On Real Time with Bill Maher last night, our host's identification with Imus for getting fired prevented his sounding reasonable, to say the least.
For Crike's sake, even Scotty McClellan was closer to the kernel of truth at the core of this "controversial" firing.
Don't misunderstand that I'm a Maher basher. I often agree with his take on things--just not every time. Like when he called the Dems "pussies" for not appearing at the Faux News debate.
Last night he kept insisting to Al Sharpton that somehow, deplorable as Imus's comment was, the fact that the Rutgers basketball players probably weren't listening to the show in the first place is somehow relevant. That they could only hear the insult secondhand, from a "watchdog" media in a "frenzy" to call out people for misspeaking (into which group he placed MediaMatters, by the way).
So Bill, if I'm in a room with some friends and insult you, is it less of an insult because you weren't in the room and only heard of the insult indirectly? Though you heard it secondhand, once the insult is verified, is it somehow less insulting that it was said behind your back, outside your presence? Is the insult somehow neutralized coming from a source historically antithetical to your interests because somebody else somewhere has insulted someone using the same language?
I didn't think so.
Old white guys yucking it up at the expense of young black women don't need you defending them, Bill.