PDA

View Full Version : The Imus debacle and the free market.


oldandslow
04-12-2007, 06:54 AM
Is this an example of the free market working well or being hijacked? The gov't isn't involved, big business is, and rightly or wrongly, Mr. Imus is going to lose his job.

Those of us who do not worship at the altar of Ayn Rand really want to know.

Mr. Kotter
04-12-2007, 06:59 AM
Hijacked. Pure and simple.

By a bunch of limousine liberal hypocrites.

FTR, Imus's remarks were outrageous and clearly over-the-top...and he should have been suspended and disciplined. However, the guy is damn shock-jock. WTH did we really expect?

If I were a gangsta-rap artist, I'd be preparing myself for a backlash. The right wing nutjobs are gonna have a field day with them.

All I know, is this better become THE standard for future similar incidents; or else this will become an even bigger joke than it already is.

oldandslow
04-12-2007, 07:26 AM
Hijacked. Pure and simple.

By a bunch of limousine liberal hypocrites.

FTR, Imus's remarks were outrageous and clearly over-the-top...and he should have been suspended and disciplined. However, the guy is damn shock-jock. WTH did we really expect?

If I were a gangsta-rap artist, I'd be preparing myself for a backlash. The right wing nutjobs are gonna have a field day with them.

All I know, is this better become THE standard for future similar incidents; or else this will become an even bigger joke than it already is.

How? The limousine liberals aren't in government. They are part of the market.

BucEyedPea
04-12-2007, 07:45 AM
Those of us who do not worship at the altar of Ayn Rand really want to know.

ROFL You mean me right?


Is this an example of the free market working well or being hijacked? The gov't isn't involved, big business is, and rightly or wrongly, Mr. Imus is going to lose his job.

Is it working? Apparently so.
But to whom?

Something working, in this case, does not mean one big aggregate market with one big aggregate mind. It means niche markets. Seems to me it's more a market of ideas in this case: what is good or bad behavior. Some will shun him if they already don't or scorn him publically.

I think what he did was pretty bad. But really these women were more offended at the "ho" word than the racial aspect. And they certainly weren't "ho's." Whoever made the racist part bigger than the sexist part shows the different market demographics. So is it that sexist men or racists rule the market?

If people vote with their ears and fingers they won't listen to Imus anymore. Some folks will continue to support Imus. It's really up to his employer to decide if Imus will lose his job based on what is best for his employer. Will he lose advertisers would come into it too. Wouldn't surprise me if someone else picks Imus up though. Forcing him out of employment permanently won't improve race relations or gender relations.


So, yeah the market is working because plenty of people are speaking out against it.

the Talking Can
04-12-2007, 08:14 AM
Imus is a shock jock?

that would be news to him, NBC, and every member of the corporate media who regularly appeared on his show....

have you ever visited the planet we all live on, called Earth?

Brock
04-12-2007, 08:15 AM
Imus isn't even close to being a shock jock.

StcChief
04-12-2007, 08:16 AM
ROFL You mean me right?




Is it working? Apparently so.
But to whom?

Something working, in this case, does not mean one big aggregate market with one big aggregate mind. It means niche markets. Seems to me it's more a market of ideas in this case: what is good or bad behavior. Some will shun him if they already don't or scorn him publically.

I think what he did was pretty bad. But really these women were more offended at the "ho" word than the racial aspect. And they certainly weren't "ho's." Whoever made the racist part bigger than the sexist part shows the different market demographics. So is it that sexist men or racists rule the market?

If people vote with their ears and fingers they won't listen to Imus anymore. Some folks will continue to support Imus. It's really up to his employer to decide if Imus will lose his job based on what is best for his employer. Will he lose advertisers would come into it too. Wouldn't surprise me if someone else picks Imus up though.


So, yeah the market is working because plenty of people are speaking out against it.
Market is working... the employer NBC is looking out for their bottom line.

Imus is JA shock jock. some one will pick him up in 6 months when this all blows over.... he may learn to be a little more 'sensitive' or not.

oldandslow
04-12-2007, 08:21 AM
ROFL You mean me right?




Is it working? Apparently so.
But to whom?

Something working, in this case, does not mean one big aggregate market with one big aggregate mind. It means niche markets. Seems to me it's more a market of ideas in this case: what is good or bad behavior. Some will shun him if they already don't or scorn him publically.

I think what he did was pretty bad. But really these women were more offended at the "ho" word than the racial aspect. And they certainly weren't "ho's." Whoever made the racist part bigger than the sexist part shows the different market demographics. So is it that sexist men or racists rule the market?

If people vote with their ears and fingers they won't listen to Imus anymore. Some folks will continue to support Imus. It's really up to his employer to decide if Imus will lose his job based on what is best for his employer. Will he lose advertisers would come into it too. Wouldn't surprise me if someone else picks Imus up though. Forcing him out of employment permanently won't improve race relations or gender relations.


So, yeah the market is working because plenty of people are speaking out against it.

Exactly.

Which is why I am so suprised at the free market disciples who are up in arms about the decision.

Brock
04-12-2007, 08:22 AM
It's basically a slow news week story. And that's all it is.

patteeu
04-12-2007, 09:37 AM
It's working, but that doesn't mean that everyone who believes in markets has to agree with this particular market-based effect. It's just like when Coke makes a bunch of money in the soft beverage market even though some who believe in the market don't like Coke or don't think it's good for you. Furthermore, when a market is working, it is working on a macro scale not necessarily in every single micro incident. Mistakes are made within markets, but over the long run and across a large market breadth the overall results tend to be "right" for the market customers on the whole.

Mr. Kotter
04-12-2007, 09:40 AM
.... Forcing him out of employment permanently won't improve race relations or gender relations....

Double-standards sucked then, and suck now. :shake:

Mr. Laz
04-12-2007, 09:40 AM
just kills me ..... that same people that were screaming for a boycott of the Dixie Chicks are now pissed off because Imus is getting slapped around.


ROFL ROFL


whatever happened to "we have free speech, but you better be ready to pay the price for what you say" stuff now?


i guess i Imus would called Bush a dumb sack of crap, things would be different.

patteeu
04-12-2007, 09:55 AM
just kills me ..... that same people that were screaming for a boycott of the Dixie Chicks are now pissed off because Imus is getting slapped around.


ROFL ROFL


whatever happened to "we have free speech, but you better be ready to pay the price for what you say" stuff now?


i guess i Imus would called Bush a dumb sack of crap, things would be different.

Huh?

It just kills me that this kills you. What is so surprising about someone being offended enough by what the Natalie Maines said that they would support a boycott of the Chicks' music but not offended enough by what Imus said to support getting him canned? It's not like they both said the same thing or anything. If the boycott of the Dixie Chicks had something to do with them calling the Rutgers womens' basketball team "nappy headed hos," you'd have had a powerful point.

Mr. Laz
04-12-2007, 10:02 AM
Huh?

It just kills me that this kills you. What is so surprising about someone being offended enough by what the Natalie Maines said that they would support a boycott of the Chicks' music but not offended enough by what Imus said to support getting him canned? It's not like they both said the same thing or anything. If the boycott of the Dixie Chicks had something to do with them calling the Rutgers womens' basketball team "nappy headed hos," you'd have had a powerful point.
but the concept is the same

people stepping up and saying "we don't like what you said" now suffer the penalty.

it's funny that the people that applauded and supported a boycott in one situation are completely pissed off when somebody else chooses to boycott for a similar reason.


Don't worry Patteeu, i don't expect you to understand.

Mr. Kotter
04-12-2007, 10:06 AM
just kills me ..... that same people that were screaming for a boycott of the Dixie Chicks are now pissed off because Imus is getting slapped around.


ROFL ROFL


whatever happened to "we have free speech, but you better be ready to pay the price for what you say" stuff now?


i guess i Imus would called Bush a dumb sack of crap, things would be different.What part of "Imus's remarks were outrageous and clearly over-the-top...and he should have been suspended and disciplined" didn't you understand? :shrug:

FTR, I'm all for free speech--and the free market.

What bothers me most about this whole thing is the double-standard by many of those chastising and brow-beating Imus....but in many instances, are the very same folks who have not exercised nearly the enthusiasm and passion in addressing use of equally offensive speech....in popular culture. I mean, firing a guy over something that is mild compared to what is routinely uttered in the lyrics of popular rap tunes? Please....:rolleyes:

The hypocrisy is just astonishing to me.

Mr. Kotter
04-12-2007, 10:11 AM
How? The limousine liberals aren't in government. They are part of the market.

I'm missing your point...I'm talking about the standards of tolerance in pop culture, in music, in Hollywood, and in society at large.

Mr. Laz
04-12-2007, 10:17 AM
What part of "Imus's remarks were outrageous and clearly over-the-top...and he should have been suspended and disciplined" didn't you understand? :shrug:

FTR, I'm all for free speech--and the free market.

What bothers me most about this whole thing is the double-standard those chastising and brow-beating Imus....are many of the same folks who have not exercised nearly the enthusiasm and passion in addressing use of equally offensive speech....in popular culture. I mean, firing a guy over something that is mild compared to what is routinely uttered in the lyrics of popular rap tunes? Please....:rolleyes:

The hypocrisy is utterly astonishing to me.
i didn't say it applied to you .... did i?

the people my comments apply to know who they are.

some people just seem to have Zero ability for self analyzation

They see something to don't like and yell ..... doesn't matter that they did a very similar thing mere moments ago.

they hate what the Dixie Chicks said about Bush ..... so they break out the boycott movement.

they like Imus ... so they think any boycott movement is crap.


the inability to see the hypocrisy in their stance is more than laughable ... it's sad.

Logical
04-12-2007, 10:20 AM
ROFL ...

I think what he did was pretty bad. But really these women were more offended at the "ho" word than the racial aspect. And they certainly weren't "ho's." Whoever made the racist part bigger than the sexist part shows the different market demographics. So is it that sexist men or racists rule the market?
...Just in case you don't have me on iggy, ho's in this context is racist, now yes there are anglo hos but clearly they did not fit his diatribe. Ho's was both sexist and racist at the same time, the nappy headed part only made it worse.

patteeu
04-12-2007, 10:20 AM
but the concept is the same

people stepping up and saying "we don't like what you said" now suffer the penalty.

it's funny that the people that applauded and supported a boycott in one situation are completely pissed off when somebody else chooses to boycott for a similar reason.


Don't worry Patteeu, i don't expect you to understand.

You seem to think that if you favor one boycott, you've got to favor them all and that if you oppose one you have to oppose them all to be consistent. This just doesn't make any sense. I'm sure that if you take just a few minutes to think about it, you'll catch on.

Mr. Kotter
04-12-2007, 10:21 AM
....the inability to see the hypocrisy in their stance is more than laughable ... it's sad.

I see plenty of hypocrisy on BOTH sides. I know there are people like you are describing....but I just haven't seen many of them.

On the other hand, the hypocrisy of Jackson, Sharpton, and others in the Imus case....is on display for the entire world to see.

Logical
04-12-2007, 10:22 AM
I'm missing your point...I'm talking about the standards of tolerance in pop culture, in music, in Hollywood, and in society at large.Seriously what do limousine liberals have to do with this issue Rob?

patteeu
04-12-2007, 10:24 AM
I see plenty of hypocrisy on BOTH sides. I know there are people like you are describing....but I just haven't seen many of them.

On the other hand, the hypocrisy of Jackson, Sharpton, and others in the Imus case....is on display for the entire world to see.

Then maybe you can explain the hypocrisy that you see in the scenario Laz is describing? I don't think so.

HolmeZz
04-12-2007, 10:25 AM
Then maybe you can explain the hypocrisy that you see in the scenario Laz is describing? I don't think so.

He's saying there are certain people who wanted the Dixie Chicks to suffer for their free speech, but then are complaining when Imus is suffering the consequences of his own free speech.

patteeu
04-12-2007, 10:31 AM
He's saying there are certain people who wanted the Dixie Chicks to suffer for their free speech, but then are complaining when Imus is suffering the consequences of his own free speech.

And I'm saying it would only amount to hypocrisy if they were saying Imus shouldn't suffer these consequences because speech of any kind should not generate this kind of consequence. Instead, they are basing their "are consequences appropriate" decisions on the case-by-case content of the speech, which isn't hypocritical at all.

But I do appreciate your interpretation. :thumb:

Mr. Laz
04-12-2007, 10:33 AM
You seem to think that if you favor one boycott, you've got to favor them all and that if you oppose one you have to oppose them all to be consistent. This just doesn't make any sense. I'm sure that if you take just a few minutes to think about it, you'll catch on.
no, who you want boycotted changes

but the ability to see "freedom of the boycott" situations in both is called maturity.


you didn't even noticed i spelled your name right this time .... did ya? :sulk:

Mr. Laz
04-12-2007, 10:34 AM
He's saying there are certain people who wanted the Dixie Chicks to suffer for their free speech, but then are complaining when Imus is suffering the consequences of his own free speech.
dam straight :clap:

Brock
04-12-2007, 10:37 AM
He's saying there are certain people who wanted the Dixie Chicks to suffer for their free speech, but then are complaining when Imus is suffering the consequences of his own free speech.

Doesn't that mean that the same people who are vilifying Imus but defended the Chicks are hypocrites? Be careful about pointing out hypocrisy, because it usually comes right back at you.

Mr. Kotter
04-12-2007, 10:41 AM
Doesn't that mean that the same people who are vilifying Imus but defended the Chicks are hypocrites? Be careful about pointing out hypocrisy, because it usually comes right back at you.

BINGO

Mr. Laz
04-12-2007, 10:42 AM
Doesn't that mean that the same people who are vilifying Imus but defended the Chicks are hypocrites?
depends on how there are doing it.

are they complaining about the specific comments or are they complaining about the boycotting in principal?


if you applaud a boycott situation as being the "will of the market" in one situation, but start screaming "dam world is too sensitive/PC etc" in another situation then you are being hypocritical.

either you support "Paying the market price for free speech" or you don't.

Arguing about the specifics of each inflammatory statement is a completely different point.

HolmeZz
04-12-2007, 10:42 AM
Instead, they are basing their "are consequences appropriate" decisions on the case-by-case content of the speech, which isn't hypocritical at all.

Sure it is. You're not judging the actual content of the speech. You're judging it based on your own personal views. You can't possibly make the argument that what the Dixie Chicks said is more offensive to people than what Imus said.

Mr. Laz
04-12-2007, 10:43 AM
BINGO
ROFL

Brock
04-12-2007, 10:44 AM
Sure it is. You're not judging the actual content of the speech. You're judging it based on your own personal views. You can't possibly make the argument that what the Dixie Chicks said is more offensive to people than what Imus said.

You're clearly assuming that everyone views the same things as being offensive.

Brock
04-12-2007, 10:45 AM
if you applaud a boycott situation as being the "will of the market" in one situation, but start screaming "dam world is too sensitive/PC etc" in another situation then you are being hypocritical.

Uh, thanks for paraphrasing what I just said.

patteeu
04-12-2007, 10:47 AM
no, who you want boycotted changes

but the ability to see "freedom of the boycott" situations in both is called maturity.


you didn't even noticed i spelled your name right this time .... did ya? :sulk:

Of course "who someone wants boycotted" is going to change, because different people say different things. There is no hypocrisy here unless someone at one point or another indicated that they thought boycotting of any kind amounted to impermissible censorship (which, of course, it isn't) and now they change their tune because they actually want to boycott someone. I think you're stretching for a way to attack people who tend to be conservative here and you simply over-reached.

Oh, and on the name thing, out of my appreciation for your effort to spell my name right, I wasn't going to bother to point out that you capitalized the P. I'm patteeu with a small p. :p

HolmeZz
04-12-2007, 10:48 AM
You're clearly assuming that everyone views the same things as being offensive.

No, I can't imagine how somebody would be offended by what the Dixie Chicks said. It was a statement. It pertained to one person and was not some kind of broad sweeping generalization.

Convince me how it could offend someone.

BucEyedPea
04-12-2007, 10:49 AM
It's working, but that doesn't mean that everyone who believes in markets has to agree with this particular market-based effect. It's just like when Coke makes a bunch of money in the soft beverage market even though some who believe in the market don't like Coke or don't think it's good for you. Furthermore, when a market is working, it is working on a macro scale not necessarily in every single micro incident. Mistakes are made within markets, but over the long run and across a large market breadth the overall results tend to be "right" for the market customers on the whole.
Kinda like I was saying.

However, Randians or libertarian free-marketers say there is NO such thing as a macro market aka macro economics aka aggregate demand. They support a micro-economic view more and claim aggregates don't reflect the differences in the market that serve a multitude of interests. This wouldn't mean there are no large extremely popular markets that dominate, but that markets are more fragmented, especially today due to cable and net, allowing more choices, preferences and options for all the individual differences that exist as well as regional trends and preferences. So long as there are enough in each market to make a profit or a living.

This is also why they tend to scorn GDP and other govt stats the govt rely on as misleading. These are more a study aggregate demand. They claim macro economics are tending to socialism more for purpose of govt central planning of an economy. So they call it BS, even if it is the prevailing conventional wisdom today in mainstream economics and academia. Just sayin' what they say.

Mr. Laz
04-12-2007, 10:49 AM
Uh, thanks for paraphrasing what I just said.
merely pointing out my position does work both ways since you seem to be implying that it didn't.

memyselfI
04-12-2007, 10:51 AM
The free market hasn't even begun to feel the sting of this situation. This isn't about Imus or even the Rutgers basketball team. This is about using them to push agendas. Freakin Jessie Jackson was ranting on Keith Olbermann about how MSNBC didn't have one single black anchor. KO had to remind him that Alison Stewart is black. Perhaps, like Obama, she isn't black enough. :rolleyes:

The people pushing the Imus situation are going to look really very silly trying to walk a tightrope when they are called upon to help save the hip/hop industry after this crackdown on speech starts to impede on hip hop 'artists' and their profits.

patteeu
04-12-2007, 10:51 AM
Sure it is. You're not judging the actual content of the speech. You're judging it based on your own personal views. You can't possibly make the argument that what the Dixie Chicks said is more offensive to people than what Imus said.

Of course it's a judgment based on personal views. Is there someone around here who previously said that popular opinion is always right and now want to criticize public opinion as being wrong in the Imus case? If so, I haven't seen it. Maybe this is about your and Laz's misunderstanding of what people were saying about the Dixie Chicks. I guarantee that most of the people supporting a boycott in that instance were doing so because of a judgment based on their own personal view.

Brock
04-12-2007, 10:53 AM
merely pointing out my position does work both ways since you seem to be implying that it didn't.

Again, exactly what I said.

Mr. Laz
04-12-2007, 10:56 AM
Of course it's a judgment based on personal views. Is there someone around here who previously said that popular opinion is always right and now want to criticize public opinion as being wrong in the Imus case? If so, I haven't seen it. Maybe this is about your and Laz's misunderstanding of what people were saying about the Dixie Chicks. I guarantee that most of the people supporting a boycott in that instance were doing so because of a judgment based on their own personal view.
jesus ..... even Karl Rove would be applaud this spin control

patteeu
04-12-2007, 10:57 AM
Kinda like I was saying.

However, Randians or libertarian free-marketers say there is NO such thing as a macro market aka macro economics aka aggregate demand. They support a micro-economic view more and claim aggregates don't reflect the differences in the market that serve a multitude of interests. This wouldn't mean there are no large extremely popular markets that dominate, but that markets are more fragmented, especially today due to cable and net, allowing more choices, preferences and options for all the individual differences that exist as well as regional trends and preferences. So long as there are enough in each market to make a profit or a living.

This is also why they tend to scorn GDP and other govt stats the govt rely on as misleading. These are more a study aggregate demand. They claim macro economics are tending to socialism more for purpose of govt central planning of an economy. So they call it BS, even if it is the prevailing conventional wisdom today in mainstream economics and academia. Just sayin' what they say.

I think you and I are using "macro" and "micro" in different ways. You are using a technical definition and I was just using them for lack of better words. All I meant to say is that a market consisting of two sellers and two buyers isn't going to be as efficient as a market consisting of 100 sellers and 100 buyers. Or, alternatively, that a single sale within a market might not be a good reflection of price but that if there are enough sale opportunities, the overall collection of sales will establish a pretty good price.

Mr. Kotter
04-12-2007, 11:41 AM
The free market hasn't even begun to feel the sting of this situation. This isn't about Imus or even the Rutgers basketball team. This is about using them to push agendas. Freakin Jessie Jackson was ranting on Keith Olbermann about how MSNBC didn't have one single black anchor. KO had to remind him that Alison Stewart is black. Perhaps, like Obama, she isn't black enough. :rolleyes:

The people pushing the Imus situation are going to look really very silly trying to walk a tightrope when they are called upon to help save the hip/hop industry after this crackdown on speech starts to impede on hip hop 'artists' and their profits.
:shake:

Damn. I hate being on the same side of an argument as you....I feel smarmy. :(

I think I'll go take a quick shower.... ;)

:p

Baby Lee
04-12-2007, 11:56 AM
if you applaud a boycott situation as being the "will of the market" in one situation, but start screaming "dam world is too sensitive/PC etc" in another situation then you are being hypocritical.
Not if one situation actually is too sensitive/PC.

So if the AARP was boycotting Imus because he said his mom was too old to play professional baseball, that boycott would demand the same applause?

BucEyedPea
04-12-2007, 12:28 PM
The whole idea behind free markets is that each individual does their own valuing. This is the essence of a Randian (who was a follower of Mises) market.

If I won $100k I wouldn't go out and buy a Jag, like Logical, for example. I'd build a designer kitchen or build a design studio with potter wheels, kilns, a fine art area, a digital area and a loft etc. We each do our own valuing.

It's no different with politics, other ideas or even values. The reason the left and the right don't agree or get along is because they value different things or more emphasis is placed certain ones than others.

Even if all the facts were not in dispute in a given situation, the opinions or conclusions formed from them would/could still differ because we evaluate importances differently due to our values. Values affect our viewpoints. Granted sometimes the facts are in dispute...but just sayin' as an example. The hypocrisy charge is exaggerated.

go bo
04-12-2007, 01:02 PM
Hijacked. Pure and simple.

By a bunch of limousine liberal hypocrites.

FTR, Imus's remarks were outrageous and clearly over-the-top...and he should have been suspended and disciplined. However, the guy is damn shock-jock. WTH did we really expect?

If I were a gangsta-rap artist, I'd be preparing myself for a backlash. The right wing nutjobs are gonna have a field day with them.

All I know, is this better become THE standard for future similar incidents; or else this will become an even bigger joke than it already is.oh wow, i haven't seen that one before...

are those hypocrites actually driving liberal limousines?

are you suggesting that republicans will be forced to ride in liberal limousines too?

why aren't there any conservative limousines?

the world is being taken over by people who don't have any limousines at all...

arise ye slumbering limousine drivers...

arise i say...

Mr. Kotter
04-12-2007, 01:15 PM
oh wow, i haven't seen that one before...

are those hypocrits actually driving liberal limousines?

are you suggesting that republicans will be forced to ride in liberal limousines too?

why aren't there any conservative limousines?

the world is being taken over by people who don't have any limousines at all...

arise ye slumbering limousine drivers...

arise i say...

Here you go, John.....this should clear things up for you:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limousine_liberal

FTR, as long as you tip well, I'll drive your limousine anywhere you want.

Baby Lee
04-12-2007, 01:25 PM
oh wow, i haven't seen that one before...

are those hypocrites actually driving liberal limousines?

are you suggesting that republicans will be forced to ride in liberal limousines too?

why aren't there any conservative limousines?

the world is being taken over by people who don't have any limousines at all...

arise ye slumbering limousine drivers...

arise i say...
Basic grammar, Ivy League boy.

a limousine liberal is a type of liberal, not a type of limousine.

:p

Nightwish
04-12-2007, 04:14 PM
I think what he did was pretty bad. But really these women were more offended at the "ho" word than the racial aspect. And they certainly weren't "ho's." Whoever made the racist part bigger than the sexist part shows the different market demographics. So is it that sexist men or racists rule the market?

I'd say both parts of his statement were equal in their impropriety. But it wasn't the Rutgers girls who really stirred up the pot with this one, it was Al Sharpton. On the penis of the Race Police, Al Sharpton is one testicle, and Jesse Jackson is the other. IMO, those two men do a great disservice to civil rights, and they've managed to turn this whole thing, which shouldn't have stirred up any more controversy than half the things Rush Limbaugh says, into a huge joke.

penchief
04-12-2007, 04:45 PM
I'd say both parts of his statement were equal in their impropriety. But it wasn't the Rutgers girls who really stirred up the pot with this one, it was Al Sharpton. On the penis of the Race Police, Al Sharpton is one testicle, and Jesse Jackson is the other. IMO, those two men do a great disservice to civil rights, and they've managed to turn this whole thing, which shouldn't have stirred up any more controversy than half the things Rush Limbaugh says, into a huge joke.

It's not a huge joke but a huge travesty. I'm as big an advocate for civil liberties or racial equality as anyone could possibly be. I'm as big a critic as you'll find when it comes to comments like the one Imus made. I don't think my liberal credentials would fail anyone's test.

But this is a travesty. Imus is being destroyed unfairly for things many people do routinely as a means of self-enrichment. When considering the good works that Imus has done in his life it would have been appropriate to extend him the opportunity to redeem himself. He offered to redeem himself. But people like Sharpton and others who want to place their own sins on Imus have seen fit to destroy all of the good things he has built in his life and ignore Imus's anguish over this single spontaneous mistake.

It really is a crying shame and not something freedom-loving Americans should be celebrating, IMO.

BucEyedPea
04-12-2007, 07:37 PM
I'd say both parts of his statement were equal in their impropriety. But it wasn't the Rutgers girls who really stirred up the pot with this one, it was Al Sharpton. On the penis of the Race Police, Al Sharpton is one testicle, and Jesse Jackson is the other. IMO, those two men do a great disservice to civil rights, and they've managed to turn this whole thing, which shouldn't have stirred up any more controversy than half the things Rush Limbaugh says, into a huge joke.
I can see how some would see it that way. I just feel "ho" is considerably more derogatory for a women than mentioning their hair...especially for women like that who are clearly not ho's. It's not like they were strippers.

I'm just glad no one's called the govt in to censor anything and that this is being handled by the private sector via public opinion and private initiative. Govt hasn't taken anyone's freedom away here—at all.

BucEyedPea
04-12-2007, 08:18 PM
BTW Halle Berry told "InTouch" magazine that she will be appearing in a film titled "Nappily Ever After" where she shaves her hair off and goes bald.

All "nappy" means is tightly curled or kinky hair. It can be found on both whites and blacks even if it's mostly a black trait. I just don't see that as bad; nor necessarily racist the way I think of racist being meant. It's descriptive like the word "black."

Entertainment (http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/entnews/eo/20070404/117571833300.html)

ClevelandBronco
04-13-2007, 12:25 AM
Is this an example of the free market working well or being hijacked? The gov't isn't involved, big business is, and rightly or wrongly, Mr. Imus is going to lose his job.

Those of us who do not worship at the altar of Ayn Rand really want to know.

I think it's a pretty good example of the free market working well. The show is marketed to two disinct groups: The listening audience (where all the money goes) and the sponsor group (where all the money comes from). It was the sponsor group that got Imus fired. You can't afford to alienate the group that brings all the money to the table. The corporations that pay into the kitty decided that Imus could end up costing them money instead of making them money, so they pulled out. MSNBC and CBS Radio realized that they can't have a show without sponsors, and Imus was terminated.

It was an economic decision that was made without regard to right, wrong, or fairness. Those kinds of things interest Imus and the listening audience, but they're immaterial to the corporations that underwrite the show. They only know profit and loss, and they were betting that being associated with Imus meant that they would lose.

See you at your next gig, Don. Enjoy the time off.

Logical
04-13-2007, 01:41 AM
I think it's a pretty good example of the free market working well. The show is marketed to two disinct groups: The listening audience (where all the money goes) and the sponsor group (where all the money comes from). It was the sponsor group that got Imus fired. You can't afford to alienate the group that brings all the money to the table. The corporations that pay into the kitty decided that Imus could end up costing them money instead of making them money, so they pulled out. MSNBC and CBS Radio realized that they can't have a show without sponsors, and Imus was terminated.

It was an economic decision that was made without regard to right, wrong, or fairness. Those kinds of things interest Imus and the listening audience, but they're immaterial to the corporations that underwrite the show. They only know profit and loss, and they were betting that being associated with Imus meant that they would lose.

See you at your next gig, Don. Enjoy the time off.

That is the way I see it as well. I would not feel to sorry for Imus I bet he lands on his feet with another syndicated show in 6 months or so.

Eleazar
04-13-2007, 08:52 AM
...If the word "hos" is a filthy insult to decent black women, and it is, why are hip-hop artists and rap singers who use it incessantly not pariahs in the black community? Why would black politicians hobnob with them? Why are there no boycotts of the advertisers of the radio stations that play their degrading music?

Answer: The issue here is not the word Imus used. The issue is who Imus is – a white man, who used a term about black women only black folks are permitted to use with impunity and immunity.

Whatever Imus' sins, no one deserves to have Al Sharpton – hero of the Tawana Brawley hoax, resolute defender of the fake rape charge against half a dozen innocent guys, which ruined lives – sit in moral judgment upon them.

"It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves," says Sharpton. It says something about America that someone with Al's track record can claim the role of national censor.

Who is next? And why do we take it?

I did a bad thing, but I am not a bad person, says Imus. Indeed, whoever used his microphone to do more good for more people – be they the cancer kids of Imus Ranch, the families of Iraq war dead now more justly compensated because of the I-Man or the cause of a cure for autism?

"We know of no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodic fits of morality," said Lord Macaulay. Unfortunately, Macaulay never saw the likes of the Revs. Sharpton and Jackson.

Imus threw himself on the mercy of the court of elite opinion – and that court, pandering to the mob, lynched him. Yet, for all his sins, he was a better man than the lot of them rejoicing at the foot of the cottonwood tree.

banyon
04-13-2007, 08:58 AM
I agree with Pat Buchanan...


...That's happening way too much lately.