Once and for all: DO NOT equate the disparaging words of fallen radio/TV host Don Imus with the disparaging words emanating from SOME of the lyrics in Hip-Hop music. They are NOT the same animal. As Russell Simmons recently indicated on Oprah Winfrey’s show, the rappers in the Hip-Hop community are poets who depict the world that THEY come from and their censorship ought not even be discussed. I DO have issues with the misogynistic and race-effacing lyrics prevalent in Hip-Hop songs, but I will address that in a different discourse that I can hopefully share with you shortly.
Parallels have been drawn between the comments of other “shock jocks” and Imus’ comments. They have been drawn between Imus’ comments about Rutgers’ women’s basketball team and other comments made by Imus. There was even an example given of some journalist calling Barbara Walters a “mind slut”. None of these comparisons hold water. They don’t compare because none of these other comments open up the speaker or their employer to slander and defamation of character lawsuits. The comments Don Imus uttered about the Rutgers basketball team DO expose Imus, MSNBC, and CBS to such a lawsuit — one the plaintiffs could easily win.
Journalists and radio/TV talk show hosts/commentators are allowed to give their opinions about public figures/celebrities rather freely — even when such remarks are somewhat disparaging. The legal rationale is that these public figures/celebrities depend on media exposure for their livelihood and thus have to take the bitter with the sweet. The media helps them make money and so the media is also allowed to cost them money via the opinions of these media personalities. All exposure for them isn’t going to be good and they just have to grin and bear it. The additional rationale is that they have access to other media outlets by which they can and do give their side of the story — as with Barbara Walters, for example.
Don Imus uttered slanderous and defamatory remarks about non-celebrities/public figures. They may enjoy some notoriety because of their athletic accomplishments, but their livelihood does not depend on public exposure. They are not professional athletes. They are student-athletes. Therefore, MSNBC and CBS fired Don Imus because his comments opened them up to legal liability that could cost them — and Imus — millions of dollars. If they had let him stay on they would be showing tacit approval for his antics. Letting him go shows that such defamation is not condoned by them. And yet, they still could be held liable simply because Imus has a history of making similar racist statements on air. This means that it could be found by a court of law that they “knew or should have known” that he had the potential to expand his comments to specific non-celebrities — especially if there exist no written prohibitions in this area that Imus could be deemed well aware of at the time of his defamation.
There may even be absolute liability imposed on a media conglomerate for the uttering of its on-air employees regardless of their admonitions. I’m not sure of that. It’s been almost seventeen years since I graduated from law school and my career choices took a different turn. A licensed practicing attorney can give the specifics in that area but the fact remains that the Rutgers basketball team has a veritable “slam dunk” of a lawsuit at their disposal that can make them very rich, compliments of Don Imus.
By no means do I intend to devalue the efforts of those voices across America calling for Imus’ firing. Nor am I overlooking the withdrawal of sponsors from Don Imus’ show. I merely submit that the legal liability was the countervailing reason that MSNBC and CBS fired Imus. The voices of outrage probably scared the sponsors who feared boycotts. These same voices probably led MSNBC and CBS to conclude that the issue wouldn’t go away and that the constant rumblings would likely end in a lawsuit. I am certain that these media outlets, thus, consulted with in house counsel who advised them to distance themselves.
Granted, keeping Imus on the air also opened MSNBC and CBS to FCC fines as well. But, media conglomerates usually stand by their “shock jocks” despite FCC fines and lost sponsorship when they determine that the money made from their on air presence significantly outdistances the money lost. With Imus they lost sponsors, probably had no new sponsors waiting in the wings, and had to consider the looming threat of FCC fines and lawsuits. Keeping him was, therefore, not economically viable.
In contrast, Hip-Hop lyrics in some songs DO NOT expose the artists or their distributors to lawsuits nor FCC fines. The lyrics are not considered defamatory because they aren’t directed at specific non-celebrity personalities. They are generalized statements. For the most part they aren’t subject to FCC censorship because they are already censored. The abusive language is usually bleeped, and even the videos usually have the nudity and thonged behinds blurred beyond recognition.
So calling for Hip-Hop artists to be fired in not an option. Their music is considered protected artistic expression. Some of us may not like it, but they can’t be successfully sued for their expressions neither are they nor their distributors likely to incur FCC fines. Although there are some videos that skirt the line of decency, my sense is that they are probably still within the realm of FCC regulations. Thus, rather than dwelling on unfruitful strategies for purging Hip-Hop music, we need to concentrate on strategies likely to work.
Strategies likely to work are demanding the adherence to rating systems for the music, pressuring the FCC to change their decency standards, and boycotting companies associated with distribution — including the sponsors that enable said distribution. But we must keep in mind that we are not likely to force the eradication of sexually and racially disparaging music. America frowns on efforts at censoring artistic expression. That battle cannot be won absent a complete change in American philosophy. What we can do is force more parity within the Hip-Hop industry — something that many Hip-Hop artists themselves seek. We need to join their fight.
And getting back to the term “mind slut”, I can’t help but question whether or not the term applies to CNN. I offer that analysis because all I heard CNN report on relative to the Don Imus controversy (as well as MSNBC — I’m an avid viewer of both) was the blaming of Hip-Hop for his comments and the need for national healing. But I don’t recall any mention of the possibility that these accomplished student athletes at Rutgers might sue for damages. In contrast, April 18th — two days after the incident — Lisa Bloom stated on CNN that lawsuits at Virginia Tech University were probable in the aftermath of the brutal massacre there.
Ms. Bloom stated that if the university knew that Cho Seung-Hui was a threat to himself and others and failed to act it might be culpable. Others on CNN and MSNBC hinted that lawsuits might emanate from the Virginia Tech tragedy. So we have to question why no one gave even a passing thought to the possibility that the Rutgers ladies might sue. We have to question why the emphasis in the Imus debacle was on forgiveness and not retribution through the courts. Granted, the massacre was an infinitely more devastating occurrence. And yet money is much more likely to adequately compensate the loss suffered by the ladies of Rutgers than it would the losses incurred by the families at Virginia Tech. The loss of life is immeasurable. An assault on one’s dignity isn’t. The price is high, but it can be measured.
I contend that the media shied any from the subject of lawsuits against Imus because they are hesitant to even tacitly encourage anyone to sue one of their own. But Imus — and possibly CBS and MSNBC — should be sued to ensure that this kind of thing doesn’t happen again. I am aware that Coach Vivian Stringer reported that the team accepted Imus’ apology and was in the process of forgiving him. But, I also recall the poignant testimony she related of her decision to become a cheerleader. She did so to empower the Black women who came behind her. The situation is the same here. [Coach Stringer, I met your nephew Vino last year. I have lost touch, but he expressed immense pride in your accomplishments.]
The Rutgers team needs to sue Imus in order to empower those who will come behind them. The dynamic of considering the next generation has always been a hallmark of the civil rights struggle and it always will be. Suing Imus is necessary because in a capitalistic society, financial pain is the only LASTING deterrent to these kinds of egregious acts. If MSNBC and CBS aren’t sued, there will likely be another Don Imus on their airways in the future. If they are sued, it’s not as likely to happen.

Howard E. Barrett, Jr.

As I watched numerous debates on the Don Imus’ issue, I feel that Black america is a house that is divided; a house divided cannot stand. I believe people need to work together to correct societal problems. Too often our leaders are concerned about who gets the credit or most air play. I was upset to see black activist spend precious air time criticizing and hatefully attacking Jesses Jackson and Al Sharpton. Lets put aside our differences and fight for our youth. Also we need put some of our upcoming youth leaders in the forefront in the fight against negative youth music. I see our black gangsta or porn rappers as black terriorist who stolen our music and using it for destructive idealogy and behaviour. Most white people love to see us as criminal minded thugs rather than well dressed and educationed people. LETS DEFEND OUR YOUTH.

“My Nappy Headed Ho Is An Honor Student”

The obvious sexism of Imus’ comments has been ignored by far too many. Degrading high-achieving women by criticizing their looks and their perceived sexuality is disgustingly commonplace these days. It has to stop.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is portrayed as a bumbling idiot, but her academic credentials are impeccable. You can disagree with her ideology, but to question her womanhood is silly.”

WOULD HAVE SHOW LESS BIAS IF IT READ:

“Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) is smart and talented, but to many, she’s nothing but an opportunist. She’s called too aggressive, not cute, and is slammed regularly. But she should be praised for being a woman who has achieved a lot in her career.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is portrayed as a bumbling idiot, but her academic credentials are impeccable. You can disagree with [b]their[/b] ideology, but to question [b]their[/b] womanhood is silly.”

Is Hiliary’s theology beyond reproach?

April 13th, 2007 at 9:04 am
There is one aspect of this crusade to ban words has been overlooked by the Black community. The unintended consequence of censorship is that white America will never accept an enforced double standard that allows Black folks to say words that white folks cannot. If certain words are banned for white people…then they are gonna be banned for Black comics, Black rappers, Black actors…Everybody. I would hate to live in an America where the govt will decide what Chris Rock or Ludacris or Samuel L Jackson can or cannot say.
——————————————————————————————————————–
I would hate to live in a country like that to but wake up pal.. your in usa.. and you are losing rights more and more daily because of our govt and the way society dictates on how we live.. I personally have no problem with how anyone says anything.. rappers with there music.. comedians.. black white or mexican.. If ya dont like the porn shop.. hey.. dont go in there.. If ya dont like the music.. dont turn it on.. and if ya dislike the comedian/ politian/ news anchor.. change the channel.. But iN america if you can claim your totally devasted by something or the rest of your life will be affected now because of Don Imus’s 3 words. 3 WORDS PEOPLE..Then it will be an issue, and as long as you have 1 or 2 people jumping.. the rest will start to follow. I think its funny how so many never knew who Don Imus was now claim to be so hurt.. For these people.. I feel sorry for you as you can’t stop living in the past and you are very weak people and have no concept of the real world. This is just one more issue that is way off base and has went way to far…Sit down and think about all the jokes that have been made.. about Mother Teresa… Rosa parks…The Pope….Our presidents…Watch some rappers videos with nothing but smokin blunts and half naked women shaking there asses and being called bithces and ho’s.. Don’t tap your foot tho because the sound off the music is good.. Its demoralising and offensive.. remember?.. dont watch eddie murphy or chris rock or carlos or mad tv or SNL..see how dumb this all is now?.. don’t ya see common sence shows you have went way to far with all this?.. it doesnt have to be a racial / or a sexual issuse.. it was a joke from man who was and is the farthest thing from being a racist or a sexist.. I hope all of you that think this is a good thing realize how much money will be lost and how many less kids may be helped now because you took the mans funding away from him.. he didnt pocket any of it.. he gives 100% of most of his interpriseing into kids with cancer and other charities.. Shame on all of you.. If he deserved it. ok. but he surely did not deserve all this.. Keepin it Really Real….derek40@roadrunner.com

http://www.kansascity.com/182/story/66339.html

Jason Whitlock has summarized in one sentence what Sharpton and Jackson have tried to mitigate with a tidal wave of rhetoric about Imus.

Article Tools Sponsored By
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
Published: April 13, 2007

WASHINGTON, April 12 — Paul D. Wolfowitz’s tenure as president of the World Bank was thrown into turmoil on Thursday by the disclosure that he had helped arrange a pay raise for his companion at the time of her transfer from the bank to the State Department, where she remained on the bank payroll.
Skip to next paragraph
World Bank

Shaha Riza, shown in 2003, is still on the World Bank payroll.

In a chaotic day of revelations and meetings at a normally staid institution, Mr. Wolfowitz apologized for his role in the raise and transfer of Shaha Ali Riza, his companion, to a few hundred staff members assembled in the bank building atrium, only to be greeted by booing, catcalls and cries for his resignation.

Earlier, the bank’s staff association had declared that it was “impossible for the institution to move forward with any sense of purpose under the present leadership.” The association had helped spearhead an investigation into Ms. Riza’s transfer and raise, details of which came into the open in the last 24 hours.

The events injected a new ugliness into what had already been a bitter rift between Mr. Wolfowitz and many of the bank’s employees, who have questioned his suitability for the job as a former deputy secretary of defense and architect of the Iraq war, and have challenged many of his policies at the bank, especially those cracking down on corruption in which he suspended aid to several countries without consulting the board.

The World Bank’s 24-member executive board, the body that elected Mr. Wolfowitz to the job after he was nominated by President Bush in 2005, held hurried meetings throughout the day amid mounting speculation that it might reprimand him or ask him to resign.

But shortly after 10 p.m. a bank official released a statement from Mr. Wolfowitz to the board members saying that “in the interests of transparency,” he was requesting the “immediate public release of all documents related to the board’s current review of the case involving myself and Ms. Riza.” The statement appeared to reflect a concern by the bank president that he was being tarred by selective leaks.

The board was also reported to be meeting late into the evening over what further information to make public about the matter. Whatever the outcome, the controversy appeared certain to produce more meetings and engulf delegates at the annual spring session of finance ministry officials in Washington, sponsored by the bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Mr. Wolfowitz apologized at a morning news conference and at the atrium meeting after the staff association disclosed that it had found a dated memorandum from Mr. Wolfowitz to a vice president for human resources at the bank, apparently instructing him to agree to the terms of a raise and reassignment for Ms. Riza.

The transfer and a subsequent raise eventually took her to a pay of $193,590 from $132,660, tax-free because of her status as a diplomat, and exceeding the salaries of cabinet members. “In hindsight, I wish I had trusted my original instincts and kept myself out of the negotiations,” Mr. Wolfowitz said.

“I made a mistake, for which I am sorry,” he added, pleading for “some understanding” of the “painful personal dilemma” he faced when he left the Pentagon to become bank president. Mr. Wolfowitz said he had been seeking to avoid a conflict of interest by having Ms. Riza, with whom he had a personal relationship, transferred from his supervision.

What drove the anger at the bank was not that Mr. Wolfowitz had denied earlier that he had sought Ms. Riza’s transfer, but that he had been less than fully candid in discussing it until documents surfaced showing his direct role. His earlier insistence that he had consulted with ethics officials was disputed by some of them, who say they were not involved in the salary aspect of discussions.

Mr. Wolfowitz, who is divorced, has been close to Ms. Riza for several years, according to people who have worked with them. She was a communications officer in the Middle East and North Africa bureau of the bank when Mr. Wolfowitz arrived in 2005, and was transferred that September to the Middle East and North Africa bureau to help set up a semi-independent foundation to promote democracy in that region.

Her initial supervisor at the State Department was Elizabeth Cheney, whose father, Vice President Dick Cheney, has been a longtime associate of Mr. Wolfowitz. Ms. Riza now serves as a consultant to the foundation, the Foundation for the Future, while drawing her World Bank salary, the State Department said.

Mr. Wolfowitz, in his talk to the bank staff, essentially implied that his fate was up to the board. “I proposed to the board that they establish some mechanism to judge whether the agreement reached was a reasonable outcome,” he said of the arrangement for Ms. Riza. “I will accept any remedies they propose.”

He also appealed to the staff members to look beyond his role in planning the Iraq war and join him in fighting poverty in Africa and other missions of the bank.

“For those people who disagree with the things that they associate with me in my previous job, I’m not in my previous job,” he said.

Many bank officials said board members were likely to wait to decide what to do after checking with their finance ministers, many of whom were on their way to Washington for the annual meetings.

A decision as big as whether to remove Mr. Wolfowitz or encourage him to step down would be likely to involve leaders of the bank’s main donor countries in discussions with President Bush, bank officials said.

The bank’s five largest donors — the United States, Japan, Germany, France and Britain — each nominate one board member, but their voting power is based on shares in the bank. The United States, with 16 percent, has the largest share, making it customary for the White House to nominate the bank president.

But the bank has been gripped by resentment for years over the perception that the United States has too much influence. That trend reflects declining American influence at the bank at a time when European and Asian countries have gained in economic clout.

There is speculation among bank officials that if Mr. Wolfowitz leaves, European members and others will agitate for more of a say in choosing his successor, a possible factor in whether Mr. Bush decides to go along with his removal.

At the White House, Tony Fratto, a spokesman, said: “Of course, President Wolfowitz has our full confidence” and in dealing with the controversy over his involvement with Ms. Riza, “he has taken full responsibility and is working with the executive board to resolve it.”

The storm over Mr. Wolfowitz has been brewing for a week, following disclosures by the bank’s staff association and the Government Accountability Project, an independent watchdog group, that Ms. Riza had received an unusually large raise. They questioned whether the proper procedures had been involved.

The controversy gained steam after the issue was mentioned by Al Kamen in his Washington Post column. The Financial Times has also disclosed details of the matter.

Subsequently, Mr. Wolfowitz asserted that he had consulted the board and the bank’s general counsel, the board’s ethics committee director, and the human resources director to arrange the transfer.

These officials then contradicted Mr. Wolfowitz, saying that while they supported the transfer and a raise, they were not involved in the amount. Alison Cave, chairwoman of the bank’s staff association, said the amount of the raise and the procedures followed seemed to violate bank rules. Ms. Cave also said the records showed that Ms. Riza was to return to the bank at the higher salary level and be given a rating of “outstanding” in her performance reviews while with the foundation.

Mr. Wolfowitz did not deny his involvement, but Thursday was the first day that evidence surfaced of his direct role.

Bank officials said they were somewhat mystified that the details of the transfer, worked out in 2005, did not get out until now. Some attributed it to the changed landscape in Washington.

Mr. Wolfowitz has also been undeniably weakened by his recent tangles with the board..

For example, as part of his broad anticorruption drive, Mr. Wolfowitz for a time suspended aid to India, Chad, Kenya and other countries without consulting the board. Uzbekistan’s aid was suspended after it ousted American troops in 2005, leading to charges of political motivation.

Last month, the bank adopted a new anticorruption policy that insisted that Mr. Wolfowitz consult board members, and it placed other restrictions on his ability to act. Resentment of Mr. Wolfowitz has extended to his two top aides, Robin Cleveland and Kevin Kellems, both of whom worked with him on defense matters in the Bush administration. Although some bank officials said the board might have decided to reprimand or dismiss one or both of them for the salary increase, that was no longer deemed a way out of the crisis for Mr. Wolfowitz.

He also appeared a victim of his own declaration that he would bring a new era of accountability to the bank. He boasted that he had doubled the staff of the public integrity division so it could prosecute cases of graft against corporations and bank employees, stirring resentment throughout the bank that he saw them all as corrupt.

Some bank officials, speaking anonymously so they could be candid, said that instead of ousting Mr. Wolfowitz, the board might prefer that he remain but in a weakened position.

“It’s a coin toss right now whether Wolfowitz stays,” one official said. “But the board might prefer to have a weak president dangling by the thread so they can run the policies themselves for the next two years.”

Filed Under: San Francisco, Feinstein, Special Interests, DNC, Corruption

If you’ve been watching any major (or even minor) news network, reading the newspaper, or even major online news sources, then you haven’t heard about Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s resignation as chair of the Military Construction Appropriations sub-committee. While this in and of itself may be minor news, the situation surrounding her resignation is anything but, yet is being grossly under-reported. In fact, the story was broken by the small bay area MetroActive.

Many Democrats came to hold their position (or keep their position) in November by claiming they would clean up the “culture of corruption” in D.C. Irony and hypocrisy aside, many American’s bought it, as did the major news outlets. So, it should have come as a surprise to the MSM that Sen. Feinstein–who sits on the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, which oversees ethics reform–had been the chairperson of the Military Appropriations sub-committee, voting on military appropriations with direct financial benefits for her husband’s companies.

This includes two large defense contractors, Perini and URS. Sen. Feinstein made a great deal of money through investment in these companies, and despite the obvious conflict of interest, she continued voting on these bills. But the story doesn’t end there. Senator Feinstein not only voted on these bills, she was supplied insider information about specific funds and projects that Perini had financial interests in by her Attorney, Michael Klein. MetroActive reports:

Klein stated that, beginning in 1997, he routinely informed Feinstein about specific federal projects coming before her in which Perini had a stake. The insider information, Klein said, was intended to help the senator avoid conflicts of interest…

“We basically identified any bid that Perini was going for and checked to see whether it was the subject of already appropriated funds or funds yet to be appropriated, and if it was anything that the senator could not act on, her office was alerted and she did not act on it.”

This is an extraordinary thing for Klein and the senator to do, since the detailed project proposals that the Pentagon sent to Feinstein’s subcommittee for review do not usually name the firms already contracted to perform specific projects… In theory, Feinstein would not know the identity of any of the companies that stood to contractually benefit from her approval of specific items in the military construction budget–until Klein told her.

However, the public record shows that contrary to Klein’s belief, Feinstein did act on legislation that affected Perini and URS.

In short, Sen. Feinstein received insider information about Perini, then voted on bills that benefitted Perini and URS, profitting tremendously in the process.

As of tonight, the San Francisco Chronicle, CNN.com, The New York Times, Foxnews.com, and any other major media outlet have failed to report the story.

It seems to be a trend in the Black community to avoid any utterance of racism, although strong evidence exists, to avoid the semblance of being uneducated, limited-thinking or “a trouble-maker”. This seems to be a phenomenon that exists in the Black community that the word “racism” sends some scattering and struggling to explain the concept. Anti-semite is used even if a fact is pointed out, such as comparing their treatment of a people as apartheid or any questioning of Israeli actions, without so much as anyone in the jewish community shunning the word. How has the Black community come to this point of embarrassment to call a “truth” by it’s name?

Let’s put the Imus victory into perspective, during the month of March 2007, Kenneth Eng wrote an article in the Asian Weekly titled “Why I Hate Blacks” disparaging the black community and attempted to demonstrate fallacious demonstrations of Black inferiority. Where is the Black community’s reaction to this article? The feminist organizations had no initial desire to enter into the Imus fray until the Black community began to make major strides in putting pressure on the networks and Imus sponsors and was called out by Roland Martin. The feminist organizations seem to take no interest in assisting Black Women in their struggles with sexism when it involves white males. Even Oprah got on the bandwagon after the success of the Black community was inevitable, but even she could not put race as a factor, which is not surprising.

***Wake-Up Roland and the rest of the Black Community***

To a kid born into the Hip-Hop generation, the word ‘nigger’ is an inherent and routine part of lyrical language and conversation. For them there is no politcal or emotional component to the word.

The trouble starts when the two generations try to communicate with each other using the same words that mean radically different things. Words like bitch & ho & nigger are becoming redefined in the sub dialect of Hip Hop and Ebonics.