Prometheus 6

Good point, P6.  And some of the comments following that nonsense were off the chart.  Once again, some so-called liberal/progressives want us to think in a certain way...

Here's the question. Are the words "Sharpton" and "the black community" synonymous? Of course black people have the right to question the candidates on whatever means they see fit. And Sharpton is a part of this community.

But he and the black community are not equivalent. Media pundits treat people like Sharpton and Jackson as equivalents when it suits their purposes. And being put in that situation always suits Sharpton and Jackson because it grants them resources they wouldn't have.

Whenever I read the comments Sharpton has about Obama I often see Sharpton making this link. He did the same thing when Ford was the next "it" guy....equating personal respect ("he shows me respect") with respect for black people.

If Obama were a woman I'd swear I was seeing 1972 (when Chisolm ran) revisited. 

Media pundits treat people like Sharpton and Jackson as equivalents when it suits their purposes.

They treat any and all Black folks as interchangeable. Ms. Huffington conflates Al Sharpton with Stanley Crouch!

And on this question what is the difference? For Crouch, Obama isn't black enough. For Sharpton, Obama isn't...what?

Whenever I read the comments Sharpton has about Obama I often see Sharpton making this link. He did the same thing when Ford was the next "it" guy....equating personal respect ("he shows me respect") with respect for black people.

Sharpton has no $$$ and no actual constituents. Other than as a pure media construct, WTF are we to pretend that his opinion matters at all? He doesn't represent anyone's opinion other than his own, and that and a quarter will get you 7.5 minutes of time on a downtown parking meter...,

kspence:

For Sharpton, Obama isn't...what?

Using rhetoric that addresses Black concerns.

cnulan: 

Sharpton has no $$$ and no actual constituents. Other than as a pure media construct, WTF are we to pretend that his opinion matters at all?

It's Huffington's opinion that I'm pretending has weight.

what we need is a political ip trace of sufficient power and resolution such that we could always identify which loci of $$$ and interest these media constructs (Huffington/Sharpton) are serving as a proxy for...., 

For Sharpton, Obama isn't using rhetoric that addresses HIS concerns. So I've seen him focus on tort reform (Obama voted for it...but so did Clinton), and Lieberman (Obama supported him...but so did Clinton). What else am I missing?

And let's say that Huffington has weight. So what?  

For Sharpton, Obama isn't using rhetoric that addresses HIS concerns. So I've seen him focus on tort reform (Obama voted for it...but so did Clinton), and Lieberman (Obama supported him...but so did Clinton). What else am I missing?

The fact that he has NOT differentiated himself from Clinton.

Can you give me a non-racial essentialist reason to choose him over Clinton? 

And let's say that Huffington has weight. So what?

By assuming Sharpton's tone is more important the substance of what he says, she misleads. She lends her weight to a patent falsehood and influences people to "reason" the same way.

She lends her weight to a patent falsehood and influences people to "reason" the same way.

Given the primarily white sources of Sharpton's finances, and the primarily white constituency that put Obama in office, this isn't a theatrical flourish discursive exchange rooted in the interests of, or emanating from, Black folks in any event - now is it?

Both mislead.  Unless of course you tacitly accept Sharpton as your proxy - which I do not.

Can you give me a non-racial essentialist reason to choose him over Clinton? 

Clinton is too physically repellant to win a national election, her voice, diction, and delivery aren't up to the liminal demands of mass suasion..., 

Given the primarily white sources of Sharpton's finances

Didn't you say he HAS no money?

and the primarily white constituency that put Obama in office, this isn't a theatrical flourish discursive exchange rooted in the interests of, or emanating from, Black folks in any event - now is it?

No. It's a discussion of the example Arianna has kindly provided of customized conflation of random specifics in support of keeping herself in the public eye.

Unless of course you tacitly accept Sharpton as your proxy - which I do not.

I can see myself getting the same reaction, is all. I'm issuing a premptive diss. To that degree, I guess he's an adequate proxy.

Unless of course you tacitly accept Sharpton as your proxy - which I do not.

Does this require you to reflexively reject his every statement? 

No. It's a discussion of the example Arianna has kindly provided of customized conflation of random specifics in support of keeping herself in the public eye.

I see Ariana and Sharpton as being in the same gang. I place "Sharpton" in the sentence above and the meaning doesn't change at all.

I do not see Ariana treating say John Conyers, or some other black person with an identifiable constituency the same way. Perhaps she would treat you the same way she treated Sharpton. But if it were you instead of Sharpton, who would you be?

I see Ariana and Sharpton as being in the same gang.

I think they are in the same game but I wouldn't describe them as being in the same gang. Br. Al might want to belong to Ariana's Gang but that door is permanently closed to him for reasons of class and to a lesser extent color. Vernon Jordan, for example, can be part of Ariana's Gang if he desires but not Br. Al. 

Ariana and Br. Al are, though, part of the same game. She is granted much wider latitude and given more credibility than he is, however, due largely, in my opinion, to race or, more specifically, the ubiquitous, subtle and covert racism of whites. Br. Al receives a degree of respect from most black Americans, including those of us who would not follow him across the street, because we recognize that he will speak out and show up when other so-called black leaders are still measuring the upside and downside of their involvement. 

The space and place granted to Ariana Huffington in American politics and public policy issues represents, in my opinion, further proof of the decline of any genuine grassroots, populist political movements. Br. Al is often ridiculed for his quixotic run for the presidency but Ariana is almost never taken to task for promoting her ex-husband Michael's even more bizarre campaign for the U.S. Senate or her own ridiculous campaign for governor of California.   

I see Ariana and Sharpton as being in the same gang. I place "Sharpton" in the sentence above and the meaning doesn't change at all.

It's simply not the case that they are in the same gang. If you want to put Ms. Huffington in the same category as Horowitz (flip-flop for cash) you have an argument.

Sharpton has a constituency he accurately represents. He is a major local leader, in a major (some say the major) U.S. city, and is in basic agreement with the political position of the majority of Black communities here.

Br. Al receives a degree of respect from most black Americans, including those of us who would not follow him across the street, because we recognize that he will speak out and show up when other so-called black leaders are still measuring the upside and downside of their involvement.

The Bell family didn't give a thought to approaching anyone but the good Reverend.

Who goes to Arianna for representation?

And I'm still waiting for that non-racial essentialist reason to choose Obama over Clinton. The lack of cuteness is not a valid reason in my opinion. Neither is audacity.

Not saying there ain't one, just saying no one has given up one. 

Didn't you say he HAS no money?

by which I mean't he is neither a economic source or source of economic development, simply a self-indulgent sink for others funds. I think the conservative term for Sharpton would be poverty pimp. before you get your hackles up, I heard that term used by my extremely progressive elders and betters last night in a discussion of Sharpton, Jackson, and Morial because of some specific scandalous strong-arming the trio had done in the past 18 months.

No. It's a discussion of the example Arianna has kindly provided of customized conflation of random specifics in support of keeping herself in the public eye.

in the interest of being fair and balanced, EXACTLY the same charge could be leveled at the reverend, could it not?

I can see myself getting the same reaction, is all. I'm issuing a premptive diss. To that degree, I guess he's an adequate proxy.

Your independance and thus objectivity is not in question. The minute I see a big assed pajamas media badge on your real estate, is the minute I commence to questioning whether or not you have some clear platform heels and scandalous political lingerie in your closet too...,

I didn't deal with the Obama/Clinton vote because it doesn't matter to me. It is not essential to the argument we're dealing with. If you are interested, I think Edwards is the best candidate on paper out of the bunch.

Sharpton doesn't have a constituency. Based on what you note above, he has clients.

There is a significant difference. A constituency can vote a representative out. A constituency can examine the representatives actions, because they are transparent.

Sharpton and Huffington are both mouthpieces. Where they differ for the purposes of this conversation is not in Huffington's wealth, but in the fact that no one would call Huffington a representative.

I forgot to add that the questions and issues that Br. Al raises about Senator Obama's candidacy are entirely appropriate and legitimate. I strongly suspect that part of the impetus for Huffington's blast at Br. Al was generated by some rump or establishment elements of the black nouveau riche who see Senator Obama as the new standard bearer for black concerns and issues and wish that "old style" guys like Br. Al would go away forever.   

Does this require you to reflexively reject his every statement? 

IMHO, the rev. is a dirty parasite who has outlived his usefulness to Black folks while nevertheless gobbling up excessive quantities of air and light on the mass media stage. 

Ariana is also a big old ho.., and in the neverending drama on the point, I'd just as soon see her take this round of squabbling.  

 

I think the conservative term for Sharpton would be poverty pimp. before you get your hackles up, I heard that term used by my extremely progressive elders and betters last night in a discussion of Sharpton, Jackson, and Morial because of some specific scandalous strong-arming the trio had done in the past 18 months.

We dealt with that when Oliver came by and called Jackson a "shakedown artist." In summary, I'm not feeling the demonization of Black folks when they make standard political and economic moves. I don't care how progressively it's done.

in the interest of being fair and balanced

I have no such interest.

The minute I see a big assed pajamas media badge on your real estate, is the minute I commence to questioning whether or not you have some clear platform heels and scandalous political lingerie in your closet too...,

You are not Arianna Huffington. 

lack of cuteness

dood stuff them dogs in some sensible shoes and they still look like the tops of freshly baked loaves of bread - jes dayyum...,

pure meaness for meaness' sake aside, Clinton is simply too stultified and artificial to command public attention, respect, and support. She has no chance whatsoever of winning over friends and influencing people - and - she's as deeply and profoundly DLC centrist as it's humanly possible to be. IMOHO - an objective self-appraisal would indicate to her the futility of her effort. The Clinton's time has come and gone and they too need to stop gobbling up air and light within the democrat party.

There is a significant difference. A constituency can vote a representative out. A constituency can examine the representatives actions, because they are transparent.

In order to meet your frame, Sharpton has clients and followers.

Huffington has neither clients followers nor a constituency. Do you really not see not Sharpton as a political figure and force?

The only way you can see the two as playing the same game is by purposefully restricting your vision. If he doesn't fit the definitions you work within you really need to invent a word.

I'm not feeling the demonization of Black folks when they make standard political and economic moves.

standard?

who are the non-Black analogs to the rev?  my ignorance prevents me from being able to identify a single example of a mexican, asian, indian, or caucasian counterpart to the rev..., unless of course you think that pat robertson, jerry falwell, and others qualify as his analog.

those busters don't represent anything worth emulating except for the fact that they are actually the hubs of economic development and opportunity for their respective constituents..,   

it just dawned on me that even by this less than invidious comparison, Sharpton is an abject failure when measured on the "standard" model....,

Sharpton is an abject failure when measured on the "standard" model....,

i understand your point but I think that you're being a little too harsh. It may be true that the style of leadership offered by Br. Al is becoming or has become passe given the range of issues and problems black folks in American are facing but there are large numbers of committed and dedicated people who still welcome and are genuinely heartened to hear someone of Br. Al's stature speak out.

We cannot reach these people (and we need to reach them) if we condemn Br. Al in toto. I think he represents a transitional figure and a transitional phase in terms of African American leadership. I don't think that Harold Ford , Jr., Barack Obama or even Deval Patrick should be offered up as the next or newest models of black leaders. (I am aware that they don't suit your definition of black leaders either.) It is a fundamental error and an example of the wishful thinking of the mainstream media and white Americans to call them "post-Civil Rights leaders".

They want to represent constituencies greater and more varied than black Americans. I find no fault with their desires (Although I am certain that I disagree with Harold Ford, Jr., for example, on numerous policy issues.) but their ambitions do not neatly dovetail with the needs of the great mass of African Americans. We still need black partisans, and although Br. Al is not perfect, he is not entirely flawed either.

cnulan:

who are the non-Black analogs to the rev?

Which rev? 

 

it just dawned on me that even by this less than invidious comparison, Sharpton is an abject failure when measured on the "standard" model....,

Ah. Sharpton.

"Standard moves" refers to Jesse Jackson's negotiations.

We still need black partisans, and although Br. Al is not perfect, he is not entirely flawed either.

PT, I believe you've all heard me critique even the best intentioned Black partisans, the eminence gris' who gather together at NBUF conventions in their stylish dashikis and kente cloth etc..., but who are stuck in 1970's era technology and operations with the word reparations stuck on their lips...,

No one questions their sincerity, but no young people give them 10 seconds of their thought or time, because these old heads are clueless when it comes to economic development/empowerment. Like a bunch of harmless trekkies, these old-heads gather together to engage in harmless afrocentric escapism. But the kwestin that burns in my head is whether this escapism is in fact harmless?

Now then, when you take someone like the rev. - who has been granted (not elected, not constructed) a national media dais from which to pontificate - the only person who the rev. has managed to enrich is the rev himself!!!! His misleadership and misrepresentation is decidedly harmful.

It may be true that the style of leadership offered by Br. Al is becoming or has become passe given the range of issues and problems black folks in American are facing but there are large numbers of committed and dedicated people who still welcome and are genuinely heartened to hear someone of Br. Al's stature speak out.

It boils down to this for me, the focus on issues and events distracts far too many of us from the more substantive focus on projects and institution building. Falwell, Robertson, et al..., are demagogues who mislead and misrepresent all day long - but nevertheless manage to accomplish project and institution-building efforts. The rev has not even met this baseline measure of competency and should move the phuk out the way...,

Ah. So the agenda is to move the old guard out, and the Ariannas of the world are to be tolerated to move toward that end.

And when she says YOU are to rude too deserve a hearing? 

If Sharpton is so bankrupt, it will come out in the wash. But you guys are jocking Al and even Arianna admits he was right in what he said. You are not arguing against the substance of his statements. You are arguing against him. I literally do not care about that kind of argument.

His misleadership and misrepresentation is decidedly harmful.

On some issues this is undoubtedly true but on other matters he represents the kind of tonic that many black folks find reassuring and soothing. Sean Bell's family and his fiancee sought out Br. Al's involvement. I think we have to keep in mind that although we can readily see his flaws many, many working class and poor black people are so divorced from mainstream black leadership that they could not conceive of asking those leaders and their organizations for assistance during a crisis. Leaders like Br. Al may be opportunists but at least they are opportunists with some talent. 

Like I said...

"Standard moves" refers to Jesse Jackson's negotiations.

I only wish I could tell you about the latest theft of funds earmarked for Black partisan economic development. These old mouthpieces and hijackers have robbed and ruined more beneficial endeavors than anyone can give an accounting of, and what do the masses of Black folks have to show for it?

nada, zip, zilch, bupkis...., how can you on the one hand see that the NAACP is not an institutionally beneficial symbiont to Black partisan aims, and overlook the measurable and documentable way in which these individuals have not symbiotically advanced Black partisan aims though more empty Black partisan rhetoric has crossed their lips than any 1000 of us combined?

What atrocious egotism and entitlement have undergirded the wholesale parasitic theft perpetrated over the years by a small group of tragically misplaced individuals..., talented rhetoricians...,

I only wish I could tell you about the latest theft of funds earmarked for Black partisan economic development.

I'm sure that you and I could trade a bucketful of stories about this issue. I am not blind to the failures of the NAACP and I am not blind to Br. Al's shortcomings too. I think, however, that Br. Al's missteps on the stairway to grace are less harmful than the errors committed by the NAACP. Br. Al has a limited ability to trade on or use black political capital in a detrimental way. The National Association for the Advancement of Certain People has been using misusing black folk's political capital in certain significant ways for nearly a century. 

Br. Al's crimes at this point rise to the level of misdemeanors but the NAACP has a long felony rap sheet.  

Huffington has neither clients followers nor a constituency. Do you really not see not Sharpton as a political figure and force?

No.  Why do you?  He's run for office how many times and lost? How many voters does he turn out? What policy has he changed on the local or state level?  

The only way you can see the two as playing the same game is by purposefully restricting your vision. If he doesn't fit the definitions you work within you really need to invent a word.

No.  YOU need to invent a word. By referring to his constituency, you're implicitly implying that he is a representative. He is not a (political) representative by any notion of the word I am familiar with. When you refer to him as a "political force" you are operating on a very different register than I am. Both Huffington and Sharpton rely solely on the media for their relevance.

Craig referred to the NAACP. I agree with all of his criticisms, but if Sharpton were on the board he could at least say he represents a region. But he can't even say that.

If Sharpton is so bankrupt, it will come out in the wash.

How?  

YOU need to invent a word.

A word for the particular set of restrictions one must enforce to see Ariana Huffington and Al Sharpton as operating the same way.

Okay, why does Ariana Huffington have access to the media? Why does Al Sharpton have access to the media?

You're right, I'm not using "representative" in a social sciences sense. Leader is the most direct term but he's not really that. He's in the same field of activity though, which is not about democracy.

I'm not talking about polity. I'm talking about people.

If Sharpton is so bankrupt, it will come out in the wash.

How?

People will stop following him when something better comes along.

You're right, I'm not using "representative" in a social sciences sense. Leader is the most direct term but he's not really that. He's in the same field of activity though, which is not about democracy.

Being a bit more specific I'm using representative in a POLITICAL science sense. And I am being narrow here because the need for specificity is CRUCIAL here not only if I were writing an academic paper on the subject, but because our communities need a lot more than what we're getting from black elites. If Sharpton isn't a leader, but something close, then what is he? If this isn't about democracy, but rather about people, then what does that mean?

So with my narrow conception of representation, Barbara Rose Collins can miss damn near all of the votes she's supposed to cast in Congress....a woman like Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick can run against her using those missed votes. Detroit voters can then compare Kilpatrick to Collins, and vote Collins' trifling ass out of office. Concomitantly folks in DC can decide that they want to keep Marion Barry for whatever reason. 

When you note that Sharpton's bankruptcy will come out in the wash, I don't know how this happens according to your definitions. I know how it would happen according to my own.

People will stop following him when something better comes along.

You assume people follow him. I assume he's a media entrepeneur/broker/pundit. Which brings us back to Huffington. Both Huffington and Sharpton get access to the media through their entrepeneurial acumen. But both bring other assets to the table--Huffington her wealth and political contacts, Sharpton his sense for racial political drama. 

You assume people follow him. I assume he's a media entrepeneur/broker/pundit.

That sums up the difference...and identifies what you're ignoring.

Meanwhile, everything he said, Huffington agreed with...except his tone. Everything he said, YOU agree with, right? 

what am i ignoring? that "people" follow him?

everytime he says "black people" he should be saying "i". that he conflates himself and "black people" is troubling to me. and this conflation makes it very difficult to take what he says seriously. 

No. Why do you? He's run for office how many times and lost? How many voters does he turn out? What policy has he changed on the local or state level?

To which I add, how many jobs or enduring institutions has he created?

The rev. Sharpton exploits Black partisan rhetoric to sustain a media career with NO deliverables. Such a thing should be called out and exorcised for precisely what it is...., a parasite. Anyone following or even just attending to such a parasite is being grievously exploited and misled.

what am i ignoring? that "people" follow him?

That you agree with every word he said. I stopped taking this seriously some 12 hours ago.

everytime he says "black people" he should be saying "i".

Straight up opinion. Which is fine, you just shouldn't argue when all you really have are assertions. You will note I am not arguing. Neither am I saying anything about HIS position at all.

What do you actually disagree with that he said? You too, cnulan. That's what I'm trying to figure out at this point.

Straight up opinion. Which is fine, you just shouldn't argue when all you really have are assertions.

Assertions like...."people follow him"? Like "Sharpton has a constituency"? I've been very very clear about my terms, and about the logic that flows from them.

This isn't an argument. I'm just trying to understand why you identify with Sharpton in general, and why you identify with Sharpton at this particular moment. And I note that you've got a hard time defining exactly who Sharpton is as a "political figure". I care about Huffington and her remarks as far as I could throw her. What I care about is the cavalier attitude that people have towards issues of group representation. At its base you care about what Huffington said not because Sharpton is right or wrong, but because you see yourself in him somehow.

That position is foreign to me. 

What do you actually disagree with that he said? You too, cnulan.

I discarded the message due to the worthless character of the messenger. I'm not a person of the word and I believe that people learn more from what you are than from what you teach preach.

Frankly, I'll be delighted when every single one of these geriatric, oxygen thieving, pocket-lining, no project doing, or institution building race-hustling preachers ceases to exist.

Assertions like...."people follow him"? Like "Sharpton has a constituency"?

Yes, exactly like those.

I'm just trying to understand why you identify with Sharpton in general, and why you identify with Sharpton at this particular moment.

I don't identify with anyone. I do recognize common conditions. I've been taken to task any number of times for my tone when just speaking.

And I note that you've got a hard time defining exactly who Sharpton is as a "political figure"

Haven't tried. I've been trying to understand why, when I reject the validity of complaints that raise tone above substance, you feel 

Here's the question. Are the words "Sharpton" and "the black community" synonymous?

Where did that come from?

That's what my side of the discussion has been about. My conclusion is, it was an opportunity to tee off on Sharpton. 

I believe usage four would be the closest match to what I mean when I say "politics." 

pol·i·tics (pÅ?l'Ä­-tÄ­ks)
n.

1. (used with a sing. verb)
   1. The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.
   2. Political science.
2. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
   1. The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party: “All politics is local� (Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.). “Politics have appealed to me since I was at Oxford because they are exciting morning, noon, and night� (Jeffrey Archer).
   2. The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government: The politics of the former regime were rejected by the new government leadership. If the politics of the conservative government now borders on the repressive, what can be expected when the economy falters?
3. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Political life: studied law with a view to going into politics; felt that politics was a worthwhile career.
4. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit or group in order to gain control or power: Partisan politics is often an obstruction to good government. Office politics are often debilitating and counterproductive.
5. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Political attitudes and positions: His politics on that issue is his own business. Your politics are clearly more liberal than mine.
6. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a society.

USAGE NOTE   Politics, although plural in form, takes a singular verb when used to refer to the art or science of governing or to political science: Politics has been a concern of philosophers since Plato. But in its other senses politics can take either a singular or plural verb. Many other nouns that end in –ics behave similarly, and the user is advised to consult specific entries for precise information.

I discarded the message due to the worthless character of the messenger.

You know, I thought to dredge up conversations we've had in the past.

I'm not a person of the word and I believe that people learn more from what you are than from what you teach preach.

It's the Tookie Williams discussion again. Is there change? 

Frankly, I'll be delighted when every single one of these geriatric, oxygen thieving, pocket-lining, no project doing, or institution building race-hustlers ceases to exist.

We may all sing a song of deliverance if what you hope for comes to pass but it is not in the nature of things and social movements for people like Br. Al to disappear. The Al Sharpton's of this country are embedded and abetted within and by the very social, cultural and political structure that we, as African Americans, have created to survive in this land called America.

In this sense Al Sharpton and what he represents is as American as apple pie and jazz. Yes, he is a confidence man but America is in some overwhelming sense a confidence game populated by people constantly on the move and on the lookout for their main chance. Our people did not arrive here voluntarily but I am certain that it did not take us long to figure out how to survive. We came to know our enslavers and their allies and institutions better than they knew themselves. That is one of the reasons that people with the gift of gab are granted such an honored place in our community. We love the show they put on and the messages they convey to us in words and phrases that our former masters and mistresses cannot easily understand.

Br. Al may represent the darker side of this quest but he is no less knowledgeable about what sells in America. It is the sizzle, not the steak. His lack of electoral success was predictable. His failure to create and build institutions is understood. His desire for publicity and celebrity does not escape notice. Nonetheless, he is our Br. Al and not their Br. Al and his excesses and shortcomings are forgiven because we know him. He has been with us from the beginning and he will be with us at the end. All the raving against him will not change the fact that he can pull 500 people into an auditorium or church and we, despite our superior knowledge, purity of motives, high learning and skills cannot. 

Such faint praise...

You want to get rid of Sharpton, you have to stop looking to him and look to the people who are his clients. You've got to discover what he's doing for them and do it for them better...the electoral stuff comes after that.

All the raving against him will not change the fact that he can pull 500 people into an auditorium or church and we, despite our superior knowledge, purity of motives, high learning and skills cannot.

Do you believe that this is the constituency that Earl is referring to? That bringing people in to hear you speak is the equivalent of votes cast?

"Our Brother Al."

I think this gets to why Earl had beef with Huffington. She uses Obama as a convenient feint to tee off on Al.  On "our Brother Al."

Then when Al gets teed off on, he responds saying that this is an affront to black people.

Black people who identify with Al agree. 

Black people who don't identify with Al, either disagree...or don't care.

How many clients does he have exactly?

I'm thinking right now he has one flesh and blood client....and several institutional clients. 

The Bell family is his sole flesh and blood client (until the next flashpoint event). Among his institutional clients are the DNC, the GOP, FOX, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, and any other major media entity I am forgetting.

Looking to the people sends us in exactly the wrong direction. Because at any given point he really doesn't have many people. There is no constituency. There are no followers. 

When we look at the institutions we realize that there is no such thing as "do it better" at least for our own interests. "Doing it better" would mean being more of a media personality than he is, which in turn sells commercials and brings in viewers...but does not effectively change conditions. 

I was not aware that the sole issue before us was whether Br. Al could be elected to office or not. My view of electoral politics is a little broader. What I am concerned with here, among other things, is whether he has the capacity to get folks in motion. I believe that he does. He is the devil we know. I am not ready to exchange him for the devil we do not know. His comments about Senator Obama are part of the show. Obama knows this and so does Br. Al. Why are you writing comments as if you don't?

what does "get folks in motion" mean?  how might we measure it?

His comments about Senator Obama are part of the show.

Can "show" be exchanged for "game" here?

If so, then this makes even more sense. When Huffington goes off on "our Al" she is going off on us...because Al is part of "our team". 

Perfect. I used to have the same kneejerk reaction whenever I see someone attack Isiah Thomas. Still do to some extent.

This kneejerk reaction dulls critical thinking. In the Sharpton case it causes all types of fudging.  

I think this gets to why Earl had beef with Huffington. She uses Obama as a convenient feint to tee off on Al.  On "our Brother Al."

Do not put words in my mouth when I have fully explained why I took notice of this.

Even when I DON'T fully explain. 

That is one of the reasons that people with the gift of gab are granted such an honored place in our community. We love the show they put on and the messages they convey to us in words and phrases that our former masters and mistresses cannot easily understand.

The buffoon with a bouffant is not High John the Conqueror.

The only people he's tricking are poor Black folks who can ill afford his shenanigans.

What I am concerned with here, among other things, is whether he has the capacity to get folks in motion. I believe that he does. He is the devil we know. I am not ready to exchange him for the devil we do not know.

wasted motion signifying nothing, we need to stop settling for phukking shows ...,

I can see myself getting the same reaction, is all. I'm issuing a premptive diss. To that degree, I guess he's an adequate proxy.

Where does what I've said diverge from what you've said? 

I said my issue is complaints that raise tone above substance, you said

Here's the question. Are the words "Sharpton" and "the black community" synonymous?

Then proceeded to go off on Sharpton. And you conflate my statements with PT's.

Don't get it twisted.

You want to get rid of Sharpton, you have to stop looking to him and look to the people who are his clients. You've got to discover what he's doing for them and do it for them better...the electoral stuff comes after that.

He's pandering to the mob emotionality evoked by issues and events without ever translating that e-motion into anything durable beyond his own pocket. Thanks for sharpening my critique, he's a psychic parasite...,

I reject messengers devoid of substance...,

cnulan: 

Like I said, it's an opportunity to tee off on Sharpton.

Your opinion is yours to hold, and is not connected to my issue here in any way.

But Sharpton's tone was so aggressively dismissive, you could almost picture him drilling holes in his paddle as he spoke.

How could it have been otherwise given that emotionality is a mercenary psychic parasite's stock-in-trade? It would be most fascinating to imagine how Malcolm X might've framed the very same criticisms.., I have no doubt whatsoever that I would find myself nodding in perfect agreement with the Honorable Brother Minister's substance and delivery.

Alas, no Black partisan spokesperson of such dangerous and uncompromising integrity has been allowed to survive into the 21st century, only useful parasites, puppets and pawns on the plantation payroll...,

You responded to a comment that I deleted. 

kspence:

You responded to a comment that I deleted.

I assume you're talking to me. Which comment are you talking about? 

If so, then this makes even more sense. When Huffington goes off on "our Al" she is going off on us...because Al is part of "our team".

I can't go that far. My "defense" of Br. Al in the face of attacks from the likes of Ariana Huffington are not about him being part of our team. But you knew that didn't you? 

The only people he's tricking are poor Black folks who can ill afford his shenanigans.

Poor black folks don't watch O'Relly's show and they are not entirely conned by Br. Al's presentation.  

Sharpton is a black pundit, very little more and very little less. He exist is a limbo world within the media because there is no black pundit who can outfox him. Since all black opinion making is not mainstream opinionmaking, Sharpton can carve out a little space for an audience who is not only marginalized but somewhat proud of that fact.

If Tavis Smiley would have stayed Tavis Smiley as long as Rush has been Rush, then Tavis could deliver the kind of smackdown that Sharpton deserves. But Tavis wanted to play his own game, which just underscores the fact that black punditry isn't yet mainstream.

Even Juan Williams who has gone off the plantation a bit in the past year is facing this kind of conundrum. 

The bigger question here is why don't blackfolks support a black pundit? The answer is that the black market doesn't support one economically speaking. Not enough black people care enough to make a black political media star out of anybody. Not McWhorter, not Steele, not Armstrong Wiliams. Nobody, left, right or center has a larger media profile. 

Could Steve Harvey do what Bill Maher does? Nope.

Again, I'm going to emphasize the extent to which black political opinion desires an underground cache. And you can measure it in the size of the outrage against a white pundit calling Obama a Magic Negro, which is something we've all been talking about since day one. There's no mystery in black culture. There's no reason to keep this underground conversation underground, and so long as black people collectively fail to support an open black punditry, the longer people like Cosby and Sharpton will be able to hijack it. 

Yeah I said Cosby and Sharpton. But that includes Michael Eric Dyson as well, and anybody else who is a part-time pundit. Sharpton comes like De La's first album, he's living in a full time era. That's why none of the crab pundits can take him down. But I still say it's a demand side issue. 

But what do you think of arguments that raise tone over substance?

Not enough black people care enough to make a black political media star out of anybody.

Here is an alternative viewpoint: What if the lack of black political media stars is directly related to the absence of black political media, which is directly related to the lack of a black political infrastructure. We have, for example, an almost endless queue of blacks who want to run for political office but we have huge dearth of blacks working on the technical side of political campaigns.

Or, maybe it's all projection. Maybe people who don't care become Republicans.

The bigger question here is why don't blackfolks support a black pundit? 

Does this bigger question negate the question which I actually raised with out having any idea or intention to do so?

Here's the question. Are the words "Sharpton" and "the black community" synonymous?

1. Huffington has just a little bit of nerve commenting on Sharpton's tone. But a pundit's credibility is fair game. Just as Malkin tells the truth, you can't make people like her tone. And obviously that goes triple for Coulter.

2.  Sharpton and Black Community are synonymous by default. So long as there is a 'black community(monolith)' there can be a HNIC. I've always been one of those laid-back LA brothers who didn't give much of a smack about blacks & jews beef in Crown Heights. But clearly what made Sharpton bigtime are the assumption that blacks all over the country would and should care about Yankel and Yusef. Again, the point is that Sharpton exploits black distrust of blacks and others IN the system. It works.

3. I agree that a black political infrastructure should be real. Maybe we can have a board of 64 directors... No seriously, I'm of the opinion that outspoken and well-informed pundits can do the job. There ain't gonna be a third party.  

Sharpton and Black Community are synonymous by default.

Only if you're not being Black.

Every Black person that enjoyed Farrakhan knew what to keep and what to throw away.

Now, I'd really like to know if there's a dedicated move to remove Al from public view that you guys are part of or if it's Test Earl Time?

Because if it's Test Earl Time I might work with that for a while...I can stop wasting grey matter wondering "where da fuk DAT come from?" and play word games. If you GOTTA take shots at Al, write an article and I'll post it.

Open invitation.