26 Comments - Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 7:28 am: I am REALLY uncomfortable with the rationalization that if someone uses a racial epitaph, that person’s beef can be with “the individual”, and might not be with the racial minorities in general. Zorn & Rich - you guys tolerating this is unacceptable. You are opening the door to allowing racial epitaph to be used against individuals, and merely writing them off as “bizarre tirades”. Dangerous ground, gang. Please, please, please….rethink this. I know Zorn is buddies with Sherman, but we cannot allow the media (especially the Chicago Tribune) to sanction such hatred. The ONLY acceptable course of action here is to unconditionally condemn Sherman, and other people motivated by such racial hatred. If the Green Party does not kick Sherman out for this outrage, I will seriously question their ability to hold any political office. And please do not tell me to ‘lighten up’. I feel very strongly about this issue. Thank you. - downhereforyears - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 7:35 am: Like I said last week on this blog….he loves the attention….lets let him fade into oblivion where he belongs…not because of his beliefs….but because he is just an unhappy, ignorant soul with nothing better to do.. Mr.Sherman you have had your 15 minutes! - Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 7:39 am: Is this the best leader that the Green Party and atheists can find? Sad, sad, sad. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 7:41 am: ===Zorn & Rich - you guys tolerating this is unacceptable.=== I won’t speak for Eric, but I haven’t given him a pass on anything. Not sure what you’re talking about. - Believer - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 8:14 am: Sherman is a fool for any number of reasons, to me in this case for his “group” collectivist ideology, as in “her group” versus “my group”, immediately lumping all blacks together into one monolithic group and all of “his group” together into one homogeneous group, as if they all think and act alike, and share the same preferences. It’s collectivist ideology at its worst. That said, criticism for using the term “Negro” is more problematic. Yes, it is dated and has in many areas fallen into disuse, but to my knowledge is not an insult. Many words in the Oxford English dictionary fit this criteria, but are not stricken from th English language. But I’ll take any reasonable excuse to laugh at the buy. - Ghost - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 8:38 am: This is the big problem most have with thinking of the green party seriously, too many fringe canidates. Every party has its share of persons everyone wishes was not in the party, but the greens have such a small number of canidates to begin with they come across as having a higher percentage of questionable canidates. This guy sounds more like a member of the KKK pushing white power. I am convinced that a government with sherman in it is one that will target minorities because they are minorities. Speaking in a derogotory way based upon sterotypes made based upon a discrminatory attitude is hardly the vehicle upon which to have a real discssion. The Greens need to kick this guy out or start wearing their white hoods on the campaign trail. - Wumpus - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 9:00 am: The problem is that Davis identifies her self as an AA legislator (to Anon, the pirst response). As for Olberman, he is silly and childish. Still not Squidishi? - Anonymous Green - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 9:14 am: As someone who helped and worked with the Green Party in 2006, I must say that this latest twist in this story is extremely unfortunate. After feeling spurned given Mr. Sherman’s experience with Rep. Davis, he chose to “push back” and used some terribly chosen words, and behind those words are some inherently horrid ideas. While none of this is criminal, it is certainly not the kind of discourse that anyone seeking public office should pursue. (Similarly, this could be said of the dismissive nature of Rep. Davis’ comments, as pertaining to atheists, but at least she had the proper sense to realize she went to far and apologized for her comments.) The Greens ought to cut this guy loose. From what I understand, they have had considerable progress in recruiting candidates to run for office this election cycle, but their fledgling party would be far better served by purging him, rather than keeping him in their ranks as a candidate. Considering how this started, Mr. Sherman looked to be the victim, but the manner in which he chose to fight back illustrates either an inability to keep a cool head, or underlying attitudes not in line with his party’s ethos which he expressed on a public medium. The argument he should have made would be about how our public representatives should not have the right to question or condemn the privately-held beliefs of the citizens whom they represent. Instead, he decided to make the argument that he felt discriminated against, and that he seemed to view it as an act of great temerity that this discrimination was coming from an African-American. In a foolish attempt to bolster his claim, he brought the legislator’s race into the argument, and in doing so, publicly discredited himself in a horrible fashion. - Rob_N - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 9:17 am: Rich writes, “The Green Party folks have claimed that they’ve worked hard to make sure they have candidates which reflect their party’s values. This is their first test. Rich Whitney apparently stepped up to the plate once, but Sherman seems to have since ignored his advice after once briefly agreeing with him. Let’s see if Whitney or somebody else in the Greens does so again.” …Hmmm, I wonder why Mr. Sherman felt the cold shoulder from Dems… His atheism has nothing to do with his abrasive personality, and vice versa. And now the Greens have seen fit, out of political expediency, to give his abrasive personality a platform for the next 6 1/2 months (or more). Who’s next, Libertarians? I think Scott Bludorn moved to New Hampshire for a bit (or maybe he’s back already)…. - Greg - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 9:18 am: I think Anon 7:28 is mis-reading Zorn’s comment about legislator versus black legislator. He/she is believing to be a defense what is actually far from it. So rather than lighten up, the commenter probably ought to re-read the post. The coverage has hardly been “tolerant.” - Napoleon has left the building - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 9:44 am: I’m with YDD (again). Sherman has done a world of dis-service for the Greens and for atheists in general. Now the only atheist that most people can name, and maybe the only Green they can think of is out there touting his use of a word that most of us consider racist. He’s gone from being a guy with different beliefs who fights for his rights to a complete nut who is a bigot in 10 days. That wasn’t a far fall for him. Way to go Greens! That’s about five steps backward for your party. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 9:45 am: I’m certain that Sherman is lying when he says he did not know that the term negro is offensive. I don’t understand why the Greens recruited him in the first place. What values does he represent? - No Peotone Airport - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 9:57 am: “Sherman responds today on his website… Go read the whole thing if you have the stomach.” I tried reading Sherman’s response and found that I, in fact, DID NOT have the stomach to read the whole thing. Now I’m curious… did anybody? - Pat Collins - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 10:16 am: Hey, isn’t “consensus” a part of the Green way of doing things? And so, its not like Rob S won a primary, a BUNCH of Greens thought it a good idea that he be their guy. So they just can’t dump him quickly, they need to agree on it….. - Greg - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 10:18 am: It wasn’t my stomach that interfered with my reading of Sherman’s post…it’s that the guy’s writing is terrible. I mean, he sets out to write what he knows will receive attention, and comes up with nuggets like “Dr. King was my # 1 hero”. Is this Borat? He also labels “black” and “African-American” euphemisms. Now, I object to “African-American” occasionaly, but calling it a “euphemism” I do not. While it may fit the technical definition, the word is more appropriately used to describe nouns like “collateral damage,” not races. I suppose I shouldn’t quote his rambling, awfully-constructed sentences, or else I’d be pasting the entire piece. - RMW Stanford - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 10:37 am: I dont know Mr. Sherman so I have no idea if he is a racist or not or choose his words poorly while speaking out of anger. Either way he has soon very poor judgment and the more attention that he get out of it the more damage it will do to the Illinois Green party, they should cut get rid him. - Team Sleep - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 10:52 am: What does Mr. Sherman hope to accomplish with his rhetoric? Does he want a continual tit-for-tat with the black members of the GA? He should have let the matter drop. Now he looks like a doofus. - Mountain Man - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 11:55 am: Well, team sleep, if it looks like a doofus, walks like a doofus and sounds like a doofus…. You’d have to be a doofus to not know that the word “Negro” is a racially charged word. - Sango Dem - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 12:15 pm: Does Whitney think Vic Roberts represents Green Party values? The guy is a nutty conspiracy theorist. Just ask him what he thinks about the Federal Reserve. - South Side Mike - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 12:15 pm: About the only thing he didn’t say (though he indirectly did by referencing his phone call to his “friend”), was “I know Negroes. I like Negroes. Negroes are some of my closest friends.” - Say WHAT? - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 1:45 pm: Last week I defended Mr. Sherman’s rights. This week he comes off as ignorant, and needs to be ignored like a naughty child throwing a temper tantrum. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Rep. Davis has apologized for her comments. NOT very statesmanlike of Mr. Sherman. Its always good to see what someone is made out of BEFORE casting a vote. HeeHaw - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 1:46 pm: Where’s Squid today? Hmmm - Trail Runner - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 8:58 pm: Who really cares what Keith Olberman thinks anyway. He was a groundbreaking ESPN anchor, but a simplistic news anchor. - Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Apr 15, 08 @ 9:01 pm: Rich-have you seen this dude’s truck? It’s kinda like a modern version of the the one that old huckster Mr. Haney had on Petticoat Junction. You know, with the scam of the week on old windowshades. Sherman’s rig is a little fancier and looks like he can live, campaign, broadcast, book travel, plan vacations, and do light hauling (up to 6 pallets!) all at the same time! I just don’t see how a ride like that is very Green, though. - T.J. - Wednesday, Apr 16, 08 @ 8:13 pm: There is a difference between “epitaph” and “epithet,” correct? Pingback Ill Reviewers earn their dunce caps « Illinois Reason - Wednesday, Apr 23, 08 @ 5:12 pm: […] John “Poopy Head” Ruskin compares a journalist — Rich Miller — who covers Springfield and other Illinois political matters to Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Why? Because Miller posted a few facts that put the lie to the spin being promoted by a comrade of Ruskin’s. In his role as a reporter, Miller has gone after Dems, GOPs and even Greens with equal aplomb when they fib, flop or go flakey, as Sen. Steve Rauschenberger has been doing of late in his anti-Obama zeal. This isn’t the first time the pseudonymous Ruskin has flailed around spewing crap instead of keeping his bizarre inanities to himself… (What’s that? There’s a financial stake for the denizens of Illinois Review to prop up the head of the United Republican Fund, an organization that so many of them also help operate? Go figure…) […] Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.