And It's So Easy Even A Caveman Can Do It.

In the Geico commercial, the pundit interviewer is told by an apparent female sociologist that “we are living in a day when individual ego is predominant.”

The opposing viewpoint is delivered by the caveman, who when invited to reply, says, “yes I have a response. Uuuuu-WHAT?”

Point taken. We are living in an age of hive mentality, and this is especially true when it comes to minority culture, it seems. A perceived or real slight at any one member or segment of a particular society is seen as an assault on the dignity of the entire hive, and no one now is learning this lesson better than is Don Imus, the radio talk show host of the CBS show “Imus In The Morning”, which is simulcast on MSNBC in the mornings Monday through Friday from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m.

The “nappy headed hoes”, to borrow the offending Imus quote, of the Rutgers University Scarlet Knights Women’s Basketball team, who just lost to Tennessee in the championship NCAA women’s basketball tournament, certainly have a right to take offense and even to demand the firing of Don Imus, and truthfully, Imus has purposely disturbed enough hornets nests to know better by now. He is currently on a two week suspension from both CBS and MSNBC, and could very well end up being fired for this remark, despite the fact that he actually made them with a degree of admiration. In fact, he personally knows one of the players (who has also nevertheless expressed offense at the statement).

He certainly at least owes them an apology. But does he owe an apology to Al Sharpton, whose radio show Imus voluntarily appeared on? He did so doing as he has done non-stop the last several days, apologizing profusely while maintaining that he is a good person. Sharpton was not impressed, and called forth his own daughter. She stepped forward, whereupon Sharpton informed Imus that she, his daughter, was not a “nappy headed hoe.”

So, is the offending words the observation that the girls are “nappy headed”? Or that they are “hoes”? I could see where the first would apply to Sharpton’s daughter, and perhaps she should have a right to feel insulted at this slang. But I don’t see how the second qualifies as an offense to the daughter of Al Sharpton, unless she knows something her father evidently doesn’t. Unless they are implying that Imus meant that if you are nappy headed, then you must be a ho, especially if you are a college woman’s basketball team player with tattoos. Personally, I don’t think the man meant it that way, nor do I think he really meant it as an insult. I tend to think Don Imus just hasn’t caught on to the fact that he isn’t black.

Like I said, the girls have a right to take serious exception to this, and even they might be taking it hard to some extent for the wrong reason. One of them stated that they worked hard to get to where they got, in their underdog status, to rise to the level of playing in the NCAA championship game, and Imus took away from that sense of accomplishment. Yes, I can see that point. Then, unfortunately, one went on to inform us that they are “the future leaders of tomorrow”.

With that, she almost through what sympathy I initially had out the window. No matter how well you do in life, you’re still just like all the rest of us, just another cog in the wheel of life. You are just as deserving of respect, but no more so, than anybody else. That being said, these young women are certainly more deserving of respect than is implied by the term “ho”, nappy headed or otherwise. But that is true of any non-ho from any branch of society. If she or they think otherwise, maybe their egos needed to be brought down a notch or two. But so too does Don Imus, perhaps.

I just wonder how long the Sharpton’s and Jacksons of the world have been laying for him. Perhaps ever since show producer Bernard MacGurk delivered a scathing satirical “poetry” reading supposedly from Maya Angelou, in which the poetess delivered a tribute to her black ancestors, bemoaning the fact that the white man, “took from you your pride, your dignity-your spears.”

Yes, Imus has long been a raw, edgy, at times over the top show that always pushed the envelope, to use all the standard cliches in one line, but now he might soon be gone. After this week, of course, after he has concluded a telethon to raise money for children’s charities. Then, there are plans for Imus to meet with the Rutgers women’s team. Then, soon, the decision will be made. It don’t look good. Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are sticking to their guns in demanding that Imus be fired, and in the meantime at least one advertiser has threatened to withhold sponsorship, while at least one more is seriously considering taking the same action.

It would certainly save me the trouble of deciding whether or not to return to expanded cable. If they fire him, that would take away my main reason for paying the extra money for it, and certainly for watching MSNBC. But like I said, he’s pretty much brought this on himself. I could moan here and go on about the First Amendment, but really, the First Amendment cuts both ways. Sponsors have a right to withhold support and station owners and broadcasters have a right to respond to that reality, every bit as much as Imus technically has the right to make an ass of himself. In the grand scheme of things the First Amendment is pretty much worth just about as much as the paper it is reproduced on.

Especially when you consider that he has also seriously damaged his credibility as a host who typically can get major political interviews with politicians and presidential candidates, respected journalists, performers, and newsmakers of all stripes. John Edwards has been a frequent guest in the past, as has John McCain. Both of these and others might well be rethinking the wisdom of such appearances now.

Maybe he should just call it off, and bow out gracefully. There is always Sirius, or XM Satellite. After all, a big part of the current controversy stems from the fact that the public networks are in fact federally regulated, in addition to corporate sponsored. The First Amendment still applies, however, it is a true democracy. Unfortunately, what that amounts to these days is a kind of mob rule that fuels and drives a corporate plutocracy, with the rule of law executed by advertising dollars.

Mercury And Autism

It has just recently come out that the CDC may have possibly been involved in helping certain pharmaceutical companies hide the effect of mercury in childhood vaccines. There has recently been a stir caused by rumors that the effects of Mercury may in fact be a contributing factor, possibly the chief if not the only one, in the sudden increase of autism among children, by some estimates as many as one out of every one hundred sixty six children born in the U.S. Also scrambling to protect the pharmaceuticals from any future potential lawsuits is U.S. Senator Bill Frist (R-Tennessee).

Environmental Attorney Robert F.Kennedy Jr. has been advocating research into this potential, and encouraging further investigations, and has given interviews to Rolling Stone and to Salon.com, which are now available on the Internet. He has run into a string of bad luck, however, in getting any air time on the major media outlets. Appearances by him to discuss this subject have been canceled, by The Today Show, Good Morning America, and others. Equally disturbing is the lack of attention shown to David Kirby, author of the book Evidence Of Harm, which chronicles the use of mercury in vaccines and aerosols, and points to the potential that this may indeed be a contributing factor to a problem that is approaching epidemic proportions. It is as though Kirby and Kennedy both are persona non-gratis. But perhaps the scariest episode involves radio talk show host Don Imus, of Imus In The Morning (WFAN).

He has been pushing this issue, and an investigation of it, whereupon he himself recently became the subject of an investigation by The Wall Street Journal for allegedly misuse of donor funds to The Imus Ranch, a charitable endeavor run by him and his wife Deirdre for the purpose of providing a positive experience for children afflicted with cancer. There proved to be no substance to the allegations, and the investigation was therefore terminated, but the Wall Street Journal refused to print a retraction on it's front pages, where it first ran the story. Imus has intimated, in fact insisted, the entire episode was a sham, and was meant to be a warning to him. Don't mess with the pharmaceutical industry, or else.

It would be easy to dismiss this as a paranoid rant, if it were not for the cancellations of Kennedy's appearances, and the shunning of author David Kirby. Then, there is Chris Matthews who, on an appearance on Imus's show this morning, which is simulcast on MSNBC from 6 a.m. to 9: a.m.,brushed aside any suggestion that he himself might want to cover the promising scandal. And it is easy to see why, when you consider the amount of advertising money invested by the pharmaceutical companies in the television media, that a member of that media might be wary of tackling the issue, fearful of displeasing his corporate bosses. In fact, one wonders if perhaps the word might have all ready been put out. Don't touch this issue.

And, of course, we all know how close the pharmaceutical industry is to the Bush administration. But have they gone so far as to turn the CDC from watch dog to lap dog? It's a scary thought.