THE DON IMUS-AL SHARPTON DUST-UP
THE DON IMUS/AL SHARPTON DUST-UP:
FROM FOLLY TO FARCE TO FIASCO
by
Ken Eliasberg
Let’s concede the obvious at the outset—Don Imus’s recent reference to members of the Rutgers ladies basketball team as “nappy headed hos” was more than merely tasteless—it was both inexcusable and stupid (and certainly deserving of some form of punishment). Reasonable men and women (of any race) might differ as to how severe that punishment should be. But Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, two standup race-hustling, photo op-seeking men of considerably less than impeccable credentials are, in my opinion, the last people to make the case for racial or ethnic insensitivity. With the possible exception of Louis Farrakhan (“calypso louie” ) no two individuals have done more to throw fuel on the fire of racial division than these two charlatans. They depend on keeping the racial issue alive, and they never miss an opportunity to deepen the racial divide. Their livelihood is what is really involved here; if racial harmony were to break out tomorrow, these two clowns and shakedown artists would be out of a job. They have prospered—in Jackson’s case shamelessly—by exploiting the allegedly lamentable condition of their people (if true, i.e. if conditions in the black community are lamentable, it is likely the result of people like these 2 charlatans; perhaps those conditions might dramatically improve if blacks selected leaders with considerably more integrity than these 2 frauds).
Again, I feel it necessary to point out that this is not about Sharpton or Jackson; it is about Imus—what he said, and what punishment should be visited upon him for having said it. In this regard, I also repeat that what he said was both despicable and inexcusable. That said, I believe that his being fired was a punishment “disproportionate” (a favorite word of the left in another remotely relevant context) to the crime. And, while I don’t want to divert attention to the two worthless scoundrels that were instrumental in bringing about this punishment, attention must be paid to these 2 reprobates, if only to honor that old bromide that people in glass houses should not throw stones. Here, the 2 accusers make Imus look like a choir boy, both in terms of their essential character (or, more appropriately, their complete lack of character), and, more to the point, of the unapologetic ethnic travesties that each has produced with some regularity. Sharpton, a caricature of a cartoon-like political character has spent his entire life looking for some small measure of gravitas under any rock he could crawl out from under, and Jackson, the consummate charlatan and shakedown artist, has been a civil rights obstacle, not a civil rights leader. They have left in their trail little more than shameless opportunism—they are hardly the civil rights stalwarts that they like to fashion themselves; they are hardly equipped to wear the mantle of Martin Luther King. Let’s take a brief look at the history of these 2 “upstanding” dirtbags.
Sharpton, that sawed-off master of bombast and baloney, is remembered for how he distinguished himself in the Tawana Brawley incident, which dragged on endlessly, seriously damaged the life of at least one law enforcement official, was, in its entirety, a complete fraud, a fraud pressed to the limit by Sharpton, and, finally, a fraud for which Sharpton never admitted guilt, no less offered up an apology for. And, oh yes, a fraud for which he received a substantial fine, which was finally paid when one or more of his supporters came to his rescue and anted up the money. Even his disgusting behavior in the Brawley mess, was eclipsed by his viciously irresponsible behavior in the Crown Heights riot, which he aggravated, rather than play the healing role of a “Reverend,” and which resulted in the death of a visiting rabbinical student from Australia. And, again, an unpleasantness (to say the least) for which Sharpton never accepted responsibility, let alone for which he apologized. And, oh yes, when recently reminded of the Tawana mishap, Sharpton remonstrated that this was history. Two thoughts on that response—(1) it is a standard response of Democrats when reminded of a past indiscretion (no matter how recent); indeed, it was the launching credo of the moveon.org group when Clinton was under impeachment siege; and (2) isn’t history a fairly reliable indicator of what one can expect with respect to future behavior of an established miscreant, i.e. didn’t Santayana advise us that he who does not pay heed to history is condemned to repeat it. At best, Sharpton is a jerk and a joke—a bad one.
Jackson, on the other hand, is even worse for his is a long history of shakedowns and immorality. Working backwards, his latest venture into the moral arena was his illegitimate child with a Rainbow Coaliton, staffer; Jackson has been providing substantial support for both his former mistress and the illegitimate child of this union. This is not nasty moralizing on my part—in general, morality is to be expected from a “Reverend,” but for a black Reverend it cuts deeper; he is supposed to be a role model for a community in which illegitimacy has played an excruciatingly painful role - almost 70% of all black children are born out of wedlock (the result of Democrat politics, i.e. welfare), and, as noted in Patrick Moynahan’s report in 1965, this is the most serious problem in the black community. But it gets better (better, that is, at least in Jackson’s case)—Jackson showed up at the White House with his pregnant mistress to provide “spiritual” counsel for Bad Boy Billie after his indiscretion with Monica Lewinsky was brought to the public’s attention. Now there is an instance of the kind of moral guidance that is so prevalent among Democrats.
Jackson’s lies, indiscretions, moral posturing, and extortion-like tactics to shakedown corporate America are, to a certain extent, catalogued in Ken Timmerman’s revealing study, Shakedown—exposing the real Jesse Jackson, Regnery Publishing (2002). And, oh yes, Jackson began his succession to the throne of Martin Luther King, with the phony story that he cradled King in his arms when King was shot. This was a lie. For greater insight into this particular distortion, I recommend Ralph Abernathy’s book, And The Walls Came Tumbling Down, Harper Perennial (1989). Abernathy was a close friend and associate of King.
Both Jackson and Sharpton have revealed their anti-Semitic feelings on more than one occasion, offering only token efforts at contrition when their indiscretion was brought to the public’s attention. As noted, these are the last guys that one should look to for moral guidance of any kind; they are quite simply a pair of racial flame throwers in constant need of ammunition to keep their otherwise undistinguished careers alive.
Again, this may or may not bear on the appropriateness of the punishment visited upon Imus, but it does reveal a great deal that’s currently wrong with our society, in general, and the Democrat Party, in particular. In general, it reveals the extent to which “political correctness” has seized our dialogue by the throat and put freedom of speech seriously at risk. It also exposes the hypocrisy of the Dems who, because of their almost total reliance on the black vote, seat these racial demagogues on the diaz at their political conventions. Indeed, these two jokers have become so smitten with their own bombast and baloney that they actually ran for president of the U.S. Now there’s a scary thought.
And, oh yes, are either of these guys going down to Duke to apologize to the Duke lacrosse players who, without a shred of proof, they were quick to find guilty of rape. And, now when confronted with that apparent inconsistency, Jackson makes up some crap about white boys who hire black girls to parade around naked. What the hell does that have to do with their guilt or innocence? Again, if a white guy pulled 1/100th of the garbage that these 2 race-hustling clowns have pulled, they’d be run out of town.
Finally, I am rather sick of seeing a white guy—like Jimmy the Greek, Al Campannis, Rush Limbaugh, etc.—fired or dragged through the mud for a fairly innocuous random expression, while Sharpton and Jackson can say anything they want, as often as they want, and get away with it. It is time we did as Shelby Steele advised us and get rid of “white guilt” as a basis for evaluating what constitutes a reasonable dialogue—political correctness, spurred on by racial sermonizing, threatens to so completely sanitize our conversation as to undermine free speech. It has gotten to the point where, if you disagree with a black, you are a racist, a feminist, you are a sexist, and a homosexual, you are a homophobe. It gets worse, today, given the threat we face from radical Islam, if you call attention to bad behavior on the part of a Muslim, CAIR will almost immediately label you an “Islamophobe.” This has to stop!
Again, I believe that a serious apology from Imus would have been enough, but that’s not what happened—and frankly I care only in the sense that what happened to Imus was more than just a “lynching” —it represents a serious threat to the underpinnings of free speech.