but if it's not, then at least these are interesting questions.

I was also torn about whether Imus should be fired or not, not because he seemed undeserving of such a fate, but because he had been enabled for so long by so many (mostly white, mostly men). And it seemed to me that THEY are the real story here and are the ones who should be held to account. And perhaps without Imus's show where they could appear, in order to shill their books, they will be held accountable, at least in their bank accounts.

Yesterday, in a comment on Joe Conason's post (I think), I compared Imus with our decider-in-chief, noting the similarities in their public personalities: the wealth, the cowboy hats (only Imus has cattle), their thin-skinnedness, and defensiveness about themselves, which is surprising, considering the amount of power they each wield, and that they each seem to delight in making jokes at the expense of others with far less power. Etc., etc

Frankly, Imus's documented criticism of BushCo doesn't even enter into this discussion. It's just that the persona-- over-compensating machismo-- has worn out its welcome (having lied us into war) and lost some (maybe all) of its charisma (when athletic women students are considered fair game). And yet, each retains the loyal supporters in his "base." And, even though their bases may differ a bit politically, they are still the "elite," and again, mostly white and mostly male. (Who mostly are entirely clueless about why white men don't "get" to make jokes about black women. Not their appearance, not their age, not their sexuality, not their morals. Not anything. They just don't.)

So, is it possible that Imus is just a scapegoat who has been made an example of, just because we can't seem to get rid of the other one? Maybe, I don't know... but it would be a pretty simple and neat explanation. And it still wouldn't make me think that it was completely undeserved.

In the case of Bush, perhaps the other I-word might be a possibilty, if impeachment is not practical. Intervention. How many Republicans would it take to convince Bush/Cheney to step down? The same critical mass it would take to realize that their party's reputation for decades to come may depend upon it. I don't know the actual number; it would depend upon the seriousness and character of said Republicans. I'm not holding my breath...

It was excellent! And it connected another dot for me... re: my own complaint that Imus's posse deserves an accountability moment, too. There has been an on-again, off-again discussion about why there aren't more women on the op-ed pages, or on the Sunday morning talking heads programs, etc.

Well, what I didn't know, until this past week's story about Imus sliming the Rutgers team is that most (but not all) of the white, male punditry is part of Imus's posse.

So, if there is going to be, as Rolan Martin suggests, a national discussion on sexism, it will be more difficult now for the white male punditry to escape the sunshine themselves. Hurrah!

Major props to Martin!

Perhaps because other commenters continue to feed him? Don't ask me why...

Maybe it's another case of I/we "can save this one (shooter)," but I am skeptical. (There was a relevant stranded starfish anecodote in another comment on some other thread, I think.)

Maybe try changing the topic just a bit? Not much, though... not off-topic.

Splitsville

I used to have a crush on Norah O'Donnell. What was I thinking? She's nothing but a crappy-headed Bush ho.

-- Sonofabastard

I don't care if you think she's stupid (I don't like her either) but I'm really sick and tired of the "ho" comments. They are unnecessary. If you can't make your point in some other fashion, perhaps it is also unnecessary.

What Imus' firing represents to me, is that maybe we are seeing the beginning of a paradigm shift in the entertainment media: that selling stereotypes for big profits can no longer be defended. That can only be a good thing.

-- owenpm

[Read owenpm's other letters]

Perhaps it will also become less profitable to consolidate so much media power under so few umbrellas, since it raises the financial stakes so much. (And the CEOs seem unable to foresee the (financial) impact of events like Imus's blunder.) Wouldn't it be wonderful if one by-product of this fracas was an eventual deconsolidation of BigMedia? Or, if this one event is not enough, perhaps a few more like it can push the Media toward the tipping point. [I've been waiting for a while for bigger signs that BigMedia's bubble was finally going to burst...]

I think our two thoughts are connected... but it's late, and will have to wait for a clearer head.