RebKell's Junkie Boards

[bluewolfvii]

From leaders across the United States including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick; the co-founder of BET and current owner of the WNBA’s Washington Mystics, Sheila Johnson; ; League of Black Women President and CEO, Sandra Finley: and Black Enterprise founder Earl G. Graves Sr, there was consensus on the firing of Mr. Imus.

[Geno32]

May be now Nike will make affordable sneakers available.

_________________
Me

[bballjunkee212]

How brave of these folks to "me too" after CBS did the difficult cost/benefit analysis of firing Imus and spinning the decision as a product of social responsibility and moral outrage.

And, if we needed further proof of Nike being the most socially irresponsible corporation on the planet: "Thank you, ignorance, for starting the conversation." (Emphasis added.)

Where have they been, to think that this is a start to decrying racist and sexist speech? And why would anyone think that we need a conversation about such things?! Some things are self-evidently wrong, and if not everybody understands that, we need something more than "conversation."

As a sop to LTF1, I note that my cynical "cost/benefit" analysis stems from a more appropriate response to Imus's comment. There is, in academic parlance, a "marketplace of ideas." The theory goes that anyone can float an idea, and the "value" of the idea is established by the extent to which it is accepted. In Imus's case, his sponsors pulled the plug on him; to them, the value of his "idea" was zero.

And now comes Nike, suggesting that we "start"-- as though race and gender have hitherto not been part of the social dialogue-- to have a "conversation" about whether it is acceptable to call-- and let's be as specific as Don Imus was-- the Rutgers women's basketball team "a bunch of nappy-headed hos."

Don't miss the subtlety of what Nike is saying, folks, nor dismiss it as someone rankling his "whacko philosophy." Nike is clearly suggesting-- whether intentionally, or because its people truly don't think the problem is worth careful scrutiny-- that there is some value to what Imus said. Granted, we might be able to salvage "value" in the sense the Imus's remarks have raised some issues, or have "turned a spotlight" on women's athletics, but what is the value in what Imus said? In the values and assumptions that underlie what he said? Because even if your answer is "none," Nike clearly believes that there is some value there. And in the marketplace of ideas, Nike speaks quite loudly.

_________________
~Bill

[bluewolfvii]

[beknighted]

The timing of the Nike ad does make it a little suspicious. (Okay, very suspicious.) So far as I know, Nike is not an advertiser on WFAN or MSNBC, and it certainly wasn't listed among the advertisers on the Imus show, so I don't think Nike put much pressure on NBC, WFAN or CBS Radio.

I won't say Nike hasn't taken some stands before, and I think it did stand behind John Thompson when he was speaking out about some issues when he was coaching at Georgetown, but it's not nearly as socially responsible it would like us to think. Making us think they're socially responsible is part of their schtick, and I guess it's worked pretty well for them, but it's not a real core goal of the company

[cthskzfn]

Imus' firing was inappropriate.

_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.

[jammerbirdi]

The firing of Don Imus was absolutely appropriate. There should be no question about that in anyone's mind.

But an owner of BET and Condoleeza Rice? That makes my teeth itch.

The rap videos that I've seen on BET are usually among the most offensive I've ever seen. It's been a while since I watched and regular viewers can correct me if I'm wrong but BET seems to specialize in the vids of not quite the biggest of rap stars. Guys who are REALLY trying. Less polish, far more crude. That's what I've seen, anyway. So she is a profiteer not simply from the exploitaion of black women, but from the ongoing and omnipresent 20 year plus cultural degradation of black women.

Not making a double standard argument offered as an excuse for Don Imus. But anyone who gives credence to the thought that Imus's comments can be compared to the destructive power that rap's portrayal and imagery of black woman has had IN the black community, along with the gansta culture portrayed which is consumed by young people around the world, would be just nuts. Sheila Johnson should be ashamed to open her hypocritical mouth on the subject of Don Imus and any of the issues brought up by this.

Condoleeza Rice, along with everyone in the Bush administration, was the object of Don Imus's scorn for years even BEFORE he started regularly referring to them all as WAR CRIMINALS. He hammered away at her administration over the airwaves for hours and hours on end, every day. He turned on their war policy many years ago and every high powered guest and everyone else in the political world heard about it from him constantly.

Rice is HARDLY an impartial judge of Don Imus. Everyone in that adminstration would have been dreaming of any scenario that would silence this guy who was easily one of the most powerful and influencial voices standing against their policies in Iraq.

Imus had to go. I don't have any doubt about that at this point. I'd talk about all that here but I'm too burned out on the subject and too busy. But these two women you've cited have no credibility on the issue whatsover. One is a hypocrit who profits from a much worse example of Imus's degrading perspective on black women and the other would have viewed Don Imus as a political arch-enemy.

_________________
Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.� - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17

[bluewolfvii]

[jammerbirdi]

[Geno32]

Or as Don Imus said..this administration stranded the people in New Orleans because they were black.

_________________
Me

[pilight]

Jammer, Sheila Johnson hasn't been an owner of BET for a long time.

_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home

[bluewolfvii]

Jammer, I understand you taking exception to Rice and Johnson. I am assuming that you do not have similar misgivings about Cheeks-Kilpatrick and Graves.

But Rice and Johnson are what they are and they are power brokers. So with Rice, Johnson and company on the one hand (and Al Sharpton and Rev. Jackson on the other) you have establishment and anti-establishment types stepping forward to deliver one message: Enough.

People across the country were so pissed off they went to their company heads or sat down at their PCs or picked up their phones and called, wrote, and complained to people doing business with people who employ Imus.

When was the last time so many not only agreed on something but exerted their collective influence on a corporation? Don't underestimate the tendency of corporate types to inertia (that's a natural law or something).

Like so many of us (men and women, white and black) I put down my protest signs at the end of the 70s and took a job with a corporation with the intent to change the way things work from within. There are times( like the last 7 years, for example) when I think I made a mistake. But there are times that I am amazed. Change is coming and the vanguard thinks like us.

[jammerbirdi]

[pilight]

[jammerbirdi]

[jammerbirdi]

[jammerbirdi]

[cthskzfn]

The firing of Don Imus was absolutely appropriate. There should be no question about that in anyone's mind.



there is no question in my mind. the firing was inappropriate.

_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.

[bluewolfvii]

[beknighted]

I'd have a little more respect for Rice's position if she'd actually taken it before Imus was fired.

Note the date when she said this

[bluewolfvii]

[eclair]

[cthskzfn]

[beknighted]

[bluewolfvii]