Steven A Smith- "Jesse Should Butt Out"

[RBL]

Steven A Smith irks me to death but I think he makes some valid points here....

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/14364877.htm


Some people just need to go away. If not forever, then at least for a little while.

I'm talking about the kind of people who have had their time. The kind of people whose substance has dwindled. The kind of people who have contaminated their own good deeds with bullying tactics and manipulation - all in the desperate pursuit of nothing but airtime.

I'm talking about the one and only, the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

In Durham, N.C, a 27-year-old black female, a stripper-for-hire, alleges she was attacked on March 13. The alleged incident occurred at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., a home leased by three members of Duke University's lacrosse team.

After the allegations, 46 players rendered DNA samples. None of the samples connected any of the players to an attack on the woman, who is a student at North Carolina Central University.

The case for District Attorney Mike Nifong reportedly has been augmented by the woman's identification of two of the alleged assailants, while being 90 percent positive about a third.

Eventually, the hope is that the truth will come out.

But what difference will it make, ultimately? Especially with the presence of Jesse Jackson?

You can tell Jesse Jackson is coming from a mile away. All you have to do is follow the noise and rest assured that the Baptist preacher's fire-and-brimstone rhetoric won't be far behind. So forgive me if I'm annoyed as Jackson pushes his way into this situation, potentially polarizing communities nationwide in all the wrong ways, possibly jeopardizing our interest in the truth - purely because I'm disgusted by his version of things.

As well as his participation.

Now, don't get me wrong. A black woman allegedly being victimized by white male college students definitely conjures up racial implications. And if racial slurs indeed were uttered, this certainly provides the grounds for it being a civil-rights issue.

But if local ministers and officials of the NAACP are handling matters, and individuals such as the Rev. Al Sharpton have the good sense to offer counsel without becoming directly involved publicly, why is Jackson grasping for TV time with everyone from ESPN to CNN?

Why is Jackson inserting himself into a situation that requires neither his presence nor input? Why publicize that his Rainbow/PUSH Coalition in Chicago will pay for the accuser to finish her education?

With Jackson, we know why.

We know that he loves attention. We know that attention leads to a perception of power. We know that perceived power is easily translated into riches. And with Jackson - judging by accusations levied against him from black conservatives and other watchdog groups - we also know that's how he works.

Before anyone jumps to Jackson's defense, wondering why on earth anyone would feel this way about his involvement, a look at his recent history should explain it all.

Terrell Owens systematically went about the business of alienating Donovan McNabb, his teammates and the Eagles organization in a quest to get more money. Yet Jackson felt the need to interfere. Even others such as Sharpton proclaimed at the time that Jackson should not be involved because the Owens case was not a civil-rights issue.

Months later, after some idiot decided to throw a syringe into the outfield near Barry Bonds in San Diego, Jackson stuck his nose into matters, accusing Major League Baseball and the local police of failing to protect Bonds.

So in one instance, Jackson is defending the indefensible Owens.

In the other, he's defending someone in Bonds who, basically, refuses to defend himself.

What a joke. If only it were funny.

When you think of this woman who allegedly has been raped, think about the pursuit of truth and the need for cooperation in the Durham community. Think about the local officials, law-enforcement and otherwise, doing their due diligence in pursuit of the truth.

Think about what it would be like if it were your daughter who had been raped. Or if it were your son who was accused of rape.

Then ask yourself one more thing: Would you like it being politicized? Especially by someone like Jackson, whose agenda lately has a camera nearby?

If Jackson was really sincere, matters would be dealt with behind the scenes. Away from the glitz and glare. That is where he could wield his considerable clout.

The problem? Doing so would require Jackson to care about someone else more than himself.

We pray that he will in this case.

Deep down, though, we know better.

[ladygreek]

I am not familiar with this author, but hear, hear!

[jubilance1922]

I really need Jesse and some other folks to sit down and enjoy their golden years. Allow a new generation of leaders to take the forefront.

[Gods Ivy]

Originally posted by RBL
Steven A Smith irks me to death but I think he makes some valid points here....

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/14364877.htm


Some people just need to go away. If not forever, then at least for a little while.

I'm talking about the kind of people who have had their time. The kind of people whose substance has dwindled. The kind of people who have contaminated their own good deeds with bullying tactics and manipulation - all in the desperate pursuit of nothing but airtime.

I'm talking about the one and only, the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

In Durham, N.C, a 27-year-old black female, a stripper-for-hire, alleges she was attacked on March 13. The alleged incident occurred at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., a home leased by three members of Duke University's lacrosse team.

After the allegations, 46 players rendered DNA samples. None of the samples connected any of the players to an attack on the woman, who is a student at North Carolina Central University.

The case for District Attorney Mike Nifong reportedly has been augmented by the woman's identification of two of the alleged assailants, while being 90 percent positive about a third.

Eventually, the hope is that the truth will come out.

But what difference will it make, ultimately? Especially with the presence of Jesse Jackson?

You can tell Jesse Jackson is coming from a mile away. All you have to do is follow the noise and rest assured that the Baptist preacher's fire-and-brimstone rhetoric won't be far behind. So forgive me if I'm annoyed as Jackson pushes his way into this situation, potentially polarizing communities nationwide in all the wrong ways, possibly jeopardizing our interest in the truth - purely because I'm disgusted by his version of things.

As well as his participation.

Now, don't get me wrong. A black woman allegedly being victimized by white male college students definitely conjures up racial implications. And if racial slurs indeed were uttered, this certainly provides the grounds for it being a civil-rights issue.

But if local ministers and officials of the NAACP are handling matters, and individuals such as the Rev. Al Sharpton have the good sense to offer counsel without becoming directly involved publicly, why is Jackson grasping for TV time with everyone from ESPN to CNN?

Why is Jackson inserting himself into a situation that requires neither his presence nor input? Why publicize that his Rainbow/PUSH Coalition in Chicago will pay for the accuser to finish her education?

With Jackson, we know why.

We know that he loves attention. We know that attention leads to a perception of power. We know that perceived power is easily translated into riches. And with Jackson - judging by accusations levied against him from black conservatives and other watchdog groups - we also know that's how he works.

Before anyone jumps to Jackson's defense, wondering why on earth anyone would feel this way about his involvement, a look at his recent history should explain it all.

Terrell Owens systematically went about the business of alienating Donovan McNabb, his teammates and the Eagles organization in a quest to get more money. Yet Jackson felt the need to interfere. Even others such as Sharpton proclaimed at the time that Jackson should not be involved because the Owens case was not a civil-rights issue.

Months later, after some idiot decided to throw a syringe into the outfield near Barry Bonds in San Diego, Jackson stuck his nose into matters, accusing Major League Baseball and the local police of failing to protect Bonds.

So in one instance, Jackson is defending the indefensible Owens.

In the other, he's defending someone in Bonds who, basically, refuses to defend himself.

What a joke. If only it were funny.

When you think of this woman who allegedly has been raped, think about the pursuit of truth and the need for cooperation in the Durham community. Think about the local officials, law-enforcement and otherwise, doing their due diligence in pursuit of the truth.

Think about what it would be like if it were your daughter who had been raped. Or if it were your son who was accused of rape.

Then ask yourself one more thing: Would you like it being politicized? Especially by someone like Jackson, whose agenda lately has a camera nearby?

If Jackson was really sincere, matters would be dealt with behind the scenes. Away from the glitz and glare. That is where he could wield his considerable clout.

The problem? Doing so would require Jackson to care about someone else more than himself.

We pray that he will in this case.

Deep down, though, we know better.

I heard this on Russ Parr this morning. I think we should find more leaders, young leaders who can represent the race, the same faces often is viewed as goal prompted. A caller made a point if not Jesse then who, if not Al then who. We need more leaders.

[jubilance1922]

Originally posted by Gods Ivy
I heard this on Russ Parr this morning. I think we should find more leaders, young leaders who can represent the race, the same faces often is viewed as goal prompted. A caller made a point if not Jesse then who, if not Al then who. We need more leaders.

I think part of issue is that because the Jesse's, the Al's have not stepped down and out of the spotlight, they could be overshadowing someone younger. Anything happens within the Black community, the media calls Jesse and Al first, even though they may not represent the interests of most Blacks in the US. I think if they stepped down, it would allow some younger, less-well-known (ie local) leaders to step forward.

[Gods Ivy]

Originally posted by jubilance1922
I think part of issue is that because the Jesse's, the Al's have not stepped down and out of the spotlight, they could be overshadowing someone younger. Anything happens within the Black community, the media calls Jesse and Al first, even though they may not represent the interests of most Blacks in the US. I think if they stepped down, it would allow some younger, less-well-known (ie local) leaders to step forward.

Good point.

[RBL]

Originally posted by Gods Ivy
We need more leaders.

Do "we"?. This is a serious question?

Whose interest would they represent?
What would be the qualities for such a leader?

[Steeltrap]

For some reason, the idea of one leader has never set well with me. There are some issues we can coalesce on, but on other ones, we have differing opinions, experiences, etc.

I've been a bit weary of Jesee (sic) and Rev. Al and his kitchen-azz conk for some time. But I do blame the media, which are lazy. It's tough for me as someone who is in "mainstream" media, but it's a reflex of laziness. You need someone black and big -- go to the Revs.

[Gods Ivy]

Originally posted by Steeltrap
For some reason, the idea of one leader has never set well with me. There are some issues we can coalesce on, but on other ones, we have differing opinions, experiences, etc.

I've been a bit weary of Jesee (sic) and Rev. Al and his kitchen-azz conk for some time. But I do blame the media, which are lazy. It's tough for me as someone who is in "mainstream" media, but it's a reflex of laziness. You need someone black and big -- go to the Revs.

I think a leader is needed in our community again because when we have a leader that represent forward movement and positive reaction, we (as a community) tend to push for change as a collective body. There are not many people that have been able to move our race in a positive way to effect change. That is what is needed. Until then we will just complain and talk about what we don't like but will not move or act on it, collectively. For instance, voting. That is something we fought so hard to be able to do and now that we have the right, we don't participate in it but that is a whole other post. Pardon my tangent, please.

[enigma_AKA]

Originally posted by Steeltrap
For some reason, the idea of one leader has never set well with me. There are some issues we can coalesce on, but on other ones, we have differing opinions, experiences, etc.

I've been a bit weary of Jesee (sic) and Rev. Al and his kitchen-azz conk for some time. But I do blame the media, which are lazy. It's tough for me as someone who is in "mainstream" media, but it's a reflex of laziness. You need someone black and big -- go to the Revs.

So true-especially the italicized.

enigma_AKA

[TonyB06]

...so who is the "white" leader?

We are a diverse people and as we continue to advance, our diversity, especially professionally, that increases the likliehood that there may not ever again be any one "leader."

I think when the next manifestation of dominant black leadership emerges, be it a single person or a cluster of folks (more likely, IMO), it will come from the ground up (grassroots) thing and people will naturally gravitate toward it. There is no mantle to pass, no torch to hand off, no matter how many NAACP dinners or Black covenant symposia we have. Is it Cornell West? Tavis Smiley? Michael Steele? Barack Obama? Who knows, time will tell.

I'd not put much stock in who the "media" calls. As ST says, One, it's lazy reporting, and two, perhaps suggestive of a dearth of others making viable, critical mass differences that have caught the national attention. How many of us, who are the only "us" in our offices get asked all the time, "so what do Black people think about x or y?" If we responded to CNN instead of Becky down the hall would that make us "Black leaders?" But that's what the media does.

I am not Rev. Jackson's biggest political fan by a loooong shot, but I give him credit and respect due because he was on the front line when it was thick (police attack dogs, hoses, Edmund Pettis bridge, e.g.). To me his sacrifice at least gives him a voice I will hear out, whether I decide to agree or not. If he is opportunistic and outmoded today, where are the counter-rising voices of Black Intelligensia, saying "not only should be do it this way, but here's how we have started over here?"

soapbox done....for now.


*I can't believe I just defended a Que all like that. Lemme go sit down somewhere and get my head back right....

[enigma_AKA]

So true, TonyB06, so true. Let's think of a few things:

1) We oftentimes LET people like Jesse Jackson and his ilk speak for the masses because we are complacent and don't always think about how things affect US to a great degree.
2)When we are cornered in the office, we oftentimes are serving dual roles--as a point of reference AND as a spokesperson. Not saying it's right; it's just the nature of engagement. Sadly, like I was saying above, we don't investigate issues thoroughly before we co-sign or agree with the soundbite coming from the 'leader' of the pack. Or as someone once put it, 'attaching our a$$es' to something we don't know enough about.

This speaks to the education (both academic and social awareness) that we are nuturing in our people. It's easy for people like Jesse and Al to take advantage, not of us, but of the ignorance of people who are too scared and too lost to know any better. We've got to empower ourselves...

enigma_AKA

Originally posted by TonyB06
...so who is the "white" leader?

We are a diverse people and as we continue to advance, our diversity, especially professionally, that increases the likliehood that there may not ever again be any one "leader."

I think when the next manifestation of dominant black leadership emerges, be it a single person or a cluster of folks (more likely, IMO), it will come from the ground up (grassroots) thing and people will naturally gravitate toward it. There is no mantle to pass, no torch to hand off, no matter how many NAACP dinners or Black covenant symposia we have. Is it Cornell West? Tavis Smiley? Michael Steele? Barack Obama? Who knows, time will tell.

I'd not put much stock in who the "media" calls. As ST says, One, it's lazy reporting, and two, perhaps suggestive of a dearth of others making viable, critical mass differences that have caught the national attention. How many of us, who are the only "us" in our offices get asked all the time, "so what do Black people think about x or y?" If we responded to CNN instead of Becky down the hall would that make us "Black leaders?" But that's what the media does.

I am not Rev. Jackson's biggest political fan by a loooong shot, but I give him credit and respect due because he was on the front line when it was thick (police attack dogs, hoses, Edmund Pettis bridge, e.g.). To me his sacrifice at least gives him a voice I will hear out, whether I decide to agree or not. If he is opportunistic and outmoded today, where are the counter-rising voices of Black Intelligensia, saying "not only should be do it this way, but here's how we have started over here?"

soapbox done....for now.


*I can't believe I just defended a Que all like that. Lemme go sit down somewhere and get my head back right....

[RBL]

Originally posted by enigma_AKA
It's easy for people like Jesse and Al to take advantage, not of us, but of the ignorance of people who are too scared and too lost to know any better. We've got to empower ourselves...

enigma_AKA

I totally agree

[Gods Ivy]

Originally posted by RBL
I totally agree

This is true but do all of us know how to do that?

[Gods Ivy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TonyB06
[B]...so who is the "white" leader?

Bush right now. lol