Jeffrey Lord

If you haven’t read his astounding piece in The American Spectator yet, this is your chance. First Lord cites a horrific story Sherrod told about a relative, Bobby Hall, who was murdered while in Sheriff Claude Screws’ custody. Lord quotes from the shameful Supreme Court decision that overturned Screws’ conviction for depriving Hall of his civil rights:

Hall, a young negro about thirty years of age, was handcuffed and taken by car to the courthouse. As Hall alighted from the car at the courthouse square, the three petitioners began beating him with their fists and with a solid-bar blackjack about eight inches long and weighing two pounds. They claimed Hall had reached for a gun and had used insulting language as he alighted from the car. But after Hall, still handcuffed, had been knocked to the ground, they continued to beat him from fifteen to thirty minutes until he was unconscious. Hall was then dragged feet first through the courthouse yard into the jail and thrown upon the floor, dying. An ambulance was called, and Hall was removed to a hospital, where he died within the hour and without regaining consciousness. There was evidence that Screws held a grudge against Hall, and had threatened to “get” him.

Sherrod hard characterized Hall’s death as a lynching, Lord points out. But since only three men were involved, and since they were lawmen, not a vigilante mob, and they didn’t use a rope, “lynching” doesn’t fit Lord’s dictionary’s definition of the word and is clearly a misnomer. Case closed: Sherrod is a liar; Breitbart stands vindicated.

Lord makes an equally spurious larger point–that there were a lot of racists among the Southern Democrats of the 1930s, 40s, ’50s, and 60s. He seems to feel that this reflects horribly on Obama and Sherrod today. Since they are also Democrats, he says, they must be racists or hypocrites too.

Lord seems to be suffering from an Asperger-like disorder; he has no idea why anyone would be offended by his line of reasoning. He has been vigorously defending his arguments–on the American Spectator site (where its readers, to their credit, have been trashing him mercilessly) and in the world at large. He even ventured into enemy territory and gave an interview to Talking Points Memo. The closing words of the TPM piece are almost as stunning as Lord’s original article:

Lord says he doesn’t want Sherrod to lose her job, and urges his fellow conservatives to work toward winning over black voters. “Get out there and engage on race,” Lord said. “There’s no reason in the world that we can’t be getting the black vote. But it’s our job to separate black from left and talk about left and right.”

He makes Michael Steele look like Martin Luther King.


22 thoughts on “Jeffrey Lord

  1. He also argued that he wan’t lynched because the Supreme Court ruled that the officers acted within the law, which is even more despicable if you ask me. Media Matters has an excellent round up of subsequent postings by Lord. He even showed up in the thread started by other Am.Spec. writers who chastized him for his lame attempt at vindicating Breitbart.

    My favorite was one of the commenters at the article written by his colleague at Spec. Who said something to the effect of: hillbilly cops in the Dixie South beat a black man to death for stealing a tire … Wtf else do you need to know?

  2. As long a Lord keeps insisting he’s right, some people will believe him or at least be willing to give him an audience. The task of the propagandist is not to be believed so much as to give cover to his employers.

    After all, Brietbart is still working.

    It’s a business model.

  3. Is it really necessary to conflate Lord’s sophist jackassery with Asperger’s? People on the autistic spectrum already have enough intolerance, ignorance and bigotry to deal with without people like you casually demonizing them by using words like “Asperger-like” as a lazy shorthand for “being a despicable asshole.”

    1. I was using it as a lazy shorthand for lack of “social or emotional reciprocity” (one of the DSM IV criteria for Aspergers), not “despicable asshole.” But you’re right that it was insensitive of me to drag a whole category of innocent people into this and, unlike Lord, I regret that I did.

  4. Well thank God Bobby Hall was murdered in the way he was. That way he could be used as a “pocket-victim” shield in politics. I do see it as slight-of-hand to distract attention away from current stances. Lol, can I use the serfdom of the 12th century as a disenfranchisement arguement to lower the price on an Aston Martin? It is like solving an anthropological crime. Discovering that the bronxe-age glacier mummy guy was murdered by an arrow. It just makes me wonder about the heavy use of hindsight vision, is there any stock in forward thinking??

  5. @Jesse – did you really watch Sherrod’s whole story? Cuz you don’t seem to have gotten it.

    Sherrod told a very inspirational tale about how she overcame the legacy of fear and hate to do the right thing for a person of a different race. She was not arguing for special privileges or anything.

    But she had to be truthful. The reasons she had for being suspicious of white people included the lynching. Without that detail, the story was less compelling, there was less of a mountain for her to climb.

    And for being truthful, Lord called her a liar (technically, he “challenged” her “veracity”.) Why? he was defending the liar Brietbart.


  6. Actually no, I didn’t. @rewinn. Sorry. I have been perusing some AZ immigration comments. Also studing technology/socio-economics etc. Scanning some hip-hop mags. Seeing how they are put together. I was just overloading with politicos wearing the bones of the dead. It is like one saying “We saved the world from facsism” when the speaker hasn’t saved anyone from it but will suck-up credit by being born American. Or apologizing for some past national deed as a political-spin even though the entire societies living at that time are gone. U.S.-“We are sorry we bombed Japan.” Mongolia-“Sorry for the Golden Horde.”
    By all means if their is a witness in immediate effect, we should listen. But I am not one to carry the sins or accomplishments of my ancestors as my own.

  7. @Jesse – then you missed out on something you’d approve of. Sherrod told a story about how she moved beyond the past … but in order to explain how she did it, she had to talk about her past, the world she grew up in.

    The Lord had to lie about her. Do don’t approve of lying, do you?

    1. @rewinn- Lol, not really. There is an article out there about Gov. Bill Richardson wanting to pardon Billy the Kid. That is a prime example of wearing bones. The entire social network is dead. Instead of examining the example of current plea bargaining with notorious criminals, knowing it is encased in amber, or perhaps studying the history to affect current issues, like border crime, the governor wants to do this useless post-humous things to attach fame to his name.

  8. @Jesse – uhm, so you think it is OK for Lord to lie because Gov. Richardson “wanted to pardon Billy the Kid”.

    Yeah, you go with that. And thanks!

  9. @rewinn-I think our wires crossed somewhere. Sherrod tells a story about a relative, Bobby Hall. Good for Sherrod, a direct witness, victim, whatever for a historical lesson-learned point in discourse. Sherrod cites a precident. Good. Sherrod embelishes or isn’t “true to fact” but accurate in point. Poo-poo. Lord then whistleblows about detail but not context, like an a-hole would. He then gathers the bones of dead Southern Democrats and tries to hang that dead social system on Obama and Sherrod. Lord attempts to pin the sins of dead party members on the living. That is what I hate. It is a party foul and tells me A) Lord sucks B) he’s got no tangiable argument with whatever point Sherrod was making C) by being a constant critique he doesn’t come up with his own ideas.

    I would say Sherrod was a loser if she tried to claim, “Because my relative died needlessly at the hands of an unjust system, I should have power.” I would spook because that person may be harboring negative bias or “wearing bones” and looking for some punitive measures against the current living, thereby continuing a cycle of abuse.

    But, as you and Arthure et al have said, Shirley Sherrod was using an example of her past to demonstrate the landscape that formed her character in a positive way. How her experiences, and how she worked through them, have made her uniquely qualified or the best person for whatever she’s doing.

    Sorry rewinn, er’body, I should’ve taken my time to be clear but I’ve been troll-ing AZ again.

  10. M’kayI read about S. Sharron.*Grin* Finally I know who Breitbart and the “fiasco”. Actually this whole gaff made me feel better on some level. That the NAACP actually has a human(Jealous) in charge, and that his passions are truly noble. I would’ve given a pass to Shirley if she said, “Because of my past, I didn’t help the white farmer. I regret that now that I have a victim.” I would see that as personal growth because guilt and shame are things bad people don’t have. I see people as viscous. I see it also as a warning about the speed of the technology that we use. Arthur has felt the pain of context and “blog-editing”. I hope Shirley will eventually laugh about it and say “Fquit, life’s too short. I’m gonna take the grandkids fishing. Maybe this is a sign for me to retire.”

  11. @Jesse
    So we agree Sherrod’s story was appropriate.

    And in fact Sherrod *did* exactly as you wished: the whole point of her story was that she realized her first impulse was wrong, as she said, and in fact she helped the white farmer who is grateful to her today.

    And Lord lied. Sherrod did not “embelish” as you put it. She told the story precisely truthfully.

    It was Lord who lied, and Brietbart who deliberately editted the tape to create a falsehood. Why do you want Sherrod to “retire” when she is doing her job well and honestly?

    And Brietbart knew exactly what he was doing when he took Sherrod’s line out of context. He’s been caught before doing the same thing, with the criminal O’Keefe’s heavily editted ACORN work, which as you know was intended to and in fact did say that something happened that didn’t happen. O’Keefe was not wearing his pimp outfit or pretending to be a pimp; he was dressed as a law student trying to help this girl get out of prostitution. The ACORN guy on the tape got as much information as he could out of O’Keefe about the girl-smuggling ring and then, when they left, called the cops. These are established facts, so why do you defend Brietbart and Lord?

    Do you ENJOY Brietbart and Lord lying to you?

  12. Anyway, never mind it all. There’s too much back-and-forth here, all points have been made.

    I just hate liars. Sherrod didn’t do anything wrong and I’m glad she fought back.

    I just wish this Administration would learn its lesson: Fox New, Brietbart and so forth are not to be believed, at all.

  13. ??I didn’t know I was defending Breitbart and Lord?? Now I wish I could just retire and shrink my world view, lol. Yes, next topic. I liked the back and forth. Haven’t had one here since that neo-nazi nasty.

    1. Stepping in (a little after the fact–I was away for a few days) to moderate: yes, Jesse and Rewinn both agree on the basic facts, but Jesse is probing for ironies where Rewinn sees only an occasion for outrage. More of a mis-communication than a disagreement. Sadly, there will be many more opportunities for more of the same.

      Jesse, have you heard about the supposed Los Zetas border raid near Laredo? I’ll probably have to write something about “Reconquista” theory–which weirdly enough seems to play a role in the Ground Zero Mosque controversy too.

      1. @Arthur

        Sorry buddy, but I’m hoping one of y’all will just cop to the plain fact that Lord lied.

        Sherrod did not “embellish” – right?

  14. Lord lied. His whole line of argument was not only morally offensive but patently dishonest. Did I ever say anything that suggested otherwise?

    1. “Did I ever say anything that suggested otherwise?”

      Not that I saw, or ever suggested you said. You DID step into a back-and-forth between Jesse & me that with an inaccurate remark …

      “.. Rewinn sees only an occasion for outrage”

      … and I was just going back to center.
      Peace out.

  15. “But since only three men were involved, not a mob, and since they didn’t hang him, “lynching” is clearly a misnomer.” Sorry, I thought this was part of what she said. I could title a piece “The Politics of Perfect, Race and Law Enforcement”. A piece asking why we must have perfect politicians, when we, as mere mortals are not, and then we turn around and call them out-of-touch because they have had perfect lives.

    I find it humorous how speeches have to be extemporanious to be viewed as genuine, yet, the opposing media with a bully of recording technology is viewed as objective. This leaves a mortal to use a script (to avoid human error) but then they are not seen as genuine.Lol.

    It is like the unrealistic ideal of a non-intimidating police officer. How exactly is that done? (Personally I think the cops should have little coffeemakers and they give you a complementary cup as you wait for them to check your stuff)

    Arthuro, no I haven’t looked into the zee’s. P.S. sorry for trashing your house while you went to get another sixer!

    I *heart* you, rewinn! Lord lied-ish! I admit it-ish! But I think he ran with Breibart’s balls and tea-bagged Shirley’s in-zone. Full plausable deniability worthy of Goldman’s Sack, you have to admit. It would cause more greif and humiliation for her to be reinstated among her peers that knee-jerked on a “floggers” word. That’s why, IF I WAS HER, I would take my public vindication and retire. To me, all that public grief and lawyers isn’t worth it if I could go to pasture and let the younger bulls have at it.

    I feel sorry for whomever rewinn and I tag-team. They would have to cancel the domain…

    1. Thanks guys, I think I got it now!

      And @Jesse I can certainly agree that if Sherrod wanted to retire it might be better than swimming in the cesspool that is today’s politics.

  16. There is a story from NPR in October 2009. I trolled “Digger” Examiner and Cypress Times. The story seems to origenate from the “minuteman” Jeff Schwilk. Deal is there is nothing out there from a local flogger. Digger is in NY, Jeff in CA, Kim in CA. The NPR piece has some “ringers” in it. The term “fragmentation grenade” appeared in the NPR and on of the blogs reporting the ranches. Can’t recall where, explorer crashed with my trail. The other 3 bloggers cut/paste their stories to be almost identical. There is no variation. Proof: Read an AP story, Fox story and NYT story over the same incident. Different pple. talk to different ppl. or the same witness says things diferent from interview to interview. I would say, it is plausable but not real. If there was a standoff, it would only be so if there were hostages. The “story” says the ranchowners escaped somehow. I call hoax.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s