We've been talking about how Jackson and Sharpton have been getting death threats over on the Highbrid Nation website and it got me thinking. Sharpton and Jackson may need to stop tryin to speak on behalf on all black people. I'm starting to feel like that are very out of touch with the average black person. Especially Sharpton who I feel is a joke.

When comedians that make racial jokes, and rappers that use worse language than Imus are crushed, I will feel that Imus firing was justified. I am not happy with the double standard. I am not happy when I feel that freedom of speech is threatened and that anyone can be crucified and lynched by a mob mentality. Did I like what Imus said? NO, but the consequences of the lynching is scarier than the sin. So who's going to be the next to go?

God, what a slow news week it must have been last week if THIS is what America can't shut up about!

Is the endless (and I mean ENDLESS) commentary about the Imus thing really any less obnoxious and/or exploitative than the parties actually involved in it?

Brother West, you are really wrong here. This is in fact a fairly important story. Don Imus per se isn't that important, but the story has a lot of implications and raises lots of questions of great practical import. Who is allowed to say what about whom? If the high and mighty Imus can be destroyed over this little bit of nothing, how much less offense would it take for YOU to get fired from your job?

One of our sister Blogcritics was carrying on about the racism she felt when a doctor told her she was fat, and when an editor didn't like her story. Given the blood lust evidenced by this Imus deal- and their success, how much offense would it take for people this sensitive or just paranoid to get you humiliated or fired?

There are important questions of values and practical daily racial politics here that go way beyond Imus.

don't worry, mike. 29 dead people at virginia tech may make us forget about imus. but, wouldn't you rather talk about dumb old hicks?

Talk about an indignation ho. You're the champ.

I agree with Al Barger!!! I was not offended. I laughed. Yes, I am a black woman. I think this outrage was just nonsense. Hustlers Jesse and Al are just power hungry and cutthroat. They used a joke to get all of this attention. Why do people follow these idiots? Everybody know the games Jesse and Al play.

I just cannot fathom how Imus's joke can scar a person for life. These basketball ladies will go on to prosperous careers. Some will end up in the WNBA. They will graduate from college with little or no student loan debt. I highly doubt that they will need a therapist to help them overcome this incident.

If anyone gets scared from these terms are just simply weak-minded.

Sorry, Mr. Barger, but no -- it's not an important story at all. Every single aspect of it, from the comment itself to Imus's firing over it, has been blown disastrously out of proportion.

The firing had little to do with censorship and everything to do with capitalism. CBS Radio had absolutely no choice but to fire Imus: his sponsors were dropping off in droves, preliminary ratings estimates were showing a tremendous drop-off, and the negative publicity was a tidal wave. Imus was a liability, and in the cutthroat business of radio an on-air liability gets the axe without a second glance. Their pretening to fire him for his racial insensitivity is a superficial facade at best: if CBS had thought they could turn this into a ratings- and money-maker, do you genuinely think they'd let him go?

Imus was stupid, Sharpton and Jackson were opportunistic asses, and CBS's cancelling the show was regrettable but perfectly understandable. We always say "Let the free market decide," and it did. I'm not worried in the slightest about the state of free speech (which is in no danger whatsoever), I'm sure as shit not worried about Don Imus (who made $8 million a year until last week, so even if his career is over, which I highly doubt, he ain't hurtin'), and I'm not worried about any serious political fallout from any of this (because there won't be any).

If we'd all shut the fuck up about it, it'd be yesterday's news - as it should.

Thank you Kim. I'm always hearing about all the great advantages I get for being a white man. I mostly don't see them - though that may be like a fish not being aware of water. But one advantage I do see is that we don't get re-inforced for playing victim or being weak-minded.

A white dude would get ridiculed and laughed out of the room if they went whining like this over even a not-very-nice joke - as well they should. Beyond anything else, this is good for the white guys.

Being encouraged to talk yourself into feeling deeply hurt and victimized at every possible opportunity is not to your advantage. Knowing that you're expected to have a thick skin, and that you're not going to get a lot of sympathy for whining over a little of nothing makes for a stronger and happier person.

This is the most intelligent piece yet on the Imus affair. It almost makes me want to become a Republican again (note, I said ALMOST).

Hold on there, Daryl - let's not go crazy here.

Bravo to your article. I couldn't read it all at the moment, but the paragraphs I read are right on point. People right now, I think, have reacted harshly because they're caught up in the moment.

Also, like one of the commenters here said, by the time the details of Virginia Tech murders/suicide all come out, no one will be "offended" and "outraged" by Imus and his comments.

Great writing, Al.

Al Barger, you got it RIGHT! This was a another hight-tech lynching by the race pimps, who got their bitches at the MSNBC and CBS to do just what they wanted. If black people think the Imus mess helps their cause, they are sadly mistaken. Imus will soon be back on satellite radio & cable TV, where he will have the opportunity to rip into people like never before. And, the rank & file whites, from whom blacks say they want respect, will be more embittered and resentful.

Considering whites so causally throw around the word "lynching" and appear to not know its definition, I doubt black people think their cause has been helped.

so now the word lynching is racist too? Not by any definition I looked up...maybe you can help me out here.

Maybe we need a list of "safe" words...it's getting to the point that we may have to cut out our tongues to avoid offending anyone!

Don Imus is fired for making a stupid statement that caused no physical harm to anyone. Yet everyday Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Fox news keep putting out lies about the way in Iraq drumming up support for emperor George which has resulted in 3,200 dead Americans. Me thinks the wrong person got fired

What are you talking about? Who said the word lynching was racist? I was making the point that a guy getting fired is not the same as a guy getting put to death. If you don't understand what you are reading, ask someone to help you.

For someone to say "Considering whites so causally throw around the word "lynching" and appear to not know its definition, I doubt black people think their cause has been helped."

...that tells me that someone thinks it's a racist word.

Nick Ames in comment 18 gives a little hint of some of the thinking of some of the indignation whores I've seen in this Imus business. Best I can tell, this came to attention because a dude from the Media Matters website was going to the bother to tape and monitor Imus day after day looking for something to use on him.

Media Matters is a liberal outfit that seems to mostly be dedicated to bitching about Republican broadcasters. Imus was easier pickings, but they're really wanting Rush or Sean Hannity.

I've heard some of these type of folks going on about who they want to get next. Rush Limbaugh is of course the top dog, and I've seen Neal Boortz cited. For starters, I saw someone wanting a swipe at Boortz for "racist" comments against Bin Laden.

Obviously, this is getting into trying to get people for their political opinions. I saw something about Tom Delay wanting Rosie O'Donnell fired to somehow even the score - though Imus is generally considered a liberal himself. That reminds me - I'm sure glad that goddam Delay is out of office.

But anyone smarter than Nick would know that you're not going to make much bag trying to call an advertiser boycott or protest movement against a right wing talk show host on the grounds that they supported the Iraq war. They'll have to come up with something else.

Rush was never playing shock jock to start with, but he's obviously got to know that he has to watch what he says. A little slip of the tongue could be devastating.

These playa hatin' losers couldn't come up with any left wing competition to Limbaugh or Hannity that anyone wants to listen to, so they'd be happy simply to destroy people who do have an audience. But the schmucks have so far only managed to bag the one main popular talk show host who was sympathetic to the liberals. It's almost like they've cut off their nose to spite their face.

This entire event has been blown disastrously out of proportion. There is such a double standard regarding racist lingo.

Andy, you're wrong, but you appear to have your mind made up.

well...you're wrong about me being wrong...but right about me having my mind made up...I can read...comprehension a problem for you there JJ??

that statement I quoted before didn't say the way PEOPLE throw that word around...it said...the way WHITES throw that word around...

If that ain't racist then 'splain it to me Lucy!

"The firing had little to do with censorship and everything to do with capitalism."

At the core and on paper, Michael, you are correct. It was the backlash in ratings and sponsors that got Imus canned. But would the sponsors've pulled their ads and would those ratings have plummetted if Stringer, Ajavon, Sharpton, etc. hadn't been given so many opportunities to tell the world how scarred for life these women would be over an offhand, childish remark? Those sponsors didn't pull those ads because they individually found Imus's comment that horrific. But noone wants to have their ad associated with a program burdened by that kind of bad publicity swirling around it--bad publicity that was only there because a few opportunistic people picked up the ball and really ran with it. Proof that not quite ALL publicity is good publicity. I'd be shocked if all those sponsors really found the remarks as harmful as Al's indignation hos are making them out to be. But you just don't want your name anywhere near his name when those people are able to stand behind podiums and throw this guy under the bus time and again. He was wrong, but the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and Imus only lost his job because of the insane amount of attention this story received.

On a related note, if this scarred these women for life, how'd they make it through fourth grade? As the blind kid in class, I seem to recall far worse, and while I don't wish it on anyone, I have to think there's something else wrong if this sort of stupid name calling can scar someone for life.

Racist remarks of any kind have no place in the vocabulary of someone on the public stage who is supposed to be serving a diverse audience. Being in a position of authority, especially with the privilege of being White in a majority White community, carries certain responsibilities as well as rights. We cannot attack people who are weak, or powerless, then say we are not bullies. Just as one cannot continue to use racist language down the years, aimed at vulnerable members of the community, then say one is not racist. It's a contradiction in terms. If we use the language of the bully, we are bullies, and if we use the language of the racist, we are racist. We cannot use the language of hate if we aspire to love. The two are incompatible.

Second, the language we use defines who we are. It is not just something we learn to use for communication or our benefit; not just something we pluck out of the air at random. Language represents who we are, body and soul, and the meanings we wish to convey. Language reflects our identity, ethics, beliefs, who we are and aspire to be. We give life to what we believe through language. We would NEVER use words we are not comfortable with unless we are coerced. We also stamp our own style on our use of words so much that when something comes from us which doesn't sound in line with our personalities, not the 'normal' thing we would say, people begin to wonder.

Language comes from the heart and the head to reflect exactly who we are and what we value. So when we use negative terms against others, we are actually demonstrating our fears, our insecurities, our low self-esteem, prejudices and, most of all, our feeling of power over them. We have the power to say such remarks, so we do it. Otherwise, why would this man, who has a job many would die for, wish to say something so awful about vulnerable women far away he didn't even know - comparing Black beauty to White beauty which is culturally incomparable.

Finally, his responsibilities. Don Imus has a radio programme which goes out to a diverse community with sponsors from that community. When he disparagingly talks about certain people in such racist ways, what message is he giving to his Black listeners about their worth and value? Most important, how does he expect those listeners to react who thinks him worthy enough for their time in tuning in to his programme? Sometimes, as we get so bloated with our own power, we forget about respect to the people who put us where we are. The word RESPECT has sensitivity at its core. Where was Imus' sensitivity to his diverse audience?

Imus abused the authority placed in him as a public announcer, one who is supposed to be serving ALL members of his public, not just the White section of it. If he decides to make racist fodder out of others, he should know that carries consequences. By showing little sensitivity to his diverse audience and supporters with those awful sexist and racist remarks, he effectively relinquished the authority vested in him to act in an unbiased way and forfeited that respect. It depends on the society we seek if we can actually condone such discriminatory behaviour in the 21st century.

The world has moved on a lot with our global interaction, a point that certain old hands are ignoring and resisting until they are foced to acknowledge it. Perhaps for the first time in his life, Don Imus is learning that certain actions have consequences, and free speech actually carries responsibilities for ensuring the rights of everyone.

Uh, what ever happened to the first amendment; anybody ever heard the term "freedom of speech?" Why don't Sharpton & Jackson publish a "hate-speech dictionary" so we can all know what's the right and wrong thing to say. And what a bunch of babies in this country that have psych problems because someone called them a name. They're so mentally shaken they need to extort two networks in order to "feel better" about it. Now that really gets respect doesn't it.

Here is one of the better editorial cartoons that I've seen about this whole mess.

Miss Elaine- Thank you for your thoughtful and heartfelt commentary. However, I'm obviously going to have to disagree with you.

In the first place, you talk repeatedly how Imus has abused his "authority." He didn't have any. He was a popular radio host, but he doesn't make laws or command an army. He's not a prosecutor or officer of the courts. He's just an entertainer spouting off on the microphone.

Also, you write "Racist remarks of any kind have no place in the vocabulary of someone on the public stage who is supposed to be serving a diverse audience." That sure sounds good as you say it, but it's pretty arbitrary, and plain wrong. He's not "serving a diverse audience." He's not Disney creating family fare.

He's a shock jock with an audience niche. I don't expect rappers to cater to Hank Hill down at the propane plant. Nor do I expect Randy Travis to cater to the Muslim immigrant community.

Also, I reject "racist remarks of any kind have no place." That's tying your hands from speaking openly and honestly right there, isn't it? It wouldn't be nice if someone is just being gratuitously hateful to black folks, but the idea of "racism" is a broad and questionable thing. Who gets to decide what is racism?

That edict of yours would really mean that we can't publicly discuss race at all, or only to the extent of nodding our heads and repeating the proper liberal dogma. Discussing or even noticing, say, high crime rates in the black community opens you to charges of racism. Criticizing the hateful and fanatical elements that have taken the driver's seat in the modern Muslim community? Racist!

No, I prefer to take my chances on the rough and tumble of free speech and people saying what they want - even if that means putting up with a little shock jock foolishness in the bargain.

At the core and on paper, Michael, you are correct. It was the backlash in ratings and sponsors that got Imus canned. But would the sponsors've pulled their ads and would those ratings have plummetted if Stringer, Ajavon, Sharpton, etc. hadn't been given so many opportunities to tell the world how scarred for life these women would be over an offhand, childish remark?

Maybe not. But...so what?

In the American "marketplace of ideas," Stringer, Ajavon, Sharpton, et al.'s soapbox is as valid as Imus's. And like Imus, NOBODY IS FORCING ANYONE to listen to what Stringer, Ajavon, Sharpton, etc. are saying.

I stand by my previous assertion: we, the people of the United States are beating this dead horse into the ground as hard as we can, pretending that it makes even the slightest bit more difference in our everyday lives as Americans than the burning issue of whether Sanjaya wins American Idol.