A firing offense? Ordinarily Imus's extraordinary remark would be, but since he's gotten away with so many similar remarks before without any consequences, perhaps in the interest of "fair play" he should get a warning this time. Perhaps we should be asking instead how he's managed to get away with that crap for so long...

What really IS baffling, though, is how dense some white men can be, when they continue to think it is funny-- not to mention "acceptable"-- if they make someone currently below them on the food chain the butt of a tasteless joke. (Reminds me of Republican humor.) They just don't seem to get it, and seeing what happens to others in the public sphere who have done the same thing, surprisingly, seems to have little effect. Still, Imus's remark was not that big a surprise.

Actually, what was most surprising to me about this story, since I do not listen to Imus-- he's not to my taste-- is how his show seems to be some kind of refuge for a posse of elite politicians and pundits.

I followed and read the links to the New York Times' and Media Matters' stories... and behold! Who was more or less defending Imus... but his "constituency," consisting, no less, of such "respected journalists" as Tom Oliphant, Howard Fineman, and Jeff Greenfield, among others. Oh, and possibly Tim! And what do they all have in common? Yep, they're all white guys.

Now THAT astounded me! The Imus crack was NOT a surprise, given his history to-date, but that he has this whole crew of apologists-- enablers if you will-- who comprise that elite posse of politicians and pundits, THAT was news to me. But it shouldn't have been, since they're they're all white guys... and apparently a bit tone-deaf when it comes to tasteless jokes about gender and/or race.

So, how come no one is talking about that?

And, no, it wasn't just a racist remark; it was also sexist. Too bad that Sharpton didn't call him on that while he was at it.

I meant to post it in this one:

http://letters.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/04/09/imus_rutgers/permalink/8e424b67cad2665ca04b27a7ae3e78ef.html

that will get Imus's attention. It's also that he has a large volume control for his voice.

Imus will care even more about his voice being diminished (or completely turned off) than he will about losing some of that Green.

And so will his constituents... I mean, his "guests." Certainly, if Imus goes, so will his format. Maybe those guys will re-think their support of his past infractions, as well as this one.

It isn't okay. And I said as much in my comment at Broadsheet (which I had intended to post here). The link is earlier on in this comment thread.

We'll know this Sunday, after the talking heads' meet-up.

Abramoff may get a lighter sentence... because he cooperated so well with the authorities.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18029493/ (via Huffington Post)

Well, if he cooperated that much, then where are the rest of the indictments and what is the status of the (previously) ongoing investigations? Have they come to some kind of halt, or just a slow walk, due to the attorney purge?

W's speeches will yield abundant fodder for linguistic analyses for many generations to come.

But only if the planet survives long enough to create that historical context.

Because I don't listen to or watch Imus, I had no idea of his stable of defenders... that is, until this brouhaha. Certainly, Imus needs to experience the consequences, but so do the people who have been enabling him.

I followed the links to the NYTimes story and Media Matters, and now Huffington Post also has some posts, but one of the best (no surprise!) is at Digby's blog:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/its-hard-out-here-fo-pimp-by-digby-ive.html

Of course, Imus has gotten away with this crap for too long. Because his posse has had his back. Not true for other offenders who have been mentioned in this thread or others. Michael Richards et al. did not provide a refuge of sorts for these "elites" the way Imus did. And apparently, not only white men, as I originally thought; there are a few "elite" women represented, too.

Frankly, I would be even more interested in figuring out how to make ALL of them own up to their part in Imus's gender/race/religion -baiting... Because that is the only thing that will really make a difference.

Just consider how many "respectable" journalists (the elite, if you will) are presently defending Imus's "free" speech. Mostly white men, but not exclusively; apparently, there are some elite women among his tribe, too.

If they can't even have a clue about that episode, and how it really appears, much less how it actually "is," then how could they possibly have a clue about their own role in bringing about our current occupation of Iraq? Simple. They can't.

[One must wonder now how many of them were also among the guffawers at Gore's appearance at Dartmouth during 2000 campaign (as well as along the rest of the campaign trail)... especially given Imus's intense dislike of Gore.]

It may not be possible to break through the fog yet on BigMedia's role in talking & writing us into an ill-advised war. But is it possible to make them see the light on Imus? Even that would be a step in the right direction. After all, he shouldn't be the only one having to suffer consequences, since he's been getting strokes for so many years (from all of these folks) for exactly this type of behavior. (As well as for so successfully hawking their books.)

Then, after they see how they have enabled Imus, perhaps they can be made to see how they have enabled BushCo. That's just a perhaps, though...