Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from exister Friday, April 13, 2007 - 17:15 (Agree/Disagree?) So, once upon a time, in this fairy tale country called Umerica, there was a dopey old jackass named Armus. Armus wanted desperately to be listened to, but very few people did, because he was crotchety and boring. Then one morning he referred to a team of green nosed frackass ball players as brocolli nosed nags. At the time his comment was irrelevant since so few people listened to him anyway. But then a group of green nosed people started to raise a big stink about the comment. The immediate result was that Armus' nasty comment was repeated thousands of times all across Umerica's airwaves and was heard by 100 times more people than would have heard it if everyone had just ignored crochety old Armus. The long term result was that after hearing the nasty comment hundreds of times most Umerican's can't see a green nosed person without getting a sudden craving for broccoli. (reply to this comment)

from conan Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 16:25 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm assuming by now that most people who frequent this site know that Mr. Imus has been fired by CBS and will no longer be on the public airwaves (until someone else sees him as an opportunity for publicity and hires him). As we let him ride off into the sunset of a retired life, I wanted to post two articles from two different African American men regarding Don Imus' infamous remarks. I think both make exceptional arguments despite the fact that they are opposing viewpoints. Enjoy! Out of Imus's Bigotry, a Zero Tolerance for Hate By Michael Wilbon Wednesday, April 11, 2007; Page E01 If calling the Rutgers women's basketball players "nappy-headed hos" was the first deplorable and offensive utterance out of shock jock Don Imus's mouth, there probably wouldn't be a national firestorm over his reprehensible characterization. If this was some rare event, then there wouldn't be organizations lining up to demand he be fired. If this was the first time, or second, or 10th, probably Imus wouldn't have been suspended for two weeks from his syndicated radio show, which is simulcast on MSNBC. But there's nothing rare about Imus's vile attacks. This is what he does as a matter of course. Imus and his studio cohorts have painted black people as convicts and muggers and worst of all, apes. Not only do they find it funny, they expect everybody else will as well. Sid Rosenberg, whom Imus once fired, then rehired, said one morning in 2001 that Serena and Venus Williams would be better off posing in National Geographic than Playboy. He knew he was saying Serena and Venus are closer to wild animals than women. Please don't tell me it's not fair to hold Imus accountable for that remark and others like it because it didn't come out of his mouth. Imus hires the people who utter this filth and, in fact, wants them to go as far as possible because he believes it insulates him to a certain degree from the harshest criticism. This is what Imus has done for years and years, and Viacom and NBC Universal pay him a king's ransom to do it. Imus has been questioned about his tactics over the years, and he says repeatedly and dismissively, "Get over it." He certainly isn't the only morning shock jock doing this, but he's the one whose behind is being scorched now and justifiably so. Imus is the one who said in 1995 of Gwen Ifill, an accomplished, award-winning black journalist of incredible dignity and grace: "Isn't the [New York] Times wonderful. . . . It lets the cleaning lady cover the White House." It's Imus who called William C. Rhoden, the veteran Times sports columnist, "a quota hire." Of course, the work, accomplishments or stature of their targets do not matter to Imus and his stooges. He makes fun of former attorney general Janet Reno's Parkinson's disease. So "nappy-headed hos" wasn't some weak moment of great exception on the Imus show. In 1997, during a "60 Minutes" profile, Mike Wallace confronted Imus and a former producer who quoted Imus as saying he'd hired a staffer to "do nigger jokes." When I mentioned that earlier this week on ESPN's Pardon the Interruption, Imus responded on his show that it simply did not happen -- though I see it in a 2000 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review and had a producer access it through a transcript (also the audio version) on National Public Radio. Wallace: "You've told Tom Anderson, the producer, in your car coming home that Bernard McGuirk is there to do nigger jokes.'" Imus: "Well, I've . . . I never use that word." Wallace: "Tom?" Tom Anderson: "I'm right here." Imus: "Did I use that word? Anderson: "I recall you using that word." Imus: "Oh, okay, well then I used that word, but I mean . . . of course that was an off-the-record conversation . . ." Wallace: "The hell it was." So, you'll excuse me if I dismiss Imus's apology as bogus. He's apologized in the past, told veteran black journalist Clarence Page on the air he would "promise to cease all simian references to black . . . black athletes." That was before Imus went back to the ape references, probably within a week. Understandably, this has led to a whole lot of folks calling for Imus's head. Personally, I'd rather see Imus have to confront anger, scorn and ridicule every single day. I'd rather see him have to deal with the accusation of being a bigot. I'd rather the criticism come at Imus from every angle, indefinitely, rather than have him slink away to private life. You'll have to excuse me for not believing a man can utter this brand of filth month after month, then proclaim testily he's not a bigot. Firing, in some ways, would let him off the hook too easily. I'll defend Imus's right to free speech, while pointing out that those of us who find him and his goons contemptible have the exact same right to free speech. I'd rather see Imus squirm in the face of withering criticism than be fired and turn up six months later as some kind of martyr. I'd rather see him snubbed by Cal Ripken, who refused to go on the air with Imus after his remarks about the Rutgers women. Ripken was supposed to appear on the Imus show yesterday to promote his new book. Already a little squeamish about appearing on the show, Ripken's decision to tell Imus no became an easy one after the latest spewing. "It was set up by the publisher, but I said no because I don't want anybody to perceive that I condone those comments because I don't," Ripken said in a telephone conversation yesterday. "And if you go on that show, that's exactly what the perception would be." Ripken said he does not want to be seen as someone wielding a moral compass. But I wonder now how many of these prominent journalists and politicians who use the platform Imus provides (and therefore give him cover) will have as much conviction as Ripken displayed. Imus, not surprisingly, is trying to frame the discussion in a way that paints him as a good guy who did a stupid thing, which might be okay if he wasn't such a serial offender. Yes, Imus routinely has riveting political discussions, as recently as last fall when he engaged Harold Ford, then running for the U.S. Senate, in conversations about running for office as a young black man in the South, in this case Tennessee. When Imus says he's not unfamiliar with black people, he's telling the truth. He's not some idiot segregationist who seals himself off from black people, which is what makes these episodes even more disgusting. If you believe the bosses at Viacom and NBC Universal have any guts, and I'm not sure I do, then you might believe the suspension represents a warning of zero tolerance from here on in and that Imus is one more incident from being dumped. And while I'm not agitating for Imus to be fired, I'd certainly raise a toast if it happens. Until then, what Imus has prompted is a necessary national conversation. The meeting with the Rutgers women is necessary -- so is the vigil to stand over him and remind him that even if he doesn't get it, many of us do. Imus isn’t the real bad guy Wednesday April 11, 2007 Instead of wasting time on irrelevant shock jock, black leaders need to be fighting a growing gangster culture. By JASON WHITLOCK - Columnist Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem. You’ve given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality. You’ve given Vivian Stringer and Rutgers the chance to hold a nationally televised recruiting celebration expertly disguised as a news conference to respond to your poor attempt at humor. Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it’s 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred. The bigots win again. While we’re fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant, bad shock jock, I’m sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent’s or Snoop Dogg’s or Young Jeezy’s latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos. I ain’t saying Jesse, Al and Vivian are gold-diggas, but they don’t have the heart to mount a legitimate campaign against the real black-folk killas. It is us. At this time, we are our own worst enemies. We have allowed our youths to buy into a culture (hip hop) that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture. The music, attitude and behavior expressed in this culture is anti-black, anti-education, demeaning, self-destructive, pro-drug dealing and violent. Rather than confront this heinous enemy from within, we sit back and wait for someone like Imus to have a slip of the tongue and make the mistake of repeating the things we say about ourselves. It’s embarrassing. Dave Chappelle was offered $50 million to make racially insensitive jokes about black and white people on TV. He was hailed as a genius. Black comedians routinely crack jokes about white and black people, and we all laugh out loud. I’m no Don Imus apologist. He and his tiny companion Mike Lupica blasted me after I fell out with ESPN. Imus is a hack. But, in my view, he didn’t do anything outside the norm for shock jocks and comedians. He also offered an apology. That should’ve been the end of this whole affair. Instead, it’s only the beginning. It’s an opportunity for Stringer, Jackson and Sharpton to step on victim platforms and elevate themselves and their agenda$. I watched the Rutgers news conference and was ashamed. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke for eight minutes in 1963 at the March on Washington. At the time, black people could be lynched and denied fundamental rights with little thought. With the comments of a talk-show host most of her players had never heard of before last week serving as her excuse, Vivian Stringer rambled on for 30 minutes about the amazing season her team had. Somehow, we’re supposed to believe that the comments of a man with virtually no connection to the sports world ruined Rutgers’ wonderful season. Had a broadcaster with credibility and a platform in the sports world uttered the words Imus did, I could understand a level of outrage. But an hourlong press conference over a man who has already apologized, already been suspended and is already insignificant is just plain intellectually dishonest. This is opportunism. This is a distraction. In the grand scheme, Don Imus is no threat to us in general and no threat to black women in particular. If his words are so powerful and so destructive and must be rebuked so forcefully, then what should we do about the idiot rappers on BET, MTV and every black-owned radio station in the country who use words much more powerful and much more destructive? I don’t listen or watch Imus’ show regularly. Has he at any point glorified selling crack cocaine to black women? Has he celebrated black men shooting each other randomly? Has he suggested in any way that it’s cool to be a baby-daddy rather than a husband and a parent? Does he tell his listeners that they’re suckers for pursuing education and that they’re selling out their race if they do? When Imus does any of that, call me and I’ll get upset. Until then, he is what he is — a washed-up shock jock who is very easy to ignore when you’re not looking to be made a victim. No. We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. There’s no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out. (reply to this comment)

from Woman Hating Don I. Gets Butt Kicked Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 14:04 (Agree/Disagree?) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117641076468168180.html?mod=djemalert (reply to this comment)

From Also Sprach the O racle Thursday, April 12, 2007, 16:51 (Agree/Disagree?) "Rutgers' team, meanwhile, appeared Thursday on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" with their coach, C. Vivian Stringer. At the end of their appearance, Winfrey said: "I want to borrow a line from Maya Angelou, who is a personal mentor of mine and I know you all also feel the same way about her. And she has said this many times, and I say this to you, on behalf of myself and every woman that I know, you make me proud to spell my name W-O-M-A-N."" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070412/ap_en_tv/imus_protests(reply to this comment)

From conan Thursday, April 12, 2007, 17:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Oprah....PLEASE!!! Let's agree to never post another quote or mention of her on this site ever again(reply to this comment)

From Stringy-Haired Ho Thursday, April 12, 2007, 20:14 (Agree/Disagree?) What's wrong with Oprah? She came from dire poverty and sexual abuse to become the most powerful woman in media. We could do worse than aspire to what she has achieved. (reply to this comment)

From Nick Friday, April 13, 2007, 09:47 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't care where she came from, she is still self promoting cunt! (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, April 14, 2007, 17:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Karen Zerby is a self promoting cunt. Oprah has done nothing to warrant being compared to Zerby.(reply to this comment)

From don't mean to be rude, but Saturday, April 14, 2007, 19:58 (Agree/Disagree?) SHUT THE FUCK UP SAMUEL!!!!(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, April 14, 2007, 20:29 (Agree/Disagree?) When you control a multi- billion dollar empire, creating hundreds if not thousands of new jobs, and have the ability to inspire women across America and motivate them to better themselves, then you can talk.(reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Sunday, April 15, 2007, 05:52 (Agree/Disagree?) I find the above distributation of thumbs up very intresting. I would also like to point out that it's not me or any of my alter egos. I always sign my name to my personal attacks(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, April 15, 2007, 11:15 (Agree/Disagree?) I would have been very surprised if it was you. That would be quite unlike you, as you are usually the kind tot hink things through and respond with a logical comment, even if I usually disagree with it. Resorting to insults like that, in my opinion, shows intellectual laziness. I know, I know, if NeOublie was here right now he'd say intellectual incompetence. I don't necessarily agree with that. I think everyone has the same abilities as far as thought and brainpower is concerned. Some people just use them better than others. For all I know, there could be people on this site who are smarter than Oprah, and just haven't had an opportunity to prove their abilities. As far as the distribution of thumbs goes, I don't think there were very many people on the site at the time. Someone must have agreed with me (lots of people like Oprah), and gave me a thumbs up. Remember that it only takes one positive vote to give someone five thumbs up. That really threw me for a loop when I first started coming to this site. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Sunday, April 15, 2007, 19:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Sammy said: "I think everyone has the same abilities as far as thought and brainpower is concerned." Oddie replied: AAAHAHHAAAHHHAHAHAHHAHAH you must be joking right?(reply to this comment)

From placebo Sunday, April 15, 2007, 13:07 (Agree/Disagree?) That was me Samuel.As long as you persist in making such illogical comments I will continue to keep my replies as terse as that.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Saturday, April 14, 2007, 21:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Not to quote savage garden but, 'here I go again, I promised myself, I wouldn't' log onto MO on SUNDAY. Placebo, please shoot me. Come to think of it, I spent Friday (13th) afternoon watching horror flicks before going to work, and Saturday babysitting, so I really have no life. Gun, anyone? (But House of 1000 corpses was awesome. Oldschool splatter horror. Sublime.) So Oprah's maneovered well, got rich, influential, whatever. I don't see her as any moral compass or anything, and she does sometimes comes across as a bitchy stuck up bore. I don't care if the PC world thinks its hip to idolize her for being a overachiever or whatever. She's just another celebrity to me. Do I care, no. But when the results/effects aren't negative, I couldn't care less about the motives. So Oprah's rich and influential? Power to her, and that's it. I don't see how discussing Oprah or Sharpton is relevant to the discussion of Imus and his comment anyway. So Imus has taken the fall for trying to keep business for his show, by doing what Chapelle does. Sell shock value. So the Oprahs, the Sharptons, and the Jacksons bitched about. And now people are complaining about the gangsta rappers, pop culture and the media? Time out. Wait a minute. I accept that some culture is degrading. I accept that it's at times just plain ugly. But art is art. Music is art. Lyrics are art. What, can't we use vulgar language in poetry now? I don't dispute that there are problems that run deep in our culture and society. But do we want to let the PC crowd go Kim Jong Il on us? If you don't like a show, don't watch it, don't listen to it. We don't need restrictions on expression. If the teeming masses of mainstream media junkies quit paying for a certain message or product, then it falls out of grace. If people avoided tracks that sung about hos and bitches like they avoided KKK propaganda cassettes, the big studios would stop selling them. The media only influences culture as much as we the consumers allow it. So we sit back and enjoy our vulgar vices and satisfy our ugly appetites, and beg for more dirty top 100s and then when the shit hits the fan, we blame the media? What is the world coming to? Fat fucks sue fastfood chains, cancer patients sue cigarette companies, parents sue video game companies. What ever happened to discretion and responsibility? Did someone put a gun to your head and force you to buy Grand Theft Auto?(Awesome game by the way) That 50 cent CD? (Please, the guy doesn't even have talent) Did someone threaten to kill your kids if you didn't smoke, or rape your mother if you didn't spent 5 bucks at Mickey D's three times a week? The airwaves should never be used to disseminate bigotry? Puhleeez... Let industry make what sells. We live in a capitalist society for crying out loud. It's not like you've only got the one channel? I want to sit at home listening to Marilyn Manson, watching House of 1000 corpses, playing GTA, and eating Mickey fries. I'm spending my hard earned currency on that. Just cause you don't want it, or you fear that you might accidentally be exposed to it, and such exposure may contaminate your fickle little mind and look on the world, doesn't mean it shouldn't be sold. Another random ranting by yours truly.(reply to this comment)

from conan Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 11:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Ok, this is getting ridiculous. For all those who actually listen to Don Imus, you’d know that this is not an isolated incident or unintentional slip of the tongue. ‘Nappy-headed hos’ was probably the least offensive of his comments, but unfortunately has become the focal point in the outrage levied against Mr. Imus. Imus has long referred to African Americans as eggplants (among other things), implied that they are inferior, unintelligent and criminal as a race. This to me does not warrant some bullshit apology or two week suspension. I’m all for freedom of speech, and racism is a very real part of society no matter how much we pretend it isn’t and so talking like a racist isn’t exactly surprising. I’m a big fan of guys like Dave Chappelle, Chris Rock, Richard Pryor, George Carlin, Ron White, and a host of others who make race a part of their routines and confront it while making it entertainment. Don Imus doesn’t make racist remarks to be endearing or to try and make his listeners laugh. He’s just a racist asshole who says what he does because he’s a ‘shock jock’ and feels that as such he can do and say whatever he wants in the name of ‘entertainment media’. It’s true that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have become caricatures of themselves. Who are they to represent the mass populace of ‘minority’ groups and pass judgment or issue acceptance of apologies? But that issue has really no bearing on the caustic, unnecessary, lewd, lascivious, degrading, insensitive, and plain idiotic remarks that Imus is allowed to make on a consistent, repetitive basis. That to me is why I believe he should be fired, not because I feel outraged that he’s a racist. (reply to this comment)

from madly Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 03:11 (Agree/Disagree?) “Nappy-headed hos”? LOL… that sounds like something blade would call me… or worse. Damn it, blade… where have you been? I miss you! Anyway, Nick… whatever… Imus is an ass and anyone who listens to him can tell you that he gets away with a lot! He spoke like an ass would and should therefore be treated like the ass he so obviously is. Forget about the whole race issue, that isn’t what really bothers me… what bothers me is that he was just being cruel and mean for no apparent reason. (reply to this comment)

From Nick Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 07:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Exactly!!! What he said was cruel and mean and he owes an apology to the team. I also agree that Imus is an ass and does say a lot of very controversial stuff that I don't agree with. However in this country we have a thing called free speech and we can not fire a person just because some "reverend" and I use that term VERY loosely in this case, doesn't like what you have to say!(reply to this comment)

From My Opinion... Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 16:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Nick, I agree with much of what you say, BUT you should be aware that "Freedom of Speech" means being free to speak without GOVERNMENT interference. It does not mean that you or I or Imus has the right to say anything they like and not get fired. If enough people want him off the air, and they make a big enough stink about it so that advertisers pull their ads, then the smart thing for the station to do would be to fire Imus, and replace him with someone who is less of a liability. This does not violate Imus's Freedom of Speech.(reply to this comment)

From afflick Thursday, April 12, 2007, 15:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Thank you, "My Opinion." This is exactly the point I've been trying to make in my "Imus conversations" (of which there have been oh-so-many. I can talk about Imus all day! In my sleep, if I wanted to. It's like a superpower.) First Amendment rights pertain to government interference, not private sector. My question is: does this outrage mean Southerners will now vote for Obama? Because the States still seems pretty redneck-y to me. Just saying.(reply to this comment)

From My Opinion... Thursday, April 12, 2007, 22:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Speaking about opinions on Imus, here is what Snoop Dogg had to say about the whole shebang: http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/04/12/snoop-dogg-weighs-in-on-this-whole-don-imus-situation/(reply to this comment)

From madly Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 07:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Well… let me think about this… I am all for free speech and I am all about seeing assholes get what they have coming to them… so I guess either way, I could really care less. (reply to this comment)

From madly Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 07:58 (Agree/Disagree?) ... or maybe a better way to word it would have been: I don't really care, because either way, I am covered.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 04:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Cruel and mean for no apparant reason is the only thing that passes for amusing nowadays, so in a sense he was just doing his job... Nice and sweet for no apparant reason makes me gag, so I'm not gonna tell someone to shut up for being mean and obnoxious. I don't think it was used in the way racist slurs have appeared on this site. I mean, I can understand why some people would be offended, and I think the persons who the comment was aimed at have every right to take offense. Those who weren't called names have no business getting butt hurt over it, in my not so humble opinion.(reply to this comment)

From madly Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 04:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Maybe so... but that doesn't change the fact that he is an ass... has been and always will be and I guess it takes one to know one. :P(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 04:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Eish, all this talk of ass is making me lank jags. You figure that out.(reply to this comment)

From madly Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 05:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Hmmmm…not sure… but let me take a wild guess: I tell you, all this talk of ass is making me very horny? How did I do?(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 05:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Very good, you get a cardboard star in your paper crown.(reply to this comment)

From madly Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 05:11 (Agree/Disagree?) damn... that is all I get? That sucks... you suck.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 05:10 (Agree/Disagree?) But in this case, "Eish" is more like "shit" or "sheesh".(reply to this comment)

From madly Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 05:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Eish, I am going to bed... this isn't worth my time with the kind of prizes you are passing out.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 05:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, I was going to give you a sybian, but thought I'd keep it for blade. :p Sleep well.(reply to this comment)

From madly Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 05:27 (Agree/Disagree?) You are just being cruel and mean for no apparent reason... and we are back...(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 05:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Finally! I was wondering when this was going to end. Good night, Madly.(reply to this comment)

from rainy Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 03:03 (Agree/Disagree?) I understand how it's sexist, but how is it racist? Oh, never mind, never heard of the guy anyway. (reply to this comment)

from cheeks Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 20:07 (Agree/Disagree?) I have two thoughts about the issue. I do believe it was racist, I think there is only one way to take nappy headed hoes and that is as a racist comment. Perhaps he didn't mean to come off that way but that is the way it came across. As a woman I take offense to it. These basket ball players have worked very had to get to where they are now and as a women i commend them for everything they have done to make it. My second thought is what the hell is Rev Sharpton doing getting involved, who died and made him king for god sake? Why does he need to represent, can't they speak for themselves? As a Christian I think he needs to go back to the Bible and reread James, judge not lest thou be judged. As a white person I think there is just as much racism aimed towards me as there is racism aimed at the black community. What about all the black newspapers and magazines. Why can't we have a white magazine, or a white newspaper. Because the black community would be in an uproar. We would never hear the end of it. What about shows like Chappelle? What if white people made fun of black people like he did? There would be an uprising. There is a double standard that is allowed in America. I am not a racist person, I don't dislike black people anymore than I dislike anyone else. I dislike racist commets because it shows ignorance and intollerance. We here in America prize our so called freedom of speech yet when someone uses that right we want to fire him. I say let him have his time out so he can gain a life lesson from this and sort out his issues. Let us stand behind our freedom of speech and allow him to continue just as we allow Al sharpton and Chappelle to continue. (reply to this comment)

From afflick Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 03:51 (Agree/Disagree?) I was at Boston's Logan airport a few years ago, browsing through magazines while waiting for my flight when someone approached the newstand next to me. I overheard, "Yeah, we'll do it at Diddy's house." Since there is only one "Diddy" I looked over. Sure enough, it was Al Sharpton standing next to me, flipping through Vogue while on his cell.(reply to this comment)

from PopNFresh Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 19:58 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't know much about Imus, I don't listen to him. But I agree with you 100% on Rev. Al Sharpton. He is a racist hypocrite, and I wish more people could see that. He always turns everything into a race issue and has no sympathy for any other culture or issue that doesn't promote his agenda. What Imus said is an insult to the individuals on whatever team he was talking about. I think it's going out of proportion to turn this into a race thing. And I really hate how Al Sharpton is the person who everyone has to go to for forgiveness. The South Park episode about the "n" word was dead on in mocking that whole idea. (reply to this comment)

from steam Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 15:30 (Agree/Disagree?) I haven't read enough to form any solid opinion, but I did hear an african american on cnbc mentioning that he fought hard after katrina to help down there, and repeatedly said that he felt the initial lack of concern by govt was partially due to racism. THe guy was trying to say he felt that Don had done a lot for the african american community. (reply to this comment)

from conan Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 14:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Don Imus is a racist bigot and has been his entire life. This is not the first incident where he's been held in contempt by the African American community or the general public. He will apologize, serve his suspension, and then continue to be the same arrogant, racist, narrow minded asshole that he has been his entire radio career. What's wrong is that people like you think that in this day and age, racism is OK if it isn't said with legitimate intent to hurt or belittle. Don Imus deserves to be suspended indefinitely and I for one would not miss him if he were fired and taken off the air for good. (reply to this comment)

from afflick Tuesday, April 10, 2007 - 14:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Typical white male response. (reply to this comment)

From stop and think Tuesday, April 10, 2007, 18:37 (Agree/Disagree?) I would actually consider your resorting to the white-male criticism "typical." If Akon says it in a rap song it is ok but when a stupid comedy show says it its wrong? Whats the difference? Beyond that, isn't both "nappyhead" and "ho" more of a sexist slur than racist? Shouldn't all female athletes be the ones protesting, not Al Sharpton?(reply to this comment)

From afflick Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 03:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, by using that particular criticism in this situation, I was attempting some irony and humor. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Tuesday, April 10, 2007, 19:07 (Agree/Disagree?) I had that thought too. And it doesn't look like the athletes are upset about possible racist connotations, but rather have been pointing out that they are hard working women who deserve respect. Try as he may, Al Sharpton is no MLK or Malcom X.(reply to this comment)

From stop and think Tuesday, April 10, 2007, 19:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Apparently, though the are angry about it, they've not called for his firing. Athletes should be better at understanding the nature of entertainment and namecalling in sports. Would a men's basketball team be calling for Stern's resignation if after a loss he said they looked like a bunch of soft pussies?? Again, if he meant something racially disparaging, it should be addressed, but as Howard Stern also says, this was just a stupid joke by a crazy old man(reply to this comment)

From cheeks Tuesday, April 10, 2007, 20:10 (Agree/Disagree?) So why are you not using your name when you post your comments? Stand up and be proud of what you have to say.(reply to this comment)

From stop and think Thursday, April 12, 2007, 13:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Need I really explain to you the benefits of anonymity? In my case, its because I plan on running for office(reply to this comment)

From afflick Tuesday, April 10, 2007, 16:13 (Agree/Disagree?) It has been interesting to me to see how the MSM has focused only on the racial aspects of this story. Calling these women atheletes "whores" (or "ho" to use the venacular) for losing to another college team doesn't make sense. How, exactly, are they whores? They are not whores, they are college students. They are women college students and basketball players. Not whores. I think the media didn't take notice of the last part of Imus's sentence is because somehow in our society, it is okay to call high-profile women whores to denegrate them. While racism is addressed by civil rights leaders, I have not seen anyone champion women in this way. As a strong women, I will continue to live my life to its fullest. If I take your job, do well in a competitive situation, or raise my head above the crowd, I am not a whore. I am a women who suceeds.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Tuesday, April 10, 2007, 16:53 (Agree/Disagree?) This brings us back to the 'is "whore" sexist' debate that went on a while ago. I theorise that the reason "whore" has been used to describe successful women owes partly to the brief period where only women who whored could make it through the ceiling. Women on lower tiers used to call the women who made it upwards "whore", so that usage wasn't exclusively a produce of chauvinist males.(reply to this comment)

From lettucehead Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 00:35 (Agree/Disagree?) "Produce" of chauvinist males or not, in such usages it can still be considered sexist.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 01:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Regardless of whatever use, some will consider the term itself sexist. If one whores him/herself to get ahead, he/she could rightly be called a whore, and it isn't exactly a sexist term. But if used against a woman, it could be interpreted as such, by some. (reply to this comment)

From Falcon Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 02:18 (Agree/Disagree?) In a certain sense, the word "whore" is used rather ambivalently, and for either sex, i.e. 'He's a publicity whore", or 'She's an attention-seeking whore". So Oddman is correct in that regard.(reply to this comment)

From that certain sense Thursday, April 12, 2007, 14:28 (Agree/Disagree?) The usage you cite is rather new.(reply to this comment)

From Phoenixkidd Wednesday, April 11, 2007, 07:47 (Agree/Disagree?) I couldn't care less about it! There's too much focus on this and plenty of people who want to argue their point and create a scene. (reply to this comment)