The Shirley Sherrod Situation

The place for measured discourse about politics and current events, including developments in science and medicine.
Post Reply
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 45995
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

The author of the Counterpunch article certainly had personal experience with Sherrod. Which separates him from the Brietbart's of the world who engaged in "blatent fabrication" with no personal experience with her. To lump them together, as Frelga seemed to be doing, is simply not supportable.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
tinwë
Posts: 2287
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:06 am

Post by tinwë »

I too am not convinced by the Counterpunch article. The allegations made about “farm workers doing back breaking labor in the sweltering sun”? Every farm worker in the South does back breaking work in the sweltering sun. “Sprayed with pesticides”? I have co-workers whose own parents sent them out to play in clouds of pesticides because they were convinced they were harmless. “Paid less than minimum wage”? My understanding is that virtually all farm laborers are paid less than minimum wage, even today. One of the reason why so much of this work is done by illegals.

I agree that the picture painted by Mr. Wilkins is a harsh one, but I suspect that life in general was harsh for many people in that part of the country at that time. I think it is likely that Ax is right here - the author had a grudge against Sherrod and is acting on it now.
User avatar
vison
Best friends forever
Posts: 11961
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:33 pm
Location: Over there.

Post by vison »

tinwë wrote:I too am not convinced by the Counterpunch article. The allegations made about “farm workers doing back breaking labor in the sweltering sun”? Every farm worker in the South does back breaking work in the sweltering sun. “Sprayed with pesticides”? I have co-workers whose own parents sent them out to play in clouds of pesticides because they were convinced they were harmless. “Paid less than minimum wage”? My understanding is that virtually all farm laborers are paid less than minimum wage, even today. One of the reason why so much of this work is done by illegals.
Excellent points.

Farm work is hard, often done in awful conditions, and is almost always poorly paid. Exposure to harmful chemicals is generally the rule, not the exception, in modern agriculture.
Dig deeper.
User avatar
Frelga
Meanwhile...
Posts: 22448
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:31 pm
Location: Home, where else

Post by Frelga »

V :

I scanned through the article, and the first thing I thought was what vison and tinwë said - that's pretty much the definition of the farm labor, isn't it? The article identifies Sherrod as a "store manager" and it is unclear what her role and authority was in anything that happened.

And to clarify, the "blatant fabrication" I referred to is the manipulation of the original video for the purpose of portraying NAACP as supporting racist statement.

The allegations against Sherrod that came out since may or may not be true - so far I have not seen sufficient factual information on what Sherrod's role actually was. My point is, they are irrelevant to the original issue that thrust Sherrod in the spotlight.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.

Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
User avatar
MithLuin
Fëanoriondil
Posts: 1912
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:13 pm

Post by MithLuin »

axordil wrote:But on another level, even if his depiction of events is accurate, how much should we care about what someone was doing thirty-odd years ago, unless they've kept doing it since?

It's a question bigger than this particular case. I suspect most of us old enough to recall the 70s can think of things we did that would reflect poorly on us now. If we never moved past them, then they should still do so. If we changed...then perhaps not so much, statutes of limitation notwithstanding.
I think it does matter, unless there is some sort of radical change. I don't mean, 'once a drug addict, always a drug addict,' I mean that....even if the evidence of wrongdoing seems to have gone cold, if there is no hint of regret or remorse or acknowledgment that actions were wrong...then you still have a problem.

I was looking up babykillers for the other thread, and it's funny that you mentioned the 30 year thing....Marie Noe was brought in for questioning at the age of 70 for killing 8 of her babies (she had claimed they all died of natural causes and got away with it because of lack of forensic evidence against her). Obviously, she was no longer killing babies at this point. But...should she just 'get away with it'? Get a free pass for being a harmless old lady?

The judge thought so. She was sentenced to house arrest, no jail time.

I am still struggling to see how 'that was a long time ago' is a sufficient defense for multiple murders.

I realize you weren't talking about crimes like that, but you did say it was bigger than this thread, and it just struck me as...odd.
User avatar
axordil
Pleasantly Twisted
Posts: 8999
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
Location: Black Creek Bottoms
Contact:

Post by axordil »

Mith--

You will note I said "statutes of limitation notwithstanding." When criminal issues are involved, not merely ethical or moral ones, the rules are different. Sorry I wasn't clear on that. I don't think people who have committed a crime and then led a more or less normal life deserve a legal pass. I think people who have done something regrettable in a more general sense and "grew out of it" may deserve a non-legal pass, so to speak.
User avatar
MithLuin
Fëanoriondil
Posts: 1912
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:13 pm

Post by MithLuin »

Yes, I did notice that. Noe was charged with (and convicted of) murder. To be sentenced to house arrest suggests the judge gave her a free pass rather than throw the book at her. I don't know enough about the case to know if statute of limitations considerations were an issue, but it certainly seemed strange to me. I'm sorry if I implied you were speaking legally, when it was clear from the context of your post that you were referring to socially embarrassing foibles, not crimes.

And I agree with you that if the person 'grows out of it', not just in the sense of passively not doing the action any more, but actively moving away from it then...yes. We can see that the person has changed and is not who they were back then. We can socially accept that, I guess.

What I was concerned about was that the action might not be visible, but just because the person learned to watch what they say and do in public as they get older, with no real rejection of (whatever immoral/unethical thing) they are guilty of. Meaning, I don't think that 'fading away' is the same as repentance, and (in most cases), you'd probably want some evidence of the latter. Before you'd let the person, I dunno, spend time with your kid or something.
User avatar
axordil
Pleasantly Twisted
Posts: 8999
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
Location: Black Creek Bottoms
Contact:

Post by axordil »

I concur. There's a difference, or should be, between stopping something because you're told it's wrong, and stopping because it really feels wrong. The second, I believe, aligns more closely with the idea of repentance and/or change, although any stoppage is better than none.

The other dichotomy: there are actions one looks back upon with shame, and a "WHY did I do that?"...and there are actions one looks back upon with puzzlement, and a "Why did I do THAT?". Sometimes we understand the people we used to be all too well, and sometimes not at all.
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 45995
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

Just to put some closure on this, Sherrod apparently refused the offer of reemployment at USDA in the minority relations position that Vilsak had offered her.

I think they should hire this young man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8yp7VQ ... youtu.be&a
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
Hachimitsu
Formerly Wilma
Posts: 942
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:36 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Hachimitsu »

I heeard about this on a news podcast I listen too. I understand both Sherrod's reasons for not taking the job back or taking on a new position. (After all, they did throw her under the bus once.)

Vilsak did try, and he realizes he made a huge mistake and probably will never rush to judge ever again. I hope this a learning experience for the Obama administration.

Hopefully, there will be reports on the lawsuit against the blogger. I listened to a political commentary on this story and they called him "un-embarrassed" about this whole thing. Hopefully, after the lawsuit he will learn some embarrassment, and it be a lesson for other right wingers not to follow his example.
Image
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 45995
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

I would not be surprised if there actually was no lawsuit, despite Sherrod's statement that she was going to sue him. There hasn't been one filed yet, so far as I can determine, and normally the only reason to wait would be because a settlement is being explored. I doubt that is the case here. If no suit is ever filed, that would certainly damage Sherrod's credibility in my mind, given how adament she was that she was going to do so.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Post Reply