One point point that struck me was some thing of an irony. Don Imus is a shock Jock, his job by definition is to be as offensive as possible to as many people as possible via race, color or creed. So in essence he was fired for what he was hired to do in first place. There is something dreadfully wrong with that logic. Or maybe something even more reprehensible. You can say anything you wish against the hispanics, the native americans, the politicians local or other wise, but god help you if you ever say any thing about the afro americans.

If I may, let me speak a moment about the first americans. A race of people that was al;most totally inilated by the government. Even today the moment they make any marginal success the government steps in and try's to take it away from them. Through all this they maintain a level of dignity. No million marches, no congresses of race. They keep their spiritual levels and traditions. They don't walk around crying the blues about how bad "Da white man treat dem". They just get on with their lives poorly, but they go foreward.

These whining, crying afro's could take a lesson these first american. Show a little class, work from the inside and remember you may have suffered injustices, but entire nations of your peoples where not slaughtered in the middle night. Grow up and go foreward.

Having followed Mr. Sharpton's checkered career, I would say, what ever would allow him the most frequent sound bites and a substantial remuneration. Al's philosophy is "pay for da private school'en and keep dem Georgio's coming".

As a liberal and yes Bill Maher, a proud elitist in the current definition of the word, I find myself mostly alone in my gut feeling that firing Imus was the wrong move. Were his words reprehensible? Yes, and this is hardly the first time that he and his crew have been offensive. Did the African American community have every reason and right to castigate him? Obviously. But perhaps the most profound event that took place in response to Imus' slander was the press conference with the student athletes, who gave a face to all of those undeserving of the kind of ugly, knee-jerk slights based on nothing more than an acceptance of ingrown ignorance, which happen every day all across America to innocent victims of prejudice. That the young women were so obviously superior to the culture they live in was moving, but not surprising. What was unusual was their genuine response, including a willingness to listen to the man who so thoughtlessly insulted them. The resulting dialogue, which we were not privileged to hear, was the kind of conversation that needs to be aired. Clearly the old models of dueling talking heads, in your face protests and boycotts and even firings have not had enough of an impact.

It comes down to what makes people change their minds, attitudes and/or behaviors? I'm convinced that seeing the actual participants, the grizzled shock jock publicly shamed, the young women's reaction, and statements by and interviews with their defenders, many of whom we don't usually see on television, will in the end have had more impact than any decision the networks made about Imus and his show. Sure, the fact that he was fired might scare some other offensive radio and tv personalities into toning down their acts, but is that really the point? Isn't the goal to continue a national dialogue on prejudice and, as Jackson and Sharpton suggested, to see much more diversity in the media, both behind the scenes and on air? In that context, I fail to see how firing Imus helped. If given the choice between convincing the networks to set up a program to actively recruit minority students from high schools and colleges to work in broadcasting or firing offensive on air personalities, which would Al Sharpton choose?

The impulse in this culture seems to be to toss people out, rather than to go through the uncomfortable stage of making the accused go through the process of owning up to a mistake, really exploring what happened and being allowed to correct it, if possible. Instead it's all about damage control in the form of apology and/or "unfortunate" decisions made by higher ups. By not taking that extra step, we the audience are being deprived of watching a process that could be really instructive. Might it not have been more educational to give Imus and his producers some time to figure out how to respond on air and ultimately, how to make the show work, or not work without the ugly bits? Wouldn't it have been more interesting to see an awkward Imus eat humble pie as he talked to guests willing to be on his program and suffered the indignity of having many of them refuse, than to see him leave with his tail between his legs? The irony is that unlike people such as Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh, who are unrepentent, would go down fighting and whose audiences would never protest their ugly rhetoric, Imus judged himself indefensible and attracted an audience that spoke up in anger and disgust.

Some how I find it difficult to categorize Thomas Paine as a fool, but any individual who extirpates the english language to that degree is definatly not founding father material. To grow as a society we can not tread water, we must move forward. Living in the past and finding fault with our predecessors is being part of the problem. Those that wish to be seperatist and revel in their differences are doomed to digression.

I am reminded of a favorite 'willie the pimp ' quote " who dat fool saying nuttin over there...

Now Oprah has jumped on the " Let's all make a buck on Imus" band wagon. She will be hosting a healing session. Would someone please tell these people to get real. We live in a tough world and this kissy, kissy approach to life and living is wonderful if you're part of the Clever Family, but as I said this the real world not some novel from a sophomoric book club.