Monday, April 09, 2007

Hey, Al Sharpton, how about censoring yourself first?

The beleaguered Don Imus is going to appear on Al Sharpton's show, and he'll have to put on the appearance of being contrite and broken. All because he said "nappy-headed hos," as part of an exchange with his producer (who himself doesn't appear to be in any trouble at all).

That's all Imus said, at least this time. So say "ho" and imply woolen hair, and in the very first round of criticism, what was actually said will be ignored. You'll simply be branded a "racist," though hardly any of the "critics" will be able to say why, only that they "know" he's a racist or "says racist things." Note how this account doesn't even reproduce the actual exchange. That's because, by definition, the "civil rights" crowd must blow things out of proportion -- if they didn't, there would be nothing for them here to be outraged about. It doesn't even matter that, contrary to what some liars claim, Imus never said "jiggaboos" -- his producer did. But that doesn't matter, because it's now inextricably linked with Imus.

Considering everything Al Sharpton has said and fomented over the years, he's a fine one to accuse others of racism. Where is he when white victims are beaten by black crowds? Where are his protests over such racial hate crimes?

Today, followers of Christ (notice I didn't say "Christians") celebrated the resurrection of the Only Begotten, who taught us as recorded in Matthew 7,

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

What a real man of God would do is exhort people to emulate Christ, and thereby set examples to glorify God, not ourselves. Instead, being a modern day Pharisee, Sharpton is calling upon his true god: government. He wants to use government silence those whom he has declared his enemies, rather than make peace with them, rather than ignore them for they do him no real harm.

And if Al doesn't like what I've said here, he can take the bone out of his nose and shove it up his fat ass. I was going to say "gorilla ass," but that's just plain insulting to the higher primates. Now how's that for racist? If he'd like, he can call me a "Chinese wetback" in return, although I wouldn't care. I've never been called that (the term when I was young was "fucking Oriental"), but I've read that "Chinese wetback" is a derogatory term for Filipinos. I'd properly remind Sharpton, though, that, genetically speaking, I'm more properly called a Malaysian wetback.

Then you have people like Stacy Parker's mother, who couldn't quote what Imus said -- leading me to believe she doesn't even listen to the actual show. Yet she wants Imus fired for providing a service she doesn't use anyway. So much for liberals' "tolerance": it's not enough for them to avoid something they don't like, because if they don't like it, then damn it, you can't have it or use it or like it. And when Parker says, "It is not OK to sit like a coward in one's studio and speak such poison into the airwaves," will she apply the same standard to Al Sharpton and Air America?

Then, in true liberal fashion, Parker has to offer a straw man: "Other than the one we already know: in America, no one gets fired for hurting and disparaging black women. Ever." Imus' use of "ho" wasn't the nicest term, but how did that "hurt" or "disparage" the Rutgers players? Are they adults with a modicum of maturity, that they can deal with a two-letter word, or are they first-grade students who will start crying at any second? If he instead called them "no-talent scum," would that have been "disparaging" them in a more acceptable way? I don't think I was ever taught this, but it always seemed to me that if someone could insult you only because of your ethnicity, then clearly the person had nothing substantial to insult you about.

Another critic from the Huffington Post made said Imus should go to Baghdad, supposedly to broadcast. I read it as a veiled wish that Imus go there and get himself killed. How do we know it's not just an innocuous suggestion? Because if a conservative had said it about a liberal, it would be decried as a "threat."

The National Association of Black Journalists said, "As NABJ strives to dispel stereotypes and promote accurate portrayals of minorities in the media, we find this characterization of these young black women offensive and hateful." Funny enough, I wouldn't have even known the Rutgers team was mainly black. For some reason, it's these minority groups who have to keep making things a racial issue.

This guy is worried about "the sickening of our society" from people like Imus, but if he thinks Imus is stupid, why does he care so much? Why are all these outraged liberals, bent on imposing their own morality on the population, giving Imus all this free publicity? If Imus is fired from the airwaves, he can probably get a job right quick on satellite radio. Put him and Howard Stern back-to-back, and they'll probably become fast friends. Now let me confess something. I had heard the name Don Imus before, but until this blown-out-of-proportion controversy, I couldn't have told you who he was, or that he was a radio host. But now I'm convinced Imus' show must go on, for the very fact that people find it offensive.

Freedom of speech must entail being able to say the most offensive things without repercussion, or else it's meaningless. Liberals like to champion it, but they demonstrate time and time again that the freedom goes only as far as they like, that their "tolerance" means you must tolerate whatever they say and believe, but they don't have to tolerate anything anyone else says that they don't like.

Imus did apologize on-air, but he later said, "America is great in so many ways, one of which is the freedom to speak, and indeed think, freely. I have, of late, begun exercising the rights bestowed upon me by the democratic system I value..." Oh, oops. Imus didn't say that. Rosie O'Donnell did. This blogger talks about "Defending Rosie's right to be wrong," comparing her to Imus. How about making the comparison in reverse? Imus is hardly being "forgiven," and I doubt O'Donnell is in any danger of losing her job -- let alone having to apologize.

Imus has said a lot of things over the years, but I wonder if this is as much over his "racially charged" comments or to stop him from tearing into hypocritical liberals.

Labels: ,


Blogger P. said...

Why is it that reactionary shills, like yourself, are so often vaguely effeminate chubby eunuchs?

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:56:00 PM  
Blogger Perry Eidelbus said...

Oh, behold the vapid retorts of the typical modern liberal! Pardon me while I chortle.

Better to be what I am than some ghetto reject like "Reverend" Al (I was going to call him "gorilla-faced" but that would again be an insult to higher primates), or an anonymous liberal coward making trolls, eh? Particularly since I'm hardly how you perceive me.

Not that I really give a shit about what you think, but rather than some juvenile challenge for you to name the alley where I'll pound your face in, how about this. This June (I forget the precise date) is the annual 5K "corporate challenge" through Central Park. All the major financial firms are sending participants. Let's see you there.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 10:18:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home