"You can't speak to us like that, you work for us," Crow claims to haveRead that exchange carefully. No matter what the Foxie say about SHeryl and her cockamamie idea about TP, iis the utter outright arrogance of this POS.. Herr Rove.
"I don't work for you, I work for the American people," says Rove.
"We are the American people," says Crow.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Friday, April 27, 2007
WOR-AM/New York has had a storied history or taking in....shall we say...distressed properties. If you remember Bob Grant making a rather inappropiate remark about a place crash that killed African-American Commerce Seretary Ron Brown in 1996, WOR hired him after being fired at WABC. he lasted at 'OR for 10 years.
WOR currently runs a unremarkable morning show co-hosted by Donna Hanover, the artist formerly know as Mrs. Rudy Guliani. Moving the I-Man in that slot would be instant publicity for a popular station in search of an identity.
Plus WOR has its own radio network.....one starving for programming. Its only marquee host is Dr. Joy Brown. Thier late-night attraction, Lionel, is about to do mornings at Air America, so WOR Radio Net offering IMUS would be a much needed jolt to the system
Fox offer more options for Imus. Obviously, a simulcast on FNC (it does seem that Fox has been wooing Imus, with many positive mentions on O'Reilly, H&C, etc. A simulcast would also rid the world of that gawdawful POS Fox and Friends.
Also there is Fox regular, FX, and maybe MyNetwork where a morning show/simulcast could be developed. AND FNC has its radio network up and running. One thing, FNC does not own any radio statins in NYC.
And finally, Imus can retreat to the oasis satellite. His brother works the Outlaw Country channel. His old CBS boss, Mel Karmazin, runs the outfit (BTW, had Mel remained at CBS, Imus would be on the air today). No censorship. And many Imus followers are willing to shell out $13 a month for thier hero. They do for Howard. That could be the problem. There is still no lovelost between Imus and Stern. This could make the guys at tmz.com bristle with anticipation.
Your job....these people need to know that there is a ready-made audience just waiting for someone to make a bold move.
Scott Lakefield, Asst PD, WOR radio, 111 Broadway 3rd fkoor, New York, NY 10006 (212) 642-4500 firstname.lastname@example.org.
Fox News: YourComments@foxnews.com
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
To me, as a black man, this Imus thing has been solely about one thing....freedom of speech. That freedom is one of the things that, until recently, made this country unique in all the world. It is now very apparent that this freedom is gone.
We have abdicated our rights to small groups of people who claim to speak for us. We have allowed corporate lawyers to circumvent our rights to disseminate information in the way we see fit. But most importantly, we have allowed our society.....out vibrant, profane, erotic, outrageous, alive society....to become the bland , grey, lifeless hell.
I have called it the Melba Toasting of America, because our society is like that odious dish, then, crisp, with no flavor. We have all...or almost all..become, in a sense, sheep. Some by choice, some forced into it. However, we have become sheep.
And it has become clear as day to me. Fall in line, or disappear. Don Imus has disappeared, completely as of Friday. Soon Rosie will disappear (http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2007/04/rosie_odonnell_.html). Several others, real or fictional, have been forced into the closet.
Soon we will all wear the same clothes, the same hair, read the same book, listen to the same song, and all wear the same blank expression. We will dutifully say the line carefully written for us, buy what we have been told to buy, and paired off based on who we have assigned to be mated. And with few exceptions, none of us will realize what has happened.
So to those who have read and listened, I thank you. To those who supported, thank you more. Soon, I may be the only person saying these things. I have lost good friend because of the Imus controversy, but right is right.
But like I said, the orders from on high are Fall In or Disappear. And if for some reason I kinda drop off the face of the earth............well, you'll know.
At least I hope you will.
Rosie Falls from View
By by Gina Serpe Today at 1:10 am
After one season, four public feuds, a few hundred thousand viewers and countless headlines, Rosie O'Donnell is calling it a day on daytime.
The larger than life View cohost announced on Wednesday morning's show that her first season as moderator of the femme-fueled coffee klatch would also be her last, with her tenure scheduled to end in mid-June.
"This has been an amazing experience and one I wouldn't have traded for the world," O'Donnell said. "Working with Barbara, Joy and Elisabeth has been one of the highlights of my careers, but my needs for the future just didn't dovetail with what ABC was able to offer me."
ABC confirmed that the departure was not due to O'Donnell's high-profile wars of words with the likes of Donald Trump, Kelly Ripa, Bill O'Reilly and the Chinese-American population, but rather on the network and O'Donnell's inability to come to an agreement on a one-year contract extension.
Barbara Walters, O'Donnell's boss, cohost and unwitting Trump feud participant, stressed that the split was an amicable one, despite the Koosh ball-loving TV vet's outspokenness over the past year.
"I induced Rosie to come back to television on The View even for just one year," Walters said. "She has given the program new vigor, new excitement and wonderful hours of television. I can only be grateful to her for this year.
"We will all miss Rosie on The View and hope she will be back with us often next season. She remains for me a cherished friend and colleague."
Reports of O'Donnell's exit strategy surfaced almost immediately after she first took over for Meredith Vieira ast September. Aside from only being contracted to head up the show for one year, there were persistent rumors of potential prime-time gigs (i.e., a full-time part on Nip/Tuck). And she seemed to be racking up more enemies than Star Jones did wedding freebies.
But all the controversy didn't hurt. The View's viewership has been up throughout Rosie's run, including a more than 15 percent year-to-year increase during February's all important sweeps, and the numbers continue to climb. The O'Donnell-powered show is also vying for Outstanding Talk Show and Outstanding Talk Show Hosts at Daytime Emmys on June 5.
Despite the success, O'Donnell has hinted that her View sojourn would be brief. In comments on her punctuation-averse blog, she admitted she was having difficulty making the transition from solo host to one of four opinionated personalities.
As recently as Tuesday, O'Donnell hinted that the end was nigh in a video blog posted to rosie.com, saying, seemingly out of nowhere while answering viewer queries: "Listen, the blog's gonna continue. Remember that. It's not going away."
Earlier this month, the Los Angeles Times said that an announcement on O'Donnell's future was imminent, after a reporter overheard O'Donnell field a question about her future on the show with an audience member.
When asked whether she would continue airing her grievances, and interviewing celebs, on the morning staple, O'Donnell reportedly told the audience member, "I don't know. We're going to have a family meeting at the end of May to see what's going on, and every kid gets a vote."
Apparently, the vote took place a little sooner than expected.
ABC said it has no current plans to name a new cohost.
And you say I am paranoid.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
From FatNeck (Donald Wildmon of the American Family ASSociation, for all you newbies):
Tell radio stations to drop music demeaning race, degrading women
Roberts Broadcasting Company has already banned their radio stations from playing all music degrading women and others in communities where they air hip-hop music. Ask others to do likewise.
After the Don Imus episode in which Imus, a radio host, was fired for referring to the Rutgers women's basketball team a bunch of "nappy-headed hos," at least one broadcaster has decided his company is going to do the right thing. "I am announcing, effective immediately, that music degrading women and other members of our community will no longer be played" on his stations, said Michael V. Roberts Sr., CEO of Roberts Broadcasting Company. Rather than simply censoring vulgar words in songs, "We're going to ban them altogether, which is a hard move for a hip-hop station. If it's offensive in any way toward women, toward African Americans, it's not going to be played" on his stations, Roberts said. Meanwhile, all the major stations continue to play offensive music. While issuing platitudes about how they are acting very responsibly in selecting what is aired on their stations, they keep airing trash because money is more important to them than our children and a decent society. It is nothing more than a hypocritical stand by these companies. To read Roberts Broadcasting Company's internal memo on the decision, click here.
After the Don Imus episode in which Imus, a radio host, was fired for referring to the Rutgers women's basketball team a bunch of "nappy-headed hos," at least one broadcaster has decided his company is going to do the right thing.
"I am announcing, effective immediately, that music degrading women and other members of our community will no longer be played" on his stations, said Michael V. Roberts Sr., CEO of Roberts Broadcasting Company.
Rather than simply censoring vulgar words in songs, "We're going to ban them altogether, which is a hard move for a hip-hop station. If it's offensive in any way toward women, toward African Americans, it's not going to be played" on his stations, Roberts said.
Meanwhile, all the major stations continue to play offensive music. While issuing platitudes about how they are acting very responsibly in selecting what is aired on their stations, they keep airing trash because money is more important to them than our children and a decent society. It is nothing more than a hypocritical stand by these companies.
To read Roberts Broadcasting Company's internal memo on the decision, click here.
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
I am at a point in all this where I am just ready to say chuck it all. I mean, if everybody is willing to give up thier right to make a decision about what offends them or not, maybe I should too. Maybe I should join the rest of the morons and say, ok...Donald Wildmon and Al Sharpton and Fox News and Air America and all these little groups should do my thinking for me and and I should spend the rest of my days saying yessir/nosir and follow the script and not rock the boat because, God damn it, NOBODY ELSE F*CKIN' WILL!!!!!
I mean, what is it going to take? Someone taking away your blog or The View being cancelled or yor talk station starting to play oldies or F'king American I-DULL 5 days a week for you to get the f'king message??? YOUR RIGHT TO THINK is beingtaken away from you.....if you think at all. And you sit on your asses and DO NOTHING????
There are days when the dear of death, the greatest fear I have, is the only thing keeping me from ending it all, because this castrated world I am forced to exist in is one I cannot live in.
As if any of you care.
Monday, April 23, 2007
By MICHAEL C. DORF
Monday, Apr. 23, 2007
In the popular debate over the decision of CBS and MSNBC to fire Don Imus, libertarians have occasionally invoked the First Amendment in Imus's defense. Others have responded that CBS and MSNBC did not violate the First Amendment, because the First Amendment does not apply to private corporations.
The response is correct as a technical matter. With the exception of the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition on slavery, the Constitution only restricts government. But the libertarians are also correct, at least if we understand their point loosely.
We have a First Amendment because we value freedom of speech (as well as freedom of the press and of religious conscience). As experience under totalitarian regimes demonstrates, government censorship poses by far the greatest threat to free expression.
However, private conduct can also threaten freedom of speech, and when it does, those who value free speech are right to worry. In this column, I argue that the sort of "secondary boycott" that resulted in the dismissal of Imus poses a serious threat to the spirit of the First Amendment.
Although the damage has already been done to Imus and his listeners, it is not too late for free expression more broadly. Boycotts have been threatened against the sponsors of Rosie O'Donnell, Al Sharpton, various rap musicians, and others. Whatever one thinks about the views of such speakers, free speech itself will be the loser if Americans embark upon a series of boycotts and counter-boycotts.
Free Speech Includes Freedom to Offend
Although it should hardly be necessary, I'll begin with a disclaimer. I found Imus's racist and sexist remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team deeply offensive, both as a citizen and as a former member of the Rutgers faculty. I am sure that I would have also been offended by his numerous racist, sexist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic statements over the years had I ever listened to his show.
Accordingly, I have no personal stake in the Imus case.
But of course free speech means free speech for everyone, whether you agree or disagree with the message. Indeed, some of the most important Supreme Court decisions protecting free speech have featured unpopular speakers with offensive messages. For example, the leading decision establishing a right to avoid prosecution for mere advocacy, the 1969 ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio, invalidated the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who had presided over a cross-burning at which racist and anti-Semitic statements were made.
Likewise, many patriotic Americans find the deliberate burning of a U.S. flag deeply offensive. Yet, as the Supreme Court explained in its 1989 decision in Texas v. Johnson, mere offense does not warrant censorship. As Justice Brennan explained in his opinion for a majority of the Court: "The way to preserve the flag's special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters. It is to persuade them that they are wrong."
Does the Dismissal of Imus Constitute "More Speech?"
That point was put most eloquently by Justice Brandeis in a concurrence in the 1927 case of Whitney v. California. He wrote "that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones."
Ay, there's the rub, say those who applaud the decisions of CBS and MSNBC. These erstwhile Imus employers were persuaded to fire him by the good speech of those offended by Imus's bad speech. That's the marketplace of ideas in action, isn't it?
No, it isn't. The Brandeisian maxim would counsel CBS and MSNBC's allowing those who oppose racism and sexism to address their pro-equality message to Imus's listeners, in an effort to persuade them that their message is more valuable than Imus's message. Instead, those who objected to Imus's comments coerced CBS and MSNBC--and the corporate sponsors of "Imus in the Morning"--to silence Imus.
The Secondary Boycott Analogy: Going After Imus's Sponsors
Federal antitrust and labor law provide a useful parallel. For the most part, unionized workers have the right to strike against employers over wages and working conditions. However, federal law also prohibits most "secondary boycotts."
What is a secondary boycott? An example illustrates the concept. Suppose that contract negotiations between an apparel manufacturer and its union have stalled. If the union strikes against the manufacturer, that is a primary boycott. But suppose that the union wants to increase its leverage against the manufacturer. It might picket or otherwise target companies that do business with the manufacturer, such as retail stores that sell the manufacturer's brand of clothes. That would be a secondary boycott.
The law generally forbids secondary boycotts because they can be unduly coercive. When workers strike against their own employer, they are exercising their right to withhold their labor. But when they strike against third parties, they target entities that have no direct stake in the underlying dispute.
Moreover, there is no logical stopping point to a secondary boycott. Why not also strike against those who do business with those who do business with the offending employer? The logic of the secondary boycott soon leads to tertiary boycotts, quaternary boycotts, and pretty soon to a general strike that shuts down the entire economy.
Why the Secondary Boycott of Imus is Especially Troubling
Imus was dismissed because of the perceived threat of a secondary boycott. People offended by Imus's speech threatened to stop buying products sold by companies that purchased commercial advertising time on his show--purely and solely because those advertisers were doing business with Imus. (Or at least, that's what the advertisers understood. To the extent that the advertisers and networks acted precipitously, however, they were undoubtedly anticipating a secondary boycott.)
To be sure, the legal prohibition of secondary boycotts does not apply to everyone. It is a rule that is peculiar to the labor context. Should its logic be extended to cover the Imus case? That might depend on whether one thinks the secondary boycott prohibition is appropriate even in the labor area.
As it happens, the prohibition of secondary boycotts is controversial even in the labor setting, because it often implicates the right of free speech. Some labor law scholars distinguish between coercive boycotts and persuasive ones. For example, based on what they learn from union activities, customers of a large retailer may not wish to purchase goods from a store that is supplied by sweatshop labor. Prohibiting secondary picketing under such circumstances looks a lot like prohibiting the union's ability to speak to and persuade customers.
But even if one thinks that labor law unduly restricts secondary boycotts, one should still be especially worried about the secondary boycott in the Imus case. The workers striking against my hypothetical garment manufacturer and clothing retailer object to ordinary business practices that have no special place in our constitutional order--the paying of allegedly substandard wages, for example.
By contrast, the people who (implicitly) threatened not to purchase goods and services from the companies that advertised on "Imus in the Morning" were themselves opposed to speech. At bottom, they wanted to use their power in the ordinary market for goods and services to shut down what they deemed an offensive transaction between a speaker and willing listeners in the marketplace of ideas. Thus, far from undercutting the rationale for prohibiting secondary boycotts, in the Imus case, the principle of free speech lends force to that rationale.
Government Action Formalism
To be clear, I do not contend that the law does or should prohibit people who are offended by a speaker's offensive statements from urging the speaker's employer to take away his microphone. The employer itself has a right of free speech, and by analogy to the argument we considered in the labor context, third parties might persuade the employer that it does not want the speaker's message to reflect on the employer itself. Such persuasion, as opposed to coercion, would--like a primary boycott--be legitimate.
Furthermore, a legal prohibition on secondary boycotts beyond the labor context would be impossible to enforce, except at great cost to free speech itself. Law enforcement authorities could hardly track down, much less prosecute, everybody who refused to purchase goods or services from the sponsors of a targeted speaker, while prosecuting the organizers of such a boycott would infringe their free speech rights.
But the fact that the law should not intervene to stop secondary boycotts targeted at offensive speakers does not mean that such boycotts pose no threat to free speech. In fact, they pose a very serious threat.
Ours is a diverse society, in which many of us find the speech of others offensive. The standard and sensible approach of those who find someone else's message offensive is to change the channel. Once secondary boycotts become the rule, however, the likely result will be reluctance on the part of commercial advertisers to sponsor any but the most bland fare. Arguably, we have already moved too far in that direction.
Nor do subscription services like HBO and satellite radio provide a complete answer to secondary boycotts, because millions of people cannot afford to, or simply choose not to, purchase these services. Meanwhile, Internet-based alternatives are themselves heavily dependent on commercial advertising for their revenue--and thus are also vulnerable to secondary boycotts.
At bottom, the secondary boycott of Imus and the threatened boycott of others indicate a failure of our constitutional culture. Thus it may be worth recalling the words of the great federal judge Learned Hand. Hand was, in my view, unduly pessimistic about the power of courts to affect social change. But he was undoubtedly right about the big picture when he famously wrote: "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."
Or, to put the point less eloquently, if you don't like what you hear, just change the channel.
Michael C. Dorf is the Isidor & Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law at Columbia University. He is the author of No Litmus Test: Law and Politics in the Twenty-First Century and he blogs at www.michaeldorf.org.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
He is optimistic—perhaps overly so, given the commercial pressures that
brought him down—about the future. In an e-mail to NEWSWEEK, Imus said, "I could
go to work tomorrow. Bigger deal. More money. TV simulcast ...
In fact, unknown to Imus, one of his most loyal listeners in Washington,
D.C., was watching, and taping, the show every day for just that reason: to make
a record of everything Imus said. But 26-year-old Ryan Chiachiere wasn't a fan,
and he wasn't tuning in to be entertained. Chiachiere is one of a handful of
young activists who spend their days wading through hours of radio and cable
shows for Media Matters for America, a liberal group whose sole purpose is
rooting out and "correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
Wired on coffee, Chiachiere was watching a recording of Imus's show when he
noticed the "hos" remark.
It was a big hit at the group's morning meeting. The Rutgers players
weren't well-fed journalists or posturing politicians, public figures who could
fend for themselves. They were just a hardworking team of young women who had
done nothing to draw his ire but play college basketball while being black.
"They weren't involved in any barroom brawls. They weren't part of this
conversation and they didn't ask for this," says Jeff Greenfield, now of CBS, a
political analyst and longtime Imus guest who says he appreciated the "weird"
mix of high and low. "It was a crude slur, and it was also cruel. That's what
tipped this whole thing over."
The group posted a video clip of the exchange on its Web site and put
it up on YouTube. It sent e-mails to journalists and civil-rights and women's
The word, and the outrage, spread quickly.
According to European reports of the events surrounding Don Imus that have
gripped the United States this past week, it was during an interview with
another American media personality, Tim Russert, who is the host of a television
programme frequently used by US War Leaders, wherein while decrying the state of
care being given to American War wounded stated, "So those bastards want to keep
these boys [in reference to US Soldiers] secret? Let's see how they like it if I
start talking about their [in reference to US War Leaders] secrets, starting
Unable to attack such a powerful media figure as Don Imus, directly, the US
War Leaders, and as we have seen many times before, resorted to a massive media
attack against him using as the reason a racial slur against a US woman's
basketball team, but which has been pointed out by other media outlets was not
by any means a rare occurrence for the legendary radio icon to make.
But, to the US War Leaders, Don Imus represented the most serious
threat, to date, of the growing assault against them by America's media
personalities threatening to expose the truths behind the events of September
11, 2001 and the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars; and to such an extent that another
American media personality, Rosie O'Donnell, has expressed concern that US
Military Leaders could actually imprison Mr. Imus.
Jesse Jackson gets bomb threats over Imus caseLovely.
April 15, 2007
BY DAVE NEWBART Staff
The Rev. Jesse Jackson has been hit with a series of bomb threats since
leading a charge to get shock jock Don Imus fired.
Jackson said he fielded a call Saturday morning urging him to "watch
his back" and warning him to stay away from Rainbow/PUSH headquarters on the
Friday, a Jackson staffer took a call from someone who claimed to have
planted a bomb at the headquarters at 50th and Drexel. The building was
evacuated about 12:30 p.m., and police swept the building with bomb-sniffing
dogs. Nothing was found.
Jackson said he has received 10 to 12 threats starting Wednesday or
Thursday. The calls have gone to his office, his home and his cell phone.
Although he hasn't fielded most of the calls, he said he believes there are
different people behind them.
A police spokeswoman said an investigation is ongoing.
In New York, meanwhile, WCBSTV.com reported the Rev. Al Sharpton has
also received death threats after criticizing Imus.
from now on i will not raise my voice
about this criminal administration
i am sick of screaming IMPEACH
Music lyrics take spotlight following Imus controversy: http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6368690&nav=menu36_3
Imus Aftermath; Ministers Blame Rap Music: http://www.ktvu.com/news/12068765/detail.html
Imus firing sparks assault on rap: http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/arts/story.html?id=cdc3dd04-524b-4f48-b9de-3464c789c0b2victoriatimescolonist/news/arts/story.html?id=cdc3dd04-524b-4f48-b9de-3464c789c0b2
I MET Imus on the gangplank of Noah's Ark. He was then and remains today a
truth-seeking missile with the best bull-meter in the business.
Far from being a bully, he was a spiritual chop-buster never afraid to
go after the big guys with nothing but the slingshot of ragged integrity. I
watched him over the years as he struggled with his demons and conquered them.
This was not surprising to me.
Imus came from the Great Southwest, where the men are men and the emus
are nervous. And he did it all with something that seems, indeed, to be a rather
scarce commodity these days. A sense of humor.
There's no excusing Imus' recent ridiculous remark, but there's
something not kosher in America when one guy gets a Grammy and one gets fired
for the same line.
The Matt Lauers and Al Rokers of this world live by the cue-card and
die by the cue-card; Imus is a rare bird, indeed - he works without a net. When
you work without a net as long as Imus has, sometimes you make mistakes.
Wavy Gravy says he salutes mistakes. They're what makes us human, he
claims. And humanity beyond doubt, is what appears to be missing from this
equation. If we've lost the ability to laugh at ourselves, to laugh at each
other, to laugh together, then the PC world has succeeded in diminishing us all.
Political correctness, a term first used by Joseph Stalin, has
trivialized, sanitized and homogenized America, transforming us into a nation of
chain establishments and chain people.
Take heart, Imus. You're merely
joining a long and legendary laundry list of individuals who were summarily
sacrificed in the name of society's sanctimonious soul: Socrates, Jesus,
Galileo, Joan of Arc, Mozart and Mark Twain, who was decried as a racist until
the day he died for using the N-word rather prolifically in "Huckleberry Finn."
Speaking of which, there will always be plenty of Al Sharptons and
Jesse Jacksons around. There will be plenty of cowardly executives, plenty of
fair-weather friends, and plenty of Jehovah's Bystanders, people who believe in
God but just don't want to get involved. In this crowd, it could be argued that
we need a Don Imus just to wake us up once in a while.
There probably isn't a single one of Imus' vocal critics who come
anywhere close to matching his record of philanthropy or good acts on this
Judge a man by the size of his enemies, my father used to say. A man
who, year after year, has raised countless millions of dollars and has fought
hand-to-hand to combat against childhood cancer, autism, and SIDS - well, you've
got a rodeo clown who not only rescues the cowboy, but saves the children as
I believe New York will miss its crazy cowboy and America will miss the
voice of a free-thinking independent-minded, rugged individualist. I believe
MSNBC will lose many viewers and CBS radio many listeners.
Too bad for them. That's what happens when you get rid of the only guy
you've got who knows how to ride, shoot straight and tell the truth.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Monday, April 09, 2007
Don Imus: "On Friday I apologized for some remarks that I made and others made,
but particularly ones that I made on this program to the Women's basketball team
at Rutgers University and it was a straight-forward apology that Charles and I
wrote and I didn't offer any--I didn't think it was necessary to offer any
excuse, nor I don't think there is now, I didn't think there was any need for me
to put into any sort of context what happens on this program, because I am
unwisely, just assumed that everybody knows, and obviously they don't and I
didn't think it was important to talk about what I do with my life, what my wife
does with her life and who I am because I thought it was important that I
apologize to these young women and to that coach and to their parents and to you
for what I said, and so that's what I did, and that was before any newspaper
articles, that was the first opportunity that I had, and I may discuss that
with--well it depends on what Reverend Sharpton asks, but I'm going to appear on
Reverend Al Sharpton's radio program this afternoon, it's not, I'm not sure what
time, it's not broadcast in New York, but it's broadcast all over the country
and you all can hear it at http://www.sharptontalk.net/, s-h-a-r-p-t-o-n,
sharptontalk.net on the computer deal. So, I apologized on Friday and there was
a barrage, as you perhaps know of newspaper articles over the weekend and some
this morning, and a number of prominent people calling for me to be fired and so
on, and so I have a responsibility this morning to provide some context and
proportionality to who I am and what I do. And, I don't want anybody to think
that this--that I'm trying to weasel out of these remarks or that this is some
kind of excuse because there isn't any excuse for what I said. And I don't--I'm
not inclined to try to weasel out of these comments which is why when I reached
out to Reverend Sharpton and he invited me on his program I’m grateful that he's
allowing me to come talk to him and his audience. He's still calling for me to
be fired and that's his right, but at least he's going to let me talk to him so.
These young women at Rutgers, they don't know who I am, I mean they pick the
paper up and they don't know--they don't know whether I'm some right wing racist
nut, whether I was angry, whether it was some kind of diatribe, whether I was
drunk, they don't know whether I just came on the radio and said, 'Hey the young
women of Rutgers are yadayada.' So let me provide a context briefly for them,
not as an excuse, not that this makes it okay, nothing makes this okay, but
there's a difference between pre-meditated murder and an accidental--on the gun
going off accidentally. I mean somebody still gets shot, but the charges are
dramatically different. This program has been for thirty, or thirty-five years a
program that makes fun of everybody. It makes fun of me, and it makes fun of
everybody on the planet, and sometimes it makes fun of me to a vicious
standpoint. Does that mean I get to say something about the Rutgers women? Of
course not, but that's the context in which we operate here. Is it appropriate?
Well, we'll talk about that a little later, because that's got to change, some
of that, because some people don't deserve to be made fun of like these young
women who played for the national championship of basketball, they played for
the national championship, they beat Duke, and then they played Tennessee in the
national championship, they don't need me to try to be funny about that.
And--but they, they don't know that I was trying to be funny; they don't know
what this program is about. I mean, because I call my wife the 'Green Ho' does
that mean, does that mean I can call--of course not. I mean that's a repugnant
suggestion to suggest that I think because we make fun of everybody, or because
I get made fun of that it's okay to make fun of them, because it's not okay to
make fun of them, but that's what we do and that's the context. So I want
these--and I reached out, and I have, I've talked to Reverend DeForest Soaries
last night for forty-five minutes and I had a great conversation with him, he's
calling for me to be fired, but he's a decent, brilliant man and a great
Evangelist and he said, I believe you and he said, you know--you don't need
a--we don't need a come to Jesus situation here. He said you know what the
enigma of this--the tragedy is, he said, that I believe you, that you're a good
man. He said, and you said this, you said this, what are they saying? Well he
named a couple of people I won't name, but what are the people over there on the
right saying? And he said, you know at the core of every black person, he said,
you have to understand this, they believe that white people don't like them, and
they believe that no matter how good a white person is that at some point it
comes out, like it came out with you, and that just confirms what they think.
And if you'll say this, what will they say? And so I want these--I've asked
these, the Reverend DeForest Soaries to see if these young women will allow me
to come apologize to them and their families and their coach, and he said he
will work on that and at 10:30 Saturday night I talked to Bob Mulcahy, he was
the athletic director, he's a lovely guy, I talked to Harold Ford all weekend
and I talked to Phil Griffin, God bless him--actually reached out to Reverend
Sharpton when I asked him to and told Reverend Sharpton that well I wanted to
talk with him, and so this is how that came about. These young women also need
to know, not as an excuse, and not after what I'm going to say now do I expect
these young women to say oh well he works with black children or he has black
friends, that means he can say this. That's not what I am saying but they need
to know that I am a good person who said a bad thing and there's a big
difference. We have a ranch in New Mexico for kids with cancer and blood
disorders and so on and it opened, we founded it, it's been almost 10 years and
half, nearly half of the kids who come there are from minority groups, Native
Americans, Hispanic, Asian American, an Asian American girl just won the Imus
ranch rodeo this past spring, African American, ten percent of the kids who come
to our ranch are African American, I am not a white man who doesn't know any
African Americans and these, my wife and I, Deirdre Imus we run this ranch. We
don't have counselors, the whole basis of this ranch is these parents from all
over this country and all over the world, they send their children to this ranch
because they know that my wife and I are going to be their parents for 10 days.
They live in the house with us. They eat with us. They're with us 24 hours a
day. There is not an African American parent on the planet who has sent their
child to the Imus ranch who didn't trust me and trust my wife and when these
kids die we don't just go to the white kids funeral. Little Michael Morgan, god
bless him, he turned 17 years old on Christmas day, he died January 1st and my
wife and I of course went to his funeral, it was a home grown service down near
Philadelphia, my wife who's from Connecticut (inaudible) ... he knew that we
loved him and he'd been to the ranch twice. Two years ago he came to ranch and
he desperately wanted to win that ranch belt buckle. He was terminal then and I
had the stop watch and I could have let him win, easily, but he would have known
that and I would have known that and so he was pissed at me and everybody else
because he didn't win and he came back last year, he came back last year and he
tried with all his heart to win and he didn't win again and I could have let him
win, well I wouldn't do that and he wouldn't have wanted me to do that and then
he went home and died on Christmas day so, and these kids come out there with
sickle cell anemia so I know African American children so I don't need to come
to Jesus experience and you might say well if that's all true why would you say
this? I don't know why I said it. I mean we were trying to be funny but does
that make it ok? Of course not. My wife and I were stunned this past summer at
the number of kids with sickle cell. I came on this radio program when I got
back talking about sickle cell, I talked to politicians about it. I said well
how much money is being spent on sickle cell, I don't know. And I asked doctors,
doctors at the ranch and others is there any research being done, nobody,
nobody, nobody called me, nobody called me. No black journalists called me.
Nobody ever called me about any of that so. My wife and I took a child with
sickle cell who we had to send home because he was so sick and so we had to take
him to the hospital which is 120 miles from the ranch, so we all got in the
pickup because he liked the pipes in the pickup and we roared on down with the
doc sitting in the back with one of those bag deals and we roared on down to the
University of New Mexico hospital, which is a marvelous place and Charlotte was
getting a hold of his mom, we were flying her out from New Jersey and so he was
holding my wife's hand because my wife was his surrogate mother for the time
being and he said am I going to die here? And she said no you are not and he did
not. And so that's when I came back and talked about this, does that, does that
mean that I should be forgiven for saying what I said about the Rutgers women?
That is not what this is about. But that's what I am about, because I am a good
person who said a bad thing. Do you want to know what people called me for
supporting Harold Ford Jr.? Do you want to know the mail I got, they called me
an N lover. Do you want to know what people said to me for the years that I
played Bishop Patterson's sermons? People told me that they didn't want to hear
that (pause), well you can imagine. Do you know what people said to me when I
booked the Blind Boys of Alabama here years ago and they have been on fairly
regularly ever since then, about what they said about them and about all the
African American musicians over the years who I've had on this program and so
on? Does that mean that it is ok for me to say what I said about these Rutgers
women? I hope you don't think that because I don't think that. So I am going to
go talk to these women if they'll let me and tell them what I have just told you
and what have I learned from this because Reverend DeForest Soaries said I want
you to tell me what you've learned. Here's what I've learned. That you can't
make fun of everybody because some people don't deserve it and because the
climate on this program has been what it's been for thirty years doesn't mean
that it has to be that way for the next five years or whatever because that has
to change, so, and I understand that. Wouldn't you think, our job at that ranch
is to restore the self esteem and the dignity and the confidence of these
children. Well why would I think then it's ok to go on the radio last Wednesday
and make fun of these kids who just played for the national championship. Well I
can't answer that. I'm sorry I did that. I'm embarrassed that I did that. I did
a bad thing but I am a good person and that will change."
I was all ready to defend Don Imus this morning. Not the statements about the Rutgers team, which, while not rising (or falling) to South Park level, were indefensible, but his right to say them and not get fired for it. That to me is censorship to demand Imus be fired.
Now the I-man is off to kiss the ring....and I would also assume the ass...of Al Sharpton.
Though I would have had some rudimentary respect for this call-to-be-canned, the fact that it comes from this baffoon is nausiating to say the least.
I am an African-Americam, old enough to remember when giants walked the Earth. Abernathy. Wilkins. Malcolm. King Sr. and Jr. Jessie in his bombastic prime. Coretta.
Al Sharpton is not fit to scrub thier underwear.
And for those who think (some already have) that I have morphed in to America's Favorite Cookie (TM), thankfully Wikipedia has lovingly chronicled some of Big Al's more unsavory adventures.....
Crown Height Riots
The Crown Heights Riot occurred after a car accident involving the motorcade for the Lubavitcher Rebbe killing a young boy Gavin Cato. A riot was sparked after a private Hasidic ambulance came to the scene and, on the orders of a police officer, removed the Hasidic driver from the scene. Gavin Cato and his cousin Angela were picked up soon after by a city ambulance. Caribbean-American and African-American residents of the neighborhood then rioted for four consecutive days fueled by rumors (in part driven by Sharpton), that the private ambulance had refused to treat Cato.
Al Sharpton became the de-facto representative for the Cato family. During the funeral he referred to "diamond merchants" considered a code word for Hasidic Jews  , for shedding "the blood of innocent babies" leading marchers shouting "No Justice No Peace". Sharpton did not start the riots but his rhetoric was seen as inflammatory and unhelpful in easing the tension between the black and Jewish communities. A visiting rabbinical student from Australia by the name of Yankel Rosenbaum, 29 years old, was killed during the rioting by a mob shouting "Kill the Jew".
Freddie's Fashion Mart
It is also alleged that after calling a Jewish shopkeeper a "white interloper," he looked on while an associate of his suggested the man's shop should be burned down. When a black member of the crowd did so, killing several people and himself, Sharpton initially denied having been present. When confronted with a video tape showing his presence, he said: "What's wrong with denouncing white interlopers?"
In November 2005, Sharpton appeared in advertisements for LoanMax, an automobile title loan company. Sharpton was criticized for appearing in the ads, as LoanMax has been accused of predatory lending charging fees, and for marketing them to primarily poor, urban and African American audiences. The ads featuring Sharpton were run in predominantly African American markets.
On December 7, 2005, Sharpton ended his relationship with LoanMax in a letter to Rod Aycox, LoanMax president and chief executive officer. The letter read, "I respectfully, but firmly decline your offer for further engagement on my part, and will not engage in any business relationship to promote auto lending with LoanMax." Sharpton said he had not done the research before agreeing to the commercials.
Oh......and I saved the best for last.....
Tawana Brawley Controversy
In the Tawana Brawley case, a 15-year-old black girl was found smeared with feces, lying in a garbage bag, her clothing torn and burned and with various slurs and epithets written on her body in charcoal. Brawley claimed that she had been assaulted and raped by six white men, some of them police officers, in the town of Wappingers Falls, New York.
Alton H. Maddox, C. Vernon Mason joined Sharpton in support of Brawley. A grand jury was convened; after seven months of examining police and medical records, the jury determined that Brawley lied about being assaulted by the police. Sharpton, Maddox and Mason were later successfully sued for statements made in connection with the case, and ordered to pay $345,000 in damages. All three falsely accused the case prosecutor, Steven Pagones, as being among those who abducted and raped Brawley.The jury found Sharpton liable for making seven defamatory statements about Pagones, Maddox for two and Mason for one.
This one is especially sickening because it did not do Black folks any good. We know there is racism, both blantant and non, still in this country. It does need to be weeded out. And I will even allow for Big Al not knowing the truth before he took on this. But at the point when he found out about the whole story, why didn't he bow out of the case? Why did he continue to make derogatory remarks? Why did he try to pin it on the prosecutor? And why, for God's sake, after all these years, has Al Sharpton not apologized to the black community for this? For actions that may have set back the Black cause by years?
Don Imus said a stupid thing. There was pressure. He apologized and promised to be a better person. That should have been the end of it. But here comes Sharpton, as big of a camera magnet as that other maggot Ann Colt-ter, preaching to the top of his lungs that Imus should be fired.
Hell, I might be the only black person who listens to the man. And I can't really, because there is not station in L. A. who will air him.
The bottom line is that he said that he is sorry and that should have been the end. Now it seems Imus is being forced into one of those insipid "apology tours," which is bad enough, but to have to do this in front of the man who is the living embodiment of that great fictional barrister, George "Kingfish" Stevens.
Sickening. We black people deserve better for representation. Much better.
FOR CHRST'S SAKES. Does ANYONE stand up to ANYONE anymore?? JESUS!