Obama's New "Dilemma"

[Mr. Kotter]

Obama offers the best chance for democrats to reclaim the WhiteHouse in 2008--if he can wrestle the nomination from Hillary. I think he can. That said, this week's Don Imus firings just may have created a Catch-22 for Mr. Obama.

As Imus was about to be fired this week, Obama made some strong statements condemning Imus for his words (which I agree with, FTR.) However, he also joined in the chorus of civil rights and other black leaders who said that Imus should be fired.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/12/obama_belatedly_suggests_firing_host/

If Obama had not done so, it may have harmed his standing with at least some in the African American community. However, I think his stance has now raised a very interesting question:

In taking a strong public stand against Imus, will Obama now face increasing pressures to not only denounce others who are guilty of profanities, exploitation, and insults against women and minorities...but to support boycotts, public pressure, and possibly even legislation to target other very public vulgarities involving pop culture?

:hmmm:

If Obama is consistent and calls for any significant action to combat what George Will calls "the coursening of American culture," he will risk alienating some of his, potentially, most important supporters (in the pop culture, entertainment, and African American community.)

On the other hand, if Obama adopts a double-standard....and refuses to loudly criticize others who are guilty of actions similar to those of Imus, will he alienate many independent and moderate types who think it's long past time for us to reclaim some sense of decency for our culture?

In the end, Obama could be damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't....in terms of following up his comments on Imus, with some at least some consistency with regard to rap, hip-hop, Hollywood, the porn industry, and other unsavory elements of American society.

In joining in the chorus to have Imus fired, has he unwittingly risked alienating voters whose support he will need to win both the nomination, and the general election?

The next few weeks and months could be interesting to watch. :hmmm:

[Logical]

This is just stupid, I cannot believe all the idiots equating what Imus did with music lyrics, popular culture etc. :rolleyes:

[Mr. Kotter]

This is just stupid, I cannot believe all the idiots equating what Imus did with music lyrics, popular culture etc. :rolleyes:You haven't been watching cable news and shows the last couple of nights have you? The indignation over the double-standard and hypocrisy is very real. Jason Whitlock is but one example.

I've been amazed at the black voices who are saying, "We got Imus. And that was good. But, now, we need to keep this going. We need to go after others who are denigrating and exploiting women, and opportunistically marginalizing minorities." It's going to make for strange bed-fellows.

I love it. :D

Not all of us have embraced the California values you have, Jim. Sure, the east coast and the left coast have; but Red America and swing states will make this an issue that will require some sort of response-- at the very least. Even if we aren't comfortable with the self-righteous piety of the James Dobson crowd either. :)

[Logical]

You haven't been watching cable news and shows the last couple of nights have you? The indignation over the double-standard and hypocrisy is very real. Jason Whitlock is but one example.

Not all of us have embraced the California values you have, Jim. Even if we aren't comfortable with the self-righteous piety of the James Dobson crowd either. :)10 to 1 it all blows over and is forgotten and nothing really changes.

[patteeu]

This is just stupid, I cannot believe all the idiots equating what Imus did with music lyrics, popular culture etc. :rolleyes:

You're right. Irreverent comedy shouldn't be equated with a bunch of wannabe thugs (and many who are, in fact, real thugs) who are claiming to be "keeping it real."

[Mr. Kotter]

10 to 1 it all blows over and is forgotten and nothing really changes.

You may be right; we have a tendency to pay a lot of lip-service to culture and values. But when it comes down to it, as a nation....we are just talk.

I've got a different "feel" with this--with what is going on. Alas, maybe it's just indigestion or a virus though. ;)

[patteeu]

Mr. Kotter, I think you are raising an interesting point. I don't know if it will end up causing Obama much trouble, but I can see how it is a possible vulnerability. I suspect that his opponents would need to find a way to effectively exploit it though because I don't think it's going to manifest itself on it's own.

[noa]

Finding inconsistencies in a politician's stance is an easy thing to do. I highly doubt this will affect Obama's campaign, even though it may be a valid point.

[Mr. Kotter]

Mr. Kotter, I think you are raising an interesting point. I don't know if it will end up causing Obama much trouble, but I can see how it is a possible vulnerability. I suspect that his opponents would need to find a way to effectively exploit it though because I don't think it's going to manifest itself on it's own.

I don't know that it will play a role in the Democratic nomination, with Hillary his primary competition....and no traditional or conservative Democrat posing any real threat.

However, if Obama does win the nomination, you and I both know the Republicans will take him to task on it.

[Mr. Kotter]

Finding inconsistencies in a politician's stance is an easy thing to do. I highly doubt this will affect Obama's campaign, even though it may be a valid point.

It depends on how much "traction" the issue, ultimately, will have.

If, as Logical is saying, it's just a blip on the radar, then it won't effect his campaign at all.

On the other hand, IF it becomes the issue that the last couple of days suggests it COULD become....then Obama's position and actions could play a significant role in the general election. :hmmm:

[Logical]

I don't know that it will play a role in the Democratic nomination, with Hillary his primary competition....and no traditional or conservative Democrat posing any real threat.

However, if Obama does win the nomination, you and I both know the Republicans will take him to task on it.

Not if it is Rudy, Rudy will be courting the very people you are convinced should be censured since he won't be getting the true RRWNJs.

[Mr. Kotter]

Not if it is Rudy, Rudy will be courting the very people you are convinced should be censured since he won't be getting the true RRWNJs.

Point taken. That's a good observation.

However, unless Fred doesn't enter the race, Rudy will not be the nominee. :)

[Logical]

Point taken. That's a good observation.

However, unless Fred doesn't enter the race, Rudy will not be the nominee. :)I am confused by your second statement, are you saying that if Fred enters the race Rudy has a better chance at the nomination, and if so why?

[Mr. Kotter]

I am confused by your second statement, are you saying that if Fred enters the race Rudy has a better chance at the nomination, and if so why?

No, I MEANT "if Fred DOES enter the race"...my bad.

[patteeu]

One interesting thing I read today about the Imus situation and it's impact on politics (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-imuspol13apr13,0,2734444.story?coll=la-home-headlines) is the theory that it could end up costing all of the democrat candidates to some degree because Imus was one of the few national radio acts that frequently offers friendly interview opportunities to liberal politicians. The theory is that without Imus, democrats lose one of their best channels for reaching the talk radio demographic while Republicans (who also appear on Imus) will have several other potential alternatives (Hannity, Boortz, and possibly Limbaugh although he only does limited interviewing).

[Logical]

No, I MEANT "if Fred DOES enter the race"...my bad.Even though I don't neccesarily agree, that makes much more sense.

[Logical]

One interesting thing I read today about the Imus situation and it's impact on politics (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-imuspol13apr13,0,2734444.story?coll=la-home-headlines) is the theory that it could end up costing all of the democrat candidates to some degree because Imus was one of the few national radio acts that frequently offers friendly interview opportunities to liberal politicians. The theory is that without Imus, democrats lose one of their best channels for reaching the talk radio demographic while Republicans (who also appear on Imus) will have several other potential alternatives (Hannity, Boortz, and possibly Limbaugh although he only does limited interviewing).There is some validity to that but Imus only had an estimateg 3 million listener base, which is not a lot.

[patteeu]

There is some validity to that but Imus only had an estimate 3 million listener base, which is not a lot.

Good point. I didn't realize his audience was that small. Does that include his TV audience and his radio audience?

[Mr. Kotter]

There is some validity to that but Imus only had an estimate 3 million listener base, which is not a lot.

It's 3 million listeners WHO, on average, are much more likely to actually VOTE than the average American, though. :shrug:

[Logical]

There is some validity to that but Imus only had an estimateg 3 million listener base, which is not a lot.I think that is his radio audience. Not sure if they have numbers on his TV audience, good question.

[Logical]

It's 3 million listeners WHO, on average, are much more likely to actually VOTE than the average American, though. :shrug:How can you know that, he was a shock jock? Would that mean Howard Stern's listeners are also more likely to vote?

[Mr. Kotter]

How can you know that, he was a shock jock? Would that mean Howard Stern's listeners are also more likely to vote?

When I was involved in the Clinton campaign in 92, and in the Gore campaign in 2000....the demographic statistics we were given for Imus's show, purported that 85-90% of his listeners were considered what pollsters categorize as LIKELY voters (they tended to be, for lack of a better word, more politically sophisticated.)

By comparison, Limbaugh's were around 65%. That's what we were told by consultants that were hired by the campaigns anyway. Also, I suppose the demographics may have changed since 2000....but I doubt it's been a big change.

[Logical]

When I was involved in the Clinton campaign in 92, and in the Gore campaign in 2000....the demographic statistics we were given for Imus's show, purported that 85-90% of his listeners were considered what pollsters categorize as LIKELY voters (they tended to be, for lack of a better word, more politically sophisticated.)

By comparison, Limbaugh's were around 65%. That's what we were told by consultants that were hired by the campaigns anyway. Also, I suppose the demographics may have changed since 2000....but I doubt it's been a big change.That is really interesting, I would love to understand why.

[Direckshun]

Obama offers the best chance for democrats to reclaim the WhiteHouse in 2008--if he can wrestle the nomination from Hillary. I think he can. That said, this week's Don Imus firings just may have created a Catch-22 for Mr. Obama.

As Imus was about to be fired this week, Obama made some strong statements condemning Imus for his words (which I agree with, FTR.) However, he also joined in the chorus of civil rights and other black leaders who said that Imus should be fired.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/12/obama_belatedly_suggests_firing_host/

If Obama had not done so, it may have harmed his standing with at least some in the African American community. However, I think his stance has now raised a very interesting question:

In taking a strong public stand against Imus, will Obama now face increasing pressures to not only denounce others who are guilty of profanities, exploitation, and insults against women and minorities...but to support boycotts, public pressure, and possibly even legislation to target other very public vulgarities involving pop culture?

:hmmm:

If Obama is consistent and calls for any significant action to combat what George Will calls "the coursening of American culture," he will risk alienating some of his, potentially, most important supporters (in the pop culture, entertainment, and African American community.)

On the other hand, if Obama adopts a double-standard....and refuses to loudly criticize others who are guilty of actions similar to those of Imus, will he alienate many independent and moderate types who think it's long past time for us to reclaim some sense of decency for our culture?

In the end, Obama could be damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't....in terms of following up his comments on Imus, with some at least some consistency with regard to rap, hip-hop, Hollywood, the porn industry, and other unsavory elements of American society.

In joining in the chorus to have Imus fired, has he unwittingly risked alienating voters whose support he will need to win both the nomination, and the general election?

The next few weeks and months could be interesting to watch. :hmmm:
Isn't that the same dilemma every public figure faces?

Why are we singling out Obama?

[Mr. Kotter]

That is really interesting, I would love to understand why.

This is strictly my theory....but, think about it:

Although vulgar, and profane at times....Imus became pretty "intellectual" and more cerebral in the 1990s---or at least he TRIED to, it seemed. He began to attract more politicians, and journalists from BOTH sides of the spectrum. That gave him some credibility. Also, his more sopisticated humor, his sattire, and use of irony for example; were juxtaposed against bathroom humor (not on the level of Stern, but pretty low-brow.) Many educated and "thinking" people tend to like/appreciate both styles--especially men. Educated and "thinking" people tend to VOTE despite their cynicism or alienation.

[Mr. Kotter]

Isn't that the same dilemma every public figure faces?

Why are we singling out Obama?

White candidates, especially Republican one's won't have to worry about "alienating" blacks, or liberal hip-hop, rap, Hollywood type fans who are gonna vote Democrat anyway.

Democratic candidates can't really afford to alienate those groups IMO.

[Direckshun]

White candidates, especially Republican one's won't have to worry about "alienating" blacks, or liberal hip-hop, rap, Hollywood type fans who are gonna vote Democrat anyway.

Democratic candidates can't really afford to alienate those groups IMO.
So now that he's publicly condemned one, he has to publicly condemn all the other idiots by name or he'll alienate Democratic supporters?

Say again?

[Mr. Kotter]

So now that he's publicly condemned one, he has to publicly condemn all the other idiots by name or he'll alienate Democratic supporters?

Say again?In the primary, he has to be concerned about alienating those groups on the "left."

However, if he placates those groups during the primaries, he risks alienating MODERATE and INDEPENDENT types who might find such a position as a double-standard and hypocritical....so it could cost him votes in the general election.

[|Zach|]

In the primary, he should be concerned about alienating those groups.

If he placates those groups during the primaries, he risks alienating MODERATE and INDEPENDENT types who might find a double-standard and hypocrisy (a position to placate the "base" in the primaries)....will lose him votes in the general election.
I hear you...

I just don't believe it.

I don't think there is anything moderate about a voter who would run for the hills on the issue.

[Mr. Kotter]

I hear you...

I just don't believe it.

I don't think there is anything moderate about a voter who would run for the hills on the issue.
Talk to middle-aged, and truly moderate, or independent voters...and ask them whether they think our "culture" is out of control. And if they think something should be done about it?

Ask them. Seriously.

[HolmeZz]

If you're retarded enough to be swayed by an issue like this, you probably aren't going to care enough to take the trip out to the polls on Election Day.

[|Zach|]

Talk to middle-aged, and truly moderate, or independent voters...and ask them whether they think our "culture" is out of control. And if they think something should be done about it?

Ask them. Seriously.
I agree at the direction you are headed with this post. I disagree that it connects directly to question of this issue and the idea of mod and ind voters being turned off.

You throw this issue out like it should be some anvil that falls on the voters heads and makes them see the light. I think it is deep nuanced. Lots of ins, lots of outs.

So after I talk to them about our culture being out of control I would ask them about their opinion on Obama's take on the Imus\race issue.

I wonder if they would even know what it was or react.

I think this issue is less of a broadsword being held in front of voters and more of an exactoknife.

[Mr. Kotter]

Look at the last 5-6 decades:

1950s -- Conservative culture
1960s -- Liberal Culture
1970s -- Liberal, transition to Conservative culture
1980s -- Conservative culture
1990s -- Conservative, transition to Liberal culture
2000-?-- More liberal culture (not politics, but culture,) transitioning back
to Conservative?


The ONLY "real" question in my view, does the pendulum start to swing back to the Conservativism....in 2004, 2008, or 2012.

It's NOT a question of "if," IMO....but only "when?" :hmmm:

[Mr. Kotter]

If you're retarded enough to be swayed by an issue like this, you probably aren't going to care enough to take the trip out to the polls on Election Day.
I've witnessed, passionately, politics and elections since 1984.

How long you been doing this? :shrug:

Just curious, so I can get an idea of where you are coming from....seriously.

EDIT: I'd be willing to bet too, that in your "retrospective" view of history....you simply dismiss the importance of the "Silent majority" to Nixon's elections, or the "Moral Majority" to Reagan's elections too, eh? :hmmm:

[Mr. Kotter]

....

You throw this issue out like it should be some anvil that falls on the voters heads and makes them see the light. I think it is deep nuanced. Lots of ins, lots of outs.

So after I talk to them about our culture being out of control I would ask them about their opinion on Obama's take on the Imus\race issue.

I wonder if they would even know what it was or react.

I think this issue is less of a broadsword being held in front of voters and more of an exactoknife.

I agree the issue can be complicated; but, unlike you, I think the issue has some "legs"....some staying power.

In the GENERAL election, I assure you....Republicans WILL make this a major issue--unless Rudy gets the nomination, then it won't serve their purposes.

[Logical]

Talk to middle-aged, and truly moderate, or independent voters...and ask them whether they think our "culture" is out of control. And if they think something should be done about it?

Ask them. Seriously.Uh hmm that would be me and frankly speaking only for myself and the moderates around me you would be completely wrong.

[|Zach|]

Here is another angle. It just popped in my head though I haven't thought it out that much. Shooting from the hip.

In terms of racism. I am not sure if there is that much pressure on a candidate to "do something about it" a presidential hopeful seems less able to take action on race matters when you compare the ability to do things (or promise to do things) with other issues.

Race issues can be flat line a politician if you are an idiot like Trent Lott. But thats more so about being overly insensitive and less about not making a certain move.

When presidents are in power you always hear...damn I wish he had done something about the deficit...or crap, he did nothing to help me out with my health care.

I have never heard someone say...shit, that guy did nothing to improve the state of race relations during his time in office.

[Mr. Kotter]

Uh hmm that would be me and frankly speaking only for myself and the moderates around me you would be completely wrong.

You live in CALIFORNIA.

[Logical]

You live in CALIFORNIA.SO WHAT

California is the leading edge of everything that this country has done for the last 3 decades.

[HolmeZz]

If this issue applies to people who think our culture is out of control, why would Obama's position turn them off? Because he doesn't go after every other single thing?

It's like you get-off on continuing to drag rap into this.

[Mr. Kotter]

Here is another angle. It just popped in my head though I haven't thought it out that much. Shooting from the hip.

In terms of racism. I am not sure if there is that much pressure on a candidate to "do something about it" a presidential hopeful seems less able to take action on race matters when you compare the ability to do things (or promise to do things) with other issues.

Race issues can be flat line a politician if you are an idiot like Trent Lott. But thats more so about being overly insensitive and less about not making a certain move.

When presidents are in power you always hear...damn I wish he had done something about the deficit...or crap, he did nothing to help me out with my health care.

I have never heard someone say...shit, that guy did nothing to improve the state of race relations during his time in office.
I agree with you, that healthcare and the deficit ARE more substantive issues....but BOTH of those issues are complicated, and much more difficult to address. This issue isn't....if you look at the polling.

Look back historically and see which elections have turned on SOCIAL or "domestic" issues....1948, 1964, and 1980 (to some extent anyway.) That's it. The rest? It was either fiscal or defense/national security interests that swung the election.

I'm banking on the fact, that after four years in Iraq...and no major terrorist attack....and a period of low taxes, that one of the next couple of Presidential elections will hinge on domestic issues.

The timing of this whole thing, along with the passion I'm seeing from some groups on the issue....makes me think this could be (COULD be....) much more important than many of us realize, at the moment.

Of course, I could be wrong; maybe this will just be another blip on the screen. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part. But, at the moment, I'm not thinking that way...:hmmm:

[|Zach|]

If this issue applies to people who think our culture is out of control, why would Obama's position turn them off?
Out of control...Chemicals Brothers.

Awesome...awesome video.

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pzCqqkrB2vU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

[|Zach|]

I agree with you, that healthcare and the deficit ARE more substantive issues....

However, look back historically and see which elections have turned on SOCIAL or "domestic" issues....1948, 1964, and 1980 (to some extent anyway.) That's it. The rest? It was either fiscal or defense/national security interests that swung the election.

I'm banking on the fact, that after four years in Iraq...and no major terrorist attack....and a period of low taxes, that one of the next couple of Presidential elections will hinge on domestic issues.

The timing of this whole thing, along with the passion I'm seeing from some groups on the issue....makes me think this could be (COULD be....) much more important than many of us realize, at the moment.

Of course, I could be wrong; maybe this will just be another blip on the screen. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part. But, at the moment, I'm not thinking that way...:hmmm:
What are you saying...would be Obama's stance on this culture change...and what is it about that stance that would drive voters away.

[Mr. Kotter]

If this issue applies to people who think our culture is out of control, why would Obama's position turn them off? Because he doesn't go after every other single thing?

It's like you get-off on continuing to drag rap into this.

ROFL

Hell, Rap and Hip hop are only a small part of it, actually....George Will calls it the "coursening of culture" (I suspect you would be able to google that.)

It's about everything from pornography, our "manners" and our courtesy for fellow humans, to the language and images we allow on the "public" airwaves and in the "public square" (ALL of Hollywood and the entertainment industry.)

Rap just happens to be at the forefront, at the moment, because of what many perceive to be the blatant double-standard and accompanying hypocrisy of the whole Imus affair.

I'm not saying I'm right; I'm saying there are a whole lot of other people....who are thinking about this the same way I am: this may be a golden opportunity to finally "clean up" the culture a bit.

I'm not holding my breath; but you can't blame a guy for hoping. :)

[Mr. Kotter]

What are you saying...would be Obama's stance on this culture change...and what is it about that stance that would drive voters away.I'm saying IF he doesn't aggressively pursue OTHER purveyors of profanity, smut, and "injustices" on the public airwaves and in the public square....with the same sort of courage he demonstrated in the Imus case, that moderate and independent voters may consider him a hypocrite who subscribes to a double-standard...in the GENERAL election, and thus...it could cost him votes.

Again, I could be wrong; I just understand WHY it took him so long to "react" to the Imus story. It had to be a tough decision, among he and his advisors. Surely, they are smart enough anticipate the possible fall-out that I'm suggesting here. That's why they waited until the eleventh hour to even make any real statement on the whole affair. If you haven't followed this closely, Hillary issued a much earlier and more strident condemnation of Imus....much earlier in the week.

[HolmeZz]

I guess I just don't understand your desire to limit speech.

[Logical]

ROFL

Hell, Rap and Hip hop are only a small part of it, actually....George Will calls it the "coursening of culture" (I suspect you would be able to google that.)

It's about everything from pornography, our "manners" and our courtesy for fellow humans, to the language and images we allow on the "public" airwaves and in the "public square" (ALL of Hollywood and the entertainment industry.)

Rap just happens to be at the forefront, at the moment, because of what many perceive to be the blatant double-standard and accompanying hypocrisy of the whole Imus affair.

I'm not saying I'm right; I'm saying there are a whole lot of other people....who are thinking about this the same way I am: this may be a golden opportunity to finally "clean up" the culture a bit.

I'm not holding my breath; but you can't blame a guy for hoping. :)

One thing you give me is a huge laugh, you like to dismiss my opinion and those of people around me because we live in CA, yet you live for Gods sake in South the friggen Dakota, a bastion of atypical attitude. Certainly as far off the scale in the opposite direction as CA is in our direction.

[Logical]

I guess I just don't understand your desire to limit speech.Kotter though a good guy is just shy of a Religious Right Wing Nut Job and is just not ready to admit it.

[Mr. Kotter]

I guess I just don't understand your desire to limit speech.
I have mixed feelings. I definitely support "free speech." But free speech is a two way street. If you allow free speech that others find "offensive," then you have to allow speech that YOU find offensive. Interestingly, even the Supreme Court has been pretty consistent on this point....allowing both Neo-Nazis and flag-burners to exercise their "rights" even in the face of strong public sentiment to "censor it" in both cases.

On the other hand, it just doesn't seem right....that one group of people can say certain words, or invoke insults and degredation with apparent impugnity; while OTHERS are made to be "accountable." That inconsistency just doesn't seem "fair" or "right" in a democratic society where we value "equality." Hence, many view a double-standard, such as the one in this case....to be unfair, and hypocritical.

Free speech is only "free" if it is free for EVERYONE.

What's the Voltaire quote: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Either we believe it that, or we don't.

Which is it? :shrug:

[Mr. Kotter]

Kotter though a good guy is just shy of a Religious Right Wing Nut Job and is just not ready to admit it.
ROFL

All one needs to do to reject that I, in any substantive way, is "religious" would be read a few of my posts....recent ones even. I would, under no circumstances describe myself as "religious"....

FWIW, you are just shy of becoming a member of the liberal left coast elite--limousine liberal crowd, aren't you? I mean, not far from "Moonbat" territory. Eh? :)

[Logical]

Yes because everything in the US is equal, I know I have been stopped many, many times for DWB (Driving while Black) haven't you?

[Logical]

ROFL

All one needs to do to reject that I, in any substantive way, is "religious" would be read a few of my posts....recent ones even. I would, under no circumstances describe myself as "religious"....

FWIW, you are just shy of becoming a member of the liberal left coast elite--limousine liberal crowd, aren't you? I mean, not far from "Moonbat" territory. Eh? :)Funny you should think that, my lunch time companions were commenting on how conservative I am on so many issues.

[Mr. Kotter]

Yes because everything in the US is equal, I know I have been stopped many, many times for DWB (Driving while Black) haven't you?

Have you been stopped for DWP? I have. NUMEROUS times. Seriously. Because of the make, and condition, of the car I drove. And the "club" or "bar" I'd left.

And, while I didn't get DUIs....they occupied my time, and inconvenienced me.....each time....for roughly 2-3 hours.

Solely because I was in the "wrong" neighborhood, driving the "wrong" car, and "looking" like "white trash" I suppose.

It sucked.

But you know what; I don't really blame them. They were playing the "odds." Is it profiling, the same as DWB? You bet your sweet ass it is.

You know what else though? I UNDERSTAND why it happened. Did it suck at the time? Yeah. Do I harbor any ill-will? Not at all. They were just doing their jobs.

:shrug:

[Mr. Kotter]

Funny you should think that, my lunch time companions were commenting on how conservative I am on so many issues.
If you play "devil's advocate" with them, the way you (and I) do here....well, I can see that. Otherwise, I'd attribute it to the fact that as an increasingly left-of-center limousine libertarian-liberal, you are STILL well "right" of center....for average Californians.

Heh. :p

[Logical]

Have you been stopped for DWP? I have. NUMEROUS times. Seriously. Because of the make, and condition, of the car I drove. And the "club" or "bar" I'd left.

And, while I didn't get DUIs....they occupied my time, and inconvenienced me.....each time....for roughly 2-3 hours.

Solely because I was in the "wrong" neighborhood, driving the "wrong" car, and "looking" like "white trash" I suppose.

It sucked.

But you know what; I don't really blame them. They were playing the "odds." Is it profiling, the same as DWB? You bet your sweet ass it is.

You know what else though? I UNDERSTAND why it happened. Did it suck at the time? Yeah. Do I harbor any ill-will? Not at all. They were just doing their jobs.

:shrug:Rob as you know I drive a Jag, I don't get stopped when I am speeding next to a police car the cop just rolled down his window and yelled nice car.

Not kidding.

[Mr. Kotter]

Rob as you know I drive a Jag, I don't get stopped when I am speeding next to a police car the cop just rolled down his window and yelled nice car.

Not kidding.

So you KNOW exactly what I mean. Good for you, I guess. ROFL

Getting pulled over for DWP (Driving While Poor) is every bit as real as DWB; but again, I understand why it is....and I don't begrudge them too much at all really. It makes complete sense to me; even if I don't "like" it.

[Baby Lee]

I have mixed feelings. I definitely support "free speech." But free speech is a two way street. If you allow free speech that others find "offensive," then you have to allow speech that YOU find offensive. Interestingly, even the Supreme Court has been pretty consistent on this point....allowing both Neo-Nazis and flag-burners to exercise their "rights" even in the face of strong public sentiment to "censor it" in both cases.

On the other hand, it just doesn't seem right....that one group of people can say certain words, or invoke insults and degredation with apparent impugnity; while OTHERS are made to be "accountable." That inconsistency just doesn't seem "fair" or "right" in a democratic society where we value "equality." Hence, many view a double-standard, such as the one in this case....to be unfair, and hypocritical.

Free speech is only "free" if it is free for EVERYONE.

What's the Voltaire quote: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Either we believe it that, or we don't.

Which is it? :shrug:
Free for everyone.
More sex, drugs, rock and roll, more ethnic jokes [good ones, funny one, until the subjects realize we don't hate anyone, we just want to laugh], more Tarantino, more Girls Gone Wild [under new management, I guess], more South Park, more flayed cadavers on prime time CSI, more of The Bride squishing eyes between her toes, more Saw, Hostel, The Ring, etc. etc., more gangsta rap, more punk, more Chuck Puhlaniuk.

Probably not the answer you were looking for.

[Mr. Kotter]

Free for everyone.
More sex, drugs, rock and roll, more ethnic jokes [good ones, funny one, until the subjects realize we don't hate anyone, we just want to laugh], more Tarantino, more Girls Gone Wild [under new management, I guess], more South Park, more flayed cadavers on prime time CSI, more of The Bride squishing eyes between her toes, more Saw, Hostel, The Ring, etc. etc., more gangsta rap, more punk, more Chuck Puhlaniuk.

Probably not the answer you were looking for.
Nice catch, sir. Allow me to amend what I said, with what I mean:

Free, to the same extent, for everyone.

Societies will always draw the line somewhere; some critics will call it censorship, regardless of where the line is drawn.

However, the same standard must be applied to everyone....to preserve any notion of "free speech," and fundamental fairness.

Better? :)

[patteeu]

I'm saying IF he doesn't aggressively pursue OTHER purveyors of profanity, smut, and "injustices" on the public airwaves and in the public square....with the same sort of courage he demonstrated in the Imus case, that moderate and independent voters may consider him a hypocrite who subscribes to a double-standard...in the GENERAL election, and thus...it could cost him votes.

Again, I could be wrong; I just understand WHY it took him so long to "react" to the Imus story. It had to be a tough decision, among he and his advisors. Surely, they are smart enough anticipate the possible fall-out that I'm suggesting here. That's why they waited until the eleventh hour to even make any real statement on the whole affair. If you haven't followed this closely, Hillary issued a much earlier and more strident condemnation of Imus....much earlier in the week.

One other factor that might have affected the timing is that Obama has been a guest on Imus' show. I'm not sure whether Hillary ever has. I'd also suspect that Imus has been a lot harder on Hillary over the years than he has been on Obama.

[patteeu]

Funny you should think that, my lunch time companions were commenting on how conservative I am on so many issues.

Holy smokes! Who are you eating lunch with these days, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky?

[Adept Havelock]

Ah yes...another lecture on America's moral collapse and it's poltical significance from the man who condemned Michael Douglas as a pedo for nailing Catherine Zeta Jones.

I'm pretty sure that's NOT a moderate opinion. Perhaps you (or a general Libertine like myself) aren't the best equipped to decide what a moderates opinion on pop culture actually is. :shrug:

BTW- Fantastic Volatire quote. I've always tried to live by it.

[mlyonsd]

If Obama is consistent and calls for any significant action to combat what George Will calls "the coursening of American culture," he will risk alienating some of his, potentially, most important supporters (in the pop culture, entertainment, and African American community.)



I don't really see that as a problem. I think Obama can condemn questionable lyrics and get away with it. I don't think he'll alienate enough people to make a difference and stands to gain a lot more than lose.

[Mr. Kotter]

Ah yes...another lecture on America's moral collapse and it's poltical significance from the man who condemned Michael Douglas as a pedo for nailing Catherine Zeta Jones...In retrospect it was a bad analogy; I went to far in trying to illustrate the point....that a young ladies "legal" age shouldn't be the ONLY factor in determining "age of consent" and "sexual harassment" questions. :banghead:

Can you cut me a little slack on it; surely you've read enough of my other stuff to know I'm no prude. Actually, pretty far from it. FTR, I think most of the "cleaning up" of pop culture should be as a result of social pressure (including economic boycotts), not government actions.

So there. :harumph:

[Mr. Kotter]

I don't really see that as a problem. I think Obama can condemn questionable lyrics and get away with it. I don't think he'll alienate enough people to make a difference and stands to gain a lot more than lose.

Again, I think you are right about a GENERAL election; however, Hillary just may be able to stave off his challenge in the primaries....if he starts to challenge pop culture too aggressively.

[Adept Havelock]

In retrospect it was a bad analogy; I went to far in trying to illustrate the point....that a young ladies "legal" age shouldn't be the ONLY factor in determining "age of consent" and "sexual harassment" questions. :banghead:

Can you cut me a little slack on it; surely you've read enough of my other stuff to know I'm no prude. Actually, pretty far from it. FTR, I think most of the "cleaning up" of pop culture should be as a result of social pressure (including economic boycotts), not government actions.

So there. :harumph:

Sure, I just wanted to point out that due to our positions on "pop culture" excess, neither of us is terribly qualified to address what a "true moderates" position on that topic would be. It was just a convenient reference point. I certainly do applaud the fact you don't want the Government to protect you from Janet Jackson's Nipple. :D However, I think I do want the Govt. to protect us from her psycho brother.

That, and I'm a little hung over and felt I had to flip a little night soil your way. :toast:

[mlyonsd]

Again, I think you are right about a GENERAL election; however, Hillary just may be able to stave off his challenge in the primaries....if he starts to challenge pop culture too aggressively.

I'm not sure Hillary's and Obama's positions will be that different on the subject if they are asked the question in a debate.

If Obama was runing against Bill you might have a point but I'm not so sure Hillary has the same aura about her with the pop culture.

[stevieray]

I don't really see that as a problem. I think Obama can condemn questionable lyrics and get away with it. I don't think he'll alienate enough people to make a difference and stands to gain a lot more than lose.

I don't either, if only African Americans can "use" the word without reproach, it is only logical that African Americans can be the ones to bring the subject to the table.

We've become so sensitive over the issue anything else has the propensity to appear racist.

[patteeu]

The next time Obama and Ludacris get together, I guess he can take the opportunity to let the rapper know how he feels about phrases like "nappy-headed hos" face to face.

http://media1.suntimes.com/nixoncds/image/20061129_18_46_42_92-282-400.imageContent

[penchief]

I was neutral on Obama. I hadn't made any determination's one way or the other. But when I saw him take his shot at Imus by saying that he should be fired, I felt like it was opportunistic pandering. He was jumping on the bandwagon. I was very turned off by it.

[HolmeZz]

I think it was pandering, but I don't think it was opportunistic. He was going to have to weigh in at some point. Sharpton and alike would've construed his silence to mean whatever they wanted it to mean.

[Baby Lee]

<COLUMBIA, S.C. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday questioned the way some rappers talk about women in songs, saying the lyrics are similar to the derogatory language used by fired radio talk show host Don Imus.

"We've got to admit to ourselves, that it was not the first time that we heard the word 'ho,' Obama told a crowd of about 1,200 at a fundraising dinner for the South Carolina Legislative Black Caucus in Columbia. "Turn on the radio station. There are a whole lot of songs that use the same language ... we've been permitting it in our homes, and in our schools and on iPods."

"If it's not good for Don Imus, I don't know why it's good for us. If we don't like other people to degrade us, why are we degrading ourselves?" Obama said to applause.>

<..."I think that all of us have become a little complicit in this kind of relaxed attitude toward some pretty offensive things," Obama said. "And I hope this prompts some self-reflection on the part of all of us.">

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/...

[HolmeZz]

The next time Obama and Ludacris get together, I guess he can take the opportunity to let the rapper know how he feels about phrases like "nappy-headed hos" face to face.

http://media1.suntimes.com/nixoncds/image/20061129_18_46_42_92-282-400.imageContent

Silly. I don't see 'ho' as a problem if you're not singling somebody out and being derogatory. You hear the word all over the place. Imus' problem was the singling out and the 'nappy headed' racist component.

[HolmeZz]

<COLUMBIA, S.C. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday questioned the way some rappers talk about women in songs, saying the lyrics are similar to the derogatory language used by fired radio talk show host Don Imus.

"We've got to admit to ourselves, that it was not the first time that we heard the word 'ho,' Obama told a crowd of about 1,200 at a fundraising dinner for the South Carolina Legislative Black Caucus in Columbia. "Turn on the radio station. There are a whole lot of songs that use the same language ... we've been permitting it in our homes, and in our schools and on iPods."

"If it's not good for Don Imus, I don't know why it's good for us. If we don't like other people to degrade us, why are we degrading ourselves?" Obama said to applause.>

<..."I think that all of us have become a little complicit in this kind of relaxed attitude toward some pretty offensive things," Obama said. "And I hope this prompts some self-reflection on the part of all of us.">

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/...

Let's see how Kotter paints that one.

[Sully]

<COLUMBIA, S.C. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday questioned the way some rappers talk about women in songs, saying the lyrics are similar to the derogatory language used by fired radio talk show host Don Imus.

"We've got to admit to ourselves, that it was not the first time that we heard the word 'ho,' Obama told a crowd of about 1,200 at a fundraising dinner for the South Carolina Legislative Black Caucus in Columbia. "Turn on the radio station. There are a whole lot of songs that use the same language ... we've been permitting it in our homes, and in our schools and on iPods."

"If it's not good for Don Imus, I don't know why it's good for us. If we don't like other people to degrade us, why are we degrading ourselves?" Obama said to applause.>

<..."I think that all of us have become a little complicit in this kind of relaxed attitude toward some pretty offensive things," Obama said. "And I hope this prompts some self-reflection on the part of all of us.">

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/...


Bullets removed.

[Mr. Kotter]

Wow, BL. Obama nailed that sucker....good for him. :clap:

It will be fascinating to see how pop culture responds to him, now. I can't wait to hear, specifically, what he would do as President to try to encourage and coerce the sort of change he is suggesting. Wow, there just may be a light at the end of the tunnel, after all.

Absolutely, awesome. :clap::clap::clap:

[stevieray]

Silly. I don't see 'ho' as a problem if you're not singling somebody out and being derogatory. You hear the word all over the place. Imus' problem was the singling out and the 'nappy headed' racist component.


nappy means kinky, curly...how is that racist..? other races have curly or kinky hair... was stevie wonder cutting himself down?

Or are we just so sensitive to the subject, that any term that is a characteristic off limits?

do we have another N word to remove for correct speech?

[BucEyedPea]

"If it's not good for Don Imus, I don't know why it's good for us. If we don't like other people to degrade us, why are we degrading ourselves?" Obama said to applause.>

<..."I think that all of us have become a little complicit in this kind of relaxed attitude toward some pretty offensive things," Obama said. "And I hope this prompts some self-reflection on the part of all of us.">
Obama is right:

"Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?" —Rush Limbaugh while he puts up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, daughter of the president, age 13. (Ivins column in Arizona Republic, 10/17/93)

Chelsea wasn't a public figure either.

[Mr. Kotter]

Let's see how Kotter paints that one.

My goodness, you are quite the skeptic, aren't you? Or is it partisan cynic? :shake:

He said precisely what needed to be said. He's definitely got my attention. :clap:



Obama is right:

"Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?" —Rush Limbaugh while he puts up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, daughter of the president, age 13. (Ivins column in Arizona Republic, 10/17/93)

Chelsea wasn't a public figure either.
I absolutely agree.

[Laz]

this is a dilemma, but email evidence being destroy is "kids will be kids"

this is a dilemma, but starting a war based on bullchit is libbie silliness.

this a dilemma, but firing United States attorneys mid-term after they don't go after the people you want them to go after is just Partisan Politics.


ROFL ROFL

[stevieray]

Wow, BL. Obama nailed that sucker....good for him. :clap:

It will be fascinating to see how pop culture responds to him, now. I can't wait to hear, specifically, what he would do as President to try to encourage and coerce the sort of change he is suggesting. Wow, there just may be a light at the end of the tunnel, after all.

Absolutely, awesome. :clap::clap::clap:

I love his line about complicity...it's up to all of us.

[HolmeZz]

nappy means kinky, curly...how is that racist..? other races have curly or kinky hair...

Are you stupid enough to believe he says 'nappy headed' if all the Rutgers girls were white?

[BucEyedPea]

Are you stupid enough to believe he says 'nappy headed' if all the Rutgers girls were white?
No but "ho's" applies to females in general (at least the sluts) no matter what race they are.

[HolmeZz]

No but "ho's" applies to females in general (at least the sluts) no matter what race they are.

Great. We were talking about 'nappy headed'.

[stevieray]

Are you stupid enough to believe he says 'nappy headed' if all the Rutgers girls were white?

so, we associate the word with something negative when it pertains to a certain race....tha'ts what I was asking...

[Mr. Kotter]

this is a dilemma, but email evidence being destroy is "kids will be kids"

this is a dilemma, but starting a war based on bullchit is libbie silliness.

this a dilemma, but firing United States attorneys mid-term after they don't go after the people you want them to go after is just Partisan Politics.


ROFL ROFL
It's apparent you aren't a student of either history, or government. :rolleyes:

I'm not from Missouri, but I've become jaded enough to demand evidence and proof of....partisan motivated allegations and attacks--you gotta "Show Me." No one has yet. Demogoguery and hyperbole are NOT a substitute for investigations, due process, impeachment and/or a conviction. So far you got, what.....Scooter friggin' Libby? And even that is laughable.

If and when the evidence is convincing and above reproach (in any of the cases you mention,) I'll be happy to join you and the rest of the lynch mod in your rush to judgement. Bottom-line is the PROOF has not been presented in any clear and convincing way, for anything that you are suggesting. If that changes bro, I'll bring the friggin' rope myself. :)

[HolmeZz]

so, we associate the word with something negative when it pertains to a certain race....tha'ts what I was asking...

Honestly, I don't even know what point you're trying to make. :p

There was clearly a racial component to what he said and that played in to what got him in trouble. I don't think saying nappy headed is a real slur. But he added it to make it about race.

[BucEyedPea]

Great. We were talking about 'nappy headed'.
"We?" You were, I know. I thought this entire incident was about both. I was, in a round-about-way, agreeing with stevieray that "nappy headed" is just descriptive of a black person's hair and is not necessarily racist. Kinda like saying a black person is black. Ho, imo is worse. If anything it implie black chics as "ho's" which would be racist to me. Just explainin my post. K?

[Mr. Kotter]

I love his line about complicity...it's up to all of us.

He nails it. It's a home-run, baby. :D

I'll be fascinated to see how the rest of the candidates react. And to see how pop culture counter-attacks.

[Laz]

It's apparent you aren't a student of either history, or government. :rolleyes:

I'm not from Missouri, but I've become jaded enough to demand evidence and proof of....partisan motivated allegations and attacks--you gotta "Show Me." No one has yet. Demogoguery and hyperbole are NOT a substitute for investigations, due process, impeachment and/or a conviction. So far you got, what.....Scooter friggin' Libby? And even that is laughable.

If and when the evidence is as convincing and above reproach (in any of the cases you mention,) I'll be happy to join you and the rest of the lynch mod in your rush to judgement. Bottom-line is the PROOF has not been presented in any clear and convincing way, for anything that you are suggesting. If that changes bro, I'll bring the friggin' rope myself. :)
Bush keeps destroying the proof ... apparently he knows that unless he actually gets caught on camera doing something ... err wait i guess he was.(levees)

he just knows that he gets held accountable for nothing from you GOP'ers so as long he can't get convicted .... he's free to do whatever.


clinton would of never gotten impeached with your kind of guidelines .... but of course that only applies to repugnants.

[Mr. Kotter]

Bush keeps destroying the proof ... apparently he knows that unless he actually gets caught on camera doing something ... err wait i guess he was.(levees)

he just knows that he gets held accountable for nothing from you GOP'ers so as long he can't get convicted .... he's free to do whatever.


clinton would of never gotten impeached with your kind of guidelines .... but of course that only applies to repugnants.
Your recollection of the 1990s is quite skewed; it took years of investigations....that were stone-walled, obstructed, and resisted every step of the way....to finally find the "blue dress." Had Lewinsky not been interested in preserving her souvenir, there would have been no impeachment.

Delay, deceit, and deflection....have been a despicable part of politics for a long, long time, by administrations on both sides of the isle. I don't like it anymore than you; however, I do recognize it when ever it happens. Is it happening now; yeah, you bet your sweet ass it is. Like in the 1990s though, or in the 1970s though....we need a smoking gun, that is not merely speculation and hyperbole. We need proof.

We need this administration's "Nixon tapes," or "Lewinsky's blue dress" to be a smoking gun. Maybe the missing emails will be that; maybe they won't. If and when they are....like I said....I'll bring the rope myself.

:D

[BucEyedPea]

Bush keeps destroying the proof ... apparently he knows that unless he actually gets caught on camera doing something ... err wait i guess he was.(levees)
Laz, come on, isn't this what other past prezz'es have done. Clintons lost records too.

he just knows that he gets held accountable for nothing from you GOP'ers so as long he can't get convicted .... he's free to do whatever.
Some do, not many but some do.

clinton would of never gotten impeached with your kind of guidelines .... but of course that only applies to repugnants.
I think our Framers, according some of their writings and in particular Jefferson, felt impeachment should be loosely construed. That includes lying as well as incompetence.

Jefferson went even further:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."–Jefferson

[stevieray]

Honestly, I don't even know what point you're trying to make. :p

There was clearly a racial component to what he said and that played in to what got him in trouble. I don't think saying nappy headed is a real slur. But he added it to make it about race.


interesting, I thought ho was what implied race.

[orange]

If Obama gets called on his call for Imus' head, he can just quote the (republican) Secretary of State:

"WASHINGTON Apr 13, 2007 (AP)— Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the highest-ranking black woman in government history, said Friday the racist, sexist comments that got radio shock jock Don Imus fired were "disgusting."

In her first public remarks on the controversy, Rice said Imus had insulted not only female athletes but all young black women by referring to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy headed hos."

"They're 18- and 19-year-old women," she said. "And what were they doing except showing that they're really fine athletes, playing under extraordinary pressure in which for them was a dream season.

"And it gets ruined by this disgusting and I'll use the word 'disgusting' comment which doesn't belong in any polite company and certainly doesn't belong on any radio station that I would listen to," Rice told talk show host Michael Medved.

"I just thought that it was an attack on women's sports, first of all, and secondly an attack on very accomplished young black women in a way that was really offensive," she said, according to a transcript of the interview released by the State Department.

Rice declined to offer an opinion on Imus's firing but said she was "very glad that there was, in fact, a consequence" for the remarks.

Imus was fired by CBS radio on Thursday as the controversy over his remarks last week grew and advertisers began to pull support for his show, "Imus in the Morning," which regularly featured Washington insiders.

Rice, according to her spokesman Sean McCormack, never appeared on the program."

[HolmeZz]

interesting, I thought ho was what implied race.

Maybe some people saw it that way. I've seen plenty of white girls referred to as hoes though.

[Baby Lee]

Honestly, I don't even know what point you're trying to make. :p

There was clearly a racial component to what he said and that played in to what got him in trouble. I don't think saying nappy headed is a real slur. But he added it to make it about race.
Not exactly, 'about race.' He used nappy headed to differentiate the Rutger's girls from the more coiffured 'pretty' Tenn girls.
It was about smoove-v-ruff, 'good hair'-v-'bad hair,' Yaphet Koto-v-Denzel, Halle Berry-v-Whoopi, not black-v-white.

[Mr. Kotter]

Maybe some people saw it that way. I've seen plenty of white girls referred to as hoes though.Actually, us whitey folk usually call our tramps....whores, or hussies. ;)


If Obama gets called on his call for Imus' head, he can just quote the (republican) Secretary of State."
Good. I'd be willing to bet that Condi would like to see us clean up pop culture. also. They'd make a powerful team, within the black community. :thumb:

[BucEyedPea]

Actually, us whitey folk usually call our tramps....whores, or hussies. ;)
:harumph: You playah', you!

[BucEyedPea]

Not exactly, 'about race.' He used nappy headed to differentiate the Rutger's girls from the more coiffured 'pretty' Tenn girls.
It was about smoove-v-ruff, 'good hair'-v-'bad hair,' Yaphet Koto-v-Denzel, Halle Berry-v-Whoopi, not black-v-white.
And look at the context in which his remark was made – a shock-jock entertainment show.

Look at the transcript:

DON IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night between – a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the women’s final.

SID ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night – seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points.

IMUS: That’s some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and –

BERNARD McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.

IMUS: That’s some nappy-headed hos there. I’m gonna tell you that now, man, that’s some – woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like – kinda like – I don’t know.

McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing.

IMUS: Yeah.

McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes – that movie that he had.

IMUS: Yeah, it was a tough –

CHARLES McCORD: Do The Right Thing.

McGUIRK: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

IMUS: I don’t know if I’d have wanted to beat Rutgers or not, but they did, right?

ROSENBERG: It was a tough watch. The more I look at Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors.

Imus wasn’t intending to be insulting...he was being, reactively, stupidly, "hip," – trying to imitate a patois he had no feel for.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/rajiva1.html

[BucEyedPea]

Maybe some people saw it that way. I've seen plenty of white girls referred to as hoes though.
No, no, no. "Ho's." Hoe with an "e" is a garden implement. :)

[Mr. Kotter]

:harumph: You playah', you!I prefer the more formal Gigilo. I get paid for it, honey. Like Rob Schneider. :harumph:

:p

[Baby Lee]

McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing.

IMUS: Yeah.

McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes – that movie that he had.

IMUS: Yeah, it was a tough –

CHARLES McCORD: Do The Right Thing.

McGUIRK: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Ironically, my first reaction, before even hearing these particular parts of the conversation is the 'Good and Bad Hair' musical number from Spike's School Daze. I think I even posted it on here somewheres.

[Mr. Kotter]

....somewheres.

Your ancestors often "stray" from the main house too, did they? :hmmm:

[patteeu]

I was neutral on Obama. I hadn't made any determination's one way or the other. But when I saw him take his shot at Imus by saying that he should be fired, I felt like it was opportunistic pandering. He was jumping on the bandwagon. I was very turned off by it.

Obviously, I'm not neutral on Obama, but I think you are right about this as opportunistic pandering. He certainly wasn't out front with his criticism which is a pretty clear indicator that he was waiting to see which way the political winds were blowing. It's evidence of what we all really know which is that Obama's not really that much of a different kind of politician afterall. I don't see this as a particularly damning thing, just a reaffirmation of the realities of electoral politics.

[go bowe]

Honestly, I don't even know what point you're trying to make. :p

There was clearly a racial component to what he said and that played in to what got him in trouble. I don't think saying nappy headed is a real slur. But he added it to make it about race.nappy headed is indeed a racial slur...

it was in much more common use a generation or two before me...

but the fact that it is an "old" slur does not make it any less offensive to black people...

the dumbass shouldn't have been using that kind of language in the first place...

but i think the price he's been forced to pay (in terms of no more shows on radio or tv) is a bit much for a relatively benign comment, as racist comments go...

[stevieray]

nappy headed is indeed a racial slur...

it was in much more common use a generation or two before me...

but the fact that it is an "old" slur does not make it any less offensive to black people...

the dumbass shouldn't have been using that kind of language in the first place...

but i think the price he's been forced to pay (in terms of no more shows on radio or tv) is a bit much for a relatively benign comment, as racist comments go...

it's not a racial slur, but it prolly just became one with these latest events.

[noa]

it's not a racial slur, but it prolly just became one with these latest events.

I understand your disagreement, but I don't think its fair to state as a fact that its not a racial slur, when clearly many people took it as such. You can tell people not to be offended by something until you are blue in the face, but that doesn't mean its not offensive to those people. Also, I agree with go bo that nappy headed was more frequently used as a slur before our time, so we might not recognize it now as a slur, but that is what its origins are.

[stevieray]

I understand your disagreement, but I don't think its fair to state as a fact that its not a racial slur, when clearly many people took it as such. You can tell people not to be offended by something until you are blue in the face, but that doesn't mean its not offensive to those people. Also, I agree with go bo that nappy headed was more frequently used as a slur before our time, so we might not recognize it now as a slur, but that is what its origins are.

no, people might take the word and make it something it isn't. slang and slurs are listed as such. nappy isn't one of them.

in britain, it means diaper.

[StcChief]

I think this about covers it....

http://www.onebigdog.net/2007/04/12/al-sharpton-is-a-nappy-head-idiot/

[noa]

no, people might take the word and make it something it isn't. slang and slurs are listed as such. nappy isn't one of them.

in britain, it means diaper.

Of course nappy isn't offensive on its own, but in certain contexts, I think you have to grant that it can be. I think this quote from a language expert sums it up. The origins are racist, but it has virtually disappeared from modern use, so we don't all assume its racist.

"Nappy is in the lexicon of racism in the same category as pickaninny – an old Southernism which used to be used to describe a small African American child – and ******," said Anne Soukhanov, US editor of the Encarta Webster's Dictionary and a veteran columnist on language.

In many English-speaking countries, the word "nappy" means a diaper or a Scottish ale. But in the United States it is seen as a vile slur describing the tightly-curled natural hair texture of many African Americans.

"I have not heard 'nappy' for years and I was born in the South," Soukhanov, 63, said, describing Imus's comments as "antique racism – words not used anymore except by people who are very insensitive to the culture we live in."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4022552a1860.html

[stevieray]

Of course nappy isn't offensive on its own, but in certain contexts, I think you have to grant that it can be. I think this quote from a language expert sums it up. The origins are racist, but it has virtually disappeared from modern use, so we don't all assume its racist.



http://www.stuff.co.nz/4022552a1860.html

websters disagrees. if people are offended by using a word that dscribes the type of hair they have, that's sad. ironcially, most black women I see today don't even have curly hair.

this could be the start of a slippery slope that none of us need to go down...

let's not twist MLK's dream any further.

[noa]

websters disagrees. if people are offended by using a word that dscribes the type of hair they have, that's sad. ironcially, most black women I see today don't even have curly hair.

this could be the start of a slippery slope that none of us need to go down...

let's not twist MLK's dream any further.


I'm not defending Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, nor do I think Imus should have been fired. I don't even think Imus is a racist. I just think he messed up and said something stupid and he ended up offending a lot of people. Right or wrong, some people still find the term nappy headed offensive, and I'm not going to sit here and tell people they don't have a right to be offended by it.

[stevieray]

I'm not defending Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, nor do I think Imus should have been fired. I don't even think Imus is a racist. I just think he messed up and said something stupid and he ended up offending a lot of people. Right or wrong, some people still find the term nappy headed offensive, and I'm not going to sit here and tell people they don't have a right to be offended by it.

If we curtail everything that someone determines offensive, then freedom of speech will become extinct, and the line of right and wrong will become even fuzzier.

If we are going to start dismissing or allowing content of character based on color of skin.... then we have an extremely rocky road ahead of ourselves...

[orange]

Swinging wildly back to the original subject of this thread, Obama's "Dilemma" - that is, will he speak up about misogyny in rap/hip-hop.

Mr. Kotter, your question has been asked and answered:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070414/ap_on_el_pr/on_the2008_trail_38

"Obama Compares Rappers To Imus

FLORENCE, S.C. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) on Friday questioned the way some rappers talk about women in songs, saying the lyrics are similar to the derogatory language used by embattled radio host Don Imus.


They are "degrading their sisters. That doesn't inspire me," Obama said of some hip-hop artists when a man in a crowd of about 1,000 questioned him. The Illinois senator was responding to a question of what inspired him, and said God and civil rights activists."

Are you going to vote for him now?

[penchief]

stevieray and noa949,

You guys have a good conversation going on. Both of you make good points. If I can give my two cents worth...

I do think that (as a society) we are overly senstive. But I also believe that the specific oversensitivity in which we are discussing is a result of explotiation. That argument is a push, IMO.

I also think what Imus said was racist. I believe it had to do with both his generation AND popular culture. I think that the unhibited manner in which he spewed his racist remark is a product of his generation. I'm certain he grew up listening to off the cuff racist remarks on a regular basis within his own family (as did I). On the other hand, the style that he used in saying those particular words would have played well on the Chapelle Show (And I think that was really where he was coming from). I think Imus was treated as a sacrificial lamb. Popular culture is rife with examples far worse than he used. I call this argument a push, too.

Where I have a problem is the hypocricy. I think that the punishment far outweighs the crime when considering precedence and when evaluating the type of speech that is freely utilized in popular culture. When comparing what Imus said to that which is said in the comedy and music industries, it is difficult to believe that there is not hypocricy being displayed at some fundamental level. I believe that Imus is being treated way unfairly when all things are considered.

And because HE has been chosen as "the example," all of us (black, white, brown, yellow) have lost an important voice for all the people. He played a role that nobody else in the media is willing to play. Anybody that came on his show knew they were going to be called out if they were being disingenuous. And the edgy humor was part of the show's makeup that gave him the license to "call it like he saw it" without the same repercussions that a regular news show might receive.

[mlyonsd]

I've listened to Imus for at least 10 years and will make this observation.

While speaking his mind he does push the envelope. That being said if you have listened to him longer than this last episode he is not a racist by any fabric of the imagination.

The really unfortunate thing here is that parasites like Sharpton and Jackson have found something to feed on.

And the left wing media bit into it completely. NBC and CBS could have come to Imus's defense and effectively shown what Imus is really about. Instead they caved to the thumb sucking liberal mentality that for some reason they continue to coddle.

The only benefit to the entire episode in the long run is for the racial dialog to flourish to where whites don't look on blacks calling each other ho's as the norm, and that blacks realize their own pop culture led Imus to say what he said.

[penchief]

I've listened to Imus for at least 10 years and will make this observation.

While speaking his mind he does push the envelope. That being said if you have listened to him longer than this last episode he is not a racist by any fabric of the imagination.

The really unfortunate thing here is that parasites like Sharpton and Jackson have found something to feed on.

And the left wing media bit into it completely. NBC and CBS could have come to Imus's defense and effectively shown what Imus is really about. Instead they caved to the thumb sucking liberal mentality that for some reason they continue to coddle.

The only benefit to the entire episode in the long run is for the racial dialog to flourish to where whites don't look on blacks calling each other ho's as the norm, and that blacks realize their own pop culture led Imus to say what he said.

I'm not sure it was the left wing media that pulled the trigger on Imus as much as it was the corporate media. When the corporate sponsors caved to Sharpton, that's when MSNBC and CBS caved. In the end, it was the same thing that drives the mainstream media's programming that got Imus fired, corporate money.

While some liberals might have had a knee jerk response to this situation, my guess is that a lot of liberals have been willing to stick up for Imus's job.

[Mr. Kotter]

I'm not sure it was the left wing media that pulled the trigger on Imus as much as it was the corporate media. When the corporate sponsors caved to Sharpton, that's when MSNBC and CBS caved. In the end, it was the same thing that drives the mainstream media's programming that got Imus fired, corporate money.

While some liberals might have had a knee jerk response to this situation, my guess is that a lot of liberals have been willing to stick up for Imus's job.
Damn. You traded your stupid pills for "smarties?" :hmmm:

:p

[Baby Lee]

Of course nappy isn't offensive on its own, but in certain contexts, I think you have to grant that it can be. I think this quote from a language expert sums it up. The origins are racist, but it has virtually disappeared from modern use, so we don't all assume its racist.
Anything can become offensive if it's used in the wrong way by enough people.
When I was in Boy Scouts, there was a contingent of metal heads in the older boys, and their favorite epithet for a kid being a baby or pussy, was to call them a 'friggen Fleetwood Mac.'
Sounds corny now, but the kids who got called that, in that particular enclave, knew it was as bad as being called the 'n' word.

[Mr. Kotter]

Wow.....just rediscovered this....

Anyone else see incredible irony in the way Imus was denounced, and lynched....compared with the way Obama has handled the Wright situation? :shrug:

[BucEyedPea]

With the real problems this country is facing, these things are just petty imo.
All it does it take the focus off what she really should be focusing on.

[jettio]

Wow.....just rediscovered this....

Anyone else see incredible irony in the way Imus was denounced, and lynched....compared with the way Obama has handled the Wright situation? :shrug:

What "incredible irony?"

Imus said something stupid, ignored it for a few days and then went on a goodwill tour the next week that backfired. He was not lynched, he is still alive and has a new show and IIRC he may have a settlement or a lawsuit about his termination.

Imus started a brouhaha with words from his own mouth and apparently he had built up more dislike than goodwill over the years, that can happen when your schtick is insulting people, and he lost his job.

The biggest irony is that when Rutgers played at Tennessee this year, the Rutgers team wore pink uniforms to look a lot more feminine than they did in last year's championship game that inspired the comments by McGuirk and Imus. They lost this year's game when they got screwed by the officials and the Tennessee clock operator in one of the worst officiating moments ever.