GonzoStyle Wrote:They make up 11% of the population and surprisingly in a poll today, 75% of people said he shouldnt be fired.

I'm just shocked that apparently nothing else in the world is more important right now, guess we must be pulling out of iraq and fixed the social security thing.

Bloody Anus Wrote:Every pro-Imus, anti-Sharpton opinion invariably includes some variation of “Imus said a stupid thing, but…,” or “I’m not defending what Imus said, but…” Well, guess what? There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with what Don Imus said. There have been countless controversies over things said on the radio, and who is always at the forefront of the controversy? The FCC. Where has the FCC been on this one? I’ve heard nothing of the FCC demanding Imus be fined or suspended or fired over his comments. Why? Because he didn’t say anything that you’re “not allowed” to say on the radio. Every news outlet from CNN to ESPN has been able to quote, verbatim, the phrase “nappy headed hos.” No expletives, no beeps, nothing. In this overly censored, restrictive country, how bad can a statement really be if not even the FCC finds it objectionable enough to take a stance on? How offensive can it be if Anderson Cooper or Wolf Blitzer or Dan Patrick are able to repeat it, uncensored, on the air? No, the only people that were up in arms demanding his firing were the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world.

CNN AND ESPN AREN'T REALLY UNDER THE FCC. THEY ARE CABLE CHANNELS THAT DON'T AIR OVER PUBLICLY OWNED WAVELENGTHS. WHETHER OR NOT ABC OR NBC AIRED THE SAME REMARKS WITHOUT CENSORING THEMSELVES, I DON'T KNOW, BUT IF THEY DID PROB WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER FOR YOUR ARGUMENT.

The rebuttal to the above paragraph is obvious. “Even if what he said didn’t contain any forbidden words, it was still racist and offensive.” Wrong. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with what Don Imus said. The problem lies not in what he said, but in the reaction to what he said. That is the root of the issue here; that is what needs to be examined and scrutinized. A 66 year old stranger makes a derogatory statement about you. A person you do not know, who knows nothing about you, calls you a fat stupid slob. The initial reaction would be to get upset, offended, or respond violently to this statement. But stop for a second; take a step back. Instead of feeding into his insults, think about them for a moment. Am I fat? No, I work out every day and eat right. Am I stupid? No, I have a college degree. Am I a slob? No, I am well groomed and keep my house spotless. So why would you take anything this stranger says about you seriously? Not only does he know nothing about you, but the things he presumes to know about you are all factually inaccurate to begin with.

THIS IS PRETTY TRUE. PEOPLE WHO HAVE DON'T FOLLOW IMUS ONLY SEE WHATS ON OTHER NEWS CHANNELS ABOUT HIM, OR WHAT OTHER MEDIA HEADS ARE SAYING, AND QUITE FRANKLY MOST DON'T LIKE HIM, SO ITS PUT IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT. THEY DON'T MENTION THAT THE CONTEXT OF THE WORDS ARE IN A COMEDY SETTING. WHY SHOULD THEY? THEY HAVE THEIR OWN AGENDA.

That’s what the core of this controversy is. People’s overreactions to language, to words. Simple, innocuous words. The words are not offensive, it’s the way people respond to them that make them offensive. Instead of screaming “off with their heads” every time a potentially racist remark is uttered, perhaps Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and, quite frankly, the entire black race, should concentrate on developing thicker skin. Black on black crime and gang violence is rampant in this country and has been for decades now. Why? Language. Two black teens are engaged in a verbal altercation and one of them makes a snide remark alluding to having sex with the other’s mother. A glock is pulled and a teenager is shot and killed over nothing more than words. Words that have existed in the English language for centuries. More and more it seems that blacks are born and raised with this innate chip on their shoulders. Whenever they are disrespected they must seek retribution and revenge; they must not allow their reputation, their “street cred” to be tarnished in any way. Instead of responding to the above scenario with violence, why not stop and think about the situation. Hey, if you want to lie and boast about having sex with black women who are twice your age, twice your weight and have given birth multiple times, that’s your prerogative. Personally I think it’s kind of gross and I’d suggest keeping that kind of stuff to yourself. Besides, I was at home with my mother last night and we had dinner, watched TV and went to sleep. So I know full well you did not, in fact, have sex with her. Then just simply walk away and diffuse the situation, rather than doing something to escalate the situation. That is what the real problem here is. It sets a very bad example for black youth when these reverends lash out at people who have offended them. If they are so concerned about curbing inner city violence, the first thing these reverends ought to be preaching is to walk away from a potentially confrontational situation and not add fuel to the fire. In the long run this will save far more lives than removing Don Imus from the airwaves.

Now, let’s apply this phenomenon to the Rutgers situation. Coach C. Vivian Stringer was quoted as saying, “These young ladies before you are valedictorians, future doctors, musical prodigies…They are young ladies of class, distinction. They are articulate, they are gifted.” Terrific. Good for them. You know that, they know that, the people closest to them know that. Why would you possibly care what some 66 year old stranger, whose radio program you’ve never listened to, has to say about them? All getting offended and lashing out at Don Imus does is give him credence and relevance and power over you. By getting offended, all you are saying is that his voice matters; that his opinion of these young ladies is relevant. Getting offended and thus getting him fired sets a dangerous precedent which I will further address later. Ignoring him completely and chalking up his comments as irrelevant and erroneous would set a monumental precedent.

Next I will tackle the ever popular double standard issue. We’ve all heard ad nauseam the whole “It’s okay for blacks to use derogatory slurs against each other, but it’s not okay for whites to do the same thing” argument. And yes, it is true. It is a staggering double standard that simply cannot be denied. In fact, it goes far beyond double standard territory into full blown, blatant hypocrisy. Nigger. It has suddenly become the most offensive, taboo word in the English language. But only if used by a non-black. Black people can say nigger and have it mean one thing; whites say nigger and it means something totally different. Everybody knows this to be true; I’m not breaking any new ground there. But stop for a minute and actually think about the implications of what this means. Saying that it is okay for one group of people to say something, but not for another group is, in and of itself, RACIST. If something is offensive, it’s offensive, period. End of story. If the word is so offensive and has so many negative connotations associated with it, stop perpetuating it! If you’re unhappy about stereotypes, stop perpetuating them! As I mentioned, nigger has become the most offensive word in the English language. I think we can all agree that a not too distant second on the list would be the word cunt. It’s okay for a nigger to call a nigger a nigger; but it’s not okay for a cunt to call a cunt a cunt. Why? Because cunt is always an offensive, derogatory term no matter who it comes from. With nigger, it’s all open to interpretation. And that just makes no sense. A common excuse from the black community is that they are “taking the word back”, or “empowering” themselves by using it. Okay, fine. Whatever helps you sleep at night. But then why am I, as a white man, incapable of feeling such empowerment? Maybe using the word nigger gives me a sense of empowerment as well. But I am not entitled to feel such empowerment simply because of the color of my skin? A riddle: Black person A spits in black person B’s face. A white person spits in black person B’s face. Black person B only attacks the white person. Who is the racist?

EVERYTHING IS ABOUT CONTEXT. ARE YOU REALLY NOT ARGUING THAT IMUS'S WORDS WERE IN CONTEXT NOT HATEFUL, BUT ON A COMEDY SETTING? THATS WHAT MY ARGUMENT, AND WHAT I BELIEVE ANYONE WHO KNOW'S IMUS AND WHAT HIS REAL INTENTIONS WERE TO BE, WERE ABOUT ITS CONTEXT. SO THEN WHATS DIFFERENT THEN A BLACK PERSON SAYING IT TO ANOTHER BLACK PERSON, AND UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT THEN, BUT NOT UNDERSTANDING IT WHEN A WHITE PERSON SAYS IT, OR IN THIS CASE, MOST LIKELY BEING TOLD WHAT A WHITE PERSON SAID BUT ALSO BEING TOLD IT WAS SAID BY A RACIST COWBOY? I DON'T KNOW, AND I DON'T THINK YOU ARE I WILL EVER BE IN A SITUATION TO UNDERSTAND THEIR THINKING. BUT IT HAS BECOME SOMETHING COMPANIES HAVE TRIED TO UNDERSTAND. SO, YOU CAN EITHER WORK FOR A COMPANY LIKE THAT, OR NOT. YOU CAN LISTEN TO TV/RADIO SHOWS THAT TRY TO UNDERSTAND IT, OR NOT.

The other side of the double standard issue comes when dealing with Al Sharpton and how he’s such a hypocrite because he doesn’t go after black rappers who use similar derogatory terms that Imus used. But this is not entirely true. He has tried to get the hip hop industry to clean up their act and stop perpetuating the stereotypes associated with their race. But he does so with not nearly the amount of vigor he goes after people like Imus with. Do a Google search on “Al Sharpton rapper ban” as I did and you will find multiple sites outlining his proposal to ban radio stations from airing music from artists who partake in violent acts as a means to sell and hype their records. To the layman, or the black man, this would seem perfectly reasonable and perhaps even offer some degree of balance between the black/white issue. But as usual, the layman is wrong. Sure, he’s out there protesting violence and that is all well and good. But how does this help to curb the inappropriate language featured in hop hop? How does this help curb the denigration of women in rap music? That is exactly what he was all over Don Imus about; his offensive language towards blacks and women. He’s only going after black artists that commit violent, illegal acts to promote their album, while ignoring the harsh language they use on the album. Meanwhile, his whole agenda against Imus was solely because of his harsh language and had nothing to do with violence. So it’s okay for blacks to say whatever they want as long as they aren’t violent about it, but it’s not okay for whites to say whatever they want, under any circumstance?

IT CAN BE ARGUED THAT THE MEDIA JUST COVERS THIS DIFFERENTLY THEN WHEN SHARPTON GOES AFTER RAPPERS.

Of course, this is just one example of Sharpton’s anti-hip hop agenda. It would be unfair to judge him based solely on the above proposition. As I mentioned in my opening, I’ve read a lot of commentary and opinions on this subject. Along the way I came across <a href="http://www.daveyd.com/commentarysharpton.html"> this commentary: </a>
It is a good, albeit outdated, read on the overall state of the hip hop generation and their role in society. He makes some points that I agree with and some that I disagree with. The most telling quote, however, is the following:

“Despite my differences with them, I will continue to support the hip-hop community because I have faith that they will eventually reach their potential.”

Sharpton readily admits the hip hop industry has a profound impact on the youth of America and that it emits such a poor image and relays a poor message to kids. He acknowledges the degrading of women in rap videos and the perpetuation of negative stereotypes of black culture. Yet he continues to support them. Don Imus utters three little words that degrade black women but Sharpton offers no support for him; has no faith in him. Don Imus had been broadcasting for upwards of thirty years. He was generally a highly respected personality who has contributed millions of dollars over the years to various charities. He makes one small, five syllable comment and suddenly, none of that matters anymore. The hip hop culture has contributed far worse racial slurs, and contributed far less to the overall betterment of society, yet they get free pass after free pass. In the grand scheme of things, whose voice is more important to the youth of America: 50 cent or Don Imus? If Al Sharpton is so concerned about the shaping of America’s youth, why is he more concerned with getting Don Imus off the radio and less concerned with getting someone that kids actually listen to and emulate off the radio? Why is it that it took less than two weeks for Sharpton to get Imus off the air, yet it is taking him several years to get offensive, objectionable rap and hip hop music off the air? Why does he have such a high tolerance for black thugs rhyming about bling, bitches and hos yet have zero tolerance for white cowboys talking about similar things? If anybody can provide an answer to this question that does not involve racism, please, I implore you to let me know. I’m all ears (eyes). The fact of the matter is, all his crusading about cleaning up hip hop and penalizing black artists is a façade. It is a nice front he puts on so he can dismiss all of the racist criticisms thrown his way. “See, I’m not a racist because I go after blacks that perpetuate these offensive slurs as well as whites.” Be that as it may, but how many black people has he assisted in getting fired? How many black artists has he succeeded in getting off the radio or off of MTV? Sure, he’ll say what hip hop artists do is offensive and wrong, but what does he actually [i]do about it?

AGAIN, THIS CAN BE ARGUED THAT ITS JUST THE MEDIA JUMPING ONTO SOMETHING THAT IS BETTER FOR RATINGS, ALSO, THERES ALREADY BEEN LOTS OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO ALREADY WENT AFTER RAP ALBUMS FOR THEIR "HARSH" WORDS AND LOST. IF SHARPTON WENT AFTER IT ON THE LEVEL THEY DID, ESSENTIALLY ANTI-fREE SPEECH, HE KNOWS HE WOULD LOSE. BUT IF HE GOES AFTER IT A DIFFERENT LEVEL, WHICH HE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE REALLY DONE, IT JUST DOESN'T GET AS MUCH MEDIA COVERAGE. GOING AFTER IMUS IS SOMETHING MANY PEOPLE HAVE DONE BECAUSE ITS ON A COMMERCIAL LEVEL. HE GETS ADVERTISERS SCARED TO ADVERTISE WITH SOMEONE. THIS IS THE SAME THING CHRISTIAN GROUPS ATTEMPT TO DO WITH STERN AND OTHER RADIO PEOPLE. IF HE CAN GET THE RIGHT ISSUE THATS HITS THE RIGHT PEOPLE, ITS A LOT EASIER. THERE ARE NO ADVERTISERS ON HIP HOP ALBUMS. ITS THE RECORD COMPANIES AND PEOPLE WILLING TO BUY A GROUPS ALBUM AND GO TO THEIR SHOWS. AN INDIVIDUAL BUYING AN ALBUM IS A LOT MORE PRIVATE THAN A COMPANY ADVERTISING ON SOMEONES NATIONALLY SYNDICATED RADIO SHOW.

I need to sidetrack a bit on all of this talk of censoring rap music and not allowing certain artists or songs to play on the radio because of their controversial lyrics. As you may have surmised by now, I am against censorship of any kind. I don’t like rap music, I don’t listen to rap music. But that in no way means I think it should be banned from radio, or any medium for that matter. If you don’t like it, don’t listen to it. It’s as simple as that. You may be disgusted, insulted, or offended by rap, but that doesn’t mean everybody feels the same way. It doesn’t mean you have the right to demand it never be broadcast again. People out there have different tastes in music and just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it bad. I like to fool myself into believing that most reasonable people would agree with this statement. Well, let’s rephrase it then. You may have been disgusted, insulted, or offended by Don Imus, but that doesn’t mean everybody felt the same way. It doesn’t mean you have the right to demand he never broadcast again.

Of course, many people will disagree. Obviously many have disagreed, among them the other part of the two-headed racist hypocrite monster, Jesse Jackson. Shortly after Imus’ remarks, Jackson was quoted as saying,

"If he has a right to use that platform to insult and degrade then we have a moral obligation to picket NBC and to protest…if he can violate us in that platform in the name of free speech we'll be picketing NBC in the name of free speech."

This is what makes these “leaders” so dangerous. Yes, what he is saying is technically true. Imus has a right to say what he said, and Jackson and his followers have a right to protest what he said. But what he does is twist and distort the true meaning of free speech. How are you supporting free speech by demanding somebody get fired because you took offense to something they said? How exactly can you call yourself a proponent of free speech while at the same time costing a man his job for exercising his very own freedom of speech? It’s ludicrous and it sets a terrible precedent. My <a href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg939txp_0fz5943">Vin Scully post</a> was a sarcastic poke in response to this Imus controversy, but the reality is that we are not that far off from this being the norm. All it takes is for enough powerful people to take offense to something to get somebody off the air. All it takes is to write letters, organize protests, and put enough pressure on the corporations and its sponsors to make them panic and pull the plug. Whatever happened to the saying, “if you don’t like what you’re listening to, change the station”? Whatever happened to all the progress that the entertainment industry has seemingly made over the last half decade? How did we go from not being able to show a married couple sleeping in the same bed, to showing lesbians kissing, to not being able to say something for fear of offending the wrong person? For every step forward this country makes it takes two giant steps backward. I am usually extremely apathetic when it comes to the state of affairs in this country and in the world, but this is one backwards step that even I cannot continue to ignore. Somebody, somewhere, needs to sit down for a long time and clearly define what freedom of speech means, because I honestly have no idea anymore. I don’t know if it needs to be congress or some other government entity, but there is far too much ambiguity as to what freedom of speech constitutes. Somewhere along the line, I’m not sure when, it seems to have lost all meaning and has been distorted and conveniently redefined to fit people’s agendas and causes.

AGAIN, AS LONG AS IT NOTS THE GOVERNMENT SAYING WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE SAID, ITS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. ITS A COMPANY ISSUE. YES, THERE ARE LIKE 5-10 BIG COMPANIES, EVEN LESS, THAT RUN MASS MEDIA RIGHT NOW. YES, THAT SUCKS FOR US. BUT THATS WHY THE INTERNET IS SO COOL RIGHT NOW. WE DON'T HAVE TO BE STUCK LISTENING TO WHAT THESE HANDFUL OF COMPANIES WANT US TO HEAR.

I find it amusing how everybody is up in arms over racism in this country. It seems that over the last several years being called a racist is the worst possible stigma you could ever be labeled. How quickly we forget. This country was founded on, and later flourished under, the belief that one group of humans were inferior to another. The Declaration of Independence was signed by a group of slave owners who believed that “all men are created equal.” You want to talk about hypocrisy? Be a racist in the 18th or 19th century, get your face printed on money and holidays celebrated in your honor. Be a racist in the 21st century and you are an evil hate-spewing spawn of Satan, need psychological help and are probably drunk or on drugs. This is the reaction that many had to Michael Richards’ racist tirade. The fact of the matter is, EVERYBODY is a racist, whether they admit it or not; whether they externalize it or not. And you know what? That’s just fine. Who cares? What impact; what effect does it have on your life if Michael Richards or Mel Gibson, or Don Imus, doesn’t like a certain group of people? I’m a racist, and I accepted it a long time ago. I don’t really care much for black people. Yes, I said it and I’ll say it again. I’m a racist. Can you handle that? Can you deal with that? I’m not uneducated, not a hillbilly, I have all (but one) of my teeth, I’m not an alcoholic, I don’t have a drug problem, and I am probably as healthy psychologically as I’ve ever been (though admittedly that’s not saying much). I’m not going to don my KKK hood and go around burning crosses on lawns. I’m not going to go out of my way to insult or instigate blacks or otherwise do anything to “keep the black man down.” I just simply do not care for them and will do everything in my power to ignore them. I’m not going to prevent them from living their lives and achieving happiness. I’m not going to stand in the way of their hopes and dreams. I’d just rather not associate with them unless I absolutely have to. And isn’t that what true “tolerance” is all about? Since when does everybody HAVE TO like everybody else? There is absolutely nothing wrong with disliking a group of people. The problem comes when you take that dislike and manifest it into actions that prevent them from living their lives. Notice the word actions; not words. Words are neutral; powerless. Nobody has ever been killed by words. It’s the actions and reactions of the words that are powerful and get people killed. I don’t like black people and I have no legal or moral obligation to like black people. I do, however, have a certain obligation to tolerate and co-exist with them, which I do every single day. It is my right as an American to love who I want to love, like who I want to like, and hate who I want to hate. It is the ultimate irony of my lifetime that the preachers of tolerance have become the most intolerant creatures of them all.

IT IS ALSO THE RIGHT OF A COMPANY TO SAY "WE DON'T WANT A PERCEIVED RACIST ON OUR AIRWAVES."

The next observation about the black race further illustrates how illogical and counterproductive they have become. Back in the 60’s during the civil rights movement, the big outcry was against segregation; against the “separate but equal” way of life that existed. Blacks wanted to be on equal footing with whites. They would no longer accept being relegated to the back of the bus. No longer would it be acceptable to have black-only bathrooms or black-only sections of restaurants, or white-only stores. The goal was to be integrated together with whites, to not only be treated as equals but to live their lives as equals and to not be seen as a “black man”, but as merely a “man”. It baffles me to no end then, how much the black race continues to want to separate themselves from everybody else.

African American Golfer’s Digest
African Vibes Magazine
Black Collegian
Black Enterprise
Black Family Digest
Black Hair
Black Men
Black Men’s Swimsuit Extra
Ebony
Essence
Jet
Vibe

This is just a partial list of the myriad of magazine publications specifically targeted to blacks. Add to that entities such as BET, the Black Movie Awards, the Million Man March, and black only scholarships, and I think my point becomes clear. If the goal of the civil rights movement was to rid the country of the “separate but equal” way of life, why do they continue to separate themselves in such a manner? All these entities do is widen the gap between black and white; separate blacks from whites. Instead of living together side by side with whites, it further separates them and serves as another way for blacks to shout, “look at me, I’m different, I’m black!” instead of saying, “look at me, I’m an American just like you!” The truth is, blacks no longer have any interest in being integrated together in white society (unless of course it’s in the form of affirmative action). The truth is, blacks do more today to put a wedge between people than whites do. Instead of trying to live together in harmony, blacks look for any little excuse to scream “RACIST!” and seek some kind of retribution. They take the smallest, innocuous comment and blow it all out of proportion to further their cause. The cause which they claim is to promote racial tolerance, but which ends up being nothing more than racial intolerance on their part. This clip provides clear and indelible proof of this:

THIS AGAIN IS CAPITALISM. BLACKS WEREN'T PLEASED WITH THE WAY MAGAZINES WERE GEARED TOWARDS THEM, SO THEY CREATED THEIR OWN. OBVIOUSLY IT MAKES SOMEONE MONEY OTHERWISE IT WOULDN'T STILL BE AROUND. I DON'T REALLY SEE HOW THIS IS SEGREGATION BECAUSE BLACKS STILL VIEW MEDIA THAT ISN'T WHAT YOU MENTIONED, AND WHITES ARE ALLOWED TO BUY/VIEW THE MEDIA THAT YOU MENTIONED. ITS A FREE MARKET.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=u_ymEfQ3QPw">http://youtube.com/watch?v=u_ymEfQ3QPw</a><!-- m -->

Don Imus spends two hours apologizing to everybody possible, but it is just not enough. In his frustration he states “I can’t get anywhere with you people” and Sharpton and whoever that woman is jump down his throat. As Imus calmly explained, he was referring to Sharpton and the woman on the phone. But they just assumed by “you people” he was referring to the entire black race. That kind of jumping to racist conclusions is far more dangerous than anything Don Imus has ever said. It is that kind of jumping to conclusions that will forever put a wedge between people which will never, ever be narrowed.

WELL, YOU'RE RIGHT HERE. EVEN CHAPELLE USED THIS IN HIS THE BLACK REAL WORLD SKIT. ITS PART OF WHAT MAKES THEIR ARGUMENTS LOSE CREDIBILITY TO PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY SEE THIS HAPPENING. I GUESS UNFORTUNATELY A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T ACTUALLY SEE IT SINCE IT SEEMS TO WORK.

What was this all about again? Oh yeah, Rutgers. The biggest winners in all of this. Well, them and the NCAA. Not too long ago the UConn women won three straight national championships and an astounding 70 consecutive games, but the media attention they received doesn’t even come close to reaching the national recognition Rutgers has generated. And they are all so eager to milk it for all its worth. The players are crying about how hurt and sickened they were and how they have been “scarred for life.” Please. This grief coming from a group of women who undoubtedly listen to music and watch music videos that portray them in a far worse light than “nappy headed hos”. And I’m sure they’ve made their own little jokes and wisecracks in each other’s company about their hair, face, breasts, weight, and any other physical characteristic. They may very well be bright, articulate and gifted, but they are still college kids. It’s not like they’ve never heard these words before; it’s not like they are incredulous as to what’s going on around them. I’m not saying they are racists or hypocrites; just opportunists. They’ve milked these comments for all the sympathy, all the pity in the world. No doubt they’ll be able to parlay this pity into a job offer from a sympathetic employer eager to advertise that they are an “equal opportunity establishment.” They were on Oprah recently! If anything, they should be thanking Imus for extending their fifteen minutes, and then some.

I THINK YOU LOOK DOWN ON THE RUTGERS GIRLS MORE THAN YOU SHOULD. THEY WEREN'T THE ONES WHO MADE A BIG DEAL OF THIS, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THEY ONLY CAME OUT WITH THEIR STATEMENTS BECAUSE ITS ALMOST LIKE THE MEDIA DEMANDED THEY DID. I THINK MOST OF MY COMMENTS SEEMED GEARED TOWARDS AN ANTI-MEDIA STANCE ON THIS, MOSTLY BECAUSE I THINK THEY ARE THE MOST TO BLAME. SHARPTON CAN HAVE HIS WORDS AS MUCH AS IMUS, BUT THE REASON PEOPLE CARED WAS BECAUSE THE MEDIA MADE PEOPLE BELIEVE THEY SHOULD. AND WHY? FOR RATINGS, WHICH AGAIN, IS A CAPITALIST THING. YOU LIVE AND DIE BY THE SYSTEM I GUESS.

So let’s review.

The winners: Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and their sycophants, Rutgers University, the Rutgers players, NCAA women’s basketball
The losers: Don Imus, the staff of Don Imus’ radio and TV shows, everybody else in the country