House of Eratosthenes

We all have stories to tell, hers are peculiarly Southern and like most of our mixed racial tales told south of the Maxon-Dixon line, they’re tinged with a streak regrettable sadness. Black people didn’t get anywhere near a fair shake under Southern skies before the Civil Rights Movement gained momentum, admitting that fact means nothing more than acknowledging the truth of the times.
:
I think Andrew Breitbart is a self-aggrandizing, corner cutting, race baiting, money chasing, media whore. Jeffrey Lord is an illiterate asshole and Shirley Sherrod doesn’t deserve a single day she’s spent under this ugly conservative sun.

Sonic Charmer has a different opinion.

I’m vaguely aware that there’s a controversy surrounding some government employee named Sherrod who was fired because she’s a racist but then she turned out to be not. But I didn’t know the details so I decided to Wiki it.

Reading about the controversy itself, it does seem as if this particular rap against her was unfair.

However, reading about the rest of Shirley Sherrod’s “career”, I think there are much worse things to charge her with:

She and her husband lost their farm when they were unable to secure USDA loans. Sherrod along with other activists sued the USDA in Pigford v. Glickman in order to protect the remaining black farms which were in danger of becoming shut down. The Department agreed to compensation which was to be paid between January 1, 1981 and December 31, 1999. The event was considered as “the largest civil rights settlement in history, with nearly $1 billion being paid to more than 16,000 victims.”

Translation: She wanted the taxpayers to chip in to give her a below-market-rate loan to buy her and her husband a farm. They didn’t. So she sued the taxpayers. She won and got the money from taxpayers. $1 billion distributed among 16,000 people (oh sorry “victims”) equals some $60k per person. Although what do you want to bet that her share was more than the arithmetic mean?

I’m seeing things more Sonic’s way than Daphne’s. Partly because of things like this video (h/t Riehl World View)…

…and partly because I’m sick of being told what to think about people. I’m sick of the sophistry. Yes, Ms. Sherrod’s speech was the polar opposite of what it appeared to be, and her boss Mr. Vilsack — not Andrew Breitbart, not Fox News, but the Secretary himself — overreacted.

Does this mean Shirley Sherrod is a decent person? No. It means Tom Vilsack is a spineless jerk.

More and more, it looks to me like this: Shirley Sherrod spent 43 minutes lying about her motives and what she’s been learning on the job, and Brietbart unfairly played a few bits out of context, the ones where she told the truth about herself.

I’m tired of the duplicity. I’m tired of being told Sarah Palin is malicious because some stalking pervert moved in next door to her. I’m tired of being told just because someone can be called a victim of something and she happens to have dark skin, and a chestless jackal for a former boss, that her motives must be pure.

In fact, there are other crackpots and nutjobs in the mix as well. I’ve had it to here with the “because”-es. I’m fed up with being told Elena Kagan will be a great Associate Justice because she’s funny. Rush Limbaugh is evil because he’s rich. Dick Cheney deserves to die because he ran Halliburton. The Gulf oil spill is in good hands because Stephen Chu has a Nobel prize.

I’m at the Popeye stage with the sophistry; I’ve had all me can stands, and me can’t stands no more.

You put something out there that’s incorrect, or misleading, and there are only two possibilities after that’s found out: You were hoodwinked by someone, or you’re a liar yourself. Well, Brietbart has an iron-clad alibi about the edited video he received. If he was lying about that — if he was in fact the person responsible for whittling this thing down, and giving it an appearance so strikingly at odds with the real intent of Sherrod’s speech — there’s been plenty enough time for that to have been borne out. It hasn’t happened. There isn’t a shred of evidence that Breitbart was complicit in this.

Sherrod, meanwhile, has been helping to spread the word around that Fox News deliberately brought about her dismissal, and she knows better.

She was treated unfairly.

Only those who are withholding the intellectual vigor, or are coming up empty in an attempt to supply it, would infer from that that she’s a nice person. Just because you get the shaft, doesn’t make you a sweetie-pie.

I’ll keep an open mind, but this woman is really setting off a lot of alarms in my head. She fits a profile, and it’s not a skin-color profile. It’s one I would call “Play Dirty But Act Like You’re Playing Nice.”

Because, above all, I’m sick to death of liberals getting caught doing sneaky underhanded things, and then claiming someone conservative was responsible for making them do it. Enough of this. Obama and Vilsack overreacted, Obama and Vilsack can own the problem. For once. Even if Sherrod wants it to work out some other way. It’s their fuck-up.

[…] Freeberg says it best. More and more, it looks to me like this: Shirley Sherrod spent 43 minutes lying about her motives and what she’s been learning on the job, and Brietbart unfairly played a few bits out of context, the ones where she told the truth about herself. […]
- DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » More Opinions on Ms. Sherrod | 07/27/2010 @ 06:12
I was politely reading through the comments over at Daphne’s place and came across one by mahons that really pissed me off. My response isn’t likely to endear me to the site’s hostess because I gather that she and mahons are friends. Regardless, I treat alleged child molesters like they deserve to be treated.
- Physics Geek | 07/27/2010 @ 07:17
Half with Daphne, half against. The half that is with her agrees that I am not quite ready to write Sherrod off as a particularly horrible person – really she’s about as run of the mi – no, no, nevermind. Not even going to start making those concessions right now. I don’t know if Sherrod is good, bad, or boring. Never met her.

The other half winces at the “peculiarly Southern” story, experience, etc. Like a particularly black experience, or uniquely Puerto Rican. The translation is: “Any disagreement you have with the following is simply an indication of your ignorance. Please stay out of this.”

It’s a good “Let’s Get Rid Of” topic. Let’s get rid of implications of experiential exclusivity. Especially when they imply that anyone outside of the circle of knowing is prohibited from criticizing anyone inside of it. “You ain’t been nebber dun lived here, so’s you canst be knowin whys we be speaksin like Jar-Jar Binks.”

Bonus “Let’s Get Rid Of” is spawned from this. One of my all-time most hated phrases: “As long as it isn’t hurting anyone else.” I will submit to a dozen wasp stings for every time in my life I have tried to defend an argument with that myopic drivel.
- Andy | 07/27/2010 @ 10:56
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. I think Breitbart’s fighting Alinsky with Alinsky. It’s all about getting them to shoot themselves in the foot in public with their reaction. I know, ’cause I read Alinsky.

I don’t think he quite expected them to use such a large caliber gun with which to, shall we say, bloody their own socks and I don’t think he expected the Administration to discharge such a huge firearm down it’s pants leg, either.

I buy his explanation. He was going after the NAACP with a point. It is a legitimate point. They’re the ones who freaked. He asked for nothing. He just said “what about this?

And you don’t freak unless you think there’s something to freak about. The NAACP knows they’re hypocrites, and Breitbart timed it perfectly.
- philmon | 07/27/2010 @ 20:37
I must strongly disagree with Daphne. We need a few Andrew Breitbarts.
- philmon | 07/27/2010 @ 20:38
Yes, I notice something about Daphne. I tend to be in the minority pretty much all the time, until I disagree with her. Then she’s the one who’s in the minority.

And it’s usually when she’s pulling the “I’m a little David Frum” routine.

I’m pretty sure if it came down to brass tacks, and she had to choose between Sarah Palin and Sherry Sherrod to watch her kids over a week…she’d make the same decision as anybody else.
- mkfreeberg | 07/27/2010 @ 20:41
Surely you are not saying that for some people, you’re only right if you’re a minority? Why, that idea is simply UNHEARD OF in this day and age.

Let me answer this for you:

“Why yes, that is what I am saying. And don’t call me Shirley (Sherrod).”
- Andy | 07/28/2010 @ 08:18

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

More Opinions on Ms. SherrodMonday, July 26th, 2010

More Opinions on Ms. Sherrod
Monday, July 26th, 2010