Gay Patriot Header Image

My Apology to Shirley Sherrod — Withdrawn

Last week, I jumped the gun (as did many others) in taking what was a complex story and boiling it down to an video clip without its proper context.  I apologized to my readers and to Shirley Sherrod.

I hereby withdraw the apology to Mrs. Sherrod. 

As I noted at the time, this was a very complex story and I had a pretty good hunch that Mrs. Sherrod was not the angel she appeared to be.  I am correct.  She is a picture perfect product of the liberal policies that make African-Americans dependent on the Federal Government and foster a victimization mentality.  Mrs. Sherrod claimed she learned something when she helped that white farmer, but what she learned may be worse than the presumed racism from the clip of her at the NAACP meeting in March.

I mean – get a load of this.  This is the conclusion Sherrod makes against Andrew Breitbart:

SHIRLEY SHERROD, FMR. GEORGIA DIRECTOR, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, USDA: I don’t think he’s [Andrew Breitbart] interested in seeing anyone get past it, because I think he’d like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That’s where I think he’d like to see all black people end up again. And that’s why —

ANDERSON COOPER: You think he’s a racist?

SHERROD: — I think he’s so vicious. Yes, I do. And I think that’s why he’s so vicious against a black president.

Are you f–ing kidding me??????  So Shirley is in the camp of — “If You Criticize Obama, You are a Racist”.  Give me a bloody break.

Oh but there’s much more.  Salon’s uber-progressive Editor in Chief calls Shirley’s husband, Charles, a “civil rights hero”.  Um, really?

Charles Sherrod: “We must stop the white man and his Uncle Toms from stealing our elections.” (January 2010)

The Sherrod’s are full-blown race-baiting liberals.  Dan Riehl has done all of the research, so you don’t have to.  But here’s the money quote:

Mark Knoller mentioned a potential wrongful termination lawsuit [from Shirley Sherrod] in passing. And now the media and the administration seem intent on making her [Sherrod] disappear. One theory on that I’ve heard is, they don’t want people asking questions about her lawsuit. What I’m wondering is, maybe they don’t want people asking questions about Obama.

He worshiped with Jeremiah Wright for years. He potentially appointed a racist black liberationist Marxist to the USDA. Just how many of them does he have around him, as he sits in the WH waging war on capitalism? And, finally, what might all those college documents of his they won’t let us see tell us about him … especially given this? 

Ultimately, given all this now beginning to come out as a result of Andrew Breitbart’s original work makes him a hero in my book. These are the tough questions the press doesn’t even want to ask. It brings to the front important issues on race and racism, black, or otherwise, the press and the WH don’t wish to confront. But that’s what’s suppose to happen in a genuinely free, open and democratic society.

As things stand, an extremely controversial woman is sitting there with a free ticket for a promotion at the USDA from an incompetent in the WH who created this mess by appointing her, then firing her too quickly for some reason. This isn’t Breitbart’s mess. This is now Obama’s mess to clean up, or justify, as far as I’m concerned. Heckuva job, Barry. Heckuva job. At least we’re starting to get used to it. I believe the word is: incompetent.

Obama really does seem to have some of the strangest friends, just like Joan Walsh, of Sherrod’s white media conspiracy against blacks. Who’d a thunk it?

So I’m through with this story.  The edited video was unfortunate, but the true racist stripes of the NAACP, the Sherrods, and the Obama Administration have certainly come out over a week’s time.  So bravo, Mr. Breitbart.  You hit the target.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Star power* can’t make a movie hold up forever

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:18 am - July 27, 2010.
Filed under: Divas,Movies/Film & TV,Random Thoughts

On Friday, as is my wont, when on my routine Target run, I browsed through the cheap DVDs and tossed a number in my cart, including, for five bucks, My Best Friend’s Wedding, a movie I so much enjoyed in its initial release that I had bought the VHS.  Indeed, the flick remained one of the handful of videos in my collection that I had not yet replaced with DVDs.

But, like two of those I recently replaced, this flick just didn’t hold up well for a repeat (or re-re-repeat) viewing.  I mean, I still found the premise clever, a nice twist on the romantic comedy formula.  It was well-written, well-directed and well shot. Julia Roberts was at her best (to me, it seems she either hits the target dead-center bullseye or misses completely; this was a bullseye).  The other actors were fine.  There were some very funny scenes.  Director P.J. Hogan cleverly integrated popular songs into the story.

Or maybe it was just my mood last night.  After an emotionally challenging weekend and a day full of errands and household chores, I thought a light romantic comedy would be just the ticket to relax.  I started losing interest about halfway through the movie–but this flick that usually holds my attention.

Now, compared to those other two movies I recently upgraded to DVD (from VHS) in my collection, this one actually had a story.  The other two movies featured that captivating screen presence and eternal beauty, Audrey Hepburn, one of the few women who could get away wearing some of the bizarre fashions of the 1950s and 1960s and look fabulous, you know, especially that hat with an appendage like an insect’s antenna she wears in Breakfast at Tiffany’s.

That was one of the two movies that just didn’t hold up. Roman Holiday was the other.  I think I so loved those flicks when first I saw them because of the novelty of seeing the young Hepburn light up a screen.  I was just becoming a film buff when I first discovered each flick.  I was focused on how that Belgian-born beauty lit up the screen that I didn’t need a story.  (Virginia Postrel might attribute this to Hepburn’s deep glamour.) (more…)

Journolist E-mails: Confirming Conservative Suspicions
of Left-Wing Prejudices Against the Right

As I have been pondering a post on the Journolist e-mails, via Hugh Hewitt, I came across a piece which Glenn Reynolds also linked.  Therein, Michael C. Moynihan looks at the various media scandals of the previous week and observes:

First, there was the Journolist leaks, in which members of a listserv inhabited by liberal journalists and academics expressed their desire to see Rush Limbaugh die of a heart attack; to toss their enemies through plate glass windows; to call random conservatives racists; and to rid the country of those “fucking NASCAR retards.” In other words, a confirmation of preexisting conservative stereotypes about members of the liberal intelligentsia. But was the group of 400 writers—the Learned Elders of the Left—attempting to coordinate news coverage?

Former JournoList members scoff at charges of collusion, that they were members of an all-powerful clique recalibrating White House policy, burying coverage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and plotting to force Fox News off the air—all from a Google Group. Critics counter that, whether opinion journalists or straight news reporters, the group was attempting to “organize a media narrative,” to use Atlantic blogger Andrew Sullivan’s phrase.

The whole tedious debate misses one interesting point. While commenters have noted blogger Spencer Ackerman’s sleazy suggestion that liberals start labeling random Republicans “racist”—pick a conservative, like “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists”—few noticed the obsession with accusing opponents not of being misguided or wrong, but motivated by racial animus and Nazi-like hatreds.

Emphasis added.  Read the whole thing.  Note once again how even the supposedly very smart liberal intelligentsia assume the worst about their ideological adversaries.