Your poll is misleading.  Poor access to health care, welfare cuts, pollution in urban areas, poor access to healthy food, police brutality, and the drug war are all the fault of Don Imus and Michael Richards.

But seriously ... black people make racial jokes, they get their own TV shows.  White people make racial jokes, they get fired from their TV shows.  The lesson from this is that race (and gender and sexual orientation) is more of a minefield than it's ever been.  TIME has a good article about it ...
http://www.time.com/...

Many of the old fogies on this blog remember the very early 80s, when a young woman in New York named Tawana Brawley disappeared, and then reappeared a few days later with a story of having been abducted, raped, and shat upon by a group of white cops.  She presented a black plastic bag smeared with feces in support of her assertions.  Within a few days her story began to fall apart - one of her friends said Tawana had run away from home to be with a boyfriend and, fearing her mother's wrath, decided to claim she'd been kidnapped.  Al Sharpton exploded on the scene as Brawley's champion, holding one press conference after another denouncing the white, racist cops, etc. and demanding justice.  Forensic analysis soon revealed the feces to be from a dog, and Brawley's story was seen by all reasonable people as an obvious fabrication.  The prosecutor on the case refused to prosecute the cops.  Brawley responded by saying that the conspiracy was even wider than what she'd originally charged, and that the prosecutor himself had been at the scene and participated in her rape and abuse.  Sharpton kept up the press conferences, the wild charges, the marches in the streets, everything, and made sure the local black community was in a fury of racial hatred and charges of a cover-up.  He did not back down an inch even as the evidence mounted that the whole thing was a wild concoction by a silly and dishonest teenage girl.  The names of the cops and the prosecutor were dragged through the mud and their reputations in tatters.  Eventually the young prosecutor left the office because he could not take the stress any longer.

Eventually, Brawley moved from New York and now lives somewhere in Maryland.  She never apologized.  The prosecutor sued her and Sharpton and won a very large judgment, none of which has been paid from what I've heard, and Al Sharpton was rewarded for his slanderous, destructive, fabricated attacks on a group of innocent men by being catapulted into the national spotlight as yet another self-appointed spokesman for black people, possessor of political power, and radio voice packed with eloquent moral rectitude on behalf of oppressed people everywhere.  What a crock of crap.  Sharpton never, ever admitted any wrongdoing or any remorse for his hand in one of the most shameful episodes in recent race relations.

I recognize that the guy has quite a bad past.  I think I was referring to his more recent exploits on some issues in the 2004 campaign.  Ultimately, Al Sharpton has many flaws related to his character.  Be that as it may, racial injustice is so often discussed in the spectrum of words, that talk about actions seem to be non-existent.  I believe that the bigotry that still exists is far more silent and unspoken.  It is like ignoring the big things.  For example, let's say that instead of requiring handicapped access ramps and passing the monumental legislation known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1975, that we just fired TV hosts if they made a crack insensitive to handicapped people. 

We have to ask in that situation, what is worse:  Calling somebody "a cripple" or something that is actually a slur, or denying them civil rights?

Politically correct bulls*** does nothing for anybody.  Black leaders during the Civil Rights era talked about equal opportunity and the right to basic freedoms and integration.  They didn't focus on words.  They were still calling themselves Negroes for Gods Sakes!  Try saying "negro" today! 

The words of a shock jock pale in comparison to many of the problems you describe, yet that's the focus of outrage.  Completely misplaced value and unnecessarily exaggerated anger.

I just posted my own comment about this.  Go to truemajority.org and complain about their attention to Imus in the midst of scandal-a-minute in Washington.

Great column today by Jason Whitlock ...
http://www.kansascit...

First of all, catzmaw, I would be one of those old fogeys who remember the false accusations of Tawana Brawley very vividly.  Yes, Al Sharpton was a demagogue.  And so was Jesse Jackson at one time.

But Dan, I think the reason there is so much outrage over Imus' remarks is not just that he made a racially insensitive epithet but that he called specific people whores.  That's very, very different from just slinging the language in general.

And these were not professional entertainers or even professional athletes.  They are seen by the public as young college women.  They are somebody's daughters, sisters, girlfriends and they have feelings too.  And I can tell you, one of the worst things you can call a woman is a whore.

I've seen lots of men across the political spectrum look at this as a free speech issue and lots of women have seen it through a different lense.

Having said that, I also don't think it's a free speech issue or censorship.  Censorship is when the government prevents you from making remarks, shuts down your radio show or your Website, fines you for your remarks or otherwise interferes with your ability to express yourself.

No agency of the  government, federal, state or local has inteferred in any way with Don Imus or the stations that carry him.

What has happened is that there has been a huge public outcry at his remarks.  His station feared a backlash to their ratings.  His sponsors feared loss of business and so they withdrew their support for him.

Don Imus has an absolute legal right to make any remark he wants.  No matter how hateful I might think it is, if the government interferred in any way, I would  defend that right for him.  But his critics have an equal right to criticize his remarks.  And you have a right to criticize my opinion of all this too.  Free speech carries consequences.  All of our actions do.

Nobody is breaking down Imus' door or arresting him or fining him for making his remarks.  But he doesn't have an inherent right to a job if his station and his sponsors think they will lose money because of them. Don Imus is not a victim of free speech but he may well be a casualty of the market place.

Having said that, he could go on to cable radio where those who like him can vote for his right to say outrageous things by subscribing to his show directly.

Good point.  It was very sexist.  To say this honestly, I think Don Imus was suggesting to people that these young college women aren't the traditional form of beauty.  What I mean is that he is calling them ugly because they are tall and wide. They are athletes, against the standard norm of the female pysique.  The Nappy-head refers to the black hairstyle.  The "ho's" is stealing street lingo for "girls" or "women".  In essence, however, Don Imus said what men would say aloud if they actually watched women's college basketball.  I never met any man who watched women's college basketball, unless they were alumni of the school.  So, what I am saying, taking the long way to get there, is Men are Pigs, and Don Imus is the Grand Prize winning pig.  He is a good ol' boy who doesn't care what he says.  He is archaic.  If you ever saw Howard Stern's movie, "Private Parts" he shows a scene where he meets Imus the first time.  From his account, Imus cursed him out.  I think my beef is with this issue making so many headlines and taking time away from real news.  The news channels were covering Anna Nicole...AGAIN, the Indian guy from American Idol (LIKE THAT'S NEWS!), and this Imus case.  Meanwhile, the surge that is supposedly going so well in Iraq was temporarily sidetracked by a suicide bomber BLOWING UP THE IRAQI PARLIMENT!  The news organizations are such garbage, it makes me mad.  I just wish this story wasn't the number one story, and was handled a little differently.  Thanks for your comment.

I mean, would you still have your job if you called a female co-worker, boss or customer a "nappy-headed ho"? Remember, free speech doesn't exist in the workplace if your boss doesn't want it to. I interned for a civil liberties association in DC a few years ago as a researcher and even though I compiled my information objectively and full of facts and truths about the history of the organization's ideas, only things that bolstered the group's agenda made the final product. Robert Haynes of the First Amendment Center said it best: although shock commentators like Imus and Coulter have the free speech right to do what they do and their companies have the right to discipline them if the bosses don't like what they're saying, it's up to the individuals, the industry and the media to self-censor and self-regulate content to create a productive environment and dialogue; because no one wants the government to get involved. And I'm not talking about partisan or political opinions but slurs, gratuitous insults and other demeaning language, especially about private citizens.