Sharpton should not be disregarded, but since he won't likely play the game by the "rules", his viability as a candidate will likely not rise above the novelty level. Still, for sheer entertainment value, Al will be tough to beat.

... the murder of a young black man in Crown Heights ...

The four days of anti-Semitic rioting during the summer of 1991, culminating in the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum, were touched off by a car accident in which a seven-year old black child named Gavin Cato was killed. Are you referring to something else?

Also, here's what Sister Souljah said:

"If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?"

When Jesse Jackson praised Sister Souljah at a political event, Clinton responded by pointing to that comment. She's a scapegoat and he was racebaiting?

(I agree that Clinton's statement wasn't a simple condemnation of race-baiting; there was more going on than that. At the same time, I don't see that Clinton was plainly the bad guy in that exchange.)

An aside: explanation of Al Sharpton's hair. Turns out he was partly raised as a young teen by James Brown, so he decided to put his hair like that until Brown passes on . . . interesting factoid gleaned from the Tavis Smiley Show, recommended for anyone who wants to know more about African-American affairs, and not just for entertainment's sake, neither: http://www.tavistalks.com/

just wanted to echo the comments by alkali above about the car accident that touched off the Crown Heights riots and led to the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum - that's my memory of that particular event, as well. I would think Nathan would want to correct his weblong post, and elaborate on the source of his mistake.

thank you for at least attempting to defend al sharpton. it's not really fair that he is always attacked for things he did a long time ago when some people get a pass for indiscretions which are a)more recent and b)far more damaging.

i won't sit up here and say that sharpton is the best of what african-americans have to offer but i rarely hear any pundits/commentators/ bloggers saying any positive about any prominent african-americans, with the exception of black conservatives, who rarely speak for the concerns of mainstream black america.

it may not be a huge deal but i assure you that it does not go unnoticed in the black community.

i wont dispute the outcome of the jogger case, but you didn't refute this part of the national review:

"The hatred heaped on her by Sharpton and his claque is almost impossible to fathom, and wrenching to review"

i know nothing about the case, but if Sharpton did indeed say that this jogger who was raped was attacked by sharpton, sharpton is a horrible person ...

i wont dispute the outcome of the jogger case, but you didn't refute this part of the national review:

"The hatred heaped on her by Sharpton and his claque is almost impossible to fathom, and wrenching to review"

i know nothing about the case, but if Sharpton did indeed say that this jogger who was raped was attacked by sharpton, sharpton is a horrible person ...

Alkali and Jeff: Whether it was a "car accident" is exactly the issue that enraged the black community. The very fact that you assume that's what happened rather than negligent driving, vehicular manslaughter or homicide legally, is what was being protested.

As for Sister Souljah, as she made clear in the statement I linked to and in many other statements, her comments were taken out of context as if she approved of either kind of killing. Her point was that if the white community is so blase about blacks killing blacks, they shouldn't be shocked if it occasionally breaks into riots that targets whites. Context is everything and Clinton singling her out was disingenuous and the worst race-baiting he did in his career (and I am generally favorable to Clinton on many issues of race.)

Eric-- if the woman wrongly identified the young men as guilty when they were not, then she was engaged in bad acts. But this is second hand statements describing bad attitudes by Sharpton and an unidentified "claque", which means that you have unknown comments by probably other people being ascribed to Sharpton, exactly the kind of casual and unjustified treatment he receives.

As I've said, there are things Sharpton has done that he deserves to be condemned for. And I don't necessarily support him because of them. But I don't think they are so different in character from bad acts of many politicians or the flunkies they have do their dirty work for them.

I thought this post was especially timely as Sharpton was the only Democratic candidate to speak before the antiwar demonstrations this weekend. As Nathan asks? Where were the others? The anti-war vote is there for the taking. I for one will remember a politician who had the balls to go for it.

I'm surprised at your defense of your use of the term "murder," and your refusal to correct your post. Negligent driving and vehicular manslaughter are not murder, and for you - or the rioters - to give credence to the possibility that it was murder in light of the subsequent investigation, rulings, and the facts of the case make this one of saddest, least professional, and most ridiculous posts on your site. It does a disservice to you, your reputation, and your weblog. Just because some say it could of been murder does not raise that possibility to a valid one, especially when all the evidence, investigation and rulings are in opposition to such a finding. Had your post suggested that some of the rioters incorrectly felt it to be a murder, and that it was that incorrect perception which fueled their anger, that still would have given too much credit to the rioters, but it would not have been an outright falsehood. From a lawyer, your post and subsequent defense seems a dereliction of your legal oath.

The death of the young boy who was it by the car was tragic, as was the death of Yankel Rosenblum, but they were not legal equivalents, and you, as a lawyer, should know that.

The Raelians have their beliefs, too, about science, but I doubt you hold them on equal footing with Newton and Einstein.

I was not saying that the killing of the child was deliberate, in the sense of that was the aim, but when negligence reaches the level of what is called "malignant heart", a systematic devaluing of life that leads to death.

The death of Gavin Cato was composed of two parts, first the reckless behavior of the driver who was driving 50 miles per hour in a 25-miler per hour residential area, then drove up on a sidewalk. Whether you want to call such action manslaughter or murder (and see my general disdain for reckless driving in my MADD post for why I don't take the difference too seriously), both are legally homicide. And the community was outraged that the man was not even charged with a crime. See here.

But this situation went beyond that. A private Jewish ambulance arrived which, leaving the injured children behind, took care of the injured Jewish driver. Gavin Cato died from his injuries, partly in the minds of the community because he was not taken immediately to the hospital but had to wait for a later ambulance. See here.

So you combine reckless driving leading to death with leaving the victim behind in favor of taking care of the life of the perpetrator of the death, and I don't think murder is uncalled for as a term. Does it rise to the level of "malignant heart" in purely legal terms-- maybe, maybe not-- but it sure has the reasonable sense of such.

The fact is that the driver, Yosef Lisef, committed a crime and was never charged with even a lesser crime. Yet the killers of Rosenblum were charged. Whether they should have had the same sentence is perfectly reasonable to debate, but the double standard is that one (the non-white one) went completely free. That is where the outrage of the black community justly comes from, even where its manifestation in riots may not itself be just.

And it is that systematic conviction of blacks for crimes they did not commit (see the wilding incident among many others), the murder of blacks at the hands of the police (Diallo), and the lack of enforcement against those who commit crimes against blacks (Lisef and many others) that makes many individual acts of "non-malice non-murder" become, in my mind, a social reality of murder by societal malice by the malignant heart that allows this to happen year after year.

Was Lisef guilty of murder? Maybe not. Is the society guilty of murder that devalues the life of a black child to the point where people know they can kill them with little concern? Absolutely.

I appreciate your taking the time to explain the thoughts behind your use of the term "murder," but my original point, which I still hold, is that such thinking should have been included in your original post, or tempered your choice of terms, rather than alleging a charge that is, regardless of the arguments you offer above, still incorrect as it currently stands on your weblog in the January 17th post. For you to allow the original post to stand as is, without correction or elaboration to the post itself, remains the perpetration of a falsehood. I agree with the fact that there are gross, unacceptable disparities in the U.S. justice system in regard to race and class, and these disparities are at the root of so much that is wrong with our society today and in the past. In terms of your Jan. 17 post, however, this is less about what I want to call it, what you want to call it, or what the rioters thought it to be than it is about your unfortunate and inflammatory use of an incorrect term, and allowing that falsehood to stand. As I said, I appreciate hearing more about what led you to use the term in the first place, but the original post deserves an update.

Well, since my whole point was that Sharpton gets dismissed without much nuance on words "race mongering cretin", I might just renote the problem of double standards in demands of nuance versus allowing broad brush characterization.

But the whole issue of individual versus social murder is worth a blog note, so I'll try to gather fuller thoughts and post in the next day or so.

what you dont think that dumbass sharpton burned his own building for the matyr like publicity

On Crossfire, the Republicans introduce Sharpton with a laugh. Silly me, I thought this was the only candidate they did that for, until the story came out that Mosely-Braun was thinking of running, then they laughed again. So we may not know if Lott is a racist, but those fuckers surely are. Tucker Carlson, I think, both times.

for those interested in the further debate on the use of the term "murder" in the Jan. 17th post, some of which is discussed above, see the comments section to the Jan. 21 post related to this topic

Sharpton is a joke. He represents the worst of racial hypocrisy. The anti-white rhetoric is not isolated, it happens every time he speaks to a black audience. He's gotten better about toning down the sound bytes so that there are few if any quotes that, by themselves, sound appalling, but he still represents the worst in race-baiting and is not brought to bear for it by the mainstream media. His political leanings are quasi-Marxist, to the left of Jesse Jackson, which will come out during the campaign. America will never embrace a black racist. 'The Black Vote' is becoming increasingly marginalized anyway; with the changing demographics of America look for Hispanic leaders (who do not carry the blood of Crown Heights and Freddy's on their hands) to become the sought after campaign speakers and photo ops while Sharpton and Jackson recede back into obscurity.

it beez racism!

I have a suggestion.

I feel that we should have someone run to represent us but, I feel by more than 1 of us running at the same time for the same position can only hurt the chances for a minority to get in the White House. I believe that Carol Braun and Al Sharpton should talk and have the minority community help make a decision on which would be the most likely to win and have all resources poured into that person.

One will take much needed votes from the other and ultimately cancel the power of our vote. This was just proven in the last election. The Independant part would not pull people from the Republican Party because, the usually stick together, think and act with 1 voice. On the other hand the Democratic Party is the one that do everything as individuals. If someone would move to the middle it would be us. This weakend our voting power and would do the same in this case.

I also feel that we need to learn from the Republican Party and meet, debate and come to a uniform decision then move forward with 1 voice to make every step and stand we make carry the greatest effect.

Contact me at any time for more on the subject 703-328-2652

I have a suggestion.

I feel that we should have someone run to represent us but, I feel by more than 1 of us running at the same time for the same position can only hurt the chances for a minority to get in the White House. I believe that Carol Braun and Al Sharpton should talk and have the minority community help make a decision on which would be the most likely to win and have all resources poured into that person.

One will take much needed votes from the other and ultimately cancel the power of our vote. This was just proven in the last election. The Independant part would not pull people from the Republican Party because, the usually stick together, think and act with 1 voice. On the other hand the Democratic Party is the one that do everything as individuals. If someone would move to the middle it would be us. This weakend our voting power and would do the same in this case.

I also feel that we need to learn from the Republican Party and meet, debate and come to a uniform decision then move forward with 1 voice to make every step and stand we make carry the greatest effect.

Contact me at any time for more on the subject 703-328-2652

I have a suggestion.

I feel that we should have someone run to represent us but, I feel by more than 1 of us running at the same time for the same position can only hurt the chances for a minority to get in the White House. I believe that Carol Braun and Al Sharpton should talk and have the minority community help make a decision on which would be the most likely to win and have all resources poured into that person.

One will take much needed votes from the other and ultimately cancel the power of our vote. This was just proven in the last election. The Independant part would not pull people from the Republican Party because, the usually stick together, think and act with 1 voice. On the other hand the Democratic Party is the one that do everything as individuals. If someone would move to the middle it would be us. This weakend our voting power and would do the same in this case.

I also feel that we need to learn from the Republican Party and meet, debate and come to a uniform decision then move forward with 1 voice to make every step and stand we make carry the greatest effect.

Contact me at any time for more on the subject 703-328-2652

what is it with everyone? don't you remember that "the jogger" was not only savagely raped but also beaten senseless. she has no recollection of the event and did not testify against anyone.
as to sharpton...oh, please. i don't care if he's green and comes from mars, he is not an intelligent person. his grammar is poor, he lies, did he ever apologize to the man whose life was ruined by the tawana brawley mess? if your answer is,"whites don't apologize when..." then you're not getting the bigger picture. are there white bigots in america? yes. are there white racists in the usa? absolutely. are there black racists and bigots? yeah. PEOPLE are horrible. it's called SIN. REVERAND jackson should be talking about doing things the way Jesus would want, not about retribution, etc.. Oh, and remember, Jesus was not white. do i have to quote rodney king?

I am a68 year old disabled veteran. I am a caucasian but I was raised dirt poor. Of all the contenders you are the only one that understands what poverty means. I would vote for you if that occurs. I wish that you were my representative,but I live in the far north west corner of WA state. Thanks for the issues you are raising.

Your defense of Sharpton is outrageous. Sharpton
is the biggest racist in the country. Your basis for defending him:

"But white politicians use code words for black people every day-- "welfare queens" et al -- so are black politicians singularly barred for life from politics if they appeal to the baser instincts of their constituents in building their political clout? If Sharpton continued to base his political appeal on such antisemitic appeals, I'd have a deeper problem with him on that basis, but his sins on that score have been sporadic-- dramatic admittedly -- but not continual."

You are either duped or a racist yourself if you can't see the obvious racism in these remarks. To claim that it is not continual shows your ignorance of the man. In most all of his speechs, that type of content is found. What are you hearing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John Isbell...go back and do a little research on Carol Mosely and Sani Abacha, and you'll see why decent people laugh at the thought of President Mosely-Braun. We have to, in order to keep from screaming with outrage. And we can laugh, because we know it will never happen. Only a complete idiot would assume that you have to be a racist to laugh at a Mosely-Braun candidacy

Drae...the problem with your suggestion is that there are many minorities who, if given the chance, would tell both the racist Sharpton and the crook Braun to get lost. And they both have egos too large to let them give way to the other.

It really does big the question...where are the truly great African-American leaders? What about Kwase Mfume and Charles Rangel, to name two? There are several great African American leaders who could be running for president instead of those two idiots.

Robert, when you're next inspired to tell people what they don't know about prominent black Americans, you should spell Kweise Mfume correctly, it will enhance your credibility.
Yes I know about Sani Abacha, no I would never vote for CMB, no Tucker Carlson is not a decent person, and your evidence for your reading of the laugh is less than mine, because unlike me you didn't see the event you now reinterpret for us. That seems unscientific, don't you think?

Kweise Mfume stated in an interview that when he was a young man, a couple of low lives in a pick-up truck with a Confederate flag attached to it yelled the 'n' word at him and that's why he is determined to see that symbol (stars and bars) be banished. Further, folks who see the flag as a symbol of cultural heritage are racists. Really? That kind of divisive thinking is precisely why Mr. Mfume is not Mr. President material. All the resources and energy wasted on a symbol, as if the NAACP was the new and all-knowing Citizins Council. Sorry Mr. Mfume. I'm glad my older brother didn't manifest in the same manner as you after his having survived a vicious and bloody attack by an Afro-pick wielding gang of punks. He's now one of his neighborhoods largest equal opportunity employers. The symbol/image of a black clenched fisted handled Afro pick is what it is--an Afro pick.

Bill Cosby for president!

Its Kweisi with an i. When you're nitpicking someone else you really have to check this type of thing.

http://www.naacp.org/leadership/presimessage.shtml

Oh, the confederate flag doesnt represent hatred?

Wonder what was on the front of the truck that dragged James Byrd? A confederate flag.

Wonder what was on the courthouse steps of the people fighting for his killers? The klan and the confederate flag.

Wonder what 11 times out of 10 will be somewhere in a klan meeting? A confederate flag.

Wonder what was waving in the background when you see cross burnings? A confederate flag.

Wonder what was waving in the background when you see pictures of lynched blacks? A confederate flag.

Wonder what was waving in the background when the seven year old black girl went to the white school? A confederate flag.

Wonder what was waving in the background when the students at the University of Alabama integrated? A confederate flag.

Wonder what was waving in the background as AMERICAN cops and AMERICAN firefighters sicked k-9 dogs and powerful fire hoses on us? A confederate flag.

Tell me, how is it 'living in the past' for us to want some actual reparations or talk about continuing racism, but it is perfectly fine for some white person to celebrate the history of a nation that was defeated 140 years ago? If it is heritage, then let the nazis fly their flag. Let the kamikazes wave their flag. Let the Communists wave their flags. Yes it is heritage, but it is hateful heritage that benefits no one.

Biggest racist?

Trent Lott: (paraphrase)

If everyone had voted like I did (when pro-segregation Strom Thurmond ran for president) then we (White America?) wouldnt have all the problems we have today.

Strom Thurmond:

Hates black people, really just black males. Turns out the mickey fickey had a child by a black woman. Yah, I'm really sure she consented to that! *rolls eyes*

Charlton Heston:

....From my cold dead fingers!....That can be arranged. Michael Moore asked him why America had so much violence. His answer: "Because we have so much ethnicity." WHAT?!

Clintons unfounded remarks on Sister Souljah. I usually liked him but he in the end was a typical white male. Untrustable. Tell me how much sense this makes. Would it make more sense to lock someone up for selling koolaid powder, or liquid koolaid (diluted with water and sugar)? Would it make more sense to lock someone up for selling cocaine powder, or crack (diluted with baking soda and water)? The sentence for possession/distribution/use of the diluted substance is three times greater than the sentence for possession/distribution/use of the pure substance.

This is not a principle that only effects drugs, but anyproduct. The more pure a subtance, the higher its price. Take for instance 87 octane versus 110 octane.

Black people being the minority (a people historically and systematically disadvantaged) historically and systematically make less than whites. Therefore historically and systematically, the black people who do drugs are more likely to afford crack instead of cocaine. Yet and still, the sentence for the drug historically and systematically more affordable to black drug users is three times harsher than the sentence for the drug that is historically and systematically more affordable to non-minorities.

I'm through talking, but just remember this white people. Every atrocity White America has inflicted on different cultures and races to be a superpower, will be inflicted upon White America by the next superpower. What goes around will come around. Belee dat!

So, why doesn't Al read "all our lips" and take his leave and take Jesse with him. He is the epitome of exactly what he says he isn't