No, I saw him interviewed later and he said that the suspension didn't go far enough and that Imus should be removed from the air. How is it that I can find a way to laugh at Dave Chapelle's stereotypes of white people. Is it because my ancestors weren't slaves 150 years ago? Go Jason Whitlock!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3083 "Really? Do Washington journalists really call people "thieving Jews"--and then make mock apologies, saying that the phrase is "redundant" (Imus in the Morning, 12/15/04)? Did they really call Clinton's attorney general "old Bigfoot shaky Janet Reno," taunting her for her Parkinson's disease (Imus in the Morning, 6/12/01)? Do they really laugh uproariously at the news of hundreds of Haitians drowning (Imus in the Morning, 3/20-24/00)?" (excerpt ended, my opine follows) he admitted to hiring someone to tell "ni**er" jokes, laughed while this employee called the Williams sisters animals ... its a litany of ill taste that exactly speaks of racism, homophobia and misogyny. this is also not his first apology for the same type offense, not even second or third, so excuse me if i process it as damage control not remorse. amazing that in 10 years yah missed all this but yah got internet access, google him ...
But were they 1,500 years ago? There have been slaves from all races stretching back to the dawn of man. Now, I am not saying slavery then, now or ever is an acceptable practice. At what point does the "statute of limitations" for guilt end?
probably around the time the injustice stops. if your position is injustice ended with slavery, i'd suggest a history book.
Of course there is no such thing for this -- that's why I put the term in quotes. Use of the term was designed to envelope a concept in as few words as possible for asking how much time must pass before objectivity reigns.
Hey next time y'all get together why don't you tell them a joke about nappy-headed hoes. See if they think it's funny.
Firstly there's a difference between a national figure of prominence making a racist comment vs anonymous posters. If this was simply a comment on some forum, no one would care. It's Imus' prominence and "legitimacy" that makes his comment carry a lot more weight and power. Secondly, there's a difference between personal insults and race-based insults. Calling Kobe Bryant a "whiny beyatch" is fine since its directed at Kobe Byrant alone as an individual person. But if you called him, say, a "nappy headed, mud-faced whiny beyatch", well that is entirely different cause you're now taking into a new level by injecting race into it by using derogotory language to insult a whole race. No longer are you just insulting Kobe, now you're insulting hundreds of millions of black people throughout the world.
So if you're a nobody its fine to hurl insults? I agree that there is a difference in the amount of people that are paying attention to rantings on GARM but this is a public forum and can be read by anybody. Just because we're nobodies though does that mean then we can be offensive over public broadcast? Shouldn't we be willing to hold ourselves to a higher standards too? Except that "beyatch" is a further derivation "b****" which is a deragatory address for women and by calling Kobe that we are also questioning his manhood along with insulting a gender. For that matter terms like "homo" and "***" have hurled on the GARM along with terms "p***y" and "c^nt" just because we aren't using racist languange certainly deragotory languange regarding whole classes of people does that make it any better?
Actually, I'm going to take Al Sharpton's track. Let's ban everything offensive. Rap music offends women, and cops. Let's ban it from all airwaves. Radio stations that play rap music - which really is anti-woman music - should be protested against everyone in the rap industry fired. They are racist chauvinists. They do some much damage to the black commmunity. Especially eminem - because he's white and making racist music. Also, all shock jocks are offensive - they should all be fired. And the guys who make the simpsons - fired. FOX has no right to air that stuff. For now on, no one should make a dispaging remark about anyone of any kind of minority. You can't make fun of hair style, clothes, or anything. Because that's racist. The only way to stop racism is to stamp out anything that points out people's differences. If you say a person is black, then you are using words to discriminate a persons skin, and you're a racist. Saying anything about a persons races that MIGHT be interpreted by anyone as offensive should result in severe punishment. There's no debate, no criticism. You have to get rid of any kind of words that may be interepreted by anyone belonging to a minority or a group protecting that minority as racist.
I see - so it's the reference to race in any way that makes it racist, right? You can say: Kobe Bryant is a stupid selfish half-brained dolt and thats fine. But if you say: Kobe Bryant is a stupid selfish half-brained dolt who's got a really bad afro......then you are saying a racist remark. Is that the rule? Can anyone define what is PC and what is not? Are there clear rules everyone must now abide by? Care to state them? Maybe it would help guys like Imus if they made a one-pager sheet that gave instructions on how not to show racism? Would that help everyone? One the page - you could have something like this: 1. Never insult a person of color. If they are black, Jewish, or associated with any large group that might be able to lead a protest - then you can't say anything bad about them. However - you can always rip on the stupid, handicapped, Asians (no lobbying group), and another political party. 2. Further more - you can never make a comment that is tied to race. If you call a black person "nappy head", or say Indians like curry, or a "big-nosed Jew" - a "shapely-a$$ed latina" or anything like that - you will be persecuted as a racist as well. 3. If unsure - please have someone of the minority race your comments may be associated with (if multiple races, use reps from each race). They will read over your prepared commments, and help you edit them so they are non-offensive and can not hurt anyone belonging to that minority. In fact, they can help rewrite stuff to make sure if is ok by PC standards.
Ya know, I was just kidding about being an Indian American. I'm actually a nappy-headed ho. And ya know, I'm really offended at how you are putting my people down. I think you should be banned from this BBS for all the offensive comment. As a nappy headed ho, if anyone says that, I'm goig to be offended and would like to contribute to my crusade of whipping out anyone wyou has head or used the word. Please send checks to: P.O. Box 2323 "Nappy Headed Holes, Inc" 234 Fifth ave, NY NY 10004 Go can also write letters to my junk mail folder. Thanks!
This is horrible: www.nappyho.com What's kind of funny about this nappy headed ho thing is how everyone is saying it now. Not in public of course, but I hear lots of people joking about it in private. Reminds me of that guy who got fired for saying "that's pretty gay" while commentating football. No ones says it in public, but lots of people say it in private.
Whether it is funny or not is really immaterial. What's material is whether or not it is grounds for termination. The guy is a comedian, shock-jock DJ. He doesn't say half the stuff that others do. He is very mild and perhaps this "eruption" will be his undoing.... by all the self-righteous among us! This just makes me want to gag: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3083 Media Advisory Rallying Around Their Racist Friend Before firing, pundits defended Imus 4/11/07 In the aftermath of the racial outburst that got talkshow host Don Imus' dropped from MSNBC--referring to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos"-- a Washington Post editorial (4/10/07) posed a question many critics have been asking for years: How do prestigious journalists defend their cozy relationship with a well-known bigot? As the Post put it: "But those who bask in the glow of his radio show ought to consider whether they should continue doing so. After all, you're judged by the company you keep." Since discovering Imus' long record of bigotry, misogyny and homophobia is not difficult (Slate, 4/10/07), it's a question reporters should have been asking long ago—FAIR posed the very same question to NBC's Tim Russert six years ago, for example (Action Alert, 3/1/00). When journalist Phil Nobile (TomPaine.com, 6/28/01) presented many top pundits with evidence of Imus' bigotry, few (of the white ones, anyway) seemed to think what Imus was saying should affect their decisions to appear on his program. Nobile noted that Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz wrote in his 1996 book Hot Air that "Imus's sexist, homophobic and politically incorrect routines echo what many journalists joke about in private." Really? Do Washington journalists really call people "thieving Jews"--and then make mock apologies, saying that the phrase is "redundant" (Imus in the Morning, 12/15/04)? Did they really call Clinton's attorney general "old Bigfoot shaky Janet Reno," taunting her for her Parkinson's disease (Imus in the Morning, 6/12/01)? Do they really laugh uproariously at the news of hundreds of Haitians drowning (Imus in the Morning, 3/20-24/00)? If so, Kurtz has been sitting on a great many scoops. Whatever their private conversations, many pundits are now being forced to answer questions about their associations with Imus, and those answers are worth documenting. Appearing on the Imus in the Morning show on April 9, Newsweek's Howard Fineman explained: You know, it's a different time, Imus. You know, it's different than it was even a few years ago, politically.... And some of the stuff that you used to do, you probably can't do anymore.... You just can't. Because the times have changed. I mean, just looking specifically at the African-American situation. I mean, hello, Barack Obama's got twice the number of contributors as anybody else in the race.... I mean, you know, things have changed. And the kind of—some of the kind of humor that you used to do you can't do anymore. And that's just the way it is. Fineman's suggestion, clearly, is that Imus' brand of racism was acceptable not too long ago— at least before Barack Obama was able to raise significant campaign donations. On PBS's NewsHour With Jim Lehrer (4/9/07), Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant rejected the notion that appearing with Imus gave some form of cover to his bigotry: I don't consider myself an enabler. But I recognize--and one reason I feel that it's possible to be this tough on him is that I think he understands that those of us from politics and public affairs and whatever who work with him are going to be seen as enabling. And if that's the case, then his conduct is of interest to me as much as it is to you. Those words stand in contrast with what Oliphant said on Imus' show that very morning: The train went off the tracks, which, you know, can happen to anybody. And, of course, what counts when the train goes off the tracks is what you then do.... Those of us... who know better, have a moral obligation to stand up and say to you, "Solidarity forever, pal." That's not enabling? Other media defenders point out that Imus does charity work, as if this gives him more room to be a racist. As USA Today's Peter Johnson noted (4/10/07), "His politically incorrect satire has been tempered by an intellectual and considerate side: He runs a camp for sick kids, cares about politics and has an eye for books that can catapult them onto the best-seller list." (As the Wall Street Journal has pointed out—3/24/05—Imus' ranch spends $3,000 a night to host each child; other organizations that do similar work spend about one-tenth as much.) Appearing on the CBS Early Show (4/10/07), CNN host Lou Dobbs said much the same. While calling Imus' remarks "inexcusable," Dobbs went to offer what sounded very much like an excuse: These calls for his resignation, frankly, in my opinion, this is a man you have to take into account. He does more public service, works with kids, he is an absolutely exemplary person in terms of his humanitarianism. And those who suggest you can't take into account the broader man for these, as I say, ignorant and inexcusable remarks, I don't think is adequate. NBC reporter David Gregory (MSNBC, 4/9/07) stressed that "Imus is a good man," and that "this is a difficult time, not just because of the hurt that he has inflicted and what he said, as he tries to deal with it, but for all of us who are on the program and certainly don't want to be associated with this kind of thing that he's done, as all of this plays out." Gregory apparently wasn't so bothered with his association with Imus before this latest controversy. Others made it seem as if deciding not to appear on the Imus show would be a problem. Newsweek editor Evan Thomas told the New York Times (4/9/07), "He should not have said what he said, obviously. I am going on the show, though. I think if I didn't, it would be posturing." To which the Charlotte Observer editorialized (4/10/07), "Which raises this question for Mr. Thomas: What posture would that be--upright?" In a Los Angeles Times report (4/11/07), some Imus guests appeared to have second thoughts about their silence. CBS reporter Jeff Greenfield said, "That's something people like me should have challenged him on." (Greenfield, to his partial credit, did try to raise the issue when he interviewed Imus on Larry King Live--2/24/00.) Others, meanwhile, seem to think Imus really means it when he says he's sorry. CBS host Bob Schieffer condemned Imus' remarks, but "said he would probably go on Imus' show again, noting that they had been friends for 15 years." The Times quoted Schieffer: "There's probably a good lesson for all of us in this. We all need to refocus and be sensitive to these things. Maybe sometimes he's gone too far and some of us really haven't been paying attention." Newsweek editor Jon Meacham (Washington Post, 4/11/07) said: "We don't want to rush to judgment.... Imus appears genuine about changing the tone, but if there's any backsliding, then it's over as far as we're concerned." Pundits making such assessments might consider that this was not the first time Imus has appeared to sound contrite about his words, so it's hard to know why to believe him this time around. In a recent Vanity Fair profile (2/06), Imus said: "I regret the times I've been mean to people.… It's fine to pick on people who can defend themselves and deserve it. Some people don't deserve to be picked on who I picked on, so I don't do it anymore." He made a similar pledge on his show years earlier (3/4/00): There's no reason to hurt people's feelings. In some cases I have, and I'm not going to do it anymore. I get accused of being a racist all the time, but I'm not. I realize that we do things here that are misconstrued and frankly I regret it. People have criticized me and they're right. Given Imus' repeatedly violated vows to rein in his racist schtick, one has to look to his pundit friends—his enablers—to show more resolve. Unfortunately, given their co-dependent relationship with the talk host, such resolve is unlikely. As Newsweek's Fineman put it (Imus in the Morning, 4/9/07): "You know, all of us who do your show, you know, we're part of the gang. And we rely on you the way you rely on us."
Fantastic post......... At least people know that Imus was trying to be funny. We are all waiting with baited breath for that apology by Al and Jesse to the Duke Lacrosse players........ DD
Excellent post....let's see...imagine if Imus (or anyone white) said: "If the blacks want to get it on, tell them to pin those afro pics into their nappy hair and come over to my house" D O U B L E S T A N D A R D
yup - it's ok to make racist remarks if you are a civil rights leader - didn't you know that? I think Caboose just decisively won the debate. I mean, basically it's crystal clear that there's no way to attack Imus without attacking Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Game over. If you support PC, then you must call for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to resign from their positions as well. And they must admit they are not on any moral ground to call Imus out.
