Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Ironclad
Published Letters: 68 Editor's Choice: 19
First - I do not listen to Don Imus, so I have no particular positive or negative attachments to his show. I am aware of his charity work outside his job, and I use that to judge his character as much as what I read about him in print.
My point is that it is Mr Imus' job to fire up and engage his audience - that what ratings and job are about. That certainly does not mean that he needs to be patently offensive - but it certainly also does not mean that he has to be politically correct in all his dialogs. Perhaps some people take offense at what he said - but others merely reflect that the terminology is straight out of "the culture" - rap, hip hop that seems to be the dominate theme of the rest of the entertainment industry. So, what is the fuss? I don't hear the same denunciation over much more blatant and outrageous sentiments on albums or "entertainment" events. Perhaps the tacit acceptance of the "gangsta" culture in other word and print media has spilled over into Mr Imus's rap. The chickens have come home to roost, so to say.
The rest of the circus around Imus - Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and their ilk - seems to be to be just the old shakedown circus firing up the engines to extract tribute from whoever can be made to feel guilty enough to "buy" their way out of their problems. That, frankly, I find to be the more disgusting part of this whole affair.
Free speech issue? - don't even try that one. This is just entertainment - turn it off if you don't like it. Ratings will take care of the rest. Don't try to put that lipstick on this pig - his comments are just reflecting what I can see everyday on the other music and video stations.
I think there are two separate issues here that have collided in the Imus mess - the issue of hip-hop influence on culture and the issue of acceptable entertainment. Imus stepped over the line because he used words and phrases out of hip hop culture toward respectable people - approaching a slur instead of being a parody . What was meant to be funny approached cruel and crude. And he is paying the price for
The two issues are related because a fairly large part of hip hop has degraded much of what used to be considered acceptable public discourse. The misogyny, bling and "gangsta" attitudes are reflected in attitudes you see on the street and in much normal conversation. You hear this in the comedy and parody today as well as in the numerous videos of these groups. Go to U-Tube and look at many of the vids there - to imply that rappers have not influenced the dialog and attitudes in everyday culture seems to be denial of observable fact.
The real point is this - If you accept that Imus is an entertainer, then you have two possible conclusions for his outburst. The first is that he (badly) was mirroring rapper (and therefore popular) culture when he described the team members as "hos". The second is that he is just a racist expressing his true feelings. I don't think that the rappers made him do it - but I certainly feel that they had an enabling role in the statement. I think you are wrong on this one, Joan.
Wolfowitz reported that he had a relationship (and potential ethics violation) with Ms Ali Riza to the WB board before he took his job in 2005. (She was an employee at the WB at the time). http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21299683~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html
Wolfowitz found his girlfriend another job when he came to the World Bank - what was he going to do? Fire her?
Where is that little salient fact mentioned in this article? It certainly makes the rest of Wolfowitz's actions take a different spin - and makes the whole tone of this article appear to be just another slime bomb from Sidney. Great Work, Salon!
I call BS on this column. You may disagree with Krauthammer on his column, but in no way do I find "hypocrisy" in his points.
Separating the two points - on Fox, Krauthammer compares the DVD "manifesto" with Palestinian Shaheed (martyr) videos shown incessantly on al-Jazeera. Both are made to show the "righteousness" of the individual and to document the injustices that have lead to his (or her) action of murder. Both are meant to appeal to the pubic to justify actions.
The Ismail Ax reference is anyone's guess now (Moby Dick? JF Cooper? Biblical? - but I note that you did not mention that Mort Kondracke immediately called Krauthammer on the Islamic connection after he said it - saying there was no evidence for a terror link).
And the Barack Obama speech comment comparing the VT shooting with Don Imus "verbal violence", outsourcing, and violence in Darfur? Sorry - I think that one was just a bit more tenuous than the Ismail Ax comparison of Krauthammers'.
Krauthammer did raise a valid point - there was a consequence of our policy toward not confining mentally unstable people when they are identified. There are valid arguments on how this is abused and should be controlled - as there are equally valid arguments over how this can lead to situations where individuals can fall to their internal demons and wreck havoc.
Balance in this area is challenging - and I think there might be an argument over reexamining when intervention is necessary.
If you want to spotlight hypocrisy - why not turn it on NBC? They had no problem throwing Imus out over his mouth. Where is the call for the executives that put the video on the air not to be canned?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
