Here's a quick point for all you intellectual "snobs" who are defending the New Yorker against legitimate criticism.  "Oh, you don't get that humor" they say.

One of Don Imus' many defenses of his "Nappy-Headed Hos" comment was that no one understood the context, that he makes fun of everyone.

I didn’t offer any...think it was necessary to offer any excuse...I didn’t think there was any need for me to put into any sort of context what happens on this program, because I widely assume that everyone knows, and obviously everyone doesn’t...

[My] program has been, for thirty or thirty-five years, a program that makes fun of everybody.  It makes fun of me, and it makes fun of everybody on the planet...That is the context in which we operate here.

So, congratulations New Yorker.  You've managed to run a Don Imus cover.  And because your audience is primarily liberals, you won't even have to apologize for being racist.

In front of the microphone, he looks like a scarecrow in a ridiculous hat.  The trouble is, his act is just as stiff ... and his character just as substantial.  The surprising thing about Imus' recent issues is how people are surprised by his offensive behavior.

Beyond the scarecrow himself, there are more important questions.  #1, Why did the networks give him the stage for so long? #2, As unlistenable as Imus is, should all such behavior be removed from terrestrial radio, or does that mean censorship and thwarted freedom?

Original story from WeTheSportsPeople.com

On this morning's edition of Imus In The Morning, Don Imus claimed that his remarks yesterday about Adam "Pacman" Jones were widely misinterpreted. He says that his comments were sarcasm and that he meant to insinuate that Mr. Jones had been arrested six times because of racial profiling.

This is a kind of difficult situation to read. Obviously this was going to be Imus' defense whether legitimate or not - but I think it boils down to one thing. If he DOESN'T KNOW who Pacman Jones is it very well might not be racist. But if he DOES KNOW who Pacman Jones is it seems clearly racist. Sorry I-man but this particular African American is not the victim of racial profiling - Pacman is just a legitimately crazy dude that seeks out trouble. I mean honestly, who makes it rain at a Vegas strip club and then makes a scene to get the money back??

Anyways, I don't really know whether to believe Imus or not but here is the full audio of his defense. Give it a listen and weigh in with your own thoughts and opinions:

I know this is hard to believe.  

But I think his reasoning for both his "Pacman" Jones statement and his Rutgers statement of last year have more to do with his declining popularity, terrible ratings, and declining quality of his show.

Don Imus is in the middle of a controversy over remarks that are being interpreted by some as racist. When his co-worker spoke about an African American Dallas Cowboys player being arrested, Imus asked, "what color is he?" "African American", he was told. Imus said, "oh, ok there you go".

Taken without context this remark may seem racist, but once you read Imus (in my view plausible) clarification, you may have second thoughts.

This morning on Don Imus' radio program the controversial host seems to have done the unthinkable. When hearing about Adam "Pacman" Jones, the troubled NFL cornerback who missed the '07 season due to suspension... Imus asked:

"What color is he?"
re: "He's African American"
"Well there you go... now we know"

This was in response to hearing that Adam "Pacman" Jones had been arrested six times, involved in various nightclub altercations etc.

So what do you think about this latest gaffe from Imus? Is it "nappy headed ho" all over again? Do you think the comments were racist? (they certainly appear to be.. and I actually don't mind Imus in general)

Here is the audio clip - weigh in with your own thoughts and opinions:

In a surprising move today that caused some surprise among both Democratic and Republican voters, former media celebrity Don Imus publicly announced his support of Hillary Clinton. Well known Clinton surrogate James Carville welcomed his support and pointed to his own previous defense of Don Imus. Carville indicated that this latest endorsement by Imus vindicated his past defense of Imus.

In just the latest sad chapter in the decline and fall of the American media, press outlets are claiming that Barack Obama gave Hillary Clinton the finger during a recent campaign event.  Despite the obvious video evidence that Obama was inadvertently scratching his cheek as he spoke, Fox News, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post (just to name a few) all ran with stories raising the specter of Fingergate.  Sadly, back in 1998, one of the presidential candidates did in fact figuratively flip the Clintons the bird.  And John McCain is still paying no price for it.

Just a couple weeks ago, one year after Don Imus was canned by CBS, the New York Daily News ran a glowing story about the "resurrection" of Don Imus, in which even Al Sharpton says nice things about the I-Man:

The resurrection of Don Imus has been almost as complete as his crash and burn.

...

A year later, he has dusted himself off and climbed back in the saddle - a move that critics like Sharpton say is fine as long as he has learned his lesson and helps send the message to others.

"I believe this has had the chilling effect we hoped it would have," Sharpton says.

Yeah, well, leopards and Imuses don't change their spots. Imus is still the same old Imus, and his latest is a real beauty on several levels.

During the April 17 edition of Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus asserted that Sen. Barack Obama is "almost a bigger pussy than" Sen. Hillary Clinton. While discussing the April 16 Democratic debate, Imus said he thought that co-moderator George Stephanopoulos was "great" and that the debate was "fine," adding: "I thought Senator Obama was on the defensive most of the night. But they're both sissy boys or sissy girls, or whatever. Because they talk big when they're out on the campaign trail, wolfing on each other." News anchor Charles McCord interjected, "But then," and Imus continued: "And then when they show up at the debate, they fold up like a couple of cheap lawn chairs. I mean, I don't understand that. And he's almost a bigger pussy than she is."

Hard to know where to even begin with this particular gem. As far as his language itself goes, I can hardly say I'm surprised at how utterly tasteless and crude Imus' comments were. This is, after all, the same man who assailed the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos" for their unthinkable crime of wanting to play basketball and get an education.

No, Imus' professional history is one of consistent and unrelenting asshattery, befitting a man with the rare ability to be thoroughly offensive even on the occasions when you agree with him, and I suppose that the tastelessness of his language itself should be no great surprise.

But the I-Man's latest bomb is particularly revealing for its content. There is, of course, the simple and obvious misogyny of the comment, both in the use of a term demeaning to women, and in that he employs it to feminize Obama.

Imus’ latest is specifically targeted to make the leading male Democratic presidential candidate appear effeminate (read: "weak"). Gosh, where ever have we seen that before? Hell, the Republicans themselves don't do it any better than Imus just did.

Best of all, he gets to double up by taking a free shot at Clinton too, which is one of his favorite pastimes. He’s previously referred to Clinton as "Satan" several times, occasionally as a "fat pig", and once stated she was "worse" than Osama bin Laden. A real charmer, our man Imus.

I think it’s most instructive, however, that Imus really didn’t see anything wrong with the debate and the questioning. In fact, he thought it was "great", and quite obviously wishes the candidates had risen to the exalted level of the questioners by hammering each other with slingshotted bullshit. You can just picture him salivating over the prospect of the debate as a pro wrestling match where the candidates back up their weeks of trash-talk by hammering each other over the head with folding chairs.

And with good reason: Imus lives off of such stupid controversies. He’s made a long career and tens of millions of dollars off of them. Of course he loved the debate. The closer politics resembles pro wrestling, the more relevant he gets to feel.

And when the candidates don’t play along, well, that makes them "pussies".

Lovely.

Bill O'Reilly's campaign to inculcate racism into society is in full swing. A few days ago, after wondering aloud whether Martin Luther King despised America, he accused millions of African-Americans of hating their country. Today, in his Talking Points Memo, he advances his argument to attack anyone who has the temerity to suggest that racism actually exists:

"As we've been reporting, millions of Americans of all colors are fed up with race baiters and accusations of racism."

Brought to you by...
News Corpse
The Internet's Chronicle Of Media Decay.

When we were growing up, there was television and it was, it seemed, always on.  Television was not always uplifting and often failed to meet the expectations of the best of those who appeared on it or those who valiantly tried to use the organs of government as instruments for the public interest.  

But, yet, amidst the "I Dream of Jeannie"'s, and "Mr. Ed" and "My Mother, the Car" there was some sense of responsibility among the networks:  some sense that they, too, had obligations as citizens.  And, sometimes, often when they had to because of tragedy, but often because the best among them demanded it, they rose to the challenge to either inform a dubious public or commemorate events of importance, and the history of our nation and world.

I find it funny and at the same time infuriating to see so many politicians, news people and pundits getting all worked up over Barack Obama's association with Rev. Wright and Trinity United Church of Chicago. They desperately and constantly want to know why Barack continued to attend Trinity knowing full well of Rev. Wright's inflammatory racial rhetoric and what this fact tell us about Obama? Why didn't he protest or at least speak up? Why didn't and why hasn't he thrown Rev. Wright under the bus? Why? Why? Why?

Although I would love to write more on this subject, time simply does not permit due to my professional obligations.  However, I thought this was important enough to at least start the discussion.

Almost a year ago, Don Imus made some statements that were strongly denounced and rejected by many, and eventually followed by much hand wringing and the start of a discussion on race.  It was followed by two reactions.

Reaction A: This isn't who the real man is, I have never heard him talk like that in private, and he has done great thing for minority communities.

Reaction B:  How can you say that and still go on his show, after hearing these types of remarks on a regular basis??

The United States of America needs to start having a HEALTHY dialogue about Race and what it means to be various races in this country. As it is, we only have dialogue (not necessarily HEALTHY dialogue either) when someone says something to offend a racial group (usually they are offending African Americans or Latinos). What seems to go unnoticed is the fact that these discussions that arise out of some perceived grievance don’t help alleviate the problems. In my opinion, they tend to exacerbate the problems, making any future healthy dialogue less feasible in the future. How are we, as Americans, supposed to begin eliminating some racial stereotypes when we can’t talk about it rationally?

More over the bump. . .

Basically decent on-air personalities who say something really stupid get punished for it—while the biggest troublemakers usually escape with insincere apologies. Why? Follow the money.

Shustered is my very own “truthiness” word.  To get shustered means “to lose a career for an inappropriate, relatively minor utterance about a powerful person or group.”  Shustered is not to be confused with Imused defined as “firing a nitwit broadcaster with a history of purposefully pissing off people due to race, religion, gender, sexual preference or political persuasion.”

Suspended ace reporter David Shuster is no talk-jock Don Imus. Shuster’s uncouth comment about “pimping out” Chelsea Clinton pales in comparison to Imus’s “nappy haired ‘hos” diatribe.  Frustrated by the inability to get a Chelsea “get” despite her solicitation of Super Delegates, Shuster attempted a lame pun. Imus spewed a clearly racist invective against African-American female athletes who did nothing more public than play one helluva of basketball game.

The term shustered is no joke and should never be used lightly. If David Shuster’s job with MSNBC is at risk for his poor choice of words, who in the news media might be next to be shustered?

This morning, while driving to work, I flipped through the radio channels and lo and behold, Don Imus was talking to Hillary supporter Carl Jeffers.  Mr. Jeffers bluntly stated much of the same garbage I've heard SEVERAL Clinton supporters tell me personally.  And I'm tired of it.

Jeffers basically made the following claims

1.  No way "Middle America" will vote for a "black man."

2.  Obama can't respond toughly back at McCain because he will be "perceived as an angry black man" and "America isn't used to that."

3.  Hillary is more electable because she will get the Latino vote and many Latinos won't vote for a black man.

It's not a 'best of' retrospective.

It's not what you'll find on television.

It's those moments that made me, and others, go 'what the f#@k'

Enjoy