The word racist is losing its sting. Racism used to be such a horrible thing to call someone, but since Obama became President it has been over-used by the left to describe anybody who disagrees with Progressive politics. It doesn’t seem as evil a word as it used to be, that is very sad.
…Damn, those lefty “reporters” really hate Andrew Breitbart. They couldn’t wait to pounce on him for this story despite the fact that they couldn’t have read his post that well. Do they hate him for his politics or because he does their job much better than they do? I pick both.
I did a radio interview on a Fargo station a couple hours ago (yes at 5:10 AM PDT) on my PJM piece, and have another one scheduled on the Martha Zoller show at 8:20 this morning (11:20 Eastern, in Gainesville, GA). We do seem to need a new word to describe the concept of thinking that someone else is inferior because they have a different hue to their skin, because the leftists have removed all useful meaning from the word “racism.”
[Update a few minutes later]
[Update a while later]
What Sharrod’s speech wasn’t about — racial transcendence:
Pardon me, but I think I’ll stay off the Canonize Shirley bandwagon. To me, it seems like she’s still got plenty of racial baggage. What we’re seeing is not transcendence but transference. That’s why the NAACP crowd reacted so enthusiastically throughout her speech.
Yes, there does seem to be overshoot the other way. She’s certainly no saint, particularly given her slander of Fox News.
Except that, if you watch the whole video, you see that the NAACP audience reaction was appropriate. Sherrold was describing how she overcame her own racism.
BTW, she came by that racism the hard way – a white farmer murdered her father. This being all the way back in 1963, the farmer was never charged.
The old word still carries plenty of venom when the (apparently) slighted party is less than 100% white skinned. It carries zero content or power of failure on the offenders part when the offender is even 1% less than white.
Look at Mel Gibson and the New Black Panther Party.
Gibson is a racist for a private tirade, the NBPP is a well meaning, helpful group of free speech advocates for disrupting voting for “crackers”.
George Bush hated black people, and the proof? Kanye West said so!!
Anyone who sides with Obama is thinking straight, anyone who doesn’t, is a racist, regardless of their color.
Seemingly, racism is aliver and weller than it was for years. And Obama is the effect, not the cause. He was simply in the right place ant the right time for those who needed the anti-Bush, the anti-old guard Dems and the anti-American push the Bill Ayers crowd has sought for 50 years.
Obama is a Liberal – Socialist, POTUS, Forest Gump.
I just watched A Tale of Two Cities. IMHO, if we come apart as a nation, it’s much more liable to be the French Revolution, then our revolution or even the Civil War. The question I keep bumping into is this.
If and When the shit hits the fan here, will the hand on the guillotine be white, or brown?
Yerh, you can call me crazy too. But I was on the side of those who said Obama and his handlers would drag us right where we are. And everybody I knew said I was nuts. I’d love to have been wrong.
Yes, it’s appropriate that she pays back some white guy because some other white guy killed her father. No racism there.
So Chris, given her racism THEN, it was OK for her to be that way EVER? There’s never any redemption for a white (ex)racist.
In the ‘Week in Racism’ link the Hispanic lady with the bullhorn is screaming for whites to go back to Europe. When in fact it looks like to me that she is a White Hispanic of European Spanish descent. Is she going to be booking the flights to go back to the motherland with us?
I know someone who was working the Census here in Dallas. She said practically all the people she was assigned to track down were Hispanics. She couldn’t get them to complete the Census form because as soon as they got to the race question they would say, “I’m Mexican!” She would have to explain that Mexican is not considered a race and then proceed to list out the races. Well, most of them would have to admit to being white and instead just slam the door close. I guess they think they will lose their welfare benefits or street creed or whatevah.
Sherrod overcame her racism and helped the very same white farmer she talks about in the speach. In fact, he’s come forward to defend her.
I’ll make it simple. Sherrod did nothing wrong. She is not and was not a racist, despite the ample opportunities to become one.
This was a slanderous attack on her by Breitart. Hell, even Jonah Goldberg gets it – he thinks Breitart should apologize.
Gerrib dodges the point — the audience’s reaction.
I’ll make it simple.
Sherrod also complained about Republicans at the NAACP. She suggests that Republican differences with Obama are because he is the first black President. Political speech by bureaucrats is usually considered inappropriate. But to catch her comments, you have to watch the entire tape, and of course, not have an instinct to cheer when she says it.
There’s never any redemption for a white (ex)racist.
Unless you’re a Democrat Senator from West Virginia.
Chris also fails to realize Sherrod DID do something wrong, but that she then CORRECTED her action. Since he seems to be unable to do the same thing himself, it’s entirely unsurprising he can’t recognize the distinction in others.
Also, what Titus said. I haven’t seen the video but the description I’ve heard is not what Chris claims, that the NAACP audience approved of her recovery over her racist action, but that they actually applauded her racism.
Titus – if you read my very first post in this thread, I explicitly said “the audience reaction was appropriate.” (Reading comprehension)
The reason the audience reaction was appropriate was because Sherrod was telling the audience how she overcame her initial racism.
Chris Gerrib, I am in 100% agreement with you. The Obama administration, in its apparent zero-tolerance policy for the mere appearance of racism, is stuck now trying to figure out whether they want to fire Ms. Sherrod or plead with her to get her hired again.
Some wing-nut mouthpiece shows a highly edited video tape out of context, and wham, a hard-working woman is out of a job, all because this Administration cannot make a decision to get out of its own way. And the Administration apologists in the media are quick to point out that the Obama Administration had been reacting to criticism from a wing-nut mouthpiece, criticism from the far-out-of-the-main-stream-right-wing-fringe that seems to move this Administration to taking rash actions.
In other words, some wing-nut mouthpiece has gotten inside the “OODA Loop” of the Obama Administration. And if Mr. Breitbart can do this, think of the damage our foreign enemies can do. We are so hosed.
Breitbart got inside Agriculture Secretary Vilsack’s OODA loop. Obama was handed a “she’s already quit” note.
Of course, the “wingnut” of whom you speak has been frequently and approvingly quoted here.
” I haven’t seen the video…”
I LOVE you guys.
That one will keep me going for days.
That one will keep me going for days.
Here’s a rubber band to play with. That should keep you going for months.
Paul, this really isn’t the first time either. Just last year, we had the Henry Louis Gates arrest, in which a question from a reporter got within the OODA loop of the Obama Administration with the same knee jerk reaction.
…think of the damage our foreign enemies can do.
Oh, right, you mean Rupert Murdoch. I get you.
We’re talking about the positive reaction the audience gives to her description of giving the white man his comeuppance (because she builds-up how bad he is), not the Marxist Aesop at the end.
We’re talking about the positive reaction the audience gives to her description of giving the white man his comeuppance
Because audiences with preconceptions never think daft things and then realize they’re wrong…
(Looks around the comments here)
That’s the problem with talking to peanut galleries that reflect your opinion all the time. Except she didn’t really do that as the whole video shows.
And that’s still not actually an example of institutional racism not matter how you try and tell yourself it is.
Oh, right, you mean Rupert Murdoch. I get you.
Well, apparently you don’t, since only an idiot would imagine that he meant Rupert Murdoch.
Eh? According to Gerrib, it’s not “daft” at all — it’s “appropriate.” So…which is it?
Eww, and now it’s trying to put words in my mouth. How revolting!
Breitbart got inside Agriculture Secretary Vilsack’s OODA loop. Obama was handed a “she’s already quit” note.
You really do believe anything they say.
“” I haven’t seen the video…”
I LOVE you guys.
That one will keep me going for days.”
Daveon, you should change your handle to “moron.” Go back and re-read what I wrote. I only addressed things that have been discussed ad nauseum here and on the radio and intarwebs, and I pointed out that I was talking about what I’d heard described. Did you see the video? Did Sherrod’s audience react with approval to her story of screwing the white man? Then my point stands. If not, then what I said can obviously be discounted and I’m OK with that–and further, if such is true, then I pre-emptively admit this whole story is much ado about nothing.
Further: But nothing I’ve seen here or anywhere from anyone other than mouth-breathing morons like Gerrib suggests that my description isn’t what happened.
Leland – so arresting a man for breaking into his own home wasn’t a stupid thing to do?
Rick C. – stay classy, man. And well-informed.
He wasn’t arrested for “breaking into his own home.” But don’t let reality get in the way of the narrative. The president behaved “stupidly.”
Chris Gerrib: “Leland – so arresting a man for breaking into his own home wasn’t a stupid thing to do? ”
I agree with you, again, 100% — yet more evidence that the President Obama is lost and is foundering.
Mr. Obama’s first instinct, in response to a question at a press conference, was to assert that arresting a man for breaking into his own home was indeed a stupid thing to do.
Again, in response to more “context” offered to the situation, Mr. Obama furiously backpedaled from his initial press-conference response — the Beer Summit and all.
After that, Mr. Obama went on something like a one-year hiatus from direct press conferences.
So “foreigner” Rupert Murdoch is inside the President’s OODA loop as is Andrew Breitbart and Jake Tapper, as Leland had pointed out. Mr. Obama appears to be flailing about in dealing with Mr. Tapper, and he hasn’t even gotten to the direct talks with Mr. Ahmadinejad, as he had promised in the campaign.
So indeed, Mr. Obama changed his position to one of agreeing with Leland that arresting a man for breaking into his own home, indeed, was not a stupid thing to do as was Mr. Obama’s initial reaction, as President, using the specific word “stupid” to characterize actions of the Cambridge, MA PD.
As to the recent firing being Mr. Vilsack’s fault and not involving the President, again Mr. Vilsack was Mr. Obama’s hand-picked choice — you know, the transparency and accountability thing, and it is not that Mr. Obama does not conduct regular “Cabinet Meetings” to establish policy and lines of communication with members of the Cabinet.
Hey, Chris Gerrib showed up to give us the party line! Who’d a thunk it?
“Leland – so arresting a man for breaking into his own home wasn’t a stupid thing to do? ”
Ignorant perhaps, but when the man refuses to provide evidence he actually lives in the home, then there isn’t much reason to assume he lives there.
I guess it is sort of like that Arizona Law, in which the Obama Administration reacted prior to reading the enitre 15 page law. That law requires people actually provide simple evidence that they live where they claim they live. Evidence that is required by federal law. Indeed, two years ago, Mexico filed a formal protest against Texas for not determining a person’s citizenship before trial. So I think, asking for evidence that a person lives where they claim they live is not a stupid thing to do.
Paul Milenkovic – no, the actual charge did not say “broke into own home.” But that’s what the arrest was for. Gates wasn’t polite enough for the officer’s tastes, so he got arrested. Which was exactly why the charges got dropped like a hot potato.
Bilwick1 – so Jonah Goldberg is giving the party line too?
Leland – except Gates did in fact provide evidence that he lived there. He just did so in an insufficiently polite manner.
I am continually amazed that this group screams about liberty and freedom but would be okay with a man dragged out of his own house by police. I’m not sure what part of liberty and freedom that falls under.
Gates wasn’t polite enough for the officer’s tastes
Do you really write this tripe with a straight face?
Rand – yes, actually. Please enlighten me – what crime had Gates committed to justify his arrest?
Going back to your original post, I’ll ask a question I’ve asked now for three times – is Jonah Goldberg suddenly an Obamanaut?
what crime had Gates committed to justify his arrest?
Suspicion of burglary and disturbing the peace.
Going back to your original post, I’ll ask a question I’ve asked now for three times – is Jonah Goldberg suddenly an Obamanaut?
In what way does Jonah disagree with anything in my post? Did you read my post?
Rand – did you read Jonah’s post? He said Breithart was wrong. How can the “left-wing” press be the bad guys for going after somebody that wrongly savaged a person’s reputation?
Regarding Gates – everything I’ve seen, including Crowley’s official police report (PDF link), says that Gates provided photo ID to police prior to the arrest. Also from the police report, Crowley “believed Gates to be there lawfully” before the arrest.
Gates was arrested because he gave Crowley a hard time. How is that consistent with liberty and freedom? How is that not stupid?
Rand – did you read Jonah’s post? He said Breithart was wrong.
He didn’t say Breitbart was “wrong.” He said he made a mistake. And what does that have to do with my post?
Gates was arrested because he gave Crowley a hard time.
He was being verbally abusive. Which is a long way from “insufficiently polite.”
Rand – so “making a mistake” is not “being wrong?” If the mistake costs somebody their job, shouldn’t the media call out the person who made the mistake?
Regarding Gates – he was verbally abusive in his own house! Since when an I legally required to be nice to people who are in my house without my permission? And if “verbally abusive” were a crime, this blog would have been shut down years ago.
Rand – so “making a mistake” is not “being wrong?”
“Being wrong” implies that he did something immoral for which he is unrepentent. Jonah didn’t say that. He made a mistake
If the mistake costs somebody their job, shouldn’t the media call out the person who made the mistake?
No one is complaining about the media calling Breitbart out about his mistake.
he was verbally abusive in his own house!
No, he followed him out on to the side walk to continue yelling at him. Why are you arguing about something with which you are clearly so unfamiliar?
Rand – Damn, those lefty “reporters” really hate Andrew Breitbart. They couldn’t wait to pounce on him isn’t complaining about the media calling out Breitbart?
Regarding Gates – please read the police report I so kindly provided you. Gates never left his porch. He followed Crowley out to the porch because Crowley said “I would speak with him outside.” Or, because Crowley asked Gates to step outside.
I am quite familiar with the actual facts of the Gates incident. You seem to be relying on something else.
They couldn’t wait to pounce on him isn’t complaining about the media calling out Breitbart?
Is it your claim that prior to this “mistake” on his part, the press loved Breitbart, and wasn’t looking for opportunities to pounce? If not, then whether or not Jonah thinks that he made a mistake remains completely irrelevant to this post.
The press seemed to eat up his ACORN coverage.
I note you put “mistake” in quotes. Do you still think Breitbart should have ran this video?
I also note that Gates seems to have dropped out of the discussion.
The press seemed to eat up his ACORN coverage.
Not to me. They didn’t want to cover it. They tried to ignore it until it was no longer possible, and then they pathetically tried (like you) to make O’Keefe out to be the villain.
I also note that Gates seems to have dropped out of the discussion.
I never introduced him to the discussion. The fact remains that he wasn’t arrested because he was “insufficiently polite.”
Now I think the left understands how the Tea Partiers feel having baseless accusations of racism levied against them. Only problem is, Breitbart’s video is actual evidence that some degree of racism exists within the NAACP. While whole swaths of evidence against the Tea Partiers has been fabricated out of thin air. Where is the outrage and the indignation against other MSM outlets that posted articles and commentary regarding the non-existent racial epithets hurled at Congressional black caucas members?
“So I took him to one of his own kind”, that right there is a prejudiced statement. Black people get all up arms every time a white person lumps them together into a, “you’s people are all alike” kind of blanket statement. Hell John McCain was raked over the coals for pointing at Obama and saying, “that one” during a debate.
Even after she explains that she learned some valuable lesson from the experience she still catches herself saying, “It’s not so much a white……[NO], It IS about white and black!” Guess the lessons learned here only run about as far as the requirements to perform her job duties go.
Then, let’s not forget that she also has no problem touting the “every white person that disagrees with Obama is a racist” meme. Sorry, but that is prejudice and reverse racism right there.
Chris Gerrib:
Yet once more I agree with you on H. L. Gates. The thing is that President Obama pointedly disagrees with you, having very publically backed away from the position you have explained is the correct one.
President Obama, by your accounting, is proving incapable of making decisions that are not reactive, is proving incapable of “standing his ground” on matters of principle.
I also note that Gates seems to have dropped out of the discussion.
Sorry Gerrib, I was busy and didn’t have time to watch your strawmen burn. I noticed that you never managed to explain the Obama’s Administration’s behaviour in the Gates case.
The problem is the Obama Administration later admitted that the Boston police didn’t act stupidly. So you seem to be in disagreement with them. I don’t know if that makes you an anti-Obamanaut or what, but then I’m not much into labels like you seem to be.
Gates was arrested because he gave Crowley a hard time. How is that consistent with liberty and freedom? How is that not stupid?
The officer repeatedly told the professor to be civil or he would be arrested. The professor stupidly chose not to. A verbal assault on an officer, or any other person, can get you arrested.
Do you think being in your own castle changes the rules of civility?
Be gentle with Chris G., guys. He’s still reeling from the revelations about Princess Leia’s hair.
Chris is stuck on stupid. When you’re on your porch you’re “in public.” Don’t shout-down the cops in public, or you’ll get popped. Everyone knows that, especially “oppressed” college professors.
Chris Gerrib wrote:
The only logical conclusion I can draw from these three contradictory statements is that one of them (most likely #1) was a deliberate lie…