Don Imus does not deserve to be hung in effigy by the likes of Al Sharpton and Keith Olbermann, who are black belts when it comes to drive-by attacks.
If ever a scene from Casablanca was relevant to a current news issue, it is the Don Imus affair.
You remember the scene. Corrupt police chief walks into a room, announces that he is shocked, shocked to discover there is gambling going on, and then gets handed his winnings, which he quickly pockets.
The latest surge of massive media outrage smells worse than New Jersey on a muggy day, particularly when the likes of Al Sharpton, Keith Olbermann and Jesse Jackson position themselves as the morality police. Give me a break.
Al Sharpton, you might recall, conspired in falsely accusing New York City police of attacking a young black woman. Jackson’s anti-Jewish slurs are so well-known that they bear no repeating. Keith Olbermann, as recently as yesterday, accused most of conservative talk radio of being racist – as if this is a fact beyond dispute.
What Don Imus said was wrong. He attacked innocent bystanders whose only offense was being good at basketball and succumbing perhaps to the popular tastes that are pushed on them daily. (Sorry, I just don't get tattoos). He deserved to be reprimanded and he owes the girls in question a sincere and heartfelt apology. He might even deserve a two-week suspension. He does not deserve to be hung in effigy by the likes of Sharpton and Olbermann, who are black belts when it comes to drive-by attacks.
Let’s be frank. Imus is a product of a popular culture that is controlled almost exclusively by liberal and leftist sensibilities. They push sexually explicit material at us and our children at every opportunity, and then they are shocked, shocked when pornography screams out of control, when children get abducted and raped, when homosexual priests indulge themselves as if it is their right. Read Gore Vidal, folks.
Many liberals talk about rap music and violence as if it is an artistic expression of justified rage (read Norman Mailer, folks), but then they are shocked, shocked when a self-appointed cool “shock jock” grabs the vernacular and weaves it into his morning discourse. As one commentator rightly observed, you can hear that kind of talk every night simply by tuning into one of the comedy channels.
Big mouths make fortunes in our country, but we are shocked, shocked that they push the envelope while genuinely thoughtful people are mostly ignored. And the cable news folks are shocked, shocked, though they show videos of murders, entertain allowing O.J. to publicly fantasize about how he would have murdered his wife, and treat Anna Nicole Smith’s death as if it were the second coming.
And just to show you how absurd it gets, we have Ann Coulter, another shock jock, siding with Snoop Dogg (whatever his name is) with this fine distinction: it’s okay when rappers use those words because, you know, they really are singing about, well, those kinds of women. (Now you know – Ann Coulter and Snoop Dogg can see into the souls of pathetic young girls who allow themselves to be used, and then abused, by the likes of Snoop, Hef, and, yes, Mr. Clinton.)
Let me suggest that the women of the world stand up and take notice. Those of you who think hanging out with rock stars, actors and rappers is endearing you to them, think again. You are being used. And once they use you, in their Clintonesque way, they will write songs or memoirs about what a terrible woman you are for letting them walk all over you.
This is the nature of the popular culture monster known as libertine morality and you and our nation had better get a clue before it is too late, before we destroy totally traditional morality and the family as we once knew it. These people are not your friends. They are shallow, hollow and greedy, and the thrill you get from being around them won’t last for more than an Andy Warhol moment.
Let me finish my own rant with a word that is politically incorrect. Sin. We all sin. We all are tempted – I am fairly sure – by at least one of the major seven, at least at different points in our lives. This is not an argument for all of us instantly becoming saints. It is not even an argument against sin. It is an argument for protecting our children who are pedestrians in the public square.
It is also an argument for calling things what they are. You commit adultery. You have sinned. You read a naughty magazine. You have sinned. You steal from your neighbor and you have sinned. You murder, rape, and abuse God’s creatures, you have sinned big time and must stand in judgment for your crimes.
God is merciful and no doubt will forgive those who are truly repentant, but Don Imus would have done himself a lot of good had he simply remembered the words of Jesus: what you do to the least of my brethren, you do unto me. I’m not the brightest guy around, but I suspect mistreating God’s creatures on a regular basis might even be worse than alienating a studio executive.
shadroui@yahoo.com
Read more articles by George Shadroui
What Imus said was undoubtedly wrong and in bad taste and the suspension was deserved. The question I have is how can people focus so much on these 3 words while they ignore the garbage Rosie spews forth about conspiracy theories and government murder of the victims of the 9/11 attacks! If Imus can be suspended and then fired over his comments, there is no way that woman should have her job.
Comment by scm9736 | April 13, 2007
scm9736:
I too wondered why no reporters have asked the same question. I guess the answer is, "all are equal; some are just more equal than others."
Let’s face it. The outrage is coming from the Looney Liberals, as Dr. Phillip Jackson is wont to calling them. Here are a few tidbits of liberal free speech wisdom which we have received from them down through the ages, especially when they produce, for example, such classics as “The Dung Madonna” and “The Piss Christ”:
– “Free speech means you are going to hear things that offend you.”
– “If you don’t like it, don’t watch it.”
– “Be prepared to have your most cherished beliefs challenged.” (Advice given to freshmen their first day of college. This is meant, of course, to apply only to conservative Christian students.)
Seems that the shoe does hurt when it is on the other foot.
Comment by sedonaman | April 13, 2007
Just one problem:
Ann Coulter isn't siding with Snoop Dogg on this one.
She mocked the speech police, and has said that if someone called her a "toe headed ho" it'd be funny. Her comment that what Imus did was wrong because the basketball players didn't deserve to be attacked, and weren't trying to be public figures hardly sets forth a double standard.
Comment by WolvenBear | April 13, 2007
Imus isn't the issue here. Free Speech is.
Make no mistake about it, Free Speech is under attack. The two rogues Sharpton and Jackson are only the tip of the iceberg. What is below the surface are the cadre of criminals we call politicians, who would like nothing better than to control what you can and can't say.
Start by looking at the politicians who are calling for Imus to be fired. But unfortunately they are not the only ones who want to see your rights to free speech squelched. A government that controls speech controls you. Just look at any totalitarians regime and an ungly picture starts to emerge. McCain-Feingold was just the opening shot.
If we don't recognize what is happening and work to stop it we will wind up like the old Soviet Union or any of the dozens of totalitarian nations around the world.
Americans better wake up or they'll wake up as serfs and slaves.
Comment by NHGrouch | April 13, 2007
"Imus isn't the issue here. Free Speech is."
This raises the question of rights. It seems to me that everyone was within their rights here. Imus had the right to say what he said, Sharpton et al had the right to protest, advertisers had the right to withdraw their adverstising, and MSNBC and CBS had to fire Imus.
In my judgment, many people were too easily offended by Imus. When an old, white radio talk show host, known for his brash humor, speaks as Imus did, it should be clear that he intentionally being ridiculous for comedic purposes. But regardless of what I think, everybody has the right to be offended. And while they don't have the right to get the government to punished those who offend them, they certainly do have the right to protest and to threaten to withold their dollars from corporations associated with the offenders. And corporations have the right not to employ people whom, in their judgment, will be a financial burden.
I much prefer this arrangement, whereby the market decides what speech gets broadcast, than an arrangement in which government intervenes–either on behalf of the offended or on behalf of the offender.
In short, though I don't like the hyper-sensitivity that induced protests against Imus, I see no threat to freedom here. And I certainly don't worry that I'll wake up in serfdom or slavery.
Comment by Katzen | April 13, 2007
NHGrouch and Katzen:
Catholic League president Bill Donohue observes that Bill Maher can go on TV and say anything foul he wants about the Catholic church, and complaints fall on deaf ears. Letters to TV executives are answered by accolades extolling the merits of “artistic freedom” and “tolerance.” Donohue concludes that Catholic bashers have been spared Imus’ fate because, “Catholic bashing is humorous and an exercise in liberty. Racism is awful. Bigotry, then, is neither good nor bad – it just depends who the target is.” http://www.catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_2/070411_imus.htm
In other words, some are more equal than others.
Comment by sedonaman | April 14, 2007
Sedonaman,
Equality has nothing to do with this, nor should it. HBO made a calculation, and determined Maher would still be a profitable investment. NBC made a calculation, and determined that Imus would no longer be a profitable investment.
The reason you think there is a double standard is that you're using the wrong standard. The standard used for determining whether somebody is going to be fired is this: If the employee's speech causes such great offense among the offended as to threaten the employer's profits, the employee will be fired. Catholics (to their credit) are, as a whole, less offended by Maher than blacks are by Imus. If Donohue wants anti-Catholics in the media to be treated the same as racists, he needs to encourage his co-religionists to be more easily offended.
But a man who once said, "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular" shouldn't be so damn keen to promote hyper-sensitivity.
Comment by Katzen | April 14, 2007
Katzen:
I guess you never read Animal Farm so you missed the point.
“The reason you think there is a double standard is that you're using the wrong standard.”
The standard I’m using has nothing to do with determining whether or not somebody gets fired. When I hear liberal/Leftists say things like, “Free speech means you are going to hear things that offend you,” I don’t expect “you” to mean “Catholics”, “white males”, or some other “oppressor” group, so visions of the hypocrisy illustrated in Animal Farmkick in. If we’re going to have free speech, the standard, however defined, should be the same for everyone. For example, if the standard is that it’s OK to feed bigotry as long as there is some market for it, then so be it. No group should then complain of being offended.
As a Catholic, I am generally not offended by people like Maher, et al – I exercise my right to self-censorship and go get a life. I also think that Donohue is a little over-the-top on some issues. However, on this one, I think he’s right on when he says, “. . .it just depends who the target is.”
I am also opposed to ANY group becoming more easily offended because, “When you increase the sensitivity, you increase the false alarm rate.” That’s what this Imus flap is, nothing more than another false alarm designed to breathe more oxygen into the “Victim Industrial Complex” that makes shake-downs possible by keeping racial tensions alive and high.
“…a man who once said, ‘Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular’ shouldn't be so damn keen to promote hyper-sensitivity.”
The same line of reasoning should apply to blacks. If they are going to indulge in misogynistic, disrespectful speech about their own women, they shouldn’t be so quick to condemn others for doing the same.
Rather than engaging in faux sensitivity, they should become less favored and less sensitive by getting a life.
Comment by sedonaman | April 14, 2007
I missed your point, not because of my reading habits, but because of your writing habits. You wrote, "Donohue concludes that Catholic bashers have been spared Imus’ fate because, 'Catholic bashing is humorous and an exercise in liberty. Racism is awful. Bigotry, then, is neither good nor bad – it just depends who the target is.'" Since you were talking about "Imus' fate," I assumed that you saw a double standard in determining that he would be fired. If I haven't read Animal Farm, how can you expect me to read your mind?
"Rather than engaging in faux sensitivity, they should become less favored and less sensitive by getting a life."
Couldn't agree more, and I said as much in my first post. I have just sought to establish the following points:
1. There is no free speech issue here, because everybody involved is a private actor under no obligation to do business with any other private actor.
2. Imus' firing was a market response, and the market has no obligation to produce equal outcomes for all alleged bigots.
The problem with complaining about people getting offended too easily is that there is nothing you or I can do about it. There is also nothing you or I can do about the double standard in question. Anti-black racism, because of our history, is, for the forseeable future, going to generate more discomfort that other bigotries. I don't want to get into an argument about whether this is justified, but it is certainly understandable.
Donohue's point about a bigoted joke's acceptability depending on whom it is aimed at is correct, but uninteresting. In certain contexts, certain jokes will be unacceptable. (Imagine making an anti-Semitic joke in late 1945. You can bet there would have been a double standard). Now, I understand that none of this necessarily justifies the particular double standard employed in the Imus affair, but I think it needs to be said that a double standard is not an absolute evil.
Comment by Katzen | April 14, 2007
Katzen,
Here's what the problem is: Black "leaders" like Rev. Al and Jesse Jackson use terror and mob tactics to coerce companies into firing people they disagree with politically. The market didn't decide whether Imus was still profitable or not, because he was jerked off the air and suspended immediately, and then promptly fired after that. I'm deeply offended by the racist bile that Rev. Al spews out of his mouth on his radio program, but I don't go down to the station with 30 TV news reporters and stage a protest, I don't harass and threaten studio bosses and advertisers and picket his studio until he his fired. Even if I wanted to I couldn't, because no one would give me the time of day. In other words, I don't have the power to force Rev. Al off the airwaves despite the fact that I am deeply offended by his racist bile. That's what the problem is. If Imus were on the air right now, his audience would still be there and his market for his advertisers would still be there. He's said much worse than "nappy headed ho" in the past and still managed to bring in money for the company. The market has supported the man and his off-color type of humor for nearly 40 years. What took Imus off the air was pressure from two blatant and unabashed racists - NOT the market. Granted, his advertisers and network do have every right to fire him for any reason they want - including cowing to pressure from two race-baiting bullies with no integrity who should have not a shred of credibility left. But let's not pretend like America was so outraged at this comment that his advertisers and network had no choice but to fire him.
And the double standard in this case is absurd. To compare it to post-Holocaust anti-semitism is ridiculous. This was a COMEDY show. It's not like they caught him backstage saying the other "N" word (I say the other "N" word, since "Nappy" is apparently off-limits now too) to a black staffer or something. It was a joke about a sports team. In regards to the article: I don't think Imus is going to go to hell for saying "nappy headed ho". Maybe for a lot of other things, but not that. This is nothing but PC bullying and it's sickening and stupid.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | April 14, 2007
Katsen,
I have one small disagreement here. The decision to fire Imus wasn't made over whether or not he was still profitable (if it was, they surely would not have replaced him with his wife), in the sense that his ability to continue drawing an audience, but in the cost benefit anaylsis of whether or not it was worth it to face the inevitable lawsuits, shut downs, and other lovely nicities that always follow Sharpton and Jackson when they get offended.
Therein lies the problem. If you have to worry about being sued just because someone got offended, then you're not really excercizing your rights of employment. Much like the ACLU, the underlying message is "cave to our demands or we'll sue you into oblivion". Even if the station wins, it has to spend ridiculous amounts of money defending itself against something that should never have made it to court in the first place.
As we saw with the Michael Richards fiasco, the underlying goal is to terrify certain people about speaking out in public, or as Al Sharpton puts it "making sure some people can't say somethings" or "it's about deciding what can and can't be said in public." This is why many of us see this as a threat to freedom of speech.
I think this is why liberalism and Islam get along so well. They both seek to enforce dhimmitude against the opposition, they just have different targets.
Comment by WolvenBear | April 15, 2007
Can anyone tell me (WolvenBear, for example) when the ACLU was on the wrong side of an issue? The only "demands" I have ever seen them make were for the protection of our Constitutional rights. Please give me some cases where they weren't. Tanks
Comment by tom cook | April 15, 2007
See: any case of "seperation of church and state". They sue the pants off of school districts and small governments because of crosses on seals, and christmas carols.
See: any stance they take on illegal immigration.
See: defense of NAMBLA.
http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/contraception/29281prs20070405.html
They're suing a pharamacist (private business) over refusing to provide emergency contraceptives.
The ACLU has long been a champion of the laws charging abortion clinic protestors with racketeering. They fight against private Christian and Jewish groups being allowed to use public land (a right guaranteed under the first amendment), but demand that athiest and other groups be allowed access.
Honestly, it's easier to list the times the ACLU has been right, as opposed to all the bad things they back.
Comment by WolvenBear | April 15, 2007
"The decision to fire Imus wasn’t made over whether or not he was still profitable (if it was, they surely would not have replaced him with his wife) …"
Friday was the last day of a charity telethon hosted by Imus. Since he was fired on Thurdsay, the gutless execs in charge of programming offered his wife the hosting position to preserve continuity.
Had it not been for the telethon, no one from the Imus family would have been on the radio Friday. You therefore cannot draw any inference from this fact about the "profitability" of the Imus show entering into the decision one way or another.
I'll have more to say about the whole Imus charade in an essay to be posted soon.
Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | April 15, 2007
Katzen:
"I think it needs to be said that a double standard is not an absolute evil."
I guess the only absolutes there are in this life are death and taxes. Having said that, I think that a double standard is generally dangerous for several reasons. First, it creates the animosity it is designed to eliminate. An overreaction by blacks will induce a counter overreaction in white attitudes. And second, there are no limits. Under this double standard, it might be OK to bash Catholics but not blacks. How low can the Catholic bashing go and still be acceptable? Down to, but not including a Kristallnacht? Down to and including a Kristallnacht? Down to a Kristallnacht and beyond? Meanwhile, blacks will sense that they are exmempt from any standard of decency, engage in all kinds of outrageous behavior with impunity, and have no motivation to better themselves, the situation we find ourselves in today. Then you have to consider what will happen to the Jews. If society can make life miserable for a large number of Catholics, the relatively small number of Jews will be the next to suffer. And in fact, this is already happening on university campuses.
Comment by sedonaman | April 15, 2007
tom cook:
"Can anyone tell me (WolvenBear, for example) when the ACLU was on the wrong side of an issue? The only 'demands' I have ever seen them make were for the protection of our Constitutional rights. Please give me some cases where they weren’t."
It all depends on what you think is the "wrong" side of an issue. I think they are always on the wrong side of an issue because they have an agenda that is obvious by the cases they defend, which happen to be the ones that most tear apart the fabric of society. The NAMBLA case mentioned by WolvenBear above is a perfect example. Does the First Amendment protection of free speech mean someone can teach others how to kidnap, rape, and murder small boys? I think not. Heather MacDonald states in "What We Don't Know Can Hurt Us", "The ACLU came very close to saying there is no such thing as a legitimate police investigaiton." I think she was just being polite.
The ACLU obviously believes it is always on the "right" side of an issue. One politician said it depends on whose ox is being gored. However, if by "wrong" side you mean they lost a case, there are some. The most recent involved a religious display on public grounds in Mercer County, KY. The ACLU went out and found someone who was "offended" by the display and sued. (Client mining is common.) They lost in lower court; and on appeal, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said, "The test is not whether someone is offended by the display, but whether a reasonable person could look at it and see an "establishment" of religion. Since the court's opinion was that such a person would not, it ruled against the ACLU, adding that the ACLU's use of the "separation of church and state" argument had grown "tiresome".
You might want to research their founder Roger Baldwin. He had some revealing comments about his opinion of organized government.
Comment by sedonaman | April 15, 2007
Mr. Mulligan and WolvenBear,
I'm no fan of Rev. Sharpton, and I've been clear that I wish he and his followers were not so easily provoked. Everyone needs to lighten up, in my opinion. Unfortunately, it is beyond my power (or yours) to compell them to do so.
What the advertisers feared were not lawsuits or "terror", but boycotts. Boycotts are recognized as a legitimate use of market power, whereby potential consumers express their displeasure by withholding their dollars. Though I wish this right were exercised less frequently, it is nonetheless a right. MSNBC and CBS, being corporations with obligations to their shareholders, could not afford to continue to give airtime to a program with no advertisers. So I reject the notion that Sharpton, contemptible as he may be, impinged on anyone's rights here.
To clarify, I did not compare Imus' comment to post-Holocaust anti-semitism, and I was very careful not to do so. I only brought up the issue of post-Holocaust anti-semitism to demonstrate why, sometimes, double standards are both unavoidable and appropriate.
Sedonaman,
Obviously, bashing any group to the point of Kristallnacht is unacceptable. And your points about the dangers of double standards (which you concede apply "generally") are well-taken. Nonetheless, my agreement with you about these general dangers is reconcilable with my opinion that historical and social context can render certain jokes about certain groups less acceptable than similarly derogatory jokes about other groups. I'm not entirely certain about the appropriateness of the double standard applied in Imus' case. But insults cannot be judged in a vaccuum–they must be judged in context.
I'm a little unnerved by the passion on all sides (including the side complaining about double standards) that the frivilous issues at hand excite. I'm tempted agree with Andrew Sullivan's reader, whom he quotes on his blog:
"The world is full of double standards. Congratulations, you found another one. Now, why again is it that it pisses you off that you can't say the n-word without being labeled a racist?"
Comment by Katzen | April 15, 2007
Katzen,
It's silly to say that the stations had no fear of lawsuits. Both Sharpton and Jackson tend to sue people who don't instantly cave into their demands. It's much easier to convince a sympathetic judge to award ridiculous amounts of money than it is to convince large groups of people to continuously stay away from a product they use on a regular basis.
While boycotts in general aren't terribly successful for the above reason, under Sharpton and Jackson they fail completely (look at KFC, Anhauser Busch and Seinfeld).
No, they were afraid of lawsuits.
You ask why people are so inflamed and the answer is simple:
Freedom of speech means you have the right to say idiotic and downright offensive things. The goal of Sharpton and his ilk is to "decide what can and can't be said". This is unacceptable. You can assure us that certain groups are off limits, but they aren't. Condi Rice can be called a house n*gger by Ted Rall, but a ethnically mixed basketball team can't be called nappy headed? This is a downright assinine double standard.
If you want to know why we are so against this, here's the perfect example:
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-8/117644437287180.xml&coll=1
The comments came during a board discussion Wednesday about dealing with troubled students, those often diagnosed with behavioral disorders whose actions disrupt the classroom. The issue has been a hot topic in recent months as the system establishes alternative classrooms for students who commit drug or weapons violations or are involved in an incident in which they cause bodily injury.
During the discussion, following another board member's suggestion to seek reimbursement for the expenses of running the special classrooms, Katsanis said the district should look into suing the parents of children whose behavior costs the system money.
He specifically pointed to workers' compensation cases where students have injured educators.
"I don't care if we have to sue and all we get is that Cadillac or their SUV that they bought out of their SSI money, the crazy money," Katsanis said. "If that's all we get, that's enough."
SSI refers to the federal Supplemental Security Income program, which provides parents with money to take care of their children with disabilities. Katsanis' comment elicited a few grumblings from audience members and board members, but no one publicly chided him.
On Thursday, however, School Board member Alvin Boudreaux released a written statement criticizing the comments.
"His remarks were insensitive and border on the line of prejudice," said Boudreaux, the board's lone black member.
The issue is very much about freedom of speech, and the very real effort to silence it, to impose liberal dhimmitude on ourselves.
There. Was. Nothing. Racist. About. Don. Imus's. Remarks. Period.
Yet, he loses his job, his livlihood, is now blacklisted (at least for the moment) for saying something that offended black people (automatically racist). If this lame standard is what we use to define "acceptable speech", we're just begging for more of the like.
Why not those who decry racial preferences? They MUST hate blacks. Or those who are against welfare. They're obviously racist. Or those who think parents of problem children should pay the extra cost their children incur. MUST be talking about blacks…
Comment by WolvenBear | April 15, 2007
"What the advertisers feared were not lawsuits or “terror”, but boycotts. Boycotts are recognized as a legitimate use of market power, whereby potential consumers express their displeasure by withholding their dollars. Though I wish this right were exercised less frequently, it is nonetheless a right. MSNBC and CBS, being corporations with obligations to their shareholders, could not afford to continue to give airtime to a program with no advertisers. So I reject the notion that Sharpton, contemptible as he may be, impinged on anyone’s rights here."
You're being more than a little naive here. Go google "Tawana Brawley" and tell me that Al Sharpton doesn't exercise less than upright tactics to get his way. The network caved to RACIAL pressure, NOT market pressure. Sharpton uses tactics a lot like old unions to coerce network execs and advertisers. Kind of like how Jesse Jackson uses greenmail tactics via his Rainbow/PUSH coalition, threatening companies with racially based lawsuits unless they make a nice "contribution". Seriously, how many of Imus' listeners do you think are black, and of them, how many do you think were really so offended by that comment that they would boycott Imus' advertisers? And once again, let me reiterate that the market wasn't able to produce a response to Imus' comments, because he was jerked off the air before any reaction could be judged. Imus' listeners and advertisers have tolerated him saying "rag head", "towel head", and referring to a hispanic news reporter as "the cleaning lady", off the top of my head. That's the kind of show that he does. His advertisers and the network dropped support for the show after having a private meeting with Rev. Al. Something tells me the threats they faced from him were more than the boycott of a handful of black activists who don't listen to the Imus show anyway. Of course it could have all been a nice sit-down meeting with rational people talking about rational issues. Heck, it could have taken place in Candyland. But let's be honest with ourselves.
“The world is full of double standards. Congratulations, you found another one. Now, why again is it that it pisses you off that you can’t say the n-word without being labeled a racist?”
Hmmm, I don't recall Imus having said the "N" word (unless, of course, Nappy is the new "N" word). And even if he had, let me ask you what the word "racist" means? Here's the dictionary definition:
"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."
Now using that standard, couldn't I theoretically call someone "nigger" without believing that my race is superior to theirs, or that they are inferior because of their skin color? Why is it somehow better to call a person some other explicit word? Why is it "hatespeech" to say "nigger", but not to say" a**hole" or "mother f***er" or some other such offensive and hurtful word? You'll have to explain that to me, because no, I absolutely don't understand why a white person who says the "N" word is automatically a racist. Anymore than a Hispanic person who calls white people "gringo", or a white person who calls another white person a "Mick" or "Wop". And here's the thing: If white people who say "nigger" are racists, then why aren't black people who say "cracker-ass whiteboy", or "Hymietown", or accuse prominent white politicians and police of being hate mongers who rape and beat little black girls, why aren't they equally as racist? Why does Al Sharpton still get his mug on TV everytime there's a black person within 20 feet of a TV news camera? Why is his reputation still in tact, and in fact, he's given more credibility than ever? Does David Duke command respect in any serious community? Does he appear on TV discussing racial issues? No. And to be honest, he hasn't said things even half as hateful as Sharpton or Jackson have. Why should that double standard be ignored? Why should people "just get over it"? If we're going to say that, shouldn't we say that people should have "just got over" segregation? No. That double standard is NOT okay, and no, people should not just "get over it".
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | April 16, 2007
Mr. Mulligan and WolvenBear,
On what grounds could Rev. Sharpton have possibly sued? Unlike the Tawana Brawley affair, there was not even an alleged sexual assault. I'm sorry, but I see no evidence whatsoever that there would have been a lawsuit had Imus stayed on the air.
Yes, using the dictionary definition of "racist," you could argue that you are not racist for calling someone a "nigger" or a "nappy-headed ho." But there is no reason for you to use either of these terms unless you are a racist, so you can't get all righteously indignant when someone makes that assumption. Check out William F. Buckley's "In Search of Antisemitism" articles, in which he notes that there is nothing a priori disrespectful about not standing for the national anthem, but that people make a legitimate and natural assumption that someone who does not stands is doing so out of disrespect.
"If white people who say 'nigger' are racists, then why aren't black people who say 'cracker-ass whiteboy,' or 'Hymietown,' or accuse prominent white politicians and police of being hate mongers who rape and beat little black girls, why aren't they equally as racist?"
In my opinion, they are.
"Why does Al Sharpton still get his mug on TV everytime there's a black person within 20 feet of a TV news camera?"
Because, as I said, Imus was not fired simply for being a racist. Had his comment not produced the threat of boycotts, it still would have been equally racist, but it would not have gotten him fired. Your mystification here is easily relieved by my explanation.
Comment by Katzen | April 16, 2007
Katzen:
“…why again is it that it pisses you off that you can’t say the n-word without being labeled a racist?”
I thought my explanation was adequate. It’s not that being labeled a racist for using the n-word that irritates me; it’s the fact that a prominent figure from a favored group can say a morally equivalent thing and not suffer the same fate. The fact that there are even favored groups is even more irritating. It is a result of what most people call “political correctness” which Robert Bork once defined as “authoritarian liberalism.”
I can remember a time when people were much more civil toward each other than they are now, when one of the worst things you could say about a black person was that he was “black.” Then came the cultural revolt of the ‘60s. Its generation’s message was, “you don’t have to care what others think about you.” And when you don’t care what others think about you, you don’t care about others. That’s the society we have now.
Comment by sedonaman | April 16, 2007
Sedonaman,
As for your first paragraph, explaining what irritates you, I partially sympathize. Two points, however. First, I can see how, given our history, some people find the expression of anti-black racism more problematic than the expression of certain other bigotries. And while I think this double standard is often slippery, it is, to some limited extent, justified. Second, even if it were not for the double standard, the punishment given is directly proportional to the amount of offense caused. And the amount of offense caused is dependent upon how easily offended are the targets of a joke. If you want to complain that people are too easily offended, I have already expressed my full agreement. But what can anyone do about that?
As for your second paragraph, about civility and caring about what others think about you, I'm afraid I don't see much relevance. However, I was stunned by your first sentence. Your personal experience might have revealed a great deal of civility, but you can hardly argue that white Southern hospitality was readily and cheerily extended to blacks.
Comment by Katzen | April 16, 2007
Dear Sadona (as in Arizona?) man,
Thank you for your two examples. I am still trying to track down the citations so I can read what was actually said in court. If you have those citations, I would appreciate them. It’s been my experience that most people, especially when talking about emotional or controversial court cases, get the facts wrong. As for the NAMBLA case, I did find an ACLU press release about it.
ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW YORK–In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
First, (and again, not having read the court record) it would seem from the above that the lawsuit in this case is one not brought by the ACLU, but by someone who wished to blame the person who posted the web material for a crime committed by another. (I guess “demanding” lawsuits can be filed by all kinds of people, eh?)
Now, is this an important issue? Could a resolution, one way or the other, have wider implications about a “robust freedom of speech for everyone?” (Robust freedom of speech being part of the ACLU “agenda”) Can honorable persons be concerned about the possibility that holding someone’s speech criminally responsible for another person’s act could have a chilling effect on speech generally? Could it make people afraid of being charged, by what they write or say, as an accomplice to a madman? Should they be so charged? (I don’t know about anybody else, but I am sure no one could “teach” ME to commit murder, no matter how well presented. How about you? Will “The Devil made me do” now become a legitimate defense?)
The other issue about state supported religion seems to me as plain as the nose on my face (and believe me, my nose is pretty evident). The principle of separation is well established in law. And just because the ACLU doesn’t win every case doesn’t mean that it isn’t defending an issue important to everyone’s freedom. (Check those countries where religion rules or the stated “agendas” of our own religious right) And as some persons of a certain political “agenda” wish to point out, some judges are not always right, I mean correct. (Look at the fool judge down in Alabama with his Ten Commandments). And as you say, the court did not rule that the state could establish or support religion, but that in this case, under these circumstances, a “reasonable” person would not regard this government action as “establishing” religion. “Reasonable” can be somewhat subjective.
And (for WovenBear) it is certainly not “unreasonable” for someone to regard any gesture or reference by the people’s government to the supernatural, or for the government to allow any private group to use public property or official channels to espouse or promote belief in the supernatural, as confirmation or validation that such mythological beings actually exist, and thus “establishing” the “fact” in the minds of the immature, the uneducated and the retarded. (“No offense intended,” Don Imus)
As to the other WovenBear’s points, (which seem a bit hysterical) one has to be more specific about “illegal immigration” issues. Which ones? Are we talking about saving people’s lives, affording due process, what? Yes, I would expect that the ACLU’s “agenda” would include wanting our country to be humane and just. How horrible. It just “tear(s) apart the fabric of society.”
Pharmacists are not totally private. Do you want prescriptions filled without a prescription by someone not licensed by the state to do so? Druggists are authorized and regulated by the people’s government. They have to follow the rules. And one of the rules is that people have a right to healthcare. If some spirit in the sky, or voice in his head, tells the druggist he can’t give a person what he/she has a legal right to, then the druggist should bow out of that profession and find something else to do.
Comment by tom cook | April 16, 2007
“As for your second paragraph, about civility and caring about what others think about you, I’m afraid I don’t see much relevance.”
Are you kidding me? As a supervisor, I pondered why a professional appearance was so important for an employee; after all, why should a person be judged by something superficial? Einstein was a genius and had a slovenly appearance. That’s when I came to the conclusion that a slovenly appearance conveyed a message to a customer that the employee didn’t care about the customer and his needs because he didn’t care what the customer thought of him.
The same applies here, although not about appearance. If Imus cared what blacks, and most whites, thought of him, he wouldn’t have made such an uncharitable remark about them. Of course, if you’re in the business of making uncharitable remarks, you wouldn’t have a job if you were charitable. Conclusion: The Imuses of the world will eventually say something offensive to everyone; and if some liberals are hypersensitive, they should do what liberals tell Catholics to do: don’t watch them. As Dr. Jackson says in his companion essay, Imus doesn’t pass the “Is this guy an ‘a**hole’?” test.
"…you can hardly argue that white Southern hospitality was readily and cheerily extended to blacks."
I would be the last to make that claim. As a Yankee who lived in the South for a while (Biloxi, MS) during the height of the civil rights movement, I can tell you that Southern hospitality extends only to fellow Southerners for the most part. I am also quite aware of how blacks were treated.
However, I still stand by my comment that increasing sensitivity increases the false alarm rate, and the Imus flap was a false alarm because of the over-reaction and because no one can show that white attitudes about blacks changed for the better because of it. If anything, they are worse.
Comment by sedonaman | April 16, 2007
Ok, I didn't understand you were referring to Imus specifically–I thought you were making a point about double standards. I see the point now.
I didn't mean to imply that I thought you were unaware of how blacks were treated. I was merely pointing out that society was not uniformly more civil in those days. Thank you for clearing me up about Southern hospitality in those days–my only experience is with the New South.
"However, I still stand by my comment that increasing sensitivity increases the false alarm rate, and the Imus flap was a false alarm because of the over-reaction and because no one can show that white attitudes about blacks changed for the better because of it."
I agree completely, and I apologize if I conveyed otherwise. I worry, though, that it's not worth getting too exercised about because there is simply nothing to be done about individuals who sit in front of their televisions waiting to be offended so they can raise hell. They will continue to sit in front of their televisions, they will continue to get offended, and they will continue to threaten boycotts. Advertisers cannot be expected to take a principled stance against the interest of their shareholders, and neither can broadcast networks. (Though, I admit, it would be greatly satisfying to see one of them tell Rev. Sharpton to "get a life.")
Most intelligent people don't care what Al Sharpton thinks about anything. Unfortunately, even idiots can exercise market power through withholding their dollars. We can complain about their idiocy, but it won't change anything. The main difference between you and me seems to be my pessimsm.
We could eliminate the double standard by threatening massive boycotts of our own, but most of us would prefer, as you put it, "to get a life."
Comment by Katzen | April 16, 2007
Katzen:
The threat posed by Al Sharpton, et al, is illustrated by his involvement it the Tawana Brawley case, and explained by Prof. James Q. Wilson in his book, Moral Judgement, p. 109-110:
"When Tawana Brawley, a young black woman in New York City, invented the story that she had been raped by white men, her cause was loudly championed by people [like Al Sharpton, http://www.slate.com/id/2087557 who acted as if the truth or falsity of her story was irrelevant. And after it was shown to be false, her role in the story of black oppression was defended by some who wrote that even if she did fake the crime, her 'condition' was the expression of 'some' crime against her that entitled her to be the object of our grieving. Paul Butler has carried this way of thinking to its logical conclusion. Writing in the Yale Law Journal, he urged African-American jurors to free guilty African-American defendants of nonviolent drug crimes . . . In a penetrating critique of this mode of thought, Jeffrey Rosen shows what should be obvious: Making the legal process the wholly subjective expression of group-determined minds ends the possibility of people from different groups agreeing about anything and converts the objectivity of the law into an expression of group beliefs. And that means the end of the rule of law. (Emphasis added)
That’s why there should be only one standard, and people like Al Sharpton should not be seated in Congress.
Comment by sedonaman | April 17, 2007
Katzen,
I loved your selective reply to half-quotes from my previous post. And thanks for reiterating your original point 9 more times in case those with attention disorders missed it. Keep dodging the issue all you want. Rev. Al's boycotts wouldn't have hurt Imus' advertisers. The day you are even capable of effectively boycotting a company like P&G, that makes everything from laundry detergent to toothpaste to bath soap to barbecue lighters under literally hundreds, maybe thousands of different brands, then you wield the power to shut down the entire US economy. Rev. Al uses underhanded tactics to get what he wants to fulfill his racist agenda. Those companies and the network were probably more concerned with being accused of being racist KKK members, like 6 prominent community members were 20 years ago, and like 3 wealthy college athletes were a mere year ago, than with having a handful of wackjob activists who follow Sharpton boycotting their company. Those companies were concerned about the POLITICAL power that Sharpton wields, despite the fact that he's a racist white-hating lunatic, because of the legitimacy given to him by the wackjob leftist media outlets who have different standards of "racist" for Al Sharpton and Michael Richards. But I forgot, there's nothing wrong with a good old fashioned double standard… unless it applies to black people. Everybody else should just "get over it".
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | April 17, 2007
Mr. Mulligan,
I read you last post again, as well as my response to it. I never dodged the issue, I merely disagreed with you. When I quoted you, I quoted you in full. You posed a lot of rhetorical questions, and I treated most them as rhetorical by ignoring them. As for David Duke, I disagree that what he's said in the past in not as bad as what Sharpton has said. Would it be overly "selective" to quote him as saying:
"These Jews who run things, who are producing this mental illness - teenage suicide… all these Jewish sicknesses. That's nothing new. The Talmud's full of things like sex with boys and girls."
As for me repeating my point "9 more time in case those with attention disorders missed it," that is exactly what you do here. I get it–I understand that you think Sharpton is "underhanded." But why should it matter to the execs if they get called "racist KKK memebers?" Because it hurts their feelings? No, because it's bad for business. Capitalizing "POLITICAL" doesn't enhance your argument.
I still want to know upon what grounds you think Sharpton would have sued. Even Sharpton knows he had no case.
A boycott does not need to be complete to make pulling adversting from Imus worth it. It only needs to make a small dent in corporate profits.
Back to the issue of "selective reply to half-quotes," I think you might be projecting your own problems on me. Your last two sarcastic sentences (which I quote in full) make my point:
"But I forgot, there's nothing wrong with a good old fashioned double standard…unless it applies to black people. Everybody else should just 'get over it.'"
I don't know whose argument you think your lapooning, but it isn't mine. I've said repeatedly (though, I admit, fewer than nine times) that I don't think there is "nothing wrong" with double standards. I've made only the obvious point that there are contexts in which double standards make sense. I hate to think you have an "attention disorder…"
Comment by Katzen | April 17, 2007
Sedonaman,
I first entered this discussion when a suggestion had been made that Sharpton's private pressue on private companies to take a private citizen off a private network threatened free speech. I wrote that there was no threat to free speech because everybody involved was acting in private capacity. Government was out of the picture.
The case you cite is very different in a number of ways. First, the officers in Tawana Brawley were attacked for alleged actions, not for speech. Secondly, the government was involved.
It was a disgraceful episode in Sharpton's disgraceful career. You'll get no argument from me about that. I also agree that the man should not be in Congress.
But it is one thing to say that the government should not have double standards, and quite another thing to say that the private sector should not have double standards. I agree completely with the former, and I have a more nuanced view about the latter.
Comment by Katzen | April 17, 2007
Katzen:
"But it is one thing to say that the government should not have double standards, and quite another thing to say that the private sector should not have double standards."
My “nuanced” take on this position is that private individuals are not two people. Their attitudes carry over into the public sector and eventually become law or regulations that have the force of law. A good example is speech codes at universities, institutions that proclaim free speech as a foundation to inquiry. These little dictatorships, that get their marching orders from accrediting institutions (private entities) that have something akin to the divine right of kings, have decided that their own personal standard is what is right and good, the peoples’ will through the democratic process be damned. Their attitudes migrate out to the society at large. This was the case with Nazism, as Hayek pointed out, and is the case with our own brand of Leftism that Bork termed “authoritarian liberalism.”
Comment by sedonaman | April 17, 2007
om cook:
Here it is the citation you requested from the Sixth Circuit website:
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0477p-06.pdf
Of the more salient statements in ACLU v. Mercer Co., KY, p 13:
"The ACLU’s argument contains three fundamental flaws. . .First, the ACLU makes repeated reference to 'the separation of church and state.' This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.”
Comment by sedonaman | April 17, 2007
Just some comments on issues raised.
First, the ACLU. Fact: The ACLU was founded by Socialists and then taken over by Communists. Today there are probably no card carrying Communists in the organization however the agenda is much the same. In the guise of freedom they generally act to destroy moral values and the normal social fabric of society, which is a means towards moving society towards some egalitarian and utopian ideal. Of course communism as practiced in places such as the old USSR in no way matched the ideal; nevertheless, people believed it was the ultimate vehicle to achieve that utopian goal.
Can the ACLU be right on some issues? Of course, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
But this brings up the interesting point of right and wrong. In many respects it is the side you already have chosen. Some might call this Relativeness. But I believe, and so do most people, that right and wrong on most issues stem from some higher source, whatever you chose to call it. It is when the ACLU challenges these types of issues which would in effect turn society 180 degrees that they run afoul of most people.
Returning to the original issue that started this debate I reiterate what I said before, namely that issue before us is not Imus but Free Speech. While some points were presented which are valid it is still my contention that controlling and limiting Free Speech is an issue we had all better be aware of.
Comment by NHGrouch | April 19, 2007