Does the Rev Jesse Jackson P/O You too ??

[Funseeker 22]

Maybe it`s just me but is the "Rev" not always somewhere looking for a cause. ?

His point now is that there are no black jurors on the MJ case. This Central CA area does not have a substantial black resident base so why does he have to always bring in the racial issue.

I know that this post might cause some controversy but I`m curious as to what Rev JJ really does ?.

[Flower]

This is just a wild stab in the dark, but maybe such an "exclusionistic" area as Santa Barbara County should have more blacks and would have, but for a long history of discrimination. Maybe that is his real complaint, and if not him, then who? But for MJ's fame and popularity, he, as a black man could certainly be at a disadvantage being tried by a without blacks. It was long the practice of prosecutors in California and probably other states to systematically use preemptory challenges to keep blacks from acting as jurors. Sadly, it wasn't that many years ago. The MJ jury however, seems to have at least some mixed ethnicity to it.

 

But certainly we haven't reached anywhere near a point of racial equality in this state or this country--unpopular but worthy causes sometimes need their gadflies to act as a provocative stimulus; a goad for good, so to speak.

 

Gay men should be so lucky so as to have someone of Jesse Jackson's stature looking out for them and their causes and provoking our collective social consciousness to do the right thing as opposed to what may be dictated by fear, ignorance or protectionistic upbringing. Although I have no idea where Jesse Jackson stands on gay issues, we have adopted his rainbow flag of "inclusion"--or close to it--as our own.

[BewareofNick]

>But for MJ's fame and popularity, he, as a

>black man

 

MJ? Black? Did he switch back?

[Guest zipperzone]

>Maybe it`s just me but is the "Rev" not always somewhere

>looking for a cause. ?

>His point now is that there are no black jurors on the MJ

>case. This Central CA area does not have a substantial black

>resident base so why does he have to always bring in the

>racial issue.

 

Why would the "Rev" even care since MJ doesn't believe that he IS black?

[guyinsf]

Is there something wrong with Jesse Jackson being a "political activist" and speaking out about "causes" he cares about? You don't have to agree with him all of the time (or even some of the time), but I don't see why it should annoy anyone that Jackson uses his stature to talk about racial/social issues. At least he's not using his position to advocate for discrimination against a group of people, something some other famous preachers (and the current US President) do.

[Doug69]

>Is there something wrong with Jesse Jackson being a

>"political activist" and speaking out about "causes" he cares

>about?

 

The only `cause` he seems to care about is the bank account of himself and his family, as he again and again financially enriches himself and his family (including his mistresses) by extorting money from companies which pay him in order for him not to protest against them. In the meantime, the people on whose behalf he is supposedly working continue to linger in miserable poverty.

 

Are there still really pepole left who don´t see through his self-serving schemes? Hard to believe.

 

>At least he's not using his position to

>advocate for discrimination against a group of people,

>something some other famous preachers (and the current US

>President) do.

 

Tell that to the Asian and Jewish high school students who are routinely rejected from colleges, despite having far better qualifications than others who are accepted, for no reason other than the fact that their race means that their applications are placed into different piles and far higher standards are imposed on them due exclusively to their race.

 

This racial discrimination occurs as a result of racist policies which Jesse Jackson has long supported - whereby the hurdles one faces in getting accepted to college are higher or lower depending upon one´s race. So to say that he doesn´t ´´ùse his position to advocate for discrimination against a group of people´´ is just outright false, unless, that is, you - like so many people - don´t consider discrimination to be objectionable when directed against Asians and Jews.

[JamesK840]

No, popular interest in cases does though...

 

I'm sometimes a fan of the Rev, but it may be about time for him to retire from public life.

 

As for all the cases du jour that do such a great job of taking 100% of the news cycle so there's no time to discuss things that really affect people such as the awful bankruptsy reform law...

 

I never understood the OJ verdict... until I served on a jury in a fairly large case (about 15 counts). I came away from that experience with complete disdain for media coverage of criminal cases and especially for the public's interest in them.

 

A juror isn't allowed to even consider a verdict until he/she's heard every word of evidence and all the details of applicable laws, yet Joe Watercooler, who thinks its funny he still gets jury summons after years of throwing them out yet somehow thinks his opinion matters a good god damn after hearing 15 minutes of the most sensational moments can't wait to tell me his...

 

I very much doubt there were no black people in the box as they empanelled the jury, they may have gone through several hundred people to come up with 12(+) for THIS case, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the defense dismissed half OR MORE of potential jurrors of color. Race is not a part of the transcript, so how would Rev. Jackson know? Jury selection isn't sensational so I doubt there was any press coverage of the early stages, and the transcripts of any sidebars where the defense or prosecution objected to racial skewing in the Jury would be the only reason this should even be under discussion, but have they even been released, if they exist?

 

To hell with the 'race card' and those who use it to defend multi-millionaires of any color!

[woodlawn]

RE: After the Revolution

 

>>Is there something wrong with Jesse Jackson being a

>>"political activist" and speaking out about "causes" he

>cares

>>about?

 

>The only `cause` he seems to care about is the bank account of

>himself and his family, as he again and again financially

>enriches himself and his family (including his mistresses) by

>extorting money from companies which pay him in order for him

>not to protest against them. In the meantime, the people on

>whose behalf he is supposedly working continue to linger in

>miserable poverty.

 

Doug, old boy, it's been too long.

 

I both agree and disagree with your statements. Let's not forget that as a young man Jackson marched with Dr. King on occasions when it was far from safe, and I do mean physically safe, to do so. Among others, he helped lead a social revolution in this country. But he now has the same problem as many successful revolutionaries -- what does a revolutionary do when the goals of the revolution have in large part been achieved? A certain author I know once opined that successful revolutionaries can be a real problem for the movement they lead if they do not, like King and Gandhi, pass from the scene more or less at the time the revolution succeeds, but instead stick around long afterward like Castro. What would King be doing today if he were still around? The yawning chasm that existed between black and white America in his day has been greatly narrowed but certainly not closed. What would he be doing about that?

[+ Charlie]

RE: After the Revolution

 

I think you are right about most revolutionaries. By the time of his death, however, King was already moving on to other causes, like the anti-war movement (Viet Nam in those days) and general economic inequality. People tend to forget that he went to Memphis for the striking trash collectors, a majority of whom were black, but it wasn't a purely racial issue. I'm not sure he would have been effective in those causes, which seem much more intractable, but I don't think he would have turned into the Johnny-One-Note that JJ has become.

[joel304]

> <This is just a wild stab in the dark, but

>maybe such an "exclusionistic" area as Santa Barbara County

>should have more blacks and would have, but for a long history

>of discrimination.>

 

Ummmm .... what? Would you suggest that we force blacks (or anyone) to an area where there is no work, or affordable property? Santa Barbara County has very little job opportunity for anyone except real estate agents or professors. "Exclusionistic" is defined as:

 

"One that advocates the exclusion of another or others, as from having or exercising a right or privilege"

 

What right or privilege is being denied? If you are not a retired celebrity, millionaire, student(as I was), or one of the few actively employed, why would you live in Santa Barbara?

 

Perhaps Nantucket, MA should be forced to build public housing on the beach to allow for more of an ethnic mix? Perhaps whites should be forced to live in South Central L.A. to allow for a more evenly divided jury pool. Simply stated, money has always allowed nicer surroundings, since the dawn of time. Do you think that rich blacks want to live among poor blacks or whites, including Jesse Jackson?

 

>Maybe that is his real complaint, and if

not him, then who?<

 

Is he advocating public housing, or property dispersal among disadvantaged classes in his neighborhood? People follow leaders that practice their own philosophies. I would suggest that he is quite happy with his surroundings, yet, would welcome more blacks (if they can afford it) to his neighborhood (as would I).

 

 

>But for MJ's fame and popularity, he, as a

>black man could certainly be at a disadvantage being tried by

>a without blacks. It was long the practice of prosecutors in

>California and probably other states to systematically use

>preemptory challenges to keep blacks from acting as jurors.

>Sadly, it wasn't that many years ago. The MJ jury however,

>seems to have at least some mixed ethnicity to it.<

 

 

Actually, the idiots that show up to the courthouse each day to lend support, appear to be evenly mixed in their ethnicity's. As far as preemptory challenges towards whites, you should study the O.J. trial. It is the practice of any good attorney, to attempt the exclusion of anyone that might not favor their client. Look at the celebrations of blacks vs. whites in the streets following the verdict. His attorney's attempted, as best they could, to limit the jury to less fortunate blacks. I would have done the same. Bet O.J., Cochran, and team, were glad that they did not live in the celebrating neighborhoods. Interesting that his victory party yielded a 10:1 ratio of whites over blacks in attendance. Was he excluding?

 

 

 

>Gay men should be so lucky so as to have someone of Jesse

>Jackson's stature looking out for them and their causes<

 

 

You admit that you know nothing of his stance on gay issues, yet you state that we should be "so lucky" to have him. Here is is quote:

 

"But Jackson reiterated his support for the heterosexual definition of marriage, saying, "In my culture, marriage is a man-woman relationship."

 

Jackson's comments stood in sharp contrast to those of state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, who sat next to him during his Harvard appearance.

 

I don't feel that lucky!

[Guest Dan]

RE: No, popular interest in cases does though...

 

Whenever I hear JJ mentioned, the first thing that comes to my mind is "shakedown artist." The man is nothing but a scammer.

 

Dan Dare

http://male4malescorts.com/reviews/dandarela.html

[Doug69]

RE: After the Revolution

 

>Doug, old boy, it's been too long.

 

Whose fault is that? You abandoned the neighborhood where I hang out, so I have to come here to the slums to find you. As I´m sure you can understand, I can only do that so often.

 

>I both agree and disagree with your statements. Let's not

>forget that as a young man Jackson marched with Dr. King on

>occasions when it was far from safe, and I do mean physically

>safe, to do so. Among others, he helped lead a social

>revolution in this country.

 

There´s no question that, at one time, Jesse Jackson was a committed, articulate, brave and even inspiring figure. But that time was long ago. I believe that his love of the trappigs of his success far surpassed his commitment to doing any actual good for anyone else. That, combined with the fact that racial issues are simply much different now than they were in the 1960s while Jackson´s tactics and views haven´t changed since then, now render him a farcial, irrelevant figure at best, and more accurately, such an easy target that he is now actually a detriment to his supposed cause.

 

But he now has the same problem

>as many successful revolutionaries -- what does a

>revolutionary do when the goals of the revolution have in

>large part been achieved? A certain author I know once opined

>that successful revolutionaries can be a real problem for the

>movement they lead if they do not, like King and Gandhi, pass

>from the scene more or less at the time the revolution

>succeeds, but instead stick around long afterward like Castro.

> What would King be doing today if he were still around? The

>yawning chasm that existed between black and white America in

>his day has been greatly narrowed but certainly not closed.

>What would he be doing about that?

 

That´s an interesting question, and few revolutionaries ever live to see their revolutions succeed. But those who do seem so often to become mirror images of the tyranny they once opposed. It´s hard for me to imagine MLK seeing the essential fruition of his dream for a color-blind society only to continue to pretend that that wasn´t the case in order to cling onto his revolutionary relevance. I think that´s what probably separates him from the unnotable ``revolutionaries`` like Jackson who, having seen their cause basically succeed, become way more interested in their own interests than in anything else.

[woodlawn]

RE: After the Revolution

 

>>Doug, old boy, it's been too long.

>

>Whose fault is that? You abandoned the neighborhood where I

>hang out, so I have to come here to the slums to find you. As

>I´m sure you can understand, I can only do that so often.

 

Point taken.

 

> That, combined with the fact

>that racial issues are simply much different now than they

>were in the 1960s while Jackson´s tactics and views haven´t

>changed since then, now render him a farcial, irrelevant

>figure at best, and more accurately, such an easy target that

>he is now actually a detriment to his supposed cause.

 

Perhaps that is a bit harsh. During the 80s Jackson broadened his activities from agitating on behalf of African Americans to agitating for labor rights and farmers' rights, speaking and demonstrating on behalf of many such groups regardless of the race of their members. In his presidential campaign and other campaigns during that decade he made a lot of points that needed to be made and were not being made by others -- such as the point that allowing America's manufacturing economy to be replaced by cheap imports would devastate the middle class. He was certainly right about that and about other things. But I have to agree that more recently he has not provided the kind of example or the kind of leadership that is needed by the causes he claims to champion.

 

> It´s hard for me to imagine MLK seeing the essential

>fruition of his dream for a color-blind society only to

>continue to pretend that that wasn´t the case in order to

>cling onto his revolutionary relevance. I think that´s what

>probably separates him from the unnotable ``revolutionaries``

>like Jackson who, having seen their cause basically succeed,

>become way more interested in their own interests than in

>anything else.

 

Well said.