When the box doesn’t fit

Bend and stretch.

Justice is colorblind. Too bad our society no longer is after the multi-culti hogwash that has bread out of us the notion that we are all American, but we are now a check-the-box ethnicity. The folks who went out of their way to brand George Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic” as opposed to “Hispanic” will now have to eat their words.

Why?

Turns out he’s black, too. Is it enough that it’s check-the-box-black?

Waiting for the race baiter Al Sharpton to apologize in 3, 2…

NBC deceptively edits to help what, start a race war?

This peeves me beyond belief. What happened to reporting? I know it’s a dead art. But editing in this case didn’t provide brevity or clarity, it’s just misleading. Via Instapundit, the scoop from The Hollywood Reporter:

In the NBC segment, Zimmerman says: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

The full version, though, unfolds like this:

Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”

911 operator: “Okay. And this guy, is he white black or Hispanic?”

Zimmerman: “He looks black.”

Instapundit quips:

It’s as if they’re pushing a predetermined narrative regardless of the evidence or something.

UPDATE:  Reader Michael Costello emails:  “ABC did the same thing.  Aren’t these the same people who accused Andrew Breitbart of deceptive editing?”  Yeah, go figure.

Predetermined narrative aside, doesn’t it give you warm fuzzies to know that millions of people trust this as truth when it’s anything but?

UPDATE: linked by Chris Wysocki at Theo Spark. Thanks!

“The new N-word”

Or is it the new F-word? Ah, the plight of liberals, censoring language at every turn. Stacy McCain highlights the N-onsense:

According to David Gregory of NBC News, it is “coded racially-tinged language” to mention the increased use of food stamps under President Obama’s economic agenda

In a way Gregory’s right: it’s the N-ew N-ormal in the Age of Obama. Food stamps for all!

Head over to The Other McCain to see the video.

In other racially coded news, the First Lady sure knows how to pick excellent role models for kids

Finally, Victor Davis Hanson asks questions that will get him labeled mean-old-white-man-keepin-the-other-man-down in a hurry:

First, what exactly is race today in America in which intermarriage and immigration have increasingly made it — and its ugly twin racial purity — often irrelevant? We are no longer a country largely 85-90% “white” and 10-12% “black,” but something almost hard to categorize in racial terms. Do university admission officers adopt the 1/16, one-drop racial rule of the old Confederacy? Does being one fourth African-American qualify one for consideration; three-fourths Japanese; half Mexican-American? Does a simple surname add — and often by intent — authenticity and credulity? The son of Linda Hernandez and Jason Smith — a Bobby Smith — is not considered, without genealogical investigation, Hispanic, but the son of Linda Smith and Jason Hernandez — a Roberto Hernandez of equal 50/50 ancestry — is almost instantly? If so, is race a state of mind and personal choice more than circumstances of birth? What exactly is white and what a minority — a dark-skinned Armenian-American is the former, a light-skinned Colombian American is the latter? A dark Sicilian-American is white, Barack Obama is black?

[...]

Is there a color-coded graph somewhere that says the darker one is, the more consideration one is due?

It’s sad, isn’t it, when I know the President and the Attorney General would answer in the affirmative. Read the rest.

Holy Pigford, Batman

Hillbuzz has been beating the Pigford drum over the past few weeks and believes the Democrats associated with this Obama-money scandal will all go down in flames for it

They damn well better.  Because this is unbelievable and paves the way for “reparations” for other minorities.

Hillbuzz asks: QUESTION: Can gay men qualify for USDA discrimination payments and claim we wanted to be farmers, too?

They might as well.  Why?  Via Gary Hewson writing at BigGovernment:

On top of the original billion-plus dollars previously doled out indiscriminately in Pigford I, the American taxpayer will now be on the hook for an additional $1.25 billion in payments to black “farmers,” whom did not have to provide proof of:

-Having ever farmed or having attempted to farm

-Having ever had a loan at the USDA

-Having ever filled out paperwork to attain a farm loan

-Having ever attempted to get a loan.

The only burden of proof required in Pigford I was a form stating the claimant had “attempted” to farm, and to have a family member vouch for that assertion.

The U.S. government would then send a check to these “farmers” for $50,000.

With both the USDA and black farmers advocacy group’s estimating a maximum of 1,000-4,000 farmers who had legitimate grievances at the time of the original action, President Barack Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress have just approved payments covering up to 94,000 claimants, although no more than 33,000 black farmers ever existed at any period the suit covers

Got that?  No need to have any proof other than a family member’s voucher.  Heck, I farmed in the 80s!  I grew pumpkins in the 4th grade in my dad’s garden.  Never needed a loan.  Ah, wrong color.  Rejected. 

More must-reads: Andrew Breitbart, Me & Mrs. Sherrod — and the $1.25 Billion Pigford II Black Farmers’ Settlement and

The Pigford Shakedown: How the Black Farmers’ Cause Was Hijacked by Politicians, Trial Lawyers & Community Organizers–Leaving Us With a Billion Dollar Tab

Just in case you’re wondering, Our Esteemed Dear Leader is a politician, lawyer, and former community organizer, and his Alinskyite handprints are all over this mess.  Because he needs to lock up that vote with Obama-money, stat.

Multiple Michelle ice cream cracks, Black Panthers, and ol’ Fidel: it’s Monday laundry!

Good thing the Michelle hasn’t taken away his ice cream (yet): Poll: Rocky road seen ahead for Obama.

Only 38 percent of respondents said Obama deserves to be reelected, even though a majority of voters hold a favorable view of him on a personal level. Forty-four percent said they will vote to oust him, and 13 percent said they will consider voting for someone else.

It’s Obama’s policies that are hurting him right now. By a 13-point margin, voters are down on the health care law. In an especially troubling sign, more than half of self-identified independents — 54 percent — have an unfavorable opinion of the law, compared with just 38 percent who have a favorable opinion.

Sucks when you govern against the will of the people, no? 
 
Ed Morrissey highlights another impressive number from the poll, one that inspires confidence: Among cable-news networks, MSNBC trusted by … 12%.   There is hope for our country yet.
 
The promised second serving of snark, Pundette on fire this morning:
Has Michelle Obama been placed in charge of the diets of Gitmo detainees? Perhaps that’s the explanation behind the latest Guantanamo human rights violation scandal: Gitmo Horrors Continue: Detainees Limited to One Ice Cream.
Heh.  The horror, the horror!  Maybe Michelle will be named as a defendent in the next civil-rights violation charge, a la Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush?  He only let me have one new prayer rug, but she took away my ice cream!   
 
Jen-Ru explores the bombshell testimony of Chris Coates, the DOJ head of the Black Panther trial team and wonders how the Obama administration will be able to sidestep the coming wave of supoenas.  The media can no longer ignore the story.  She writes:
Try as Democrats might to ignore the blockbuster evidence, Coates’s testimony was a game changer. Granted, the testimony contained information already revealed in conservative outlets and by former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams. But Coates confirmed these facts and added a wealth of new details. An African American attorney and his mother (who also works for DOJ) were harassed for working on a voting case brought against an African American defendant. Obama’s deputy assistant general for civil rights, Julie Fernandez, repeatedly told attorneys not to enforce Section 8 or bring cases against minority defendants. Coates’s supervisor, who directly ordered the case’s dismissal, told him to stop asking applicants if they could enforce laws in a race-neutral fashion. Coates briefed civil rights chief Thomas Perez on the hostility toward race-neutral enforcement of voting laws — before Perez feigned ignorance of such sentiments in sworn testimony. In sum, Coates’s appearance was the scandal’s tipping point.
To borrow the meme from Instapundit: They told me if I voted for John McCain, everyone wouldn’t be protected under the law…
 
Line of the day courtesy Mary O’Grady at the WSJ:
At most marine parks in the world the animals provide the entertainment. But at the Havana aquarium last month, Fidel Castro had a couple of humans eating out of his hand and clapping like trained seals.
Castro again has an urgent need to put a smiley face on his dictatorship. The economy is in dire straits. Food is scarce, electricity is a rarity, and soap and toilet paper are luxuries. Cuba produces almost nothing and this makes it difficult to get hard currency—aka real money—which in turn makes it tough to buy from abroad. Lending sources have dried up.
If the regime is to stay in power, it needs a new source of income to pay the secret police and keep the masses in rice. The best bet is the American tourist, last seen circa 1950 exploiting the locals, according to revolutionary lore, but now needed by the regime. It wants the U.S. travel ban lifted. To prevail, Castro needs to counteract rumors that he is a dictator. Solution: a makeover in the Atlantic. In Mr. Goldberg, he no doubt recognized the perfect candidate for the job.
More:

It never seems to cross Mr. Goldberg’s mind that he is being used in a manner Communists first learned at Lenin’s knee. Or perhaps he is happy to be useful. In a follow-up post he explains that since Fidel is not as bad as Pol Pot, Cubans should stop complaining. And to demonstrate further how little he knows about the plight of the Cuban people, he says that the “release” of political prisoners “is currently being negotiated.” Wrong. Some have been exiled; some others may receive conditional parole meaning that they can be returned to prison at any time if the regime disapproves of their activities.

Mr. Goldberg is peddling his Castro interviews as serious journalism. But while he was “curious” to get a “glimpse of the great man,” he was ill-prepared for the job. Presumably he knew this, which is why he allowed Ms. Sweig to lead him around Havana by the nose.

Ouch.  You can lead a liberal to kool-aid and give him a Che t-shirt, but show him nefarious reasons for Fidel’s change of heart and he won’t see logic.  Such is life.
 
More later.
 
 

Multiculturalism and liberal hand-wringing: theater in Colorado Springs “too white”

Haven’t we moved past this idiocy?

Apparently not:

The air goes out of the room when Desireè Myers finally speaks up.

“I just don’t feel like I fit here,” Myers tells the two dozen or so participants in a Gazette-organized discussion about the lack of diversity in local theater. A trained actor, she hasn’t been cast in a professional production since 2008. Before that: 2004. “I’ve given up.”

Myers is black.

It’s possible, of course, that she’s not cast because she’s untalented. Maybe she’s sensitive about racial issues. Or maybe Myers has good reason to feel excluded.

The story is from the Sunday Colorado Springs Gazette on the lack of diversity in local theater.  I kid not.  Serious liberal hand-wringing on display:

In 2009-10, the major companies — the Fine Arts Center Theatre Company, TheatreWorks and in their first seasons, Springs Ensemble Theatre and the newly resurrected Star Bar Players — cast 15 minority actors. With the exception of TheatreWorks’ and New York artist Ping Chong’s “Invisible Voices,” which was built around the stories of six locals living with disabilities, none were leads.

The final score: 15 actors of color to 174 Caucasian actors.

The numbers are even starker when you go back a few years. Since the 2006-07 season, the FAC and TheaterWorks have cast 928 roles. Fifty-six minority actors were cast: The FAC with nine and TheatreWorks 47.

Producers and directors explain the imbalance by saying the minority talent pool in the Springs is small and non-white actors don’t show to auditions. At a Fine Arts Center audition for the Gershwin extravaganza “Crazy for You,” 225 actors came out. Four were actors of color. None were cast.

Maybe that’s no surprise when most plays and musicals are written, produced, directed and acted by whites — white men, in fact. In city of 325,921 whites (according to 2009 numbers provided by the city), audiences, too, are predominantly white. If you’re among the city’s estimated 88,000 non-white Springs residents, you will rarely find yourself on stage, hear your stories and even see someone there who looks like you.

As with any count-the-number-of-minority-number-crunching, someone’s feeling’s are hurt as a result of the exclusion:

“If you don’t see yourself on the stage or on the screen, you’re erased,” says Sharon Jensen, director of the New York-based advocacy group The Alliance for the Inclusion in the Arts. Jensen is white. “You’re invisible.”

Of course, the “expert’s” skin color has to be noted.  She’s white.  But she obviously knows how it feels to be excluded, right?  Maybe she felt the angst of females banned from Shakespearean productions. 

More: 

The lack of diversity in theater, while particularly acute in the Colorado Springs, certainly isn’t unique to us. Even theater meccas like New York City fall short of equal casting, especially in lead roles. How many Hispanic Broadway stars can you name? Or playwrights or directors?

“It’s not an equal playing field yet,” says Jensen, who, as head of the New York advocacy group, has been at the front lines of this issue for 21 years. “Far from it.”

In fact, a four-year study of professional theaters revealed more than 90 percent of actors in American shows from 1982 to 1986 were white. If “cultural” productions like “Dreamgirls” were discounted, those numbers went even higher.

My jaw dropped reading this yesterday over coffee.  So Colorado Springs falls short of some mythical standard of multicultural casting that isn’t even the standard in New York City?  Why then all the whining? 

What’s the excuse for the obviously racist theater directors who are all, um, liberal?  (Liberal racism, oh, no, it couldn’t be, could it?)

“It wasn’t so much overt racism,” Jensen says carefully, “as people doing business as they always had. Those people were primarily Caucasian. They were drawing on a pool of talent that was Caucasian because that’s what they knew.”

Ultimately, Jensen says, it’s not an issue of employment, but of doing the right thing. Tony-winning playwright David Henry Hwang, who is Asian American, puts an even finer point on the problem in a 1990 interview by The New York Times.

‘’The real issue is not who gets cast,” he said, “but that any organization continue(s) to perpetuate and encourage stereotypes at the expense of artists of color, which borders on 19th-century imperialism.’’

Hwang was referring to the casting of Jonathan Pryce, a white actor, as the Eurasian lead of “Miss Saigon.”

The Actors’ Equity Association agreed, first barring Pryce from playing the role he originated on London’s West End and then reversing their decision. Pryce won a Tony for his portrayal and played the role on Broadway for 10 years.

Imperialism, of course.  But at the hands of white liberals.  No wonder the angst. 
 
Question: if, according to liberal doctrine, a white man can’t play the part of a minority because he couldn’t possibly be as culturally sensitive and attuned, then what makes it kosher for a minority to play the part of a white?  See why this gets so stupid in a hurry?
 
Want to know how stupid?  Read on:  
[Clinton Turner Davis] also maintains that you can’t task a white director to helm “A Raisin in the Sun,” Lorraine Hansberry’s classic exploration of black family life.

It’s a slap in the face of every minority director looking for work, he says.

“If you have a true commitment to increasing diversity, then the programming would change,” concludes Davis only days before heading to Asia to translate the national poem of Vietnam. “You don’t do ‘1776’ (the Revolutionary War musical running this season). You do something else.”

To the question of whether he’s contradicting his own high standards by presuming to interpret someone else’s culture, he laughs.

“I’m a very culturally sensitive person,” he says. “I’m stepping into this with tremendous humility and profound respect.”

I will give the author of this liberal angst on display props for pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of a black director who rails against the idea of a white person directing a “black” play. 
Of course Davis possesses the cultural sensitivity, humility and respect for his project–the translation of a national poem of a culture with which he holds no bond or tie even though he condemns the same from any white who dare do the same.  But no one else can possibly have the same degree of cultural know-how as a liberal black college theater professor.   Especially someone white.
 
I’m sure Davis agrees with the argument that a white English teacher cannot possibly teach Invisible Man or Native Son.  For that matter, maybe woman should be barred from teaching either one?  By his measure, what makes him think a black teacher can “access” Shakespeare?  No one asks that question.  Of course, they say, a black teacher can teach Shakespeare because Shakespeare wrote about the human condition.  What makes Native Son or A Raisin in the Sun any less human? 
 
I loathe the politics of multiculturalism because it leads to division, not unity.
 

Obamaloo, Spitzer on “dirty, nasty” and more: it’s Friday laundry!

Obamaloo?  O down eight points in three weeks to 42% approval, the lowest evah among adults–not registered voters or likely voters.  Ouch.

Even the hopiest of the hopey changey cult losing hope: Shepard Fairey loses hope.  Lame-o MSM quote:

Maybe it was inevitable that Hope would fade.

Someone actually wrote this?  With a straight face?  No wonder they’re all losing their jobs, no?

Eliot Spitzer, client no. 9, claims gubernatorial candidate (D) Cuomo is the “dirtiest, nastiest” of politicians.  Takes one to know one?

Filed under the “nothing about this White House would surprise me anymore” category: If this Malik Shabazz visiting the White House residence is the Malik Shabazz…. then the President owes us all an explanation.

Why MLK’s niece will speak at Beck’s rally: “It’s a matter of honor”

Did you know Dr. Martin Luther King’s niece, Dr. Alveda King, speaks today at Glenn Beck’s rally?  You wouldn’t from the MSM coverage of the event, decrying the horror of Beck claiming King’s mantle.  But to Alveda King, it makes perfect sense:

In front of the Lincoln Memorial in June, a group of students caught up in a moment of spontaneous patriotism broke into song. But the US Park Police were quick to shush the members of the Young America’s Foundation, saying singing is not allowed at the memorial. The song that was stifled? “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

So much for freedom of speech.

At the Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Nonviolent Social Change in Atlanta this July, an official at the memorial to one of the greatest civil rights leaders in the world – my Uncle Martin – removed a bullhorn from the hands of Father Frank Pavone, an internationally recognized leader of the pro-life movement. We were a group more than 100 strong, in Atlanta to declare that abortion is the greatest violation of civil rights in our day. We brought a wreath to lay at Uncle Martin’s grave while we prayed, but due to a King Center official’s barricade at the gravesite, we weren’t allowed. The National Park Service said that would constitute a demonstration.

So much for freedom of assembly.

Americans are hungry to reclaim the symbols of our liberty, hard won by an unlikely group of outnumbered, outgunned, underfunded patriots determined not to live in servitude to the British Empire. If we want to sing the national anthem at a memorial to the man who led this fledgling nation out of slavery, and made my people free, we should be able to send our voices soaring to the heavens.

Glenn Beck’s “Rally to Restore Honor” this Saturday will give us that chance, and that’s why I feel it’s important for me to be there.

Before the words were out of Mr. Beck’s mouth announcing the Aug. 28 rally, The New York Times noted that it would be at the same place and 47 years to the day since my Uncle Martin gave his “I Have a Dream Speech.” When asked why he chose that date in particular, Beck said he had not realized its significance, but in thinking about it, he saw it is an auspicious day to rally for the honor of the American people. He has said, and he’s right, that Martin Luther King didn’t speak only for African-Americans. He spoke for all Americans, and his words still ring true.

Read the rest.  Dr. King is the director for African-American outreach for Priests for Life. 

For the first time since moving, I miss being in DC.  It’s not the same as being there, but via Mommy Life, here’s streaming video of the event.   Hot Air also has an open thread with streaming video.  I had better luck with the latter but am in a hurry to start staining the deck.  Fun, eh?

Though it looks like Stacy and Smitty are lost,  I’m not counting them out just yet.  Will be heading to The Other McCain later for updates, and I suggest you do the same.

H/T: Memeorandum for all the latest in MSM lefty rage.

TGIF: VDH optimism and Krauthammer eviscerates the liberal crutch. Who could ask for more?

Light blogging ahead: my in-laws will be here in a week and the rest of the boxes must be unpacked.  Books and papers are the bane of moving.  Twitter feed and google reader will be updated, but posts might be a little skimpy.  Apologies.  It’s funny how life happens, no?

Optimism from VDH who argues that “Decline is a choice.”  He writes:

As the summer winds down, there is more and more talk of decline in the air. Some of it comes from the left, as a sort of giddy notion that we are now, at best, devolving into what the Greeks called prôtos metaksu isôn, first among equals, enjoying traditional prestige but otherwise nothing much special in comparison to the Europeans, India, and China.

In the age of Obama, the notion of not being exceptional or preeminent comes as a relief to millions on the left who pretty much are in sync with the protocols of the United Nations. On the right, there is a sense that Obama is the ultimate expression of downfall; given the wild spending, the iconic efforts abroad at apology, and the rampant entitlements we simply aren’t what we once were. In between, most aren’t quite sure—but sure are worried that we may never climb out of our self-created indebtedness crater, and that the culture’s education, the nation’s borders, and the civilization’s values are eroding.

I agree with the latter take, but see decline in history as largely psychological. After all, a Rome that was little more than 4 million and half of Italy almost simultaneously fought both Hannibal and Philip V and ploughed on after losing over 100,000 dead between 219-216 BC to victory, while by AD 450-80 an empire of 70 million, with a million square miles of territory, could not thwart thuggish tribes across the Rhine and Danube.

A very poor United States in 1941 defeated imperial Japan and helped to defeat Nazi Germany in less than four years. A few hundred thousand immigrants between 1870 and 1960 took a godforsaken desert in California’s central valley and turned it into an oasis of agriculture, for nearly half a century with no more than muscle and mule power.

He goes on to point out our exceptionalism in every field–well, sans the arts which have succumbed to race/class/gender orthodoxy.  And he’s right.  Read it, smile, and know that as we recovered from Jimmy Carter, we will recover from Obama.

(As an aside, did Carter have fans who still wore campaign t-shirts?  I was too young.  And I still see women decked out in their Obama paraphenlia snatching up magazines on which he graces the cover.)

Charles Krauthammer examines the liberal tendency to cry “Racist rube! Bitter clinger! Idiot!” which he refers to as the “last refuge of a liberal.”  He writes:

Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the “bitter” people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging “to guns or religion or” — this part is less remembered — “antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”

That’s a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.

The great unwashed don’t want a Ground Zero Mosque, fail to see the brilliance of a judge who decides two men can marry, and feel the borders should be protected.  Rubes, all.  Too bad those rubes can vote, eh? Read it.

Boxes call!

 

Move along (please)

Shirley Sherrod, the gift that keeps on giving. 

In my original post, I criticized Sherrod for her racism coloring (pun intended) her official capacity as a government employee.  That was false, in that she did help the white farmer and that she was not in the employ of the government at the time.  I stated she should receive her job back, as she was fired for “racism” when none existed.  Sherrod is a Marxist–that much is clear in her rant about “haves and have nots.”  But if all the Marxists were removed from governance, DC would be an empty town (and middle Georgia, I presume).

Sherrod’s comments today were beyond the pale (no pun intended) as she called for the government to shut down Breitbart’s sites.

Really, Shirley?

maintained yesterday that I still think Sherrod wasn’t the central focus of Breitbart’s actions:

Shirley Sherrod recognized and recovered from her own racism (and overcame much to get to that point); however, the assent and nodding from the audience was and is as much of the story as Sherrod, especially considering the presence of the NAACP President.  For that, I still believe  Breitbart was in the right in exposing the tape he received.  When the popular meme exists that tea partiers are de facto racists, it’s worth noting that the folks bobbing their heads in assent to racism ain’t tea partiers.  I believe that was Breitbart’s point, especially after last week’s NAACP tea-partiers-are-all-racist-bastards-who-want-to-bring-us-down resolution.  Just sayin’. 

Dan Riehl, on fire:

The media and progressive-left Democrats now appear in a rush to convict Andrew Breitbart of shoddy journalism, while exonerating Shirley Sherrod and the NAACP from charges of abiding racism within their ranks. Both Sherrod and the NAACP have charged the Tea Party movement and the Republican Party with racism, while offering less proof than Breitbart did of the racism he correctly alleged. In many cases, the Left has outright manufactured evidence of racism regarding Tea Party events, yet no one has raised a voice about that slander at all. If one didn’t know better, this wouldn’t be today’s news, but an Orwellian script circa 1984.

At approximately 17 minutes into the now-released full video of the event, Sherrod can be heard relaying a tale from her past in which she initially failed to help a white farmer with the full effort she would reserve for a black farmer.

The assembled crowd of card-carrying members of the NAACP took great pleasure in that, their laughter was not nervous at all. That is a contemporaneous expression of racism by today’s politically correct standards, not racism from some 40 years ago.

Sherrod later says, “It’s not so much about white…” then catches herself and says, “It IS about white and black.” Perhaps Sherrod should explain why, even today, color is so centrally important in her work, be it at the Agriculture Department or elsewhere.

Breitbart’s web-posting of the speech showed more racism at one NAACP event than those charging Republicans and Tea Parties with racism have yet to produce after making accusations for months on end. The people making that charge include both Sherrod and the NAACP, neither of which has produced any proof. But it is Breitbart who should be convicted for false charges in the court of public opinion? That is totally absurd given the actual facts.

More:

In Sherrod’s world, no one is allowed to object to a significant Obama-supported policy change impacting the healthcare of all Americans without being labeled a racist. Clearly Sherrod sees everything through the lens of color or race. If her view is not racist, it is supremely ignorant and unfit for a public official. It is meant to marginalize any and all legitimate opposition to a political act. Sherrod is merely projecting her own racism into a perfectly rational, legitimate political debate so as to avoid it. That is not democracy; it is race-based demagogy commonly employed by racists everywhere. And still she was not done.

During the Bush years, says Sherrod, “We didn’t do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President.” Gone is any valid argument over actual policy, fiscal restraint, government growth, or control of healthcare—supported or opposed by entire national political parties. In Sherrod’s world, everything is all and only about race. If that isn’t a tenet of racism, then what is? Without ignorant race-based presumptions, otherwise known as racism, Sherrod’s entire scope of political argument falls apart.

Rock on, Dan Riehl.  Read the rest.

Ooooh.  More:  Untangling the Shirley Sherrod mess

Andrew Breitbart in his initial post about Sherrod was incorrect in stating that the actions she described in her story took place while Sherrod was an employee of the federal government. He also should have been more clear that it was the NAACP’s cheering of her initial racist sentiments that was his primary target.

Breitbart also should have done better to put Sherrod’s previous racist behavior in the past with his writing but to impute, as David Frum does, that the full clip told “exactly the opposite of the story Breitbart had wanted to tell,” is patently false considering that Breitbart did in fact state that in the end Sherrod’s “basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help.”

Frum and many of Breitbart’s critics are clearly suffering from reading comprehension problems.

That’s it.  I’m done.  No more Sherrod. (Pretty please).
 
Both the Sherrod matter and the Journolist revelations have one thing in common that the ideologues from both sides remain blissfully and determinedly unaware; the controversies are excellent examples of epistemic closure on both sides…

Creating realities based on false authenticity; possessing a worldview that squeezes facts through an ideological or hyper-partisan prism, generates an inability to objectively perceive events in a rational and logical manner. Perhaps more importantly, it prevents both sides from talking to each other as each is in possession of a separate reality that neither recognizes as the truth.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 342 other followers