed position overseeing over a billion dollars she discriminates against people due to their race.” That is simply false. If you view the entire video, it is obvious that Ms. Sherrod it talking about an incident that occurred many years ago, long before she started work for the US government.
Someone has now added some smaller text at the bottom of the video to clarify that she is describing an incident from before she was a federal employee, but it still does not indicate it is from 24 years ago. If Breitbart or someone was going to edit the video to correct it, why didn’t they simply remove the false information in big block letters? Why leave the false information there, and then add some fine print to say the big block letters are false?
I think what is abundantly clear Wince, is you do not like the NAACP, and you have allowed your dislike of that organization to badly color your opinion of this affair. People who do not share your dislike of the NAACP see things very differently.
Well, you are trying harder.
> Someone has now added some smaller text at the bottom of the video to clarify that she is describing an incident from before she was a federal employee, but it still does not indicate it is from 24 years ago. If Breitbart or someone was going to edit the video to correct it, why didn’t they simply remove the false information in big block letters? Why leave the false information there, and then add some fine print to say the big block letters are false?
I see your point has become much more narrow. I agree that Breitbart was wrong in his description of the time of her behavior and her employer at the time. That is a simple mistake of the kind journalists make all the time. I also see you are uninterested in Sherrod’s other comments. I also see you are incorrect about the correction. Look at the top of the post.
Here is the text: Correction: 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.
You cannot get more prominent than right below the headline.
> I think what is abundantly clear Wince, is you do not like the NAACP, and you have allowed your dislike of that organization to badly color your opinion of this affair.
Nope. I’ve got a very good grasp of this affair. It is you who have made no attempt to be fair, and whose hatred of conservatives, Republicans, Fox, Rush and Brietbart has colored your analysis. I have properly characterized this as a tempest in a teapot. I have properly characterized Shirley Sherrod and the NAACP as racist. Not very racist, but in the case of the NAACP racist enough to compromise their mission. That’s pretty measured criticism. You, on the hand, are ranting worse than Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck – and, unlike them, when you rant you have no sense of humor. So stop projecting!
What do I dislike about the NAACP? That they have repeatedly criticised me and people I admire in ways which mirror the right wing media you disparage – except that the NAACP’s criticism’s are usually less fair and less supported by the facts. (This is mainly because the NAACP is given a free pass by the mainstream media, and the right wing media is not. Had the mainstream media been covering the story of the NAACP’s racism and rejection of black conservatives in a critical fashion, the NAACP would have learned to be careful , and they would not be compromising their mission as badly.) You are capable of seeing that right wing media will not be persuasive to blacks. Well, the NAACP will not be persuasive to conservatives – including black conservatives. That, as I correctly pointed out, compromises their mission.
Your failure to moderate your tone and try to consider other points of view has fatally compromised your ability to make convincing points in this forum, mikeca.
I really want you to try even harder. Your anger has made your principles invisible when commenting about this manner. Luckily, I know you and I know human nature. You are a principled man. You need to be condemning the way that Charles Sherrod calls blacks who don’t agree with him Uncle Toms. This is the most poisonous thing that black liberals and black leftists do. Because of that truly poisonous behavior, I do not want to associate with Charles Sherrod. He needs to understand that that behavior is unwelcome. He won’t hear it from me, a hated conservative. He needs to hear it from people like you.
Yours,
Wince
Breitbart has added this correction to his blog, but it was not there when this story broke.
Breitbart point in the original post was that here was a USDA official talking to a NAACP group about how she is discriminating against white farmers at the USDA, and the NAACP audience approving of that.
Now it turns out it was 24 years ago while working at a charity group, and it was a story about how she learned that poor white farmers were just like poor black farmers, and any discrimination based on skin color is wrong.
Breitbart and apparently you, Wince, contend that it is irrelevant that Breitbart got the context wrong. The video still shows that Sherrod and the NAACP are racist.
I’m sorry, Wince. Context matters. I have watched the whole, unedited video. This video just doesn’t show that Sherrod or the NAACP are racist. You are free to continue to claim the video proves Sherrod and the NAACP are racist, but I think that is more telling about your biases than mine.
Anyone interested in who Andrew Breitbart and what he is trying to do should watch this interview from Feb of this year.
The money quote here IMHO is when Breitbart says he wants to be in the history books as the guy who took down the institutional left.
He is fighting a war, and in his mind all is fair. There are no rules. He is simply trying to get in peoples faces and yell insults at them. This edited video was just another excused he could use to get on TV and radio to attack and insult the left.
Andrew Breitbart is an unrepentant sinner who believes that the ends justifies the means.
> I have watched the whole, unedited video. This video just doesn’t show that Sherrod or the NAACP are racist.
So did I. It does show both are racist.
> Now it turns out it was 24 years ago while working at a charity group, and it was a story about how she learned that poor white farmers were just like poor black farmers, and any discrimination based on skin color is wrong.
Nope. Now you are taking things out of context. The audience did not know that was going to be her point. They agreed with the racism in her story before she got to her point. If you watch the whole video she says it is about black and white, but also about poverty. The racism is still there. And she, in a very racist fashion, is unable to allow people to disagree with Obama without making a false charge of racism against the people she disagrees with. Too bad for you. The context gets worse. Now we have all sorts of racist quotes from her (and now her husband) made since the story broke.
In addition we have the very broad context where the NAACP and others have been taking remarks conservatives make out of context and unjustifiably tagging them as racist – that was the context in which Breitbart presented the clip – which you have irrationally ignored in your eagerness to attack him. Note that the NAACP and others tag white conservatives they disagree with as racist and black conservatives as Uncle Toms – also a racist characterisation.
Context does not favor your interpretation, mikeca. The more information we get, the more Breitbart’s original claims against the NAACP are validated, and the more we can see that Sherrod is herself still racist.
> He is fighting a war, and in his mind all is fair. There are no rules. He is simply trying to get in peoples faces and yell insults at them. This edited video was just another excused he could use to get on TV and radio to attack and insult the left.
> Andrew Breitbart is an unrepentant sinner who believes that the ends justifies the means.
You are mind reading. He does not say that. You are attributing bad motives to someone you do not know. People who are suffering from irrational anger and hatred often do this. I know you have principled motives for your behavior here. You need to see that Breitbart has principled reasons for wanting to take down the left. I agree with him. The left is dangerous and harmful. Some of the people he attacks (and who you are defending) are slanderous thugs who have never been as careful about context as Breitbart.
Context is not your ally in this matter, mikeca. It is Breitbart’s and it is mine.
Yours,
Wince
The left is dangerous. Including the journalists that you aren’t complaining about, mikeca.
Yours,
Wince
The dictionary meaning of racism is a belief that some races are superior to others. It can also mean racial intolerance.
I don’t see any evidence that that Sherrod or the NAACP believe that blacks are superior to whites or any real racial intolerance.
What I do see is that the NAACP is very sensitive to the way blacks are treated. Perhaps sometimes they overreact to situation, but people like Shirley Sherrod suffered through many years of very real discrimination.
You on the other hand seem to have blown a gasket in your hated for the NAACP. You apparently cannot see how this video, edited and title to be false and misleading, amounts to slander of the worst kind and violates the 9th commandment. Most people outside of the tea party fringe can see it pretty clearly. I think you need to take a deep breath and reflect about this a while.
So, mikeca, if I understand your definition of racism correctly…
Advocating treating people differently based on ‘race’ isn’t racist. Only saying one ‘race’ is superior or inferior is racist. By that standard, the following items are not racist:
1) Treating people differently based on their skin color or ethnic history.
2) Judging people based on alleged deeds of their ancestors
3) Attempting to “maintain racial purity”
In my book, all these things are racist. None of them say anything about ‘superiority’. You’ve nicely defined racism such that the NAACP isn’t racist, but you’ve defined it down to almost meaningless.
> I don’t see any evidence that that Sherrod or the NAACP believe that blacks are superior to whites or any real racial intolerance.
That is because you are carefully rejecting it even though it is there.
> Perhaps sometimes they overreact to situation, but people like Shirley Sherrod suffered through many years of very real discrimination.
Extremely real. About as real as you can get. If anyone has an excuse for being racist, it is Sherrod.
> You on the other hand seem to have blown a gasket in your hated for the NAACP.
The truth is that when I meet NAACP people, (and I do, rarely, but I do) I like them. I bet if I went to an NAACP meeting I would enjoy myself and I would really enjoy the people. It would be a privilege. I know this because I went to an Organizing for America meeting once. I disagreed with everyone else there (except my wife), but boy they sure were lovely people. Kind, considerate and caring. Had a great time. Reminded me of the Tea Party events.
I’ve said that neither the NAACP nor Sherrod are particularly racist. They have a couple of bad racist habits which undermine their ability to get their job done. The worst is their racism against blacks – all blacks have to agree with them or be called Uncle Toms – a phrase which means a race traitor who cozies up to the white master. You would have no trouble identifying the words “race traitor” as racism if a white person said it.
In addition I think I have said this in another context, but now I’m saying it clearly, in this different context: I do think it’s clear that Sherrod has grown, and that she is less racist than she was. But less racist is not the absence of racism.
You can call that hatred, but I’d call you blind. I have reason to be angry at them both, because they have slandered me, a Tea Party person, and people I admire, by calling us racists and race traitors. But I am not very angry at them, particularly at Sherrod, who seems like a very nice person with some very bad ideas – mostly socialist ones. I am much more angry at you, because you refuse to listen to reason, refuse to use your eyes or your mind. You aren’t trying.
> You apparently cannot see how this video, edited and title to be false and misleading, amounts to slander of the worst kind and violates the 9th commandment.
According to your definition all journalists are slanderous, because they all title and edit in ways that are false and misleading. They never, sometimes merely due to space and time constraints, tell the full story. But usually it is a desire to create a narrative out of real life that causes journalists to be false and misleading. Real life isn’t a story, but we only want to pay for stories so that is what journalists provide.
What about you? You selectively edit various facts out of your narrative so that you can call Breitbart a slanderer. That makes you slanderous – your definition, not mine.
However, there is a particular defense against slander you never mention. It’s not slander if it’s true. Since Breitbart was complaining about the audience, not Sherrod (a matter of context you slanderously – your definition, not mine! gloss over) the edit was not false or misleading. It shows the audience agreeing with and supporting her racist actions and thoughts as described. I have kept this defense against the accusation in mind.
Here is the truth. We are not required to present all the facts. We are allowed to make arguments without presenting all the facts. Were it otherwise we could always be accused of slander because there is never enough time to find and present all the facts. In this case, Breitbart did not have the whole video, and did not edit it. (Note that editing usually includes titling – if Breitbart re-titled the video he received you would merely accuse him of misleading in a different way. You do not know that Breitbart titled the video. So, since you are making accusations in the absence of knowledge or evidence, you are slandering (not my definition) Breitbart the same way again.) I cannot accuse a man of slander for failing to present evidence he does not have. Apparently you can, so for example you think Obama was guilty of “slander of the worst kind and violat(ing) the 9th commandment” when he spoke misleadingly on the Gates case without having all the evidence.
It’s odd how your particularly broad definition of slander accuses Brietbart, all journalists, myself, Obama and you, but your particularly narrow definition of racism lets actual racist behavior by white supremacists off the hook. That indicates you are adjusting your definitions to match your desires.
Perhaps more reasonable definitions are in order.
I have repeatedly demanded that you apply the same standards to your allies that you do your enemies. That’s hard. We all fail at it sometimes. But you aren’t trying.
Yours,
Wince
> I don’t see any evidence that that Sherrod or the NAACP believe that blacks are superior to whites or any real racial intolerance.
That is because you are carefully rejecting it even though it is there.
> Perhaps sometimes they overreact to situation, but people like Shirley Sherrod suffered through many years of very real discrimination.
Extremely real. About as real as you can get. If anyone has an excuse for being racist, it is Sherrod.
> You on the other hand seem to have blown a gasket in your hated for the NAACP.
The truth is that when I meet NAACP people, (and I do, rarely, but I do) I like them. I bet if I went to an NAACP meeting I would enjoy myself and I would really enjoy the people. It would be a privilege. I know this because I went to an Organizing for America meeting once. I disagreed with everyone else there (except my wife), but boy they sure were lovely people. Kind, considerate and caring. Had a great time. Reminded me of the Tea Party events.
I’ve said that neither the NAACP nor Sherrod are particularly racist. They have a couple of bad racist habits which undermine their ability to get their job done. The worst is their racism against blacks – all blacks have to agree with them or be called Uncle Toms – a phrase which means a race traitor who cozies up to the white master. You would have no trouble identifying the words “race traitor” as racism if a white person said it.
In addition I think I have said this in another context, but now I’m saying it clearly, in this different context: I do think it’s clear that Sherrod has grown, and that she is less racist than she was. But less racist is not the absence of racism.
You can call that hatred, but I’d call you blind. I have reason to be angry at them both, because they have slandered me, a Tea Party person, and people I admire, by calling us racists and race traitors. But I am not very angry at them, particularly at Sherrod, who seems like a very nice person with some very bad ideas – mostly socialist ones. I am much more angry at you, because you refuse to listen to reason, refuse to use your eyes or your mind. You aren’t trying.
> You apparently cannot see how this video, edited and title to be false and misleading, amounts to slander of the worst kind and violates the 9th commandment.
According to your definition all journalists are slanderous, because they all title and edit in ways that are false and misleading. They never, sometimes merely due to space and time constraints, tell the full story. But usually it is a desire to create a narrative out of real life that causes journalists to be false and misleading. Real life isn’t a story, but we only want to pay for stories so that is what journalists provide.
What about you? You selectively edit various facts out of your narrative so that you can call Breitbart a slanderer. That makes you slanderous – your definition, not mine.
However, there is a particular defense against slander you never mention. It’s not slander if it’s true. Since Breitbart was complaining about the audience, not Sherrod (a matter of context you slanderously – your definition, not mine! gloss over) the edit was not false or misleading. It shows the audience agreeing with and supporting her racist actions and thoughts as described. I have kept this defense against the accusation in mind.
Here is the truth. We are not required to present all the facts. We are allowed to make arguments without presenting all the facts. Were it otherwise we could always be accused of slander because there is never enough time to find and present all the facts. In this case, Breitbart did not have the whole video, and did not edit it. (Note that editing usually includes titling – if Breitbart re-titled the video he received you would merely accuse him of misleading in a different way. You do not know that Breitbart titled the video. So, since you are making accusations in the absence of knowledge or evidence, you are slandering (not my definition) Breitbart the same way again.) I cannot accuse a man of slander for failing to present evidence he does not have. Apparently you can, so for example you think Obama was guilty of “slander of the worst kind and violat(ing) the 9th commandment” when he spoke misleadingly on the Gates case without having all the evidence.
It’s odd how your particularly broad definition of slander accuses Brietbart, all journalists, myself, Obama and you, but your particularly narrow definition of racism lets actual racist behavior by white supremacists off the hook. That indicates you are adjusting your definitions to match your desires.
Perhaps more reasonable definitions are in order.
I have repeatedly demanded that you apply the same standards to your allies that you do your enemies. That’s hard. We all fail at it sometimes. But you aren’t trying.
Yours,
Wince
My Apology to Shirley Sherrod — Withdrawn
I’m happy to say that I neither called for Sherrod to be fired nor called for Breitbart to apologize. I may have made mistakes in this matter, but haste wasn’t one of them.
Yours,
Wince
The resolution that the NAACP passed condemn extremist elements within the Tea Party and called on Tea Party leaders to repudiate those in their ranks who use racist language in their signs and speeches. They did not call all members of the Tea Party movement racist. Unless you are one of those extremist members of the Tea Party that likes to hold up signs with racial slurs on it, they are not talking about you.
Where did you get the idea that they were calling you a racist?
Where did you get the idea that they were calling you a racist?
I looked.
The things they are asking for are already done.
Not only that, but the NAACP has political allies infiltrating Tea Party gatherings for the purpose of displaying racist messages.
…called on Tea Party leaders to repudiate those in their ranks …
I call on you to stop beating your wife.
> Where did you get the idea that they were calling you a racist?
I listened to the remarks from NAACP members, including Congressmen, Sherrod and her husband.
Now I’ve read that article on the NAACP website, which I had not seen before. It’s clearly accusing the Tea Party of racism. Are you blind? Why would anyone offer that article in defense of your position? It makes my case!
Sometimes I cannot understand how you got a PhD. If I were mikeca and I read that article I would apologize to Wince and admit I was wrong.
Why didn’t the NAACP pass a resolution condemning Representatives Lewis and Cleaver for making false accusations of racism, which is racist? Instead they repeat the charge! I know Cleaver. I’ve met him. He is usually responsible. He should withdraw his remarks.
The resolution passed by the NAACP was slanderous to me and those I admire, by implying that these things were necessary because they were not being done. It was misleading and took things wildly out of context. By your own standards – which require all exculpatory information to be presented – the NAACP resolution must commend the Tea Party for our widespread and successful efforts to combat extremist elements in our ranks.
But if you look their rhetoric and their resolution, it’s clear they don’t believe that we have made widespread and successful efforts to combat extremist elements in our ranks. Again, by your definition they are slandering us.
Yours,
Wince
Apparently your understanding of the English language is very different from mine. The article I linked to even says:
Now where exactly does it say that the NAACP is accusing all Tea Party members of being racist?
mikeca
Now where exactly does it say that the NAACP is accusing all Tea Party members of being racist?
You still haven’t condemned beating your wife.
Have you even stopped?
> Apparently your understanding of the English language is very different from mine.
Nah. You just aren’t reading what I wrote carefully.
> Now where exactly does it say that the NAACP is accusing all Tea Party members of being racist?
Where did I say all?
Yours,
Wince
You definitely did say:
So maybe you want to slice the difference between accusing “the Tea Party of racism” and accusing all members of the Tea Party of being racist.
There definitely are some fringe groups, like the white pride group Council of Conservative Citizens, that have been setting up booths at some Tea Party events.
There was Mark Williams, who was a spokesman for one of the Tea Party groups. Mark Williams says he is not a racists, but he seems to be constantly saying and writing things that sounds pretty racists, apparently by accident. He was removed from his leadership positions after the NAACP resolution was passed.
As best I can make out, Lewis and Cleaver said they heard racial slurs while walking past some Tea Party protesters before the HCR vote. Apparently there is no video of the incident on which you can hear the racial slurs. From that evidence some people have concluded that Lewis and Cleaver were lying. IMHO this evidence is ambiguous. We will never know whether there were racial slurs yelled or not. The NAACP is not going to pass a resolution condemning Lewis and Cleaver in what is basically a he said she said situation.
I still don’t get why you think the NAACP was condemning you? Are you a member of CCC? Are you a good friend of Mark Williams? Are you the one carrying the “Obama’s plan White Slavery” sign?
Comments on this entry are closed.