David Kuo has a typically charitable criticism of Kia Vaughn, one of the Rutgers women's basketball players insulted by Don Imus, and who is now suing Imus and several corporations associated with him. She claims her character was damaged by his calling her and her teammates "nappy-headed hos." David says that the lawsuit actually hurts her image, because it makes her look greedy.
He's being nice. Kia Vaughn is a greedhead trying to cash in. That obnoxious old man's stupid comments, which nobody took seriously and which cost him his job and brought him to national disgrace, will have turned out to have been a jackpot for Kia Vaughn, if she prevails in this absurd lawsuit. What a thin-skinned whiner she is, and what a dysfunctional society we're in, where people feel entitled to run to court to get rich off of a very minor slight. I didn't think anything could make me feel sorry for Imus, but this bonfire of the vanities is doing the trick.
I hope Imus fights this. I hope he won't settle, and that he goes to court and makes her prove how her reputation was injured by his remarks. I hope he makes her lawyers produce people who thought less of her because of Imus's remarks.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Larry,
I'm grateful to know of your background. It helps to illuminate your stated positions.
As for the rest... I find the megabuck consequences disgusting, but mostly because my background is in the financial industries. I was a first-hand witness (alas for my mortgage and children's college debt, not a participant) of the leveraged buyouts of the 80s. The current sub-prime shenanigans are not far-reaching enough, in my view.
My perspective is the thousands of jobs lost, the pension funds curtailed, and the tens of thousands of others collaterally affected when divisions were sold off piecemeal and cut apart to pay for the 8-digit rewards of a few insiders. There was fodder for lawsuits, lives damaged in many cases irreparably. All other reasons aside, that is why I can muster only contempt for the Vaughan's of the world when they think that money is the cure to all ills, but especially for their self-centered perceptions of self-worth. I taught my children to build their self-esteem from the inside. I pity Vaughan for being unable to do that, and I refuse to tolerate the alternatives she pursues. She may be the present target of my ire, but she certainly is not the only one who deserves it.
BTW, I'm betting Imus' parting gift was contractual; he would have received it for any for-cause dismissal short of a criminal conviction. I understand the sentiment; I also find any surprise over it beneath my notice, considering the multi-megabuck severances CEOs of bankrupt corporations get any more.
If Vaughan is a greedbot for using the courts to uphold her rights, then Imus is too. If you don't believe that, you're a hypocrite who's calling a person getting a lot of money for calling a woman a whore a better person than someone who's suing to protect her reputation after being nationally called a whore on public airwaves.
What Vaughan is doing may not be the best way to follow Christ's example, but he is likely (based on the most cursory reading of the Gospels) 100X more disgusted by the unfounded and ignorant judgment Rod and others here are passing on her. Shame on you.
And if the rape victim lied to get the person convicted of rape, she should definitely be sued, and probably prosecuted for perjury unless she was mentally ill.
Well, as often happens when using argument by analogy, the respondent gets caught up in the details and misses the point. That's not a dig at you, Kuote; just a personal reminder to myself to work harder to avoid analogies.
When did Imus use the courts? I'm not aware of his being a plaintiff in the present debacle; if he's used them in the past to attack someone, I'm quite ready to heap scorn on him.
As for the rest of your post: please, by all means hold both sides of the argument. In the meantime, until you find a post I wrote that praises Imus, I request that you avoid putting words in my mouth, as it were.
There is no constitutionally codified right that Vaughan has been denied, nor is there a statute defining any such right in the state of New Jersey. If you would care to reread my posts, you will see my statements about the concept of entitlement and its abuse.
Oh, and why is Vaughan's reputation more worthy of court protection than the many thousands of women who have an equal right to be offended by Imus' insults? The only difference I see is that Vaughan has a celebrity status to bank on, and I fail to find where that endows her with any rights.
Franklin:
It's a fair point that, legally, if a case like this is to be filed it should be a class action rather than an individual suit.
But on the merits, it strikes me you would think a class action suit would be even worse than an individual one ...
Larry,
It becomes an intellectual exercise, one that may take this discussion way off-topic... but your impression of me is correct. Superficially, I'd find a class action even worse.
Litigation can be a valid and important component of social change. The entire cycle of civil rights in the US would have amounted to nothing without it.
So, my challenge to those who support the Vaughan suit is this: what social change is this action supposed to support, and how is one to judge whether such litigation is going to actually be effective?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.