Mr. Imus was fired not so much because his comments were deplorable, but because he's AGGRAVATING to the corporate dictum.

They had to spend the last week fielding firebombs lobbed at them on acount of Imus's bullshit. Their publicity department had to spend their days and evenings explaining Imus's continued presence. Their advertisers pulled the plug, some really BIG advertisers in a very tight money market. Those advertisers not only fed the Imus machine, but also the MSNBC bigwigs down to the cleaning service.

The Rutgers' ladies was the tipping point for Imus (see his greatest hits that I've attached). Yep, it only LOOKED as if Imus was getting away with "being offensive to everyone". But just like the "funny uncle" who's been feeling up the kids at every family event until one kid loudly calls him out on (it)and the adults remember their rubdowns and ban him from every future family event, Imus doesn't get (IT) because "I've been doing the same (crappy) act for years and no one came after me". Well, he had his day, and now it's over.

This whole defense that he shouldn't be removed because of free speech? What about the public's right to be insulted and call for his head when he goes too far? What about the right of public dissention and community decency standards? Those conservative voices that defend him are only pissed off because there's one less altar where they can hear themselves talk. One less microphone taking in their drone. Last week those same "freedom of speech folks" (hello, Michael Medved and Dennis Prager) wanted Rosie O'Donnell's head and firing for her declaration that Building 7 in 911 was blown up by the US government. She's a dingbat and bomb thrower just like Imus, so what's the difference - except one's a drinking buddy and shares their ideology.

Good riddance to Imus. I'm an African-American female. I could give a damn if MSNBC kept him around or not. But as a business owner, if I had to spend my days and evenings defending his "right" and then having to quickly find the money to cover the income lost on account of his big mouth, then he's gone, I don't care what he said.

I wonder if some of the Imus defenders actually know anything about the 1st amendment. Imus can scream all the racial invectives he wants on his ranch, but he does it at work and suffers consequences for his actions, too bad, so sad! The 1st amendment is not an omnipotent clause that protects you from personnel action by a private company, it protects you from government action. If I wanted to come into my office and go around and call people derogatory names and those people complained and I got disciplined by my management, I doubt my screaming about my 1st amendment rights will cut it.

I believe we are missing something in the Imus story.

Any statement that depends on degrading epithets to make a point--humorous or not--is rooted in a culture of arch cynicism. Cynicism is employed to diminish another person's viewpoint and their credibility. It belittles the needs and goals of others in order for the perpetrator to remain smugly superior. But like any self-imposed disease, maintaining a perpetually cynical smirk has consequences.

I heard a sermon years ago which made this point: cynicism is an indication of a lack of hope. Cynics seem to have a low tolerance of the expression of hope. Imus and his producer McGuirk, knowingly or unknowingly tried to crush the excitement of the Rutgers team through their racism, misogyny and cynicism. Given the 'insight' they had thanks to their cynical world view, this wasn't a team of women who worked hard and accomplished something. They were just tough nappy headed 'hos with tattoos. Imus and McGuirk could smirk and remain superior and aloof as most do with such an affliction. It wasn't as if they'd have to make an accounting for what they said...hardly ever had to before. After all, our culture seems to relish the diminishing of others. Or so they thought.

Could it be that we are turning a corner? Are we making the negation of others through name-calling and marginalizing something that isn't so chic after all? Could it be that we are starting to rediscover that everyone gets to have something to look forward to and to celebrate and not just wealthy, straight, white men with their own radio show? While I'm uncertain of the impact on her, even Ann Coulter lost a few papers with her odd, homophobic and mean-spirited rip on John Edwards. Maybe we have grown up and grown weary of fear mongering and finger pointing. Could this be a move toward being more civil?

Civility and civilization itself are rooted in hope. Hope is what oxygenates the soul and gives us a reason to take another breath. Cynicism kills the soul through its antagonism toward joy and the celebration of accomplishment. Maybe the answer is for more of us to stop assuming cynicism is an indicator of cleverness. Instead, it is a cry coming from a pained soul, empowered when it can drag more of us into the darkness.

Amen.

But why can't I shake the feeling that of the 3 of them, Isaiah Washington, Mel Gibson and Imus -- Imus was the least truly bigoted and yet the most penalized?

War is a very profitable adventure in some circles. Therefore our government has an obligation to those shareholders to always be attacking someone.

-- Wesley_Powell

How can I number the problems with this statement...

1. Governments wage war and are not corporations beholdened to shareholders. Governments have an obligation, I would argue, to its citizens, since it doesn't have shareholders. Since war is a horribly expensive enterprise, I would argue that exactly the opposite is true.

However, you seem to be describing the Bush Regime, in which case you are exactly correct. War is profitable for the government's constituents [read: Halliburton] so the government cooks up an excuse to enrich its constituency.

2. Governments are [supposed to be] restricted in their actions by a constitution. At lease ours is.

3. Imus isn't in trouble with the government.

4. Imus hasn't killed anyone. That I know of.

What we have here is a failure to understand the competing loyalties between a government [the people], and private corporations [the shareholders]. While it is important for the government to display fidelity to the constitution and not limit a person's right to free speech, a private company has no such contract with its employees. An employee may be fired if his conduct is detrmental in any way to the company. One would argue that this is the case here. However, Imus is in a special group of employees that have been historically wildly profitable over the years. For the sake of their constituents [the shareholders], it is incumbent upon CBS radio and MSNBC to weigh the cost of keeping him with the potential benefits.

Looking at this any other way is simply naive.