Monday, June 25, 2007

the imus double standard

The link will take you to an article from the American Conservative Union, written by Donald Devine. Devine, the editor of Conservative Battleline Online, was the director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management from 1981 to 1985 and is the director of the Federalist Leadership Center at Bellevue University.

His article is a good one, as it examines the blatant hypocrisy of liberaliars as illustrated by the Don Imus flap. The mainstream media has moved beyond the Imus scandal (which is why El Rushbo calls them "the drive-by media") but conservatives, I think, need to continue talking about it.

There is one basic truth about the liberaliar thought process that was so beautifully illustrated by the reaction to Imus' comments, that it bears re-examination. What is that truth?

Liberaliars are the supreme arbiters of what constitutes acceptable free speech and unacceptable prohibited speech.

That's it, sports fans. That is the liberal thought process, and the Imus story proves it. Read the following excerpt from Devine's column linked above:

Just why was Imus fired? Was it for saying “hos”? That word was almost required in rap to reach stardom and was ubiquitous across the radio spectrum. So it was not the words. Was it because it was directed at a minority, “nappy headed”? But all rap music insults the same minority females, if not those with a popular basketball team. Was it because his words were said in a derogatory way? But that is the whole point of this misogynous “music.” Why was Imus different?

It is fun to watch the liberals explain. A feature article in Time magazine takes 2,700 words trying to decide, as the title asked, “Who Can Say What”? In one sense, it argued, everyone does it—citing Michael Richards’ “nigger”, Isaiah Washington’s “faggot”, Sen. George Allen’s “macaca” and Mel Gibson’s “f…ing Jew.” These offenders all suffered damage as Imus did. But “Borat” called Alan Keyes “a genuine chocolate face,” The Sarah Silverman Program parodied “God’s black friend” and “South Park” even used the “niggers” word. Yet, Time says these latter terms were used “legitimately” as “brilliant commentary, even art.” How explain this when the words were pretty much the same?

Time says Imus “crossed a line” but admits Dick Gregory and Lenny Bruce are allowed to cross the same line because they are “socially conscious.” The motion picture academy elite can give an Oscar to hos in the “Hard Out Here for a Pimp” song and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy can say “faggot” because these are “good-natured” usages. It is all pretty confusing for the non-artist except that socially conscious and good-natured seem to translate as “liberal.” At the end, Time finally concludes: “making jokes about difference — race, gender, sexual orientation, the whole list — is ultimately about power. You need to purchase the right to do it through some form of vulnerability, especially if you happen to be a rich, famous white man.” The price is higher for being rich, famous or white because they have power.

Not really, since it is not the rich and famous part that is important to these moderators of taste. Although it escapes Time’s notice, it is obvious that the rappers are rich and famous but still get a bye.

I don't know about you, but my wooden conservative head is spinning right now, just trying to comprehend all of the liberaliar gobbledygook! Time took 2700 words to attempt to explain "Who Can Say What." I can explain it a lot more succinctly:

If the person speaking is an accepted member of the liberaliar cause, that person can say absolutely anything they want with no fear of reprisals. If the person speaking is not a liberaliar in good standing, the 1st Amendment protections for free speech do not apply.

Do you want examples? How about Jesse Jackson's "Hymietown" comments? How about Robert "KKK" Byrd and his frequent uses of the "N" word? How about racist liberal cartoonists Ted Rall and Jeff Danziger? How about all of the racist bile spewed by liberals towards Clarence Thomas? There are literally thousands of examples like that, all perfectly acceptable to the liberaliar intelligentsia.

What's the lesson here? The lesson is that each and every vote for a liberal politician is a vote against the 1st Amendment, free speech, and freedom. Vote for a liberal and be prepared to kiss your "unalienable rights" goodbye!


Post a Comment

<< Home

Free Counter