MrRain422

Do I have a history of not reading people's posts before responding to them? I'm sorry if you don't like my take on this, but it does not mean I'm not reading your posts. And quite frankly, you don't know me from your neighbor's asshole, so I don't know why you have any expectations about me one way or the other. And you're the one who accused me several times of accusing Imus supporters of being racist even though I said nothing of the sort. You're being paranoid and sort of a jerk. I didn't say anything insulting to you this whole time until now (to the contrary, I've gone out of my way

They've been fighting for that stadium for so long, though, that I think they probably were just happy to get anything. I agree that a dome or retractable dome is the best option for Minneapolis, but I think in this case the option was open-air stadium or no new stadium at all. And hey, other cold weather cities have done okay with open air stadiums. Sometimes it's cold early on in the season, but it usually isn't too big of a problem in places like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland (okay, really bad example).

Where in that quote does he even mention anyone's opinion on Imus being fired? Again, he's not saying anything about the people who support Imus. All he's saying is that some people coming out and saying that Imus is not a racist doesn't mean Imus isn't racist, just as people coming out and saying that David Duke is not a racist does not mean that David Duke is not a racist. You're reading a whole lot into that line that simply is not there. Salon states openly that they are a liberal media source. Fox says that they are fair and balanced. Yes, Salon has their biases, but it's har

I don't know that support of one black guy in one election proves he's not racist, nor does criticism of someone else for being racist. There are a lot of people who are racist, but make exceptions for the few people of whatever group that they actually know. But your point is a valid one. Imus's own past is more reflective of who he is than what anyone is saying about him on either side of the issue. I don't know if Imus is racist. But what he said definately was, and just a part of a long history of similar things. This is all true, but I don't know that it makes much of a differe

You just quoted a line where he says that people vouching for someone does not prove anything about their character. I suppose he's calling Imus a racist by comparing him to Duke and Farrakhan, but where is he calling Imus's supporters racists? He's not -- he's just saying that Imus's supporters voicing support for him does not actually prove anything about Imus himself. And he doesn't say that Sharpton has nothing to do with anything. Obviously Sharpton has been a vocal and prominent figure in this whole thing. Conosan's point is just that Sharpton's role in this is completely immateri

That's not how I read the article at all. His point was just that, no matter how opportunistic Sharpton may be, it has absolutely nothing to do with how right or wrong Imus was to say what he did, or how right or wrong it was to fire him. Where is he calling anyone a racist? The only thing that even comes close is where he points out that people vouching for Imus's character does not prove anything about whether Imus is or is not a racist.

Schembecheler Yost quarter23. It has a nice ring to it.

Conason over states things a bit with the slavery analogy, but otherwise I think this article from Salon.com is pretty spot-on:

Imus has been saying similar and much worse things for years. The reason he thought he could get away with it is because he always has. I don't know what the difference was this time (because he was talking about teenage girls? I don't know), but the fact that he's done this for years and years and years makes me a little skeptical of any claims that it was just a slip-up.

too awesome.

There are tons of newspaper columnists and bloggers who taken every imaginable angle on this. I agree that the television media has been pretty one sided, but I'm not certain that it is because Sharpton and Jackson have made them afraid to take another stance -- I think it's out of laziness. That's a great example of how people can't speak on the issues when they are on Al Sharpton's radio show. Doesn't tell me a thing about anything happening outside of that one show, which pretty much no one listens to. It's not indicative of society as a whole. The meeting at CBS was meaningless, n

Hey, that's the show I was at.

I'll believe that when I see it happen. So far this whole situation has actually opened up debate a whole lot. I really don't remember the last time this country had a real public debate on race issues. It looked like there would be one after Katrina, but it didn't happen. But now people are talking. A whole lot of people have spoken out against Sharpton and Jackson this week. No one seems very stifled.

I'm going to need a little explanation of how this is going to damper debate. Imus lost his job for calling a group of teenage girls/young woman a racist and misogynistic term. I fail to see how the public debate on race and gender issues are dampered by one guy no longer getting paid to make racist jokes on the radio. He wasn't making a political point, and he certainly wasn't silenced for his political views.

Basically I just thought they weren't making a very good case for what rap music had to do with Imus saying what he did.

This is a fair point. However, I think an important question is, why are these the rap songs that are most popular? Is it because the popular rappers all decided that this is what they were going to rap about? Or is it because those are the subjects that people seem to buy? Why is it that the people buying what is mainstream rap music are so interested in these subjects? I have no idea, but I know that if they were interested in hearing songs about fishing (or something) instead, then the radio would be full of songs about fishing. I just want to say that I hope I'm not coming off as

Johnny Cash sure doesn't rail against violence in that song. He may have meant it ironically, but the content of the song is the same. To a kid listening to it for the first time who doesn't know a thing about the performer, it's completely the same thing. Regardless, you're just proving my point that context does matter, as you're drawing a distinction between when it is okay and when it is not okay to write about certain things. No one ever rails against violence or misogyny in books. We don't seem to have problems distinguishing the art from the artist in that context. Rarely do peop

Did you ever hear Eyes Adrift? I saw them live and it was fantastic. Also have the CD. It is okay. Definately strong strains of late-era Meat Puppets on there. I haven't heard anything that Curt has done since then though.

I'm just curious if all of those who have expressed problems with hip-hop lyrics object to these things in all music, or only in hip-hop. Not long ago I had a discussion with someone at work about similar topics. He said that hip-hop that advocates violence has no place in our culture. I asked him if he wanted Johnny Cash's "Folsom Prison Blues" banned, as in that song he sings about killing a man just to watch him die. He insisted it was a different thing, but couldn't explain why. I'm not throwing any accusations toward anyone here, but I do think a there's some closet-racism attache

I don't think I'd spend money to see a Meat Puppets show at this point, but wow, so awesome that Cris is doing well enough for this to happen.

If a draft is instituted, I will be the first in line to go to prison. I'm not killing or dying for this cause. No way, no how.

Okay, I'll give you that they had the last year of their lives ruined. Right, but the blunders of the DA in this case got as much attention as the original accusations. If they have to move somewhere else, well, that sucks, but I just don't see how it will affect them once they're done with college. Again, I'm not saying that this doesn't suck really horribly for them. I just think that saying that their lives were ruined is an overstatement.

I feel bad for these guys, but I don't think their lives are really ruined. They've certainly been dragged through the mud in the press, but they've also been redeemed. How many people will remember their names in a year? This was a bad thing to happen to them certainly, but I don't think they will lose any opportunities because of it.

I don't know about Olbermann's radio show, but he certainly was not beating his chest in support for Imus on his TV show. MSNBC's official statement was that internal pressures caused them to pull the plug on Imus. Their employees wanted them fired, and they felt that in order to maintain the right work environment and keep the values that they want in their workplace, they had to fire him. That was their statement anyway. Interpret it as you wish.

You miss the Lions? For realz?