I agree with your defense of freedom of speech, in that only the government can censure while the public may speak out, including via boycott to protest anyone, regardless of popularity, and the ability to broadcast over a public medium is not necessary to exercise freedom of speech but a privilege. However, as a young man of color with two sisters I must criticize your view that blatantly bigoted rap targeting (black) women and girls is completely different than Imus' rant. Do you even listen to rap or see videos? How can you so casually dismiss anti-female slurs being used as synonyms (bitch, ho, trick, etc.) or the openly violent extremism glamorized in rap, including the raping, torturing, enslavement, and killings of women and girls as the staple of the most influential force in global pop culture?!

Rap succeeds because it exploits our deep-seated assumption that women and girls are not human. How else could we routinely trivialize bigotry as "disrespect," as if intolerance and hate were mere rudeness? Or allow the casual use of anti-female slurs with the false pretext of (female) misbehavior, reinforcing the belief that men can serve as infallible judge, jury, and executioner of women and girls on the basis of (inherent) immorality? Only when society distorts sexism and misogyny as bad manners can bigotry easily blur into no-holds-barred "truth."

Anyone who believes Imus' comments merit a harsh rebuke must fiercely attack rappers who enjoy global admiration, especially by young men, because they ruthlessly dehumanize and demonize (black) women and girls, which normalizes male violent oppression. The level of violent hatred unleashed towards those who happen to commit the sin of being born a girl in rap is on par with the ultra-violent hate of neo-Nazi music (Compare: "Fuck a whore with a knife" with "Doesn't it feel good to kill a kike?"). Dre, Snoop, Eminem and others express the sadistic bigot's point of view, justifying and strengthening the violent hate of their massive audiences.

Hate speech itself does not cause bigotry to fluorish, but the legitimization of such overt incitement of hate as "entertainment" by society at large ensures it deepens and spreads unchecked with women and girls suffering the consequences.

Knight-Ridder got the story right in 2002: the case for war was built on sheer lies. How did they pull of such an apparent miracle? By asking questions and reading the administration's justification for invasion with healthy skepticism (Imagine that: realizing that going to war requires critical thinking, considering the magnitude of such an act).

I don't trust any of those cowards, except Obama, who risked his political career by audaciously calling the war a dangerous mistake and being smart enough to notice how deep Iraqi religious divides could easily explode into all-out conflict. We need someone who in a Cuban Missile Crisis-type scenario would be a JFK: brave enough to go against even his own advisors to serve the best interest of our country. Obama is it.

That 60 Minutes interview proved to be a sad expose on the true nature of Tenet: a man so desperate for a crumb of power that he would willingly risk national security and the credibility of the CIA; a man so self-absorbed he refuses to this day to recognize he was directly responsible for the fixing of intelligence by bullying agents who dared to be objective and follow the facts. He actually believes he is the victim in all this.

One moment stuck in my mind: he defended himself by stressing his work concerned not the "truth" but what he believed to be true, but when the interviewer reminded him that the case he brought before the UN in justifying a pre-emptive strike on a country that did not attack the US was presented as iron-clad he just yelled at him, never addressing the obvious discrepancy. Compare his behavior w/ how Plame handled herself and you see a chasm in sheer competance and character.

First of all, just because the Bush administration is a catastrophe doesn't mean that one shouldn't speak out against other injustices. What nonsense it is to say you can't fight back against bigotry because of the mess in Iraq, as if somehow you are not doing your all against Bush if you dare oppose anything else. "Iraq" has become the apologists' "support the troops" in terms of silencing opposition by diverting attention and shaming the opponent.

Second, Don Imus is more than vulgar--he's a bigot. Worse, his popularity proved his bigotry is considered legitimate by the masses. Don Imus is a symbol of a much greater problem: the widespread celebration of intolerance and hatred against women and girls. We don't just tolerate or accept it--we demand it. Vulgarity is a euphemism apologists such as Garrison "Gays sure are odd" Keillor use to excuse bigotry against women and girls as just frank sexuality. Just as extremists use the power of religion to spread hate (think: Jerry Falwell), those who have an intolerance (even hatred) for women and girls use sex.

Lastly, you normally don't hear grown men lashing out, unprovoked, at young, college-age women with the vitriol Imus showed. But even if they do, the status-quo is not an excuse. You wouldn't excuse anti-Semitism in Iranian society simply because it's so pervasive, would you? Perhaps if they draped it in sexuality you'd just dismiss it as vulgar.

Live Earth and its inevitable use of tons of energy to make us aware of global warming (a task already accomplished by "An Inconvenient Truth") reminds me of Prince Charles booking a charter flight to fly over to NYC to pick up his environmentalism award, instead of accepting it via satellite. Hilarious, really.