Friday, April 13

Neal Boortz, upstanding libertarian.


It's not easy being green . . . it is, however, slightly easier being a total douche.

I was kind of hoping I'd be able to make my Wednesday post on the Don Imus affair the last thing I'd have to say on this subject, but so-called libertarian radio host Neal Boortz wrote a screed on the topic so ridiculous and ill-thought-out that I couldn't let it go.

I enjoy ripping Boortz because Josh likes him, and I like fucking with Josh every bit as much as he likes fucking with me. But I also enjoy ripping Boortz because I believe him to be about as phony a "libertarian" as there is, for reasons I've probably delved deeply into on this site or at my old blog. And Boortz's piece on Imus was so head-slappingly dumb, I think, that it deserves a dismantling every bit as comprehensive as I always used to give Ann Coulter on that blog. So in the spirit of Ann Coulter is a Lousy Writer and She Isn't Even That Hot, here's what may be just the first of many installments of Neal Boortz, So-Called Libertarian, Doesn't Know What the Hell He's Talking About. Or NBSCLDKWHHTA, if you'd rather.

Well, another Boortz prediction down the tubes. Yesterday I said that CBS would fire Don Imus after his show today. Well, they didn't wait. Couldn't stand up to the pressure. The [sic] fired him yesterday afternoon.

When the history of this whole affair is written we'll see that the biggest mistake Imus made, other than uttering his ridiculous comment in the first place, was to add to Al Sharpton's aura of legitimacy by groveling before him on his radio show. Sharpton is a race hustler. That's it. One issue ... race .. and exploiting the sense of black victimization for his personal aggrandizement.


Well, I'm curious as to Boortz's stance on just exactly how victimized African-Americans in this country are permitted to feel. But because I'm a nice guy, I'll even give him a pass and stipulate to every criticism Boortz makes of Sharpton.

I absolutely believe that Al Sharpton is a man with blood on his hands. His role in instigating racial violence in the Freddie's Fashion Mart incident and the Crown Heights riots has been largely ignored by the media. So here we have the spectacle of the management of CBS falling to their knees to lick the boots of a man who's [sic] words very well may have helped to send innocent men to their graves. You're really looking good, CBS.


OK, now's where I have to stop Boortz in his faux-libertarian tracks. Has anyone gotten a hold of the letters of dismissal issued to Imus by MSNBC or CBS? I haven't seen them myself, but I'll make you a bet: Al Sharpton's signature does not appear anywhere on them. In the end, I would also be willing to bet that the size of the shit either one of those networks give about Al Sharpton's opinion is relatively tiny. Here's whom they do care about: advertisers. Advertisers like American Express, Staples, and Procter & Gamble, just to name a few. These companies yanked their advertising because they didn't want the public to perceive any association between them and what Imus said.

If you don't think these advertisers, not Sharpton, were the ones really driving Imus's firing, consider that MSNBC's initial punishment for Imus was merely a two-week suspension. It was only after the advertisers started dropping out that they pulled his show. CBS's internal deliberations aren't quite as clear, but they didn't fire Imus until the advertisers started bolting, either.

So I'm curious: What exactly is Neal's prescribed remedy for this? Force MSNBC and CBS to put Imus back on the air? Force all those corporations to reinstate their sponsorship? My goodness, Neal, that doesn't sound very libertarian to me. Blame Reverend Al all you want, but in the end this was a market decision: The market, for whatever reason, decided they didn't have any use for Imus anymore, and now he's gone. Even Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke, those noted left-wing pinkos on Fox News, have managed to grasp this.

That makes a nice little segue into this next bit of nonsense:

This is only the beginning. Sure, Imus is a liberal.


Mmm-hmm, and what's Boortz's proof of this?

You can measure the depth of his vapidity through his endorsement of John Kerry for president.


Yes, Imus did endorse Kerry in 2004. So did noted far-left commie sympathizers such as Andrew Sullivan, Lee Iacocca, former New Hampshire Sen. Bob Smith, Dwight D. Eisenhower's son John, and former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili. It should not escape your attention that Imus also endorsed far-left Texas Gov. George W. Bush for president in 2000, and has vocally backed the equally liberal John McCain for 2008.

Some of you have asked how in the world I can say that this is the beginning of an all-out push to damage or destroy conservative talk radio when it was a liberal who bit the dust. Simple. Imus was sacrificed. A "proof of concept" exercise, if you will. Now the left knows that race hustler Al Sharpton can move large corporate mountains with his racially charged dialogue ... so it's time to use him to go after the real nemesis -- talk radio.


. . . Aaaand that's the part where Boortz snatches up Occam's Razor, dashes it to the ground, and breaks it into a million tiny pieces. Seriously, can any of y'all explain this theory to me? Boortz portrays Imus, who isn't actually a liberal, as a liberal because then it will fit better into his theory about liberal interest groups targeting . . . conservatives?

Sharpton is feeling very impressed with himself, I'm sure. Yesterday he told an anxiously awaiting media that; "It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves."

Yup .. you heard him. "What is permitted in terms of the airwaves." Big Al is just the man to decide. Somewhere soon Sharpton will sit down with some cronies to review the talk radio landscape to figure out who needs to be the next to go. In the meantime he'll give some lip service to the cause of cleaning up rap lyrics, but know this ... talk radio is the target. Conservative talk radio. Liberals can't succeed at the medium ... so it must be destroyed.


Whoo! Close your eyes and feel the melodrama!

The thing is, I actually agree with Boortz that Sharpton's statement was a dumb one, and that nobody should be appointing themselves high arbiter of "what is permitted" and what isn't in terms of free speech. But Boortz is so busy wetting his drawers over fanciful conspiracy theories that he has once again forgotten (or conveniently ignored) one thing: Sharpton, by his race-baiting lonesome, doesn't have the power to fire anybody. All he has the power to do is pressure advertisers -- the money men -- and then hope that they cave. Which is not even remotely different from what guys like, say, Bill Donohue do every time one of those secular Hollywood Jews comes up with something he doesn't like. (Yet, strangely, you hardly ever hear Boortz talking about what a pernicious danger Donohue is to our precious freedoms. Wonder why that is?)

The far left has its own ways of trying to squeeze out people they don't agree with; the far right has plenty of theirs. And maybe that sucks, but as long as the government isn't getting involved, it ain't censorship. As I've said before, it's actually quite a bit closer to that capitalism thing I thought Boortz was such a big fan of.

Silver lining? I think there well might be. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of people -- maybe much more -- are going to be tuning in to their local talk stations to see if the situation is really as hideous as Sharpton and his sycophants allege. Leftist websites are going to drive even more people our way. What will these people hear? They'll hear logical and fact-based arguments against the anti-individual, anti-liberty cult of liberalism. They'll hear ideas and concepts presented that they haven't previously been exposed. They'll hear information about Democrat schemes and dreams in Washington that will make their blood curdle.


OK, I kind of started to doze off here, sorry.

Here's just one example: Read the mainstream newspapers and listen to liberal talking heads on television and you'll soon generate a burning hatred of those evil people who constitute the mysterious "richest Americans." Listen to talk radio and you'll soon learn that a huge percentage of these people vilified for their income levels are actually the small businessmen and women of America .. and that they are considered to be rich because all of their business as well as personal income is reported on their personal income tax returns. You'll learn that these people -- the people targeted for huge tax increases by the left -- actually provide between 70% and 80% of all jobs in America ... perhaps your job. And then you're going to start wondering what a tax increase might do to them ... and to the people who work for them.


When one of those mean nasty liberals actually proposes an income-tax increase, one of y'all be sure to let me know. (I'm really touched, by the way, for Boortz's concern for "the people who work for them.")

This, of course, is not healthy for liberals. There [sic] recourse is to shut down these channels of dangerous information. Sharpton is showing them the way.

Just a few more thoughts .... I want to make sure to give Sharpton and his goons as much to go over as possible.

You would have thought that "Rev." Sharpton and Imus would have gotten along famously! After all, they have the same hairdresser. (Ohhhhh. That's not a racist statement, is it? I mean ... after all ... one of them is black and one of them is white.)

I see that Obama had to chime in and call for Imus to be fired. A little late to the party, weren't you Barack? I guess he just couldn't sit back and watch that fool Sharpton suck all of the oxygen out Barackobamamania.


Why is Boortz suddenly dragging Obama into this? As much effort as conservatives have undertaken to make it look like Obama and Sharpton hate each other, didn't you think Neal would be sitting back there shouting "Go, Barack, go"?

Rutgers Coach Vivian Stringer says it's time to "go forward and let the healing process begin." Healing process? What healing process? I'm not buying any of this nonsense that the Rutgers woman's basketball team was egregiously hurt by Imus' comments.


I hope none of you have missed the industrial-strength irony here: Neal Boortz, self-proclaimed champion of the individual, the guy who doesn't want anyone in the government telling you what to do, is now presuming to tell the Rutgers basketball players how they should feel about being called "nappy-headed hos."

Tennessee wins the championship and Rutgers gets all the publicity. It wasn't the Tennessee girl [sic] that were allowed to sit before the national TV cameras a few days ago. And how many of you can name the Tennessee coach?


"That were allowed to sit." Christ. Yes, Neal, I'm sure that the Tennessee players are all sitting around thinking, "Man, those lucky Rutgers players got to be insulted and degraded on national radio, and all we got was this stupid-ass national-championship trophy." (By the way, Tennessee's coach's name is Pat Summitt. And I didn't even have to Google that!)

Let's face it .. the only people really, genuinely hurt in this episode are those connected with the Imus show who are now going to lose their jobs. Maybe those were the people Stringer was talking about with here [sic] silly "let the healing begin" comment. (Uh oh. Stringer is black ... I think ... and I just called her comment "silly." Do you think I should resign?)


Well, you managed to stop short of calling her a "ho," Neal, so I guess not. But may I officially call for a voluntary moratorium on this practice of people calling attention to how controversial or scandalous they are in their own writing? This is almost as bad as laughing at your own jokes in print. Here's a rule of thumb, Neal and whoever else might be listening: If you have to set aside a snarky parenthetical to drive home how funny/scandalous something you just said was, it probably wasn't that funny/scandalous.

So anyway to recap, Boortz's three main points are: 1) Corporations should be left to do whatever they want, unless it's withdrawing advertising from prominent broadcasters who are proven to be complete assholes, in which case they should be FORCED to continue publicly supporting complete assholes nobody likes; 2) Taking down a "liberal" was the first part of Al Sharpton's fiendish plan to take down . . . uh, conservatives (and steal your precious bodily fluids, or something); and 3) The Rutgers basketball team should just shut up and stop being offended, because I said so. Neal Boortz, ladies and gentlemen. Book him for your child's birthday party today!

Seriously, if this guy's a libertarian, I'm a fucking Rutgers women's basketball player. But Boortz did accomplish something very clever with this little rant, as rambling and flimsy as it was: Did you notice how he took a situation where a group of unassuming college girls were debased on national radio and managed to turn right-wing talk-radio hosts into the victims? Kinda hypocritical from someone who slags off the "victimization" complex of blacks and nearly every other minority group, but then again, hypocrisy is hardly virgin territory for our man Boortz. Again, I think a much bigger deal is being made out of this Imus thing than it probably merits, but it's funny how Boortz starts in on a rant that outwardly shares that view -- but then proceeds to make an even bigger deal of it just so that he can push his Can't sleep, liberals will eat me conspiracy theories.

So much irony I can hardly stand it! But hey, it's the weekend.

(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan.)

35 comments:

blackertai said...

Good Lord, I want to have your manbabies.

NCT said...

Outstanding!

Bill from JC said...

Good job!

Josh said...

"...but I'll make you a bet: Al Sharpton's signature does not appear anywhere on them."

Boortz is not implying Sharpton did the firing himself. He is saying CBS didn't have the balls to stand up to him.

The problem with this whole "advertisers are fleeing" nonsense is that it just wasn't true. A few had pulled support, but I guarantee you CBS would have had zero problem filling that space. And those original sponsors that pulled their support LARGELY DUE TO THE PRESSURE APPLIED BY SHARPTON ET. AL And those original advertisers probably would have been back very soon.

You know why? Ratings would not have gone down, because the vast majority of the public thinks this is all nonsense. The only people truly offended never listened to Imus in the first place. Hell, ratings would have no doubt gone up for quite a while.

Also, Boortz never says anything even close to forcing CBS to put Imus back on the air - that's all your reading between lines that don't exist. He's calling them out for bending over so quickly.

And as I implied on my blog a few days ago, I believe Boortz is correct in that the Fairness Doctrine is right around the corner if a Democrat is elected President.

Oh, and Boortz has called out Bill Donohue MANY TIMES. Have you ever listened to his show? He takes on fundamentalist Christians almost daily.

And God, you're really grasping when you say Boortz is telling the players how they should feel. He simply says he's not buying the idea that they are hurt. In fact, let's quote it in full: "I'm not buying any of this nonsense that the Rutgers woman's basketball team was egregiously hurt by Imus' comments." How, in ANY way, can that be translated to: "This is how you should feel, girls."

In your "recap" at the end, 1) not even close to anything Boortz actually said. 2) Again, you're misstating his words, as he called it "proof of concept exercise" as the beginning of an all-out attack on talk radio (dominated by, yes, conservatives). 3) Again, not even close to anything Boortz said.

Rob G said...

Personally, I dislike Sharpton, Boortz and Imus. This whole situation is win-win for me. Everyone looks bad.

ACG said...

Josh, the one comment with which I really take umbrage is the "he's not buying the idea that they are hurt." How in God's name does he think he knows how they feel? He's not in their shoes. As a rich, privileged white male, he's never been in any position similar to theirs. So maybe he'd have a different reaction to being called a "nappy-headed ho" on nationally syndicated radio after making it to the NCAA finals, but for him to question their reaction is presumptuous bullshit, because he has no way of knowing.

My dad used to do that to me all the time. "That didn't hurt." "Oh, you're not upset." "Stop crying, that didn't bother you." I'm really, really glad he stopped doing that, because it really did hurt every time and it hurt even more when he tried to downplay the legitimacy of my feelings. Don't be that guy.

Doug said...

Josh, nearly every one of your objections is pure speculation.

"CBS would have had zero problem filling that space" -- OK, which corporations had volunteered to start sponsoring the Imus show? "Those original advertisers probably would have been back very soon" -- how do you know that? "Ratings would not have gone down" -- again, how do you know? "The Fairness Doctrine is right around the corner if a Democrat is elected President" -- which Democratic candidate has proposed that?

And no, I don't believe I'm "misstating" any of Boortz's words. He specifically said the liberals had a plan to "destroy" talk radio, and he specifically said the Imus takedown was the first step in it. And he called the idea that the Rutgers players were hurt "nonsense" that he wasn't "buying" -- so evidently he doesn't think that the coach or any of the players are being sincere. Has he ever met them? What right does he have to make that judgment?

Look, as much as I dislike Boortz, I could at least give him credit for being reasonably bright, and he at least bothers to come up with fairly well-reasoned arguments in support of his positions, even if they're arguments I don't agree with. But this screed he wrote was an embarrassment. I mean, he sounded like he was one step away from accusing Hillary of having planted a microchip in his brain.

Anonymous said...

Then are we to assume that you do not support the Fairness Doctrine, Doug?

Josh said...

"And so what I've asked is for our Committee's work to include a revisiting of the Fairness Doctrine in this year of 2007."

- Dennis Kucinich, 2007

Josh said...

"There has been a profound and negative change in the relationship of America's media with America's people. This all began, incidentally, when the Fairness Doctrine ended. You would have had a dramatic change in the discussion in this country had we still had a Fairness Doctrine in the course of the last campaign."

- John Kerry, following his 2004 defeat

Josh said...

"We need to break-up the media monopolies, return to the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time Protection in broadcasting and encourage local media ownership."

- from John Edwards' blog (though not written by Edwards himself)

Doug said...

John Kerry has already announced he won't be running for president in '08, and I think we both know that Dennis Kucinich isn't going to get elected.

As for the Edwards blog, that was a diary written by an individual Edwards supporter; you yourself could conceivably start a diary on the Edwards site talking about how you favor further tax cuts and the Iraq troop surge. I don't see any evidence that the Fairness Doctrine is part of Edwards's official platform.

Josh said...

You asked for a candidate, I gave you one. And I gave you two more examples to show you that the concern over the revival of the Fairness Doctrine isn't some right wing scare tactic. Of course Hillary and Obama aren't going to come out and declare their support for it while they're playing moderate for election's sake.

Doug said...

So wait: Republican candidates like McCain and Bush cozy up to the right-wing evangelical Christians during campaign season, but you've said before that that's OK because they're just firing up the base and they don't really intend to follow through on those right-wing issues once they get elected.

But neither Clinton nor Obama have said squat about the Fairness Doctrine so far, and yet somehow you know they're just "playing moderate" and fully intend to implement the Doctrine once elected?

Like Boortz, you have a lot of speculation going on here that, so far, isn't backed up by much.

Anonymous said...

1) As ACG has pointed out on her blog, the formation of the thought of the Rutgers team as "nappy-headed hos" defines him as a racist. That he uttered those thoughts on national radio and TV makes him an arrogant stupid racist. His past behavior in this regard is ample supporting evidence of his state of mind where race is concerned.
2) The nation's airwaves, unlike private speech, are public assets subject to regulation.
3) "Two wrongs do not make a right". The context is entirely different, but the rappers use of such terms is also despicable. Interestingly enough, Sharpton has stated that the entertainment industry is a future target.
4) Sharpton may have been the most outspoken critic of Imus' words, but was by no means the only one. Some have said that the cancellation by the advertisers has been a triumph of black purchasing power.
5) Sharpton is a race baiter, but sometimes he is right. Dahmer was a murdering cannibal, but he loved his mother, and we don't condemn motherhood because of him.
6) Perhaps Imus, through the reaction to his words and after meeting the team, has experienced an epiphany and will change his thinking. Maybe we should give him the chance to demonstrate a new resolve.
7) Boortz is hypocritical scum.

Anonymous said...

http://realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/the_barker_and_the_shill_the_f.html

Boortz and Imus, especially Imus, are profession provocateurs. I don't understand the resulting surprise with Imus' comments.

Liberals have always defended their pet media programs and freedom of speech by saying, "If you don't like what you are seeing or hearing, you can always change the channel." Now they are saying, "If you don't like what you are seeing or hearing, let's march and get the asshole fired." A sad, hypocritical turn of events but if you know liberals, it's understandable - liberals always want it both ways.

Josh said...

My speculation is backed up by a history of media trends. Via Boortz, here's the MSNBC poll asking "Should CBS and MSNBC have fired Don Imus?"

Yes, 24%
No, 73%
Not sure 3.5%

So I feel confident in saying Imus's ratings would go up, because there are countless people who had never heard of him that would be tuning in - and it seems that after all this, the majority of people are feeling Imus was screwed in some way. Advertisers would certainly respond to that. Even if his ratings went back to their normal levels (and they likely would eventually), he was still a moneymaker.

Of course all of this is speculation, because CBS didn't have the guts to stand up to pressure. They cut and run before they had to. There was no danger of dead air being played where the advertisers used to be.

TOM said...

Sounds like "pickle".

Provocateurs or not, conservative or not, there are limitations to what can be said on the public airwaves. And whether the speech occurs on the airwaves or not, those who object to the speech are free to react to it as they see fit (as long as it is within the law).

"If you can't stand the fire, get out of the kitchen". Those who provoke are not immune from the resultant reaction. If your livlihood depends on the goodwill of those who pay your way, who depend for their livlihood on the goodwill of the public, then you risk reaching a point beyond their tolerance.

And he has.

As Shakespeare said, "hoist on his own petard".

Josh said...

"2) The nation's airwaves, unlike private speech, are public assets subject to regulation."

So, gutsy Anonymous, who decides how they get regulated? And would you feel the same way if talk radio was dominated by the left?

TOM said...

Goodness gracious, Josh, so sensitive! So far there has been no governmental reaction to this at all. People are speaking with their own words and voting with their own dollars. It is the free maket at work. How could you not love it?!

Josh said...

You said "regulation." Please don't pretend you used that word when talking about the will of the free market.

Anonymous said...

Imus will be back on XM/Sirius and he will make more money than ever. I don't feel sorry for Imus. I feel sorry for anyone who has to listen to Sharpton's and Jackson's hypocritical rhetoric until they crawl back into their holes. Sharpton issued an apology for his condemnation of the Duke lacrosse players. He is "sorry that he was misled by the DA." What a piece of shit.

TOM said...

That radio speech is subject to regulation was cited just to make the point that such speech does not enjoy unbridled protection, contrary to the implication of many that we should just accept this and get over it. The free market aspect of it just makes it more fun.

Anonymous said...

"who decides how they get regulated?"

The FCC.

Anonymous said...

Geico caveman response: "What?"

Tom said...

Your comment about talk radio being dominated by the left raises these interesting thoughts- if the regulators (FCC) and media bosses are as controlled by the left as some would have us believe, then why do Fox and Rush and Hannity and Boortz and Coulter survive? Rush's "Halfrican" comments and Coulter's "faggot" are certainly intolerant, judgemental, and objectionable. They survive because of free speech and the willingness of advertisers to pay to reach their audiences. So let's not pretend that right wing speach is somehow being suppressed. Imus went over a line that the others had merely approached. And suffered the consequences not of the regulators but of popular opinion. The fact that it disagrees with your opinion merely puts you in the minority.

Josh said...

Right wing speech isn't being suppressed - yet. And please don't mistake CBS's flinching as "popular opinion." According to an MSNBC poll, nearly three in four people think the firing was inappropriate.

Oh, and Coulter's "faggot" comment wasn't on the radio, and I think "halfrican" is actually pretty funny.

ACG said...

Sincere question here Josh, I promise I'm not trying to start stuff - If a biracial person came on here and said, "Actually, I find 'halfrican' pretty offensive,' would you find that valid? Or would you tell them that they weren't really offended? Or would you make a comment about your opinion not mattering because you're not black? I know that sounds snarky, but it's a serious question.

Josh said...

Actually, my response would be short: Lighten the fuck up. I honestly don't see anything offensive in that word - Obama IS half African-American! "Halfrican" is just a joke! I mean, goddamn, we're too fucking uptight in this country, and if you're offended by the slightest little joke, go fuck yourself. (OK, that was longer - and probably a little harsher - than I originally intended.)

And I see what you're doing, spinning my possible reaction to Boortz's. Boortz included a very important word in his column, though: "egregiously."

"I'm not buying any of this nonsense that the Rutgers woman's basketball team was egregiously hurt by Imus' comments."

Do you really think those basketball players were egregiously hurt by what some old radio host they'd probably never heard of said? Who knows if Boortz and I are right, but neither one of us believe they were crying into their beers the first time they read Imus's comments. And if they were - you guessed it, lighten the fuck up.

ACG said...

And I see what you're doing, spinning my possible reaction to Boortz's.

As I said in the beginning, I was asking a sincere question. I just wanted to gauge your position on this stuff, because you have made comments about your opinion not mattering because you're not black, and you have made comments indicating that people aren't as bothered as offended as they say they are, and you really aren't in their shoes and therefore in any position to judge what would or would not be offensive to them, and I was just exploring that a little. Sincerely.

Dude, lighten the fuck up.

Doug said...

Do you really think those basketball players were egregiously hurt by what some old radio host they'd probably never heard of said?

You know what? Not being able to read minds, I don't spend a lot of time dwelling on it. I pretty much take their words at face value and move on. If they say they were hurt, that's good enough for me.

I mean, earlier you tried to defend Boortz from charges that he was "telling" the Rutgers players how to feel, but now here you are, telling them how to feel -- or, rather, telling them how not to feel. "You were hurt by his comments? Stop it."

This being America, theoretically you can tell another person how to feel or not feel, but that doesn't obligate them in any way to actually do that. Either way, it doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

Free speech means that nobody in America has the right to never, ever be offended. But it also means they have the right to be offended if they want to be.

Anonymous said...

MSNBC viewership of Imus doubled in the days before his termination. Capitalism would have saved him. It was the race baiting hos, Sharpton, Jackson, etc. that extorted the network to dump him.

Anonymous said...

The Imus standard: You can't say that

Radio talk show host Don Imus called Rutgers' mostly black women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" and got fired. Al Sharpton falsely accused a white man of rape and incited a race riot that left several dead. Jesse Jackson called Jews "hymies." And yet they still mingle at the highest circles of Democratic Party politics.
Imus' comments were indefensible. Even if the women did have tattoos and look a bit street-tough, as Imus was trying to say, calling them whores was an insult too far. But is it a fireable offense for a "shock jock" who has built his career uttering juvenile comments, including regularly making what he calls "n----- jokes"?

What Imus said was a great deal tamer than what is routinely uttered by rappers who call women "bitches" and boast about using and abusing them. It is tamer than the misogynistic and even racist jokes numerous stand-up comics make a living uttering. How did this offensive but comparatively tame comment get a major radio host pulled from the air? Fellow syndicated radio host Neal Boortz has a theory.

Boortz thinks that the Left has finally figured out how to bring down talk radio: accuse the hosts of racism. Unable to compete with talk radio, the Left has opted to play thought police. Racial prejudice is the last free speech taboo in America. Peg a broadcaster as racist, and you can bring him down.

"Liberals see this whole Imus situation as a way to rid themselves of the problem of talk radio ... they will turn their attention to the rest of us. The tape recorders will be running. There is not one single significant right-of-center radio talk show out there that is not going to come under fire."

Boortz has a point. Calling black women "hos" is not offensive to the cultural Left. If it were, there would be boycotts of rap stars and record labels. But if it presents an opportunity to go after a non-liberal talk radio host, the Left will take it. With one notch on their belt, they'll be sure to seek others.

Meanwhile, the same people who demanded Imus' head on a pike will continue to give platforms to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as legions of rappers provide the misogynistic background music.


Copyright, Manchester Union Leader, 2007

Josh said...

I'm not telling anybody how to feel. I'm saying life is too freaking short to worry about dumb shit. I mean, doesn't the whole "nappy headed ho" story feel a little bit stupid and overwrought in light of what's happened today at Virginia Tech? I mean, there's some real shit in this world to be bothered by, and we should just learn to let the lesser things slide a bit. You'll live longer.

Hey, ignore my "advice" if you want, but that's all it is - advice. Those women can feel however they want to feel about it, and I can't change that. I ain't forcing anybody to feel anything. Anybody can be offended by the (really, absurdly innocuous) "halfrican." Fine and dandy. My suggestion, though, is to reevaluate.

(By the way, my comments about my opinion not mattering because I wasn't black were because another commenter inferred that.)

I love the Gilletts, by the way. I wouldn't change a thing about y'all.

Josh said...

Whoops, I do admit my mistakes. I didn't mean to say "I'm not telling anybody how to feel." Because I am, but that's what everybody does when they give advice. It's a suggestion. Because despite growing up in the white middle class, I have learned a thing or two in my 31 years, including how to accept/disregard an insult (Doug can attest that I definitely honed that skill in college.) You're free to accept my advice, ignore it, tell me to shove it up my ass. Whatever. But just because you tell somebody how to feel doesn't mean you're holding a gun to their head.

I meant to say something to the effect of, "I'm not forcing anybody to feel any particular way."