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

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. :p

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

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 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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is simply not true.

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.


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"

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.

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.

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.")

While your at it ace watch this:

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

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.

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.

ace the point is there is hostility toward white people from the black community. I'm still trying to see what part Imus's comment brought in race. The word Hos isn't racial it is sexist. Nappy haired could be racist but i'm not so sure i'd consider that to be a racist comment. Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson have jumped on this because it is another case where they can claim racism even though they will ignore the reverse case any time. Look at hip hop lyrics and tell me there isn't plenty of anti-white lyrics.

In addition the KKK is derided for what they say (rightly so). I'm deeply offended by the KKK and have no sympathy for them one bit. I think they are racist bigots and are more worthless than a cockroach.

Yes, my bosses are white.

I don't know what to do. I feel there is nothing I can do. Because every time I say something they bring her race into it and act as though her lawsuit would be worse.

They are working harder to protect her rights than they are mine.

How is that fair?

And how can someone who speaks out saying, "Imus said.... and needs to be fired." And sit there and smile and say, "She called you a devil worshiper... get over it.... she harasses you get over it... she's black and 70 and will sue and win . You're a white male, who can't afford a lawyer.

If calling one person something is wrong.... then any negative labels are wrong and the people who speak out against one label need to speak out against ALL labels, regardless of who is getting labeled.

Pan, I haven't called you anything, let alone a racist or KKK member; neither has aceventura3 for that matter. My involvement with this topic is to try to focus on what I see as the larger issue here, the message outside of the racial aspect. If you'd like to discuss something other than race, I'll be happy to do so, but just like Janet Jackson, I think that the mainstream has missed the bigger problem here.

I can't view the video at work, so I can't make any comments one way or the other at this point other than to point out that I'm sure that if I dig long enough I can find white supremist on the radio or TV (Jerry Springer anyone?) to make a nice counterpoint if it is what I expect it is.

As for your example, maybe she just doesn't like you or your religion. I don't see where race is necessarily an issue unless you make it one. The only way we'll ever know for sure is if you ask her. Any opinions expressed here are pointless since we're talking about an individual who may or may not be an asshole and may or may not be crazy. I don't know, and actually, I don't care.

They said there was outrage.

Then like I said above, Fox News looked high and low to find a "black" guy they could use for their rating who would take an extreme position.

What hostility? Are you talking about Jackson and sharpton and a few other media "ho's"?

The team was either all "black" or mostly "black", and you have a "white" guy commenting on how they look and their sexuality in a derogatory manner. That's the race part.

Look at acid rock, or any other form of protest music. Music is music. Direct personal attacks are different.

Plenty of people deride "gansta" rap.


Your bosses are p*ssies. It is sad that you have to pay the price for that. Have you gone to higher levels? Can you get the lady on video tape? Try going to the media, like Jessie and Al. Organize your co-workers and stage a walk-out until your bosses get it together. There is plenty you can do, including going to work for people with a backbone or just ignore the lady.

1) I'd like to see where I said you or Ace called me anything.

2) you obviously aren't reading my posts.

I was called a devil worshiper and have been harassed and discriminated against by this woman.

I went to my bosses (who are also hers) and was told basically I'm a white male, she's a black 70 yr old female..... we aren't doing anything.

The argument I use with my bosses is this.... if she invited me someplace because I raised a stink and she gave me an invitation to be nice.... and later on I told someone I wasn't going because she was black and then I discriminated and harrassed her the way she does me.... I'd be gone, I'd be sued and I would be thrown entirely out of my profession....

so what is the difference between what she said and her actions toward me and my hypothetical.


And in this Jazz,

you lose any respect I had for you.

Basically we were talking about an issue in this thread I was able to add from my personal experience and instead of using it for the subject... you chose to dismiss it and blow it off when it is germain to the subject at hand. I am not asking you or anyone what I should do.... I am explaining how in a situation I am in, I am experiencing reverse discrimination, and I am simply saying those who state Imus is wrong need to show that in this situation.

Instead you turn the situation back on me... and act like it has nothing to do with the subject. You sir, have let your little Mod title go to your head.

BTW before I get into trouble.... I brought up Jazz's Mod status for a reason... it has nothing to do with anything in this talk.... just like my being white and male and under 50 has nothing to do with my being called a devil worshiper.

Yet, the powers at my place of employment bring it up and show a discrimination that my rights, feelings and what I believe are less important than those of someone else.

Labels.... either you denounce ALL labels and point out wrongs as they happen or you point out nothing. That's my point.

I simply find it humorous that the people who are so adamant on prosecuting are "revrends".....who would be the ones you'd expect to forgive and move on...

-Will

I talked to a co-worker (a counselor in Central Assessment a different division) that has a relationship with the administrator of our building. I asked her if I should go to him. She said yes.

I then get called to the Head Nurse's office (my immediate supervisor) and she yells at me for going over her head (when I hadn't yet, I just asked if I should... came to find out there's bad blood between the person I asked and the Head Nurse... I was not previously aware of).

The Head Nurse then proceeds to tell me how she could have fired me for any number of reasons and belittles me, ignoring the whole situation that I was wanting resolved.

I did go to the Big guy who basically said, "Get over it, there's nothing we are going to do."

I have already learned what happens going over people's heads and so I am stuck. This is the only game in town for someone like myself starting out in this profession. To leave here I would have to change professions and I refuse to because I am damn good at my job and I love what I do.

So again, I use my experience to bring something into this debate. No I don't expect or ask for it to be resolved here.... but I am demonstrating reverse discrimination and how people will gather around the popular... but blow off the discriminations that in their minds aren't important.

ALL discrimination is wrong or none of it is wrong.... we cannot have it both ways.

Pan, your commentary here is really hard to follow. First, it isn't clear that there is any racism going on here, reverse or otherwise. Just because this lady is black doesn't mean that this fact informs her every interaction with you. You're jumping straight from correlation to causation and flinging accusations all over the place. Secondly, it sounds like she's just an old lady (you said 70, right?) who is afraid of and scornful of things that are outside of her experience, such as paganism. Thirdly, you kind of invited her to be upset by passing out invitations to an event at work when not everyone was invited. Fourthly, I thought I saw something about you claiming to have been called something, but you've edited one of your posts - so who knows? It could have been one of the many other threads were you've felt attacked. Lastly, your bosses seem to be the ones who have injected racial connotations into this, but not by claiming that this woman has made slurs against you because of race. They are concerned about risk, and they know (correctly) that managing the risk from her claiming persecution is a bigger deal than you claiming that she's rude to you and made an ignorant comment about your spiritual beliefs. Pretty much the only thing you can do is respond to your management in writing and say that her comment amounts to a slur, which their tolerance towards promotes a hostile work environment. You can't really do much but put them on notice.

But the whole situation is tied to racism in such a convoluted and tenuous way (and then back to Imus in a twist that still eludes me) that I, too, sort of think it's not relevant. I can see that you're upset about the situation, but it doesn't really equate to incidents involving media stars, Al Sharpton, government regulation, and accusations of racist content. You're seeing hypocrites were none exist.

One last thing: I still don't get what the thing about The_Jazz letting his mod title go to his head was all about, but it bothered me. I think that accusation was completely off base. He's been more than fair since coming on staff, and he's been more respectful of you than you have been of him.

I really hate posting stuff like this in public - much prefer PMs - but this whole thing has been out in pubilc in a thread that has potential, so sorry.

Ok when I stated to my bosses that this woman called me a devil worshiper and I gave examples of harassment and discrimination I was told she's black and anything they do could end in her suing them for racism?

I'm as lost as you in how it got there but that is what I was told in so many words.

I don't understand how this is hard to follow. An African American woman who pretty much gave a guilt trip to me for a wedding invitation gets one.

She proceeds to call me a devil worshiper, harasses me, belittles me at work, discriminates against me and I am told it's ok because she is black and there's nothing anyone will do.

My point is how can people (and there are some at work who agree with the bosses decision not to do anything) raise a stink against Imus... yet allow this to go on?

Is discrimination wrong or not? Is it just wrong in varying degrees? So a black person can call, harass and discriminate against a white man for his religious beliefs because she's black?

(BTW she is one who yesterday was going off on Imus.)

I just am honestly confused how one is wrong Imus and one is ok because it is a black woman talking about a white man.

Other than Ace... no other person calling for Imus' head in this thread is touching this....other than Jazz telling me he doesn't give a shit, I need to talk to her, maybe she doesn't like my religion...etc (perhaps she doesn't but that gives her no right to do and say what she is).... yet he can sit there and call for Imus' head? Sounds hypocritical.

You think Sharpton, Jackson, or any of these "righteous" civil rights people would stand up for me?????? Especially against a black woman?

Just showing the hypocrisy.

Disagree. It's not suppression of speech, it's removal of a medium for speech. And that's an important distinction because while one has a right to speak, one does not have a right to amplification. Unless Imus had a contract - one not voided by his comments - then it isn't and shouldn't be in his hands whether or not he gets use of corporate property. Such a decision belongs in the hands of the corporation, the owner of the physical or non-physical property in question.

To argue that corporations can't end business arrangements for any reason - even for reasons that leave a bad taste in your mouth and mine - is cow doody. Yeah, I said it.

I see we're still not going to talk about the real issue here, but fine, I'll play along.

First, you went back and edited the portion of your post where you implied that Ace and I were calling you names. I'm sure I can get an admin to dig it up if needed, but I think I'm being petty enough by just pointing it out.

I read all of your posts. I even went back and reread them after you edited them. And it wasn't until #47 that the truth came out. Your immediate bosses don't want to get caught up in a petty squabble. Their bosses don't either. The woman in question, in my opinion, was most likely offended when you handed out invitations at work and she didn't get one, then when she did, it was with a backhanded apology and statement that made it seem like you didn't want her there. You fueled the fire when you told her that it's a pagan wedding. In the minds of the two 70ish year-old black women that I just talked about about the subject, pagan = devil worshiper. Both of the women in my office are closeminded on the subject, and I expect the woman in yours is too. So she doesn't like you now because you were rude and worship some god that goes against everything she's ever been taught.

And since she doesn't like you, she's not going to do you favors. When you complain, no boss wants to get involved in that kind of disagreement. She's not harrassing you or discriminating against you - she just doesn't like you, so she's being difficult. And you know what, I still don't care. She's your problem - not mine. You deal with her.

What I'm really confused about is why you brought up my job. Even with your cryptic explanation, I don't get it. Before I had this job, I wouldn't have cared about someone who doesn't like you. I think I'm being consistent in my lack of caring here, and I'll even go so far as to state that I really don't care what anyone outside of TFP cares about any one member. I'm not singling you out - I simply just don't care how popular any one member is with their coworkers. But maybe you want to feel special; fine, I like you Pan. Sometimes you come off as a ranting lunatic, especially when we're talking about immigration or race, but I generally find you amusing enough to read most of what you post, which is the highest praise I'm capable of giving right now.

And you're being called a devil worshipper because someone thinks you're a devil worshipper. That should be your motivation to go talk to her and smooth out the rough patch as well as educate her on what you really believe. Me? I just think you're some

I still don't see any discrimination against you beyond someone not wanting to be in the same room with you, but that seems to be based more on your personality and beliefs than the color of your skin. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If you tried to take this to court with only the evidence presented here, you'd probably find it impossible to get even the most desperate ambulance chaser to take it.

Finally, respect. The 1000 gorrilla in the room. On a personal level, I don't care if you respect me, just like I don't care if someone doesn't like you. You need to work out for yourself what is and isn't worthy of your respect, and I'm certainly not capable of influencing that one way or another. I don't expect you to care if any of my coworkers or clients like me or not, which is consistent with what I'm doing.

The flip side is that you need to respect the position, whether it's held by me or anyone else. In my job, I'll keep right on doing what I've always done. I suspect that you're man enough to respect that at least.

:eek:

Cow doody and horse pucky in the same thread!!

This used to be such a classy neighborhood.

:lol:

YOU want to make this personal attacks against me now? You are not reading the posts... and post 47 went top ask what I have been asking all along THAT WHICH YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE.... (I changed the post because as I posted it Ace answered it... so I did change it.

Why do you want Imus' head but this incident I put forth from my experience... is ok and different.

And no, my bosses don't think it is petty... only you seem to.

You want to make this personal attacks not me Jazz.

I can leave TFP..... I mean I don't need this from someone who is supposed to be a leader.

Pan, I'm now openly laughing at this exchange. Really, this is just too funny. You're accusing me of not reading your posts and making it personal? Seriously? Now, I'm not laughing at YOU, I'm laughing at the SITUATION.

In posts #5, #37 and #43, I tried to draw the conversation back to the fact that Imus first and foremost attacked successful amateur athletes for their personal appearances. I still feel that right there is the biggest problem. Other people have made this about race, but not me. I've stated several times that his racial comments are secondary as far as I'm concerned. In posts #13, #18 and #24, I was asking how the First Amendment could be applied here (it still can't IMHO).

Then you went off the rails in #45. Apparently I'm somehow personally attacking you because I think that there might be another explanation besides reverse discrimination or that I don't care that someone doesn't like you. Where's the personal attack? Is it personal to not care? Wow, I never knew not giving a shit could get me in so much trouble...

I'm done with TFP...

this could have been done respectfully and with some dignity in PM's instead you choose to humiliate me in public.... and this is a mod??????

I'm done.

You can laugh all you want..... enjoy you just took great pride in truly humiliating someone who may have been emotionally charged but was trying to make a valid point. Which you still choose to ignore and make all about me.

I think I will take the touchy, feely position on this one rather than legal rights or commercial obligations. What Imus said was beyond cruel because he was referring to very specific young women, rather than some generalized group. Nappy-headed, ugly, rough looking, whores? A national audience heard his comments, followed by the current firestorm of a much broader audience.
These young women have been the focus of all of this attention because of how Imus negatively judged their appearance. These women are excellent atheletes, but more importantly, scholars at an Ivy league college and he reduces all of their accomplishments to mere nappy-headed hos.

He is speaking to those young women today and they are the ones that deserve the apology, not Sharpton and other media whores. It will be interesting to learn whether Imus has the ability to understand how very personal and hurtful his so-called joke was to very real people.

Maybe you'll read this and maybe you won't. I hope you do.

I responded in the format you chose. Might it have been with more dignity behind the scenes? Perhaps. I don't want to humilate you. I don't think I have. As I stated, I like you. I don't want you to go away thinking that I don't.

All of this seems like a big misunderstanding, and that was my point. You've read what I've posted out of context. All I did was offer a counterproposal that there might be other reasons for your perceived discrimination than racism.

If I thought an apology was necessary and correct, I'd give you one, but I really don't see where either of us have done anything wrong.

You're not a dick; Imus is the dick. He should quit, not you.

Well...now that we're back on topic?

That is a statement that I can get 100% behind. Screw Sharpton. Screw Jackson. And, for that matter, screw Imus. This has turned into a media circus, and for what? Publicity.
I really don't believe that Al or Jesse give anymore of a crap about those girls than Imus did. But, Ohhhhh the free publicity.

Apologies only count when you're a liberal; if you're a conservative (which Imus is not) only the death penalty will begin to pay for your sins. If it were me, I'd never have said it....but that's what the Imus show is all about and always has been. He's been suspended before. Apparently he and his producer were carrying out a little spiel or skit that went too far. Nevertheless, Jackson's "Heimy Town" comment, Sharpton's endless hate speech, Hillary's jew comments, Danson's "blackface" costume and many others get basically overlooked by the supposed disadvantaged.

We all know that the N-word is a political word, and that's all it is. If it didn't get political mileage you could say it all day long on the radio.

I prefer a fire pit and tasty BBQ sauce, personally :thumbsup:

I've skimmed through this thread, and as I thought might be the case, some have raised the First Amendment issue. It does not apply, no matter how much someone may think it does, or should. It's a sad commentary on the American society when one of the citizens doesn't know this.

Here is the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It's not long, nor is it hard to understand. Read the first five words, and if you don't understand what it being prohibited, read them again:

"CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW respecting an establisment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievences."

Got it? CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW. It is GOVERNMENT action, not private corporate decisions, that is covered by the First Amendment.

Anyone that misses that point after reading this note is trying to be obtuse, and should be ignored.

But the problem with your argument is THEY HAVE PASSED LAWS abridging free speech and press.

Hasn't the governement already prohibited the freedom of speech and press through over REGULATION in the media? What I mean is requiring licenses etc. not just by chastising people who say four letter words. By rejecting someone a license their freedom of speech has been abridged, thus allowing them to voice their free speech in only the seven major media corporations.

Don't forget these major corporations only got this big by following the LAWS (which congress is not supposed to make laws regarding free speech as you quoted).

My argument is that as we are approaching an ologopolistic media (that was only achievable through government intervention), shouldn't the government protect free speech of individuals in these corporations since it took the free speech away from the little guys by over regulating and requiring licenses in TV and broadcasting and soon to be internet?

So, it's ok for the government to protect free speech, but unfortunately its been regulated out of existance by the government so your free speech is now at the beckoning of 7 major corporations.

I guess you're right that the Imus thing is technically not a first amendment issue, but I honestly belive it is approaching one as the business gets more monopolistic. The government either needs to stop regulating tv, radio, press, and internet (which is against the first amendment by your own acknowledgement), or it needs to protect free speech of the individuals in these massive corporations.

Samcol:

In your last paragraph, you and I can come together. I don't think the Imus thing is a constitutional issue - it's a commercial one. I do think, however, that there's is a lot of interesting territory to explore in just how corporate our government is, and in just how governmental our corporations have become. That might be a great thread...

:thumbsup: I've had the most difficult time trying to put the concept into words.

Hmmm...interesting concept.

Corporate sponsored government, as opposed to the standard corporate payrolled politician.
"This session of Congress has been brought to you by McDonald's"
"The Supreme Court will hand down its ruling right after these messages from Phizer Pharmaceuticals."
On governmenr raids, instead of jackets bearing FBI, ATF...and what have you...they will wear Ford, GM and Chrysler logos.

this article from this morning's ny times gives a glimpse of the cash levels involved with this affair:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/bu...hp&oref=slogin

it is vaguely interesting to note the way the article is framed: imus has created problems at the level of brand identity, and it is to the degree that brand identities are involved that this becomes a "real" problem.

there are a number of problems.

a) radio and television occupy a strange in-between zone: they are privately owned in the states, for better or for worse (generally for the worse in terms of quality of information in particular, which is reduced to a function of brand identity formation an maintenance and so is a commodity, with all that entails)...but they are also a public service in a sense. this distinction between ownership and function can be used to pose questions of freedom of speech in a more complicated manner. while legally everything that is happening is hunky dory (this is not a first amendment matter technically), effectively this is problematic. the dominant media does have the effect of setting the terms of "legitimate" debate--you have seen this happening obviously in political matters----if this is somehow unclear think about the role of the once-powerful conservative radio apparatus and its role in shaping the ideological conditions that enabled the bush administration to happen. or consider the history of mass media coverage of opposition to the war in iraq and the ways this has changed from 2003 to the present.

major media infotainment and the ways in which it frames information has effects on the ways in which public discourse happens and because that is the case, the actions of media conglomerates in situations like this also have effects on public discourse.

so there is a freedom of speech issue involved here, but it is best debated at the level of norms---and the article above provides a kind of interesting insight into how conflicts of such norms unfolds in the states, given the private ownership of the media (television, radio, written forms)....

b) so imus. imus the brand. imus the brand is an advertising relay system, not in the sense that say television news is--the narratives built into news presentation are linked to advertising segments, they are about advertising segments, but the segments are outside the infotainment delivery itself, where in the case of imus there is no operatie distinction between infotainment and advertising. imus the guy makes 10 mil a year. (what the fuck?) imus the brand enables other brands to access his demographic. so what matters really about his speech, insofar as what is really at play here is imus the brand, is that he maintain a degree of neutrality such that he causes no real disruption of advertising delivery. this is the field that circumscribes his actual freedom of speech. so there is a way in which the issue, though symbolically problematic on freedom of speech grounds (see above) is in fact a joke.

c) it is interesting across all this to notice what passes for political debate in the states in the context of the "public" airwaves. look at the statements in the article above from cbs; look at the actions of proctor and gamble. what are they about? fear of some kind of consumer action. what is the logic? maintenance of brand identity. what is the danger? negative associations. what is at issue? revenue. what are the effects? run away. commerically driven censorship is an unintended consequence of brand identity maintenance. what are the indices that trigger this reaction? the stream of talking heads that has been deploying in other talk show contexts. what do they do? reinforce negative associations with imus-the-brand.

what are the limits of meaningful political debate in the states? these limits are circumscribed by the limits of access to television.
what is political debate? conflict between brands.

is there a popular movement of any kind behind this? who knows? talking heads represent us. did we elect them? no. did we choose them? well, that depends on how you interpret consumer choices in the economic sphere. do you conflate your buying patterns with anything like democratic process?

in the states, information is a commodity. it is only relevant insofar as it is a commodity. there is no particular desire to inform the public--private interests are interested in this function only to the degree that it functions to polish their brands.

so the imus affair provides a little window onto the reality of information formation and dissemination under american capitalism. it shows you the actual interests at play behind the infotainment you confuse with information. it shows you something about the economic infrastructure, about the priorities that are shaped by this infrastructure. it gives you something to think about--if this bizarre intertwining of commercial activity and information had somehow eluded you up to this point.

in the end THAT is the disturbing aspect of this situation so far as i am concerned.

Wow, for a voice of reason you sure are taking an obnoxiously belligerent tone. Let's go over what I've said very carefully. Nowhere in this thread have I ever said it is unconstitutional for Imus to be fired or suspended. It's not. We all get that.

What I'm trying to get across is that in a country who's very constitution expresses the concept that people should be able to express themselves the way they want to, it is disingenuous for someone to say "he can't say that." It's not illegal. It's not unconstitutional. It's just idiotic.



In other news, I too feel Jazz has been unfairly mis-characterized. Becoming a mod does not mean you have to check your opinions at the door.

No one here says that "he can't say that." What we saying is that CBS doesn't have to let him say it with their voice. How's that for "idiotic"?

And I didn't say anyone here said that. You guys really do need to read more carefully if you're gonna try to nail me for stuff. I was referring to the protesters who were running around demanding that he be fired. As far as I know, none of you guys were in that mob.

Even though I've already said it, it has been one whole day since the post, so for the record lest anyone get confused, Imus is an idiot, and what he said was reprehensible. That said, let the listeners vote with their wallets. If people don't like what he has to say, they won't listen to him anymore. That simple. If they keep listening, then maybe we should open up a dialog as to why the public seems to think calling people nappyheadded ho's should be rewarded by paying attention to the person that says it.

As it is, all this running around enjoying the holy hell out of getting very angry at someone for saying something *offensive!* is doing nothing more than raising interest to a fever pitch in a show that is filled with idiotic insults and derogatory comments. If you really want to shut Imus up, ignore him. Otherwise, just like Howard Stern, he'll never go away.

Go figure, a "shock jock" actually said something shocking. Comedy isn't funny unless you push the boundarys occasionally. A simple apology might be in order, nothing more. The sponsors and his employers are free to make their own decisions.

I find it amazing that Jessie "Hymietown" Jackson is stepping into this. Pot meet kettle.

From the Onion man on the street:

I'm not trying to nail anyone - I was not clear that you were talking about some other people. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I have been clear for years now that my interest in this forum has nothing to do with "nailing" people. I am just sensitive about it being clear what I and saying and what I'm not. I don't want to be thought of as saying the thing you wrote before.

Precisely. The freedom to express oneself does not require others to make sure that expression is heard, nor does it obligate anyone to listen. We're free to express ourselves (within certain limits, such as the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example that is often used, and obscenity, which has been held not to be protected speech). The FCC, which would be the arm of the government that would be involved here, isn't going to do anything, and therefore, it's a matter of discrimination not censorship. CBS and MSNBC can discriminate against folks that speak as Imus did, and the goverment isn't going to tell them they can't. Nor is the goverment going to tell them they have to shut him up.

It's really not that hard of a concept, and I can't help but wonder why some are trying to blur the lines between censorship by the public body--usually a prior restraint of speech--and retribution by a private party. It's not even apples and oranges, which are at least both fruits. It's apples and marbles.

JcS

If I'm understanding shakran correctly now, he's not implying that anyone should be regulating speech, but that in a country theoretically founded on the principles of free expression it is ironic for citizens (Sharpton, et al) to be clamoring to shut people up.

I agree with that... If I've got it right.

Well, I'm not a huge fan of Al Sharpton politically, he is an opportunist, no doubt about that. Although, as a personality I find him to be quite charming. :) I don't think that Al Sharpton is so much clamoring to stifle free speech, but rather to get someone fired for saying something stupid in the course of doing their job. To be fair, they aren't exactly the same thing.

Would they be the same thing if Imus said that his remarks weren't a mistake? Then Sharpton would be effectively policing Imus' ability to express his beliefs.

Just little devil's advocate here... :thumbsup:

I don't think so. No one or no entity is under any compulsion to do what Sharpton says. How is he policing anything?

Sharpton is a citizen with the right to voice his opinion about what Imus said and what should be done to him just as much as any one of us. If he wants to organize and make a fuss about it that is his right as a citizen.

you do, sir.

I'll go further than that. If we ARE going to decide to shut people up for making racially unpleasant comments (nappy headed ho's being only the latest example) then I would expect that in addition to Don Imus and Michael Richards, that we also move most urgently to silence Jesse Jackson (Hymietown), Chris Rock (who is not only apparently pursuing a new world record for most frequent use of the word "nigger," but who's "comedy" is liberally laced with racial slurs against white people - a line from one of his more popular act reads "''Motherfucker, cracker-ass, motherfucker
cracker! Shit, cracker, motherfucker", and who has written a song called "Snowflake, White Bitches"), and anyone else, of *any* race, who says racially offensive things.

Racist attitudes and speech are wrong, no matter who is saying them. It's wrong for Imus. It's wrong for Richards. It's wrong for Limbaugh. It's also wrong for Rock and Jackson.

It's high time this country realize that racism is not limited to one race, and that racist attitudes will never be cured until everyone, of *all* races, stops worrying about what color everyone is.

It should not take MSNBC and CBS suspending someone's radio show to get this message across. The message should come across because people should stop patronizing performers, of any race, who profess their racist attitudes. Imus's suspension should be meaningless because people, if they are truly against racist attitudes and statements, should no longer be listening to him anyway.

But all that being said, everyone, Even Chris Rock and Don Imus, has the right to hold and express racist opinions. Citizens of a country that professes to encourage free speech should not seek revenge upon or punishment of those who express these opinions. If you don't like it, you don't have to listen to it. It's as easy as that.

I've said it once on TFP today (although not in this thread), so I'll say it again:

There's a fine line between clever and stupid.

In terms of this discussion, I mean that I agree with Shakran's arguement that everyone has the right to believe whatever it is they want to believe, but that doesn't mean that we have to listen to it.

That said, I think that the first Chris Rock special on HBO is one of the funniest things I've ever seen. The same with the first Eddie Murphy concert tape. Both of them are racially charged, but not as much as some of Richard Pryor's early work. All of them, at the time, were the heights of comedy for me. At that's where the Spinal Tap quote comes in - I honestly think that it's ok to say racist things if it's funny to the entire audience. There are two important caveats there - "funny" and "entire audience". If you don't meet both, you're just stupid. If you do, you might end up as Dr. Doolittle.

Honestly, if you're going to spout off about racial politics or cultural differences, you need to know your audience very well, which includes the folks that are going to see the tape of the event, should one exist. Imus should have known that. Stern is probably an even bigger on-air asshole than Imus aspires to be, but the former is smart enough to stay away from racial issues without having his producer Robin act as the voice of reason/tempering influence.

Now I'm going to go back to grumbling about the fact that everybody except Elphaba has missed the bigger problem here. I described as being like Imus blew up a truck bomb and you're all arguing about the color of the truck. This is much closer to Imus making fun of Little Leaguers for being funny looking than Michael Richards' "nigger" comments.

This is key. I think a fair amount of the confusion/argument in this thread comes from an unintended blurring of this distinction - either on the part of the speaker or the listener or both.

That said, in this case at least, I'm not a big fan of either action. Obviously, I'm not favoring the stifling of free speech - I'm not sure anyone in this thread supports that.

But I also don't like the is-legal and should-be-legal action of trying to get him fired, because I don't see a useful point to it. Not many are actually supporting what Imus said, he's being disciplined, and he himself has at least publicly recognized the wrongness of what he said. Society didn't approve. And even for those who do support it - typically in the South Parkesque "either all offensive remarks are okay or none are" mindset - they're not going to alter their thoughts based on whether he gets suspended or put off the air permanently.

What would a firing acheive, other than retribution? What would be the use of such a firing that negative publicity and a temporary suspension couldn't provide?

I could be missing something, but so far it just looks like petty revenge to me.

Why is it funny to be racist toward white people but an abomination to be racist toward black people? It seems to me that their are a lot of black people in this country that are hyper sensitive to racial issues against them but when it comes to them being sensitive to racial issues to non-blacks they don't care, it's funny, or they deserve it.

Now that is wrong. Racism will never stop until we stop differentiating between the races!

Funny is funny. Some would argue that Carlos Mencia is funny; I won't, but that's more a question of personal taste coupled with the fact that I'm partial to Joe Rogan. Mencia's made a mint off the fact that he's Mexican (actually, he's half Swedish too, but that's not funny). Lot's of Mexicans, Mexican Americans and plain old white bread Southerners like some of my friends laugh at his jokes.

If the joke is funny, it's funny. It may not be funny tomorrow or next year, but it's funny today. Imus told a joke best made 30 years ago, at least as far as race is concern.

I think it's important to remember just exactly WHY it is that racism against and racially-insensitive remarks about black people are inherently more charged and controversial. There's a lot of denial about the reality that is behind this phenomena. And I think it's kind of shameful.

Here's what I have to say about that:
Fucking live with it!

White people in America have never had to live in a world where they were treated as second-class. Black people have. My parents remember it. Al Sharpton remembers it. It was not so long ago. That's a key difference. Is it really that hard to understand? The sensitivity is there because of our very real and painful recent past. It's just not funny for a white person to denigrate a black person because our common consciousness remembers what it was like when racism was common and acceptable. Just get over yourselves with your "reverse racism" bullshit. It IS NOT reverse racism. It's jokes and bullshit talk. Just thank your lucky stars that you were never really on the shit end of that deal and live with it, okay? Okay. Thank you.

/end rant and threadjack.

So you're saying revenge is better than just coming to a peaceful conclusion to the racial anger in the country? You can play that game if you want to, but that just means that our society will NEVER stop looking at race as a factor in judging people.

The preeminent hero of the anti-racism movement, King Jr., said he envisioned a world in which people are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. I don't remember him ever having a dream about calling a white guy a honky. I think it's time we try to bring society more in line with Dr. King's dream, but in order to do that ALL of the races are going to have to stop being assholes to each other.


You're right. Reverse racism is a bullshit term. It's racism, no matter what color the racist is.

You missed my point entirely. How is it moving people forward to suggest that jokes about white people is the same thing as a fully-grown black man having to step off of the sidewalk to let a white teenager pass?

My point is not to say that I encourage hatred against white people. My point is that we need to have a little more understanding as to why remarks against black people are more sensitive and controversial. And take it to heart. Understand it. And move on.

The attitude these days overwhelmingly seems to be "well there is no more racism so they should get over it." I think this is a dismissive and ignorant attitude. I know people who won't flinch at bringing the Vietnam war into a discussion about Iraq or how it is still affecting us today. But our black communities are just supposed to "get over" 100 years of institutionalized racism that ended at about the same time? And is still going on in in a "lite" fashion in some parts of the country?

My point is that we are forgetting how appalling racism can truly be. And it's not about jokes or off-hand comments made by fringe radicals. It's about being born into a world with limits and no innate rights to dignity and freedom. I'll wager that you, like me, don't have a lot of personal experience with anything like that.

In addition to the way they speak about women.
So, how many of those women decided to throw out their rap music? I'm betting.....none.
But it's ok for every black comedian from Richard Pryor to Dave Chapelle to do racist comedy? Hey, I laugh at their routines, because they're funny. If Imus had done some bit that was funny that included his three words or if Dave Chapelle did, this wouldn't even be news.
It was and is also acceptable to do jokes about Jews and if a black comedian does them, all the better. So what?
I would tell the women on the team that Imus was talking about to also get over themselves. He's not a freakin politico, not someone with any worldly power...he's a radio personality, he's been doing this stuff for 40 years.
This country is really getting way too thinskinned about everything.....

I don't think I ever said that. My position is that there isn't any difference between Imus calling a group of black women "nappy headed ho's" and Jackson calling Jews "hymies" or Chris Rock calling white people "motherfuckin' crackers."

That's certainly not my attitude. There's a lot of racism coming from all sides of the ethnic playground. Racism doesn't become better or more understandable or more acceptable based on the color of the racist. That very concept is racist.

Yes. If they want a colorblind society that judges people based on their merits rather than how light or dark they are, then yes. They're going to have to get over it. I got beaten up when I was in 5th grade. Should I be hunting that guy down now, *cough* years later? I mean, damn, can't you understand why I shouldn't get over it? Yeah, it sucks that I got beaten up, but I had to let it go. It sucks that black people were treated poorly because of their race, but at some point, you have to let it go. It sucks, because it's very natural and human to want to hold a grudge, and to want revenge. But seeking revenge isn't going to help society grow, and it isn't going to end racism.

My goal is to end this asinine concept that people should be treated or viewed differently because of their skin color. That's a goal that will never be realized until we put the past where it belongs, behind us. I'm not saying forget about the past - we should remember the past and continue to learn lessons from it. But if we dwell on the past, and continue holding resentments based on the past, we will just poison ourselves.

Your comparison of Iraq/Vietnam was irrelevant. I advocate learning from the past. If Bush had looked at Vietnam, and had been smart enough to care about learning something instead of witching up his own unfounded beliefs and then refusing to look at anything else, he could have learned from the past. Likewise, we can learn from our appalling past of racism. We can learn that racism is evil, and we can learn that we must never allow it to stain our country again. But until we eliminate racism entirely, we can't achieve that goal.



What matters is the experience of today. We have all experienced a world in which people actually think skin pigmentation means something. That's bad enough. It's time to eliminate that thought from our society. We can't do that if Imus calls people nappy headed ho's, or if Rock calls people crackers.

We must make a choice. Do we want to wallow in the misery of the past, and therefore never see the colorblind society that we should unquestionably have, or do we want to actually look at TODAY, and figure out how to make a better society for everyone, TODAY?

Wow, Shakran...usually we're tossing spitballs, but this time,http://www.debatepolitics.com/images/smilies/appl.gif

The statement that I was addressing implied that. The whole "reverse racism" concept implies that. I was responding, in an open way, to several people here who would like to use this incident as a platform to highlight what they deem to be "reverse racism" in our culture. It's really quite simple.

When Chris Rock makes a joke about white people its funny because we know it's just a joke.

When a white person makes a joke about black people we have a natural aversion to it because we know our history of racism in America. Not enough time has passed to heal that gaping wound. Therefore I think it is natural and appropriate to have this negative reaction against insensitive remarks made by white people about black people. People react to it, both black and white, there's no denying it, and I think it's a good thing. It's a natural thing considering where we've come from. What's so wrong about showing one group a little more sensitivity? And why is that the people crying out the most against this natural reaction seem to start with the "reverse racism" thing and then end up with the "I have a dream thing"? To mask their resentment for having to carry the baggage of the past? I have that dream AND I give credence and space to the very real sensitivity that exists between white and black people that we have inherited.


Again, this ignores the point I have been trying to make. I guess I'm not expressing myself very clearly.


What revenge exactly? Being called a cracker? Whitey? What revenge are you talking about? Who is tracking you down?
It will be let go of when the time comes. Institutionalized racism wasn't helping society grow either but it took us 100 years after the civil war to figure that one out...and it took the National Guard and a lot of needless death and violence to actually force it onto the South.

I don't think we are holding onto the past. The past still has a grip on us all. This is what we need to live with. We can't wish it or deny it away and it's not going to disappear overnight.

It is not irrelevant in the light of our insistence of Vietnam having a bearing on our present, and at the same time denying that our past of racism and segregation has a bearing on it as well. Our past with racism and segregation is the reason we are even having this conversation. Duh!? That's my point. :)

This is what I want, too. But it is my opinion that it will take time. And as a white person, I'm fully prepared to be the brunt of jokes and the wild imaginings of people like Louis Farrakhan. And at the same time fully understand and realize that the same kind of talk or jokes made about a black person from the mouth of a white person strikes a different and more painful, more awkward, more uncomfortable chord. There's nothing unfair or abnormal about that.

No. It is not just a joke, and frankly it's not funny. All Rock is doing is once again reemphasizing that skin color is a material difference. He, like every other racist, is poisoning our society.

We should have a natural aversion to ANY form of racial taunting. It's not funny to call me a cracker. It's not funny to call a Muslim a camel jockey. It's not funny to call a Mexican a beaner. It's not funny to call a black man a nigger. It's just, plain, not funny.


Because it's inherently racist. Hey, you're black, so I'm gonna treat you differently. What's wrong with showing EVERYONE that sympathy?

Once again, I have never nor will I ever use the term "reverse racism." There is no such thing. It's ALL racism. We end with the "I have a dream thing" because Dr. King had this figured out 40 years ago, and society still hasn't gotten smart enough to catch up to him. Judge people on their behavior. Not on their skin. It's a really simple concept, but for various reasons people are afraid of it.

I will not pretend that I do not resent being blamed for slavery. I do. Absolutely. Slavery is not my fault. I didn't institute it. I didn't participate in it. None of my ancestors participated in it (we didn't get to this country until after it was abolished anyway) but if they had, I still would not be responsible for their behavior. I cannot control or change events that occurred long before I was born. I find them reprehensible, but I refuse to take the blame for them.

If you truly have Dr. King's dream, then you are pursuing it the wrong way. Dr. King hated racism. He didn't hate only a specific kind of racism. He hated racism. All of it. Every last bit. If you really want to realize his dream then you will fight racism, no matter who is guilty of it.


Yes, being racist to those who's ancestors were racist to your ancestors is a form of revenge. And it's stupid. And it won't make things any better no matter how long people do it.

And I say that time is now.

And this justifies us taking another century to figure out how we should live? Just because people in the past were idiotic jackasses doesn't mean we have an excuse to be such ourselves.


No, it's not. But as I mentioned we can remember the past without letting it poison us. Excuses such as "when the time comes" and "it won't happen over night" are just that. Excuses. WHY won't it happen overnight? Because racists don't want it to happen. We must purge that influence from our society.

No one is denying anything. I don't deny that our past has a bearing on our present. I am saying that we must recognize that and take steps to prevent the past from poisoning our present. We must be willing to let go of the hate.

I am not so willing. Not because I feel offended when some idiot calls me a name. I have thicker skin than that. But I'm not willing to let anyone get away with being a racist because I am sick to death of dealing with racism. Racism is asinine. There is absolutely no basis in fact or logic to think differently about someone because they are a different color. We humans like to run around saying we're the smartest creatures on the planet, oh how wonderful we are, yet we're too damn stupid to figure out something as basic as the concept that people should be judged on their merits. I'm frankly tired of being a member of a group (humans) that revels in its own glorious stupidity. We humans as a species have an awesome potential to grow, and it's about damn time we started doing it.


And thanks, NG :)

You're welcome(and you're two for two now!!! And elsewhere-our planets must be aligned this week :D)
I would also like to point out that there are white comedians that do racially based humor-Robin Williams and George Carlin, for example-but they are beyond reproach because of their legendary status in the entertainment world.
'Institutionalized racism' is still here-it's called 'affirmative action'. And, until that is completely and irrevocably done away with, there will always be an edge that won't be gained by merits alone. Everyone has the same opportunities to ascend further than those who came before without having to resort to quota filling and 'playing the race card', yet, as Shakran pointed out, as humans, we're too stupid (or maybe too lazy) to figure it out, so we hand out the merits instead of saying "earn'em".
In the local paper tonight(I live in Rutgers-land), one of the players stated she was 'scarred for life'....give me a break....she's going to blame some old white guy on the radio now for any failure she might encounter????
What happened to standing tall and forging ahead despite another's comment or opinion?

Well, I seem to have struck a nerve.

You go on, Shakran, in your world believing that you are somehow being altruistic while at the same time being insensitive and dismissive of the past. Where Chris Rock is a "racist" and black people are taking revenge on you for slavery by calling you "whitey."

And I will go on in mine, trying to be respectful of everyone regardless of their skin color, knowing that no one is out to "get me" and being thankful that my parents, and grandparents and their parents, etc., etc. never had to bow their heads and step out of the way of ANYONE.

And for the record, I don't think Don Imus is a "racist," either. You dilute the term with your blanket use of it. It's as if you don't really know what it means.

And I don't need a dictionary definition, thank you. I hate it when people do that. I mean in the context of American history.

this is not a freedom of speech issue...

makes no difference what he said, his job is to be offensive to everyone...

if you have followed him at all you would have seen the skits slamming ted kennedy, hillary clinton, bill clinton, roberto gonzales to name a few and there were no screams of condemnation then... only now over a lame attempt at making a joke...

this is not a racist issue nor a black and white issue... it's GREEN!!!

it's the money... it's always been about the money...

under pressure from advertisers the msnbc hypocrites dumped him and it's too bad... like him or not, these spineless talking suits have crucified one of the biggest names in radio and prolly one of the most influential people on the air just for the almighty buck... screw them, not imus...

Well, there is also the angle that this whole thing is not exactly what it seems...but an attempt to capitalize on a slip of the tongue to make more money.

this is the same guy who referred to the new york knicks as chest thumping pimps, bill nighthorse campbell as the indian from f-troop and a few other gems - he's an equal opportunity offender...
Snoop Dawg had a quote i the paper this morning - something to the effect that when rappers call women ho's in their music - it's because well -they are ho's - but these rutgers women are trying to better themselves thru education and sports - and araen't hos... Oh Dawg - thanks for clearing that up :D

this is just not something I choose to be offended about - Don Imus has been an insensitive jerk since i was a kid and he wasn't nationally syndicated.. he still is... I can change the channel..

It seems I'm the one that struck the nerve. I do think your definition of racist differs from its actual definition. No, I won't quote the dictionary here, but I will say that if you invent your own definition of words they can mean anything you want them to mean.

The undeniable truth is that if you judge someone because of their race, or you hurl insults at someone based on their race, you are being racist.

The other undeniable truth is that, whether you think it's right or not, when black people insult white people, it doesn't move us toward the goal of racial harmony. This should be obvious.

I am respectful of people who deserve it. Skin color is not a factor in whether or not they deserve it. I don't respect Imus because he's a racist, bigoted jackass - and not just because of the nappy headed bit either - this isn't exactly his first foray into this realm. I don't respect him because by making jackass comments like that he's chipping away at the colorblind ideal that I and those like me want to build. For the same reasons, I don't respect Chris Rock. He too routinely makes jackass racist comments. He too therefore is chipping away at my goal.

I don't really care what Rock's motive is for being racist. Maybe it's revenge, but I doubt it. I think Hanxter hit on an important point - Rock is getting rich with his particular brand of "comedy." He's not out for societal betterment, he's out looking for dollars. I have no problem with someone getting rich, but when it's to the detriment of society as a whole, I start to lose respect for that person. So no, I don't care WHY Rock is a racist - I care THAT he is a racist.

Yeah, I do know what it means. It's you who are trying to redefine it. Imus may or may not be an actual racist. He might not actually believe the crap he spews - he, like Rock, is getting rich off of his off-color remarks - he might be saying them just to get rich, and privately hold a very different view. I don't know. But its his actions that matter - his actions, whether or not they express his true feelings, are to insult people because of uncontrollable characteristics.

I guess I'm confused over why your goal does not seem to be the elimination of all racist thoughts and attitudes from our society.

Because I don't think jokes make people hate.

Because I don't think a "colorblind" society is possible or perhaps even preferable.

Because my mind is grounded enough to laugh at a Chris Rock joke about black people and not walk out the door and define every black person I see with that joke. Same with a George Carlin joke about golfers or a Roseanne Barr joke about men or a Robin Williams joke about republicans. They are jokes. And anyone who uses them to define groups of people is a moron.

And because, at the same time, my mind is malleable enough to understand why, when a white person makes a joke about black people, especially of a derogatory nature, they are risking the very real knee-jerk response from most people in America that is rooted our relationship to a very real and very recent era in American history. And I don't have to cover my ears and scream "yah, yah, yah" whenever any mentions it in order to make my feelings known about racism...and comedy. You have yet to address the reality of that gut response even once.

And one more thing, if a white person is going to make a derogatory joke about black people...it best be funny. Perhaps that was Imus' biggest mistake. His joke didn't fly because it had no context nor any basis in common perceptions. He was just being mean. And mean is not funny.

i see two white women on that team... you don't see billy graham calling for his head do ya???
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com...rs_njmd109.jpg

and jesse jackson screaming "these walls of bigotry are coming down" :orly:

you couldn't make this crap up

take al sharpton... anyone remember the "crown heights riots"???
back in 1991 a jewish driver of a car hit and killed a local black kid... sharpton starts a anti-semetic protest calling the new york jewish population "diamond merchants with the blood of black babies on their hands"... during which a jewish kid was killed...

on a side note...
msnbc paid cbs $4 million to air imus... msnbc made $8.5 million in advertising during his time slot... there's 10 reasons to dump imus from msnbc, general motors, proctor and gamble, sprint, staples, amer. express to name a few

When having discussions like this, I always like to imagine what it would be like if the situation were reversed. How white people would be acting and reacting today if we were the ones who had suffered in America through slavery and a century of systematic racism.

Seeing as how quick we are to martyr ourselves even after having basked for centuries in the warm glow of history's favor, I always find it a rather amusing pasttime. :p

Certainly not while we still encourage people to run around worrying about what color you are.


Of course i understand it. But I think it doesn't go far enough. We should have that knee jerk reaction to racism. You are being too specific about the evil that we had in the past. It's not enough to say that white on black racism is evil. We must say that racism is evil, no matter which color is the underdog. It just happened to work out that the whites were the perpetrators - but if, as you suggest, the situation were reversed, it would be no less evil. We're learning the wrong lesson from history - - we're learning that only racism in which a white person is picking on a person of another color is bad. This is somewhat like looking at Nazi Germany and determining that it's only wrong to kill if the victim is a jew. Racism is wrong. Period. We should be fighting against it, no matter what form it takes.

What's funny to you may not be funny to someone else. I'm sure some KKK member listened to that comment and found it hilarious.

No one's arguing that Imus' sense of humor is on an extended vacation. But what if what he said WAS funny? Would that make it OK? I think not.