Out of Left Field or Out of Touch With Reality?

I’m less enthused about Jesse Jackson’s public support of Terri Schiavo than Jerry is. The reverend is, in my opinion, a media whore and skipper of the "rent a mob" crew and Al Sharpton is his first mate. Want to present a lot of angry faces and voices for the cameras? Need someone to yell "Oppression!" with you? Is your bombast not bombastic enough? If you’re not concerned about nitty-gritty details like respectability, credibility, and sincerity, they’re your men. If I found out either of those clowns supported a cause dear to me, I’d ask God to grant them the good sense to keep their mouths shut, at least when reporters are present.

Comments 33

  1. howard wrote:

    “Either you have a warped sense of ‘balanced’ or Mr Terry is a pretty screwed up guy.”

    Mr. Terry is a pretty screwed up guy, Funky, and this is coming from someone who is in basic agreement with his stances on a lot of things. I’ve been following his exploits since the days when he almost scared me away from the pro-life movement altogether. He may well belong in class of “advocates” below even the level of a Jesse Jackson.

    That said, if God could use a donkey on the roadside to get through to His own prophet, then I suppose either Randall Terry or Jesse Jackson could also be used by God for whatever He chooses.

    Posted 04 Apr 2005 at 8:05 am
  2. Matt wrote:

    “He doesn’t want a private matter to be discussed too much publicly.”

    I guess discussing it too much publicly wouldn’t include writing an op-ed about his son in the Washington Times, then.

    http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040412-091634-6744r.htm

    Posted 30 Mar 2005 at 11:45 pm
  3. Matt wrote:

    “The reverend is, in my opinion, a media whore and skipper of the “rent a mob” crew… Want to present a lot of angry faces and voices for the cameras? Need someone to yell “Oppression!” with you? Is your bombast not bombastic enough? If you’re not concerned about nitty-gritty details like respectability, credibility, and sincerity, they’re your men.”

    Doesn’t every single description here also apply to Randall Terry?

    Posted 30 Mar 2005 at 7:39 pm
  4. Funky Dung wrote:

    1) Jackson and Sharpton ought to be just about the last people blacks should want to champion their causes.

    2) What am I saying? What the heck does color have to do with any of this?!? I called J and S “clowns”, not “black clowns”. If a notable white, yellow, brown, or purple-with-polka-dots media whore caught my attention, I’d have said something about them, too. As it so happens, I only know about Jackson because of Jerry. If you’d like to present a case for particular white, or any other color, media whores in the Schiavo case, by all means do so. Try to provide support for you claims. As for mine, I think Jackson’s reputation speaks for itself. Jerry does make a good point, though, about the seeming incongruity of his support for Terri’s cause.

    3) Pardon me for not assuming that Congress was only grandstanding rather than showing a real desire to help Terri Schiavo. Maybe they were, but I don’t know that for certain, so I’ll give them benefit of the doubt for now. Remember, I’m not part of their “base”, so if they were rallying voting forces, I was oblivious. I’ll be voting for Casey over Santorum in ’06. Besides, it’s not impossible for a person or group to both care deeply about a cause and alos find it to be poltically convenient. They’re not mutually exclusive.

    4) I never cease to be amazed at how duped, sucked-in, and easily manipulated hard-core conservatives and liberals are. I get lots of mail from both sides – newletters, petitions, etc – because I like to stay balanced. Just about every day I marvel at the troop-rallying rhetoric used by both sides. I shake my head as the lemmings instictively follow each other to edge of a cliff. Where am I going with these images? Well, look at how liberal panties are in a knot over what Congress did. I’ve heard hardly a liberal soul say that any of them had even an ounce of real concern for Terri. It’s been a loud chorus of “Grandstanding!” across the board with nary a unique thought in the bunch.

    5) I’ll freely admit that sometimes I’m more blind to conservative group-think than liberal group-think. I’ve been reading a lot of conservative blogs lately. It hasn’t been intentional, really. It’s just a consequence of who reads me – a kind of six degrees of separation thing. I recently put the call to my readers for liberal bloggers with traditional, orthodox Christian views in an effort to broaden my horizons. Feel free to join that effort.

    Posted 30 Mar 2005 at 1:36 pm
  5. Funky Dung wrote:

    Black Conservative Blasts Jesse Jackson for ‘Exploiting’ Schiavo

    Posted 31 Mar 2005 at 9:11 pm
  6. Jerry Nora wrote:

    After all, when a patient with a–I’ll be generous–debatable neurological diagnosis has her decisions and rights manhandled like they’ve been, it’s a cause for concern, and traditionally this has been something liberals have been better about working on. Alas, the rhetoric used by Michael Schiavo’s supporters was similar to the Roe v. Wade or Griswold v. Connecticutt decisions, and so that finished off most liberal opposition to this mess.

    Posted 30 Mar 2005 at 4:34 am
  7. John wrote:

    Conservative White Bandwagon.
    For a start, the Republican slate of Congresspersons.
    That’s not an exhaustive list. But it’s a damn good start.

    If they actually gave a damn they could have passed a law ordering the tube be put back in. It would be Constitutionally iffy, but not nearly as muchso as the law they did pass.

    They didn’t want he to live, she is more politically useful to them as a martyr.

    Posted 30 Mar 2005 at 6:38 am
  8. Funky Dung wrote:

    er “call him a media WHORE”…

    left out a word

    Posted 30 Mar 2005 at 10:27 pm
  9. Matt wrote:

    He chose to defend himself, though, in an outlet that had a much higher visibility factor than the one in which he was attacked. I mean, the readership of Out Magazine vs. the Washington Times?

    And, besides, if this isn’t airing “dirty laundry”:

    “He was recently arrested for DWI; he’s writing bad checks on a closed bank account; he dropped out of school a year ago; he doesn’t have a job; he bounces from house to house; he’s racked-up huge bills for friends and family that he cannot pay; he’s been taken to court by former friends to get money he owes them; he’s lied to friends, saying his “famous dad” was going to send money to pay his debts; and he has a trail of wrecked friendships and family relationships because of deceit, money fraud and crossed boundaries ? a mirror image of the home he was in from his birth until he was 8.”

    …then I’m not sure what is.

    Again, though, this is all a side issue to my larger point.

    Posted 31 Mar 2005 at 12:09 am
  10. Matt wrote:

    I agree that it wasn’t balanced (when I wrote the first sentence, I was still looking for articles). But as it was just factual info, without any commentary, I thought it was worth posting.

    Again, the CNN piece is the most balanced I’ve seen, having a fair number of actual quotes from Terry. Sorry if you haven’t gotten a chance to watch it yet.

    Posted 01 Apr 2005 at 5:08 pm
  11. Matt wrote:

    I brought it up because Funky Dung asserted that the only reason Jesse Jackson was involved was because he was a “media whore” (a point I don’t dispute). However, the only reason anyone outside of the Schaivo/Schindler circle (or, to be generous, Florida) knows about this case is because of another “media whore,” Randall Terry–brought in by the family precisely because he is a “media whore.”

    If you don’t feel that piece of information is pertinent, then what’s the point in attacking Jackson (and I know you didn’t, Jerry)?

    Posted 30 Mar 2005 at 11:58 pm
  12. Matt wrote:

    I don’t have a print one handy, unfortunately. But I highly recommend the CNN video. He is very upfront about the fact that the Schindlers hired him due to the fact that he would attract media and publicity.

    As far as him not wanting to draw attention to himself, I don’t buy it. Do a little reading on why he spent some time in jail in the 90s.

    Posted 30 Mar 2005 at 11:33 pm
  13. Jerry Nora wrote:

    I don’t know about white conservatives renting out a mob, and I do share Funky’s general dislike of Jackson. In fact, when I saw the Franciscan who was advising Terri’s parents, I thought “Hey! Isn’t that Jackson’s job, being a pastor to famous?” I busted out laughing, or at any rate grinned, when I saw that Jackson did in fact gravitate to this case.

    However, I am not sure if his intentions are wholly whorish… This debate has often been framed about people’s right to choose what to do with their bodies, hence why liberals have often rallied behind Michael Schiavo. Rev. Jackson is notable for having whored his views on abortion (he once spoke at National Right to Life Council meetings) in order to be a Democratic candidate for president (we have it on good authority that selling one’s soul to gain the world is a bad deal, so how sad is it when one sells one’s soul to be a failed presidential candidate? Rep. Kucinich falls in this pitiful category as well, though he succeed at being totally irrelevant as a candidate, whereas Jackson at least kept up a presence for a little while).

    Okay, that parenthetical comment went on too long. At any rate, this actually runs counter towards much of the groupthink that Rev. Jackson has bought into for the past couple decades, so perhaps there is some good will behind it, and not just grandstanding. I presented his article as a counterexample (along with Hentoff, and atheist whose character is not so easily impugned as the reverend’s) to those invoking a conservative vs. liberal mythos for this all.

    Posted 30 Mar 2005 at 4:32 am
  14. Funky Dung wrote:

    I found this Beliefnet interview with Randall Terry. It’s an interesting read.

    “There are three options when you find out a family member is homosexual. One is accept them and their lifestyle as if it’s normal. Two is to reject them and sever your relationship. Three is to love them unconditionally, but to tell them you do not accept their behavior as normal, and to tell them the truth.”

    Amen

    Posted 30 Mar 2005 at 10:20 pm
  15. Funky Dung wrote:

    I hesitate to call him a media based on the interview. He repeatedly tells the interviewer that he doesn’t want to air his son’s dirty laundry in public. If he’s so much like Jackson, I’d have expected him to milk his son’s outing for all it’s worth, but he didn’t. He doesn’t want a private matter to be discussed too much publicly. I respect that.

    I’ll hopefully have time after work to check out the video. In the meantime, could you hook me with some balanced articles? I’m not looking for glowing praise or diatribe. I just want a fairly reported article about a guy I’d never heard of before today.

    Posted 30 Mar 2005 at 10:27 pm
  16. Funky Dung wrote:

    I just read the Wikipedia entry. Either you have a warped sense of “balanced” or Mr Terry is a pretty screwed up guy. The article article doesn’t give me any sense of whether or not he’s a media whore, but he doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy I want rooting for my causes.

    Posted 01 Apr 2005 at 1:53 pm
  17. Funky Dung wrote:

    I knew I was setting myself up when I admitted to not knowing who someone was. I decided that honesty is the best policy.

    I think it’s worth pointing out that most Americans – on boths sides of the issue – probably aren’t well-versed in the facts/history of this case. I don’t watch news or read newspapers all day to keep myself abreast of case developments. Whenever I have seen or read anything, the voices and opinions I’ve been exposed to have been mostly those of the Schindler family, Michael Schiavo, and George Felos. In the last couple weeks, I haven’t heard Mr. Terry’s name mentioned even once.

    Posted 30 Mar 2005 at 10:02 pm
  18. Funky Dung wrote:

    I read the op-ed. I think he was justified given what his son did. Terry hints at a lot but leaves out most details regarding his son’s life prior to being adopted. If he was out for publicity, he could have easily exploited those details. Compared to what his son wrote, it’s pretty tame. He was protecting his reputation against what he feels are lies and distortions.

    Posted 30 Mar 2005 at 11:59 pm
  19. John wrote:

    I’m still anxiously awaiting an explanation why Congress didn’t just order the tube put back in. The only theory that I see fitting the data is that they like having her as a martyr more than they like having her alive.

    Posted 31 Mar 2005 at 9:36 pm
  20. Matt wrote:

    I’ve been looking for some balanced articles on Randall Terry. Here’s a few I came up with.

    His Wikipedia entry – not really complete, but it’s got some biographical info.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Terry

    And, geez, that’s about it through 7 pages of Googling. Everything out there seems to fall under the headings of a) hatchet job, or b) hagiography. The CNN piece is still the most balanced, informative thing I’ve seen.

    Posted 31 Mar 2005 at 2:42 am
  21. John wrote:

    If they genuinely wanted to save her, why didn’t they enact legislation ordering the feeding tube to be put back in?

    They knew that if it went to a Federal Court the judge would make the same ruling as the Floriday jugde did, because that’s what the law said.

    Posted 30 Mar 2005 at 11:33 pm
  22. Jerry Nora wrote:

    John, the state of FL did explicitly order for it to go back in, but it got shot down in December. Congress was also wary (as was I) about meddling too specifically in this case, lest we set a disastrous precedent for other cases.

    “Hard cases make bad laws”–Oliver Wendell Holmes. I keep thinking of this quote with regard to Terri, may she rest in peace. Congress, to its credit, seemed wary (at least with many people on both sides of the aisle) of legislating too broad an act to help Terri–to do so would only increase the chances of the court’s shooting it down anyway.

    Posted 01 Apr 2005 at 12:04 am
  23. Funky Dung wrote:

    Matt, my work machine doesn’t have a sound card, so I haven’t watched the CNN video. I’ve only read the Beliefnet interview.

    Posted 30 Mar 2005 at 10:22 pm
  24. Rick wrote:

    Maybe Rev. Jackson is re-discovering his principles

    Posted 30 Mar 2005 at 7:07 pm
  25. Funky Dung wrote:

    Maybe they’re just dumb. Why leap to the conclusion that it was some kind of conspiracy?

    Posted 31 Mar 2005 at 9:49 pm
  26. Funky Dung wrote:

    Or perhaps they didn’t think they could legally request that.

    Posted 31 Mar 2005 at 9:48 pm
  27. Funky Dung wrote:

    Tell me who he is and I might be able to answer.

    Posted 30 Mar 2005 at 7:59 pm
  28. Matt wrote:

    The original language of the bill did force the tube back in. The language was changed. Congress knew exactly what the law required, and what the outs for the court were.

    Funky Dung, any thoughts on whether Randall Terry and Jesse Jackson have anything in common yet?

    Posted 31 Mar 2005 at 11:09 pm
  29. Kevin wrote:

    The Republicans also probably didn’t try to order the tube back because the Democrats in the Senate would have likely fillabustered it too death.

    Posted 02 Apr 2005 at 12:59 am
  30. Matt wrote:

    The Schindler family spokesman, and the only reason you know about this case at all.

    He has quite the backstory, too. Here’s a CNN bio about him from last week.

    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/03/25.html

    An observation, and I’m honestly not trying to be rude here, but not knowing who Randall Terry is doesn’t indicate to me that you’re very well-versed in the facts/history of this case.

    Posted 30 Mar 2005 at 9:38 pm
  31. John wrote:

    The white conservatives who rented out this mob didn’t seem to bother you as much as Jackson does. If you’re going to be angry at people for crassly capitalizing on the situation. Take all comers.

    Posted 30 Mar 2005 at 3:50 am
  32. Jerry Nora wrote:

    Um, what does it matter who this Randall Terry guy is? My support for Terri was never predicated on him (or Jackson, whose involvement in this I perhaps should have let go unmentioned, lest we lose sight of the real person of interest).

    Posted 30 Mar 2005 at 11:47 pm
  33. Matt wrote:

    Well, now that you do know who he is, I restate my original question. Can’t all of the negative qualities that you said Jesse Jackson brings to the table be attributed to Randall Terry as well?

    Posted 30 Mar 2005 at 10:05 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *