Rutgers Team Accepts Imus' Apology

After a meeting of the Rutgers' womens basketball team and Don and Deidre Imus last night (the meeting which Gov. Jon Corzine was en route to when he had his automobile accident) the team has announced it will accept Don Imus' apology.

``These comments are indicative of greater ills in our culture,'' Stringer said. ``It is not just Mr. Imus, and we hope that this will be and serve as a catalyst for change. Let us continue to work hard together to make this world a better place.''


``They gave us the opportunity to listen to what they had to say and why they're hurting and how awful this is,'' author Deirdre Imus said.

``He feels awful,'' she said of her husband. ``He asked them, 'I want to know the pain I caused, and I want to know how to fix this and change this.'''

Do they think he should get his job back? They didn't go that far.

The team's goal was never to get Imus fired, Stringer said. ``It's sad for anyone to lose their job,'' she said.

I have no doubt Imus will get another radio show somewhere if he wants one. I hope it will be a different type of show, one that doesn't feed on base and degrading insults.

I think I'm done bashing him. He's paid a very steep price for his years of taunts and insults and I just hope he learns from it. His reputation will forever be tarnished by this incident. It has cost him big dollars.

His downfall will send a message to other broadcasters and to networks that racist and hate-filled remarks will not be tolerated.

The protests have made their mark. It's time to move on past blasting Imus.

< What Is It With The Obama Campaign? | John Walker Lindh Moved to Supermax >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 01:35:15 PM EST
    A day late for Mr. Imus.

    I wonder what they would have said if he still had his job.

    Good point (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 01:54:24 PM EST
    Thinking about <imus (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 08:42:35 AM EST
    I have never heard Imus show on except for the recent clip that was online, so I do not know much about the guy. Yesterday I was talking to a friend who mentioned that he felt bad about the whole Imus thing because he generally thought of Imus as a rather straight shooter.

    One thing led to the next and I found out that Imus was against the war. My bet is that is why he lost his job and the advertisers were jumping ship. I would not be surprised if the WH got in on this. If an decorated ex marine who gave an anti war lecture could be put on a no fly list and be harassed, lost luggage etc, every time he flies, than Imus could have been bumped because he is a big threat to the war effort. More people listened to him that would be for the war than not, so he has big influence.

    Even ppj was for the guy being fired. That is really telling cause he loves the other mysogenist racist pigs who blather on regularly with their hate speech and nary a word about them.

    The only ones he complains about are against the war.

    Funny - I haven't listened to his show either (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 09:17:37 AM EST
    Just seen him interviewed a couple of times on TV and even then only paid attention for a minute or so. But I have had the same impression of him as your friend. I hve heard him express opposition to being in Iraq, and I assumed that was a part of the "anti-idiocy" that he also seems to expresse.

    squeaky (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 09:48:28 AM EST
    What a confused person you are. We finally agree on something and you find a way to make it a WOT issue for advertisers, and ME! Wow. Gasp! Who would have thought it?

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    What a confused person you are. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 10:05:56 AM EST
    You get called on something you do on a regular, if not everyday, basis - and instead of learning from it as the Rutgers team has expressed their wish that Imus do from his experience, you try to spin it into a smear as a way of trying to smear the person who gave you that constructive criticism.

    Being that insecure must make you feel very insecure. No one needs any other proof - you smear yourself everyday.

    You can do better than that. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 10:06:54 AM EST
    Imus can.

    Can't you?

    edger (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 10:13:25 AM EST
    You and squeaky are smearers. You know that, I know that.

    And claiming I condemned Imus because he was anti-war is great, because it proves just how far you will stretch to attack someone you disagree with about the war.

    Please. Please keep doing things like this.


    You can't do better? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 10:14:44 AM EST
    That's what I thought. Thanks for confirming it.

    edger - I don't have to (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 10:58:39 AM EST
    You do it yourself.

    Consider squeaky's inital comment. Unprovoked, no proof and totally illogical.

    Made only in an attempt to smear.

    That is a perfect example of "troll."

    So please, please. Keep on doing such things.  It defines you so well.


    Heh. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 11:11:03 AM EST
    You better read it again. Slowly. ;-)

    Obvious (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 06:29:55 PM EST
    Imus ws fired and lost his support because of his anti war stance. Yes his hate speech is unacceptable but his anti war speech is what got him the boot. Since when has the right wing cared about racist and mysoginist speech? The pro war crowd oozes it and not a peep of crit from the right. Now all the wingers are all humanistic and pc about Imus'  screed. It can only be about the war.

    He had become a threat.


    Oh man (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Claw on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 11:19:10 AM EST
    So let me get this straight, ppj.  To make a racist comment you have "indicate" that you wish your comment to encompass the entire race you are slurring, otherwise it's just an insult.  By that logic, calling just one guy a lazy n*** wouldn't be racist.  It would just be an insult as long as you didn't specifically indicate that you made clear that not ALL people of his race were lazy n****.  BTW, you are aware that you can use a racist insult, right?

    claw (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 04:32:38 PM EST
    Actually claw, that is what the dictionary says.

    a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

    A racist insult? Yes, if the quailfier is such that it meets the dictionary's definition. Otherwise it is just an insult.

    Also to fuel your anger further, I am against hate speech codes.

    You might want to claim the person making such an insult is a bigot:

    a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

    Or you might want to say that the insult leads you to believe that he is a racist. But that is your belief, not something proved by the remark, as gross as it is.

    Remember that last. You can condemn gross insults and get results without claiming that the person is a racist.

    BTW - Did you consider Jackson's "Hymie Town" racist? Hint. I don't. It was just an insult.

    Did you consider the movie title, "White Men Can't Jump" racist? No? why not? It makes a negative comment about white men. I do, but don't consider it important.


    Claw (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Claw on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 11:20:44 AM EST
    Sorry, that should read "as long as you made clear."

    Imus, et al (3.75 / 4) (#8)
    by jaf on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:33:17 PM EST
    "It's time to move on past blasting Imus." Jeralyn I concur we should move on to Limbaugh, Michael (Savage) Weiner, Glenn Beck, and Boortz. While this incident is still in the arena, it is a good time to review the nuanced and literal  bigotry of these and most other conservative talking heads.

    Don't forget (3.00 / 2) (#12)
    by HeadScratcher on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 03:48:46 PM EST
    That racism, sexism, anti-semitism, anti-catholicism, etc... runs on the liberal side as well (shocking as that may seem!). I hope we can do away with that as well.

    There was a Democratic Presidential candidate in 2004 who has said some pretty inflammatory things over the years and he got to give a speech at the Democratic convention! (Al Shartpon).

    The progressive community will find it's base grow by going after ALL of these instances instead of just the ones we agree with...

    I mean if Mahatma Ghandi is running a gas station in Missouri (Hillary Clinton) or middle easterners running 7-11's (Joe Biden), not to mention Hymietown (Jesse Jackson), or the way the Duke Lacrosse players were treated, etc...

    I remember the columnist Julianne Malveaux on CNN call all white americans racists on national television in a debate. I'm sure Jeralyn and Big Tent Democratic would agree with her.

    For this to stop means everyone must stop!

    I'm Tired (2.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Freewill on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 04:22:25 PM EST
    I'm tired of 24-7 news coverage of this incident and the comparison of Imus' remarks and those of rap artists. Once again misdirection by the Media Elite to shape "America's Moral Values" so that their pockets become stuffed with green.

    I myself condone derogatory comments of individuals by all forms of media including rap but rap music is an expression of a culture's experiences. When MSMs try to blur the real issues by finding examples of other derogatory words in other forms of media to show why this crap should be acceptable I just wonder who the children are that are running these media outlets.

    24-7 coverage of this topic for the past week has enlightened the Nation and hopefully we grow from this. Hopefully, tolerance of those who cater is this type of hate mongering (Limbutt, Beck, O'Really etc..) will think before they blurt their bigoted messages over the Free Airwaves of Radio and Television. Move to a paid-for provider like Cable, Satellite radio, and even Music CDs and I can care less about the hate they spew because I'm not going to buy that product!

    And to think most of those hate-filled bigots I mentioned earlier try to wrap themselves in moral issues to proclaim that they are moral protectors of the masses only to unleash from the other side of their mouths hate towards others who think differently!

    I salute the Rutger's Coach and team for their bravery, wisdom and endurance from the slime in this Nation.

    Now, MSMs stop talking Imus and expose the lies of our current Administration!

    But there's a racist history behind Bush's lies (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by dutchfox on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 04:47:57 PM EST
    Ron Jacobs Counterpunch (2005!): The Bush Administration, Civil Rights and Iraq --

    According to a recent statement by Condoleeza Rice at a convention of black journalists that compared the war on Iraq to the civil rights movement in the United States, I am a racist. Why? Because I don't believe the war on the people of the middle east is about bringing democracy? Because I, along with most people in the rest of the world believe the US/UK war is about control of oil access and oil profits? Because I don't accept that the killing of thousands of Iraqis by US firepower is "the moral mission of our time", like Condoleeza Rice does? Or is it because I find the ethnic cleansing practices of the Sharon regime in Israel--practices which are supported by the Bush administration--to be morally repugnant? Perhaps it even simpler: because I believe that the war on the peoples of the Middle East is about colonialism, plain and simple.

    Like the colonialism of past centuries, the drive for power and profit is cloaked in words of morality. The western powers used to go in and Christianize the natives, now we bring them western democracy--a concept that is a figment of someone's imagination, much like western civilization. Much like the conquerors of old killed the "natives" when they met up with indigenous peoples who didn't feel like being Christianized, the modern colonizers kill those who don't want to be "democratized." Of course, if they kill enough, thereby destroying the opposition, soon the colonizers can realize their dream of democracy.

    Freewill (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 05:34:50 PM EST
    but rap music is an expression of a culture's experiences.

    Even if it was, why should its "artists" say terrible things about its women?

    Why should its artists glorify killing a policeman, something that is almost 99.99% certain to get the man, usually a young man, executed or LWOP??

    Why? Because of shock value, they can sell it to the young, both white and black, some of who think of themelves as "rebels" and will buy anything they think bothers their elders.

    Positive expressions help promote positive thought. Negative expressions promote negative thoughts.


    Positive experiences.... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by kdog on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 10:15:26 AM EST
    promote positive expressions.  Negative experiences promote negative expressions.

    My point is artists make art about what they know. Should Kurt Vonnegut have written about Dresden as a great victory against fascism?  That's not what he saw....he saw depraved, senseless destruction and wrote it from that angle.  

    Kanye West runs into a lot of women who are into him for his money and fame..so he wrote "Golddigger".

    As long as negative things exist in this world, artists will create art from the negativity.  They will iluminate it...


    Who publishes art? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Freewill on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 05:49:19 PM EST
    Even if it was, why should its "artists" say terrible things about its women?

    Why should its artists glorify killing a policeman, something that is almost 99.99% certain to get the man, usually a young man, executed or LWOP??

    An Artist is an Artist. That's my point. However, before an Artist is able to send their art to the masses someone else has to publish it? Correct?

    Who are the publishers of this crap? Why do the publishers peddle in this type of crap?

    I can't control nor do I want to control someone elses thoughts. I don't want to control how they express their life experiences. If someone has had bad (in their minds) experiences with the law then cool, let them express it in art because it's their art. If I, as a publisher of said "Art", it would be up to me to decide whether or not to publish said "Art" and it would not be up to that individual artist. If the individual artist can not sell its art to a publisher then it would not be given to the mass market for air time.

    I, as a consumer, am given a choice (Free Market) to purchase what defines or motivates me. If the publishers of said "Art" do not publish that crap I, as a consumer, can not purchase said "Art" and therefore would probably move on to something else that moves or motivates me into purchasing.

    It's easy to blame the lowest ring on the ladder however, if you stand on a cracked ring near the top the potential for severe harm is heightened taking out with it not only that rung but in most cases the rest of the rungs as well. The argument blaming the artists is very one sided and needs to be expanded to the entire feeding chain.


    Subject change, eh?? (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 06:09:59 PM EST
    I'm not defending the corporations. They have much to be ashamed of.

    But that doesn't excuse the "artists."

    You didn't explain why "artists" say such terrible things about their own culture.


    Shocking.... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Freewill on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 06:53:16 PM EST
    I've worked in a prison for the last 16 years. When this story broke one of my inmates laughed and said "He should have just said: I called it as I saw it". Yes, the inmate was black. I am white. (I need to set the stage here)

    For years now I have been intrigued why the Black culture spoke of themselves in such derogatory ways. But the real question is when does it become derogatory? Is it derogatory when someone from inside their own culture uses it or is it derogatory when someone outside of their culture uses it? When someone determines something is derogatory are they actually speaking from personal experience or are they speaking from a different set?

    Hypothetical Alert:
    Jim, say you and your wife were fighting and you were explaining your side of the fight to a co-worker. During your explanation you make a few derogatory remarks about your wife because you are still obviously upset. Two weeks later and you have long settled your gripe with your wife, that same co-worker approaches you and asks you about your <insert the same derogatory name you used 2 weeks ago about your wife to the co-worker> wife. Does that co-worker have the rights since you used the same adjective or noun 2 weeks earlier, to call your wife by that term now?

    You didn't explain why "artists" say such terrible things about their own culture.

    Just like the hypothetical I noted above: We all say things about our own families but yet we become extremely defensive when someone else tries to say the same thing we did about our own family.

    Culture is the same thing in many aspects.

    In art are the artists intent on being derogatory? Are the listeners themselves receiving and interpreting the message as a derogatory message? As an outsider are you allowed to determine what is culturally acceptable and what is not culturally acceptable? As an outsider to a culture are you allowed to define what a culture accepts as art?

    That is why in so many words I originally wrote what I wrote. It's hard to break my views on this type of topic down for others to understand because no matter how one explains it someone else can perceive it however they perceive it based on their life experiences and/or cultural experiences. This is not a topic that can be solved by simply pointing out this or that example, it is much deeper than that.

    kdog's response was awesome to me because it expressed my own view points as well! Thanks KDog!

    Don Imus knew better! Plain and simple! Using a tactic like "I heard it in a Spike Lee movie" is just not acceptable - to me! Neither is trying to blame another culture for how that culture defines "Art". That's a lame and tired excuse!

    So... Once again I go back and ask who is funding this type of speech and giving it media airtime and how is it solely an artist's fault?


    My WAG is that (none / 0) (#2)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 01:43:15 PM EST
    I have no doubt Imus will get another radio show somewhere if he wants one.
    CBS's loss will be satellite radio's gain.

    Sarc (none / 0) (#3)
    by glanton on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 01:49:30 PM EST
    When you say "loss," you do mean something along the lines of audience or money, etc., right?

    Just hoping you don't mean CBS is "losing" anything of intangible value.  Like in the realm of ideas or something.  


    g-man (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:20:03 PM EST
    I wrote the word without even thinking about it as it's part of a fairly common phrase.

    My point is, like Jeralyn suggested, he may well find himself back on the air.

    I know little about Imus, the only time I have ever heard Imus was, back in the day when Howard Stern was on free radio, he would play clips of Imus's show to rag on him.

    At this point I guess the word "loss" should be interpreted as sarcasm.


    Gotcha (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by glanton on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:27:58 PM EST
    I haven't seen much of him at all, but over the last few days I;ve read various source-descriptions of the show he's been running lo these many years.  It sounds like the same stoopid trash that's everywhere else on the radio.  Which is another way of saying, not anybody's loss, nor anybody's gain. ;-)

    I do think it's fair to say we're moving further and further away as a society from being willing to forgive and self-examine.  Everybody jump on the guy who made the racist comment, now we can all prove how none of us has everrrrrrrr (chest puffed out) thought a racist thought in our lives.  

    Sometimes I think, in terms of the soul anyway, people like Imus, or Trent Lott, or Michael Richards are more fortunate than the rest of us because their moments of pracitcal stupidity placed them in positions where they had no choice but to examine their own attitudes and convictions about race, they have nobody to pass the buck to.


    Well said g-man. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:57:51 PM EST
    Has anyone watched MSNBC the last few days? (none / 0) (#7)
    by bx58 on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:32:07 PM EST
    They've gone to a format (long talks w/o commercials) that is eerily similiar to the Imus format. That won't last.

    "I know little about Imus, the only time I have ever heard Imus was, back in the day when Howard Stern was on free radio."

    Yea,while Howard had the Amazonian cross-dressers Imus was trying to solve some problems.

    Pour encourager les autres (none / 0) (#9)
    by kenfair on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:38:14 PM EST
    If Imus getting fired means that Limbaugh or Savage or Beck needs to think twice before uttering their usual racist or sexist nonsense, then job well done, I say.

    In this country it is good to kill an admiral from time to time, to encourage the others.

    -- Voltaire, Candide

    Double standards (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by dutchfox on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 02:49:25 PM EST
    I have to admit it, I never watched or listened to Imus.

    Undernews -


    [If, that is, there was any logic to the Imus affair. But carefully concealed behind the liberal sanctimony and speech suppression is an unspoken rule: it's okay if our guys do it. A few examples follow]

    Read the comments, too.

    Can you? (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 05:27:27 PM EST
    et al - Can anyone show me some of the actual racist and/or sexist comments made by Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck???

    And before you get nasty, remember that I called for Imus to be fired four days ago.

    I'll take on the Limbaugh assignment (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by nolo on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 06:05:16 PM EST
    Here's a link to just a few examples:


    There also was the classic McNabb comment, as well as his "take the bone out of your nose and call me back" comment and the "haven't you noticed that all composite pictures of wanted criminals look like Jesse Jackson" comment.

    There could be more, but life's short and I have to go do other stuff.


    nolo (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 13, 2007 at 09:31:59 PM EST
    nolo....No sale...

    I'd have to read the Limbaugh piece again, but what I see are insults, but not racist and/or sexist, against powerful people in politics and/or on the public stage.

    That is vastly different than Imus' insults to some young ladies who are not politicans and are not on the public stage beyond their basketball performances.

    BTW - I didn't find Imus' comments racist or sexist.

    Now, if that troubles you, so be it. I'd recommend against it, but, as noted, they are not racist and/or sexist. They are of the "Hymie Town" comment by Jackson type.

    Now, if you want to say that Limbaugh, or anyone, should be taken off the air for insulting politicans and entertainers, have at it.

    Your other "quote" is over 30 years old, and I have no idea if he actually said it, although Snopes said it thinks he did. I just note that at the end of the link, we have this:

    Since Rush Limbaugh presumably wouldn't have expressed feelings of guilt over an apocryphal story, and as far as we know he hasn't ever denied or disclaimed what Newsday reported he told them, we have to put this one in the "true" column.

    I love the "presumably" and "as far as we know" qualifiers, and the fact that no one seems to actually have asked Limbaugh if he said it. If he did, shame on him because the insult was to an individual who didn't deserve it.

    I find the Jackson comment more problematic. Frist, I find it difficult to think that Jackson was so on the national stage 35 years ago that a very young disc jockey would have been all that interested in attacking him. Perhaps he did, I just have a problem with the timing.

    His McNabb comment was a political comment about the media more than anything else. We may disagree, but his comment doesn't make him a racist. Basically he just said that McNabb had not performed to expectations and that media was giving him a free ride because of their desire.
    Again, not racist.

    But perhaps you will find one. I confess to have not listened to him enough to say that he has, or has not.


    hmm. (none / 0) (#21)
    by nolo on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 12:49:24 AM EST
    BTW - I didn't find Imus' comments racist or sexist.

    If "nappy headed hos" doesn't strike you as a wee bit racist or sexist, then I don't know what to say except that I'll quit wasting my time trying to discuss this issue with you.


    nolo (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 10:08:06 AM EST
    Wee bit??

    It either is, or it is not.

    Read my comment to Tom Stewart.

    Now, if Imus had indicated that he believed his statement to encompass all black females, yes. That would be racist. But he did not.

    What he did was insult because he attributed socially unacceptable activities to females who were perfectly innocent in their actions.


    You've got a tin ear (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by nolo on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 12:44:56 PM EST
    For both racism and sarcasm, apparently.  But let me spell it out for you. By "wee bit" I meant "hell yeah it's racist, and if you're saying it's not you're either being deliberately obtuse or you're mentally defective."

    And by that, I mean to insult you personally, and not every dissembler and mental defective.


    nolo owes me $$ ... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Sailor on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 01:01:02 PM EST
    ... for the cleaning bill for my screen and keyboard his last comment caused;-)

    Sailor, please don't choke yourself. (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 04:05:04 PM EST
    You are far too important as an example of snarky comments.

    Limbaugh (none / 0) (#22)
    by TomStewart on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 02:46:01 AM EST
    Well, I for one find his calling of mixed race people "Half-Rician Americam" racist. His defenders claim it's was only a 'joke', but it's really singling out someone for ridicule based on their race, the very definition of racism.

    Tom Stewart (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 09:36:12 AM EST
    Make up your own meaning for words if you like, but this is what the dictionary says.

    a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
    2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

    And note two things. I didn't call it a joke. It wasn't.

    Making up and using a word to describe someone's "Americanism" (for like of a better word) is no more racist that use of the word "Africian American," etc. (Hint. It isn't)

    Personally I don't like such words because they put people into a "group" and that is a slipperly slope that can lead to trouble.

    Some people claim that the use is handy as a way to describe someone. It is. Many wrong things are "handy."

    Why not just refer to people as Americans?

    BTW - I have viloated my own rule many times.


    DA - Read (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 09:53:35 AM EST
    As I wrote:

    I love the "presumably" and "as far as we know" qualifiers, and the fact that no one seems to actually have asked Limbaugh if he said it. If he did, shame on him because the insult was to an individual who didn't deserve it.

    DA (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 10:18:34 AM EST
    If you don't like the way I structured my comment, well.... what can I say. I have invited you to be my secretary several times, but you have refused.


    Perhaps what you fail to understand is that I consider his comments to be insulting, but not racist.

    Read my comment to Tom Stewart.

    yadda yadda


    DA (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 10:53:23 AM EST
    Read the definition.

    He did NOT claim "all."

    Huge difference.

    Quit making things up.

    Keep on yadda yaddaing.

    BTW - I assume you condemn rap, as I do. True??


    OFF TOPIC (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Sailor on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 01:08:55 PM EST
    And welcome to yet another (psychotic) episode of "It's All About PPJ."

    The thread is about imus and the Rutger's team acceptance of his apology.

    I think the members of the team proved their class yet again. Excellent athletes, excellent people.


    Imus (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ancient One on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 10:24:15 AM EST
    Am I the only one who sees a parallel between the current Imus debacle and the Papacy in the Middle Ages? Imus has been forced to confess his sins and to beg forgiveness in the public forum of the media which, to me, seems to reflect a holier than thou attitude on the part of the public.

    I'm Sorry (none / 0) (#51)
    by Claw on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 06:23:28 PM EST
    Jim, but claiming Imus' comments weren't racist because he didn't "indicate" that he wanted them to apply them to an entire race of people is absolutely the worst argument I've heard in a long time.  First of all, it doesn't pass the laugh test.  If you heard someone uttering racial slurs directed at one very specific person in particular you would not wait until that person said "you are a [insert insult] and furthermore I wish these remarks to apply to the entire race you belong to," to tell that person to shut up.  And if someone asked you if you thought the person's comments were racist, you would say yes.  Also, in your own webster's-online definition, racism is defined as prejudice or discrimination.  You don't have to declare that you wish your insult to apply to an entire race; you just have use a prejudiced insult.  Also, you'll notice that I did not say Don Imus is a racist (I actually just think he's a moron), I said that his comment was racist.  And though I was deeply hurt by the title "White Men Can't Jump," I did not regard it as racist because it only made a judgment about the MEN of my race.  It made no judgment about the jumping ability of white women and thus could not, by definition, be racist (you see how dumb that sounds?)  Finally, I'm not sure how your being against hate speech codes is going to fuel my anger.  First, I'm not angry and second, I get jumpy whenever restrictions are placed on speech.  I find the "Hymie Town" comment every bit as reprehensible as Imus' very stupid racial slur.  I also don't like the "diamond merchant" comment.  I think it's anti Semitic and racist.  Hint, I dislike racism whether it comes from the left or the right.  

    claw (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 06:51:35 PM EST
    Hmmm... If a person has made an insult, why must you assiciate it with racism before you correct them?

    That doesn't make sense.

    And what is a "laugh test?" Is it some kind of test that says, "That word now means what I say it means?"

    As to your inability to recognize that "White men can't jump" is about a race, well, what can I say?
    It obviously is about race, and race includes both genders.

    In the end, my belief is that you should reserve words like racist for people such as David Duke, not Imus. Failure to do so reduces true evil to the level of an insult, and before long you can't tell the difference.

    And there is a difference. Ask the Jews.


    ppj (none / 0) (#54)
    by Claw on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 07:35:54 PM EST
    Did you even read my comment before posting?  It appears not.  I went out of my way to point out that I wasn't saying Imus was a racist, just that he made a racist comment.  You seem unable to accept this.  The laugh test is a commonly used by many--especially lawyers--when describing particularly ridiculous arguments/stories/etc. It goes hand in hand with the smell test.  You intentionally missed my point about stepping in when someone is using a racial slur and then didn't read all the way through my comment.  The "diamond merchant" comment referred to Jews.  So let me ask you this, if someone called your friend a n*** and he/she said something along the lines of "boy, that was racist," would you correct them?  Would you say "no, that was just bigoted." My hope is that you wouldn't.  The White Men Can't Jump thing was a joke, but it specifically refers to only white MEN and thus, by your definition, is not racist.  

    claw (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 14, 2007 at 11:29:14 PM EST
    One more time...

    You have white men and white women. They are members of the white race. I understand it was put out as a joke.... my point was that it was racist because it referred to a race... but I also noted I didn't consider it important...

    By definition a racist comment must meet the definition of "racist." (See White Men Can't Jump.) A racist insult must also meet the same test.

    I am not in the habit of correcting friends' comments, be they right or be they wrong, unless I think it just so important that I am willing to make a friend angry. That doesn't rise to that point.

    I understand your point, I just am not going to accept it. As I pointed out "racist comment" has becoming a handy way of saying, that was a nasty mean comment about someone of the (fill in the blank) race.

    Let's take race out of it and use the word correctly. When you don't you are either raising the charge against a person too high, or too low.
    Plus, continual use of the charge removes its shock value, and we have no word to replace it.

    What would you suggest for Hitler? Super racist?
    And if you think Limbaugh is a racist, what do you suggest? Conservative Radio Talk Show Host Racist?
    Chubby guy racist?

    Remember the story about the boy who cried wolf.

    BTW - I am regularly referred to as a racist, almost always indirectly by several regulars on the blog. Mostly because they hate my position on the war.


    Jim (none / 0) (#57)
    by Claw on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 01:18:38 PM EST
    How can we "take race out of it," when the comment relates directly to the race of the women?  Nappy headed ho is the very definition of a racial slur.  While I think that it also falls under racist comment, I will concede that racial slur is a better way to put it.  But why fight about it?  Is that what's important here?  I never said Imus was a racist.  Nor did I say that Rush Limbaugh was a racist.  I find it very unfortunate that you are referred to as a racist.  That's a serious charge and shouldn't be made lightly.  You are, however, engaging in verbal gymnastics that would make Clinton blush.

    Racial Slur (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 01:37:21 PM EST
    Then we can agree on something.

    of, relating to, or based on a race
    2 : existing or occurring between races

    Re racist re Imus re Limbaugh... Others have.

    Re chages? Sticks and stones, etc.

    Make Clinton blush? If I could do so that would be high praise....

    So (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Claw on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 03:54:37 PM EST
    You haven't answered my question Re: the mechanics of taking race out of a racial slur...you also haven't explained your dedication to word parsing and splitting hairs.  "It wasn't a racist comment...just a racial slur."  Let me add another question.  How many racial slurs does one have to make before you begin to wonder if that person is, in fact, a racist?  I enjoy our exchanges and value the fact that you regularly visit this site and make comments that you know will get you attacked.