Imus Fired

[Sherry Hawk]

I knew that didn't get past you.

You would have been disappointed if it had.

 

[FatDino]

You would have been disappointed if it had.

Indeed. We can always count on you to carry on legal, historical, and political fights.

 

[Sherry Hawk]

Indeed. We can always count on you to carry on legal, historical, and political fights.

Politics -eh.

Law and History? Labor law is something I know, inside and out...it's what I studied, and what I did. History - if it's pre-Columbian history, I probably know it pretty well. Civil War history - the same. The rest? I probably know more than some, and less than many.

 

[FatDino]

That tells me I'm done here.

You really are done?

I'm actually a bit disappointed. Nothing is more entertaining than watching a "certain someone" makes people cry.

 

[FatDino]

Politics -eh.

Law and History? Labor law is something I know, inside and out...it's what I studied, and what I did. History - if it's pre-Columbian history, I probably know it pretty well. Civil War history - the same. The rest? I probably know more than some, and less than many.

Enough to make unfortunate dudes run away with tears and shudder in rage whenever they recall the "discussions."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

My....You really need to do more study on laws.

When you "pick on" any of those groups you mentioned, it's not just about "Free speech" anymore; it's also about discrimination. Since discrimination is indeed illegal, "free speech" does not apply.

BTW, discrimination is defined as making a distinction between visibly different groups. (In case you didn't know)

Actually, it's only about making distinctions in certain matters on the basis of certain characterics specified in statute, generally including race, religion, national origin, sex, handicap status, age, and perhaps marital status and having children or not. I can legally discriminate on the basis of nose length, pet ownership, profession, right or left handedness, ability to whistle Dixie, or almost any other factor not listed in statute, as long as doing so does not have a "disparate impact" that makes it a de facto proxy for discriminating on the basis of one of the specified categories.

But I quibble . . .

 

[FatDino]

Actually, it's only about making distinctions in certain matters on the basis of certain characterics specified in statute, generally including race, religion, national origin, sex, handicap status, age, and perhaps marital status and having children or not. I can legally discriminate on the basis of nose length, pet ownership, profession, right or left handedness, ability to whistle Dixie, or almost any other factor not listed in statute, as long as doing so does not have a "disparate impact" that makes it a de facto proxy for discriminating on the basis of one of the specified categories.

But I quibble . . .

I just didn't think the guy would understand such detailed explanations

 

[TheeGoatPig]

It's amazing how many people don't understand the difference between an employer punishing an employee for something, and the US government punishing you for it.

P.S.

I could call my boss a nappy headed hoe and get away with it (hell, I've told him to fuck off, no reprecussions, then again, I've got a unique job).

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Politics -eh.

Law and History? Labor law is something I know, inside and out...it's what I studied, and what I did. History - if it's pre-Columbian history, I probably know it pretty well. Civil War history - the same. The rest? I probably know more than some, and less than many.

OK - on what day did Vicksburg fall? (No googling or wiki.)

(Actually, that's an easy one. I forget if it was the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, but it was that same week. Yes, that one.)

 

[FatDino]

OK - on what day did Vicksburg fall? (No googling or wiki.)

(Actually, that's an easy one. I forget if it was the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, but it was that same week. Yes, that one.)

You're about ten minutes late, she's already headed to bed.

So, can I google?

 

[Guest]

. . .

But I quibble . . .

You?

Nahhhhh.

 

[elsol]

It's amazing how many people don't understand the difference between an employer punishing an employee for something, and the US government punishing you for it.

P.S.

I could call my boss a nappy headed hoe and get away with it (hell, I've told him to fuck off, no reprecussions, then again, I've got a unique job).

I saved my companies millions a month ago.. (100+ million).

If I called a black woman in my company... the lowest possible employee... I have no doubt I would be gone that day.

I would expect to be gone.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

I saved my companies millions a month ago.. (100+ million).

If I called a black woman in my company... the lowest possible employee... I have no doubt I would be gone that day.

I would expect to be gone.

My bos and I are the company. That's it. He has encouraged me to have sex on the desk. So long as I finish my work, and don't lose us all of our clients, he pretty much doesn't care what I do.

 

[elsol]

My bos and I are the company. That's it. He has encouraged me to have sex on the desk. So long as I finish my work, and don't lose us all of our clients, he pretty much doesn't care what I do.

That's the difference... one and one.

The boss only has to worry about you suing.

The moment, the second that someone can come down on the company with a lawsuit, shit gets ugly.

I have to keep explaining to my co-workers... that it's bad to fire people 'with cause'. It is much better for the company to give no explanation... here's your pink papers, there's the door.

The only time they should explain is when they're trying to save themselves from someone else suing them and they've got you dead to rights.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You?

Nahhhhh.

You're right. Silly me . . .

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You're about ten minutes late, she's already headed to bed.

So, can I google?

Please do. Please do even though I'm about to say, because it's always good to learn more.

Vickburg fell the same week as the Battle Gettysburg, the first week of July, 1863, and arguably it was of greater strategic signifigance in the ultimate defeat of the South, because it meant the Yankees had unimpeded control of the Mississippi, from the headwaters to New Orleans. It completed Scott's "Anaconda" plan to isolate and "strangle" the Confederacy (except for blockade runners that were not really an capable of hauling in or out economically meaningful quantities of goods.)

It was the campaign that made Grant "the Man," and led directly to him getting the overall command of the Northern armies.

 

[cantdog]

Seems to me some people need to make up their minds in this country. Do we have freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press here or not? Imus may be an asshole, but according to the constitution, he has a right to be so. He has the right to say what he wants, privately or publicly, on a streetcorner or on a radio talk show. If his oppinion that a particular college women's basketball team is "nappy headed hos", then he has a right to say it. It's in the constitution and it's the law.

Or do we have selective freedoms in the US? Is it legal to protest the war by saying our military forces ar muderers, baby killers and oppressors because we don't agree with the war? Is it socially acceptable to spit on a soldier returning from the gulf and scream insults at them as they parade to graduation at boot camp? It's all right for media personalities to show their disdain for for the war painting our military as criminals?

I've seen several people who have posted here stand up for the right to burn flags and insult our military publicly standing firmly on those 1st amendment rights. They stretch those rights as far as they can get away with when it suits their purpose. However, when it's someone saying something they don't like, or don't agree with, then the first ammendment doesn't apply. It's ok to call a passing Marine a psychotic homicidal maniac, so long as you don't call him a nigger or a fag, right?

Either it's all right or it's all wrong.

Make up your minds.

I think we have, dude. No one is vacillating, here. The differences of opinion result from different people sounding off.

For me, Imus has a right to be an asshole, and he has a right to be misogynist. Totally cool by me. The problem comes when the government steps in and tries to regulate it.

Lucky for us, in Imus's case, and please note this carefully, Jubal, old sport, no government did jack. He got canned. His employer did it. There's been no difficulty yet.

Not until S-Des gets done is there a problem. HE thinks if Imus went down, others should go down, which does not follow unless they have the same employer.

HE wants a law made. HE says otherwise it causes him fear.

He doesn't yet seem to understand the difference between what happened to Imus and an ninternet censorship law.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Please do. Please do even though I'm about to say, because it's always good to learn more.

Vickburg fell the same week as the Battle Gettysburg, the first week of July, 1863, and arguably it was of greater strategic signifigance in the ultimate defeat of the South, because it meant the Yankees had unimpeded control of the Mississippi, from the headwaters to New Orleans. It completed Scott's "Anaconda" plan to isolate and "strangle" the Confederacy (except for blockade runners that were not really an capable of hauling in or out economically meaningful quantities of goods.)

It was the campaign that made Grant "the Man," and led directly to him getting the overall command of the Northern armies.

All I could think of was this:

Virgil Caine is the name, and I served on the Danville train,

Am C/G F F/E Dm
'Til Stoneman's cavalry came and tore up the tracks again.

Am/E F C Dm
In the winter of '65, We were hungry, just barely alive.

Am/E F C Dm D
By May the tenth, Richmond had fell, it's a time I remember, oh so well,

 

[S-Des]

I think we have, dude. No one is vacillating, here. The differences of opinion result from different people sounding off.
Not until S-Des gets done is there a problem. HE thinks if Imus went down, others should go down, which does not follow unless they have the same employer.

HE wants a law made. HE says otherwise it causes him fear.

He doesn't yet seem to understand the difference between what happened to Imus and an ninternet censorship law.

You know, I swear trying to explain things to you guys is like talking to a brick wall. You are the one who said we need hate law legislation (i.e. the government) to censor right-wing radio shows and the Christian Broadcasting Network. I said, if we're going to do that, then everyone is going to get smacked down. There are already laws about what can and cannot be said or shown on our media. I didn't advocate a single new law...it wasn't in any of my posts. I did say that there should be stricter age requirements on the internet (there are already over 18 rules, but they are bypassed simply by clicking a button). It should be harder for young children to surf adult sites, but that's not advocating a new law, just enforcing more strictly the rules that are already in place. That includes YouTube, where people are commiting crimes, then putting up the videos so people can watch.

I think rappers shouldn't be lauded as heros when they preach hate and misoginy because it's incredibly destructive to young people who look up to them (a black preacher once said that the KKK couldn't have come up with a better way to damage progress in the black community than gansta rap). If people want to picket them and record companies who sell their stuff, sweet. Personally, I think they're dirtbags (far moreso than Imus, since he's not telling kids to skip getting an education and smack their bitches around...and even if he was, how many teenagers are worried about what a 65 year-old white guy is saying), but there's nothing illegal about being a dirtbag. I said I had no problem with Imus being fired, but I hated Jackson and Sharpton jumping on the bandwagon to stir up the hate, just for self-promotion.

 

[Sherry Hawk]

You know, I swear trying to explain things to you guys is like talking to a brick wall. You are the one who said we need hate law legislation (i.e. the government) to censor right-wing radio shows and the Christian Broadcasting Network. I said, if we're going to do that, then everyone is going to get smacked down. There are already laws about what can and cannot be said or shown on our media. I didn't advocate a single new law...it wasn't in any of my posts. I did say that there should be stricter age requirements on the internet (there are already over 18 rules, but they are bypassed simply by clicking a button). It should be harder for young children to surf adult sites, but that's not advocating a new law, just enforcing more strictly the rules that are already in place. That includes YouTube, where people are commiting crimes, then putting up the videos so people can watch.

I think rappers shouldn't be lauded as heros when they preach hate and misoginy because it's incredibly destructive to young people who look up to them (a black preacher once said that the KKK couldn't have come up with a better way to damage progress in the black community than gansta rap). If people want to picket them and record companies who sell their stuff, sweet. Personally, I think they're dirtbags (far moreso than Imus, since he's not telling kids to skip getting an education and smack their bitches around...and even if he was, how many teenagers are worried about what a 65 year-old white guy is saying), but there's nothing illegal about being a dirtbag. I said I had no problem with Imus being fired, but I hated Jackson and Sharpton jumping on the bandwagon to stir up the hate, just for self-promotion.

Forget this post?:

Funny, that's what Libertarians say about food and health inspectors. If a product or company pollutes or is dangerous, people can sue and the market will correct itself. Personally I'm not a fan of that logic. I had a 12 year-old female student walk into my studio and tell me her new favorite band is BuckCherry (you know, that song Crazy Bitch?). She found it on You Tube, so if her parents let her surf the net unsupervised, I guess they get what they get. But to have a song that talks about a girl being "crazy" (i.e. annoying, stupid, wild, etc...) but it to be OK because she fucks really well...that's not exactly what I think should be on public radio...especially during the day.

I understand people who disagree, but at some point we all have to agree on standards. The government sets the standard, or kids are exposed to too much, too soon and begin to accept it as a fact of life.

 

[cantdog]

Well, keen, then he's changed his mind, this is great. Don't hang him for it.

 

[Sherry Hawk]

Well, keen, then he's changed his mind, this is great. Don't hang him for it.

I'm not, doll. It's great if he has, but forgive my cynicism if I don't really believe it.

 

[cantdog]

To be fair, it was not S-Des who started the whole discussion down these muddied paths, but Imus himself, whining. Once he could see that he was pinned to the wall, he said, what about rappers? They're worse than me! and he said it specifically to divert the discussion into unprofitable channels and take off some of the heat on poor put-upon Don Imus.

Better than half the punditry bought right into the non sequitur. A lot of hip-hop people have their own labels, and are unlikely to fire themselves, for one thing, and also, MSNBC doesn't happen to syndicate a rapper. No matter, they bought it, and cheerfully shifted the ground of the whole debate, just as Imus wanted.

Suddenly the line shifted. Before, the sides were pro-firing, anti-firing, referring to an asshole. Now it was supposed to be pro-racial-slur, anti-racial-slur, regarding everyone under the sun. A different discussion.

What makes it weird is that people are now trying to sound rational while discussing both at once.

 

[Pure]

opportune change of subject: rapper talk.

as i understand it, rap music is very popular in the black community; i.e., so both black and white people buy those CDs.

if the people buying CDs want less talk of pimps and hos, they have the power (and right) to change things.

---
now, is this case different from a nazi making a CD with speeches (or songs) against kikes and 'niggers'? there is a difference of market: in the first case black people and would be 'gangstas'. in the second case, the nazi aims at other nazis and at people who might convert.

the second and crucial difference is intent: entertainment, including of whites, in the first case. in the second case, the nazi is trying to bring about the enslavement or elimination of a group; he is perhaps entertaining other nazis.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I don't know how this whole thing got conflated with gangsta rap and First Amendment issues and all this other stuff.

Imus got fired for making racist comments about black athletes - if there's one Cardinal Sin of broadcasting, that's got to be it. From Rush Limbaugh all the way back to Howard Cosell and probably further than that, black athletes are like the third rail of broadcasting.