The problem with Rev. Al Sharpton is that when he's on, he's RIGHT on, when off, he's WAY off, and no one can tell the diference anymore. So he may very often be making a good point, but thinking people reflexively turn the station when they see his doo pixelate onscreen, for he is the Doo That Cries Wolf. Whenever I him on the case, I am suspect. I'm not sure if he is right to be angered enough to protest the New York Post about thier editorial cartoon—his involvement clouds the issue, for me. What I know is that he mostly brokers is unfocuses agitation: he embarks on crusades without a clear goal or objective in mind.
This morning, I heard Sharpton say his job was to be an "activist" and bring attention to injustice. Whatever. But gathering a bunch of people to stand outside a building chanting is not engaging the problem in a way designed to get change—- this is the way you get your picture in the paper. And because Sharpton is likely to find unjustice in a ham sandwich, there are those amoung us who just wish he said less and did more. He's uses 60s era tactics to fight new millenial racism. It isn't just that Sharpton is ineffectual as an agent of change. It's that he doesn't seem to care whether anything changes or not. Queit it's kept, he's probably hopeful it won't, so TV producers will have a reason to call him to get Da Word From Darktown.
Enough, already.
I'm not sure, in aggregate, what Sharpton's sundry quests have netted humanity in general or black people specifically, and I wonder if he could actually affect more change with less camera time.
Single Father, Author, Screenwriter, Award-Winning Journalist, NPR Moderator, Lecturer and College Professor. Habitual Line-Stepper