Sharpton to Protest Mich. Emergency Takeover Law

[Zacha341]

From article: The Rev. Al Sharpton, U.S. Rep. John Conyers and others say they plan a demonstration outside Gov. Rick Snyder's gated community to protest what they say is a racially biased law that makes it easier for Michigan to take over financially struggling communities and school districts.

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news...r-law-20120116

[Scottathew]

Sharpton is a racist that whines and cries the race card for his own benefit to keep himself relevant, and does so to the detriment of blacks.

The takeover of Detroit's finances has nothing to do with race and everything to do with a city run into the ground by mismanagement, overspending, a fleeing populace, and gobs of union bloat.

I love it when people do things and claim it's what MLK would have done. Sharpton is most certainly nothing like MLK. MLK was for the people and equal rights. Sharpton is for himself.

[Zacha341]

HMMMN, I never saw him leading a march to Granholms house where much of this started [[EFM implementation). Oh, I forgot she's a dem and we take the medicine willingly when dolled out that way... and why is Conyer's involved on any level? What he could he possibly championing??

[Modusvivendi]

Just curious - Is there any indication of what most black Detroiters think of Sharpton? Do they see him as a professional demagogue or as someone who usually raises serious issues in an earnest manner. [[For the record, I am white and do not live in Michigan. I am a liberal democrat but have a hard time taking him seriously.)

[jt1]

Just curious - Is there any indication of what most black Detroiters think of Sharpton? Do they see him as a professional demagogue or as someone who usually raises serious issues in an earnest manner. [[For the record, I am white and do not live in Michigan. I am a liberal democrat but have a hard time taking him seriously.)

I think it is a fair question but one statement causes a little concern: "Is there any indication of what most black Detroiters think of Sharpton?"

As with any group of people there are a number of opinions and I don't believe it is fair to assume that 'most' think the same of him. I know it is nit-picking but the perception of group think seems unfairly applied to the black community moreso than any other group of people.

[Wesley Mouch]

I think it is a fair question but one statement causes a little concern: "Is there any indication of what most black Detroiters think of Sharpton?"

As with any group of people there are a number of opinions and I don't believe it is fair to assume that 'most' think the same of him. I know it is nit-picking but the perception of group think seems unfairly applied to the black community moreso than any other group of people.

Its a fair question -- given that we're debating what an idiot like Sharpton is preaching to the 'group'. Sharpton is creating / encouraging / supporting racial division by his actions. But that's what he really wants to do, as that's the source of any attention paid to him.

Ignore the idiot Sharpton.

[jt1]

Its a fair question -- given that we're debating what an idiot like Sharpton is preaching to the 'group'. Sharpton is creating / encouraging / supporting racial division by his actions. But that's what he really wants to do, as that's the source of any attention paid to him.

Ignore the idiot Sharpton.

You missed the intent of the question.

[Wesley Mouch]

You missed the intent of the question.

Re-read, and am still missing the intent. I thought you were criticizing the grouping of people. I think Sharpton/Jackson/et. al. thrive on, and perpetuate grouping. What did I miss?

[Detroit Stylin]

OK so I guess my question is this then...what is all the hate towards Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? is it becuase he doesnt put on a public display about the ills of the Black Community like Bill Cosby did when he came to Detroit a few years ago? Is it becuase none of what they fight for are legitimate concerns? When you look at the EFM laws in place and the areas where they are being directed at, considering that there have been other ways that the state could have and SHOULD have helped out the city in the past instead of pandering to the interests of Oakland County, really what does it look like to you? Granted I know yeah city government needs a major overhaul but does this mean that the citizens of the city have to pay that price of being disenfranchised? If you want call those out who HATE look no further than Engler to set the stage for alot of the financial crisises[[sp?) that are affecting this area, he ended revenue sharing for the region and the state of michigan still OWES the city of Detroit something like 200 million dollars.

Things like this are too convenient to forget yet somehow when someone as is often called a 'Black' leader comes in to get the state to take some act right then all of a sudden they are trouble makers and racists. The TRUE racists are the one who not only left the D, but also ACTIVELY did what ever they could the strangle the ligfe out of the city, economically, culturally, and politically. You think OC got to be as 'propserous' as it is in its own merits? teh vast majority of the businesses that call OC home now were once headquartered in the city.


When the state outright takes away our rights to vote for our own school board becuase of 'corruption' [[and yes some did exist but at least the district had a surplus) only to replace it with people the state put in place who did manage to turn said surplus into a severe deficit, what makes you think the EFM wont do the same thing? it is the exact same thing just over the entire city and not a department.

I ca already see the EFM having what basically amounts to nothing more than a fire sale where all of the city's assets he is going to seel to interests in Oakland County. I'll bet :L. Brooks Patterson is salivating at the thought of a state take over of the city. And his lard ass has done more to disenfranchise the city simply by his actions in OC. But the bobble heads call that 'playing to his base and looking out for his constituents'.

The issues of the city are wrongly attributed simply to the corruption of a few people in city government when it comes to a basic matter of simple mathematics. How does one take care of a city whose geographic size and infrastructure were built to hold in excess of 2 million people, when much of its tax base has left the city, much of the 'home owner' who own property in they city are absentee slumlords who dont even take care of their property, let alone pay taxes on them?
How can the city provide the services that it needs to the remaining citizens then when they are scattered across that same area and they still have to take care of the roads, and sewer lines, and power lines, and other infrastructure? Remember those man made things didnt get up and leave. They still need to be maintained.

Now while some of the recent events have been exacerbated due to political idiots like Kwame and Bing, alot of the city's ills have been authored by Lansing and considering the racial makeup of OC and Detroit, why hasnt anyone screamed out "Our politicians are racist!"?

So no Al Sharpton is doing the same thing that he has been doing for the last 50 years. He is championing the rights of the very people in this country who have been through this before against this closeted form of disenfranchisement...

[Wesley Mouch]

OK so I guess my question is this then...what is all the hate towards Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? <snip>
So no Al Sharpton is doing the same thing that he has been doing for the last 50 years. He is championing the rights of the very people in this country against this closeted form of disenfranchisement...

I don't hate either. But they are both self-serving demagogues who do harm to the communities they support.

Did you read Mayor Nutter of Philly? http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ech-rich-lowry

Sharpton doesn't 'champion the rights' of anyone. He oppresses them.

[Detroit Stylin]

I don't hate either. But they are both self-serving demagogues who do harm to the communities they support.

Did you read Mayor Nutter of Philly? http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ech-rich-lowry

Sharpton doesn't 'champion the rights' of anyone. He oppresses them.

That depends on how you view it and how much you know of which it appears you are allowing yourself to only know what you feel comfortable with....

[Zacha341]

Well first off black people are not monolithic. We don't all think alike and I for one have a problem with someone being ascribe my leader!

But it is what it is and in broad strokes Sharpton has appointed himself as 'our' leader and where he can sign on to an area that a large percentage of black people are concerned with he gets involved - within HIS agenda - as some feel for his own interests. That is an area of debate here and elsewhere. My main problem with Sharpton and others like him is they tend to PICK and CHOOSE what makes them come to life ala coming forth [[coming to town) to protest.

Where are/ where they regarding the black on black crime and other crime that has this city in its grips? Is that ok...? The exploding teen violence? Are they [[he and Jackson) working with the existing organizations here in the city that need ongoing support? Where was he when Jenny [[Granholm) was putting in the infrastructures that he now decries? Oh it was fine then so long it had a democratic face?

I am not happy about seeing an EFM coming but it's been building up to this for a long time and I'm not sure what is occurring now [[protest) is any more than grand standing.

Just curious - Is there any indication of what most black Detroiters think of Sharpton? Do they see him as a professional demagogue or as someone who usually raises serious issues in an earnest manner. [[For the record, I am white and do not live in Michigan. I am a liberal democrat but have a hard time taking him seriously.)

[showstoppa]

It's sad I have to use this intro, especially on MLK Day but here goes: I'm a african-american Detroiter. With that said Sharpton, Jackson, or even Bill Cosby doesn't speak for any of us !

Now on to the matter at hand. The EFM law stands everything against I stand for as far as democracy is concerned. However, when you consider the drastic condition Detroit is in, I find it disappointing that a average of only 25% [[at best) of registered voters actually vote ! so if Sharpton wants to protest anything, protest the fact that so few people vote leaving the city with incompetent people to run the city !

I'm the Showstoppa, and I approved this message !

[Zacha341]

Well stated SS! No, they don't want to do that - too proactive. This the reactive scene!

Now on to the matter at hand. The EFM law stands everything against I stand for as far as democracy is concerned. However, when you consider the drastic condition Detroit is in, I find it disappointing that a average of only 25% [[at best) of registered voters actually vote ! so if Sharpton wants to protest anything, protest the fact that so few people vote leaving the city with incompetent people to run the city !

[Zacha341]

Snyder was not at home per a report on the protest. I wonder if Jennifer Granholm would have been home perhaps with cookies and hot chocolate?

Protesters occupy Governor Rick Snyder's neighborhood

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/protest...s-neighborhood

[Brian1979]

Why would Al Sharpton need to get involved anyways? What does this have to do with him?

[Zacha341]

Was he even at the march to Snyder's or was here just to announce it then back home he went? I did not see HIM in any of the footage of the protesters once they go there.....

[vetalalumni]

Was he even at the march to Snyder's or was here just to announce it then back home he went? I did not see HIM in any of the footage of the protesters once they go there.....

Apparently the Reverend Al Sharpton was in Detroit on Sunday January 15 - the day before the march. The press conference was held at The Historic King Solomon Baptist Church in Detroit on Sunday. The reverend hosted his regular live show on MSNBC on Monday in NYC, the day of the march.

[illwill]

With attitudes and opinions like this, being that many of you will be the city's future leaders... Detroit is in real trouble!

Race play is never ending ON A BIG SCALE in this city.

[Locke09]

With attitudes and opinions like this, being that many of you will be the city's future leaders... Detroit is in real trouble!

Race play is never ending ON A BIG SCALE in this city.

It actually makes me worry about the entire nation. An opportunity to debate whether there is legitimate reason to say that the EM law is unconstitutional and the only comments you get deal with race.

The motivation of the individuals involved, on both sides is irrelevant. The past or current actions of the individuals on both sides is irrelevant.

And although I'm sure most will miss this point, when discussing the constitutionality of the EM law in its current form, whether or not the city is truly in debt that it cannot resolve on its own, plagued by corrupt leaders, filled with ignorant citizens who don't know how to vote, etc., etc, etc. is also irrelevant.

The only thing that is relevant is whether or not the law violates the constitution. If it does [[and I am one who has always believed that the revised law does) it needs to be fixed.

I believe it is unconstitutional for two reasons:

1. The state has passed a law that allows an entity to violate the obligations of a contract, for purely financial reasons. Such power belongs to federal bankruptcy courts, not to the state.

2. The EM has the power to dismiss a local elected city clerk [[the person responsible for elections). This is even worse than dismissing a mayor or a council, because this means that a governor can install their own person to oversee elections in a year that the governor is running for reelection. City clerks are elected for a reason, so that they are independent of all other elected officials.

Then I believe there are other problems with the current law:

For instance, there are no checks and balances when one person has authority to fill all of the leadership positions and make all of the decisions. People generally do not make the best decisions when they cannot be challenged and when they themselves have nothing to lose.

But heck, let's just focus on Al Sharpton. Does anyone know whether or not the African-American community approves of his hairstyle?

[313WX]

It actually makes me worry about the entire nation. An opportunity to debate whether there is legitimate reason to say that the EM law is unconstitutional and the only comments you get deal with race.

The motivation of the individuals involved, on both sides is irrelevant. The past or current actions of the individuals on both sides is irrelevant.

And although I'm sure most will miss this point, when discussing the constitutionality of the EM law in its current form, whether or not the city is truly in debt that it cannot resolve on its own, plagued by corrupt leaders, filled with ignorant citizens who don't know how to vote, etc., etc, etc. is also irrelevant.

The only thing that is relevant is whether or not the law violates the constitution. If it does [[and I am one who has always believed that the revised law does) it needs to be fixed.

I believe it is unconstitutional for two reasons:

1. The state has passed a law that allows an entity to violate the obligations of a contract, for purely financial reasons. Such power belongs to federal bankruptcy courts, not to the state.

2. The EM has the power to dismiss a local elected city clerk [[the person responsible for elections). This is even worse than dismissing a mayor or a council, because this means that a governor can install their own person to oversee elections in a year that the governor is running for reelection. City clerks are elected for a reason, so that they are independent of all other elected officials.

Then I believe there are other problems with the current law:

For instance, there are no checks and balances when one person has authority to fill all of the leadership positions and make all of the decisions. People generally do not make the best decisions when they cannot be challenged and when they themselves have nothing to lose.

But heck, let's just focus on Al Sharpton. Does anyone know whether or not the African-American community approves of his hairstyle?

Great post Locke09.

[Wesley Mouch]

It actually makes me worry about the entire nation. An opportunity to debate whether there is legitimate reason to say that the EM law is unconstitutional and the only comments you get deal with race.

Let's switch to your topic -- but this thread was about Sharpton. Not the EFM.
But I'm really bored w/ Sharpton -- and not a moment too soon.

...And although I'm sure most will miss this point, when discussing the constitutionality of the EM law in its current form, whether or not the city is truly in debt that it cannot resolve on its own, plagued by corrupt leaders, filled with ignorant citizens who don't know how to vote, etc., etc, etc. is also irrelevant.

The only thing that is relevant is whether or not the law violates the constitution. If it does [[and I am one who has always believed that the revised law does) it needs to be fixed.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

I believe it is unconstitutional for two reasons:

1. The state has passed a law that allows an entity to violate the obligations of a contract, for purely financial reasons. Such power belongs to federal bankruptcy courts, not to the state.

Good point.

2. The EM has the power to dismiss a local elected city clerk [[the person responsible for elections). This is even worse than dismissing a mayor or a council, because this means that a governor can install their own person to oversee elections in a year that the governor is running for reelection. City clerks are elected for a reason, so that they are independent of all other elected officials.

Excellent point.

...
For instance, there are no checks and balances when one person has authority to fill all of the leadership positions and make all of the decisions. People generally do not make the best decisions when they cannot be challenged and when they themselves have nothing to lose.

Not bad point, except that there is a check and balance -- the lack of funds. It checks the ability to spend the money. And for balance, well, there can't be too much balance when everything has already been tipped to one end of the scale -- that is no money.

Fun to discuss point by point -- but what I really want to ask you is this...

So if the EFM law is unconstitution for real constitutional reasons [[not just because some people think its a power grab -- who cares about that non-logic), then it suggests that a bankruptcy should then be dealt with by a bankruptcy court -- oh what an idea.

And this of course is NOT what the Unions want, nor the current political leaders. So your argument actually supports my hope that bankruptcy, by a federal judge, is the best possible process -- because the process is not a creation of the political process.

This sounds like a great way to deal with things. All the same things will happen -- except that it will be much worse [[for those who want to keep things floating), and mostly likely very deep and broad.

But heck, let's just focus on Al Sharpton. Does anyone know whether or not the African-American community approves of his hairstyle?

Who cares about him, or the communities opinion of him. He's an idiot. There are important matters here. Thanks for pulling us back to them, Locke.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

I am in favor of the EM law, but I really need to wonder: if you oppose it, is Al Sharpton really someone you want to have on your side publicly? Both his personal and National Action Network finances have been subject to repeated violations of tax and finance laws. He has had leins put on his personal property by both the IRS and in response to losing a civil lawsuit stemming from his participation in the Tawana Brawley fraud. He may attract a little extra publicity [[mostly for himself, of course), but I would think his participation actually would cause people to be in favor of the law. I wouldn't rally for an ethics law with Richard Nixon as a featured speaker.

[Zacha341]

He's a media seeker and not even part of the march as he originally was slated to be. He illegitimizes most causes and needs to stay out of Detroit! We don't need the added useless drama at this point.

I am in favor of the EM law, but I really need to wonder: if you oppose it, is Al Sharpton really someone you want to have on your side publicly? ....He may attract a little extra publicity [[mostly for himself, of course), but I would think his participation actually would cause people to be in favor of the law.

[Zacha341]

Interesting point. I've considered that the governor will ultimately grant [[sic) the wish of no EFM and we go the court route straight on to bankruptcy! No pass GO! This of course will be politicized as well... but arguably it is less politically derived. In either case the unions will be dismantled.

And this of course is NOT what the Unions want, nor the current political leaders. So your argument actually supports my hope that bankruptcy, by a federal judge, is the best possible process -- because the process is not a creation of the political process.