home

NY Police Supervisors Face Discipline for Using Imus Comments

By Jeralyn, Section Misconduct
Posted on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 01:10:00 AM EST
Tags: Don Imus (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

New York clearly has a zero tolerance policy for Don Imus comments:

Two police supervisors are being investigated after officers accused them of referring to them as “hos” or a “nappy-headed ho,” the police said. One instance took place in the 70th Precinct in Brooklyn on April 15. The supervisor in that case has been transferred and stripped of supervisory duties, said Chief Michael Collins, a police spokesman. Chief Collins said the supervisor was accused of having addressed a group of officers jokingly as “hos.”

The supervisor was identified by Bonita Zelman, a lawyer for the accusers, as Sgt. Carlos Mateo. In the second case, a Queens narcotics detective, Aretha Williams, said yesterday at a news conference that a sergeant recently told her, “Don’t give me no lip, or I’ll have to call you a nappy-headed ho.”

As to zero-tolerance:

Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said in a statement yesterday, “This language is unacceptable under any circumstances and even more egregious when it comes from individuals in a position of authority.”

I have to agree. There's no place for such comments in the workplace.

< Which Was Worse, the Correspondent's Dinner or the After Parties? | Gov. Eliot Spitzer to Introduce Gay Marriage Bill >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    NY Police Supervisors Face Discipline for Using Imus Comments | 89 comments (89 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Sometime (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 04:02:07 PM EST
    soon -- on another thread -- maybe Jim can also expand on his oft-repeated thesis concerning American blacks being "on the reservation" ( I'll "misrepresent" again and make the wild assumption that he means on welfare and voting Democrat); that is after he clarifies definitivly the history of black rappers invention of the racial slur.

    Jondee (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 06:53:20 PM EST
    It is an oft repeated phrase that Demos attack all blacks who "leave the reservation" of the Democratic Party.

    You know that to be true. Quit making things up.

    Parent

    Jondee - You are making things up. (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 07:34:07 PM EST
    1. Show me any comment that I have made about blacks and welfare. You can not. And you know you can not.

    2. I haven't said anything about black rappers and the invention of Rap and/or the invention of the racial slur, to use your words.

    You know that to be true, and you know that you can not show it. That is pure invention by you.

    What I have spoken to is the harm done by Gangsta Rap.

    If you want to disagree with that, fine. But don't make up things I haven't said.

    And understand what you are defending when you defend Gangsta Rap.

    Parent

    "Smearer" (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 02:46:52 PM EST
    Coming from Mr. I-never-met-a-Swiftboater-that-I-wouldnt-quote, lets-paint-Obama-as-a-terrorist-symp, thats some mighty hypocritical, thin gruel.

    Take a look in the mirror, Hiram.

    And (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 12:13:25 PM EST
    you continue to set the gold standard of how fos a person is capable of being.

    Jondee (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:22:18 AM EST
    Provide some links, Jondee.

    You can't because they don't exist.

    You're hate mongering.

    Parent

    I agree (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:25:00 PM EST
    I have to agree. There's no place for such comments in the workplace.

    Can we assume that the insulted workers have never heard RAP music, and if so, was it played in their ears while they were restrained from leaving?

    I see no point.... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:43:56 PM EST
    what does rap music have to do with this?  Was somebody blasting Snoop Dogg in the station and the same female officers were not offended?  Is the accused commanding officer a rapper?  Was the derogatory remark delivered in a rap?

    Please explain.  

    Parent

    PPJ is Fine (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 05:58:26 PM EST
    With racist language as long as the slurs are against blacks or muslims. His models for correct behavior are rap musicians.  How strange.

    Parent
    squeaky is caught (1.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:33:46 PM EST
    Since I was one of the very first to call for Imus firing, and since you and I had a comment or two about this, you know your comment is incorrect.

    What do we call people who do this? Let me see... it begins lia.....

    Squeaky's published guidelines for comments.


    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.



    Parent
    Liar PPJ (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 09:08:34 PM EST
    Once again you lie. I never emulated Rove I think he is a creep. He is your hero and you live in his shadow.

    What you just said:

    Can we assume that the insulted workers have never heard RAP music,

    Can only be taken as a justification for the cops to act like Imus.

    Yes you can criticize Imus till you are blue in the face for all I care, but you just blew your fake PC by defending the cops racism with the comment:

    Can we assume that the insulted workers have never heard RAP music,

    I thought it strange that you called for Imus' firing until I realized he was against the Iraq war.  

    You are transparent. Social liberal what a joke.

    Parent

    Squeajy smears again (1.00 / 2) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 07:18:22 PM EST
    Horse hockey.

    Per my comment at 5:35 I pointed out that I had agreed with TL's remark that such language was not for the work place.

    Your smear attempt is at 9:08, almost 3.5 hours after my comment, so there is now way you could not have been aware that I had agreed. So your comment was, as usual, a smear.

    My comments to kdog, and later Deconstructionist, follow my point, which you are probably incapable of understanding, that the complaining officers, including the supervisior, have undoubtedly been inundated with rap. There's no escaping it, no need for anyone to have held them captive.

    And because of that we see a society that has become coarse in the name of free speech and "art."

    Rap isn't art. It isn't displayed in museums but played on commercial radio stations and sold by public corporations. Since it has this uncontrolled and unfettered access the use of its staple content, vulgar and offensive language, is starting to come into question.

    Parent

    You make such a pronouncement (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by glanton on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 07:34:53 PM EST
    Rap isn't art. It isn't displayed in museums but played on commercial radio stations and sold by public corporations. Since it has this uncontrolled and unfettered access the use of its staple content, vulgar and offensive language, is starting to come into question.

    and betray a breadth of ignorance in the process.

    Museumization was never a prerequisite for Art.  Music is art, movies are art, television is art, theater on Broadway and theater in your local community is art.

    You do not know what the he$# you're talking about.  For that matter, you don't even know anything about Rap.  Why not spare yourself the embarrassment?

    Parent

    I know trash when I hear it. (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 11:19:39 AM EST
    And you ignore the context of the comment. It was obviously about "gansta" type rap.

    But then if you do that you miss a chance to make a snarky remark and feel all superior.

    Parent

    "Feeling all superior" (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 11:35:46 AM EST
    Here translates into being demonstrably better qualified to discuss Rap, "Gagsta" or otherwise, than someone whose familiarity with it perhaps rivals that of John Kerry or Tom Coburn.

    We could for example, get into a discussion about the surprising resonances between Rappers' use of rhythm, rhyme (both internal and end of line), meter, etc., in light of several revered poetic movements from Anglo-Saxon culture.  We could discuss the long tradition of poets and lyricists using these devices to agitate politically, aesthetically, intellectually, etc.  If you were open to such a thing, that is.  

    Anyway, as you are clearly unaware, much of what gets placed into the category of, or markets itself as, "gangsta rap" also contains a breadth of differentiation.  Some of it is screamingly funny, and intentionally so.  Some seems designed for little more than shock value.  Some makes very poingant social and political criticism.

    The broader point though: please note that your comment "I know trash when I hear it," is actually very different than ignorantly saying it is not an Art form.  There is much Art out there that I too consider Trash.  Soap Operas, for example.  Of course, the big difference between us in this area is that I have watched more than enough Soap Operas to be able to defend my opinion of them.  

    :-O    

    Parent

    Hahahaha (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 09:00:18 PM EST
    Can we assume that the insulted workers have never heard RAP music,

    What did you mean by that?  It's OK for the police to use racial slurs because others do?  

    At the very least you are qualifying your apparent disdain for the offensive remarks.  cough, cough...

    The police can use lie, cheat and steal, becuse criminals do?

    Is that your position?

    Parent

    squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 10:02:44 AM EST
    Please take the hate blinders off your eyes, engage brain and consider.

    Per my comment at 5:35 I pointed out that I had agreed with TL's remark that such language was not for the work place.

    Your smear attempt is at 9:08, almost 3.5 hours after my comment, so there is now way you could not have been aware that I had agreed. So your comment was, as usual, a smear.

    My comments to kdog, and later Deconstructionist, follow my point, which you are probably incapable of understanding, that the complaining officers, including the supervisior, have undoubtedly been inundated with rap. There's no escaping it, no need for anyone to have held them captive.

    And because of that we see a society that has become coarse in the name of free speech and "art."

    BTW - This comment was at 9:00, and then you did the same, with an adder at 9:18....

    Squeaky, you are so angry you are out of control.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 10:34:21 AM EST
    And you qualified your agreement that such comments are not for the work place with this:

    Can we assume that the insulted workers have never heard RAP music,

    What was that supposed to mean?  It seems clear that you are making a sarcastic remark and giving a nod to the Police officers that used the offensive language.

    You have smeared yourself by implying that the remarks were OK, normal, and fine.

    Parent

    squeaky - Read what I said (1.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 10:53:27 AM EST
    at 7:18:

    My comments to kdog, and later Deconstructionist, follow my point, which you are probably incapable of understanding, that the complaining officers, including the supervisior, have undoubtedly been inundated with rap. There's no escaping it, no need for anyone to have held them captive.

    And because of that we see a society that has become coarse in the name of free speech and "art."

    Rap isn't art. It isn't displayed in museums but played on commercial radio stations and sold by public corporations. Since it has this uncontrolled and unfettered access the use of its staple content, vulgar and offensive language, is starting to come into question.

    Now, even though I have given you this several times, and even though I have pointed out several times that I agreed with TL, you still come back and say:

    You have smeared yourself by implying that the remarks were OK, normal, and fine.

    Tell me squeaky, if I said it was wrong in one place, why would I say it was okay in another?

    Please try an be rational.


    Parent

    jim (none / 0) (#28)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 10:13:22 AM EST
      I would suggest you adopt my new policy of ignoring certain people who have consistently established they have nothing to offer but mindless vitriol. It's the old pissing contest with skunks issue.

       You (like me) choose to be here despite the fact you know there is a faction that is incapable of engaging in a thoughful discussion of anything. Engaging such folks is worse than pointless-- it makes me things worse (including us, because we get frustrated by the sheer inanity and belligerence and stoop to lower level).

       I think  you (unlike me, I will claim to potential disagreement) like to push buttons and enjoy provoking, but aren't you tired of provoking people who can respond with nothing but nonsense? If more people, regardless of politics, would simply ignore certain worthless posters they would have less to which to respond and there would be less clutter of worthless posts.

       

    Parent

    Explain to me (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 10:22:45 AM EST
    Decon,

    How it is that consistently blaming "inundation" of Rap, and shrilly insisting Rap isn;t art, all the while being totally unfamiliar with the form, is anything other than a mindless regurgitation of Talking Points?

    You speak to Jim of engagement.  Do you actually read his exchanges?  Do you not notice his style of making baseless assertions a la the above given example, and then standing by it, regardless of what people write?  He "responds" to posts without acknowledging the posts.

    I understand that you are inclined to sympathy towards Jim because you have political agreements.  But really, to hold him up as a victim of smearing is laughable.

    Yes, I realize you included the caveat that he likes to provke people. But that is the biggest understatement on this board.  I'd like to see Jim start actually "engaging" posts, as you put it.  Then maybe we would see how people would react.

    Parent

    I am NOT saying that MUCH, (none / 0) (#35)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 10:39:50 AM EST
     if not most,  of what Jim says is dubious and deserving of refutation. In case you haven't noticed, I frequently challenge his writings and point out what I believe to be factual errors, flawed premises and faulty reasoning.

       That you fail to recognize that I almost NEVER agree with Jim, simply helps to illustrate my point. However, I do find that in the majority of exchanges I read (and I do not read them all) he comes across far better than some of his his adversaries who are incapable of responding with anything but mindless hatred and inanity.

       I think Jim understands this (you missed my subtle irony, I believe) and seeks to provoke these unintelligent responses thinking that it discredits a larger group which he opposes because the really stupid responses distract people from the good refutations of what he says.

    Parent

    Decon (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 10:51:24 AM EST
    Actually, I have noticed that you disagree with Jim often.  And more importantly I have noticed that you do not make assertions you aren;t willing to defend in some depth, and that when you respond to people you tend to recognize what they actually wrote.

    But, you wish to compare Jim's Ethos with those of his most ardent antagonists.  Perhaps you even place me in that category.  Okay. Let us witness the current thread.  Much of it has been framed by Jim's comment about the officers' familiarity with Rap.  Those who have challenged his assertion that this is relevant to what the supervisor did, he has blown off.  Those who have challanged his ignorant comments about Rap in general, he has simply ignored.

    Instead, he simply keeps parroting the same Talking Points regardless of what people write.  Then he comes back and says to you, unbelievably, that he "enjoy[s] a good debate."  This is the height of disingenuity, and it is typical of his tactics on this board.  

    So because of this your claim that  

    in the majority of exchanges I read (and I do not read them all) he comes across far better than some of his his adversaries who are incapable of responding with anything but mindless hatred and inanity.

    comes off as nothing short of stunning.  

    Parent

    Glanton - Not True (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 10:56:36 AM EST
    Those who have challenged his assertion that this is relevant to what the supervisor did, he has blown off

    kdog (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:39:18 PM EST

    If you will read my comment, which Squeaky didn't either, you will see that "I agree" followed by TL's comment in quotes:

    "I have to agree. There's no place for such comments in the workplace."

    But if we are going to set a standard for what can't be said, then we have to apply it across all society, don't you think??



    Parent
    Please (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 11:03:15 AM EST
    But if we are going to set a standard for what can't be said, then we have to apply it across all society, don't you think??

    This verey much constitutes a blow-off.  Because the very nature of people's challange to your bringing Rap into the discussion involves the strak differences in context.  K-Dog himself built his argument around context.

    You "respond" with a blanket comment as though there is no such thing as context.  As if there aren't multitudes of things that are okay to say in one context but not another.  

    A helpful hint: Repeating yourself ad infinitum is not the same as having a "good debate," or even having a discussion a'tall.

    In real life I bet you don't talk at people that way.  Why do you insist on doing it all the time on the internet?


    Parent

    We are not that far apart on this (none / 0) (#43)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 11:03:03 AM EST
    part of my point is that Jim SELECTIVELy chooses to engage the Squeakys Sailors, Edgers, etc.  rather than those who make reasoned challenges to what he says because it is easy to look good in comparison to them and because thhose exchanges then dominate the "good" repsonses get lost in the clutter.

      I was being somewhat facetious in my remarks to Jim because I very much believe he does that deliberately.

    Parent

    Deconstrutionist (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 11:14:04 AM EST
    Show me where I ignored a challenge.

    Parent
    Deconstructionist (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 10:43:40 AM EST
    I enjoy a debate. If you think that is "pushing butons," I can't change your mind, but it isn't my intent.

    In fact, I have urged many times both Edger and squeaky to define their basic positions, but they have not.

    I also try to not return too much trash, but I do fail sometimes.

    My purpose is to point out the errors of their ways, and to try and understand the pathology of the hatred for Bush, et al and what I see by many on the Left as a general hatred for America.

    And, BION, I do learn things from time to time, and actually modify my beliefs.

    As for their "nonsense," doesn't the display of it paint a picture of who they are? And, of course, one man's "nonsense" may be another's "deeply held beliefs."


    Parent

    See my response (none / 0) (#45)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 11:08:03 AM EST
    to Glanton above, jim.

      My point is that I think you do seek to get the "bad" posters to respond to you  and you do think it helps paint a larger group with a color onlky they merit.

      I think that is disingenous.

      (I am serious, though, about my now ignoring posters I consider incapable of reasonable discourse.)

    Parent

    kdog (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:39:18 PM EST
    If you will read my comment, which Squeaky didn't either, you will see that "I agree" followed by TL's comment in quotes:

    I have to agree. There's no place for such comments in the workplace.

    But if we are going to set a standard for what can't be said, then we have to apply it across all society, don't you think??

    Parent

    I read and understood it.... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 06:48:07 PM EST
    I just don't see where music, or art, was at all involved.  

    We must certainly not demand or expect artists to be held to the same standard as somebody in charge of a workplace when it comes to speech. An artist speaks to an audience that can leave at any time or turn off the medium.  Your boss is your boss.  You can't be serious buddy....

    Parent

    kdog (1.00 / 2) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 09:00:13 PM EST
    RAP is art?

    Who knew??

    Parent

    You tell me..... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 01:31:48 PM EST
    Check out The Message

    Parent
    I don't (none / 0) (#11)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 12:54:10 PM EST
    "But if we are going to set a standard for what can't be said, then we have to apply it across all society, don't you think?? "

     I don't at all agree with that. I don't listen to rap music but i am aware of the examples of lyrics many find objectionable-- and I'll agree I have read some offensive, demeaning, and just plain stupid and disgusting stuff.  I also have found some examples of supposedly "high art" in both visual and textual media and concocted by white, upper class types that I find stupid and disgusting. I choose not to patronize any of it and I do think the world would be a better place without it  but I don't think the standards appropriate for regulating workplace conduct should limit private expression to those who voluntarily choose to subject themseleves to it.

      Different contexts require different standards. What is Ok for a SoHo gallery is not necessarily OK for the office wall, or the middle school art class. Moronic misogynist babbling is not a good thing but just because it is appropriate to ban it from my workplace or my radio netowork does not mean it has to be banned everywhere.


    Parent

    Rap is not art (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 06:47:08 PM EST
    My point remains that if we fire Imus over what he said, and I thought he should have been, and if we find what the police supervisor said offense, which others did, and I do, then perhaps we need to look at the root cause, which is rap.

    Rap is not art, and it is not being played to a select and controlled audience.

    Parent

    Rap, invented in the 1970's, is the root cause? (none / 0) (#15)
    by roy on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 07:13:16 PM EST
    People have been saying racist things to black people for a good long time.  I'd say it goes back at least as far as "Pick that cotton or I'll shoot you in the head with my musket".  Kind of hard for rap to be the root cause of all that.

    If you want to focus on the use of a modern vocabulary to express a very old idea, then at best you've missed the point.

    As for "rap is not art", that's usually a prelude to claiming that rap is not entitled to First Amendment protection.  Is that where you're heading?

    Parent

    Rap is certainly art (none / 0) (#16)
    by glanton on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 07:14:30 PM EST
    And within the broad category "Rap" is an entire range of styles, themes, and attitudes.

    Cherry picking a few lyrics, or even songs, doesn't qualify you to make that kind of statement.  

    And by the way, you can cede that something is art without saying that you like it.  

    Parent

    Rap may not be... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 07:13:29 AM EST
    "good" art but it is "art" at least as broadly defined. I'd agree that a look should be taken at such art and would have no probelm if through private action "art" such as that was discouraged.

      I'd label rap (and other popular music) "consumer art" because unlike some other forms of art it would not exist, to a culturallly  significant extent anyway, without without a mass market. Thus, unlike workplace language which can be and should be legitimately  controlled by limiting the source of communications, rap and other similar consumer art can and should  only be significantly limited (in the absence of what I would consider unconstitutional governmental action) by limiting demand.

      I'm all for actions by peopole who try to convince people not to listen to things that glorify dehumanization of women, violence, drug abuse and other bad things. If more people rejected music with such lyrics, the financial incentive to produce it would vanish. I don't reallt philosophically oppose efforts to pressure private companies to stop producing it but i don't think that can work well. It could cause some of the megacorps to limit some of the most extreme stuff to appease people who might choose not buy their other products or advertise but the stuff would still be produced by someone if there was a market for it and it was profitable.

      The ultimate question is why IS this type of communication popular with a large segement of society and can we elevate more people's thinking so that they do not continue to embrace it. One of the real difficulties is that such "art" is, as was the rock music of our youth (although not in such a degrading and mean spirited manner), an expression of differentiation from and rejection of the "acceptable adult values"  the audience is intentionally choosing to repudiate. that means telling people to reject it can just make it more popular.  

      So we nay not succeed, in lessening the disgusting aspects of certain popular music. Failing that, however, doesn't mean we should tolerate similarly disgusting behavior in the workplace.

    Parent

    Decon (none / 0) (#22)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 09:34:55 AM EST
    I would point out that not all that falls under the broadstroke category Rap is the same in terms of style, message, attitude, etc.

    By no means does most of it dehumanize women or glorify violence for its own sake; though a great many have been asserting as much, I would venture that the most outspoken and self-assured on the subject (such as Jim on this and other threads)have little to zero familiarity with the art form.

    Parent

    True... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 09:41:03 AM EST
      I didn't mean to imply that all rap music is vile and disgusting garbage that dehumanizes women and golorifies violence. I don't like the "sound" of rap music so I don't listen to it but the format could be used to express good things just as easily as bad.

     

    Parent

    You don't have to spectulate (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 11:50:27 AM EST
    about what I meant... Just ask and you shall receive..

    My point remains that if we fire Imus over what he said, and I thought he should have been, and if we find what the police supervisor said offense, which others did, and I do, then perhaps we need to look at the root cause, which is rap.

    By that I mean what it says. "Bad" Rap is the root cause of legitimatizing the use of bad, vulgar language, especially against against women.

    BTW - Identifying the "cause" does not justify the "actions."

    Rap is not art, and it is not being played to a select and controlled audience.

    Society has every right to exert its control and gudiance.

    I stand by the last quote. "Bad" "Gansta" Rap, which I thought everyone knew we were talking about except for Glanton, is not art, no more than  99.9999999% of TV and movies are.

    If you think from that I do not believe in "performance art," you are correct.

    Jim Doesn't believe in Performance Art (none / 0) (#53)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 11:59:55 AM EST
    Wow.  

    That is a stunning statement to make for all to read.  And then expect to be taken seriously.  

    Also,

    "Bad" "Gansta" Rap, which I thought everyone knew we were talking about except for Glanton

    Again, how can you without blushing, continue to insist on talking about something you don't know anything about?  We all know the Talking Points, Jim.  Many of us saw pundits on the Internet and on television cherrypick lyrics and then hold that up as evidence that they are familiar with the form.  

    That you not only bought it hook line and sinker, but regurgitate it here even though your ignorance of the subject has been exposed, is unfortunate for you.

    Everyone:  

    The most amusing thing to me about the Imus fallout was its status as yet another instance where all kinds of white people, including Imus himself, queried on television, and some to me personally, why

    "They" can say it but "We" cannot? (built into this kneejerk response is typically an implicit desire to be able to say it)

    There are of course cogent responses galore to such a silly question.  But maybe it's just me, but I never really get the impression that the people posing those queries want an answer.  

    Parent

    Glanton (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 12:21:15 PM EST
    Your very first comment back up the thread was to attack my comment re rap wasn't art, followed by telling me what you think art is....

    You did this despite the fact that the whole thread had been about what was obviousy Gansta Rap.

    So your motives are transparent. You are trying to change the discussion to what is art, and then use that to justify Gansta type Rap as art.

    Watch my lips. Gansta type Rap aint art.

    BTW - Cherry picks? Words like "ho?" Please. Be serious.

    As to your "they can" "we can not" say comment, my position is simple. No one should.

    Parent

    Sigh (none / 0) (#56)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 12:32:12 PM EST
    As to your "they can" "we can not" say comment, my position is simple. No one should.

    Yes, your position there is simple.  I get it.  Also I disagree with it a thousand ways to Sunday.  Here's a usage of "ho" that occurs all the time and that is very different from what Imus did or from what the police supervisor did:

    Picture if you will a gathering of ladies for drinks on a Friday night.  The last one shows up at the table and says "what's up hos?"  You presume to tether this to the topic of this thread?  Really?  The statement "No one should" seems to imply so.  It also reflects badly upon you.

    And then of course there was Snoop Dogg's own very well said statement about the difference between his usage of "ho" and Imus's.  Cherrypicking the word robs it of context, makes it seem like Snoop and Imus and the Police Supervisor are all doing the same thing, when they are clearly not doing anything close to the same things.  

    Another sigh.

    I sigh, of course, out of extreme doubt that you would read my post.  But in case you are, it was you and not me that triggered discourse over what is art.  You did it, in case you're wondering, when you ignorantly stated Rap is not art.  

    Now you've been called on it and want to cover and say you meant "Bad Rap" or "Gangsta Rap" or something to that effect, but what stands out is you're still committing the primary rhetorical screwup of holding forth about something of which you have no knowledge.  As I said, your comments indicate you are no better qualified to discuss this than would be John Kerry or Tom Coburn.

    Oh, well.  You won't allow such things to infiltrate your packaged response.  But maybe someone else is reading and will have something to actually say about it.  

    Parent

    Glanton (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 07:08:58 PM EST
    Picture if you will a gathering of ladies for drinks

    So your claim is you didn't know the subject matter...

    Okay. That's your claim.

    And I disagreed with your claim about what was art.

    Glanton, we are never going to agree on this, or much else. So, have a nice life.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#77)
    by glanton on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 10:21:42 AM EST
    So your claim is you didn't know the subject matter...

    No.  My claim was and is related to context, an all-important principle in this discussion.  Why not try reading and understanding posts instead of concocting cutesy comebacks?

    And I disagreed with your claim about what was art.

    Sorry, but I made no claim there.  I instead stated and state Facts.  We can argue over whether gangsta rap is good art, and do so in reasonably good faith, so long as we remember that not all gangsta rap is the same.  What we cannot do is decide something isn't art just because we don't like it.

    Denying the existence of performance Art?  That's not a defensible position either.  

    (and yet, Decon, remember he enjoys a "good debate")  

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#58)
    by roy on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 01:32:55 PM EST
    Thanks for clearing that up.  Naturally, I still disagree.  These scandals aren't scandalous because the language used is vulgar.  They're scandalous because the insults appear to be based on race and sex; it's implied by the word choice.  It would be horribly rude, but not a career-ending scandal, if Imus said "f*ck you, you piece of sh*t" to a black woman.  It's a scandal if he says "black women are funny-looking and promiscuous", or calls any of them "nappy-headed ho's".

    (That may be what you mean by "vulgar", in which case don't bother reading the preceding paragraph)

    But race- and sex-wide invectives are less legitimate now than in the past.  Racism and sexism aren't dead, but they're unpopular.  If you believe blacks or women are inferior, society says there's something wrong with you.  If you so it out loud, society shuns you and gets you fired from your radio job.  Compare to the 1960's, before rap.  If you think rap is legimizing something that is getting less legimitmate, you're going to need something more solid than a bald assertion to base it on.

    At worst, rap is why they said "ho" instead of "whore", and it gave them a shorthand for a statement that would have otherwise taken a few more words.  But that's totally missing the point.

    ...

    And what does this bit mean:

    Society has every right to exert its control and gudiance.

    ?

    Parent

    roy (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 07:19:29 PM EST
    I  think we are mixing in Imus and Gansta Rap.

    My point over Imus was that his comment was wrong.
    Period. In fact, when Amir tried to bring in the race issue by "he said" of Sharpton and Jacksom, I objected. What someone else had said was of no importance.

    My point here has been that Gansta Rap has created a  social and cultural problem.

    I think it leads to a coarsing of public discource  and a general lowering of the standards of what some call "art." You disagree. Okay.

    Society has every right to exert its control and gudiance.

    Society does have rights. In fact, if society has no rights to set the rules, the individual will have no rights beyond what the individual can procure for themselves.

    Parent

    Isn't that akin to (none / 0) (#60)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 02:10:59 PM EST
     "not believing in" abstract painting or "not believing in" experimental cinema or "not believing in" blank verse? You may not like an art form and/or think it has no value (or even a negative value) but you have to acknowledge it exists, don't you?

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#61)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 02:17:04 PM EST
    but you have to acknowledge it exists, don't you?

    One would think....

    Parent

    DA (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 12:19:28 PM EST
    yadda yadda

    Really (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 09:22:36 AM EST
    I'd label rap (and other popular music) "consumer art" because unlike some other forms of art it would not exist, to a culturallly  significant extent anyway, without without a mass market.

    Maybe you need to brush up on your music history. Ever hear of Jazz?

    Unless you mean by 'culturally significant' appreciated by white upper class people, your statement has no basis in fact.

    squeaky (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 10:21:28 AM EST
    Again Deconstructionist makes a good point. There can be RAP music without the "gansta theme" and/or other themes that denigrate women, etc.

    Since we were discussing the use of "bad" I didn't make that point.

    So let me agree that the format/style whatever is not bad. Just like a gun doesn't kill people, format/style doesn't destroy a culture or say horrible things about people and call for/brag about killing.

    But too much Rap does.

    The issue isn't the history of Jazz, what is, or isn't art, or any of the other strawmen you want to wave.

    It is "content" that is the problem.

    Quit making excuses for something that encourages so many bad things. Society has the right to demand certain standards in the actions of everyone.

    That includes radio talk show hosts, police supervisors, corporations, Rap singers and even you and me, dear squeaky and other bloggers.

    Parent

    Not the Point (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 10:50:26 AM EST
    Tou can argue all you want about proper language for rap music but that is not what my comment correcting Deconstructionists comment was about.

    because unlike some other forms of art it would not exist, to a culturallly  significant extent anyway, without without a mass market.

    To suggest that the rap would  not exist as a significant art form if it were not commercially successful is absurd.

    Many of the same issues were leveled against Jazz before white culture absorbed it. It was considered vulgar. The word Jazz itself was slang and considered a very dirty word, that is once the 'estaqblishment' found out what it really meant.

    Parent

    squeaky (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 11:10:01 AM EST
    There is a mass market for many things that society forbids. So to say that the existence of one justifies it is, of course, not correct.

    Deconstructionist can speak for himself, but I believe he is saying two things.

    1. It does have a mass market.

    2. It would not be culturally significant without that market.

    That market, BTW, is not "black" or "white." And the serving of the market has nothing to do with race, just money.

    So I don't see him attacking "Rap as art."

    I regard "bad" Rap as a problem. I think many others also do. Society can now decide if it wants to tolerate it in the commercial mass market place.

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#50)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 11:28:42 AM EST
     in the most general sense I do consider rap music "bad art" because it is not an art form that appeals to me. If the lyrics were extolling peace' love and universal harmony, i still just would not like the sound. That holds true for most of what is played on the radio these days. I just don't like it consider it "bad" in that sense.

      Just because I don't like it though does not mean I consider it inherently a "lesser art form." Much of the music I do like including  blues, rock and folk is not particularly complex musically and the lyrics (with notable exceptions) are often banal. I like it though, so it's "good."

       It goes without saying that "popular" music is really only significant culturally to the extent it is popular. The guys at the bar across the street playing rock music to an inattentive audience are not culturally significant but the Rolling Stones are even if they are playing the same basic chord progressions and the lyrics are devoted to similar topics. If rap had a miniscule audience from a narrow strata of society it obviously would not be significant to modern culture. It's significant because it does have a large audience.

       Jazz also would be not be  culturally significant if many people did not hear it. It might still  be musically significant because it is far more complex and innovative than other forms of popular music but it would have little significance in the broader culture. Jazz was, of course, at one time very popular and is still reasonably popular if not to the same degree it once was.

       

    Parent

    Rap (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 09:50:52 AM EST
    (i.e., blacks brought this on themselves), is the cause of racism and racial slurs.

    Dat about right, Mista Jim?

    Jondee (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 10:04:53 AM EST
    Deconstructionist makes the point, Jondee.

    Parent
    jondee (none / 0) (#25)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 09:59:52 AM EST
     sometimes you make very good points but then others you completely misrepresent what is said by others (especially Jim) to make yourself feel morally superior.

      It is FAR different  to argue that the use of racist and misogynist language in rap music contributes to tolerance of such language and that it should not be tolerated in rap music anymore than in other contexts  (whether or not you agree with that) than  to argue that "rap is the cause of racism and racial slurs."

     

    It's in english, Decon: (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 10:17:12 AM EST
    he said rap "was the root cause".

    Lets play (none / 0) (#30)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 10:19:25 AM EST
    who can "misrepresent" more..shall we?

    He said it was the root cause of (none / 0) (#33)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 10:25:17 AM EST
     what was said by the cop supervisor who was parroting Imus who was parroting rap language.

      He did not say it was the root cause of racism or racial slurs. (I'm sure jim knows racism and racial slurs predate recorded music let alone rap) Again, whether or not you agree with Jim (and I don't) you shouldn't misrepresent what he said. there is plenty to attck in what he did say.

    That's an odd definition of "root cause" (none / 0) (#36)
    by roy on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 10:43:19 AM EST
    Neither Jim's statement nor Decon's interpretation of Jim's statement is reasonable if we're using a typical or even useful definition of "root cause".

    If either of you would like to argue that rap contributes to the extent of, or influences the form of, these types of comments, go for it.  But don't call something a "root cause" under your bizzaro-definition, then get in a snit because people argue against it being a "root cause" under the typical definition.

    This goes double if we take seriously the "the" in "the root cause", meaning there's only one.  If so, then Jim explicitly claimed that racism is not a root cause, desire to profit through shock value on the radio is not a root cause, and being inconsiderate of others' feelings is not a root cause.  That said, it's common to use "the" sloppily, so maybe this is a petty point to bring up.

    Parent

    jim can speak for himself (none / 0) (#39)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 10:51:06 AM EST
     but my interpretation is both literally accurate and the only reasonable one if we decide his assertion is ambiguous.

      We all know that Jim knows (and knows we know0 that racism predates rap and most likely any other music. It's a safe bet that one of the earliest human expression more abstract than "give me food" expressed the idea that "those different people are evil."

      It's simply absurd to claim his off the cuff remark was intended to convey the idea that rap lyrics are the root cause of racism. My entire point is pretending to think that is what he meant and attacking a ludicrous construct you constructed both makes you look foolish and distracts from the very valid arguments that can be made against what we all know he did mean.

    Parent

    A lesson from one of my professors: (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by roy on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 11:23:54 AM EST
    "Read what they write, not what you think they should have written."

    To be fair, he told me that after I flunked a philosophy exam so maybe my credentials aren't up to stuff, but it's still a good lesson.

    More to the point, Jim has based arguments on wildly irrational premises before.  I suspect we all have, it's a consequence of imperfection.  Jim's include the notions that shirts makes it hard to hear, "freedom of religion" includes spending tax money on religion, and state legislators can restrict the right to vote when the state constitution explicitly tells them that they can't because the US constitution doesn't explicitly say that the state constituation can tell the state legislators that they can't (or something like that).

    So if Jim wants the benefit of the doubt when he makes a statement that touches on a rational point while being irrational on its face, it's his job to create less doubt.

    (I just noticed that my earlier comment might be read as implying that you endorse some of Jim's real or imagined arguments; that was not my intention)

    Parent

    roy (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 12:08:55 PM EST
    And having declared yourself correct, proper and victorious you fold your hands in your lap, smile benignly and wait for applause...

    ;-)

    A quick review.

    1. Yes, I believe a school, church, whatever should spend money defending against a threatened suit, or an actual suit, by the ACLU.

    To do less is to have government by lawyer.

    2. Yes, I believe that a voter must have a verifiable government issued ID to vote.

    To do less is to not protect the votes of of us all.

    3. And no, I do not think you have the right to disrupt, or try to disrupt the President when he is engaged in a constututionally required duty.

    To do less is to not allow me my right to hear what he is saying.

    Parent

    Let's take it up another day (none / 0) (#57)
    by roy on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 12:45:08 PM EST
    We're talking past each other on this.  It'd be an interesting subject to hash out, and we've proven that you and I can (sometimes) hash such things out until we at least understand each other, but I've already done too much derailing of this thread.

    I'll prepare a screed for an open thread later this week, if you're up for it.

    Parent

    Real Offensive..... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 01:54:10 PM EST
    Here's a little something thats long overdue,
    this disrespecting women has got to be through.
    To all the mothers and the sisters and the wives and friends,
    I wanna offer my love and respect to the end.

    - One of MCA's rhymes

    ppj dosnt need any help (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 03:38:27 PM EST
    in being disengenuous, Decon.

    Unless your knowledge of history begins sometime in the early eighties, the "root cause" of the kind of characterization of black women indulged in and exploited by Imus didnt begin with the more vulgar forms of rap music.

    Jim likes to (play?) dumb and and always make sure he lays most of the blame on the victims.
    Whats your excuse?

    Jondee (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 07:03:44 PM EST
    That is a gross mischaracterization, something you are very good at. No where did I blame any female, black or otherwise.


    Parent
    Btw, (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 03:45:44 PM EST
    looking through the lens of historical context, how can anyone say definitivly Imus was "parroting rap music"? Probobly the same way someone can say "my interpretation is literally accurate", whatever that means.

    I didn't say that... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 05:24:05 PM EST
     I said jim said it (and i also have repeatedly said I don't agree0.

      I'll confess my knowledge of both  rap lyrics and racial slurs is limited but I know the "nappy headed" phrase predates rap by a long time. "Ho" does seem to be a more recent coinage at least in wide enough currency that Imus (or I) would be aware of it.

      You don't know what "literally accurate means? Look up the words then. I don't understand how someone can criticize the use of a phrase if the person doesn't understand it. Isn't that similar to waht we are all criticizing Jim for doing?

    Parent

    Jondee (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 06:59:08 PM EST
    Whether or not Imus was parroting rap music has nothing to do with the fact that Gansta Rap preaches a self-destructive life style that everyone should be against.

    BTW - Yes, I think he was.

    Parent

    It's just the way they (none / 0) (#65)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 04:42:58 PM EST
    all talk "on the reservation".

    More seriouisly (none / 0) (#67)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 05:33:09 PM EST
      I do not approve of jim's tactics. he takes a fact-- that many blacks are prejudiced against whites-- and attempts to use it as a justification for white racism. More or less implying that unless blacks "make the first move" its OK for whites to be racist.

      As whites forced blacks to be here and then oppressed for centuries, while I'll agree that an end to all racism would be good, I think the onus of pushing reconciliation remains on whites.

    Parent

    Deconstructionist (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 06:56:24 PM EST
    Show me where you get this gross misundetrstanding.

    Parent
    I get it from the nature of what you write (none / 0) (#79)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 10:43:57 AM EST
       I'm not claiming you wrote something as direct as "until blacks clean up their act, their complaints about racism are unworthy." I'm saying that I am led to believe that is the implication of the way you approach certain issues.

     If you do not mean to create that impication (and I understand people, including me, dash these posts off and are not always vigilant about precise language-- but i sense a pattern in some cases including you)  I will simply say, as I have said to others here, you need to write things differently because that is the effect on me.

    Parent

    Deconstructionist. (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 03:44:06 PM EST
    I would appreciate a more exact critcism, or an example.

    What you have done is make a claim, and then not back it up.

    That is unlike what I have seen from you.

    Perhaps you have been influenced by Jondee's claims.

    None of which he has been able to support. Since I have been commenting here for four years, if he was correct he would be able to provide some evidence.

    Parent

    My "claim" (none / 0) (#83)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 07:29:53 AM EST
     is that is the impression you give me. I don't need evidence to support my perception. Unless you think I am lying about my perception my stating it establishes it. You are free to state I have the wrong impression and also to seek to show me why it is the wrong one.

      I'll remind you that I am one (perhaps the only one here) who points out when I believe people (sometimes deliberately for rhetorical purposes and sometimes because of inability or unwillingness to read and comprehend) misrepresent what you say. If I am misinterpreting you too, then maybe you need to consider the possibility that you need to write more carefully so people without "bad intentions" do not misunderstand you.

    Parent

    Deconstructionist (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 09:33:14 AM EST
    My request was not a challenge, just a request. I made it because I enjoy your writing, and believe that you are, basically, sincere. And one of the few who comment here that I believe doesn't have an agenda reflected in everything they write.

    I have read the thread carefully, and outside of not making clear that my comments were about "bad-Gangsta" Rap I can't see anything that would lead you to say:

    I do not approve of jim's tactics. he takes a fact-- that many blacks are prejudiced against white ----sand attempts to use it as a justification for white racism.

    I found that particularly disconcerting since I had written to roy:

       

    I  think we are mixing in Imus and Gansta Rap.

        My point over Imus was that his comment was wrong.
        Period. In fact, when Amir tried to bring in the race issue by "he said" of Sharpton and Jacksom, I objected. What someone else had said was of no importance. (emphasis added)

        My point here has been that Gansta Rap has created a  social and cultural problem.

        I think it leads to a coarsing of public discource  and a general lowering of the standards of what some call "art." You disagree. Okay.

    In addittion I called for I Imus to be fired.

    My objection to Amir's comments and Imus' firing are hardly someone who defends white racism. Perhaps you missed them.

    Thanks for the advice. I will try and be more exact, but I won't start every comment with,

    "I am not a ......."

    In the meantime stay tuned for more race claims from Jondee..

    Parent

    That is not correct (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 06:51:52 PM EST
    I do not approve of jim's tactics. he takes a fact-- that many blacks are prejudiced against whites-- and attempts to use it as a justification for white racism. More or less implying that unless blacks "make the first move" its OK for whites to be racist.
    Right wing conservative radio (none / 0) (#76)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 10:12:58 AM EST
    has been using coded racist speech since the beginning and dosnt want that weapon taken fron it's rhetorical arsenal due to too much light being thrown upon it.

    If Rush, Hannity and Drudge (back on his knees since his accident) cant talk anymore about fat, lazy, poor people, "bones in their noses" and speculate about how many women from the Coretta Scott King funeral will wind up knocked-up, then their audience of the great out-sourced and down-sized might be inspired to start looking deeper and wider at the causes of their condition rather than following the Rethug instructions to kick down at those people over there.

    Jondee (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 03:56:05 PM EST
    Since I don't listen to them... What is your point? A general rant, or do you expect me to me defend them?


    Parent
    So "rap music" (none / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 10:35:57 AM EST
    gives fat as*, Imus, Hannity & Co an out in perpuitity.

    I dont know whether to laugh or cry.

    Jondee (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 04:02:02 PM EST
    I think you protest too much, and I think you ignore what I wrote. That's what I think. Examine what I wrote to roy.

    I  think we are mixing in Imus and Gansta Rap.

    My point over Imus was that his comment was wrong.
    Period. In fact, when Amir tried to bring in the race issue by "he said" of Sharpton and Jacksom, I objected. What someone else had said was of no importance.

    My point here has been that Gansta Rap has created a  social and cultural problem.

    I think it leads to a coarsing of public discource  and a general lowering of the standards of what some call "art." You disagree. Okay.

    I again ask that you provide some examples of your claims.

    I again note that you can't.

    Parent

    I gave (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 03:57:30 PM EST
    some examples, oh-so-willfully-obtuse-one.

    Others can read.

    Again I note you cant.

    Whoever, I do strongly suspect that you may be one of those who gets up in the middle of the night and takes the sheet with them.

    Jondee (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 08:52:45 PM EST
    Give us some examples that include links that prove what you claim.

    You can't.

    You are a smearer of the worst type.

    Shame on you.

    Parent

    "Smearer" (none / 0) (#88)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 04:13:55 PM EST
    I dont know whether to laugh or cry. That coming from the guy who never found a Swiftboater he wouldnt quote or a sleazoid rumor about anyone on "the Left" that wouldnt attempt to magnify and perpetuate.

    For shame indeed.

    jondee (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 12:11:34 PM EST
    You keeping on saying things that you can't back up.

    That's the essence of smearing. Provide some actual links.

    Parent

    NY Police Supervisors Face Discipline for Using Imus Comments | 89 comments (89 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment