Remember the recent story about a study done by scientists in which when confronted with the facts, rather than change gears and make a reality adjustment, many people dig in even deeper – Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information they can entrench themselves even deeper. Brietbart and his web sites have displayed a predictable lack of respect for facts, integrity and due diligence involving several news stories including ACORN, the New Black Panthers and the Department of Justice, and Shirley Sherrod among others. Having had the chance to revisit the Sherrod debacle Britbart decides to decode the complete video for us. William Saletan does a precise piece by piece breakdown of Brietbart’s mangling of the video into conservative doublespeak versus the plain American English the rest of us speak, Amen Canard Breitbart lied about Shirley Sherrod. Now he’s lying about the NAACP.
So, let’s review the Breitbart gang’s allegations:
When … she expresses a discriminatory attitude towards white people, the audience responds with applause. False.
The NAACP … is cheering on a person describing a white person as the other. False.
The NAACP audience seemed to have approved of her actions when she talked about not helping the white farmer. False.
They weren’t cheering redemption; they were cheering discrimination. False.
As Ms. Sherrod recounted the first part of her parable, how she declined to do everything she could for the farmer because of his race, the audience responded in approval. False.
First Breitbart and his acolytes falsely accused Sherrod of discriminating against whites as a federal employee, despite having no evidence for this charge in the original video excerpt. Strike one.
Then they misrepresented Sherrod’s story as an embrace of racism, when in fact she was repudiating racism. They later pleaded ignorance of this fact because they didn’t have the full video. Strike two.
Now, with the full video in hand and posted on their Web site, they’re lying about the reaction of the NAACP audience.
The excuses are all used up, Mr. Breitbart.
What Sherrod was doing – I guess Brietbart does not know any regular church goers – was not giving a speech, a chat, a formal presentation, she was baring witness to the group about a personal and spiritual epiphany, storytelling
If you understand this, you’ll also understand that the responses from Sherrod’s audience are not remotely what Andrew Breitbart has said they are, but instead are ways for the audience to register that they’re tracking with the path of the story. And I bet that pretty much everyone in that room understood what kind of story Shirley Sherrod was telling: it was a testimony, a conversion narrative, of the kind that Christians have told in churches from time immemorial. If you think that Shirley Sherrod endorses thinking of white people as being of a different “kind” than her, you may as well also think that St. Augustine endorses the stealing of pears. Because her story is in the same genre as his Confessions (which title, as Garry Wills has pointed out, might better be translated Testimony).
Why would anyone expect Breitbart and his gang of hypocritical acolytes understand the context of a heart-felt testimonial. It must be great being a conservative such as Breitbart where the standards are so low you can get away with pretty much anything in the name of the cause.
“I hope that the American people will go to the ballot box in 2010 and 2012 so that states are not forced to consider separation from this government,” said Wamp during an interview with Hotline OnCall.
[ ]…Moreover, while Wamp and Perry’s secessionary agenda puts them at odds with the Constitution and the American people, it does have one famous precedent supporting it. In 1860, American voters elected an obscure former congressman named “Abraham Lincoln” to the presidency. Eleven southern states — all of whom disagreed with the new president on the issue of slavery — soon decided that they didn’t want to be bound by the results of that election. Before Wamp starts campaigning to become the next Jefferson Davis, however, he might want to give some thought to what happened the last time right-wing state governments engaged in an act of mass treason.
At least one right-wing conservative blogger pulled out the tired deflection that Lincoln was a Republican to defend conservatives against any taint of racism during the recent flaps over the NAACP. Conservatives have not been the party of Lincoln for a century. All the Lincoln republicans became Democrats and all the southern conservative Dixiecrats became wing-nuts. One would think these self-appointed experts on American history and the Constitution would try to keep up.