In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Elsewhere | Main | Symmetry Preferences »

April 15, 2007

Duke / Imus

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Imus ... The Duke case ... There's something that's just too damn coincidental about it all, isn't there? Fred Wickham solves the mystery. Doug Anderson brings a distinctive p-o-v to bear on the Imus brouhaha. Fine passage:

I am raising a black son with my black significant other. I would hope that if, 11 or 12 years from now, he is a football player for a college ball team and some radio jock calls his team "a bunch of nappy-headed pimps" I would hope that my son would not go on national television, weepy and mournful, and saying that the comments will hurt and scar him for the rest of his life. I would feel like a failure as a father. I would hope that my son would laugh at the stupid shock-jock and scold his listeners for emulating such a jerk to a place of prominence in American media life.

I think Doug may mean "elevating" instead of "emulating," but he's still making a great point.

Interesting to learn from the AP that some legal experts think that the wrongfully-accused Duke lacrosse players may be allowed to bring suit against asshole Durham County DA Mike Nifong.



UPDATE: Michelle Malkin compares Imus' faux pas with the lyrics of today's three top rap songs.

posted by Michael at April 15, 2007


What I can't figure out is why this pattern of "gaffe - grovel tour - lose your job anyway" keeps repeating itself. We've seen a variation of this with Greasemen, Trent Lott, Larry Summers, Benedict 16, Michael Richards, and now Imus. And these are all men with gigantic egos. They have families who watch them humiliate themselves on national television groveling, backpedaling and apologizing. But they do it anyway. Why?

I don't fancy myself braver or more principled than the average man, but if I made some non-PC gaffe, I'd probably just make a single apology in the event that what I had originally said was vulgar. But I don't see myself doing the Larry Summers / Trent Lott / Michale Richards humiliation tour. Somehow the thought of getting fired and blacklisted in my industry but looking like a man in my sons' eyes seems better than kow-towing to Sharpton and losing my job anyway.

So why do all of these guys aplogize and backpedal like that? Is there something going on that we don't know about?

I don't fancy myself

Posted by: PA on April 15, 2007 2:41 PM

Is that what DA stands for? Durham Asshole.

Posted by: dearieme on April 15, 2007 6:17 PM

The crime of Don Imus was offending white people, not blacks. Black people don't interest us except as entertainers and athletes. Any non-athlete non-entertainer black who gets the attention of whites, like Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, or Barack Obama, does so by appearing as non-black as possible (and usually ends up dismissed as an oreo by other blacks). Outside of modern minstrelsy like hip-hop, and the sports which whites are not permitted to mention blacks excel at, we don't care how blacks behave to one another. As the decades since the civil rights revolution have passed and black cultural pathologies continue unabated, whites have learned to expect low-grade behaviour from blacks, and when it happens, we barely notice. Dogs bites man, as the headlines can never be bothered to say. But...

...white people do expect other whites to know better. Imus didn't, and so his white advertisers abandoned him, and his white bosses fired him. The blacks involved in this charade were, as usual, only of interest to whites as entertainers, like the clownish Al Sharpton, or athletes, like the good-at-basketball-but-don't-mention-that Rutgers team. Imus was sacrificed by and to whites, with blacks performing in their expected supporting roles.

So now we have a race fable for the ages: Don Imus and the Nappy-headed Hos, a tale of crime and well-deserved punishment. The story has a quota of black people in its cast, as any good race fable should, but it is intended for an audience that is lily, lily white.

I think we've got the message.

Posted by: PatrickH on April 15, 2007 6:21 PM

The only poeple that were offended were the liberals in the media. These guys have to continually apologize to the media, hoping to keep the jopbs that took them 20 or 30 years to get, only to finally be fired by the new McCarthyites. I disagree with PatrickH, there are too many quota blacks in the media now to dismiss them. Also, this was not a crime at all, just someone exercising free speech that is critical or derogatory. So what? But the new McCarthyites view it as an offense where the person in question needs to lose his livelihood, be blacklisted, and his position given to one of their own who more fully follows the party line.

Its all about power, and I also think the timing has something to do with keeping the Duke Lacrosse hoax and Knoxville Murders out of the headlines, which would tend to hurt the credibility of the worthless liars in academia, media, and the moldy "Civil Rights Movement". Black-on-white crime has to be covered up and white-on-black crime has to be spotlighted, or in this case invented, to keep the blacks-as-victims civil rights power structure in place. Of course, this great "crime" certainly re-established their credibility! Of did it just re-establish their power to destroy? Witch hunts. What fine and responsible people we have in the media--constantly on the lookout to preserve our freedoms and deliver the facts of important stories in the world at large, objectively and unbiased, so that we the people can make the informed decisions.

Posted by: BIOH on April 15, 2007 6:52 PM

I think you are right that the Duke case and the Imus are related in that they appear to balance opposing forces. I'm extremely doubtful that there was any coordinated effort to effectively use them as such. In case you hadn't noticed, American government and media are (to use a military term) a "cluster fuck."

There may be aspect of the Imus case, though, involving class. It's ok to hurl lampoons up the class ladder, but not down. If you're GM, there are more customers down the ladder than at the top. Furthermore, college is supposedly a way to move from lower to middle class in America.

Imus dismissed the women's status as "student athletes." Despite their time and work at a good university, they were still riff-raff from the black ghetto - at least in Imus's estimation.

The particularly goofy aspect of this whole matter is that thousands of workers are being laid off and we are completely insensitive to their marginal economic situations. Poor Imus.

Posted by: jf on April 15, 2007 10:10 PM


I wouldn't say the media are a clusterfuck. Look closely at the consolidation of the mainstream media--television, radio, publishing, etc., and you won't see too many players. I think it's purely a media phenomenon, not government sponsored. In terms of race the leftward media do all they can to hype blacks and hide their problems or blame them on whites. They were very quick to jump on the Duke hoax bandwagon, but you can see stories buried all over the media where black athletes are raping white college women all over the country, year after year. Yet has anything like the Duke case been trumpeted in reverse? The media also routinely hides the racial identities of black criminals in crime reporting, as well as the race of their victims. Why is that? Why isn't rape called rape anymore, and why isn't it a hate crime? I mean the feminists are quick to point out that rape is all about domination and power, so why wouldn't a rape be a sexist hate crime? This is not trivial stuff.

The class issue is irrelevant. Can people argue any more without using that as some kind of red herring?

This is important because we cannot have an open debate about much if we are constantly censored in this country. Nobody should lose their livelihood over such trivial remarks. I don't know how old you are, but these types of witch hunts by the left are quite recent, and seem to be getting worse with time. It disgusts me and I sure would like to figure out how to fight against it.

Posted by: BIOH on April 16, 2007 12:48 AM

It's fun to see the media folks dealing with this one -- the intense looks on their faces as if they were navigating a minefield. They all know a slip on the racial banana peel and their careers are over. They all have the script memorized, but the terror remains.

Part of this dispute was brought up by the National Association of Black Journalists. Look, boys and girls, your UNBIASED media has political groups working within it. Well, it has a few. The hispanic journalists, the gay journalists, the lesbian and transgender journalists and the asian journalists. Gee, who are we missing? Oh yeah, "over represented" whitey doesn't get a seat at the table.

Each of these groups is allowed to lobby for the politicization of the story. Ask Moonves to talk about that, and i guarantee you'll get dead air.

Oh, but we do give conservative whites talk radio.

"Oh my, do we? Our oversight."

Let's ban that; it is full of hate.

They may not get talk radio this time, but they wont stop trying at these things. It is all power plays to them. Sharpton has basically said it himself. It's not about Imus. It's about putting footnotes and small print on rights until the day comes that they can completely take away those rights. But don't worry, they're gonna take those rights with a smile and in the name of doing good. The street thugs are now riding with the corporations; the mainstream media is gonna provide the tunes, and our neighborhood is going to go to hell -- in aint gonna be nice, livin' in a P.C. gangsta paradise.

Posted by: sN on April 16, 2007 2:07 AM

I'm quite surprised that the young men in the case haven't sued Duke University yet. They were certainly thrown to the wolves by their alma mater, and it certainly will afffect their reputation (and no doubt their earning potential) for the rest of their lives, despite their public vindication. I haven't followed the news closely enough to know if Duke has even apologized verbally for treating them poorly yet.

Posted by: Friedrich von Blowhards on April 16, 2007 9:57 AM

The Imus thing is absolutely about class and youth. He's said much worse about people in positions of power, but that's his job, to be a clown to the elite. As soon as he cast his gaze downward and let go with one of his invectives on people who absolutely did not deserve it, he got called on his shit. Do I think he should have been canned? Personally, I don't think so, but the market spoke, advertisers pulled their sponsorship, and the only reason Imus, or anyone else, is on the air is to make money, so CBS made a business decision.

I do agree that the basketball team should not have held a press conference, it only made them seem weak. The better way to handle would have been to issue a statement, through a spokesperson, along the lines of "we feel sorry for Mr. Imus and hope he thinks about what he said" or something.

Posted by: the patriarch on April 16, 2007 10:22 AM

To echo patrickH, this is, as Steve Sailer has pointed out, at least as much about establishing ones bona fides as a high status white (while simultaneously socially ostracizing ones white opponents) as it is about mollifying blacks. Nothing is as central in the status wars as the correct attitude toward blacks, which is, in a nutshell: they can do no wrong. That high status whites have created a frankenstein is of marginal concern to them...for now.

Posted by: ricpic on April 16, 2007 11:07 AM


I get it--if the "free market" says to violate people's rights, then the "free market" wins. I'm sure this also applies to "free market" violations of working standards, minimum wage laws, environmental regs, etc. Where's the supremacy of the "free market" when it comes to affirmative action? You are truly a bundle of inconsistencies. Good lord, you really have been brainwashed.

This is a class issue? A young vs. old issue? C'mon, its just about race, and not even that. Its about using non-existent nothingness to throw people out of jobs and take over their positions. Jackson and Sharpton are both radio talk competitors with no ratings who would love to take over Imus' slot, hence the push for "more diversity in the media". Ridiculous.


Did anybody but me notice that the only people who are being sued and charged for all this are the white guys? Why shouldn't the accuser be prosecuted for filing false charges and lying to police (repeatedly)? Her stripper buddy also lied to the police and later changed her story. What about the slander and libel of the university professors and NAACP? What about that black on white rape that happened a few months ago? Where are the feminists on that one?


I don't think this is true. Its about power and throwing certain white men out of it by the flimsiest means possible, with the aid of a biased national press whose job it is to publicly humiliate people by slander, libel, and innuendo disguised as news reporting. I believe it is coordinated. I guarantee you that there are people who are sympathetic or working for this movement whose job it is to monitor such programs and flag anything that even mentions race until the opportune moment comes to play the race card and public humiliation game. Where is the reporting of the Knoxville murders in the national non-racist press? I'm still waiting for that one.

Posted by: BIOH on April 16, 2007 1:14 PM

I agree with Friedrich---I can't believe the Duke Lacrosse players haven't already sued, and everybody in sight. How could it take two years to figure there is NO evidence?

In the case of Imus...what baffles me is how about fifty percent of whatever came out of his mouth was OK. It's not that this wasn't in poor taste, to say the least, its that his employers---CBS and NBC--seemed "shocked, shocked that there was gambling going on." Imus was skirting the line every single day. Nobody who watched his show (and I did from time to time) could be surprised by this, as is demonstrated by the fact that nobody at CBS or NBC was fainting away and grabbing him at the commercial break on the day he said it to force him to take it back. It took two days and blogs and Al Sharpton to even get his employers to register that, gosh, maybe something should be done about Don. And, BTW, I just wish Jesse and Al and Co. would stop saying it was "racist and sexist." They don't care that it was sexist. He's said every bit as bad of things over and over and over about Hillary Clinton. Al and Jesse weren't getting the vapors.

Finally, I find it amusing that the media keeps saying "will the dialog about race in this country fade now that Imus was fired?" What "dialog about race"? Imus wasn't initiating one, and Sharpton wasn't having one, either.

Posted by: annette on April 16, 2007 1:29 PM


I'm old enough to remember when Dick Nixon had Robert Bork (a couple of Cox-sackers) fire Archibald Cox for what they undoubtedly thought was an unprecedented liberal witch-hunt.

Remember Mort Downy Jr.? And his flame-out? This isn't much different.

Posted by: jf on April 16, 2007 10:43 PM


There's a big difference between between an accountable and elected politician and an unaccountable, biased media. Besides, political appointees get fired all the time. Nixon got what he deserved because he broke the law. Imus broke no law.

I had to find out about Morton Downey Jr. I believe he was canned after he made up a false crime report about Neo Nazis attacking him. Just like Tawana Brawley. Al Shaprton would have loved him.

Posted by: BIOH on April 17, 2007 12:51 AM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?