Star Parker's Nonsense

This is an unpublished letter to the Washington Times in response to a recent column by Star Parker on the poor treatment of Sarah Palin and Clarence Thomas:

Re: “Why liberals hate Clarence thomas and Sarah Palin”, March 26th.

Just as Adrian Peterson, the Minnesota Vikings running back, was severely criticized last week for trivializing slavery, comparing it to the National Football League owners treatment of its players, so too does columnist Star Parker deserve a similar reaction for mindlessly invoking the slavery analogy in describing the liberal mainstream media’s apparently scandalous treatment of former Alaska Governor and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. Parker whines that “Thomas and Palin are particularly threatening to liberals because their lives fly in the face of liberal mythology.” “According to this mythology,” Parker continues, “the essential and ongoing struggle of interests between ‘haves’ and ‘have-not,’ rather than an ongoing struggle for human freedom.” This is impenetrable nonsense. Both Palin and Thomas have done extraordinarily well, notwithstanding their legions of liberal detractors: Palin, a remarkably incurious woman, has managed to parlay an abbreviated and undistinguished stint as chief executive of the state of Alaska and an ill-advised stunt of being selected as Sen. John McCain’s vice presidential running mate, into celebrity resulting in the lucrative enterprise known as Brand Palin; and Justice Thomas, despite a legal career of no particular distinction before being nominated by Bush the Elder for the High Court and despite a kinky preoccupation with porn, pubic hairs, and Coke cans, enjoys lifetime employment, where he isn’t required to say anything during oral arguments and where he occasionally cranks out nutty, reactionary opinions that pass for constitutional interpretation. So much for two slaves fleeing the plantation.

An Unlikely Defense of Sharpton

A letter to the editor of the Washington Examiner newspaper that places me in the unusual position of defending the Rev. Al Sharpton, a man who I have loathed since the Tawana Brawley affair:

Re: Al Sharpton is today's Orval Faubus, October 19th.

The perfervid Star Parker writes, "[Al] Sharpton blocked Limbaugh like Gov. Orval Faubus tried to block black children from entering Central High in Little Rock, Ark., in 1957." This is a ridiculous argument. First, to equate an activist's campaign against a radio talk show host's effort to purchase a professional sports franchise with an Arkansas governor's defiance of federal law in preventing children from attending school is, on its face, a risible absurdity. Second, attempting to buy a footabll team is a privilege while seeking an education is a right. Third, whatever influence Sharpton had in bringing pressure to bear on the NFL and the investment group, he lacked the actual power to prevent Limbaugh from acquiring an interest in the team. Faubus, on the hand, as the highest ranking state official, wielded enormous power in depriving a group of its constitutional rights. And finally, Limbaugh was unceremoniously dumped not because of his conservative politics - the truth is, that club of billionaire owners is every bit as conservative as Limbaugh - but because he is a polarizing figure whose presence would bring unwanted attention to the league and, most importantly, interfere with the flow of commerce. Ironically, Limbaugh was insuffiently conservative for the club. On the original point, Al Sharpton might be a lot of things but Orville Faubus he isn't.