Last week I directed readers to an incisive comment posted by James Taranto of OpinionJournal. Today I can't resist directing readers to Peggy Noonan's essay comparing Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher. And like Mr. Taranto, Ms. Noonan pens one of the most trenchant comments I've seen in a long time. Here's what she said regarding Mr. Barack Obama's campaign to secure the Democratic presidential nomination vis-รก-vis Mrs. William Clinton:
I am not sure of the salience of Mr. Obama's new-generational approach. Mrs. Clinton's generation, he suggests, is caught in the 1960s, fighting old battles, clinging to old divisions, frozen in time, and the way to get past it is to get past her. Maybe this will resonate. But I don't think Mrs. Clinton is the exemplar of a generation, she is the exemplar of a quadrant within a generation, and it is the quadrant the rest of us of that generation do not like. They came from comfort and stability, visited poverty as part of a college program, fashionably disliked their country, and cultivated a bitterness that was wholly unearned. They went on to become investment bankers and politicians and enjoy wealth, power or both.
It is a brilliant, devastating comment.
Ms. Noonan's essay makes me cheer for Mr. Obama; and it makes me wish I had met Ms. Thatcher.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label Politicians - Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politicians - Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Saturday, November 10, 2007
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
Friday, December 15, 2006
Blazing To The Top Of The Charts
Just a hasty observation, but if I was, let's say, Hillary Clinton, I would be delighted with the early excitement over Senator Barack Obama. In fact, I would be fueling it at every turn. I would even attempt to move the media towards Mr. Obama. Why? Because I would want Mr. Obama to peak too early. And it is, quite likely, exactly what he is going to do. People in New Hampshire gathered on Sunday to see the man, to touch the hem of his garment; and I mean people gathered by the thousands. Over 100 reporters captured his every move and jotted down his every word. And all this -- all this money and hoopla and passion -- for a man who has not even announced he is running for president. The only other phenomenon in New Hampshire's primary history that closely resembles the Obama-Nation† was when John F. Kennedy announced his candidacy for president while standing on Main Street in Nashua.
And all this for a man who is, to be honest, utterly unseasoned, with nary a stitch of experience. That some critics of George W. Bush like to point out that he himself was hardly a fireball of political activity prior to his 2ooo run miss several points, the most salient of which is that many Republicans were utterly aware of Bush's lack of experience. In New Hampshire, at least, George W. Bush was hardly a Republican favorite. But at least Bush had some experience simply by being a President's son. I might have this wrong, but George W. actually worked in nearly every office of the White House during the Reagan-Bush years. This qualifies for something, though it does not entitle any man to have the Oval Office.
But I will not detract from Mr. Obama's popularity by suggesting he is too inexperienced. I will merely point out that those who also seek the office can only be encouraged that Mr. Obama is peaking early.
Or so they hope.
THE CULT OF PERSONALITY
I think it is important to note how many folks are indeed already committed to voting for Mr. Obama should he run. How can this be? He is hardly known, he is hardly seasoned in the public eye. On what are his enthusiasts basing their enthusiasm? I have already heard much about his charm and charisma. Is that it? I have heard Harold Ford Jr. describe Mr. Obama as brilliant. But is that all? And I know Mr. Obama has written a couple of books. But is that enough? Is this, at least right now, merely the cult of personality, the adoration of persona? Surely it is not the cult of substance, or the cult of strong political record, right? It is something other than these things. Is it more hosanna politics?
I wonder.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
†I note the word the term Obama-Nation for a host of reasons. Obviously, no supporter of Mr. Obama could ever refer to his followers as Obama-Nation, largely for its homophonic cousin, abomination. Moreover, yesterday I saw the word "obamanible," penned by an Obama defender upset by criticisms over Mr. Obama's middle name (which is Hussein). But Mr. Obama's name will no doubt lend itself to all sorts of wild headlines in the Daily News or New York Post: "Barack Star!" "Running Out Of Money: Barack's B-roke!" "Obama's Meandering State of the Union Speech: Barack's Baroque!" "Southern Vote is Clear: A'bama Says No To Obama!" "Barack Urges Kids: Obey Ma!" OK. These are foolish and, I dare say, unfortunate. But the reality is not to be denied: Headline writers are going to have a field day. "O-BAM!- A: Barack smashes O'Reilly's fastball in Factor interview."
Technorati tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, New Hampshire, Cult of Personality
And all this for a man who is, to be honest, utterly unseasoned, with nary a stitch of experience. That some critics of George W. Bush like to point out that he himself was hardly a fireball of political activity prior to his 2ooo run miss several points, the most salient of which is that many Republicans were utterly aware of Bush's lack of experience. In New Hampshire, at least, George W. Bush was hardly a Republican favorite. But at least Bush had some experience simply by being a President's son. I might have this wrong, but George W. actually worked in nearly every office of the White House during the Reagan-Bush years. This qualifies for something, though it does not entitle any man to have the Oval Office.
But I will not detract from Mr. Obama's popularity by suggesting he is too inexperienced. I will merely point out that those who also seek the office can only be encouraged that Mr. Obama is peaking early.
Or so they hope.
THE CULT OF PERSONALITY
I think it is important to note how many folks are indeed already committed to voting for Mr. Obama should he run. How can this be? He is hardly known, he is hardly seasoned in the public eye. On what are his enthusiasts basing their enthusiasm? I have already heard much about his charm and charisma. Is that it? I have heard Harold Ford Jr. describe Mr. Obama as brilliant. But is that all? And I know Mr. Obama has written a couple of books. But is that enough? Is this, at least right now, merely the cult of personality, the adoration of persona? Surely it is not the cult of substance, or the cult of strong political record, right? It is something other than these things. Is it more hosanna politics?
I wonder.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
†I note the word the term Obama-Nation for a host of reasons. Obviously, no supporter of Mr. Obama could ever refer to his followers as Obama-Nation, largely for its homophonic cousin, abomination. Moreover, yesterday I saw the word "obamanible," penned by an Obama defender upset by criticisms over Mr. Obama's middle name (which is Hussein). But Mr. Obama's name will no doubt lend itself to all sorts of wild headlines in the Daily News or New York Post: "Barack Star!" "Running Out Of Money: Barack's B-roke!" "Obama's Meandering State of the Union Speech: Barack's Baroque!" "Southern Vote is Clear: A'bama Says No To Obama!" "Barack Urges Kids: Obey Ma!" OK. These are foolish and, I dare say, unfortunate. But the reality is not to be denied: Headline writers are going to have a field day. "O-BAM!- A: Barack smashes O'Reilly's fastball in Factor interview."
Technorati tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, New Hampshire, Cult of Personality
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)