I’m still trying to put together the whole Sherry Sherrod incident, but the line today appears to be that the original tape from Brietbart was taken out of context and edited to make it appear that she continued to hold racist beliefs. However, a reading of the issue indicates that that is not completely true. Media Matters has the tape and a partial transcript pointing to what was in the first tape verses what was in the full tape.
However, the first tape, the short one, includes the line :
So I took him to a white lawyer that we had — that had attended some of the training that we had provided ’cause Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farmer, so I figured if I’d take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him.
That’s when it was revealed to me that y’all, it’s about poor versus those who have, and not so much about white — it is about white and black, but it’s not — you know, it opened my eyes,
(bolding mine) The administration, NAACP, and seemingly everyone else involved here appears to think that Breitbart edited out the part where she acknowledges that she was wrong. However, as I read it, it was right there the whole time! What, other than that, can “that’s when it was revealed to me” mean, other than I learned that I had been wrong?
If people chose to overlook that, fine. Certainly the administration and NAACP appeared to. But don’t blame Breitbart for shortening a tape when you couldn’t even pay attention to the whole thing.
Update: John Stewart: “This administration is sorry . . . that you suck so bad!” (and yes, John, that new beard thing looks incredibly stupid) (Also, the part about being allowed to “hate the thing that killed your father” thing- pretty creepy, when “the thing that killed her father” was apparently the entire white race.)
And: Sherrod says she’ll sue. Doesn’t that require an actual non-truth?
A racist. (ba dump bump!)
I didn’t even have to start an argument against a commenter who followed me here from my new distractor blog hangout, Corporette (which is really fun for fashion tips for professional women) to already be winning it. She just dropped in, accused me of being a racist, extremist, radical, etc., gave absolutely no examples or support of why she thinks that way, and dropped back out.
If you want an example of the shallowness of the liberal mindset, please read Pamela’s comment, and my response, in my “about me” section. Feel free to chime in here or there if you disagree with either of us.
“Unhyphenated American” Lloyd Marcus takes on racists who can only see the presidency through the spectrum of race:
I received this message on Twitter from a black female, “Lloyd Marcus “F– you!”, in response to my opposition to Obama. This woman is obviously a non thinking racist who refuses to take an honest look at her black idol president. She has chosen to ignore Obama’s long list of offenses of shredding the Constitution, governing against the will of the American people and using Chicago thug tactics. All this black woman knows is Obama is the chosen one and he is black. So shut up! Whites who dare to criticize or question Obama are racist and blacks who “don’t get it” are Uncle Tom traitors to their race.One would think such small minded racist thinking would be limited to the uneducated, non achievers and welfare entitlement junkies. Unfortunately, I personally know highly educated and successful fellow blacks who feel the same about Obama as the knucklehead who sent me the “F– you!” note.
Read the whole thing. As I’ve said before, liberals have to keep “their” groups in the party, and they will do whatever they can to keep down any black, gay, or woman who dares to be outspokenly conservative. People like Mr. Marcus gives me hope that this will not work for much longer.
for managing to field complaints from complete idiots with apparent grace.
A local chapter of the NAACP is upset because a Hallmark graduation card, with a “solar system” theme, uses the word “black,” followed by what they have interpreted as the word “ho.” Really. (video at the link). Hallmark pulled the card.
When I was a senior in high school, I stage managed a play version of “School House Rock” at the children’s division of our local community theater. Three elementary school aged, home schooled* sisters were in the cast. The play closed on the most fun, rocking song of the show, “Interjections!” where the whole cast joined in. You can read the lyrics here, and be shocked by an supposed children’s program making liberal use of the NSFW word “Darn.” Or, you could if you were the mother of these three sisters, who approached me at a rehearsal to tell me that her daughters could not be in this song due to the use of that word. I laughed in her face. It was simply absurd to me.
But not as absurd as it would have been if I had been working a customer service line at Hallmark, and a person had called in to tell me that they heard the word “black hole,” in a space context, and still understood it to mean “black ho.” Kudos, Hallmark customer service rep who fielded that call!
* Before any home school advocates jump on me, I just want to say that my first tastes of home schoolers really came from some odd families in that town who apparently believed that theater was the only acceptable activity that their children could participate in outside of the protected womb of the home. They were clearly doing it wrong, and it left a bad taste in my mouth about homeschooling. Since then, I have had the opportunity to work with some kids from homeschooling groups in my current town, and they are far more well adjusted and sane. It’s changed my mind so much that, should we have kids, we may even consider taking this route with them someday. (Although I’m not sure these kids are really homeschooled they seem to be more of a very flexible private school group that calls themselves homeschooled. Either way, I was really impressed with them.)
Until I read this article, I didn’t even realize that Nikki Haley was Indian. Because, like most of the United States, I just don’t normally think of those things unless it is pointed out and made a big deal out of. She’s just a woman running for governor. And Bobby Jindal is just a man who is governor.
What explains the success of Jindal and Haley in their respective states? In posing this question, I hint, of course, at the South’s lingering reputation for racial intolerance; and who can deny that the two states in question have not always been at the forefront of America’s historical striving for racial amity?
One answer is that these two politicians are consummate conservatives in a milieu that rewards political conservatism, and that their success is a validation of their ideology and intelligence. Their ethnicity, in other words, is an irrelevance. This view was expressed, in effect, by a friend—a law professor in Tennessee—when I asked him why he thought Indian-American conservatives were doing so well in some Southern states: “There are lots of Indians in the South, and they work hard and do well. Why wouldn’t people like ’em, especially when they work hard at politics and espouse conservative, capitalist, pro-family views?”
Naturally, it is unwise to make any generalizations based on the emergence of Jindal and Haley alone, but their success is striking, given that Indian Americans comprise barely 1 percent of the U.S. population, and are not found in overly large numbers in either Louisiana or South Carolina. A generalized observation that we can make, however, is that the GOP—being a relatively new establishment party in the South—has fewer institutional barriers to fresh faces. There are no GOP “machines” there, in the manner of the Democratic ones in New York or Illinois, and there aren’t, also, the massive expenditure hurdles of the kind that exist in California.
This would be no surprise to most transplanted northerners we know that, while the south can be abrasive in certain ways, particularly to those unfamiliar with the local customs, the days of true racism in everyday life are long gone. Well educated, conservative southerners, in particular, freed of the stereotypes that dog the liberals by demanding that victimization remain, are far more interested in someone who supports their values than in someone who looks like them (whatever they may look like).