A little more than a year ago I spent too much time defending the great gaffe of radio talk show legend Don Imus. Recall that Mr. Imus, the curmudgeon par excellence, referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy headed hos." As stupid and adolescent as it was, it was not to my ears a racist remark. It was undoubtedly racially insensitive; it was dopey and unfunny and insulting, but it was not racist, especially when compared to what he said about the Rutgers opponents, also mostly African-Americans: he described them as "cute."
Context was everything in the Imus story, but the context, and all proportion, were largely ignored. And the context was really rather broad, extending far beyond Imus' microphone out to the hip hop culture, and even American Idol: contemporaneous to the Imus debacle, a black American Idol finalist innocently reported on the most-watched American TV series how she and her family never imagined such good luck would befall a "nappy haired girl."
But after all the ballyhoo and breast beating and moral posturing, after all the appeals for absolution, Don Imus is finally back on the airwaves. And in all honesty, I find his show simply, well, awful. It is dreadful.
______________________
I was never a huge Imus fan. My interest, which was fraught with curiosity, was in his ability to attract such amazing guests: How did he manage to interview top celebs and heads of state? How did he so easily demystify the gods of culture and politics? News was often made on his show; John Kerry issued a mea culpa during the 2006 campaign season on the Imus show before appearing anywhere else.
But most of the time I was uncomfortable with his show, though I often loved what I learned from his guests. And, I admit, there were times, and not just a few, of comedic brilliance presented therein.
I defended Mr. Imus last year because I felt he was the victim of a crude double standard; I believed his silencing was a threat to free speech. But I shouldn't have been so quick to defend him.
____________________
Here is something I very much resent about current race relations in the United States. If I say I am not a racist -- I am not a racist -- why must I turn to African-Americans for vindication? If I assert I haven't a racist bone in my body, why am I only permitted moral authority by blacks who judge me?
When Don Imus made his gaffe, his first reaction was to run to Al Sharpton, effectively begging him for absolution and affirmation: he sought a black man's imprimatur. But why? Why is any white man's racial moral health contingent on what someone else thinks? In a world where we hear much about not judging others, why is racial purity only the purview of blacks: why are the likes of Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton the only worthy priests to hear confession and offer absolution? Why are they judges? Why is my own self-assessment insufficient?
Don Imus declared immediately that he was not a racist, and then instantly doubted his own conviction. He ran to the priests of race, and they dispensed their great graces.
____________________
Author Shelby Steele, a black intellectual born of a white mother, wrote in his book about Barack Obama, A Bound Man, that Don Imus' response to his crisis was to run directly toward the "challengers" who control much of the African-American political bloc, seeking their blessing. Imus, or so Mr. Steele argued, was eager to regain his moral authority on race by beseeching blacks to return it to him. To Steele, Imus fell prey to white guilt, and would be the weaker for it. Imus became the great appeaser, the iconic placater.
But note what Mr. Steele says in this sentence that immediately precedes chapter 9, "The Iconic Negro":
"If Imus ever returns to the airways, his operation will no doubt be swathed in diversity."
Mr. Steele could not have been more prescient. For that is exactly what Mr. Imus has done, and in the process, he has created a show that is paralyzed, insipid, self-conscious and humorless. His two African-American sidekicks are absolutely unfunny; I have not once laughed at a single one of their contributions. The show is stiff with fear; it is rife with scripted humor burdened by politically correct rubrics. Moreover, it is gratuitously obsequious: it is racially self-righteous to a didactic smugness. It is at times a sort of Sesame Street for grown-ups: "Today's lesson girls and boys ..." You get the idea. And it is not worth getting.
____________________
When I think of great comedians, at least those who have made me laugh throughout my life, I think of people like Steven Wright, who is unquestionably my favorite comedian of all time. I loved Victor Borge and Red Skelton and Johnny Carson; I loved Steve Martin's stand-up and Jerry Seinfeld's simple deliveries.
But when I was a child I loved the zaniness of Sammy Davis Jr.; I remember telling my mother and sister that I wanted to be Sammy Davis Jr. I also loved (I never missed a show) the inimitable Flip Wilson. Redd Foxx was another fave; and later in life I enjoyed Richard Pryor and Eddie Murphy (though their arena sets were usually too vulgar for me, as are some of Robin Williams' [a white guy, I know]).
The reason I share this is because as a child of the 1960s, I was raised virtually blind to race: I did not even think that Sammy Davis Jr. was black. I simply loved him. And Flip Wilson. And countless other black men and women who have blessed my soul, and made me laugh (or taught me something vital). Sadly, somewhere along the line I was forced to look at race, to see skin color. And yet because of many wonderful influences in my life, racism did not take hold. This despite those in America who see racism in every white face, who believe that whiteness is not merely emblematic of racism but is genetically imbued with racism.
Don Imus has placed two black comedians on his team, Karith Foster and Tony Powell, and they are not funny (white comic Rob Bartlett has not been particularly funny either). They are not even interesting. Sorry. But there is no suggestion here that they are humorless or uninteresting because they are black; blackness, after all, hardly comes through -- does it? -- the radio (I have watched the program on RFD-TV). They are uninteresting because they, as Thomas Sowell might say, appear to be "token blacks," placed as buffers for Imus' moral purity and watchdogs for all racial missteps. They sit around Imus almost like pets, even mascots (Sowell's word). They appear almost trapped and apprehensive; they look like they'd really rather be somewhere else.
For me, then, Don Imus' return represents more of what I hate about the "dialogue on race" in America. Imus's allegedly diverse staff is not about liberty or equality; there is something brutally oppressive about what Imus has done, is doing. It does not strike me as progressive, not one whit. And this is not only too bad, it is a bit ironic, because Imus has rather recently expressed surprise about all he is learning of race relations in America from such facilitators as Dick Gregory and Debra J. Dickerson. The irony is that there is no real dialogue, only a monologue. If Mr. Imus was really interested in dialogue, then his guest list would include both Shelby Steele and Thomas Sowell. I don't think either man has made an appearance. And they should appear -- regularly.
In the end, I am tired of the apparent cultural necessity of someone like Jesse Jackson, Dick Gregory, Jeremiah Wright or even Barack Obama coming to dispense the sacrament of racial absolution on me because of the color of my skin. If I say I love peas, I don't need a nutritionist to confirm my assertion. If I claim to love Bach, I don't need that claim descried by a baroque historian. If I say I am a fan of U2's Bono, Bono need not check in to see if I meet his standards. And if I claim I am not a racist, I don't need someone to ensure I am not deceiving myself. I can, after all, speak for my own heart.
Just some thoughts in this allegedly high time of racial dialogue in America.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label Don Imus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Don Imus. Show all posts
Friday, June 06, 2008
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Better An Honest Grief
It is not writer's block. That sort of thing assumes a writer has something to say, to pass along. The metaphor implies obstruction of an otherwise glorious flow of verbiage; it implies a log jam interrupting the normal flow of a sure and powerful river.
What is it called when the river itself is empty, dried up? Writer's drought? What if there is nothing to block, no flow to impede? Or what if the writer's well is filled with dust? What do we call that?
I have nothing to say. At least, I feel like I have nothing to say. The Virginia Tech shootings were my last real reason to craft anything resembling an essay, a poem, something literary. How sad that I should only find a muse in grief. But is that even true? Did I find inspiration in sorrow and tragedy?
Perhaps. But today I've found something else in my gnawing gut; I've a belly full of disgust. I am sickened by the transitions. We humans, or most of us, seem to move from issue to issue, tragedy to tragedy, searching for smooth segues from bit to bit, from pod to pod (as news/documentary items are called on "Current TV"): We want something. We move from pod to pod like rats from switch to switch; we will electrocute ourselves for a new bit of bitter cheese. And I recoil at the thought that we are DONE with Virginia Tech, or Don Imus, or 9/11. That we have "moved on," emotionally, intellectually, spiritually. That we are hunting for the next big distraction, the next Beltway sniper or car chase or racial slur or outrageous political misstep. We look through blogs and news feeds; we grope about, snickering as we dismiss x and y and z; we take hold of A, and we write or film or opine in harried insistence that we have to say something, we have to move the debate, to push the national conversation. We must have A, we must shape it just so; and we shape it so we can have, as quickly as possible, B.
I walk through bookstores, I scroll through blogs and search engines; I sift through news pages and flip through YouTube clips or newsreels and I see nothing but words: words and words and words. We jam words into every void, every crevice. Windbag thinkers tell us that bad speech is fought with more speech; advertisers jam words into scoreboards and dashboards and every readable surface on the planet. We have so many words offered as answers we cannot see that words serve as cataracts to our eyes: we cannot make out the form of the questions that we ever even asked. There is just a dull, hazy light, double, triple vision: two moons in the night sky in our waning, aging light.
What is the solution to Don Imus' alleged racial slurs? Words. What is the solution to Seung-Hui Cho? More words. What to do with Iraq, Harry Reid, Rosie O'Donnell, Bill O'Reilly, Randi Rhodes, poverty? Words and more words. What is the solution to the estrangement of man's existence from his essence? Words. Declarative statements. No question marks.
My word.
Immediately after 9/11, TV networks went days and days without running any advertisements. Why? What purpose did that serve? Did it suggest that to hawk one's wares in sight of thousands of dead people was too tawdry, too decadent and heartless and rapacious and mercenary? How many dead people DOES it take for the networks to stop advertising, two, three? Why 5,000, 4,000, 3,000? What is the magic number necessary for a nation to stop and grieve properly? Who sets that number? What number tells us we can move on?
And how long must I wait before I can write about anything other than all that has preceded this moment? How long, really, do I have to forget the martyrdom of Peter or the destruction of Jerusalem or the Black Plague or the desolation of the American Indian or the savagery of the fur trade or the decapitation of infidels or the garroting of babies or gunshots in a classroom, before I can call myself au courant?
Yesterday I wept at a funeral for one of my dearest friends. Afterwards, as I approached my friend's now-empty house where a luncheon was to be held in her honor, I stopped to talk to Barbara, another friend who had moments earlier eulogized (so boldly, so elegantly) our dead friend. In the midst of our gentle, teary conversation, I said, "Better an honest grief than a dishonest joy." I shocked myself with the sentence, having no idea where it came from, or why exactly I had said it. But in a moment's pause both Barbara and I knew that it fit the moment perfectly; it was the very summation of her wonderful eulogy and what we were searching for on the shoulder of Lookout Hill Road.
Better an honest grief than a dishonest joy.
It is the sort of sentence one might find in Bartlett's, if only its author were noteworthy. It is also made up of mere words. It is more words, words that blind like tears, the cataracts of grief flowing over cheeks, pouring from the dulled eyes that search for a friend who is now a question mark.
Sometimes the only word we want to hear is not a word at all.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
What is it called when the river itself is empty, dried up? Writer's drought? What if there is nothing to block, no flow to impede? Or what if the writer's well is filled with dust? What do we call that?
I have nothing to say. At least, I feel like I have nothing to say. The Virginia Tech shootings were my last real reason to craft anything resembling an essay, a poem, something literary. How sad that I should only find a muse in grief. But is that even true? Did I find inspiration in sorrow and tragedy?
Perhaps. But today I've found something else in my gnawing gut; I've a belly full of disgust. I am sickened by the transitions. We humans, or most of us, seem to move from issue to issue, tragedy to tragedy, searching for smooth segues from bit to bit, from pod to pod (as news/documentary items are called on "Current TV"): We want something. We move from pod to pod like rats from switch to switch; we will electrocute ourselves for a new bit of bitter cheese. And I recoil at the thought that we are DONE with Virginia Tech, or Don Imus, or 9/11. That we have "moved on," emotionally, intellectually, spiritually. That we are hunting for the next big distraction, the next Beltway sniper or car chase or racial slur or outrageous political misstep. We look through blogs and news feeds; we grope about, snickering as we dismiss x and y and z; we take hold of A, and we write or film or opine in harried insistence that we have to say something, we have to move the debate, to push the national conversation. We must have A, we must shape it just so; and we shape it so we can have, as quickly as possible, B.
I walk through bookstores, I scroll through blogs and search engines; I sift through news pages and flip through YouTube clips or newsreels and I see nothing but words: words and words and words. We jam words into every void, every crevice. Windbag thinkers tell us that bad speech is fought with more speech; advertisers jam words into scoreboards and dashboards and every readable surface on the planet. We have so many words offered as answers we cannot see that words serve as cataracts to our eyes: we cannot make out the form of the questions that we ever even asked. There is just a dull, hazy light, double, triple vision: two moons in the night sky in our waning, aging light.
What is the solution to Don Imus' alleged racial slurs? Words. What is the solution to Seung-Hui Cho? More words. What to do with Iraq, Harry Reid, Rosie O'Donnell, Bill O'Reilly, Randi Rhodes, poverty? Words and more words. What is the solution to the estrangement of man's existence from his essence? Words. Declarative statements. No question marks.
My word.
Immediately after 9/11, TV networks went days and days without running any advertisements. Why? What purpose did that serve? Did it suggest that to hawk one's wares in sight of thousands of dead people was too tawdry, too decadent and heartless and rapacious and mercenary? How many dead people DOES it take for the networks to stop advertising, two, three? Why 5,000, 4,000, 3,000? What is the magic number necessary for a nation to stop and grieve properly? Who sets that number? What number tells us we can move on?
And how long must I wait before I can write about anything other than all that has preceded this moment? How long, really, do I have to forget the martyrdom of Peter or the destruction of Jerusalem or the Black Plague or the desolation of the American Indian or the savagery of the fur trade or the decapitation of infidels or the garroting of babies or gunshots in a classroom, before I can call myself au courant?
Yesterday I wept at a funeral for one of my dearest friends. Afterwards, as I approached my friend's now-empty house where a luncheon was to be held in her honor, I stopped to talk to Barbara, another friend who had moments earlier eulogized (so boldly, so elegantly) our dead friend. In the midst of our gentle, teary conversation, I said, "Better an honest grief than a dishonest joy." I shocked myself with the sentence, having no idea where it came from, or why exactly I had said it. But in a moment's pause both Barbara and I knew that it fit the moment perfectly; it was the very summation of her wonderful eulogy and what we were searching for on the shoulder of Lookout Hill Road.
Better an honest grief than a dishonest joy.
It is the sort of sentence one might find in Bartlett's, if only its author were noteworthy. It is also made up of mere words. It is more words, words that blind like tears, the cataracts of grief flowing over cheeks, pouring from the dulled eyes that search for a friend who is now a question mark.
Sometimes the only word we want to hear is not a word at all.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
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
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
Friday, April 13, 2007
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
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
Thursday, April 12, 2007
How So Big, And Why Does This Stuff Matter?
There is a code of conduct here at Contratimes. It is my code, my internal set of standards. It is a code of temperance, of restraint. It is what I have freely chosen to be and to do: I am not given to rants, screeds, and vitriol. Guests are always treated fairly, and with deep and abiding respect. But I do not expect others to behave according to my own rules.
The Imus controversy (largely an American story) and what I have just said are curiously connected, I believe. Here's why.
Did you know that there is a brouhaha across the Internet about the establishment of blogging rules? Perhaps you didn't. And perhaps you did not know that part of the discussion has been around disallowing comment threads on blog sites. Too much freedom, I guess.
Let us step back to November 19, 2004. That was the day John Kerry, who had two weeks earlier lost his bid to become America's president, emailed his supporters. In that electronic missal he wrote the following to his friends:
"You moved voters, helped hold George Bush accountable, and countered the attacks from big news organizations such as Fox, Sinclair Broadcasting, and conservative talk radio."
Note what he intimated -- that his campaign fought against "big news" outlets like Fox News, Sinclair Broadcasting, AND conservative talk radio. These three things John Kerry listed as the banes of his crusade. Notice that he did not say that his White House bid was thwarted by the Republican National Committee or President Bush or by American voters.
Don Imus, as you all should know, is/was a premiere radio talk-show host with a stellar production team and an A-List guest roster. His show was a veritable Who's Who of American pop iconography; his guests were drawn from all levels of media and political importance. And, as you also must know, Mr. Imus, described by many as a wonderful interviewer, blended his interviews with mockery and scoffing and innuendo. He was constantly baiting guests to indict themselves; he was always looking to create scandal, or some sort of incrimination; or to spot some kind of blunder or tic that he might use against his guest. And he did this almost always in a way that was playful and often not-so-playful. His manner was usually engaging, and very lucrative. But most of all, he was looking for a laugh.
His strength, really, was that he was one of the few members of the media who would say what so many people wished they could say. When he called Vice President Dick Cheney "a war criminal," many people agreed. When he scoffed at John Kerry for bungling an apology for a bungled joke, listeners were screaming at their radios in approval (or, at least, I bet many did). There were few people who had been invited to Imus' show who did not get their persona demystified; and that was Imus' ultimate gift to American culture: he took the mystique and aura and artifice out of celebrity and wealth. He was, and is, an American iconoclast. Pure and simple.
That does not mean you must like him. You need not approve of him or send him flowers. I am merely pointing out what he is, and why he is liked. He is an incredibly smart and shrewd man; he has built something of an empire around demystifying New York's idols and America's broadest pretensions. He is a satirist, a lampoon artist, a crank. He is an H. L. Mencken with a microphone; a misanthrope with a mission. And yet he is a misanthrope who is on the cutting edge of philanthropy and change, and he has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for charity, and has increased listeners' awareness of environmental toxins, deficient military death benefits, pediatric cancer treatments and autism (to name a few).
Is it wrong to ask why all the umbrage and outrage, why all the moral high dudgeon, after Mr. Imus' unfortunate use of the word "hos" to describe a college basketball team? Why does it seem that so many people have lost perspective, their sense of proportion? How did this story get so big, and big so quickly?
Let me make a few guesses.
First, it has to do with what is happening in presidential politics. The big new name on everybody's tongue is Barack Obama. No one is thinking Al Sharpton when thinking of the first African-American president (and let it be known that Al Sharpton does not think Barack Obama has done enough for African-Americans to be president). And we all know that John Kerry is out of the picture; his final moment came, really, right after his botched joke last fall, when he appeared on Don Imus' show and utterly made a fool of himself, with Imus hanging up on him. Add to this mix the popular and well-known New York senator, Hillary Clinton, and you've got something really, really interesting.
You see, Imus had/has a lot of clout, and everybody knows it. His show drew considerable media attention; what was said on his show in the morning often became news later in the day. After John Kerry blew his "if-you-don't-do-well-in-school-you-end-up-in-Iraq" joke, the first place he made a public statement was on the Imus show, and everyone was listening. Sen. Chris Dodd announced his 2008 bid for the White House on Imus in the Morning. And let it be observed that Imus was and is a huge supporter of the African-American Tennessee politician Harold Ford, Jr.; Ford has made frequent appearances on that show.
Now, I ask myself this one question: Who would love to work vengeance upon Don Imus? Well, for one, John Kerry, for Imus utterly humiliated him; and this after Imus had said -- repeatedly -- that he was a Kerry supporter in the 2004 elections. It follows logically that nearly anyone else who hoped for Kerry to win in 2004, and run again in 2008, would have it out for Mr. Imus. But the person who most has to gain from Imus' silence is Hillary Clinton, for we all know how much Don Imus despises the Clintons (for, I believe, their essential betrayal of him after his controversial appearance at Radio and TV Correspondents Association Dinner at the White House in 1996). It is evident that Imus would have supported ANYONE but Hillary for the White House; and since he has shown the ability to support African-Americans, it is very likely that he would have lent his support to Barack Obama.
What I am saying is this: Knowing (at least through Imus' own comments over the years) the history of Don Imus and the Clintons, there is ample evidence that the Clintons would love to see Imus suffer, even to slip into silence. It is my guess, and it is only a guess, that the Clintons have played a major part in generating fury over this incident. Remember, this thing went big really quick, and Imus came out in a big, panicky apologetic way in a hurry. How does this happen? How does this happen to a man who is a giant, a legend? And how could he stagger so, and how could he even lose hold of what was the actual context and intent of his offending words?
And you have to ask yourself one more question: How does this happen to a man who uses language that one cannot call right-wing, or conservative, or even religious? No, this is a man who speaks the language of America. This is a man who has asked that charges of war crimes be brought against the President of the United States. This is a man who has called for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. This is a man largely secular and even humanistic in speech and behavior. How is it that HE, of all people in the media, is suddenly gone?
Second, related to this is the prominent figure Al Sharpton: He has attached himself to this whole thing for two reasons. The first is to put himself back into play, for he is being out-noticed by Barack Obama. Second, some have used this moment (see "Too Little, Too Late?" here) to force Mr. Obama to play his hand (and he has now played it), to make Mr. Obama prove that he is one of the race-conscious reactionaries that compose much of the Democratic Party. Are you with us? is their question. And, as you can guess, this sort of thing works well into Hillary Clinton's hand: if Obama joins with Sharpton he may look like a race-extortionist, and if he doesn't, he looks weak on racism and insufficiently sensitive to black issues.
So, what does this all have to do with a "code of conduct?" Well, a lot, really. If you have listened at all to Al Sharpton and many of the other chattering chins bewailing Don Imus' remarks, you will hear something like this: Don Imus abused the federally regulated public airwaves. Even the Rutgers University President, Richard L. McCormick, mentioned the public airwaves in his formal statements:
"It is unconscionable for anyone to use the airways to utter such disgraceful, disgusting, and racist remarks and to show such disregard for the dignity of human beings who have accomplished so much and deserve great credit."
That this reference to the public airways/airwaves is so frequent means only one thing: The left in this country is intent on stopping talk radio, particularly conservative talk radio. And, related to this, the left is intent on limiting discussion on blogs. Why the latter? Perhaps because commenters can throw bombs -- with links leading people away (to truth?) or astray -- on others' blogs without being challenged. That, perhaps, is just a small part of it. Yes, these same folks could disable -- like I can -- the comments portion of their blogs, but the rules some are seeking go beyond comments. This is all about control (in the guise of decency).
And it is really, really about suppressing speech. And remember, even if Don Imus is using public airwaves, his critics are suggesting one thing: free speech is guaranteed, but not everywhere, especially on the air.
All in all, this is about fulfilling what John Kerry said needed to be done: Activists need to shut down Fox News (and Fox News is indeed effectively marginalized in many quarters), Sinclair Broadcasting, and talk radio. The assault on talk-radio is now in full swing.
In short, this is about YOU. I don't care whether you are pro or con, left or right, blue or red. This is about a leftist assault on free speech; on discussion, debate and, yes, even the possibility of anarchy. The right-wing in America has never been this aggressive, this righteous, this cocksure of its moral standing. Never. It is the left-wing that is trying to bring about what it believes YOU MUST HAVE TO BE SAFE and COMPLIANT.
Read this article, or this (Google censoring websites for communist governments), if you doubt me; or read Al Sharpton's statement "that this is only the beginning," or Keith Olbermann's interview with Jesse Jackson.
Lastly, let me say this. If Imus, a man in the highest places moving among America's elites, a man who speaks language you would never hear in church, if he is ousted from his job because he said a poor and ugly joke, how much more in jeopardy are those who DO NOT SPEAK the language of this culture, who do not conform? If Imus can be pilloried for saying a pop-culture word like "hos", how much more the person who believes homosexuality is sinful? How much more the person who believes that abortion is murder? How much more the person who believes global-warming theory is scientifically suspect? How much more the person who disagrees with the zeitgeist?
This may be the biggest media story of my lifetime. No kidding. And let me be perfectly clear about my own position on this: I am not an Imus fan. Yes, I have listened to his show -- a lot. Much of what I do here is in response to something I have heard on his show, something I disagreed with on his show. I doubt very much that Mr. Imus would like me; he might very well find me a loser (and, in many ways, I am). And let me be clear about what I think of the phrase "nappy headed hos." I hate it. It is an ugly expression, and, even if it was not racially charged when Imus said it, it now is -- forever. "Nappy" has now become a racist term (and it wasn't last week).
It is infuriating to hear people suggest that this is a "teaching" or "learning" moment in American culture. It is infuriating because it is so token, so shallow, so small-minded. Why is this moment a learning moment, when countless other moments -- from "Hymie Town" to "white niggers" to hip-hop misogyny to the rants of Louis Farrakhan denouncing interracial marriage -- how have these NOT been learning moments?
There is more to all of this Imus stuff than meets the eye, I am afraid to say. And I am, in some way, afraid to say it.
Peace to you, all of you, friend and foe alike. We are supposed to be in this together.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags:
Don Imus, Racism, Rutgers Basketball, Al Sharpton, Language, Censorship, Hillary Clinton, Charles McCord, Bernard McGuirk, Al Sharpton, Sid Rosenberg
The Imus controversy (largely an American story) and what I have just said are curiously connected, I believe. Here's why.
Did you know that there is a brouhaha across the Internet about the establishment of blogging rules? Perhaps you didn't. And perhaps you did not know that part of the discussion has been around disallowing comment threads on blog sites. Too much freedom, I guess.
Let us step back to November 19, 2004. That was the day John Kerry, who had two weeks earlier lost his bid to become America's president, emailed his supporters. In that electronic missal he wrote the following to his friends:
"You moved voters, helped hold George Bush accountable, and countered the attacks from big news organizations such as Fox, Sinclair Broadcasting, and conservative talk radio."
Note what he intimated -- that his campaign fought against "big news" outlets like Fox News, Sinclair Broadcasting, AND conservative talk radio. These three things John Kerry listed as the banes of his crusade. Notice that he did not say that his White House bid was thwarted by the Republican National Committee or President Bush or by American voters.
Don Imus, as you all should know, is/was a premiere radio talk-show host with a stellar production team and an A-List guest roster. His show was a veritable Who's Who of American pop iconography; his guests were drawn from all levels of media and political importance. And, as you also must know, Mr. Imus, described by many as a wonderful interviewer, blended his interviews with mockery and scoffing and innuendo. He was constantly baiting guests to indict themselves; he was always looking to create scandal, or some sort of incrimination; or to spot some kind of blunder or tic that he might use against his guest. And he did this almost always in a way that was playful and often not-so-playful. His manner was usually engaging, and very lucrative. But most of all, he was looking for a laugh.
His strength, really, was that he was one of the few members of the media who would say what so many people wished they could say. When he called Vice President Dick Cheney "a war criminal," many people agreed. When he scoffed at John Kerry for bungling an apology for a bungled joke, listeners were screaming at their radios in approval (or, at least, I bet many did). There were few people who had been invited to Imus' show who did not get their persona demystified; and that was Imus' ultimate gift to American culture: he took the mystique and aura and artifice out of celebrity and wealth. He was, and is, an American iconoclast. Pure and simple.
That does not mean you must like him. You need not approve of him or send him flowers. I am merely pointing out what he is, and why he is liked. He is an incredibly smart and shrewd man; he has built something of an empire around demystifying New York's idols and America's broadest pretensions. He is a satirist, a lampoon artist, a crank. He is an H. L. Mencken with a microphone; a misanthrope with a mission. And yet he is a misanthrope who is on the cutting edge of philanthropy and change, and he has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for charity, and has increased listeners' awareness of environmental toxins, deficient military death benefits, pediatric cancer treatments and autism (to name a few).
Is it wrong to ask why all the umbrage and outrage, why all the moral high dudgeon, after Mr. Imus' unfortunate use of the word "hos" to describe a college basketball team? Why does it seem that so many people have lost perspective, their sense of proportion? How did this story get so big, and big so quickly?
Let me make a few guesses.
First, it has to do with what is happening in presidential politics. The big new name on everybody's tongue is Barack Obama. No one is thinking Al Sharpton when thinking of the first African-American president (and let it be known that Al Sharpton does not think Barack Obama has done enough for African-Americans to be president). And we all know that John Kerry is out of the picture; his final moment came, really, right after his botched joke last fall, when he appeared on Don Imus' show and utterly made a fool of himself, with Imus hanging up on him. Add to this mix the popular and well-known New York senator, Hillary Clinton, and you've got something really, really interesting.
You see, Imus had/has a lot of clout, and everybody knows it. His show drew considerable media attention; what was said on his show in the morning often became news later in the day. After John Kerry blew his "if-you-don't-do-well-in-school-you-end-up-in-Iraq" joke, the first place he made a public statement was on the Imus show, and everyone was listening. Sen. Chris Dodd announced his 2008 bid for the White House on Imus in the Morning. And let it be observed that Imus was and is a huge supporter of the African-American Tennessee politician Harold Ford, Jr.; Ford has made frequent appearances on that show.
Now, I ask myself this one question: Who would love to work vengeance upon Don Imus? Well, for one, John Kerry, for Imus utterly humiliated him; and this after Imus had said -- repeatedly -- that he was a Kerry supporter in the 2004 elections. It follows logically that nearly anyone else who hoped for Kerry to win in 2004, and run again in 2008, would have it out for Mr. Imus. But the person who most has to gain from Imus' silence is Hillary Clinton, for we all know how much Don Imus despises the Clintons (for, I believe, their essential betrayal of him after his controversial appearance at Radio and TV Correspondents Association Dinner at the White House in 1996). It is evident that Imus would have supported ANYONE but Hillary for the White House; and since he has shown the ability to support African-Americans, it is very likely that he would have lent his support to Barack Obama.
What I am saying is this: Knowing (at least through Imus' own comments over the years) the history of Don Imus and the Clintons, there is ample evidence that the Clintons would love to see Imus suffer, even to slip into silence. It is my guess, and it is only a guess, that the Clintons have played a major part in generating fury over this incident. Remember, this thing went big really quick, and Imus came out in a big, panicky apologetic way in a hurry. How does this happen? How does this happen to a man who is a giant, a legend? And how could he stagger so, and how could he even lose hold of what was the actual context and intent of his offending words?
And you have to ask yourself one more question: How does this happen to a man who uses language that one cannot call right-wing, or conservative, or even religious? No, this is a man who speaks the language of America. This is a man who has asked that charges of war crimes be brought against the President of the United States. This is a man who has called for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. This is a man largely secular and even humanistic in speech and behavior. How is it that HE, of all people in the media, is suddenly gone?
Second, related to this is the prominent figure Al Sharpton: He has attached himself to this whole thing for two reasons. The first is to put himself back into play, for he is being out-noticed by Barack Obama. Second, some have used this moment (see "Too Little, Too Late?" here) to force Mr. Obama to play his hand (and he has now played it), to make Mr. Obama prove that he is one of the race-conscious reactionaries that compose much of the Democratic Party. Are you with us? is their question. And, as you can guess, this sort of thing works well into Hillary Clinton's hand: if Obama joins with Sharpton he may look like a race-extortionist, and if he doesn't, he looks weak on racism and insufficiently sensitive to black issues.
So, what does this all have to do with a "code of conduct?" Well, a lot, really. If you have listened at all to Al Sharpton and many of the other chattering chins bewailing Don Imus' remarks, you will hear something like this: Don Imus abused the federally regulated public airwaves. Even the Rutgers University President, Richard L. McCormick, mentioned the public airwaves in his formal statements:
"It is unconscionable for anyone to use the airways to utter such disgraceful, disgusting, and racist remarks and to show such disregard for the dignity of human beings who have accomplished so much and deserve great credit."
That this reference to the public airways/airwaves is so frequent means only one thing: The left in this country is intent on stopping talk radio, particularly conservative talk radio. And, related to this, the left is intent on limiting discussion on blogs. Why the latter? Perhaps because commenters can throw bombs -- with links leading people away (to truth?) or astray -- on others' blogs without being challenged. That, perhaps, is just a small part of it. Yes, these same folks could disable -- like I can -- the comments portion of their blogs, but the rules some are seeking go beyond comments. This is all about control (in the guise of decency).
And it is really, really about suppressing speech. And remember, even if Don Imus is using public airwaves, his critics are suggesting one thing: free speech is guaranteed, but not everywhere, especially on the air.
All in all, this is about fulfilling what John Kerry said needed to be done: Activists need to shut down Fox News (and Fox News is indeed effectively marginalized in many quarters), Sinclair Broadcasting, and talk radio. The assault on talk-radio is now in full swing.
In short, this is about YOU. I don't care whether you are pro or con, left or right, blue or red. This is about a leftist assault on free speech; on discussion, debate and, yes, even the possibility of anarchy. The right-wing in America has never been this aggressive, this righteous, this cocksure of its moral standing. Never. It is the left-wing that is trying to bring about what it believes YOU MUST HAVE TO BE SAFE and COMPLIANT.
Read this article, or this (Google censoring websites for communist governments), if you doubt me; or read Al Sharpton's statement "that this is only the beginning," or Keith Olbermann's interview with Jesse Jackson.
Lastly, let me say this. If Imus, a man in the highest places moving among America's elites, a man who speaks language you would never hear in church, if he is ousted from his job because he said a poor and ugly joke, how much more in jeopardy are those who DO NOT SPEAK the language of this culture, who do not conform? If Imus can be pilloried for saying a pop-culture word like "hos", how much more the person who believes homosexuality is sinful? How much more the person who believes that abortion is murder? How much more the person who believes global-warming theory is scientifically suspect? How much more the person who disagrees with the zeitgeist?
This may be the biggest media story of my lifetime. No kidding. And let me be perfectly clear about my own position on this: I am not an Imus fan. Yes, I have listened to his show -- a lot. Much of what I do here is in response to something I have heard on his show, something I disagreed with on his show. I doubt very much that Mr. Imus would like me; he might very well find me a loser (and, in many ways, I am). And let me be clear about what I think of the phrase "nappy headed hos." I hate it. It is an ugly expression, and, even if it was not racially charged when Imus said it, it now is -- forever. "Nappy" has now become a racist term (and it wasn't last week).
It is infuriating to hear people suggest that this is a "teaching" or "learning" moment in American culture. It is infuriating because it is so token, so shallow, so small-minded. Why is this moment a learning moment, when countless other moments -- from "Hymie Town" to "white niggers" to hip-hop misogyny to the rants of Louis Farrakhan denouncing interracial marriage -- how have these NOT been learning moments?
There is more to all of this Imus stuff than meets the eye, I am afraid to say. And I am, in some way, afraid to say it.
Peace to you, all of you, friend and foe alike. We are supposed to be in this together.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags:
Don Imus, Racism, Rutgers Basketball, Al Sharpton, Language, Censorship, Hillary Clinton, Charles McCord, Bernard McGuirk, Al Sharpton, Sid Rosenberg
The End Of Reason: The Mad Are In Charge - The Firing Of Don Imus
[update: This post was written in haste. I have emended it at 5:29 pm EST]
Breaking news is sometimes breaking. Sometimes it is broken.
Moments ago I heard on the radio that Don Imus has now finally lost his radio program. CBS has fired Mr. Imus. It is broken news. Desperately broken. And to think he has been fired for calling one women's basketball team "cute."
I wonder, have you ever read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged? If you haven't, you are missing one of the most prescient books ever written. In brief, the villains of Atlas Shrugged, all with the noblest intent, steal the wealth of those who actually produce wealth. By the latter I mean that there are indeed folks who generate enormous wealth -- for themselves and others. Exxon-Mobil, for example, is a wealth producer, as is General Motors or Ford Motor Company or Microsoft. For all of these companies generate massive payrolls; they employ hundreds of thousands of people.
Compared to these wealth-makers, there are indeed those who are essentially the parasitic villains who resent and envy the success of those who, practically speaking, are infinitely capable of making wealth for others, of turning healthy profits. Such parasitic villains protest and legislate and gesticulate to much public notice; and they succeed in extorting wealth from the wealth-makers and, finally, forcing the wealth-makers to withdraw from society. The result? The parasites die helplessly and desperately, for they do not know how to make money for themselves.
In the Ayn Rand sense, Al Sharpton is an economic parasite: he, and his minions, have forced a wealth-producer out of business. For Don Imus generates massive wealth for many people; not just for him and his aides, but for the company he worked for and those companies who advertise their wares on Imus' program. Millions and millions of dollars, doled out in payrolls, health care, and property taxes, are produced by Mr. Imus and his work. From the books peddled by Mr. Imus and the music he has promoted, Don Imus has proven that he contributes enormously to the economic vitality of many.
On top of that, Mr. Imus generates massive amounts of cash for all sorts of charities. He has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for all kinds of incredibly important causes.
Al Sharpton is exactly the opposite of Mr. Imus. Mr. Sharpton is an extortionist and hanger-on; he is economically parasitic. He does not generate wealth. None at all.
Even Shame has turned his back on all of this.
This, believe it or not, is not the end of Don Imus. He is too big to be lost in this controversy. The losers here are going to be race relations in America, and Al Sharpton.
But the biggest loser is freedom. For now.
©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
Breaking news is sometimes breaking. Sometimes it is broken.
Moments ago I heard on the radio that Don Imus has now finally lost his radio program. CBS has fired Mr. Imus. It is broken news. Desperately broken. And to think he has been fired for calling one women's basketball team "cute."
I wonder, have you ever read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged? If you haven't, you are missing one of the most prescient books ever written. In brief, the villains of Atlas Shrugged, all with the noblest intent, steal the wealth of those who actually produce wealth. By the latter I mean that there are indeed folks who generate enormous wealth -- for themselves and others. Exxon-Mobil, for example, is a wealth producer, as is General Motors or Ford Motor Company or Microsoft. For all of these companies generate massive payrolls; they employ hundreds of thousands of people.
Compared to these wealth-makers, there are indeed those who are essentially the parasitic villains who resent and envy the success of those who, practically speaking, are infinitely capable of making wealth for others, of turning healthy profits. Such parasitic villains protest and legislate and gesticulate to much public notice; and they succeed in extorting wealth from the wealth-makers and, finally, forcing the wealth-makers to withdraw from society. The result? The parasites die helplessly and desperately, for they do not know how to make money for themselves.
In the Ayn Rand sense, Al Sharpton is an economic parasite: he, and his minions, have forced a wealth-producer out of business. For Don Imus generates massive wealth for many people; not just for him and his aides, but for the company he worked for and those companies who advertise their wares on Imus' program. Millions and millions of dollars, doled out in payrolls, health care, and property taxes, are produced by Mr. Imus and his work. From the books peddled by Mr. Imus and the music he has promoted, Don Imus has proven that he contributes enormously to the economic vitality of many.
On top of that, Mr. Imus generates massive amounts of cash for all sorts of charities. He has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for all kinds of incredibly important causes.
Al Sharpton is exactly the opposite of Mr. Imus. Mr. Sharpton is an extortionist and hanger-on; he is economically parasitic. He does not generate wealth. None at all.
Even Shame has turned his back on all of this.
This, believe it or not, is not the end of Don Imus. He is too big to be lost in this controversy. The losers here are going to be race relations in America, and Al Sharpton.
But the biggest loser is freedom. For now.
©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
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
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
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
Monday, October 31, 2005
General Housekeeping: On Alito; Rove
To Harry Reid, Alito Too Qualified?
The nomination of Samuel Alito for associate justice of the United States Supreme Court occurred moments ago. First impressions yield only this: the guy is incredibly well-spoken. In fact, he might be the most grammatically and syntactically precise speaker I've heard in a long time. Yes, of course, he is an Ivy-leaguer (which is no bad thing), but it is clear he's no legacy child. I'll wager he entered Princeton and Yale on his merits.
Harry Reid, the petulant Democratic senator from Nevada, has already berated President Bush for nominating "another" appellate court justice. To Reid, the court is now looking a bit like a "good old boys club", resembling nothing of America at large. Apparently Harriet Miers should have been confirmed. We must, after all, keep up appearances. (One Democrat has already called Mr. Alito an "extremist.")
McCain Denies Bush/Rove South Carolina "Smear"
In other news, I think many of you will recall that Karl Rove, the wunderkind of the White House, is feared and loathed by his critics for his allegedly heavy-handed schemes and ploys in policy-making and election campaigning. Recall that in the 2000 election cycle it was alleged Republican John McCain was defeated in the South Carolina primary by a Rove scheme wherein phone calls were made throughout the state asking potential voters if they had heard about John McCain's illegitimate child (Mr. McCain has no such child). Though this story was dubious from the start, and has been soundly dismissed by credible analysis, activist Democrats believe the veracity of the story to this day, and believe that Rove is the devil for doing something so unseemly. But what a moment today when Mr. Don Imus (Imus in the Morning, MSNBC) asked Mr. McCain about the Rove-Libby duo, and whether Mr. McCain was glad to see bad luck fall upon his political foes who so abused him in South Carolina. McCain's reply was telling: "I don't think they had anything to do with that." Oiks! There goes another myth. (And it was also telling that McCain reiterated that though he thinks the Iraq War has been badly mishandled, "every intelligence agency in the world" asserted that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction. Thus, McCain defended the Administration's earlier claim that the fact of Hussein's possession of WMD was "a slam dunk." Ouch!)
Lastly, I leave you with this quote from C.S. Lewis' great speech, Membership:
Fruit has to be tinned if it is to be transported and has to lose thereby some of its good qualities. But one meets people who have learned actually to prefer the tinned fruit to the fresh. A sick society must think much about politics, as a sick man must think much of his digestion; to ignore the subject may be fatal cowardice for the one as the other. But if either comes to regard it as the natural food of the mind–if either forgets that we think of such things only in order to be able to think of something else–then what was undertaken for the sake of health has become itself a new and deadly disease. [emphasis added]†
Why this quote? Just to remind myself, really, that political thinking is a means, always a means, and never the end in itself. Politics is so much tinned fruit. The man who eats solely from its bounty is sure to go hungry; is sure to fall ill.
Contratimes
©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
†The C.S. Lewis address may be found in The Weight of Glory, Walter Hooper, ed., MacMillan Publishing, NY. Page 109.
The nomination of Samuel Alito for associate justice of the United States Supreme Court occurred moments ago. First impressions yield only this: the guy is incredibly well-spoken. In fact, he might be the most grammatically and syntactically precise speaker I've heard in a long time. Yes, of course, he is an Ivy-leaguer (which is no bad thing), but it is clear he's no legacy child. I'll wager he entered Princeton and Yale on his merits.
Harry Reid, the petulant Democratic senator from Nevada, has already berated President Bush for nominating "another" appellate court justice. To Reid, the court is now looking a bit like a "good old boys club", resembling nothing of America at large. Apparently Harriet Miers should have been confirmed. We must, after all, keep up appearances. (One Democrat has already called Mr. Alito an "extremist.")
McCain Denies Bush/Rove South Carolina "Smear"
In other news, I think many of you will recall that Karl Rove, the wunderkind of the White House, is feared and loathed by his critics for his allegedly heavy-handed schemes and ploys in policy-making and election campaigning. Recall that in the 2000 election cycle it was alleged Republican John McCain was defeated in the South Carolina primary by a Rove scheme wherein phone calls were made throughout the state asking potential voters if they had heard about John McCain's illegitimate child (Mr. McCain has no such child). Though this story was dubious from the start, and has been soundly dismissed by credible analysis, activist Democrats believe the veracity of the story to this day, and believe that Rove is the devil for doing something so unseemly. But what a moment today when Mr. Don Imus (Imus in the Morning, MSNBC) asked Mr. McCain about the Rove-Libby duo, and whether Mr. McCain was glad to see bad luck fall upon his political foes who so abused him in South Carolina. McCain's reply was telling: "I don't think they had anything to do with that." Oiks! There goes another myth. (And it was also telling that McCain reiterated that though he thinks the Iraq War has been badly mishandled, "every intelligence agency in the world" asserted that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction. Thus, McCain defended the Administration's earlier claim that the fact of Hussein's possession of WMD was "a slam dunk." Ouch!)
Lastly, I leave you with this quote from C.S. Lewis' great speech, Membership:
Fruit has to be tinned if it is to be transported and has to lose thereby some of its good qualities. But one meets people who have learned actually to prefer the tinned fruit to the fresh. A sick society must think much about politics, as a sick man must think much of his digestion; to ignore the subject may be fatal cowardice for the one as the other. But if either comes to regard it as the natural food of the mind–if either forgets that we think of such things only in order to be able to think of something else–then what was undertaken for the sake of health has become itself a new and deadly disease. [emphasis added]†
Why this quote? Just to remind myself, really, that political thinking is a means, always a means, and never the end in itself. Politics is so much tinned fruit. The man who eats solely from its bounty is sure to go hungry; is sure to fall ill.
Contratimes
©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
†The C.S. Lewis address may be found in The Weight of Glory, Walter Hooper, ed., MacMillan Publishing, NY. Page 109.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)