Rosie isn't Imus

So Imus didn't have to go to work this morning. I don't believe he is a racist. I understand he and his wife are doing a lot of good charitable work through their ranch. I hope they continue with that.

In reporting his departure, AP referred to him as "one of the nation's most prominent broadcasters." AP is right. He had accumulated a lot of power through his success in the media.

Fundamentally, Imus' fall was about how he misused that power and how the power he had accumulated turned on him and destroyed him. This lesson, unfortunately, seems lost on Tom Delay, who until not too long ago was one of the most powerful politicians in the country. Ironically, Mr. Delay's career, too, has so far been a textbook example of how power destroys those who abuse it.

On April 11, Mr. Delay posted a piece in his blog titled, "If the Left takes Imus, We'll take Rosie."

This title is wrong on at least three levels. First, Imus is not the equivalent of Rosie, whom Mr. Delay criticizes for alleging that 9/11 was actually the result of a conspiracy backed by President Bush. Second, the women on the Rutgers basketball team are not the equivalent of President Bush.

And third, where did he get the idea that it was the "Left" that "took" Imus. Imus is gone, because enough people stood up and said, "Enough is enough. We're not going to tolerate this any more."

Being made the target of hateful and abusive speech is part of the job description of the President of the United States, even when it is as ridiculous as what Rosie apparently alleges (I have never seen the show where she appears). The ability to take such abuse is one of the requirements for the job of President.

On the other hand, it shouldn't be a requirement for a woman to make the basketball team at her college.

("Sure you have a 100% shooting average from the floor. But can you take the heat when the shock jocks start making disparaging remarks about you based on the color of your skin and the fact that you're a woman? It's part of being a black woman athlete, you know." I hope this kind of conversation will be a little less likely now.)

Rosie is not Imus, because when she finally leaves the public stage no one is going to describe her as "one of the nation's most prominent" anything. Imus interviewed presidential candidates and had frequent on-air discussions with mainline television journalists, particularly those who work for NBC news.

Rosie keeps Barbara Walters close to her in hopes of sharing in the aura of respectability, but it hasn't worked. Imus successfully built up a power base for himself in the media profession. Rosie has not, and it seems unlikely she ever will.

Based on his April 11 post, Tom Delay hasn't learned his lesson about how a leader should exercise power. He still thinks politics is simply civil war by other means, that it's all about destroying the opponent. He needs to stay in his "time-out seat" a little longer.

That was no slip of the tongue by Imus

Here's an article by a black journalist who wants the black community to use the Imus affair as an opportunity to examine the way "We have allowed our youths to buy into a culture (hip hop) that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture."

He goes so far as to say "Imus isn't the real bad guy," and describes his remarks as a slip of the tongue.

Imus' remarks were not a slip of the tongue, but only the most recent instance in a pattern of verbal assaults against people who do not have as powerful a voice as he does. It's his way of feeding his own need to feel powerful, and it is no different than the psychology of the schoolyard bully.

It is good that American society is drawing a line here, and saying "We're not going to condone this behavior."

If there is a conversation about how hip hop culture is undermining the integrity of our society, that's great, too. But let's not use that as an excuse to let Imus off the hook.

"Time" asks what it can say

The Don Imus affair has inspired Time magazine to title its cover page "Who Can Say What?"

I read the lengthy cover story by James Poniewozik behind the headline, but I see that he has missed what I consider the central point. One mark of a civilized person has to be that he or she understands what statements will offend whom, and uses this knowledge to steer away from making offense. This is one way that we all contribute to the cohesion of our society and to the goal of peace.

Did Imus think the Rutgers women would not be offended by his remark? If so, he was profoundly ignorant. Did he know, and still make the remark anyway for effect? If so, he was inexcusably exploitive. Did he not consider the effects of his words before he uttered them? If so, he was human but unprofessional.

In any case, it should be clear to Time and to everyone else: Imus cannot say that.

NBC stops half-way with Imus

NBC has announced a two-week suspension of Don Imus, radio talk-show host and cable TV personality, for racist on-air comments made in reference to a women's college basketball team. This action appears to be NBC's reluctant compromise measure taken after the Rev. Al Sharpton and other African-American leaders had called for his dismissal.

If Imus had been an employee of World Peace Herald, he would have been fired more quickly than the time it took Rev. Sharpton to reach for a microphone. NBC should have done no less. Now it needs to reconsider its decision to stop with a two-week suspension, and fire Don Imus.

Imus made a career out of being a "shock jock," which is another way of saying that he was an iconoclast and a breaker of taboos. It also means that he has a long track record of inflammatory references, including calling an African-American journalist on The New York Times staff a "quota hire."

Because this most recent controversy follows a series of such incidents, his apology lacks credibility and should not be accepted as a resolution of the issue. He does not seem to realize that the damage he caused goes beyond the members of the basketball team he referenced, and goes even beyond the African-American community. He demeaned all Americans.

No longer a shock jock, he is just an old-and-grouchy jock who lacks the minimum level of discipline or sense of responsibility to be trusted with the position he has held in America's public discourse.

Let's take his microphone away now, before he hurts someone else.