Rutgers U. Press Conference
Update: I almost didn't post this because I'm sick of the wall-to-wall coverage on Imus, when far more important things are happening, as I describe here. I didn't want my post to be part of the problem; ah, well. Check out the comments: some good points are made...but my main reaction to this is still that it is an overblown distraction from critical issues, one of which is discussed at length in the link above, another of which is alluded to at the end.
Well, I think it should be obvious that I didn't think Imus' comments were funny, and the comments themselves were sexist and racist. Whether Imus himself is, I don't know; let's say, sure.
OK, has everyone forgotten about freedom of speech?
Why is Imus piled on for "nappy-headed hos" (and not the far worse "jigaboo," btw), which was unfunny, offensive, but killed no one, yet Michael Gordon and Judith Miller -- and many of the same pundits tsk-tsking now -- whose lies have helped lead to nearly a million deaths, are A-OK? Not to mention that Glenn Beck, Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Michael Savage, et al, are just fine. They actually pretend to be news people.
Don't like Imus? Don't listen! I never do; what do you expect from Imus? What's worrying is his huge audience, which implies what we all know: the pervasiveness of racism and sexism. Silencing Imus won't do a damn thing about that.
This is the biggest story now? Iran? No big deal. Pure Chomskyan "flak".
What bothers me is the rush from left and right to hinder speech. Yes, even hateful speech. Unless you defend the right of speech you despise, you're not for free speech. It's easy to defend speech you agree with or which doesn't offend you.
Listen carefully to this press conference. "I want to suggest that right-thinking people give thought before they speak." The coach. Right-thinking people? Sounds like what so-called liberals rightly shrank from when Bushites said that after 9/11.
The excerpt on Democracy Now piqued my interest: somehow Comedy Central (!) and rap music is responsible? And on NPR, I heard someone say that Imus' comments were organically related to the reported fifth-grader sex in an empty classroom in Florida.
It's very easy to say, "Bad speech!" It's a lot harder to do what's necessary to fight the root causes of racism and sexism. Since all that matters is what "it's about," it's not about being offended, it's about higher black infant mortality, it's about 1 in 3 black males incarcerated or to be incarcerated, it's about women making 80% of men's salaries, still. It's about any number of economic and social realities, the solutions to which require major changes. Tough changes. Changes that the commentariat that is up in arms about Imus wouldn't support for two seconds. The hypersentimentality over how awful Imus' words were doesn't have the space or time for these larger issues. Of course.
No, I'm not taking the rightwing position of screeching "political correctness" as a cover for agreeing with speech such as Imus'. I defend chocolate Christs and all such things. Not that it makes a difference, strictly speaking, but avant-garde (political or artistic) expression is the first up against the wall when speech is limited.
Well, I think it should be obvious that I didn't think Imus' comments were funny, and the comments themselves were sexist and racist. Whether Imus himself is, I don't know; let's say, sure.
OK, has everyone forgotten about freedom of speech?
Why is Imus piled on for "nappy-headed hos" (and not the far worse "jigaboo," btw), which was unfunny, offensive, but killed no one, yet Michael Gordon and Judith Miller -- and many of the same pundits tsk-tsking now -- whose lies have helped lead to nearly a million deaths, are A-OK? Not to mention that Glenn Beck, Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, Michael Savage, et al, are just fine. They actually pretend to be news people.
Don't like Imus? Don't listen! I never do; what do you expect from Imus? What's worrying is his huge audience, which implies what we all know: the pervasiveness of racism and sexism. Silencing Imus won't do a damn thing about that.
This is the biggest story now? Iran? No big deal. Pure Chomskyan "flak".
What bothers me is the rush from left and right to hinder speech. Yes, even hateful speech. Unless you defend the right of speech you despise, you're not for free speech. It's easy to defend speech you agree with or which doesn't offend you.
Listen carefully to this press conference. "I want to suggest that right-thinking people give thought before they speak." The coach. Right-thinking people? Sounds like what so-called liberals rightly shrank from when Bushites said that after 9/11.
The excerpt on Democracy Now piqued my interest: somehow Comedy Central (!) and rap music is responsible? And on NPR, I heard someone say that Imus' comments were organically related to the reported fifth-grader sex in an empty classroom in Florida.
It's very easy to say, "Bad speech!" It's a lot harder to do what's necessary to fight the root causes of racism and sexism. Since all that matters is what "it's about," it's not about being offended, it's about higher black infant mortality, it's about 1 in 3 black males incarcerated or to be incarcerated, it's about women making 80% of men's salaries, still. It's about any number of economic and social realities, the solutions to which require major changes. Tough changes. Changes that the commentariat that is up in arms about Imus wouldn't support for two seconds. The hypersentimentality over how awful Imus' words were doesn't have the space or time for these larger issues. Of course.
No, I'm not taking the rightwing position of screeching "political correctness" as a cover for agreeing with speech such as Imus'. I defend chocolate Christs and all such things. Not that it makes a difference, strictly speaking, but avant-garde (political or artistic) expression is the first up against the wall when speech is limited.