This story is interesting. Shirley Sherrod was employed as Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the United States Department of Agriculture. She gave a speech at a recent NAACP meeting.
Many people are angry that the NAACP accused the Tea Party movement as being "racist". Andrew Breitbart posted an edited version of Shirley Sherrod's speech at the NAACP meeting. That made her seem very racist. Andrew Breitbart said it did it to highlight racism in the NAACP.
Having seen this clip, some White House executives pressured Shirley Sherrod to resign. They were really eager to get her resignation. She was in her car, and they asked her to stop driving and send a formal resignation letter on her BlackBerry. Like a good slave, Shirley Sherrod complied with her masters' demand.
The forced resignation seems silly. Why didn't Shirley Sherrod say "Go ahead and fire me!"? Why is it important for her to resign, rather than being fired? Disgraced State insiders usually resign, rather than getting fired. The ex-insider resigns to emphasize the legitimacy of the State and her bosses.
Then, the whole clip of her NAACP speech was viewed. The entire speech seemed less racist. She seemed to be saying "This was a racist thing I did a long time ago. I'm not that bad now." (However, I didn't watch either the edited version or the whole thing.)
Even if Shirley Sherrod said something inappropriate at the NAACP meeting, that isn't a valid reason to fire her. This is an important State principle. "If you say something wrong, then you're disgraced and your career is over." State insiders must be continually on guard, lest they say something wrong and their career is over. Most State parasites have no useful skills. After getting fired from their cushy State job, they will have a hard time earning a comparable living. This enables State insiders to keep the lower-ranking parasites in line.
I liked this quote:
the murder of black people occurred periodically and in every case, the white men who murdered them were never punishedYou can make a current version of this quote:
the murder of non-policemen occurred periodically and in every case, the policemen who murdered them were never punishedSome State insiders are angry at Fox News. Allegedly, they hyped the edited video and caused the resignation demand. Fox News claims they only heavily promoted the interview after her forced resignation.
Some State insiders are angry at Andrew Breitbart, for posting that video clip on his blog. The real problem is that State insiders overreacted and fired her.
Some State insiders are demanding that Fox lose its broadcast permit. Some State insiders are demanding that Fox News lose its press credentials. State insiders are taking a "State vs. Fox News" attitude. In turn, this leads to Fox News expressing more anti-State sentiment! Ironically, Fox News is now the most freedom-oriented mainstream news channel.
This is somewhat hypocritical. "The White House will fire someone, based on what a blogger writes or based on what Fox News says." That makes no sense at all.
Shirley Sherrod may file a libel lawsuit against Fox News or Andrew Breitbart. That would another example of State legal extortion. "Libel laws" are usually interpreted as "censorship laws".
Obama tries to look like the hero. He meets with Shirley Sherrod and apologizes. He has plausible deniability, because one of his subordinated demanded her resignation.
The entire "Shirley Sherrod incident" is an example of insane State bureaucrats. It is wrong to fire someone, just because they said something stupid. State insiders overreacted and demanded she resign, and then retracted the demand. Overall, this incident is an embarrassment for State insiders. I already know that the State is one big scam, but incidents like this help explain things to other people.
1 comment:
I agree with the previous post. Did Shirley Sherrod know that her words may be misinterpreted? Did she know that she was discussing taboo subject?
Post a Comment