Re: Imu and "Tell Me More": Understandably you want to hear from people who listen to Imus, but keep in mind that a great many people never do listen to him or Stern and such like because they are a waste of time and often insulting to the general intelligence and dignity in the first place. Satirical and humorous comments are fine; pushing the line in directness is fine; but not in the terms Imus used; they are patently offensiv and say nothing intelligent. Notice, too, that he referred to Tennessee players as "cute," while disparaging Rutgers players. So that is what he sees in a women's championship game? Cuteness and non-cuteness. Not talent and drive? Sure, men think in such terms, but they should be embarrassed to summarize it that way. And Imus' particular words are not acceptable, period. "Nappy-headed?" "Hos?" Why reduce ourselves by giving him time? Why anyone pays Imus, or listens to him, I don't know. I am 64, white, a retired newspaper reporter and editor. Commentary is good. But we readers and listeners need to exercise discretion and ignore the fools.

Sent by Dan Hortsch | 7:09 PM ET | 04-09-2007

This is Imus: if they were big and white and from the middle of the country, he'd call them dykes, and if they were from brandies university he'd call 'em somethng equally as offensive, just from the jewish angle. It doesnt mean that's what he thinks, he's just attempting to be funny. But he wasn't this time.

Sent by peter wagner | 10:37 PM ET | 04-09-2007

Imus has made his reputation as a troglodyte for at least the last 15 years. He finally stepped over the line and deserves to be sacked. The daughter of a friend of mine benefited from Imus' charity almost 10 years ago and I was shocked when the matriarch of the family defended Imus's filthy mouth because of his charitable contributions. At the time I thought that it was clear that she had never heard one of his shows. Shock jocks make their living on the edge but they have to be accountable. Imus clearly went over the edge and deserves to be sacked.

Sent by Scott Ferguson | 3:27 AM ET | 04-10-2007

I am an occasional listener to the Imus show only because I try to get a balanced view of what goes over the air waves. I have found that the fare offered of little if any value. The banter is typically offensive, hurtful, and disrespectful. The use of the term "nappy-headed ho's" is certainly in line with what the show has offered in the past. The fact that his broadcasts enjoy substantial popularity indicates that his style of humor and irreverence resonates with a segment of the population of this country. What is most disturbing is the devaluation of black females that is prevalent is this culture.The epithet that Imus used is a tamer quote from any of hundreds of hip-hop "songs"(an oxymoron). The tone of the segment, in my mind finds it source in the misogyny of the hip-hop culture. I have read that rap music is very popular among suburban white males in the age group between 15 to 22 years old, that is adolescences and early post-adolescences.This age group often favors crude,sophomoric,and irreverent humor of the sort that is abundant on Mr.Imus's broadcasts.So the origins of the comments are in the devaluation of afro-american females that is a recurrent theme in this culture among the unsophisticated and immature. It also results from the alliance between the hip-hop culture of self-hatred and the record industry because a whole lot of money is being made from such hurtful and demeaning lyrics. Mr. Imus's comments were a symptom of a deeper problem! By the way,I am a 56 year old Negro (I wonder what's wrong with bringing back this term into use?) physician

Sent by Carl Foster MD | 5:15 AM ET | 04-10-2007

He should be punnished and compelled to change some of the humor in his show. But he is clearly a good man and this is clearly a very bad mistake. Imus gets the most powerful guests in the country and asks them questions that others are afraid to. On his show he is an advocate for the poor, for minorities, and for anyone else getting left behind. Sharpton and others are correct to demand an apology, but anything beyond that is grandstanding. Sharpton was practically giddy when Imus accidentally said "you people".

Sent by ken drews | 10:20 AM ET | 04-10-2007

Not receiving MSNBC at home, I watch it at the motels when I'm working away from home and saw Imus and McGuirk stick their foot in their mouths and put their head up their butts last week. My first reaction was why would they say something like that about young women who didn't do anything to deserve negative comments like that. Stupid, stupid, stupid! I generally watch the show for his interviews with reporters and journalists which for the most part are worthwhile and informative. I think it is up to the Rutger's basketball team to render judgement on his fate after they meet with him. McGuirk also needs a good dope slap, there are times to go after powerful people and hold them up to ridicule, but I repeat, the Rutgers basketball isn't in that league. But Imus is, and he brought this on himself.

Sent by Larry Oline | 12:14 PM ET | 04-10-2007

Comedians often have the freedom to speak the truth and reflect the lives of many people in a manner that is not threatening (i.e. Dick Gregory, Richard Pryor,Chris Rock,Margaret Choi).Shock jocks do the same. Imus was not saying anything that hasn't been brodcast on airways before.The problem I have is that while these shock jocks may tell a truth there are few major media outlets that provide disucssion about the uglier parts of our culture and ways to move the culture forward and subsequenlty better the lives of all people. That said, I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Foster's comments about the continuos devaluation of black women in American culture.The majority of people who buy all hip hop,from the conscious styles like Mos Def to the more commericialized artists like Snoop Dog, are white youth.As long as young black men and women are putting these misognysitc and demoralizing images of black and Latina women coupled with Americans'insatiable appetite for sex and sterotypes, all women of color will continue to be devalued in this socitey and across the world (Remember,like the Motown and soul music before it, Hip Hop is global.) Someone might say,"Well aren't these images the truth for some people?"Yes, they are, but where is the balance? There are many people who want to have wholistic views of black women but it is so dificult to find because media compaies won't pick these artists up. Balance in the mainstream media is what I want. Balance.

Sent by Mallari Peace | 12:19 PM ET | 04-10-2007

As a soon to be 42 year old African American man in the US, I've come to believe that I don't have time to wait for racism to be purged out of white people. In fact, I believe that it's a waste of time. Fortunately, Imus' comments don't reflect the attitude of all non-African Americans. I do believe that we should hold those reckless, masochistic, individuals who voice their beliefs publicly accountable. There are consequences to what we believe.
I???m tired of the constant excuses we black people use to avoid the utter state of crisis we???re in. There???s a major murder,education,and attitudinal problem in every state where black people reside. I read somewhere that Arizona, which has a small percentage of black people leads the nation in black on black crime. Imus??? comments can???t touch the degradation I???ve heard from our own artists, comedians and actors. I???m pissed off because we have taught people how to devalue us. If we truly give a care about our people and how others treat and view us, we should stop fussing about some white dude and address the tremendously damaging music, movies, videos,which are explicitly sexual, misogynistic, violent,ignorant, criminally-based, devoid of substance and highly materialistic. The lack of parenting doesn't provide aide to this crisis either. We have sold each other out for personal gain and now we have callous people calling our daughters ???Nappy headed ho???s.??? Get pissed off as you should with Imus, and hold him and others accontable, but please make sure that the standard we we hold others to in regards to how they treat us doesn't exceed that which we have for ourselves.
I'm fully aware that the state of black people in the US is much more complicated than what I shared. Poverty, racism, discrimination, injustice are all complicit in our social condition, but they should not change how we see and treat each other. I applaud the thousands of black men and women, old and young succeeding in the face of the pervasive insensitivities we African Americans live with every day of our lives in these United States of America.

Sent by Kevin Smith | 12:36 PM ET | 04-10-2007

I don't listen to Imus. I always thought his show was insulting to all types of people so I never wasted my time. However, as a black person, I would rather know who is a racist and who isn't, so I am glad that his comments are being played in the media. This way everyone knows that to support his show is to support racist views.

This is still America so he has the right to say wht he likes. But now, hopefully, the televsion and radio shows will feel the financial impact of racism and those institutions that support it.

My suggestion is to keep him on the air and let's see which advertsers stay in or pull out. Those that stay, we African Americans need to boycott their products. Those that leave, then we should support their products and should receive a commendation.

Sent by Maisha B. Hoye | 5:27 PM ET | 04-10-2007

I don't listen to Imus because quite frankly, he's a jerk. I used to listen to Howard Stern, and while he was a jerk, at least he was lovable in some ways. Imus is just a jerk.

That being said, Imus stated an opinion/emotion he had. It might have been rude, but it was truthful. He was being shocking on purpose, that's his job. He's had a nationally syndicated show since 1993, I don't think it would be fair or even plausible to get rid of him just because he said something rude. I mean, that's what CBS pays him for. Him and people like him will stay on the radio as long as there is a market for it. The same is true for other disgusting things in the media. Gossip, pornography, disaster reality TV, etc.

You don't like Imus? Don't listen to him.

Sent by Scott K. | 5:39 PM ET | 04-10-2007

These are some great comments. Don't be shocked when you get a call from one of our producers!...

Sent by Michel Martin and the Tell Me More team | 7:31 PM ET | 04-10-2007

I am a young white woman and I don't listen to Imus because, as previous commenters have indicated, I don't want to waste my time listening to wide-ranging and inevitably offensive insults. To me, this is not entertainment, although I acknowledge that some people may enjoy it.

However, the Imus issue has sparked discussion of concepts I have been working out for the past six and a half years . . . the idea of public discourse. I think Imus is facing such a backlash because he attacked people who do not offer themselves to the public as public figures to be judged by their public words and actions. There is a difference between attacking politicians and attention-seeking celebrities, and attacking young college basketball players. And there should be a difference.

I am in favor of levity and even sharp satire in the service of sparking thoughtful criticism of public figures who are accountable to us as the public -- especially the voting public. I don't have to agree with the perspective of the joker to approve of the objective. In fact, I think social censure can be a powerful tool in influencing the behavior of public figures.

Likewise, I think public speakers like Imus make themselves vulnerable to social censure, and that they must accept the responsibility for their actions. However, unless they break the law, I think it is inappropriate to fire them or bring law suits against them.

I believe there should be standards for public discourse -- standards by which we, the public, can judge both the content of messages and the trustworthiness of the speaker. Lies should be confronted, exaggerations should be corrected, and there should be forums in which respect for the individual speaker is standard. Breaking the rules, then, would have meaning, instead of being just another example of childish name-calling or more insidious rumor-mongering.

Sent by Rachel H | 11:41 AM ET | 04-11-2007

I am an African American male who has listened on occasion to Imus. His irreverent, supposedly satirical brand of humor always spills over the edge. As his show gained popularity recently, it was positioned on popular sports stations making it almost impossible to miss. Many who leave their radios on the same channel all day just accept his show as the cost of doing business. There are enough politicians like John McCain, and journalists like the boyish David Gregory, to make some interviews compelling. The Imus show seems to be the place for them to ???let their hair down???.

Interestingly enough, the show ignores anyone considered outside of the mainstream. Imus and his sidekicks generally ignore minorities, unless a joke of some sort can be made at their expense. And of course the ???Benson Hurst??? humor preferred by his posse gives the show a ???Soprano-like??? quality that is palatable to many, and guaranteed to keep the minority riffraff away. And remember, the show is being broadcast by NBC to literally millions of viewers. There???s an old adage that says, ???by beholding, one becomes changed???.

The Imus Show insidiously, subconsciously leads one down a precipitous ethical and moral slope. Listen to Imus long enough and you end up doing just like all of his masochistic guests. You ignore what doesn???t offend you or your group. And, when he does something that is clearly over the line, you rationalize the offensiveness of his venom by joyously proclaiming that he is an ???equal opportunity??? provocateur. If he chooses to call Gwen Ifil a ???cleaning lady???, you smooth the obvious conclusion over by recounting the good deeds Imus does for children on some ranch out west. If his henchmen irreverently satire Maya Angelou???s poetry with their own version of an ode to slavery, though annoyed, you allow that he does give props to Tiger Woods for superhuman athletic prowess. And for good measure, he calls the President a funny name every now and then to infer progressive thinking.

Yes, Imus knows exactly what he is doing. And the good people at MSNBC are in on the caper. The Imus Show has already done it???s job, very thoroughly, by desensitizing America in a way that we would not have tolerated 30 years ago. But, like the bull-frog placed in a pot of cool water over a fire, we???ve been slowed cooking for so many years that we are just now recognizing the steam around us. We can thank folks like Imus for the thrill.

Sent by Gunther Jones | 1:23 PM ET | 04-11-2007

I'm a 55 year old white male who was a regular Imus listener in the 70's and 80's. I became an occasional listener because of the racism. Imus and gang engage in it fairly regularly. I listen now if I'm aware a good interview is going to be on - Imus is a good interviewer. To be honest, my initial sorrow at his most recent remarks wasn't as anti racist but as a father. It is painful to think of rejoicing in a triumph of my daughter one moment and then having some one call her a whore over and over on cable television for the next week. How dare he!

Sent by Lawrence Eisenberg | 3:07 PM ET | 04-11-2007

His comments were outrageous, and, because it's not the first time, he deserves more than the slight slap on the wrist he got (2 weeks' suspension.)But that's all about the revenue he delivers to CBS and MSNBC, not anything to do with the (im)morality of it all.

I have been a female listener for a long time. Not every day, and not for the whole show. His self absorbtion can send me for the button in a heartbeat. His fancy homes, his limos, his private jet, the imagined slights from others ... it's a little much. He's not interesting, but does have interesting guests, and he elicits comments from them you don't get on other outlets.

However, in light of the current controversy, it seems to me that we are witnessing a huge echo chamber. The story persists through all those who are regular guests on his program. When you come right down to it - his radio program is on stations that are usually AM's with bad signals, and MSNBC delivers only about 300,000 NATIONALLY. His 'mass' audience is relatively small.

It's the guests from the media elite (and the MSNBC revolving publicity machine) that give him credibility. I noticed that all his "regulars" who benefit from all that exposure to the echo chamber are jumping to his defense because of his "big heart," which I think is just part of the personna adopted to defuse situations such as the one he finds himself in now. Those regulars have apparently been assigned their talking points.

Neither MSNBC or CBS will have the moral courage to take a stand on this despicable incident and kill their cash cow. And keeping him on the air for the fundraiser this week is just their effort to polish up his image.

I doubt I'll be listening much in the future. This has left me with a very bad vibe, both in the incendiary comments and the incestuous follow-up from the regular guests.

Sent by Barb C | 4:47 PM ET | 04-11-2007

I don't like Imus, and generally don't listen to his show. I am often offended at his mysoginistic comments about women, being a feminist. However, Imus SHOULD NOT be fired. Freedom of speech is just that: freedom. Despite what some people seem to think (Rev. Sharpton are you listening?) it does NOT mean "Freedom of speech unless you say something that someone finds offensive." If the advertisers of the show plan to pull out, they have every right to do so. His show would fade away then all by itself. But to have this ridiculous crusade ("false outrage" I think Bill Maher called it) to have Imus fired is ludicrous. He said offensive things. Big surprise. Don't listen. But he has every right to say exactly what he wants to say, whether you like it or not. I shudder to think what kind of country this would be if we subscribed to China's model of freedom.

Sent by Tara | 7:31 PM ET | 04-11-2007

This just in, folks...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17999196/

Sent by Lee Hill with Tell Me More | 7:36 PM ET | 04-11-2007

Having watched parts of his show Monday thru Friday, for years now, I can say that he was trying to be FUNNY with that remark. It was stupid and out of line, but not for one minute will I believe he is a racist pig. A male chauvinist pig but not racist. He called EVERYONE names. Fat people, skinny people, Jewish, catholic, the French... kind of like Simon on American Idol where its amazing how they can say those things.
I will miss his show. It wasnt just Imus, but all the others bantering back and forth, the musical acts he had on were fantastic at 5 a.m. west coast time while I was preparing for work. The interviews were great.
Its too bad that this reaction wasnt played out with turning this into a national dialog, with Imus leading the way. He would have turned this into a "mission" the way he did a fund raiser for the Intrepid rehab center for wounded soldiers, or what he has done for research for autistic children or the ranch in New Mexico for kids with cancer. He would have taken this on with vigor. Iam sure he will be back, with a somewhat different attitude, but it will be better for this. It just wont be on MSNBC.

Sent by Patty | 11:16 PM ET | 04-11-2007

Ms. Martin.

I must correct at least one point. The Imus program featured a comedy skit at one point during the Reagan Administration wherein a republican-supposed disrespect for women was embodied "sending a cleaning lady to the White House", upon learning of the appointment of Gwen Ifel as the NBC correspondent. According to all available records, Mr. Imes DID NOT make the alleged statement. Frankly, I expect more from NPR.

Sent by Dennis Joyce | 6:43 AM ET | 04-12-2007

it was a joke. They had a show called "pimp my ride on tv",,,kids are going around saying "pimped" has a new meaning,,the same goes with the Imus language,, Imus was trying to give tough street talk,,,that is all.

Sent by dan | 8:10 AM ET | 04-12-2007

I am a woman and at times I do watch imus,I have a son who has been through 3 tours and Imus gets things done and is the only one who listens and cares,and he cares about children and all of us.I think what he said is just a mirror image of what people in this nation say each and everyday whether it be blacks calling other races names including their own,and men calling woman names and vice versa,,slurs against gays the elderly,and even about others handicaps or looks.I heard Don Imus being called terrible names about the way he looks,This is what our speech has evolved into.I get shocked when I hear Bitch or ass etc... on the evening news,but It's accepted so much in our society it's disgusting,and without prejudice.I feel that firing Don Imus will do more harm than good,did the punishment fit the crime? No This man has overcame many personal trials and life is a learning experience,but the good he does far outweighs the bad,and to ruin ones life over a mistake is not acceptable,we are to quick to pont the finger and destroy lives over words,the real remedy for this would be to keep Imus on and dedicate one day a week on his show to the problems such as these that face our society,by doing this we are not teaching our children forgiveness or that talking things out with those we hurt is the way to go,we are teaching revenge,and eye for an eye.We need to talk to one another about the things we say,explain ourselves,apologize and reach understandings as to why we say what we say.In Dons case I beleive he didn't think first and who among us can say we have never done anything without thinking?Not only that but things he says have always been allowed it's not like he was given guidelines,if he had and knew the result would be the loss of his livelyhood do you think he would have perhaps thought first in this instance? I do.My children have been called many names,racial and other but I have explained to them that those remarks are the other persons problem and that they know who they are and need to look ahead and don't let those remarks hold them back and that others are not as strong,but unfortunately thats life and it's up to each of us as individuals to make a difference.Imus couild make a huge difference now but the platform to do it has been removed,all the rest of the media is doing is cracking jokes about this,and nothing will ever come from it,the girls will move on and Imus ,well his life will never be as he has known it,the humbleness is good,but the loss of his job and life as he knew it will probally destroy him,and out troops and children will suffer from this loss.
I'm not very good with words but I hope i made my point.

Sent by Sandi | 6:25 PM ET | 04-12-2007

I'm one of those old school brothers who have seen bricks thrown at pregnant black women marching peacefully for social change. In fact, that was my mother. So there is a certain level of mere talk that I simply pay no mind to.

I'm also one of those 'few' blackfolks who get Imus at his own level. I 'get' Ice Cube too.

The problem with this situation is that merely because Imus is a white man, he is presumed to be a responsible arbiter of culture in America. In other words, firing Don Imus raises him to an higher standard than Ice Cube, and consequently black men, women and everybody else who are purportedly exploited by evil white men.

If people had the courage and wit to dismiss Don Imus in the same way they dismiss Ice Cube, then you would have the proper perspective on the vulgarization of the airwaves that I have as an anti-Hollywood black conservative.

Instead, you have strengthened the idea that white men on the airwaves should be taken seriously at all times, no matter what.

Fantasize on kiddies.

Sent by Cobb | 6:32 PM ET | 04-12-2007

And now, CBS -
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/12/national/main2675273.shtml

Sent by Lee Hill with Tell Me More | 7:17 PM ET | 04-12-2007

I am an African-American female who listened to Imus for a few weeks during the '04 election. The station he was in Tampa, FL ran the Joey Reynolds show to which I listened late at night, so by default my clock radio alarm was set to Imus during the morning. I am a political junkie therefore I watch a lot of PBS and listen to NPR since I refuse to pay for cable. In his interviews with political figures I liked the fact that he did not let them get away with a lot of the political double speak you hear on the traditionl news shows. I also like the fact that he does extensive charity work for children and veterans. HOWEVER, it became taxing and demoralizing to listen to the racist, sexist, homophobic remarks with which he peppered his morning show. I particularly felt sorry for the female producer (I believe) who read the news to whom he was particularly virulent and vicious. I found it quite bizarre that a man who on one level be compassionate yet hate filled.
I believe that Imus believes that all men and women are created equal whoever he prescribes to the George Orwell, Animal Farm brand of equality. "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." Since in his mind, he falls into the "more equal" category those of us who are "less equal" should, in his brand of thinking, just shut up and take it.
In response to the Cobb's comment, most of which I agree with, I think it is important to note that most of the rap (around 75%) that portrays African American men and women in a negative light is pruchased by white males between the ages of 15 and 25. Before the rap industry became so corporatized, there was variety of rap artists and rap genres who were getting deals (remember De La Soul, P.M. Dawn, RUN DMC, KRS-One, Public Enemy). Now if you aren't singing about bling, hos, guns and gangstas you can't get a deal with a major label.
Check out Hip Hop, Beats and Rhymes for more on this topic.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/hiphop/

With that said I do wish the artists who do produce this music would stop embracing these negative sterotypes which are holdovers from slavery and Jim Crow. If more African-Americans knew about their history they would not be contributing to this. I also wish that the white youth who eagerly purchase this music would do some self-examination about their own internalized racism and not purchase it. White people who believe the sterotypes need to examine why they feel so comfortable with these images of African American masculinity and feminimity. We all need to stop embracing the disgrace.

Sent by Kimberlie | 7:52 PM ET | 04-12-2007

It is a shame that Imus it fired for an offence others are glorified for. The double standard makes it hard to take. If someone other than Jesse and Al were driving the bus it would be easier to accept.

The Rutgers gals will be fine. They were told to play the role of victim by their coach or others. I will guess that this group of women is unacustomed to this role and will move on.

Sent by Jim S | 8:18 PM ET | 04-12-2007

Yes, I watch Imus (frequently) but I don't know if I can explain why. I guess because I am interested to hear his take on a topic - just as I am interested to hear Michel Martin's opinion on the radio most days

He is irreverent but not malicious in the way it is being portrayed. I may bo confused about what it means to be racist. I know for sure I'm dumb enough to think diversity of sources and my own internal censorship is better than a censored police state. I like to hear many voices and I measure people by what I hear behind the words, their actions and what appears to be in their hearts. If you don't know that, take care about your quidck judgement.

I feel deep sadness for our culture and this country, in the midst of the now infamous ???Imus incident???.

Sociologist Joseph Campbell once said that the United States is ???possibly an example of the first people in the history of mankind to develop a national culture of denial???. We live in a country where trivia is considered news. In our culture many people who offer little of real value are rewarded (mainly by mass media) with great wealth. We get mediocre and non-controversial entertainment from the media. What we call a ???news??? network offers 90% opinion mixed in with some facts, some important issues and a lot of unimportant matters ??? mostly for financial reasons. We (the audience) are the cause. Those who pursue our money design their product carefully for us.

Meanwhile, so much suffering of our citizens is hidden and denied that our collective anger is stored up like lightning. This week that anger was unleashed at a talk show host with amazing speed and fury. Without thoughtful consideration of all the facts, or of our true feelings about this, we have crushed a person and a show which was (for many) a source of entertaining and interesting dialogue. Reportedly this happened because Don Imus uttered 3 very offensive and hurtful words ???at??? innocent people.

Is that really why?

Is it not noticed that today???s mass media (especially television and daily papers) can turn millions of people, like lemmings, against someone - instantly? We, the people are easily sucked in. By repeating one awful phrase over and over -- without considering the entirety of the person, the context, or the consequences under which it came out ??? mass media can destroy anyone who would be let to fall by us and those who own these communication outlets.

Consciously or not, a very one-sided flow of ideas is fueled when all the media outlets publicly seize on (and repeat over and over) offensive words like those Imus spoke. Then we, the public all scream ???More!??? Pretty soon the details and facts around the words are distorted or completely lost. Still those who were so offended by the words are repeating them, and most people who attacked in response to this ???news??? know little about it ??? except the offensive words. The true victims, on who we project our regret and sympathy, have little or nothing to say about the matter.

Some day it may become clear that mass broadcasting hateful words repeatedly, not the act or the intent or the character of a man, brought down this person and this television show. The kind of instant media execution of those speaking ???blasphemy??? should have ended at the time of the Puritans when they burned alleged witches. It apparently did not.

While so many are passionately screaming about racism, human dignity, fairness, decency, civility etc., I won???t buy it. Not in this case. We are all a bunch of very angry people who are in the middle of a brutal war, political firestorms, millions in poverty and suffering, and all manner of battles for moral ???high ground??? Our society is a mess, and hatred is flying around in every direction at the speed of light. Television fuels it, and we are so caught up in the denial of it that an event like this makes us ready to fire off at any target that appears to be fair game.

Ironically, (and I don't just recite this, I looked it up) the latest victim of this collective hatred is a person who has been outspoken against the disenfranchising of minorities and heavily invested in helping people who do not have the resources to help themselves. For years Don Imus has rallied and worked and screamed out against the lack of support for those who can???t be heard: kids with sickle-cell anemia, families with autistic children, the poor who have been ignored after Katrina, injured soldiers returning from the Iraq war, and more.

The TV audience that might have contributed millions of dollars to the charities for which Imus??? show would have raised money for this Thursday and Friday (for the 18th year) will suffer a great loss. These are charities for poor children???s health care, medical research and support to suffering people. That support and those innocent people are now cut down with the same blind sword that took out Don Imus. Who will apologize to those children?

I believe CBS (Westwood one) & MSNBC bought the Imus show knowing full well its content. I also would bet the Imus show has done a lot for their ratings and revenues. But they did not cancel Don Imus out of public conscience. These corporations killed that show because the force of the nation???s collective anger at nearly everything is far greater than the network???s ability to do anything about it. To side against that force of that firestorm would put them out of business.

We should not live in denial by claiming how much this plays on our moral conscience and demands that we "end" it by removing this man. Most of us are voyeuristic suckers of the media, especially if we will repeat and debate without clarity the harshest part of a story that comes our way. That part being the words we were told to repeat.

My sympathy goes out to everyone who is caught up in this and thinks that making Don Imus go away will ???do something??? or ???send a message???. If you think this is doing any good in helping us to see our collective denial or help our badly injured society, I say ???good luck with that???.

Sent by Steve | 8:21 PM ET | 04-12-2007

My concern is not for Don Imus who has many interests beyond his media job. My concern is the intensity of the witch hunt that followed his comments! My concern is that the media giants that control the purse strings had descided long ago to terminate Don for his comments against them and ramped up this blitzkrieg in order to
rid them selves of a talent whose ratings had been slipping lower lately. Money is always at the bottom line in the USA. There was no concern for political correctness only the dollars. I feel for this country when there is no room in our hearts for forgiveness when a man apologizes for a mistake.
I did not watch don's show often but when I did I noticed that it had a broad spectrum of appeal from intelligent to sophmoric ,even scatilogical, if you will. There are worse shows. the incredible idiocy at fox news for one. They're going up against the wall in the next revolution!!

Sent by donald | 9:15 PM ET | 04-12-2007

I think it was wrong to fire Imus. I watch his program and think they all have funny segments making fun of different people.thats what a shock jock is suppose to do, say things out of the ordinary. look at Howard Stern,they forced him off the air because of his humor.Rev. Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should go down to N.C. and apoloize to the 3 college kids for being accused of rape by a black woman. that was a far worse event than what Imus said.

Sent by Dennis A.Rupp | 10:40 PM ET | 04-12-2007

clearly a very stupid gesture on Imus part I guess he really felt right at home with his comment.

Sent by stephanie gilliam | 3:08 AM ET | 04-13-2007

I DO listen to Imus, tho not on a daily basis. I feel that he has been mistreated by both (MS)NBC and CBS. There is no more evil in what Don Imus said than what Cris Rock says, or what Richard Pryor said .. for that matter, what you see on prime-time TV on a nightly basis (The 'White man overbite'?)

Interestingly enough, Don Imus was in essence congratulating the Rutgers Girl's (Women???s?) basketball team. They started at the bottom and where tough enough, scrappy enough, charging enough to make it all the way to the top. These are NOT powder-puff women!

The I-Man did what CBS and (MS)NBC hired him to do, he broke out in his curmudgeon-like manner with an off-the cuff, and over the edge comment.

While we???re looking for apologies, shall we not expect Mr Sharpton and Mr Jackson to apologize to the Duke lacrosse players? What Mr Sharpton and Mr Jackson said was WAY over the line, and CERTAIN met the litmus test of ???racist???. Will the nation hear them apologize?

Sent by John Burton | 8:36 AM ET | 04-13-2007

Fellow NPR fans,

The comments on this blog are so rational, thoughtful, and balanced, I thought I had accidentally stepped back into the real world. How is it that we have allowed our media and political majority to so misrepresent us with persistent warlike behavior that furthers a personal agenda, rather than the common good? We should be very concerned by this growing trend. Just when you think it can't get any more outrageous, it does. Peace cannot sustain once a certain level of outrage is breached.

Sent by Russ Ward | 9:22 AM ET | 04-13-2007

Ultimately, Don Imus found out who the REAL ho is. Corporate sponsors, fearful of losing patronage for their goods and services dumped Imus and will move on without losing any sleep over the matter.

NFL Commish Roger Godell just posterized Pac-Man Jones of the Tennessee Titans by suspending him for reasons that would have made little sense, and had less validity several years back under the "cash-cow" era. In times past, you could say and do anything as long as you ran a 4.2 second 40 yard dash. However, people are starting to recognize the trend of moral and ethical corruption, nurtured by a "have it your way" culture that allows anything to be said as long as the person claims to be "Keepin It Real". That was Imus' claim and ultimate defense; just keepin it real like the homeys do. . .

I don't personally give care if a personality like Imus is done in by the very system that created his forum, and reaped huge financial profits from his irreverent and many times unsavory brand of comedy. In the end, Imus found out he was the one who corporations used as a "HO"!

There is a larger message in all of this. The gravy train is over. White youth, without question, are by far and away the largest purchasers of Rap and Hip-Hop music. Now that the pendulum is swinging the other way (instead of Tipper Gore saying it, Viacom, Proctor & Gamble, American Express, and Aunt Bee are knocking on the music industry's door). I suspect the response from the music industry will be a little different this time, considering the consequences.

Money talks, and no matter how creative or obstinate an artist may be regarding their right to record explicit, degrading lyrics, they will end up marching to the direction of the corporate giants. . . Bet That. And you won't have to hold your breath to see it happen. It's already started

Sent by Gunther Jones | 9:27 AM ET | 04-13-2007

Let me drop this in the blogosphere. Question:

What about Rock N' Roll? Is this genre not riddled with obscenities and lewdness just as (if not even more than) Hip-Hop? Are they held accountable or "responsible" for the ills of the white society? I think not.

If I offend someone of another ethnicity, do I then have the right to say his/her offense is a "double standard" because "Nine Inch Nails said it all the time..." (for YEARS, by the way)? Should it soften the offense?

Marilyn Manson famously wrote, "Who said date rape isn't kind?"

My point? What is wrong is wrong. Period. All other factors are mutually exclusive.

Sent by Lee Hill with Tell Me More | 9:30 AM ET | 04-13-2007

I agree with Gunther wholeheartedly. The entire "Music Industry" will ultimately listen because the sponsors control what will and won't be played. It doesn't matter how real a Rap artist thinks that he or she is keeping it. If you can't get air time, you won't be around long in the industry.

Marilyn Manson and Nine Inch Nails don't call my Nubian sisters "Hos." Rappers do. So, while Rock music is just as reprehensible in many respects for the negative message and lyrical content, the African American community is totally oblivious to anything that Rockers do or say. Young African American boys and girls do hang on every word uttered by rappers and hip-hop artists. That makes these artists more responsible within the African American community than Rockers are.

Case in point. I was sitting at the traffic light one day and a young white man stopped next to me. His stereo system was so powerful that my entire car shook. I looked over at him and he smilingly nodded while bopping his head to the deep, resonant beat of a rap song whose lyrics included very liberal use of the "N" word. This young man smiled as he repeated the phrase the rapper was singing, including the part with the "N" word. I couldn't get mad at him, because he was chanting phrases the artist felt would somehow edify and enlighten the world about real life in the hood.

Imus thought he could tap into the street life with his own characterization of the young princesses playing for Rutgers. It backfired on him. But, why should hip-hop and rap artists wait for the Rock & Rollers to stop singing about death and suicidal tendencies before they choose to move in a more positive direction themselves. Are we now saying that Hip-Hop answers to Rock? Right IS Right, and Wrong IS Wrong. Be men and women. Use that originality to do something more positive.

Sent by Carmen | 10:36 AM ET | 04-13-2007

Let me start by saying that I have never listened to Imus's radio talk show. I do believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but as a public speaker a certain level of civility is required and if that is breeched then there should be consequences. Isn't that what we strive to teach our children? Civility? However to have targeted a single person for making a racist comment in the media today is a farce when the entertainment world--video, music and television runs rampant with slurs, racism, and violence against genders and ethnic cultures and sexual preferences. Can someone please explain to me how this single act will minimize the racism, violence and verbal slurs that are rampant in all the other forms of media today?

Sent by Barbara Demjanec | 11:26 AM ET | 04-13-2007

Hey, let's drop all the cerebral ruminating and pretense. White guy made classic racist comment about black people's hair. White guy calls the black women "hos". Now, are we to continue making like we don't know why the white guy was outa line?

He must have thought it was s white-guy-day.

Sent by Denis Rodriguez | 11:33 AM ET | 04-13-2007

for once in my life i would like to hear an honest discussion about racism without the underlying assumption that it all comes from whites. i didn't hear any apologies for the duke rape case, or bryant gumbel making fun of the winter olympics, or the frequent use of the term 'white trash' by the latina/hispanic on desperate housewives-movies 'white chicks''white men can't jump' etc. etc.
they all seem to get a free pass to say and stereotype in whatever way they wish.

my generation has been raised with a sense of shame about being white. i believe in everyone getting a fair shake, and for all of white societies historical faults, this country wouldn't be where it is today without their accomplishments.

so whine on if you wish about someone calling you a bad name and how it is going to ruin your life; you could be in darfur or somalia or the republic of congo.

Sent by a lewis | 12:22 PM ET | 04-13-2007

I never heard of Don Imus before this event, and I am so thankful. I do not want to listen to people like this - people of any kind. Comedians find profit in denigrating instead of being witty. It's not funny. Situation comedies show disfunctional families crashing up against each other. Hey grew up in that - not entertaining.

I can't OK my small childrens' shows until I've watched them once or twice. There is no trust anymore.

And now MSNBC announces on the air that they were "shocked" by Imus' comments. Give me a break. They have relied on these same comments to rake in the advertizers and boost market share.

Maybe people are paying enough attention to stop this trend. Maybe we'll stand up for our sensibilities and refuse to be insulted anymore.

Sent by Carol | 2:06 PM ET | 04-13-2007

I feel that Mr Imus got a raw deal. There is a double standard in this country and nothe NAACP, Mr Jackson and Mr Sharpton have rewritten the United Sates of America Constitution, because where is the freedom of free speech in this country. Please people; we all have our opinions and to asked someone to change thiers, have them apologize and then fire them from thier job is going to far. Do not ask a man to give you lip service if you intend on giving him the boot from his job; remember that this country has freedoms and we as a people foster this behavior or it would not have happened in the first place. Besides; if we as a people wanted lip service, we can hire the napy ho's and get lip service. Black men and women call each other ho's and I guess that it is ok for them plus they seem to think that it is ok to call white people hillbillies and none from the NAACP comes to the whitemans defense. Blacks need to change themselves first before white people should or willl give a dam. One tv anchor said it best that it was not racist as much as sexist, remember that. This great country of ours has gone to shit because the NAACP, Mr.Jackson and Mr. Sharpton have missed the boat and spend way to much time bitching about the little things, blaming the white man for ALL of thier problems and they should start to take a closer look at home and in the mirror in the morning!

Sent by Michael | 2:49 PM ET | 04-13-2007

I don't recall listening to Imus for more than 5-10 minutes if I ever did. Can't take that kind of "humor" as they call it. He thrived on such sharp-tonguedness (financially as well). I believe the man just made a "stupid" mistake, a slip of the tongue because he really got carried away, or that he was just doing his normal routine. But... as I kept thinking, one lives by the sword, and will die by the sword. That serves him well, though he probably will be laughing all the way to the bank anyway since he's been tolerated and rewarded all these years. We all say stupid things here and there. Remember someond said "Bring them on!" with respect to al Qaida? We're still fighting an enemy that's in the shade. How we will get through that, with our foot deeply entrenched in the Iraqi desert sand, is beyond me. I'm getting off the subject at hand, so I'd better go.

Sent by Sam | 3:23 PM ET | 04-13-2007

I am a first generation Indian living in this country for last 37 years. I am in car a lot due to the nature of my job and find myself listening to 2 stations - WFAN and WNYC(NPR). I have listened to Imus show for a long time and have found somethings that have been unpleasant and switcxhed over to NPR at times but I have tried to check his interviews with guests have been far greater and interesting sometimes than the ones on NPR - and I am a great NPR fan.
Imus definitely targeted a wrong target- Rutgers Women's Basketball team all of its members showed the classy way to act in public. My hats off to the coach and the director of athletics. I just wish CBS had taken this opportunity to force Imus to make changes to his show - Bring some minorities to the show and gave them some platform.

I also wonder if Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson would target the Hip-Hop artists who used far repulsive langauage in their songs and put down Women.

Sent by Kirit | 3:41 PM ET | 04-13-2007

I listened to Don Imus once or twice about twenty years ago... The same with Stearn. I never saw the reason for others to listen to them, though. As far as firing him for this remark: Why employ him in the first place?

Sent by Dan O'Neill | 4:31 PM ET | 04-13-2007

I have watched Imus in the Morning on MSNBC for several years, if watched means turning up the volume on the interviews that interested me as I had my coffee, dressed and gathered my things for work. In my early days as a viewer, I remember feeling almost physically ill when I saw Bernard McQuirk put a FedEx envelope on his head and speak vulgarities in the role of the New York City Cardinal. I am a Catholic who often disagrees with the more conservative members of the clergy, but I found the performance shocking. As the mother of two young women, I was saddened to realize that a large segment of today's society must be entertained by the show's frequently coarse male locker room banter. Although it was clear that the program had a split personality, I continued to listen. I listened because I was able to hear lengthy and interesting interviews with the likes of Anna Quindlen, Jonathan Alter, Evan Thomas, Doris Kearns Goodwin, etc. I focused on listening to the indepth conversations with people who are the political and cultural icons of our time. Still, every once in a while the nasty stuff sneaked into my conscious listening, and (unless it was Sid Rosenberg when I would always turn to C-SPAN) I tolerated it because I was waiting to hear from Tom Oliphant or perhaps John Kerry. I may have been listening to Imus the morning he spoke so disparagingly about the Rutgers girls championship basketball team. I don't remember hearing it, so I either missed it or perhaps chose not to hear it, as I seemingly had done for so long. So, I guess I am saying that I feel some complicity in contributing to the popularity of a show that spewed so much racist and sexist language. One thing this incident has taught me is to be a more thoughtful consumer of the media by registering complaints when language or behavior offends me. Our society can't afford bystanders who profess one thing but do another.

Sent by Kate | 5:28 PM ET | 04-13-2007

No one has mentioned any kind of compassion for the women on the basketball team. Have we gotten to the point where people no longer matter and it???s all about, ???but this person said this and those people over there say that word all of time"? What is wrong with everyone? An innocent group of women will now have to, in some way, own the title of ???nappy headed ho.??? Every time they walk to class or go to their dorm, people will stare and whisper. It will hang over them next year and so on until they graduate, maybe longer. The media will mention it every time they play. Other girls who were considering Rutgers may not choose that school to avoid all the negativity. You are lying to yourself if you say differently. You can???t go up to people and insult them with untruthful statements, its called slander. Yet when a radio personality says it, it???s OK somehow.

If your child???s teacher began class with, ???Hey Ho???s and ni@@a???s,??? would you want some kind of action to be taken? Would you want to see that person continue teaching your child? But hey it???s a free country right. Imus??? producer used the word first, and then he and Imus laughed about it. Imus then made his now famous comment. So he heard the word first, had an opportunity to react, and he did. The point is the word did not offend him; he just used the same word in his own ???joke.??? The record industry has been making this kind of music for years, yet no one mentions that at election time. Everyone wants lower taxes, but not morals. We want cheap gas, and apparently cheaper women. What is the message we are sending to our children and really to ourselves? Should we go back to saying retarded instead of developmentally disabled? Cripple instead of disabled? When those words are used it dehumanizes the person(s) being described. Once that happens it makes it alright and apparently funny to some. That is why some people don???t see a problem with it, those words make a person seem a little less human, and so ???what???s the big deal" comes next. If you need proof, ask someone about Girls Gone Wild.

Sent by Samone | 7:02 PM ET | 04-13-2007

Comparing Imus' remarks with the language some Rap Artists use doesn't make the remarks any more acceptable. Hitting him in the pocket til it hurts is the cost of his arrogant insensitivity. And if people quit buying music with dirty language, that would send the Rap Artists a message about their insensitivity to.

Sent by Doctor P | 8:32 PM ET | 04-13-2007

I have been reading some of the blogs tonight and want to add my 2 cents. I am furious that much ado has been made of the Imus comments about the Rutgers???s players. They do have tattoos and they are tough. As far as the rest of the comment Imus made(too nasty to repeat as so many have done this week)--my mouth dropped open when I heard what was said. I believe he should have apologized and he did again and again. (Thank goodness he didn???t run to rehab!) My problem is the big mouth???al sharpton and his disciple Jessie Jackson. Jessie is a man I have followed for many years. I voted for this man. I admired him but at this point he and al are interfering with the public???s right to listen and the freedom of speech. If you don???t like it: turn it off. The advertisers said, ???Take him off the air.??? That is exactly what NBC and CBS did to oblige them. Advertisers are lobbyist! They pay the big bucks on capital hill and the big bucks to network television to show us what they believe we want to hear and see. All these people are vying to run our lives and teach us political correctness. This is wrong. Something is very wrong. Many years ago, when the Vietnam War was going on???young people protested. Their cries did not go unheard. The people of the United States who protested changed history and now we know they were right. It is the people that should tell the media what???s right and what???s wrong not a few people trying to change our lives. We are losing too many freedoms.

Sent by Claudia Beady | 9:49 PM ET | 04-13-2007

I used to listen to Imus because of his wit. I???m smart enough to know that what came out of his mouth is the way he makes money, not what he believes. However, with two young kids around now, it???s only NPR for me.
What I don???t understand is that CBS actually felt Sharpton is a credible person and met with him. Sharpton was sued and lost for defaming a white man, in fact one of Sharpton???s lawyer refused to apologize for calling someone a ???bald-faced racist??? even though he was court ordered. A convict that ignores the law is still on a radio show, while Imus, who went out of his way to apologize is not. What a chicken company CBS is; to be intimidated by a small, big mouth bully. Imus is better off to not be working for a company without a backbone.
Tom Conte KERA Dallas Tx

Sent by Tom Conte | 9:54 PM ET | 04-13-2007

Many people have expressed outrage about a "double standard" in our society that allows African Americans to use language that whites are apparently prohibited from using, but not one contributor to this list has acknowledged the obvious context in which this discourse is being generated. Don Imus sits in a position of cultural dominance; Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and even comedians like Chris rock and rappers like 50 Cent are located on the cultural margins. It's not about popularity so much as it is about history. All of the people I have mentioned have loud voices in our society, but it is overly simplistic and naive to think that a statement made by someone in the dominant culture will have the same motivation, intention, and impact as a similar statement from someone in a group that has been historically marginalized. When a white person (like Imus) makes a jab at the character of a black person, it invokes an underlying history of racial domination that includes atrocities like slavery, lynching, etc. When a black person (like Chris Rock) makes a jab at the character of a white person, it invokes an underlying history of resistance, personal fortitude, and defiance in the face of injustice, etc. It would be better for us to engage with and learn from the triumphs and tragedies of our history, rather than deny that it resonates in our daily lives.

As far as the sexist nature of Imus's remarks go, both Imus and many rock and rap lyricists are guilty of perpetuating a senseless, needless, and frankly boring attitude about women. When will human beings finally wake up and recognize that we are in an endlessly fascinating world, and that we are capable of doing so much more than simply exploiting each other for our own personal, societal, and national gains?

Sent by Ken | 8:18 AM ET | 04-14-2007

While there are those who label Imus a racist, most reasonable people know that his words were simply a weak attempt at humor and in very bad taste. As usual, our popular media make "much ado about nothing", thereby throwing the weaker minds into a superficial tizzy over words and drawing the attention of the public away from what is really important in our nation: a failing educational system, a failing health care system, a government that more and more caves into the fad of the moment as highlighted in the media.

Sent by Leslie Jan | 10:12 AM ET | 04-14-2007

We live in a free society and it comes with a price. The alternative is not very appealing. I think what troubles me the most about this situation with Imus is the hypocrisy and the fact that I feel like the groups exploiting this situation are as Judge Judy would say, "peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining. Moral indignation really only serves the purpose of allowing the indignant an opportunity to feel better about themselves for a minute before they move on with their lives. I have worked in the media; radio, advertising and a seven year stint at Universal and I know the reasons that are being given for his firing are disengenuous. If the Rutgers women feel hurt by Imus' remarks I predict they will be equally as hurt when they realize that they were taken advantage of by their youth and lack of life experience. Sooner rather than later they will wake to find that all the people that have rallied around them have moved on. It will be a painful lesson, but a valuable one.

Sent by B. Newmeyer | 10:48 AM ET | 04-14-2007

I don't get this whole thing, and to be frank, it just plain upsets me. Why, all of the sudden, does everyone care what the old man has to say? Very few people cared before...matter of fact, why am I here saying this? Why do I even care? Simple, I'm pissed off at all the self-righteous people, including some people at NPR, that continue to talk about this whole stupid thing. People, get over it, and get over yourselves. What happened to free speech? Why can't a stupid old white man say some stupid things? That's what he's been doing for the last few years, why do we need to care what stupid thing he says now? People, SHUT UP!! Including me.

Sent by Jason Lynn | 11:05 AM ET | 04-14-2007

I recently attended the annual Conference on World Affairs at the University of Colorado at Boulder. One of the panels was titled "If Colbert Interviews Borat, How Many Realities Are In Your Living Room?" The basic gist was that nowadays we have jesters as our journalists, playing extremist roles to bring out the truth and get our attention. Is the Don Imus on the radio different than the Don Imus in person? That is, is he playing a role like Colbert or Borat? My guess would be no. Making obviously racist comments like "nappy-headed ho's" shocks us, but has no real learning value. If he is representing the real Don Imus on the radio, then either we fire him for (continually?) failing to maintain a certain level of intelligent commentary, or we don't take him seriously anymore.

Sent by Nick | 12:24 PM ET | 04-14-2007

Imus is 67 years old. There should be some correlation with respect to age and reason. Apparently, Imus lack both. Whatever the reason may be; with or without specific context; words hurt. They climb out of the pillows at nights and repeat themselves as rabbits in a enclose environment. To the pedestrians amongst us; I can imagine anytime a black women comes in view, the thought will arise, :there goes a "nappyhead ho" and with all that it implies. The horrow, the total horrow. Imus must be remembered as a footnote consistent to the definition of slander, the worst of its kind. May he rest in peace, for as far as I am concern; Imus is dead to all that is decent and honest and clean.

Sent by Lynford Martin | 2:12 PM ET | 04-14-2007

what strikes me about this whole Imus thing, is the hypocrisy of the media. They have created the Imus's and Sterns, and forged an environment of confrontation and hostility along with their so called reality TV,yet they act surprised when they step over the line. You teach a dog to attack don't be surprised when it bites.The other issue is would NBC & CBS have fired Imus if the advertisers didn't threaten to pull their money....

Sent by Harry Segarra | 2:23 PM ET | 04-14-2007

I've heard a lot of diatribe this week comparing the Imus controversy with the Duke Lacrosse scandal. Where does this misplaced sense of proportion come from? The Rutgers University women were insulted once by some insignificant talk jock, and would probably not even have been aware of it had the media sharks not frenzied upon it, whereas the Duke men were criminally charged, jailed, and had their reputations thoroughly besmirched by a false accuser and an overzealous DA costing them (and their parents) thousands in legal and bond fees. There is no comparison, yet I hear no apology in the Duke case. Let's stop focusing on the insignificant at a time when the futility of our efforts in Iraq is demonstrated by the lack of security that permits a suicide bomber to walk into the Parliament's cafeteria. And no one is even mentioning the secret war in Somalia. Get real, people!

Sent by Jacques Paluy | 4:22 PM ET | 04-14-2007

I think this is a power equity (or inequity) issue, being expressed via a changing perspective about the ethics of respect and ridicule in American culture.

In the past, "respect" was used to keep the disempowered disempowered: if you respect the king, president, or school principal, then you do not question her or him. This notion presumes that respect is given from those not in power (lessers) to their betters (those in power). I realize that 'in power' is not equivalent to 'better', but the correlation is implicit within this particular concept. Likewise, ridicule was also used to keep the disempowered disempowered: if you ridicule people who are down and out for being lazy, stupid, and down and out, then they tend to stay that way. Here, ridicule - like respect - keeps those in power in positions of power.

Fairly recently (I am 54 and remember the time of change), this got turned around during an intentional push for social change that involved restructuring the balance of power in American society (to be more balanced). Ridicule of the disempowered was considered unethical, so people called a halt to so-called humerous stereotypes that ridiculed women and persons of color. Simultaneously, ridicule of those in power by those not in power was seen as liberating because it turned the tables on informal rules that had maintained the power structure status quo for a very long time. This type of ridicule also broke up the old informal rules about the directionality of respect (from the those without power to the powerful). It uncoupled power from betterness ("you may have the power, but that does not mean you are better than I am"), which continued a socio-political trend that's existed in America from its earliest days. (I think, though historical experts please correct me if I'm wrong, that royalism was based on the premise of Divine Right -- that those in power were actually better than those not in power, and had been born into the position of power for that reason.)

What I see as I read all these thoughtful comments is that everyone here shares an ethos of respect and ridicule: it is ok to ridicule the powerful if you are less powerful, and it's important for those in power to respect those who are not in power. What I find interesting is that since this is now an apparently accepted ethos of this type, people are defending Imus (in this particular case) by redrawing the lines of who is or is not powerful. The people writing to defend Don Imus are making arguments that he or white people or males are not really in power any more, so the ethical direction stays the same (it's ok for the non-powerful to ridicule the powerful; not ok for the powerful to ridicule the non-powerful), but the classification change means that Imus is actually being wronged, whereas the young women he ridiculed were not. In some cases, the young women get left out of the argument entirely (perhaps because young black women are less easy to cast as being more powerful than Don Imus) and the case is made against Sharpton or Jackson instead.

It's an interesting claim, that somehow white people and/or males have become the disempowered group in America. I'm sure you could reasonably argue that many individual white males are not in power positions (ones that are poor, for example), but I'm not sure Don Imus could reasonably be seen to fall in that category. He has (still) a prominent public voice, money, and other trappings indicative of personal power.

It's interesting within this context that some of the people defending Imus point to the ridiculing humor of, for example, Richard Pryor to defend Imus's actions as "ok." But I think this ignores the socio-historical context of that type of ridicule, which is born of absolute despair and came from being in a position of such complete and apparently locked-down disempowerment that anger was inevitable. Such "humor" was shocking, rough, hard to hear no matter who you were (I have personally not liked it) -- but it was considered ethical in the framework that sees this as ok if the direction of ridicule is from the disempowered to the empowered. The ridicule becomes, in a sense, the agent of empowerment. It turns the tables. That seems in retrospect to be one of the factors that led to the new ethics of ridicule and respect that seem accepted by everyone posting here.

If you look at it that way, the only way Don Imus or someone like him could be in the ethically approved position would be if he and other white men had been systematically disempowered by (in this case) black women for 400 or 500 years -- enslaved, hunted and hung, denied the vote, denied an education, etc. The two situations do not compare even if you want to make a case that maybe white males are somehow in a position of less power now. If they are (which is questionable), it's been for maybe 20 years at most. (The part of me that is not a scholar but that is a Choctaw woman wants to add: Let them handle it another 480 years and then we'll talk. But two wrongs don't make a right, and the fact is that I haven't seen any white men denied the vote or lynched by mobs of women or people of color over the last few years.)

A final thought is: if it's ok for the members of a disempowered group to use ridicule against those in power, does this desensitize us all to the destructive aspects of ridicule in the process? And if so, where does that leave us as human beings? Does it mean that we need to rethink the ethics of ridicule overall? And what does all this do to our concepts of respect? Is there a way we can challenge those in power without using ridicule to do it? Is there a way to bring respect back into our social discourse, without using it to draw lines of power? Do we need to focus on issues of power inequity in this, rather than on an ethics of ridicule that focuses on redrawing the lines and definitions of power?

Sent by Dawn Adams, Ph.D. | 6:37 PM ET | 04-14-2007

Perhaps I'm one of the few, but I watched and listened to Imus in the Morning for its news content. Don Imus is one of the finest interviewers I have ever seen. He was one of few currently on the major networks, (I can think of no others but will say one of a few), who asked real questions of people in power. He made them comfortable with the light heartedness, and then would gently force them to answer a question they didn't want to answer. He was also diligent in causes he believed in; there would not be a new rehabilitation Center for our returning Veterans in San Antonio Texas today if not for Don Imus. Congress would never have looked at the issue of Autism if not for Don Imus. The Imus Cattle Ranch for Kids with Cancer has touched more lives and done more good than many of his predominate critics will ever do should they live to be a thousand years old. The awareness of organic foods and natural, nontoxic cleaning products that he has brought before his listeners over the last five years is more than we would hear in 50 years from the mainstream media and the benefits for those who have heeded his call and researched the harm that transnational corporations and corporate farms have been pedaling without challenge in this country for centuries is also beyond measure.

The other reason I really liked the show was that Don Imus and I shared similar taste in music and authors. I learned of Jimmie Dale Gilmore, the Flatlanders, Delbert McClinton and the Blind Boys of Alabama from listening to Don Imus. The late Kurt Vonnegut was a frequent guest and someone that you could turn the dial for months at a time and see on no other major network.

But, as he did with many politicians, during his shows Don Imus often made me uncomfortable.... Just as "black face" comedy wasn't funny or appropriate 50 years ago, it's not funny or appropriate today. Though I may loathe Jerry Falwell and Alberto Gonzales their parodies struck me just as the ones of Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, Ray Nagin and Cardinal Egan did, which was akin to "black face" comedy of days gone by. These individuals would be parodied in such a way that I could envision opponents on each side nodding in agreement that, that in fact was what those people were really like and that is what they really thought. Also, I would become so turned off when former sportscaster Sid would be on I would turn the channel, sometimes protesting for a day or two by listening to something else... while I thought most of the humor went to far for my taste, Sid, I thought, was just plain cruel.

Having said this I still want to look at what Don Imus said that got him fired. Don Imus did not walk onto the set, sit down and say, "Ladies and Gentlemen I have an announcement" the members of the Rutger's basketball team are "nappy headed hoes".... That would have been vile. (I will not engage the free speech argument of whether he would have had that right on public airways, I have no interest in that argument, although I admire those that do.) No, what I want to look at is the context of which he made his comment. There was a basketball game between the Tennessee Volunteers and the Rutgers Scarlet Knights. Imus sidekick Bernie was making the point that when he looked at the two teams one team looked tough, the other looked soft. Put another way, he was implying that one had street credibility, the others looked like a bunch of pampered athletes. Then Bernie used the word "Ho"s, which much as been made of -- Don Imus frequently on his show referred to his wife as the "Green Ho"; given that fact alone (like the connotation or not) can we assume that the word "ho" did not mean that Don Imus nor Bernie was using "ho" in such a context as to be calling these women prostitutes? And that in fact it was a slang word they used to refer to women with a certain passion, be it organic foods and green products or being tough? What happened next happens quite a bit in our culture, a white man tried to use a phrase that has passed him by, that he assumed would be in the right context to back up the previous statement and it wasn't, he said... "Yea, them is nappy headed hoe's"... He was trying to use a slang verb to reinforce the idea that these were tough girls with tattoos, street cred and different than the other team, but being a 67 year old white guy he picked the wrong word, used it in his rendition of "black face" by trying to talk like a street wise black guy... the result was he lost his job, thousands of children lost donations and causes yet unseen lost a champion.

But, some critics got their piece of flesh. Regarding the critics, throughout this week I have been really mad at Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. But, I am less so now. I don't begrudge these men because it is the only thing they have got. They are the minority so they don't have the numbers to win any vote. They don't own the corporations so they can't make the decision to fire him. The only thing people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Cindy Sheehan can do to make a point is to run to the nearest camera and yell loud enough that somebody has to pay attention to them. It tends to really upset people who think they should just shut up, go away and mind their own business. I disagree with their cause this time, and as Bill Maher has said, if this is the biggest issue they can find to get worked up about then the Civil Rights movement is in better shape than I thought it was. But I recognize that when you have no power, which they don't, the only thing you can do is make a lot of noise and/or raise a stink and in this case they did both. (Though I am still upset at people like Harold Ford, who I never would have heard about if not for Don Imus. Imus championed Harold Ford in his race for Congress like no other and then Ford doesn't have the guts to say so? We didn't need another gutless guy in Congress and I'm glad Don failed in his bid to get Harold elected) But, you know what I hope comes out of this is that people recognize what influence the mainstream media has over this country. The media chose to focus on a botched joke for a week and succeeded in getting someone fired. While the same week they chose not to focus on what really matters for the long run of this country. For every minute they talked about Don Imus and a botched joke they weren't talking about Iraq. They weren't talking about the economy. They weren't talking about health care. They weren't talking about the environment. They weren't talking about the shrinking middle class. They weren't talking about immigration. They weren't talking about anything of significance. AND THEY NEVER DO. They talk in 30-second sound bites. They always go for the easy quick buck and they consistently fail at their real goal, which (to paraphrase Bill Maher again) should be to make what's important interesting. They never will ask a question that will hurt ad revenues. They will never do what is right if it cost a penny, because that is what they do. These corporations were given our airwaves for free and now they sell it to the highest bidder and let marketing professionals manipulate the content to manufacture consent anyway they see fit.

At some point I hope that someone will really ask what happened here. For 15 years another radio host has referred to certain women as Nazi's and nobody seems to care, perhaps because he generates 2 or 3 times the marketing revenue that Don Imus ever thought about. But, the fact is that nobody will ask why, because the major media will not ask why. Just as they won't ever seriously investigate campaign finance reform because for every dollar that a politician earns they are assured of getting ninety cents to run the politicians ads. They won't ask how they caused such a furry to cost Don Imus his job, simply because they would have to answer tough questions of themselves, questions, that given a chance perhaps only Don Imus would have gotten them to answer.

Sent by S. Clark | 8:36 AM ET | 04-15-2007

As a black man, my comments may come as a surprise to many, but Don Imus should have NEVER BEEN FIRED for his comments made against the Rutgers womans basketball team. (You know, the team accepted Mr. Imus' apology.) The majority of dark-skinned black people hair is very curly...or nappy. That is just a trait of being a dark-skinned black person. Nothing to be ashamed of. And as for the comment he made about "ho", Mr. Imus was just extrapolating from the popular black culture to which such gramma is expressed throughout the inner fabric of the black community. Mr. Imus is a SHOCK JOCK. He gets paid for his shock value; and in this case he did not cross the line. CBS radio and MSNBC should have reinstated him after a two-week suspension, but instead chose to fire him. They may a HUGE mistake and Don Imus should hire some very smart lawyers and sue the pants off them. CBS and MSNBC were only concerned about advertisers pulling away from the broadcast; inadvertly, the advertisers don't really care about the members of the black community...they only care about loosing the black economic base...the greenback. Once again, make no mistake, they only care about the bottom line... MONEY, MONEY AND MORE MONEY.
Blacks call each other crude names all the time. Black music is RICH and FULL of such degrading language. If you get some spare time, listen to BET after dark and you will get an eyeful as well as an earful of this. If blacks don't want whites using such language to describe their culture, then the blacks shouldn't use such language either. It is clearly a double-standard and Mr. Imus is a victim of reverse discrimination. As a black man, I use to be a fan of the hip-hop/rap music genre, but has long ago abandon that and now listen to classic pop and country. I just couldn't stand the trashy and degrading music of the hip-hop/rap genre any longer. Now when black ask me "what kind of music do you like..." and I reply "classic pop and country..." I am immediately DISMISSED BY BLACKS...AND I AM BLACK! I think the smallest difference between Blacks and Whites IS the color of the skin and the texture of the hair. The LARGEST difference between the two groups is one of culture. Many Whites have told me that the thing they don't like about Blacks is their culture...is is lacking in values. Now back to Mr. Imus.

I thought that Mr. Imus was a SHOCK JOCK... you know... someone who is not afraid to speak his mind and is NOT politically correct... (A phrase used to describe a type of language used by people who always want to pander or 'kiss up' to the crowd). I thought THAT is what CBS radio and MSNBC was paying him for. If you are easily offended by his remarks, you can always CHANGE THE STATION...You know there is a First Amendment in the Constitution called the Freedom of Speech. Clearly Mr. Imus rights were violated. To all of those who think CBS radio and MSNBC did the right thing, then...FIRE EVERYONE AND EVERYBODY WHO PUTS OUT RAP AND HIP-HOP MUSIC... AND THOSE NASTY, TRASHY AND OBSCENE POROGRAPHIC MUSIC VIDEOS ON THE BLACK ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION STATION. This is clearly a defeat for those who love Freedom of Speech in this country, and little by little, our freedoms are being diminished by this tide of "political correctness."

Sent by Lenny Thomas | 9:28 AM ET | 04-15-2007

Where does a frizzy headed bigot get off putting down other people?

Sent by Ed Cluff | 9:45 AM ET | 04-15-2007

I do not listen to Imus but I did see his Rutgers comments on YOUTUBE.

What has happened to the guy Imus was talking with when the comments were made, Sid Rosenberg? Mr Rosenberg was culpable as well.

I saw Gwen Ifel on MEET THE PRESS today, April 15 and thought she handled the issue well.

Sent by Carl Daniels | 12:18 PM ET | 04-15-2007

I should start by saying that I am a white female whose friends have frequently told me to watch Imus, but I found him ill-tempered and mean-spirited and chose not to watch. His comments last week were unacceptable, but this is just a symptom of a larger, systemic problem that requires our immediate attention and focus.

So much of our media looks to target the lowest common denominator in order to generate high ratings and record profits. This helps to spawn shows like Imus and others as well as language and attitudes such as witnessed this week.

The "news" shows on television such as Imus, O'Reilly, Beck, Scarborough depend on hyperbole, stereotyping, and commentary instead of factual reporting and careful analysis. These shows need the hype that they create to sustain their ratings, sponsorships, and subsequently their shows and careers.

These "news" shows, though, should not stand alone in accepting all the blame. In Hollywood, films and music frequently incorporate sexist and racist undertones that help perpetuate the divisions and chasms in America instead of resolving them. In addition, movies depict such levels of violence that we've become immune to the gory displays, and don't even consider questioning the rationale behind our rating system.

Maybe all of this is to be expected as a result of living in a capitalistic society, but until we have the nerve to demand a minimum level of decency and responsibility in all our media outlets (film, tv, news, radio) instead of shock tactics and sensationalism we will continue to see the degradation of our collective consciousness. We should all take aim at the irresponsible shows, movies, music and news sources to show we are serious in our mission to raise the bar in media and hopefully elevate who we are as members of a caring and thoughtful community.

Sent by Anne | 1:36 PM ET | 04-15-2007

I have enjoyed reading all these comments even if I did not agree with some of them. I have never listened to Imus ever always thought that he was an over the hill annoying radio personality. I have a daughter and although she is only four if she had been on that team and was referred to as a nappy headed ho I would have been out there with the rest of them to have him fired. It is not about anything but being insensitive and stupid. He must not have a daughter. Imus a comedian you ain't! Ho Ho Ho now who is laughing now I-man?

Sent by M Carter- Carvalho | 3:10 PM ET | 04-15-2007

I think American society can't have it both ways. You can't complain about young women on welfare and at the same time make fun of young women who achieve. You want to encourage a population of scapegoats, you have to pay for them. You want educated, self-supporting and talented young women, don't call them names and put them down.
DECIDE, NOW!

Sent by Mona S | 8:08 PM ET | 04-15-2007

I listen to Imus because I find his sense of humor outrageous (he IS a shock jock after all). I am a blonde woman of Irish descent who married a man from the south and now reside in the south. Imagine the jokes here: Dumb blonde, Irish drunkards, toothless hillbilly rednecks. Do I get offended? No, quite frankly I am not that thin skinned. Humor is based on ridiculing people, places, things. If I don't like a TV or radio show, I simply turn it off. As far as Imus goes, I prefer to take seriously the good that comes from his charitable work. I certainly am smart enough to realize what he says on his radio show is, for the most part, meant to raise eyebrows and have shock value. Words are just that WORDS! If what Imus said about the Rutgers team has caused lifelong trauma for the girls, then Jeff Foxworthy has probably totally destroyed my 13 year old redneck hillbilly son for life. I believe everyone has overreacted to this situation. I believe most people should clean up their own backyards before cleaning up others. Does Jesse Jackson believe everyone has forgotten his mistakes? I believe everyone makes mistakes, but those mistakes don't necessarily define the person. People have to get past the flaws and look at the real person. Actions speak louder than words, and I believe Imus's actions have shown the true caring person he is. Many have benefitted from the Imus ranch, and I certainly hope that people remember what he does for these children (regardless of their race).

Sent by Barb | 11:40 PM ET | 04-15-2007

I really enjoyed listening to Imus when he was talking about our politicans, he didn't care if they were D's or R's. He has a great heart for sick children, our soldiers... who else but him spoke up and really did something.... I think that everyone missed out -- he should have been suspended but then came back on and continued some very good dialogue with race and really to come to understand both sides, how we can respect both sides...I think that he could have been a major player trying to help...I truly miss not watching him. I am an older person, catholic and go to church every Sunday and holy days of obligations, love my 2 boys that are in their 30s and very proud of them. SHAM on television and radio for not taking time out and really think about it and what a bad situation it was that there could have been some good....Money talks.............

Sent by Patricia Cieslik | 12:40 PM ET | 04-16-2007

I am a longtime listener to Imus in the Morning. I am a white male age 42.

Imus is not a racist. A racist would not have lasted 35 years in the broacasting industry.

He is a recovering alcoholic and drug addict. Based on these life experiences, he talks to the lowest elements of society and knows the lingo.

He also talks to the powerful Washington/New York/Boston/ East Coast elite based on the fame and money that his broadcasting career has brought to him.

He communicates with middle America based on his time in New Mexico. Hence the cowboy hat and the discussion of starching his jeans.

He is a satarist. He holds a mirror up to society. Sometimes he goes too far.

His work with children goes far beyond simply writing checks. He lives with the cancer kids at the Ranch. He understands the pain of their parents. He dutifully attends the funerals. He works to keep the various charities running.

As Tim Russert pointed out on Meet the Press on April 15, 2007, some African Americans find the McGuirk bits about the NY Cardinal hilarious while objecting to other bits as racist.

There is no defending the comments made by Imus about the Rutgers women. Still, the punishment (i.e., firing him from MSNBC and CBS Radio) is disproportional to a crime which lacked mens rea (i.e., unintentional).
This blunder in the context of a show filled with satire is not a fitting end for this man's career.

C. Vivian Stringer and the team forgave Imus. It is to be hoped that Rev. Soaries, Rev. Sharpton and Rev. Jackson will follow the lead of these women.

Coach Stringer reminded the public that Mr. Imus???s comments occurred on April 4th, the anniversary of the assassination of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

On the night of the Coach's statement, I listened to Robert F. Kennedy???s words on the death of Dr. King and cried.

In the context of the current controversy about racist and sexist language, the words of Mr. Kennedy???s ???favorite poet,??? Aeschylus, ring as true for Mr. Imus as they do for the Rutgers women:

"Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God."

On April 13, 2007, Coach Stringer said:

"You know we seem to like a spectator sport putting people down stomping on their throat and making sure they???re dead and if their not we???re going to follow it up with how well were they dressed in the casket. We have got to stop.???

Later in the piece Coach Stringer said, ???Let this man have some level of integrity. Let him grow.??? Please see http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml to view the April 13, 2007 video segment aired by CBS News.

Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update included a comment indicating that those calling for Imus to be fired dismissed the fogiveness offered by the team. I believe the comment was, "It's not up to you." This dismissal of Coach Stringer and her team is a strong indication that the world is upside-down.

The loudest voices are not the voices of the injured parties but rather the voices of people seeking media attention.

Thank you for establishing this forum and allowing me to post my opinion.

Sean

Sent by Sean Albert | 5:42 PM ET | 04-17-2007

I am an avid listener of Imus. I don't consider Imus a "shock jock", which is the term everyone uses. When he was talking current events, or politics, he brought home the real issue...not the spin you hear from the politicians. I first heard about the Walter Reed issue on the Imus show where he blasted a democratic senator for not visiting it and trying to blame the administration. He was against the Iraq war but frequently had Republicans on his show. He made the politicians accountable and spoke up for us "middle Americans". He didn't care whether they were Dems or Reps - he called them out on the carpet. He helped make autism a real issue in congress. He was the first person to say what happened to the Katrina victims is because they are black, not poor. He played Martin Luthers speech every MLK day. I don't think a true bigot, or racist would say that. Unfortantely, nobody hears any of that. We live in a world of the "soundbite" instead of looking at the whole picture. The man even calls his wife the "green ho" because she does so much for environmental awareness. He was a Great American who will be missed. That is why us middle americans are so angry. He spoke to us, not at us.

Sent by Lori | 11:57 AM ET | 04-18-2007

I don't listen to Imus because I don't care for commentary in the hostile mode. Civility is what makes it for me. That said, I believe it is a bad idea to take a speaker off the air because we don't like what he says. To the contrary, we NEED TO KNOW what people like Imus are thinking, so that education and, if necessary, legislation can be used to head off the viciousness of racism and xenophobia. Silencing people does not make them stop thinking what they think; it only makes them more resentful and more likely to act out their nasty ideas.

Sent by Victoria Hay | 2:59 PM ET | 04-18-2007

I loved watching Imus and will miss his show. I'm now listening to the reruns that are on kcaa in the morning. BTW I'm a woman and some of his stuff was on the edge, but that's not all his show consisted of. He also has done more for charities and people in need than his bosses that decided to kick him off the air or Sharpton & Jackson. IMO they are just media HOs.

Sent by Debbie | 3:02 PM ET | 04-18-2007

What if William Shakespeare and Jonathon Swift lived today and were DJs? What if they aired live satire on the radio?

Each man would be out of a job based one isolated, stupid, tasteless incident. The Bard would lose his microphone for Portia???s words to Shylock in ???The Merchant of Venice??? and Swift for ???A Modest Proposal.???

Shakespeare would be fired for his alleged anti-Semitism. Swift would be fired for alleged slurs on Catholics, Americans, the Irish and Catholics. Never mind that Swift was an Irish Catholic (born on November 30, 1667 in Dublin, Ireland).

Fortunately, Swift and Shakespeare are both studied at institutes of higher learning such as Rutgers University.

Sean

The faint of heart should read no further. Stop here.

E.g. #1

PORTIA
The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much
To mitigate the justice of thy plea;
Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentence 'gainst the merchant there.

The Merchant of Venice Act 4 Scene 1

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/merchant/merchant.4.1.html

cf.: http://complit.rutgers.edu/archive/F97/segol.html

E.g. #2:

A Modest Proposal For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland, from Being a Burden on Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them
Beneficial to the Publick

By Jonathan Swift
Edited and annotated by Jack Lynch

Mr. Lynch is Associate Professor in the English department of the Newark campus of Rutgers University, specializing in the English literature of the eighteenth century.

Swift was Irish, and though he much preferred living in England, he resented British policies toward the Irish. In a letter to Pope of 1729, he wrote, "Imagine a nation the two-thirds of whose revenues are spent out of it, and who are not permitted to trade with the other third, and where the pride of the women will not suffer [allow] them to wear their own manufactures even where they excel what come from abroad: This is the true state of Ireland in a very few words." His support for Irish causes has made him a renowned figure in modern Ireland. The paragraph numbers have been added for this edition.

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/modest.html

[9] ???I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy Child well Nursed is at a year Old, a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome Food, whether Stewed, Roasted, Baked, or Boyled, and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a Fricasie, or Ragoust.??? 12
???
[13] Infant's flesh will be in Season throughout the Year, but more plentiful in March, and a little before and after; for we are told by a grave Author 16 an eminent French physitian, that Fish being a prolifick Dyet, there are more Children born in Roman Catholick Countries about nine Months after Lent, than at any other Season, therefore reckoning a Year after Lent, the Markets will be more glutted than usual, because the Number of Popish Infants, is at least three to one in this Kingdom, and therefore it will have one other Collateral advantage by lessening the Number of Papists among us.
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/modest.html

Sent by Sean Albert | 7:08 PM ET | 04-18-2007