Imusn't say that again.

It has been noted that I usually write of experiences and, therefore, really “don’t think.” This, then, will have nothing to do with my own experience, but only my own thoughts.

Part of living in a free country means that you have to trust your neighbor, and you’re likely to be offended by him or her at some point in some way. As Timothy Noah points out here , Don Imus had been shoveling his brand of hatred for years. In fact, I also read that he hired one of his show’s personalities because of the guy’s willingness and ability to tell “nigger jokes” on the air.

Obviously, living in this country, growing up with these values, and actually believing them to be the better way to do things, I don’t think for a second that Imus should have any legal challenges to his on-air behavior. I’m not a fan of the FCC in general, although I think the idea of ratings and ability to block shows on your personal TV set is a good one, and I don’t think they should have had anything to do with this. We are granted free speech, and if someone is willing to hand you a microphone and offer to pay you for the privilege of broadcasting your voice and opinions all over the country and beyond, more power to you. If someone’s willing to supplement that by putting you on TV for no extra work on your part, then you obviously are a pretty lucky person. And with that exposure, in America at least, you’re free to do precisely what you want with it.

However, the values that capitalism depends on are not as reliable and difficult to cross as the Constitution. To limit the right to free speech, you pretty much have to be the president or an integral part of the executive branch acting on behalf of the president. Even then, you’ll eventually be questioned. But corporations don’t answer to this power; they answer to their bottom line and their stockholders. And I believe this is what it came down to with Imus. As long as he was little-known and out of the eye of the Washington Post’s front page, he could preach whatever type of garbage he wanted and he would find an audience. One wonderful thing about America is that it’s a diverse place, and there’s an audience for everyone’s opinion, no matter how much it goes against the ‘cultural values’ that the mainstream professes to share. There is no one set of values that defines Americans as a group. And as long as Imus could find an audience, his sponsors (CBS and NBC) could find advertisers for his show. Advertisers equal money.

Sometimes, advertisers will pull out of a topic temporarily while a shitstorm blows over. Other times, like the OJ mockumentary , something is in poor enough taste that extra publicity actually DIScourages advertisers who don’t what their products associated with the filth, even if it does have an audience. I think this is what happened with Imus. It was impossible to say that this comment was a freak slip-up or lack of judgment, but as long as only his audience was hearing what he was saying, it wasn’t seen as a problem. But when he got too much attention, the advertisers pulled out, probably for good. Then CBS and NBC made some of the best decisions they ever could from a social consciousness standpoint by following their bottom line and canceling the show.

Why was this one comment the straw that broke the camel’s back? It was a pretty slow news week. The real question is why do companies allow themselves to be associated with Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or other people who preach hate with a microphone? I don’t know. I know some people who have stopped using products specifically because Rush endorsed them, but I also know people who take whatever dribbles out of Rush’s mouth as gospel truth. I suppose the lack of support has not reached a critical level yet, but it may.

In a few months, Imus may show up on Sirius radio or something else that is further from mainstream criticism and self-righteously defend his show and ethics. Maybe he’ll be the anti-Bill Maher. But that’s the beautiful thing about America’s system: even people we disagree with are allowed to speak. Loudly.

Smile Like a Saint, Curse Like a Sailor

My sister and I curse - All. The. Time. - well, at least at home that is. We call each other every name under the sun, but usually it's just teasing (What's up, ho? Nothin' bitch). Of course, to people who only curse when their angry or upset, this may be a little confusing , but this is where intent (as has already been somewhat discussed) comes in. There are a lot of other clues, in speech and body language, that makes it very clear when we cross the line between playing around and anger.

My mother hates it, and has tried repeatedly to ban us from using "that language", but we just kind of laugh, and do it anyway. Her arguments are really weak. The first one is "What are you going to do when you have kids?". Ummm, ok that's not even an issue, and probably won't be for quite some time, but let's explore, shall we? I don't curse when I'm at work except maybe an occasional "hell" or "damn", but that's pretty rare. Does she think that I'm completely unable to control myself? I can tell when and around whom it's acceptable to curse, and behave accordingly. I'm not some 5 yr old who has learned a new word, and just blurts it out whenever I feel like it.

The second is "You must not be as intelligent as you think, if you can't come up with other words to say." I can be quite eloquent when I want to be, but it comes down to one thing - I like to curse. Sure I could come up with other words, but most of the time they don't get the point across like using the word "fuck" can.

Substituting words like freakin'? Please - just say the word because (as Jane said), the intent is there. Why sugar-coat it? When I worked at a camp, one of the leaders of a group had taken to saying "Oh my stars" instead of "Oh my gosh" because she thought it was too close to "Oh my God", and was still offensive. I thought that was pretty good compromise, but if you're still thinking "Oh my God", and you're Christian, well you're damning yourself anyway by thinking it, so why not say it?

As far as Imus, I guess he gets what he deserves, but (to bring back an old topic) what's the difference between what he did and Ann Coulter's remark? She got a slap on the wrist (if that), and he gets fired. Granted his was on air, and hers was at a conference or meeting, but was it also because of the target? Of course maybe it's because hers made no sense (Edwards isn't even gay), that people didn't put up more of a fuss.

Also, everyone is going on about how rap music has the same offensive words, but there is a difference. Their lyrics, though offensive, are probably not aimed at anyone specifically, whereas Imus's were. It's one thing to make a stupid generalization, but it's quite different when you make it personal. As far as the difference between Tennessee (or whatever the other team was) being "cute", and Rutgers, he was talking about how Rutgers had tattoos (I guess that cancels out any cuteness), and was trying to make them out to be tough girls, and said the wrong thing.

Of course there are tons of exceptions to the rap lyrics. Eminem has written songs about killing his wife. I meant that there were no songs that were calling specific women "hoes". (Except Eminem - damn!) Anyways - what's the difference between calling women offensive names and saying you want to kill a cop? My point being you're going to have to censor a lot of things, and where do you stop?

Words, words, words.

I’d been planning on writing on this topic for a while now, although with recent current events, I’ll be expanding this topic somewhat. What’s my topic? Words! Didn’t you read the title?

The first thing I want to talk about is profanity and the use of pseudo (or faux) profanity. You know, saying “darn” for “damn” or “shoot” for “shit” or “frigging” instead of “fucking.” There are innumerable examples of faux profanity, and plenty of reasons to avoid actually uttering (or typing) a four letter word. Back in high school, I had a good friend who frequently uttered the phrase, “Oh fudge!” instead of “Oh fuck!” In tenth grade I stopped using (American) profanity entirely, and replaced all cuss words in my vocabulary with the British cuss word “sod.” When you’re still a kid, and subject to regulation of your speech by parents and teachers, use of such faux profanity is certainly understandable.

But what about as we grow older? A couple of years ago, I received some rather unpleasant messages from another blogger with regards to my views of feminism. She provided a link to her site, and I visited it. It was full of a lot of quotes from the Bible used to stress the importance of the wife being subordinate to her husband. I used to blog a lot about feminism back then, and was pretty accustomed to getting such nonsense in my inbox. The thing that stuck out about this woman’s site (which sadly is no longer online) was that while it was chock full of religious messages of the “right” way to live in accordance with the writings of the Bible, it was also chock full of profanity. Well, faux profanity at least. She substituted words such as “beeches” for “bitches,” “focking” for “fucking,” “sheet” for “shit” and so on.

I’ve thought about that woman’s site periodically ever since. If you refer to someone as a “focking beech,” you’re not actually using any of those “bad” words, but the meaning is still the exact same. Likewise, if I say something’s “fucking awesome” that’s obviously a compliment, but if I say someone’s a “freaking idiot” that’s definitely an insult. A lot of people out there go to great lengths to avoid the use of a small handful of words that are, for whatever reason, deemed “bad.” However, words are just random collections of letters; it’s the meaning that we assign to those words which makes them good or bad.

FCC regulations prevent the use of certain words on the airwaves. However, faux profanity is an easy way around that problem. While it’s certainly easier to make a list of banned words in order to keep offensiveness from radio and television, hate can be delivered without a word that’s considered profane.

This brings me along to how this topic of words relates to current events. See, as of a little over a week ago, I’d never heard of this Don Imus chap. But then again, shock-jocks are hardly my cup of tea. On the off chance that by now you somehow haven’t heard the thing that Imus said which led to him being fired, here’s the clip:

(If you can't get the video to play, click here.)

I agree, that’s pretty damn offensive. Of course, from all accounts, this fellow was frequently pretty damn offensive. What is it about this incident in particular which sets it apart from all previous offensive comments made by this man? Is it the choice of words? The choice of targets? And why is it no one is discussing the fact that whomever it is Imus is talking to also called the Rutgers girls hos? (Or is that spelled "hoes"?) On NPR all this week, I’ve heard a lot of different commentary on this. I’ve heard some black women decry this as terribly offensive, while other black women said that they found this funny and didn’t see what the big deal was. I’ve heard people say that the firing of Imus is censorship, while others champion the decision. And I’ve heard that had those remarks been made by a black commentator, no one would have minded. This in turn has led to a discussion on misogynist rap lyrics. (There's an excellent post on this topic over at Pandagon, which I definitely recommend checking out.)

I, for one, am glad that Imus is off the air, because I am opposed to hate speech of any kind. Of course, there are many people out there who disagree with me.

So… What do you think about Don Imus? FCC Censorship? Profanity and faux profanity? Hate speech? Rap lyrics? Anything else pertaining to words?