Time for more of my commentary on the news of the day:
I am not sure what the real furor is about in the Don Imus scandal, but I am amazed both by the lack of consistency by the angry left and their apparent inability to see this inconsistency. To help those of you who ignore current events, Don Imus, an iconic (due mainly to longevity, not talent) though mostly ineffectual radio and TV host, called the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" and the world has come down on him. Despite his profuse apologies, there have been calls for his firing from all over country and from all segments of society. I have no respect for Imus; mainly because I don't listen to him, and this hasn't inspired me to start. Despite quite a few contentions to the contrary, he is much closer to a geriatric version of Howard Stern than Rush Limbaugh. I repeat, he is not by any means a conservative. I am not necessarily unsympathetic to the outrage that people feel, rather I am a bit confused at where these angry people draw the line.
I have heard time and time again from those who are not worried about the "pornification of the culture" (thanks to Laura Ingraham for the phrase) that if I am offended, just change the channel. They say that if I am a prude and nudity offends me, just change the channel. Of course that only applies when I am offended. If they are offended AND it comports with their political agenda (which at times is as simple as sticking a finger in the eye of cultural conservatives) heads must roll. However, when Jesse Jackson calls New York "Hymie-Town" in reference to its large Jewish population, they are not bothered. When last year's Oscar winning-song was "It's Hard out Here for a Pimp," they applaud their own multi-cultural interests (despite the same socio-racial stereotypes being propagated in the lyrics). Even more poignant, when Imus himself has made anti-Semitic comments in the past, no one seemed to care.
I decided to check with some anti-censorship organizations to see how stridently they were coming to Imus' defense. The Free Expression Policy Project was certainly strident in its defense but not of Imus' freedom of speech. They seem to be preoccupied with such vital issues as protecting a high school student's right to proudly proclaim "Bong Hits For Jesus" during a school event.
Someone once said that if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. I prefer Dennis Prager's take on this sentiment.
Those who choose to ignore big evils will fight all the harder against the little ones.
I am not sure what the real furor is about in the Don Imus scandal, but I am amazed both by the lack of consistency by the angry left and their apparent inability to see this inconsistency. To help those of you who ignore current events, Don Imus, an iconic (due mainly to longevity, not talent) though mostly ineffectual radio and TV host, called the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" and the world has come down on him. Despite his profuse apologies, there have been calls for his firing from all over country and from all segments of society. I have no respect for Imus; mainly because I don't listen to him, and this hasn't inspired me to start. Despite quite a few contentions to the contrary, he is much closer to a geriatric version of Howard Stern than Rush Limbaugh. I repeat, he is not by any means a conservative. I am not necessarily unsympathetic to the outrage that people feel, rather I am a bit confused at where these angry people draw the line.
I have heard time and time again from those who are not worried about the "pornification of the culture" (thanks to Laura Ingraham for the phrase) that if I am offended, just change the channel. They say that if I am a prude and nudity offends me, just change the channel. Of course that only applies when I am offended. If they are offended AND it comports with their political agenda (which at times is as simple as sticking a finger in the eye of cultural conservatives) heads must roll. However, when Jesse Jackson calls New York "Hymie-Town" in reference to its large Jewish population, they are not bothered. When last year's Oscar winning-song was "It's Hard out Here for a Pimp," they applaud their own multi-cultural interests (despite the same socio-racial stereotypes being propagated in the lyrics). Even more poignant, when Imus himself has made anti-Semitic comments in the past, no one seemed to care.
I decided to check with some anti-censorship organizations to see how stridently they were coming to Imus' defense. The Free Expression Policy Project was certainly strident in its defense but not of Imus' freedom of speech. They seem to be preoccupied with such vital issues as protecting a high school student's right to proudly proclaim "Bong Hits For Jesus" during a school event.
Someone once said that if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. I prefer Dennis Prager's take on this sentiment.
Those who choose to ignore big evils will fight all the harder against the little ones.
Posts
Since when is ignorant speech unprotected by the 1st amendment? Those who listen to him or the advertisers who sponsor his show can force him to change, and they can fire him essentially. Otherwise, it's just a pompous show.
ReplyDeleteI am legitimately confused about where that line is drawn. When do you fire someone for something they say on the radio? Imus should be fired? How about the guys who played the national anthem on trumpets in a mosque after 9/11? Both are clearly offensive AND racially tinged. What if there is no racial component? Was Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl a big deal? It was offensive to family viewers, but there was no victim-group component so people said…Just Change the Channel! It’s ok to mock Christians, men, and rich, white people. It is not ok to do the same of minorities, Muslims, women and poor people unless you are a member of an even MORE victimized category (see above mentioned Jesse Jackson comments). I do not argue on behalf of bigots, I just ask for perspective and fairness in outrage.
ReplyDeleteMatt,
ReplyDeleteI couldn't have said it better myself. I am so disgusted by the inconsistencies of our nation's left. I am amazed at the hypocracy of thought and that we "celebrate diversity" so long as it is the diversity that's ok with "us." The political correctness and lack of security in who we are will be the downfall of this nation. All people seem to be concerned about is not offending others bla bla bla. If we would just learn to be secure in who we are instead of running to the likes of the NAACP to rescue us from the terrible insensitivities that offfend us. So "they" say simply turn the channel...well I agree, but let's all trun the channel and take personal responsibility for offensive material!!
By the way, what is Prager's take that you mention? Steph's dad is a huge fan of his.
Bry - Good to hear from you. I love Prager too, but you would have been surprised by the diversity of opinions on this Imus thing among conservatives on the radio. Another host, Hugh Hewitt, brought fellow Salem hosts Prager and Michael Medved to debate on his show because they were all of differing opinions on the issue. Off the top, they all agreed that Imus was an idiot and that their profession was better off with him gone, but the way that it happened caused disagreement. Hewitt was glad he was gone and didn’t care that it was due to external pressure by “race-pimps” like Jackson and Sharpton. Medved felt that this was an ominous sign for free expression on the radio and was opposed to his removal for that reason (though again, he was glad to see him gone). Prager was in the middle and he had a great line to start the discussion – “I am passionately ambiguous.” Like Hewitt he was glad to see Imus gone (partially due to his rampant anti-Semitic talk), but he was vaguely disturbed by Sharpton being a part of it. Basically he canceled himself out.
ReplyDeleteOh, I just realized what you were asking about Prager. The sentence following that line is a summary of something he says frequently in regard to the cultural left. “Those who choose to ignore big evils will fight all the harder against the little ones.” He refers to those who ignore the convictions and try to get murderer’s sentences commuted or justify terrorist’s actions by saying it was a result of our foreign policy and yet claim that the ultimate evil is second hand smoke or trucks with poor fuel economy. Just a fundamental difference in understanding true evil.
ReplyDelete