Sunday, April 15, 2007

FP at News Leader, where's your indignation over Imus hypocrisy?

I don't care for Don Imus ... never have. I consider him a bore, mumbling in a way I think is ridiculous for a radio personality, and I exercised my right to not listen. I have resisted wading into the Imus controversy mainly because plenty of others have weighed in and covered the subject. Until now....

Today's Staunton News Leader features an op-ed by "FP" which is short for Fred Pfisterer, a former editor with the newspaper. I rarely read his column because it's filler and I'm usually trying to catch up on hard news rather than hear the latest about his dogs.

Today he writes about Imus. This remark jumped out at me:

"And it's not just Imus and his talking-head ilk. And it's not just about free speech. It's about bigotry and hate spewed by the establishment against blacks, Jews, Latinos, women, American Indians, Japanese, gays, the handicapped -- anyone who isn't just like them. Someone to blame, someone to pick on, someone good for a cheap laugh. It's grotesque and it's terrifying."

Where to begin? The background research for this post is huge ... there are literally dozens and dozens of documented incidences of those on the Left insulting conservatives no matter their color or background.

Where is FP's indignation over the hypocrisy involved? He blames everything on the "establishment" for picking on others who are unlike themselves.

What, exactly, does he consider "the establishment"? Is he being narrow-minded and judgmental with that one assumption? I know people from many walks of life. Who of them is "the establishment"? Who, exactly, is he talking about?

FP continued his indignation with this:

"... it's about time that we as a nation took the responsibility and faced our dark and dirty little secret once and for all and get back to the values that this country once espoused, of mutual respect and tolerance."

I'm tired of the elitist holier-than-thou attitude from the likes of FP who automatically blame "the establishment," who blame America, without stopping to think that this is a two-way street. Let me count the ways....

Al Sharpton: Hypocrisy at its upmost, he led the charge against Don Imus. But, according to Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby:

1987: Sharpton spreads the incendiary Tawana Brawley hoax, insisting heatedly that a 15-year-old black girl was abducted, raped, and smeared with feces by a group of white men. He singles out Steve Pagones, a young prosecutor. Pagones is wholly innocent -- the crime never occurred -- but Sharpton taunts him: "If we're lying, sue us, so we can . . . prove you did it." Pagones does sue, and eventually wins a $345,000 verdict for defamation. To this day, Sharpton refuses to recant his unspeakable slander or to apologize for his role in the odious affair.

1991: A Hasidic Jewish driver in Brooklyn's Crown Heights section accidentally kills Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child, and antisemitic riots erupt. Sharpton races to pour gasoline on the fire. At Gavin's funeral he rails against the "diamond merchants" -- code for Jews -- with "the blood of innocent babies" on their hands. He mobilizes hundreds of demonstrators to march through the Jewish neighborhood, chanting, "No justice, no peace." A rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, is surrounded by a mob shouting "Kill the Jews!" and stabbed to death. [my emphasis]

1995: When the United House of Prayer, a large black landlord in Harlem, raises the rent on Freddy's Fashion Mart, Freddy's white Jewish owner is forced to raise the rent on his subtenant, a black-owned music store. A landlord-tenant dispute ensues; Sharpton uses it to incite racial hatred. "We will not stand by," he warns malignantly, "and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business." Sharpton's National Action Network sets up picket lines; customers going into Freddy's are spat on and cursed as "traitors" and "Uncle Toms." Some protesters shout, "Burn down the Jew store!" and simulate striking a match. "We're going to see that this cracker suffers," says Sharpton's colleague Morris Powell. On Dec. 8, one of the protesters bursts into Freddy's, shoots four employees point-blank, then sets the store on fire. Seven employees die in the inferno. [my emphasis]

If Sharpton were a white skinhead, he would be a political leper, spurned everywhere but the fringe. But far from being spurned, he is shown much deference. Democrats embrace him. Politicians court him. And journalists report on his comings and goings while politely sidestepping his career as a hatemongering racial hustler.

Sharpton has his own radio show. Should he continue to be allowed to broadcast? More on Sharpton here.

Jesse Jackson: Also chiming in for Imus to lose his job, Jackson once referred to New York City as "Hymietown" and Jews as "hymies." He was questioned about it on the Today show recently by Meredith Vieira who asked, "And it took you seven days to apologize and then you begged for forgiveness. So what's the difference between this and that?" He sidestepped the question to avert attention elsewhere.

Black Rappers: They call women "hos" all day long. And that's not the worst of it ... much of their language is unrepeatable. Michelle Malkin calls them on it here and the Washington Times discusses it here.

Bloggers: I couldn't begin to cover the waterfront on this one. But let's take the case between Wonkette and Michelle Malkin. Also check out some of the comments left on her blog. No outrage was heard from anyone for the bigoted remarks, no demands for Wonkette's removal from the internet or condemnation of the hate-filled slimy comments.

Michael Steele: This man has often been attacked from the Left. The Washington Times wrote:

Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.

Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.

Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted.
So Democrats preach tolerance ... but practice hate.

Ann Coulter, who was recently the subject of an intense firestorm from the Left for comments made at the CPAC Convention, wrote of the Imus incident:

English speakers in America need a rule book to tell us what people can say what words when, and under which set of circumstances. The rule book will be longer than the Patriot Act and will require weekly updates as new words and circumstances are added. Perhaps a Nasdaq-style ticker would be more efficient.

Depending on which TV show you tune into, what Imus said was wrong because: (1) His show goes out on FCC-regulated airwaves; (2) he regularly interviews people like Sens. John Kerry, John McCain and Joe Biden; (3) he spoke at the White House Correspondents' Dinner a few years ago; or (4) he's not black.

She then added:

The requirement to always "be nice" would be the end of Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle, two of the funniest comedians in America. Let me rephrase that: It would be the end of all humor. Even Bob Hope cruelly implied that Democrats didn't support the troops when he joked to the troops in Vietnam: "The country is behind you 50 percent." [my emphasis]

Ms. Coulter concluded by saying:

If Imus had called me a "towheaded ho" or Al Sharpton a "nappy-headed ho," it would be what's known as "funny." (And if he called Anna Nicole Smith a "flaxen-headed ho," it would be "absolutely accurate.") But he attacked the looks and morals of utterly innocent women, who had done nothing to inject themselves into public debate.

Imus should apologize to the Rutgers women -- and those women alone -- send them flowers, and stop kissing Al Sharpton's ring.
Kathleen Parker, writing that she is a big Imus fan, commented:

He's sometimes funny, sometimes smart, and every now and then, dumber'n a box o' rocks.

As recently, when he referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team as ``nappy-headed hos.'' It was ridiculously unacceptable, mean and insensitive.

But was it unforgivable?

Piling on is awfully fashionable at the moment, and while tempting, it's also awfully easy. Let's try something hard. Like thinking.

After pointing out the obvious hypocrisies from others, she concluded by saying:

Whatever his flaws -- and however careless his recent blurt -- Imus deserves a shot at resurrection.

He has promised to make a better show and to become an even better person. If that means no more racist jokes, the world will be better. It would be a waste, however, to banish a reformed Imus from the airwaves -- especially if an example of redemption and rehabilitation is what we seek.

But sainthood -- please -- is not required. In fact, a St. Imus would be a suicide bomb for sure.

Tom DeLay has also felt the heat of the Left's biased magnifying glass. In his column If the Left Takes Imus, We'll Take Rosie he commented:

The message of the ongoing Imus scandal is simple: verbal offenses against anyone other than conservatives or Christians or Jews, will be treated as crimes, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are the judge and jury.

Remember Trent Lott's ill-fated tribute to Sen. Strom Thurmond or Rush Limbaugh's criticism of Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb? This is the political strategy of the Left — unite to destroy.

Emphasizing that what Imus said was unacceptable, DeLay questioned why so many on the Left are given a pass when they attack those on the Right:

... where are the repercussions for Rosie O'Donnell's hateful, idiotic accusations that President Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks? And her ignorant parody of the Chinese language? Or her comparison of conservative Christians to Islamo-fascist terrorists? Why has ABC not suspended her from "The View"? Why has she not been frog-marched up to some radio show to apologize to 9/11 victims/Chinese-American activists/evangelical Christians?

What the Left is doing is not a fluke – it's a concerted strategy. And it works.

So if you can't beat ‘em, join ‘em. That's why I am calling on conservatives to use the available media (radio talk shows, blogs, letters to the editor) to protest and demand that Rosie O'Donnell be kicked off "The View." Where are the demonstrations in front of ABC? Where are the boycott threats for "The View's" advertisers, or its parent company, Disney? Who is holding Barbara Walters accountable for Rosie's offenses?

We can fight like the Left, too. If Don Imus falls to the pleas of political correctness, we're taking Rosie O'Donnell down with him.

Good advice from Tom DeLay, something the SWAC bloggers learned from the hate-filled liberals during the Allen campaign last Fall.

Need more examples, FP?


libhom said...

You are using a rhetorical ploy commonly used by the KKK and the Christian Right, the claim that it is intolerant to speak out against intolerance.

Anonymous said...

You seem awfully defensive on this point, which is fitting because right-wingers have a LOT to be defensive about!!!

Scott's Morning Brew said...

Two comments, neither with enough to put their names on them. What exactly are you worried about?

While this blog does not need me to defend it, I do have one question.

Why are you arguing the tactics and not the substance?

I suspect, because you know the substance is accurate and can not be refuted. So it would be a losing argument.

SWAC Girl said...

Thanks, Scott, for pointing that out. And thanks for the link from your site.

Anonymous' accusation that I'm defensive doesn't wash. My purpose was to put the facts out there because the MSM isn't doing anything about it -- and what I listed is only a tiny fraction of the examples that are available.

It's interesting to me that one ploy of the Left is to constantly toss out accusations to shut down debate.

The first commenter is basically saying sit down and shut up ... doesn't matter what I say ... I have no right to speak up. That's why we cannot stop speaking up.

Scott's Morning Brew said...


And one day, what we are going to see is that MSM is going to sit up and listen to those of us in the "alternative media" world and that the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons are going to realize they can't continue to get away with their hipocrisy without being called on the carpet about it.

I find this whole situation infuriating, and like you said and quite a few others have said, Don Imus was wrong, but being crucified by the likes of Sharpton and Jackson and MSM is absolute heresy.