News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile


33|175:175

About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas

The Blend Blogrolls

Activism


Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...



The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)


Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008



Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)


Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"

Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.


SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend




An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.


Why Imus has to go

by: Pam Spaulding

Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 06:00:00 AM EDT


A two-week vacation from the airwaves is not the appropriate response by MSNBC and CBS radio. Imus and his on-air colleagues have a history of spewing racist and sexist comments on a program that hosts major political figures and his networks seem to think a slap on the wrist and a wink and a nod is going to end this mess.

His frequent on-air guests are already tapping him -- they're not running for cover -- they are already looking at how to salvage their outlet. Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant appeared on the April 9 edition of Imus in the Morning and said: "Good morning, Mr. Imus, and solidarity forever, by the way." And then this exchange occurred.  (via Media Matters).

OLIPHANT: This guy -- David Carr, who writes a pretty good media column on Mondays --

IMUS: Right.

OLIPHANT: -- calls up, and the first question he asks me is, "Are you thinking about not appearing on Imus?" And for once in my life, I answered a direct question with a direct answer. I said, "No, I'm not." And he says, "Well, why not?" And I said, "Because, being the world's most boring person, I had taken the trouble to go all the way though this episode from about two minutes before you said what you said last Wednesday, and then all the way through the statement you made spontaneously on Thursday and then the more prepared one you made on Friday, and I said that's it. That took care of it as far as I'm concerned."

And -- but it was a cute little trick to see if your constituency would falter, and I was very happy to say no.

IMUS: Well, I appreciate that. I don't think your loyalty is misguided...

...OLIPHANT: But to me, that only means that those of us who, through an accident, were scheduled, who know better, have a moral obligation to stand up and say to you, "Solidarity forever, pal."

And Newsweek's Howard Fineman doesn't want to deprive Imus of his outlet either. He's his bro', man:
FINEMAN: Just before I came on the show, I was coming upstairs and my cell phone rang, and it was some listener who called me out of the blue. I'd never heard of the guy before. I'd never heard his name. He called me and he said, "Are you going to go on the show and finally confront this Imus guy? Are you going to quit enabling him?" And, you know, I thought about that, and I said to the guy, "You know, I'll puzzle that through on the radio." And I would like to continue to enable you to do a lot of the good things you do. Including, you know, talking about stuff happening in the world, which you do a very good job of on this show..

...You know, I don't know what'll happen. I think -- you know, it's a different time, Imus. You know, it's different than it was even a few years ago, politically. I mean, we may, you know -- and the environment, politically, has changed. And some of the stuff that you used to do, you probably can't do anymore.

And what about presidential wannabes? Some  are already welcoming him back in the fold.
Two Republican presidential contenders, Sen. John McCain and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, said they accepted Imus' apology and would return as guests on his program.

...But Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama said Monday, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds. With a public platform comes a trust. As far as I'm concerned, he violated that trust."

And Bob Steele, who teaches ethics to journalists at the Poynter Institute, said it is "unwise for journalists to go on his program. It not only condones his behavior but gives a level of credibility to him and his program."

He says Imus does talk "about substantive issues, which is why politicians and journalists go on. But you have to look at the whole picture. You can't just look at one corner and say, 'Yeah, he talks about good issues,' and ignore the serious problems."

This is why Imus has to go. There will be no self-policing. "You probably can't do it anymore." Jesus. I guess Fineman means you can't do it on the air, but in the clubby band of journalists and media figures, this kind of racism and misogyny is still worth a belly laugh among friends. It sounds like neither Oliphant or Fineman would call him out on this in private conversation. They'd chuckle and just say "oh, that's just the I-Man."

After all, they're not the target of the "nappy headed hos" comment, and I doubt there are any decisionmakers of color (or racially aware, non-POC) at MSNBC or CBS who would have telegraphed years ago to Imus that he couldn't continue years of making a living tossing off racist and sexist comments for a profit. This time he wasn't picking on media stars or politicians, he was slurring a women's basketball team. They aren't public political figures; Imus and his clowning colleagues were attacking black women with the worst stereotypes imaginable.

Why cater to the most base elements of society while at the same time offering a program up as a platform for legitimate political discussion?

I must post the comments of Rev. Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, who appeared on Lou Dobbs last night. He said it best:

DOBBS: Michael, this -- this is unusual in that he -- he attacked a women's basketball team at Rutgers during the national finals.

DYSON: Right.

DOBBS: Doesn't whatever process that moves forward have to begin first and foremost with them?

DYSON: There's no question that he has to -- you know, and I heard that he's attempting to reach out to them. But the reality is that what he said about those particular black women is symbolic and representative. Those black women represent women who work at MSNBC, who work at CNN. Black women in corporate America who have, quote, "nappy hair", who wear their hair in a way that is alternative to the mainstream, straightened hair.

So the reality is that nappy hair is as equally lethal as the so-called host statement. Because it's signifying upon the choices that black women make aesthetically and what they look like. That's the deepness of the harm. And all of us have to confront that in every circle in America.

...The reality is behind the scenes, sexism, misogyny and patriarchy are sustained, most especially and most helpfully, in subtle fashion. It's not the calling of the "H" word. At least you know where they're coming from. It's not in hip-hop, where you know I'm calling you a "B" or an "H" because that's explicit. It's the more subtle subordination of women to men's lives that has to be dealt with.

Anyone who says this is just about shock jock joking isn't really thinking about the real problem here. Imus has been rolling stuff like this off of his tongue to millions for years without facing the music, and his sponsors and networks affiliated with him have been content with an apology as long as the money still flows into their coffers.

And I'm not saying that Imus doesn't have the right to say whatever he wants. Imus can go stand out on a street corner and exercise his First Amendment right and shout "nappy headed hos" from sunrise to sunset. That doesn't mean he (and CBS and MSNBC) have to profit by spreading bigotry.

But you know what? The hip-hop community isn't off the hook either. See why after the flip...

Pam Spaulding :: Why Imus has to go
Over at Too Sense, in an appropriately titled post, "White Supremacy Outsources Its Vocabulary," the misogynistic culture has given license for Imus to think he can get a pass. Sorry, the hip hop treatment of women doesn't get one either.
Hip-hop has granted black men greater access to white women. It has also granted white men greater access to black women; make no mistake, your teenage son, little brother, or husband is tuning into the "booty channel" (also known as Black Entertainment Television) when you're not home. The attitude towards women in mainstream Hip-hop is that women are commodities, an attitude that mimics attitudes towards gender in greater American society, a fact made obvious by any beer commercial.

What has happened here is a subtle, unspoken agreement between black and white men that black women and their minds and bodies are owed as little respect as the minds and bodies of white women. This happens even as overt racism towards black men in the public sphere becomes more and more accessible. This happens because on some level, black men know we cannot be seen as men unless we effectively subjigate, commodify, and exploit black women.

...The sad thing is that Imus' comments represent white appropriation of the black language of self-hatred.

Thank you. These two wrongs don't make a right, and we see the poisonous fruit that has been borne from a tree that some in the community have planted.

Jasmyne Cannick has launched a series of posts that will take this on front and center. Can't Sing That No More

In light of the Don Imus remarks and Black America's outrage over the white shock jocks use of the words 'nappy-headed hos," on national television in reference to the Rutgers University women's basketball team, I thought now was just as good a time to start a new series called "Can't Sing That No More."

Periodically, I will feature some of America's top songs by African-Americans that use derogatory terms to refer to women and sometimes worse.

As I continue to say, we can't blame whites for calling us out of our names when we ourselves condone it with our hips and our chips.

Today's "Can't Sing That No More" comes from Black America's own steppin' child molester R. Kelly.

Among other things, this song basically says he's a flirt, he's a pimp, your girl is a ho, any girl is a ho, all the girls want him, he's rich and cute and he's going to screw her, even if she's your girl.

And, Jasmyne notes, that recording is Number 3 on the Billboard R&B/Hip Hop Charts.

I'm sorry, as a black woman -- and as a lesbian -- I'm tired of being denigrated by all sorts of elements in the dominant culture and communities of color. Few pay the price for reinforcing and validating institutionalized bigotry. You get the occasional outlandish dolt they can point to and say "that's not me" (Michael Richards, Tim Hardaway -- and some STILL tried to give them a pass), but most of the time it's business as usual. When it comes out in expressions under the guise of "entertainment," that's a clear sign that those feelings and beliefs are internalized.

Related:
* MSNBC suspends Imus simulcast for two weeks
* So which pols are going to go on Imus now?
* Don Imus: Rutgers women's basketball team 'nappy-headed hos'

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Why Imus has to go | 20 comments
Don Imus has to go
I've been wild about Imus' racist, sexist, and thinly homophobic (the "lookism") comments for over a week. I've also been pissed at the RU leadership (finally responds yesterday?). The magnificent RU women's basketball team is simply that--magnificent. Ms. Stringer runs a very tight ship. The young women on that team will ALL go on to great things (grad school, the WNBA, coaching, etc.). These athletes are good students and good kids.

And Imus spews racist shit at them because of their success.

Simply despicable. He needs to be fired. Imus really is a bigot, particularly when it comes to women of color. He needs to go.

And RU and the state of NJ (Gov Corzine, where are you?) need to attack Imus for his hatred. Ban MSNBC, NBC and CBS from campus, etc., until the hateful clown goes into retirement.


Buncha white guys standing in racist...
...solidarity.  They're not just defending Imus.  They're defending their "right" to be racist.  Imus is reacting as if this is an anomaly.  As Pam and others have documented, "nappy-headed hos" is just the latest point in the pattern.

Pam, you've taught me so much about the politics of hair.  At first, I didn't get the import of your hair posts.  That's because I'm a dolt. 


Disgusting
Wow, Howard Fineman is basically saying that because Obama's in the public eye, it's no longer cool to be racist, or at least you have to be careful!  No condemnation of what he said, just: Keep your lip buttoned.

I think all of these guys really resent the way in which women have changed the face of Sports as players, coaches and reporters.  Imus is not only a bigot, he's a woman-hater, and he's a troglodyte.


"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report


He's a part of our culture. . . unfortunately
This morning Imus is busily alternately hanging himself on a cross and talking tough saying he's not `going to play' for too much longer. I think he believes that no matter what happens to his gig on MSNBC, he has enough powerful friends in politics and the media that he'll land up somewhere else.

Now Jeff Greenfield, of all people, is on his show making excuses for him.

See the point to me is that many Americans desperately want to remain racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. and they also desperately want someone in the public eye to reinforce and validate those beliefs. And of course, they constitute an audience one can deliver to advertisers (and this is from someone who was fired as a radio talk show host for turning against the war in 2003). I'm reading so many message board comments defending him and I'm sure that radio execs read them too. Hey racists and bigots buy a lot of soap and beer. Many of them even serve in Congress. So ultimately, Imus is safe but what is important about all of this is that a guy who many powerful people in business and politics pay fealty to by scrambling to be on his show can make comments like this repeatedly in our culture. That's the story here.


I was really disappointed to hear the Young Turks...
...defending him on Air America this morning, saying that a two-week suspension was enough punishment.  As if.  First I thought they might be too young to be aware of his history, but then they mentioned it.  Guess I shouldn't have been too surprised -- there used to be a woman who was part of their team, and they rarely let her finish a statement without interrupting and correcting her.

They equated what Imus said about the Rutgers women to his rude comments about Rush Limbaugh being fat and drug-addled.  There are two major differences: one, Rush Limbaugh is a public figure who puts himself out there for criticism, and two, what he says about Rush Limbaugh happens to be true.

"If the apocalypse comes... beep me." -- Buffy Summers


Now if we could just
get this kind of attention on the topic of fags when disparaging remarks are made on national media outlets by talk show hosts.

I Wasn't Terribly Interested
I considered him merley another harmless clown until I read here what he said about Gwen Ifill, which I wasn't aware of.  You can tell a lot about a person about whom he denigrates.  Ifill is everything Imus isn't, particularly in the class department.  To have Ifull as the target of the bottom of one's shoe is all I need to know about Imus, whom I've never seen except for moments while channel surfing.  So I look forward to his absence, hopefully permanent.

=>The truth usually isn't pretty. Don't blame me for telling it.<=

Anyone else
getting name-calling emails from an "exjupiter"?

Electricity's for light bulbs!

Are we getting TO P.C.?
While I'm gay, I'm not black so I'm not sure how offensive this comment was to African Americans.

As a gay I have been highly offended many times by things I've heard on television or the radio. Or read in the newspaper or on the internet. I even listen to Conservative talk radio ALL day while I'm at work. (Can't stand silence and music distracts me. And Conservative Talk is my only "talk" options where I live. S.C.)

I have never been on the "Fire Them/Boycott Then" bandwagon. I have wished some people would "die" though.

As a former business owner I have strong support for things being market driven.

What Imus said was Asinine! Insensitive! Bigotted! Should he be fired? Not in my opinion! Do what I did years ago and stop listening to him.

      "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither"

Thomas Jefferson

"The mob is the mother of tyrants"

Diogenes


Boycotts <i>are</i> "market driven", no?
I'm tired and sick of people reaping advertising profits from the intentional destruction of our public discourse, and from the intentional denigration and dehumanization of targeted portions of humanity.

If it doesn't bother you all that much, well, we disagree, and you're entitled to your own priorities.  However, please don't try to justify your view with a commitment to "free market" principle.  Boycotts and sh*tstorms of outrage are the free market.

What free-marketeers, so called, really have against boycotts is that they represent purchasing decisions not motivated by greed and self-interest, I think.  "What?!  Human beings exercising their free choice in service of something other than their own selfishness?!  No, no, NO!!  That's NOT ALLOWED!!  Alan Greenspan SAID SO!!"

It boggles my mind that so many people apparently think "the best of all possible worlds" is created magically if everyone "maximizes their profits" in all places at all times.  It's ludicrous and illogical, and also incredibly destructive of our natural environment and our civilization in many ways.

We have to take responsibility for the world, and we have to act based on our values, not just on our cravings.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto


[ Parent ]
OH
Oh what a WONDERFUL world we are going to have when "we" have forced EVERYONE to abide by OUR standards!!!

So, answer me this--------------

You then support groups like AFA and all the other Riligious Right nuts in thier "Boycott/Fire em" attacks on gay friendly companies?

Because that's what is going on. Only this time it's from the "live & Let live" left.

      "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither"

Thomas Jefferson

"The mob is the mother of tyrants"

Diogenes


[ Parent ]
You missed the point
The reigning idea in this country--and practically the whole world now--is: "Well, as long as someone is making money from it, I'm sure it will all work out for the best."  I call bullsh*t on that.

I'm sorry if my comment was disproportionate to yours.  I'm frustrated at the "greed is good" platitudes that circulate without challenge in our society.  I feel justified in my frustration, and I think it's important to speak up about it.  I used your comment as an entry point for that.  My intention wasn't to try to shut you, personally, down.

However, I do have to point out that your response sounds just like that of a true-believer.  (Maybe you are one, or maybe your head has just been filled with too much S.C. talk radio.)  Just because someone doesn't accept without question every tenet of social darwinist orthodoxy, it doesn't mean that person is a totalitarian.

I oppose the AFA because of their superstitiousness, their political philosophy, their anti-intellectualism, their parochialism, their ignorance, and their spite.  I disagree with just about everything they stand for.  Yet, they have a web site.  Do I have to take a principled stand against web sites?

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto


[ Parent ]
Isn't there a
difference between calling for an appropriate response to blatant racism and trying to force someone to adhere to morals derived from specific religious beliefs?

Electricity's for light bulbs!

[ Parent ]
Noooooooooooooo
Both instances are trying to control "thought" to fit into what YOU think is the right way to act.

Did Imus cause physical or financial harm? NO! Did he insite anyone to go out and bash a black/gay person? NO!
Do you know what the definition of "racist" is? NO!
http://www.m-w.com/d...

An aside,

I NOT defending Imus! I quit listening to him years ago. However, when I did listen to him I did hear him call out both racists and homophobes numerous times.


      "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither"

Thomas Jefferson

"The mob is the mother of tyrants"

Diogenes


[ Parent ]
So then I guess people are born
xtians and can't do much about that right?  If so, then I guess yes, there's not a difference between making fun of someone for biological (expressed or inherited) features and trying to force someone to adhere to morals derived directly from specific religious beliefs?

Electricity's for light bulbs!

[ Parent ]
WHAT----------------------------
is it with you and the phrase
"adhere to morals derived directly from specific religious beliefs?"

You are promoting controlling thought! YOU are no different than the riligious right NUTS trying to control thought that homosexuallity is EVIL!

You can NOT control thought! Every generation will be better than the last. It, (unfortunately) is a slow process. But we will get there. YOU can NOT make it happen instantly!

      "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither"

Thomas Jefferson

"The mob is the mother of tyrants"

Diogenes


[ Parent ]
please describe
how letting people know I won't support someone with a long history of making hateful remarks (based on race) is the same as trying to force someone to adhere to morals derived directly from specific religious beliefs.

What's with my phrase?  It fits. 

I guess if I had to put this all another way, I'd ask:

"Are you saying that a fundamentalist working to stop a civil right, say civil marriage or hate-crime laws to protect LGBT people, is equivalent to someone saying they won't support the sponsors or guests of a host that makes hateful comments based on race?"

Also, please provide evidence that we are getting better with every generation.

And, earlier I forgot to say that this:

Did Imus cause physical or financial harm? NO! Did he insite[sic] anyone to go out and bash a black/gay person? NO!
doesn't really read like a denial of support for Imus.  I'd ask how does making hateful comments that devalue black women not promote bashing?  It's very similar to the idea of Glen Beck putting a bull's eye on the backs of LGBT people.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

[ Parent ]
Best of the Blend

Pam, I know I believe this post belongs on the Best Of The Blend.

The how's and why's of racicim against black women needs highlighting.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau


So it's
And I'm not saying that Imus doesn't have the right to say whatever he wants. Imus can go stand out on a street corner and exercise his First Amendment right and shout "nappy headed hos" from sunrise to sunset. That doesn't mean he (and CBS and MSNBC) have to profit by spreading bigotry.

Exactly! Obviously Imus or anyone else has the right to say anything, so the point is not what some idiot like him raves about, it's really about MSNBC and CBS and whoever else carries his garbage on the air.

That's why I think it's a mistake to focus exclusively on going after individual broadcasters, when it's really the networks that are entirely to blame. If we force a network to get rid of Imus (which I hope we can accomplish), the network will just hire some other little power-hungry jerk to do the same job.  Look at CNN -- they just recently put Glenn Beck on the air -- the most revolting, hateful person imaginable.

There is an endless supply of these cocky, prejudiced assholes. You could just walk out onto the street or go into a bar and find someone who is raving about minorities or immigrants or gays, drag that person into a studio, and put a mike in front of his/her face. Presto. Instant Imus replacement.

We have to go after the networks. Right now they answer to no one. That has to change. What these huge corporations do is not remotely a question of "free speech." That is something entirely different.


Thanks Pam
Pam, this is my first time posting, although I have admired your blog for some time now....

You're right-on about Imus.

Here's the rub, though ... The scary thing is that even though  I think the comments are bad (and reveal a deeper issue), Imus has millions of listeners who enjoy him --- and his comments.

So, isn't Imus just the tip of the iceberg?  Doesn't this really reveal ugly racism and homophobia in America?  How do we teach his listeners that what he said is not ha-ha funny?

I got even more despondent when I googled R. Kelly's lyrics to his #3 Hip Hop song ... I read them. 

This is almost the same problem I see with the gay community:  the denial runs so deep among us (I'm gay) that we cannot see the forest for the trees.  For all the progress we've made in the last decade, so many of us actually still believe we are doomed, flawed "sinners". 

Could that explain why hardly any gays raise the stink that Al Sharpton raised over Imus when someone makes disparaging remarks about gays?

Deep thoughts ...


Why Imus has to go | 20 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Report TOS Violations



Join the Blend Chat Room



Premium Sponsors



BlogAds






Search the Blend
Current site


PHB 2.0 Web
Search Blend 1.0 Archives
Ad Networks


BlogSheroes BlogAds


Miscellany

RSS Feeds

Subscribe with Bloglines

Visit NCBlogs


frontpage hit counter

Stats

Powered by: SoapBlox