Imus in the Morning's McGuirk: First they came for me ...
On the April 26 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Bernard McGuirk, who was fired by CBS Radio for, according to MSNBC, "his role in the ugly incident" involving Don Imus, asserted, "it's like the oft-quoted anti-Nazi German pastor who said, you know, first, they came for the Communists, but I wasn't a Communist, so I didn't say anything. Then they came for the Jews, but I'm not a Jew, I didn't say anything. Then they came for the Catholics, but I'm a Protestant. Then when they came for me, there was nobody to speak." McGuirk was responding to a question from co-host Alan Colmes, who asked, "And now you've got JV and Elvis, also CBS properties, who are suspended because of a bit that they did. I wonder if you're closely following that and if you have strong feelings about what should happen in that situation."
On the April 4 edition of Imus in the Morning, which was simulcast by MSNBC, McGuirk described members of the Rutgers women's basketball team as "[s]ome hard-core hos." Imus responded by saying, "That's some nappy-headed hos there." After a week of controversy over the remarks, MSNBC decided that it would no longer simulcast the program, and CBS Radio announced that it was firing Imus and canceling his radio show. On April 20, McGuirk was fired for his role in the incident. While appearing on Hannity & Colmes, McGuirk apologized to the Rutgers team.
Colmes responded to McGuirk's invocation of "the oft-quoted anti-Nazi German pastor" by saying: "Niemoller, that was the guy," referring to Rev. Martin Niemoller, a German Protestant pastor who is credited with penning a famous statement about the Nazis called "First They Came." McGuirk then asserted: "Niemoller, right, exactly," and added that "it's the same thing. It seems to be a slippery slope."
According to the entry on Niemoller in the Jewish Virtual Library, Niemoller said: "First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
Later, when Colmes asked, "What do you want to have happen now?" McGuirk said he hoped "[w]e go back to where we can -- everybody can relax, and everybody can have fun, and we can poke fun at each other, and not take it too seriously." McGuirk added, "Everybody's got to lighten up. And that people in the radio community and the broadcast community don't take this sitting down, because it is a slippery slope. It can happen to you, so stand up for, you know, what's right." Colmes replied, "Absolutely," and co-host Sean Hannity asserted, "I hope you get back to work soon."
Earlier in the program, McGuirk asserted that the word "ho," which he used to describe the Rutgers women's basketball team, "doesn't mean, you know, a woman who is, you know, promiscuous. It's just a pejorative slang term for a woman." McGuirk added, "I didn't get the memo that it was elevated to the status, or lowered to the status of the N-word." He also claimed to have referred to "renowned authors Mary and Carol Higgins Clark" as "the Higgins Clark hos, you know, for fun."
As Media Matters for America has noted, McGuirk has referred to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) as having a "Jew-hating name." Additionally, when host Don Imus referred to the "Jewish management" at CBS as "money-grubbing bastards," McGuirk said: "Even if you wear a beanie, how can you not love the [gospel group] Blind Boys [of Alabama]?"
On April 15, Michael Smerconish, whose radio broadcast was simulcast in place of Imus in the Morning from April 23 to 27, posted an entry on the weblog Huffington Post titled "First They Came for Imus" in which he asserted, "The very day Imus was fired at CBS, I was alerted to a posting on Media Matters for America, a sophisticated Web site instrumental in stoking the flames for Imus' departure. The posting, titled 'It's not just Imus,' identified me as one of seven talk-show hosts in America who bear observation." Smerconish later asked, "How long before they start burning my tapes?"
From the April 26 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
COLMES: But what I'm trying to get -- at the moment that that took place, though, was there any sense was, "We've gone too far"? Or was that not a thought at that moment?
McGUIRK: At that particular moment, no, no, not at that particular moment. That wasn't -- because, again, we engage in this type of humor all the time. I mean, you know, we have people like, say, renowned authors Mary and Carol Higgins Clark. They would come on the program, and we would refer to them as the Higgins Clark hos, you know. For fun. They'd come on, they'd laugh about it.
So the use of that word -- and it's so prevalent in today's society, and it doesn't mean, you know, a woman who is, you know, promiscuous. It's just a pejorative slang term for a woman. Unfortunately, and, you know, I didn't get the memo that it was elevated to the status, or lowered to the status of the N-word. I hadn't gotten the memo thus far.
[...]
HANNITY: Do you think you should have apologized to the girls? If you had an opportunity -- you have an opportunity now.
McGUIRK: I would have, sure. I mean --
HANNITY: You can now. Do you want to say anything to them?
McGUIRK: I apologize. You know, I have a daughter who's an 11-year-old girl. She plays on a basketball team. And if anybody characterized her directly as, you know, the H-word, you know, I'd kick their teeth in, you know, if I saw it happen in real time.
You know, but we dwelt in a world of, you know, comedy, ridicule. And at the time, it was just an abstract group of women. Of course, in retrospect, that wasn't the case. But, you know -- and, again, so the apologies, all of that legitimate and necessary.
[...]
COLMES: And now you've got JV and Elvis, also CBS properties, who are suspended because of a bit that they did.
McGUIRK: Right.
COLMES: I wonder if you're closely following that, and if you have strong feelings about what should happen in that situation.
McGUIRK: Well, no, I mean, it's like the oft-quoted anti-Nazi German pastor who said, you know, first, they came for the Communists, but I wasn't a Communist, so I didn't say anything. Then they came for the Jews, but I'm not a Jew, I didn't say anything. Then they came for the Catholics, but I'm a Protestant. Then when they came from me, there was nobody to speak.
COLMES: Niemoller, that was the guy.
McGUIRK: Niemoller, right, exactly. And it's the same thing. It seems to be a slippery slope.
[...]
COLMES: What do you want to have happen now? What is your hope that happens now? What do you want to see happen?
McGUIRK: What is my hope?
McGUIRK: Well, I hope that [Rev.] Al Sharpton's blow dryer falls in the -- no. No. No. What do I hope? I hope everything --
HANNITY: I think you learned. You just monitored yourself.
COLMES: See, right there you stopped yourself from doing something.
McGUIRK: We go back to where we can -- everybody can relax, and everybody can have fun, and we can poke fun at each other, and not take it too seriously. Everybody's got to lighten up. And that the people in the radio community and the broadcast community don't take this sitting down, because it is a slippery slope. It can happen to you, so stand up for, you know, what's right.
First they came for racist, sexist radio creeps and I did nothing because I wasn't a racist, sexist radio creep. Huh?
JuliaJayne shoots.
She scores!
Wait a minute! Did I just read you saying "She scores!"? How dare you use that slang term for sexual conquest to describe JuliaJayne's actions. You must be banned from this site! And don't try to say it's a free speech issue.
Isn't zanex some type of male enhancement hormone? (joke!)
Ouch! Good one.
But, but, but...!
Okay, here's my defense:
First they came for the unintentional double entendre girl.
Then they came for the intentional double entendre guy, which is just about all of you.
Then they came for the Viagra and the beer (I know that this is a non-sequitur, but I thought it might be best to get the attention of you all.).
In the end, there was no one left to fight for neon, which worked out, because he can wallop every conservative even with one cerebral lobe tied behind his head.
How dare you make fun of people with one cerebral lobe tied behind their head. This is a segmewnt of the population that has been ignored by the Americans With Disabilities Act, and their plight is sad, indeed.
Oh, wait, I just found out that the term "Cerebral lobe tied behind their head" is pejorative. Now people with that condition are simply called "Neocons."
Such a slippery slope for the whiner brought in to do N jokes.
I hope MMFA runs the radio interview he did with Hannity earlier in the day.
He proudly went through a string of terrible things he's said over the years. Nobody could have made a better case for taking him off the air.
Good riddance, Bernie.
Bernard McGuirk is an ass. Wasn't he fired by Imus for not showing up on time or doing drugs or something like that and then brought back if he promised to clean up his act? Or was that someone else? I remember reading something like that about someone who worked on the Imus show.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Great wisdom from someone else who never watched or listened to the show.
Someone who watched or listened to the show would find their wisdom draining away by the second.
Actually it was Sid Rosenberg, he was suspended for one reason or another, and did enter re-hab. However, I believe he was fired, from the Imus show (and subsequently re-hired by Imus), for making disparaging remarks regarding Kylie Minoque’s unfortunate diagnosis with breast cancer. What goes around comes around.
Now, isn't this cute: McJerk use to criticize Fox News relentlessly on Imus, and now when he decides to give his first interview after his dismissal, he decides to go on Hannity and Colmes, playing the martyr? I guess he felt comfortable at Fox since Hannity nor Colmes refuses to do their research and confront him on his past racist, sexist, Anti-Semitic, homophobic rants that's been well documented by MMFA.
I have made it clear from the start that my main problem has never been with Imus since I don't think he's racist; it has always been with McJerk. And I don't care how many times he reminds people he was raised in a predominately black housing projects in Queens, and how he rolled with the brothas in his youth: the fact is he has some deep-seated rancor against black people, and his therapeutic way of handling with it was by disparaging them when he was on Imus In The Morning. If he REALLY had that much solidarity with working-class blacks, and not using his past to somehow excuse his racism, then he would never depict blacks in such a vulgar, minstrelsy fashion (i.e. his parody of Mayor Ray Nagin is comparable to a blackface characterization straight from a D.W. Griffith movie; and to equate Maya Angelou to a gangsta rapper was equally deplorable).
Funny how he is also using self-appointed black leader Al Sharpton as the reason why him and Imus were fired, while completely neglecting to mention that it was advertisers, NBC and CBS employees, and National Association of Black Journalists who were instrumental in putting the pressure on Imus and McJerk’s bosses to terminate them. Sharpton and Jackson were only symbols used by the media to deflect attention from the others who were pulling the strings. And since many people in the media feel that Sharpton and Jackson are leaders of the black community, and they speak for all of us, when something like this comes up, they’ll run straight to them. (I always wonder how white folks would feel if pundits in the media referred to Dobson, Robertson and Farwell as leaders and spokesmen of their community.) Sharpton and Jackson were only a small fraction of the equation, nevertheless it didn’t stop the Right from believing it was these two tainted “leaders” who got Imus and McJerk fired.
In the end, McJerk will be used as a tool to prove how much power we minorities have over the poor, downtrodden white man. McJerk's next trip will be at Glenn Beck's, where the two can both lament about how they, as white Christian males, are so misunderstood and abused in America.
Po’ babies, so, so misunderstood.
If it weren't so harmful to everyone else, it would be hysterical to listen to people like McGuirk playing the victim and epitomizing right wing hypocrisy. It is nauseating to see people like him bully and victimize others who are struggling simply to gain the benefits that McGuirk gets simply by being a member of his demographic group. It is doubly nauseating for him and his fellow "personal responsibility" folks to wail that they are the victims, when, after many unheeded warnings, they are finally called to account for their bad behavior, which was always entirely within their own control.
I'm sure the fast food industry has plenty of burger flipping openings, McGuirk. But sadly, the same corporate friends that have already given him a ton of privileges and free passes denied to far more deserving people will probably find a much softer landing for him.
Another moral arbiter. Scary. "Bully and victimize"? You've got to be kidding. You know what your rant makes you sound like ...
Ah, the neo-con speaketh!
I like how the holier than thou right wingers got their undies in such a tangle when the "librul" media allowed the flash of a female breast but indignantly cry foul when some white, jowly male trolls are held accountable not just for a single incident but persistent and ongoing racist and misogynist language and behavior.
Know what the word "hypocrite" means? Try looking it up and then looking in a mirror.
Sorry, Scotty, you've got me all wrong. I'm about as liberal as they come. I just try to be rational and objective, not religious, about it. People need to realize that we are all imperfect human beings, and not deny each other chances at redemption when the chickens finally come home to roost, as they did with Imus. Oh, and by the way, thanks for the "hate words" ("hypocrite," etc.) Illustrates my point.
Most of these posters, if I understand their pompous pronouncements, would also want Lenny Bruce, Andrew Dice Clay, Don Rickles, Jacky Mason, and of course South Park --- all silenced.
Why not.
Silence everyone.
Who was the last human to have an intelligent thing to say about being human?
Kurt Vonnegut.
Dead, and while not dead, oft ignored.
Sweep the globe clean of humans and what would you have?
Paradise!
Randy
That's what we're trying to do but do-gooder Al Gore won't let us.
Oh, it's happening. The Earth has a very healthy immune system.
Gee you DONT understand. What were the odds.
Lenny Brice silenced himself with heroin.
No one asked for Imus to be silenced. He just has no right to spew his idiocy on the public airwaves. He should be left to do what everyone with his attitude does, wander the streets with a wine bottle in a paper bag, muttering to himself and shouting at others every so often.
That should be Lenny Bruce, of course. Damned typos.
Spooky, I should make clear that I do sit back and laugh at the fact that McJerk, who made a career out of being a bully to others, is now playing the martyr, and seeking sympathy from those who view this as a form of “reverse-racism” by the black community. Oh, you should’ve seen the entire time he was on with Hannity and Colmes: He milked their audience dry, painting himself as the outspoken white brotha from the hood who was misunderstood due to his words being taken out of context by the media, and lost his job because black folks are so unforgivable when white folks make a faux pas that’s racially-insensitive. This would’ve passed if McJerk didn’t have a long history of making racist jokes on the show (not to mention that Imus told Mike Wallace off camera when doing 60 Minutes that he hired McJerk to do “n*gg*r jokes”). Why didn’t Hannity or Colmes bring this up and interrogated him about it?
I should also point out that I didn’t think it was necessary for Imus to get the boot. A two-weeks suspension would’ve been enough, and as he promised, he would’ve changed his whole format on the show to open up a great dialogue about race and intolerance. He could’ve used his show as a perfect opportunity to bridge this racial-divide in this country by examining the problems that keeps us from understanding and empathizing with one another. I just don’t believe a man with a thirty-year career on radio should’ve lost his job because of a stupid joke that when completely wrong. But as Bill Mahr said when he appeared on The View and discussed this, he can understand how many blacks, who’ve been disparaged in the media for decades, finally had enough and said we’re not allowing our character, identity and culture to be denigrated like this anymore. Mahr didn’t agree with the firing but he understood the outrage by many blacks by putting their anger in a historical context.
I believe the best article written about this Imus ordeal is by Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi who dissected this to where he doesn’t simply lay all the blame on Hip Hop, black urban youth, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (the way Jason Whitlock did in his often praised but shallow rant in Kansas City Star), or solely on Don Imus. He examines how our entire culture is corrupted, and how opportunists came out of the woodwork to use this as a platform to promote themselves and advance their careers (which is exactly what Whitlock did when he wrote his article that was praised both Liberals and Conservatives in the media).
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/50744/
Too bad the media didn’t shower as much attention on Taibbi as they did with Whitlock.
I could,nt agree with you more, The whole time this thing was going on I kept saying that bit wasn't about Sharpton or Jackson.They do not have the power to pull someone off the air espeacially if that person is pulling in millions on dollars.. But I did see a little of the interview and McGurk brought his on daughter into the conversation and said something to the affect that if someone had said something like that about his kid he would be upset and I think he said he would have kicked someones butt. So if he would get upset about his own how should he not understand anyone elses anger and outrage. And preston you are right on about the perception that people think that Sharpton and Jackson are in control of Black people and speak for all backs.
Couldn't have said it better if I were in the room when you typed this. I laughed at those who said that the girls from Rutgers should not have been offended because they probably had never heard of Don Imus before this happened; implying that black women between the ages of 18-25 don't watch politically charged news. Well, I am a 25 year old Black women who watched Imus every morning for years. The reason that I stopped is when McJerk (as you like to call him lol!) started impersonating Ray Nagin. Although, I still ordered his greening products off the website. But, it didn't surprise me when I heard about what was said that day. I can tell you this, it's not uncommon.
You have Rush who is calling Barack Obama "The Magic Negro" and calling Al Sharpton illiterate, and he is a drug addict! I am not a fan of people calling Al Sharpton one of our "leaders", but what people fail to realize is that he is a Black man. And, when something like this happens, he has the right to stand up just as any other black person that was outraged. It just so happens that the cameras follow him around when he does.
Bottom line is McJerk will find a job tomorrow and America will move on, but there is a blatant amount of racism going on with these commentators and I am ecstatic that they are finally being held accountable for it. I hope that it continues. If it were up to me, Rush would be next.......!!!!!!!!!
McGuirk is absolutely right here. And it's good to see that Colmes is a traditional liberal who stands up for free speech rights. Traditional liberals, moderates, and conservatives all need to come together and fight against the new and dangerous anti free speech movement formed by the neo-fascist left. The neo-fascist left will not give up until every conservative is taken off the air, and only liberals are left in the media. Their goal is to silece conservatives since they can't debate them on the issues, and they're smelling blood after successfully getting Imus fired. Hopefully traditional liberals like Alan Colmes and Bill Maher will stand up to this new form of anti free speech liberalism and expose it for what it is.
THERE IS NO FREE SPEECH ISSUE INVOLVED. Imus wasnt arrested. Neither was this whining weeny. No one has a right to act any way they choose and be exempt from the consequences. I can be fired for what I say on my job and so can you. Everyone in America can be fired for acting like a jerk on the job. NO FREE SPEECH ISSUE. It used to be that the Fascist rightwing when it was pointed out to them, oh say fifteen or twenty times that the rightwing talking point they were repeating like a mantra had NO VALIDITY they would move on to something else. Today if it NEEDS to be true for propaganda purposes it just keep getting repeated like some undead talking point, whether or not it makes the least sense in the vain hope they will reach that number of repititions where it magically becomes true. Its sad and pathetic. When Imus or anyone else gets arrested for saying offensive things get back to us. Until THEN THERE IS NO FREE SPEECH ISSUE HERE.
Government law is not the only way to stop free speech, surely you are more nuanced than that Solon.
No it isnt. However it is the only one that is relevant to free speech protection. The reason is that once you get past that, you get into expression against expression. IF you say for instance that Imus cannot be fired for saying offensive things isnt that taking the right of his employer to maximize their profits. IF you say a sponser cannot take their business elsewhere because they dont want to be associated with anyone who would cross such boundaries well its obvious the can of worms that opens. If you say that WE cant express OUR displeasure with racist comment on the air isnt that suppressing OUR free speech rights? So this played out just like it should have. A lot of people expressed, using their free speech rights, outrage. Then people like his employer and sponsers made a decision based partly on what they thought and partly on the backlash of a public making their views known. THAT is free speech in all its glory. Anyone who continues to pretend there is a first amendment issue here in any way is stubbornly avoiding reality itself. There isnt it is really just that simple.
Blogspot is free. Don Imus can reach an audience almost as big as his previous one just by signing up.
I see...
Let's take this logic further. Why don't YOU try calling your female clients or co-workers "nappy haired 'ho's and see what happens? If you get fired, you can claim that you're protected by the right to free speech. Take it court and see how far you get. It would be a precedent-setting legal case! ;-)
Are you seriously calling this a free speech issue? Think carefully. You might want to choose your battles more carefully instead of crying about the long overdue end of embarrassingly bad talk show, it's demise brought about through bottom-line decisions by corporate sponsors.
When you've thought a bit more about the real issues at stake in this country, come back and talk to us about freedom of speech (seen any flag draped coffins lately?), freedom of privacy (hello! Patriot Act and the NSA), and habeas corpus (we used to have that right, once upon a time).
As Bill Maher found, when he countered jingoism with reason.
Actually, when you're referring to free speech rights, you're talking exclusively about the actions of government - nothing else - because you are referring to a specific piece of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not guarantee every citizen the right to keep their job, no matter how damaging their words are to the company they work for.
I used this analogy elsewhere, but it illustrates the POINT.
This is NOT a free speech issue, it is a PROPERTY OWNERSHIP issue. These guys, Imus et al, can free speech their heart's content on any streetcorner they desire, soap box and all. But when they get on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, they owe THE OWNERS of those airwaves ... the American People ... accountability, fairness, and balance.
Limbaugh, Hannity, Imus, and Savage are all FREE to go to any PUBLIC park, and enjoy their access. But if they try to cordon off that park, and deny entrance to "liberals", they are violating public policy.
Being on the radio is NOT a "Constitutional Right", or else every American could demand hours on nationwide radio, just like Limbaugh. We cannot make that demand, even though the 14th Amendment guarantees "equal treatment under the law". This is the absolute proof that this is NOT a "free speech" issue. It's about PROPERTY, and WHO owns it, and WHO can decide what is acceptable and NOT acceptable when that property is used.
The Rightwing think whoever owns that broadcast station should control the airwaves, a "golden rule" approach whereby whoever has the GOLD makes the rules. WRONG! Broadcast owners DO NOT own the airwaves. They are licensed ACCESS to the airwaves on condition they comply with PUBLIC determinations of proper behavior.
-------
As to this unemployed Imus flunky, let's all look for a NEW job for him. His qualifications are: Able to talk for about three hours a day, if the time is shared by a half dozen other talking flunkies (in the REAL world, this is known as "part timer"). EXPERT in insults and ridicule. SPECIALIZES in making fun of race, gender, religion, and ethnic origin. VERSITILE in that he can ridicule or insult anybody else. Character assassin, smearmerchant, and hater.
Keep an eye out for a job that fits this man's qualifications. Offhand, ONLY rightwing radio has these requirements.
Neo-fascist?
Fascism:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. 4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. 5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution. 6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. 7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. 9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. 10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. 14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.Rino, what worries progressives is the death of outrage (This would be a good title for a liberal tome, eh?). We just wish that conservatives held traditional values, like refraining from invective and slurs. You set such a bad example for rappers.
As a progressive, this is the kind of argument that concerns me. If we really want to make progress in making this a better society, we need to realize that logic and rationality, not simple expressions of outrage, are our best tools. One of the best examples is that it was Martin Luther King's calm logic and clear reasoning, not any expression of the anger he certainly felt, that most swayed the tide of public opinion regarding basic civil rights for African-Americans. I firmly believe that if Imus had been allowed to remain on the air, we would have seen a real example of personal change and redemption. Instead, those who pushed for his firing left us with only the hollow, superficial victory of seeing someone fired because he said a "bad word." In the end, this will not accomplish much of anything.
Thats a decent point. I wasnt calling for him to be fired, I however think the outrage was a good thing. Had it only resulted in him being taken to a figurative woodshed and allowed him to stay on the air, that would have satisfied me. The airwaves BELONG to us. They are supposed to return a public service for the right to make obscene buttloads of money off of OUR resource. We have every right to say THIS is a betrayal of that bargain. A whole lot of our national discourse is shaped by shows like this on the airwaves and its our right to shape that dialogue. To say THIS is BAD for that dialogue. Your point about King is a good one as far as it goes but it dismisses the outrage many felt seeing the water cannons and dogs set on peaceful protestors and at the bone ignorant bigotry by some of the Bull Conners types which did a whole lot shape the civil rights movement in how the mass of Americans saw it. Some who originally were sympathetic to the states rights argument decided they just didnt want to be on the side of people like that or on the side of arguments like that. Righteous outrage can be a good thing. Some things deserve outrage. Racist slurs are one of those things. Its one thing to use them in your private speech. Its not wrong to say they do not belong in the public discourse.
I agree with you that it is entirely appropriate to feel outrage if the act is truly outrageous. My point is that if the outrage leads you to go too far in your response, driven by emotion, the results may not be the best. In the case of Imus, I think the results were not the best. He made a really stupid, unthinking joke that was hateful in its effects, although (I believe) not in its intent. MMFA (and others) did their best to spread the word about the remark and get Imus punished, but I believe in doing so they willfully ignored the other side of Imus. In the last few years, Imus has done a lot of good for the world with his work with children and his advocacy on various topics. He also opposed the Iraq war almost from the beginning, continually exposed Cheney and Rumsfeld for the warmongers they are, and often spoke truth to power. And, as has also been said before, he and his crew insulted everybody, regardless of race or creed. Most of the time, it was on the basis of behavior; sometimes, it crossed the line (obviously) and was based on appearance or other inherent characteristics. I think he would have changed that. I freely admit that I found the locker-room insult-fest both entertaining and cathartic most of the time, although I was glad that I still cringed a lot (so I knew I wasn't getting too calloused). Overall, I think the loss of Imus was a loss for the real-world progressive movement.
Again, I didnt care if he was fired. However even if it turns out to be a strategic loss, and I am sure it will be. No one expects MSNBC to replace him with Franken, I still think it a net gain. The PRINCIPLE is more important than the tactical advantage won or lost. I think the outrage was important once that ball was rolling there was no way to control it. It was GOING to go wherever it went. Showing that using racist slurs on our airwaves CAN have consequences was worth doing. I personally thought that was accomplished once he appolgized and was suspended. Everything we had to gain was gained at that point in my opinion. However the monster was out of the box. Sponsers got scared. Things snowballed. A lot of people have made the point Imus was a guy who did many good things and wasnt carrying neocon water. All that is fine.I am glad the outrage happened. That the principle that there are lines you dont cross while using OUR AIRWAVES, was supported. I think there are plenty of radio guys I would RATHER have seen be a casualty. Still its about the principle.
Good discussion; thanks. We need more of these.
Thanks Holly. I've been looking for this and hoping someone would post it. It just cracks me up every time I hear a neo-con wingnut call someone a "left-wing facist" or "islamofacist" when the bush (lowercase intentional) administration is practically THE textbook definition of facism.
You're welcome.
After I posted it, I thought, "Whoa there, on the cutting and pasting, me!"
It's funny when someone will call a liberal a fascist AND a communist, indicating that their understanding of both words is "bad person."
Hate to repeat but thanks.
Funny that Rhino wants moderates, liberals and conservatives to stand up for conservatives. I thought that Imus was a "liberal", at least that was the previous threads.
My point is that liberals have traditionally supported free speech rights and a free press. It's only within the last few years that a new form of liberalism has emerged that seeks to limit or end free speech rights. (At least in the media) I'm making the distinction between these two factions of liberalism. It's only the pro-censorship liberals that I describe as being neo-fascist. Traditional pro-free speech liberals don't deserve this term. One of the points that Holly posted stated that fascists support government control of the media. That's what David Brock and many other liberals seem to want when the advocate bringing The Fairness Doctrine back.
Also, I never said Imus was a liberal. He was an independent who bashed those on both sides, and he supported certain politicians on both sides of the aisle.
I am amazed at the new type of conservative that has shown up recently. The kind that mindlessly repeats talking points even when it has been shown a few dozen times that IT HAS NO MERIT. At this point it becomes clear that they dont care whether or not the talking point has merit. They only want to repeat the talking point. There is no free speech issue here. No censorship. Only actions having consequences. Everyone even slightly connected with reality knows this. YOU. DONT. CARE. You have a talking point you like. It is necessary for your propaganda purposes so you just keep mindlessly repeating it long after it has been shown to have ZERO MERIT. Like a dog with a bone he refuses to see isnt a bone but a plastic toy. Pushing the propaganda is the only thing you care about this is clear. THERE IS NO FREE SPEECH ISSUE HERE. PERIOD. Because of that your silly talking point inspired whine above HAS. NO. MEANING.
You haven't proven anything to me. You've given your opinion, and I've stated why I disagree with it. Just because you say something, that doesn't automatically mean it's the absolute truth. No liberal has ever refuted anything I've said on this site. You simply give your own opinion, and I've given mine. Opinions are open to interpretation. Even the Supreme Court disagrees a lot of the time. They come down with 5-4 decisions all the time which divides the court mainly along ideological lines. The point is that there is debate even among matters of law. My guess is that if The Fairness Doctrine was ever put back in place, the current Supreme Court would probably strike it down as being unconstitutional. The government has the authority to regulate obscene speech in the media, but not political speech.
Yes I have. Many people have shot down your arguments on many subjects if you think you have never been shown to be wrong its pure delusion.
On this issue you have been shown to be wrong. There is no free speech issue here. Only stubborness lets you keep saying otherwise. Are you saying your employer could NOT fire you for anything you say at work? If you called a co worker a racist slur he couldnt fire you because of the first amendment? The argument would be ludicrous on the face of it and you KNOW IT. Imus wasnt fired for political speech. His racist denigration of the team wasnt anywhere near racist. Nor did the Government take him off the air. There was an outcry and his EMPLOYER and his SPONSERS made that decsion NOT THE GOVERNMENT. You know this. YOU dont care. You just want to repeat the talking point but it CLEARLY has no merit. There is no way in the world you can make any reasonable argument that you have a first amendment right to be as offensive as you like in ANY way and be exempt from consequences nor that you have a RIGHT to continued employment no matter what offensive things you say. Its dumb. The ONLY free speech guarantee there is for you is you not be arrested for what you say. Or that you be denied the RIGHT to say something. Nowhere does the First Amendment say the other than from government you have a right to be protected from consequences for what you say. You havent even TRIED to argue that these arguments are wrong because you CANNOT. They are NOT wrong. ITS really this simple. You ARE wrong, it has been SHOWN you are wrong.
Wow! The GOVERNMENT fired Imus? Now, that's news!
"No liberal has ever refuted anything I've said on this site. You simply give your own opinion, and I've given mine. Opinions are open to interpretation."
And for the umpteenth time, you're confusing facts with opinions. It seems like the concept of "fact" doesn't even enter into your thinking process. It is a fact that this isn't a free speech issue, and this has been clearly explained to you over and over and over again. It is a fact that one plus one equals two. you can say that in your opinion one plus one equals three, but you are factually wrong and therefore your opinion is completely invalid. Such is the case here.
Thanks Solon:
But your wasting you time with this one. I decided to ignore him long ago when he called himself TruthDetector. I'm happy to see someone is still rebutting his rediculous comments.
Thanks Holly:
I'm so happy your back making your entertaining comments. The long one on this topic was exceptionally well done.
Thanks, Sam, but I cut and pasted that. Just Google "signs fascism" and you'll find several similar lists. Everytime I see conservatives with their lapel flags, I flashback to the love of such jewelry in Germany.
"I'm happy to see someone is still rebutting his rediculous comments"
At least I know how to spell the word "ridiculous." It's no wonder why they call liberalism a mental disorder.
"...fascists support government control of the media. That's what David Brock and many other liberals seem to want when the advocate bringing The Fairness Doctrine back."- RINO Hunter
What you're missing here, RINO, is that fascism entails a very close government/corporate relationship, hence a corporate control of the media.
Should one political party prove itself more "friendly" to corporate interests, and not so much toward those who work for those corporations,it's possible (hypothetically, of course) that this party could very noticably affect the media.
This media, what our founding fathers called the free press, was intended to have built in safeguards and advantages as opposed to other businesses.This was designed to combat censorship, or domination of the media by one group.
Imus had a long stretch on the air because of these freedoms. He ran into trouble because of others freedom to comment on him, but ultimately it was a capitalist process that delivered the knockout punch.
Had your idea of "free speech" prevailed,Imus would likely still be on the air, but I don't know if this country would be a place that anybody would want to live.
Here's the point, and it gas nothing to do with politics: Don Imus made a nasty personal attack on some young women who deserved only accolades and encouragement from society. His insult was sexual and racial. This is not the first time he's done this.
That's an abuse of the public airwaves: not the bad words, the personal slur. I wouldn't care if it were Al Franken sitting will Bill Moyers: I'd want them fired.
The airwaves have been polluted with mean-spirited and abusive clowns for ages now who feel they can say absolutely anything they want to, no m,atter if it's inaccurate, hurtful, or vicious. Would Imus or McGuirk insult these women to their faces? But in their booth, they're safe. They're immune. They're Olympian.
It's not just poltics: this sort of thing has made drivetime radio unlistenable in many cities. The abuse heaped on ordinary people by these buffoons who have been plunked down into a position of privilege has reached epidemic proportions.
I'm sick of this sewage. And Imus was one of the progenitors of it. Im glad he's gone.
Yeah, yeah, we know this "OMG LIBRULZ HATE FREE SPEECH" song-and-dance since you do it every hour on the hour.
You right-wing asswaters just want to go back to the Fifties when it was okay to make n****r jokes and they couldn't do jack about it, since They Knew Their Place.
McGuirk: "It can happen to you, so stand up for, you know, what's right."
McGuirk: "And if anybody characterized her directly as, you know, the H-word, you know, I'd kick their teeth in, you know, if I saw it happen in real time."
You betcha. This guy stands up for the right to call a female a ho and kick in the teeth of guys who call his daughter a ho.
Good job MMFA!
"Rev. Martin Niemoller, a German Protestant pastor who is credited with penning a famous statement about the Nazis called "First They Came."
I researched Herr. Niemoller several years ago and your analysis is spot-on.
Two things I will add about Herr. Niemoller:
* He was a submarine commander during world war I
*He did NOT deliver his famous passage to the congress-It was read into the congressional record!
Somebody tell this idiot Imus on the airwaves really wasn't a case of "poking fun at each other."
Actually, it was.
Well, if YOU say, it MUST be so! lol
Well, I listened to or watched the show on a regular basis for ten years, so I feel somewhat qualified to reach that conclusion. I can fully understand that some people didn't like the humor, the occasional over-the-line comments, or Imus' (to me, hilarious) portrayal of self-absorption. I just simply think that it was wrong for progressives to demand his firing (in willful or unknowing ignorance of the good things he was doing), and I believe the firing itself was overall a loss for the progressive movement. You all are also obviously welcome to your opinion.
I've heard the argument that Imus poked fun at everyone including members of his own ethnic group, but when Imus did this it was with genralized universal insults like idiot, moron, stupid, etc. When he "POKED FUN" at people of other ethnic groups he always customized that poking to include bigoted slurs and pejoratives like nappy head ho and fudge packers. If he were an equal opportunity offender he would have used the same universal insult language and he didin't. That said, while I felt that Imus should have suffered a more substantial consequence than a two week suspension, I didn't advocate his firing. I wanted to see what kind of show he would have had after the apologies. I wanted to see if those apologies were sincere and if Imus finally got why what he had done on his show for years is so wrong. If he didn't clean up his act and revereted to slinging ethnic slurs a pejoratives he should have been shown the door. That said it does make me happy that corporations don't want to be associated with people who act like McGuirk that shows progress.
First, we made the comments. Then the backlash started. Then the people who pay the bills were pressured to stop sponsoring the show. Then they fired me, because there was no money to pay for me to keep making the comments.
Dang, it's a capitalism issue!
Is IMUS gone??? Was it news??? I only watch FOX for my news...guess they didn't cover it.
P.S. Rino, the corporate types fired IMUS...and as stated to you many, many times...they are not your father's liberals.
Getting itchy??
No talent racist
This is what McGuirk is. His hate had no place on the msm airwaves.
I think it's pretty telling (on a side, but related note) that criticism of the bush administration is considered by some on the right to be "hate speech"
If that is their "standard" for hate speech then i don't really know what else needs to be said.
All this talk about "liberal fascists" reminds me of the upcoming Jonah Goldberg book. Upcoming when he gets beyond the cover and actually figures out how a liberal can at the same time be a fascist.
I prefer a Jethro Tull quote
And the unsung western hero killed an indian or threeAnd made his name in hollywoodTo set the white man free.Oh jesus save me!
Aqualung my friend. Great album, great song.
I'm just impressed with the segue from Max Baer (Jr., Jethro Bodine) , to Jethro Tull.
Just Wond'ring aloud.
Wow, thats good, how did I miss that?
It seemed to fit with the right's idea of freedom.
I wonder if Imus was slamming Dumbya instead of Hillary if all these
"Free Speechers" would be running to his defense!LOL
Please point out exactly when Imus referred to Hillary as a "nappy-headed ho."
-----
Then you will have a point other than the one covered by your hat.
I'm ashamed to say this, but as much of a racist as McGuirk is, I feel sorry for him and Imus. The reaction to their racist jokes was too extreme.
deserves got nothing to do with it, these women dont deserve anything, just like u dont deserve anything unless u earn it and people choose to do something for you. the only point im making is that DESERVES is a very subjective term, and what u, I or anyone else deserves in this world is up to interpitation. I bet u those teams who rutgers defeated to get to their point wernt too happy about them being deserving of anything, i bet the fans didnt think that ether. The bottom line is that its all subjective, u think they deserve something thast fine, but society as a whole doesnt need to give anyone anything, and certainly a basketball team that a large portion of the country doesnt support only deserves to take the joke like adults and ignore the old fart who never knew them at all. imus was wrong, and ur all wrong for making these girls out to be more than they are, they are college basketball players, good for them, realy change in this country will come when people dont care, or dont feel the need to prop up a woman's colelge basketball team, call me when that happens cause this is old news
They deserve respect. Period. They deserve the praise that they have earned based on the position they have attained. Subjective? Yes. But the consensus is that they earned it. The other teams that they beat? Well Duhh.. they're hatin!! But guess what? I don't care how subjective you say it is, NO TEAM, whether they are number 1 or number 120 don't deserve to be attacked with racist, insensitive comments coming from a radio or TV talk show hosts using public airwaves.
Imus was fired becuase his continued presence would have a negative effect on the radio station's bottom line.
Why do right-wingers hate free-enterprise?
.
I lived in the Northeast for years. Imus WAS funny then. He started falling out of grace with most people after he hired McJerk. I wonder,Imus will be back eventually...do you think he'll hire McJerk?,or has he learned anything from this mess?
I think Imus will return, but I think it will be without McJerk. I hope so anyway.
Preston_P I couldn't have said it better if I were in the room when you typed this. I laughed at those who said that the girls from Rutgers should not have been offended because they probably had never heard of Don Imus before this happened; implying that black women between the ages of 18-25 don't watch politically charged news. Well, I am a 25 year old Black women who watched Imus every morning for years. The reason that I stopped is when McJerk (as you like to call him lol!) started impersonating Ray Nagin. Although, I still ordered his greening products off the website. But, it didn't surprise me when I heard about what was said that day. I can tell you this, it's not uncommon.
You have Rush who is calling Barack Obama "The Magic Negro" and calling Al Sharpton illiterate, and he is a drug addict! I am not a fan of people calling Al Sharpton one of our "leaders", but what people fail to realize is that he is a Black man. And, when something like this happens, he has the right to stand up just as any other black person that was outraged. It just so happens that the cameras follow him around when he does.
Bottom line is McJerk will find a job tomorrow and America will move on, but there is a blatant amount of racism going on with these commentators and I am ecstatic that they are finally being held accountable for it. I hope that it continues. If it were up to me, Rush would be next.......!!!!!!!!!
Shameless.
As a Holocaust studies teacher, I think it's important to remind McGuirk that the Nazis were coming for innocent men, women and children and brutally dragging them off to die in gas chambers and slave labor camps. On the other hand, morally responsible individuals "came for" Imus and McGuirk and demanded that they stop using hateful rhetoric (often the precursor of hateful actions) and that they treat other men, women and children with respect and dignity.
And another thing . . .
Niemoller spent time in Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps for openly defending others' right to live free from harassment and abuse.
I think that Niemoller would be horrified to hear his words spewing from the mouth of a racist bigot.
This whole episode has shown a lot to me -
1) I was very close to supporting Al Sharpton for his presidential bid a few years back - I went with Nader in the end - I won't even dare now - I've found out a lot about how he operates, and I don't like it.
2)Some people on the left tend to discriminate and stereotype a lot - And I doubt they know it. One stereotype is that if someone has a different view on what constitutes racism etc, then they must be conservative or at least on the right. Another discrimination is one I suppose many whites on the left feel they're allowed to do since they're white; Say that whites are inherently different and have a different set of rules for actions and words than any other ethnic group. That's the one that bugs me the most probably. It's discriminatory by definition; oh and also the stereotype that being white has some sort of privilege attached to it, as if a member in a secret club, that all whites fall into one category - you know, the category that isn't allowed to say anything about anything (except books and stocks) since they're privileged and all.
This producer guy might have a poor history of using taste and class in his radio appearances, and if so then I'm not disheartened by him leaving. But really, such fuss over the word ho. And not just the word ho, but saying ho referring to "black" people (OMG!) and being white at the same time. Is this really what it comes down to? That he's white? Even if he grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood? Do we really believe that by birth's skin color we are condemned? That our actions and the intentions behind them can be classified by skin? Are we really that racist?
Maybe Imus' show wasn't the best venue for him. Maybe if he was so "street" (that's what he said, not the right term), then he should be on a "street" show. Maybe the guy is an ass - And of course people are going to make widespread judgments based on the people they see everyday (that's where stereotypes come from - and although not true a lot, there is a reason they are there), but all I keep reading here is that it is mainly because he's white and rich (as if Puffy ain't rich - or any rapper for that matter) that this is such a problem.
he was never asked about imas saying that he was hired to do n word jokes .
People are seeing things more clearly after the Imus incident. People realize that the uber-left in the Country are trying to "mute" any free-speech that remains. We have created a society of wimpy-crybabies where minorities would rather "complain" that elevate their status in society. The GREATEST thing to happen was when Barrack Hussein Obam and Hillary spouted off about Imus--that is when I traded my Democratic affiliation for a Libertarian one.