Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Who Knew?


Whow knew? Howard Stern, that's who. He was screaming about Imus long before any nappy headed ho comment.

The worst part of this is that no one listens to Imus, so all this controversy is actually giving the old coot publicity.

Posted by Mike in MO | June 24, 2008 10:47 AM

Hey, now, back off my buddy Don. I've known Don for over 30 years, and he is no racist. A crazy old batshit coot? Yup, no argument there. And a rich one, too.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | June 24, 2008 10:50 AM

@2 is right.

Imus is no racist. He is a lot of ignorant things, but he isn't a racist.

This is just another example of an overly sensitive ultra PC society getting its panties in bunch trying to sensationalize a non-story.

Hell Imus has 3 high ranking staff members who are black...

That all being said regarding his comments..

We are talking about "PacMan".. err excuse me Adam "gang banger" Jones .. and if the shoe fits..

At some point our society will wake up that certain tendencies do indeed exist amongst certain races.. whites, pinks, polka dots, and yes *gasp* blacks too..

All we are doing is muzzleing talk show hosts, who no longer truly have free speech, lest their lucrative radio deals get cancelled by social "over activists" in the name of free speech squashing.

Posted by Reality Check | June 24, 2008 11:01 AM

Somebody tell Dan that links with NSFW pictures should be announced as such. Damn that dude is scary. Some warning, please!

Its not even Halloween. Sheesh.

Posted by TheMisanthrope | June 24, 2008 11:04 AM

Imus is an idiot and has-been. That said, who cares what anybody on the radio says?

Worse yet, this is gonna let Pacman Jones play the victim. It'll be a big change from his usual job of playing the perpetrator. Seriously, have you seen his rap sheet?

Posted by Jason Josephes | June 24, 2008 11:10 AM

I've never listened to Imus but Fifty-Two-Eighty and Reality Check always seemed pretty racist to me. FWIW.

Posted by elenchos | June 24, 2008 11:11 AM

He must be making them a fortune...

Posted by ZWBush | June 24, 2008 11:14 AM
At some point our society will wake up that certain tendencies do indeed exist amongst certain races.

Right, like all black women, including collegiate athletes, being hos.

Posted by keshmeshi | June 24, 2008 11:16 AM

@6 Yep Elenchos has a radar for these racist things.

If calling a spade a spade is racist so be it. I'm not any more racist than you. I just don't give in to PC feel fuzzy good little quips that ignore the obvious reality that our society has become to politically correct, that FREE speech no longer has any protections when special interest groups get to decide what is and is not PC.

It's sad that you choose to comment on things you know nothing about, yet still decide that because you are the great "Elenchos" you feel the need to bless us with your pathetic thoughts.

Grow up, lest your head not be able to fit in the room.

Do you really believe all your own hype?

Posted by Reality Check | June 24, 2008 11:20 AM

+1 agreeing with Reality Check. He/She isn't racist, he/she is simply telling it like it is.

Does anyone wonder now why white people don't want to hire black people? It's the fear of litigation at anything that might appear like a racist remark, even if it's completely harmless. Al Sharpton who, as the Post uncovered, hopes to cash in and put himself in the spotlight whenever he can make someone white (with money) look like a racist. Jesse Jackson shook down numerous companies for big cash using the same, disgraceful and disgusting tactic. The big joke of it all is that if I had one penny for every time I heard a black person utter the "n-word" either on the street or in a rap song (sung by the 'heroes' of modern hip-hop culture') I'd be a millionaire numerous times over. The hypocrisy is everywhere.

And what's funny about it all is that I know several white South African immigrants here who also call themselves African-Americans - yet Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would probably not be too happy about that either.

Posted by Cujo | June 24, 2008 11:30 AM

And there we have it. See what I mean? Thank you.

BTW, the Great Elenchos is a different dude.

Posted by elenchos | June 24, 2008 11:38 AM

Is it racism if it's true? A quick google search shows that Pacman has been arrested for punching a stripper in the face, beating strippers' heads against a bar, assault, vandalism, disorderly conduct, public intoxication, among other things. I'm sure that all of these incidents are separate instances of institutional racism spurred on by the likes of Imus.

Posted by john cocktosin | June 24, 2008 11:42 AM

Dan - Have you not seen Avenue Q (or even read Christopher F's piece in this week's edition of the Stranger?) When you make reckless comments about Don Imus being rascist (duh), you invite the ever searching, critical eye of Ombudsman Steen.

Posted by jackseattle | June 24, 2008 12:08 PM

don imus always struck me as just grim and unfunny. his peeps with him in the booth made all the jokes and banter, he just sat there in the middle sounding bitter and peeved. i never saw the appeal.

Posted by ellarosa | June 24, 2008 12:11 PM

10: Yes, and like Reality Check and most white South Africans I know, you're a putz.

Posted by Jay | June 24, 2008 12:25 PM

Isn't it funny how sensitive a lot of the posters are in the defense of (Imus' and their own) racism. Growing up in the South I've seen this act all before, scream victimhood by the pc while defending personal ignorance and preconceived misapprehensions. These are the same idiots that corner me at parties assuming that since I am from the South that I want to hear racist jokes while clarifying with a wink and a nod that they themselves are not racist.

Posted by Sad Comment | June 24, 2008 1:01 PM


Grow up. Those "special interest groups" have just as much right to protest the crypt keeper as the crypt keeper has to call upstanding members of the community "nappy headed hos." His employers also have just as much right to listen to those "special interest groups" over an employee who doesn't bring in enough money to justify the outrage.

It's called free speech and you don't get to decide to whom it applies.

If Imus wants to exercise his real free speech (in which no company is obligated to give him a sounding board), he can join up with other bigots and start his own radio station.

Posted by keshmeshi | June 24, 2008 1:05 PM

I don't necessarily agree that Imus is a racist, and it does seem that certain individuals commenting here probably ejaculate all over their computers every time they get to call someone a racist. However, it does seem racist - and really, just plain dumb - to believe that "certain tendencies do indeed exist amongst certain races." How, Reality Check, do you presume to know what those tendencies are? Let's not forget that black Americans have created a significant percentage - perhaps the majority - of great art and literature that our country has produced. Gangster rap (and attitudes it represents) are merely an unfortunate footnote to this contribution.

Posted by PJ | June 24, 2008 1:24 PM

I can't stand the guy, personally, but I believe him.

Posted by monkey | June 24, 2008 2:48 PM

Wearing the victim hat becoming trendy

Leonard Pitts Jr.,
Published Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Tribune Media Services

Someone is going to think this column is racist.

That person — he or she will be white — will be unable to point to so much as a semicolon that suggests I believe in the native superiority of my, or any other, race. Rather, the accusation will be based in the fact that the column discusses race, period.

It’s a phenomenon I’ve seen many times, most recently when a friend of mine told me that a friend of hers regards me as racist because I write about race. To which I gave my standard answer: if that’s how it works, I’ll start writing about money. Then I’ll be a billionaire.

I offer the foregoing as a gesture of solidarity with an elementary school teacher in California who wrote to ask my opinion of two incidents that happened in her class.

In the first, a white boy — we’ll call him Bobby — disagreed with a black boy. The black boy, who had been explaining something about his family to the teacher, told Bobby he would not understand because he was white. Bobby said this was racist.

In the second, Bobby complained that a classmate had called him a white boy. The classmate was a white girl. Bobby said she was racist.

For those of you playing along at home, here are two salient facts: 1) according to his teacher, Bobby frequently complains about racism against white kids; 2) 85 percent of the students at the school are white kids.

So, what do I think?

I think Bobby is troublingly eager to wear what I call the “victim hat,” i.e., to be the one who gets to declare himself morally affronted, the one whose hurt feelings we are obligated to assuage, the one whose complaints we are required to listen to. In this, he is an accurate reflection of the nation in which he is coming of age. He is learning what we have taught.

The need, the abject “eagerness,” of some white people to wear the victim hat is something I have noted with alarm in recent years. They are motivated, I think, by the fact that some black people make wearing the victim hat look like so much fun. Meaning that African-America has too often been caught crying “racism” reflexively, crying “wolf!” repeatedly, refusing, where perceived racial insult is concerned, to differentiate between the profound and the petty. We cry racism when the justice system is unjust or a Don Imus spews vitriol. Unfortunately, we also cry it when a Michael Jackson gets hauled up on charges of child molestation or a white bureaucrat uses the unfortunate, but inoffensive, word “niggardly.”

If you are white, I suspect, you get tired of being on the receiving end, especially when much of what is called racism plainly is not. You figure two can play at this game and besides, you wouldn’t mind being the one catered to for a while. So you grab the victim hat and, like Bobby, present yourself as mortally wounded by “racism” against you.

The problem with that is, if you represent 85 percent of the playground, no other group can organize to deny you access to the swings. Granted, they might call you names and I don’t condone or minimize that. But there is a qualitative difference between suffering only that and suffering that plus exclusion from the swings. There is racism and there is racism, if you catch my drift.

And Bobby? I wish his black classmate had phrased his observation more tactfully, although since we’re talking about kids, I understand why he did not. Still, Bobby is ultimately a “victim” only of his desire to be a victim.

I don’t blame him for that. I blame us, his elders, for lacking the ability, the willingness, the vocabulary and the guts to talk about race frankly and intelligently. Some of us think talking about race equals racism, others cry “racism!” with spasmodic frequency, and yet others fight for their turn to wear the victim hat.

In short, we act like children.

Bobby, at least, has an excuse for that.

(Leonard Pitts is a columnist for the Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla., 33132. Readers may contact him via e-mail at


Reverse racism is a worse affliction than the so called racism displayed by some here. Those of you calling Reality Check racist should read this article carefully. It is YOU he is referring to.

Posted by Leonard Pitts | June 24, 2008 11:15 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.