Fire Imus?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Rickypt

. . . As for the firing, no one has a right to make a ton of money off of free speech. Imus can say whatever the hell he wants but that doesn't guarantee him a fat contract with MSNBC. It is not remotely similar to jailing someone for burning a flag. Someone else will have to pay the man's salary.

The Constitutional right of free speech has no application here. The Constitution states:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Thus, the only Constitutional right to free speech in this country is the right not to have the govt. suppress your speech unless you are inciting a riot, causing a panic, etc. - which are judicially created exceptions.

This is a common misconception. And, it is why Imus can be canned. The only Constitutional violation would be if the govt. passed a law canning Imus.

In the end, Imus was an idiot for making these remarks and he is paying the price.

[sara1998]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think it is because in America, the current system is designed to promote black people over white people in an attempt to right the wrongs of the past.

The problem with that goal is that all black people can take advantage of this system regardless of their income, privilege, etc

For example, if you have a below poverty level white kid who is more deserving on his own merit, he likely will lose an application to school, for a job, etc. to a rich, black kid who is less deserving on his own merit. To me, that is not right and it solves nothing in the way of helping people who need help, which ostensibly was the larger goal.

Similarly, government and some private contracts are given to minority owned firms solely because they are minority owned and no matter how much higher the price or the quality of workmanship. I think when people see this disparate treatment, they get angry, esp. when they are coughing up 30-40% of their salary to pay for this BS wasting of money. In other words, it would be cheaper and more efficient to take 10% of your money and go to the projects and hand it out on the street along with a providing a class on how to succeed in business. Moreover, white owned businesses have closed because of this treatment and good, hard working, white families have lost their homes, etc. because of this. How is that fair?

I have used this example in the past. My blond haired and blue eyed friend had no clue that something like his great, great grandfather's race allowed him to qualify for special treatment. This guy came from a wealthy family who could clearly afford to educate him in style. Yet, he qualified for a scholarship based on his "race" and he got into a school over more qualified white people. My friend certainly knew nothing of his past and certainly could have cared a less about righting any wrongs, as all his family's wrongs had been made right via their own hard work generations before then.

So, the question is - how is a system that allows this called a fair system? The answer is it is not.

So, the question then becomes, well, don't we have to help disadvantaged kids? Yes, we do.

But, helping disadvantaged kids should be just that. This is why I conclude any leg up should be based on poverty alone and race should not enter the picture. After all, aren't poor white kids just as deserving as poor black kids. Certainly, the poor white kids are discriminated against.

Yet, me saying this brands me as a horrible racist in this country. I think that is wrong.

Thanks. I'm not articulated enough to argue this point.

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

So, the question is - how is a system that allows this called a fair system? The answer is it is not.

So, the question then becomes, well, don't we have to help disadvantaged kids? Yes, we do.

But, helping disadvantaged kids should be just that. This is why I conclude any leg up should be based on poverty alone and race should not enter the picture. After all, aren't poor white kids just as deserving as poor black kids. Certainly, the poor white kids are discriminated against.

Yet, me saying this brands me as a horrible racist in this country. I think that is wrong.

I don't think you're branded a racist- I think some (not me!) may be branding you an elitist, though.

Unfortunately, White America is going to have to suck it up for awhile. Nothing in life is ever fair.

Black Americans have been disadvantaged for so long, that they have to get a "leg-up". Just because some take advantage of the system doesn't diminish the need for it. Should the system be "fixed"- yes, but not at the expense of any one of the disadvantaged being short-changed once again.

It's a difficult prospect trying to right the wrongs of the past. My ancestors came to America the 1890's and had zippo to do with slavery. However, as White Americans of today, or any time for that matter, we have automatic, built-in advantages that any person of color is automatically denied regardless of our mutual history or when we became American citizens.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

I think the fault of your argument is that it seems to me you do not acknowledge that people other than black people have been shat upon by rich white people and that rich people in general and regardless of race are advantaged over the poor. Certainly, the Chinese and the Irish were treated like slaves - indeed, some were indentured servants. And, gay people have been tortured, jailed and/or killed. So, why single out just the blacks Moreover, the poor of this country have been shat upon by the in general rich (of all races) since the country began and to this day. So, all of those people were discrimminated against.

Was one worse than the other? I guess it depends of the person asked. I am sure Matthew Sheppard would reply his treatment that resulted in death after torture was as bad as any slave was treated. Moreover, wealthy minorities shiitee on and disassociate themselves from the poor ones, even to this day.

So, this brings me back to my point that any govt. assistance should be based on poverty and race should not come into the picture. That way, all the disadvantaged and downtroden get a chance.

As for me being an elitist, I think people think I am saying "let them eat cake" while living in Versailles. I am not. I truly believe that the poor, all of them, have to have help if they ever want to get out of that situation. Indeed, I have worked to many years to achieve that goal. That is why I am for a larger form of Equal Opportunity that emcompasses all the poor.

As for white people sucking it up, I am all for the rich, advantaged white people sucking it up to help all of the poor. However, I think you are missing the point that I made earlier, which was that wealthy and advantaged black people are given advantage over poor, disadvantaged white people. How is that a good thing? What wrong does it right? Surely, any wrong committed against the wealthy black family's ancestors were righted because the wealthy black family has made it into the mainstream so to speak Yet, out current system gives the wealthy black family even more advantage as noted above.

So, in the end, I again conclude, it should be based on poverty, not race.

How that makes me an elitist, I will never know (general question to all)

If I am branded an elitist because I have a higher education, a great job, and money in the bank - then I submit that is not a fair assessment of my argument. In other words, are all people in my position, including the minority ones, elitist? Are they that even though they advocate, as I am, formulating a system in this country that stops the blatant waste and abuse, while helping all people who are in need. Why are my goals bad or elitist?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by The Tower

. . . Black Americans have been disadvantaged for so long, that they have to get a "leg-up". Just because some take advantage of the system doesn't diminish the need for it. Should the system be "fixed"- yes, but not at the expense of any one of the disadvantaged being short-changed once again . . . .

Again, how does helping all of the poor regardless of race fail to accomplish this goal? Under my system, any disadvantaged black person will get a leg up if they need it. I submit they need it only if they are part of the poor.

Originally Posted by The Tower

It's a difficult prospect trying to right the wrongs of the past. My ancestors came to America the 1890's and had zippo to do with slavery. However, as White Americans of today, or any time for that matter, we have automatic, built-in advantages that any person of color is automatically denied regardless of our mutual history or when we became American citizens.

I agree. However, I do not think perpetuating that is the right thing to do. I say perpetuate because that is what I see happening. I think automatically giving special treatment to all blacks regardless of their level of education and socio economic standing perptuates the notion that they were once universally though of as inferior - so, to this day and regardless of their success, they still need a leg up over all white people. To me, that makes no sense and IMO is rather insulting. What makes sense to me is helping the people who need the help, which I define as the poor of all races. In other words, once you make it out, you are on your own.

[strandinthewind]

Imus: 'I've apologized enough'

Story Highlights• Imus says he will not go on "some talk show tour"

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Amid the outcry over his on-air racial slur last week, shock jock Don Imus said Thursday that he had "apologized enough" and that he will not go on "some talk show tour."

"I'm not going to go talk to Larry King or Barbara Walters or anyone else," Imus said on his radio show, which originates from WFAN-AM in New York and is syndicated nationally by Westwood One, both of which are managed by CBS Corp.

"The only other people I want to talk to are these young women at the team, and then that's it," Imus said.

He was referring to the members of the Rutgers University women's basketball team, whom he described as "nappy-headed hos" the day after the team lost the NCAA championship to the University of Tennessee. (Gallery: Other controversial comments aired on Imus show)

He has repeatedly apologized for those remarks. Team members have agreed to meet with him privately, but so far no meeting has taken place.

"It gets said. Kids get hurt," he said. "At some point -- I'm not sure when -- I'm going to go talk to the team and that's all I'm interested in doing."

Imus' comments Thursday came a day after NBC Universal decided to part ways with him completely, thus canceling the simulcast of his show on MSNBC.

Despite being dropped by NBC, Imus hosted his show from the MSNBC studios in New Jersey. He did not appear on TV.

"As you know, MSNBC folded up yesterday, so we're just on the radio," he said.

Imus was broadcasting his 18th annual radio charity fundraiser, which has pulled in $50 million since 1990. It ends Friday.

"This may be our last radiothon, so we need to raise $100 million dollars," Imus said, chuckling.

According to The Associated Press, Imus raised $1 million in the first five hours of Thursday's fundraiser.

On Wednesday, appearing on CNN's "The Situation Room," presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D.-Illinois, blasted NBC for airing a host who makes "derogatory statements toward women and minorities.

"I've got two young daughters who I hope will be athletes. And, you know, the notion that somehow they would be degraded and insulted, and that that would pass as humor, and that NBC would be running that over the public airwaves I think is atrocious," he said.

Imus discusses cancellation
Earlier in the week, CBS Radio issued a statement announcing a two-week suspension that starts Monday.

"What matters to us most is that the men and women of NBC Universal have confidence in the values we have set for this company," the statement said. "This is the only decision that makes that possible." (Your e-mails on Imus)

Imus discussed the cancellation on his morning show.

"As you know MSNBC folded up yesterday, so we're just on the radio," he said, adding "sometimes it doesn't snow on Christmas."

On Wednesday, a CBS board member, Bruce Gordon, called for Imus to be fired from WFAN.

"His remarks are so significant that I believe that the right outcome is for him to be terminated," said Gordon, former president of the NAACP.

The head coach of the Rutgers women's basketball team, Vivian Stringer, told "The Situation Room" Wednesday that she was "stunned" and "surprised" by MSNBC's move.

"I think that it's probably a victory for the people," said Stringer, who said she was "proud" of corporate executives who "understand that we can do better."

Civil rights activist Al Sharpton said MSNBC's move "was the right thing to do." As for CBS, Sharpton scheduled a rally outside the network's New York offices Thursday, where he hopes to pressure CBS into canceling Imus' morning show, a statement from a media agency representing Sharpton said.

"If CBS follows suit as NBC has done, it gives a chilling message to those that will use the public airwaves in a way that is gender-biased and race-biased," Sharpton told "The Situation Room."

He also said he intends to complain to the Federal Communications Commission about the matter.

"Somewhere we must draw the line in what is tolerable in mainstream media," he said Sunday. "We cannot keep going through offending us and then apologizing and then acting like it never happened. Somewhere we've got to stop this."

Imus' comments also prompted at least eight companies to pull their ads from Imus' show: Staples, General Motors, Sprint Nextel, GlaxoSmithKline, Procter & Gamble, PetMed Express, American Express and Bigelow Tea.

Rutgers players express 'hurt, anger, disgust'
Imus "has stolen a moment of pure grace from us," the captain of the Rutgers women's basketball team, Essence Carson, said.

Carson and other players spoke at a news conference Tuesday in their first public statements since Imus' inflammatory remarks. (Players talk of hurt, seeking understanding)

"I would like to express our team's great hurt, anger and disgust toward the words of Mr. Don Imus," Carson said. (Watch as Carson says the issue is "about more than a game of basketball")

Imus used the derogatory phrase after the underdog team lost the NCAA women's title to the University of Tennessee Lady Volunteers. He apologized on Friday and Monday before his suspension.

Other players echoed Carson's reaction, saying Imus' insulting words and the resulting controversy overshadowed their achievements.

Stringer and Rutgers players are scheduled to appear Thursday on "The Oprah Winfrey Show."

On Wednesday morning, Stacy Brann, Rutgers team spokeswoman, said the players will meet with Imus this week. The day and location are still to be determined, she said.

Several players said they would welcome the chance for a face-to-face meeting with Imus.

"I would like to speak to him personally and ... ask him, after you've met me personally, do you still feel in this category that I'm still a 'ho' as a woman and as a black, African-American woman at that?" said Kia Vaughn, a sophomore center.

"I achieve a lot, and unless they have given this name of 'ho' a new definition, then that is not what I am."

Stringer praised the accomplishments and character of the team members, five of whom are freshmen. (Coach builds winners, despite adversity)

"They are young ladies of class, distinction, they are articulate, they are brilliant, they are gifted. They are God's representatives in every sense of the word," she said. (Read Stringer's complete comments)

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/0...ers/index.html

[Rickypt]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, there was that time on stage in Cabo San Lucas Sadly, no video exists

[skcin]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Again, how does helping all of the poor regardless of race fail to accomplish this goal? Under my system, any disadvantaged black person will get a leg up if they need it. I submit they need it only if they are part of the poor.

Are you running for public office?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Rickypt

Well, there is this still



HEY - that's me

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by skcin

Are you running for public office?

Well, don't think I haven't thought about it. Sadly, there was that unfortunate motel incident awhile back that the public is just not ready to accept even though I was not the ring leader. Yes, farm animals ran in terror, several latex making plants saw their profits boom, and McDonald's saw a drop in their straw supply - but it was all in good fun.

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

^^^

I think the fault of your argument is that it seems to me you do not acknowledge that people other than black people have been shat upon by rich white people and that rich people in general and regardless of race are advantaged over the poor. Certainly, the Chinese and the Irish were treated like slaves - indeed, some were indentured servants. And, gay people have been tortured, jailed and/or killed. So, why single out just the blacks Moreover, the poor of this country have been shat upon by the in general rich (of all races) since the country began and to this day. So, all of those people were discrimminated against.

Was one worse than the other? I guess it depends of the person asked. I am sure Matthew Sheppard would reply his treatment that resulted in death after torture was as bad as any slave was treated. Moreover, wealthy minorities shiitee on and disassociate themselves from the poor ones, even to this day.

I think you're being a little intellectually dishonest.

Comparing the plights of the Chinese, the Irish and gays to that of blacks is not a good one. Blacks were captured and brought here against their will and thrown into slavery. The Chinese and the Irish came here on their own volition to try and earn a better life. Humanity will always discriminate against the gays- it's just the way it is.

So, this brings me back to my point that any govt. assistance should be based on poverty and race should not come into the picture. That way, all the disadvantaged and downtroden get a chance.

Apples and oranges again, Jason.

I think anyone in poverty should be given assistance of some sort to have a better life. Everyone in society benefits from helping the poor. However, that is a separate idea from the concept that a certain group of people who can be easily grouped together simply because of the color of their skin, and other characteristics, were systematically denied basic human rights for 300+ years.

A large segment of the American population has a built-in "lowering" of the status of blacks simply because of their race. They are automatically handicapped- so, that "leg-up" is an attempt to balance things out a little bit.

As for me being an elitist, I think people think I am saying "let them eat cake" while living in Versailles. I am not. I truly believe that the poor, all of them, have to have help if they ever want to get out of that situation. Indeed, I have worked to many years to achieve that goal. That is why I am for a larger form of Equal Opportunity that emcompasses all the poor.

Just like no one can understand the challenges that come with being gay unless one is gay- no one can understand the challenges of being poor, or black in America, unless one is poor, or black in America.

I support helping the poor, but I would never claim to understand the difficulties and challenges related to trying to get out of poverty. Because of that, I will always err on the side of helping someone, rather than denying them assistance. It's very easy to assume that someone is not "trying" to get out poverty without actually being in that person's shoes.

As for white people sucking it up, I am all for the rich, advantaged white people sucking it up to help all of the poor. However, I think you are missing the point that I made earlier, which was that wealthy and advantaged black people are given advantage over poor, disadvantaged white people. How is that a good thing? What wrong does it right? Surely, any wrong committed against the wealthy black family's ancestors were righted because the wealthy black family has made it into the mainstream so to speak Yet, out current system gives the wealthy black family even more advantage as noted above.

Again, suck it up. If the current system has flaws that occasionally give extras to wealthy black families, I'd rather have that than a system that short-changes even one poor family. I agreed with you before that the system needs to be fixed. However, the concept the wealthy blacks can benefit from the current system is immaterial to the basic idea that blacks are fundamentally disadvantaged in America.

So, in the end, I again conclude, it should be based on poverty, not race.

Again, two separate concepts.

How that makes me an elitist, I will never know (general question to all)

If I am branded an elitist because I have a higher education, a great job, and money in the bank - then I submit that is not a fair assessment of my argument. In other words, are all people in my position, including the minority ones, elitist? Are they that even though they advocate, as I am, formulating a system in this country that stops the blatant waste and abuse, while helping all people who are in need. Why are my goals bad or elitist?

I'll take a shot at why some might think you could be elitist (or something like it).

I really liked your post about how you worked to help disadvantaged people in New Orleans with education, etc. However, unlike those that you stated were not even trying to get out of poverty, you were able to leave at the end of the day and go back to your life with its much higher standard of living. There's nothing wrong with that and there is nothing in that that would create blame, however, I think a lot of that "not trying to get out of poverty" has a lot more to do with hopelessness than it would have to do with laziness (even though there may be some that are truly "lazy"). I get that you say you saw it, I'm just saying that if people cannot see any way out, it makes it very difficult to try.

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think automatically giving special treatment to all blacks regardless of their level of education and socio economic standing perptuates the notion that they were once universally though of as inferior - so, to this day and regardless of their success, they still need a leg up over all white people. To me, that makes no sense and IMO is rather insulting.

You may think it is insulting, but it is reality all the same.

It's nice to be an idealist- but, at the end of the day, blacks are still unfairly disadvantaged because of the color of their skin to this day.

[strandinthewind]

Slavery ended 140 or so years ago. I say it is time to move on totally from it. Yet, people cannot see this and they want to perpetuate the current system, that is not working. To me, that is ridiculous when one based on poverty alone is far better because it achieves the same goals as helping out poor black people as the current system does, but eliminates the fraud.

I mean is repeating "we" are sorry so here are extra rights over everyone for the next 100 years going to be enough? When will it end? I say never because it has become a political tool.

As for my teaching parable - I was repeating what the people in the projects were saying. They, not I, were the ones who had the contempt for the people who were not trying to get their kids out. So, I based my conclusion on that, which is sort of like walking in their shoes just a tiny bit.

In any event, how would you fix the current system if not by making it the far more inclusive system based on poverty, which treats everyone the same?

[sparky]

Originally Posted by Rickypt

Sparky, you can't tell someone what the "proper" response should be. That would be your response and it would be your response based on your own experiences and way of approaching things.

I can tell anyone anything I want. It is up to them to listen or not. It is my opinion that giving him any credence whatsoever is giving him power. Why anyone cares what a shriveled old shock jock thinks of them is beyond me. He isn't even funny. He's a fool, and treating him as such is a response coming forom a place other than victimhood. I know, victimhood is the new black. Victimhood is the new religion. But it doesn't advance anyone.

Since I am not black, and I am not a woman, I can't pretend to say how these women should have responded.

Black, schmack. Someone says something about you that is stupid. So what?
If a washed up media figure called me a silly fag, why would I care? A bad joke and a low grade insult is what it is no matter the subject.

As for the firing, no one has a right to make a ton of money off of free speech.

We all have a right to make ton of money off whatever the market will bear. Or whatever we can hustle.

It is not remotely similar to jailing someone for burning a flag.

Yes it is. It is treating the symptom, looking at the small picture, and projecting an interpretation on someone else's actions.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by The Tower

I think you're being a little intellectually dishonest.

Comparing the plights of the Chinese, the Irish and gays to that of blacks is not a good one. Blacks were captured and brought here against their will and thrown into slavery. The Chinese and the Irish came here on their own volition to try and earn a better life. Humanity will always discriminate against the gays- it's just the way it is . . . .

Being an indentured servant was no picnic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant

Also, the Irish could stay at home and be killed by England either through starvation or outright slaying. Or, the landlords would pay for their passage to America or Australia to pave the way for livestock farming, which generated revenue. It was often noted that it was cheaper to import the Irish and let them work until they died than it was to buy, house, maintain, and feed slaves. Look at what Lincoln did to man the Union Army. Thus, I think that qualifies as treatment on par with slavery, especially considering many tribal chiefs actually sold their own tribal members into slavery

In any event - here is a cool site -

http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/overview.htm