- Alvaro, Dan & Saty
Ty: Good question and an even better observation.
Three things:
- We've (collectively) given Mr. Imus way too much power by making such a huge thing out this. Sure, and of course, what he said was...well, it was rude. It was silly and it was dumb. He should be made a bit uncomfortable about it, but by making it a proverbial "federal case" you give him and his words way too much significance.
- The backlash over this will immense. It is more of a first amendment power grab that is directly in line with our high authoritarianism times. Think about it for a minute - and, again, I do not apologize or condone what he said, but remember he was being paid huge big bucks for being a jerk and for flirting with verbal discomfort (I do this and you do it too) - where do we draw the line on who says what? It was stupid. It was ugly. It was rude. Was it hate? Nope. Was it racism? I think he's said far worse. Was it misogyny? No more than what's presented on much of talk radio, right? Or, on the TeeVee.
- And, here's our problem: more moral policing. If I have to see or hear Revs. Al or Jesse play this tired old card again, I don't know if I can stand it. Punishment enough would have been for the women's team and Mr. Imus to meet and for Mr. Imus to apologize and for him to purchase and attend Rutgers home games. Humanize the whole thing, not politicize it. Punishment enough would be for us to express a collective "so what?"
People. Let's not give up on logic. Let's not give up on what some people think is funny. And, given that, I will continue to be rude, dumb, stupid, and at time insensitive. I promise to poke fun at race, religion, country of origin, body type, hair, language, sex, gender, level of competence, and anything else I can think of. And, that's just looking at me. Just wait until I get around to harshing on you!
He behaved like an asshole. Big whoop. Let's not rewrite the constitution over it.
Just a guess.
- Ty