If people does not find a radio or television program to their liking – then they can TURN THE CHANNEL. If they don’t find that Imus has anything of value to offer, that is their prerogative but such an opinion is irrelevant. They have no right to impose your sensibilities on others, just as others do not have a right to compel them to listen to a broadcast that does not interest or appeal to them. If one believes in a free society, no speech should ever be suppressed or censured by whatever pressure group of the month — if you don’t like it, argue against it or turn it off. I don’t want to live in a sanitized society in which every utterance is scrutinized and is “approved” or “disapproved”. I would rather be offended than have a self-appointed thought police determine what I can and cannot listen to or what should or should not offend me. Who appointed Sharpton and the NABJ as the thought police and arbiters of virtuous radio behavior? This is straight out of the former Soviet Union’s propaganda machine. Or, perhaps those who demand Imus’ permanent banishment are themselves ignorant of the history of totalitarian governments – so-called “offensive” remarks, and off to the re-education camp you go! I am heartened to read posts here and elsewhere that refuse to succumb to a thought police of any stripe. Are the networks really so fearful, or are they just in for the ratings that Sharpton generates?

From my perspective and as a feminist and female listener, the feminists of yesteryear propelled us to positions of unimagined strength and power. But, thanks to NOW and its PC cohorts, today’s generation has transformed us into whining victims in need of protection, lacking the spine to laugh at ourselves and laugh off tasteless and poorly conceived humor, or at least, to dish it right back.

And yes, I can’t wait for the return of the I-Man, hopefully with his entire crew intact, unchastened and unleashed, not a kinder, gentler, Imus lite. Yes, the commentary about the Rutgers team was insulting and misguided given the context of the show which has always been an eclectic unpredictable mix of satire, juvenile comedy and serious politics (which is why it was so entertaining to his listeners). But the humor was not malicious in its intent, and certainly not “reprehensible”, “despicable”, “unconscionable”, “hate speech”, and other hyperbolic characterizations. The likes of Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Neil Boorz, and others spew racist content as serious ideology on a regular basis. I believe it was Neil Boorz and Glen Beck who described the victims of Katrina as thugs, thieves and hoodlums deserving of their fate – and they were not kidding. I don’t recall anyone clamoring for their immediate dismissal. And I would not support their dismissal from the air – I would rather argue against them. There seems to be an obsessive and irrational fixation with Don Imus on the part of Sharpton and the NABJ – a fixation which I don’t understand, unless it’s because Imus is perceived to be an easy target that symbolizes the evils of white hegemony. Of course, these easy targets and symbols never resolve the real underlying issues – they only provide easy “feel good” fixes – a real sham.

Pleeeeeeeese, don’t call him “Rev” !

Thanks !

Calling Bush a moron and the VP and Rumsfeld cowards and war criminals, railing against the racist Republican racist smear ad re Harold Ford, Jr., voting for Kerry, speaking well of Obama, stroking Bill Richardson, bashing O’Reilly and Fox News, ranting for days and days about Walter Reed, chastising the government over the need for a privately-funded rehab center, referring to the war as moronic and illegal, promoting Olbermann’s program, showing compassion for Elizabeth Edwards and respect for Sen. Edwards’ decision to keep campaigning, telling Santorum he was nuts to his (phone) face and mocking his man-on-dog thesis, etc., etc., etc., is HARDLY in keeping with what you suggest his agenda was. Cripes !…he even utter words of respect for Rosie after they had both done the Intrepid opening gig !