In an interview with NY1 political anchor Dominic Carter, Mass. Senator John Kerry says radio-show host Don Imus should not have been fired by CBS – and won’t rule out appearing on a future program hosted by the controversial shock jock.
Kerry is the first high-profile Democrat not to support Imus’ ouster – who was fired last Thursday after making remarks about the Rutgers women’s basketball team.
Here is a transcript of Kerry’s remarks:
Kerry: “I think that the…you know the punishment has to fit the crime so to speak. I think a long suspension, or a strong suspension met with his appropriate level, given that the team forgave him. To me it was in the hands of the young women. They made the judgment that they thought he was genuine and they felt they could forgive him. And I think it was appropriate to pay a price on the airwaves but I’m not sure that it was appropriate to say you’re off forever.”
Dominic Carter: “If Mr. Imus has a show in the future would you appear on it?”
Kerry: “It would depend on what the context of the show was obviously. If he goes back to doing the same old same old I’d have trouble doing that, but if it’s a different show and he says it’s going to be different sure.”
John Kerry, like Alec Baldwin, is just another condescending "white" liberal who just doesn't get why the colored folks are sick and tired of hearing "racist" crap spewed and then a phony apology issued. It's ironic that Kerry would give cover to Imus and his slanderous statements when Kerry was the victim of similarly vicious statements as part of the Swiftboat propaganda campaign against him.
Many of the people who are standing up for Don Imus were the same people who wanted to burn Janet Jackson in effigy for baring her breast and wanted the FCC to levy heavy fines against CBS. A breast is part of a woman's body. Women breastfeed in public. But one would have thought the world was coming to an end when Jackson's nipple appeared on TV.
Many "white" people have been degrading women of color for a long time. Imus had a long history of "racist," sexist, and homophobic statements. He got what he deserved.
John Kerry, like Alec Baldwin, is just another condescending "white" liberal who just doesn't get why the colored folks are sick and tired of hearing "racist" crap spewed and then a phony apology issued. It's ironic that Kerry would give cover to Imus and his slanderous statements when Kerry was the victim of similarly vicious statements as part of the Swiftboat propaganda campaign against him.
Perhaps Kerry and Baldwin think, as Kerry mentions in the article, that the punishment (firing) didn't fit the crime.
You claim that colored folks (which means what exactly? black people or non-whites in general?) are sick and tired of hearing racist crap spewed and then a phony apology issued later, but you can't say for certain that all colored folks agree that he should have been fired or that all are in agreement as to the damage the statement caused to the psyches of the Rutgers University women’s basketball team. I'm pretty sure if you approached self-described colored folks on this message board or elsewhere they would all have different opinions about the severity of Imus' statement and what constitutes an appropriate response to what he said.
Also, I fail to see how Kerry's opposition to Imus' firing equals giving cover to "Imus and his slanderous statements". It’s clear from reading the article Charles Byrd posted that Kerry didn’t agree with what Imus said and found it offensive; he simply finds the response to said comments overblown.
triguy wrote:
Many of the people who are standing up for Don Imus were the same people who wanted to burn Janet Jackson in effigy for baring her breast and wanted the FCC to levy heavy fines against CBS. A breast is part of a woman's body. Women breastfeed in public. But one would have thought the world was coming to an end when Jackson's nipple appeared on TV. .
And I’m sure many of the people who defend his right to say offensive things on the air (which shouldn’t be confused with defending what is said) were also outraged at Ms. Jackson’s exposing her breast during a half time show at the Super Bowl. There are probably many people out there who are equally outraged over Imus’ comments and Jackson revealing her breast.
Furthermore, juxtaposing the two events makes no sense in the context of this topic. What Imus said, and what he has said in the past, though racially charged, didn’t violate any FCC rules as far as I know. The Jackson case is different. The exposure of her breast may have been in violation of FCC rules and was seen by many people as being in poor taste, particularly given the promotion of the Super Bowl as a “family show”. But even people outraged at Jackson’s antics stopped short of demanding that her record company drop her or calling for a boycott of her concerts.
Additionally breast feeding in public isn’t the same thing as the sexualized exposure of a woman’s breast during a half time show.
triguy wrote:
Many "white" people have been degrading women of color for a long time. Imus had a long history of "racist," sexist, and homophobic statements. He got what he deserved.
And many “people of color” have been degrading other people of color as well. Carlos Mencia has said things about black people that are equally offensive as Imus’ comments if not more so. When I lived in New York, I often listened to WLIB, a black-themed A.M. station that had guests who would say very offensive things about Jews and whites in general (I don’t know if you put Jews under the people of color umbrella) and far worse than what Imus said about the basketball players.
What I see lacking throughout the “Imus controversy” is perspective. Calling some black female basketball players “nappy-headed hos”, though offensive, is hardly emotionally damaging (unless you are infantile) or tantamount to the paranoid ramblings about Jewish bankers by Father Charles Edward Coughlin or the anti-black exhortations of Leander Perez or Theodore Gilmore Bilbo in their day.
As someone who has had more vile, racially-charged comments directed at him throughout his youth than anything coming from Imus, I have little patience with people who have difficulty ranking levels of offensiveness or whose personal fortitude is so weak that they are on the verge of a nervous breakdown because of the “wounding words” of a shriveled up shock jock. Many in public life who have commented on this “controversy” act as if Imus’ words have the same effect on one’s well being as hollow-point bullets fired from a .45.
As someone who has had more vile, racially-charged comments directed at him throughout his youth than anything coming from Imus, I have little patience with people who have difficulty ranking levels of offensiveness or whose personal fortitude is so weak that they are on the verge of a nervous breakdown because of the “wounding words” of a shriveled up shock jock. Many in public life who have commented on this “controversy” act as if Imus’ words have the same effect on one’s well being as hollow-point bullets fired from a .45.
I don't recall seeing or reading about anyone being on the verge of a nervous breakdown because of Imus' words. What I noticed were people found Imus' words "racist" and sexist. They demanded that Imus be fired as would any other employee who made similar comments in the work place. Imus has a long history of saying anti-black statements and admitted to Mike Wallace that he hired a staff member to tell "nigger jokes." His employers tolerated it because they were making money hand over fist and they knew that Imus' bigotry was considered acceptable because a lot of people agreed with it regardless of how the targets felt.
Well, the mouse roared. Praise the Lord!
Your tough guy posture that people who are offended are wimps is insensitive and ridiculous. The young women on the Rutgers team aren't whores. Why shouldn't they be offended? Why shouldn't they demand respect? Wouldn't your young life have been better if some adult had stopped those comments? Based on your logic, people who are the subject of "racist," sexist, or homophobic comments should just keep their mouths shut, suffer in silence, and not fight back. Sorry, but living under the tyranny of bullies is not the life I would want for myself or anyone else.
Several years ago, AT&T had a company scandal when an in house news letter featured the globe and a human representative for each continent except for Africa, which featured a gorilla. The artist was fired.
Social conservatives were outraged over a scene from "Married with Children" and filed a complaint Fox TV. The FCC issued a $600,000 complaint. There were no cries for freedom of speech then or to protect CBS from complaints about Janet Jackson's
If other radio hosts make bigoted comments, regardless of their race, they should face similar consequences. I recall reading on this board about the outrage in New York over comments made by an African-American shock jock to another DJ's mixed-race wife and daughter. The shock jock lost his job.
Moreover, there has been loud complaint against offensive music by African-American recording artists. C. Dolores Tucker led a charge against sexist language for years. Essence Magazine has complained. The women of Spelman College protested against Nelly coming to their campus. Oprah chastised Ludicrous for his music.
As for your ageist comment about Imus, I don't see how the age of and adult should limit outrage over his comments.
And, you are right, some people of color, weren't outraged over Imus' comments. Some are numbed to his offensive language because they have had to listen to such words and felt powerless to stop it. Others have different reasons.
Finally, one of the tenets of the Multiracial Movement is that people have the right to label themselves and reject imposed labels. I see nothing wrong with people fighting against being labeled "Nappy-headed 'hos." Black women have had to deal with being called whores for centuries in America. They and their allies fought back. Bravo!
I don't recall seeing or reading about anyone being on the verge of a nervous breakdown because of Imus' words.
Indeed “the controversy” surrounding Imus’ remarks and the comments by many who are opposed to them make it seem as if he was the second coming of the Klan and his comments were so damaging to these female basketball players must use every once of personal fortitude to recover from and fight against them.
"What he said has deeply hurt too many people -- black and white, male and female," said Bryan Monroe, NABJ president. "His so-called apology comes two days after the fact, and it is too little, too late."……….. "These were nothing but hard working student athletes — young women, just trying to do their best. After 40 years on the air, it is clear that he has lost touch with all that is decent and honorable in America," said Monroe. "It is time for him to go."
triguy wrote:
Your tough guy posture that people who are offended are wimps is insensitive and ridiculous.
What I said was the following:
Quote:
What I see lacking throughout the “Imus controversy” is perspective. Calling some black female basketball players “nappy-headed hos”, though offensive, is hardly emotionally damaging (unless you are infantile)
I addition, I wrote:
Quote:
Many in public life who have commented on this “controversy” act as if Imus’ words have the same effect on one’s well being as hollow-point bullets fired from a .45.
Any sensible, reasonably emotionally healthy person wouldn’t be brought down by Imus’ comments. This is hardly “tough guy posturing” since one needn’t be tough nor a guy to recover from Imus’ comments assuming one isn’t emotionally weak. Notice this is not the same thing as saying that people who are offended are wimps. That’s your interpretation.
triguy wrote:
The young women on the Rutgers team aren't whores. Why shouldn't they be offended?
Again who said they shouldn’t be offended?
triguy wrote:
Why shouldn't they demand respect?
Who said they shouldn’t?
triguy wrote:
Wouldn't your young life have been better if some adult had stopped those comments?
Actually my young life was quite fine thank you. These were things I dealt with on my own while growing up, as was the case with most people I know from that period. You seem to think if no adults are around to stop such comments, then the comments would not have been stopped or addressed in some way at all. This was far from the case in my contemporaries’ situation. Adults stepped in if they were in ear shot of such comments both in elementary and high school, but often they were not, so you simply handled your business on your own. It’s as if you’ve never heard of young people talking back to other young folk who say hurtful things to them or, if necessary, bitch slapping people who mess with them.
triguy wrote:
Based on your logic, people who are the subject of "racist," sexist, or homophobic comments should just keep their mouths shut, suffer in silence, and not fight back. Sorry, but living under the tyranny of bullies is not the life I would want for myself or anyone else.
But wait….I thought “my logic” according to you was people shouldn’t be offended by such comments and if they are, they are wimps. You know my “tough guy” posture. But now you’re claiming I advocate suffering in silence, which implies being offended but being too scared to challenge the “tyranny of bullies”. Which one is it?
Oh and how does a radio personality calling black women on a college basketball team “nappy-headed ‘hos” equal living under the tyranny of bullies?
triguy wrote:
And, you are right, some people of color, weren't outraged over Imus' comments. Some are numbed to his offensive language because they have had to listen to such words and felt powerless to stop it. Others have different reasons.
That’s what you’re saying I said…I wrote the following in response to your comment:
Quote:
triguy wrote:
John Kerry, like Alec Baldwin, is just another condescending "white" liberal who just doesn't get why the colored folks are sick and tired of hearing "racist" crap spewed and then a phony apology issued. It's ironic that Kerry would give cover to Imus and his slanderous statements when Kerry was the victim of similarly vicious statements as part of the Swiftboat propaganda campaign against him.
You claim that colored folks (which means what exactly? black people or non-whites in general?) are sick and tired of hearing racist crap spewed and then a phony apology issued later, but you can't say for certain that all colored folks agree that he should have been fired or that all are in agreement as to the damage the statement caused to the psyches of the Rutgers University women’s basketball team. I'm pretty sure if you approached self-described colored folks on this message board or elsewhere they would all have different opinions about the severity of Imus' statement and what constitutes an appropriate response to what he said.
Take note of the fact that your initial statement implied that all “colored folks” should be in agreement with your belief that Imus should be fired for his comments, and Kerry’s lack of support for his firing equaled support for what Imus said and a lack of recognition that it was offensive. Outside of your need to believe this, there’s nothing to substantiate this contention of yours.
Furthermore, you equate a lack of appropriate outrage over Imus’ comments by so-called people of color and anybody else (appropriate outrage as defined by you) with a lack of recognition that his comments were offensive. There’s nothing to substantiate this contention either.
Possibly some people aren’t offended by his comments, but then there may be some people who keep things in perspective and realize that said comments were offensive but hardly as damaging as they have been made out to be and hardly worth the attention they’ve received in the media.
triguy wrote:
Finally, one of the tenets of the Multiracial Movement is that people have the right to label themselves and reject imposed labels. I see nothing wrong with people fighting against being labeled "Nappy-headed 'hos." Black women have had to deal with being called whores for centuries in America. They and their allies fought back. Bravo!
The use of such phrases as “tyranny of bullies” and sentences like: “Black women have had to deal with being called whores for centuries in America. They and their allies fought back. Bravo!,” conjure up images of an epic battle between the powerful forces of racist evil personified by Imus and strong –willed black women basketball players and their allies fighting for social justice; less powerful in comparison, but tenacious and determined. Nothing of the sort transpired.
There’s too much hyperbolic commentary out there about this event. Stepping over and ant hill isn’t climbing Mount Everest. What they “endured” at Imus’ hands, is trivial compared to other events that are far more damaging and take far more personal strength to overcome, and despite the offensiveness of his comments, “recovering” from them doesn’t take as much personal emotional strength as recovering from a personal tragedy like the death of a loved one.
As someone who has had more vile, racially-charged comments directed at him throughout his youth than anything coming from Imus, I have little patience with people who have difficulty ranking levels of offensiveness or whose personal fortitude is so weak that they are on the verge of a nervous breakdown because of the “wounding words” of a shriveled up shock jock.
These are the "tough guy" words to which I referred. Because you endured vile, racially charged comments doesn't mean that others who face the same experience will step away unscathed or are willing to tolerate such treatment if they see it happening to others.
You may see Imus' firing as an "ant hill" but others see it as a significant change in the zeitgeist of America. For decades, people like Don Imus, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, Glenn Beck and Neil Boortz have filled the airwaves with "racist," sexist, and homophobic talk knowing that the victims of their bigotry were powerless because not only did much of society not care but, more importantly, their advertisers and bosses didn't care.
Things have changed.
Imus made it clear that he was a "racist." He told Mike Wallace that he hired staff to tell "nigger jokes." His butt should have been fired years ago.
And, yes, if you read history, you will note that "black" women have been portrayed frequently in American culture as either mammies or whores. There's a reason why conservative commentator Neil Boortz felt comfortable calling Cynthia McKinney a "ghetto whore" last year when she changed her haircut.
In D.W. Griffith's "Birth of the Nation," a mulatto woman was portrayed as an oversexed woman who lured her white lover into adultery and ruin. The image of the "black" whore has been a staple of film and literature.
Maybe this discussion should be shifted to the women's discussion forum. Where a topic on how "black" and mulatto women have been objectified in American history.
As someone who has had more vile, racially-charged comments directed at him throughout his youth than anything coming from Imus, I have little patience with people who have difficulty ranking levels of offensiveness or whose personal fortitude is so weak that they are on the verge of a nervous breakdown because of the “wounding words” of a shriveled up shock jock.
These are the "tough guy" words to which I referred. Because you endured vile, racially charged comments doesn't mean that others who face the same experience will step away unscathed or are willing to tolerate such treatment if they see it happening to others.
And your interpretation of this paragraph as "tough guy" words says alot about what you consider tough. I like though how you interpret this paragraph as an indication that one who isn't offended to the extent you are or who finds Imus' offensive remarks easy to overcome is somehow willing to tolerate such treatment.
triguy wrote:
You may see Imus' firing as an "ant hill" but others see it as a significant change in the zeitgeist of America. For decades, people like Don Imus, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, Glenn Beck and Neil Boortz have filled the airwaves with "racist," sexist, and homophobic talk knowing that the victims of their bigotry were powerless because not only did much of society not care but, more importantly, their advertisers and bosses didn't care.
Actually my ant hill comment was related to the melodrama surrounding this topic, along with the idea that recovering what Imus said requires substantial emotional strength. Here’s my response once again:
Quote:
There’s too much hyperbolic commentary out there about this event. Stepping over and ant hill isn’t climbing Mount Everest. What they “endured” at Imus’ hands, is trivial compared to other events that are far more damaging and take far more personal strength to overcome, and despite the offensiveness of his comments, “recovering” from them doesn’t take as much personal emotional strength as recovering from a personal tragedy like the death of a loved one.
triguy wrote:
Things have changed.
Imus made it clear that he was a "racist." He told Mike Wallace that he hired staff to tell "nigger jokes." His butt should have been fired years ago.
And, yes, if you read history, you will note that "black" women have been portrayed frequently in American culture as either mammies or whores. There's a reason why conservative commentator Neil Boortz felt comfortable calling Cynthia McKinney a "ghetto whore" last year when she changed her haircut.
In D.W. Griffith's "Birth of the Nation," a mulatto woman was portrayed as an oversexed woman who lured her white lover into adultery and ruin. The image of the "black" whore has been a staple of film and literature.
All of this is true, but it isn’t germane to the main theme of the topic you started and some of the issues you raised in your opening statement and initial responses. These are:
1.John Kerry’s lack of sufficient outrage over Imus’ remarks and his difference of opinion about Imus’ firing are equal to “giving cover” to Imus’ remarks, despite the evidence from the cited article where Kerry makes it clear that he found Imus’ remarks offensive. Here’s your comment substantiating your point of view about Kerry:
triguy wrote:
John Kerry, like Alec Baldwin, is just another condescending "white" liberal who just doesn't get why the colored folks are sick and tired of hearing "racist" crap spewed and then a phony apology issued. It's ironic that Kerry would give cover to Imus and his slanderous statements when Kerry was the victim of similarly vicious statements as part of the Swiftboat propaganda campaign against him.
2.“People of color” collectively ought to be as outraged as you are over Imus’ remarks. Individuals so labeled who do not agree with your assessment that his words were so wounding in their offensiveness that these female basketball players are significantly harmed, who do not see this “controversy” as an epic battle between the forces of bigotry and the forces of anti-racism, or who believe overcoming his offensive words doesn’t take that much personal fortitude are seen by you as people who are numbed by such language (as opposed to people who see recovering from offensive words as minimally challenging to one’s psyche) or people who are giving succor to the likes of Imus. These sentiments are reflected in the following responses by you:
triguy wrote:
And, you are right, some people of color, weren't outraged over Imus' comments. Some are numbed to his offensive language because they have had to listen to such words and felt powerless to stop it. Others have different reasons.
triguy wrote:
Based on your logic, people who are the subject of "racist," sexist, or homophobic comments should just keep their mouths shut, suffer in silence, and not fight back. Sorry, but living under the tyranny of bullies is not the life I would want for myself or anyone else.
triguy wrote:
Your tough guy posture that people who are offended are wimps is insensitive and ridiculous.
It's apparent that it is inconceivable to you that anyone who doesn’t embrace your level of outrage over this event or who isn’t convinced that the “nappy-headed hos’” comment is thoroughly emotionally damaging is aware that anti-black racism exists and comments motivated by bigotry are offensive.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
