It's still okay to bash gays and Arabs. The list grows ever shorter but these targets are still legit for the haters.

M.J. -- Get thee to the horse track !!!

Limbaugh will fight back and refuse to give any ground. It'll be a liberal conspiracy, according to him. The dittoheads will defend him to the death. As Imus was nominally a liberal, or at least an equal opportunity hater, he had no one to stand up for him.

I'm afraid I share your pessimism.

Hmmm...I certainly don't think we should see self-and group-identity in terms of what makes us better than the "other", but I don't think trying to erase difference is the answer. Difference is part of what makes America great and enriches the broader culture. IMHO, I think that ending racism and sexism will require learning to respect one another, rather than erasing or tolerating difference.

I have two comments to make, and I'll make them in to two separate posts.

1. Mazel tov, MJ, for a brilliant prediction!
I am impressed.

a bunch of guilty white folks...

and makes everyone fear speaking about race relations on any level...

Hasn't there actually been a lot of talk for the last week about race, and sexism?

And the guilty white folks were actually all the ones saying how much they forgive Imus for his remarks.

The real outrage, and really what moved this whole story, was the press conference at Rutgers. When the people actually offended  -- black women, not the white guys we've seen all week in The Situation Room -- got to speak.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

almost never. They are afraid to.

Let's be clear about why Imus got the deal he did (well deserved, IMHO) while other talkshow hosts will not meet the same fate. Imus ridiculed young Black women who are not celebrities, not politicians, not household names. A large proportion of the women athletes on this team are college freshman. The strong reaction against the Imus show slurs was due not solely to the language used, but also, and probably primarily, to the fact that these were college athletes, private citizens, many of them still minors.

While I appreciate people trying to link Imus's fate with a hoped-for fate for other "merchants of hate" in our culture, the Imus situation was easy for mainstream media to gain traction on due to the people he slandered.

The situation developed in this way because of the targets of the speech, not the speech itself. (If it were due to the language only, Imus would have been off the air a decade or more ago, as would a lot of other radio hosts.)

Remember, despite what they're saying, CBS made its tardy decision due to advertiser pullouts, not any freestanding moral position. CBS has no freestanding moral position other than to serve its investors, and the moment that Imus became a liability to its bottom line--rather than an asset--they pulled the plug on the old bigot.

Now let's hope people who have done far worse things to this country than Don Imus have to pay an equally serious price.

By Friday?

Mebbe if you make a prediction, it'll happen :-)

Viacom will have to come to grips with the images that it allows to be shown on BET. Robert Johnson, the Negro founder and former CEO of BET was given a pass on the images shown during his tenure. Johnson's excuse was that he had told the record companies that he would have no problem televising better images if the record companies wanted to make them. The billionaire entrpreneur was suggesting that if he had told the record companies that he wanted to see better video images on his station, he would have had no impact.
Reality shows and game shows targeting the 18-25 age group could have been used as a threat to replace the offending videos.
The rap artists will alter their acts to conform to what sells.
I really don't view this as censorship. I view it more as the marketplace in action. Imus will either find a place on satellite radio or another land based network. The hardcore rappers will find outlets for their mp3s online. The overall change in discourse initially will be minimal. Hopefully over time things will improve.

The feeding frenzy is certainly over the top, but the issue isn't fake at all. There has been very little discussion of race relations in the last couple of decades. Some thought that after Katrina that would change, but it did not. Many of us spend a lot of time worrying about the state of the world but very little worrying about what's going on a few miles down the road.

I think this analysis is wrong. We shouldn't draw attention to important issues (like the racism and sexism that continue to plague us as a nation) because it will give the Repubs a boost?? Come on.

Maybe it's because I have actually NEVER seen or heard him that I discount his importance. Yes he's an asshole, but I work all day and so what he says in the morning is a mystery to me.

No, I am not exstatic that someone I've barely heard of is off the air when I still see the pretensious and lethal Anne Coulter interviewed as a "pundit" and a legitimate "expert" on MSNBC and CNN (not to mention FOX)

This is much ado about nothing. It is a way for the right to say, "See? You get what you want because you make a big stink!"

BULLSHIT!

Jan Knaus

Come on, 6000 years of mankind, Cain killing Able, and somehow you think, you've done what no nation has been able to solve, hatred.

Get real and solve the problems you can deal with. Your never going to stop the tide from reaching the shore, and your never going to solve mankinds hatred for one race over another.
It'll take God to solve that problem.

You really want to help race relations solve poverty, solve lack of medical care, something that ALL the people, whatever race can find benefit from. Teach Love, something Sharpton and Jackson forgot. Scriptures that say "Love covers a multitude of sins," or "how many times should I forgive my brother 7 times and the Lord said not 7 times but 77 times." So Reverend Jackson, what do those scriptures mean? Sharpton what do you know about driving wedges and creating devisive issues? Causing contentions? And the Christ freely forgave you... and this is how you pay his undeserved kindness?

Forgiveness, I think that would go along ways in helping Race relations.

You can't even end the war, people killing one another. Americans murdering people on our own streets. Black on Black, but oh no, lets lynch the Jock. and now that you've torn down a weakened flesh, and sinful man (IMUS) maybe you'll start the song KUM BY JAH.

As your apparent moral indignation, not at your own sinful behavior, but lets throw stones at IMUS, because YOU evidently are not as bad as he.

I can see a few sides to this. Imus is a bit of a repugnant figure (his public persona at least), so I can understand the rush for blood. Howard Stern had many of the same problems, he just covered by acting cute along side. The problem here is really in what precedent does this set? Will any college or pro athlete that says "honkey" or "cracker" or "N***" or anything else we can think of in a national interview, get kicked off the team? Are politicians still allowed to refer to Middle Eastern combatants (freedom fighters to some) as "Terrorists" and "Insurgents" do they get impeached for that?

Ok, so there's that side of the cube (and no I don't have six sides to show...), the Free Speach angle.

On the other hand if people are disgusted by a commercial broadcast's content they have every right to complain. They can tell the talent, producers, advertisers etc... just what they think and they can boycott. Some of all of this was done here and the stations that syndicated Imus responded by cancelling his show. Nothing illegal there.

So, this was a battle over a few folks that thought Imus crossed a line he couldn't come back from. Most were probably already tired of Imus' broadcast. I think I read "Three Strikes...etc."

Here's my question on this one...: If a relativly benign entertainer like Imus can have a 30+ year career destroyed over a few ill concieved comments made in (a poor attempt at) humor. Why is it that so many sources of broadcast talent hold on to people like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and even super left-wing crazies on the air. These people call for assasination, murder, gassing, imprisonment; they bash gays, choice for women and even ferret ownership all the time on the very same airwaves that Imus shared. Are we as an "outraged" group just scapegoating a lowly radio entertainer in place of the myriad hate-mogers that we just can't seem to squelch?

I for one would rather have a thousand Imuses..Howard Sterns..Jimmy Kimmels than even one Ann Coulter.

So, if we as (mostly) like minded people can crucify one off-base broadcaster so quickly for insulting a group of (even specific) people, can't we come together and take some sort of effective action against the Coulters of the air waves?

phil common

(looks at skin) I'm kind of pinkish-beige with brown spots here and there. The only way I am going to deal with "race relations" is to say that biologically, there's a human race.

Many years ago, I received a questionnaire for the US District Court's jury commissioner. It had a section in it, originally marked "voluntary" for race, which had a red tag citing new legislation making it mandatory, in the interest of avoiding discrimination.

I returned it, filling in "unknown" in the "race" blank. They sent it back, circled. I pointed out that I was under oath, I was adopted (although I knew both families), and any relatives I could trace lived in areas of Europe where the Mongols came raping for a while. If the Jury Commissioner would give me a Racial Classification Handbook, I'd be glad to follow it, but, not being an anthropologist and not having genetic definitions (and this was early in molecular genetics), I didn't know what I could swear to be true.

I certainly didn't want to be uncooperative, so I sent along some references in case they wanted to tell me which rules to use for racial classification. Since I had been doing research on another subject at the National Archives, it wasn't hard to look up the Record Groups for the racial laws of the Confederacy, and the Nazi Nuremberg Laws. Not to miss any opportunity to be helpful, I also sent along the phone number of the Embassy of South Africa, where apartheid still had its rules.

Further, I sent along an interview with the chief of the Ethnic Origins Branch at the Bureau of the Census, who said that for census purposes, "race" was whatever the subject thought was subjectively correct. I pointed out that I didn't make a point of thinking about it. If they wanted my blood type or anything else objective, I'd be happy to cooperate, but they couldn't make me think by their rules.

I was vaguely disappointed when the Jury Commissioner called and said "will you leave us alone if we leave you alone?"

I was disappointed, because I'll value learning from anybody in any culture, and I'll use medical information that comes from a genotype. Quite a few medical journals have concluded that "race" is simply a surrogate for socioeconomic group, and will ask for socioeconomic or educational factors, or specific genetic information, rather than the contrivance of race.

Sorry, I'm going to treat people as individuals, or members of voluntary organizations. Why "race"? Why not "beauty"? Why not "height"?

I will not play games based on what I consider a fantasy.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

"I'd rather have Imus, Limbaugh, Savage and Coulter than political correctness."

Howard, you have me confused. I thought you agreed with me that NBC and CBS aren't obligated to have someone like Imus on their payrolls. Now that they've fired him you are saying political correctness (definition - please) is worse than Imus trashing college women and Coulter trashing 9/11 widows and using "faggot" when speaking of John Edwards?

I don't get it - big time

Tom

Just wanted to let you know, chuckie, you're dead-on right. There is a reason the vast majority of blacks vote Democratic and a majority of whites generally vote Republican. Out in America, many voters see the Democratic Party as the one supporting the aspirations of blacks to the detriment of whites. In a lot of places, opposing the firing of Imus, or at least showing insufficient outrage over his remarks, is frowned upon (can anyone say "politically incorrect?"). But with the secret ballot, voting is done in secret. If you're wondering why conservative Republicans did not jump up in support of Imus, well, I don't think they're too disappointed over all this.

Anyone figure out that story?

I read the NYT and WaPo and still don't know who pays Ms. Riza's salary, how much she makes in total (World Bank and State Department), or even, where she works.

Howard Stern saw Imus as a competitor. That certainly gives Imus some shockjock credibility.

Further, having politicians on the air doesn't make someone a serious, mainstream journalist. I doubt any one of us would call Bill O'Reilly a serious, mainstream journalist. O'Reilly is a political shockjock, more similar to Rush Limbaugh than Walter Cronkite.

Speaking of Bill-O, I find it interesting that this Imus thing happened about a week after Geraldo appeared on O'Reilly's show. That tirade stuck me as being far more racially charged than Imus's stupid 3-word joke. Where's the outrage over Bill-O?

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/05/bill-oreillys-head-practically-explodes-as-he-screams-at-geraldo/

Let's see if we can see if we might be more in agreement than it seems. I can't define political correctness. Can you? As best as I can tell, the phrase was first used by Soviet political officers to tell Red Army officers that something was not ideologically acceptable, and to hell with military realities.

Personally, I've heard it applied by very humorless people that conclude some sort of speech is against some Diana Moon Glamperish-concept of utter egalitarianism, or that somehow I should be guilty of being some kind of Eurocentric patriarch exploiter. Remember, I was responding here to someone saying that political correctness was worse than all the other alternatives. If no one can define it, it's totally subjective. Who enforces it?

My own goal is not to stereotype. When an Imus does something reprehensible, let there be an economic backlash, which, in this era of media consolidation, is a real whip.

I guess I don't respond to words quite the same way as other people. If Ann Coulter were to go onto national television and announce Howard Berkowitz is a faggot, I'd say "so?" No, I don't identify as gay, but I'm also not insecure about my sexuality. In the case of John Edwards, as Mr. Dooley said, "politics ain't beanball." If the American public isn't willing to boycott Ann Coulter, if she says something that I might consider reprehensible, I can turn the channel -- in the unlikely event that I watched on which she appeared.

So who is going to enforce political correctness, whatever it may be? Whatever Administration is in power? Thank you, I'd rather put up with the speech permitted by the sponsors and producers and then, if I consider the speech sufficiently baneful to the society, I would work in economic boycotts -- not of the entertainers and shock jocks, but of the commercial interests who own those presses. I'll work in areas of telecommunications policy, such as overconcentration of ownership and equal access, that makes more opinions flow.

Until someone can tell me what "political correctness" may be, and who enforces it, I'd rather take offensive speech than turn over the judgement of speech to some undefined authority. Until then, I'll look toward more fairness in media.

Government control of speech, no matter how offensive -- is to me more dangerous than Imus trashing college women and Coulter trashing 9/11 widows and using "faggot" when speaking of John Edwards. Now, if people want to sue such people for defamation of character, as Pagones did Sharpton, fine. The court system at least makes some attempt at fairness.

So who do you want deciding what speech is offensive, and what authority do you give them, Tom? Nowhere in the First Amendment do I see a freedom not to be offended.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

The Imus stuff is overwhelming, so maybe someone else has made this point, but if he’s looking for things to blame, he can go after the agglomeration of big media companies. His supporters said the market should decide, but that’s not feasible these days.

If he were at an independent station or even if he were syndicated through a company that concentrates on radio, he could try it: he and the station(s) might lose some listeners and sponsors, but his drawing power could make up for the loss in revenue, or at least make the hit manageable until the furor dies down. Given that most of his regular audience is used to this stuff, he’d likely make it, and the sponsors would return quietly.

Now, once one of these controversies hits critical mass, the potential revenue loss is far beyond what any one radio guy can cover. His show cleared about $15 million annually for MSNBC. What if the controversy got so hot that even one company like Proctor and Gamble sharply curtailed its ad spending across the NBC networks for a quarter, or a “grass-roots” campaign led to a 15 percent drop in revenue for a Universal film?

With Viacom, people were starting to make unfavorable references to things that go on MTV and BET. Once that happened, you got the Sumner Redstone kiss of death quote (“I’ll leave it up to Les Moonves to do the right thing.”)

Someone whose reputation might take a big hit is Tim Russert. He was always on that show, plugging “Meet the Press,” his books, and yukking it up as a true member of the inner circle. He’s in a very unique spot: he’s an NBC executive, an on-air talent, a constant Imus guest and seemingly a personal friend. He hasn’t said a word, not even a written statement.

When they asked the NBC flack about it, she said he agreed with the general NBC statement. That just does not cut it. Frankly, I think he’d be better off either way: a loyal guy who sticks by a friend in a terrible situation or a brave man who puts what he feels is right ahead of a longtime friend. By remaining mute until after the situation was resolved, he comes off as someone unwilling to either stand up for a friend or to do what he thinks is right.

Bob Schieffer handled it very well, saying “I hate what he said, and with anyone else I’d drop them, but he’s been such a good friend I will give him another chance.”

Now let's hope people who have done far worse things to this country than Don Imus have to pay an equally serious price. - MJ

Lol. To the horse track? I wouldn't want to stake MJ's latest, and totally delusional, hope.

All he proved was that the left can still form a circular firing squad. All people have done is give them PC excuse to fire the closest thing to a lefty they have on their radio lineup.

Limbaugh, O'Rielly, Rove and such are overjoyed!

Now the commercial talk radio spectrum, which is a huge market, will range from rt wing, to really out there Rt Winger Crazy. Now any up and coming radio exec can make the financial argument that Rt Wing radio sells and is profitable, while left or even moderate radio is a big risk. Thereby further reinforcing the institutional bias for conservative media.

Great job MJ and the like minded! :rolleyes:

For the next act maybe we can burn down Watts again, to really show "the man" we mean business! (if by business you mean complete economic loss, going back to square zero, so that someone else can rush in and buy up all your business for their agenda, like selling you guns, alcohol, and Rt Winger talking points.)

Want to know why empires of small numbers manage to thrive on inequality and the suffering of many? simple: education and leadership denied.

Instead of MLK making real change, people get Al Sharpton throwing a fit over the issue du jour, defending black athletes right to be exploited by universities and receive a pittance of an education before being discarded back to the ghetto, and the role models that provides to young blacks.

The Plebs are encouraged to think in terms of scandal and outrage and run around chasing their tails, accomplishing nothing in the long term, defeating themselves more than helping themselves. Then the elite cite that as evidence of the intellectual inferiority of the plebs, justifying their condition.
business as usual.

What will tomorrow's meaningless scandal be?

What else can distract me from real issues that actually matter?

How else can I manage to not accomplish anything to better my condition in the long term?

I can hardly wait to find out!

I feel perfectly comfortable bashing republicanism.

This is just painful.

No caps, please. Have some tact.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

European columnists (I am surprised you would have to ask for names)

spewed hate with impunity for years, and that encouraged people to think that being antisemitic was nothing to be ashamed of.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

French Soldier: I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

Sir Galahad: Is there someone else up there we can talk to?

French Soldier: No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

The fasces is also on the back of a dime (and the fesces is in the Oval Office).

Tom

Ms. Riza now serves as a consultant to the foundation, known as the Foundation for the Future, while still drawing her World Bank salary, the State Department said. NYT

So --- why is she drawing a World Bank salary while working at the Foundation for the Future? Was she drawing a World Bank salary while working at the State Department for Dick Cheney's daughter? Was the State Department also paying her? Is the Foundation for the Future also paying her?

I don't understand any of it. Do you?

Yeah, but unfortunately it just created a Vampire.

In many ways racial tension also created MLK, and it also created Farrakhan, and people like Malcolm X in the middle, before he moved towards MLK.

People like MLK and real leaders had greatness in them. They never limited themselves to being defined by what narrow outcomes racial hate would make of them. They rose above to inspire and produce real change.

By comparison guys like Farrakhan just converted the racial hatred into his own little personality cult, his followers didnt accomplish anything much in the long term.

Al Sharpton is way more Farrakhan than he is MLK.

It's a real darn shame if all those IMUS listeners stay home on next election day. All that educating IMUS gave them on love, health care, stopping the war and such will juss go to waste, and Sharpton and Jackson will juss get more of, you know what I'm talkin', to vote and then we won't have much chance to elect anyone as God fearin', honest, white, respectable, straight and true as George Dubya Bush. Darn shame. Even the Pope can't stop the war. Maybe Hoppy can stop it, keep tryin'!

I don't think Bob Schieffer is dropping anyone. That guy looks about 5'6" 135.

Good. I wasn't referring to sensitivity when thinking of political correctness. The first thing that it brings to mind is a Communist political officer, and next an especially humorless sort of domestic radical. I had something of a feedback howl of hysterics the first time someone told me I was politically incorrect, and I blinked and then went into hysterical giggles.

I have a lot of friends in what are more often than not called disability service boards and disability activists, but more often than not, they use the term fairly interchangeably. "Handicapped" tends to be more associated, in my experience, with mobility impairments. For example, since I can have episodes of somewhat mysterious chest pain with exercise, much better than it used to be, I had a $FOO parking permit. Once in a while, I'd have someone start challenging me, and the activists and county government people would use the term that I have a "hidden handicap". Quite a few people I know with movement disabilities are comfortable with "crippled". I don't think I've ever heard anyone with a $FOO use the term "differently abled" without snickering.

There's a lot of variation. I also have a hearing loss on one side, that's more of an annoyance, but I've never remotely felt part of deaf culture. I used to attend a county organization that wore the hats of the Disability Service Board (county) and Commission for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (county). Why is blindness apparently not a physical handicap but deafness is? I haven't a clue.

There was one lovely moment when a new management consultant had done a buzzword-generating engagement with one group. The new brochures, in print and Braille, were passed out, and people around the table, depending on their personality and reading speed, began to make choking or other noises, until everyone realized the same thing and the room exploded in laughter.

Is it politically incorrect to suggest that the phrase "vision statement" might not be the ideal choice of words for the National Federation for the Blind?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

I don't think Imus is gonna starve to death, so enough of this tear jerking already.

The big issue REMAINS that soft-bigotry appeals to some folks for some reason.  What is the reason?  Everyone on  the left wants to say that whites or men who say they have a grievance are big cry babies.   Such denial has really moved us a long ways out of racism, hasn't it?

Fine, let me just say he's a parasite then.

As far as MLK goes, he was an eloquent speaker who always made well reasoned points. That's why he, and leaders like him, got things done. That's why he was powerful. Were he still alive, or were there more leaders like him today, there would still be eloquent black leaders getting things done.

Al Sharpton isn't, and doesn't.

Al Sharpton is the kind of leader blacks got when they gave in to despair. Instead of finding the next MLK after he was shot, they turned to anger and angst. Same thing happened when Gandhi was shot. Instead of finding the next Gandhi, people gave in to hatred and India tore itself apart. For the assassins and Rt Wingers who love to see people destroy themselves: mission accomplished.

The MSM is a willing accomplice. All too happy to spotlight guys like Sharpton because he's the most self defeating and non threatening chump of them all. If you're the status quo, guys like Sharpton are exactly what you like to see. No issue is ever going mainstream and no benefit will come to black people from Al Sharpton "helping" it along, because the guy is a buffoon. A comedy act. He hurts every issue he comes near.

M.J. Rosenberg called it. He nailed it. He gets the fuzzy, stuffy #1 prize at the top shelf for his #1 girl. People who can spot rank, coarse bigotry a mile away, like Mr. Rosenberg, have this uncanny ability to predict celebrity bigot firings and ostracism. I had my doubts when M.J. made his prediction earlier this week. I thought, no effing way, Imus will get save and be refluvenated and rehabilitated by weeks' end.

But M.J. is the man.

Kudos to you, sir. You nailed it.

You are the GPS and Loran of bigot firing detection systems.

I don't think Imus is gonna starve to death, so enough of this tear jerking already. -- Good 4 America.
---

Thank you. You saved me a lot of writing. Cheers.

"I Was A Day Off"
I'll never trust you again.
When does Wolfy go? Tomowwow?

2 -2's from sources you would think were adults and capable of discourse.

It's a typical tactic, in debate when your opinions are weak, or your afraid to debate an issue, attack the messenger, not the message.
I expected more from the two of you. LOL

Now 3 -

I guess 1991 and Crown Heights were before your time.  1995 and Freddy's Fashion Mart?

Hmmm.... The Crown Heights thing is more complex than Al's pretty stupid show...

I admit to never having heard of Freddy's Fashion Mart before you mentioned it here.  My opinion of Sharpton, never good in the first place, has dropped substantially. 

In Imus's case, the market did decide. The market is advertisers, not listeners.

Ok, IMUS got dumped, now what?

I posted the above at 6:32 am. At 7:00 am C-SPAN's Washington Journal came on and the subject is ;

"IMUS fired, what now. " :-)

There had been some cscs.  But with the firing of Imus it'll (the discussion) all quickly evaporate like the morning dew.  Mission accomplished, the book is closed...the racist is off the air...Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have proved they are still political forces to be reckoned with...and nothing much will happen in terms of a honest discussion of the race relation problems in America. 

Hmmm...I certainly don't think we should see self-and group-identity in terms of what makes us better than the "other"

But that is basically why the identifiers are used.  To highlight the differences and usually not in a positive way in terms of cultural unity.  I feel Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Don Imus are Americans, with the same rights, just like all of us.  Our country is a mixing pot of assimilation where everybody should enjoy the same level of rights in the eyes of the Constitution.  It is what makes America great and in that sense it makes no difference where a person's ancestors called home...

If Don Imus represented "moderates" on the radio, then I'd say "moderates" are a bunch of a-holes.

We could have done something constructive...

And I love how, by saying "we," you somehow place yourself within the ranks of those offended by Imus's statements.

I'd say, unless you happen to be one of the girls on the Rutgers team, or perhaps the victim of racism, what you think could or should have been done is largely irrelevant.

Your argument, that Imus should be kept on the radio because he's not as much of a racist as the other racists on the radio, is twisted. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Imus decided to appear on the radio with Sharpton. MSM has Sharpton and Jackson on their computer Rolodexes. When you see the All-White all-night lineup on CNN, CNNHNN, and MSNBC, how wide an ethnic net do the network anchors really have cast? I'll single out Paula Zahn for having a more diverse set of guests. Beck, on the other hand, openly admitted that he had difficulty talking to Black people. Who does Beck seem to use as his expert on Black issues? Say hello to Al Sharpton.

It's always useful to have a standard of measurement when speaking of effectiveness. Edward R. Murrow attacked a political wrongdoer. Would you like to compare his results to Imus?

1. What was his level of success, compared to Imus?


2. Did Murrow's method of attack make public discourse better or worse?


3. How did Murrow's management measure his performance? (this varied over time)


4. To what extent did he make a separation between personal and network positions?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

In our society, it seems odd that more condemned prisoners haven't had, as their last words, "but I was only joking and didn't mean any offense"?

That's nonsense. You sound like a real know nothing. Go vote for Nader or break some Starbucks windows or something.

Imus is no Bill Moyers, but for talk radio he's about as good as it gets. What do you even know about Imus, and who would you replace him with? Got an answer for that or are you just talking big because you know so little?

The truth is Imus could have and would have done something positive to make amends. He regularly covers left issues and has been a friend to the left more that any other radio host with a big audience. He could have brought attention to black issues to make amends for example.

This could have brought about a positive outcome.

Instead, all the knee jerk fools have done is kick the most moderate radio show host out, and left all the real bad guys to absorb his market. Sharpton gets a scalp, for the glorification of Sharpton, but doesn't accomplish anything for black people. Real genius.

Republicans, not republicanism.

Tom

The outrage is on Keith Olbermann's show on MSNBC. Bill -O has been the nightly "worst person in the world" many times.

Tom

Corvid

If Imus was so horrible, with a long record of offensive remarks, why was he so damned popular? I still say his audience should have been allowed to decide his fate--though I admit that it's less than ideal that huge corporations are making commercial decisions about what we see and hear.

What's worse, however, is this rising howl for our corporate masters to inject thought control into their little calculations. Next thing you know, MSNBC will be firing Phil Donahue because his anti-war politics offend right-wing viewers.

My question to anyone on the other side of this who might care to respond: What would have been wrong with letting Imus' audience/viewership decide?

You sound like a real know nothing. Go vote for Nader or break some Starbucks windows or something.

Wow. Brilliant.

And I should give a shit what else you say at this point....why???

You can apologize for Don Imus on someone else's time. 

I've seen any number of TV anchors on any number of networks use the term IMUS got fired for; "nappy headed hos."

Now I ask you; why is it ok for these anchors to use this term, "nappy headed ho" when referring to another person's usage, but have to say "the 'N' word" when referring to another persons use of the word "nigger"?

Should these anchors be made to use the term "NHH words?"

I found your comments about God, Jesus and the quoting of scripture to be very appropriate chuckie.  Both Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are ministers and I think it is reasonable to ask how their words and actions in this matter measure up to what is said in the book they claim to extol...

On April 13, 2007 - 11:21am rmrd0000 said:

No let's just have them say that some n****rs gave Imus a bunch of crap about calling some Black b*tches a dirty name and got him fired.

I was attempting to show the hypocrisy of it all.
Even you didn't want to use the word "nigger", when refering to another's use of the word.

The word "Jew" is sometimes used pejoratively by the troglodytes, should we start saying "He used the 'J' word?"

Maybe we can start using "the 'F' word" instead of faggot. As in, "Ann Coulter insinuated John Edwards was "The 'F' word."

There's nothing more hypocritical than those suffering righteous indignation over IMUS' words and using the same words 20 times during a broadcast.

SeeDee

I really doubt, unless permanent eclipse is desired by Imus himself, that he is 'finished' in his profession.

Ala Rush's survival of his racist comments on the Monday Night Football stint, (If ANYBODY needs to be shut-up, it is Limbaugh...please note, I said 'IF), Imus may re-emerge sooner, rather than later.

If Imus was so horrible, with a long record of offensive remarks, why was he so damned popular?

Because racists liked listening to him. And because people like me thought that he got a more genuine response out of political figures than other interviewers do, and also, unintentionally, provided insight into the narrative construction by the beltway media.

My question to anyone on the other side of this who might care to respond: What would have been wrong with letting Imus' audience/viewership decide?

They never get to decide. Advertisers decide on what airs. Advertisers concluded that the amount of positive marketing messaging that would come out of buying time on the program would be offset by negative message that came from being associated with the program. So the market did make the decision here.

I thought he'd survive on CBS based on the advertising that airs here in NYC on WFAN, which would, I think, have been little affected by this. It may have actually raised ratings, attracting new listeners who like to hear racist commentary. My guess is that CBS decided that the political component of the show had been irreparably damaged--that in a presidential election period, he would not be able to get Biden and Kerry, and that the beltway media would be forced to not participate. It's one thing for Clinton not to appear on the show. It's another thing entirely for her to announce that stance loudly and publicly.

John Dewey wrote,

It is surely better for our young people to face controversial issues in the open atmosphere of the schoolroom, than to seek out what is forbidden in some dark, unwholesome corner. No thought is so dangerous as a forbidden thought.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Bart:Are we awake?
Jim,The Waco Kid: We are not sure. Are we ... black?
Bart: Yes we are.
Jim,The Waco Kid: Then we're awake, but we are very puzzled.

On April 13, 2007 - 1:18pm hcberkowitz said:

If it is necessary, in objective reporting, to say exactly what someone said, it is tampering with truth to use euphemisms. The idea that using an offensive word, in context, means that one loves the concept represented by the word is rapidly getting into dystopian thoughtcrime.

Howard, thank you, you explained it much better than I.

I see a difference between a reporter using the word "nigger" while doing a story on someone who used the word, and the person who orignially used it in a pejorative way.

Joe Blow didn't accuse Obama of being an "N"
he used the word "nigger" and for accuracy's sake, that's how it should be reported. You can complain all year that Joe Blow used the "N" word, and when you frame it that way, what you get from Joe Blow is laughter.

Howard,

Race is not a biological category, it's a social one. But that doesn't make it less "real." Not only do people perceive themselves as belonging to races, they perceive others as such, whether those others like it or not. This has real effects on people's lives. I see your point and certainly think people should be treated as individuals, but that doesn't mean that race relations can be ignored. In fact, race "neutrality" is used by some right-wingers, e.g., George Will, as a way of avoiding dealing with racism. Widely held harmful fantasies have to be dealt with.

Dan

Until last week Moonvees' CBS (and MSNBC) was little associated with its number one shockjock.

But up to last week they were very happy to be associated with the $30M of ad revenue he brought in annually.  So they had no idea what Imus was all about for all these years?  This took them all by surprise?  "OMG, we had no idea!!!!".  It still doesn't pass my smell test...

That whole "news" network should be fired.

Tom

That's funny because that's exactly how I feel about your comments.

You're right, unless he wants to retire, he's not finished. It's a bit like a Bill Maher. The difference here is that Imus has a much bigger audience than Maher, millions, and the PC Police in this case are the left and blacks instead of the right wingers.

Ironically, people should hope he doesn't retire. If he does, his 3 million listeners will go somewhere, and my bet is they'll go to one of the many Rt Wing radio choices and not NPR, especially since many of them are probably feeling bitter at the left for axing Imus.

So, just like every Maher fan thought the people who got him fired are sanctimonious aholes, Imus's millions of fans are going to feel the same about the left and black leadership. Which is especially counter productive, because Imus actually endorsed Democrats and had a lot of moderate listeners.

Again, this could have ended with Imus atoning for the offensive speech, by partnering with black leaders on black issues for example. It would have been entirely fitting for him to atone by highlighting the lowered academic standards of University athletic programs, who exploit and discard ghetto kids, and create role models not of educated, upwardly mobile blacks, but of semi-literate ballers, which just helps perpetuate bad priorities for poor kids and institutionalized racism and poverty.

But that won't happen now, and guys like Limbaugh are laughing all the way to the bank. Way to go! :roll eyes:

What good came out of this? We established you can't call people "nappy headed hos" on the airwaves? Unless you're a comedian of course, or a rapper, or a real Rt Winger, and there are only about a hundred of them saying it every day. Even Imus already knew it was wrong, he just didn't think and was trying to make a "hip' joke which is a bad idea for a 75yo dood who wears flannel shirts.

All this scandal has accomplished nothing except to make talk radio even more Rt Wing. Once again the left goes off half-cocked and shoots itself in the foot.

To Libertine Thanks for your reply.

That was my point. The hypocrisy of both Sharpton and Jackson. Instead of bringing calm and Godly wisdom to determine the proper response, we got divisiveness.

Evidently they haven’t put on the new personality,

(Colossians 3:5-14) But now really put them all away from YOU, wrath, anger, badness, abusive speech, and obscene talk out of YOUR mouth. 9 Do not be lying to one another. Strip off the old personality with its practices, 10 and clothe yourselves with the new [personality], which through accurate knowledge is being made new according to the image of the One who created it, 11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, foreigner, Scyth´i·an, slave, freeman,….. as God’s chosen ones, holy and loved, clothe yourselves with the tender affections of compassion, kindness, lowliness of mind, mildness, and long-suffering. 13 Continue putting up with one another and forgiving one another freely if anyone has a cause for complaint against another. Even as (GOD ) freely forgave YOU, so do YOU also. 14 But, besides all these things, [clothe yourselves with] love, for it is a perfect bond of union.

 Any observer might conclude these men really, have  a form of godly devotion, but....

(2 Timothy 2:24-3:7) 24 But a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, keeping himself restrained under evil, 25 instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed; as perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth, 26 and they may come back to their proper senses…... 3 But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. 6 For from these arise those men who slyly work their way into households and lead as their captives weak women loaded down with sins, led by various desires, 7 always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth.

These men did not glorify God, they seek the praise for themselves. Self assuming? Head strong ? Puffed up [with pride]? having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power;

One could envision the Grand Ayatollahs making decrees about how the people should live and who to punish.

Imus should have stayed away from Sharptons program, he was not going to find mercy there? Or a calm spirit? He should have went straight to the Rutgers girls. 

Before going to him to discuss the matter, consider: what is your motive in taking this first step to solve your difficulty? Is it merely to prove to him that he has wronged you, and to bring him to his knees to seek your forgiveness? By no means; there should be no attempt here at self-justification.  "If he listens to you, you have gained your brother." 

The correct motive: to gain your brother. You want to effect a reconciliation between you and him, to be at unity again, and at the same time to get personal relief by clearing your mind of this matter that has been troubling you. But, remember, love "does not look for its own interests." (1 Cor. 13:5)

Paul wrote in Galatians 6:1: "Try to restore such a man in a spirit of mildness, as you each keep an eye on yourself, for fear you also may be tempted."

It is wise to pause and think of a possible previous occasion when you may have been the one who had offended another and how difficult it was to humble yourself and apologize so as to effect a reconciliation then. 

I'm looking forward to when Sharpton and Jackson go after gossip. I think more lives have been ruined, by that slip of the tongue also. 

Corvid

Thanks for the response. I guess I think of the market as being primarily something that's there for the consumer, in this case the listeners, rather than advertisers. And that's what bothers me: corporations making decisions that should be made by flesh-and-blood human beings, ie listeners who can turn off their radios or tune to something else. Surely CBS has some way of gauging how many people listen to the show. If millions had tuned out because of this fuss, then Imus would've been kaputt. But maybe I assume too much here.

However, I do see your point, especially about the show's viability and its now radioactive nature for guests looking into the election year. CBS may indeed have made a grubby cost-benefit calculation, for the reasons you cite. In that case, my argument is less with CBS or MSNBC than it is with all those folks who think it's a good idea to demand that corporate America make such calls on the basis of what they (the posse of indignation) judge to be unfit for public consumption RATHER THAN a grubby cost-benefit calculation.

Surely CBS has some way of gauging how many people listen to the show.

There is a ratings diary service run by Arbitron. They'd have to wait at least three months to see whether this had an effect on audience. In my opinion, this flap would have raised ratings, attracting racist listeners who didn't know about Imus' standard content.

In that case, my argument is less with CBS or MSNBC than it is with all those folks who think it's a good idea to demand that corporate America make such calls on the basis of what they (the posse of indignation) judge to be unfit for public consumption RATHER THAN a grubby cost-benefit calculation.

The issue here is that as long as, say, American Express could fly under the radar and deliver their message to hard to reach racist white males between 18 and 34 by advertising on Imus, they would do so. But once it became known that they were doing this, the demographic appalled by their willingness to pander to these people (and keep in mind that this was not merely a black thing--it was also a female thing) is much larger. Moreover, their brand, which is one that celebrates diversity, as does their corporate culture (which I know from direct experience), would be damaged if they were to tolerate this kind on intolerance.

Imus' speech hasn't been infringed. He can go on satellite, set up a blog, do a 3 hour podcast, sign up with a different station. His track record is long and loud. He can get another gig. But he can't be an AM TV talk show host. That's not a slot open to racist misogynists, and it's surprising that he was able to play in that space for so long.

Jay, I respectfully disagree. Not only was Imus's ability for free speech hindered, but a new precedent will be established.

 First, I want to say. I’ve never listened to Imus, all I really know about him is what has recently boiled to the top of public awareness.

My thoughts are only focused on Freedom of Speech. The only thing he and I have in common, is Fredom of Speech.

The Bill of Rights, needs consant vigilence to be protected. Chipping away at the foundation, and eventually the fortification will come down. We, the American people need this fortification.

Now, we ou have an administration who takes away your (1)Right to Privacy,

Now, you’ve got ciitzens  who claim rightfully, that our speech is coarse and we must clean it up. (2)Freedom of Speech.

Whats next? Our (3)Right to Assemble? Some citzens might say “You people will not be allowed to use public facilities for your protest or gatherings, because some taxpayers don’t feel comfortable or they find your message offensive. Since our money supports these facilities, we demand” Are we so afraid of what the neighbors think, that now we ostracize groups of people? (IMUS listeners) Our neighbors say they don’t like your “ religion, your thoughts, your speeches, your color” you are not allowed.

It appears that CBS and NBC hastily removed IMUS without a chance for him to find New Sponsors. If American Express, to use your example, felt it didn’t meet the Corporate image, they could pull the money. If I felt something was to distasteful, I could shut off the radio. Who really owns the airwaves? When the licensing occurred, what was the responsibility?

If Imus had a following of one or two members, that might have been different, but; I understand, he had a following in the millions. “Other groups are allowed to use the airwaves, but your not welcome?”

Now some may say, Freedom of Speech only protects against Government intrusion, I disagree. What would stop those in power, who cried to their Corporate Sponsors, “we can’t appear to be shutting down dissent, so why don’t you, do it for us, and you may find reward when we consolidate the Networks. Thanks Rupert, Thanks Redstone We, (the the ones governing) want to thank all of you GOOD People on our side, who have, seen our objective is a good one, So thank you for your support. And (wink, wink) remember that bill working through Congress, limiting your ablity to gather more stations, well I just talked to the President and he say’s, if it reaches his desk he’ll kill it”

Jay you wrote that Imus could go on satellite radio or other venues. Of course he can, because he has the money. What about new leaders,just starting to have their voice heard? No you can't use the airwaves, you must go to subscriber radio.

Imus had a right, just as I have a right, (to associate, or not , by turning the radio off) and now both have beeen infringed upon.

People will always find a justification, for any cause. Our forefathers recognized the importance of protecting Free Speech. They gave us that Right, it's up to us to want it, for our children.  

As opposed to another comment of yours in this thread, Chuckie, I'm afraid I must disagree. There are not one, but two freedom issues here: freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. If Imus wanted to set up a website and froth racist language, I'd find that distasteful, but if it was his website, it would be his "press" and the content was his call. Ideally, and talk radio is rarely ideal, there would be an opportunity to answer him.

Freedom of the press, however, is a freedom granted to the owner of that press, with certain exceptions I'll mention shortly. That I have freedom of speech doesn't mean I can make the NYT and the WaPo print it, unless, I suppose, I'm the Unabomber and they decide there is a necessity. Within the scope of the laws of libel and related torts, however, I see no Constitutional requirement for a press to be fair or accurate, if the owner of the press doesn't want to do so. Assuming that the market of that press does want fairness and accuracy, the press may not be able to keep itself going unless it changes its policies.

Electronic broadcast media, as opposed to cable- or Internet-delivered content, is in a slightly different situation than print or Internet media. Since they often operate with extremely valuable radio frequency space that they obtained for no signficant cost, and the radio (including TV) frequency space is a finite resource and a technical monopoly. It simply won't work if two stations try to broadcast on the same frequency.

If that frequency space is a public and limited resource, than a stewardship and regulatory role makes some sense. I'd much rather see free competition by encouraging diverse ownership than by FCC regulation, but our national policies aren't ideal, especially with respect to political adertising.

I disagree that new leaders have no outlet, as websites and now Internet radio are more and more common. For example, an Internet-based "Radio Afghanistan" long operated from Toronto, as a venue for multiple opinions not tolerated by the Taliban.

So no, I don't see corporate decisions to control speech on their "presses", based on economic choices, to be infringing upon the freedom of speech. In 1940, that would have been a much greater infringement, given the high cost of entry into alternative means of speech. It isn't anymore.

Once in a while, those economic decisions may actually reflect wise opinion on the part of the Vast Listening Audience, broader than the anger-ridden core of talk radio listeners. American Express cardholders may not listen to talk radio, but American Express cannot afford to see itself associated with angry and offensive content of which the cardholders disapprove.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Don't know about the ratings; I didn't rate you.

As to this:

I like the comment you made, "what do you think he/she is waiting for? It shows that you too recognize, the need for intervention.

If you think that my comment shows you that I recognize the need for intervention, I would argue that what it really shows is your ability to grab "facts and truth" from nothing. My comment was meant to show you how absurd it is to expect a god who is supposedly limitless in power and knowledge to change things when that same god could have/should have accomplished much good in the world by being a little more "hands on."

Where have all the miracles gone? Could it be that they were just made up in the time when no legitimate challanges could be voiced? D'Ya Think?

And the big cop-out "free will" crashes and burns when you prop it up with all the tit for tats in the bible.

One would think that with such a big miracle like someone coming back to life after they were crucified, that the guy who did it, or one of his pals would have taken pen to papyrus and jotted a word or two about it AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED. No? What possible reason could there be for that?

Chuckie, you and I just have to agree to disagree. No verse that you spout will ever mean anything to me except as a translation of something that was written by men who had a stake in keeping people quiet in their misery with a promise of never dying. After all, if the first humans (say, Adam & Eve) knew about the one god, why did so many millions who came after them live and die without that perceived "benefit?" Not very fair, is it? And who dreamed up Zeus et al to fill the void of needing a god to worship and to explain all the ratty things that go wrong in life? Just too many unknowns back then, and people HAD to believe that the tsunamis of life were caused by all-pwerful (but somewhat benevolent) gods. No richter scales or satellite images, you know. What is the excuse now? That is what amazes me.

Jan Knaus

Ellen didn't say CBS didn't know what Imus did for a living! She said that they were not ASSOCIATED with him and his language by the general public. This event made it impossible to keep that partnership hidden.

Jan Knaus

Since they often operate with extremely valuable radio frequency space that they obtained for no signficant cost,

I think this is incorrect. The value of what I've heard radio people call "the stick" is considerable. There are, I'm told, stations that exist solely to retain control of the piece of spectrum the owner has.

Maybe I'm missing your point. Yes, there is a cost to retain a station that originally got a frequency grant, but there was none but administrative cost to originally get that frequency, which is now a very valuable quantity.

Originally, there was no real cost to get IP address space. Just to avoid speculation and encourage the efficient operation of the Internet, the cost still isn't high, but you must demonstrate you will use an allocation efficiently. Further, other than for very specialized exceptions, there is no private resale market for address space. If you go out of business, your address space, in principle, goes back into the pool.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Moonves demonstrated a complete lack of imagination and crisis management skills here. What was accomplished by firing Imus other than to demonstrate that Al Sharpton can still wag the dog from time to time?

This was the equivalent of the death penalty for larceny. A much more creative solution would have been a joint CBS/Imus contribution to black colleges and scholarships -- plus maybe some community service work by Imus. This would have actually helped young black Americans instead of Al Sharpton.

They were very happy with what he said as long as the $30M per year kept coming in and as long as their association with him was "under the public's radar".

 Exactly.  The underlined part is the same thing that Ellen said --> Moonvees only had a problem with Imus' language when his name became associated with it.

Jan Knaus

On April 14, 2007 - 1:57pm CVille Dem said:

My comment was meant to show you how absurd it is to expect a god who is supposedly limitless in power and knowledge to change things when that same god could have/should have accomplished much good in the world by being a little more "hands on."

Hands on, for who? The wicked? The ones who want to deny God, the ones destroying the planet? who then say, where is he?

If he intervenes and solves what? Mankinds failure to obey him (GOD)? So then what, after God delivers us again, “Thanks we’ll take over from here. bye, leave us alone ”

In fact he did intervene, delivering Noah and his family.

 (2 Peter 3:3-9) 3 For YOU know this first, that in the last days there will come ridiculers with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: “Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep [in death], all things are continuing exactly as from creation’s beginning.” 5 For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and by those [means] the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men. 8 However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with GOD as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 GOD  is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.. . .

Jan you then ask Where have all the miracles gone?

Miracles happen everyday. To many people. You may think and rationalize, it’s due to another explanation. That does not men miracles don't happen, It's the result, that is the miracle. 

Jan you also ask:Could it be that they were just made up in the time when no legitimate challanges could be voiced? D'Ya Think?

Sure the thought has crossed my mind, but I have no reason to doubt the record. If the record is false, and God really doesn’t exist, I’ll live and die as will all of us. .

But look at the converse, if God exists and the Bible really is his word, and I am obedient, not only do I receive the benefits, from application of his regulations today, but the reward, promises a peaceful eternity.

(Revelation 21:3-4) 3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them.

 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”. . .

That to me is a NO brainer. What is there to lose? I can endure a little ridicule, if it gains me the reward. 

you also say: And the big cop-out "free will" crashes and burns when you prop it up with all the tit for tats in the bible.

I am not quite sure what your refering to with Tit for Tat? My first thought, was to reflect on how God’s "hands on", created a nation from slaves,who were in bondage to Egypt. Then fleeing across the Red Sea, with Pharoah in hot pursuit. Moses recording the event.

 Evidently the eyewitness account is not good enough for some. Recent explorations have found armaments and chariot wheels submerged in the Red Sea. Yet this evidence still does not satisfy those determined to ignore the facts.

You also say:One would think that with such a big miracle like someone coming back to life after they were crucified, that the guy who did it, or one of his pals would have taken pen to papyrus and jotted a word or two about it AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED. No? What possible reason could there be for that?

Eye witness accounts saw the nail wounds, Woman who went to the tomb guarded by Roman soldiers. (Matthew 27:62-28:20) the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together before Pilate, 63 saying: “Sir, we have called to mind that that impostor said while yet alive, ‘After three days I am to be raised up.’ 64 Therefore command the grave to be made secure until the third day, that his disciples may never come and steal him and say to the people, ‘He was raised up from the dead!’

I would ask,  What possible reason could there be for denial of the events? 

 I haven’t brought up the hundreds of prophecies, identifying the Messiahs appearance or as you put it “when that same god could have/should have accomplished much good in the world by being a little more "hands on."

Hands on, how about  "And, look! I am with YOU all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.”

The good that was done and the miracle today, is that some have recognized that being obedient to God’s will and applying Bible principles,(guidance), not only brings peace Now, but for the future.

You write "No verse that you spout will ever mean anything to me except as a translation of something that was written by men who had a stake in keeping people quiet in their misery with a promise of never dying.

Who had a stake in keeping the people quiet? Of course people can be comforted when their sick and dying, it’s called LOVE

Why should God be blamed, because of what mankind has brought upon itself. Example: the use of tobacco and drug abuse, clearly the scriptures(God’s word) warns of the harm done. Take an example of a chronic smoker. So is it God’s fault because he didn’t grab a person by the throat and tear up the cigarettes, and now the man is dying from lung cancer, that his doctors also had told him to stop. But the persons stubborness is excused, because God should have intervened.

You also write After all, if the first humans (say, Adam & Eve) knew about the one god, why did so many millions who came after them live and die without that perceived "benefit?"

Modern science has proven inherited genetic abnormalities, passed on within the family. What could Adam and Eve pass on? After rebelling, they were removed from the Garden. ....Something in the garden gave them life.

They could not receive the benefit. Cellular destruction occurred, old age, Death. Eves offspring inherited this condition.

You ask Not very fair, is it?

Of course it’s fair, Adam and Eve violated a law. Heres a law you don’t want to violate either, gravity. Jump out of plane, without a chute and then cry it’s not fair when you come to a sudden stop.

 But God, in his love did provide a way for Adams offspring to reverse the effects of Adamic sin leading to death.

Do you want to know? Or do you want to assume, it’s not possible? It’s your choice, it’s your freewill. No ones going to force you to find out how to reverse the effects.

Agape Love ,

Chuckie

Trashing a Cinderella team of scholar-athletes...

Mr. Rosenberg isn't the only one who harmed these girls and celebrated doing it but I am disappointed in him.

The lynching is over. Everybody can now go home and try to pretend they took no part in it.

The only ones who covered themselves with glory were the girls whose victory was taken away by the Imus lynch mob.

They are true champions.

Best, Terry

Getting a compliment from you HC, is an honor. I too respect your insight and contributions to our community. So many good articles you’ve provided. Humbly, thank you

It has been my goal, to bring attention, to the Scriptures, as an alternative, to relying solely on our Political leaders, who seem bewildered, lost and unable to solve today’s complex issues. Where application can be made, I want to encourage people, that the good news, can be found in it’s pages. I enjoy the depth of wisdom that can be gleaned and applied, I also think that if people really applied the principles taught, so many of our problems, would find solutions.

I recognize your point, about the large blocks. I don’t know how to make a link directly to a specific Book and Verse, I know many households don’t have a Bible, so do I post for convenience, for those who don’t?

Sarah Silverman slept with God portrayed by a Black actor. Silverman's character thought this was "God's Black friend."
Seinfeld went for years without finding a Black person in NYC. They finally had a Johnnie Cochran parody black lawyer.
South Park had an episode in which a character used "niggers" instead of "naggers" to solve a Wheel of Fortune puzzle on people who are iritating. Bill Mahrer frequently tells jokes about Blacks. I think there may be some tunnel vision regarding your view of allowable humor.
As I was watching the Imus coverage on cable, I singled out David Gregory. Gregory had appeared on Imus and was clearly troubled that Imus was fired. Yet, he was allowed to host the Chris Mathews Show and direct the questioning. He realized that Blacks and women who worked at NBC and MSNBC did not share in the humor Gregory found coming from Imus had played a role in the firing of his friend. Corporate heads felt that a part of their consumer base to identify their brands with a person now identified with a racial slur. Gregory's world had changed for one split second in time. He was floored and depressed. Gregory went to the default double standard for rappers position. Several other anchors also aired similar complaints.
One problem with the lack of ethnic diversity in prime time news hosts (all-White,All night)* is that only a limited spectrum of questions arise. It is very true that gangster culture has a negative impact on the Black community and must be addressed within the Black community. This point has been repeatedly mentioned by the MSM news hosts and their guests. Black parents must face their responsibilities.
The fact that 60-80% of hardcore rap music is purchased by White children is glanced over by MSM news hosts. Do the parents of the children purchasing this filty product bare any responsiblity for the desensitization of the culture? Is there a guilt shared by both sets of parents, or is it only the African-American parents who shoulder the burden?
The question of who is responsible for the mechanis of the production and distribution of hardcore rap is not addressed by the current group of nes hosts. Are the rap artists packaging and distributing their own product or are companies involved? Are the companies owned and operated within the Black community or are they part of major media conglomerates? If executives outside of the Black community aid in the production and distribution of a socially reprehensible product, do they share blame along with the artists?
I think that there is blame to go around on allowing music that celebrates drug dealing, viloence and msogyny. It will take all communities to address the multiple prongs of this problem. This can only be done together.
It doesn't look promising.
So far people have focused on not being able to tell Black jokes or use any word in the English language just like the rappers. People are tired of seeing Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on TV as if the news hosts hadn't invited the pastors on their programs.
The fact that the MSM news hosts some of whom appeared on Imus probably work for corporations that have ties to hardcore rap and elements of rabid talk radio is never going to be confronted. The focus will remain on the pathology within the Black community. The forces aiding the pathology from outside the community will not be called to account. Maybe the corporations can work on getting some White comedians to tell Black jokes. Then there will be balanced.
Snarky, yes but until EVERYBODY takes personal responsibility nothing will change.

* Written in a p.o.'ed mood because I realize Glenn Beck has an hour long show.

"Mr. Rosenberg isn't the only one who harmed these girls..."

How did he harm the Rutgers team?

Tom

SHEEEEEESH!

Jan Knaus

I happened to catch Meet the Press this morning, and there was a terrific segment on the Imus situation. It was a round-table discussion that included David Brooks and Gwen Ifil. I think it was probably the best discussion I've heard about the controversy - the text transcript is here, for anyone interested (I linked to page 2 - the first question is at the very bottom of the page and then continues for several additional pages).

Gwen Ifil had this to say in response to the arguments that so many people are making - the "everybody does it" or "there are so many others that are worse" arguments: 

[In response to an earlier comment by one of the other participants, "Yeah, it’s hard to know where you draw the line in the entertainment realm."]

MS. IFILL:  You know, except that it’s really not hard to know where you draw the line.  We know where the offense is.  We know what’s acceptable and what’s not, and the best way to dilute the argument in the moment we’re in is to say, “What about this?  What about this?  What about that?” The fact is, we have a moment where we can talk about the things which have been bugging us.  I know a lot of people who aren’t really crazy about something—about, about “Pimpin’ All Over the World” or about what—something that Snoop Dogg would say.  And you know what they do, they’ve been doing?  They swallow it.  They just turn off the TV.  “I got—I don’t watch these shows.  I don’t listen to these videos.  I, I just don’t watch it.” But somewhere deep inside these girls becomes this little—you’ve heard what the Rutgers basketball players said when they were asked about this.  They didn’t say, “Oh, well, yeah, I think it’s fine.” They don’t think it’s fine.  And after a while it builds in them. And that’s what we saw happen this week.  So if we want to—you know, we can, we can say it’s not a big deal because it’s happened all the time or it’s been happening for a long time.  It’s precisely because it’s been happening a long time that...

Some people have been talking about how Imus should stay on the air because that would be such a good opportunity to talk about some of this stuff. I do think it's a good opportunity, but I'm not really certain why it should be Imus to lead that discussion. It does appear the discussion is occuring, even without him, as it should.

Strangely, I found myself agreeing with David Brooks as well:

[in response to an earlier question by Russert, "..."Who Can Say What?" Why not have that discussion?"]

MR. DAVID BROOKS:  I--while I think there was that racial element, there’s also a cruelty element to it.  You know, Imus was a shock jock.  He entertained people by shocking, at least in some small part of the show he was on.  If he was talking about African-Americans, he used racist language; talking about Jews, he used anti-Semitic lines; with women, misogynistic language; his co-workers, cruelty; his wife when she was on the show, cruelty. So there was that whole culture that has arisen, that has entertained by being shocking and cruel.  And I think we have the racial element of this story, but we also have the broader discussion which you’re seeing in statements by Barack Obama, statements by Republicans, by Democrats, by everybody, which is this culture of cruelty, this culture of shock, is something that’s polluting the public culture, and we got to bring it back.  And so I think that’s actually where the debate is spinning out to, a broader discussion of Howard Stern, of all these other guys who are doing similar sorts of shtick.

At another point in the discussion, Brooks noted that the problem is how whether or not Imus is a racist, his talk makes it easier for the real racists, because "we all get acclimated." Another excellent point.

And someone (don't recall who now) even brought up Tipper Gore, whose efforts to protect kids from negative media influence has been soundly denounced, even by people on the left.

I suffer from insomnia, and on occasion watched the Imus show - it came on between 2:30AM and 6AM on the West coast - as an alternative to the "cute news" with the O'Brians on CNN. There were some segments that I thought were terrific and highly interesting - primarily when he had political folks on. But sometimes, it was truly awful. Just terrible. And although one can say to just turn it off, what about the effect on the overall culture, which is something we all should be concerned about? How many people watching may have gotten the idea that it's really ok to say the sort of things that were regularly said on the program?

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

Corvid

Of course, no one is obligated to sponsor anything. But I'll tell you this: In the leadup to the Iraq war, I was working for a major media outlet, in the newsroom. On at least two occasions I can recall, decisions were made not to do stories that might cast a skeptical light on the administration's line specifically because it was thought that it would be perceived, by our audience, as inappropriate at a time the nation was gearing up for war. Then, of course, there was MSNBC'S cancellation of Phil Donahue.
.
Now, Imus' remarks and a healthy skepticism over the administration's phony case for war are two widely different things. But at the functional corporate level in each case, the decision-making, I believe, was motivated by very similar considerations.
.
There's no purity of essence to be found in any of this. Corporations are free to do as they like--too free, in my estimation--and that mostly comes down to, by whatever circuitous route, the bottom line. By law and custom, in fact, they seem to be forbidden to weigh anything other than shareholder value. So that's that, for better or worse.
.
Where we should all have a problem is with those who get to decide for us what is acceptable and unacceptable in public speech. Imus is labeled racist by some (not necessarily by you) for occasional remarks on his program. I have my doubts about that particular judgment, as do probably many of his listeners.
.
So I fail to see what is accomplished by hustling him off the public airwaves, thereby ticking off his many fans (and, it turns out, the vast right-wing AM radio universe, which had little common cause with Imus before), and sending Imus to satellite radio, where it's much less likely he'll be held to any kind of decency standards and may well, over time, build up a much more enthusiastic, and resentful, audience.

It's becoming more apparent what the objective is.

Read about Clear Channel Communications and the controversies

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Channel_Communications#Censorship

The company owns over 1,100 full-power AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations, ten satellite radio channels on XM Satellite Radio, and more than 30 television stations in the United States, among other media outlets in other countries. The present head of the company is Mark Mays, and its headquarters is located in San Antonio, Texas.

It appears as a pattern, first they attack the production of what are kids read in the form of School books, then they control the content of what we see and hear on radio and TV. Then they buy up every venue possible and only allow content they deem allowable.

Constantly applying pressue on internet providers and what ever forms of communications are left. Knowing full well that the cost of doing business has gotten a little higher since they'll outbid everyone else.

Whats next, no more MTV because woman shouldn't wear those types of swim wear, because it promotes pornography. I suppose we could return to the Victorian days, or the Puritans days.

Everyone knows pornogapy when they see it. Or I suppose the Christian Movement could develop a type of Burqa.

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

Many Muslims believe that the Islamic scripture, the Qur'an, and the collected traditions, or hadith, require a woman to dress and behave modestly in public.

So come on Christian Soldiers, your not going to allow the Muslims the higher moral ground.

Now I'll admit this may seem extreme. 

I do want to support decency standards and higher morals, but I don't want  to relinquish control, to just any Religous based organization who slyly usurp the Rights our forefathers wanted to protect against.

Whats next on the attack list,  Freedom of Religion

Who is Mark Mays http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Mays

I'm going to put some of your words into a rhetorical question:

How is it that Black parents [are supposed to] face their responsibilities [when] 60-80% of hardcore rap music is purchased by White children?

That's like Canute telling the sea what to do.

I have long been public in my opposition to the concentration of ownership of MSM outlets. That being said, I simply do not consider that the Internet based communications are in the role of the wheelbarrows against the Santa Fe. Local wireless and other forms of Internet communications, interlinked in a fault-tolerant manner, are more like the ants eating the dinosaur.

Sarnoff's Law states that the value of a one-way broadcast is proportional to N, the number of subscribers Sarnoff's Law). Metcalfe's Law states the value of a two-way telecommunications model, as in all possible telephone connections with the telephone network knowing the directory, is proportional (simplifying a bit) to N squared. Reed's Law, which applies to the Internet with every possible combination of users, is proportional to 2 to the power N.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Cuckie,

We all take leave of our senses from time to time.  But many of us do not go out of our way to advertise it. 

I think you are mistaken about a shorter list, as well.  The list slithers around, but never shortens.  And, I am unaware of any innocents.

To HC
This is the full quote by Eugene Debs

Competition was natural enough at one time, but do you think you are competing today? Many of you think you are. Against whom? Against Rockefeller? About as I would if I had a wheelbarrow and competed with the Santa Fe from here to Kansas City.

HC How about this argument, does it hold mustard?

Conductor: Farmer Imus, I’m sorry we can no longer carry your produce.
Farmer Imus: Why? I’ve got customers waiting for my produce, they want it fresh. It’s more appealing that way.
Conductor :I’m sorry, but the lady in the car, behind the produce car, say’s she doesn’t like the smell, she say’s it stinks. She also says she’s overheard complaints about the words you use.
Farmer Imus: Well tell her to move to the next car.
Conductor: We can’t do that, she’s good friends with the owner, and she wants that spot.
Farmer Imus: What do I tell my customers? How will I provide them with the product?
Conductor: Well remember that lady in the car? She say’s her brother in RightWing ,Texas has plenty of product and he’ll supply them.
Farmer Imus: What should I do? Can I at least use the telegraph and contact my buyers?
Conductor: No we own the wires too. But there is a Pony Express office 30 miles from here and I heard it only takes three days for them to get a message out.
Farmer Imus: This will destroy me
Conductor: I must ask you to leave the platform NOW.

Year later we check in with Farmer Imus’s customers. We find many of them have left, because the new product supplied by the Farmer from Rightwing was inferior, and was no longer appealing, Besides, their was rumored special pricing for the select few of Rightwing Products, driving Imus’ customers to pay more. Forced out of the market.

Now you’d think their should be a law against such practices.

Anti trust laws?

Antitrust laws are appropriate when there are monopolistic practices. Technically, it is far more difficult to monopolize Internet services.

A quick hypothetical. Let us say that I set up ten neighborhoods as wireless Internet "hot spots", with appropriate security. From one house in each neighborhood, I send a different kind of wireless signal, perhaps using something like a soda can as an antenna, to a collection point. That collection point might hard-wire into a cooperative ISP, or might use a small satellite antenna to connect to an ISP on another continent, which would send information back to the US.

This "backhaul" of the information is a well-established technique. While things may have changed, the lack of ground communications in the Phillipines, for example, made it more cost-effective for an ISP in Manila to send its traffic, by undersea cable or satellite, to California. The packets would enter the general Internet there.

Meanwhile, for an ISP a couple of hundred miles outside Manila, packets destined for it might go from a satellite ground station in California back to the Phillipines.

Is this the cheapest way to do things? No. Is it a way to bypass monopolies? Yes. Is it as easy for the consumer as a TV set? No, but once one could tell one's horse to take you home, where that's not a good idea with a car.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

 Gregory went to the default double standard for rappers position. Several other anchors also aired similar complaints.
One problem with the lack of ethnic diversity in prime time news hosts (all-White,All night)* is that only a limited spectrum of questions arise. It is very true that gangster culture has a negative impact on the Black community and must be addressed within the Black community...The forces aiding the pathology from outside the community will not be called to account

Yes. How hypocritical is it for white males, like Gregory and Scheiffer to whine about how they must  pay for piggybacking on the dysfunctional derogatory subculture  of the black community. A pathology that they derisively demean yet believe they  have a right to import as part of 'shockjock schtick' and blithely perpetuate IF it is for profit. Why should white males, they whine. have to pay for perpetuating the very racist behavior they are profitting from?

Just who is the sickest puppy here? The sick or those who profit from what ails the sick and whine like Gregory did when there are consequences?

I realize Glenn Beck has an hour long show.

Yes, spawned by Imus.

A lot of what you said is valid, but it doesn't deal with the issue of how hearing that language acclimates us to it. The more anyone uses it, the more acceptable it becomes... When we as a society allow talk such as that routinely heard on Imus (and yes, other programs too), to become normative, we all lose.

The problem with your logic is that you assume people aren't already acclimated to this language and don't already find it acceptable.

As I mentioned previously, I heard this language on a daily basis living on military bases in the '80s and early '90s where I was around a lot of black people. I haven't been on a military base since 1993.

So, here we are 14 years later and I hear this language again. That tells me this language is already deeply embedded in the black culture. And since black culture is deeply embedded in overall American culture, this language has already seeped into us all.

Black people may not like that the rest of us picked up black culture, including the unsavory bits. But the fact is, the rest of America has been listening to black culture and has already acclimated to it, including the language.

Nothing about this is new, except for the attack on Imus. In that regard, this strikes me as a last-straw kind of attack. Imus wasn't the first to use this language, nor the worst offender. He was the last in a long line of offenders. The black community perceives that it has been pushed so much for so long that they snapped on a relatively minor 3-word transgression. This response isn't just about Imus's stupid joke, but years of putting up with various forms of perceived racism both in and outside the media.

And yes, I do mean perceived racism issues. For example, when I run into a white woman that bitches at me I think, "wow, what a bitchy woman". However, when a white woman bitches at a black woman, that black woman thinks, "wow, what a bitchy, racist woman". The black woman may never actually know whether that bitchy reaction was racism or not. However, in the back of her mind, that black woman assumes the worst, just like the rest of us. Now, this entire point was an example and I'm not saying that all black women nor all black people think this way. But, it does illustrate how normal interactions can and probably are perceived as racist. These sort of thoughts build up over a lifetime, to be released at even a minor transgression that is clearly racist, such as Imus's comment.

As I previously noted, the problem with letting this build up is that this over-the-top response to a rather minor statement only trivializes the matters under discussion and paints blacks and other minorities as overly-sensitive. Black people should not let this anger build up, but deal with perceived racism issues as they arise. Then, they can respond accordingly at the proper level instead of dumping it all on one person.

I think the point has also been made by others that Imus' comment was directed at individuals, rather than generalized, which is also a significant thing. Those girls did nothing to deserve such treatment, and that was why it was seen as so clearly offensive by so many.

Sorry no, I don't buy that.

Calling someone nappy-headed depends on the person, the hair, and is actually not limited to women nor even black people. Certainly some of the women on the team had nappy hair and certainly some did not. Imus himself was generalizing over the entire team.

Further, unless you see a woman selling sex for cash, she doesn't deserve to be called a ho. Calling all women hos is just as bad as calling a specific woman a ho. Again, Imus generalized by calling the entire team hos.

Either way, this sort of equivocation between the specific and the general is just a bad excuse for bad behavior. The fact is no one should be using that language, regardless of whether it's pointed at a specific person or not.

I think the concern is broad, and not limited to just the black community.

The concern may be broad, but the focus is narrow. This discussion is all about the black community and what they think. Take a look around, the majority of the opinions being offered in the media are from black people.

We aren't hearing from a good number of white, hispanic, or asian people. And you won't hear from white people unless they spout the politically correct narrative. Otherwise, their comments would be considered racist and wouldn't be put on the air (except for maybe Fox). So in effect, we have a one-sided, politically-correct conversation that won't solve anything.

If we want to solve this issue, we need to get past the politically correct and get real. Unfortunately, that certainly won't be possible on network television, especially after this Imus mess. You can't genuinely talk about an issue when half the language is off limits.

My god, that was a great post.

And, yes, white comedians can make fun of black people or any minority.

They just have to be clever about it.

If they're not, it isn't funny.

And that's what separates a Sarah Silverman from a Don Imus. Silverman is funny and clever (and is making fun of herself, really) and Imus isn't.

Comedy's hard. If you're funny, an audience will forgive you just about anything. If you're not, watch out. But that's the risk of the game.

I do a little stand up, by the way, and I am nowhere near skilled enough to get into race.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Apology accepted. I look forward to hearing from you anytime. I think many times, we're on the same side of the issues. We may not always agree, but I hope we remain friends. Sincerely