baldilocks on August 15, 2007 at 11:54 PM

inviolet on August 16, 2007 at 7:08 AM

Cheers.

Wow. That was a really nice post. And nicely put (re: all your points). I’m sorry if I jumped to conclusions about who your post was addressing. Like being accused of being a ‘ho,’ having a perception that one is being accused of racism can send one off the outrage cliff.

I don’t have much of a message, but more often than not I come to the same conclusion. America is a land truly touched by God. I think aside from our prosperity, our ethnic and cultural dynamics set us apart from most other nations in the world.

Very well said.

I will assume that you’re not talking to me personally.

baldilocks on August 15, 2007 at 7:22 PM

Uh no. That particular remark was directed at Hening on August 15, 2007 at 8:00 AM.

But now I’m scared. I got the memo: Female bloggers kick ass!

>

Interesting handle you have, BTW. Would it be rude to ask how you came to choose it?

inviolet on August 15, 2007 at 8:35 PM

I don’t detect a glimmer of rudeness. I could take lessons.

Quite honestly, when I registered, I was intoxicated and giddy over registration being open. I thought for about 2 seconds about what I should use. And in a fit of unoriginality I went with what I was already using at some other sites.

I am a recovering addict – people watching addict. And race relations provid a provocative and interesting backdrop for my addiction.

What you can be sure of is that I am an equal opportunity annoyer. I will be in sync with you one day and have you pulling out your hair the next. If you think you have it bad, you should catch me in a room full of minority journalists or marching the wrong direction at liberal rallies.

I don’t have much of a message, but more often than not I come to the same conclusion. America is a land truly touched by God. I think aside from our prosperity, our ethnic and cultural dynamics set us apart from most other nations in the world.

inviolet on August 15, 2007 at 8:33 PM

I can only imagine how annoying it is for somebody else to read what I wrote. Because just looking back at the length of my last rant makes me tired.

If I have offended anyone I apologize. Flat out. That was not my intention.

However my point still stands. Racial bigotry is not outside the norm. In fact, because of such rampant political correctness, I believe there is an uptick in these sentiments. Kudos to you if you have not used such language. Certainly you don’t think everyone is so couth.

Still, I was not addressing everyone at HotAir. The assertion is silly. I would not be a Republican if I thought the party platform promoted racism, sexism or bigotry.

Rather I was addressing the people who I believe use instances such as Imusgate to slip in unrelated, unnecessarily racially tinged rhetoric. Your sober response does not seem to put you in that group. You should not be offended. You were not being addressed.

Perhaps I have been unclear. It’s very easy when you ramble as much as I do. I am human and subject to sounding like a jerk at times. In this case, perhaps I do.

The thing that won me over to the right was the honesty and unflinching assertion of its core values. I love it when people stand up for righteousness. Most Republicans appreciate capitalism, rule of law, small government and low taxes. So do I.

At the same time, if I suspect or detect something afoul in my midst, I will investigate…or just spout off. If I offend a few people, or ruffle some feathers…sorry. That is not the first or last time.

I appreciate your honesty. And if you speak for others who were equally offended, I direct my apology in their direction as well.

Interesting handle you have, BTW. Would it be rude to ask how you came to choose it?

Rant out. Lunch in.”
The Race Card on August 15, 2007 at 5:55 PM

Since the end of your “rant” sounds like you’re addressing all of us: Answer to your question: NO. Not a single one of those racial slurs has ever passed my lips. Ever. In my life. And NONE of my friends and family would use them either.

For someone whose “rant” is supposedly against prejudice you are making a lot of assumptions, sir or ma’am. I believe you owe this board an apology for your basically assuming that “more than a few” of us (your words, remember) are racists.

[Your]rant in, [my] lunch out.

However, right remains right. None of us would be talking about this again if Ms. Vaughn hadn’t chosen to go back on her word that she had accepted Imus’s apology–if she had not chosen the big, easy money over her personal integrity.

This fact is the only thing which has defamed Ms. Vaughn–forget the other stuff, either from Imus or others.

baldilocks on August 15, 2007 at 12:01 PM

Spot on! I too felt bad for these girls, they were just playing ball and having fun and then got dumped on with this crap. However, Imus (who I agree is an odd-looking bird himself) is not exactly someone I place a lot of creed in to determine what I think of anyone. They accepted his apology, which they didn’t have to do and he didn’t have to give. Noone believes they’re “hos” b/c Imus, some dingdong who doesn’t even know them personally, said so (at least anyone with half a brain).

georgej on August 15, 2007 at 2:47 AM

Your wife is right. At common law, using such language is defamation per se. Since Imus said this, and b/c it pertains to certain subject matter (i.e. sexual unchastity, STDs, etc.), damages are presumed.

Your view of black life is steeped in Al Sharpton appearances and rap videos.

I will assume that you’re not talking to me personally.

Every similar situation isn’t perfectly analogous and, therefore, shouldn’t require the same reaction.

There was sympathy for these women (at least from me) for being dragged into a more public spotlight by Imus; he did it simply because he didn’t like the way they looked. (And he has some nerve talking about anyone’s looks.) But Imus apologized and he and his wife had a long private talk session with the players and their coach. In the end, the women accepted that apology. (Have any of the persons who made those disgusting comments to Michelle apologized?)

Now we know that the grand magnanimous gesture of accepting the apology was a sham for Vaughn and that’s why there’s no sympathy for the woman any more. If Vaughn goes through with this–she will have made Imus out to have been a prophet–at least about her.

baldilocks on August 15, 2007 at 12:01 PM

I agree that different situations warrant different responses. In my esitmation, Michelle Malkin has been treated much worse by her detractors than the Rutgers team.

I also agree that filing this civil suit is very self-serving. Imus went a long way to demonstate his contrition. And if she was unwilling to accept his apology, I believe she should have been upfront about that.

She should not sue. She should simply point out that Imus is hardly the one to discuss looks or hair, and move on. She may have seen an opportunity because she was one of the five players on court when Imus made his remarks. And she has tats, so she may feel a bit more personally singled out.

Kia Vaughn is reported to want to start a foundation which advocates on behalf of victims of verbal abuse. That sounds like a front for a cushy job as CEO of her own non-profit.

I disagree, however, that there was ever much sympathy for these women. There was just as much equivocating at the outset as there is now. Longtime Imus friend, Bo Dietl, argued early on that the words nappy-headed and ho originated in black neighborhoods and are therefore ok to use in reference to the team. Many cold hearts furthered that same line of logic.

I’m sure she has been called much worse, but when a rich, white guy is joking around it’s time to be a legal Ho’. Hip-hop culture made the term popular so why not go to the source for some race related cash?

With all the free college educations New Jersey has given away due to skin color over the last forty years, there is no end in sight to victim hood and divisiveness. Jackson/Sharpton’s “dream” compared to M.L.King’s.

Hening on August 15, 2007 at 8:00 AM

How do you know what Kia Vaughn has been called? On what do you base that assumption? Don’t answer…it’s obvious.

To suggest that it is ok to use offensive, abusive language against a group of young athletes because of rap music is preposterous. To suggest that because Kia Vaughn is black that she has been called “much worse” is racially retarded.

None of the women in my family has ever been spoken to in this manner. Your view of black life is steeped in Al Sharpton appearances and rap videos. There are millions of people who don’t live by those belligerent standards.

If I called your wife, daughter or mother a whore, would that be ok? It must be. It’s a well recognized fact that all white women have been called whores, right?

Regarding all of the free college educations New Jersey has given away due to skin color over the last forty years, would you please quantify that number? And when you do, please give the ethnic and racial breakdown of all recipients of state college aid, federal assistance and affirmative action recipients. Also you might want to look at the number of kids who attend JCs before going on to four year schools. Then when you can prove a disparate ratio of state funding for college students of different races, as opposed to economic need, then you can get off of your racial highhorse.

Clealy, many people have become so beleagured by racial double standards that they are unwilling or unable to recognize genuinely offensive acts and language. I can understand that. The boy who cried wolf has nothing on racial demogogues like Al Sharpton.

But some people have used Sharpton’s chicanery as a veil to their own racial biases and or prejudices. Sharpton and his ilk’s BS vindicates their own race based syllogisms.

Exit question: Have you ever used any of the following words: Wetback? Spic? Nigger? Kike? Dyke? Faggot? Chink? Cracker?

If you have, did you mean it?

I am guessing that there are more than a few of you out there who have used every word on the list and others. And I’m sure there are boatloads who have friends and family who use these words in their presence.

Rant out. Lunch in.

Why? Imus sits at a microphone and speaks to millions of people. He has the defacto power to destroy people’s reputations, their livelihoods, and their privacy. And he routinely exercises it. He called this woman and her teammates WHORES. That means he publicly claimed that these women performed sexual acts with strangers for money. And unless these women are in fact prostitutes, i.e., women who exchange sex for money, then he has defamed them. Period.

What’s more he gets paid millions to do this, to insult people personally; to call young women athlete whores.

Imus made the choice to call these women whores. Nobody made him. But when he did, he publicly proclaimed to millions that these women exchange sex for money, and he used racist language to boot. In my state, making sexual innuendos about someone, is DEFAMATION. Unlike most instances of defamation where one has to prove that the remark resulted in a loss of income or other financial damage, in this case, no damage needs to be proven because it is considered to be defamation on its face. His only defense is to prove that these women are, in fact, prostitutes. Otherwise, the only thing a jury will discuss is HOW BIG the award will be.

“Remember how pissed off we all were when they made these racist, sexist slurs against Michelle Malkin? Of course MM is a super badass and can handle herself. But I personally was pissed off on her behalf.”

Look up NY Times v. Sullivan. Michelle, is a columnist, TV celebrity, and a public figure. It is nearly impossible for her to sue for defamation. That’s the way it is.

These women were not public figures and they are protected against defamation in common law and by statute just as you and I (or our daughters) are.

Now, this is not to say that I agree with forcing Imus off the air, or him having to grovel and kiss Sharpton’s ass. In fact, I think Imus made a serious mistake in doing so. Sharpton needs to be taken down a few pegs, not elevated by having Imus publicly kiss his heinie.

But if these women choose to sue Imus for calling them whores on nationally syndicated radio and cable TV, I have no objection as it is their right to protect their reputations.

Did Imus indeed possess evil hatred? We all must admit Imus is a bit nappy headed. No one wants to talk about it, but the nap is there.

No way! I’m not claiming him! :-)

In the new world of hate crime, it is the reason you commit a crime that is the real crime.

If you rob a bank without hatred in your heart, that is not a hate crime. It may not even be a crime at all if the press likes you.

If you rob a bank because of a seething hatred for bankers, you may have committed a hate crime. The press will dissect your hatred based upon demographics and render the final judgement of whether you posess evil hatred, misguided hatred, or justified hatred.

Did Imus indeed possess evil hatred? We all must admit Imus is a bit nappy headed. No one wants to talk about it, but the nap is there. There is a slight possibility Imus is a self-hater.

However Imus has consistently acted like a wannabee (Detroit slang for white guys with nap envy). He loaded his program with black gospel music and often used wannabe slang.

I think personally Imus is just nice guy who felt somewhat responsible for slavery and thought he could make up for it by acting like a bro. However, Imus made the mistake of top loading his show with white ivy league media ho’s who although they may be ho’s they do not be bro’s, so Imus learned his bro talk from WaPo and NYT columnists.

Were these media ho’s smart enough to set Imus up for a fall just because Imus is a genuine wannabe and not a fake wannabe like them?

I suggest this because it was so so so obvious that Imus was not trying to slander, libel or express hatred for those females. But his media bro’s took him apart when Imus walked out on a limb and discovered he was not nappy enough to use words like nappy in front of media ho’s.

I still feel sorry for Imus and his real bro too. And that little religious sidekick. However I am jealous about all the money he is getting.

Imus should argue that it was not a hate crime, and therefore the slander and libel charges are unconstitutional based upon the laws of Sweden and Norway. He could also get some genetic testing just in case he has enough nap to be allowed to use the word nap without getting sued

She not suing for th description “nappt-headed.”

Need coffee.

“She not suing for being called ‘nappy-headed.’”

Ho and nappy headed are terms that where coined by and used by blacks,

TheSitRep on August 15, 2007 at 7:50 AM

She not suing for th description “nappt-headed.”

Remember how pissed off we all were when they made these racist, sexist slurs against Michelle Malkin? Of course MM is a super badass and can handle herself. But I personally was pissed off on her behalf.

Are these girls any less deserving of your understanding…just because the people who support them are crackpots?

The Race Card on August 15, 2007 at 3:20 AM

Every similar situation isn’t perfectly analogous and, therefore, shouldn’t require the same reaction.

There was sympathy for these women (at least from me) for being dragged into a more public spotlight by Imus; he did it simply because he didn’t like the way they looked. (And he has some nerve talking about anyone’s looks.) But Imus apologized and he and his wife had a long private talk session with the players and their coach. In the end, the women accepted that apology. (Have any of the persons who made those disgusting comments to Michelle apologized?)

Now we know that the grand magnanimous gesture of accepting the apology was a sham for Vaughn and that’s why there’s no sympathy for the woman any more. If Vaughn goes through with this–she will have made Imus out to have been a prophet–at least about her.

She makes it worse by coming forward to sue now, instead of coming out with “chaste-woman outrage” as soon as it happened.

That being said, though, any public figure who called ME a
‘ho’ on national airwaves – joke or not – might have even more to worry about than a lawsuit. Some women don’t take kindly to jokes like that. But I’d settle for a public, extended, humiliating apology on the air.