The Shirley Sherrod Debacle.

Share Button

Note that the following is the first thing I wrote about this whole this, which was posted at Gay Patriot:

After watching the full video, I conclude, that if the sole reason for her firing was this vid, Shirley Sherrod was wrongly terminated. Being a film major in college, and knowing just how manipulative a good editor can be, I can’t stand when video is edited. I railed against it when they aired the highly edited Charlie Gibson interview of Sarah Palin. You know I’m not a fan of hers, yet I came to her defense on that one, and I despise it here. Unless there is something we don’t yet know about this situation, the administration has some explaining to do.

Breitbart says he got only the edited version of the vid. I’m not quite buying that. Being a guy who is aware of the power of clever editing, I would think he would wait to see the unedited version before using the edited version. The unedited version makes him look like a liar. He could have been duped, but I don’t know if I buy that. I’m expecting more info to come out, and I’m thinking it’s going to get ugly on all sides. I’m going to blog on this tomorrow.

It’s now tomorrow, and I have a few things to say.

I was very busy when this first broke, but when I heard about it, I had the same feeling I had when I first heard about “B” girl’s supposed mugging for Obama. There was obviously information missing, and when that is evident in the political arena, you can usually be sure that something is rotten in Denmark.

Here is the deal. When you watch the first version of the video, it’s not really that damning in the first place. When she does talk about not helping the white farmer to the fullest extent, there is a bit of laughter and chuckling from a few in the crowd, but it’s not like the whole place erupted with applause. We know nothing about the few who reacted, yet, it’s not hard to imagine that at least some of them have been, or believe they have been screwed over by a white person or white society, and who among you would get a little satisfaction hearing of someone else screwing them for a chance, if only by proxy.

So not only does the first video not show what Breitbart claims, but it would have been very easy for the White House to handle this effectively… Assuming of course there is anyone competent currently working there.

The unedited video starts with an almost revivalist feel, with a nice church organ bit playing in the background. And that revivalist feeling sticks with the audience, who utters a few “Ah-mens”, “Al Rights” and “Haleluliah’s” scattered throughout, which also explains some of the spontaneous reactions to the “not helping the white man” comments. Mrs’ Sherrod starts off by telling the audience that her father was murdered by a white man when she was seventeen, and goes on to describe some of the injustices that occurred during the civil rights movement. She uses that to lead to the part where she talks about the white farmer. As you watch the whole thing, you see it clearly shows that Mrs Sherrod was simply telling the audience about a vital life lesson she learned, and she ended up going to bat for the guy she originally held in contempt, above and beyond her assigned responsibilities. Those of you who have not had to learn a lesson or two of that nature in your lifetime, please stop reading this and go do something else, because you’re wasting your time reading this.

Which leads me to this question: Is it actually racism to mistrust a group of people with whom you’ve had very bad dealings in the past? If we’re going to go by the standard definition — Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race — then, in Sherrods case, and maybe some in the audience, does this really show racism?.

Meanwhile, Breitbart is still saying that he only got the original video in edited form. OK. Reveal the source so we can have a crack at that person.

PS. Since this post involve the Shirley Sherrod injustice, it’s good to know the White House is making an effort to correct their huge gaff in firing her on such flimsy circumstances. The White House is obviously still in panic mode over the New Black Panther controversy, and thought they would get ahead of the new controversy by firing Sherrod to prove they don’t favor blacks in their administration. In doing so before all the details were known, they screwed up even worse than the Professor Gates incident. And, doesn’t this perfectly complement the history of the lack of vetting of anything involving this administration, from Tim Geitner’s tax problems, to the Gates / beer summit stumble, to the Van Jones / 9-11 truther scandal, to…. God, there are just so many, it’s hard to list them all.

4 Comments to “The Shirley Sherrod Debacle.”

  1. By Cliff, July 23, 2010 @ 4:09 am

    I think the tape was edited and planted and it was all a set up.

  2. By Cliff, July 23, 2010 @ 4:17 am

    Whoever gave the tape to Brietbart was hoping Fox News would get their hands on it and make a big deal of it before all of the facts came to light to try and discredit them. Think about it.

  3. By Sonicfrog, July 23, 2010 @ 9:27 pm

    OK. But doesn’t that look bad for FOX either way? That they would run with a story before they had all the facts? Look, Breitbart is a political savvy individual. But he’s also a blind partisan. Politically blind people tend to do stupid things. I’ve found more info that supports my case. I’m going to blog about this right now.

    No I’m not… not yet.

  4. By Jeff Alberts, July 24, 2010 @ 1:32 am

    If it was a setup, then Breitbart is a fool. The “just a blogger” defense is bullshit. Sherrod should sue him for defamation, as should the NAACP.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply