Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
As the brouhaha over Shirley Sherrod begins to fade, some corners of the right continue to defend Andrew Breitbart, some of them by attacking Shirley Sherrod. But surely the most bizarre attempt at doing that has to be this article by Jeffrey Lord at conservative mag The American Spectator.
Shirley Sherrod's story in her now famous speech about the lynching of a relative is not true. The veracity and credibility of the onetime Agriculture Department bureaucrat at the center of the explosive controversy between the NAACP and conservative media activist Andrew Breitbart is now directly under challenge. By nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court.
Say what? I'll let him explain. In her speech she referred to the case of one of her relatives who was beaten to death in the 1940s for flagrantly being black:
I should tell you a little about Baker County. In case you don't know where it is, it's located less than 20 miles southwest of Albany. Now, there were two sheriffs from Baker County that -- whose names you probably never heard but I know in the case of one, the thing he did many, many years ago still affect us today. And that sheriff was Claude Screws. Claude Screws lynched a black man. And this was at the beginning of the 40s. And the strange thing back then was an all-white federal jury convicted him not of murder but of depriving Bobby Hall -- and I should say that Bobby Hall was a relative -- depriving him of his civil rights.
And then Lord goes on to claim that Sherrod's credibility is now utterly destroyed because Bobby Hall was not lynched -- he was beaten to death. He cites the Supreme Court ruling in that case:
The arrest was made late at night at Hall's home on a warrant charging Hall with theft of a tire. 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.
And then he tries to psychoanalyze why Sherrod would so plainly "lie" in this way:
In other words, the Supreme Court of the United States, with the basic facts of the case agreed to by all nine Justices in Screws vs. the U.S. Government, says not one word about Bobby Hall being lynched. Why? Because it never happened.So why in the world would Ms. Sherrod say something like this?
No idea. It's possible that Ms. Sherrod simply doesn't know the truth. As with any family, stories from generations past can get handed down and over time the truth gets rubbed away and fantasy or fiction replaces it, younger generations none the wiser. This event took place before Ms. Sherrod was born, so that is certainly possible.
It's also possible that she knew the truth and chose to embellish it, changing a brutal and fatal beating to a lynching. Anyone who has lived in the American South (as my family once did) and is familiar with American history knows well the dread behind stories of lynch mobs and the Klan. What difference is there between a savage murder by fist and blackjack -- and by dangling rope? Obviously, in the practical sense, none. But in the heyday -- a very long time -- of the Klan, there were frequent (and failed) attempts to pass federal anti-lynching laws. None to pass federal "anti-black jack" or "anti-fisticuffs" laws. Lynching had a peculiar, one is tempted to say grotesque, solitary status as part of the romantic image of the Klan, of the crazed racist. The image stirred by the image of the noosed rope in the hands of a racist lynch mob was, to say the least, frighteningly chilling. Did Ms. Sherrod deliberately concoct this story in search of a piece of that ugly romance to add "glamour" to a family story that is gut-wrenchingly horrendous already?
Again, I have no idea.
There is also a third possibility for what appears to be a straight-out fabrication. Having watched Ms. Sherrod's speech and read the transcript, I think it's abundantly clear that she is a liberal or progressive political activist.
She is clearly enamored of President Obama and the progressive ideas that once fueled the New Deal and is the rock upon which progressives would build their Utopia. Her fierce devotion to the idea that government programs are the source of all good is not to be missed, whether she is championing the idea of working in the federal government or the idea that a particular program where she doles out millions is a source of agricultural nirvana. Here's how you get an "automatic job" in the Agriculture Department she enthuses. Come to the Farm Service Agency. Or the Rural Development Agency. How about the Natural Resource and Conservation Agency. This line of thinking about government in general, here seen with a focus on agriculture, is the age-old progressive liberal view in giddy excitement mode...
Will Anderson Cooper of CNN, who angrily snapped of Breitbart that "we think the truth matters," be investigating this untruth of Sherrod's? Rick Sanchez of CNN asked of Ann Coulter: "Doesn't Breitbart deserve to lose his credibility for this? ...What matters is he published this stuff. Something that turned out to be wrong." Ms. Sherrod stood up in front of the NAACP and said "something that turned out to be wrong." Will Sanchez ponder this if Sherrod gets her job back in the Obama Administration? Frank Rich at the New York Times, who blasted Fox News on Sunday for allowing Breitbart to be "hustling skewed partisan videos" (as opposed, I guess, to hustling skewed partisan newspapers), never even mentioned a word of Sherrod's considerable untruth. Not a word. MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell, according to his Media Matters friends, barked that "I think [Breitbart] has lost his standing to present videos to the country at any time." By the O'Donnell standards apparently Ms. Sherrod must now sit down and shut up. And speaking of Media Matters, Eric Hananoki chimed in that "The way to avoid another ACORN or Sherrod debacle is simple: Don't trust Andrew Breitbart." To which, of course, the obvious question is whether Media Matters or any of the rest of the media will and should ever again trust Shirley Sherrod after the debacle of her lynching untruth.
If at this point you're muttering "what the fuck" to yourself, you are not alone. No one could seriously be this pedantic, right? Sadly, wrong. On the bright side, this was too much for a couple of other AmSpec writers, who reacted pretty strongly to such idiocy. Phillip Klein writes:
I am rendered speechless by a 4,000-word article that is based around the suggestion that somebody is a liar for saying that a black man was lynched, when he was merely beaten to death by a white sheriff who evidence suggests had previously threatened to "get him."
And John Tabin goes even further:
What on Earth is Jeffrey Lord talking about on the mainpage? He says that the sentence "Claude Screws lynched a black man" is untrue. Lynching is defined as an extrajudicial killing by a mob (which can be as few as two people). The fatal beating of Bobby Hall most certainly qualifies. Radley Balko expounds on the specifics, but honestly, even if you mistakenly believe that only hanging qualifies as lynching (which, again, is simply not true), zeroing in on this particular hair as one worth splitting strikes me as utterly bizarre.
I'm not so sure. It's irrational, of course, but bizarre? It depends on what you think Lord's goal was. If his goal was to make a serious argument, his efforts qualify as bizarre. If, on the other hand, his goal was simply to convince the dullards in his audience that Breitbart isn't so bad because Sherrod is a horrible person, he probably did about as good a job as one could do of trying to achieve that goal.
Politics
Comments
S...WTF?
Posted by: IDM | July 27, 2010 1:09 AM
Ugh. What the hell is wrong with S?
Posted by: Chris Hallquist | July 27, 2010 1:14 AM
Of course Bobby Hall was lynched. Apparently Jeffrey Lord doesn't know the meaning of the word and didn't look it up. Hanging is just one of many methods for lynching a person.
Posted by: JuliaL | July 28, 2010 12:16 PM
He probably thinks Clarence Thomas was being chased by guys wanting to hang him with RS-232 cables.
Posted by: carlsonjok | July 28, 2010 12:18 PM
John Tabin: Lynching is defined as an extrajudicial killing by a mob (which can be as few as two people). The fatal beating of Bobby Hall most certainly qualifies.
That's what I thought when I was reading this. Bobby Hall's beating qualifies as a lynching.
And even if he wasn't, what is so inaccurate about Sherrod's story? "Bobby Hall wasn't actually lynched. He was beaten to death by an angry mob because he was black." WTF, indeed.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 28, 2010 12:20 PM
The case that got the Daughters of the Confederacy to join forces with the NAACP in an effort to end lynching in the American south was not a case of a person being hanged. It was a case of a black woman being strung up and having her child cut out of her belly and cooked, still living, over a fire while still connected to her body by the umbilical cord.
Hanging was possibly the most humane form of lynching in practice at the time.
Posted by: rob | July 28, 2010 12:23 PM
Once again, a conservative on his high horse of righteousness shows that home skoolin ain't no good a way to learn the English language right.
Posted by: Rob | July 28, 2010 12:35 PM
Poor Jeffrey Lord, he tries to redefine lynching and ends up defining intellectual dishonesty instead.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 28, 2010 12:36 PM
Clearly Bobby Hall was a hardened criminal by KKK standards. Even after being beaten to death he continued to be black. Totally unrepentant.
Posted by: Rob Jase | July 28, 2010 12:39 PM
Rob @6:
[citation needed]
That reeks too much of blood libel for me to accept at face value. It's entirely possible, but I'd like to see some documentation on it.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | July 28, 2010 12:39 PM
...the hell?
It was a case of a black woman being strung up and having her child cut out of her belly and cooked, still living, over a fire while still connected to her body by the umbilical cord.
*jaw drops to floor*
Posted by: KennyG | July 28, 2010 12:46 PM
I suppose it's nice to know that there are conservatives willing to blast their own when they do something as stupid as this.
That being said...Lord is plainly a nut. Why do they have him writing at their magazine at all?
Posted by: Scott M | July 28, 2010 1:01 PM
Is R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. still "working" for AmSpec? This article reeks of his special brand of unhinged, stupid, spittle-spewing hatred of all things "liberal." Especially the bit where the author says Sherrod may have got things wrong because she's a "liberal or progressive political activist."
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 28, 2010 1:02 PM
I'm not a particularly violent person, but perhaps a "not lynching" of Jeffrey Lord is in order. I don't mean "not lynch" him to death, just "not lynch" him enough that so he's covered in bruises and blood to the point he spends a few days in a hospital bed, during which time he will realize what an utter douche he is and make a pledge to stop writing such utterly moronic shit. It also would be a good thing if he refudiated his stupidity during this time of reflection.
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | July 28, 2010 1:10 PM
Even if lynching defined only being hanged, which is how its commonly understood, Mr. Lord's argument reveals a person completely lacking in character. That should be the conclusion here rather than anything Ms. Sherrord stated.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 28, 2010 1:11 PM
If I follow Mr. Lord's argument, it is OK to brutally murder a man for no infraction other than his "other-ness" as long as you call it what it is using his mis-definition of a word?
In such a world -- the world he proposes to defend or explain -- I assume, by logical transitivity, that it should be fine to beat a moronic columnist to death for being...well...a moron...as long as we can define "moron" as being a right-wing activist columnist with no sense of human decency who poses an imminent danger to society by being an apologist and therefore an instigator for/of unsanctioned murder?
Posted by: R.Will | July 28, 2010 1:16 PM
#10:
Fair enough. I read about it in David Neiwert's book Death on the Fourth of July, which I cannot at this moment locate as technically I am supposed to be working. I'll see if I can dig up his source later.
Posted by: rob | July 28, 2010 1:29 PM
Yea, well... you know who else didn't like lynching? The Soviet Union. Look at how these weak Americans let Communists take away a fundamental right to beat people up senselessly.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | July 28, 2010 1:31 PM
Being a person prone to violence, but having realized at a young age that you could kick the shit out of asshats all day and not make a dent in the population, allow me to improve on the 5th dentist's suggestion. M. Lord should spend a couple of weeks with some muscular gay black fellows with an S&M fetish, the safe word, unbeknown to M. Lord is "I'm being Lynched!"
PS 5tDent, did you work at a clinic in Bayonne in the late 60's, Mofos use to repair my cavities without Novacaine,
"To be a dentist...You have a knack, of causing people pain!
Posted by: The Pale Scot | July 28, 2010 1:38 PM
@ 10 & 11 -
A short excursion into Google turns up the following:
http://www.maryturner.org/
It's not exactly the same as the story above - instead it is a discussion of a woman who was set on fire and killed, and her 8-month fetus removed from her body and stomped to death.
Posted by: Thisbe | July 28, 2010 1:41 PM
At least they aren't claiming that the lynchings never happened.At least not yet.
Posted by: Paen | July 28, 2010 1:53 PM
Thank you, #20, I believe that is the case to which I refer. If I recall, Neiwert's description of the event depicts a fire being built under her and the fetus cut out, but does not mention the stomping. I had assumed that the fetus would fall down into the fire, where it would be cooked, so my bad there.
Posted by: rob | July 28, 2010 1:54 PM
Guess this guy wasn't lynched either.
On May 25, 1912, Dan Davis, an Afro-American man charged with the attempted rape of a Euro-American woman was lynched by burning alive. There was some disappointment in the crowd and criticism of those who had bossed the arrangements, because the fire was so slow in reaching the Negro. It was really only ten minutes after the fire started that the smoking shoe soles and twitching of the Negro's feet indicated that his lower extremities were burning, but the time seemed much longer. The spectators had waited so long to see him tortured that they begrudged the ten minutes before his suffering really began.
The Negro had uttered but few words. When he was led to where he was to be burned he said quite calmly, "I wish some of you gentlemen would be Christian enough to cut my throat," but nobody responded. When the fire started, he screamed, "Lord, have mercy on my soul," and that was the last word he spoke, though he was conscious for fully twenty minutes after that. His exhibition of nerve aroused the admiration even of his torturers.
A slight hitch in the proceedings occurred when the Negro was about half burned. His clothing had been stripped off and burned to ashes by the flames and his black body hung nude in the gray dawn light. The flesh had been burned from his legs as high as the knees when it was seen that the wood supply was running short. None of the men or boys wanted to miss an incident of the torture. All feared something of more than usual interest might happen, and it would be embarrassing to admit later on of not having seen it on account of being absent after more wood.
Something had to be done, however, and a few men by the edge of the crowd, ran after more dry-goods boxes, and by reason of this "public-service" gained standing room in the inner circle after having delivered the fuel. Meanwhile the crowd jeered the dying man and uttered shocking comments suggestive of a cannibalistic spirit. Some danced and sang to testify to their enjoyment of the occasion.
http://www.americanlynching.com/infamous-old.html
@ The Pale Scot
I'm the fifth dentist because I don't recommend Trident to my patients who chew gum.
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | July 28, 2010 1:57 PM
Holy Fucking Shit.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 28, 2010 2:19 PM
Why would you lie about Dan Davis being lynched when he was merely burned to death? You must be some kind of liberal or progressive political activist.
Posted by: rob | July 28, 2010 2:40 PM
Her fierce devotion to the idea that government programs are the source of all good is not to be missed...
Oops, I missed it -- probably because the author of this toxic tripe didn't give us any examples of Sherrod actually saying anything close to "government programs are the source of all good."
The weak mind is like a microscope: it magnifies small things and can't handle big ones.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 28, 2010 2:41 PM
Apparently Emmet Till (a boy of 14, just a few years older than I) who was lynched in 1955 for whistling at a white woman, got off easy.
Two men were tried for the crime and acquitted after the jury deliberated for just over an hour. One member of the jury said that they'd have taken less time but they took a break to drink some pop.
Posted by: Pieter B | July 28, 2010 2:51 PM
Thisbe@20 and rob@22:
Thanks, that is a better description. The "cooked" part, as written, made it sound more deliberate than it really was, evoking images of being spitted and roasted, or possibly grilled. In other words, as if the fetus were being prepared for eating - thus the reference to blood libel. I didn't have any problems with the belly cutting (from the standpoint of plausibility), just the imagery of mock food preparation.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | July 28, 2010 2:59 PM
Based on the reference to blood libel, I rather figured your suspicions arose from something like that. Even clarified, it does have certain resemblances to blood libel – which in this case just shows how horrifying it actually was.
Posted by: rob | July 28, 2010 3:04 PM
Ha, Fifth Dentist, that's a hilarious 'nym. I always wondered, but like vanity plates, figured it was some long ago inside joke.
4 out of 5 doctors prefer Camels. The fifth would rather have a woman. Forgive me if this joke should be attributed, I have no idea where I heard it.
Posted by: Rob Monkey | July 28, 2010 3:04 PM
From: http://henriettavintondavis.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/black-women-who-were-lynched-in-america/
Mary Turner 1918 Eight Months Pregnant
Mobs lynched Mary Turner on May 17, 1918 in Lowndes County. Georgia because she vowed to have those responsible for killing her husband arrested. Her husband was arrested in connection with the shooting and killing Hampton Smith, a white farmer for whom the couple had worked, and wounding his wife. Sidney Johnson. a Black, apparently killed Smith because he was tired of the farmer’s abuse. Unable to find Johnson. the killers lynched eight other Blacks Including Hayes Turner and his wife Mary. The mob hanged Mary by her feet, poured gasoline and oil on her and set fire to her body. One white man sliced her open and Mrs. Turner’s baby tumbled to the ground with a “little cry” and the mob stomped the baby to death and sprayed bullets into Mary Turner. (NAACP: Thirty Years of Lynching in the U.S. 1889-1918 )
This is followed by the story of the lynching of two other women who were pregnant.
Of course, these are accounts compiled by the NAACP, and you know how racist that group is ...
Posted by: Slaughter | July 28, 2010 3:15 PM
"Forgive me if this joke should be attributed...."
God, told to Adam, 4004 BC.
Posted by: Coragyps | July 28, 2010 3:16 PM
The point here is to never, ever, take anything presented by these people at face value.
The original video was edited to create an impression diametrically opposed to what was actually going on. Which is okay. The problem was not the edited video but the acceptance of that video as something other than an oddity and entertainment. The acceptance of that edited video as a fair representation of an actual situation.
Further discussion of this just repeats the same mistake. Lord should not be taken seriously. His argument is entirely specious. His smear is simply the continuation of the original attack.
The problem is not a question of fact versus fallacy. It is simply that one side has no respect for truth and reality. For them it is all just sophistry to push an agenda. In this case to wound the other side by smearing Sherrod and to show that hey can do it with impunity. It also serves to keep people busy answering this nonsense when other issues are far more worthy of news cycles.
There is no point arguing that points. Sure, it fills blog pages and news cycles, and that may be good enough if that is your job and/or main objective, but there are larger issues that are immediately important. Issues that desperately need highlighting and exploration.
Issues that have always gone one way. That serve the powers that be to remain in the dark.
Posted by: Art | July 28, 2010 3:16 PM
Responding to John Tabin's reply, cited by Ed above, one commenter forwards this reply from Jeffrey Lord in response to a request for correction:
"Kimberly...
Thanks for the definition. It is the one I use.
First, there were 3 officers in the case. Three is not a mob, a mob being a "large crowd." So, no mob, No mob action. The Supreme Court ruled the three officers acted under "color of law." Which is to say, with legal authority, not without.
Thus: no mob, no mob action. Legal authority. Which means: no lynching. Precisely as you have accurately noted.
Thanks for taking the time.
Jeff Lord"
To which the commenter replied: "Seriously?"
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 28, 2010 3:40 PM
I am sickened by how diabolical people have been and still continue to be. Had Lord lived in the era of the aforementioned lynchings, I'm sure he would have found a way to write off those deeds, too. What an utter coward.
I'm sure all these hatemongers went to church the next day and thought themselves pious; but that's just my own prejudice.
Posted by: mishcakes | July 28, 2010 3:55 PM
Is there a phrase greater than WTF? WTF doesn't quite cut it in this case.
Posted by: Owen | July 28, 2010 4:27 PM
mishcakes, I suspect Mr Lord would have been one of the mob.
Posted by: bybelknap | July 28, 2010 4:49 PM
And if not, I think I know exactly what he would have said: "Well, he must have done something wrong, right? Or else they wouldn't have killed him. Yeah. He must have done something."
As I said in a comment at the Spectator, Jeffrey Lord is a racist shit.
Posted by: Kyorosuke | July 28, 2010 5:09 PM
South Carolina is one of, I think, only four or five states that has a lynch law, and maybe now the only one that uses it regularly. I remember it was a favorite gang-fighting tool of Reuben Greenberg, Charleston's black Jewish police chief.
There was a recent movement to change the word "lynching" to something like "mob violence," but I don't know what became of that. At least as of last year, here's what our lynch law said:
Posted by: JuliaL | July 28, 2010 6:04 PM
Paen "At least they aren't claiming that the lynchings never happened.At least not yet."
The lynchings did happen, but it was liberals who did it. They were against Civil Rights, you see, being a part of the Democratic Party and all. To cover their guilt, they're making the foolish mistake of standing for so-called "gay rights" now. They probably say that they were for Universal Suffrage now, too.
Raging Bee "Oops, I missed it -- probably because the author of this toxic tripe didn't give us any examples of Sherrod actually saying anything close to 'government programs are the source of all good.'"
Everybody knows that, by definition*, all liberals are Governmental Utopians. We know this because conservatives believe that "government isn't the solution, it's the problem", and liberals are the opposite of conservatives. And don't try to muddy the waters with your so-called "shades of gray"!
* Liberal:
1. Worshiper of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc (all of which were liberals as well).
2. Lover of Government, especially when that government buys GM, Nationalizes Wall Street or steals from the rich to "help" the poor, rather than taking from the poor what they would only spend on drugs, alcohol and housing anyways and permanently loaning that money to the rich to invest wisely in drugs, alcohol and housing.
3. A bad or evil person (antonym; conservative).
4. A person who stands for things conservatives have been told by their betters not to like.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 28, 2010 6:41 PM
Jeff Lord is alone outside in public.
Two black ben approach him.
Are they a mob J.L.? Or you cool with it?
Posted by: debaser | July 28, 2010 6:41 PM
Curse you scienceblogs!
Two black men, was what I meant.
Posted by: debaser | July 28, 2010 6:43 PM
@ 41, 42
Maybe they were both named Ben? And black?
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | July 28, 2010 7:05 PM
Or maybe Uncle Ben? He sure freaked Tony Soprano out.
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | July 28, 2010 7:10 PM
What on earth has happened to the American intellectual right? Even American Spectator columns are now being written by the functionally illiterate.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | July 28, 2010 7:38 PM
It's a good thing you captured parts of Lord's article here, Ed. The link shows nothing but a blank white page. I suppose that admission of impropriety is some small consolation.
Posted by: Chris Winter | July 28, 2010 8:09 PM
Since there is no fucking GOD in heaven--and there is no hell--we must hope that some drunk driver or enraged CCW permittee either runs Lord over or ventilates his spleen.
I hope I'm not gonna be labelled as liberal of progressive political activist for having said this.
Posted by: democommie | July 28, 2010 9:37 PM
What hath Lee Atwater wrought?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 28, 2010 9:39 PM
Chris Winter states:
Ed's link continues to work for me. I saw Mr. Lord's email address at the bottom of the page and emailed him a link to this blog post in hopes of generating a response.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 28, 2010 9:50 PM
I went over to the Spectator web site to see how Mr. Lord was doing in his own defense.
The short answer is that he has clearly not heard of The First Law Of Holes. Every time he writes something in response to criticism, he either digs himself in deeper or (at best) simply engages in yet more semantic tap-dancing about the meaning of the word "lynching". Move over Bill Clinton, your reign as the king of semantic hair-splitting is over...
Mr. Lord's own bloviations merely confirm to me that he is an intellectually dishonest little shit.
Posted by: Graham Shevlin | July 28, 2010 9:58 PM
I also went over to the AmSpec website (after having read about this first from Radley Balko, whom Lord in his response refers to as "Boo").
I was very pleased with 1) how the only person seriously not eviscerating Lord was a crazy person dubbed "Oldfarte" who just posted the same youtube links over and over again, and 2) how generally worth reading the comments were.
I add the disclaimer "seriously" because there were several comments from "The Democratic Party" tongue-in-cheek encouraging him to ignore these naysayers and keep on fighting the good fight.
Funny stuff.
Posted by: Kris | July 28, 2010 11:26 PM
There's always OMGWTFBBQ. Though that hardly seems to cover it either. :-/
Posted by: KristinMH | July 29, 2010 1:38 AM
Re my comment post that I emailed Mr. Lord a link to Ed's blog post. I received a response which follows:
The link is to an interview of Mr. Lord by TPM that doesn't do the type of analysis Ed did revealing the absurdity and dishonesty of his argument with one exception. The TPM article does note that Mr. Lord is mistaken in claiming Ms. Sherrod lied when she claimed a lynching occurred. Unfortunately in its totality this article is a classic example of really bad journalism though the readers who commented aren't fooled.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 29, 2010 6:30 AM