July 2010

Why Doesn’t Justice Just Happen? by Repo Repro, at lsrj.org 4:43 pm / 31 July 2010

The theme of this year’s Law Students for Reproductive Justice Leadership Institute is “Justice Doesn’t Just Happen.” When I first heard the theme, I was enthusiastic because it reminded me that I am becoming educated for a worthwhile purpose that is larger than myself. I immediately knew that I would arrive in Washington, D.C. and find people that are energized, creative and passionate about making a positive difference in the world. I could not wait to re-connect with the larger community of reproductive justice advocates.

Then I wondered, why doesn’t justice just happen? Why is it that when we make laws, it is hard to remember that different people will be impacted differently? Why is it that some people work to purposefully restrict access to resources and rights for others? Why do we need to organize around a large variety of human rights issues? Why will many of us be able to make careers around protecting people’s rights to reproductive health, access and freedom?

Personally, I occasionally get distracted from the immediate work by larger questions of humanity. For instance, how did we arrive at the year 2010 without a healthy respect for each other? How are we still harboring the fear that there is just not enough for everyone and so we better just grab: grab power, grab resources, grab money? But the truth is, people have made progress in learning about and even appreciating one another in the last few hundred years. The important part is that I end the day with hope that we can continue to move forward and that I can make a difference, especially when I am given so many tools by LSRJ along my journey.

Jessica Wilkerson

Tagged with: 2010 LI, leadership, lsrj events

Law Students of Color Caucus Sparks Conversation by Repo Repro, at lsrj.org 3:58 pm / 31 July 2010

I attended today’s LSOC Caucus, and I must say I was impressed by the quality of the comments that came from the participants, as well as the quality of the leadership provided by LSRJ Intern Jeryl Hayes. It all started with an e-mail invitation to attend the Caucus during our lunch hour on Saturday. When I got there, I instantly felt that familiar feeling of comfort when all of a sudden, I was no longer the only brown person in the immediate vicinity. To my left and to my right, behind me and in front of me, I saw a diverse group of advocates who had one definite thing in common: our passion for reproductive justice.

It was a beautiful thing! We talked about racial tensions on our campuses and the dearth of minority lawyers in the RJ field. We talked about our personal ambitions as future attorneys and what kind of pressures we faced from our respective communities to do something outside of public interest law. Participants also touched on issues I had not thought of before – for example, what a strong reproductive justice movement would look like in the South and how law students of color and LGBTQ law students could contribute to it. The conversation was fascinating, and above all, I think it was so important to create a time and space to address a topic that rarely gets airtime: the intersection of race and gender that lies at the heart of reproductive justice.

There is much more to explore as we return to our campuses and try to make intersectionality a bigger part of our LSRJ chapter advocacy. But I believe the seeds have been planted for a keen awareness about how our identities impact what we say and how our words are heard by others. As a Latina law student, I appreciated the opportunity to reflect on how my identity brings a different perspective to conversations about reproductive justice on campus, at my internships, and in the lives of people I talk to everyday.

Lucy Panza

Tagged with: 2010 LI, coalitions, law school, lsrj events, what is reproductive justice

Back to Reality: Why Abstinence-Only Education Needs an Upgrade by Repo Repro, at lsrj.org 4:39 pm / 27 July 2010

In a scene from the most recent Twilight movie, Bella tries to convince Edward that she wants him and wants to take the next step in their relationship by having sex. While Edward makes it clear that he definitely wants her back, he tells her that in his time, there would be a whole process before any of this could take place. He would have wooed her, they’d hold hands, he’d get permission from her father to marry her, they’d get married, then they’d do the deed. Bella informs him that it’s now her day in age, and that’s definitely not the way it works. Who knew that Twilight would have such a brilliant metaphor for why abstinence-only education doesn’t work?

The problem with abstinence-only education is not so much that it wants teenagers to prolong sexual activity until they are married, but more that it’s completely out of touch with today’s modern teenager. Suporters of ab-only education seem to believe that sex should only occur during marriage, and anything outside of that concept is morally wrong. They suggest that comprehensive sex education that teaches students about condoms and other forms of contraception is what causes teenagers to engage in sexual behavior. As if saying, well if kids don’t learn about condoms and contraception from their sex-ed teacher at school, then they will magically never be curious about sex or have any idea what it is. Apparently, they’ve never turned on their TV.

The simple truth is, teenagers are exposed to sex on a regular basis, whether their parents want to accept it or not. It’s on TV. It’s in music videos and song lyrics. It’s in magazines and print ads for their favorite clothing store. And on that little thing called the internet. Sex is a part of our society and our culture, plain and simple. Sexuality is part of the human condition. And it’s complicated.

Tagged with: Ab Only, education, teenagers

Season 4 Premier of Mad Men and Women by Darling Nikki, at Ankh Feminist 6:21 pm / 26 July 2010

When we last left our dashing Don Draper he was spiraling out of control in his home life, calling his wife a whore, making threats to her, and telling the Barbie Betty that he wouldn’t ever divorce her because he didn’t want “to break up this family”. Too late for that Don. It only took him three seasons to finally get what he deserved after feeling as though it was his right to cheat on his wife repeatedly and then make her think she was crazy. Betty ultimately just became more stubborn and refused to see any therapist he would ever suggest.

In his work life, everything was going down a different drain and he and his core co-workers didn’t want to slide down it. Thus, they decided to create their own ad agency title Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce. It’s kind of catchy after hearing twenty times throughout the first episode and seeing the bold letters on the sleek glass doors. The new office is harsh, bright, and kind like a maze (much like their lives in the current situation they have placed themselves in).

So anyways, the episode starts off asking, “Who is Don Draper?” by a reporter from AdAge. This is a question that he has clearly been struggling with himself for years on end considering the fact that he’s Dick Whitman from an old farm in the Midwest. He’s still that scared little boy, trying to hide behind a mask and charade of women on top of that. Without his stable family life and this shaky new start of a company, he seems unsure of himself on how to answer this question, let alone fathom what it means. He answers rather vaguely and comes off cold and cocky, which resembles the same Don who had everything. But now, as I have stated before, he’s in a new world; he can’t continue being the same person.

This is made even more clear when he goes to meet with some prudish owners of a bathing suit line called Jantzen. They have a “two-piece”, not a bikini. They want something that is wholesome. They’re “a family company”. It’s awfully hard to take these two seriously when they’re selling swimsuits for women. Trying to make something like that modest is like trying to make the Virgin Mary look like a slut; it can be done, but not very well and it will confuse the audience as well as turn them away (although for the Virgin Mary part, it would most likely cause an uproar from all ends of the earth).

Don is uncomfortable in this position of everyone wanting him, but not getting the benefits of wowing the client. It’s a frustrating situation…. Made even more so when he’s being told by the bright young up-and-comers Peggy and Pete that they look up to him, have hopes that are riding on him. “You know something? We are all here because of you. All we want to do is please you,” Peggy says. This is of course after she is scolded by Don for setting up some scheme to get their Sugarberry Ham product back on the market; get two women to fight over it. This backfires though and one of the women presses charges. Peggy has to call Don and ask for $280 ($80 for bail, $100 for each of them to keep quiet about it). The plan works though, even if Don doesn’t like having to jump through hoops in order to get the client to sell more products. He’s used to doing it the old-fashioned way, but as we can see throughout this whole episode, that’s not going to cut it.

Moving into the family portion of this section, Don is having difficulty coping as a newly divorced man. You’d think it would be harder for Betty, but she escaped this marriage by diving into a new one without a single look back. So of course, people have to feel bad for him from his friend’s wife, Mrs. Jane Sterling, to the date that he takes out. Speaking of the date, she seems like a smarter model and make of Betty, meaning that she won’t fall for his saucy hands in the car or seductive lips. That scene in itself is pretty awkward. Don used to be able to seduce a woman’s panties off with a wink of his eye. Now he’s being pitied by someone he goes on a date with and he has to pay for sex (as well as getting slapped across the face during it). It seems, at least sexually, the women have the upper hand. The prostitute even scolded him, “Stop telling me what to do. I know what you want.” Then she proceeded to slap him multiple times. This is a side of Don that the audience hasn’t seen; he’s limited in the bedroom.

And speaking of the bedroom, Betty just can’t get enough of it. After the tumultuous Thanksgiving dinner, she goes for the jugular trying to get her way with her new man. That’s all interrupted when she hears Sally dialing the phone trying to get a hold of her father. Betty is turning out to be a worse and worse mother as the years go on. She simply punishes her children by dragging them away and out of sight or just snapping at them so that they will frightfully scurry into their rooms. The children clearly are terrified of her. All she wants to do is make-out with her newly gained husband who also wants to do the same thing, but without the repercussions of dealing with the children.

Betty seems more like a bossy older sister to her child, Sally, than an actual mother. This becomes apparent when she stumbles in laughing and quite possibly drunk with Henry. Don sits on the couch waiting for her like a parent waiting up for their child to walk in from a late night. She tries her best to confront him by saying that she had waited up countless times for him, but she still comes off as a stubborn little princess. She refuses to move out of the house which she says is for children’s benefit, but clearly she doesn’t want to experience anymore change than she already has. Henry even tries to confront her and tell her that Don’s right and they need to move out. This is reiterated when he has a discussion with his mother about Betty. She calls her a “silly woman” and then says, “Honestly, Henry, I don’t know how you can stand living in that man’s dirt.” She has a point. They wanted to start a life with one another and he even said in the last episode that he didn’t want Betty, “owing him [Don] anything.” Well, if she doesn’t move out soon, she’ll have to start owing him rent!

The episode ends with Don pitching an ad idea to the swimsuit company and getting a rather bleak response. They’re a family company after all … that makes two-pieces … aka bikinis. Again, like I said before, it’s hard to make this image “wholesome” like they wanted. They were unnerved by the image of woman half covered by a slogan. Even though they sell two-pieces for women, they seem uncomfortable with any female’s figure and especially one that would suggest a hint of sexuality. Don ends up throwing them out (thank goodness). He gets a new interview with the Wall Street Journal in order to make up for the horrendous interview he gave before. During said interview, he remakes himself to be this bad boy of the ad agency, dodging bullets, jumping ship from his old company, and creating a new start.

Throughout this episode, Don has learned what it takes to work people over … again. The old ways aren’t working so he needs to find a new angle. The women in this episode are tragically caged in their same life with new surroundings. They have two options; complain and whine about it until they get what they want (Betty) or grab the bull by the horns and have your way (Peggy). Hopefully we’ll see more of Joan so we can get a feel for what she’s been up to lately. She seems to have just settled back into her old role of manning the ship as always, but who knows what the future holds; especially with her rapist of a husband going into the army.

Tagged with: Mad Men, Mad Women, Season 4

More Fuel for My Spy Fetish by Bad Ass Femmes 1:15 pm / 24 July 2010

I consider myself to be a strong woman. As a strong woman, I have often felt that I'm sometimes so deprived of other images of strong women depicted in popular culture that I sometimes feel that I practically salivate when I see the slightest inkling of another strong woman on television, in movies, or in a book.

Well, lately I have been waiting patiently for the movie Salt to open, a movie with Angelina Jolie as a spy. Honestly, I don't even really care for action or spy movies. I don't even really care for many movies. I hardly even know what the movie is about. All I know is that Angelina Jolie is in the movie and she is accused of being a spy. And that she wears suits and jumps around and does stunts. Oh yeah.

The LA Times wrote a review of the movie Salt, and according to reviewer they claim that although the plot line is nothing to write home about that the stunts that Angelica Jolie performs are worth it. So this evening at 5:10, I'm packing up my shit and going to see the flick with my girls.

Other than the fact that I've always admired Angelina Jolie for being such an unconventional woman, these are the reasons why I am getting sucked into this movie:

I've got a spy fetish. I want to be a top secret spy who whoreishly seduces top political officials into bed, getting them to spill state secrets. And then I want to sell those state secrets for tons of money to other powerful men in suits, stealing their state secrets in the process as I drive off into the sunset with lots of money.
I've got a thing for Russian men, even when they are fat and ugly. I'm sure that anyone who has suffered from some of their brutality or has been terrorized by the Russian mob wouldn't appreciate my obsession. But what can I say.
I love movies where women perform many of their own stunts. I salivate over movies where women run, jump, shoot, kick ass and escape people who are chasing them. I'm sure that this won't top Kill Bill Part One for me, but at least it will feed my need to see women jumping all over the place doing things that men think that we can't do.
I'm hoping that although she is yelling out "I've been framed" that she is really a master seductress and liar. I hope she ropes us all into thinking through the entire film that she has been set up, and then we find out all along that she is that damn good of a spy that we all believed her. Because I love devious women oh so much.

In three hours, yours truly will be sitting in the movie theater. Please, please, please don't let this one be a disappointment.

Grrrl (Fashion) Geek of the Week: Nrrrd Grrrl of WTF Fashion Blog by alice bee toklas, at burst market 12:01 pm / 24 July 2010

I was browsing fashion blogs and happened to find a post on Native American and/or Arab-inspired "hipster headdresses." Immediately I thought to check the comments for...I don't know, the word "appropriation," maybe "racist." And just when I was giving up all hope I come across both! of those words in a comment from one enlightened fashion blogger who goes by the nym of Nrrrd Grrrl. Can you IMAGINE my excitement? It was a beautiful moment.

Nrrrd Grrrl, aka Katie, is a Math/English major (yes!) from San Francisco who geeks out on fashion theory in her spare time. Her blog, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, is unusual for fashion blogs; she reads fashions like texts in attempts to uncover what clothing and beauty trends are really saying about the collective American psyche. One of my favorite posts of hers is How?, which further examines the "hipster headdress," or Keffiyehs by Urban Outfitters. *shudders* In Boy, when you shoot, shoot the one you love, she presents a photo of herself in an outfit copied from an issue of i-D magazine--not unusual for a fashion blog post. What is unusual about the post, however, is that she then proceeds to deconstruct her outfit and invites readers to do the same. Her other posts vary from American Apparel critiques ("They expose the superficiality of the whole socially-conscious alt-hipster-whatever movement") to fashion theory reading lists.

Photo: WTF

Like Nrrrd Grrrl herself, WTF is a post-structuralist's dream. Follow along here and lemme know what you think. How does thinking critically about fashion bridge the gap between "feminine" and "masculine" realms? Do you love it as much as I do?

Tagged with: arab-american, fashion, grrrl geekz, native american, post-structuralist

Global Women’s Leadership Network JUL 31- AUG 7 by Krista Keating, at Revolutionize Yo' Block 3:15 pm / 23 July 2010

Photo Shelly Gordon/Special To The Town Crier Linda Alepin, left, meets Patricia Eiyo-Elotu, a graduate ofthe 2009 GWLN program. Eiyo-Elotu is from Uganda and works with women farmers to train them in sustainable farming techniques.

Los Altos Hills resident Alepin pushes cause of women leaders around world for humanity

Written by Shelly Gordon - Special to the Town Crier
Wednesday, 21 July 2010

The Global Women’s Leadership Network, in partnership with Santa Clara University’s Leavey School of Business and Law School, has scheduled its Global Leaders for Justice Program July 31 through Aug. 7 at the university. More than 20 global leaders will participate in the program dedicated to developing effective leadership.

The program is the fulfillment of a dream for Linda Alepin, a 37-year resident of Los Altos Hills.

Since Alepin formed the network in 2004, the organization has trained 100 women leaders from nearly 30 countries and various sectors of society and encouraged them to transform their work into breakthrough global projects.

They continue their projects in environmental sustainability, health care, economic development, food security, gender equality and human rights with ongoing coaching from Alepin and network volunteers using Internet technologies like Skype, Web conferencing and social media.

“Linda has always been a visionary,” said Linda Thompson, a longtime Los Altos friend and business colleague for 30 years. “Linda thinks big and is willing to take the actions to make dreams a reality. She can see and take advantage of opportunities that others might ignore.”

Alepin forged a partnership between the Global Women’s Leadership Network and the law school to develop the training program. They raised funds to sponsor leaders from India, Kenya, Malawi, Uganda, Tanzania, Cameroon, Ghana, Iran, Cambodia and Costa Rica.

The program demonstrates how to implement projects through workshops and classes in social policy, supplemented with opportunities to network with Silicon Valley social entrepreneurs working in developing countries. This year’s projects focus on food security, rights of disabled citizens, clean water, children’s health, education and human rights advocacy.

Alepin, who raised two sons and two daughters with her husband, Ronald, in Los Altos Hills, has blazed a trail for women since 1967, when she was one of three women to graduate from Stanford University with a degree in economics. That same year, she joined IBM as the first woman hired in sales and was promoted to sales engineer when IBM introduced its first desktop computer.

“Acceptance of women in business at that time was an issue, but I didn’t let the barriers stop me,” Alepin said.

When Alepin took a marketing position with Amdahl, she mastered the discipline of finance and within three years was promoted to vice president of strategy – the company’s second female officer.

When Amdahl foundered under a $700 million loss in 1993, Alepin led the team that returned the company to profitability a year later.

Alepin remembers driving home after a trying day and stopping at Rancho San Antonio County Park. Standing on a sandbar along Permanente Creek, Alepin envisioned an international group of women leaders, bound together by the Internet, changing the world. She’s now channeling that vision through a powerful leadership course that she wanted to make available to potential women leaders.

“It’s become painfully obvious that the world’s most persistent problems ... cannot be overcome with traditional models of leadership,” she said. “(The network’s) mission is to leverage the talents of women leaders and ignite a new future for humanity. Our goal is to create 500 women leaders by 2013.”

A public event, The Global Innovation Dialogue, to introduce the leaders is scheduled Aug. 4.

For more information, visit www.gwln.org.

Carl Cameron of Fox News calls out his colleagues bias. by Krista Keating, at Revolutionize Yo' Block 9:23 pm / 22 July 2010

Does Fox News Fuel the Tea Party?

by Steve Friess
The Daily Beast
7/22/2010

Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron, in conversation at the Netroots Nation convention, said his network blew up the Shirley Sherrod story, that Senate candidate Sharron Angle “always seems confused,” and agreed that his network boosts the Tea Party.

Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron, chatting with a Daily Kos contributor in the media room Thursday at the liberal blogger convention Netroots Nation, mocked his Fox colleagues’ behavior on the Shirley Sherrod scandal and tacitly agreed that the cable network had fueled the rise of the Tea Party movement.

Cameron, speaking to blogger Dante Atkins shortly after Atkins had been interviewed for a Fox segment about the Netroots event, nodded as Atkins repeated comments he made on camera that the Tea Party movement was largely organized by Fox News hosts like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

“Tell me about it,” Cameron smirked.

As the conversation continued, Atkins, a Daily Kos front-pager, cited examples of Fox’s undue sway over events. Cameron then offered one of his own.

“The Sherrod case is an example of some at Fox News trying to have more influence than it probably should,” Cameron said.

Cameron was referring to this week’s controversy in which Georgia-based USDA inspector Shirley Sherrod, who is black, was fired by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack after Internet provocateur Andrew Breitbart posted a heavily edited video that seemed to indicate she was bragging about not giving help to a farmer 24 years ago because he was white.

Hannity and other Fox personalities pounced on Breitbart’s “scoop” as evidence of “reverse racism” and played the edited video repeatedly. Later in the week, the full video of Sherrod’s speech to the 2010 NAACP convention emerged, showing she was using her initial reaction to the white farmer to explain her own journey toward racial enlightenment. The farmer, Roger Spooner, appeared on CNN and elsewhere vouching for Sherrod and crediting her with saving their farm, and by today President Obama called to apologize and offer the 62-year-old her job back.

Cameron told The Daily Beast Thursday night that this report takes his remarks out of context and that he was actually defending the integrity of Fox’s news division. He insisted this reporter did not hear the entire discussion, even though it began immediately after this reporter’s interview with Daily Kos blogger Atkins had concluded.

Cameron also claimed the conversation only lasted 40 seconds because he was in a hurry to get across town.

When asked later, Atkins estimated the conversation witnessed by this reporter was about four minutes long and confirmed the accuracy and context of the quotations in this report, but declined to comment further to The Daily Beast.

The remarks by Cameron were unusual but not unprecedented. Others, including Fox News anchor Shepard Smith, have called out some conservative bias in the top-rated news network’s coverage and image.

During the conversation with Atkins, Cameron also opined about Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle of Nevada, who is facing off with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in November. Angle is a Tea Party icon who has advocated eliminating Social Security and Medicare, says that teenagers who are impregnated through incestuous rape ought to be required to bear the child, and has said she supports the prohibition of alcohol.

The former assemblywoman has lost a substantial lead in the polls since her June 8 victory as Reid hammers her in TV ads. Angle is making an issue out of the fact that Reid called banks in March 2009 when an $8.5 billion development owned by MGM Resorts International on the Las Vegas Strip was hours from bankruptcy. MGM was able to secure the loans and finish the project, keeping 10,000 construction workers on the job and currently employing 12,000 others in its operations.

The conversation in the media room between Cameron and Atkins turned to Angle. Angle has been criticized for being unavailable to reporters since her primary victory, and Atkins noted Angle has stated she was appearing on Fox News because it was good for fundraising. Cameron said that she hadn’t appeared on the network “much.”

At this point, this reporter noted that she had appeared at least twice, including last week when a Fox News anchor confronted her—and confused her by doing so—on her use of the term “bank bailout” to describe Reid’s MGM intervention.

“Sharron Angle always seems confused,” Cameron said.

Cameron and Atkins then left the room and carried on their conversation in the hallway for several more minutes. Atkins declined to say what more was discussed; Cameron said he thanked Atkins for appearing on Fox and expressed frustration that the Netroots Nation organization refused to provide a spokesperson to speak to the network.

Republicans act as receptacle for Tea Party! So what does that make the Tea Party? by Krista Keating, at Revolutionize Yo' Block 9:42 pm / 21 July 2010

It is always a hoot when the Republicans take on the trash. Like back in the 1970s when they let former Dixiecrats into the GOP in order to court the racist voting bloc. Or how they defend the flying of the treasonous Confederacy's flag on the United States soil. Or what about when they let Senator Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin have the reins and go full speed ahead accusing everyone and their mother (literally) of being a communist (or wait, was that Glenn Beck making accusations of socialism and Marxism, it's all blending together.) The vast right wing conspiracy is not a secret, it is a hostile take over to stunt the growth of the American psyche.

Republicans Form Caucus for Tea Party in the House

By JANIE LORBER

Published: July 21, 2010

Members of the freshly minted House Tea Party Caucus spent their first day of existence Wednesday trying to clarify just who they are — a tricky task when the Tea Party opposes big government and the caucus members work in the heart of it.

“We’re not the mouthpiece,” said Representative Michele Bachmann, the Minnesota Republican who is chairwoman of the caucus. “We are not taking the Tea Party and controlling it from Washington, D.C. We are also not here to vouch for the Tea Party or to vouch for any Tea Party organizations or to vouch for any individual people or actions, or billboards or signs or anything of the Tea Party.”

“We are the receptacle,” she added.

She would not elaborate on how the group would move forward — whether, for instance, the Tea Party Caucus would offer legislation of its own or whether its members would work collectively for or against bills put forward by any political party.

Ms. Bachman also tried, at a Capitol Hill news conference, to quash accusations that the new caucus represented a racist movement by introducing blacks and Hispanics who sympathized with the Tea Party. One, Tito Munoz, a Colombian immigrant who is host of a Spanish-language conservative radio show, attacked those who criticized the movement and its concerns.

“They have called us racists,” said Mr. Munoz, of Woodbridge, Va. “They have called us many names, and they have insulted the Americans who are against big government and socialist policies. We do not want a socialist democracy. We want a constitutional republic back to the basics of how it was founded.”

The group includes three members of the Republican leadership, including Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, who as chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee is leading the party’s effort to win back the House.

So far, the Tea Party Caucus has these 28 Republican members from the House: Trent Franks of Arizona; Gary G. Miller of California; Doug Lamborn of Colorado; Gus Bilirakis and Cliff Stearns of Florida; Paul Broun, Phil Gingrey and Tom Price of Georgia; Dan Burton and Mr. Pence of Indiana; Steve King of Iowa; Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt of Kansas; John Fleming of Louisiana; Roscoe G. Bartlett of Maryland; Peter Hoekstra of Michigan; Ms. Bachmann of Minnesota; Todd Akin of Missouri; Walter B. Jones of North Carolina; Joe Wilson of South Carolina; Joe L. Barton, John Carter, Michael C. Burgess, John Culberson, Louie Gohmert, Pete Sessions and Lamar Smith of Texas; and Cynthia M. Lummis of Wyoming.

FOX News Tabloid Journalism…Rupert Murdoch is as un-American as Osama bin Laden. by Krista Keating, at Revolutionize Yo' Block 3:43 pm / 21 July 2010

This is not the first time that FOX ~~News~~ I mean... FOX Tabloid Journalism has used highly edited video footage (i.e. ACORN human trafficking scandal) to try and shape the public opinion in regard to people of color, poor people, or any certain group that they see as challenging their right wing fascism and white supremacist agenda AND SUCCEEDED. Sure FOX News ends up having to explain themselves when the truth comes to light. And the drastic actions that were taken due to this shoddy journalism eventually are reversed; But at the end of the day, WHY IS FOX NEWS deliberately seeking out people of color and the community organizations whom advocate for them? This is not an accident. This is deliberate action taken by Rupert Murdoch. So while FOX News claims to be for the American people, patriotic and fair and balanced, they are pushing a foreign man's agenda. Rupert Murdoch is as un-American as Osama bin Laden and all those punks over at FOX News pushing his right wing fascist agenda.

Fox News' response to Sherrod fallout: Ignore, whitewash, mislead

7/21/2010
Research
Media Matters for America

Fox News spent much of July 19 and 20 ginning up controversy about the false claim that Shirley Sherrod made racist remarks at a NAACP meeting earlier this year. As the claim unraveled, Fox media personalities disappeared their role in the story, continued to smear her as "descriminat[ory]" in the face of contradictory evidence, and boldly suggested the network did not contribute to the controversy.

Fox's initial reaction: "Racist" Sharrod "must resign"

O'Reilly: "Sherrod must resign," her remarks are "unacceptable." On the July 19 edition of his show, Bill O'Reilly played the edited portion of the tape and said "that is simply unacceptable. And Ms. Sherrod must resign immediately." He also falsely claimed that "the full transcript of Ms. Sherrod's remarks is posted on BigGovernment.com."

Hannity called Sherrod's remarks "[j]ust the latest in a series of racial incitents," called for the NAACP to be "held to account" to repudiate Sherrod. On the July 19 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity asserted that Sherrod's comments were "[j]ust the latest in a series of racial incidents," and stated that "So it's interesting that it took the new media to expose this." He also asked Newt Gingrigh if, "in light of the NAACP accusing the Tea Party of being a racist movement last week," he thought "the NAACP should be held to account for the very standard they were demanding from the Tea Party."

Perino: "This video adds fuel to a growing controversy after the NAACP" asked the tea party to denounce racists. On the July 19 edition of On the Record, Dana Perino suggested Sherrod's remarks were racist, saying that "The video adds fuel to a growing controversy after the NAACP approved a resolution condemning the tea party movement for not denouncing racist members."

Doocy: Sherrod "sure sounded racist," is "[e]xhibit A" of "what racism looks like." On the July 19 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy said that Sherrod made "a speech to the NAACP that sure sounded racist." Later, after guest-host Ailysn Camerota asserted that Sherrod's remarks are "outrageous and perhaps everybody needs a refresher course on what racism looks like," Doocy responded that Sherrod's comments are "Exhibit A."

Beck plays "videotape of USDA administration official discriminating against white farmers." On the July 20 edition of his radio show, Beck says that they "have videotape of a USDA administration official discriminating against white farmers." He then asks, "Have we suddenly transported into 1956 except it's the other way around? ... Does anybody else have a sense that there are some that just want revenge? Doesn't it feel that way?" After playing the audio of the tape, Beck says, "You tell me what part of the gospel is teaching that."

After the tide turned: Fox "didn't even do" the Sherrod story

Bret Baier absurdly claims Fox News "didn't even do" the Sherrod story. On the July 20 edition of Special Report, Bret Baier claimed "Fox News didn't even do the story, we didn't do it on Special Report, we posted it online."

Beck on Fox: "Based on the facts that we have right now, this is something that I wouldn't air and demand a resignation on." On the July 20 edition of this Fox News show, Beck stated: "I don't think Shirley should have been fired -- or, I'm sorry, forced to resign. Based on the facts that we have right now, this is something that I wouldn't air and demand a resignation on." He added that he "wouldn't air" the tape because "context matters."

Doocy on Sherrod: "What was the big hurry for them to condemn her in the first place?" On the July 21 edition of Fox & Friends, Dana Perino and Steve Doocy falsely asserted that, in Perino's words, "before the news even broke, she had resigned." Perino then stated that "everyone's nerves are raw and exposed on these racial questions, and I think we should all look before we leap." Doocy then stated: "What was the big hurry for them to condemn her in the first place? I don't get it, because the totality of what she said was out there."

Rosen: "Did the White House essentially railroad an innocent woman in this?" On the July 20 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, James Rosen reported that the additional context from Sherrod's speech "appeared to corroborate" her statement that she was telling the story of "how she came to see beyond race," and then asked: "Did the White House essentially railroad an innocent woman in this because they are on edge themselves because of the Van Jones controversy, the Black Panthers Party case, and other controversies?

The holdouts: Sherrod was still "discriminating" against the farmer

Hannity doubles down, says Sherrod "still admits discriminating," suggested he's unfairly "getting blamed." On the July 20 edition of his show Hannity asserted that "She still admits that she was discriminating against this white farmer." He added that "I'm getting blamed and Fox News is getting blamed, but it's the White House that made the decision before we ever aired the tape."

O'Reilly's ignores context, still claims "What [Sherrod] said is ridiculous." On the July 20 edition of his show, O'Reilly was still claiming that "What [Sherrod] said is ridiculous," and stated the real story is "the news blackout" on the Sherrod story, and how "the establishment press tilts left and is reluctant to do damage to a very liberal president."

***
Sherrod: I'm a Victim of Breitbart, Fox 'Racism'

July 21, 2010 11:40 am ET
by Joe Strupp
Media Matters For America

Shirley Sherrod, the former Agriculture Department Georgia Director of Rural Development, says she is a victim. A victim of poor reporting and, as she contends, clear bias and racist coverage from both Andrew Breitbart and Fox News.

"When you look at their reporting, this is just another way of seeing that they are (racist)," Sherrod told me about Fox in a lengthy interview Tuesday night. "But I have seen that before now. I saw their reporting as biased during the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration."

Sherrod was forced to resign on Monday after a portion of a taped speech she gave last March was posted at Breitbart's Biggovernment.com.

In the edited tape, she spoke about how she had not initially helped a white farmer as much as she could have in 1986 when he was going to lose his farm. In the posting, Breitbart made it appear as though the story had occurred during her time as a federal official and not 24 years ago when she worked for a non-profit organization.

Breitbart also did not include the entire context of the speech, in which she later explained that she learned from the situation and ended up helping the farmer, Roger Spooner and his wife. Both Spooners spoke out several times Tuesday to support Sherrod and voice that they would have lost their farm if not for her help.

Breitbart has since posted the full version of the tape, but his original posting also remains.

"It was a time when I realized that they did some of the same things to white farmers that they did to black farmers," Sherrod said about the speech. "I thought that all white farmers got the best treatment, but I found out in this case that was not so."

Explaining the speech further, Sherrod said, "I am trying to say to the people there that it is time for us to move forward. We do not want to forget the past and be in a position that racism is there and we don't see it. We want to move together. Our area of the state cannot grow and thrive until we learn to get along."

But after Breitbart posted the video clip, Sherrod said the lack of context and explanation sparked anger against her. She said she found out about the clip when someone e-mailed a link to her and asked about it.

"I couldn't believe it. I found this out when someone sent me (a link to) the tape, people who follow him, who put it out there," Sherrod said about Breitbart. "I got crank calls right away. Someone sent me an e-mail and link and said 'shame on you' and other stuff. I was sitting in a meeting and I was really upset.

"I texted back that they were so wrong and that they need to know the message and they got it wrong."

Sherrod said Cheryl Cook, USDA deputy undersecretary, called her Monday and said she had to be on administrative leave."

She adds: "People were calling and writing the Department of Agriculture in Athens, Ga., and Washington to tell them about it. That I needed to be fired. That a racist like me had no business working for the department. That is the way they intimidate people and it worked."

By the end of the day Monday, she was forced to resign.

Sherrod, 62, said her first reaction was shock that, after a career working for civil rights and as the daughter of a father murdered by racists, she would be seen in such a terrible light.

"To have people say that I was such a racist was unbelievable," she said of the fallout from the video and Fox coverage. "My whole life, if you look into what I have done, my father was murdered in 1965. If you look at all of us, we all hurt with that and we got involved into the movement and channeled our effort into good, instead of hating.

"I am getting hate calls and e-mails at this point. I got one call last night at my house at 12:30 a.m. that said 'you lost your job, good for you' and 'bitch' There are people out there who will believe that I am a racist person, even though the story is getting out there."

She said her husband, Charles, and her two children, who also live nearby in Athens, Ga., were surprised, but have been toughened by years of seeing her work in the civil rights movement: "They had to grow up in the movement so they have had to deal with stuff like this through the years. We did not always take the easy road. They have some thick skin as a result."

But the clear damage to Sherrod comes from Breitbart, who posted the tape without context, and Fox, which ran with the story and did not seek to confirm it.

"The news media should tell it like it is and not the way they want it to be," she said.

Sherrod said Breitbart never contacted her before posting the video clip to ask about it.

"I never heard that name until a few minutes ago," she said Tuesday night about Breitbart. "He never contacted me. I think they intended it to be what it ended up being, a racist thing that could unite even more the racist people out there who follow them."

She also said Fox News never checked the facts with her before posting a story and the video clip.

"Not before they reported it," she said of Fox's negligence. "They have called me today and initially I had said yes (to an interview), but I thought about it and I did not think they intended to be fair in their reporting. They are going to say what they want to say regardless of what I say."

She said Fox showed no professionalism in continuing to bother her for an interview, but failing to correct their coverage.

"I think they should but they won't. They intended exactly what they did. They were looking for the result they got yesterday," she said of Fox. "I am just a pawn. I was just here. They are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person."

Still, Fox continued to push for an interview with her, Sherrod said.

"It was unbelievable. I am refusing to be on there. They have been calling me and calling me. I have refused to do an interview because they are biased," she explained. "I don't think Fox News does it fairly. It is worse so now. I have sat and listened to the way they cover the news even before this administration and I saw what was going on."

Sherrod said this situation has worsened her view of racism in media coverage.

"I think it is race. You think we have come a long way in terms of race relations in this country, but we keep going backwards," she said. "We have become more racist. This was their doing, Breitbart put that together misrepresenting what I was saying and Fox carried it."

Sherrod said she has gotten no future job offers and believes this will scar her reputation forever, even if all the facts come out.

"There will be people who always think of this," she said. "I can see in the future whatever I do, this story will be recounted, no matter what. This will be brought up. People will constantly be trying to point out negative things."

Have other job offers come up? "No, no one. People are afraid of me now, I guess, with all of this. That is the other fallout from this. Anyone would be afraid of me, maybe I am a troublemaker, a racist."

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said he is reviewing the matter, hinting that Sherrod could possibly get her job back.

Asked if she would return if asked, she said: "I think I would have to go back for a short time, even if I did not stay for a long haul. I would need to prove a point, that I can be bigger than them. I was doing a lot of good things. People had access to that office that never did before. I had reached out to the poorest counties."

Despite that, she plans to carry on.

"I will go back to doing what I was doing before, working with people, trying to build," she said. "There are a lot of projects in Georgia I have been involved in creating. I will get busy with that again."

Sherrod said she is considering legal action, perhaps against Breitbart, Fox or the federal government:

"I don't know enough to know. I wish I did. I would love to sue. I am going to talk about it. I have been getting calls from all over the country. I don't want to leave one stone unturned."

Sherrod said she has been helped by many media outlets, such as CNN and others that have allowed her to explain the truth, enough so that the NAACP retracted a statement Tuesday that had denounced her.

She said that has convinced her to trust some media outlets, noting she had plans to be on Good Morning America and NPR Wednesday.

"The only one I refused to do is Fox," she said, adding the fair coverage by others "makes me think highly of some of the media, but not any better about Fox. It is a bad taste in my mouth dealing with them. It would help some if they apologized and say they were wrong, but I don't see that happening."

California Feminist Blogs

Support Feminist Bloggers!