I don't listen to him - never have, likely never will. (Rather a lot like Howard Stern in that respect - I know of him, and I'm not interested enough in him to find out more.)
That said, I find it hard to credit the race-baiting poverty pimps like Al Sharpton saying he can't SAY certain words that freely slosh through Black culture like sewage through a large pipe. Okay, so Imus was offensive. Big fat hairy deal - the 'hate speech' Imus uttered is pretty much ubiquitous in the rap world (actually, it would seem to be a lot worse) and I don't see Big Al blowing a gasket over that.
If I were Al Sharpton, at this point I'd be going "Okay, it looks like there's a lot of bleed-over, so we need to change our OWN culture". But then, it's far easier to blame someone ELSE for your problems and demand that they fix them for you, than actually fixing them for yourself. And the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world have managed to have a long, sweet ride on their victimhood status. Admittedly, supporting yourself by being a victim of racism in these days and times requires a LOT of work, but it can be done.
All you've got to do is look at Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. They've got it down to a science.
J.
Comments (2)
The thing that has them circling like sharks smelling blood is that Imus is a WHITE man; it is meaningless if such things are said by blacks, who call each other niggers (I refuse to be coy and call it the "N-word") and worse all the time, but suffer severe exceeding of engineering parameters if a non-black uses such terms. I think Imus was extremely tacky, but tackiness is not a criminal offense, at least not yet, or at least not yet in all jurisdictions, but an apology TO THE PEOPLE HE INSULTED should be sufficient, not this abasing of himself that Jackson and Sharpton, et al. are demanding.
Posted by John C. | April 11, 2007 6:02 AM
Posted on April 11, 2007 06:02
Establishing a protected class which can say anything without fear of rebuke, and another class which will not be allowed to speak anything which might offend someone, somewhere, isn't exactly a free-speech environment.
But then, for Sharpton and Jackson it's not so much about free speech as it is about fear. The fear that someone, somewhere, who they can't criticize is going to see through the crap they push - and say something about it. To avoid that, they've got to keep folks from thinking they're not in touch - and so you see them saying relevant through stuff like this.
J.
Posted by JLawson | April 11, 2007 10:56 PM
Posted on April 11, 2007 22:56