The Full Sherrod

The story of Shirley Sherrod begins when she was 17 years old, when a white man murdered her father and got away with it. I'm going to repeat that. When Shirley Sherrod was 17 years old, a white man murdered her father and got away with it, because the elder Sherrod was black, and if you were a white man in Georgia in 1965, you could kill a black man and get away with it.

So yeah, she doesn't particularly like white people, and the speech which led to her resignation was mostly a description of how she came to move beyond that. When the edited snipped first appeared on Big Government I could tell immediately that she'd been cut off in the middle of a thought. I wondered if that thought was going to lead someplace into the light. The Anchoress, ever the voice of reason, thought so, too. And, well...

Why yes, I will be using it every time...

And yes, Andrew Breitbart would have done well to wait for the full footage before he released what he had. And yes, Barack Obama would have done well to demonstrate the stiffness of spine that the good Lord gave a flatworm and await events before demanding her head (unless of course, he really did leave the decision to Vilsack, which doesn't reflect very much better on him). Last night, Left and Right were as one in saying that the raw deal was Sherrod's.

And then she started opening her mouth.

Given American history, I am the sort of fellow who considers it perfectly understandable for African-Americans of a certain age to distrust and dislike white people. Shirely Sherrod most certainly possesses that age and experience. But to forgive her resentment does not oblige me to call it something else. For a woman of her education to publicly call out Andrew Breitbart as nothing more than the ghost of Jefferson Davis not only gives the lie to her supposed conversion, but bespeaks a shocking ignorance of the rhetorical situation, an ignorance that strikes at the heart of what Breitbart was getting at.

African-American activists like to pretend that the souls of white folk are theirs for the reading, that they know our deepest motivations better than we do ourselves. They've made mountains of racism out of molehills of speech for a long few decades. That they should feel the need to do this, after the horrible experiences of African-Americans, should surprise no one. But the expectation that I or Andrew Breitbart or Rush Limbaugh or anyone else should be bound to it, that raises an eyebrow.

It may take another hundred years before African-Americans have fully achieved what their ancestors labored so cruelly, suffered so miserably, to attain. Halley's Comet may return before the ancestral memories of fear, mistrust, and righteous anger become just memories. Charity and forgiveness alone may accelerate this process.

In the meantime, expect many people of many colors to vomit up the words that others attempt to put in their mouths.

Observations From Fox and MSNBC Last Night:

1. Rachel Maddow always sounds as though she's telling a joke and has forgotten the punch line.
2. For some reason, Sean Hannity is less irritating on television than on radio.
3. Listening to Chris Matthews speak is like watching a dog dance on its hind legs. You're kind of impressed that he does it at all, and when he falls flat on his face, you're not suprised.
4. Cynthia Tucker has an almost Brezhnevian talent for making propaganda like "right-wing noise machine" sound like an insurance seminar. At least Michelle Malkin manages to put some punch into "thug-in-chief."
5. After half an hour of Hannity, you begin to remember the positive charms of Bill O'Reilly. Matthews, on the other hand, does not make one wish Maddow was back, nor look forward to Olbermann.
6. Stewart and Colbert only think that they're mocking this script rather than joining in it.

Who will Reform the Reformers?

The American Interest:

“What are you kids doing down there,” ask the voters, who’ve noticed some banging and crashing in the basement.  “Are you kids writing a Carbon Tax?”

The greens check quickly with the focus groups and pollsters before shouting back up, “No, Mommy, of course not.  We aren’t playing Carbon Tax.  We’re playing Cap and Trade.”

Read the whole thing.

Here be Racists...

Over at the Patheos blog, Theodore Dalrymple explains why the Left returned to their "Teabaggers = RACIST!" meme as soon as the leak in the Gulf got plugged. He chalks it up to the Theory of the Missing Motive:

Unable to see a rational and noble motive at the center of the Tea Party movement, liberals supply a darker and more convenient motive instead. Just as ancient cartographers wrote "there be dragons here" beyond the bounds of the world they knew, so liberals write "there be racism here" because the mind of the Tea Partier is undiscovered country in their map of the world. The Tea Party cannot be rationally and nobly motivated, the liberal believes, because the Tea Partiers are not rational and noble.

In other words, the problem is not that liberals dislike the principles promoted at Tea Party rallies. Most do not understand those principles. The problem is that liberals dislike the kind of people who go to Tea Party rallies.

I wrote similarly a few years ago, summing up the source of the fevered antipathy to President Bush:

There are many among our political and media elite, and among those on the coasts who are in their zone of influence, who simply cannot believe that a born-again Christian from Texas can ever be right about anything, ever. Decades (centuries?) of internalized bigotry of urbanites against provincials, of secular humanists against unsophisticated believers, does not vanish overnight, not even in the face of an act of war, not when the same group has drank deep of the waters of Wilsonian collective security and refuses to believe that their enemy is their enemy because he wants to be so.  

In short, George W. Bush has been despised since long before the Iraq War, because he is the living embodiment of Those People, and the habit of the American media and political establishment has for some time been to mock Those People as cruel, stupid, and dangerous

From 2005 to now, despite a slew of victories, the Progressives have not changed. 



 

Garafalo = PWNED

Change the context, and she's suddenly talking about something very different. Except she isn't.

I guess the foot's on the other hand now, isn't it, Kramer?

The Essayist #21: With The Rich And Mighty, or Is Roman Polanski as Smart as Michael Vick?

[The following was originally posted at my livejournal last October. It is the Definition of "Overtaken by Events". Polanski has skated away scot free again, and while Vick has once more, albiet briefly, become a "person of interest". Nevertheless, in the light of Whoopi Goldberg once more rising to the defense of her fellow entertainers, it needs to be said again.]
An alien or archaelogist from the future, seeking to re-create what early-21stcentury humans meant by “controversy” could do worse that to make the Polanski case his study. All the elements abound: famous men, young girls, taboo sex and quaint drugs, rumours of judicial malfeasance, the drama of exile, competition for the status of victim, etc. If I cared, I would be enthralled.

But I do not care, and indeed plan to explain my not-caring in some detail. This being the case, one may fairly ask why I bother to put fingers to keyboard to pontificate on the subject. And I will fairly answer that my lack of caring is a feature, not a bug. It grants that most precious of journalistic bona fides, objectivity. So before I make comparison between Michael Vick and Roman Polanski, bear with me through the following Declaration of Disinterest:

A Moment of Honesty about the Gulf Spill..