The story of the moment that has grown enormously strong and powerful legs, involves Imus and his lack of sensivity. But when you really take a moment, (that is) when you stop and consider it, it's really nothing new. You see, Don Imus, Howard Stern, and many others like them, are seasoned old pros at making inappropriate and (downright) offensive comments. It's how they got rich. They are considered the "fathers of the shock jock era", they hold a place in the "who's who of cheap ratings whores". They made their fame and fortune by pushing the boundaries and the people rewarded them with high ratings and fat paychecks, basically for being horses' asses for 3-4 hours a day.
Why?
There was (and still is) a market for it.
What's utterly amazing that it's getting so much attention now, like it's some new thing under the sun. This is primarily why I will not watch Imus, nor will I ever listen to Stern (and I have free Sirius until July). I see absolutely no value in hearing what either one of them have to say about any given topic; nor would I care to listen to anyone else that remotely resembles them, in style or attitude.
They claim to be funny. But they aren't.
Whether or not he should be fired, that's up to CBS and MSNBC. They have to decide if they will be able to withstand the pressure and still keep ratings They must decide whether or not to risk that the ratings are going to tank, or cut their losses and fire him. I will say that after 30 years or so, it's not going to do any good now. If he's fired, someone else will pick him back up and he'll be back on.
To his credit, he has faced the inquisition of Al Sharpton today and made no excuses. Good old Al has made lots of them in his days, especially when he advanced the Tuwanna Brawley hoax. He desperately tried to tap dance his way out of that one. So pardon me if I find it difficult to lend much credibility to him (at least on a regular basis). But as to this situation, I have to side with some of the points Al made when he grilled Imus, yesterday. Other things he was saying, were the usual Sharpton wanting to "hear his own voice" diatribes, which he is wont to do.
And as for whether Imus keeps his job or not? I really do not give a damn, because it should have been done years ago. I do not care, mainly because it's long overdue. As much as I love free speech, there needs to be responsibility. But since Imus has been rewarded with prosperity by those that would have to do the firing, how hypocritical would it be now? They helped create this monster, maybe now they should live with it. Suspending him for two weeks is a vacation, firing him now would be hypocritical, and keeping him on could prove disastrous (for both CBS and MSNBC).
Oh well. It's their bed, let them lay in it.
Addendum:
John McWhorter wonders if the current firestorm over the Imus remarks will really further the cause of improved race relations or just fill the void until there is another incident.
Hard-core fans never hold Mr. Imus accountable for anything he says because he's "always joking." I've been a nominal fan of the show for many years, but now I'm trying to kick the habit.
That's why I've decided to turn to a higher power. Thank God for the Rev. Al Sharpton. He'll keep us honest. We know we can no longer reconcile our "liberal" politics with a passive consumption of "Imus in the Morning."
Bottom line here, let he/she who is without error, mistake, misstep, misspeak, or even sin, cast the first stone. What Imus said was repulsive, make no mistake about it. But those that stand and sit in judgment of him have very little room to be making this the issue it is, especially when this has been an acceptable standard for so long. And besides that, Al Sharpton should be the last person to have any credibility here. And I mean the last person.
Time passes so fast, sometimes. There are days when we still expect to see her in her favorite corner of the garage, in the house somewhere near a window with a sunbeam coming through it, or out on the patio on a warm day (like it was when this picture was shot).
The sad thing about having pets is they don't live long enough (the same is true for us too). But during the time they are here, they ask for so very little and give so much.
They greet you at the door, when you come home in their own special ways. A dog barks and jumps all over you as if to say: Oh boy oh boy, I thought you'd never get back, oh boy oh boy. A cat comes out slickly, perches itself in a sitting pose for a second, then meows as if to say: Where the hell have you been? Don't you know I have been waiting for you all day? I have been with these dumbass dogs all day and this is the thanks I get? You could have at least called. Then he/she comes up to you, purrs, and demands you provide dinner for his/her inconvenience, all in the same motion.
When a dog hears something late at night outside your house, it barks as if to say: Someone's here, someone's here. Violation, violation. Alert, alert. Status code zero, repeat, status code zero. All sentries to the perimeter, all sentries to the perimeter. A cat sneaks up to you quietly, comes up to your face, and looks at you as if to whisper to you: Psst. Someone's here. Follow me to the red zone, we'll strike on my command. Be careful.
But no matter which kind of animal one prefers (I have had both), they are both less trouble than some people. They only ask to be fed, pottied, and to be wherever you are and contented to lay down peacefully in the same room with you (while doing whatever it is you are doing). They don't hit you up for money, the latest video game, or gas money. They don't come home late (mainly because they do not leave unless you let them go with you). They are always there, on call, and willing to change rooms with you, however often you wish to change them.
April was that cat. We still miss her, probably always will. But we are thankful for the time she was ours. And although we must now focus our attention on a geriatric Springer Spaniel (that lies motionless for hours at a time) and a neurotic Dachsund-Chihuahua mix (that thinks everything that hits the floor belongs to her), we still have time (every now and then) to imagine that we still see her lazing around, being an old contented cat that had it made.
This video is a microcosm of politics in today's American society. Whats starts out as a reasonably civil debate between these two, quickly devolves into a shouting match.
It's typical of what we can expect to see in the coming years. I think that the Rosie Vs Trump Affair, coupled with this kind of exchange sets the tone while lowering the bar, for this kind of discourse. And it will only stand to get worse, if the two parties do not alienate their extremes and return to a more civil relationship with the opposing sides. I doubt it's going to happen, but one can wish.
Those that subscribe to the attitude that Democrats can do very little wrong, are praising the House Speaker's trip to Damascus this week. Equally, it can be said that those that believe they can do no right, are condemning it. So, it should come as no surprise at all that Jimmy Carter has praise for the House leader's trip and CNN wants us all to know it.
Former President Jimmy Carter expressed his support for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria, rejecting White House criticism of the visit.
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of modern-day politics could have guessed this. Not much deliberation is necessary to arrive at this one. Equally as predictable is the White House's response:
Bush on Tuesday called the trip "counterproductive" and said it would send mixed signals.
"Photo opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they're part of the mainstream of the international community, when, in fact, they're a state sponsor of terror," he said at a news conference in the White House's Rose Garden.
To which Carter responded:
Carter, however, said there was "no threat" that the Democratic speaker's visit would dilute the United States' ability to speak to Syria with one voice.
Even Nancy, herself, weighed in:
Pelosi defended her visit, saying her talks with Al-Assad focused only on topics on which she and Bush agree.
"On the issues that we set before the president (of Syria)," she said, "there is no division among us or between our congressional delegation in Congress and the president of the United States."
But if we take even the proverbial New York minute and think about this, we can see that this may not be the case. You would have a difficult time explaining what transpired next, as something the Bush administration would approve.
Take a look at this part of the story reported during her visit.
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, on a visit to Syria opposed by the White House, said on Wednesday she conveyed an Israeli message to President Bashar al-Assad that the Jewish state was ready to resume peace talks.
The Prime Minister's Office issued a rare "clarification" Wednesday that, in gentle diplomatic terms, contradicted US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's statement in Damascus that she had brought a message from Israel about a willingness to engage in peace talks.
To quote an old Strothers Martin line in Cool Hand Luke, "What we have here is, failure to communicate!" This is known as a discrepancy of the obvious kind. It only serves to demonstrate, precisely what kind of confusion can be created when novices at foreign affairs try to stick their noses into things that are not in their areas of expertise.
Whether or not one agrees with her view of talking to states like Iran and Syria, over and above Bush's view of not engaging in talks with them, is irrelevant. Conducting foreign affairs visits without the approval of the administration, is not in the Speaker's constitutional job description.
Ahmadinejad said he had pardoned the sailors as a gift to the British people and to mark the birthday of Islam's Prophet Muhammed and Easter.
On the occasion of the birthday of the great prophet (Muhammad) ... and for the occasion of the passing of Christ, I say the Islamic Republic government and the Iranian people -- with all powers and legal right to put the soldiers on trial -- forgave those 15," he said, referring to the Muslim prophet's birthday last Saturday and Easter, next Sunday.
"This pardon is a gift to the British people," he said.
"On behalf of the great Iranian people, I want to thank the Iranian Coast Guard who courageously defended and captured those who violated their territorial waters, the president told a press conference.
Confused? Maybe you are, maybe you aren't. But if there is an ounce of objectivity in your hearts, you will see that this was a bad idea. And you can plainly see why.
Pelosi goes to Syria against the wishes of the duly elected President of the United States, whose job it is to set foreign policy for the nation. Pelosi then gets credited for carrying a message that Olmert says was never sent. Then, the Syrians take the opportunity to claim they were responsible for what Iran says was an Easter gift to the British people, at the very time of her visit. No mention is made by the president of Iran, of Syria's claimed role in all of this.
If that's not confusion, mixed signals, or a diluted message, I don't know what is.
In the 60s, you'd have to look far and wide to find a recording artist that had more appeal than Tom Jones. Since the news is pretty mundane right now and I am in one of those busy stretches again (where creating something worth reading is not possible), I thought I'd put up a couple of my very favorite Tom Jones songs. They are from a live concert at Cardiff Castle (not sure of the dates).
You may have to turn the sound up on your speakers just a bit. (Just don't forget to turn them back down after you are done.)
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has determined that the House should not get involved in foreign affairs (as in the British hostage crisis), despite the fact the Senate has chosen to do so. Reference: This article.
The Senate on Thursday, before adjourning for its one-week break, passed a resolution condemning the act "in the strongest possible terms" and calling for the sailors "immediate, safe and unconditional release."
Pelosi's spokesman Brendan Daly said the speaker was reluctant to weigh in on the incident without knowing that such a message would do more good than harm. Daly said the British government had not asked Congress to try to pressure Tehran.
"The leadership discussed it and agreed that inserting Congress into an international crisis while ongoing would not be helpful," Daly said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi toured Damascus on Tuesday, the highest- ranking American politician to visit Syria since relations began to deteriorate four years ago.
For all of you that have school-aged children that struggle with vocabulary words from time to time, think of it as functional example of hypocrisy.
If you ever want to know one of the many reasons I have little confidence in Congress these days, all you have to do is read and/or watch the news on a daily basis. Since this Congress has taken up shop, promises have been blatantly broken and very little has been accomplished, with the exception of a bill that has no chance of becoming law. Right now, there is a stink being raised about the firings of the U.S Attorneys. Never mind that firings have been a part of each and every administration, prior to this one. Never mind that these are political appointments.
But beyond making a non-scandal a scandal and passing a bill that has no chance of getting signed, what else could they do to waste more time and money? Well, read this and you'll see.
A planned vote in the U.S. Congress that would classify the widespread killings of Armenians by the Ottoman Army as a genocide is threatening to make relations with Turkey unusually tense.
The speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, backs the resolution and at first wanted a vote in April. But under Turkish pressure, Bush administration figures have lobbied for the Democrats in charge of Congress to drop the measure.
With all of the promises that have been made and broken, just what makes this such a priority?
The article goes on to say:
Turkey vehemently denies that the deaths of some 1.5 million Armenians from 1915 to 1923 constituted genocide. It contends that they occurred in the chaos of war, as the Ottoman Empire was falling apart, and that many Turks were also killed when Armenians sided with Russian forces in the hope of claiming territory in eastern Turkey.
This occurred between 1915-23. The people that were responsible for this atrocity are pretty much all dead. I doubt you can find more than a handful still alive. Beyond that, there is no one in the current government that was involved and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
In my pensive reflections of the European (and others) parliaments that have condemned this nearly hundred year old action, I can not come to any other conclusion other than this is just another attempt by the bureaucrats in the EU to stall out Turkey's bid for membership in a weak and floundering EU. Understanding that the Democrats are enamored with the EU as some kind of panacea for the ills that befall the continent, it should come as no surprise that Pelosi and company are jumping on the bandwagon. Both the EU and the Democrats have much in common, where agendas are concerned. Both are good at creating smokescreens to hide the real truths they want hidden, mostly because they do not want their inefficiencies and failures to be front and center, for all to see.
But let's look at this from a "reality" perspective, shall we?
Turkey, traditionally, has been an ally of the U.S, from the days of WWII on. During the Cold War, there was much cooperation then and today, we see the Turkish government trying to offer help in the British hostage crisis. Turkey is a secular government, not an Islamic fascist state like Iran. But instead of using their pulpit to condemn them, they clearly demonstrate that would rather use it to condemn an ally.
Now, I have some questions about the Turkish government at times. And I know that we have had differences with them on Iraq and some other things, recently and along the way. But if we are going to build bridges to the Islamic world, we need Turkey to help us. And by putting up a ridiculous vote like this for consideration will only serve to alienate an ally, further than they already are.
Much gets said from the left leaning Europhiles about how we have alienated the Europeans, does this not fall into the same category? Does it not seem a bit hypocritical to call for something like this, when other things in the here and now are more pressing? Let's think about this for a minute. As old as this is, we can see more important issues that have come up over the last few years in which Congress has yet to recognize and condemn. Iran is now out of control, nothing from Congress. Syria is allying itself with Iran and they get a visit from Nancy Pelosi.
Surely, I am not the only one that looks at this from this perspective. Surely, this is not the way to build bridges with the Middle East. But in the grand scheme of things, politicians of any country are not the most principled people, nor are they most consistent.
The first woman to run on a US presidential ticket has promised her friend Hillary Clinton that she will help her fight Republican "dirty tricks" in the race for the White House.
What's to stop them from pulling out all stops to derail her nomination?
Let's read on:
Her expectations of a dirty fight are mirrored in the camps of Sen Clinton's opponents. They say that the New York senator's own "war room" staff have already collected extensive background files on her rivals, ready to go "negative" as the battle for 2008 heats up.
So, to those of you that have a hard time believing that there are no Democratic dirty tricks planned, think again. And while you are at it, notice that the article says (emphasis mine), "the New York senator's own "war room" staff have already collected extensive background files on her rivals". It doesn't say just GOP rivals. It says" rivals", plain and simple.
So knowing this, you must also understand that for those of you that are not in her corner, Hillary is taking this race very seriously. Many heavy donating backers are taking her seriously too. Today, her campaign declared they had raised $36 million, $10 million of it coming from the NY Senate campaign. As of this writing, Obama has not released his totals. And John Edwards, the only other serious candidate (though ever so mildly), reportedly raked in $14 million. Many may be thinking that Edwards can be expected to go up a little next quarter, due to the sympathy support. I think it's possible.
If you are in her camp, here's another fly for your ointment. What if Obama and Edwards can muster up enough support between the two of them and team up against Hillary to shut her out of the nomination? Do you think the sparks could fly then? I think saying that, would be an understatement. At this point, I would be seriously inclined to bet that way (if they can win enough support combined, to thwart her bid). Point is, it may get real damned dirty, real damned quick, given the right conditions.
Look, $36 million can pay lots of people to do a lot of searching. Lot's of skeletons can come out of the closet, if lots of people are looking for them. Something is just bound to pop up. Lot's of dirt will be thrown (probably by proxy), because Hillary is ever so determined. She has been savoring and relishing the idea of being the first woman president for a very long time. Because of this, I do not believe she will go down softly at all. And bringing Ferraro into the fold as the CEO of the campaign's "dirty tricks committee", only demonstrates with more certainty that she doesn't intend to lose this race, without a brutal fight against anyone that gets in her way.
With that kind of determination, coupled with the construction of the well-funded of machine she has, she may have to dig into her deep pockets earlier than expected. What Obama and Edwards have to be willing to do is take her on, vigorously (and like her, by proxy). Then, they have to be willing to suffer the wrath of those named in this article, plus those she can recruit from this point forward. They must think real hard here. Do they have anything they don't want out? Are they as squeaky clean as they would like us all to believe?
More importantly is the question: Are they ready to fight dirty back, when she strikes first? She's already shown what kind of things can just magically appear. How's this for a warning shot?
(It's a long time until the voting begins, lots can happen between now and then. So, my advice is to get ready for the ride.)
