Imus... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

LazyBoy · 04-10-2007, 07:10 AM

Sorry, still relatively new here, wasn't sure which forum to put this in....did a search and didn't see anything on it yet...

What are your thoughts on him/the situation? Though I agree he probably shouldn't have said it, I think he's just the latest unlucky bastaard to get drawn in the Sharpton Lottery...

-Will

mixedmedia · 04-10-2007, 07:16 AM

Aw, poor Imus got slapped on the hand for being a prick.

I couldn't care less.

And his show is neither funny nor relevant.

samcol · 04-10-2007, 07:19 AM

I was really suprised when he was suspended for 2 weeks. He shouldn't of been in my opinion. He did apologize.

Daval · 04-10-2007, 07:19 AM

Imus critics: Apology, suspension not enough

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Critics of radio host Don Imus aren't swayed by the shock jock's apology or MSNBC and CBS Radio's decisions to suspend him after he referred to a women's college basketball team as "nappy-headed hos."

They want Imus canned, plain and simple -- not only because the remark was deemed racist, but also because it smacked of misogyny.

Imus tried to stem the backlash from his comments by appearing on the Rev. Al. Sharpton's syndicated radio show Monday, where he said there was no excuse for his remark and "I wish I hadn't said it. I'm sorry I said it." (Watch CNN's Jeanne Moos on the Apology Hall of FameVideo)

Imus made the offensive barb Wednesday, the day after the Rutgers University women lost their national championship bid to the University of Tennessee Lady Volunteers.

Sharpton was not placated by Imus' apology and told CNN's Paula Zahn later Monday that the radio host's two-week suspension was merely "a baby step in the right direction."

"I think to say that his statements were racist, as they've said, then that means they should not allow him to come back," he said.

The Southern Christian Leadership Conference and National Association of Black Journalists have joined the former Democratic presidential hopeful in his call for Imus' ouster. The SCLC has asked the Federal Communications Commission to enter the fray.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson said during a Monday demonstration outside NBC's Chicago, Illinois, studio that Imus' comment should not be written off as "a slip of the lip."

The NAACP echoed Jackson and Sharpton's sentiment, saying, "Those that are given access to the public through mainstream media must be put on notice that they have everything to lose by spewing racist ideas and rants."

Added Julian Bond, chairman of the group's national board of directors: "As long as an audience is attracted to his bigotry and politicians and pundits tolerate his racism and chauvinism to promote themselves, Don Imus will continue to be a serial apologist for prejudice. It is past time his employers took him off the air."

Women also came to the Scarlet Knights' defense Tuesday, insisting that the flap over Imus' remarks was not solely about race.

"My listeners are irate; they're just so upset about this. It's just something that continues to happen with this person," said April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks. "I think right now it's about women and minorities. It's not just about minority women; it's women and minorities he's offended and humanity as a whole."

Appearing on Sharpton's show, U.S. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, a Michigan Democrat and chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, also raised the issue of chauvinism.

"I mean, who says 'hos' publicly?" she asked. "What is that? That is probably one of the most derogatory things any woman -- black, brown, yellow -- could even ever experience."

The Rutgers hoops squad, which has eight black and two white players, is scheduled to break its silence on Imus' remarks during an 11 a.m. ET news conference Tuesday.
Suspensions to begin Monday

MSNBC and CBS Radio, which owns New York's sports-talk station WFAN, announced they were suspending Imus for two weeks for his remarks, effective Monday.

MSNBC's "future relationship" with Imus depends on "his ability to live up to his word," according to a statement from NBC News. The cable channel simulcasts a television version of Imus' radio show.

"His dedication -- in his words -- to change the discourse on his program moving forward has confirmed for us that this action is appropriate," the statement said. (Watch Imus on Sharpton's showVideo)

Shortly afterward, CBS announced plans to suspend its broadcast of Imus' radio program for the same two weeks.

On the Wednesday show that kicked off the controversy, Imus told listeners, "That's some rough girls from Rutgers."

"Man, they got tattoos," he said. "That's some nappy-headed hos there, I'm going to tell you that now."

Imus apologized for the remark Friday and repeated the apology Monday.

"I'm a good person, but I said a bad thing," he said. "But these young women deserve to know that it was not said with malice." (Watch how some say "sorry" isn't enoughVideo)

On the Rutgers campus, Imus' words were met with outrage. University President Richard McCormick called the remarks "disgraceful, disgusting and racist."

McCormick further said the women hoopsters "represented Rutgers in an exemplary fashion of which we are extraordinarily proud, and then he says that. Why, why, why, why, why?"
Should Imus be sacked?

However, not everyone believes Imus' remarks should earn him the boot.

Syndicated columnist Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune said the suspension was sufficient in his view.

"I personally think that's enough. That's more than he has ever gotten before," said Page. "He was called to the carpet by his public on numerous occasions. I think this gives a sound warning because it hits him in the pocketbook, although I am sure it will just help his ratings."

Republican presidential contender Sen. John McCain said Monday that the shock jock's comments haven't dissuaded him from appearing on the show.

"I'm a great believer in redemption," the senator from Arizona told reporters in Phoenix. "Whether he needs to do more in order to satisfy the concerns of people like the members of that team, that's something that's between him and them."

Page said candidates may need to answer for their appearances on the show, "just as if they belonged to a country club that discriminates."

Howard Kurtz, media critic for The Washington Post and host of CNN's "Reliable Sources," said Imus is known for his comedy, but "his comedy too often strays into the offensive."

Kurtz, whom Imus once called a "boner-nosed, beanie-wearing Jew boy," said Imus may now understand that his remarks about the Rutgers team crossed the line.

"Imus should be held accountable for some of these offensive things that he says, but there is also a good side to Don Imus, and I don't think that should be completely obliterated in all of this chest thumping," he said.

Source

The_Jazz · 04-10-2007, 07:25 AM

Personally, I think the punishment fits the crime. First of all, mocking any team that makes it all the way to the collegiate finals is bad enough. Second, to criticize them for their appearance is just stupid. These are athletes that train hard and deserve praise, not moronic snipes. If someone here made the exact same comment in the exact same context, they'd most likely be banned.

Honestly, the race thing is of secondary concern to me. Anytime you denigrate the effort that an athlete has put in to reach the pinacle of their sport and fall just short, I'm going to be offended. The racial stuff makes it worse, but that's the lesser of the two sins I see.

shakran · 04-10-2007, 07:42 AM

Imus is an idiot. That said, this was not a "racist tirade" or "racial rant" as so many "news" channels have branded it. No matter what is said, a 3 word utterance is not and never will be a rant.

That also said, apparently the people howling for his understand neither Imus's situation nor the constitution. Imus can't be fired because it's his own show. He's not going to fire himself. The networks can choose not to broadcast him, and they have for 2 weeks.

But more insidious is that they seem willing to throw the first amendment away whenever someone uses its protections to say something they don't like. There is no asshole clause in the first amendment. Imus had the right to say what he said, whether we like it or not. If you don't want him on the air, vote with your dollars. Don't watch or listen to him. Enough people do that and the ratings will plunge, and then they won't carry him anymore.

ubertuber · 04-10-2007, 07:51 AM

There's no first amendment protection in the corporate world. If the networks don't want to have his words on their broadcasts, there's nothing to make them air him. And they don't have to wait for listener backlash either. First amendment protection applies to governmental restrictions.

There might even be a clause in his contract about how offensive he can be - and that wouldn't be prior restraint.

Imus is a jackass.

The_Jazz · 04-10-2007, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

But more insidious is that they seem willing to throw the first amendment away whenever someone uses its protections to say something they don't like. There is no asshole clause in the first amendment. Imus had the right to say what he said, whether we like it or not. If you don't want him on the air, vote with your dollars. Don't watch or listen to him. Enough people do that and the ratings will plunge, and then they won't carry him anymore.

Just to play devil's advocate here, how is this a 1st Amendment issue if there is no government involved. If CBS choses not to broadcast Imus for a few weeks, people can call in, complain and let them know that they're not going to buy any products advertised on the show. Or call the advertisers and let them know.

But isn't that what happened anyway?

shakran · 04-10-2007, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

There's no first amendment protection in the corporate world. If the networks don't want to have his words on their broadcasts, there's nothing to make them air him. And they don't have to wait for listener backlash either. First amendment protection applies to governmental restrictions.

I understand that. And if the networks want to can him, that's their choice. However, the principle of the first amendment is that everyone has the right to express himself. For people to then get up in arms when others follow that principle is disingenuous.

I don't agree with Imus any more than I agree with the KKK idiots that preach hate on the street corner - but that doesn't mean I think they should lose their jobs for having those beliefs.

flstf · 04-10-2007, 08:12 AM

When I first heard the comment "nappy-headed hos" on the news I figured they were talking about some rapper. Imus is not a news jounalist and was probably trying to be hip and funny which it turns out he was neither and I suspect his ratings will go up after all is said and done. Controversy brings audiences.

ubertuber · 04-10-2007, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

I understand that. And if the networks want to can him, that's their choice. However, the principle of the first amendment is that everyone has the right to express himself. For people to then get up in arms when others follow that principle is disingenuous.

I don't agree with Imus any more than I agree with the KKK idiots that preach hate on the street corner - but that doesn't mean I think they should lose their jobs for having those beliefs.

I guess that's a point of disagreement between us - I don't think the 1st has anything to do with this situation, even in principle. CBS has absolutely no obligation to keep this guy on the air if he says things they don't want him to say. If there were KKK guys with radio shows and I owned the network, you better believe they'd lose their jobs in a heartbeat if they spewed their beliefs on airwaves I controlled.

To me, the important principle behind the 1st amendment is that the government can't oppress speech. I just don't feel that should necessarily extend beyond the government. In a sense, the idea that CBS has an obligation to air things they don't agree with is to imply that it is OK to mandate CBS's speech, which is a different kind of oppression. Better to stay out of it altogether.

mixedmedia · 04-10-2007, 08:16 AM

You can lose your job for any number of reasons or characteristics that your employer simply doesn't like about you.

Shouldn't I be shitcanned if I'm working in a store and called some of the customers "nappy-haired hos" over the intercom system? I highly doubt too many people would be rushing to my aid to protect my first amendment rights.

And he didn't even lose his job.

I think he's a boring schmuck. That's his biggest mistake as far as I'm concerned.

The_Jazz · 04-10-2007, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

I understand that. And if the networks want to can him, that's their choice. However, the principle of the first amendment is that everyone has the right to express himself. For people to then get up in arms when others follow that principle is disingenuous.

I don't agree with Imus any more than I agree with the KKK idiots that preach hate on the street corner - but that doesn't mean I think they should lose their jobs for having those beliefs.

shakran, I'm missing something very basic here. How is anyone trampling on Imus' First Amendment rights? He expressed himself. The network suspended him. The First Amendment only applies to the government making laws, not private citizens or corporations. Individuals and corporations have every right to find something offensive and react accordingly.

If the KKK idiots went on national radio and espoused their hate speach, they don't have any First Amendment protection if their employer that put them on the air in the first place choses to take them off because their either offended or worried about a decrease in advertising revenue. This is a private matter being handled in a public forum, nothing else. And, by the way, most employers have mechanisms to fire you if you start spouting off hate speach in the workplace, and that's perfectly legal.

I think that you're trying to change this into a fight that it's not.

samcol · 04-10-2007, 08:22 AM

I kinda agree with Shakran here. What is with all the outrage to fire and silence people for what they say. Almost everyday on the news and radio shows you here some pundit calling what someone said treason or asking a network to fire people for their views.

flstf · 04-10-2007, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

To me, the important principle behind the 1st amendment is that the government can't oppress speech. I just don't feel that should necessarily extend beyond the government. In a sense, the idea that CBS has an obligation to air things they don't agree with is to imply that it is OK to mandate CBS's speech, which is a different kind of oppression. Better to stay out of it altogether.

I agree with you, but I'm not so sure our government does. Wasn't one of the networks given a huge fine just for accidentally showing a woman's breast during the super bowl halftime show?

mixedmedia · 04-10-2007, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

I kinda agree with Shakran here. What is with all the outrage to fire and silence people for what they say. Almost everyday on the news and radio shows you here some pundit calling what someone said treason or asking a network to fire people for their views.

Because it is not encumbent upon an employer to uphold an employee's right to say whatever they want. Do you think you should be able to say anything you want to while at work? In a public setting?

Ample · 04-10-2007, 08:31 AM

I think he's a dork, and have never heard more then 5 minuets of his show at a time. Back when Stern was on terrestrial radio, I always love the cheap shots that he took at Imus all the time. I think he should get fired, what he said was pretty nasty, and the fact that he didn't say he was sorry until someone made a big deal out of it says a lot about his character. On the other hand, this is a big deal, but Sharpton and Jackson are making this a far bigger deal then it really is. Listening to Sharpton on the Today Show this morning, it seem that he wanted to turn Imus's blunder into a debate about the public airways.

mixedmedia · 04-10-2007, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I agree with you, but I'm not so sure our government does. Wasn't one of the networks given a huge fine just for accidentally showing a woman's breast during the super bowl halftime show?

Yes, but nudity over public airwaves is against FCC regulations.

flstf · 04-10-2007, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Yes, but nudity over public airwaves is against FCC regulations.

I wonder how many fines the National Geographic station has paid so far.

mixedmedia · 04-10-2007, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I wonder how many fines the National Geographic station has paid so far.

Well, touche.

There have been some instances of nudity over public airwaves...a news special about breast cancer comes to mind. And I seem to remember some brouhaha about it from the "family values" set.There have been exceptions...

But to my knowledge saying "nappy-headed hos" isn't against FCC regulations. It's just dunder-headed.

And for the record, the FCC doesn't regulate cable...if you are referring to an actual Nat'l Geo station that I'm not aware of...don't think I get that one, bummer that.

samcol · 04-10-2007, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Yes, but nudity over public airwaves is against FCC regulations.

Right there is a key point. The government controls the media. It's not really free speech when the only way you can have a radio or TV show is to gain support from the oligopolistic media. I really think it does become a free speech issue at this point.

I think it's kind of a cop-out to say it's not a first amendment issue when seven companies own 90% of the media market. Sure they are just companies which don't fall under 1st amendment but when the government limits free speech through rules, regulations, and the FCC, and these huge companies become the only outlet for speech, I think we have a problem.

flstf · 04-10-2007, 08:51 AM

Sorry for taking this thread into censuring by the government in general. I also think Imus should be legally allowed to make fun of women athletes by making references to their nappy heads and loose morals.

samcol · 04-10-2007, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Because it is not encumbent upon an employer to uphold an employee's right to say whatever they want. Do you think you should be able to say anything you want to while at work? In a public setting?

I think a company should be able to fire someone for what they say at work. I don't think they should when it's the only outlet available due the company lobbying the government to force out competiton for an increased market share.

The_Jazz · 04-10-2007, 08:56 AM

Can someone show me anything about the FCC getting involved in this at all? I've heard threats of complaints to them but nothing on any actual follow-through. Until they weigh in, the First Amendment is completely irrelevant to this argument.

mixedmedia · 04-10-2007, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Right there is a key point. The government controls the media. It's not really free speech when the only way you can have a radio or TV show is to gain support from the oligopolistic media. I really think it does become a free speech issue at this point.

I think it's kind of a cop-out to say it's not a first amendment issue when seven companies own 90% of the media market. Sure they are just companies which don't fall under 1st amendment but when the government limits free speech through rules, regulations, and the FCC, and these huge companies become the only outlet for speech, I think we have a problem.

I agree with you about corporate monopoly of our media outlets. Believe me. But, by default, you seem to be suggesting that CBS or any other corporation in control of public airwaves should allow the people they hire to do radio shows for them to say anything they want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

I think a company should be able to fire someone for what they say at work. I don't think they should when it's the only outlet available due the company lobbying the government to force out competiton for an increased market share.

Imus has options. He can go somewhere else.

ubertuber · 04-10-2007, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

I think a company should be able to fire someone for what they say at work. I don't think they should when it's the only outlet available due the company lobbying the government to force out competiton for an increased market share.

Come on now... There are other broadcasters, there's XM and Sirius, there's cable TV, and internet broadcasting. Imus has no right to use the airwaves ABC is licensing and broadcasting on if they don't want him there.

samcol · 04-10-2007, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I agree with you about corporate monopoly of our media outlets. Believe me. But, by default, you seem to be suggesting that CBS or any other corporation in control of public airwaves should allow the people they hire to do radio shows for them to say anything they want.

Imus has options. He can go somewhere else.

Well it's approaching a 1st amendment grey area imo. What about when 2 companies own 99% of the media market. Is it still acceptable to say well he can go elseware or start his own company?

When corporations use government as a vehicle to monopolize (FCC , lobbying, etc. making it hard if not impossible to start new media outlets), does the government not have the responsibility to protect speech and other rights?

Believe me, I'm all for hiring and firing at whim, but as soon as government overegulates and industry it becomes a whole different ballgame. When you have access to only one cable TV company due to contracts with the local government, doesn't that local government have the responsibility to ensure quality?

roachboy · 04-10-2007, 09:15 AM

i'm kinda torn on this issue.
on the one hand, like others above, i find imus tedious.
his remark about the rutgers team seems about par for the course for him as yet another expression of the kind of floating resentment that apparently resonates with the demographic that listens to his show. the network(s) that carry his show have long profitted from the ways in which he helps his listenership channel their petit bourgeois resentments. and he has made a career of locating and playing around with the boundary that separates the socially acceptable from its inverse: if he didnt have a knack for locating that boundary, there'd be nothing funny about him at all. what you make of his particular mode of doing so in an aesthetic question. so i guess that one of the many reasons i find him tedious is that he locates and works a border area that i do not find interesting in a way that doesnt interest me either.

it is absurd that the networks who have made money off his show are now acting as if they are (suddenly) suprised by what amounts to an encapsulated expression of his entire m.o.

larry flynt was right about freedom of speech: you only realize what it means when it comes to defending the right to make offensive statements that offend you in some way.

so curiously, find myself inclined to defend imus' right to be a fuckwit on the air.

the public/private distinctions that occupy much of thie debate are correct, but at the same time, it seems that while corporations have the right to hire and fire, a consequence of this is that corporations can also act to suppress freedom of speech and folk react to it by going along with the suppression because it is legally permissable for a corporate entity to do what it likes as if in the doing there are no broader implications. well that is horsepucky. that's right, i said horse pucky. this is suppression of freedom of speech. and like i said above, it matters BECAUSE the speech in question is offensive.

and the rituals of contrition that imus will now perform make me kinda nauseous. after the requisite appearances in the requisite spaces over the requisite period, he will go right back to doing what he does and the network will go right back to profiting from it.
it is a joke, like all such media rituals of contrition are.

all that is assured is that the next time the rutgers women's basketball team gets into the ncaa finals, he wont say the same thing about them.
and with any luck, the next time they do get into the finals, they'll beat tennessee.

pan6467 · 04-10-2007, 09:20 AM

There are a few things I have observed about this whole Imus thing:

1) I never heard anything about it till this weekend when all the fuss rose

2) I didn't know Al Sharpton had a radio show until this

3) How can anyone say they support what Stern, Bubba, and so on do and then turn around and want Imus' head?

4) (This one will get me into trouble with some but it's the truth as I see it)...... This isn't about what Imus said anymore, it is all about POWER. POWER to get someone fired, POWER to control a situation.... etc.

What Imus said was wrong, he apologized and is paying for it. Telling a company you will not be happy until they fire him, no longer is about what he said but about POWER over another's life and livelihood.

Sharpton is supposedly a man of God... Jesus would forgive. Instead he uses this as a platform to push forth his agenda.

5) What is the difference between this and listening to an African American DJ on WZAK (Cleveland's Urban station) talk about getting white women with junk in the trunk cause white men can't handle them? (We have an African American at work that will turn the radio to this station and if anyone tries to change it he'll get upset. Personally, what I hear on this station is more racist and more offensive than Imus because this crap goes on every day, but I also realize that it is someone trying hard to keep his ratings up so he can get sponsors so he can make money.

I just feel saddened that people look for others mistakes like this to push forth an agenda. There is no reason on God's green Earth to be that spiteful and POWER hungry. And Sharpton being a man of God could turn this around and make a positive out of it.... Instead he continues to keep it negative and divisive and labels people and threatens those that don't agree with his stance.... like his is the only one that is acceptable.

Rekna · 04-10-2007, 09:20 AM

I think what Imus said was in poor taste but it was not as offensive as what Jackson and Sharpton make it out to be. I find it funny that comments much worse than that is included in hip hop music all the time and Jackson and Sharpton say nothing about it. I think in their drive for civil rights Jackson and Sharpton have themselves become racist. I can't stand it how it is ok for black people to say things that white people can't. I'm not just talking about comments about their own race also. Somehow it is ok for black people to deride white people because of their skin color. Where were Sharpton and Jackson when a man was testifying before congress that we should "Kill all the white people"?

ubertuber · 04-10-2007, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Well it's approaching a 1st amendment grey area imo. What about when 2 companies own 99% of the media market. Is it still acceptable to say well he can go elseware or start his own company?

When corporations use government as a vehicle to monopolize (FCC , lobbying, etc. making it hard if not impossible to start new media outlets), does the government not have the responsibility to protect speech and other rights?

Believe me, I'm all for hiring and firing at whim, but as soon as government overegulates and industry it becomes a whole different ballgame. When you have access to only one cable TV company due to contracts with the local government, doesn't that local government have the responsibility to ensure quality?

I think the quality is mandated by contract with the local governmental authority. Some county in MD just sued Cox or someone because their customer service was well below the standard set in their agreement with the government. I don't really think that government regulation of content follows. After all, how would NBC and CBS be in a position to compete for market share if they can't control their content?

The fact that the FCC can fine a station for obscene content implies that the stations are responsible for what they air. They can pay the fine and continue to show the content, or they can choose to manage their content in their own practice. This practice of fining also suggests that stations have a responsibility to manage the content they broadcast. CBS may very well be looking out for their own interests in this case.

pan6467 · 04-10-2007, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I think what Imus said was in poor taste but it was not as offensive as what Jackson and Sharpton make it out to be. I find it funny that comments much worse than that is included in hip hop music all the time and Jackson and Sharpton say nothing about it. I think in their drive for civil rights Jackson and Sharpton have themselves become racist. I can't stand it how it is ok for black people to say things that white people can't. I'm not just talking about comments about their own race also. Somehow it is ok for black people to deride white people because of their skin color. Where were Sharpton and Jackson when a man was testifying before congress that we should "Kill all the white people"?

It's PC baby. It's ok for everyone to rail against the "evil white man devil" but have him say 1 word just 1 word out of line and..... well he'll be gone in a heartbeat. Regardless of whether it was even meant in a mean way.

Look at Howard Cosell, he fought for equal rights and even Ali would talk about how Cosell was someone that fought for the Black man.... but he says "watch that monkey run" not meaning anything derogatory or mean spirited and he gets his ass canned.

Yet, we can have men from "minority" backgrounds just trash the whole white race and if we say anything we're the racists.

If it's wrong one way and gets rebuked then it is wrong the other way and the same people need to rebuke it or they truly aren't looking for equality but power and to drive fear into those that may speak out against them.

roachboy · 04-10-2007, 09:37 AM

i am not sure what you're actually arguing, pan: could you maybe say it another way?

pan6467 · 04-10-2007, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i am not sure what you're actually arguing, pan: could you maybe say it another way?

I assume the post above you and not my observations above that is what you mean.

I'm just saying that in this PC world the public white male is expected to be Politically Correct and not say anything offensive or fear being punished. (Whether the comment focus on black, women, gays... whatever or whomever, may get offended)

However, the "minority" groups or person can say whatever they like about a white man and not fear any retribution whatsoever.

1) because the white man knows if he speaks out, he'll be the one called the racist

2) because the people who call out the white man for his comments (Sharpton in this case) but let the derogatory comments against the whites go unpunished... Hell he may even add to them.

It's just hypocrisy to me. If a white man is wrong and should lose his job for vile prejudicial remarks then ALL people should regardless of their background.

aceventura3 · 04-10-2007, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

It's PC baby. It's ok for everyone to rail against the "evil white man devil" but have him say 1 word just 1 word out of line and..... well he'll be gone in a heartbeat. Regardless of whether it was even meant in a mean way.

Most of the people firing "white" men for saying stupid things are "white" men. It is hard for me to understand how "white" men are victims.

Quote:

Look at Howard Cosell, he fought for equal rights and even Ali would talk about how Cosell was someone that fought for the Black man.... but he says "watch that monkey run" not meaning anything derogatory or mean spirited and he gets his ass canned.

Perhaps as a professional communicator there is a standard that they have that is a higher standard than for non-professionals. Cosell made a bonehead comment. There are consequences for making mistakes in every profession. If you drive a truck and get a speeding ticket, you risk your job. If I am not a professional driver I don't have that risk.

Quote:

Yet, we can have men from "minority" backgrounds just trash the whole white race and if we say anything we're the racists.

This is simply not true.

Quote:

If it's wrong one way and gets rebuked then it is wrong the other way and the same people need to rebuke it or they truly aren't looking for equality but power and to drive fear into those that may speak out against them.

The problem with Imus' comment was that it was directed at the wrong people. The womens Rutgers team, was an under dog team, the women gave 100%, they are smart, articulate and on the surface embody character.

Imus was trying to make a hip joke about appearance on an issue where appearance is meaningless. Imagine if Bob Costas said the China Olympic gymnastics team was a bunch of slant eyed ugly ho's on global televsion, it might start WWIII - but at the very least he should be fired.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

However, the "minority" groups or person can say whatever they like about a white man and not fear any retribution whatsoever.

1) because the white man knows if he speaks out, he'll be the one called the racist

2) because the people who call out the white man for his comments (Sharpton in this case) but let the derogatory comments against the whites go unpunished... Hell he may even add to them.

It's just hypocrisy to me. If a white man is wrong and should lose his job for vile prejudicial remarks then ALL people should regardless of their background.

Here is what happens:

"white" guy makes a racial comment.
"white" media goes to every "black" they can find until they find one outraged.
This guy(s) are on every talk show, so the "white" media can prove how they are cool with race.
"white" corporate suits can't take heat, and fire the "white guy for the racial remark.

Then you conclude every "black" was outraged and the "white" guy was fired because of "blacks"

Rekna · 04-10-2007, 10:09 AM

Ace it is true. Look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN5StQAr7n0

People in the audience are clapping.....

If a white person said this they would be crucified.

The_Jazz · 04-10-2007, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The problem with Imus' comment was that it was directed at the wrong people. The womens Rutgers team, was an under dog team, the women gave 100%, they are smart, articulate and on the surface embody character.

ace, it's not very often that you and I find ourselves completely agreeing; this is one of those times. As I posted way up at the top of this thread, the racial stuff is secondary to me. I would have been just as irritated without that. The real problem here is that he's mocking unpaid althetes that just made an incredible run to the pinacle of their sport only to fall a little short. Would he make fun of Olympians in the less-televised sports that don't collect year-round paychecks? Seriously, the amount of effort that these women made to accomplish what they did deserves praise, not mockery.

pan6467 · 04-10-2007, 10:11 AM

I'll give you a personal example that is happening to me right now....

When I handed out wedding invitations, a lady that is "African American" made a fuss out of how "everyone else was getting one but her." Even though her and I don't get along.

So I gave her one. Our wedding (LS and I) is a pagan ritual wedding and we state, "if it is offensive to you or against your beliefs we understand you're not being there".

This lady then proceeds to tell people she refuses to go because "LS and I are devil worshipers."

I hear this from a co-worker and I let it go.

Then 1 night I needed to go to Drop-in to cool off from a confrontation with a client in Detox. This woman is running Drop in that night and refuses to let me sit in that work area (out of her way). I even tell her I need to sit there to cool off or I may lose my job... she refuses.

I end up having to go home... costing me hours.

Now she lets black co-workers go there any time they need to, so why couldn't I that night?

When I bring this up to my bosses, they sweep it under the carpet, treat me like I am a trouble maker and when I say this is prejudicial and she called me a "devil worshiper" and I would like something done.... they say, "She's black and may sue for discrimination." How is she being discriminated against???? I was and am.

Things are not getting better actually they are getting quite worse. I'm to the point I'm seriously thinking about suing because my civil rights are being discriminated against.

But I have also been told, that I'm a white male and the fact that I'm making a big deal of this makes me look like I'm the Racist. It has nothing to do with her race, but the way she treats me and the derogatory statements she makes.

Meanwhile, she continues to harass and make my work life miserable, knowing noone will do anything to her.

(Also she's 70, so they are also scared of age discrimination suits also. But again, she's the one doing the discrimination.... "but I'm the white male and I need to let it go.")

Rekna · 04-10-2007, 10:12 AM

While your at it ace watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49h1x...elated&search=

aceventura3 · 04-10-2007, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Ace it is true. Look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN5StQAr7n0

People in the audience are clapping.....

If a white person said this they would be crucified.

You are comparing an unknown guy, Kamau Kambon with Imus. I think Imus has a bigger audiance by at least few million.

Also, I think the only peron clapping was Kambon's mother in the video clip. The MC pretty much responded in a way that what he just heard was so extreme he did not know what to say, it seem like he was holding back laughter..

If you view a "white supremacy" meeting or website they say stuff like that all the time. They don't get crucified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I'll give you a personal example that is happening to me right now....

When I handed out wedding invitations, a lady that is "African American" made a fuss out of how "everyone else was getting one but her." Even though her and I don't get along.

So I gave her one. Our wedding (LS and I) is a pagan ritual wedding and we state, "if it is offensive to you or against your beliefs we understand you're not being there".

This lady then proceeds to tell people she refuses to go because "LS and I are devil worshipers."

I hear this from a co-worker and I let it go.

Then 1 night I needed to go to Drop-in to cool off from a confrontation with a client in Detox. This woman is running Drop in that night and refuses to let me sit in that work area (out of her way). I even tell her I need to sit there to cool off or I may lose my job... she refuses.

I end up having to go home... costing me hours.

Now she lets black co-workers go there any time they need to, so why couldn't I that night?

When I bring this up to my bosses, they sweep it under the carpet, treat me like I am a trouble maker and when I say this is prejudicial and she called me a "devil worshiper" and I would like something done.... they say, "She's black and may sue for discrimination." How is she being discriminated against???? I was and am.

Things are not getting better actually they are getting quite worse. I'm to the point I'm seriously thinking about suing because my civil rights are being discriminated against.

But I have also been told, that I'm a white male and the fact that I'm making a big deal of this makes me look like I'm the Racist. It has nothing to do with her race, but the way she treats me and the derogatory statements she makes.

Meanwhile, she continues to harass and make my work life miserable, knowing noone will do anything to her.

(Also she's 70, so they are also scared of age discrimination suits also. But again, she's the one doing the discrimination.... "but I'm the white male and I need to let it go.")

Are your bosses "white"? Also if your bosses are affraid to do what is right because of the possibility of a lawsuit, they don't deserve to be in-charge. I would fire them, and the lady harassing you.

04-10-2007, 07:10 AM	#1 (permalink)
LazyBoy Insane Location: Memphis Area	Imus... Sorry, still relatively new here, wasn't sure which forum to put this in....did a search and didn't see anything on it yet... What are your thoughts on him/the situation? Though I agree he probably shouldn't have said it, I think he's just the latest unlucky bastaard to get drawn in the Sharpton Lottery... -Will __________________ Life is nothing, everything.....and something in between...

04-10-2007, 07:16 AM	#2 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Aw, poor Imus got slapped on the hand for being a prick. I couldn't care less. And his show is neither funny nor relevant. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

04-10-2007, 07:19 AM	#3 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	I was really suprised when he was suspended for 2 weeks. He shouldn't of been in my opinion. He did apologize. __________________ It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

04-10-2007, 07:19 AM	#4 (permalink)
Daval Junkie Location: The True North Strong and Free!	Imus critics: Apology, suspension not enough NEW YORK (CNN) -- Critics of radio host Don Imus aren't swayed by the shock jock's apology or MSNBC and CBS Radio's decisions to suspend him after he referred to a women's college basketball team as "nappy-headed hos." They want Imus canned, plain and simple -- not only because the remark was deemed racist, but also because it smacked of misogyny. Imus tried to stem the backlash from his comments by appearing on the Rev. Al. Sharpton's syndicated radio show Monday, where he said there was no excuse for his remark and "I wish I hadn't said it. I'm sorry I said it." (Watch CNN's Jeanne Moos on the Apology Hall of FameVideo) Imus made the offensive barb Wednesday, the day after the Rutgers University women lost their national championship bid to the University of Tennessee Lady Volunteers. Sharpton was not placated by Imus' apology and told CNN's Paula Zahn later Monday that the radio host's two-week suspension was merely "a baby step in the right direction." "I think to say that his statements were racist, as they've said, then that means they should not allow him to come back," he said. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference and National Association of Black Journalists have joined the former Democratic presidential hopeful in his call for Imus' ouster. The SCLC has asked the Federal Communications Commission to enter the fray. The Rev. Jesse Jackson said during a Monday demonstration outside NBC's Chicago, Illinois, studio that Imus' comment should not be written off as "a slip of the lip." The NAACP echoed Jackson and Sharpton's sentiment, saying, "Those that are given access to the public through mainstream media must be put on notice that they have everything to lose by spewing racist ideas and rants." Added Julian Bond, chairman of the group's national board of directors: "As long as an audience is attracted to his bigotry and politicians and pundits tolerate his racism and chauvinism to promote themselves, Don Imus will continue to be a serial apologist for prejudice. It is past time his employers took him off the air." Women also came to the Scarlet Knights' defense Tuesday, insisting that the flap over Imus' remarks was not solely about race. "My listeners are irate; they're just so upset about this. It's just something that continues to happen with this person," said April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks. "I think right now it's about women and minorities. It's not just about minority women; it's women and minorities he's offended and humanity as a whole." Appearing on Sharpton's show, U.S. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, a Michigan Democrat and chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, also raised the issue of chauvinism. "I mean, who says 'hos' publicly?" she asked. "What is that? That is probably one of the most derogatory things any woman -- black, brown, yellow -- could even ever experience." The Rutgers hoops squad, which has eight black and two white players, is scheduled to break its silence on Imus' remarks during an 11 a.m. ET news conference Tuesday. Suspensions to begin Monday MSNBC and CBS Radio, which owns New York's sports-talk station WFAN, announced they were suspending Imus for two weeks for his remarks, effective Monday. MSNBC's "future relationship" with Imus depends on "his ability to live up to his word," according to a statement from NBC News. The cable channel simulcasts a television version of Imus' radio show. "His dedication -- in his words -- to change the discourse on his program moving forward has confirmed for us that this action is appropriate," the statement said. (Watch Imus on Sharpton's showVideo) Shortly afterward, CBS announced plans to suspend its broadcast of Imus' radio program for the same two weeks. On the Wednesday show that kicked off the controversy, Imus told listeners, "That's some rough girls from Rutgers." "Man, they got tattoos," he said. "That's some nappy-headed hos there, I'm going to tell you that now." Imus apologized for the remark Friday and repeated the apology Monday. "I'm a good person, but I said a bad thing," he said. "But these young women deserve to know that it was not said with malice." (Watch how some say "sorry" isn't enoughVideo) On the Rutgers campus, Imus' words were met with outrage. University President Richard McCormick called the remarks "disgraceful, disgusting and racist." McCormick further said the women hoopsters "represented Rutgers in an exemplary fashion of which we are extraordinarily proud, and then he says that. Why, why, why, why, why?" Should Imus be sacked? However, not everyone believes Imus' remarks should earn him the boot. Syndicated columnist Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune said the suspension was sufficient in his view. "I personally think that's enough. That's more than he has ever gotten before," said Page. "He was called to the carpet by his public on numerous occasions. I think this gives a sound warning because it hits him in the pocketbook, although I am sure it will just help his ratings." Republican presidential contender Sen. John McCain said Monday that the shock jock's comments haven't dissuaded him from appearing on the show. "I'm a great believer in redemption," the senator from Arizona told reporters in Phoenix. "Whether he needs to do more in order to satisfy the concerns of people like the members of that team, that's something that's between him and them." Page said candidates may need to answer for their appearances on the show, "just as if they belonged to a country club that discriminates." Howard Kurtz, media critic for The Washington Post and host of CNN's "Reliable Sources," said Imus is known for his comedy, but "his comedy too often strays into the offensive." Kurtz, whom Imus once called a "boner-nosed, beanie-wearing Jew boy," said Imus may now understand that his remarks about the Rutgers team crossed the line. "Imus should be held accountable for some of these offensive things that he says, but there is also a good side to Don Imus, and I don't think that should be completely obliterated in all of this chest thumping," he said. Source __________________ "It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it." Winston Churchill

04-10-2007, 07:25 AM	#5 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Personally, I think the punishment fits the crime. First of all, mocking any team that makes it all the way to the collegiate finals is bad enough. Second, to criticize them for their appearance is just stupid. These are athletes that train hard and deserve praise, not moronic snipes. If someone here made the exact same comment in the exact same context, they'd most likely be banned. Honestly, the race thing is of secondary concern to me. Anytime you denigrate the effort that an athlete has put in to reach the pinacle of their sport and fall just short, I'm going to be offended. The racial stuff makes it worse, but that's the lesser of the two sins I see. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-10-2007, 07:42 AM	#6 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Imus is an idiot. That said, this was not a "racist tirade" or "racial rant" as so many "news" channels have branded it. No matter what is said, a 3 word utterance is not and never will be a rant. That also said, apparently the people howling for his understand neither Imus's situation nor the constitution. Imus can't be fired because it's his own show. He's not going to fire himself. The networks can choose not to broadcast him, and they have for 2 weeks. But more insidious is that they seem willing to throw the first amendment away whenever someone uses its protections to say something they don't like. There is no asshole clause in the first amendment. Imus had the right to say what he said, whether we like it or not. If you don't want him on the air, vote with your dollars. Don't watch or listen to him. Enough people do that and the ratings will plunge, and then they won't carry him anymore.

04-10-2007, 07:51 AM	#7 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	There's no first amendment protection in the corporate world. If the networks don't want to have his words on their broadcasts, there's nothing to make them air him. And they don't have to wait for listener backlash either. First amendment protection applies to governmental restrictions. There might even be a clause in his contract about how offensive he can be - and that wouldn't be prior restraint. Imus is a jackass. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

04-10-2007, 08:12 AM	#10 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	When I first heard the comment "nappy-headed hos" on the news I figured they were talking about some rapper. Imus is not a news jounalist and was probably trying to be hip and funny which it turns out he was neither and I suspect his ratings will go up after all is said and done. Controversy brings audiences.

04-10-2007, 08:16 AM	#12 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	You can lose your job for any number of reasons or characteristics that your employer simply doesn't like about you. Shouldn't I be shitcanned if I'm working in a store and called some of the customers "nappy-haired hos" over the intercom system? I highly doubt too many people would be rushing to my aid to protect my first amendment rights. And he didn't even lose his job. I think he's a boring schmuck. That's his biggest mistake as far as I'm concerned. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

04-10-2007, 08:22 AM	#14 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	I kinda agree with Shakran here. What is with all the outrage to fire and silence people for what they say. Almost everyday on the news and radio shows you here some pundit calling what someone said treason or asking a network to fire people for their views. __________________ It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

04-10-2007, 08:31 AM	#17 (permalink)
Ample Psycho Location: In your closet	I think he's a dork, and have never heard more then 5 minuets of his show at a time. Back when Stern was on terrestrial radio, I always love the cheap shots that he took at Imus all the time. I think he should get fired, what he said was pretty nasty, and the fact that he didn't say he was sorry until someone made a big deal out of it says a lot about his character. On the other hand, this is a big deal, but Sharpton and Jackson are making this a far bigger deal then it really is. Listening to Sharpton on the Today Show this morning, it seem that he wanted to turn Imus's blunder into a debate about the public airways. __________________ Her juju beads are so nice She kissed my third cousin twice Im the king of pomona

04-10-2007, 08:51 AM	#22 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	Sorry for taking this thread into censuring by the government in general. I also think Imus should be legally allowed to make fun of women athletes by making references to their nappy heads and loose morals.

04-10-2007, 08:56 AM	#24 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Can someone show me anything about the FCC getting involved in this at all? I've heard threats of complaints to them but nothing on any actual follow-through. Until they weigh in, the First Amendment is completely irrelevant to this argument. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-10-2007, 09:15 AM	#28 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i'm kinda torn on this issue. on the one hand, like others above, i find imus tedious. his remark about the rutgers team seems about par for the course for him as yet another expression of the kind of floating resentment that apparently resonates with the demographic that listens to his show. the network(s) that carry his show have long profitted from the ways in which he helps his listenership channel their petit bourgeois resentments. and he has made a career of locating and playing around with the boundary that separates the socially acceptable from its inverse: if he didnt have a knack for locating that boundary, there'd be nothing funny about him at all. what you make of his particular mode of doing so in an aesthetic question. so i guess that one of the many reasons i find him tedious is that he locates and works a border area that i do not find interesting in a way that doesnt interest me either. it is absurd that the networks who have made money off his show are now acting as if they are (suddenly) suprised by what amounts to an encapsulated expression of his entire m.o. larry flynt was right about freedom of speech: you only realize what it means when it comes to defending the right to make offensive statements that offend you in some way. so curiously, find myself inclined to defend imus' right to be a fuckwit on the air. the public/private distinctions that occupy much of thie debate are correct, but at the same time, it seems that while corporations have the right to hire and fire, a consequence of this is that corporations can also act to suppress freedom of speech and folk react to it by going along with the suppression because it is legally permissable for a corporate entity to do what it likes as if in the doing there are no broader implications. well that is horsepucky. that's right, i said horse pucky. this is suppression of freedom of speech. and like i said above, it matters BECAUSE the speech in question is offensive. and the rituals of contrition that imus will now perform make me kinda nauseous. after the requisite appearances in the requisite spaces over the requisite period, he will go right back to doing what he does and the network will go right back to profiting from it. it is a joke, like all such media rituals of contrition are. all that is assured is that the next time the rutgers women's basketball team gets into the ncaa finals, he wont say the same thing about them. and with any luck, the next time they do get into the finals, they'll beat tennessee. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-10-2007, 09:20 AM	#29 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	There are a few things I have observed about this whole Imus thing: 1) I never heard anything about it till this weekend when all the fuss rose 2) I didn't know Al Sharpton had a radio show until this 3) How can anyone say they support what Stern, Bubba, and so on do and then turn around and want Imus' head? 4) (This one will get me into trouble with some but it's the truth as I see it)...... This isn't about what Imus said anymore, it is all about POWER. POWER to get someone fired, POWER to control a situation.... etc. What Imus said was wrong, he apologized and is paying for it. Telling a company you will not be happy until they fire him, no longer is about what he said but about POWER over another's life and livelihood. Sharpton is supposedly a man of God... Jesus would forgive. Instead he uses this as a platform to push forth his agenda. 5) What is the difference between this and listening to an African American DJ on WZAK (Cleveland's Urban station) talk about getting white women with junk in the trunk cause white men can't handle them? (We have an African American at work that will turn the radio to this station and if anyone tries to change it he'll get upset. Personally, what I hear on this station is more racist and more offensive than Imus because this crap goes on every day, but I also realize that it is someone trying hard to keep his ratings up so he can get sponsors so he can make money. I just feel saddened that people look for others mistakes like this to push forth an agenda. There is no reason on God's green Earth to be that spiteful and POWER hungry. And Sharpton being a man of God could turn this around and make a positive out of it.... Instead he continues to keep it negative and divisive and labels people and threatens those that don't agree with his stance.... like his is the only one that is acceptable. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

04-10-2007, 09:20 AM	#30 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I think what Imus said was in poor taste but it was not as offensive as what Jackson and Sharpton make it out to be. I find it funny that comments much worse than that is included in hip hop music all the time and Jackson and Sharpton say nothing about it. I think in their drive for civil rights Jackson and Sharpton have themselves become racist. I can't stand it how it is ok for black people to say things that white people can't. I'm not just talking about comments about their own race also. Somehow it is ok for black people to deride white people because of their skin color. Where were Sharpton and Jackson when a man was testifying before congress that we should "Kill all the white people"?

04-10-2007, 09:37 AM	#33 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i am not sure what you're actually arguing, pan: could you maybe say it another way? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-10-2007, 10:09 AM	#36 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Ace it is true. Look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN5StQAr7n0 People in the audience are clapping..... If a white person said this they would be crucified.

04-10-2007, 10:11 AM	#38 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I'll give you a personal example that is happening to me right now.... When I handed out wedding invitations, a lady that is "African American" made a fuss out of how "everyone else was getting one but her." Even though her and I don't get along. So I gave her one. Our wedding (LS and I) is a pagan ritual wedding and we state, "if it is offensive to you or against your beliefs we understand you're not being there". This lady then proceeds to tell people she refuses to go because "LS and I are devil worshipers." I hear this from a co-worker and I let it go. Then 1 night I needed to go to Drop-in to cool off from a confrontation with a client in Detox. This woman is running Drop in that night and refuses to let me sit in that work area (out of her way). I even tell her I need to sit there to cool off or I may lose my job... she refuses. I end up having to go home... costing me hours. Now she lets black co-workers go there any time they need to, so why couldn't I that night? When I bring this up to my bosses, they sweep it under the carpet, treat me like I am a trouble maker and when I say this is prejudicial and she called me a "devil worshiper" and I would like something done.... they say, "She's black and may sue for discrimination." How is she being discriminated against???? I was and am. Things are not getting better actually they are getting quite worse. I'm to the point I'm seriously thinking about suing because my civil rights are being discriminated against. But I have also been told, that I'm a white male and the fact that I'm making a big deal of this makes me look like I'm the Racist. It has nothing to do with her race, but the way she treats me and the derogatory statements she makes. Meanwhile, she continues to harass and make my work life miserable, knowing noone will do anything to her. (Also she's 70, so they are also scared of age discrimination suits also. But again, she's the one doing the discrimination.... "but I'm the white male and I need to let it go.") __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

04-10-2007, 10:12 AM	#39 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	While your at it ace watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49h1x...elated&search=