This week, President Obama signed the financial regulation bill, Facebook signed up its 500 millionth member, and the Senate Judiciary committee signed off on Elena Kagan. But the news cycle was dominated by the media frenzy over Shirley Sherrod. BigGovernment.com turned the obscure USDA worker's tale of racial awakening into a grainy video snippet "proving" reverse racism. Fox News tore into the story like rabid jackals with a taste for blood and race baiting (Shepard Smith was a noble exception). Tom Vilsack revealed an itchy trigger finger, having an underling force Sherrod to resign via BlackBerry because "you are going to be on Glenn Beck tonight." So the administration left no doubt it's afraid of Beck's shadow, and the president insisted that the buck stops...somewhere else, pointing the finger at the "media culture." The White House and a shamed media want to brand this a "teachable moment" but will the lesson stick?
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
What we need is a president who will speak up for decency and justice no matter which party is the one that is offending. That this might be seen as prejudiced against white Republicans just means that a lot of the offenses are coming from their camp.
Obama (also IMO) has failed badly because he doesn't want to make anybody angry. Hence the sucking up to Republicans and the making concessions in health care reform, watering it down to almost nothing, and still getting no Republicans votes for his paltry plan.
We need a president who is guided by truth and justice, not one who is trying to get the liars off his back by pretending that they might have something worthwhile to spew.
I want to blame it on bad advisors, but he chose the advisors too.
I used to be cheerful and optimistic when Obama's face or voice appeared on the tv, and now I have this visceral reaction in which I regard him as the guy who conned a lot of people. We try to work and vote for the best interests of the country, and no matter how hard we try and for whom we vote, we end up with corporationists and war mongers.
Let's talk about context, not just race. Talking about race, reverse racism and race-baiting is an ongoing issue, but the biggest dilemma -- at this very moment -- is that the media and the White House did not do their due diligence to look at the context behind Mrs. Sherrod's comments. People didn't do their homework. People allowed a right-wing blogger/ideologue, Andrew Breitbart, to -- as David Gergen said so eloquently -- "inject[s] poison into the internet, [then] other people rush to judgment on camera, and an administration gets stampeded and commits this travesty of justice."
The travesty of justice isn't solely about race. The travesty of justice is the lack of accountability -- by pretty much every heavy-hitter in the media who previously condemned Sherrod -- for not looking at the whole story, the whole speech and the meaning behind that speech.
Obama is in a very, very tough position right now, especially because of the upcoming elections.
That's the job of main stream media and I think Linsey Lohan, Michael Jackson, and all the other politicians and stars that are caught up in scandals have become their top priority.
For someone who talks like you're so well informed, you sure seem in the dark to me.
Most of the stories about patients dying waiting for life-saving exams or treatment under systems such as Canada's - which still enjoys support in excess of 90% - are anecdotal. There are far more well-documented cases involving similar situations under our own for-profit health care system, which has its own "panels."
A shocking percentage of Americans do still believe there was a connection between Iraq and 9-11; last such survey I heard indicated about 40%.
Saddam wasn't making any such claims - just the opposite, in fact - as you indicate at the time of the weapons inspections, which bore him out...and to which the previous administration refused to pay attention.
Sherrod may indeed have a case against the NAACP, should she choose to make it, but even without Jealous' precipitous condemnation, I have no doubt the outcome wouldn't have been just the same. Any support from the NAACP would only have been characterized as part of the fictitious pattern of "reverse racism" that was at the heart of the Breitbart/Fox narrative.
We notice it more now because we have alternative sources of information so the picture can become clear.
I see people trying to teach each other lessons all the time, but they fail. I keep getting the idea that people are trying to teach me a lesson, but little do they know, they are not the ones to teach me a lesson.
"Teachable moments" are for the powerful when they've been humbled, not for the purpose of haranguing a regular guy about common issues of morality, of which we're all aware. I don't think I've learned one new thing in years, and I'm going to keep it that way. Very few lessons are worth remembering, and I've learned them all by now.
Where is Obama when it comes to actually MAKING this a "teachable moment?" First, he could fire Vilsack for being so gutless and gullible, and then he ought to make an impassioned speech (if he remembers how). Give other examples of how he permitted same slimeballs to shut down Acorn and what these "events" mean about the shameful old-time Republicans who are still supporting a party that encourages such behavior. He can even go back and talk about Willie Horton. If it was his own idea to fire Mrs. Sherrod, then he ought to give HIMSELF 30 lashes and not blame the media. If it was the idea of one or both of his chosen purveyors of terrible advice, Messrs. Emanuel and/or Axelrod, then he ought to fire them.
"
If the shoe fits wear it
If the truth hurts bear it
Well thats the kind of life Im living and I plan on living long
Its a hard road to choose
Being good and paying dues
But thats the kind of life Im living and I plan on living long"
Hank III
The Press (yes, I generalize), in covering “breaking news” sure sound like a flock of birds, where when one takes flight in fear the rest don't stop to look around, they just take off too.
But what can we expect from an independent congregate whose members regularly surround "public figures," effectively imprisoning that person by blocking their path, claiming later the person(s) in question had stopped voluntarily to take questions or pose for pictures?
15-20. At least 15 feet away indoors and 20 feet away outdoors. And remember what the Founder Fathers said: “Mob rule shall not occur!”
I’m not just talking to the paparazzi here; though if they're going to be independent contractors, they need to at least be bonded, if not sponsored by an established news agency. After all, anyone who buys from the paparazzi is in part responsible for any questionable or illegal tactics used to obtain said materials.
There’s nothing about the First Amendment that suggests anyone is free of normal civic responsibility; the freedom of the Press isn't from responsibility as individuals, businesses or an industry. The point is that the government and wealthy not be able to censor content to protect government officials, the wealthy or any corrupt or criminal person from public exposure. I don't see where any of that excludes respect for the rights of the public in general, or specific members.
Faux Spews, Brietbart, O'Keefe, Roger Ailes, Dick Armey, Carl Rove, Bill Kristol, Liz Cheney all have their tenuous grasp of reality totally dependent upon the bubble of their existence. A sad place from which to live.
CONservatism is a disease; treatable with education and medication.
God loves the CONservative but hates the CON.
The Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, fired General Michael Dugan.
President Bush did not.
Where did the buck stop?
What happened to the military chain of command?
Clifford Spencer