It’s not so much anger as an inability to think clearly, which results in frustration and ultimately anger if we’re very frustrated. We’ve been brought up with certain emotionally appealing biases which unconsciously influence our thoughts. Instead of thinking critically to ensure that our emotions don’t lead us astray, we allow (because that’s how we were trained) our emotions to control our brains based on leftist “truths” which really aren’t but are so ingrained that they are taken as “gospel” even now. Unless we learn how to unlearn what doesn’t work and start fresh with what does (a never ending task) we will continue making mistakes, being frustrated, getting angry, etc., etc., . . .

If you want to learn some of the gory details, please download and/or just listen to Evan Sayet’s brilliantly insightful talk. It explains an awful lot.

I wasn’t going to add this, but some of the thoughtful might want to know it. Apparently, Imus was only a jerk on-air. Personally, he was one heck of a nice guy, at least if the following strangly titled article is correct.

“there is more than sexist and racist ranting to the man Time magazine once named one of the 25 Most Influential People in America. Sometimes bad Imus lets good Imus out to do good work. For the past nine years, his Imus Cattle Ranch for Kids with Cancer has brought some measure of comfort and joy to seriously ill children regardless of race, creed or national origin. On his last day on the air, Imus was fund-raising for three charities — two for children with cancer, one for families who have lost babies to SIDS, bringing in more than $2 million in contributions.”

I may have to rething my opinion of the man, at least a little. After all, bad people just do not behave that way. In fact, I wonder if Sharpton of Jackson, despite all their talk of “caring,” have ever done anything like that?

It doesn’t matter that he used language that is common in society’s lexicon. Particularly in that segment of society where the professed offended are members and who voluntarily purchase music and other materials that contain even stronger and more insulting words. To them, those words are so value, so desired, they are purchased.

The only issue at play is the color of the man who spoke the words. That segment of society has learned from experience that there is money and notoriety at stake. Sharpton gets to bloviate. Women oblivious to the remarks get to so do with crocodial tears. Guilt laden whites in the media are afforded the opportunity to jump on a bandstand and profess their shock and horror at the remarks made. Often the same remarks they privately use at home. But there’s an issue to take. There’s a point to be made. Don Imus is just the most recent addition to this hall of shame.

The real issue is much more sinister – who is allowed to say what? The marketplace will judge if Imus went over the line. No one else needs to be getting their panties in a fake wad pretending offense or lecturing from an ivory tower. Silencing the white male is the objective. Make no bones about this.

“It seems that people are so angry about everything that they need these surrogates to do the fighting for them. Since the audience accepts no responsibility, there is no incentive for civil discourse or for holding one’s punches.”

Domajot, I must say I agree. There seems to be a toxic level of anger in society, and people seem to really enjoy people like Limbaugh or Imus or Olbermann as long as they mock or attack…someone.

I came across a story yesterday about so-called “shock jocks” on Portland, Oregon’s 94.7 FM KNRK who were fired after playing the audio of Nicholas Berg’s last minutes on air while being decapitated in Iraq…as the backtrack to wisecracks and laughter of the DJ and his studio crew.

Really, you have wonder where this is all going in our society. I believe, as you seem to, that none of these things are good signs. The public is to blame for much of it, as they seem to love the shouting and the jeers.

If there is any consolation, think of the Media Matters guy noted in the Newsweek article: watching and listening to Imus day after day in the hope of a slip-up…what a sad and pathetic life he leads…day after day….

Domajot, the best strategy I know is to avoid the stressful rubbish. Hence, no talk radio…just music.

It seems that people are so angry about everything that they need these surrogates to do the fighting for them. Since the audience accepts no responsibility, there is no incentive for civil discourse or for holding one’s punches. It’s like murder by hired hit man.

Everything else seems to stoke the fires. Imus needs to keep his ratings up to satisfy the profit needs of his bosses, etc.
The bosses will bow to the basest instincts of the public, so long as the money keeps rolling in. Round and round and round, and the buck stops nowhere. Until – we find an Imus to blame for the whole mess.

But the mess is us.
(Not you or I, of course -everyone else.)

Why are they so angry, though?

You are correct in observing there are multiple perspectives, many of them interesting.

I’m more of a philosophical person, interested in what events like this say about our nation, or society in general.

From that perspective, I admit to being puzzled why people would listen to Imus (or Limbaugh etc.). You might have noticed a weird dichotomy in the articles on this controversy, where people in the MSM said of Imus: “Yes, he could be racist/sexist etc., but he read books and you could talk about things, in between the racist and sexist bits.”

I don’t get Imus, really. Do you have to be sexist or loud on radio, so that folks will listen through the boring bits about ideas and such?

This is the larger picture I think you are framing, Domajot. But as I listen to music when driving (less stress) I don’t understand what folks get from talk radio.

That’s why Newsweek’s article on how Imus’ fall was actually an orchestrated Media Matters take-down provided an angle of interest for me. Also, how Hillary has been spinning Imus and the Rutgers girls in her machine, as Rudi pointed out for me the other day.

Other than political angles, Imus, Limbaugh etc. are all just signs of the collapse of the civilization to me.

You seem to be a highly political person, interested in how an event was caused by and affects the two parites. It’s natural, then that you would be curious about the political side.

I’m more of a philosophical person, interested in what events like this say about our nation, or society in general.
It’s natural for me to see the
interpretation of every single aspect of life in political terms as a detriment to reaching an understanding of what makes us what we are.

Although politics is a large part of how we form our self-images, I would like to find a point where right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter which party hat is at stake.

As we are not short of outrageous people from both parties, I was hoping we could get past that in this case and turn to the broader implications. (I’m actually happily surprised that Ann Coulter and Bill Mahr have not been resurrected so far for this discussion).

This is just a personal crusade (oops, there’s that word again) with me.
You are not obliged to sign up.

Marlowe said:
“So was Imus conservative or liberal?�
Do you really need to know the political party of the waitress before forming an opinion about the quality of the coffee she served to you?

Domajot…I was actually just curious. I never listened or really know anything about him. I thought folks here could enlighten me.

I have read analysis that this might hurt Democrats, as he was a useful forum for Dem. politicians…so I was surprised to learn that Media Matters has been lying in wait for some time to hammer him.

The Media Matters angle makes this political — I was wondering why. Does Imus support the wrong type of Democrats perhaps?

Parents can put in v-chips, monitor what their child does on the internet, but no parent can supervise a teenager 24/7. Most parents are busy working a full-time job or more, and find it is impractical to raise their children in a cultural bubble. Imus is only important because what he said casts a light on what passes for ordinary morning entertainment for millions.

Do you really need to know the political party of the waitress before forming an opinion about the quality of the coffee she served to you?

Would it make for happier dead people if they knew that the other dead in the cemetary were of the same political party?

There are oceans of questions to be asked about what our society has become. This is not a productive manner in which to frame those questions, IMO.

No one is emerging from this smelling like a rose. I shudder to think how this will reververate in the wider topics of
political correctness vs insensitivity, free speech vs censorhip and so on. I fear that common sense will have little to do with the aftermath.

NBC Fires Imus for Bad Joke But Will They Cancel Royal Caribbean Ads because of Threat Aimed at Sexual Assault Victim Who Testified before Congress
NBC News dropped Don Imus yesterday, canceling his talk show on its MSNBC cable news channel a week after Mr. Imus made a racially disparaging remark about the Rutgers University women’s basketball team.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/media/12dismiss.html?ref=sports
By BILL CARTER and LOUISE STORYPublished: April 12, 2007We agree that the comment made by Imus was atrocious and unacceptable. If NBC has the balls to fire Imus, then they should also refuse to run advertising from media or record companies that make a profit from the sale of degrading comedy and music albums and CD’s. Will NBC refuse to run ads for “Girls Gone Wild” which is Immensely more degrading? They should also refuse to run advertising for the Cruise Lines who actually do harm to people.
This is based in part on evidence submitted during the hearing entitled: “Crimes Against Americans on Cruise Ships,” held by the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation. http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/Testimony.aspx?TID=599
They tried to prevent a sexual assault victim from testifying before Congress and were a party to a threat made against her. http://safecruise.blogspot.com/2007/03/speaking-with-enemy-royal-caribbean.html http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicsasusual/2007/03/nightmare_on_th.html
There have been no convictions of sexual predators on cruise ships for the last four decades. http://safecruise.blogspot.com/2007/04/perfect-recor-not-one-single-conviction.html
They have understated the number of sexual assaults. http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/147483.html
Their crewmembers work under sweatshop conditions. http://www.waronwant.org/?lid=2900 Safe Cruise: Florida Today Exposes Carnival “Sweat Ships”: The Under Belly of the Cruise Ship Industry
Corporate fees paid to Liberia by Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines helped finance the armies of Charles Taylor, one of the worst war criminals in history. http://safecruise.blogspot.com/2006/04/did-royal-caribbean-and-celebrity.html
Please listen to the compelling interview on public radio with Laurie Dishman. She is a sexual assault victim who testified on 3/27/07 during the hearing entitled: “Crimes Against Americans on Cruise Ships,” held by the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
http://www.capradio.org/programs/insight/default.aspx?showid=3136&programid=
Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines RCCL were so desperate that they tried to bar her from testifying and also agreed that they would like to “nail this woman and her support group the http://www.internationalcruisevictims.org ”
See the series of RCCL emails at the end of her written testimony at
http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/Testimony.aspx?TID=599
This is an important human-interest story that would be a helpful investigative report. We are also contacting Chris Hansen of “To catch a Predator” and Mira Sorvino to get involved. Ms. Sorvino is in a unique position to get the Cruise Lines to cooperate in prosecuting sexual predators. She is the godmother of Carnival’s “Liberty” Cruise Ship and a spokesperson for http://www.rainn.org
The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network is the nation’s largest anti-sexual assault organization

I have no idea, as I never paid any attention to him. But I was struck by the Newsweek story on this by Weston Kosova, and how it all began — at Media Matters for America:

[U]nknown to Imus, one of his most loyal listeners in Washington, D.C., was watching, and taping, the show every day…. 26-year-old Ryan Chiachiere wasn’t a fan, and he wasn’t tuning in to be entertained. Chiachiere is one of a handful of young activists who spend their days wading through hours of radio and cable shows for Media Matters for America, a liberal group whose sole purpose is rooting out and “correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” Wired on coffee, Chiachiere was watching a recording of Imus’s show when he noticed the “hos” remark.
It was a big hit at the group’s morning meeting….
The group posted a video clip of the exchange on its Web site and put it up on YouTube. It sent e-mails to journalists and civil-rights and women’s groups.

This was a fascinating insight into how Media Matters works…sad folks that troll the media for anything to feed into their liberal hit machine.

It seemed, from what I read, that Imus was sorta bipartisan. But if so, what was Media Matters waiting for him to slip up to take him down?

“Imus is a dead man. Why? Not because of what he said – please, the hate-America-always crowd chose the vicious, vile, misogynistic “It’s Hard Out Here For A Pimpâ€? as the best song of 2006. Besides, don’t the lefties always tell us that entertainers have no effect on the people and that’s why it’s okay to sell hateful and vulgar records to children?

No, Imus is a dead man because truth plays no part in the agenda of the hate-America-always crowd – and the fact that Imus is one of them will [did] not save him either.” — Evan Sayet

Don’t get me wrong. I’m NOT defending Imus. The only samples of his “work” I’ve ever seen have been in a couple of items on news shows I was watching, and that was more than enough to tell me I wasn’t missing anything.

All I’m saying is that it is, in a sense, poetic justice that such a foul mouthed racist bigot was outed by even more bigoted racists than he. And the “figs?” Well, that last line above, “. . . the fact that Imus is one of them will [did] not save him either.” says it all. Another way to say it would be, “There is no honor among theives and cut-throats.” because, to save themselves, they’ll throw their mother to the wolves, and say she deserved it (probably correctly, too).