Keith, my point is that many of the Reverends out there preaching that the earth is 5,000 years old went to college
And the overwhelming majority of those college educated clergymen out there have no problem with the geologic record, so what is the point? I also don’t see where someone believing the earth is 5000 years old, is going to effect, must less destroy, the lives of others. Do you happen to know many of those ‘5000 year’ clergymen have lost slander suits, as has Al?
And, I would have thought this crowd, more than any other, would be skeptical of the notion that a credential is a requirement for respect.
I think it is an arguable point that someone carrying the title of Reverend is, by inference rightly or wrongly, thought to have some academic theological background.
I have read many discussions about whether it is worth going to broadcasting school, whether a Harvard degree means someone is smahter than anyone else, etc., etc.
And your point is?
Well, I've googled a bit and so far there is no mention of a degree. It's a title of respect, which in this country means if you shop yourself as a Christian minister, you automatically get at a minimum the benefit of the doubt.
Well, probably not. Sharpton carries the title Rev based on an elementary school ordination, given, I assume, for oratory and musical skills. But, I think it’s a pretty safe bet that if a middle aged white guy with a national following carried that honorific based on a third grade ordination that the media would put the word ‘Rev’ in quotes and modify his name with a collection of derogatory and ironic adjectives and make note of his lack of theological training.
Of course, I’m not really up to speed on Protestant ordination qualifications, although I do have a couple of degreed relatives who are men of the cloth but with formal theological training
On the other hand, whether or not you think Big Al is worthy of the respect is another matter. However, that he is entertaining and compelling is certain. Just look at all the people who weighed in on this issue.
Pretty tough to deny that. Of course, a lot of folks expect clergymen to be a little more than entertaining and compelling, although I’ll admit that they are traits which probably make Sunday services easier to sit through.
The impression that I get is Al Sharpton still thinks something happened to Tawana Brawley.
Well, I don’t think Tawana Brawley even believes it anymore, not that that would deter Sharpton. Brawley had graduated to metaphor before the case was a week old, so whether anything untoward actually happened to her is beside the point.
So, perhaps you believe he is wrong, delusional, or paranoid. But that is different than being a liar.
True, but you can certainly believe he is a race baiter and shakedown artist, and quite easily at that. While some people think Sharpton was drawn a little too broadly in Bonfire of the Vanities, some think later events showed he wasn’t drawn broadly enough.
1. Boycotts are not 'criminal means'
Well, some actually are, but only in very specific labor situations. In the cases of Sharpton and Jackson those prohibitions don’t apply.
I think the point here is that men of good will who are threatening actions to redress grievances usually keep at it until those grievances are redressed, not until somebody writes them a check, a la Jackson or Sharpton. I’ve also been unable to find anything that Sharpton has done that has actually improved to condition of the folks he supposedly wants to help. I’m not sure that getting his name in the paper counts.
As it is, Sharpton is now the target of a IRS probe into his and his NAN groups finances, based on shaking down companies and covering it up using fraudulent, or non-existent, bookkeeping practices. Budweiser has just been served in the investigation, and other companies involved reportedly include Colgate-Palmolive, Macy's, Pfizer, PepsiCo, General Motors, Wal-Mart, FedEx, Continental Airlines, Johnson & Johnson and Chase. To give you some idea of the money involved, as of 2006 (the last publicly available filing, NAN owed $1.9 million in payroll taxes and penalties, and Sharpton personally owes more than $900,000 in federal taxes and more than $365,000 in New York City taxes, as reported by the NY Post. Sharpton has, of course, denied wrongdoing and maintains, believe it or not, that the probes are politically motivated actions aimed at undermining NAN and the work of civil-rights organizations.
Of course, if these charges had been leveled at, say, Pat Robertson, he’d already be riding a fence rail out of town, followed by a chorus of media pundits chiming in on how they knew all along that he was a pompus fraud.
2. Boycotts are used by groups from all walks of life to get their way. If Nazi thugs has confined themselves to boycotting Jewish stores and not moved on to thuggery and genocide, many of the very same people who are so opposed to Al Sharpton would be perfectly fine with boycotting Jewish stores.
Based on what? I’d be interested in knowing your basis for comparing 2008 New York with 1935 Berlin? Interestingly, boycotting Jewish- owned retail establishments would be impossible in the US unless you were a hermit.
Curiously, the only folks mentioned in this thread who are on the record with anti-Semitic remarks or exhortations to violence again Jews are Schott and----drum roll-----Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson!
In fact, many of those people weren't so opposed to the thuggery (remember that little inconvenience called Marge Schott who said about Hitler; "Everybody knows he was good at the beginning but he just went too far.").
Marge Schott, after gathering up an impressive collection of fines and suspensions for her utterances, was run out of the business, so her support must have been a little short of unanimous. I’m not sure you can rely on the actions of assorted, well-known nuts to effectively buttress an argument. Unless you’re comparing Sharpton to Schott, which wouldn’t make any sense.
And, your post is peppered with opinions you are stating as facts ("he is not a man of God", "he's looking out for him and no one else", blah, blah, blah). I'm surprised, because you generally do better than that.
On the other hand, you usually do better than out of hand attributing anti-Semitic motivations to people based on the actions of a select few.
Finally, that he was funny, which is how we got started here, is the name of the game, isn't it? Controversy => ratings => advertisers. Play ball. As a radio pro, I would think you would love it.
Obligatory radio reference. Nice!
Regards,
TSB
And the overwhelming majority of those college educated clergymen out there have no problem with the geologic record, so what is the point? I also don’t see where someone believing the earth is 5000 years old, is going to effect, must less destroy, the lives of others. Do you happen to know many of those ‘5000 year’ clergymen have lost slander suits, as has Al?
And, I would have thought this crowd, more than any other, would be skeptical of the notion that a credential is a requirement for respect.
I think it is an arguable point that someone carrying the title of Reverend is, by inference rightly or wrongly, thought to have some academic theological background.
I have read many discussions about whether it is worth going to broadcasting school, whether a Harvard degree means someone is smahter than anyone else, etc., etc.
And your point is?
Well, I've googled a bit and so far there is no mention of a degree. It's a title of respect, which in this country means if you shop yourself as a Christian minister, you automatically get at a minimum the benefit of the doubt.
Well, probably not. Sharpton carries the title Rev based on an elementary school ordination, given, I assume, for oratory and musical skills. But, I think it’s a pretty safe bet that if a middle aged white guy with a national following carried that honorific based on a third grade ordination that the media would put the word ‘Rev’ in quotes and modify his name with a collection of derogatory and ironic adjectives and make note of his lack of theological training.
Of course, I’m not really up to speed on Protestant ordination qualifications, although I do have a couple of degreed relatives who are men of the cloth but with formal theological training
On the other hand, whether or not you think Big Al is worthy of the respect is another matter. However, that he is entertaining and compelling is certain. Just look at all the people who weighed in on this issue.
Pretty tough to deny that. Of course, a lot of folks expect clergymen to be a little more than entertaining and compelling, although I’ll admit that they are traits which probably make Sunday services easier to sit through.
The impression that I get is Al Sharpton still thinks something happened to Tawana Brawley.
Well, I don’t think Tawana Brawley even believes it anymore, not that that would deter Sharpton. Brawley had graduated to metaphor before the case was a week old, so whether anything untoward actually happened to her is beside the point.
So, perhaps you believe he is wrong, delusional, or paranoid. But that is different than being a liar.
True, but you can certainly believe he is a race baiter and shakedown artist, and quite easily at that. While some people think Sharpton was drawn a little too broadly in Bonfire of the Vanities, some think later events showed he wasn’t drawn broadly enough.
1. Boycotts are not 'criminal means'
Well, some actually are, but only in very specific labor situations. In the cases of Sharpton and Jackson those prohibitions don’t apply.
I think the point here is that men of good will who are threatening actions to redress grievances usually keep at it until those grievances are redressed, not until somebody writes them a check, a la Jackson or Sharpton. I’ve also been unable to find anything that Sharpton has done that has actually improved to condition of the folks he supposedly wants to help. I’m not sure that getting his name in the paper counts.
As it is, Sharpton is now the target of a IRS probe into his and his NAN groups finances, based on shaking down companies and covering it up using fraudulent, or non-existent, bookkeeping practices. Budweiser has just been served in the investigation, and other companies involved reportedly include Colgate-Palmolive, Macy's, Pfizer, PepsiCo, General Motors, Wal-Mart, FedEx, Continental Airlines, Johnson & Johnson and Chase. To give you some idea of the money involved, as of 2006 (the last publicly available filing, NAN owed $1.9 million in payroll taxes and penalties, and Sharpton personally owes more than $900,000 in federal taxes and more than $365,000 in New York City taxes, as reported by the NY Post. Sharpton has, of course, denied wrongdoing and maintains, believe it or not, that the probes are politically motivated actions aimed at undermining NAN and the work of civil-rights organizations.
Of course, if these charges had been leveled at, say, Pat Robertson, he’d already be riding a fence rail out of town, followed by a chorus of media pundits chiming in on how they knew all along that he was a pompus fraud.
2. Boycotts are used by groups from all walks of life to get their way. If Nazi thugs has confined themselves to boycotting Jewish stores and not moved on to thuggery and genocide, many of the very same people who are so opposed to Al Sharpton would be perfectly fine with boycotting Jewish stores.
Based on what? I’d be interested in knowing your basis for comparing 2008 New York with 1935 Berlin? Interestingly, boycotting Jewish- owned retail establishments would be impossible in the US unless you were a hermit.
Curiously, the only folks mentioned in this thread who are on the record with anti-Semitic remarks or exhortations to violence again Jews are Schott and----drum roll-----Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson!
In fact, many of those people weren't so opposed to the thuggery (remember that little inconvenience called Marge Schott who said about Hitler; "Everybody knows he was good at the beginning but he just went too far.").
Marge Schott, after gathering up an impressive collection of fines and suspensions for her utterances, was run out of the business, so her support must have been a little short of unanimous. I’m not sure you can rely on the actions of assorted, well-known nuts to effectively buttress an argument. Unless you’re comparing Sharpton to Schott, which wouldn’t make any sense.
And, your post is peppered with opinions you are stating as facts ("he is not a man of God", "he's looking out for him and no one else", blah, blah, blah). I'm surprised, because you generally do better than that.
On the other hand, you usually do better than out of hand attributing anti-Semitic motivations to people based on the actions of a select few.
Finally, that he was funny, which is how we got started here, is the name of the game, isn't it? Controversy => ratings => advertisers. Play ball. As a radio pro, I would think you would love it.
Obligatory radio reference. Nice!
Regards,
TSB