Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Everybody Hates Don Imus
Familiar as I am with the warp speed of media, I was still taken aback by the velocity of Don Imus's fall after he uttered an indefensible racist and sexist slur about the Rutgers women's basketball team. Even in that short span, there's been an astounding display of hypocrisy, sanctimony and self-congratulation from nearly every side of the debate, starting with Al Sharpton, who has yet to apologize for his leading role in the Tawana Brawley case, the 1980s racial melee prompted by unproven charges much like those that soiled the Duke lacrosse players.
It's possible that the only people in this whole sorry story who are not hypocrites are the Rutgers teammates and their coach, C. Vivian Stringer. And perhaps even Don Imus himself, who, while talking way too much about black people he has known and ill children he has helped, took full responsibility for his own catastrophic remarks and didn't try to blame the ensuing media lynching on the press, bloggers or YouTube. Unlike Mel Gibson, Michael Richards and Isaiah Washington, to take just three entertainers who have recently delivered loud religious, racial or sexual slurs, Imus didn't hire a P.R. crisis manager and ostentatiously enter rehab or undergo psychiatric counseling. "I dished it out for a long time," he said on his show last week, "and now it's my time to take it."
Among the hypocrites surrounding Imus, I'll include myself. I've been a guest on his show many times since he first invited me in the early 1990s, when I was a theater critic. I've almost always considered him among the smarter and more authentic conversationalists I've encountered as an interviewee. As a book author, I could always use the publicity.
Of course I was aware of many of his obnoxious comments about minority groups, including my own, Jews. Sometimes he aimed invective at me personally. I wasn't seriously bothered by much of it, even when it was unfunny or made me wince, because I saw him as equally offensive to everyone. The show's crudest interludes struck me as burlesque.
I do not know Imus off the air and have no idea whether he is a good person, any more than I know whether Jerry Lewis, another entertainer who raises millions for sick children, is a good person. But as a listener and sometime guest, I didn't judge Imus to be a bigot. Perhaps I felt this way in part because Imus vehemently inveighed against racism in real life, most recently in decrying the political ads in last year's Senate campaign linking a black Tennessee congressman, Harold Ford, to white women. Perhaps I gave Imus a pass because the insults were almost always aimed at people in the public eye, whether politicians, celebrities or journalists - targets with the forums to defend themselves.
And perhaps I was kidding myself. What Imus said about the Rutgers team landed differently, not least because his slur was aimed at young women who had no standing in the world of celebrity, and who had done nothing in public except behave as exemplary student athletes. The spectacle of a media star verbally assaulting them, and with a creepy, dismissive laugh, as if the whole thing were merely a disposable joke, was ugly. You couldn't watch it without feeling that some kind of crime had been committed. That was true even before the world met his victims. So while I still don't know whether Imus is a bigot, there was an inhuman contempt in the moment that sounded like hate to me. You can see it and hear it in the video clip in a way that isn't conveyed by his words alone.
Does that mean he should be silenced? The Rutgers team pointedly never asked for that, and I don't think the punishment fits the crime. First, as a longtime Imus listener rather than someone who tuned in for the first time last week, I heard not only hate in his wisecrack but also honesty in his repeated vows to learn from it. Second, as a free-speech near-absolutist, I don't believe that even Mel Gibson, to me an unambiguous anti-Semite, should be deprived of his right to say whatever the hell he wants to say. The answer to his free speech is more free speech - mine and yours. Let Bill O'Reilly talk about "wetbacks" or Rush Limbaugh accuse Michael J. Fox of exaggerating his Parkinson's symptoms, and let the rest of us answer back.
Liberals are kidding themselves if they think the Imus firing won't have a potentially chilling effect on comics who push the line. Let's not forget that Bill Maher, an Imus defender last week, was dropped by FedEx, Sears, ABC affiliates and eventually ABC itself after he broke the P.C. code of 9/11. Conservatives are kidding themselves if they think the Imus execution won't impede Ann Coulter's nasty invective on the public airwaves. As Al Franken pointed out to Larry King on Wednesday night, CNN harbors Glenn Beck, who has insinuated that the first Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, is a terrorist (and who has also declared that "faggot" is nothing more than "a naughty name"). Will Time Warner and its advertisers be called to account? Already in the Imus aftermath, the born-again blogger Tom DeLay has called for the firing of Rosie O'Donnell because of her "hateful" views on Chinese-Americans, conservative Christians and President Bush.
That said, corporations, whether television or radio networks or movie studios or commercial sponsors, are free to edit or cancel any content. No one has an inalienable right to be broadcast or published or given a movie or music contract. Whether MSNBC and CBS acted out of genuine principle or economic necessity is a debate already raging. Just as Imus's show defied easy political definition - he has both kissed up to Dick Cheney as a guest and called him a war criminal - so does the chatter about what happened over the past week. MSNBC, forever unsure of its identity, seems to have found a new calling by turning that debate into a running series, and I say, go for it.
The biggest cliché of the debate so far is the constant reiteration that this will be a moment for a national "conversation" about race and sex and culture. Do people really want to have this conversation, or just talk about having it? If they really want to, it means we have to ask ourselves why this debacle has given permission to talking heads on television to repeat Imus's offensive words so insistently that cable news could hardly take time out to note the shocking bombing in the Baghdad Green Zone. Some even upped the ante: Donna Brazile managed to drag "jigaboo" into Wolf Blitzer's sedate "Situation Room" on CNN.
If we really want to have this conversation, it also means we have to have a nonposturing talk about hip-hop lyrics, "Borat," "South Park" and maybe Larry David, too. As James Poniewozik pointed out in his smart cover article for Time last week, an important question emerged from an Imus on-air soliloquy as he tried to defend himself: "This phrase that I use, it originated in the black community. That didn't give me a right to use it, but that's where it originated. Who calls who that and why? We need to know that. I need to know that."
My 22-year-old son, a humor writer who finds Imus an anachronistic and unfunny throwback to the racial-insult humor of the Frank Sinatra-Sammy Davis Jr. Rat Pack ilk, raises a complementary issue. He argues that when Sacha Baron Cohen makes fun of Jews and gays, he can do so because he's not doing it as himself but as a fictional character. But try telling that to the Anti-Defamation League, which criticized Mr. Baron Cohen, an observant Jew, for making sport of a real country (Kazakhstan) and worried that the "Borat" audience "may not always be sophisticated enough to get the joke, and that some may even find it reinforcing their bigotry."
So if we really want to have this national "conversation" about race and culture and all the rest of it that everyone keeps telling us that this incident has prompted, let's get it on, no holds barred. And the fewer moralizing pundits and politicians, the better. Hillary Clinton, an Imus denouncer who has also called for federal regulation of violent television and video games, counts among her Hollywood fat cats Haim Saban, who made his fortune from "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers."
Listening to Les Moonves of CBS speak with such apparent sincerity of how his network was helping to change the culture by firing Imus, I couldn't help but remember that one of CBS's own cultural gifts to America has been "Big Brother," the reality game show that cloisters a dozen or so strangers in a house for weeks to see how they get along. Maybe Mr. Moonves could put his prime-time schedule where his mouth is and stop milking that format merely for the fun of humiliation, voyeurism and sexual high jinks. If locking Imus and his team in a house with Coach Stringer and her team 24/7 isn't must-see TV that moves this conversation forward, then I don't know what is.
© 2007 The New York Times
51 Comments so far
Show AllPJD wrote:
"Racism is about one race maintaining a position of power over another, and maintaining that position through a system of intimidation." PJD then claims that because of this, there is no equivalence between a white person racially insulting a black person and black person racially insulting a white person.
Reply:
Most white people I know don't see themselves as part of a system of oppression or as benefitting from a system of racial oppression. Why? Because for most white people, the advantages of being white are almost non-existent, or at least they do not *appear* to be significant to them. Working class whites are in the same basic condition as most working class black people: they don't have direct access to or control over economic and institutional power. This is not a suggestion that racism and discrimination do not exist or that being white doesn't bring marginal social advantages to working class whites (measurable in the aggregate). It does mean that the sting of racial bigotry and subsequent self-doubt (regardless of the target) is not mitigated because a white person happens to share the same skin pigment as GWB, Bill Gates or "Bull" Connor.
I must admit that I haven't heard or seen everything about the Imus affair, but I have yet to see anyone mention Imus' biggest rival: Howard Stern. Stern has made many comments even more foul than Imus, and he is still immensely popular. Stern has made the move to sattelite radio, which of course doesn't rely on advertisers. I have a feeling that if Imus wasn't on the public airwaves, he'd still have his contract.
I was taught that 'if you can't say something nice.. don't say anything at all'... a way civilized society keeps it's civililty...
This new media frenzy of 'namecalling' is much greater than Imus.. I am of a mind it had it's beginings in Newt's GOPAC days when the conversation republicans had with the electorate devolved into a Jerry Springer, give the vulgar what they want mentality.... Association with the lowest common denominator in our culture became the new political catch phrases... and the ignorant ate it up...
Real Karl Rove stuff.....
good cheer
I think one of the very few limits on free speech should be the banning of hate speech from the public airwaves. It results in violence and re-enforces oppression. By "hate speech" I refer to vitriol aimed at ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, or physical hadicap. Criticism of ideas and positions held is more than welcome but slurs based on who we are as opposed to what we believe should be banned outright.
This issue has nothing whatsoever to do with "free speech." Free speech and First Amendment rights are protection from government reprisals, not social rejection. Did Don Imus get arrested and face criminal prosecution? Was any of his property confiscated or his liberty curtailed in any way by governmental agencies? If not, then his rights were fully protected, and exercised.
To even attach this to the concept of free speech is to fail to understand the intent of the First Amendment. It is unfortunate that mature, educated Americans continue to fail to grasp the intent of and the protections inherent in the First Amendment. We may get away with it for a while, even a long while, but we all risk social rejection for boorish behavior, somewhere, sometime. I can only pray that it happens to Rush Limbaugh next.
P.S. And getting fired is an "answer back."
Rev. Al and Jesse Jackson are genuine when they fight racist or sexist speech aimed at the black community.
But true leadership is people from every community placing their highest trust in you. Getting Imus fired over his remarks and then winking at Snoop Dogg in his fully-loaded Cadellic, doesn't add up.
"Addressing" misogyny in rap lyrics at a Hip-Hop Summit, isn't the same as calling for an boycott of rap albums that abuse black women. That would show genuine leadership.
Feigning innocence and outrage when its easy, hurts their ability to do good.
One problem with banning hate speech is that it is defined by the people in power. Two of the foulest characters around, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, have said hideous things, and they still have sponsors, they still get on the air, and millions of people think they are God's gift to humanity, rather than a stench and a curse. But conservatives have been in power, not just politically, but economically, for a long time, and this sort of thing is pretty much okay with them. It's part of their political toolbox. They may disavow Imus because he got caught, but they don't really seem to understand the problems of race and poverty and class, except inasmuch as those thing work for them.
As for Imus, I heard what he said, and oddly enough, I think he was trying to express admiration for the players, but was so stuck in the groove of what he usually does that he couldn't distinguish that the words he chose on the fly were racist and sexist. I didn't hear any hate there, but I did hear practiced ignorance born of the arrogance of the unaccountable.
The question now is will Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, Falwell, et al, be held similarly accountable for the foul tripe they put out, or do we have to wait until the Conservatives have been pounded back under the rocks from which they crawled?
The question now is will Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, Falwell, et al, be held similarly accountable for the foul tripe they put out, or do we have to wait until the Conservatives have been pounded back under the rocks from which they crawled?
I've lived a very long time and all I can say is "Don't hold your breath."
Has anyone here actually met Rev. Sharpton?
This little video of him speaking at Rosa Parks' funeral may clear the air, a little, regarding his positions. He demonstrates as much class as the young women on the Rutgers basketball team showed.
Please take 5 minutes and watch, or listen.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pCLVs2FuPCA
Love him or hate him, we can't deny Sharpton's on point with this one. Please share with all your friends and families. It is very worth it.
The real hate mongers have already been listed (thank you!) and that's where our attention should be focused
No Frank, everyone doesn't hate Imus. I think rather a good number of people are deciding they've had enough of his kind of boorishness. I agree with you that Imus and his staff dished out their insults somewhat evenly, unlike the O'Reilly and Limbaugh crowd. I myself believe that boors best be ignored, not despised. That applies even to me when I've belted down one too many and start acting like an ass. I rarely listened to Imus and chose simply to ignore his crassness.
I tend to listen to an iPod and focus on hard peddling when working out at the gym and only occasionally glance up at the TV monitor that hangs in front of me - it's almost impossible to completely avoid it. Only one of the monitors out of seven on the main floor of the YMCA is tuned into FOX these days, whereas it used to be three. I suppose that's a sign of changing times. The monitor that hangs before the position of the three favored stationary bikes I use now usually channels CNN. Its images are a lot less distracting than that arrogant, disdainful visage of Bill O'Reilly that often used to appear in front of me - that had hung there for so many of the years I've been frequenting the Y. Over the last week, a constant stream of commentaries regarding the Don Imus imbroglio has flowed through CNN.
The coverage struck me as more of the same tedious prattle issuing from the television news media. Be mindful that this isn't the first time, in my view, that Imus has made a complete ass of himself. But there was one time that his behavior really irked me. Who out there remembers the Christian Science Monitor reporter Jill Carroll, who was kidnapped by a troop of enterprising Baghdadi crooks in the beginning of 2006 and held captive for about three months. The woman had to contend with a pack of yahoos that followed the Iraqi fashion of frequently sending their captives packing with their heads under one arm. It had to be tough surviving under that kind of pressure. The US media had a field day lambasting Carroll for giving submissive interviews on al-Jazzera. Just before Carroll was freed, Imus' boys (Bernard McGuirk et al) delivered a string of nasty comments regarding the hostage, including lines like ""She may be carrying Habib's baby," and "She strikes me as the kind of woman who would wear one of those suicide vests. You know, walk into the — try and sneak into the Green Zone." There was Don in the background gleefully repeating over and over, "we don't want to go there". Those folks seemed to be enjoying themselves immensely with that act of total indecency. Bad form.
While we no longer have Vonnegut or Ivins to help us deal with this madness, Marty Kaplan states the case against the Don better than I could in what appears as an off the cuff blog entry onto the Huffington Post. Go take a look.
i'm not worried about imus...but what will idiot america listen to now
I think Don Imus was being a "wigger" (white-Nword) -- you know, those kids who wear baggy clothes and try to talk with inner city argot (Eminem, who seems to have disappeared from public life, is their patron saint) because they believe that to be anything less than a gangbanger is to be a wus. He probably felt that "da brothas" would see him as one of them if he talked like that, that he was being the modern equivalent of hip and with-it, a real modern guy. I'm sure he was as shocked as the people he offended with the backlash.
I'd like to put a slogan out out there for all aspiring whatevers: Don't act black if you don't got the knack.
Bringing up "Borat" was a good call. Many people see the film as a joke on the American people, and it may very well have been just that in exposing bigotry. However, the character of Borat is a nasty stereotype of people in Central Asia. You couldn't create a character like Borat without having some sort of animosity towards people from that part of the world. Cohen was essentially a Jew wearing Islamic blackface.
Right - a national "conversation" about race... like the one we had after Katrina exposed our abject racism to the world. How'd that work out? Still talking, oh, okay...
On the other hand, Mr. Rich is correct: racists and bigots and other "haters" should declare their feelings loud and proud. Come on out of the closet and accept the consequences, be they good or bad. If others do not like you because of your, er, beliefs, then deal with it. But hiding like the little pussies you all are? That's totally un-American, not to mention chickenshit. You hate an entire race? Exploit your freedom of speech and wear it on a tee shirt. Or find a shrink and get cured.
As I read the article and many of the thoughtful comments, I kept thinking something is missing here. Apart from the spectacle of "American redemption for the sin of racism" (sexism too, but muted somewhat because sexism is still fairly well tolerated), I think I am getting what this is all about, and it helps me to understand the spectacle of the Duke lacrosse team rape charge also.
Yes, there was a civil rights movement, but the focus was and still is largely about black male social equality. The images of racism and slavery focused on black men emasculated, either literally as a component of lynching, or figuratively as his not being able to provide for a family, or not being able to protect his wife and family from separation or rape under slavery. The discourse of race in American are tied into these images, and they haven't gone away.
Black women under slavery were always the sexual property of white men, and that is something the civil rights movement never really addressed. It's shameful to black men and white men alike, but obviously in different ways. It not only emalsculated black men, but it beastialized white men. It's one thing to think of Thomas Jefferson "owning slaves" who worked on his land, it's another to visualize him raping Sally Hemmings. It's shameful, and as such, isn't talked about much.
As a nation, we have never come to terms with the relationship between white men and black women because it brings up the worst in the nation's past. It's why Don Imus's comments were unforgivable compared to a black rapper's who may say things far worse. And it's why the Duke lacrosse team were instantly tried and found guilty in the press and in the public mind.
At some point, the "conversation about race" (not that I believe it will ever take place) has got to address the gender and class issues that are so intimately tied to race. "Civil rights" is a meaningless term until we begin to understand the nature of power and oppression, how it operates and affects living human beings, and how the intersections of gender, race, and class are what fuels the kinds of spectacles we witnessed this week.
RICG: I agree Falwell and Robertson drug President Clinton through the mud with all of the hate they could muster and tried to make George Bush a saint.Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are two of the biggest racist in this country.
Sharpton has his big fat mouth open every chance he gets on TV especially if it's against white people. To my knowledge he has never had a job so how does he keep a big office? I have only watched Imus a few times but I never heard him say anything nearly as bad as Sean Hannity and especially the hatemongor Ann Coulter who think's all Democrat's should be shot.George Bush and Dick Cheney lied this country into an illegal war yet they are still allowed to go free and still spew their lies while our troops are dying everyday in a civil war we will never win. I resent Imus getting fired while the other bigot's are allowed to carry on their hate.
Many liberals are arguing this isn't about free speech and that businesses can fire who they want. I suppose it won't bother these people then when only conservative opinions are allowed on television and radio.
Quoting the post above that references Katrina:
Right-a national "conversation" about race…like the one we had after Katrina exposed our abject racism to the world."
If I'm not mistaken, Don Imus was one of the first to insist that it was racism not classism that was responsible for the post-Katrina fiasco.
Now,from me:
I watched & listened to Don Imus almost everyday and heard Frank Rich, Tim Russert, Howard Finemann, Harold Ford, Chris Dodd, Orrin Hatch, Bill O'Riley, Mary Matalin, John McCain, Rudy Giulani (okay now, that's 5 democrats & 5 republicans, right?) many times.
With all due respect Mr. Rich, despite your disclaimer that you "do not know Imus off the air and have no idea whether he is a good person" and that you "didn't judge Imus to be a bigot," almost all of you who appeared on his show benefitted in some way even if his barbs were directed at you at some point. In fact, you're still benefiting because we've read this letter.
Every single one of you who remained deathly silent during this racial witchunt--especially Tim Russert--should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves.
The lot of you better hope that you never find yourselves in a similar situation.
If you step out of the "liberal" echo chamber and into a corner bar, you will find that most white males in the US are quite upset that Imus was fired.
They especially liked when Imus called for all Arabs to be nuclear bombed.
They think this case is one more example of "those no good blacks making things harder for the white man".
iwarrior
I wish I knew as much as you about music. But I have noticed how certain kinds of music are almost never heard on the radio, like trance or rave. I hope the strangle hold these corporate giants have had on our culture will be coming to an end with the growth of the internet. Not only will we get more information about our own nation but now we can find out about people in other places in the world, first hand by directly communicating with them.
But all of this is dependent on net neutrality.
There is a song by Steppenwolf which is almost unheard and from decades ago but there is the same struggle occuring today within America. We are still fighting the same people within our nation. ( The words are good but the music is better.)
(Monster)
Once the religious, the hunted and weary
Chasing the promise of freedom and hope
Came to this country to build a new vision
Far from the reaches of kingdom and pope
Like good Christians, some would burn the witches
Later some got slaves to gather riches
But still from near and far to seek America
They came by thousands to court the wild
And she just patiently smiled and bore a child
To be their spirit and guiding light
And once the ties with the crown had been broken
Westward in saddle and wagon it went
And 'til the railroad linked ocean to ocean
Many the lives which had come to an end
While we bullied, stole and bought our homeland
We began the slaughter of the red man
But still from near and far to seek America
They came by thousands to court the wild
And she just patiently smiled and bore a child
To be their spirit and guiding light
The blue and grey they stomped it
They kicked it just like a dog
And when the war over
They stuffed it just like a hog
And though the past has it's share of injustice
Kind was the spirit in many a way
But it's protectors and friends have been sleeping
Now it's a monster and will not obey
(Suicide)
The spirit was freedom and justice
And it's keepers seem generous and kind
It's leaders were supposed to serve the country
But now they won't pay it no mind
'Cause the people grew fat and got lazy
And now their vote is a meaningless joke
They babble about law and order
But it's all just an echo of what they've been told
Yeah, there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watchin'
Our cities have turned into jungles
And corruption is stranglin' the land
The police force is watching the people
And the people just can't understand
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner
We can't pay the cost
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watching
(America)
America where are you now?
Don't you care about your sons and daughters?
Don't you know we need you now
We can't fight alone against the monster
© Copyright MCA Music (BMI)
"Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are two of the biggest racist in this country."
Huh? Racism is not about simply saying impolite things about another's race or ethnicity - even if Jackson or Sharpton has said any such thing recently. Racism is about one race maintaining a position of power over another, and maintaining that position through a system of intimidation. So, there is NO equivalence between a black American calling a white "whitey", "Homey", or "Cracker", and a White American calling a black nigger, jigaboo, or whatever, because; the white person is the position of oppression and the black is in a subjugated position.
If you can't see that, wake up. I for one, am pretty lazy, and not very talented, yet am financially secure only because at every job interview, I was given a big benefit of a doubt solely because of being a white male.
As far as Jesse Jackson, he is pretty much the last real remaining eloquent speaker in the whole US. His speech at the January antiwar rally in DC brought me to tears. Don't insult him with your ridiculous accusations of racism.
This Imus man—and I happily admit I'd never so much as heard his name until this incident—is just another reason to be selective about what you take in. There's precious little of real use and value to be had from most mass media. Wisdom and knowledge are what time now demands. It's not only out there, it's also inside you...
More than Imus et al
US Social Forum
Not just about Imus, Rush, Savage, Hannity and the rest
...It's about media as a life and death struggle for disenfrachised communities and communities of color.
There's a democracy divide in this country, by race, class and gender. This divide is part of the digital divide, yes, but it's more than that. It's about a culture and class war waged by the elite against the disenfranchised. It's about a pay to play democracy, no matter the issue - media included.
The media hasn't come that far from the days of "Birth of a Nation."
It's still the same cycle. Biased media influences public opinion and ends in negative policies for people of color.
Media Ownership, balance and diversity in the news, content, and regulation are part of bridging the democracy divide. And part of the landscape of struggle for communities of color.
The article is all rather typical and is a tactic to marginalize amd minimize the fundamental fact that is as American as baseball, mom and apple pie is the inherent racism and sexist. This country refuses to have a discussion of race. Frank Rich even falls for pummling the white media scapegoats, Sharpton and Jackson. Again the media uses those two to marginalize the racism issue. What Frank Rich should do is go sit in some of his segregated NYC schools and then write an article about social justice.
It never was about drinking fountains!
"you will find that most white males in the US are quite upset that Imus was fired.
They especially liked when Imus called for all Arabs to be nuclear bombed."
I've found that most people in general, white males included, didn't really care that much.
Not every nation has shock jocks. But what makes Imus particularly notable among these coarse Americans, is that he had on his show people who were powerful in the US. Powerful influential people supported him.
Imus was a statement about what America is, and America's values.
I remember Imus' comments about the American destruction of the Geneva Conventions, when Abu Ghraib was uncovered and we learned how American troops were using torture. People had died. Imus called this torture like a college hazing.
http://thepeacetrain.org/PeaceGallery/Humor/missingmg9
The America We Used to Know
The America that was a model of justice in the world, not tyranny.
The America that championed human rights, not violated them.
The America that opposed torture, not the one that practices it.
The America that didn't engage in preemptive warfare.
The America that didn't spy on its own citizens.
The America that respected the Geneva Conventions.
The America that respected its own Constitution
The America whose leaders didn't prey on fear.
It has been 5 years since September 11th-has anyone seen that America?
We miss you so much.
..............................................................................
America is morally bankrupt. It is no longer about Imus or the others who have made money showing the dark side of American values. Its no longer about Bush and how he got elected. Its about the American people themselves now and what they stand for.
Rhett Butler: "No, I'm through with everything here. I want peace. I want to see if somewhere there isn't something left in life of charm and grace. Do you know what I'm talking about?"
Kurt Vonnegut, who just passed away, wrote a book, "Mother Night". The story is about an American who is a mole in the Nazi propaganda apparatus. He becomes so good at what he does on the radio as a propagandist that he does real harm to the Allied war effort. In the introduction, Vonnegut states the theme of the book. He said, "You are what you pretend to be, so be very careful what you pretend to be." This should be learned by those who think they can play a role (whether Borat or Shock Jock) without being responsible for the effect their words and actions have on other people.
I'm no legal expert at all, but I've always understood "freedom of speech" to be the right to express one's opinions, to say what one thinks about something, be it here, verbally somewhere, on a phone, in a public or private conversation, or in a letter to an editor of a newspaper.
But expressiong an opinion, what one thinks about something, is not synonymous with HATE speech or RACIST remarks. Those are not opinions.
I was offended by an aspect of the episode that has not been often mentioned. I found it quite disturbing that Imus and others said the he was "a good person" in spite of this. What in the world does that mean?
Almost every person thinks of oneself as "a good person." But "good" for whom? Are they saying Imus is good for society? I am sure Rush Limbaugh and his friends would say the same about him, and there are quite a few people who would disagree.
Every human engages in thousands of behaviors, all of them with intended effects and unintended effects. Imus does have his program for kids with cancer, and Ken Lay had his charitable donations. I am sure there have been many mobsters who took care of widows and orphans too.
So I wish everyone would have dropped the nonsense about his being a good person, and reduced the issue to its bare bones. Did the public have a right to express its disapproval? Why not? Did his employers wish to take on the social disapproval along with the benefits of revenue flowing from the size of his audience? Apparently not.
Nothing more to see here.
PJD wrote: "you will find that most white males in the US are quite upset that Imus was fired.
That's interesting info, where'd you find the time to poll most white males?
then went on to say: "They especially liked when Imus called for all Arabs to be nuclear bombed."
I think you are extremely in tune with your peers, they just happen to be a bunch of morons. Or maybe they have figured out some way to live with the nuclear fallout, which would make them smart morons.
Oldgrowthforest put the whole First Ammendment argument to rest very well, but I'd like to add. Comparing the content of public airwaves to the hip-hop industry doesn't fly either. The most offensive recordings are never played on the radio and as such people have a choice of whether or not to purchase and listen, unlike the public airwaves. Apples and oranges... Also, let's break it down a little further. The term Imus used was nappy-headed ho. Translated, ugly whore, or worse, African American, ugly whore. Now let's imagine, that he called Pat Summit an ugly gay looking whore. Think he wouldn't be fired? I sorta rule out racism on based on this comparison. But, Pat Robertson can call for the assasination of Hugo Chavez and not even be reprimanded. Why? Is the important thing the vocabulary as opposed to the content? Or do we take into consideration how much we "like" the victim of verbal abuse? In the Imus case the reaction was public, turned commercial when sponsors left based on letters or comments from among others, the NAACP and the ACLU threatening to boycott products. There was no public reaction to Robertson's comments, because, A) his show is religious and his viewers are brainwashed, and B) he is the CEO of the company. But why no public outcry? Because that outcry wasn't publicized. Mr. Rich says the Rutgers team had no standing in the world of celebrity, but I beg to differ. They had just shocked the (small) women's basketball world by defeating Duke and playing in the championship game. They had a voice. I contend that the whole story was created with intent, to deflect attention from something else. With Imus playing along, probably for the benefit of much needed publicity, and perhaps a future contract, even if only on satellite radio. In short, the few who own the mass media outlets use them for their benefit solely. Don't underestimate the lengths at which they will go to distort, confuse and manipulate.
Colleen:
I don't know if Imus said Abu Ghraib torture was like college hazing (which people have died from), but it's for sure that Limbaugh said that.
I don't know about "most white males," but at least "some white males" are all up in arms about Imus's firing. I was at a poker game on Saturday evening, and the subject was brought up several times by one of the players until finally, there was a response. Most of the men at the table with whom I play are (unfortunately for me, since I am a hardcore liberal progressive and still want to play the game) conservatives. The guy who was intent on talking about Imus was incensed that he was fired.
Most of the other guys chimed in about rap and how the term "ho" came from the black community and why should they be allowed to do this if Imus can't and finally, someone said, "Well, where I come from, it's sticks and stones." I mentioned that I thought Imus's remarks were very offensive and was ignored. And then the orginator of the conversation began a "joke" with something to the effect of "you know why black women aren't hired to..." and I very quickly said "I'm pretty sure I'm not going to think this is funny. In fact I am one hundred percent sure I am not going to think this is funny." He had the good grace to look embarrassed and stopped in midstream.
Surprisingly, this group has no overt sexist inclinations, and they wholeheartedly accept the women who play poker with them. They particularly seem to respect me and there was no more nasty talk. However, this is not the first time racist comments such as "the luckiest white man I've ever seen" have been made. I attempt to circumvent the comments, but I know the attitude behind them does not change.
I am a defender of free speech. However, I agree with Oldgrowthforest: freedom of speech is about government interference. And for the responder who wanted to know what would happen if ONLY conservatives had a public forum, well, that's pretty much the way it is now. It's up to the public to stop watching the Bill O'Reillys, Ann Coulters, and even the Howard Sterns if they want real news. Money talks, and the advertisers were afraid of losing money if they backed Imus. If that were the case with the other hatemongers, there would be little market for wingnut TV or radio.
Maybe this is so obvious that people miss it, but as Snoop Dogg commented, when rap singers talk about a "ho" they are talking about actual prostitutes. When Imus talked about "hos" he was talking about accomplished college students, and insultingly associated their their black skin with being a prostitute. So of course this remark was flagrant racism.
And sorry, but I stand by my remarks about white male american attitudes. Get out of your liberal enclaves and listen to average americans out there in the outlying republican belts - most make the the looney politicians they vote for sound pretty moderate.
PJd - I agree with your assessment of the white male American attitudes, but I think another qualifier might be needed. It's mostly white male Republican attitudes. Fortunately for me, except for my poker acquaintances, my male friends and family members are Democrats, Greens, Independents, or some other form of progressive or liberal. Their attitudes are quite different.
However, as soon as you move outside of the circle of progressives, you run up against the ignorant "blacks do it so why should Imus get punished" and "it's free speech" nonsense spouted by the so many of the masses.
I most definitely do not think Imus should be censored, put in prison, or in any way be punished by the government. However, corporations are free to finance or hire whomever they choose. The flap over Imus's remarks in some ways compares in intensity and importance to the huge outrage over Janet Jackson's nipple during the super bowl. It's about perceived inappropriate timing and content, not just content.
It's also a great diversion from real news and will pass as quickly as any celebrity gossip or faux news. I personally don't listen to any shock jock or rightwing commentators. I attempt to find out what they are saying by reading short (as short as possible) exerpts so as to not be totally ignorant of their rants. It's not pleasant, and it's so repetitive that you don't need a lot of reading or listening to get where they are coming from. (My first contact with Ann Coulter was her absurd and vicious column about how the kids accused and later acquitted of attacking the Central Park jogger should be made to remain in jail because they "had been convicted by a jury of their peers" and probably had committed crimes that had not been discovered. I didn't need to read anything else she said.)
These people only exist because other people are willing to watch, read, and listen to them and because sponsors make money from this fact.
IT WAS IMUS'S ATTACKS UPON THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION THAT CAUSED HIS REMOVAL.
"Nappy headed ho" was typical of him and not one of the worst things he has said.
My guess is that the corporate leaders who removed Imus were wating for a chance to get him out. Here was a chance to blame women and blacks for his removal.
Imus was a loose canon and might have started talking about the corruption in the White House.
The idea that Imus should be defended because of free speech in the media is ridiculous because groups are cut out from appearing in the US media all the time because they do not support the corporate American agenda.
There is no free main stream media in America. If you think there is, that is because you live inside the bubble of America.
Pat Robertson has been banned from the airwaves in some nations (Finland among others) Perhaps he is not banned in the US but the US is not a nation based in law.
The US is a nation that is based in power.
Get used to it. The US is a very corrupt nation.
ricg
I sent an e-mail to Imus complaining about his calling torture, "hazing". I had read that day about a women who had been raped at Abu Ghraib and it had been videotaped. So I was angry, unlike most Americans who don't care.
America is a great and wonderful country, filled with boundless opportunity to those who have a commitment to achievement and a hard-working spirit. We are afforded an incredible amount of freedom in our actions and are protected by the thoughtful laws enacted by our founders and enforced by our legal guardians.
We can and do express ourselves in all kinds of amazing and powerful ways. The ability for Americans to share those personal expressions which represent our goals, aspirations and desires are not universally available to all humans; as many forms of government not only suppress expression, but also deny it to some to the point of imprisonment, torture and even death. We are truly blessed to live in a free and open society that we have built here in America.
I honestly and openly believe that as Americans that we are free to express ourselves in any way that does not infringe upon the rights of others to peacefully exist. Each of us has the ability to speak out, share, and express themselves as much as they would like to get their ideas and views known, with the caveat that this expression NOT do others harm or impede their own ability to pursue their own lives and expressions safely and peacefully.
This freedom of expression does not come without a cost. That is where my "Aluminum Foil" theory comes into play. I've been refining this theory for a number of years and I hope that all can appreciate it for what it is; I don't offer it as fact ~ just the way I personally see the issue of individual expression.
Let's say one beautiful Sunday morning I wake up with the overwhelming urge to wrap my body from head to toe in aluminum foil. (This desire actually hasn't happened yet, but imagine with me for a moment that it did!) I yawn and stretch, and realize that I really do have strong desire to wrap myself up all shiny and sparkly in aluminum foil. Shouldn't be a problem, should take about one package of foil to wrap myself up like a metal mummy, and shouldn't be too uncomfortable. I decide I really want to do this, so I go for it! I tear open a couple of holes for my eyes; and it's done!
There, now I'm all wrapped up. I certainly want to share my new-found interest with the world, so I head out the door and strut proudly down the streets of Anytown, USA. As I walk along, I am noticed by several passing folks, some of which stare dumbfounded in amazement and others who just walk by without hardly a notice. Some actually point and laugh a bit, and even snicker openly at my admittedly outrageous appearance. They've never seen a grown man wrapped up in aluminum foil on a brisk walk through town before!
Am I am expressing myself? I sure am! I am enjoying my freedom of expression and I am not harming a single human being in the course of that expression. This is a wonderfully American thing to do! Right? Let's see…..
Not surprisingly, I do get a few taunts, a few yells of, "What an idiot!" and more than a few disapproving looks. A van loaded with laughing and jeering teenagers even toss a half-eaten bean burrito at me, but luckily I'm covered with aluminum foil! One guy with a pony tail, driving a VW van tries to recycle me, but otherise, no one else really meant any real harm, they were just expressing their viewpoint. People are looking at me funny though, because around Anytown, aluminum foil outer wear is just not considered "normal". I note that people are treating me as if my expression of freedom is somehow different or odd. That's OK, I can deal with their disapproval, I wasn't looking for it. After all, it's my choice and my freedom to do whatever the heck I want to do. I'm happy with my expression and how I've chosen to share my passion for metallic outerwear. After a somewhat noisy, but nice walk around Anytown, I head back to my home satisfied with the thought that now I've actually done what I set out to do, and expressed what I wanted to express.
The next day at work during a lull in the action, the topic of coffee pot conversation turns to local events, and someone chimes in with the news of the aluminum foil pedestrian. It made quite a buzz, people mostly thought it was pretty funny. Many chuckles and smiles go around the office, and I, of course, want to share my pride and proudly inform one and all that it was me that was doing this and that I really had a good time and enjoyed expressing myself in this special way.
Suddenly I find that the people in the office are not quite so jovial. In fact, many are sending me looks of concern and outright suspicion. Why did their mood change? As the day progresses, I can tell that people are treating me differently than they have ever treated me before. I see and hear muted whispers and glances in my direction. Things just don't seem right.
That afternoon I am summoned into my bosses' office, where he confronts me with the whole aluminum foil issue, and I confirm to him that yes, it was me. When I say this, my boss is visibly shocked and appalled! "What were you thinking? Are you crazy? I am really worried about you!" is his commentary on my constitutionally protected expression. I try to explain that I was just expressing myself and wasn't harming anybody. He still seems very upset. I leave the office with a very uneasy feeling about the whole event and questioning if wrapping myself in aluminum foil was really a very good idea.
A week later, I find out that a promotion that I had been looking forward to has been awarded to another person! My boss announced at the morning staff meeting that this other person was now going to head up a project that I had developed! I could not have been more shocked to hear this news. I had worked for over a year on this. When I went to the bosses' office to discuss this with him, he avoided my direct questions on the promotion, citing the other persons' experience level, but I could tell that his decision was significantly impacted by my aluminum foil walk. I am sad, even depressed that I have been discriminated against because I chose to express myself in a way that did not harm others. This is America, isn't it? Don't I have rights?
The truth is that our expressions, as evidenced by our choices and actions, will have an impact on our lives. We are free to express ourselves, but we must be willing to take ownership of the repercussions of those expressions. Not all expressions are popular, not all will be embraced, accepted, or sometimes even tolerated by all people everywhere. By publicly sharing my admittedly unconventional expression, I made a bold public statement that I do not want to be seen as conventional, I do not want to be seen as ordinary or commonplace. That is my right. At the same time, I cannot expect or demand that all will universally respect my choices and my expressions and embrace me without question or hesitation. With freedom of expression comes a freedom of reaction.
Some may fully understand my desire for expression, and be quite accepting, but there others that may see me as a freak, shun me and even judge me harshly based on my choices and actions. That is their freedom, and their choice in this case. That is the simple truth of the matter, and we must keep in our minds that our choices, as evidenced by our actions, do reflect personally on ourselves and may affect how others view us.
That's my thoughts! You are free to disagree, of course!
One additional comment as an addendum to my post above: I think black rappers and comedians get a "free pass" because in their demeaning and debasing of black women, the "hidden text" reaffirms the elevation of white women as the great sexual "prize." Since black men have historically suffered horribly as a result of their alleged sexual attraction to white women, the rapper lyrics serve to once again reaffirm that which white men most fear: black men taking "their" women. Black men see this as an expression of their newfound power over white male oppression, while guilt over slavery and black inequality prevent many whites from speaking out. Ultimately it is a self defeating strategy because it perpetuates the discourse of racism.
I also think that black rapper lyrics, which are marketed primarily to young white males, serve to give these young men vicarious expression to their misogyny. Here again, blacks are "serving" whites in a way that destroys black self esteem and the integrity of black families, while giving whites a new platform upon which to exercise their power.
Today the Washington Post is releasing a poll on the opinions of Americans about the firing of Imus
WHY IS THERE NO POLL DONE BY THE WASHINGTON POST ABOUT WHETHER BUSH SHOULD BE IMPEACHED?
The real issue is whether we have a government based in laws or in power.
The president of the United states has been charged with lying the US into a war of choice for reasons that would not benefit the US or its people.
If the US were a nation of laws there would be an impeachment process now going on.
Question:
Why have an impeachment over lying about consensaul sex but not an impeachment over lying about a war?
Answer:
Because the impeachement process is based in who has power, not upon the law.
iwarrior, I think that misogynist black rap lyrics express the misogyny that is part of the dominant culture. I am not saying it is excusable, but that it is embedded in other networks of oppression and power that I wrote about. There are lots of contradictions. In this case, black rappers empower themselves with these lyrics, but at the same time, feed into the very system that perpetuates their oppression.
I think that guilty white liberals are only some of those who are reluctant to speak up about the vicious sexism in many rap lyrics. The lyrics are acceptable to many because they simply express the debasement and hatred of gender female that is pretty much endemic.
The main point I wanted to make is that Snoop Dogg and other the sexist hatemongers like him are cashing those fat checks for giving many young white men what they want at the expense of black women and black families.
"WHY IS THERE NO POLL DONE BY THE WASHINGTON POST ABOUT WHETHER BUSH SHOULD BE IMPEACHED?"
You're right. I do think there are more ominous issues at hand. I guess one reason this flap with Don Imus interests me like it does is because, well, it's a victory. A small one, but a win nonetheless.
iwarrior
Its not a victory if Imus was going to be critical of the Bush administration.
Was Imus removed by corporate sponsors because he was becoming too critical of the Bush administration?
Many of Imus's listeners were the white men who voted for Bush. After listening to Imus criticize Bush, perhaps they would have then understood what values Bush really stands for. Bush represents international corporations that nominally are American.
There should be an impeachment of Bush if the US government is even attempting to appear based upon laws.
"One additional comment as an addendum to my post above: I think black rappers and comedians get a "free pass" because in their demeaning and debasing of black women, the "hidden text" reaffirms the elevation of white women as the great sexual "prize." Since black men have historically suffered horribly as a result of their alleged sexual attraction to white women, the rapper lyrics serve to once again reaffirm that which white men most fear: black men taking "their" women. Black men see this as an expression of their newfound power over white male oppression, while guilt over slavery and black inequality prevent many whites from speaking out. Ultimately it is a self defeating strategy because it perpetuates the discourse of racism.
I also think that black rapper lyrics, which
"I also think that black rapper lyrics, which are marketed primarily to young white males, serve to give these young men vicarious expression to their misogyny. Here again, blacks are "serving" whites in a way that destroys black self esteem and the integrity of black families, while giving whites a new platform upon which to exercise their power."
It seems to me that the misogynist hip-hop is marketed to young people in general. They eat it up because it's sold as the hottest thing going, and they buy into it like sheep, since every other form of music is made out to be lame. Black people are sexist also. I grew up with them, went to school with them, and worked with them. It's not just white men. And neither are inherently so.
I think another reason why you see white kids embracing hip-hop is simply rebellion. And since they want to rebel, they unfortunately often embrace the underbelly of it all (misogyny, the glorification of crime, poverty, materialism, etc.) which I suppose is seen as more exciting and lurid. Of course, they don't have to deal with real "gangstas" and "pimps" terrorizing their neighborhoods.
The record labels love it because it's all controversial and dangerous, and thusly sells albums.
Eh, I'm a metalhead, so I don't know anything. Everyone on the left and right dumps on my music. :) Ellen Goodman and Jerry Falwell will stand side by side throwing metal cd's into a bonfire. Actually, I think these white kids should get into metal and punk. It would probably give them a healthier sense of identity rather than essentially acting as if they are in blackface. But metal's not considered "cool", rock critics and hipsters want it very much to die, and it's politically incorrect despite being anti-war from the beginning, being a thorn in the butt of organized religion, and generally being counter cultural and opposed to the status quo for it's entire history. Not that metal doesn't have it's underbelly also. I won't excuse such subhumans as Glen Benton, Jon Nodtveidt (who thankfully killed himself recently), Varg Vikernes, and the other Norwegian church-burners.
If I offended anyone with the remarks made above, I apologize.
And it's not to say that there isn't socially-conscious hip-hop out there. While I may not be a member of the Nation (it's just not my bag), I am aware of that. To judge hip-hop based on what's popular would be akin to someone defining metal based on Poison or Linkin Park.
I also take issue to the idea that most white men are crying in their beers about this. I'm not in a liberal enclave either. I'm a blue-collar registered Democrat who lives in an urban area.
My father who is 62 years old and a lifelong staunch blue-collar Democrat was ecstatic that Imus got canned. He's only sad that Limbaugh and Hannity didn't get the axe also.
Btw, I deal with a few racist idiots all the time, and I haven't even heard a peep out of any of them over this.
One more thing. I would like to stress that imo, it is not ok for anyone, be it black rappers, or cranky white guys with radio shows, to refer to women of any race as "hos" and "whores". I don't care who Snoop Dogg is really talking about. He just adds fuel to the fire while he laughs and cashes his royalty checks.
"Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are two of the biggest racist in this country.
"""""Sharpton has his big fat mouth open every chance he gets on TV especially if it's against white people."""""
I'm sorry but I found it impossible not to ponder the utter stupidity and lack of any cognitive functioning on any level....when I read the above vomit from a double digit closet Klansman. Ya gotta try a little harder dd, liberals tend to read.....here's a new word for you dd....b..o..o..k..s....crack one some time, be the first in your family
"Its not a victory if Imus was going to be critical of the Bush administration."
But it is if he's spreading racism and sexism while he's doing it. We can't excuse that, especially when that sort of garbage permeates talk radio. It's not much, but it's something. Personally, I wish they got a bigger fish like Mike Savage or someone. Btw, he has attacked Bush also.
"Was Imus removed by corporate sponsors because he was becoming too critical of the Bush administration?"
I don't think so. I think those sponsors were just worried about the bad publicity. I have thought about that though. My father and I were discussing it. As much as he disliked Don Imus, he wonders if he was just set up since he was taking aim at Bush. However, if that's the case, is Keith Olbermann next? Bill Maher? Jon Stewart? Letterman?
"Many of Imus's listeners were the white men who voted for Bush. After listening to Imus criticize Bush, perhaps they would have then understood what values Bush really stands for. Bush represents international corporations that nominally are American."
But why couldn't he do that without slandering black women a the same time? Isn't that sort of counterproductive? Should we excuse racism and sexism from people simply because they don't like Bush. White supremacists by and large don't like Bush either. Should we let them in too?
"There should be an impeachment of Bush if the US government is even attempting to appear based upon laws."
I agree with you that Bush should be impeached. In fact, he and his whole cabinet should be jailed also.
Unlike Don Imus, Mel Gibson did not make his remarks on the air, on the public airwaves, but while drunk after having been stopped by a police officer & the celebrity media broadcast them. I doubt that any of them would long survive if the comments they make while drunk or stoned to be broadcast to the world; I'm sure most of those in the Old Boy net of big media utter comments during dinner parties as bad or worse than anything Don Imus said publically or Mel Gibson said drunkenly.
Yep... the days when every middle-class household could enjoy the services of a cook and a maid may be gone, but we still benefit from discrimination every day.
Restaurant meals are cheap because the busboys don't speak English, Farm produce is cheap because because the field workers don't have green cards. Hotels are affordable because janitors and housekeepers earn minimum wage.
Clothing, cell phones, DVD players and almost everything else we buy at the mall are cheap because they're made by poor people in foreign countries for fifty cents an hour.
Unskilled labor is cheap because the pool is kept large. It's size is regulated by racial discrimination and immigration. Since the civil rights movement of the sixties, we've shifted the labor from black and brown Americans to illegal immigrants and offshore workers. But the impulse to "keep 'em down" still runs deep.
Thomas Jefferson is often criticized because he failed to free his slaves. Thom Hartmann responded to that by asking, "When will we free ours?"
"Restaurant meals are cheap because the busboys don't speak English,"
But is that true everywhere? Maybe it's because of where I am, but I don't see non-english speaking busboys. Most of the ones I see at restaurants are young people working their way through school, and they're probably struggling at that.
White, black, yellow, brown, red, we're all getting the shaft, and the elites just pit us against one another.
"Most white people I know don't see themselves as part of a system of oppression or as benefitting from a system of racial oppression. Why? Because for most white people, the advantages of being white are almost non-existent, or at least they do not *appear* to be significant to them. Working class whites are in the same basic condition as most working class black people: they don't have direct access to or control over economic and institutional power. This is not a suggestion that racism and discrimination do not exist or that being white doesn't bring marginal social advantages to working class whites (measurable in the aggregate). It does mean that the sting of racial bigotry and subsequent self-doubt (regardless of the target) is not mitigated because a white person happens to share the same skin pigment as GWB, Bill Gates or "Bull" Connor."
Thanks for that. I was arguing about the idea of white privilege with someone on another site recently. Well, not arguing, rather having a discussion on it. I was kind of irked by the whole thing, because how can I, a working-class white person, be all that more privileged, if at all, when the same people keeping blacks down are waging war against me as well?
Racism exists. No question about it. I see it all the time. I've almost come to blows over it. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person in the world that isn't racist. It brings me into conflict with others. I actually am very uncomfortable around people who are bigoted. I always have been.
Maybe I'm just different, I dunno. Maybe every other white person is bigoted, and that's why their racism bothers me when I hear it and see it since I don't want to confront it. Or maybe I am a bigot too and don't know it.
But I think class is the main thing that divides us in this country. There are racial, ethnic, and sexual overtones to it all of course. Again, I support the idea of reparations for a number of reasons. The experience of African Americans is a unique one to say the least. No other group, at least in this country, has been through what they have.
We have dragged the idea of race and what it means through the mud, which perhaps we should. Race is something that begs to be deconstructed. However, class just seems to be that subject that even people on the left often won't touch with a yardstick. We all seem to get so mired in identity politics that we only look to the left and right of us and never above.
Colleen-I don't think I know all that much about music. :) I actually get taken to task since metal's about all I listen to. Of course, my definition of metal can be broad. There are bands that are considered "grunge" or "AOR" or even punk, that are metal to me and I enjoy.
I have been told to broaden my horizons also. Trance and electronic music aren't my bag either since it doesn't have enough of a human element to it. But then again, not everyone digs my music either.
Yeah, funny thing about Steppenwolf is that you only hear "Born To Be Wild" and "Magic Carpet Ride" on the radio. Great lyrics you posted there.
Btw, metal's been kicked around for being sexist also, so maybe I shouldn't throw stones at hip-hop. And yes, I even love some old hair bands, but good ones like Saigon Kick, Hanoi Rocks, Badlands, Bullet Boys, Kik Tracee, Ratt, Lillian Axe,etc. that wrote good songs and never neglected to show you the dark side of the Sunset Strip, gutter and all. They were just poor white kids with talent who didn't get eaten alive by the Boulevard and happened to get a record deal. Then they were exploited just like the rappers often are, used up and left to dry.
Frank Rich is rather disengenuous here by cloaking his history of self-promotion on Imus's show in the First Amendment, and by reducing the widespread outrage against his comments to the lone figure of Al Sharpton. Rich said on NPR that he like to "match wits" with Imus--an fairly simple task, it seems, and Rich might want to challenge himself to match wits with a pundit who doesn't feel the need to hire someone to write his "Nigger jokes" (sic) for him. Rich also likes to market his books beyond his usual New York Times readers to appeal to the mouth-breathers who listen to Imus's sexist drivel.
The Imus defenders--Frank Rich, Mike Wallace, Dick Cavett, and others who appear on the show--are the last of the pre-baby-boomer generation of white men who are perplexed that snickering, boys' club barbs aimed at blacks and women would offend anyone. They're good natured, after all. Rich himself says he's "not bothered" by a little harmless fun. Poor guys. The world is changing fast and it's leaving them in the dust. Not too many people think it's funny any longer to watch Dean Martin hold Sammy Davis in his arms and say, "I accept this NAACP award"--a joke, come to think of it, more sophisticated than any of Imus's comments about the Williams sisters of Gwen Ifill.
It is not a violation of free speech that we no longer see minstrel shows in theaters or on TV. Radio was the last refuge of this kind of humor. Its audience was fragmented enough to support it, for a while. But now a younger, savvier, more multicultural generation is taking over. Sponsors no longer want to be associated with the racist, sexist old school brand of what Rich calls "wit." We are moving on. It's not censorship. It's progress.
Imus made a fatal tactical error and dug a hole for himself. He should have known the golden rule of public life, that is, rehab is redemption. Within the first few hours he should have had a clergyman(Rev Al or or Jess) next to him at the podium or on a talk show and claimed sex and drug addiction. He should then have checked himself in to a well known rehab institution for celebrities. It is too late for Imus now but all celebrities would do well if they took this advise to heart.