Imus should go. No, charity work does NOT give him a free pass. No, the existence of other equally offensive shock jocks also does not give him a free pass. At some point, the line gets drawn. It isn't always done in a consistent way across the board, but that is the nature of this type of gig in broadcasting. Consequences depend on who you are, who your audience is, who your employers/sponsors are, how much money you pull in, etc. The standards that apply to mainstream broadcasting figures are different from those that apply to, say, Howard Stern. Not defending it, but that's how it works, yet so few people seem to realize it. People seem to want some kind of consistency across the board with the rules, some kind of precedent for Imus' firing. But really, corporations like CBS and NBC can pretty much fire anyone for any reason at any time.

Imus wanted it both ways, to be a little bit Howard Stern, yet still get the high-toned guests who preside over mainstream American media and politics. It was part of his job to be shocking enough to get listeners, but not so offensive as to scare his employers and sponsors. And he should have recognized that when you profit from our fascination with nastiness and unfiltered id, the price is that you're vulnerable when we finally decide we're fed up, a point which can come at any moment, without warning. Public tide turns, ya know. The same thing that giveth you your audience can taketh away your public support. So quit yer bellyachin', Imus, you made yer money. Anyone is free to get a job as a handsomely-paid bile-spewer, but you cannot be surprised when the axe falls. Goes with the territory.

I am a Hillary supporter. I'm a little confounded by criticisms that she is manipulative--here's a SURPRISE, that's a job requirement for politicians. Guarded? Well, of course, she's a woman running for president, she's got to walk a thin line, people. If she wasn't guarded, she'd be an idiot.

Yeah, she may not be everything to everybody, but she's the best we've got, and she's a lot better than anything the GOP has to offer. If she wins the primaries, and Democrats still find a reason to not vote for her in '08, there's no helping us as a nation.

JMCat

So many folks can't even be bothered to write a check for ANY charity, that to get on the case of those who are donating their actual time, money, AND effort to feed the homeless? Seems misplaced.

We need to encourage MORE people to get involved with charity work, not shame the existing participants into feeling they aren't doing it with the proper amount of humility.

So if you feel weird doing the fancy pants brunch after feeding the homeless, then don't go. Stay and eat with those you serve, but don't lord it over the rest of the volunteers.

don't forget that roughly half the population should be held accountable for elections 2000 and 2004. I wanna throttle the people who voted for Bush (not once, but twice, and STILL feel like they can complaign about what their votes have wrought upon the country) just as much as I wanna throttle the Democrats for not running savvier, more aggro campaigns. Yeah, the Dem campaigns could be more Rovian, but the nation at large could also be pickier about who becomes POTUS.

Lomborg points at Gore as being a global warming alarmist, but Lomborg is the one wringing his hands over the prospect of doing "too much" about global warming.

Yeah, OK, call me when THAT happens.

What if you found out that your wife, who you claim to be in a happy marriage with, was having makeout sessions and perhaps more with a cute co-worker/contractor/yoga instructor? Would that make you feel

a) relieved; great, now I can get divorced/keep doing what I'm doing

b) outraged; how dare she? we have KIDS!

c) confused; I thought we were happy together!

I think taking an honest look at what your response might be would be helpful in determining what you ought to do.

Of course she looks normal, healthy, better than 99% of the regular human population. Compared to the people I see coming out of Country Buffet, she is fit and skinny.

People, there is a reason we're not all pop stars. The "beautiful people" on stage are NOT SUPPOSED to look like the rest of us. They need to look way MORE fabulous, freakishly fabulous, otherwise why would we watch. Why does fabulous necessarily mean skinny? Because what passes for hot in real life just looks average and a little doughy on camera, especially when SOMEONE insists on being stuffed into a spangly bikini. And Britney's face, though adequately cute, does have a southern sorority averageness to it, so her body really does need to be impossibly tight to justify all the hoo-haa over her physicality.

Reasonable people are aware of this divide, and do not try to confuse the two standards. The problem arises when we regular folks think we need to look like the stars, or think the stars need to look like us. No we don't, and no they don't. If I wanted that, I could park my lawn chair at my neighbor Larry's house and stare at him for a couple of hours. No thanks.

Can someone please just hurry up and reveal whatever secret sex crime Karl Rove is surely guilty of so that he can go away already? There's gotta be SOME prostitute, male or female, or inbetween, or SOME child he's chatted with on the internet that could come forward so we can all be put out of our misery? Please?