There are probably legitimate joking uses for Imus' phrase. His was not one of them. He was not paraphrasing, putting himself in black shoes, or being ironic.

He was possibly substance-impaired, but that's no excuse. The only thing left is the door. It's not like he'll be on the street panhandling for beer money. Sayonara.

If Imus does get fired watch for him to lash out. What he said was horrid, but relatively mild compared to what you hear rappers and right wing talk radio saying every day.

Imus knows what these other cretins are saying and pretty much getting away with, and I think all this groveling he's doing is probably building some resentment inside him.

He might explode.

See a tongue-in-cheek visual of Imus and his newfound buddy, Michael Richards, hanging out and counting sheep...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

There has been a press conference, and the Rutgers womens' basketball coach will be on CNN's Situation Room today.

jconnorflynn,

Who really cares about erradicating hate speach. Let's erradicate racism.

Sure, that'll happen.  Maybe we could start by applying some accountability and fairness to the communications industry whereupon a more level playing field would compel these talentless creeps to really compete in a marketplace of ideas.

"After this, we can get all these creeps off the air who use the term 'fag' with abandon."

MJ,

From your mouth to G-d's ear. As a gay man, I will celebrate the day that happens!

Homer Hewitt

IMUS - ENOUGH ALREADY

Don Imus is now challenging the Trent Lott record for number of apologies. He has apologized daily on his show and in conversations with Al Sharpton and many others.
With the media paying undue and hyped attention to this story, his opportunities to apologize will be endless.

Imus needed to acknowledge his guilt for his thoughtless, reprehensible remark, but other than that, his sincere apology should be to the Rutgers basketball players whom he gratuitously insulted. We don't know what he may have done with respect to them or to Rutgers, but scholarship or other funds might not be a bad idea.

Those who know Don Imus, such as Tom Oliphant, are supportive since they know that he is in no way racist. That does not excuse the remark, but it certainly justifies forgiveness.

To put the matter in perspective, remember that a large part of his shtick is the cutting remark, often a bit offensive. He trades insults with his guests and attacks injustice with relentless criticism. Although close to the line, his comments are not really serious, such as when he called Governor Bill Richardson a "fat sissy" and the New York Knicks "chest-thumping pimps". Also, Imus constantly refers to Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld as "war criminals", although here he may be serious.

None of this excuses his Rutgers remark and, as Imus has said, he has been "humiliated". A two week suspension may be appropriate but cancellation of his program would not. His show is usually entertaining, it supports good charitable work, and it provides thoughtful, strong comment on political and other events by Imus and his
intelligent, influential guests.

And when generals and other high officials get away with reprimands or less for such actions as permitting Abu Ghraib or lying about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman or Iraq's connection to 9/11 or nuclear materials, cancellation of Imus in the Morning would be overkill.

homer www.altara.blogspot.com

I don't know about Gwen Ifill and "shiv" sticking on her part - she is one class act. What a great response to Imus' crude insults and low class performance in popular media.

I don't think her point was revenge at all. Its an appeal to holding more civil standards in the hope that others don't suffer what she has in the past. Shit-canning Imus would be one good way to get the point across that insulting language and behavior are simply not acceptable in civilized society. Especially where the behavior is repetetive. What good is an apology when the perpertrator simply goes out to transgress-for-ratings again and again?

I have ALWAYS admired Ifill and am a big fan of "Washington Week." On the other hand, you can't pay me to listen/watch Imus and his ilk.

For those numbnuts that will try to make a "Free Speech" issue out of this, a reminder: 1st Amendment "free speech" is protected from state (e.g. government) action -- MSNBC is a private employer. They can - and should - fire someone for such insulting, degrading and un-civil conduct. Even if it does give ratings a temporary bounce to keep this moron on the air.

Jimmy the Greek said something far less egregious in my book and CBS fired him none-the-less. I think CBS is still on the air...?

Jimmy the Greek said: "During the slave period, the slave owner would breed his big black with his big woman so that he would have a big black kid—that's where it all started."

Remember that "Black" not "African-American" was the more widely used and politically correct term at the time (1988). "African American" was only just coming into use then.

Whatever.... go Gwen go!

Chris, it will happen. As Tony Kushner said in "Ange;s in America," history only moves forward. Of course, it lurches backwards alot too!

Very interesting -- and although I've never listened to an Imus show (I think I saw him once on Larry King and couldn't get over his drawling speech impediment), I find this whole dust-up very interesting.

Are you saying that Imus plays the role of the "court fool"? that he sticks a pin in the balloon of PR hyped celebritydom? that he is the voice of left-behind-males? of Barbara Ehrenreich's "Stiffed"?

And that this time, he put his pin in a myth (young black student-athletes) which the society isn't ready to give up on?

I imagine it might be harder to do than one thinks. For example, when Ann Coulter's daily e-mail updates are advertised on Talking Points Memo's main website...

Of course there's only so much a webhost can do to limit advertising links. However, it just shows how profitable advertisers think this kind of vile is. And, since everything in our society is run on money, well... we'll need a definite paradigm shift in bottom-line priorities.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.

Speaking in my dual capacity as founder of the United Semitic Peoples' Kemalist Front (we have a few [7] high prestige single digit numbered membership cards available) and Ashkenazim for Divestiture, I implore my compatriots to eschew the conflation of "Semite" and "Israeli" (let alone the conflation of anti-Likudnik and anti-semite) One may see the swastika hidden in the mogen david without being an anti-semite.

nb. I am not a self-hating jew. I'm fine with me, it's those other guys who piss me off...

yup. Imus has a constitutionally protected right to be racist slime and he seems to exercise it regularly.

MSNBC is free to hire and fire racist slime.

I hope they will choose to exercise their freedom to fire this racist slime.

I have chosen to exercise my right as a civilized person to tune Imus and other demogogues OUT.

If enough people chose a similar exercise of freedom, Imus would have no audience, no ratings and no job.

In the broader context of public civility or whatever you wish to call all of this Imus strikes me as one of the least offensive of persons that entertain us daily. And if you include all forms of entertainment then there are a lot of people that ought not to be able to perform in any venue anywhere on this planet. I am especially mystified by black rappers that do and say the most outrageous things and get paid a lot for it with an awful lot of people paying to listen to it. I really think the black community ought to be looking inward because if there is one thing that is harming the black community in this country it is their own self-perception. The black children of this country have their self worth and perception of their place in society harmed every day because of this and nobody so much as bats an eye. There are boundless videos that depict the most awful treatment of black women by black rappers. It is nonsensical to think any of this will change if the black community doesn't change itself. Music and videos carry a powerful message and if that message is explicitly condoned within a community then the community has no authority to condemn others who do likewise. Imus was wrong and everybody gets it. I'm just not sure if the standard for rendering that judgement is commonly shared, across the board, by blacks and whites alike. My eyes and ears tell me it isn't.

thepeoplechoose

Imus was outraged at Katrina. Whoop de frickin' doo.

I don't think you were defending Imus, lally, but I just wanted to respond to that.

Imus is not a black rapper and black rappers didn't insult these women. Young women at college on scholarship ARE trying to change their community. What makes this so sickening is not just what Imus said, but the reaction of those like you who cannot see beyond what Imus said to who he said it about. This is about black college women insulted through no fault of their own.

As to blaming black rappers, I came of age listening to white rockers who had plenty of dirty language to use against white women, but I don't recall any establishment insider radio star assuming that such language applied to all white college women.

cfaller96.

Thanks for not confusing the words I quoted with my own opinions. Not all posters are so clear about those little details.

I wasn't defending Imus, but unlike the vast majority of posters on this subject, I have actually watched his program and am familiar with not only his stupid, sniggering, disgusting frat-boy "comedic" schtick but also how obsessive he gets about certain subjects that engage his interest and outrage.

Those posters who have pointed to Imus producer Bernie are correct in targetting his contributions to the tone of the show and I would add the creepy sidekick supposedly born-again Charles to the list. But Imus bears the ultimate responsibility as the roles both play are part of a long-standing mechanism employed by the show in guise of their "entertaining" comedy segments.

In addition, I have yet to see any mentions of one of the most frequent targets of Imus & company; Arabs and Muslims. They are not only used in the loose comedic sense, but are on the recieving end of real hate speech that doesn't even pretend to be funny.

Don't even get me started on the embedded sexism that runs throughout the whole program......

Bluebell's comment about rock is well stated. Mysogyny and racism in the broader culture is what we need to examine. We have plenty of examples where mysogyny and racism are held up and glorified. How many old westerns, deemed classics, are out there that show the cowboy harassing, exploiting, abusing women and people of color? How many commercials do I have to watch where something's being sold with a woman's body? Or where the value between a woman and beer is actually questioned? Even on this site there have been side-bar advertisements for checking out Paris Hilton's sex tapes or Pamela Anderson's boob falling out of her shirt. As a black woman I am constantly offended, and it's not only by rap videos! Why is no one here talking about how America really needs to take a look at itself and think about its character as a whole.

Well, if Imus goes, so should all the other "talking heads" who rave and ramp on tv and radio against "fair and balance" media! I can only hope that the ones who opened this Pandora's box is really ready for the lash-bash that may take place. So all you Rush listeners, heads up...and too all you other raving freaks who say crap and lie to hide your real intentions are given the boot!
Imus spoke with out thinking! He should be punished for his hate bashing, but this is against a sports team that is women, so what about the bashing of lies to persuade peoples views regarding the direction the Country has gone? What makes this different, only the population it bashes and not a class of people! Race is NOT the problem here, it is hate on people end of story, bottom line and all how talk rage should be give the boot right out the door!

Speaking of double standards, I'd be interested in hearing how you really feel about Arabs and/or Germans.

and sexist...they're also hos, remember.

Imus' audience is around 3.25 million.  I hadn't realized we had that many book writing privileged white men in the country. 

I was listening to NPR today and a woman who identified herself as black did defend Imus. I recall this because I was shocked, but I did believe that she was for real. So, perhaps ol Donny boy can listen to the tapes and try and find the one black person who is willing to say "aw c'mon folks, eh was just kidding!"

Yeah, thats the excuse I've heard about a hundred times. Imus is like 75 years old and his excuse (and his friends' excuse) is that he's just doing what rappers less than a third his age do.

Its a really lame excuse.

The IMUS brouhaha is just the usual MSM agenda of distraction, division, race/gay/liberal/... baiting to divert, incite outrage and bury any discussion of real issues that might help working Americans.

The IMUS brouhaha is just the usual MSM agenda of distraction, division, race/gay/liberal/... baiting to divert, incite outrage and bury any discussion of real issues that might help working Americans

What have you got against wilding? Lynchings are a lotta fun.

Exploitation of young girls was necessary. They will recover. Who cares about them anyway?

There is no real defense of the ugly, vapid comments by Imus. But there is also no defense of the attack on Imus either - especially when it is led by a rabid racist like Rev. Sharpton.

What exactly is being accomplished? Will any good of any kind come from this evil?

Best, Terry

But, of course, Imus didn't apply the language to "all [black] college women." In fact didn't he characterize the Lady Vols as cute?

Disregard the rating, below.  It's just dedelste here for his quarterly contentless driveby.   

SeeDee

I certainly agree that Gwen Ifill is a first-class and classy reporter and commentator..I hope she will simply, from now on, ignore the remarks of societal dregs Don Imus.

His slurs and insults will be his un-doing, sooner or later (hopefully, sooner), as should be the case.

I still think Americans should apprise themselves of the corporate money behind the products he hawks and boycott them.

There is no real defense of the ugly, vapid comments by Imus. But there is also no defense of the attack on Imus either - especially when it is led by a rabid racist like Rev. Sharpton.
------
Here's a new rule. Everyone takes personal responsibility for the words that come out of their mouths.
Rappers, comedians, actors, directors, etc are responsible for their words. You take responsibility for your words. I know that we as a country has lost the ability to take the personal responsibility for anything after 6 years of the GW Bush administration. We have been lulled into placing blame on everyone but ourselves. FEMA and Gonzales are examples that rapidly come to mind. Be bold. Be responsible for your actions.
When you speak, Snoop is not holding a gun to your head forcing you to call any African-American woman a "ho". Chris Rock will not throw a pie in your face if you don't call Black people "nappy-headed".
Talk show hosts are responsible for what they utter on their programs. Station owners and advertisers are responsible for the content they allow to filter out through the airwaves in their names. When something controversial is carried on their airwaves, they may face the wrath of the FCC or the public. Occasionally there will be public humiliation or someone will be fired. Might this be unfair for singling out some poor slob, while others escape? Yes. Just as the police capture some speeders and bank robbers while others elude them, some offenders on the airwaves will go untouched. Many times offensive speech will cause embarassment to a network or advertiser will lead to suspension or termination. Corporate media outlets will vary in the line that must be crossed.
If you parrot words or behavior found in the media and face ridicule, humiliation, or a right cross, don't blame Snoop, Diddy, Eminem, 50-cent, or Chris Rock. The public is reacting to are your words, take responsibility. Unless
there is a cerebral disorder, the words reflect your beliefs, no one elses.
Finally when someone like Imus says something offensive, it is not cancelled out because someone you disagree with like Sharpton considers the words offfensive.
Think before you speak. Choose YOUR words with care. Take personal responsibility.

I thought his Gwen Ifil comment was racist, but this was not.

There is a big difference between making a cultural comment, and a racist comment. Not that either is exactly great, or helpful to promote understanding, but there is a big difference.

If the players had been all white, but still had frizzy hair and still had tattoos, then a similarly culturally opinionated comment could be made. For example say they looked like "trailer park hos" or something. It would be a mean joke, but not racist.

If you read the full transcript (at atrios), you can see that McGuirk is the instigator -- and that McGuirk has a long history of this. Read it.

Uprated in my first-ever foray into the ratings game on this site and my "5" "awarded" in the same mode of disregard for the guidlines.

Douglas Watts

Thanks for the 1 rating. Very mature.
Imus was not obliged to make the comments he made. The show carries his name. He has ordered people off the set. He has the power. He has to take personal responsiblity for his words. It is cowardly to say that he used certain terms because "some Black guys" use the same degrading terms.
The question is why would the person want to use term "ho" or nigger. That's the important question. I don't excuse the rappers or purchase their work. The words are a disgrace to those who fought for Civil Rights including, Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X. The person using the term has to be able to explain why they feel the need to use the term. Imus said that he realizes how degrading the term "ho" is to Black women. He cannot blame anyone else but himself. His excuse is illogical, just as your 1 rating is pathetic. What other behaviors do you or Imus participate in merely because other people do it? Drugs? Theft? It comes down to personal responsibility.
A plethora of derogatory terms for a variety of ethnic groups exists. No one has to use the term. Even if someone else in the room uses it, you do not have to follow suit. People use slurs because they want to use slurs. If your mental faculties are intact, you are responsible for YOUR words. Grow up.

Imus and McGuirk (who is getting off much too lightly in all this) have managed to demonstrate why true satire is a subtle art and why Imus' show has failed at it time and again.

The offending segment draws upon a scene from Spike Lee's "School Daze" in which a set of rival beauticians duke it out in a musical number featuring the "Jiggaboos" and the "Wannabees". Imus and McGuirk invoke the film and the scene as if it grants them license to be offensive, arguing that they are only channelling Spike Lee. A number of their defenders around here have done much the same by arguing that the abusive language of rappers gives a pass to insensitive, white, (late) middle-aged clods.

What was missed in their stunt was the original satire in Spike Lee's film. The tension created between dark and light-skinned, African American women was meant to demonstrate the degree to which dark-skinned women are considered less beautiful and less civilized than the almost white "Wannabees". Imus' segment fell right into the trap because he and McGuirk were asserting that the Rutgers women, with their tattoos and "nappy hair" struck a rough-cut, less civilized image than the polished, mostly white Tennessee Lady-Vols. Never mind that Rutgers were the Cinderella Story of this year's NCAA. According to Imus, they would deserve that title if they could only wipe some of that cinder-darkness off and look a little less "Jiggaboo". Because they can't, they deserve the title of "Ho". Truly disgusting.

Whatever the defenders of Imus want to say about his character, his generosity, or his pseudo-liberal credentials (remember, he called Clinton a "Pot-Smoking Weasel", but Stephen Colbert "Unfunny and Over the Line" at the Press Corps.), one thing is clear: he isn't funny. To be truly funny, one needs some respect for the subtleties of satire. He and McGuirk are about as subtle as a fart joke and it is time that they stop providing false cover to others who think "equal opportunity offender" is a blank check to be offensive. Grow up.

The key is "he makes 10 million bucks a year" - how many advertertiser dollars have to be generated to make that payday? He is a product of demand . . . and if the public "demands", the public gets - look at the "war on drugs" and surely Rush didn't inherit his fortune - make a statement to those advertisers that support (encourage!) his program - inspite of what you think, the "public" airwaves are only valuable as long as the reach your wallet. Imus is scheduled to return just before "Sweeps" and you don't think this won't push 'm up? Ho Ho Ho all the way to the bank . . .

Ratings abusers:

glissade

Douglas Watts

I think suspending the license of CNBC, NBC, WFAN, and CBS could be justified. Well, the FCC could at least play a part of hearing some complaints about what goes on over our airways. There are too many of these Shock Jocks that just say anything to get a rating. Generally they only offend a small, narrow group but the IMAN has such a huge head that he thought he could do anything. If Dodd acts like all the rest of these political goofs who have mimicked musk oxen in defending IMUS in the MOURNING by showing their horns and keeping their softer parts backed against the others in the center, I'll think seriously about leaving Connecticut. I like Lehrer and Gwen Ifill and the kind of journalism found in the 1 hour Nightly News. It should be the standard not the exception. It is filled with information and it lets the viewer decide. I can't image that they would ever consider the kind of editorial shock sensationalism found elsewhere.

And did Imus say, as he often says to McGuirk, "Shut up you bald headed stooge!!"?  No he didn't...he jumped right in with his even more offensive comment.  Just because McGuirk initiated the exchange doesn't make Imus any less culpable for what he said in response...

This whole scandal is just goofy, overblown, hypocritical, sensational, junk.

What he said was just kinda mean and stupid, typical of talk radio. But not racist.

Calling black basketball players "nappy-headed hos" is certainly racist.

He wasn't denigrating all black people. He was commenting on the tattoos and hairstyles and such. To most older people, the recent trends in tattoos and different hairstyles are strange. But that's not racism.

It's not racist to only criticize black people who are dark skinned and have tattoos and frizzy hair? There is nothing "recent" about the hair and tattoos here.

Imus, along with much of America, associates the fashion of tattoos and nappy hair with the "hos" type language.

So, it's not racist because it refers to other sexist culture? Interesting logic there.

Thanks to MTV and other commercialized exploiters (the real villains) a negative image of black culture is commonplace, and the language of "hos" and such is legitimized in the mainstream everyday.

So, MTV's at fault, not Imus? Imus may be using racist and sexist language, but it's not his fault because he learned it watching MTV?

So, he thinks tattoos and less neatly kept hair looks "rough" and unbefitting his notion of what an athlete should look like. He also associates it with the MTV commercial ghetto-rap culture. People don't have to agree, it's just his opinion. Big deal. Worse is said on radio by worse people every day.

Yeah, and his idea of "what an athlete should look like" seems to jib pretty well with some racist steretypes. By coming down explicitly on the side of the "Wannabees" against the "Jigaboos", to borrow from the School Daze labels, Imus is saying fairly clearly and unequivocally that he rejects any standards for beauty for black women except those representing the black women who are burying their heritage and "whitifying" themselves.

That seems pretty racist to me.

It just seems the whole culture is being rather glib and hypocritical.

How about the big business of commercializing "ghetto culture" while blacks continue to struggle in America to get out of the ghetto?

I think you really need to learn what "hypocritical" means. It doesn't mean "doesn't criticize all things with equal vigor". I'll refer you to Webster. Once you're done looking up the definition, I'll point out that the "whole culture" is not "commercializing" "ghetto culture".

Moreover, if you come from the perspective that there is nothing wrong with being black and/or living in Harlem, or whatever, I don't see what the issue would be behind championing "ghetto culture" while taking Imus to task.

Now, you would have a case for calling people "hypocritical" if they, themselves, were frequently in the habit of using the phrase "nappy headed hos". Or if the people complaining about Imus were the same ones selling albums using "ho" language. But neither is really the case. I have a real problem with rappers using the word "ho" lightly. So I don't buy any of albums in that sub-genre of rap. I also have a problem with Imus.

That seems fairly philosophically consistent to me. Indeed, it is quite a distance from "hypocritical".

How about the hypocrisy of recruiting from poor and minority schools only for the athletics program, while the rest of the class tends to come from middle-upper class white schools?

Again, whatever your complaint here is, it's not "hypocrisy". That word really doesn't mean what you think it means.

How about the low graduation rates and lax academic standards of athletic programs across the country?

Where is the public interest for all the other black athletes? All those athletes the schools discard every year? Especially black athletes, many of whom go back to poverty.

I guess your point is that, unless you put all your effort every day into stopping racism, somehow you are disqualified from calling anybody at anytime on their usage of racist language. Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

Such hypocrisy and faux outrage.

Oh, believe me, the outrage is quite real. As for your repeated misuse of the word "hypocrisy", here is Webster:

1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy

So, basically your thesis comes down to: you are all pretending to be outraged, but you really aren't.

I suggest you take a trip to New Brunswick, NJ, and try out this thesis on the students of Rutgers University. Try making the argument that people aren't really quite pissed off about this. I know I am.

As a serious question about Zionista's observation of April 10, 2007 - 3:42pm,

How would you approach leveling the playing field? While there are arguments for and against the Fairness Doctrine, at least it was possible to identify candidates.

At one level, I see reversing the trend to mega-consolidation of media outlets nationally, and oligopoly or monopoly ownership of outlets in a market, as something that well might tend to level playing fields. There is a subtle line here between abridging the freedom of the "press", and stewardship of electronic broadcast spectrum. There is a technical need for avoiding conflict among multiple stations in a broadcast media. Given that cable and direct broadcast satellite systems are usually owned by one commercial organization, the stewardship argument is harder to make on technical grounds.

While I like the concept of pure network neutrality, I do recognize the economics of physical network construction. A white paper by the CWA seems to suggest that knowing there will be a television revenue stream from cable buildouts should incentivize construction, although there was an implication that Internet and telephony would be carried neutrally. The issue of television-over-Internet was not addressed by this paper, and continues to have technical (especially antipiracy, billing, and the esoteric matter of "separations" payments to intermediate carriers), economic, and regulatory challenges.

Among the regulatory challenges are controls over "inappropriate" content. If a given information distribution technology is encrypted such that only subscribers can unlock it, that means a positive act must be taken to view it. To me, that tends to say that if one is offended, one made an effort to be offended. Positive actions to unlock content, exerted by parents, could deal, IMHO, better with providing "adult" content than expecting the provider to be a nanny.

I fully recognize there are hate sites on the Internet, and I do not approve of banning them in the manner of some European countries, with the narrowly defined exception of inciting to immediate criminal acts. Given technical controls over subscriber access, banning the Ku Klux Klan Khannel becomes a slippery-slope argument. As an Internet engineer, I know that I can deliver content through quite a few blocks, short of physical disconnection of the service. If al-Qaeda manages to send steganographically protected messages, mere unpleasantness isn't going to be stopped -- and steganography is just one tool in the secure communications toolchest.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Ellen is certainly capable of explaining what she meant, but I did not read what you do into her comment. To me, she was suggesting what might be Imus' rationale, not hers.

I believe the classic line would be "Jane, you ignorant slut." Otherwise, I fail to see the appropriateness or humor, regardless of what Ellen meant.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

In Robert Heinlein's novel, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, the society tended toward the anarchical, but, for some plausible reasons, tended, in a number of circumstances, to be rather formal about politeness. ISTR one heckler being hauled out an airlock without benefit of pressure suit, with an implication of his last words being "but I was only joking..."

I suppose what concerns me more than content issues are ownership and stewardship of communications media (although all of these issues certainly are joined at the proverbial hip).  I remain convinced that the root of most, if not all, of our evils is the privatization of the public sphere -- not only in the communications industry, but throughout the civil infrastructure.  Broadcasters still require licensing, but without a fair and regulated access to the means of communication -- and as long as the communications industry sustains an atmosphere whereby the interests of shareholders outweigh the public interest -- arguments for the preservation of a sustainable public sphere cannot be advanced.  The Powers that Be will reach for low hanging fruit and appeal to the lowest common denominator.

First, we need to get bills like HR 3302 out of committee and into law (I understand Bernie Sanders has a Senate companion bill in there somewhere too).  We should expect higher diversity in the creation of content to raise the quality of programming through genuine competition for more varied cultural appetites; and while we can forsee snags while intelectual property case law evolves (and greater respect for the collective bargaining positions of the Guilds can help us all here too), the media can and should still retain an environment of public accountability.

Personally the insult Ifill relates while being bigoted is much more understandable. He was pissed because she didn't come on his show and radio talkers have egos bigger than Bush.

Imus is and always was a shock jock. I thought that Patton bit was funny. One thing not to be overlooked here was this was simply not funny.

As a shock jock, Imus has no filter between his brain and mouth. The brain is that of a scrappy white kid who made it big mouthing off. Under these circumstances, it's not surprising that people will find his schtick offensive.

But even Imus's critics will admit the appeal of his show is not primarily prurient. MSM goes there. Politico's go there. They go there because he offers a unique platform. I don't listen to the show because I found the guests insipid and the humor simply not funny. I love Howard Stern!

Imus will not and should not be fired so long as there is an audience for his speech. His station is in business to make a profit and people want to listen to him. Removing him from the air will do nothing, but encourage the thinking that Imus, in part, represents underground.

Imus, Stern and the like are useful barometers of our psyche. I think dragging Imus out of his station and making him apologize, which must torture his ego to no end, sends a better message than removing him from the air. It is a well deserved public rebuke.

Of course he'll do it again. And he'll apologize again. I think the process is therapeutic, but I don't agree that combatting his speach is best served by removing it in light of the obvious audience.

All told there are far bigger issues to worry about than one "cantankerous old fool."

Sam Thornton,

The self-deprecating slant of a joke is also why it's acceptable for... Carlos Mencia to make "beaner" jokes.

Would it make a difference to you that Mencia is German-Honduran?

I guess, Klyde, you are not the wit I thought you were a couple of days ago, here.

And isn't the plural of "ho," "hos"? Your "hoes" are gardening tools, n'est-ce pas?

"If so, why?" parses a lot better than "If not, why not?". Mebbe she got her + and - wires crossed.

Fair enough. I suppose I meant mostly "culturally white," but the point is well taken. Especially considering that I've been employed at the "other" women's basketball powerhouse that Pat Summit has been known to label as "a bunch of white girls" to her own recruits. That's probably what is grating my nerves through all this--that her team is dressed up (figuratively) as the classier, more polished while the Rutgers women are supposed to take "nappy-headed ho's" as a backhanded compliment.

Imus' trade is in offensive humor and pushing the limits of what can be considered socially acceptible. When you play a game like that you are bound to cross the line and when you continue to test that line, you are bound to put yourself in a point of no take-backs sooner or later. Imus finally reached it.

The problem, however, is not merely that Imus commented on their appearance. He assaulted their integrity and denigrated the respect they worked hard to earn. Remember, those qualities that we're supposed to look at when we look past someone's skin color? Not that it would justify anything, but if these women were to recast the image of Whitney Houston on her worst days, I don't think there would be so much outrage. But these aren't a bunch of "ho's" famous for nothing of their own merit. Having taught both male and female NCAA champions in my classroom I can tell you first hand, the women deserve a lot more respect than that.

Wow MSNBC will no longer simulcast the Imus show
MJ was correct
I am stunned

Can one explain why Sharpton is dubbed "rabid racist"?

Keep in mind that it is hard to find any non-racist reason for Imus remark. He does not know the girls. He does not know anything objectionable about them, nor is he under a mistaken belief that they "deserve" such a "joke". Just simple joy of insulting people using their sex, looks and race.

Calling the "Wannabees" attractive and the "Jigaboos" "nappy-haired hos" is itself racist. The demand that black women groom themselves to look white, or be compared to prostitutes, is racist.

This should be pretty obvious.

If Imus's record before this incident were clean, I would say you were correct. But he's been up to this for quite a long time. It's just that the latest trangression is so public, and so appalling, that he's finally facing the music.

He's already lost the MSNBC gig. I don't know how many stations will drop his show, but I expect it could be quite a few. We'll see.

Gwen Ifill Career:  Boston Herald-American, reporter, 1977-80; Baltimore Evening Sun, reporter, 1981-84; Washington Post, political reporter, 1984-91; New York Times, Washington, DC bureau, began as Congressional correspondent, became White House correspondent, 1991-94; NBC News, Washington, DC bureau, chief Congressional and political correspondent, 1994-99; Washington Week in Review, panelist and occasional guest moderator, 1992-99, moderator and managing editor, 1999-, and senior political correspondent for The Newshour With Jim Lehrer.

New York Times, not NPR, Rick.  Try to keep up. 

Personally I thought her questions were to soft ball and patronizing. Stupid questions, instead of grilling the guest, she was such a let down.

And don't forget, Ifill was one of the few journalists Bush considered even-handed enough to moderate presidential debates. Sometimes the battle is simply getting an answer.

Can we begin by showing our better nature and eradicating bad spelling?

A response to

On April 11, 2007 - 9:43pm Political Ennui said: I suppose if the scripture doesn't reveal you as a Fox News viewer,

The wisdom from above, does not belong to Faux News, and evidently wisdom is not your strong suit either. As the qoute below shows

And don't forget, Ifill was one of the few journalists Bush considered even-handed enough to moderate presidential debates.

I don't consider it wise to trust Bush on anything he has to say. You evidently think it wise, that you suggest it shows her impartialiity.

By that statement your either fooled or your really the one, shilling for Fox.

You also stated "Sometimes the battle is simply getting an answer."

I'd say the battle is getting a journalist to ask the right question.

An answer is not as important as the question. Questions draw out and refine our veiws. Maybe, that's Ifill's problem, she can't draw out the anwers, the deep rooted ones. That's a skill she lacks.

Do you think the Journalist job is to be the lackey of the politicians, or should the Journalists be asking the questions, most on the minds of the citizens? Since I don't have a forum to do the job, she better do it or we need to find someone else.  

I've listened to Ifill and have questioned her Neutrality on Political issues. I've sensed a Republican bias, (maybe that's why Bush likes her)

I want journalists, to ask the hard questions, that had I been the interviewer, I wouldn't let some interviewee give me, the party line with the same soundbites I've heard for the last 24 Hours. Lo and behold, Gwen Ifill asks the same stupid questions 20 other journalists have asked, NO ORIGINALITY? 

Gwne Ifills on the tube,  Nothing to see here folks move long. Gwen Ifill may be a journalist because her degree say's so, but I don't bother watching her anymore. She's not a leader but a follower, an enabler.

The problem in American politics, is that the fourth estate has become lap dogs for the Party, against the truth and Amercans right to know.  What, will you really do if you get the reigns of Power?

Who asked Bush,  What does it mean when you say your a compassionate conservative?

Instead we get Journalists like Suzanne Malveux, Katie Curic, Gwen Ifill. (I fill you with fluff,  Nothing more substantive, than you've heard all day. from others)

I want journalists like Murrow, investigative reporters like Woodward, working with his co-employee Carl Bernstein who helped uncover the Watergate scandal that led to President Richard Nixon's resignation.

Instead we get questions from todays journalists. What do you think about Ana Nicoles, babies, father. Rudy, do you think your wife should work in the kitchen? HEHEHE well thats all the time we have tonight, so tune in next week, when we discuss which diaper holds the most BS.

btw, I should add that I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm very concerned this kind of media controversy garbage is going to hurt him and black people generally.

People like Rove have to love watching the left to middle forming a circular firing squad over race issues, and rushing to crucify a guy who for is liberal by comparison to most talk radio.

What Imus said was wrong, and reprehensible, and he should have known better than to open any racially sensitive issue. But crucifying him over it is overblowing it.

It's reminiscent of the OJ trial in showing we still have major racial divides and that people become incredibly irrational when race issues are brought up. Already people like Debra Dickerson are accusing Obama of not being "black enough" and trying to get him to kneel before the black caucus elite.

More than anything else that kind of racial tension and overblown infighting will sabotage potentially great leaders like Obama.

Can you give even one example of anti-semitism in Rosenberg's previous commentaries? I didn't think so.

Imus is a creep who's made millions by appealing to the worst instincts in his fellow human beings. Anybody can do that. He himself is doubtless a cynical, educated, and intelligent man. He may NOT be a racist. That doesn't matter. He promotes racism in others to enrich himself. He's a disgusting pervert.

Did you know he referred to one of his guest/cronies as a "boner-nosed weiner Jewboy?" Still want to go to the mattresses for him?

I thought Sharpton grew the last couple of years getting beyond his days as a race hustler, which he rode to fame and fortune. I was mistaken, he reverted to form.

Huh? The GuinNess commercials are riffing on the overly used "brilliant" as a general adjective in British and Irish culture.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity.

Oops.  I should have guessed Ms. Ehrenreich would never have approved such a vulgar title.

A lesson learned. Never trust memory; always Google. Thanks.

Mark Twain
Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling

For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.

Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.

Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spikingwerld.

fatqer improvmnt: voist konsonant x replaisd wix q, to maik qe diferens bitwin q and x klier.

Try to guess: what does boetiek mean in Dutch? (Hint: we know this word, but we spell with without any logic.)

1. It does not add to "rabid racist". Grievances against Korean shopkeepers had some real origin, although, if I recall, exagerated.

Would you be so kind as to list all the ethnic groups that you feel it is not wrong to ethnically cleanse?

I will start with Roma to add to your Koreans and we can go from there. My wife grew up in a neighborhood filled with them.

I assume you will add Irish. Pity the English didn't succeed in their efforts at extermination. We are at least as harmful to a neighborhood as Koreans what with all the drinking and fighting. Used to hang Irish miners by the lot in Pennsylvania for being Irish.

What, pray tell, is a racist?

Best, Terry

What, pray tell, is a race? No, not Homo neanderthalensis versus H. sapiens. No, not 100 meter dash.

A rational definition is a population that can be distinguished by genetic ancestry. There are those who deny that race - or more precisely racial admixture - cannot be determined by genetic testing. They are no different than those who would say dinosaurs were just large horses or the prosaic earth is flat.

There is no scientific test that will distinguish ethnicity. There are scientific tests that will determine race.

So what?

So it has great ramifications in medicine, history, forensics - and best of all it puts the lie to racism.

Science is good. Ignorance is bad.

Best, Terry