We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I don't know what Breitbart's true motivation was, but after I looked at the video and thought about it for a minute, the positive reaction of the audience to her initial comment that "she wouldn't do as much as she could" for a white farmer is what was striking to me. Breitbart echoed that same comment on Hannity (last night I guess - link on Drudge). I think those who are focusing and focused on Sherrod are missing the point. The audience did not do themselves proud. Jealous (of the NAACP) and Obummer were happy to throw her under the bus (that space gets more crowded by the day!) without even getting the whole story (this is a theme for Obummer). Vilsack had her fired over the phone - already a class act - and even now is not going back on "his" decision to fire her.
Those are the focuses in my view: the audience and the reaction by Jealous, Obummer, and Vilsack. Sherrod, Fox News, Breitbart, Beck, the Tea Party - those are all bystanders to this foolishness. To that extent, I disagree with Goldberg.
The point of this expose is not Shirley Sherrod, although she may be an interesting character. The point is the unacceptably racist behavior of the NAACP members in the audience. They should know better, but they don't. They are completely comfortable with their racism. What a shame - and a scandal.
Agree that the video is more embarassing to NAACP than Sherrod (who redeems herself, sorta, with the eventual complete story), The NAACP audience, on the other hand, was clearly approving of her original racist attitude and behavior.
They got sandbagged by her story, and showed us all their failings. How embarassing for the NAACP!
HuffPo is reporting her re-hire. The administration and it's propoganda machine (The One Party Media) have seemingly successfully repositioned this story as one about Shirley Sherrod.
It is a story, initially, about racism in the NAACP. But there's more to it. What, other than successfully suing the USDA, does Shirley Sherrod know about the agriculture?
The USDA's mission statement is here:
Nothing in there about welfare, redistribution, or reparations. But there are welfare programs (WIC for one) and redistribution/reparations programs. Is that what Shirley's job at USDA is all about?
After the debacle of NASA being tasked with making Muslims feel good about their scientific contributions (name two from the past 100 years) it might bear some investigation to see if USDA has been tasked with being a portion of the reparations industry and if Ms. Sherrod was hired to move that along.
The whole episode kind of reminds me of an incident involving a police officer and an obnoxious professor where Obama went off-teleprompter without bothering to find out what really happened. While my initial reaction to the partial viewing was the same as most (Off with her head!) I was nonetheless surprised at how quickly the White House had her removed. Yes, Tom Vilisak is being a good soldier and taking the blame for firing her but it was pretty obvious for it to happen that quickly took a blessing, if not an outright order from the top.
Shirley should at least suffer a severe reprimand. Consider what she's actually saying: she felt free to utilize her office at the USDA to "work through" her racial feelings.
This is not what we hire people at the USDA for (or any governmental agency). At least, she is guilty of once using the power of her office in a racial and personally preferential way. An abuse of her authority, in short.
I commend her for her current advanced thinking. It still doesn't excuse said prior behavior. IMHO.