April 16, 2007

Don Imus is a bigot because Al Sharpton and a lot of other folks say so. He has certain prejudices, and he views the world through the lens of his impure mind. Guess what? Every single one of us suffers from those same “maladies.” The real issue is not whether Mr. Imus should be fired, but should any speech be regulated by government entities or the will of the “moral” majority, and should “inappropriate” thoughts be castigated by government functionaries (directly or indirectly).

Leading the Easter week media crucifixion of Imus was the Reverend Al Sharpton. The Reverend is himself no stranger to controversy. In 1987 he emerged on the national scene by becoming an adviser to Tawana Brawley, a black (is this term currently PC?) teenager who falsely accused a white prosecutor and several white police officers of abducting and sodomizing her. Once her case began to unravel Ms. Brawley moved out of New York, absconding with $300,000.00 given to her by supporters for her legal defense, and subsequently lost a defamation suit brought against her and Mr. Sharpton. The Reverend Sharpton, on another occasion, referred to a Jewish shop owner as a “white interloper” and stood around as the crowd he instigated burned the shop to the ground in what was basically a rent dispute between the shop owner and an African-American who subleased part of the shop. His checkered past has apparently not dissuaded the good Reverend from “casting stones.” Reverend Sharpton, in comments expressing his indignation about Mr. Imus’s remarks, said, “This is about setting a precedent that allows racist language to be used on mainstream, federally regulated television and radio."

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution clearly states “congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech,” so who granted the FCC the power to abridge freedom of speech? It seems that during a period of selective amnesia (one of many), congress passed the Communications Act of 1934 (actually preceded by another attack of amnesia that led to the passage of the Radio Act of 1927). As in many other cases, congress basically granted the political class (which they coincidentally belong to) the right to abridge freedom of speech. It didn’t end there. Today rules and regulations regarding (un)free speech have evolved, culminating (for now) with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002; apparently congress is having trouble recovering from its bout with selective amnesia - though they never forget to grant themselves pay raises.

Al Sharpton and others who have been critical of Mr. Imus allege that his contrition is not enough since Mr. Imus’s thoughts about African-Americans haven’t really changed. What is in Mr. Imus’s mind? What’s in Al Sharpton’s mind? What’s in yours? The mind is the last bastion of freedom and privacy, making it a very dark and scary place. It holds all our thoughts and fears, even those unfounded, insane and prejudicial ones. Some we may choose to express and others we choose to keep in its inner sanctum. The only guide we have for judging whether or not Mr. Imus is truly sorry for his remarks are his future actions and words. Anything else would be speculating on the contents of his mind (thought sanctuary).

Over the past few days we have been bombarded with “news” surrounding Mr. Imus’ remarks and the outcry they have inspired. Speaking during a 90 minute long live broadcast “news” conference, Rutgers Women’s Team Basketball Coach C. Vivien Stringer said, "When there is not equality for all or when there's been denied equality for one, there's been denied equality for all."

What is equality? Can equality be defined as the ability of every individual to express themselves as they please? Exactly what equality is denied by the mere thoughts or words of one individual who is not backed by government power? Are we humans all equal? Should we strive to be? I would ask coach Stringer if equality means that I could play for the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team even though I’m a male in my 40s, 5’ 10”, who’s slower than a snail with cramps and makes Shaquille O’Neal look like Rick Barry on the foul line.

In a statement that seemed to endorse “reeducation,” and at the same time lay waste to something ingrained in many of our minds during our youth - “sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me” - Rutgers Athletic Director Robert E. Mulcahy III said “You cannot erase the hurt, but you can have people change their ways.” Were any of these people actually listening to Imus' Show when he made his infamous quip? Had the women on the team ever heard of Imus prior to his referring to them as “Nappy headed hos”? Did you even know Rutgers had a women’s basketball team (did you care?) prior to this brou-ha-ha? How exactly does Mr. Mulcahy intend to “have people change there ways” and which way should people go?

Should we strive for a world were you must think before uttering a word? Or one where we are all completely shielded from being exposed to actions or words we find unsavory or despicable. The recently deceased legendary college coach Eddie G. Robinson and many of his players endured real world state sanctioned and supported racism, yet were able to accomplish much in their field, as did Jackie Robinson. The words of the radio shock jock Imus had little if any tangible negative effects on the women basketball players, especially when compared to the damage a politically (mass) motivated District Attorney, backed by the full force of the state, was able to inflict on the Duke lacrosse players. Now that's damage!

Who cares if someone thinks of you or calls you a spic, kike, dike, nigger, honky, dego, ho, chink, wop, krout, trailer trash, jungle bunny, nip, raghead, cracker, sand nigger, stupid redneck, grease ball, mick, faggot, wetback, nappy head, hillbilly, spook, gook or beaner? Is anyone “really hurt” by mere hollow thoughts or words that come from shallow individuals? With the exception of those backed by a powerful Leviathan), it’s what you make and think of yourself that ultimately counts. If the government is allowed to regulate language (and to a degree it already does) it’s only a matter of time before you can’t call someone (especially your congressman) a bleeding heart liberal, neo-fascist, Bible thumper, socialist-pinko, goose stepper or closet commie.

Lets be real! Don Imus’ comments - no matter how despicable anyone may have thought them to be - took nothing away from anything the women of the Rutgers team accomplished either as a team or individuals. It actually got them and Al Sharpton lots more publicity than they would have had otherwise. As is to be expected in today’s politically correct “Amerika,” Mr. Imus was fired by CBS, but even more disturbing than that, folks coming to Imus’ defense are not basing themselves in free speech but are asking for the further curtailment of speech (Hip-Hop, and “Gangsta” Rap etc.). Under current conditions it’s only a matter of time before congress (and the rest of our rulers) turn the United States into a First Amendment Free Zone.

Archives

Conventional Suicide

Voters Deserve “No respect”

The Unbearable Lightness of Being Libertarian

A Testament To Democracy

Living In America 2029, A Workers Paradise

A Tale of Two Cubas?

Modern Serfs, Modern Masters

A Bridge Too Far

The Not So Good Book

Weekend at Castro’s

A Tale of Two Dictators-

Socialism and Freedom?

Complete Archives for Emiliano