# racism still alive and well in Amerika



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Calls are increasing for the dismissal of talk show host Don Imus over racist comments he made on his nationally syndicated program. Imus referred to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy headed hos" on his show on Wednesday. We speak with the Rev. Al Sharpton, who is calling for Imus to be fired and with Maretta Short, president of the New Jersey chapter of the National Organization for Women. [includes rush transcript]
> 
> Talk show host Don Imus is under fire for making racist comments on his radio broadcast. On Wednesday's edition of "Imus in the Morning," Imus and his producer Bernard McGuirk called the Rutgers women's basketball team -- who had just lost the national championship game the night before -- "nappy headed hos."
> 
> ...


http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/09/144256


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The guy has apologized tho the delay is rather damning- up to management to deal with it. From what I understand it was a way over the top attempt at humour that face planted. Not the first time nor the last.

That said......how do The Sopranos get away with the cliches?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If I had the choice between having to listen to Don Imus or the "Rainbow/PUSH coalition" I'd go with Imus.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

The fact the Imus is even saying he's sorry for the comment prove he's lost it and should quit. Guess he's mellowing out....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> If I had the choice between having to listen to Don Imus or the "Rainbow/PUSH coalition" I'd go with Imus.


big surprise...

*"nappy headed hos."*
- Imus

*
Imus initially refused calls to apologize. Speaking on his radio show one day later, Imus said people shouldn't be offended by what he called: "some idiot comment meant to be amusing."
*

very nice Imus, very nice


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> The guy has apologized tho the delay is rather damning- up to management to deal with it. From what I understand it was a way over the top attempt at humour that face planted. Not the first time nor the last.
> 
> That said......how do The Sopranos get away with the cliches?


Interesting question. On the face of it, one could say it's because _The Sopranos_ is fiction - and thereby at least partially exempt from what we would expect of certain other strains of televised material. Undoubtedly, it's a gritty drama meant to push buttons. But then Imus _also_ pushes buttons. Both vehicles are, at all times, furiously jostling for market share. These days you lure your audience any way you can. So what's the difference, really?

One might as well ask why producers and network execs think we need the kinds of surreal effects one finds in, say, the CSI series - complete with vivid Dolby of bullets rending flesh and uncannily good prop corpses sporting all manner of brutal wounds, including decapitation, putrefaction and buckets of blood. Or we could talk of the phenomenal success of the _Saw_ film series - grisly gore-porn that keeps on selling. I'm guessing it's all happening because audiences need those jolts.

Most of us sense that the formerly separate categories of news and entertainment are shading together into that one amorphous glob we glibly call infotainment. When you get down to it, Don Imus was really just pulling 'a Kramer' - thinking he was just doing his job, not knowing where to draw the line anymore - perhaps because, in our times, so few people even think there's a line to be drawn.

Not that he shouldn't be called on it. But I think that this kind of thing happening as often as it does speaks volumes of the kind of society live in.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

I think we all take one's comments way too seriously...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

That, too, is another response and there's some validity to that as well. Seems we are ever intent on jumping down the throats of our media celebs. It's awfully hypocritical sometimes. The Imuses of this world are merely reflections of the larger society they live in.

But hey - this is a forum and we're always searching for more current events to discuss and fight over. It's to be expected that Imus' idiotic rant is going to be covered all over the net.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> But hey - this is a forum and we're always searching for more current events to discuss and fight over. It's to be expected that Imus' idiotic rant is going to be covered all over the net.


Odd that, speaking of rants, they allow Rosie do do it on "The View" all the time. If there ever was anyone who needed a cork stuffed in her yap, it's her.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

It's not a question of "allowing," Sinc. It's more a question of how much jaded audiences demand the outrageous to satisfy their jonesing for jolts.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> It's not a question of "allowing," Sinc. It's more a question of how much jaded audiences demand the outrageous to satisfy their jonesing for jolts.


Too true. We'll have to start calling you Max-well Smart.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Please don't - I'll just disappoint you the next post, Sinc.

[insert gratuitous winkie here]


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> *"nappy headed hos."*
> - Imus


I've never heard this phrase before, and have no idea what it means.  I've googled it for a few minutes and can't find the meaning. What is its meaning?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

It's a reference to the texture and appearance of hair of (some) black people... I trust you get the "ho" part. There's plenty of historical precedence for the term.


----------



## Dick Hertz (Mar 29, 2007)

Some would say that he's our Don Cherry, although I think Cherry's comments are more in a spirit of good-natured ribbing. The fact that this kind of thing is still socially acceptable in AmeriKKKa should be very telling, though.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/09/144256


"racism still alive and well in Amerika"? You're kidding, right? Like racism isn't alive and well in "Kanada"?

Maybe those in glass houses shouldn't be tossing bricks.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

ehMax said:


> I've never heard this phrase before, and have no idea what it means.  I've googled it for a few minutes and can't find the meaning. What is its meaning?


LOL My mom called us kids that all the time...well...not the "Ho" part... 

"Nappy" is a term that often means "afro" but really means kinky, frizzy or fuzzy hair.

Unless you're from the UK in which case it means "diaper".


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Imus was on Al Sharpton's radio program today and from the brief scenes I saw on U.S. tv, he seemed somewhat "shaken"

Imus has been suspended by his employer


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ShawnKing said:


> "racism still alive and well in Amerika"? You're kidding, right? Like racism isn't alive and well in "Kanada"?
> 
> Maybe those in glass houses shouldn't be tossing bricks.


I keep writing to CBC about Don Cherry, but they still seem to keep him on tv, paid for by our tax dollars


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would see Don Cherry as one of the few things I don't mind seeing my tax dollars paying for.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Don Imus Is Punished With Two Weeks of Radio Silence
> By Lisa de Moraes
> Tuesday, April 10, 2007; Page C01
> 
> ...


Don Imus Is Punished With Two Weeks of Radio Silence - washingtonpost.com


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> "This comes after careful consideration in the days since his racist, abhorrent comments were made," MSNBC said late yesterday in a statement.


MSNBC - not exactly a hotbed of liberals


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I keep writing to CBC about Don Cherry, but they still seem to keep him on tv, paid for by our tax dollars


I've got your Don Cherry problem fixed - don't watch him.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yeah, ShawnKing, but Spec doesn't want anyone else to see Don Cherry either.....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i certainly don't want my tax dollars supporting bigots like don cherry


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i certainly don't want my tax dollars supporting bigots like don cherry


Yeah, I hate it when he slags Russians and I hate it when I can't direct my own tax dollars.

Of course, if Cherry brings in more revenue than he costs, that second argument would not apply. He would then be funding some of the other poop that I don't want my tax dollars supporting.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Yeah, I hate it when he slags Russians and I hate it when I can't direct my own tax dollars.
> 
> Of course, if Cherry brings in more revenue than he costs, that second argument would not apply. He would then be funding some of the other poop that I don't want my tax dollars supporting.


he slags swedes, russians, ukrainians, any continental europeans in general and anyone from "kwee-beck"

continental europeans make up a large % of Canadians
i guess as long as he makes fun of "ethnics" it's ok


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ShawnKing said:


> I've got your Don Cherry problem fixed - don't watch him.



bigotry and racism shouldn't be ignored
it should be dealt with head on

or perhaps you're ok with the musings of a drunken mel gibson?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> bigotry and racism shouldn't be ignored
> it should be dealt with head on


http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/45819-another-comment-israel.html

Would you feel lonely if we ignored you?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/45819-another-comment-israel.html
> 
> Would you feel lonely if we ignored you?


here's the actual article for those interested in facts


> Putin praises sexual prowess of Israeli president
> 
> 
> Tom Parfitt in Moscow
> ...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> here's the actual article for those interested in facts


The facts of the bigoted outburst were in your contribution (that was edited), but nice try. "certainly don't want my tax dollars supporting bigots like don cherry": but if they remain in your pocket, you've got the same problem. 

"bigotry and racism shouldn't be ignored
it should be dealt with head on"

Yet you ignore your own.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Don Cherry is one of the few reasons I occasionally watch HNIC.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Yeah, ShawnKing, but Spec doesn't want anyone else to see Don Cherry either.....


LOL No kidding. Isn't that always the way with people who want to censor others/ideas/procedures/etc.?


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i certainly don't want my tax dollars supporting bigots like don cherry


LOL Boo hoo. Our tax dollars support all kinds of things we as individuals may not like or agree with but that's the price you pay.

If you don't want your tax dollars supporting Don Cherry, move to a country where he isn't on TV.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i guess as long as he makes fun of "ethnics" it's ok


Ummm...none of the people you refer to are "ethnics" - they are simply people from other countries.

Maybe that's your issue - definitions.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> or perhaps you're ok with the musings of a drunken mel gibson?


As a matter of fact, yes I am. Just not in the way you think.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ShawnKing said:


> LOL No kidding. Isn't that always the way with people who want to censor others/ideas/procedures/etc.?



just ask Imus about that


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> just ask Imus about that


Imus, Gibson and Richards all did their (in?)sincere apologies. You and, perhaps, Cherry, are of a different approach. 

"bigotry and racism shouldn't be ignored
it should be dealt with head on"

And you continue to ignore your own.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I heard the clip of the incident for the first time on the radio yesterday and I couldn't believe what I was hearing. This is supposed to be funny? 

A rich white guy calling a bunch of young, black, obviously high-acheiving athletes and university students "nappy headed hos" and then his sidekick chiming in with "********". A team of skilled girls, no doubt some proud parent's daughters, who no doubt worked harder than someone like this shock jock could ever imagine to get to where they were, is written off by this loudmouth as being "nappy headed" and "hos" (means whores - for the poster who was asking).

I don't know how someone who isn't an unrepentant racist just lets remarks like that slip out, and then thinks "oops sorry" will give him a pass. Why haven't they been fired permanently already?

Although Don Cherry plays an ignorant buffoon on TV, and may well be one in real life too, and has said some very dumb things on-air, even he wouldn't get away with overtly racist commentary like that.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Imus, Gibson and Richards all did their (in?)sincere apologies. You and, perhaps, Cherry, are of a different approach.
> 
> "bigotry and racism shouldn't be ignored
> it should be dealt with head on"
> ...


well i am biased against beeja-cons just like neo-cons


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ShawnKing said:


> As a matter of fact, yes I am. Just not in the way you think.


care to share ?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The Google Ad that appeared as I just looked at this thread:


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> care to share ?


Why? So you could take it out of context and twist it around? I don't think so. If you were interested in an honest, open discussion, I'd love to but it's obvious your mind is already made up (about *so* many things) and I have no interest in trying to change it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ShawnKing said:


> Why? So you could take it out of context and twist it around?


Yes he would, but he doesn't twist particularly well.

I get your take on Gibson just fine without the lecture Spec is requesting.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ShawnKing said:


> Why? So you could take it out of context and twist it around? I don't think so. If you were interested in an honest, open discussion, I'd love to but it's obvious your mind is already made up (about *so* many things) and I have no interest in trying to change it.


you're not paranoid
people are out to get you


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Yes he would, but he doesn't twist particularly well.
> 
> I get your take on Gibson just fine without the lecture Spec is requesting.


u seem to also "get" that don cherry is not a bigot


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

'Spec the self-loathing. Such a haggard fellow, relying on attacking what he is in an attempt to sidestep self-realisation. Keep preaching, 'Spec.

"bigotry and racism shouldn't be ignored
it should be dealt with head on"

Deal with yours, 'Spec. Even, "I am not a racist" Richards publicly apologised. Baby steps, 'Spec.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> 'Spec the self-loathing. Such a haggard fellow, relying on attacking what he is in an attempt to sidestep self-realisation. Keep preaching, 'Spec.


SPEC: "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

As long as the community doesn't express the same "moral outrage" when hip-hop artists use the same language in their music, they have nothing to complain about when a white guy does it.

Yes, it was as stupid comment. No, he shouldn't feel the brunt of this.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> you're not paranoid
> people are out to get you


LOL Wha...? What does my real or imagined (by you) paranoia have to do with anything?

You just did the equivalent of calling me a chicken - How very mature of you.....


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

He's joking, perhaps. "you're not paranoid, people are out to get you" is kind of an expression.





ShawnKing said:


> LOL Wha...? What does my real or imagined (by you) paranoia have to do with anything?
> 
> You just did the equivalent of calling me a chicken - How very mature of you.....


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I guess the fact that Don Cherry was voted the 7th greatest Canadian, and has been on the CBC for 25 years doesn't change your mind any? Looks like we hold our "bigots" on a pedestal in this country, and I don't think he'll be getting fired anytime soon.

Most of the time the comments that are in question are more about character and playing style, and are not really racially offensive.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

HowEver said:


> He's joking, perhaps.


LOL It's MacSpectrum....unlikely he's joking.


> "you're not paranoid, people are out to get you" is kind of an expression.


I know.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> As long as the community doesn't express the same "moral outrage" when hip-hop artists use the same language in their music, they have nothing to complain about when a white guy does it.
> 
> Yes, it was as stupid comment. No, he shouldn't feel the brunt of this.


That’s some diversionary logic there GT, but in looking around the net, I’ve noticed that it’s the precise argument being used by those who seek to defend or minimize the ugliness of Imus’ comments. Imus himself even hinted at this line of argument as a talking point in his self-serving apology. I found exactly the same logic used on a web site called whitecivilrights.com where the author, David Duke, goes on to show pictures of the girls on both teams to show that Imus was correct in his assessment that the Rutgers team really were “rough” looking, as oppossed to the pretty girls of the Memphis team. Disgusting.

Because I haven’t said, here on ehMac, that I find the same language when used in hip-hop to be offensive, (but I’ll say it now) doesn’t abrogate my right to deplore Imus’ slurs. This thread is about Imus and what he said and whether it is deplorable or not. Just because some hip-hop artists, or (some unknown guy on the street for that matter) use disgusting language does not make Imus’ insults and language any less disgusting, nor mitigate their impact.

Imus considers himself a broadcaster and journalist — although now his defenders are saying “Oh, he’s just a radio entertainer, so the comments don’t matter” — even though he’s quite proud of his long broadcasting career and broadcasting awards. He hosts a highly rated show with a big audience that plays over publicly licensed airwaves. If Janet Jackson’s nipple is worthy of sanctions, fines, and firings, then certainly Imus’ hate speech deserves this too. 

Janet Jackson’s nipple while shocking to a few and banal to most, didn’t harm anyone, whereas the language Imus used was hurtful. Imagine you are one of the Rutgers girls, who as well as staying on top of your schoolwork, had worked really hard with your team to get to the pinnacle of a national championship and then lost in a hard fought final. Then a white, rich, arrogant, loud, sports radio guy, speaking to a huge audience decides to call you a whore, the next day. Not only that but he calls you a “nappy-headed” whore, adding the racial adjective to the noun, which in the history of racism in America, speaks volumes. His producer throws in the word “*******” just for fun and then the radio guy goes on to say how your white opponents were so pretty, compared to your “roughness”. How could that not be taken as hurtful and how could that kind of comment be defended — ever, — given a pass, or minimized as a “just a slip”?

The brunt of this should fall on Imus. It’s good to know that guests and advertisers are cancelling from his show. This will be the big price he pays. Let’s hope his career is over, which might serve as a lesson to others who would casually use slurs like this as “entertainment”.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Imus still has more 'splainin' to do ...












> *Rutgers Players Hurt by Imus' Comments*
> 
> PISCATAWAY, N.J. Apr 11, 2007 (AP)— Rutgers basketball player Kia Vaughn doesn't know what radio host Don Imus meant when he called her and her teammates "nappy-headed hos," but she's sure that she's not one.
> 
> ...


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Imus still has more 'splainin' to do ...


OK...this is *really* getting ridiculous.

"It kind of scars us." said Matee Ajavon, a junior guard. "I think that this has scarred me for life."

OK...I know for a fact that this is not the first time any of these women have been called a name - ho or otherwise. But to say she's "scarred for life"!? Come on. That's a bit over the top, isn't it?

Sweetie, if something as stupid as Imus calling you a name can do that much psychological damage, maybe you ought to think about living somewhere else cause you're life is gonna *suck* with skin that thin.

This has been blown *way* out of proportion proving once again that "we" have no idea of how to really deal with race issues, both in Canada and the US. *Everything* is a tempest in a teapot so that when the real issues come up, we ignore them over the bleatings of the masses over some idiotic name calling.


----------



## spicyapple (Aug 17, 2006)

Depends on the context of his remark, but given the amount of grief he has received over this, it's a bit much. If I heard "nappy headed hos" the first time, I wouldn't even know it was a racist remark. Shows my level of ignorance, or naivety I suppose.

Had to look up the term "nappy" on urbandictionary.com of all places to find the meaning. Sure it is degrading, but this only shows the level of hypocrisy in society when one performer uses the term, yet others may use it without much controversy. I think this is just a case of someone choosing to play the victim card.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

ShawnKing said:


> But to say she's "scarred for life"!? Come on. That's a bit over the top, isn't it?


That possibly is, I grant that. Scarred for life might be a bit much and as you say, she has probably been called worse. So has everyone at some point in their life.

As to speculating on what these girls might be feeling, being thrust into a national media spotlight over racist comments by an idiot, I might speculate that it would be pretty intense for them, so one of the young girls might be inclined to become slightly hyperbolic. She isn't Don Imus or some other celebrity being used to addressing national media. These girls are now thrust into the middle of a big issue that was not of their making. They were just trying to get through school and their basketball season on their merits, but Don Imus made it about race.

As to whether the media is making too much of a big deal about this, well that's the nature of the media — things just snowball. Certainly this is not the most important issue facing the world, but it has now become more than it was. For many it is symbolic of the daily racism that is present everywhere and the more people who seek to just laugh it off, it then becomes a symbol for what they regard as the majority's lack of concern with racism. It's Imus' belief that racially charged crap like that could just be laughed off that got him into the hot water in the first place.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

spicyapple said:


> Sure it is degrading, but this only shows the level of hypocrisy in society when one performer uses the term, yet others may use it without much controversy. I think this is just a case of someone choosing to play the victim card.


I wouldn't defend Sharpton here, since I don't know a whole lot about him and I sense that he comes off as a publicity hound at times. That said he and other black leaders have been very vocal in their condemnation of gangsta rap and the use of derogatory language in the past, but the media doesn't pay a lot of attention until he calls for Don Imus to be fired. Then they call him a hypocrite. Is the hypocrisy with those who are calling for the firing or is it just that the media doesn't care about these issues until a nationally known white guy stumbles into it?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Good article on the subject by ESPN columnist Jemele Hill. I agree with her: 











> The oversexed Jezebel. The welfare mother. The mammy. And now the latest catch phrase to be added to the lexicon of stereotypes about black women: the nappy-headed ho.
> 
> Thank you, Don Imus, for your valuable contribution.
> 
> If it were up to me, security would have escorted the longtime radio jock out of his CBS Radio cocoon with belongings in tow days ago. But for now, I'll have to settle for a two-week suspension that doesn't begin until next week. That'll show him.





> Our looks have been the subject of ridicule for decades. While history has kindly portrayed white women as bastions of purity and decency, black women have been characterized as hypersexed and indecent since the 17th century. So the phrase "nappy-headed" didn't bother me nearly as much as the "ho" part.





> But that doesn't air on CNN and Essence magazine's Take Back the Music crusade -- a nationwide campaign that promotes up-and-coming hip-hop artists with positive values -- and it doesn't make the front pages of newspapers.
> 
> But none of this has anything to do with Imus, whose apology I can't accept or take seriously. Imus has become a Hall of Fame broadcaster using race-baiting, offensive tactics. He is routinely offensive to people of color and women, and if he needs to lose his job to understand that there is no place for that, so be it.
> 
> As a society, there are times when we need to stand together against indecency and cruelty.


ESPN.com: Page 2 : Take a stand against indecency and cruelty


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> As to speculating on what these girls might be feeling, being thrust into a national media spotlight over racist comments by an idiot, I might speculate that it would be pretty intense for them, so one of the young girls might be inclined to become slightly hyperbolic.


Wait a minute. These women were not "thrust" into the national media spotlight. They volunteered to go on stage at a Press Conference. It's not like the media ambushed them in the cafeteria.

As to intensity, are you forgetting these women just played in the NCAA Women's Basketball Championship tournament/game? I think they are quite used to pressure. 


> She isn't Don Imus or some other celebrity being used to addressing national media.


No but they sure as hell are being used.


> They were just trying to get through school and their basketball season on their merits, but Don Imus made it about race.


And as long as that's all anybody talks about, that's all it *will* be about.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

ShawnKing said:


> Wait a minute. These women were not "thrust" into the national media spotlight. They volunteered to go on stage at a Press Conference. It's not like the media ambushed them in the cafeteria.


Well from what I've been able to gather, the furor originally happened when listeners heard the disgusting comments from Imus and started to express their outrage. Then the media, being the media, right away got in touch with the team for statements. The coach and other Rutgers officials spoke publicly at first, but the girls didn't make any public statements, even though I'm sure the pressure on them by hundreds of reporters looking for scoops would have been intense. No doubt this was organized as a result of the media clamouring for statements.



ShawnKing said:


> As to intensity, are you forgetting these women just played in the NCAA Women's Basketball Championship tournament/game? I think they are quite used to pressure.


Not forgetting that, but I'm sure that playing basketball is something they have some experience at. Speaking to the assembled national media, with cameras and mikes trained on their every word and inflection wouldn't be. Don't forget their age — these are just kids, relatively speaking.



ShawnKing said:


> And as long as that's all anybody talks about, that's all it *will* be about.


And I'm sure Don Imus really wishes that praising these girls based on their merit was what he had done rather than his attempt at "humour". The blame for this mess is his. Free speech has its consequences.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i saw whoopie gold berg and spike lee on a morning talk show and spike lee's biggest complaint that this wasn;t the first such offensive racial remark made by Imus

so perhaps this isn't just an isolated incident


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Good article on the subject by ESPN columnist Jemele Hill. I agree with her:


That's a shame. Cause she's just as full of BS as anyone else in the media weighing in on this matter.

"If it were up to me, security would have escorted the longtime radio jock out of his CBS Radio cocoon with belongings in tow days ago."

Luckily, it's not up to her. How boring would our world be if there were only *one* kind of radio talk show (the kind she wants to listen to)?

"Tell you what, if this "nappy-headed ho" comment is as harmless as some of you say it is, say that phrase to your wives and girlfriends tonight (or even a woman on the street). If they laugh, I'll write an entire column about how humorless I am."

You're on. I just called my wife that and she roared with laughter - granted, she's a little blonde Texan but she still thought it was funny.

"While history has kindly portrayed white women as bastions of purity and decency, black women have been characterized as hypersexed and indecent since the 17th century."

Bull. *All* women have been "mistreated" in any number of ways for centuries. Offensiveness is not reserved for black women no matter how much you want to wrap yourself in that cloak.

"So the phrase "nappy-headed" didn't bother me nearly as much as the "ho" part."

Sorry, you can't pick and choose your insults.

"Sharpton even called for a 90-day, FCC-mandated ban on all gangsta music. But that doesn't air on CNN..."

You know why not? Because it's *stupid*. There's no way the FCC would ever even entertain such a ridiculous idea and nor should anyone else entertain it. What's next? A ban on Metal music? How about on bad dance tracks? Whiny country music? Where does it end?

Oh - I know where. Where people like this column writer decide it ends. We get to live by *their* standards. Won't that be fun.

"But none of this has anything to do with Imus, whose apology I can't accept or take seriously."

Of course not. Because you *want* to be offended. You *need* to be offended. Imus is just the spark.

"Imus has become a Hall of Fame broadcaster using race-baiting, offensive tactics."

Yes - he has. And you're just now waking up to that fact and standing on your soapbox? Where were you when Imus was insulting Catholics or Jews, Canadians or Mexicans, French or British?

No where to be found because Imus wasn't goring *your* particular sacred cow. But when he turns yours into hamburger, *that's* when you get offended.

I'd rather have Imus up front with his stupidity, offensiveness and moronic comments than to hide behind hypocrisy like this column writer has.

"As a society, there are times when we need to stand together against indecency and cruelty."

"Take a stand against indecency and cruelty"? Come on. How about simply taking a stand against the idiot Don Imus. Why blow it all out of proportion?


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i saw whoopie gold berg and spike lee on a morning talk show and spike lee's biggest complaint that this wasn;t the first such offensive racial remark made by Imus


Not at all. Imus is a "Shock Jock". Everyone seems to be forgetting that.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I don't even see how it is racial, because he used the word "ho" or was it "nappy"? How is either word tied to the black community? Now if he had called them "****** brown" we would have a different story. I don't see this any different that expressions like "red headed stepchild" or "four eyes."

He was attempting to be funny, it failed, end of story.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> so perhaps this isn't just an isolated incident


Unfortunately, I now know more about Don Imus than I ever would want to and yes he's a serial racist and misogynist.

If I was in charge of the network hosting his show I would just cancel it for good right away and cut my losses. What kills me about this is that those who are saying "Hey lighten up, he was only having some fun and now he's sorry" or "You can't say anything about this because others say worse things" are only making those calling for his show's cancellation more upset and probably more determined.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ShawnKing said:


> Not at all. Imus is a "Shock Jock". Everyone seems to be forgetting that.


:clap:

Exactly, if this came from Howard Stern, no one would have looked twice, but because of the fact he works for a major network, let's try and hang um.

I've heard kids say crueler things. If you can't shrug that comment off then you need to crawl in a hole, because the real world is a lot uglier than that.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> I don't even see how it is racial, because he used the word "ho" or was it "nappy"? How is either word tied to the black community?


Think about who he said it to - a group of black women.

Imagine if Imus had said the exact same thing about a team of white women - everyone would have just been confused. 

That's why it's seen as more "racially insensitive".

But you bring up an interesting point. What if Imus had said something "equally" offensive but not racially charged? What if he had called them all "*****" or "women in comfortable shoes" (to steal from Robin Williams)? Would there still have been this uproar?


> He was attempting to be funny, it failed, end of story.


Amen.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The blame for this mess is his. Free speech has its consequences.


Yep. It doesn't seem like hate speech (by Canadian law, for example) so it is up to society to control. I'd hate to see The Law step in, so it is up to people to determine the consequences. Much like ehmac occasionally pushes back on such poop with no legal basis; just people choosing and networks deciding.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> If you can't shrug that comment off then you need to crawl in a hole, because the real world is a lot uglier than that.


"Life's tough - get a helmet" Dennis Leary


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ShawnKing said:


> But you bring up an interesting point. What if Imus had said something "equally" offensive but not racially charged? What if he had called them all "*****" or "women in comfortable shoes" (to steal from Robin Williams)? Would there still have been this uproar?


 How about "Fat Ho's"? 

There wasn't even this much uproar when that basketball player said he hated gays.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ShawnKing said:


> Think about who he said it to - a group of black women.


You think just because they play basketball they're all black? Shawn you racist bastard. There are two white women on the team, or do they not count? Just imagine how they feel.

Rutgers Women's Basketball - #12&nbspKatie&nbspAdams

Rutgers Women's Basketball - #21&nbspHeather&nbspZurich


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

ShawnKing said:


> "If it were up to me, security would have escorted the longtime radio jock out of his CBS Radio cocoon with belongings in tow days ago."
> 
> Luckily, it's not up to her. How boring would our world be if there were only *one* kind of radio talk show (the kind she wants to listen to)?


I don't think she said anything about one kind of radio. She did say that if she was in charge of the network, she would can him. I'm sure he's welcome to have his own racist-spewing sports show on the Internet or a private station if they want him. Why would a large public network protect a racist? 



ShawnKing said:


> "While history has kindly portrayed white women as bastions of purity and decency, black women have been characterized as hypersexed and indecent since the 17th century."
> 
> Bull. *All* women have been "mistreated" in any number of ways for centuries. Offensiveness is not reserved for black women no matter how much you want to wrap yourself in that cloak.


I think you might be re-writing history just a bit if you were to say that blacks have not been hugely discriminated against since Europeans first discovered Africa. This doesn't say that others haven't been discriminated against as well, but that's not the issue here. Again, because others have experienced discrimination does not make this instance of it OK, or any less repugnant. 



ShawnKIng said:


> "So the phrase "nappy-headed" didn't bother me nearly as much as the "ho" part."
> 
> Sorry, you can't pick and choose your insults.


  Why not?



ShawnKing said:


> "Sharpton even called for a 90-day, FCC-mandated ban on all gangsta music. But that doesn't air on CNN..."
> 
> You know why not? Because it's *stupid*. There's no way the FCC would ever even entertain such a ridiculous idea and nor should anyone else entertain it. What's next? A ban on Metal music? How about on bad dance tracks? Whiny country music? Where does it end?


I don't know the details of this action, do you? I'm guessing that if it is a serious action it would be based on the use of offensive words, which I would assume would be under the control of the FCC. But the point she was making though is that Sharpton's previous criticism of gangsta rap went virtually unreported compared his criticism of Imus. Now he is being criticized for criticizing Imus, by many people saying, "Well why doesn't he criticize his own people?" She is making the point that he has, just that nobody cared.



ShawnKing said:


> "But none of this has anything to do with Imus, whose apology I can't accept or take seriously."
> 
> Of course not. Because you *want* to be offended. You *need* to be offended. Imus is just the spark.


Geez, I'm not even black or a woman and I cringed when I first heard Imus' comment played. I can't imagine how offensive it would be to be this columnist and hear this or maybe the proud parents of one of the girls and hear that crap. Then further to have a bunch of white guys telling me that I'm overreacting or lacking a sense of humour.



ShawnKing said:


> "Imus has become a Hall of Fame broadcaster using race-baiting, offensive tactics."
> 
> Yes - he has. And you're just now waking up to that fact and standing on your soapbox? Where were you when Imus was insulting Catholics or Jews, Canadians or Mexicans, French or British?
> 
> No where to be found because Imus wasn't goring *your* particular sacred cow. But when he turns yours into hamburger, *that's* when you get offended.


I don't think you know that at all.



ShawnKing said:


> I'd rather have Imus up front with his stupidity, offensiveness and moronic comments than to hide behind hypocrisy like this column writer has.
> 
> "As a society, there are times when we need to stand together against indecency and cruelty."
> 
> "Take a stand against indecency and cruelty"? Come on. How about simply taking a stand against the idiot Don Imus. Why blow it all out of proportion?


I'd rather media conglomerates didn't think it was a winning strategy to make money selling ad space on shows featuring stupid, offensive moronic racists. The fact that they think this is still in this day and age a good money-making strategy shows that racism is very alive and well in the USA.

Geez Shawn, after replying to all that I think my typing speed just went up by 20 wpm. Pardon the typos.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> Yep. It doesn't seem like hate speech (by Canadian law, for example) so it is up to society to control. I'd hate to see The Law step in, so it is up to people to determine the consequences. Much like ehmac occasionally pushes back on such poop with no legal basis; just people choosing and networks deciding.


I'm certainly not advocating that the law step in, because it wouldn't meet that definition as you say. By consequences, I meant that if Imus is free to shoot off his mouth, and he is, others are free to criticize him or pressure his business partners to sever their relationship with him.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

As much fun as this thread is, I have to take my carpel-tunnelled paws and grab my Canucks cap and start getting ready to watch the Canucks take on the Dallas Stars in a couple of hours. I'll check in tomorrow.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> You think just because they play basketball they're all black?


Well...duh.... 


> Shawn you racist bastard.


LMAO Yup. But at least I'm open and honest about it. 


> There are two white women on the team, or do they not count? Just imagine how they feel.


I'd love to hear what they have to say about all of this.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Why would a large public network protect a racist?


Because it makes them money.


> I think you might be re-writing history just a bit if you were to say that blacks have not been hugely discriminated against since Europeans first discovered Africa.


Re-read what I said. i said no such thing.


> Geez, I'm not even black or a woman and I cringed when I first heard Imus' comment played.


I'm one of the above and I thought, "There he goes again, being an a-hole" and i turned off my radio.


> I don't think you know that at all.


Perhaps not but I do know Imus has been offensive for *years*. Why is this woman/these people just stepping up now?


> The fact that they think this is still in this day and age a good money-making strategy shows that racism is very alive and well in the USA.


Anyone who thinks it isn't is naive.


> Geez Shawn, after replying to all that I think my typing speed just went up by 20 wpm.


You're welcome.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> As much fun as this thread is, I have to take my carpel-tunnelled paws and grab my Canucks cap and start getting ready to watch the Canucks take on the Dallas Stars in a couple of hours.


SHADDUP! I'm "trapped" down here in the US - the first game I get to see is on *Sunday*. But I get to watch all the baseball I can stomach.

Freaking barbarians.....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> others are free to criticize him or pressure his business partners to sever their relationship with him.


Yep, and I think they should, but it's up to them. Just so people don't get confused about us agreeing, @#$! off, hippie freak.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

ShawnKing said:


> SHADDUP! I'm "trapped" down here in the US - the first game I get to see is on *Sunday*. But I get to watch all the baseball I can stomach.
> 
> Freaking barbarians.....


The game was a marathon — Vancouver finally won it at the end of the 4th overtime period at around 12:30 am. Yikes — what a way to start the playoffs.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> Yep, and I think they should, but it's up to them. Just so people don't get confused about us agreeing, @#$! off, hippie freak.


I completely disagree that there could be any agreement between us, capitalist running dog lackey of the imperialist American global hegemonist!


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The game was a marathon


I managed to find a station "down here" showing the game!


> Vancouver finally won it at the end of the 4th overtime period at around 12:30 am.


Yeah - *your* time...it was 3:30am for me!


> Yikes — what a way to start the playoffs.


Amen - gotta love it!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I completely disagree that there could be any agreement between us, capitalist running dog lackey of the imperialist American global hegemonist!


You'll eat those words when I sell out to the Chinese. beejacon


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

CBS fires Imus.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/202512


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> You'll eat those words when I sell out to the Chinese. beejacon


Ha Ha, the joke's on you capitalist! I have it on good authority that the filthy descent into capitalism allowed by our glorious leaders is only a clever ruse until the eventual day that the People's Republic will control the world — and Walmart!


Oh wait — damn, — I've given away the clever ruse — *D'OHH!!*


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> the eventual day that the People's Republic will control the world — and Walmart!


Genuine panda rugs for $29.99 each, with 3 kilograms of smog for free (please allow 8 days delivery time for it to cross the Pacific). A great victory for "ordinary Canadians". I've appropriately short-sold smog and invested in panda DNA patents as a result of your tactical blunder. beejacon


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

mrjimmy said:


> CBS fires Imus.
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/News/article/202512


Good news — CBS did the right thing.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Bank has entire Arab-American family arrested after father tries to deposit large check from home sale*










In Kansas, an Iraqi-American doctoral student was arrested along with his family after attemping to deposit a large check from the sale of their old house.

According to Wichita State’s student newspaper The Sunflower, Sattar Ali, who moved to the United States in 1993, took a check for $151,000 from the sale of his family’s old house in Michigan to Wichita’s Emprise Bank. As he told local news station KAKE, he brought verification documents along with him, but a few minutes after he first presented tellers with the check, he was in handcuffs.

After being taken outside, Ali discovered his wife Hadil and their 15-year-old daughter Hawra were in the backseat of the police car waiting for him. Sometime during their three-hour detainment, Ali said police called his 11-year-old son’s school to tell them to hold him because his parents had been arrested.

He said he didn’t discover until after they were released that he and his family had been arrested because the bank claimed they could not verify the large check and believed it was fraudulent.

“No one told me why I was being arrested until we were being released,” Ali told The Sunflower. “They didn’t read me rights or anything.”

“We were devastated. Terrified. Crying the whole time,” Ali said. “We had no idea what the arrest was for.”

Ali told The Sunflower he believes he and his family were racially profiled because the large check came from someone with his name and not someone named “James or Robert.”

“Let’s assume I made a mistake and gave them a bad check,” Ali said. “Why would they arrest my wife and daughter?”
(RawStory)​


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> *Bank has entire Arab-American family arrested after father tries to deposit large check from home sale*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would love to hear more about this story, there are generally two sides to every tale. The headline is pretty misleading, the bank can't have anyone arrested, the police do not just do what the bank wants when they want it. Certainly does not sound right in any case based on what that article says. Sounds like they were detained rather then arrested. Were they taken to the police station or detained out in the car? Article did not say or I missed it. 

I also have trouble believe the police phoned up the school and used the words "hold him because his parents have been arrested". If it is indeed true it is very peculiar and not right, but I would certainly want to hear more in-depth coverage on this story to get the other sides view.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

When you start doubting the objectivity of _The Sunflower_, what's left...?

I attracted attention for cashing the cheque on my totalled car from an insurance company--and the office that issued it was located 10 doors down from the bank. Been with the bank a mere 40 years.



wonderings said:


> I would love to hear more about this story, there are generally two sides to every tale. The headline is pretty misleading, the bank can't have anyone arrested, the police do not just do what the bank wants when they want it. Certainly does not sound right in any case based on what that article says. Sounds like they were detained rather then arrested. Were they taken to the police station or detained out in the car? Article did not say or I missed it.
> 
> I also have trouble believe the police phoned up the school and used the words "hold him because his parents have been arrested". If it is indeed true it is very peculiar and not right, but I would certainly want to hear more in-depth coverage on this story to get the other sides view.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> When you start doubting the objectivity of _The Sunflower_, what's left...?


Funny how whenever a brown person gets **** on, you're the first to rush to the defence of the person doing the ****ting.

Would you prefer the Fox2Detroit coverage?
The NewsTalk1290 report? The KWCH story?

Which of these sources will break through your inability to believe that racism exists in America?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm criticizing a white person--YOU--for doing a crap job of sourcing information. 

The bank felt that a forgery was taking place. Can you prove that they would not do the same any other time they felt a forgery was taking place? The bank called the police about the assumed forgery--based on that information, the police detained the family.



CubaMark said:


> Funny how whenever a brown person gets **** on, you're the first to rush to the defence of the person doing the ****ting.
> 
> Would you prefer the Fox2Detroit coverage?
> The NewsTalk1290 report? The KWCH story?
> ...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I'm criticizing a white person--YOU--for doing a crap job of sourcing information.


That would be true if there were other sources that I intentionally or through incompetence did not provide. I've given you various sources, and I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to search the internet yourself for more. That's just you being nasty.



Macfury said:


> The bank felt that a forgery was taking place. Can you prove that they would not do the same any other time they felt a forgery was taking place? The bank called the police about the assumed forgery--based on that information, the police detained the family.


Explain to me why the police would detain the man's family? The father was the one who was in the bank, attempting to cash a valid cheque (and curious how the cops were apparently able to verify the cheque when the bank could not...?).

_The Sunfower_'s reporting was lacking in detail, yes. But there seems to be sufficient information there to call into question the police response, if not the bank's actions.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*From another treatment on the story, from The Root:*

The check totaled just over $151,000, and literally all Ali wanted to do was put it in Emprise Bank for safekeeping until he found a house for his family.

“I told them I don’t need it until I find a house. So keep the check with you, verify, take your time,” he said. “Simply we were just going there to deposit a check. We were not asking for money.”

But even despite his affable approach to the situation, Ali soon found himself in* handcuffs*. 

“I was talking to them for less than five minutes and I found the police behind me, handcuffed me, confiscated everything and took me outside,” he explained.

Ali said more than *15 police cars showed up for his arrest.*

** * **​
....two other members of Ali’s family—his wife, Hadil, and their 15-year-old daughter Hawra, who *were not even in the bank at the time of the incident,* but waiting in the car outside—were also taken into custody for reasons beyond comprehension.

“Let’s assume I made a mistake and gave them a bad check,” Ali suggested, according to the Wichita State Sunflower. “Why would they arrest my wife and daughter?”

** * *​*
He was also confused as to why the bank couldn’t verify the check but police managed to. *It was later reported that the bank did not, in fact, call Dearborn to verify the check*, but instead for some reason placed a call to Boise, Idaho, KAKE notes.​


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> *From another treatment on the story, from The Root:*The check totaled just over $151,000, and literally all Ali wanted to do was put it in Emprise Bank for safekeeping until he found a house for his family.
> 
> “I told them I don’t need it until I find a house. So keep the check with you, verify, take your time,” he said. “Simply we were just going there to deposit a check. We were not asking for money.”
> 
> ...


Not that the bank cares but if it had been my family, you can bet your Heineken I would take my business elsewhere. Come to think of it if I was a client of that bank, I would be closing my accounts immediately and urging others to do the same.

That sort of gross abuse of power should land the bank manager in the unemployment line. While it is a given that the cops do indeed work for the banksters, maybe a wrist slap for the idiots who ordered that heavy handed response is also in order.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

Seems the bank is pretty set that they did the right thing according to their policies.

The bank released a statement saying that it "can confirm that our team acted in accordance with our policies and procedures. If faced with the same circumstances today, we would expect our team to take the same actions."
Dearborn family arrested while trying to deposit check in bank - Story | WJBK

I would think if this really was a case of racism the bank would be back peddling and blaming the employee or someone to use as a scape goat. This does not say it all of course, but it certainly a sign that there may be more to the story then they were simply arrested because they were from Iraq. 

The second link talks about a man depositing fraudulent checks, so why would the banks not be on heightened alert?
Man Attempts to Deposit Over $700,000 in Fraudulent Checks at Wichita Falls Banks


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Likewise, does this bank have a record of targeting any particular group? CubaMark, your hair-trigger news aggregator responses are creating a poisonous, racially-charged atmosphere all by themselves. Why not wait until you get all the facts?



wonderings said:


> Seems the bank is pretty set that they did the right thing according to their policies.
> 
> The bank released a statement saying that it "can confirm that our team acted in accordance with our policies and procedures. If faced with the same circumstances today, we would expect our team to take the same actions."
> Dearborn family arrested while trying to deposit check in bank - Story | WJBK
> ...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> CubaMark, your hair-trigger news aggregator responses are creating a poisonous, racially-charged atmosphere all by themselves. Why not wait until you get all the facts?


That's rich. How many times have you and your ideological pal in this forum bitched about issue (x) or  being "ignored" by the media? Any delay in jumping on unsubstantiated stories about the latest "muslim atrocity" in your eyes is tantamount to intentionally keeping the public in the dark - and now you're telling me to "wait" when posting current news items?

Shall I start posting 10-year-old "news", once the perpetrators of any given crime have been found, arrested, charged, awaited trial, had their trial, been sentenced and then released to the public again? Is that the kind of delay you'd like?

I can't keep up with your mercurial moods, man.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You posted it in "Racism still alive and well in Amerika"--you're the judge and jury already. 

And no, I've not complained about media ignoring various stories about supposed "muslim atrocities." 




CubaMark said:


> That's rich. How many times have you and your ideological pal in this forum bitched about issue (x) or  being "ignored" by the media? Any delay in jumping on unsubstantiated stories about the latest "muslim atrocity" in your eyes is tantamount to intentionally keeping the public in the dark - and now you're telling me to "wait" when posting current news items?
> 
> Shall I start posting 10-year-old "news", once the perpetrators of any given crime have been found, arrested, charged, awaited trial, had their trial, been sentenced and then released to the public again? Is that the kind of delay you'd like?
> 
> I can't keep up with your mercurial moods, man.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Speaking of rich...

Better borrow Freddie's mirror, CM. Nobody on these boards goes from zero to p!$$ed off in a nanosecond quite like you.



CubaMark said:


> I can't keep up with your mercurial moods, man.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If you could harness that ramp up, you could power all of Mexico for an hour.



FeXL said:


> Speaking of rich...
> 
> Better borrow Freddie's mirror, CM. Nobody on these boards goes from zero to p!$$ed off in a nanosecond quite like you.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

wonderings said:


> Seems the bank is pretty set that they did the right thing according to their policies.
> 
> The bank released a statement saying that it "can confirm that our team acted in accordance with our policies and procedures. If faced with the same circumstances today, we would expect our team to take the same actions."
> Dearborn family arrested while trying to deposit check in bank - Story | WJBK
> ...


It's Witchita. Racism is not relevant. In layman terms: "If it ain't Baptist it ain't human."

Seriously I see this to be a typical overreaction, part of a determined effort to change police mottos from: "To Serve and Protect" to "To Bully and Intimidate."

Clearly the bank also made a serious blunder. Trying to blame the target or bank policy is the worst possible way to handle a dumbass mistake. A simple apology would have served them far better than that lame-brained statement.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> It's Witchita. Racism is not relevant. In layman terms: "If it ain't Baptist it ain't human."
> 
> Seriously I see this to be a typical overreaction, part of a determined effort to change police mottos from: "To Serve and Protect" to "To Bully and Intimidate."
> 
> Clearly the bank also made a serious blunder. Trying to blame the target or bank policy is the worst possible way to handle a dumbass mistake. A simple apology would have served them far better than that lame-brained statement.


Hard to say what the blunder is as the bank is saying they would do it again, so obviously they have some reasoning behind this.

A lot of it just seems far fetched, and while it could be true I have trouble believing 15 police cars showed up for an incident like this and from the links provided only the man in question said that. Before jumping on the bandwagon of saying this is another example of extreme racism I would be very curious to hear the banks side and reasoning as well as the police.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

wonderings said:


> Hard to say what the blunder is as the bank is saying they would do it again, so obviously they have some reasoning behind this.
> 
> A lot of it just seems far fetched, and while it could be true I have trouble believing 15 police cars showed up for an incident like this and from the links provided only the man in question said that. Before jumping on the bandwagon of saying this is another example of extreme racism I would be very curious to hear the banks side and reasoning as well as the police.


Agreed that 15 was probably an exaggeration, he could hardly have been expected to make an accurate count under the circumstances. However more than 2 would certainly have been overkill and it seems likely this was the case. Again detaining wife and child was also way out of line. 

More importantly the cops, with fewer resources than the bank, were able to figure out the cheque was genuine in a fairly short time frame. The bank seemingly failed to make that extra effort. The bank should have made a straight apology rather than hiding behind policy. Failing to admit you screwed up is guaranteed to aggravate the damage caused by the actual screw up.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> Agreed that 15 was probably an exaggeration, he could hardly have been expected to make an accurate count under the circumstances. However more than 2 would certainly have been overkill and it seems likely this was the case. Again detaining wife and child was also way out of line.
> 
> More importantly the cops, with fewer resources than the bank, were able to figure out the cheque was genuine in a fairly short time frame. The bank seemingly failed to make that extra effort. The bank should have made a straight apology rather than hiding behind policy. Failing to admit you screwed up is guaranteed to aggravate the damage caused by the actual screw up.


15 is far more then an exaggeration and really if there were 2 cars which I do not think is over kill in certain situations, it would be easy enough to count and notice. If this was a number pulled out of his head, which I think it is as it just seems way to bizarre to be real, he is hoping for a heavier reaction. Saying a cop car showed up because they were suspected of fraud is not as sensational as 15 RACIST POLICE CARS SHOWED UP FOR 1 MAN AND HIS FAMILY.

It very well could be the bank made a dumb mistake, I would still like to know the reasoning behind it. Years ago I bought something from a guy in Ottawa, 5 hours from me so I paid via a bank transfer. At the bank I paid $200 in $50 bills that were a bit crumpled because they had been in my wallet for a while. Teller suspected fraud, or counterfeit, she even questioned me as to why I had $200 cash sitting in my wallet for so long. Anyways my money was held for testing which took 3 days. I am white though so obviously not racism. Who knows why they felt this was suspicious, they very well could have been some concern, not everyday does someone walk in and deposit $100 + thousand dollars into an account.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

wonderings said:


> .... very well could have been some concern, not everyday does someone walk in and deposit $100 + thousand dollars into an account.


Indeed. However - if the fellow in this scenario is to be believed - he simply wanted to deposit the money, was not asking to withdraw it at any time in the near future, and told the bank that he would not need it until he found another house to buy. This would appear to be a situation in which the bank should have smiled, said "thank-you for your business. Given the sizeable sum in question, we will need a few days to verify the cheque. Should there be any problem, we will be in touch." 

But no. Someone decided it was fraud, called the cops, and from what we know to date, the police overreacted in the extreme. Handcuffs? Detaining the family? Allegedly mass response by backup? Looking forward to the details on this one....


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> Indeed. However - if the fellow in this scenario is to be believed - he simply wanted to deposit the money, was not asking to withdraw it at any time in the near future, and told the bank that he would not need it until he found another house to buy. This would appear to be a situation in which the bank should have smiled, said "thank-you for your business. Given the sizeable sum in question, we will need a few days to verify the cheque. Should there be any problem, we will be in touch."
> 
> But no. Someone decided it was fraud, called the cops, and from what we know to date, the police overreacted in the extreme. Handcuffs? Detaining the family? Allegedly mass response by backup? Looking forward to the details on this one....


And maybe for good reason someone decided it was fraud, we will not know unless the bank opens up and talks about the situation. Obviously the man in question is not going to say any different to make himself look bad in anyway. I am not ruling out that the whole situation was exactly as said, but it seems a lot of it is pretty far fetched, i.e. 15 police cars. 

Banks do not just smile and send you on your way if they suspect fraud, the whole thing is to catch someone committing fraud not giving them opportunity to get away with a polite smile. I as well would love more details as it sounds very peculiar.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

No doubt.

At first blush, this one fits your narrative. All the while ignoring scores of other atrocities that don't... XX)



CubaMark said:


> Looking forward to the details on this one....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Exactly. If someone tries to deposit a cheque believed fraudulent, the bank teller doesn't simply decide the cheque is no good and say bye-bye--the act of presenting it as valid is the act of fraud.



wonderings said:


> Banks do not just smile and send you on your way if they suspect fraud, the whole thing is to catch someone committing fraud not giving them opportunity to get away with a polite smile. I as well would love more details as it sounds very peculiar.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*From the Emprise Bank's Twitter account:* (@EmpriseBank)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> At first blush, this one fits your narrative. All the while ignoring scores of other atrocities that don't... XX)


Thank-you for your usual blather, oh King of false equivalencies.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So you were wrong. Case closed.



CubaMark said:


> *From the Emprise Bank's Twitter account:* (@EmpriseBank)


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Pot, kettle.



CubaMark said:


> Thank-you for your usual blather, oh King of false equivalencies.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> *From the Emprise Bank's Twitter account:* (@EmpriseBank)


So an over reaction by the police, I still have trouble believing 15 cars showed up for that but you just never know.

The bank had issue to suspect fraud and did what they should do when suspecting fraud. No longer a case of the bank being racist towards this man and his family. If anything the story is about an over reaction by the police.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

wonderings said:


> The bank had issue to suspect fraud and did what they should do when suspecting fraud. No longer a case of the bank being racist towards this man and his family. If anything the story is about an over reaction by the police.


I agree that it is very apparent that the police overreacted.

I disagree that this is proper bank policy: holds on cheques are a normal procedure. Worst case scenario is the cheque is not verifiable, and the bank notifies police of an attempted fraud, in which case the cops pay the guy a visit.

Note that this was a cashier's cheque. Note that the bank called the wrong state to verify the cheque. Note that the cops, after their brutish behaviour, managed to verify the cheque (baffling, that part).



macfury said:


> So you were wrong. Case closed.


Excuse me? In what way was I wrong? 

CM


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Pulease.

Everybody on these boards, yourself included, knows that the only reason you posted the article is because of some possible form of -ism against your favourite victim du jour.

It fell flat and now your proclaiming innocence? Pull the other one...



CubaMark said:


> Excuse me? In what way was I wrong?


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> I agree that it is very apparent that the police overreacted.
> 
> I disagree that this is proper bank policy: holds on cheques are a normal procedure. Worst case scenario is the cheque is not verifiable, and the bank notifies police of an attempted fraud, in which case the cops pay the guy a visit.
> 
> ...


If you read the tweet you posted

"was solely based on our internal procedures related to verifying fundamental security features and the routing number of a check. When we were unable to do that we called law enforcement for assistance"

They had concern that this was fraud and again based on the previous links you provided there was fraud happening already so this could possibly be something bigger then just a one time possible fraud attempt. 

Again, if a crime is being permitted you call the police, not take the check and hold it and let them go on their way and let the police hunt them down. Would be a terrible waste of man power to go on a hunt when you have them at the bank, possibly red handed. Obviously fraud is not the case here, but that was the assumption. There were obviously mistakes made, but I would not be jumping to racism in this case.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

wonderings said:


> Obviously fraud is not the case here, but that was the assumption. There were obviously mistakes made, but I would not be jumping to racism in this case.


Is that what the usual suspects are referring to? Did I say the bank was racist? No - from the beginning I stated that the bank's policy seemed 'off'. As to the racial component ... I wonder if the police reaction - putting this guy in handcuffs and arresting his family - would have occurred had he been white? 

So, MF: Case _not_ closed.

FeXL: Sorry, is there some kind of quota system you'd like me to adopt? Only mention (x) racial incidents per month, perhaps vary them by muslim / sikh / black / hindu / other?

You guys can't apologize enough for racists, nor diminish the character of victims quickly enough. I suppose you'd like all these brown-skinned folks to just 'get over it'? XX)


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Nope. I don't want you to change a single thing. 

I want you to continue to show your hypocritical Prog bias to everyone one these boards. I want you to continue to dredge the bowels of the intertubes for the slightest affronts you can find to the tiniest of visible minorities on the planet while completely ignoring thousands of deaths/year committed by a very identifiable sect of the planet's population.

I want you to continue to ignore the rapes, misogyny, patriarchy, FGM, child brides, tossing of gays off rooftops & implementation of sharia law (to name a few) by the most pernicious threat on this world in the hopes that the crocodile will eat you last.

Please, by all means, carry on...



CubaMark said:


> Sorry, is there some kind of quota system you'd like me to adopt?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> I want you to continue to ignore the rapes, misogyny, patriarchy, FGM, child brides, tossing of gays off rooftops & implementation of sharia law (to name a few) by the most pernicious threat on this world in the hopes that the crocodile will eat you last.


Rape, misogyny, patriarchy, FGM, child brides, tossing gays off rooftops - are all very much worthy of intention and struggle to bring to an end. This "implementation of sharia law" you mentioned doesn't exist - it's the unhinged product of the fearful right-wing mentality against anything that isn't white anglo-saxon. But you are obsessive in your blame of muslims for all the evils of the world. 

I'm an atheist. I see all religions as ridiculous, as manifestations of the primitive fear that has existed in humans' brains since before they were cave-dwellers. But I respect peoples' right to not be slandered simply for their belief in one or the other magical sky being.

And you, fellow ehMacer, have taken your irrational hatred of muslims to new levels. Fear is the mind-killer.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> I'm an atheist. I see all religions as ridiculous, as manifestations of the primitive fear that has existed in humans' brains since before they were cave-dwellers. But I respect peoples' right to not be slandered simply for their belief in one or the other magical sky being.


And doffing all of these primitive beliefs, you've wound up as enlightened as you are? Amazing!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Read. 

Learn.

You may also wish to research what's currently happening in Minnesota, among other US states.



CubaMark said:


> This "implementation of sharia law" you mentioned doesn't exist...


Why am I not surprised? Typical Prog closed mind.



CubaMark said:


> I'm an atheist.


Sticks & stones, CM...



CubaMark said:


> And you, fellow ehMacer, blah, blah-blah, blah, blah...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> And doffing all of these primitive beliefs, you've wound up as enlightened as you are? Amazing!


Truly stunning.


----------

