Farmer's wife says fired USDA official helped save their land

[HAL 9000 96]

She should have sucked him off. That's more than enough.

Bump +

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

People's online ego displays really are fascinating to observe, aren't they

[Sgt. McGee 27]

I don't know how to break it to you, but "doing enough" to get a job done successfully is generally considered wise use of an organizations resources. (And it transpires that in this case "enough" was quite a lot of work.) One wants to do only what is necessary to get a job done satisfactorily and not waste time or money doing more than is needed.

But when the successful woman is black, and a white racist demagogues her remarks, lots here mindlessly say "Yeah, that's the way it should be."

Wow. If you do "just enough" for everyone, then you're a slacker, but you can defend it as wise use of an organization's resources (unless your organization's mission is to "do everything possible" but that's another matter). If you do "just enough" only for people who fit a certain criteria, then you're discriminatory. If I only did "just enough" for women, but went all-out for men, would I be sexist? If I did "just enough" for blacks, but went all-out for whites, would you defend that? Probably not. This has NOTHING TO DO (at least to me, which is the only person I'm purporting to speak for) with Sherrod's race, gender, or anything else. It has everything to do with her decision-making skills, and the fact that someone with suspect decision-making or motivations, SHOULD NOT be in a position to control access to resources.

There are two categories that fall for this type of divisive nonsense, the affable people who really want the US to be the way they think it is, a nice level playing field with everyone able to jump to the top if they just put their noses to the grind stone, and those who really do feel that blacks are simply uppity n*ggers.

Your apparent need to throw out offensive racial slurs (even if oh-so-coyly "censored") to belittle your opponents says far more about you than it does about them. It's at least the second or third time you've dropped that word in this thread alone, and it has yet to provide any additional value or context to the conversation. I'm sorry you have to look at the world that way...

[HAL 9000 96]

In 7 1/2 months of staying off VJ, nothing has changed. Except, maybe, that famous stubborness that comes with age setting in for some that will defend racist email jokes one year, and the next condemn misquoted speeches that don't come close in racist magnitude.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

People's online ego displays really are fascinating to observe, aren't they

absolutely. please continue

[Peikko 1,575]

Wow. If you do "just enough" for everyone, then you're a slacker, but you can defend it as wise use of an organization's resources (unless your organization's mission is to "do everything possible" but that's another matter). If you do "just enough" only for people who fit a certain criteria, then you're discriminatory. If I only did "just enough" for women, but went all-out for men, would I be sexist? If I did "just enough" for blacks, but went all-out for whites, would you defend that? Probably not. This has NOTHING TO DO (at least to me, which is the only person I'm purporting to speak for) with Sherrod's race, gender, or anything else. It has everything to do with her decision-making skills, and the fact that someone with suspect decision-making or motivations, SHOULD NOT be in a position to control access to resources.

Your apparent need to throw out offensive racial slurs (even if oh-so-coyly "censored") to belittle your opponents says far more about you than it does about them. It's at least the second or third time you've dropped that word in this thread alone, and it has yet to provide any additional value or context to the conversation. I'm sorry you have to look at the world that way...

Yes, that's the point I am making

Try reading the full transcript, she's an interesting woman, with an interesting story but you don't really care about that.

[HAL 9000 96]

Or just the pertinent, hypermanipulated part:

When I made that commitment, I wasn't making that commitment to black people -- and to black people only. But, you know God will show you things and He'll put things in your path so that -- that you realize that the struggle is really about poor people, you know.

The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, he -- he took a long time talking, but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing. But he had come to me for help. What he didn't know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me, was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him.

I was struggling with the fact that so many black people have lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So, I didn't give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough so that when he -- I -- I assumed the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me, either that or the -- or the Georgia Department of Agriculture. And he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him.

So I took him to a white lawyer that we had -- that had...attended some of the training that we had provided, 'cause Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farmer. So I figured if I take him to one of them that his own kind would take care of him.

Of course, it will be ignored.

[Peikko 1,575]

In this thread you were, most assuredly, played.

I'm wondering how stubbornly people will continue to defend their position, even after reading the transcript.

I'm willing to bet that the thread probably still has a few pages of life left in it.

Those who have been suckered into outrage by fox and the UTube vid will not even read it, but if they do will read it with juandiced glasses and classify this story as boasting/pride and all the rest of the nonsense we have seen on display by the usual suspects.

Which are you, Batman or Robin?

[chri'stina 190]

On VJ something else that hasn't changed is that on one side are the pretentious egos, and on the other side are nutjob egos. All can decide who fits into which category according to their needs or the current debate. It can change, depending on whether someone agrees with you or not.

[Peikko 1,575]

On VJ something else that hasn't changed is that on one side are the pretentious egos, and on the other side are nutjob egos. All can decide who fits into which category according to their needs or the current debate. It can change, depending on whether someone agrees with you or not.

Now you've got that out of the way, what's your actual OPINION on this 'news' story?

[Sgt. McGee 27]

Yes, that's the point I am making

Try reading the full transcript, she's an interesting woman, with an interesting story but you don't really care about that.

You read a lot into people's statements. I don't care? Who said?

I did read the full transcript, and yes, she's interesting. She'd probably make a great advocate or public speaker about overcoming one's biases to serve people more effectively. There's definitely a place for her in a ton of non-profit or government or private organizations. One of those places is NOT in a position to decide who gets what service. I don't know if she should have been fired (I don't think so, actually), but she should have been removed from her position of influence based on her statements. It's part of having a professional responsibility to comport oneself in a particular way, and if you create the perception that your judgement is tainted, you should not be in a position in which that is an issue.

Unrelated, but related anecdote: my wife and I are trying to hire someone to perform our public marriage ceremony, because we had a private, small civil ceremony in order to start our paperwork. We wanted someone who speaks both English and Czech, so that her family would be able to understand the ceremony, and a friend suggested a judge that they know, who also performed their marriage. Because the judge is not authorized to perform a marriage in our state (he's from DC), he said he would have to decline EVEN THOUGH WE'RE ALREADY MARRIED. He discussed the issue with his ethics council, and they advised him that it was not a good idea to even create the perception that he is performing a marriage where he's not authorized to do so. Why? Because judges are held to a particular standard, and this would not reflect well upon his standing. In the same way (this is the related part), Sherrod has/had a responsibility to demonstrate a particular sort of behavior as appropriate to her job responsibilities.

Of course, you'll dismiss all of this as racist, or ignorant, or whatever, and probably sprinkle it with passive-aggressive implications that I'm a slave owner, or some such, but the point is, you can't just say or do whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want, and expect that there will be no consequences. I agree that she seems like an interesting lady, and I'd love to have a chance to talk with her about her experiences, and her change of heart, but once that perception of biased decision making is created, she has limited her ability to be effective at that job.

ETA: I didn't even get to finish typing this before you jumped back in accusing everyone having a different opinion as being "jaundiced". You are really a piece of work.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Sgt. McGee

[chri'stina 190]

I'll have to let you know once I actually read it all. At the moment, I don't really care enough.

[HAL 9000 96]

On VJ something else that hasn't changed is that on one side are the pretentious egos, and on the other side are nutjob egos. All can decide who fits into which category according to their needs or the current debate. It can change, depending on whether someone agrees with you or not.

Yes there are those. OT is all about attitude isn't it?

In the meantime, you might want to read back to the more context-specific posts. I know there's some frisky business going on here, but once context is applied, the argument becomes pretty simple.

[chri'stina 190]

Yes there are those. OT is all about attitude isn't it?

In the meantime, you might want to read back to the more context-specific posts. I know there's some frisky business going on here, but once context is applied, the argument becomes pretty simple.

I like living in the moment of not having an opinion on this, by not reading it yet, so I can just say random opinions about OT!

Well...since you suggested it so nicely, maybe, just maybe I will go back and read.

Edited July 21, 2010 by chri'stina

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Once again, the point of the story was that she made a bad judgement and realized this when confronted with a real life situation.

Noone here would have heard of this woman if she had kept that story to herself. The message this kind of reaction sends out is - if you have any skeletons in your closet, no matter how small, don't bring them out into the open because they'll be used against you.

In other words - honesty should take second place to being political correctness.