****
This morning, I flipped through some channels to find Chris Wallace berating Al Sharpton over the Imus affair again. This time, he demanded to know why Sharpton was not apologizing to the three lacrosse players and then played a clip of Imus on the O'Reilly Show. Now, I know Sharpton is a piece of work, but he is smarter than the average guy, and he very quickly noted that Wallace was asking him to apologize to the lacrosse players for what the DA did.
I also understand that people like Sharpton and Jackson have a lot to answer for in their personal and professional lives. I also understand that bigotry is ubiquitious in our culture and that rap artists throw around the most hateful, mysogynist words, etc. But this line of questioning has essentially allowed people like David Gregory and Chris Wallace to blame black people for racism. As long as they can point to blacks saying things wrong, then the reasoning seems to be, we can't go after Imus.
Sigh.
Oh, and Media Matters has a great list of right wingers who routinely say stuff worse than Imus. Take a look. The Glenn Beck stuff is amazing, but here is good old Rush"
"According to a June 7, 2000, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) article, "As a young broadcaster in the 1970s, Limbaugh once told a black caller: 'Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.' " In the early 1990s, "after becoming nationally syndicated, he mused on the air: 'Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?' " According to FAIR, "[w]hen Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL) was in the U.S. Senate, the first black woman ever elected to that body, Limbaugh would play the 'Movin' On Up' theme song from TV's 'Jeffersons' when he mentioned her. Limbaugh sometimes still uses mock dialect -- substituting 'ax' for 'ask'-- when discussing black leaders." FAIR also reported that "[i]n 1992, on his now-defunct TV show, Limbaugh expressed his ire when Spike Lee urged that black schoolchildren get off from school to see his film Malcolm X: 'Spike, if you're going to do that, let's complete the education experience. You should tell them that they should loot the theater, and then blow it up on their way out.' "
****
One more quick item. Saw this from the WaPo on abstinence only programs. Another study suggests that it doesn't work--often only delays sexual activity. Which might still be a good move if they were also being taught how to protect themselves when they decide to have sex. But the worst part is that this study finds that the abstinence only people are lying to the kids--telling them that AIDS is spread through tears and sweat, or that condoms fail to protect from pregnancy and AIDS some 31 percent of the time. The real number is 3 percent.
Sigh.
17 comments:
I think that Jackson's and Sharpton's past comment have little to do with the Imus affair. What he said was mean and nasty. The fact that Jackson (Hymietown) and Sharpton (Tawana Brawley) lack credibility doesn't take away from the offensiveness of what Imus said. Sharpton certainly doesn't need to apologize for the Duke case, unless he was somehow involved, which I don't recall him being.
In the spirit of fairness, I found some lefty gems:
NPR legal correspondent, Nina Totenburg--"[I]f there is retributive justice [Sen. Jesse Helms] will get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."
USA Today columnist Julianne Malveaux--on Clarence Thomas "I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease."
Spike Lee (on Charleton Heston)--"I wish someone would shoot him with a .44 Bulldog."
Robert Byrd--"There are white niggers. I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I’m going to use that word."
Where was the outrage?
I can't believe they have forked 170 million into the ab. programs. I hope they continue to look at their effectiveness and can them if they don't do anything.
Wow, Spike Lee and Robert Byrd, you are really going after the heart of the left wing, aren't you? I don't even know who Malveaux is, and wonder if you can find more bad stuff from Totenburg. The list I posted was not from either obscure or the aged, but from the mainstream of the Conservative echo chamber--seen and heard every damn day.
As for the ab only program, you just have to blame the religious right and an intellectually and morally challenged President who has funded this program with glee. And not just here, but overseas. Someday the damage from this administration will be totalled and those who supported this train wreck (nice word) will see exactly what they voted for.
Steve, you will have to forgive me. I am perhaps short tempered today and not as interested in "fairness" as I should be. Perhaps it is 6 years of Bush administration spin and control with networks (not just Fox) bowing over backwards to provide what sounds like fairness, but what is actually not. And to be fair, it isn't as if left wingers get away with saying whatever they want. Ward Churchill was soundly criticized from even the left. Senator Biden said something about Obama being clean and well spoken and was hammered immediately.
In the interests of fairness, I would suggest that Imus' comments really are not as egregious as many of the others. Glen Beck dares to suggest that an elected, American born citizen representative is actually a traitor to our country. And the list goes on. Fox purposefully skews the news to support this disastrous war policy, and conservatives yawn.
The difference appears to be that I know that liberals can say stupid stuff, and that we are racist and mean. As I have said from the beginning, I know that liberals will succomb to the temptations of office and celebrity. But conservatives have attempted over the last 20 years to claim sole ownership of patriotism, morality, and family. And I for one am tired of it. So every damn time a prominent conservative challenges the patriotism or loyalty of a liberal, I am going to fight back.
I think it's common regardless of bias, perspective, or "camp" to periodically shout "where was the outrage when......". Fill in what you want. I think this only serves to deflect from the immediate issues at hand. It's a poor defense of one asshole to say he/she isn't any worse than the previous asshole- why didn't you holler about them? Imus' employment has been determined by dollars. When he pulled them in he was on the air. Now that sponsors are pulling out, he's out. As far as what he said goes, they were racist statements reflecting the racist thoughts that preceded them. Not only that, but he leveled them against late teen, early twenties girls (I'm old enough to call them that.) As father of a girl quickly approaching this age, I'm amazed that anyone is coming to this guys defense. Like the others like him, he makes a living off of this stuff. I'm all for freedom of speech. I suppose he legally has the right to say what he wants. It's still racist and reflective of bad character and judgement. There are places where those two things will get you fired. I'd say the same about any of the folks leveling the statements mentioned in the above posts. Their racist statements don't make the next ones ok.
Probably what's needed is a good ass-kicking by one of the young lady's fathers. Later-BB
Considering Imus's age, and the athletic prowess of that team, I am sure one of them could deliver a sufficient beatdown. I never defended Imus or tryed to make light of what he said. I'll give him a slight amount of credit for apologizing and trying to make things right, but he deserved to called on what he said.
Spike Lee and Rober Byrd are certainly well known. Lee's comments, while old, were made when he was more active. I'll admit that the other are obscure, but it isn't exactly like liberal talk radio is very popular. I suppose I could have dug up stuff on Al Franken, Jon Stewart, Keith Olbermann and Rosie O, but I don't know what that will get us. There is certainly a market for "edgy" talk and "humor."
Ward Churchill was able to spout off all sorts of stuff and the only people that seemed to be outraged were conservative pundits. He wasn't let go by the left until there were serious issues with academic fraud and plagiarism.
BB, you raise a good point. I was certainly not trying to justify bigotry by saying that "the other side does it to." One of the weakest defenses I have heard about Imus is in regard to how rappers talk. There is a long history of bad language in music, so I think it is a silly comparison.
Streak, I know that bigotry can be applied to either side and I wasn't trying to say that liberals were racist and mean. Some are, but there is nothing inherently mean about them. I would also say that there are some liberals that try to portray all conservatives as racist, anti-science, stupid, theocrats.
I guess this is why I prefer to stick to Imus and not expand it other things. I apologize for doing this and wasn't trying to be a dick. I see most of the media as being biased towards the left, but I will say they do a much better job of reporting the news than they do in Europe.
As a liberal, I know you are going to fght back and I wouldn't expect otherwise. As a conservative, I will fight back, too, when I feel I am right and I freely admit that I can be nasty and I have certainly been wrong. I'll also admit that many tings come down to a matter of opinion or perception.
Ward Churchill was able to spout off all sorts of stuff and the only people that seemed to be outraged were conservative pundits. He wasn't let go by the left until there were serious issues with academic fraud and plagiarism.
Actually, that isn't true at all. Churchhill was disliked and not trusted within academic circles and liberal ranks for some time. Liberals aren't as kneejerk as some think.
I would also say that there are some liberals that try to portray all conservatives as racist, anti-science, stupid, theocrats.
Yes, I realize that. Unfortunately, Bush has created a situation where all but the racist part are hard to defend for the GOP. I know that all conservatives don't buy into that, but the GOP leadership as is, is actually anti-science, and seemingly leaning toward theocracy.
I am not sure what "spouting off" means, perhaps saying and or publishing things you or those you read disagree with.
There have been allegations dogging Churchill for years. Some of his harshest critics have been those "conservative pundits" in the American Indian Movement.
If conservatives are popularly viewed as theocrats, perhaps that is because the current conservative coalition that holds the White House and the Supreme Court, and until recently, Congress, has
appointed theocrats and those amenable to that agenda. That is who has been elevated to highly public leadership positions. When a liberal president fills the cabinet agencies with graduates of whatever institution might parallel Liberty U., then let's talk some more.
Yeah, I might be sour on the entire GOP, but I think UBUB makes a great point. Bush appointed or hired 150 graduates from a 4th tier law school--not because they were qualified, one of them admitted the only job offer he received was from the government--but because they come from Regents Law school and are conservative evangelicals.
I like that line, "conservative pundits" in the American Indian Movement. Damn funny.
Calling 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns" is what I consider spouting off. Not just because I disagree, but because I also don't think it is a good comparison. Most of what I consider spouting are the things he made up, stole from others, or otherwise fabricated. I don't always agree with Noam Chomsky, but he at least does his own work and can present an intelligent argument (most of the time).
While we may be leaning towards theocracy, we certainly do not live in a theocracy any more than we lived in a socialist, nanny state when Clinton was president (which I heard from time to time). Now that Bush no longer has to get the religious vote, I don't hear as much about the gay marriage amendment or other religious policies. I'll admit that I have a hard time discussing this. I think it is an important topic, but in my experience, these discussions tend to get nasty. There are some people that want to exclude religious people from public office. They don't mean only having athiests, but they would prefer people that only agree with them.
Must have missed the AIM press conference where they denounced him, or was it on Larry King? Despite their popularity, there are plenty of conservatives that do not like Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck, and Savage.
You often see AIM on mainstream television? :)
UBUB isn't wrong on that, AIM was deeply distrustful of Churchill, and as I recall, thought he might be a federal agent or provacateur.
Steve, I agree with you that many conservatives dislike these people, but their popularity and access make them fair game for this discussion, don't they?
As for the earlier comment, I don't know that the issue is are we "leaning toward a theocracy" but what are the motivations and goals of the GOP leadership? And how, I might add, do those goals and beliefs differ from mainstream conservatives?
If that is our framework, then it seems to me that we can discuss this better. I have argued for years on this blog that conservatives have been taken for a ride by this administration. I have told conservative friends that these people don't represent your values or your interests. So, I am not here to badmouth conservatives, but to call you to reclaim your party. When Bush hires political hacks rather than competent people, I think that is a fair criticism. When he undermines our scientific understanding of reproductive health, climate change, and even the correlation between pollution and disease, he undermines our very governmental system.
So, be clear about this. I don't think UBUB or myself is saying that conservatives are anti-science or theocrats--but we are suggesting that conservatives have allowed those people to represent you for the last 6 + years.
Is that fair?
I don't think I have ever seen AIM on any kind of show. I can't say that they are all that big up here. I am guessing here, but I would think that their biggest problem with Churchill might have had something to do with him claiming some kind of tribal membership, or am I thinking of someone else?
When I was an undergrad, I signed up for a class called "feminist psychology." It was a seminar, so I thought it would be interesting to be in a small class. I was the the only male and I quickly discovered that I was the designated spokesman for my gender and I had a lot to answer for. It was clear that I was not welcome and I was happy to drop the class. I enjoy debate, but that class was downright hostile.
That hasn't happened here and I hope it doesn't. The Jesus Politics blog seems to have some poeple that are just there to start stuff. I don't want to be seen as that, nor do I want be the spokesman for conservatives. I disagree with them on many issues. I have never been a Bush apologist, nor do I think he is a great president.
As for your theocratic framework, I think it is fair.
I don't think I have ever seen AIM on any kind of show.
Yeah, that was kind of my point. UBUB can speak to this better than I, but AIM didn't like Churchill for a lot of reasons. Same can be said about a lot of liberal academics. Sometimes, I think that people imagine academia as this big club where everyone agrees to everything, instead of a competitive arena where disagreement is prized.
Steve, I am not asking you to defend all of conservatism, nor do I want to just be contrarian. I am simply asking conservatives to think about what they believe and how that relates to the current GOP.
Streak, I have also heard that Imus learned these words and terms from black hip hop artists and reasoned that since they used them, it must be appropriate. As you note, this again blames people of color for racism and suggests that whites LEARN racism from people of color.
--CIL
You raise an important point about AIM's message. The "liberal media's" corporate ownership apparently did not find that issue worthy of coverage, but a great deal of evidence exists in Native-owned media that they have long been critical of Churchill, his political stances, and his scholarship. For the record, I see those guys as Native Al Sharptons, but the point still holds on criticism of Churchill from an insider perspective.
The big question is who has access to the public airways and the platform that provides?
I have read Churchill's piece on the World Trade Center and wonder if any of you have as well. He makes an interesting argument about individual and collective culpability. It is one that I feel goes too far in justifying the attack, but it does provide some insight into aspects of the attackers motivation.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have not read it, so I will admit my knowledge of him is limited. I wish I read faster, but there never seems to be enough time to read everything that I want to read.
As for access to the airwaves, it is whoever has the money.
I read it too, and think you nail it, ubub. Went too far, but made good points.
Post a Comment