Good analysis from Classical Values, via Insty. Imus does still have the Holocaust denial vote, though — of course I refer to Patrick Buchanan, formerly relevant public figure who was dug up by Imus as a token “conservative” opponent of the Iraq war and who kvetches (I doubt he would appreciate the word), “The hypocrisy here was too thick to cut with a chainsaw.” Well, he’s not wrong about that, as he is about much else; but I do want briefly to address the hypocrisy point.

The fulcrum of the hypocrisy argument does not center properly on the “well, rappers say it too” argument. It is not the same when Imus, McGuirk or another pasty-face says it in a public context. I believe, and I have said before that “it’s different for blacks.” Thus while it’s a problem that rappers and other black “urban” characters use the language that Imus did on a daily basis or more, it’s a black problem.

In this time and place, Don Imus is dead when he makes himself a black problem — and while I think it’s foolish to ignore the overall content of a man’s editorial presentation, which you have to do in order to conclude that Imus is truly a racist (he’s not in any meaningful way), Imus went up to the line as part of his job and stepped over it. He gambled and, this time, he lost.

It’s not the same when those words are used on the streets of black America — it’s a different issue, a different gamble, different stakes.

UPDATE: Obama disagrees with me. Or does he?

If it’s not good for Don Imus, I don’t know why it’s good for us. If we don’t like other people to degrade us, why are we degrading ourselves?” Obama asked.

Yes, they’re both wrong — it’s not good for “us” either. But degrading oneself is not the same as degrading someone else.

MORE:  Interesting angle on The Reverand Al and rap lyrics.

Read it here.

Just now on Opie and Anthony — don’t even ask me how I got them on the dial (never have before and based on how entertaining they weren’t, don’t expect I ever will again) — but they did have this to say:

We’re next… And forget about any apology — see what good that does you.

UPDATE: Now I get it. They were participating in Imus’s radiothon, held at the MSNBC studios due to previous arrangements — the same MSNBC that just cast its simulcast of Imus out of its programming. For two minutes on the car on the way to shul this morning I heard him expressing, plainly and frankly, both his continued regret and acceptance of personal responsibility — “If I hadn’t said that stuff, we wouldn’t be here” — and his disgust with MSNBC over his treatment from them.

It is disgusting. I don’t love it any more. I hate it.

Yesterday morning Steven A. Smith, ESPN’s one-note radio host on New York’s WFAN sports radio (oddly, no useful link available directly to ESPN) was railing — which is how he expresses everything — about how if Imus had made these remarks about Jews it wouldn’t even be a question whether he would be fired. This is preposterous, and disproved by the facts — repeatedly. But good to drag the Jews into this — you’re not alone, Steven.

Here’s my prediction: Imus will, contrary to my earlier prognostication (which, if you don’t mind my saying, was one of the early blog reactions to this story), go, his interesting and successful and lucrative (none of which is to say “highly meritorious”) career extinguished at a ripe old age because a true high-tech lynching is under way which cannot be stopped. I earlier expressed my lack of regret over this, because I believe that Imus played the PC game when it worked for him; those are the breaks. He’s done well.

But the “rest” of my prediction is that this is a high-water mark of this nonsense. I believe there will be a sea change following this — I don’t know how it will play out, but I believe that, as Dean Esmay says, the utter silliness and pettiness of this process will make an impact and somehow get people to regain perspective on the total babyishness of this entire concept. They will talk about the “Imus incident” as a watershed. It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy and sweeter bunch of arrogant sidekicks, true — do you just love the idea of an unemployed Bernie McGuirk? And better him than me. But it should not happen — not this — again.

Enjoying this? Yes I am — Don Imus is in trouble for using a wildly inappropriate description of the Rutgers women’s basketball team.

I’ve been amused but mostly annoyed by Don Imus since forever. What I love here is how he, a central cog in the Narcissistic Media complex I just wrote about, has stepped on the third rail of American media behavior: Racist terminology. Imus, a fairly moderate liberal who does not consider himself one, loves to make fun of the “Nazi” Rush Limbaugh and in general takes a pretty morally superior tone on the politics of race. He counts among his radio friends various prominent black politicians such as J.C. Watts and Harold Ford, Jr. On the other hand he has, over the years, been fairly merciless with less respectable figures, brutally parodying race-clown Al Sharpton and joking about his continued refusals to “have lunch” with Jesse Jackson, and has not toed the line on the Great Light Hope, Barack Obama. Read the rest of this entry »

Remember the insufferable Josh Wolf? He’s back on the streets, the enemy of police and the people they protect and yet another martyr for the self-absorbed press everywhere. Perhaps, if we’re fortunate, there’s a haircut out here for him. The Washington Post reports:

A San Francisco blogger who spent nearly eight months in jail for refusing to testify about an anarchists’ demonstration was released yesterday after turning over a videotape of the protest and posting it on his Web site.

Josh Wolf, 24, also answered two questions from prosecutors, after striking a deal that ends the longest contempt-of-court term ever served by someone in the U.S. media.

“I’m completely satisfied with the resolution,” Wolf said by phone from California one hour after being released. “There’s a very large problem with forcing a reporter to act as an investigator for a government prosecution. . . . It’s absolutely a victory.”

Since the video captured no violent incidents, he said, “it wasn’t worth being a martyr for no purpose.”

Yeah, that’s for sure. Did you know witnesses to a crime — like the splitting open of a cop’s head, which was what happened here — who have evidence, are transformed into “investigators for a government prosecution” if they are asked to just turn it over? No matter how inconsequential their information? After all, as the Post says, “A viewing of the video leaves unclear why Wolf fought so hard to protect it.” How about self-absorption and contempt for the society that enables him to live indefinitely — and just ending now, rent-free for half a year — as a punk slacker?

Check out his site (click at the graphic above) — he got every bouquet the journalism cult, demanding its special exemptions from participation in the society that enriches them, could throw him while cooling his heels in the joint. I don’t question whether he was acting as a “journalist” at the time — I continue to agree that journalism is something you do, not something you get get to be by virtue of some credential. But I think if you have evidence of a crime, regardless of whatever you were doing when you got it, yes, you give it to the cops. Not according to the subversive media’s view of citizenship circa 2007, however — and once again, we are reminded of why no one likes or trusts the professional media any more. The good news: With God’s help, Josh Wolf’s 15 minutes is over. Hat tip to Evan Brown.