Thomas Lindaman writes:
When it comes to controversial statements, Rev. Al Sharpton is Michael Jordan. Lately, he's been caught making another controversial statement regarding a favorite Leftist buzzword: social justice. Let's stop for a moment and really consider Sharpton's statement. If he's right, social justice means that everything is "equal in everybody's house." The problem? Not everybody is equal. I can't shoot a basketball like Lebron James, but under Sharpton's notion of social justice, I could claim half of his wealth because it would make things equal for the two of us. Ah, but then there's old Mrs. Johnson, the elderly woman down the street living off Social Security. She could lay claim to Lebron and my fortunes as a means to make things equal for all three of us. Then, there's George Clooney. Certainly we could take a portion of his wealth and split it among the three of us to make us all equal. He might object, but if he did, he's simply not committed to social justice, is he? Now, repeat this process a few billion times, once for each American. The logistics alone make it difficult to meet Sharpton's lofty-sounding goal. And we haven't even gotten into the different talents everybody has that would make equality for all under social justice impossible. Surely, Sharpton has to realize that we can't ever be equal, right? Some would say that's debatable, but I'm willing to give Sharpton the benefit of the doubt for one reason: it fits in perfectly with the Leftist logical narrative. The Left starts off with a problem and attaches a meaningless, nice-sounding slogan to it as a means to promote their "solution" for the problem. Take the "living wage" debate, for example. Leftists see people not making ends meet, so they blame companies for not paying their workers enough. Their solution: pay each worker enough so they can live. Hence, the "living wage" concept was born. Ah, but what if a man is poor because he prefers to spend his money on alcohol, gambling, or sex? The Left doesn't really take that into consideration. The Left sees that as the fault of the company that hires him to make widgets all day. If only they were more concerned about paying their workers more instead of making profits, that poor man could afford to buy food for his family! But really, I'm guessing he's going to use that extra money for more booze, gambling, and sex. Just a hunch... What the Left sets up is a self-perpetuating problem. Even if companies relent and start paying their employees a living wage, that amount may eventually change, and I'm guessing it won't ever go down if the Left has anything to say about it. After all, the living wage has to adapt to changes in the economy, or else the poor victims of Big Business's greed will be forced out on the street! And it only gets worse from there. Leftists will keep pushing the "living wage" higher and higher as long as people relent because they created an expectation that they demand others meet, but that they never expect themselves to meet. After all, they're the poor victims, so they should be allowed to partake in the lion's share of the spoils. And as long as there are people willing to fork over cash, the problem will never go away. When it comes to social justice, the same principle applies. Things will never be equal, but as long as the Al Sharptons of the world keep dangling a carrot in front of people willing to believe in it, social justice will continue to be a problem that they will exploit and exempt themselves from simultaneously. Of course, maybe Sharpton would be willing to give up some of his finery to help people. When he does, maybe his social justice rant will have some meat to it. But something tells me he won't. Just a hunch...
The right-wingers have been having a field day with this just a few hours after Rush Limbaugh brought to their attention.
Sharpton stated:
"So many of us that act as though the struggle for social justice and the struggle for right is over, don't realize that the struggle is not over until we achieve equality. Someone was saying to me the other day, Rev. Sharpton, we've got an African-American president. We've achieved the dream of Dr. King. And I told him, that was not Dr. King's dream […] but the dream was not to put one black family in the White House. The dream was to make everything equal in everybody's house. President Obama is in the White House to help us get there, but we're not there yet."
"So many of us that act as though the struggle for social justice and the struggle for right is over, don't realize that the struggle is not over until we achieve equality. Someone was saying to me the other day, Rev. Sharpton, we've got an African-American president. We've achieved the dream of Dr. King. And I told him, that was not Dr. King's dream […] but the dream was not to put one black family in the White House. The dream was to make everything equal in everybody's house. President Obama is in the White House to help us get there, but we're not there yet."
As you can see, people are trying to connect two different parts of Sharpton's speech together. That's why most of the bloggers are saying "Sharpton Says Social Justice Is Making Everything Equal In Everybody's House."
But that's not what he said. He also talks about rights (hell, he's talking about rights in the very same sentence). Why isn't THAT word being connected? That's awfully convenient.
The "equal" part of Sharpton's speech is talking about MLK's dream. Okay, so what was that dream?
"I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.' I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today."
Sharpton is stating that just because we have a black president, that doesn't mean the dream of MLK has yet been fully achieved. Well, who can argue with that?
It's obvious that Sharpton was making a play on the word "house." It's not enough that we have equality in the White "House", we need to have equality in EVERYBODY'S "house." Every house should see and treat a man as a man. Not a black man or a white man. A man.
A black family in the White House doesn't mean black people can now just shut up and sit down. So don't be frightened. Sharpton's talking about equality of civil rights, not about the shiftless nignogs trying to take whitey's "stuff."
But let's go ahead and talk about a living wage. You right-wingers, in typical "blame the worker" fashion, are assuming that a Living Wage isn't taking into account things like boozing? That's your argument? A living wage is the bare minimum a person can live on in his region, NOT including things like booze. And you know that. If someone is working his ass off, and trying to educate himself, and isn't blowing his money on booze, and STILL can't afford to have a roof over his head and put food on his table, what then?
Wages have to keep up with inflation. If they don't, a person CANNOT live. Not unless they use government programs like food stamps, which is something you people don't want. Do you want people to work? Then pay them what they deserve.
This is supposed to be the richest country in the world. Unregulated capitalism would turn us into a oligarchy. We've already seen what happens when you give companies complete and total free reign.
Strange how the Teabaggers have been very quiet on military spending, financial sector reform, or raising taxes in order to cut down on government borrowing. The "fiscal issues" that most enrage the Teabaggers always seem to have something to do with the Wrong People somehow benefiting from government spending. Hmmm...
Sharpton does make a reference to Social Justice, so that does open up that issue. One can argue whether Social Justice (which has multiple meanings) is realistic or not. That's fine. But one thing is for sure:
The fact that right-wingers can turn a speech like Sharpton's, into something like "They're wanting our stuff" indicates that Sharpton is right: We're not there yet.
