BS: Don Imus replacment

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 10:55 AM

"BB: Out of the 176 posts on this thread, there have only been two or three in which someone suggested government intervention "


Actually, I count 6- 2 on the 10th, 2 on the 11th, 1 on the 12th, and 1 on the 13th ( That call for "laws" or "regulation") Another 10 or so besides mine that say how bad an idea it is.

But even one call for government control of speech should be commented on.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: Mike Miller
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 10:46 AM

They are not apples and oranges, Kendall, unless you happen to be the greengrocer. Unpopular speech is the issue and, in this case, unpopular humor. Tolerance is, I fear, tempered by era. In the recent past, the nation was stunned by Clark Gable's "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.". Nowadays, non-scatological comedians are rarer than forthright senators. The moral mood of society is acrobatic. Today's up will be tomorrow's sideways. Our tradition of protected free speech is our assurance of continued and enlightened debate. So, I have to put up with Mel Gibson, African-Americans have to ignore Michael Richards and you have to suffer whoever is saying bad things about New England folksingers. And we, all, have to endure the constant cries from those who want to stifle the voices of opposition.
I might add that Mr. Gibson is, still, making movies. I guess Spike Lee was wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 10:24 AM

kendall,

I DO equate your rights to free speech to his:
I support his right to free speech, as I support YOURS.

My point is free speech- I do not want the government deciding what is the approved topic or viewpoint allowed to be presented.

YOU seem to be saying that it is ok to ask the government to tell us what we can say.

"If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell, Preface to Animal Farm (1946)

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992).

"I have fought censorship all of my adult life. To me, the most precious of all rights in this marvelous country called the United States of America is the freedom to think, write and say whatever is on your mind... That freedom also extends to thoughts that are stupid, ignorant or incendiary. No one needs a First Amendment to write about how cute newborn babies are or to publish a recipe for strawberry shortcake. Nobody needs a First Amendment for innocuous or popular points of view. That's point one. Point two is that the majority-you and I-must always protect the right of a minority-even a minority of one-to express the most outrageous and offensive ideas. Only then is total freedom of expression guaranteed." Lyle Stuart in his introduction to The Turner Diaries

"The price of freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press, is that we must put up with a good deal of rubbish." Robert H. Jackson


"The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate." US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in United States v. Schwimmer (1929).
"He wrote something stupid, a bunch of words that say something we don't agree with. It's only words and ideas, it's not like he beat someone up, he's not committing violence or hurting people, he's simply saying something offensive that we do not want to hear because we don't like it. If we suppress ideas we don't like, the proponents of those ideas will probably fester in secret societies and explode in double-plus ungood ways and we will like those results even less. If we allow people to see their ideas, and we ignore them, they've had their chance and they don't have to feel cheated about not getting exposure. Or if we really don't like their ideas and really need to keep them from convincing other people to believe in them, the answer is to tell people why and they'll learn. But you can't just beat people up because you dislike their stupid opinion. If we go that route, then anyone who is willing to use force can suppress any opinion they don't like, and maybe support opinions we don't like. Then what you get is a society of brutality where it isn't the best ideas that are seen by others, it's only the ideas that have the most vicious thugs to back them up. And it becomes very hard for people to be willing to express any opinion if someone can just pop them one because they say something someone else doesn't like." - Supervisor 246 in Paul Robinson's Instrument of God.

quotes from wikipaedia

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: kendall
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 10:17 AM

BB, I can't believe you equate Imus'sexist, racial slurs with our criticism of Bush, Talk about apples and oranges.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 10:14 AM

BB: Out of the 176 posts on this thread, there have only been two or three in which someone suggested government intervention ... And they were 'way back there ... (correct me if I'm wrong!).

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 10:09 AM

Greg F.

And where have I ever supported either of those?


Let me say Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur....

Should I think YOU are in favor of the events in those places?

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 10:09 AM

Oh, look at the shiny hook...

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 10:04 AM

Also Sprach BabyBruce: The Bill of Rights is too valuable to break for political purposes.

Two words: P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act

And two more: Abu Ghraib

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 10:03 AM

Jeri,

The point about freedom of speech is giving it to those whose words you dislike. ( See holmes)

I agree with you ( re the firing, in EITHER case) but many of those demanding government action and laws are the same ones who objected to the loss of jobs to the Dixie Chicks. IMO, the sponsors had the right to listen to their audiance opinion, and decide whether to keep a controveral group ( or person) on. As was done in THIS case.

I have no problem with him being fired- I object STRONGLY to the idea that we should make laws restricting the freedom of speech of those whose opinions and views we object to.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 09:56 AM

Also, I'm pretty sure a lot of people were fired because they voiced opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 09:54 AM

"If someone spoke out loud and publicly back in the 60's and said that Blacks should NOT stay in the back of the bus, and subsequently got fired from their job in the Public Relations department of a large corporation, would you claim their rights had been violated?"

BBruce, my first reaction to that was "DUH?!" It's still my reaction. Do you really think I'm that stupid?

No, of course I wouldn't say their rights were violated. This is NOT apolitial thing for me although I realize some folks have to look at everything to see if it agrees with their politics before they look at the specific issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 09:39 AM

I am glad to hear that Imus met with the womens team for three hours last night, after he received word that his show was cancelled.

I am also glad that the FCC had nothing to do with this decision. CBS has every right to decide what they air on their stations. The freedom of speech belongs to them, not Don Imus.

What troubles me is the witch hunt mentality that took hold. So many people are saying "he has a history of this". If that is the case, why weren't other remarks met with such outrage? Sure there has been controversy, but usually when he said something nasty about the Clintons (and don't forget Don Imus played a role in helping Bill Clinton get elected for the first time) or when he calls a newscaster "ugly" or "fat".

There is no denying that he made racial comments. For a number of years he had a character that was supposed to be Cardinal O'Connor (the late archbishop of New York) who appeared on the show to call out the winning NY lottery numbers.   The character used a Barry Fitzgerald accent and perpetuated Irish stereotypes.   Imus would also call Arabs "ragheads". There were other numerous slurs and insults hurled at individuals and races, and it was one of the reasons I stopped listening.   Satire and humor is one thing but he took it too far. I used to enjoy Mel Brooks, but after watching the new version of The Producers you realize how tired and insulting these jokes have become.

For 30 years Imus was one of the top rated shows in the country. If he had a history, why was it tolerated for so long? Either our country accepted racism and dealt with it for so long, or people who listened understood that it was meant to be humor. Now in 2007, we either find his jokes stale or we will no longer accept such humor.

I worry that we have moved one step closer to book burnings and stronger government intrusion on what we can or cannot listen to. Supposedly the airwaves are public, but they are manipulated by the governent and media that manipulates the people. It is one thing to respond to the voice of the people, but I wonder if what happened with Don Imus was not just a knee jerk reaction by people who never heard his broadcasts and simply jumped on the bandwagon to call for his ouster.   The media coverage manipulates us. Why did it take a week for first adverstisers to drop their support? If they were so outraged, why did it not happen the next day? Why did MSNBC wait nearly a week to drop the simulcast? If they were truly outraged, why wasn't it cancelled the next day?   Why did CBS wait over a week to cancel the radio show? If they were truly outraged, he would have been gone the next day.

Again, I have no love for Don Imus. His early days showed a true genius, but as he grew - and as social norms changed, he opened his mouth and went down a path that used stereotypes and hatred as its source. Ultimately, it is not funny and it will end.    People need to change their attitudes for healthy change in society to occur. I feel that the firing of Don Imus statisfies a publics need for a scapegoat, but the problem remains -and is now made even deeper.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 09:32 AM

Jeri,

also, you said:

"If someone spoke out loud and publicly back in the 60's and said that Blacks should stay in the back of the bus, and subsequently got fired from their job in the Public Relations department of a large corporation, would you claim their rights had been violated."


If someone spoke out loud and publicly back in the 60's and said that Blacks should NOT stay in the back of the bus, and subsequently got fired from their job in the Public Relations department of a large corporation, would you claim their rights had been violated?


Is the case any different ( in terms of free speech) as I have stated it than as you did?

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 09:28 AM

Perhaps he meant "misanthrope"?

I can't tell.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 09:26 AM

Jeri,

And I agree. MY point was that there are still those who are demanding GOVERNMENT action, and who want LAWS to prevent this sort of thing- THAT is what I am ( strongly) against. If one wishes to boycott some group for their actions, that is FINE- BUT don't complain when some group decides to boycott something YOU are in favor of.

The Bill of Rights is too valuable to break for political purposes.
IN EITHER DIRECTION!

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 09:26 AM

We discuss defamation civily and with a touch of good humor and Wolfgang then goes ahead and defames me?

We deserve an explanation and an apology beofre we even begin the discussions on Wolfgang's suspension and firing.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 09:22 AM

I'm ignoring the predictable political team playbook shit. If somebody wants to dangle the hook, it doesn't mean folks have to chase after it.

Beardedbruce, my point was that nobody DID arrest Imus. If someone spoke out loud and publicly back in the 60's and said that Blacks should stay in the back of the bus, and subsequently got fired from their job in the Public Relations department of a large corporation, would you claim their rights had been violated.

I'd put forth the theory that the person had screwed the proverbial pooch and would just have to update their resume and move on.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: Charley Noble
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 09:08 AM

Greg F-

You may have missed that post! ;~)

Wolfgang-

"Mesantripe"? Is this some esoteric word that can be used for general abuse or some pun that doesn't necessarily translate to English? Inquiring minds would love to know more.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 09:08 AM

Or would you just say:

'Only a n----r would turn this into a "Black- White" issue.' ?

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 09:05 AM

Greg F,

You have the right to be as stupid as you like.

I have bben pushing freedom of speech. Even those I disagree with get that right- which seems to be something you are not capable of understanding.

So lets line up all those civil rights demonstraters in the '60s and arrest them, since you don't want to let anyone have opinions that are not in accord with your view of the majority.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 09:01 AM

How long, I wonder, will it take for BabyBruce to get tired whining & crying & talking to himself?

Only a BuShite would turn this into a "Liberal-Conservative" issue. Pretty soon he'll maintain that it's all Clinton's fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 08:31 AM

Donuel's just a mesantripe.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 08:30 AM

You have to own what you say. We argue about anything here - over and over, it seems. People are accountable for what they say in public. People have a right to their own opinions about what others say in public, and we have a right to form opinions about what the critics say.

People have a right to express themselves, but when the network (or even a website) says, "not here, not now" they'll just have to do find another medium. Are any of us lacking any freedom of speech because we don't have Imus's audience and a virtual soapbox upon which to stand?

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 08:27 AM

Charely you are correct that the market decide and not the FCC.
But the market as defined by Al Sharpton who says "this is only the beggining.

There is blood in the water. All further Sharpton rallies should be held in Salem.

bearded bruce is a patriot to our Constitution in this matter as am I.

____________
that being said...

It was said no one has called for cruel and unusal punishment for Imus, so let me be the first to toss out punishment such as cutting off the tongue or severing vocal chords, public castration and being imprisoned in a motel 6 for 7 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 08:18 AM

Jeri,

Agreed.

As the former owner of a solid Jewfro, I would not consider it an insult.

As for Imus's firing, that is the network's right. But how many here demanding that bitterly complained about the treatment of the Dixie Chicks, because they AGREED with THEM? It seems that many here support free speech only when they agree with the comments expressed- and are willing to demand government action against any that they disagree with.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 08:07 AM

He said 'nappy' (short article), which means something else entirely.

These guys, the Imuses and Sterns and Limbaughs reflect society as a whole, and what level of meanness and ridicule we can tolerate. I think Imus just found out where the line was when he went over it. People have been giving longer and longer leashes, and he hit the end.

He was fired, folks. He wasn't brought up on charges. He wasn't prevented from speaking elsewhere - the Dixie Chicks lost gigs because of what one of them said, so Imus losing his gig isn't that different. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution--

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

--protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. The government isn't involved in this, as far as I know.

He was FIRED, just like you would be if you pissed off enough customers, patrons or management types.

I hope this is indicative of a "we're not gonna take it anymore" shift, away from the degradation and humiliation of people by some in the media. As for Imus, he knows where the end of the leash is now. I'd guess he'll apologize without reservation if he's smart and get a job somewhere else, where he'll have twice the number of listners - even if they tune in only to see what stupid shit he'll say next.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 08:03 AM

and perhaps we should link to:

thread.cfm?threadid=91580&messages=71#1742983

about a word that is, IMO, far more offensive...

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 07:44 AM

Post of 13 Apr 07 - 07:19 AM was before my tea was steeped...

8-{E

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 07:42 AM

Newly fired Imus meets with Rutgers players
POSTED: 7:06 a.m. EDT, April 13, 2007

Story Highlights• Rutgers coach says meeting with Imus was "productive"
• CBS pulls plug on "Imus in the Morning" radio show
• Sharpton calls Imus firings a "first-round victory"
• Imus says he will not go on "some talk show tour"


NEW YORK (CNN) -- Hours after he was fired by CBS, radio host Don Imus met Thursday night with the Rutgers women athletes whom he had ridiculed with racist and sexist comments.

The Rutgers women's basketball coach called the meeting with Imus "productive."

CBS' decision to dump Imus came a day after NBC Universal decided to cancel his simulcast on MSNBC and followed nearly a week of cries for the firing of the radio host.

The Rev. Al Sharpton applauded the Imus firings as a victory in the battle against abuse of the airwaves. (Watch Sharpton say his efforts won't stop with Imus )

CBS said "all of us have been deeply upset and revulsed by the statements that were made on our air," in a written statement from CBS President and Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves, announcing the decision. (Watch what led to CBS' decision )

CBS, which carried Imus on 61 radio stations, had originally announced it would suspend his show for two weeks.

CNNMoney.com reports "Imus in the Morning" generated about $20 million in revenue last year, about one percent of CBS Radio division's total. (Full story)

The Rutgers team -- including the 10 players, their parents, coaches, administrators and religious leaders -- met with Imus Thursday night at the New Jersey Governor's Mansion.

"We were able to really dialogue," said coach C. Vivian Stringer. "I thought it was productive. I am extremely proud of our 10 young basketball members. I have been throughout this entire ordeal."

Stringer declined to talk about what was said during the meeting or the CBS decision.

Imus: 'I've apologized enough'
The outrage started last week, when Imus described the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos" the day after the team lost the NCAA championship to the University of Tennessee. (Gallery: Other controversial comments aired on Imus show)

Amid the outcry over his on-air racial slur, Imus said Thursday that he had "apologized enough" and that he will not go on "some talk show tour."

"I'm not going to go talk to Larry King or Barbara Walters or anyone else," Imus said on his flagship station in New York, WFAN-AM, which is owned by CBS Corp. and distributed "Imus in the Morning" nationally.

"The only other people I want to talk to are these young women at the team, and then that's it," Imus said.

NBC News President Steve Capus, appearing on CNN, said Imus' comments had "touched a nerve" within the organization and firing him was "the only action we could take." (Vote: Is Imus' career over?)

Despite being dropped by NBC, Imus hosted his show from the MSNBC studios in New Jersey, though he did not appear on TV.

"As you know, MSNBC folded up yesterday, so we're just on the radio," he said.

Imus was broadcasting his 18th annual radio charity fund-raiser, which has pulled in $50 million since 1990. It ends Friday.

"This may be our last radio-thon, so we need to raise 100 million dollars," Imus said, chuckling.

According to The Associated Press, Imus raised $1 million in the first five hours of Thursday's fund-raiser.

Imus' disparaging remarks about the Rutgers players prompted eight companies to pull their ads from his show: Staples, General Motors, Sprint Nextel, GlaxoSmithKline, Procter & Gamble, PetMed Express, American Express and Bigelow Tea.

Sharpton: 'No champagne bottle popping'
Sharpton had pressured CBS to cancel Imus' morning show, but the issue "was never about Don Imus," he said Thursday.

"It was about the misuse of the airwaves," he said.

"We cannot afford a precedent established that the airwaves can be used to commercialize and mainstream sexism and racism. But there will be no champagne bottle popping by those of us involved in this. This is not about gloating," Sharpton said.

Sharpton said he wants to show the media and the public that it is not necessary to "be misogynist and racist to be creative or to be commercial in this country." (Watch an analysis of whether other shows need taming )

Earlier Thursday, the father of a player on the Rutgers team joined Sharpton at a rally outside the network's offices.

Linzell Vaughn, father of sophomore center Kia Vaughn, said Imus' comments were "like a slap in the face."

"Do not disrespect our children," he said. (Players talk of hurt, seeking understanding)

Civil rights activist Jesse Jackson also spoke on Thursday afternoon outside CBS' offices and called for Imus' firing.

"This is not the first time this has happened on this show," he said, and spoke of previous Imus comments that Jackson characterized as racist and sexist.

"'Three strikes you're out' ought to apply to this position," he said.

Bruce Gordon, a member of CBS Corp.'s board of directors, also said he wanted Imus fired from WFAN.

Speaking Thursday on CNN's "American Morning," Gordon said that, speaking "as an African-American man in this country, Don Imus violated our community. He attacked beautiful, talented, classy women and when those women showed themselves to the country, I think that those words matched with those images made it clear to America that Don Imus was wrong."

Gordon is a former president and CEO of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 07:29 AM

Dies Committee (1938–1944)
The House Committee on Un-American Activities grew from a special investigating committee established in May 1938, chaired by Martin Dies and co-chaired by Samuel Dickstein, himself named in Soviet NKVD documents as a Soviet agent. In pre-war years and during World War II, it was known as the Dies Committee. Its work was supposed to be aimed mostly at German American involvement in Nazi and Ku Klux Klan activity. As to investigations into the activities of the "Klan," the Committee actually did little. When HUAC's chief counsel Ernest Adamson announced that "The committee has decided that it lacks sufficient data on which to base a probe," committee member John E. Rankin added: "After all, the KKK is an old American institution." Instead of the Klan, HUAC concentrated on investigating the possibility that the American Communist Party had infiltrated the Works Progress Administration, including the Federal Theatre Project.

The Dies Committee also carried out a brief investigation into the wartime internment of Japanese Americans living on the West Coast. The investigation primarily concerned security at the camps, youth gangs allegedly operating in the camps, food supply questions, and releases of internees. With the exception of Rep. Herman Eberharter, the members of the committee seemed to support internment.

In 1938, Hallie Flanagan, the head of the Federal Theatre Project, was subpoenaed to appear before the committee to answer the charge that the project was overrun with communists. Flanagan was called to testify for only a part of one day, while a clerk from the project was called in for two entire days. It was during this investigation that one of the committee members famously asked Flanagan whether the Elizabethan playwright Christopher Marlowe was a member of the Communist Party.

In 1939, the committee investigated leaders of the American Youth Congress, a Comintern affiliate organization.


[edit] Subversion
HUAC became a standing (permanent) committee in 1946. Under the mandate of Public Law 601, passed by the 79th Congress, the committee of nine representatives investigated suspected threats of subversion or propaganda that attacked "the form of government guaranteed by our Constitution."

Under this mandate, the committee focused its investigations on real and suspected Communists in positions of actual or supposed influence in American society. The first, such investigation looked into allegations of Communists in the Federal Theatre Project in 1938. A significant step for HUAC was its investigation of the charges of espionage brought against Alger Hiss in 1948. This investigation ultimately resulted in Hiss's trial and conviction for perjury, and convinced many of the usefulness of congressional committees for uncovering Communist subversion.[1]

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 07:26 AM

"So, an anti-Bush protester at an American Legion function should be locked away for how long? Or a Jew or Black at a Klan rally? "

Or a Civil rights protester in any Southern town in the 1960's?

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 07:24 AM

And, btw, I have repeatedly in the past expressed my dislike of the term "BuShites" for those who do not fall into apolectic fits at the mere mention of the President's name. So, I will call upon everyon to boycott those using this derogatory term, and demand legal action to make sure they never post again.

Or so you seem think would be proper.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 07:19 AM

Subject: RE: Natty Dread
From: Azizi - PM
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 11:07 PM

http://www.answers.com/topic/natty has this definition for 'natty':

"nat·ty (năt'ē)
adj., -ti·er, -ti·est.
Neat, trim, and smart; dapper.

[Perhaps variant of obsolete netty, from net, elegant, from Middle English, from Old French. See neat1.]

nattily nat'ti·ly adv.
nattiness nat'ti·ness n.

The adjective natty has one meaning:

Meaning #1: marked by smartness in dress and manners
Synonyms: dapper, dashing, jaunty, raffish, rakish, smart, spiffy, snappy, spruce"

-snip-

http://takeourword.com/TOW127/page2.html provides this information about the origin and meaning of the word 'natty':

"Most etymologists seem to favor the explanation that the word is a variation of the obsolete netty "neat, elegant" from Middle English net "clean, tidy" (14th century). This would make it a relative of modern English neat, which also comes from Middle English net. Net also meant "neat, clean" in Old French, hence modern French nettoyer, "to clean". The source of the Old French word is Latin nitidus "elegant, shiny", from the verb nitere "shine".   

Interestingly, neat dates from the 16th century, while natty first appears in the 18th century in Grose's Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue: "Natty lads, young thieves or pickpockets." The Indo-European root here is *nei- "to shine", which may have given English the word lilac, from Persian nil "indigo"."

*******************************************************************

So, if a radio announcer says a woman or group of women are "Neat, trim, and smart; dapper." the announcer should be fired? After all, listening to much of BET or VH1 one would certainly believe the proper form of address to any attractive woman would include the word "ho".

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 07:14 AM

"Obviously, that restriction is to prevent panic or riot. How long do you think Imus would get away with his hateful remarks if he were standing in the middle of Harlem?"

Inciting to riot IS a punishable offence: When someone does that, they should be prosecuted FOR THAT.

So, an anti-Bush protester at an American Legion function should be locked away for how long? Or a Jew or Black at a Klan rally?

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 07:11 AM

"If this was his first offense I'd say give him a two week unpaid furlough. It's not, he has a history of this, and it's time to square him away."

So how many times can one criticise Bush before it becomes ok to keep one off the airways??? Or compiment him? ( it is the principle that is important: Are YOU prepared to have those you disagree with apply their standards to you?)

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: kendall
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 06:59 AM

Freedom of speech is not limited just to not yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. Obviously, that restriction is to prevent panic or riot. How long do you think Imus would get away with his hateful remarks if he were standing in the middle of Harlem?

If this was his first offense I'd say give him a two week unpaid furlough. It's not, he has a history of this, and it's time to square him away.We can not regulate morality but we sure as hell can regulate behaviour.We do it all the time and without regulation life would be a snake pit.

I'm a liberal but I'm also a realist.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 06:49 AM

"No more job to protect---so, will he meet with the basketball ladies? "

I understand he did/will still meet with them.


Can we link the Dixie Chick threads to this one? or is freedom of speech only for the liberals?




"And those who defend Imus on free speech grounds definitely need to learn it. "

So, who would YOU have decide what is protected speech? Obviously what you agree with, but how about the rest?

And what will you do when someone decides YOUR comments are "over the line"?

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 02:22 AM

I agree with beardedbruce, imagine that!

"Please, boycott Imus: write letters to the network not to let him on. THAT is fine- But to call for government regulation of speech is not justified."

I also agree with mg when she says that girls that hang with guys who talk that way are rewarding abusive behaviour. That has to stop. Peer pressure is the only way to make this type of language socially unaceptable to teens. Talk to the kids. Make them realize that abusive language leads to abusive behaviour.

pdq, you said, "...you seem to be able to misinterpret people's statements as well as dianavan does." Could you be a little more specific or do you go to bed at night with a hate on.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: Mike Miller
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 01:32 AM

Right you are, Lonesome. My point is that this is not a left/right issue. Freedom of speech is so ingrained in the American experiment that we were the first people to, specifically, encode it into our law. That means that I can say whatever I want and, conversely, I am responsible for my words. Unless my words are, immediately, dangerous (physical threat,shouting, "FIRE!" in a theatre) they must be tolerated. Sometimes, that's a little hard to do. There is a lot of scary stuff being said and a lot more stupid stuff, too.
I wonder how many Don Imus fans think he should be fired. I suspect most, if not all, the protesters were non supporters of the show.
I understand why the black community was upset. Hell, I'm a Jew. You wanna tell a Jew joke, it had better be funny. And you had better not be Mel Gibson.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 12:45 AM

"This has been a costly victory for the left"-Mr Miller

I guess I just don't see this as a Left vs Right issue. Are you saying people on the left think what Imus said was awful and people on the right think it was ok?

I consider myself left of center (slightly) but I think the question this topic brings up is three-fold : 1) Was what Imus said unforgiveable, and did it demand the sacrifice of his career? 2) Is there an atmosphere of permissiveness regarding language, behavior, and mutual respect that is eroding at a rapid pace, and the Imus situation is just a small manifestation of it? 3)Should such speech be abrogated by government sanction, penalized through boycott, or tolerated as necessary to our principle of free speech?

These are important questions that should have responses based on our personal beliefs and not our adherence to a conservative or liberal POV.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: M.Ted
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 12:34 AM

Mike Miller--you are right. None of the rest of you get it yet, but you will.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: Azizi
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 12:31 AM

Fwiw, thread.cfm?threadid=100728&messages=6 'Natty Dread' is an above the line Mudcat thread that focuses on the cultural meanings to Black women-in particular-of 'nappy hair'.

So far in that thread you'll find the lyrics to Bob Marley's song "Natty Dread", information about the meaning of the word 'natty' and the word 'dread', as well as more opinions about the Don Imus remarks as they relate to the phrase 'nappy hair'.

If you have a mind to check that thread out and post to it, please feel free to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: Mike Miller
Date: 13 Apr 07 - 12:19 AM

Bill Hahn says that the firing of Imus is nothing like the blacklist.
It is, exactly, like the blacklist. Mr. Imus commited no crime. He didn't, even, do an overtly racist act, unless you consider a crude sense of humor as evidence of anything other than standard shock-jock-shlock, most of which I find offensive. When it comes to putting down women, Imus has nothing on Howard Stern. But Bill Hahn says that the blacklist was nothing like that.
Let me lay a little history on you. The decade from 1946 to 1956 was marked by fear of commies. Entertainers, who espoused progressive causes, were labeled traitors and enemies of the people by those groups who disagreed with their positions. These groups brought pressure on theatrical and motion picture producers who, in response, fired the accused artists. Mr. Hahn, the only difference between then and now is that you identify with the blacklisted artists and you do not identify with Don Imus. (Not identifying with Don Imus may be the only point on which we agree)

                            Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: GUEST,Oscar
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 10:31 PM

Firing Imus is a crock but not surprising. Just another example of the double standard in this country. When is little al sharpton going to apologize? Lots of repercussions for what has happened and unfortunately it starts with Obama's electibilty. He's now toast because it will be seen that he is "controlled" by the black leadership. Imus first then the fallout will sink Obama and the black leadership(empty suits) asked for it. Sorry Obama

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: Mike Miller
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 09:52 PM

I suppose that the Imus firing will delight the masses enough to forget that he was guilty of, drumroll, please, offensive humor! I can not repeat this often enough, this firing is a threat to us, all. Hasn't there been enough history of the muzzling of unpopular ideas to satisfy that segment of society that has been, most often, muzzled? We can't ban language we dislike. It is, in a word, unamerican. This has been a costly victory for the left. In a system where money rules, progresssive ideas are, always, outre. If there is one faction that needs protected free speech, it is the left.
So, cheer the fall of a pest but be wary of the precident.
The best thing the African-American community can do is to make itself as impervious to snide attack as did other, once maligned, groups. In our society, this is accomplished through wealth and political power. We can becry the shameful origings of Black America.
We can recall and retell the indignaties, the breaking of families, the cruel Jim Crow laws. We can weep for the present state of the black community but our tears will not bring them equality, prosperity or self-respect. Only they can achieve those ends and the best we can do is get the hell out of their way while they do.
Well, there are a few things we can do. First, while African-Americans were, indeed, brought to America against their wills, other
minorities were not. The US, probably, does owe special treatment for the children of slaves (Empowerment Zones, scholarships, contract preferences,etc)but we do not owe special "Minority" status to other groups. Second, we must, at some point, realize that, neither, welfare or heartfelt hand wringing has done the black community one whit of good. What should be offered is acceptence and financial encouragement of black owned business. (This IS still a capitalist society and business is the path to success).
Every year, countless thousands come to America, seeking wealth and freedom. They achieve these by opening and operating small businesses
often employing their fellow countrymen. They buy homes and they build churches and they flourish. This should be the path of African-America but, for the most part, they have been unable to find that path. And, to tell the bitter truth, we are not helping. Since the great civil rights victories of the 50's and 60's, the plight of the urban black family has worsened in spite of Affirmative Action, bussing and a welfare program that has managed to break the spirit of a generation.
Do you want to do something positive for race relations? Get off this
peripheral Imus flap and start patronizing black business. Spend some time in the black community so it becomes your community, too.
Encourage interracial dating. Hell, marry a black person. It's tougher to discriminate against meshpuchah (family). Talk is cheap.

                           Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 09:37 PM

Actual WSJ quote was "Free speech is enhanced by civility"--and it comes from a New York Times article last Sunday on the topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 09:26 PM

Behind a few widows--who may have another statement in mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 09:24 PM

Good luck. But you may have to stand in line.

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: Amos
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 09:22 PM

Well, Ron, I think you have a fine point. Next time Ann Coulter calls me a nappy-headed liberal, I'm gonna get her ass canned.

:D

A

Subject: RE: BS: Don Imus replacment
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 09:19 PM

"germane"