Generating controversy...

I don't usually talk about newsworthy topics. I'm what's known as a 'personal' blogger, or at least I have been since shortly after 9/11, when the news overwhelmed me personally and I chose to step out. Also, I find it usually takes me so long to write a blog post that, by the time I'm done, half the blogosphere and their mothers have already written about it.

It is with this in mind that I just wanted to toss in my $.02 about something that has been clogging the tubes for the past few days.

You may not know (or respect) this about me, but I have always been a fan of Don Imus. As "shock jocks" go, I have always preferred his humor to that of Howard Stern. Not that I don't respect Stern, I just don't like the overall sexual denigrating tone of his show, the people he surrounds himself with, or what he and his crew will stoop to for ratings. That the man has impeccable instincts is undeniable, I just don't respect him for much more than that.

Don Imus, on the other hand, has earned my respect for many reasons. He has improved himself, as a human, immensely since his heavy drinking years, and is not ashamed to come out and say "Look, I was an idiot and I still struggle every day with it." when talking about his former habits.

His show consistently has authors/newsmakers/politicians that I am interested in and they all speak their mind when they are with the I-man. If they spout bullshit, he calls them on it, but he gives them all an equal chance to make fools of themselves, rather than setting them up for juvenile pranks and ambush-style ridicule.

He also is a family man and a philanthropist, doing what he can to share his wealth and do some good with his ranch for kids with cancer. His intentions there are so noble and he is so involved with each and every kid ... I'm not sure I could set myself up for that kind of emotional pain.

Now, the people he has working for him are not always my favorites but, for the most part, they have failed to piss me off so much that I would not listen to the man anymore. Imus' comments came from nowhere but his own mouth, which he has totally admitted, but I would think that the comments of his producer, Bernard McGuirk, calling the Rutgers girls "ho's" in the first place, should be as loudly vilified as the addition of "nappy-headed". Is it just me? Is it ok to call young, athletic women ho's but not ok to call anyone nappy-headed? Am I missing something?

Where is the outcry by women's groups? Is it because women are continually portrayed as "bitches and hos" that we are numb to it but something as insignificant as the texture of hair is a reason to go ballistic?

Don't get me wrong , I think the entire exchange went way too far but I do know after watching/listening to Imus for almost 10 years, McGuirk is BY FAR more denigrating than Mr. Imus, ridiculing everyone in the Catholic church (from the pope to bishops to priests) to Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, and anyone else that gets in his way. He usually does have Imus there to save his ass, though.

This time, it seems to me that McGuirk has gotten his boss into more hot water than normal and is willing to calmly toast marshmallows over the pyre as his gravytrain gets burned in effigy.

As an aside, I have a book in my library, "Happy to be nappy" by Bell Hooks that has caused a few raised eyebrows. It is a gorgeous, poetic book, as full of joy and acceptance of individuality as anything that I have ever read. This recent furor has made me wonder ... is it ok to have that book in my library? Will nappy become the new N word, one that white people are forbidden to utter?

Sad state of affairs when someone like Joseph Francis gets rich by exploiting hundreds of drunk young women while someone like Don Imus faces a firing squad for a (however crude) joke. Is it a race thing? No, really, I'm just wondering, because I don't get it.