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.