Sunday, April 8, 2007

Side Bar, Defend Your Boy

First of all, Don Imus had a long history of this type of racist behavior. This is not an isolated incident, and We don't need apologists explainig why he should still be on the air. In case you missed it, Donny called the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy headed hos" and later someone else called the "jigaboos". How does this not warrant his firing? Also I'm not sure what that piece is at the end where a guy who I think is Billy Packer says that Charlie Rose is "fagging out" on him.



How is it that Imus has any credibility? His history is that he was a DJ with a cocaine addiction and a penchant for not only saying racist things, but actually treating people who worked for him and near him in a disgusting way. Why is it that politicians give him the time of day? Just because he chooses to speak about politics makes him a political outlet? Fuck that then. Wheeere's Luke is now an important political outlet. I want motherfuckers fighting for our endorsement. It's not as if he has any listeners. I don't see why clowns go on his show.

Anyway, this apology he issued is really half assed:

“[I want to] apologize for an insensitive and ill-conceived remark we made the other morning referring to the Rutgers women’s basketball team. It was completely inappropriate, and we can understand why people were offended. Our characterization was thoughtless and stupid, and we are sorry.”
Who is "we", Donny? Unless you are Smeagol and you're searching Middle Earth for your Precious, then you don't refer to yourself as "we". Apologize for your own actions and take some fucking responsibility. I don't think apologies work that way. It doesn't excuse you from whatever intolerances you're espousing. I know that most people don't even know who Imus is, and that's why they don't care, but I'm surprised that there isn't more of an uproar over this.

5 comments:

Joe said...

Rutgers transcript

Anyhow, tell that to the Guineys; they love him.

Howard Stern Rules, Imus sucks! Baba booey Baba Booey!

Danny G said...

Yeah, Imus may be a closet racist and this isn't the first time he's been caught in a similar type of incident, but so what?

Who would benefit from his being fired? The fragile egos of the players on the Rutgers women's team? It's certainly not his bosses at WFAN, or the people who syndicate his radio show across the country, or the people who watch the simulcast on MSNBC -- where his ratings haven been going up of late.

That said, I think it's completely legitimate to ask why so many political and media types continue to frequent his show? Is it that between Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh-types (Hannity, O'Reilly, et al. included) there isn't much on the air besides Imus to reach a mass, mainstream audience on the radion, especially in the morning?

I guess the real issue I have with your post -- other than calling for someone to be fired, when you (and everyone else who's been offended) could just as easily not watch/listen to his show and if you feel like you have to do more than that, contact his sponsors and guests and pressure them to end their relationship with Imus, etc. -- is that he DOES in fact have a lot of viewers and listeners.

You're just not one of them. And while I know that you think that "If everyone were privy to my thoughts, then the world would be a better place. At least, that's what I've always told myself." The reality is it would just be a world of Dave Matthews fans and people with a rep for punking out any time (and every time) someone smells a fight a-brewing.

Side Bar said...

Why are we attacking Chuck for taking a perfectly legitimate position on something? It's not like he used your clippers without asking or something serious like that.

ChuckJerry said...

Goldie, I'm unclear as to the intent of that last paragraph. It doesn't seem to fit into the context of your argument. While it's true that I like Dave Matthews and don't like to fight, I don't see what that has to do with Imus.

Please explain. (3 examples. 3!!!)

Danny G said...

I'll respond here and then again, to the more recent posts and comments, in the comments under Brian's post.

First, I don't think I was attacking Chuck. I simply took issue with Chuck's positions that: a)Imus should be fired
b)Dave Matthews is good music and
c)people shouldn't fight for/with their friends.

The last paragraph in my comments, highlights the difference between people, like Chuck, who advocate for a world that doesn't offend and punishment for people who do; and people like me, who believe that becoming offended from time to time, especially absent any other injury -- either real or perceived -- is inherent in a society that values a free and open discourse on all ideas, from high art and politics to fart jokes and racism.

As evidence of this difference, I pointed to the subtitle of The Aribtrary Chuck Jerry, to simply give ONE EXAMPLE of TACJ's over-arching attitude that seems to exist whereby people who are not privy to (and in this case, go on to adopt) TACJ's thoughts are somehow not contributing to the world being a better place.

Allow me to break it down, the way the Village Voice does "This Is Why I'm Hot"... In this case, if people are privy to TACJ's thoughts (that Imus should be fired), the world would be a better place (because a racist would be off the air.)

I think if TACJ's thoughts (on Imus, music and fighting, to give but THREE EXAMPLES) were the criteria for making the world a better place, it would in fact, make the world a bland, nanny-state.

And while I like that Chuck has all the qualities that he does. In fact, it's what makes him the special and unique person that he is. I would hate it if the world were full of nothing but the things Chuck likes and approves of/doesn't get offended by. In such a dystopia, Chuck would no longer be so special nor unique.