Imus shmimus

Just more evidence of why I long ago relegated political correctness to the dung heap of philosophy. PC speech is a toe's-length away from the double-speech of Orwell's 1984. It deliberately obscures facts, facilitates and rewards lies, and is quite capable of as much damage as that which it purports to fight. Rod, I am sincerely grateful that you escaped that damage.

I've never listened to Imus either. But whatever tasteless thing he said, he can't be anywhere near as complete a scumbucket as Al Sharpton. Glad you survived your personal encounter with the demagogue. The coverage this story is getting -- it dominated the entire front page of today's Washington Post, with photos -- is really depressing, and an illustration of the increasing stupidity of political correctness.

Complaining about candy Jesus is as PC "victim speak" and innane as most of Sharpton's complaints. Right on cue, Susan S. tries to turn the thread around and bash Catholics.
Look, whatever you think of Donohue, he didn't gain his original notoriety by simply lying -- as Sharpton did with the infamous Tawana Brawley. And Donohue confines his complaints to letter-writing and TV commentary. There are no stone-throwing, death threat-issuing, store burning, murdering mobs incited by the Catholic League. Consequently, and unfortunately, as he points out in the excerpt Rod cites, Donohue is considerably less effective at getting what he wants than the deceitful, murder-mongering Sharpton is.

"Right on cue, Susan S. tries to turn the thread around and bash Catholics." Actually, Rod brought it up as an example of "good PC" as opposed to "bad PC."

I don't think it's "political correctness" to identify bigotry and to object to it, no matter who is doing it. What Imus said was bigoted, no doubt about it, and it's right to call him on it. Where I think the p.c. comes in is the way the media are covering this story, versus equally or more offensive remarks made about Catholics or other groups disfavored by the media. The moral qualities of the disgraceful demagogue Al Sharpton are something else. I would be surprised to learn of anyone who had to hide out in their own apartment for a week after receiving multiple death threats from a Donohue-led crusade. Then again, if memory serves, Susan S., you think there's no real difference between Mullah Omar and Pat Robertson, so I'm not sure how capable you are of parsing these distinctions.

This was a good post Rod.

"Where I think the p.c. comes in is the way the media are covering this story, versus equally or more offensive remarks made about Catholics or other groups disfavored by the media." Oh please. Catholics have more power in this country than almost any other group in America. All of this whining about Catholic victimhood is offensive to me--as a Catholic--because it fails to appreciate our unique role in America. Donohue is an embarassment. Catholics are not "disfavoured in the media." I know in certain PC conservative circles, that's the party line, but it's not supported by reality.

Catholics have more power in this country than almost any other group in America. Apparently, you and I are not living on the same planet. I'm not questioning your insistence that you are, in fact, a Catholic. But you write like you're Paul Blanchard.

Simon, actually it is Blanshard. And just because I don't believe Catholics are victims and happen to believe that Catholics have significant power and influence in the U.S. doesn't mean I agree with Banshard.

Susan S.: I'm not sure this answers your query, but here goes: I refuse to make distinctions based on any criteria whatsoever. If we are to have anything close to a valid dialogue concerning (amongst many other things) courtesy, racism, religion and its impact, and any connected topic you care to name, the one thing we cannot afford is to write or say anything that is a euphemism or a pre-judgment -- a statement that implies a conclusion about that which it purports to ask or comment. I call that last one the "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" category. It is plain ordinary horse sense to step out of the way and let the Catholics (to use a personal example) work out their internal difficulties, whether its the hugely popular sex scandal or the more obscure political maneuverings with the Orthodox cousins. I, regardless of how familiar I am with Catholicism in general and Catholics in particular (and I am, both, as much as a non-Catholic can be), cannot possibly have a valid opinion about one side or the other in such a thing. I can, and do, ask for information from the various sides, if I want to attempt to understand the issues. The same holds true for race, but it gets more complicated than that. In the Imus situation, for example, I might use sarcasm and wonder out loud how much public outcry the Rutgers coach participated in when gangster rap hit the airwaves with epithets much more offensive (to my ear) than anything Imus said. Why, in her press statements, did she fail to say "...and can we take this opportunity to condemn rappers who use this and worse language? Isn't our silence over them encouragement to the Imuses of the world to think it's "okay" to use the same language?" In a PC world, not only would she consciously avoid saying any of that, I could right now be at personal risk for writing it here. Feh.

Rod Aren't you in favor of some of the Orwellian aspects of P.C. as well? You said of Imus: ...he should face some kind of sanction for his remarks (and he is facing that from his employers). I really don't care if they fire him... Should you have been fired or faced other sanctions for your Aaliyah remarks? There are distinctions between what you said and what he said, but there are also distinctions between your jobs. Imus is, in most respects, a shock jock. His entire schtick is to offend. I would imagine he offends someone every day. Everyone will offend someone if they live long enough. Should everyone with an employer be subject to speech codes? Are we to just outsource Big Brother to H.R. departments?

"PC, in my never humble opinion, is the ultimate victory of the bully." So you agree that Donohue is a bully when he complains about people not being politically correct when it comes to talking about Catholics?

Susan, I can't answer that. My response to PC is to treat every situation in isolation. If, upon examination, it fits into an established pattern, then I'll address it as part of that pattern. I don't know Donohue. He's just one of the many parts of our media-overload world I just can't make time for. I'd rather ask you to answer the same question. Does Donohue use bullying tactics to silence his opposition?

Jaybird, With all due respect, "making fun of" is all about the recipient's sensibilities. There is no objective measure possible." I'm not sure what you mean, but if you're suggesting that beliefs and race are equivalent categories here, I think you're wrong. There is an objective difference between a set of beliefs and a person's race. A belief is an abstract concept that can be changed, if one so wishes. The other is genetically determined, and can't be changed - unless you're Michael Jackson, I guess...

Jaybird, You can say that, and I admire you for having strength of commitment to principle and objectivity. My point is that your personal take (and mine) are just not shared by nearly everyone else. I observe that others believe the two are equal, or that belief even trumps race. Examine the many statements from people that they'd rather die than renounce their faith under duress. You will find such people from many different races.

Donohue's point is that there should be a common standard. Statements and "artwork" offending Catholics (typically through blasphemy) orsuggesting that we bow to the Roman dictator are given a pass (or treated as free speech) by the media while similarly offensive communications are otherwise condemned. And before one criticizes his bullying, boycotts and letterwriting campaigns are hardly on the same scale as what Rod describes in the cases involving Al Sharpton. Maybe Catholics (and everyone else) should be less sensitive to mockery. Sticks and stones can break our bones, etc.... But blaspheming Christ is something I would think any Catholic would be a little offended by, even if she thought it best not to dignify such "speech" with a response.

Zak invokes the other side of the coin (thank you for the reminder). Public criticism, boycotts and such are not bullying tactics. They are available to everyone, with the exception of those whose economic or similar situation restricts such choices. For example, I am happily well enough off that I can boycott Walmart. Too many just can't afford to shop at more expensive alternatives. Be angry at the barbs. It is your right to be angry. Just don't try to muzzle the speech, or try to define it as a crime. Our laws are quite sufficient already, and the idea is to brush off those atrophied social pressures and use them instead. If (almost) nobody bought gangster rap, how long do you think they'd continue to make and broadcast it? If Imus continued in his curmudgeonly ways, and people stopped buying from his sponsors, how long would he stay on the air without changing his style? PC prevents even asking such questions, let alone allow the answers to have any meaning.

Aaron, I understand that there's something about my assertion that doesn't sit right with you, but your choice of analogy is, well... how many hostages, do you think, would be threatened with death if they didn't change their race? ;) Ya need a better comparison, laddie.

This publicity will be good for his career.

OK, Franklin. Which is worse? Calling someone a 'googie' because of the shape of his eyebrows or the size of his feet? Or calling someone a 'googie' because of statements he makes political statements you disagree with? I'm not suggesting calling anyone a 'googie' for any reason, but the second person can help it. The first person cannot. Sorry Aaron's analogy hit a snag.

Aaron, I understand that there's something about my assertion that doesn't sit right with you, but your choice of analogy is, well... how many hostages, do you think, would be threatened with death if they didn't change their race?
Ya need a better comparison, laddie. Obviously that wasn't the point; no matter how serious one takes their religious beliefs (even if to the point of death) they can still change them in a heartbeat.

Rod I also pointed out the difference between what you and Imus said, but you have different jobs. Imus' fame is based on offending. He used words that, while racially charged and offensive, are also repeated on TV and radio every day. His employer has kept him on for years while he offends all sorts of groups, so it is a bit disingenuous for them to say that now he's gone too far. You say that DMN would fire you for saying the same things, but you aren't a morning shock jock. That is the big distinction that I think everyone is missing. Imus offends people for a living. He's not a reporter. He's not an Op-Ed columnist.
He has a long history of saying pretty offensive things about blacks, Jews, gays, Catholics, and pretty much everyone else that breathes. A couple of years ago he compared black Knicks players to gorillas. He's played song about how horrible Jews are. Why wasn't the same outrage displayed then? Maybe because success breeds success. Sharpton and his thugs used those tactics on you because they were successful in the past. New precendents get set, and they look for lesser offenses to attack. P.C. bullying is getting easier and more speech becomes off limits. Do you think Penn Jilette should be fired as soon as Donohue and enough Catholics complain? You made it pretty clear that you consider his statements out-of-bounds because he wasn't specifically criticizing "ideas". But why is it so bad for him to say what he thinks about Mother Teresa on late night paid TV? Rod, if this trend continues then it's only a matter of time before you are explaining yourself and apologizing before CAIR at the behest of DMN. Offense is now in the eye of the accuser, and if the accuser has enough power they will get what they want.

Rich has it exactly right.

Mega-dittos, Rich!

I've never heard an Imus show, and I think both Sharpton and Donohue, while well within their rights, are rabble-rousing asshats. That being said, what Rod said about the company that owns Imus's contract is exactly right. When someone makes themselves a liability, there is no reason to keep them around. What makes each case different is what one considers a liability. When it comes to art museums, "liability" is in the eye of the donor base. When it comes to late-night TV, provocative, even crude and horrible, liability is based on how many change the channel. In the Imus case, the audience has spoken, and Imus is out (at lease suspended). In the Jillette and Maher cases, the audience also spoke - with deafening silence. What does this have to say about the rightness or the wrongness of the speech in question? I have no clue. I know that when some media figure makes an ass of him- or herself, the ultimate power is mine: the power to choose to not consume that media.

Good job, Rich!! :-)

Thanks all. Obviously this is one of my hot buttons. It just stuns me how many people on both the right and left will now say "I support free expression, except for ______ which is totally out of bounds". Eventually all allowable speech will consist of discussions of rainbows and panda bears (as long as you disparage neither).

Simon, Seriously - there's merit in that, and it's a good point to bring up. There's not as much money in publicising religious offense, and it's a sad state of affairs that it's taken as a given. Religious offenses don't generate the kind of heat racial ones do. The people who believe and applaud such sentiments are few and far between, or they're in the closet. The reason why you don't see more people running around talking like KKK hicks is because of the way society treats people who do such things.
There was a time when the majority of people would stand behind Imus adn had a field day throwing worse epithets than Imus's "jigaboo" (which, for purposes of full disclosure, was uttered while referencing a Spike Lee's "School Daze"). They don't anymore because minds have changed. On the other hand, for every one person that is offended by the blasphemy of the week, there's another who will stand up and fight for it, that blasphemy being as important to them as the beliefs being maligned. There are millions of people who feel maligned by the religious sector of society daily, (at least weekly) and they're expected to simply shrug it off because the religious side is free to believe it. Their choice is to "not tune in the channel," so to speak, and simply disengage from what they view as religious bigotry. And then there's some people who believe dunking a crucifix in pee is as free an expression as "(Insert group here) are going to Hell." or "(Insert group here) are a threat to our families." Change minds, then you'll change behavior.

Wildwest and Aaron, I'm not trying to be difficult (though I do seem to be succeeding at it). I don't disagree with Aaron's point, I just don't agree that it is relevant. Certainly, at an abstract level, it makes sense that a matter of choice is different from a matter of being. My contention, here, is that the objective reality is just not the point. The person I identify in my example will ignore such arguments, because he or she will simply deny being able to even imagine having a choice to stop believing in one thing and start believing in another. That you and I can imagine that simply has no bearing on that person's attitude and mind set. I recall one member of the Rutgers team asserting that she has been scarred for life by the experience (the gist; I don't remember the exact quote). Try telling her that the objective reality is that she has in no way been injured. Be prepared for a media storm claiming that you are not only racist, but completely heartless as well.

My point exactly, watsy. I must admit to some sympathy for those who think this discussion is about mostly a non-event. However, there are issues here that bear exploration (which has been my intent on this particular combox). If anyone would like to continue along those lines, my Homepage link will take you to a thread I just started.

I was amazed, utterly amazed, to see letters to the editor in my local paper by black readers who said that with all the publicity about Imus maybe now the black community can address the issue of black rappers and other thugs who routinely use the terminology Imus used to address black women. May their tribe increase. Christine I'm with you Christine, I'm with you. Personally I found three bright spots in this story. 1. Ten great women basket ball players got to hear their coach brag up on them to the world. I liked that. The coach was eloquent, her cause was just, and the young ladies got their due. I felt pride just watching the coach talk. Heart swelling is a benefit one can experience when one's a sentimental old fool. 2. As Christine pointed out the words Imus used sounded terrible. Terrible enough that people who believe they have the right to use them with impunity migh reconsider. Hopefully the black community will look at those words and decide as a group to eliminate them in polite conversations. Imus might have done a good thing, blind hogs and acorns alive and well. 3. Shock jocks got exposure as idiots who make tons of money. Exposure of idiots is always a good thing.

By any objective measure, Imus's remarks were racist. Call me a contrarian, but I disagree. Yes, his remarks were racial in that "nappy" and "ho" typically are associated with black jargon. But please recall that Imus referred to the predominantly black Tennessee women's team as "cute." It seems pretty clear to me that he was criticizing the Rutgers' girls tatoos and hair styles, not their race. His remarks were crass, mean, and uncalled for, but not really racist.

Just leave Aaliyah's family alone. When she died, the baby of that close family, they basically lost everything. She was their princess, and I see nothing wrong with the way they did it. Their pain was real, and their grief was palpable. They still feel it to this day, and so do a lot of other people. Comparing that to anything related to Don Imus is absolutely ridiculous.

Ben I don t follow your argument at all. You first support stifling unpopular speech, and then you support countering unpopular speech with other speech. Which is it? In the first instance you are talking about the concept of social taboo, but this is different. This is not a cultural phenomenon created by society-at-large. The difference here is that offended groups make their own subjective decisions as to what is offensive, and try to impose that on society. Serious discourse breaks down into competing groups trying to silence any speech they don t like. Look at the Bill Donohue quote in Rod s post. Re-read it. His chief complaint is that he doesn t have the same power to silence speech that Sharpton, Jackson, et al have. But he wants it! Donohue would like nothing better than to get Penn Jillette fired from Showtime and Bill Maher fired from HBO. They attacked Catholics, and he wants to shut them up. He has less blood on his hands than Sharpton, but he s cut from the same cloth. And virtually everyone can be considered part of some group who is routinely offended by some speech. There are many many Donohues and Sharptons. Can t you see where this leads? Donohue s group was the first to force Comedy Central to pull a South Park repeat because they were offended. The decision was later reversed, but it s still a precedent. As they have more success they will make it more difficult to offend or ridicule Catholics. They can t get Penn s show yanked now, but they ll keep trying and may eventually succeed. And other groups will try to do the same. Look at Rod s continual problems with CAIR. As I said earlier, they will eventually win against him if they win enough smaller battles.
The other problem here is the modern fragility of egos, but I ll put that in a separate post.

Rich, you are way off base here, using hyperbole to make your point. I don't think the Rutgers women were hurt or offended, but I do resent Imus calling them "hos" as opposed to, say, "rough looking broads". We all know what "hos" means. And the Rutgers team is hardly a legitmate political/social target. If some network wants to listen toa recidvist like Sharpton, that's their business: few have the nerve to call him a race-baiting thug. If I don't like Don Imus' schtick, I have every right to complain whether or not I've been damaged.
The point here is not who got hurt. it's whether or not Imus' comments - on a nationally syndicated show - were out of line (for a repeat offender). They were - and we all know it.

I didn't find Rod's remarks about Aaliyah's funeral to be racist, merely tacky. Movies, not funerals, are the subject of criticism. Now I understand how he came to be exiled to Dallas.

As a professional matter, it would seem that Don Imus's problem is not that he's an unfunny bigot. His problem is that he's not bigoted against the groups our media overseers allow to be mocked with impunity. Rod Dreher Bull pucky. Rod you and Imus caught the wrath of the black community for crossing a line. Both of you jumped on children. I don't support bashing Mother Teresa either. But the difference here isn't about bashing a group. It's about bashing a group's children. If Penn Jillette had said that young men who liked to dress up in robes and carry candles in public were obviously gay and wanting to be abused by a priest the response by the public would have been different than his attacking Mother Teresa. Imus attacked someone's kids.
This is not unlike your "The family of Aaliyah," you wrote, "does the poor woman's memory no favors with this tasteless gesture."

Rod you and Imus caught the wrath of the black community for crossing a line. Both of you jumped on children. The infantilization of adulthood continues apace. I've got news for you, Harvey: In the sense that we all have parents, we're all someone's children, so I suppose none of us can ever be criticized.

I read Rod's column, Harvey, and he did *not* say anything untoward against Aaliyah. Rather, his criticisms were about what he saw as an ostentatious and inappropriate display of wealth to honor her passing. Whether that is somehow denigrating to her family because they feel she *deserved* that kind of display is not relevant, as his intent was not to impugn her character. That's the difference between Rod's moment and Imus's moment - Imus *meant* to be insulting. Rod merely found out that what he said was insulting to her family. Had it been left at that, Rod could have (and has) offered an apology to the Haughtons and come to some understanding about why they honored their Baby Girl (as her crypt is engraved) the way they did.
Personally, I don't have a problem with people acting as a go-between to engender cross-cultural understanding. Sometimes white folks can see the same thing black folks see and not "get it" the same way. Same with Catholics and non-Catholics, theists and non-theists, pagans and non-pagans, ad infinitum.
Problem is, that ain't Sharpton, and it ain'tDonohue. Those folks do not exist to engender cross-cultural understanding. They're thugs, and they exist to publicly beat the crap out of anyone that crosses their peeps. Back in the day before 24-hour news coverage, folks like them broke kneecaps over perceived slights. Now they just ruin careers.

"His problem is that he's not bigoted against the groups our media overseers allow to be mocked with impunity." I think that his problem was making yet another bigoted remark during a slow news cycle. Imus's bigotry has been well known since the 1980s.

Watsy, I'm not sure why Imus used the word "nappy" -- in the pics I have seen, none of the Rutgers girls have 'fros, and several of them use straightener. However, some of them apparently do funky things with braids, etc. I heard one sports guy say that one of the girls looked like she "had a bird's nest on her head." So I really think this has to do with perceived trashiness, not whether or not they "looked white."

That's the point, Ben. He doesn't need to break kneecaps when he can cost them millions of dollars. Sheesh, indeed.

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you, Ben. My comment, however, said that before 24-hour news, people *who fulfilled the same role as Donohue* did so by breaking kneecaps. I know nuance is difficult for some of the Right, so I apologize in advance for any disconcerting feelings that may have resulted from the idea of frumpy, flabby old Donahue weilding a baseball bat.

Now I understand how he came to be exiled to Dallas. What a stupid thing to say. You understand nothing. I "exiled" myself to Dallas in 2003, two years after I wrote about the funeral. Please try to keep up.

The African American community has been having a lot of internal debate about the use of words like "ho" for quite awhile. Which makes its mocking use by an old white guy even more painful.
Just because you aren't listening to the debate doesn't mean that African Americans and the African American media hasn't been dealing with the issues and language of hip-hop culture. Things don't change overnight. I mean, look how long racism has been around.

whatever happened to sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me? yes words can be sharp. but we need to just stop talking crap about other people and not care when they talk crap about us. ultimately people say something mean to get a reaction. dont give them one and they shut up. yes what he said what small-minded. but he didnt call anyone to act violently or act at all for that matter. ignore him. stop listening to his radio shows and dont tune in when he's on t.v. That's called boycotting. and when the media is involved mass boycotting is a lethal to a carreer as anything else. i have been called many bad names. racial, gender biased, and cruel. they hurt for a minute unitl i realized that if i let it roll off my back the only person who would be hurting was the one whose soul was evil enough to say something like that.

Once again, I think harvey lacey is absolutely right, and you guys are covering for a bully because he's being attacked by equally (more?)despicable jerks.
harvey said: "Imus attacked someone's kids." You attack my college daughter as a "ho" or anything like it, completely without provocation, and I'm going to demand an explanation and apology at minimum. We have neither of those - with any sincerity - from Imus. He engages in racist insults all the time, and nobody is under any obligation to accept it. Franklin, your kids may laugh off insults, and that's great. My kids will not be taught to laugh off racism which is unacceptable, whether you're a pagan, a Christian or an atheist. I don't laugh off skinheads, the KKK, or Nazis, either.
Rod: "Oh for pity's sake. Aaliyah was a grown woman. So were these college athletes." Bull***t, Rod, these young women are under the authority and protection of the college becasue most of them aren't even old enough to vote. Even if I concede you have a point, it's certainly not so self-evident as you make out.

Also, I never realized that I was "under protection" while I was at college. As I said, the infantilization of adulthood continues apace.

Starrs, None of my kids laugh at the Holocaust, or the vandalism done to their and other synagogues. But they and I will laugh at the talk about Jewish conspiracies, or that we have horns and cloven hooves, or a myriad of other such insults. At the same time, my kids will join the more mature of their black, Asian, Hispanic and other non-white friends in blowing raspberries at the racist rhetoric that tells them falsely to dislike and distrust each other. I find that much more constructive than dignifying the remarks of idiots like Imus when black artists are being glorified by black consumers of rap "music" that paint them as much worse than "hos" of any description. This pagan weeps when he sees the death camp newsreels, or when he finished his tour of the museum in Washington, or when he thinks of the dozens of relatives he never knew, or their offspring of my generation that were never born. Actions speak louder than words. If you pay attention to the words because they threaten action, that's a good thing. If you are constantly victimized by words without any further actions, you have and will only ever have my pity. You are a puppet of words. You will never be free. I hope that's clear. I would seriously regret finding myself arguing over these principles with you.

Beer and pizza rule!

tv, Wow - what a display of decorum! I'm so glad I have you here to show me how to take the high road. As for you points, such as they are, my critique still stands: You are essentially saying that were this fifty years ago, Bill Donohue would be breaking people's kneecaps. No, my reading comprehension is fine. Yours, however, seems to be a bit of an acute case, given that you can't even comprehend your own writing. Not sure I've ever seen it that bad. As for your larger point, you essentially seem to feel that it is somehow invidious for guys like Imus to be criticized. MSNBC didn't pull the plug on Imus because Sharpton called for him to be fired -- they pulled the plug because the controversy was not the benefits of keeping him.
Free speech has consequences. Imus and Jillette are free to say what they want. Donohue and Sharpton are free to criticize them for it. You are free to criticize Donohue and Sharpton for being critical. I'm free to criticize you for making unfair, asinine comparisons. In the end, the public decides who has the better argument, and the higher one's profile, the higher the personal consequences of being on the wrong side of public opinion. But by comparing people exercising their free speech rights to knee-cappers, you do yourself no credit.

As far as the 26th Amendment: ah, yes, the legalistic approach. As long as it's 'legal", it's perfectly acceptable. Um... thanks for making my point better than I ever could have dreamed. The 26th Amendment granted suffrage to 18-year-olds, meaning that all the Rutgers players are old enough to vote.

Also, please note I am *not* in any way defending Imus by condmening thugs like Sharpton and Donohue. One does not logically follow the other. They acan be, and in this case are, mutually exclusive positions. I'm frankly *glad* the company that owns Imus's contract found him to be a liability. Does that make Sharpton less of a thug? Not in the least.

Duly noted. Thanks for the feedback.

Nope. They own his contract, and they're in business to make money. Whn he impacts their ability to do so, they are within their rights to act accordingly. Does it make them the "thug?" Only if getting fired from McDonalds for making crappy burgers makes McDonalds a thug.

Off to a meeting. You kids play nice while I'm gone, now ;)

I see it now. Sorry, Rod.

Gina -- Absolutely correct. There is a definite line you cross when you start threatening or inciting violence against someone or their property (i.e., inciting people to burn down someone's house). Sharpton has crossed that line in the past, but not this time. I don't like the guy -- he's a bombastic self-promoter and all-around scumbag. But he has a right to say what he wants. It's up to the rest of us to call him on it. Franklin -- Not sure I follow what you're getting at.

O.K., but the advertisers work for the public. So it all comes down to the public, or at least to the advertiser's conception of what public reaction is. You are correct that Sharpton "rouses the rabble" to change the channel, but what's wrong with that? Another way of interpreting this is that Sharpton is rousing the rabble to vote with their fingers/pocketbooks, and voting in such a way is just another form of free speech. So once again, it comes down to one person's free speech vs. another's.

You are correct that Sharpton "rouses the rabble" to change the channel, but what's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing. Same with Donohue - there's nothing "wrong" with it. Some folks find it unsavory that there are people who have made a career out of rousing the rabble. Legitimate complaints from people who are affected by such things are part and parcel of working with the public. The difference, if there is one (I believe there is) is that folks like Sharpton and Donohue have gotten rather rich off of getting other folks to be pissed off about stuff they'd otherwise never give a rat's ass about.
Imus is a blip on the cultural radar. Now he's an unemployed blip. Had Sharpton not done his thang, Imus'd still be an ass on broadcast radio and tv - now he's just an ass. I have no ide whether that's good or bad. It just kinda "is," you know?

Rap has done more to denigrate and ruin the image of blacks than anything that any KKK member could dream up. Way tangental to this conversation, but I think as far as the image of black folks in the white community, this is a true statement. Re: the image of blacks in the black community, the same can't be said across the board. There was a time when rap was "the voice of the street." Now it's "the voice of Madison Avenue" pretending to be "the voice of the Street." Like most truly grass-roots movements, once the money folks get their hands on it, the power behind it is diminished considerably.

tv, Well, I disagree with you that Donohue gets people worked up about something they otherwise wouldn't care about. I would say that he gets people worked up about something they likely would not have known about, or that they would have been mad about, but would have figured they had no power to change. Sharpton's gig is a little different. He gets people worked up by appealing to deep-seated hostilities already present in the many parts of the black underclass. It's never about the actual thing being protested -- it's about the "bigger picture," as they see it. Situations like the Imus screw-up just provide a focal point for protest for protest's sake. The difference is that Sharpton is a pure huckster who will protest anything using any means if it gets him some attention. Donohue, whether you agree with him or not, is a guy with an honest point of view for which he consistently advocates. And I'm not really sure he's getting rich doing it, either.

It's okay, Ben. Any attempt to clarify has become irrelevant as the discussion has moved on. I own my lack of clarity today. My fingers seem to be running a bit ahead of my thoughts... :) While you and I seem to be taking very different steps, it does look like we are aimed at the same destination. I'm content to leave it at that.

Imus is (like most of us) a contradiction. Does his history of substantial support for worthy causes mitigate these statements? What about his apology?

tv, Well, like I have said before, everyone is free to their opinion of Donohue or anyone else. I'm not Catholic, and I don't read every one of his press releases, but I will grant that anyone in that kind of job has a strong temptation to resort to hyperbole in order to have their voices heard above the media din. Nevertheless, I don't believe Donohue was cackling evilly when the "Chocolate Jesus" story broke, reveling in how he was going to create a controversy. Rather, I think he probably figured, "Oh here we go again with blasphemous artist, just in time for the holiest holiday in Christendom." Whether his outrage was misplaced or overblown is a matter of opinion, but I don't believe it was anything other than genuine.

Harvey, The cult of celebrity is worthy of being attacked, and that we have compassion for the celebrities we want to criticize is neither hypocritical nor contradictory. Who do you have more respect for, the one in the 24-carat gold coffin or the one whose cremains are in a cardboard box, and whose money is buying food and shelter for homeless people? None of that precludes my ability to respect the grief for both deceased in my examples. I offer you, obliquely, one of the tenets of martial arts: you train to become good enough in your fighting skills that you find a way to avoid using them if at all possible. I stopped using the local highway to commute because I found myself becoming too ready to offer violence to the assholes who threatened my life with their driving. I ask you: how does that compare with the person giving the finger to your wife?

Harvey, I understand reaction well. I've been in your shoes more than once. I should, with respect, point out that my implication is accurate: I'm criticizing your (or anyone's, mine included) physical reaction to a non-physical threat. I did glean from your previous post that you would consciously bring such a reaction given the provocations you use as examples. As a personal reaction, but also on a moral level, I find that reprehensible. I liken it to the adolescents in my wife's classes, 9th and 10th graders whose examples in this are rappers, drug dealers (both in the media and in the neighborhood) and so-called leaders whose verbal violence edges very close to physical expression. I reject the use of bullying in response to bullying. Whether initiated or by reaction, it is by definition a disproportionate response or behavior. If morality is to have any value in a society, it must serve to regulate exactly that. My conditioning, btw, is one that as a military veteran you should appreciate: remove the threat, think later. It means using the most energy in the shortest time possible. It does not stop to consider whether the injury given is greater than the injury threatened. I submit that when my children's physical safety and lives are in danger, that it is a valid reaction; I further submit that when the asshole who cut me off ends up in a ditch, bleeding, because of my reaction, that it is not a valid reaction. Maybe I'm a bit perverse, but I raise the concept of innocent until proven guilty to a moral stance, and until someone actually commits a crime, it is a crime to punish them. I know it was just the once, but the principle remains: the person you hit committed no crime; you did.

I see Imus lost his job. It's a heckuva personal loss for him and his family (I understand his wife had to stop her book tour because of all the negative publicity). Being a bright side person I see this whole scenario as a good thing. The public might come to see that if an old white guy shouldn't talk like a fool then maybe young black men shouldn't either. One of the big surprises here has been Franklin being on the opposite side of an issue than I am. I see p/c as being a good thing, forcing bullies to be polite and considerate. He feels very strongly the opposite, that p/c is the bully. This difference of opinion intrigues me. I know that Franklin is sincere in his position. I know that he's a good man with a solid foundation when it comes to logic and morals. I feel the same about myself. The only thing that I can see that would cause such a spread in opinion would be personal perspective. I'm sure my perspective reflects personal experience and observation. The same has to be said for Franklin. My perspective is based upon the proverbial grandma's kitchen conversations. People are polite and considerate in grandma's kitchen because she won't have it any other way. This is a good thing as I see it because slurs and namecalling is eliminated. This leaves just the issues themselves. That is a good thing. I recall one afternoon in heavy traffic. I'm sixty foot long when I have the trailer with the tractor on it behind the truck. I'm big and I'm heavy and all the little people in the little cars want to be in front of me. A commute from west Ft Worth to east of Dallas can take a couple of hours and burn up many cubic yards of bad words. A mile or so from home in a construction zone I noticed a van wanting to pull out into traffic from a Dominos. I dislike Dominos. The dislike is strong enough to make me have reservations about the kinds of people that frequent them when I'm on edge, say like after a couple of hours of dodging commuters. I remember thinking, "not today dahling, not today." Then as I got closer I realized that the van was driven by secretary of a friend. She's a wonderful person, love her dearly. I almost dislocated a wrist waving her in front of me. Ticked off those behind me I'm sure. But they didn't know her like I did. That was one of those tipping points we find occasionally. I understood how commuters can be so rude and inconsiderate. Not because they're bad people doing what bad people do. They can be good people like myself just not relating to the other person involved in the incident as someone they'll have to deal with later. Now I'm a little more p/c on the highway. After the flash of anger I talk to myself explaining that their problem is they don't know me. To know me is to love me.

oh but Mr Dreier: Christianity IS grafted from paganism. On everything else, I thought the Mother Theresa & pope jokes were unfunny and tasteless. But I also find pope-reverence tasteless and wrong: the pope has no right to demand respect from people after he has spent 1.5 billion covering up criminals within his priesthood who rape children. I know this sounds harsh, but we have to be careful about financing the abuse of children, that would be irresponsible. Many people have legitimate reasons to be angry at the pope and have a right to express this lack of sympathy. I guess the issue is double standards. If a person has a legitimate reason to say something (this was not the case with the Mother Theresa comments), then they have the right to say it and not be consored.

It's a good day in America when a sexist, racist jerk is removed from the airwaves where he's in a position to influence millions everyday. The world is changing and ol' dinosaurs like Don Imus are moving on. About seven years ago I noticed many women business owners and aspiring business owners have a tendency to hold back when it comes to marketing and selling in business. Areas critical to their success. They re terrified of being thought of as pushy or aggressive so their efforts are often reticent and they get passed over even if they re highly qualified and/or offer great products and services.
I ended up writing a book to empower women who are home-based business owners (Testosterone-Free Marketing). My experience mentoring women and the thousands who've bought my book has taught me much of the reason women hold back and are afraid to project more assertively goes back to prior ridicule and degrading comments, fear of ridicule and criticism for just being women - as the Rutgers basketball players encountered. As a result millions of women hold back in life and in business. This impacts each woman's personal economy and our national economy as women are starting businesses at double the rate of men. African American women are starting businesses at four times the rate of men. So the long-lasting impact of degrading, throwaway comments aimed at women is huge.

Who's Mr Dreier? ;)

Harvey One other thing... ...I feel explosive and decisive reactions to perceived threats are nine times out of ten the correct reaction to keep the situation from escalating... Does that apply to, oh, invading countries? Just trying to follow your logic train there bubba.

Harvey: Telling my wife to go screw herself in my presence presents a threat. Greetings from Indianapolis, the Rio de Janeiro of the Midwest. Gotta say how odd it is to have been upbraided by Harvey for saying that the behavior of the pantywaist Brits (did you see the guy Arthur Batchelor admitting in the UK media that he "cried like a baby"?) was dishonorable ... and then to read that Harvey is so close to a gran mal seizure on defending his wife's honor that he nearly started a fight over an insult. Man.

Gotta say how odd it is to have been upbraided by Harvey for saying that the behavior of the pantywaist Brits (did you see the guy Arthur Batchelor admitting in the UK media that he "cried like a baby"?) was dishonorable ... and then to read that Harvey is so close to a gran mal seizure on defending his wife's honor that he nearly started a fight over an insult. Man. Rod Dreher Rod, Rod, Rod! Evidently you flunked the speed reading course. Read that again. Harvey didn't start a fight. Harvey finished a fight. There's a difference. If you think not bring up the subject with your bros the next time you're in the woods on a hunting discussion trip. I hope you're having a good trip and having fun. We had a storm go through that's picked up at least one fatality according DMN. Hope all of yours is safe and well.

Chivalry died for the same reason that every other Western institution died or is dying. It couldn't stand up to the assault of Enlightenment rationalism. People aren't strictly rational beings, and have needs that often can't be met rationally. That leads us to Francis Schaeffer's question: How then should we live? So far as I can tell nobody has a good answer. Rod is one of the few people even asking the question. Rich I like that post Rich. I really do. I don't agree with you and Rod on principle, mine, but I like the thought of a discussion about how we should live and why. The issue as I see it some people (rolling eyes like you know who walked into the room wearing a skirt that didn't match his socks) some people keep looking back at past failures and believing the weakness was the individuals involved. That's crazy, well not smart, if not crazy, because systems fail not because of the weakness of the individuals but because of the weakness of the system. Individuals are the one part of the equasion that is a constant. People back in the day are the same as people today. Chivalry didn't die because people let it down. Chivalry didn't die because of the assault of Enlightenment rationalism, whatever the heck that's supposed to mean. Chivalry as you view it died because it didn't work. Which is interesting to me, the concept that chivalry's dead. I don't see it dead at all. I see it alive and well and around me all of the time. Might have something to with not needing sunglasses in the light of day, I don't know.

Formal chivalry, as a historical institution (if that's the correct word), died off long before the Enlightenment. It was a spent force by the Late Middle Ages. Cervantes' novel "Don Quixote de la Mancha" was published in 1605, I think -- a full century before the Enlightenment is generally agreed to have begun -- and the title character is so amusing because he's living amusingly in the past, in the Age of Chivalry. So society was already laughing at the idea of knightly chivalry then. Keep in mind that I'm talking only about chivalry as a formal set of manners and customs.

It was nothing more than a minor insult. Nobody was harmed. The only attack in your story was committed by you. You're damned lucky you didn't get shot. Rich I decided a long time ago that being afraid of being shot is like being afraid of the dark. It's really silly when you think about it, rationalize if you will. I imagine you wouldn't jump out of your vehicle and charge two men who had been harassing you in traffic? I did. Evidently it was a mistaken identity thing on their part. That's the only thing I can figure. I was in heavy traffic with my truck and trailer. A pickup pulled up beside me with two of the ugliest boys that ever left Arkansas in the cab. I'm talking bearded ugly white boys that if I'd gotten closer I know woulda took my breath away with their body odor. I had my window down and as they came up beside me they were flipping me off and cussing me like we were family and didn't like each other. I'm talking serious bad words, family stuff, generational garbage. As traffic came to a halt at a light I was busy trying to figure out the what for. I hadn't changed lanes, cut anyone off, weaved, or braked unexpectedly. And I was getting a cussin', serious cussin'. Three lanes, them in the middle, me in the right, morning commute. They stopped two cars up from me. Passenger got out and headed back my way. Lights out, zone time. I don't remember undoing the seat belt. I do remember hitting the asphalt at a run thinking "this is going to hurt." I'm not a big man, five-eight, two hundred pounds. So I know it wasn't the size of me that made him stop in his tracks and run back to his truck. It had to be he realized that he'd mistaken me for someone else. Again, entirely predictable and typical of human beings the world over. When the pressure of not wanting to get hit while behind the wheel of a vehicle is greater than maybe getting a butt whipping or shot in the street you run to the fight rather than from it. But heck, Rich, I'm singing to the choir, right?

Rod I was sloppy in that post. I meant a general male deference to women instead of the chivalric code. I think that any institution or custom that cannot be defended empirically will lose its power over time. Try to argue against women in combat. The argument will eventually get into sociological data (or maybe you'll be called a misogynist). It is extremely difficult to maintain that argument on any kind of moral or ethical grounds because there is nothing like a social consensus. You, and I, and Harvey, and Ahmadinejad could all say its horrible for a society to place women in that situation. But without data to prove its a bad thing, your argument will get nowhere with a pretty huge chunk of the population.

Harvey As to your traffic story, you're right there too. I wouldn't jump out of my vehicle to charge two men who were harrassing me in traffic. Wouldn't even occur to me. First because I burned off most of that extra testosterone in my 20's. But also because I fully understand the consequences. Here's a story from my end. I went on one ambulance run to a bar about 11:00 p.m. one night for what was called an "assault". We pulled up and saw a guy leaning against a pickup talking to the police while smoking. As we walked up I heard him getting very loud and animated about how "They shouldn't have mouthed off to me. I don't take that" except he was a lot more colorful in his vocabulary. He saw us walk up, took one step forward, and collapsed. He had been stabbed multiple times in the chest and abdomen through a heavy jacket. Nobody saw any blood until we cut the jacket off. Adrenalin kept him standing and talking until he had lost enough blood to pass out. The cops met us at the E.R. and I got the rest of the story. He was walking into a bar and thought he was insulted by a couple of young punks in the parking lot. He got mad. He hit one. They stabbed him. It was just verbal, and he escalated it. And I saw this kind of thing over and over and over again. You wanna throw away your life over a point of honor with people who have none, then be my guest. I'll take a pass. My kid just started walking and saying dada in the last week. I don't need his mom telling him daddy got killed because daddy was a hothead. Here's my policy. I mind my own business and keep my mouth shut. If insulted I might insult back, or might blow it off depending on the circumstances. If guys were flipping me off in traffic and cussing me like your story, I'd likely ignore them. If one got out of his car like your story, I'd look for an opportunity to retreat or drive. And if I can't retreat and there's nothing else I can do? Well, then I have my Glock. I've seen with my own eyes how perfectly normal people end up hurt (or worse) because they couldn't let a an insult go. Not me. I don't care what names anyone calls me anymore. There are things in life a lot more important than that.

Unlike everybody else here who seems hardly to know him, I've tuned in to Don Imus on MSNBC off and on over the years, and what he said about the Rutgers women's basketball team was just the latest in a long line of ugly, racist, misogynist throwaway lines I've heard him spout over the years, some so bad -- especially in the last couple years -- I've turned the TV off in a huff wondering aloud how long anybody could say such things and keep his job. So now we know. Anne Anne, probably the most interesting statistic I've heard about this whole mess was his audience was young white males. That's sad, the most priveleged group in our society and they're afraid. Imus like Limbaugh expresses fear and resentment for those who don't have the whatevers to express it themselves. (I'm an old white male)

Individuals can be noble, honest, brave, beautiful, soulful. But I don't think people in general are. I certainly don't agree that every human action is explanable and predictable. I haven't seen any evidence of that. Rich Ahhhh, the biggest lesson I'm learning here in RodChronicles.com. Not everyone believes like me! I believe that most people are noble and if given the chance, heroic. When they aren't it's explanable, understandable, and predictable. I used "most" instead of "all" because I recognize there are those out there who are genetically or emotionally abused. Those individuals have to be accomodated, sometimes even appreciated for their uniqueness. The biggest problem I have with religion is it gives legitimacy to the irrational perception that some people are evil instead of just being different. It presents a formula for separating us from them enablings us to become less than noble or heroic in how we treat others.

Well the chivalry discussion sure did take an interesting course. Good reading by all. Perhaps it's because I grew up in the South, or perhaps it's because my grandmother was very careful to pinch our ears red when we said untoward things at or about ladies - call me old fashioned, but there's some things I won't do or say to or in front of ladies. Everyone's mileage may vary, naturally. I'm not a violent man. I find violence to be a throwback that reptilian part of us which we've spend centuries working to overcome. There's a reason why Reason is a quality to which we aspire and that we admire. That being said... The world would be a MUCH more polite place if mofos got clocked in the jaw more often ;)

Good morning Franklin, yesterday was one of those days in north Texas that only come a couple of times a year. Perfection should never be common. I'm not always a swing first and ask questions later person. A couple of years ago our little town was almost impossible to navigate off traffic times. When traffic was heavy it was impossible. The main road was tore up for widening and it was a nightmare. Saturday afternoon and I needed a part for the tractor. Small town thing, proprietor running the card over at the desk and me talking to him while my wallet laid open fifteen feet away at the counter. Young man walks to where my wallet is and looks around. I walk over and pick up my wallet giving the kid (early twenties is a kid) a dirty look as I picked up the wallet. I pulled out on a side street to get access to the main road. I'm sixty foot long with the combination of truck and trailer. Part of my trailer is infringing upon the access off those wanting to use the side street, not much, just a little. I stopped behind an Explorer waiting to enter the main highway. Traffic clears and the Explorer doesn't move. I did the old throw my hands up in the air in frustration thing. No bad words, no single digit exhibit, just an expression of frustration. Explorer driver steps out and screams at me that I'm an, well think of donkey marrying a cavern and having offspring. And he's not going to move until I back up. It was the kid in the auto parts store who evidently still smarting from the dirty look I'd given him. Two problems here. First is I can't back up, people are behind me, one of them using their horn already. Second I know that there's at least six to eight feet between us even though from his position in the little Explorer mirrors it appears I'm inches off of his rear. I also understand he doesn't present a threat because he has a deathgrip on his door as he screams at me. I smile at the young man and tell him to not get into a hurry to move because I think it's funny. And I dial 9-1-1 and explain to the dispatcher who I am and what's happening and an official presence would be appreciated.
By the time the cops arrived it was a total circus. Traffic was blocked almost all directions. The finest rolled up and motioned the young man into the auto parts parking lot. He was still protesting my being the earlier described offspring. I heard an officer tell him that had nothing to do with blocking traffic. I was waved on my way with a knowing smile from the officer, kids.

Well, here's Dr BLT's answer to the whole Imus ordeal. You heard it first here: Imus Forgive Dr BLT words and music by Dr BLT (c) 2007 http://www.drblt.net/music/ImusForgive.mp3

Rod, in your April 11th blog, you appear to straddle the fence when commenting about Don Imus and the Rutger's women's basketball team. You claim that the comments made by Imus was unfunny and offensive, yet in the same breath, you state "good grief, is their self-esteem so fragile that an offhand comment by a shock jock causes such agony". You continue to rant on and on about Al Sharpton taking the attention and focus away from Don Imus. I thought that was who you were writing about. How do you really feel because you certainly didn't persuade me on the little blurb - one liner- about Don Imus' insultive behavior and callous words. You can't stop people from using words which is ridiculous because all of us has said some things that we can be ashamed of if revealed. However, the FCC should regulate language on talk shows and television, period. The "b" word is used loosely on sitcoms, reality television, videos, etc. I believe there should be more regulation or certain "freedom of speech" communique which will force individuals to purchase videos, records, etc. like x rated movies. Or one could subscribe to Sirrus radio but not on the public airwaves. If videos are shown with vulgarity, bleep the words. Until the music industry stop or regulate what is shown or played on the airwaves you will continue to hear and see the vulgar rap videos. Also, comedy shows are another avenue to offend across the board. No one is speaking of that group. If mainstream television producers and executives does not regulate what is seen on tv shows then you will continue to have "slips of the tongues" and later meaningless apologies. We can't stop what people say but we can regulate what goes on the airwaves.