Al Sharpton as Moral Compass?


By now, we all know about the inflammatory remarks made by Don Imus on his daily morning show in reference to the Rutgers women's basketball team. He referred to the women as "a rough bunch" and "nappy-headed hoes". Most of the country has been outraged, as well they should be. However, as is the case with many polarizing incidents, the issue quickly moves from recognition of the problem to the matter of what exactly should be done about it.

Of course, many a race peddler is all too happy on such an occasion to jump out in front of the publicity circus surrounding the issue in an attempt to appear relevant and to advance their own political or personal agenda. Often this leads to the further exploitation of the very group of people they pretend to represent. Such is the case with Mr. Al Sharpton.

As a parenthetical, let me state for the record that I will not refer to Mr. Sharpton as a reverend, as so many apparently misguided individuals do. In light of Mr. Sharpton's public record, I cannot imagine any body of believers or organization of churches that would allow him to be considered a spiritual leader in any role whatsoever, much less that of a reverend; nor do I know of any such body which has positioned Mr. Sharpton in such a role. I do know that, as a child, and in his young adulthood, Sharpton did preach in his local church. However, in his adult life, Mr. Sharpton has turned from preaching about love and salvation to spewing hatred and condemnation. To continue to refer to him in this manner is to ignore the obvious to the point of absurdity.

Mr. Sharpton quickly jumped into the media spotlight by calling for Imus' firing on his own radio show and in the media. Imus later appeared for an interview on Sharpton's show to discuss the matter.

None of this is to say that Mr. Imus was without fault. Quite the contrary. People everywhere should be insulted, indignant and offended. However, the problem with Sharpton is two-fold.

First, is his characterization of Mr. Imus' remarks as racial. Mr. Imus referred to the entire team in his remarks. While the team is made up predominantly of black players, the team also has two white members. Is Mr. Sharpton insinuating that they should not be insulted simply because they are white? Was the comment any less offensive towards them than to the other players?

If Mr. Sharpton insists on labeling the remarks as racist, it is he that places the insult squarely upon the black players on the team, not Mr. Imus. Imus insulted the entire team, the white members included.

Also, Mr. Sharpton completely ignores the obvious sexism in the quotes. The word 'hoe' that Imus used to describe these young ladies is a thinly disguised slang term for the word 'whore'. Surely this reference demeans women specifically more than any particular race. Perhaps defending women against sexism is not nearly as conducive to his goals as is race-based antagonism.

Furthermore, Sharpton's contention that individuals should not be able to use public airwaves to insult others simply holds no water. The airwaves on which Mr. Imus broadcasts are bought and sold for very handsome sums of money. With that money, comes a license to broadcast and the right to air programming as the operating entity sees fit, provided specific curse words are not used on the air. Mr. Imus' comments did not violate any such regulations.

The reaction of the listening audience and advertisers to Imus' comments may lead his employers to decide that airing his program is no longer in their best interests. He may be fired or removed from the air because of such concerns. However, to say that he should somehow be forced off of the air solely in the name of the public good, or because he is using public airwaves is simply nonsense. It leads one to wonder how Mr. Sharpton can attempt to make a career in broadcasting with such limited knowledge of how the industry actually works.

I have but one final note on this point. Why do Mr. Sharpton and others assume that, without their prodding, these acts will go unnoticed and uncondemned by the public? They, as their position as race peddler suggests, seem to have lost all faith in humanity. They are out of touch with reality, or, at least, refuse to acknowledge it.

The great majority of people do despise these types of slurs and insults. Americans do feel sympathy towards their fellow human beings. This type of rhetoric is not acceptable to the majority of the population. Mr. Sharpton insults the black community in particular, and Americans in general, by assuming that we need him or anybody else to let us know when we should be offended and when we should feel hurt and disgusted by the actions of others. Is Mr. Sharpton worried that we will not recognize such people for as the bigots and chauvinists that they are, or is he more worried that we will recognize him for what he is?

I personally believe that people like Imus who are willing to proclaim their ignorance to the world should be the least of our worries. However, they are the easiest targets for those seeking to capitalize in the race market. Those who harbor their hatred in secret are much more dangerous, but much more difficult to uncover and confront. Perhaps Mr. Sharpton does not have the bona fides or courage to pursue the issues which are undoubtedly more important to his community than harmless idiots blabbering away on the radio. Perhaps he is just afraid to step into a role of true leadership, or, perhaps, he has no interest in it at all.

The second apprehension I have with Mr. Sharpton leading the charge on this issue concerns his own record in this same area. A quick recollection of Mr. Sharpton's public activism reveals some flaws in his character that are at least as serious, if not more so, as the problems he pretends to address so often in the national media.

Many may still remember the case of Tawana Brawley, a 15 year old African American female who was championed by Mr. Sharpton after she accused three white officers of raping and assaulting her in 1987. Mr. Sharpton even went so far as to accuse the lead prosecutor on the case, Steven Pagones, of being a participant in the assault, calling him a rapist and a racist.

As it turned out, the whole thing was made up. Neither the Brawley family, city police, or the grand jury could turn up one piece of evidence to prove a rape had ever occurred. The case was dismissed and Mr. Sharpton was later ordered to pay $345,000 to Mr. Pagones for making defamatory statements about him. A lawyer Sharpton had hired to handle the case, Alton H. Maddox, was also found guilty of making defamatory statements about Mr. Pagones, and was later disbarred.

During the time, New York governor Mario Cuomo urged Sharpton and members of Bradley's legal team to meet with the state Attorney General at the time, Robert Abrams. Mr. Sharpton responded by saying that cooperating with Abrams, who is Jewish, would be "like sitting down with Mr. Hitler."

Some may also remember Mr. Sharpton's involvement in the Crown Heights riots in 1991. A young boy of African descent, Gavin Cato, was killed when he was struck by a vehicle traveling in the motorcade of a Hasidic Jewish rabbi. A private ambulance driven by a man of Hasidic descent was ordered by police to remove the driver of the vehicle. Another ambulance arrived moments later to treat Cato and his sister who was also struck by the vehicle, but survived.

Angered by what they perceived as preferential treatment for the Jewish driver,black residents in the Crown Heights are rioted for four days, destroying Jewish homes and businesses. Amidst the rioting, a Jewish man named Yankel Rosenbaum was killed by a crowd shouting "Kill the Jew!"

Contrary to the image he tries to project, Mr. Sharpton did not act as a mediator, helping to ease tensions between races. In fact, Mr. Sharpton seemed rather bent on inciting more violence, making statements referring to Hasidic Jews as "diamond merchants" at the young boy's funeral, and leading marchers trough the streets chanting "No justice, no peace!" Sharpton also referred to blacks who opposed his inflammatory style during the time as "yellow niggers".

Let us not forget the incident in 1995 at Freddie's Fashion Mart. A group led by Mr. Sharpton organized a boycott of the Jewish-owned store after the owners had raised rent for a black sub-tenant. During the boycott, Mr. Sharpton commented that the black community should not sit back and allow a "white interloper to expand his business." The boycott eventually led to rioting and looting of the store, during which four employees were shot and killed. The store later was burned to the ground, killing seven more employees.
When Mr. Sharpton was confronted about his role in the rioting, he denied being present. However, he later was forced to recant this denial after video surveillance taken from the store's security system showed Sharpton on the premises just minutes before the store was burned to the ground.

Finally, many may recall the video captured by FBI surveillance cameras in 1983 that aired on HBO's Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel in 2002. The footage showed Sharpton agreeing to launder cocaine money in a Mob-related deal set up by pal Don King. Mr. Sharpton unsuccessfully sued the network claiming the footage had been altered.

All of this having been said, I have no interest in disparaging Mr. Sharpton's character, or condemning him personally. I believe that God can restore individuals in love, no matter what their past has been. However, God's love for us does not change the fact that our actions have consequences. My point here is that, as a consequence of Mr. Sharpton's public actions, he should have long ago ceased to have any credibility in the position of a moral compass for the black community or for Americans in general.

Furthermore, Mr. Sharpton has never apologized to Mr. Pagones, the Jewish community, or any other party his actions have so negatively affected. In fact, he seems still heavily involved in a particular brand of activism that precipitates racial hatred rather than working to eliminate it. The tragedy is that his actions reignite hatreds and misconceptions that have all but dissipated, ultimately causing more hurt for the very people he looks to for his support and credibility-the black community.

But, racemongers like Sharpton must do this to survive. You see, America has already rejected him on so many levels, this is the last foothold he has.

America never viewed Sharpton as a spiritual leader. Somewhere along the way, Mr. Sharpton veered off the path to evangelical greatness that seemed so apparent after he was personally ordained into the ministry by the prominent black minister Bishop F. D. Washington in 1964 at the age of 10. He had no power left in that punch by the time he reached the public spotlight.

America has soundly rejected every attempt Mr. Sharpton has mounted in the political arena as well. In the 2004 national primaries of the Democrat party, Mr. Sharpton received only nine percent of the vote in South Carolina, a state in which 40 percent of the Democratic electorate is black. Other attempts at public office have resulted in similar results.

The majority of mainstream America has rejected Sharpton's attempts at leadership in the areas of race and morality as well. However, Mr. Sharpton, and others like him, still seem to find the relevance they so desperately crave in that small segment of the population who refuse to let racial tensions die and allow real healing to begin.

He still is hailed as a leader by those who believe that they are perpetual victims of society. Every incident the racemongers crow about is another in a long line of exploitations and victimization that they have suffered. As long as they suffer under such conditions, they may still be able to garner our sympathy, our charity, or-better yet-a government hand-out.

Maybe one day they, and Mr. Sharpton's cohorts, will abandon the strategies of race peddling and hatred for the more constructive work of healing and cooperation between men and women of all backgrounds. Perhaps at the thought of being ignored entirely, a hate-spewing racemonger like Mr. Sharpton might become relevant once again by abandoning the tactics and rhetoric he has hung on to for so long and doing some real good for mankind.

Of course he may insist on maintaining his current strategies and fall into anonymity altogether. Then, after all, I guess that wouldn't be so bad either.

Gouged by Peter Cottontail

I was gouged over the weekend. No, I'm not talking about 'mother-in-law-gouging-my-eyes-out' gouging. I'm talking about 'evil-merchant-overcharging-because-they-have-you-over-the-barrel' gouging. Let me explain.

In the spirit of celebrating Easter, and in hopes of providing a little enjoyment by way of an egg hunt for my five year old son (as well as to score a few brownie points with my wife), I joined the throng of shoppers on the seasonal Easter aisle at the local super discount store in search of Easter candy this past Friday evening. Of course, the manufacturers of the candy and store management had collaborated to make every possible form of delectable goodness imaginable related to the Easter holiday available in the aisles of that store at that precise time. After all, they knew their markets, and knew that 99% of people planning to have an Easter celebration would be planning their events to coincide with the weekend on the calendar in which Easter falls. Some people may have their Easter-egg hunts in the middle of July, but I suspect these folks would represent a very small fraction of all Easter celebrants.

Alas, after much pondering, and not a little jockeying for position in the aisle, I selected a few bags of delicious confections guaranteed to have my son bouncing off the walls for hours. I would have liked to have gotten the goodies for free, but two dollars for a bag of chocolate covered malt eggs (in August they are referred to as malt balls, I believe) seemed a reasonable price to pay, considering the benefits of putting on the egg hunt and the goodwill it would foster in the family. So I paid the cashier and went happily on my way. Unfortunately, that happiness wouldn't last very long.

You see Monday morning I happened to be back in the same store, on the same aisle again, but this time I was shopping for myself. It seems egg-shaped, chocolate covered malt balls are particularly addicting to my taste buds. I had exhausted a seemingly endless supply over the weekend and had to have more. Luckily, I knew right where to find them. But would there be any left after the candy-craving Easter crowd had worked over the candy aisle?

Not only were there some left over, but, in fact, there were still plenty to choose from. Feeling relieved, I grabbed for a bag. Just as I reached for it, however, a big red sticker on the package caught my eye. The price had been reduced. The package that had cost me two dollars only hours earlier was now available for only 50 cents. Apparently, the store was not confident that their other customers would come back in the same fervor for their Easter-related wares as I had. In fact, it seemed perhaps they were quite worried that they would not be able to sell the Easter-related items at all and would be forced to take a complete loss on the left-over inventory. In order to avoid this prospect, they had lowered the price of my candy by more than 75 percent in hopes that others who did not share my addiction might be drawn in by the lower prices and take the inventory off of their hands. I helped them out in this area by slipping four of the now-cheaper bags of candy into my cart.

A quick look around the aisle revealed a similar pricing strategy on almost every item related to the holiday. I was horrified. Marshmallow bunnies that had sold for 25 cents a piece were now available in counts of 20 for one dollar. Caramel-filled chocolate eggs previously offered for 97 cents were now available for a dime. What outrage! I had been victimized!

If the producers and sellers of my candy were now able to accept such low prices without the fear of going out of business, then it was only reasonable to assume that I had been taken advantage of for the remainder of the price that I paid. This was simply extra money that the evil candy manufacturers had charged me because they knew that I would pay it for fear of disappointing my son and losing the aforementioned brownie points with my wife. Simply put, they had taken advantage of me at my most vulnerable moment. I had come to them when I needed their product most, and they had exploited me.

I started to think about it. It seemed that last winter I had been similarly gouged on a box of hearts with little notes written on them. These boxes of hearts always seem to magically appear everywhere around February 14th of each year. I recalled even further back, and I remembered being gouged on some lights to string up around my house around the 3rd week of December last year. Around one Thursday in November I had been terribly gouged on the price of a Turkey. And the July 4th weekend last summer, I was gouged on the price of a gallon of gasoline.

I decided to talk all this gouging over with my coworkers in the breakroom one morning this week. When I mentioned the high price of gasoline we could all expect this summer, the mere mention of the subject touched off a lively debate. People wanted to know how the oil companies could get away with such a thing and what the government could do to remedy the situation. A host of suggestions were put forth on how to solve the problem. However, the conversation was much less animated when I mentioned the high prices of Easter candy I had encountered over the weekend. So I asked them, and now I ask the reader: Is there any discernible difference in what the two industries are doing? Of course not.

The reality is that Easter eggs are more expensive around Easter because that is precisely when demand is highest for them. In turn, when demand decreases (like the Monday after Easter) the amount that candy producers charge for their products decreases as well. The same principle applies to Valentines hearts, Christmas lights, Thanksgiving turkeys and, yes, summer gasoline.

Summer brings about a level of demand for gasoline that is not seen the year round. Kids are out of school. Trips to Granma's house are made in the summer that are not made during the winter. Vacations are taken to sun-bathed theme parks that are not even in operation during the winter months. More gas is needed for automobiles making long, cross-country trips. More jet fuel is needed for planes taking vacationers to exotic locations.

Mowers, edgers and blowers are fired up during the summer months that lie dormant at other times of the year. Boats are out on the water that stay covered up during the winter. RV's are out on the road that stay parked at other times. Any person with the smallest capacity of common sense knows that we consume more gasoline in the summer than at any other time during the year, and organizations such as AAA back those facts up with mounds of statistics.

However, we somehow refuse to let our minds believe that an increase in demand for this product will or should lead to the same results as an increase in demand for any other product. The price of gasoline will necessarily go up in the summer because of the decrease in demand for the product at that time. It is not gouging any more than expensive candy is at Easter time or expensive house lights are at Christmas time.

The truth is that all producers and sellers of products try to position their products in front of their customers at the time when it is most in demand because that is precisely the time they can make the most money. In fact, without the prospect of these profits, sellers would have no incentive whatsoever to even supply their products in the first place. In fact, it may be that higher profits in one part of the year make up for losses or smaller than normal profits in another part of the year.

In the particular case of gas, we seem to forget that we can avoid the effects of the higher prices of the summer months by staying home more and consuming less gas during these months. However, few of us are willing to take such drastic measures.

Could it possibly be that this is how free markets are supposed to work? High prices in times of demand discourage overbuying that creates shortages. Low prices encourage buying in times of surplus. And profits (high or low) encourage producers to match their supply to the demand of consumers. I believe it is.

So the next time you see gasoline at it's highest price at just about the time you are filling up to go on vacation, think twice before you accuse the oil man of gouging you. Unless you're willing to go after the Easter Bunny as well.