Plus New Advancements in the Treatment of Terminal Hemorrhoids

I got involved in an Internet discussion with some guy who called Andrew Breitbart a “race baiter” for his attack on Shirley Sherrod. If you recall, Ms. Sherrod worked for the government, and she told a story about her intentional discrimination against a white farmer. Breitbart released the video, but later, it turned out that we hadn’t seen the whole thing. In reality, the discrimination story was about an act Ms. Sherrod later came to regret and disavow. The Obama administration, in a move which would have been to its credit, but for the incompetence, fired Ms. Sherrod without checking the facts. Then they reinstated her. I guess they voted against her before they voted for her.

The guy I dealt with insisted that the attack on Sherrod was deliberately deceptive and racist. I argued:

1) Breitbart has a history of incompetence, and it might explain the deceptive nature of the video. The most credible explanation is deliberate dishonesty, because it’s hard to screw up this badly without knowing exactly what you’re doing, but Breitbart is probably capable of that level of carelessness, as the Acorn mess suggests.

2) It is not racist to criticize a black person (Ms. Sherrod is black). Breitbart was almost certainly motivated by his desire to expose the shortcomings of progressives. He and James O’Keefe have gone after plenty of white leftists, and Breitbart would definitely have published the Sherrod video, had Sherrod (and Obama) been white.

The reason the Internet discussion arose is that my opponent was trying to get ABC to remove Breitbart from a televised election discussion. It was a sort of petition drive. My opponent said Breitbart should not be allowed to appear on ABC, because he was a racist and liar. I said ABC had a right to do anything it wanted, and that there were plenty of good reasons not to put Breitbart on the air, but that I was against pressuring networks to prevent people from speaking. They do enough of that as it is. Let’s be real. They put Al Sharpton on the air and even tried to give him a sitcom. How can Breitbart be any worse? Surely he deserves as much respect as Al Sharpton.

Now ABC has canned Breitbart’s appearance, and the petition guy is claiming victory. However, the letter ABC published reveals that their impetus had nothing to do with lying or racism. In fact, Breitbart was canned simply because he annoyed them:

Dear Mr. Breitbart,

We have spent the past several days trying to make clear to you your limited role as a participant in our digital town hall to be streamed on ABCNews.com and Facebook. The post on your blog last Friday created a widespread impression that you would be analyzing the election on ABC News. We made it as clear as possible as quickly as possible that you had been invited along with numerous others to participate in our digital town hall. Instead of clarifying your role, you posted a blog on Sunday evening in which you continued to claim a bigger role in our coverage. As we are still unable to agree on your role, we feel it best for you not to participate.

Sincerely,

Andrew Morse

My conclusion is that ABC’s actions are more in line with my views than those of my opponent. Grossly exaggerating your role in a telecast falls under the broad penumbra of incompetence. It’s not something a professional would do.

Actually, I suppose dishonesty was a factor, since ABC’s letter says it based its decision on untrue claims made by Breitbart.

For a long time, I’ve held that Jews and blacks make terrible, self-destructive political decisions. They support the Sharptons and Jacksons and Obamas and Franks. They get behind foolish, silly people who ultimately harm those who back them. These days, it seems like conservatives are in the same boat. We’re so used to being pushed to the back of the media bus, when a semi-credible conservative gets a voice, we clamber up his or her legs like drowning victims trying to get to air. This is how we ended up with Ann Coulter (“camel jockeys”), Glenn Beck (hemorrhoid video and constant crying), Roger Simon (near annihilation of the right-wing blogosphere), Arnold Schwarzenegger (don’t get me started), and now, Andrew Breitbart.

We need to get over our desperation. We have the Internet and Fox News now. We are not completely shut out. We can afford to wait for legitimate voices to arise. How about Zo? I haven’t seen him say anything insane or despicable yet. If he’s out there swinging, surely we can find others. Why seed your own house with termite eggs?

I know some of the people I named have done some good work. On the other hand, a cake with a piece of cat poop on one corner is mostly cake. Based on that logic, would you serve it at a party? And remember, it’s not like there is a shortage of cakes. Pundits, I mean.

Or cat poop.

We will continue supporting people who embarrass us. I know that. We circle the wagons and shoot the messenger, time after time. The appearance of solidarity is more important than ethics. We’re terrified that if one of our idols falls, we’ll be transported instantly, back to the 1970s. The conservative press will cease to exist without [insert name of pundit/ette here], and the people who criticized will be to blame, and the earth’s tectonic plates will split apart, and we’ll all fall into hot magma while paying excessive capital gains taxes.

You have to love mob thinking. A mob never does anything right. A mob would still be stupid even if every person in it were a theoretical physicist. When it comes to supporting kooks and amateurs, conservatives are a mob. We boil the baby in the bathwater and then drink it.

I guess the lemmings will head my way now, to charge off the cliff I created. I should be glad my blog gets no traffic.

More

I guess I should point out that I used the term “camel jockeys” as a pejorative allusion to Ann Coulter’s use of the same slur. I am not advocating the use of this ridiculous and offensive term to describe Arabs.