Right? You Can't Make This Stuff Up Indeed

An anonymous comment was posted here this morning, though the person who penned it hid behind a pseudonym, Robert Throckmorton (the comment seems to have come through a server in Ames, Iowa, caucus country). And the comment suggested that I was paranoid and full of something like digested hay for thinking (see my essay here) that the Imus story was much bigger than race and sex (and that these were even distractions). The issue, I augured, was that this is about who will be the next president. (And I augured even more than this.)

Let me remind readers that Don Imus constantly referred to Hillary Clinton as "Satan." As wrong or as unfortunate as this may be, Mr. Throckmorton thinks that I am paranoid for thinking that Ms. Clinton benefits -- supremely -- from Don Imus' silence.

Now note this: Ms. Clinton is going to speak at Rutgers on Monday. Yes, I know. Paranoid delusions on my part.

This is all about winning -- for Ms. Clinton. She is, in her own words, in the presidential campaign "to win." As if there is any other option. So, desperately seeking affirmation and the prize, Ms. Clinton is going to steal the limelight -- steal it from a Rutgers women's basketball team, from Al Sharpton, from Don Imus and from Barack Obama. No doubt Ms. Clinton can exploit commiseration to great effect, for she -- all female -- has also been the victim of Don Imus' sexism. That this whole story used to be about a runner-up basketball team whose achievements were overshadowed by the easily ignorable comments of an old white guy is worth noting, particularly since it is no longer about that at all, proving, at last, that it never was. Surely Ms. Clinton has heard that the Rutgers team has accepted Mr. Imus' apology, and that they'd like to move on and get on with living -- and on with the celebration the team still richly deserves. But that has no place in her campaign, for the limelight she is going to steal is about to be rather large and rather bright: the media presence at Rutgers will be so overpowering that it will be hard not to believe that Ms. Clinton already is president. Perfect.

Of course, no one dare suggest that Ms. Clinton is going to exploit the misfortunes of a group of women who have accepted an apology. After all, it may be the case that the Rutgers team has given Imus some sort of absolution, but that does not mean all other women have to follow their example: Other women can still hold a grudge against the I-man.

It's funny. I have been apologetic to Contratimes readers for speculating beyond the prima facie evidence of this whole story. Clearly my paranoia is rooted in some shallow soil. The soil of reality.

But I may still be wrong.

Alas! One more paranoid tidbit: Hillary Clinton, according to the report cited above, has had a longstanding open invitation to speak to the "The Eagleton Center for American Women and Politics" at Rutgers. Can anyone say "motive?" I can.

Odd that I should have been speculating that the machinery behind Don Imus' sudden fall was larger than Al Sharpton. I now see why.

I wonder, Mr. Throckmorton, what you see.

Peace.

(Still experimenting, so bear with me.)

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags:
Don Imus, Racism, Rutgers Basketball, Al Sharpton, Language, Censorship, Hillary Clinton, Reparations, Sexism, Bigotry, CBS, MSNBC, Presidential Politics, Barack Obama, Charles McCord, Bernard McGuirk, Al Sharpton, Sid Rosenberg

Imus, Hate, Reparations And Public Profits: More To Think About

Please, forgive me as I play the fool. But there is so much about the Don Imus story that is important, it is hard to be silent.

As you know, I have already speculated that this Imus "scandal" is largely about presidential politics: key political figures running for the White House can only benefit if Imus is silenced; or, should he return, if he is finally and firmly marginalized as an irrelevant, racist crank. I have also posited that the gang mentality we have seen emerge in such a short time, one utterly deaf to Imus' actual remarks, has been fomented by interested political players behind the scenes. I have further admitted that I am merely speculating; but I am also inferring from the intensity of the furor and the speed of Imus' fall, that surely he did not merely get fired because 10 young women basketball players were offended. There were "bigger" players at work here, ones that even made Imus lose his usually cocky posture.

Now, here's something we all need to think about. Al Sharpton said of all this, in defense of his own noble role in bringing Imus to justice, that America needs to stop those who, using public airwaves, profit from peddling racism and sexism. Please note this with all due attention. Why? Because in the wake of the Imus outrage both MSNBC's and CBS's advertisers began to withdraw from Imus' show; in firing Imus, CBS was willing to forego the apparent $20 million a year he tossed into CBS's coffers. (Please, just for a moment, I want you to follow the money.)

The significant thing for us is that Imus was fired; both MSNBC and CBS agree in action that neither network can nor will profit from the racist, sexist sarcasm and satire of Mr. Imus. But in light of the fact that countless pro-firing commentators, some of whom are staffers of both MSNBC and CBS, keep pointing out that Imus has a long rap-sheet of prior offenses, the firing of Imus appears to be a tacit admission by these networks that they have been, for a long time, profiting from a racist, sexist crank. So, here's the rub: If it is wrong for these networks to continue to profit from a man who clearly has been acting inappropriately for perhaps decades, was it not wrong for them to profit from Imus in the past? If so, does this not then follow: That all the revenue earned by MSNBC and CBS from the Imus show is profit drawn from the purveying of racism and sexism on the public airwaves? Is not the profit already gained from Imus' show dirty, racist, sexist money?

Moreover, does it not then behoove CBS and MSNBC, contrite and deeply moral as they clearly are, to both make reparations, that they pay back the money garnered through racist and sexist programming to those who have been most victimized by such programming?

Alas! I do not see how this argument can be contradicted or denied: MSNBC and CBS must make reparations. Total and complete. For Al Sharpton and his colleagues have made their case, and the firing of Imus proves that the networks agree with that case.

But, let us pause for a moment. For I have one more thing to note, and it is this: If Al Sharpton and others do not seek reparations, if they do not seek damages from toxic and racist radio (and TV) the way some have sought damages from toxic tobacco, can we not infer that simply removing Imus' voice was the only thing some interested parties wanted? Can we not infer that no one seriously believes Imus has been a purveyor of racism and sexism, or that two networks profited from his evil? I don't see how we cannot: If Imus has been a racist and sexist for decades, then all (or most, or even some) of his profits are a result of peddling hate and bigotry. Hence, the profits associated with him have guilt all over them; they represent a debt to victims, not a dividend to shareholders. If no one goes after this money for reparations, then no one is really serious about the charges aimed at Mr. Imus.

Alas, what an ugly door two networks have opened: either they have opened the door to a major lawsuit, or they have opened the door to speculation that this was all about silencing Imus so that he would not stand in the way of someone's bid for the White House. Yes, I believe it is that sort of huge either/or we are talking about here.

Unless, of course, this is all some big publicity stunt. If that is the case, we're all damned.

But, in the end, I admit that I am only speculating. As Imus might say of me, I am a "bald-headed stooge," a "weasel," a "crazy person."

No doubt I am bald, crazy, and a person.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags:
Don Imus, Racism, Rutgers Basketball, Al Sharpton, Language, Censorship, Hillary Clinton, Reparations, Sexism, Bigotry, CBS, MSNBC, Presidential Politics, Charles McCord, Bernard McGuirk, Al Sharpton, Sid Rosenberg

The End Of The Imus Controversy? He Called Them "Cute"

To those of you who are paying attention to the Imus/Rutgers controversy, I must ask this question: Is not the story already over?

Let me point out something I noted earlier today: During the moments of great offense when he besmirched the Rutgers women's basketball players, Imus called the OTHER basketball team, the University of Tennessee Lady Vols (the women's team that defeated Rutgers for the NCAA national championship) something that was not one whit racial. He called them "cute."

Why make this point? Because if you look at the UT Lady Vols team photograph, you will see that seven of the eleven teammates are of African-American descent. How, then, is Imus being racist if he finds one predominantly black team cuter than another? Does his "cute" remark not immediately re-frame the whole issue: that Imus was talking about a masculine-looking, tough-looking team that was facing a cuter, more feminine team? It's hard to think otherwise, especially since he affirmed what Sid Rosenberg, Imus' guest sports commentator, said during Imus' offending moment: that when he (Rosenberg) saw the Rutgers team step out onto the court he thought they looked like "the Toronto Raptors", you know, a MEN'S professional team. All this, as is well-noted, was done amidst laughter and adolescent goofiness.

Not that any of this absolves Imus of the fact that he hurt people with his words; that his words were ill-chosen, mean, and degrading. But many of his words are demeaning; nay, most of them are. But that is his whole gag: as I said before, he and his team are the bawdy bad-boys holding court on America's loading dock; they are the loudmouth bullies at the back of America's bus. Imus "hurts"† me nearly every hour he broadcasts; he berates many of the values I hold dear. His "Jesus God" profanation occurs dozens of times per show, and it offends my religious faith. But can I divine that he is ruthless at heart, or that God is damning him? I am not in a position to divine that at all. Sadly, many people are suddenly able to damn Mr. Imus to hell; and yet, in the midst of it all, they do not notice that he called the national champions "cute". They hear only what they want to hear. They cannot hear his compliment and, because of their hair-triggered hearts, they cannot possibly understand the context of Mr. Imus' words.

My sense, in light of Mr. Imus' efforts at reconciliation, is that he is an inherently decent albeit flawed human being. But I am also very flawed; I am more flawed than anybody else. So I will not damn him. It is not what I am permitted to do.

Peace, always.

†I am not so fragile.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Imus, Racism, Sharpton, Don Imus,
Rutgers Basketball, Language, Censorship, Charles McCord, Bernard McGuirk, Al Sharpton, Sid Rosenberg

On Culture: The Four Essential Contradictions Of The Don Imus Story

[Let me get right to it. You already know the story at hand. I do not usually condone Don Imus' use of derogatory language in general, so I do not condone his use of such language in the particular issue dominating the news. His work is fraught with ridicule, mockery, and iconoclasm. He and his team are the crude guys hanging out on America's loading dock during coffee break; they are the bullies in the back of the bus. Sometimes even the dopey bullies can be funny; and sometimes they are not. I will not now analyze what Mr. Imus said or meant, though I think there is much to be said about the context of his remarks. Instead, I want to note the nearly invisible things I have seen and heard in the last 48 hours.]

Contradiction #1: Self-disrespect and outrage

Yesterday, while the Reverend Al Sharpton was interviewing Don Imus during Sharpton's radio program, Mr. Imus referred to himself, facetiously, as a "cracker." The context of Mr. Imus' self-referential remarks came at the close of the interview.

Immediately Mr. Sharpton interrupted his guest. He wanted listeners to understand that Mr. Imus was using the term "cracker" on his own, that he, Sharpton, had not called Mr. Imus any such thing. To this Mr. Imus responded that he was using the term of himself.

Suddenly Mr. Sharpton got very, well, officious. Here is the exchange in total (quoted from the show's transcript):

IMUS: ...I am willing to participate and look into my heart, first to try to talk to these children, these young women and then to try to make this better and to try to somehow heal what I've done because I really do understand the horrible damage that I have done to these young women because I know even a couple of them are from tough neighborhoods and there's already jealousy and resentment in their neighborhoods and they already -- and now they have some old cracker on the radio calling them some sort of name and they have to deal with that and so I have ...

SHARPTON: The term "cracker" you used on yourself. I didn't call you that.

IMUS: Yes, I know.

SHARPTON: I'm sure some of your supporters will be on TV today saying I called you that.

IMUS: No ...

SHARPTON: And I would appreciate it if you would respect your own race on my show. [my emphasis]

Amazing.

Tuesday morning, on NBC's Today show, in an interview involving Matt Lauer and Messrs. Imus and Sharpton, Mr. Imus said that the "context" of his remarks needed to be heeded and understood. Besides, he added, the words he used were not uttered in malice or vindictiveness; they were meant humorously. More importantly, he continued, the words were words borrowed from Mr. Sharpton's own black community; the word "ho", not only originating in hip-hop but even elevated to a word of distinction, is used viciously and hatefully by [many, not all] black men throughout America.

Mr. Sharpton interrupted Mr. Imus, saying that he speaks against such injurious language no matter where it is spoken; no matter who is speaking it. [Mr. Sharpton made similar remarks in the transcript cited above.]

Now, let me point out the obvious: the word "nigger" and the word "ho" are considered by all of us to be deeply offensive. Mr. Imus only used the latter; I have never heard him use the former. But I hear nearly daily -- if I watch a black comic perform on TV or if I listen to most hip-hop -- African-Americans use these hateful and degrading terms. Of course, they are used by African-Americans, and are used as self-reference or in reference to other African-Americans.

But, and here's the point, one cannot find any evidence that Al Sharpton is out in the "hoods" trying to stop people from using this offensive language. He is not advocating boycotts of radio stations that play abusive hip-hop songs; he is not protesting outside comedy clubs where black men call themselves "nigger." Recently, on Inside the Actors Studio with James Lipton, I heard guest Chris Rock use -- to much laughter by many whites in the audience -- the word "nigger" several times. But I ask you this: If Al Sharpton is willing to reprove Don Imus for disparaging his own race, why is Mr. Sharpton not reproving Chris Rock for the same offense (and nearly every hip-hop artist on the planet)? Where is Sharpton's outrage at those who daily and constantly disrespect the very race they share with Mr. Sharpton?

Contradiction 2: We all, fall, down!

Yesterday, during the Rutgers University press conference called to address Don Imus' remarks, RU Women's Basketball coach C. Vivian Stringer said the following, and I quote from a transcription I made off of a YouTube video clip:

"You know it was amazing because, less than twenty four hours after they [the team] had accomplished so much, and when we should have come back to Rutgers, to have all people exalt and speak of all of the things that they had accomplished and all the hopes and dreams that they gave to so many young girls and to young people, and to people everywhere, all of you, about what it meant to work hard, they came back to this. We have all been mentally, physically and emotionally spent, so hurt by the remarks that were uttered by Mr. Imus.

"But you see, we also understood a long time ago that, you know what, no one can make you feel inferior unless you allow them, that we can’t let other people steal our joy, we’ve always understood that, for a long, long time....

"...We had to experience racist and sexist remarks that are deplorable, despicable and abominable, and unconscionable, and it hurts me. ... you know ... I was a victim of racial discrimination, but you see I had a father and a mom, and a group of people who stood up for me ... and my dad ...said, 'Vivian, if you don’t stand up something you’ll fall for anything.'

"So as I felt what Mr. Imus said, I experienced this not only as a coach and as a mom to them, but as a person who had also experienced the same and I hurt, yes, and I’ve cried, and I’ve been angry, and disappointed because I don’t understand all that and yet to a great extent I do." [my emphasis]

Later in the press conference, one player stood up and shared how, instead of coming home to fanfare at the teams' outstanding season, players came home to scandal and controversy. She said that her entire holiday weekend was centered around Don Imus' hurtful words.

Please note, then, Contradiction #2, for it is subtle: C. Vivian Stringer's message to her team, that NO ONE CAN STEAL YOUR JOY, or NO ONE CAN MAKE YOU FEEL INFERIOR UNLESS YOU LET THEM, has not been heeded, not by the RU team or by Ms. Stringer herself: Some hack radio guy has ruined what should have been an exultant moment -- AND THEY LET HIM DO IT!

Imus' remarks were foolish, and, yes, even offensive -- clearly. But his words DID NOT determine Ms. Vivian's reaction -- she did. She need not let his words hurt her, but she did. She could have stood tall, like her father said; instead she chose to fall, fall into hurt, sadness, anger, and tears. In other words, she empowered Imus by giving him more than he deserved; and, like Ms. Stringer, everyone else is giving him more than he deserved. One wonders who went out of his or her way to tell these girls about what some white guy said -- in coarse and crude jesting -- about them on the radio. Did that person not realize that the very reporting of Imus' sin would steal the team's joy? Egads! Instead of holding press conferences and parades in celebration of the team's achievements, the president of Rutgers, and the coach herself, have chosen to ignore that achievement so they can focus attention on everybody's injuries! For shame. How dare these people encourage their students to be so weak and easily influenced! To hell with Don Imus; who cares what he says?! Get on with living, get on with knowing joy! Celebrate, don't fixate. Stop licking your wounds. Stand up and stop falling down every time somebody says something stupid.

Contradiction #3: What about that other team?

Take a look at any photo of the Rutgers University womens' basketball team. This is the team Imus jokingly referred to as "nappy-headed hos". Despicable as that phrase is, it is clear -- any photo proves this -- that he was wrong. Note, also, that the team is not all black; two of the players are white. Now, I ask you to look at the team photo of the University of Tennessee women's basketball team, the OTHER team in all of this: This is the team that defeated Rutgers for the national title. Note that the majority of them are African-Americans.

Now, I ask: What did Imus say about the OTHER team, the one from Tennessee, during his commentary when he misspoke about the players at Rutgers? Yes, that's right. He called them "cute." In other words, he called a MOSTLY BLACK TEAM CUTE.

No one has said a word about that. Of course, Imus can only be a racist.

Contradiction #4: Forgive first, then stone

When asked by NBC's Matt Lauer whether he, the Reverend Al Sharpton, a man of Christ, would forgive Mr. Imus his many sins, Mr. Sharpton said that he would. But, he added, that would not stop Imus from being punished.

We should all pause at this dulling remark, because it is disgusting. For the one person who is indeed doing the punishing is Al Sharpton. Anyone knows that if a thing is forgiven, it is forgotten. Specifically, what Al Sharpton's forgiveness must mean is that he cannot seek to punish Mr. Imus. Imus could still be punished -- by others. But Al Sharpton, if he truly does forgive, has therefore chosen to free Imus of any charges he, Al Sharpton, may wish to bring forward.

Mr. Sharpton, in defending his position, mentioned that he visited a man convicted and imprisoned for stabbing him. Mr. Sharpton said that he told the man that he forgave him, but that his forgiveness could not stop the sentence from being carried out; punishment must continue. And Mr. Sharpton is absolutely right, punishment will continue. But the punishment cannot and will not be at the hand of Mr. Sharpton, for he has forgiven the man. The state does the punishing, and if that state should forgive Mr. Sharpton's attacker, his punishment will cease.

Let me enlarge upon this a bit more. If I forgive some friend a $2000 debt, I do not then attempt to collect it anyway. If I as a parent forgive my child for breaking my favorite vase, I do not then spank that child. There are no doubt times I forgive a friend his sins that are not sins against me; I tell friends all the time that I forgive them for being sinners. But I do not tell them that my absolution will stop OTHERS from seeking their due. When my child breaks someone else's vase, I cannot forgive her -- fully -- for that act, nor can I spare her the consequences. And I may choose to punish my child for some sin, but I never do so if forgiveness has been offered and received. I may punish my child only if my child refuses to admit guilt: punishment is meant to incite -- hopefully -- a guilty conscience, and to bring that conscience to repentance and forgiveness. But punishment and forgiveness -- once forgiveness is granted -- do NOT go hand in hand. Punishment ends where forgiveness begins.

So, Mr. Sharpton, oddly, has placed himself as both absolver and executioner of Don Imus' career. That this is hardly a Christian role Mr. Sharpton is playing is blatantly obvious. Mr. Sharpton is acting as Imus' judge, not his mediator. He is not offering counsel, he's offering the pillory. That Don Imus has a debt to pay is quite true. But if Al Sharpton has forgiven Don Imus, then Al Sharpton has but one option. He needs to be silent. He cannot seek retribution. If he does so seek it, then he has not forgiven a man who has sincerely apologized to his face -- and to the nation.

One final note: If the Rutgers coach is right when she says that the players on her basketball team are "God’s representatives in every sense of the word," then those players have only one option: they must forgive -- and move on. If they forgive, like God, they cannot then seek punishment. They can't. Forgiveness is that simple. God does not forgive your debts only to shake you down. Imus will surely be punished, but he cannot be punished by those who forgive him.

And that's the whole point of Christian forgiveness: it costs the forgiver something to forgive, namely his or her right to seek vengeance. Forgiveness cost God His life; it costs us all a lot, too. But punishment is reserved solely for those who do not want forgiveness. Imus clearly has asked for it. He has renounced his sin.

How odd then to read this headline: Women's basketball team unsure if it'll accept Imus' apology.

God's representatives? Let's hope so.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags:
Don Imus, Racism, Rutgers Basketball, Springer, Matt Lauer, Al Sharpton, Language, Censorship

Red Flag = Cowardice: You Better Watch What You Read Here

If you look at the blue navigation bar that spans across this blog, a feature provided by Blogger, you will notice that there is a little flag. The flag on your screen should be a lighter shade of blue than the navigation bar itself. Curiously, the flag on my page, since I am the owner of this blog, is no longer blue at all. It is now bright red. This red flag indicates that some reader (or readers) has found the content of this website "objectionable" and has passed his or her concerns along to Blogger. That this has happened has made me rather sad, not because I have been caught in some sort of nefarious activity, but because it indicates the sort of world in which we live: a paranoid and cowardly one. One would be hard pressed to find a person who has left a comment throughout my 365 posts (or so) who has voiced such alarm; there has been very little controversy at Contratimes, despite this blog's title. I can only wish that I had had a chance to speak to the person or persons involved. But I can't: they've scurried off on their jolly way, certain they've done all humanity a favor.

But what is alarming is what this COULD portend. I encourage you to read the warnings for yourself. You see, if enough people descend on this site and click that flag, not only will Blogger paste up a warning on the front-sheet of this site, it will cease listing it. In other words, this is about censorship. It is about attempting to silence a voice on the Internet; to silence someone using the medium which is supposed to be the most democratic engine in history. But we all know it is hardly that. While I have never once made an attempt to silence a single person on the Internet, my work is deemed objectionable, and someone hopes to silence me. I pose some sort of threat, though there is not a bit of censorship in me. Imagine.

Of course, I am probably being paranoid.

But perhaps I am being added to the List of Banned Blogs in the New Inquisition. Perhaps the delicate ears I've offended are right-wing Christian fundamentalists, for we know that no decent, liberally-minded, freedom-loving, free-thinking intellectual could EVER find offense at free speech. Yes, that is it: I am being persecuted by religious zealots. At least, that is the only apparent explanation for the New Puritanism that deigns to flag this site as offensive.

Perhaps there is a way around this. No doubt I may move to my own server and be done with Blogger and the threats of hidden visitors who haven't the courage, or the intellectual vigor, to challenge me to my very plain face. Or is it that I have intimidated them to cower in the upper left hand corner of their mouse-pad, clicking in their boots? Who knows? But please note that if this site is deemed objectionable, then you, dear reader, are treading on very dangerous ground. Besides, they might flag you next. No. They WILL flag you next.

So much for democracy. And freedom.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes -- All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Blogger, Censorship, New Puritanism, Free speech, Red Flag, Flagged