Don Imus
Some reaction from Boston-area bloggers on the Don Imus affair:
Jennifer Garrett notes Imus's comment was not just racist but misogynist:
... Racist? Hell, yes, and unforgivably so, but also reflective of the type of crap that gets thrown out there whenever the subject is women's sports. Strong women are regarded as distinctly unfeminine, and I'm calling bullshit. Bill Simmons (why, Bill?) is a perfect example -- hardly a column goes by without him slamming the WNBA like it killed his dog. ...
Judith Scott-Hammerquist considers the meeting Imus will have soon with the team:
I am sure, the young ladies will have a discourse wit Mr.Imus that is mutually beneficial for all parties.
If not...
OPEN UP A CAN OF WHUPASS !
Elias says it's about time Imus got punched in the nose:
... Truth is, Imus has been using racial jokes for years to maintain his he-man from Caucasiastan bona fides even as he sinks into a gruesome impotent dotage. He gets a pass on all this nasty palaver because he is a regular stop for various big time pundits and numerous a-list politicians from both parties. ...
Sissy Willis says she has no great sympathy for Imus, but adds:
... The scavenging Reverends and the salivating publicists and lawyers who represent the bright young athletic stars of the Rutgers basketball team were drawn as a moth to the flame by the bloodied, oozing rascist road kill. ...
Meredith O'Brien praises proud young women standing up to bullies.
Rob Bellinger wonders if there aren't more important things to worry about than Imus.
Anali: I do not think he has learned his lesson:
... If those words fell from his mouth so easily when he saw the accomplished young black women of the Rutger's women's basketball team, then I don't think his mindset has changed so much in just a few days. That is how he views black females.
Deb Geisler hopes he gets fired.
Dan Kennedy doesn't think Imus is racist, but also thinks he should retire.
Craptacular finds Sharpton as reprehensible:
... Sharpton is scum. He's way past helping African-Americans succeed in life. Instead, he's keeping them playing the victim. And when you're always the victim, you're always weak.
Carpundit: Imus is an ass. Sharpton is a con:
I'll take Imus any day.
Tai Irwin, who once filled in for Imus, says it's time for Imus to step away from the microphone:
... In recent days, in an apology that made Michael Richards look like Einstein, Imus reduced years of work on his ranch for kids to rubble by shoving it in our eyes to deflect criticism. The dignity train left town and it ain't coming back. Hey Don, step away from the microphone, save the pathetic remarks for your maker, and force the creatively bankrupt radio business to serve their local communities again. ...
| 
| 
Not defending Imus, fire him...
...but is this any worse than Limbaugh calling Barack Obama and Halle Berry "Halfrican Americans" or any of the other crap he's pulled? I think the Limbaugh comment is far worse - Imus's comment was made from ignorance and insensitivity, but Limbaugh's was clearly made for virulent and vitriolic reasons. How is Imus on the brink of loosing a job but that douche Michael Savage still going strong
Why is the Imus fiasco this big of a deal compared to the hate radio super stars?
I'm Willing To Bet...
... that most of the people calling for Imus's head are people who never listen to his show.
Does that make a difference? I believe it should. If you're going to come flying out of the woodwork to jump all over somebody - to care about what someone says - only when that something offends you, then why should CBS care? They hired Imus, and have kept him employed, not because he's a poster boy for political correctness, but because he occasionally says something that rankles.
Does this latest comment step over the bounds they may have set for him? If so, they have every right to call him onto the carpet. But it should be internal. If CBS feels it is hurting their bottom line, then they should fire the guy. Otherwise, no.
There is still something in this country called the First Amendment. It was not created to protect speech that everybody finds wholesome and satisfying. It was created specifically to protect asswipes like Imus. Sorry if you don't like that, but that's the way it is.
Likewise, your right to protest Imus and his ilk are protected. So, have your say. And if CBS listens and fires him, because they believe your impact on their bottom line outweighs his, good for you. But if they fire him because you don't like what he's saying or the way he said it, in the long run you haven't done anyone a favor. All you've done is weakened the Constitution. And it will come back to bite YOU in the ass some day. Count on it.
For The Record
For the record, I haven't listened to Imus in years. His show is extremely repetitive and I found some of the things he said repugnant. I did what sane people do in such a situation. I turned him off.
Um
Er, what does the First Amendment have to do with this????
I thought the First Amendment protected the people from the government, not one person from another. If some people don't like what another person says or does, it's certainly in their power, nay, it's their responsibility to criticize that person, and take whatever steps they feel are necessary to make sure he's marginalized or extinguished.
Do you want to clarify?
Clarification
You are correct - the First Amendment protects citizens from having their right of free speech abridged by the government. My point in dragging it into this argument was that there is no law - or, at least, none that would stand up under strictly constitutional judicial scrutiny - forbidding Imus's idiotic remarks, racist and misogynistic though they may be. Some of the folks who are looking to have him censured are suggesting that it be done through force of law. That is impossible - or at least appears to me to be so, without another amendment.
Insofar as responsibility of citizens to criticize, marginalize or extinguish such persons, I agree that it is their right to criticize, and marginalization certainly is a proper tactic, but I don't believe I agree with it being their responsibility to extinguish such person's ability to make such speech (which is what I assume you meant; not actual extinguishing of the person :-) )
No matter how distasteful you might find someone's speech, if you "extinguish" their ability to make it, you are setting up a scenario where, in future, another bit of speech, perhaps slightly more tolerant of others than that which you wish to extinguish now, will then be extinguished, and so on. I hate to use a cliche, but it's a slippery slope - and one I have no desire to be put upon by anyone else, no matter how good their intentions may be.
And, just to be absolutely clear about this, I don't believe that what he said was in any way anything less than idiotic. If you or others wish to petition CBS to have him removed from their air, more power to you. I just don't see why they should pay any attention to people who probably never listened to his show in the first place. That was the main point.
Well put!
Well put, especially your last paragraph.
And, I did mean extinguish as in "wipe out".
To some people, that would be the only alternative. There's a name for their type.
Thank You
Thank you, John.
(Off topic, but I cruised on over to your blog. Nice site with useful information and interesting questions.)
Seriously
How can someone be actually concerned about something Imus says. He's professional ___hole. The furor over his statement exceeds whatever damage his idiotic statement may have caused.
Translation
shorter guy: I'm a white guy. I've never had to deal with this crap myself, so it isn't important. Who cares.