<p>ldgirl is a ‘minimizer’ too…she thinks I worry waaaay too much.</p>
<p>She accidentally dialed me last week because she forgot to lock the keys on her phone. When I picked up my phone, all I heard was a horrible, loud commotion…and no ldgirl. So, with imagination running wild about a scooter accident and my heart in my throat, I called her dorm. The RA went down the hall to leave a note on her door to call home and ran into her just as she was coming in. They stopped to chat for a moment and at the exact same time, they both said to each other ‘your/my mom probably thinks you/I had an accident on your/my scooter, you/I had better call home’. </p>
<p>So I guess I do have a rep as a worrywart…lol! (Though I have only called the dorm ONCE before…I swear! )</p>
<em>ROFL</em> I NEEDED that laugh!! This is the NEVERENDING WEEKEND. Middle D <em>JUST</em> walked in from a hugely important audition that was OBVIOUSLY very poorly planned by the powers that be, since they kept all of these teens out to all hours! :mad: I guess I’d better get some sleep now…<em>lol</em></p>
<p>
<strong><em>THANK YOU</em></strong>!!! It’s about time! ;)</p>
<p>The Rutgers women had/have every right to be angry and hurt.</p>
<p>Nobody on CC is telling them how they should feel or for how long they should feel it. </p>
<p>The continuous media coverage has evolved from responsible reporting to sickening tabloidesque obsessing. This hysteria has been spurred on in large part by the team’s race-baiting, political-agenda-driven, unappointed representatives (the usual suspects), along with the multitude of on-air/print morons who seem to find constant repetition of Imus’s ugly phrase a turn-on of sorts. This is not improving the situation. Not for the team, not for Imus, not for America.</p>
<p>The Rutgers women forgave Imus and seem ready to move out of the public spotlight and on with their lives. I’m certain, if given a choice, not one would like to hear the words “…-… …'s” ever again if she lives to be 100. But, of course, they WILL hear them, over and over again, until the titillation value wears out for those who insist on uttering them. Whenever that might be.</p>
<p>Race relations in America is an issue that needs serious, ongoing thought and discussion; the Imus insult could conceivably be used as a catalyst for that–but not until the frenzied circus leaves town.</p>
<h2>“This hysteria has been spurred on in large part by the team’s race-baiting, political-agenda-driven, unappointed representatives (the usual suspects)”</h2>
<p>Emphasis on the word UNAPPOINTED, since I don’t think the Rutgers team is affiliated with anything Sharpton or Jackson have said or done.</p>
<h2>“Along with the multitude of on-air/print morons who seem to find constant repetition of Imus’s ugly phrase a turn-on of sorts. This is not improving the situation. Not for the team, not for Imus, not for America.”</h2>
<p>There are some that believe if the Imus situation forces Sharpton and Jackson to humble themselves for their part in damaging the Duke lax players (There! I broke my own rule!), it might be good for someone. I don’t know about that though.</p>
<p>Personally, the more I think about it, forced apologies from insincere people (Imus, Jackson, Sharpton, Gibson, Richards, Washington, etc…) are meaningless to the hurt individuals. The only thing they accomplish is to make the perpetrators of the hurt think twice before they do it again…and not because they care about who they hurt, but because they care about their own hides. </p>
<p>Right now, the persons I would like to see held accountable and from whom I would like to see an apology is all the heads of the network and cable news outlets as well as talk show hosts and reporters who promulgate controversy for profits. </p>
<p>Regarding your last statement hindoo. Cynic that I am, I truly believe that once the media circus leaves town, there will be no serious, thought provoking discussion of race relations in America. The media circus serves as a hindrance to progress, no doubt. But apathy is a hindrance as well. CBS and MSNBC and the general public had no problems with the content of Imus’ show prior to this…and it was pretty bad stuff. Any criticism of Imus’ past and constant racial slurs against the general minority population weren’t important (think profitable) enough for news outlets to cover, until now, when he was stupid enough to go after innocent people specifically.</p>
<p>I hope it (progress) happens, but I bet it doesn’t.</p>
<p>I hope that you all got a chance to watch the panel discussion over at “Meet the Press” yesterday. PBS News Hour edditor Gwen Ifill said it all as far as I am concerned, without any venom or drama. She was quite Just lucid and thought provoking. She was a victim of Imus cruelty but didn’t necessarily personalize the issue.</p>
<p>As for the all the clickety-clack regarding apologies, disingenuous claims of double standards, and lack of moral authority, my disgust is directed at the narrow minded Sean Hannity, Larry Elder, Armstrong Williams, Juan Williams etc. whom I believe can be accurately described as blissfully ignorant. They each asked about the credibility of certain “Black Representatives,” and we all know who they mean. Yet, how is it that all of these self-appointed “national opinionmakers” were never interested in the anti-vulgarity and anti-rap protests of prominent people like C. Delores Tucker, Rev. Calvin O. Butts (and his CD-crushing streamroller, LOL)? Or the student leaders at Spelman College, who made rapper Nelly turn-tail and cancel a concert when they ‘dared’ to question him about his nasty lyrics about women. Spelman, an HBUC, has been one of the most noteworthy liberal arts colleges for years, but I guess the Sean Hannity could careless, despite his conversial radio career in Atlanta some years ago. Gee, I wonder why he was fired from a top gig in a major metropolitan area that has a substantial and relatively affluent Black population? But that’s another thread.</p>
<p>No, all those guys could see in le affaire Imus were Jackson and Shaprton. And BTW, they even got their Jackson-Sharpton complaints wrong. Sharpton was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly a while ago, where he condemned vulgar rap music. No, The Sharpton-Jackson critics, which on ocassion I am–when I disagree with the reverends, didn’t think the concerns of NBC employees like Al Roper and Keith Olbermann, or of the women employees, were important enough to merit discussion.</p>
<p>Michael Smerconish? He’s a local early-morning personality here in Philly and you couldn’t ask for a nicer, fairer guy. I listened to him last week and after checking out Media Matters, I can understand why he was so worked up.</p>
<p>In addition, I often hear African Americans calling in to his and other shows agreeing with the conservative point of view on various issues. It is insulting, condescending, and demeaning to them, it seems to me, to act as if they are a monolithic liberal voting bloc, by attempting to deny them the opportunity to hear their own point of view on the airwaves.</p>
<p>HH, if you were responding to me, you’ve misjudged my opinions in this matter. I didn’t use the word ‘conservative.’ My comments were directed at specific personalities and statments that they made. Incidentally, I’ve never read anything published or broadcast by Media Matters. And as any fair minded person realizes, the opinions and perspectives of Black Americans are just as varied as their backgrounds and experiences. In fact, if anything, conservatives generally have demeaned this community by typically IGNORING the fact that in terms of mores and religious values, they have much in common with a large swath of Black Americans, middle-class or poor, as George Will noted years ago. I mean, just visit a typical African-American church (especially in the south). Or go talk to working class African-American homeowners who struggle with rising property taxes and still have inadequate public services and schools to contend with. Do conservative ideologues or Media Matters speak for them?</p>
<p>I don’t agree that conservatives have demeaned the AA community by “ignoring” what they have in common when it comes to traditional and religious values and economic concerns at all. For example, I would love to see Michael Steele rise to prominence the way Obama has. He speaks for me–doesn’t matter what race he is. </p>
<p>This is why I took offense when people here were so willing to put down Jason Whitlock–and quite viciously too. There are certain voices that some people don’t want to hear from the AA community–it works against their agendas. </p>
<p>And when people here complained about “radio” and “cable” and even “white” radio, we all know who they mean. All voices should be welcomed, as long as they do not insult or demean individuals or groups. We’re on a slippery slope when we hear Rev. Al and David Brock begin calling for a “broader conversation on bigotry and sexism in the media.” </p>
<p>That’s obviously simply a smokescreen for the goal of tamping down conservative media. Obviously, there is no liberal talk radio of significance, and there is no liberal cable network which compares to conservative Fox. </p>
<p>HH, it appears that you and I are not far apart somewhat, though I will stand by my assessment that SOME prominent conservatives are content to overlook broad AA community concerns. For example, I attended a John McWhorter discussion some months ago. He related that he met then-Senator Rick Santorum at a reception. He asked the Senator about Republican support for some policy that may impact Black folks. McWhorter (no liberal) said that Santorum’s reply was “why should we? They don’t vote for us!” Now I wouldn’t criticize Santorum for that opinion because that’s Politics and Elections 101.</p>
<p>As for the presumption that ‘le affaire Imus’ will now morph into a smokescreen for removing conservative ideas and opinion from the broadcast media, I can’t say. I will wait and see but I would not favor such action. In fact, here in metro NY/NJ I believe that there’s not enough different voices of all persuasions given the opportunity to broadcast. I will admit to bias against Hannity and Limbaugh because of their insults and omissions of the truth and I can be specific. The “bone in your nose” and “General David Dinkins,” i.e. african dictator comments by Limbaugh; and the Jesse Jackson “spat in white peoples’ food” complaint by Hannity. In my opinion, Hannity repeats that comment completely out of context, that is, he never notes that Jackson did that act in retaliation at the Jim Crow restaurant he worked at as a teenager. Heck, many Black folks doubt that it even happened, knowing Jackson’s habit of exaggeration. LOL. Anyway, I wouldn’t support Hannity or Limbaugh being run out of town, but I vote by not listening to them or by turning them off. Look, Metzger the Klansman/Supremacist had a talk show in San Diego years ago. My reaction; so what? The words of good people will defeat the bravado of the intolerant.</p>
<p>I must admit I didn’t listen to Limbaugh all through the nineties! As a Democrat then, my ears were glued to NPR. I have no idea of his record on this stuff; I do know that when I get a chance to tune in now (as I will today–I’m home), I often actually turn the show off because his detailed discussions of legislation, economics, etc. often bore me! Also, while he was on his painkillers, he tended to ramble on and on–again, I turned him off. I know he comes down hard on Hillary, Edwards, Kerry, etc., but as high-profile political figures, they’re fair game, it seems to me. His recent Edwards parody (the Breck Girl) is hilarious, imo. All in all, however, he does not “spew hate”, nor is he dangerous.</p>
<p>As for Santorum’s remark, I’ve been losing respect for him for quite sometime now. If his remark is true, I would not vote for him (assuming he ever gets the chance to run again).</p>
<p>I would love a chance to see a Steele/Obama debate, btw. Now that would be interesting! Imo, Steele would own Obama. :)</p>
Lake Washington, you can’t have been following the conservative movement, doing much reading of their premiere journals, or paying attention to their choice of black media guests if you believe this. The commonality of blacks & whites is a cornerstone of the movement. Read Bill Buckley, who is probably the most prominent of the conservative movement’s founders. I watched Firing Line my whole life, and THAT is the foundation of modern conservatism, not a lound mouth talk radio host looking to shock listeners. There is a HUGE range of opinions in the conservative movement, much as there is a wide range among blacks. Remember that Rush is an entertainer, first & foremost. He says wild & outrageous things to get ratings. He also has some of the funniest parody bits around. And he adores Michael Steele & features his campaign message prominently on the program. I enjoy listening to Rush, but don’t get much of a chance to do so. As for Hannity – not the brightest bulb, but a handsome guy who rose to prominence because of his photogenic gig on Fox News. Savage – Pure entertainment for those who want outrageous, nasty, over-the-top commentary. Gives me a headache & became boring in a hurry. Frankly, that style earns no converts to his message. I bet his listeners tune in the MTV’s Jackass show for kicks, too.</p>
<p>At any rate, the push to clean up rap that has long been ongoing in various black communities has been EXTENSIVELY covered in conservative journals and on conservative blogs & radio shows. I’ve been reading about it for years. It’s the mainstream media that runs to Sharpton & Jackson…not the conservatives.</p>
)</p>
It’s about time! ;)</p>