Imus and Nifong in contrast

First of all let me say that I really don't get the uproar about a shockjock (someone paid to be a moron) saying something moronic (not to mention shocking) and people getting all in a tizzy about it. Why is there a line at offending some people, but not offending others. Why is it it's okay for him to call Rush Limbaugh "a fat, pill-popping loser", Arabs "ragheads", PBS anchor Gwen Ifill a "cleaning lady", publishers Simon & Schuster as "thieving Jews", media critic Howard Kurtz a "boner-nosed . . . beanie-wearing little Jew boy” but suddenly when he calls the Rutgers' women's basketball team (which has both white and Black members) "nappy headed hos" he's gone too far? Now I'm all for the Rutger's women's basketball team suing the pants off him for calling them that on the air, but it seems hypocritical to fire him for just another in a very, long list of idiocies. CBS and NBC mad millions off Imus entertaining that segment of the nation stupid enough to be entertained by him. It's a little too late for them to be trying to pretend there's any semblance of moral high ground for them to stand on.

I had a boss once who liked to toss around the term "ho" whenever any female annoyed him. He'd generally just say "she a ho" in reference to customers, other employees, even his own wife. It annoyed me, but I'd heard lots worse, so I never thought anything about it, until it occurred to me that he might one day say that about my wife, so I took matters into my own hands the next time he tossed out that phrase and said, "You say that about a whole lot of women, most times without even thinking," I paused for effect, "You'd better make sure you never use it about my wife."

"Why, what would you do?" he asked.

I gave him a serious look and said, "Make you apologize to her." As wimpy as that may sound, imagine my wife getting a phone call out of the blue from my boss, apologizing for accidentally calling her a "ho". It would be demeaning for him to do, and he realized that.

He paused, thought about it, looked at my face, then replied, "then I'll have to make sure I never do that, won't I."

And that was the end of it. He actually started to use that term less and less as he caught on to just how frequently he used it.

My question through all this is, where are these girls' father, brothers, husband or boyfriends? Why do we see the girls and their coach being interviewed? Whatever happened to a man defending the honor of his daughter, sister, wife or girlfriend? I seriously don't think the media would censor the angry demand of a father, that Imus had better apologize quickly and sincerely before he gets a sound butt kicking. What's happened to our society that the honor and dignity or women are left in the hands of charlatans like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?

(Oh and while the media try to insinuate Imus is a conservative, remember this quote “You can't get much more liberal than John Kerry is. I mean, he's my candidate, but, I mean, come on.” [emphasis added])

Now, about Nifong.

Yeah the guy's a creep, and deserves prison for putting those boys through that just to further his career, although I expect there'll be some civil suit followed by a career change and the actually criminal acts he committed will be brushed under the rug.

But as wrong as it was to go after these lacrosse players, I'm a little bothered by the continual use of the term "innocent" in reference to them. "Not guilty" is more accurate, since it's obvious they didn't do what the stripper claimed they did, but "innocent"? "Innocent" boys don't pay $800 to have some strung-out prostitute take her clothes off while they get stoned. No one has denied those facts. Had even one of those players had the dignity to refuse to attend such a gathering, he wouldn't have been dragged into it. Even Reade Seligmann, who apparently left about 20 minutes after the strippers arrived, wound up being arrested as one of three identified by the stripper.

Of course even more hypocritical is Duke president Richard H. Brodhead who issued the following statement last March...

Whatever that inquiry may show, it is already clear that many students acted in a manner inappropriate to a Duke team member in participating in the March 13 party. I applaud Athletics Director Joe Alleva for responding to the conduct that is not in question even as we wait for the investigation to determine the truth about disputed parts of the events.

What's clear is that such parties were commonplace at Duke, and Brodhead turned a blind eye to them, as many university Presidents do, only to pretend shock when one results in something that embarrasses the university. The idea of self-control and responsible behavior seem to be considered abstract and foreign notions. Brodhead said then that the accused players would not be welcome back since they were guilty of underage drinking. Of course now that the nation is outraged at Nifong's injustice, Brodhead has changed his mind and is inviting the students back.

The Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax Scandal seems to be a lot like one of those cheesy Clint Eastwood/Spaghetti-Westerns where there were no good guys, only not-really-all-that-nice guys and really, really bad guys and every looked like they smelled bad.

Posted by Danny Carlton at April 14, 2007 10:26 AM