In the ‘Hillary plays race card’ debate, several mentions are made that Rev. Sharpton has made inflammatory and hateful statements against the Asian and Jewish communities in NY. Some of these acts can be tied to acts of violence against these groups. However, Mr. Rocker also made equally bad comments against Asian and other minority groups in NYC, and the world wants his head on a spike.
What’s the difference between the two? They are both racists, right? They are both wrong, yes? Given that, why hasn’t the media torn the Reverend a new one?
They say the Lord loves drunks, fools and little children.
Two out of three ain’t bad.
I think it’s mostly 'cus Sharpton’s idiocy is old news already. It’s like writing an article complaining that the KKK are racists. “Duh!” would be the general response.
Well, then what gives with New Yorkers? If one of their own degrades them, sets fire to their stores, all that kind of good stuff, it’s okay, but if a silly relief pitcher just mouths off once, he is to be run out of the country on a rail??
Is there a major inequality here, or what? It’s okay to be a preacher who hates asians in NY, but not ok to be a redneck who hates asians in NY?
They say the Lord loves drunks, fools and little children.
Two out of three ain’t bad.
Sharpton has been blasted in the press consistently. I cannot think of any national pundit who has ever defended his blatant use of racism for self-promotion. (There may be New York apologists for the guy, but I haven’t seen them.)
So where are you folks coming up with the idea that Rocker was subject to more abuse than Sharpton? As noted earlier, Rocker is recent; Sharpton is old news. Where were you when Sharpton was being savaged in the press during the Brawley fiasco? (Where were you last summer when every paper and magazine I read proclaimed that his loss of the slander/libel suit was a Good Thing?)
I’m not saying that one got more words written than the other, per se. What I’m trying to figure out is if Rocker is seen as more of a villian than Sharpton, even though Sharpton’s actions can be traced to violence and arson.
I guess what it boils down to is whether a white bigot gets more heat than a black bigot. Sure, the Rev got his share of press, but it isn’t something that I heard about in the corner bar, like I do with the Rocker issue.
They say the Lord loves drunks, fools and little children.
Two out of three ain’t bad.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a growing number of responsible political figures in NY, who while not apologists for his racism, are perfectly willing to ignore it. I was rather surprised today to read a column by former NYC Mayor Ed Koch, a fairly moderate Democrat, who criticised current Mayor Guiliani for criticising Hilary Clinton’s meeting with Sharpton. I was even more surprised to read that Koch himself had accompanied her to the meeting, along with several other mainstream politicians.
Sharpton has not repudiated his past statements, nor has he paid his victims the damages awarded them by the courts. I see no legitimate reason why he should suddenly become acceptable- yet it is unmistakably occurring.
The slander/libel I referred to was clearly (for those who actually read all the news, instead of just the parts Rush told them to) Sharpton’s loss in the lawsuit against him last summer. Sharpton has not been libelled in the press and I have never claimed he was.
Your issues with Hillary Clinton are outside this thread. (Although it has already been pointed out in the other thread that Sharpton has indicated an interest in the Senate and it is a political decision by Ms. Clinton to neutralize that threat to her campaign. Go ahead and hate her, but at least recognize political expediency for what it is.)
I think that Sharpton is scum. I would be quite happy to see Koch, Clinton, Dinkin, and everyone else bruise him with eleven-foot poles. If he has the ability to sway some significant portion of the electorate, I understand why they are dealing with him even if I don’t agree with them.
You claim that Clinton gives Sharpton credibility by meeting with him. I suspect that the reality is that he has (undeserved) credibility (or, at least, power) and that the only way to neutralize him is to meet with him.
In any event, this thread asked why Rocker is being pilloried more than Sharpton and I stand by my answer that he is not. Rocker was a two-week sensation and there was more discussion about whether he should have been condemned than there was as to whether his remarks were appropriate. He appeared more in the news (for those couple of weeks) simply because more white folks would talk about the unfair attacks on him in the news media. When the media has condemned Sharpton consistently over the last ten years, white folks just nodded their heads that he was evil and went on about their business.
I’d add one more thing to Tom’s comments: Sharpton is a public figure, but essentially “private”, in that you can easily enough avoid funding him, not listen, etc…
Rocker is a somewhat different case: what, are NY baseball fans not going to go to NY home games against the Braves ? Rocker is funded by baseball fans whether they like it or not, what with 5$ hot dogs, 25$ T-hsirts, TV revenue, etc…
This is NOT regarding whether one is worse than the other… or is treated worse than the other… just that I don’t think one can compare their respective “soapboxes”: one is almost “publicly-held”.
tom, Charlatan Sharpton has indicated an interest in EVERYTHING except the truth and anyone who meets with him is giving him legitimacy. Would Hillary meet with Rocker, or pose for a picture with him? Rocker and Charlatan are in the same racist boat. Remember that Herr Hitler was also a political expediency that people recognized.
tom
It was that reality that made it possible for tyrants to gain office. Sleep with dogs and awake with fleas.
tom
He is viewed as beyond the pale and out on the fringe, a black racist, and anyone that meets with him is appealing to his core of racists. You will notice that Guilani has not, and will not, meet with him. He will not stoop to meet with Rocker or Sharpton because he has principals and Hillary is a political whore.
The truth is generally seen, rarely heard. Gracian.
Rocker is treated more harshly by the New York media because there are so many Mets and Yankees fans in the New York media, and because during the playoffs and the World Series, Rocker did everything within his power to antagonize New York baseball fans. Rocker was loathed in New York long before he made his recently-published comments.
New York dominates the media world, and in New York, the Rocker story sells papers. If he played for, say, the Texas Rangers, the entire mess would have been forgotten by now.
[disclaimer]I do not advocate or support any of the bigoted remarks made by John Rocker – or by Al Sharpton, for that matter.[/disclaimer]
“Every time you think, you weaken the nation!” --M. Howard
Not that I’m trying to defend Rocker’s BS, but I think it’s a little blown out of proportion. It really bugs me when I read that some NFL player has been arrested for beating his wife and it ends up on page 16 of the sports section, and everyone forgets about it 10 seconds after it happens. No reprimands from the league, no nothing.
If you’ve ever lived in the South, you’d have heard stuff 10 times worse than what Rocker said EVERY DAMN DAY! It’s really sick. He’s just another mindless good 'ol boy. Until I see him rolling down the highway in a truck picking off motorcyclists (a la Easy Rider), I’m going to consider Warren Moon The Wife Beater to be a much greater threat to society than Rocker The Inbred Budweiser-Swiller.
Sharpie Sharpton, the black racist buffoon, is now leading a demonstration in the States Capital, Albany, against four white cops that accidently shot a black man in the Bronx. The case was granted a change of venue to avoid this type of thing but now the Charlatan has traveled to Albany with his stooges to pollute the proceedings by yelling and chanting outside the courthouse.
The killing of the black man was an awful, tragic mistake but it is clear from media accounts that the man acted suspiciously, late at night, while the police hunted a rapist whose description this man matched very closely.
Anyway, it is a jury question and not one to be tried in the streets, where Sharpie does all his worst work.
To handle yourself, use your head. To handle others, use your heart. unknown