....that we haven't heard this whole thing being blamed on Bill Clinton yet.

MSNBC dropping Imus, and rappers continuing to rap, has to be emboldening the terrorists.

this woman needs some xanax baaaaad. she's a perfect example of someone who's NEVER listened to imus in her life. lenny the jew is one of bo's buddies..they all have names like tommy tomatos , etc. she is so busy defending the likes of h. clinton she can't take the time to laugh at anything. in fact, she probably doesn't have a sense of humor.

imus hasn't managed to stay on the air day after day for so many years by being a politically correct, humorless editorializer. go to NPR for that.

Dear Ms. Walsh:

I am truly saddened to hear about the tenor of your personal e-mail after your appearance on television yesterday, especially after you have instituted new policies here on Salon related to abusive e-mail. I am against hate speech in all forms.

However, one reason readers have been so upset on Salon is that some of us feel ignored. For the last three months, there have been countless requests for you to oversee Paglia on this site or remove her column; these requests and comments have seemingly been ignored by you. This, I'm sure, has caused some readers to feel powerless and facilitated their unacceptable resorts to "stronger" rhetorical modes in hopes of getting your attention.

As a feminist, for example, I would like to know how Paglia can label Maureen Dowd a "fagged out media scold" and you find that acceptable. I especially want to know how you defend Paglia's words in wake of Imus' racist comments. (For anyone who wants to defend Paglia by saying it wasn't offensive, perhaps you should look up the connotative and denotative values of "fagged out" in the OED)

Additionally, you have critized your Salon readers/letter writers for their unfair ad hominem attacks, yet that is what fills Paglia's columns. A most recent example would be her excoriation of Al Gore. Please explain how it is wrong for Salon readers to make ad hominem attacks, but right for Paglia? As a Premium member, I definitely do not want to support such ad hominem attacks in an ongoing column.

I'm hoping you can explain why there are seeming philosophical inconsistencies in what you "preach" as a writer and what you "practice" as an editor. Please write something which will help me understand your lack of support for Imus but your total support of Paglia.

Thank you.

...this: "Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton haven't merely attacked Imus; they've criticized misogynistic rappers as well."

I didn't know that. It would be good for me (and others like me who agree with you generally) to have some citations to back up your comment. I need them to convince others, and myself, that Jackson and Sharpton aren't merely self-serving on this issue. Their actions, as covered in the media available to me on a daily basis, leave your point in question.

Of course, this will be among the 80's in the comment section. Not much hope, eh?

For a better world...

I saw an NBC executive on Keith Olbermann's Countdown last night, explaining why MSNBC dropped the simulcast of Imus' show.

His claim that The Mgt. had no idea Imus was so offensive was about as convincing as Dick Cheney's claim that he'd never heard of Joe Wilson until Wilson's famous op-ed was published.

Have you ever read 'The Human Stain,' Joan? Or should I call you Delphine?

You are dead wrong in this case, for a number of reasons, and while I had gained some respect for you based on your appearances on 'Real Time,' you don't do so well on TV without a sympathetic moderator who flatters and cowtows to you because you allow him to plug his show regularly on Salon (in exchange, I assume, for the invitation to plug Salon on his show).

Here's my big problem with the 'firing' of Don Imus: it didn't happen because he no longer has an audience, and it didn't happen because his audience was offended by 'nappy headed hos' or any of the other offensive things he's been saying for the past two decades. It certainly didn't happen because MSNBC has suddenly decided that 'enough is enough' and it's time to take the high road. It happened because you, Al, Jesse, and the rest of the Puritans grabbed their torches and started screaming and whipping the villagers into a murderous frenzy. It happened because Imus' negligible MSNBC audience was not worth holding onto at the risk of facing a Rainbow/Push boycott and further castigation in our modern day Communist Tribunal, the blogosphere. And you, like all the others, are just a craven opportunist exploiting your smug self-righteousness to get more page hits.

You know, every week, I read stuff on Salon that is SO much more offensive in every imaginable way than the phrase 'nappy headed hos' or any other form of mockery. Imus is an equal-opportunity offender. Since it seems very important to you that women and racial minorities be treated equally, why don't you take it as a compliment? Imus will make fun of you too, just like EVERYONE ELSE, including many, many powerful white men. If I remember right, Imus was public enemy # 1 to the Clinton White House for months after his roasting of Big Bill. Stephen Colbert pulled the same stunt--insulting the President of the United States TO HIS FACE--and your website proudly posted several flattering articles and a 'video dog' segment featuring the whole tirade. Well, I severely dislike President Bush and his policies, but, as an old-school kid raised by a World War II veteran, I personally find it deeply offensive when someone publicly insults and humiliates the President of my country in the presence of his wife, a room full of colleagues, and, via digital media, the world--even if that president is doing a lousy job. It shows a lack of civility and decency that is not justified by the President's ample deficiencies, the greatest of which--the Iraq War--was supported by your favorite candidate, Mrs. Rodham-Clinton. But you all seem to think that sort of thing is completely appropriate (you also undermine your own cause, as many who might be swayed to your point of view ignore your valid criticisms of the White House because they are obscured by the adolescent mockery and ridicule purveyed by your slate of increasingly hysterical, hyperbole-spewing 'columnists').

And you know what? As much as you and Colbert and the many others who believe that there need be no restraint on mockery and humiliation of the President personally offend me, I'm more than happy to support your right to do it. I don't have to pay for it, though (although, stupidly, I used to). It's enough for me to click away, just like it should be enough for you to change the freakin' channel on the radio if you don't like what you're hearing.

I hate Imus and usually want to puke if I'm forced to listen to more than 30 seconds of his program. But a lot of people hated Lenny Bruce, too.

Here we are, in the 21st century, and the New Puritans are back again. Shame on you and all of your witch-hunting ilk.