....April 19, 5:06 PM
 
 
 
Facing The Music, Just Like Don Imus?


I misread this one. I was pretty sure Don Imus would survive the fallout over his ugly description of the Rutgers women’s basketball team.

I’m not an Imus fan; don’t listen or watch the show. I’m not a fan of any of the shock-jocks. And except for an occasional stop while weekend late night TV surfing to see what absurdity or obscenity Howard Stern was up to with some scantily clad (is bimbo acceptable? you know you have to be careful of the words you choose ) young lady.

The Don Imus situation was a freak. He wasn’t babbling on out of racism; he was a shock jock going too far for a laugh. He walked into the “Perfect Storm.” It was the absolutely wrong target – young female athletes who conducted themselves with dignity, and the absolutely right time for a changing national black leadership leaving some looking for new ways to re-establish relevance. And Imus was caught in the storm’s tempest.

In the past, for a couple of moments, I’ve tried to listen to Imus – they told me he was more than a shock jock, he was a political hoohah. To me he wasn’t. He was basically crass and vulgar and not very funny. But he had a following and caused quite a number of radio followers to consider political issues who otherwise might not have been exposed to them.

Imus had his place and following. I wasn’t part of it.

But I’m in the minority as I disapprove of his firing. No, I don’t approve of what he said – it was stupid and ugly. But that’s what he does and has done for lots of years. He’s a shock jock – duh!

He’s paid to cause people to react. He plays on the edge cause that’s what he’s paid to do. There’s a whole lot of the entertainment industry that plays on the edge. And when you start firing folks for crossing the wavy gray line between acceptable and unacceptable, you limit expression and spontaneity. When you start listing acceptable behaviors and statements, you come awfully close to the slippery slope of censorship.

It’s really a tough one. But it’s made much more difficult because of the super-sensitive issue of race. But that’s the problem.

Some mean old white guy got fired for saying what some mean young black guys have been rapping for quite a long time.

Black comedy – Chris Rock comes to mind – and the hip hop culture has given license to a whole lot of words and expressions that I find ugly and unacceptable but has been adopted by a generations of Americans — black and white.

I wonder if it were Chris Rock who called the Rutgers women’s b’ball team “nappy haired hos” whether his head will be demanded on a platter. Would the Reverends Sharpton and Jackson have led the crusade to bring down a black man who dissed the Rutgers’ gals with the same words? Has the Civil Rights movement that I grew up in changed from seeking the same for all of us regardless of skin color, to enabling or encouraging different punishment or privileges based on skin color? Do young black guys get a bye when old white guys get fired?

Is the language of hip hop okay for some or is it ugly and unacceptable for all? I just don’t know.

In reality, the language of hip hop is worse than ugly and unacceptable; it’s violent, disrespectful – often of women — and has a history of lauding shooting – including the shooting of cops. I’m not sure how this all happened or why. I’m not sure what should be done about it. But hip hop’s influence on today’s society leaves a lot to be desired.

Perhaps Leroy Comrie is not so far off base when he tried to initiate a symbolic ban of the “N-word.” Although this page printed a cartoon poking fun at Leroy’s effort, it doesn’t mean that his goal was unworthy.

It seems today that there are many who are seeking a much larger change than banning the N-word. Many are acknowledging the culture and language of hip hop must be changed. The message must be modified.

Will the same pressure – the economic fear and media frenzy created and manipulated so effectively that cost Imus his job — be used to force rappers, the music industry, and the hip hop culture to adjust its language and message?

No, I’m not advocating censorship. As a journalist, that makes me very uncomfortable.

I’m waiting for Leroy and Sharpton and the vocal group who brought down Don Imus to bring our children up. I’m waiting for them to say to the entertainment industry that we will use the same green power – the almighty buck, which ultimately caused MSNBC and CBS to fire Imus — to force hip hop to change.

I’m not sure how to do it. But that change is a lot more important to the future of our children and society than bringing down a mean old white guy.

Term-Limits Reversal Is Lukewarm

Canada Company Buys Power Plant

Queens Loses Two Soldiers

Williams vs. Williams

Effort Afoot To Bring Soccer Team To Queens

BMX Star Rides High In Streets And In Business

Candidates Battle For Senate Seat

Stavisky, Schwartz: Is This A Race?

Incumbent Faces Tough Race In Primary

Kids Ready For School With Some Wii Help

Queens In Need Of Blood Donations

Stage Set For Addabbo, Maltese Showdown

Arthur Ashe Kids’ Day

Gennaro Launches Senate Bid Online

Torahs Stolen From Jewish Center

Gas Prices Fall After Summer Peak

Weprin Wants Tough Text Laws

Summer Rains

Cat Needs A Home

Queens Man is New Buildings Commissioner

Congressman Takes Office On The Road

Non-resident Kicked Off Senate Ballot

Home Repossessions In Queens Up 374 Percent

 
 
Did Surplus Cause Spitzer Budget Compromise

By HENRY STERN

One factor that impacted Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s negotiating posture in the budget talks that concluded the Sunday before last with the adoption of a practically on-time agreed upon spending plan, was the governor’s insistence that the Legislature meet the April 1 Constitutional deadline for budget adoption that had been missed for 18 of the last 20 years.

The man who feels compelled to make a deal is in a weaker position than his adversary who is willing to wait, both in cards and in politics. The poker players of Albany know that. Speaker Silver has the reputation of showing his cards late in the game, but since the proceedings were conducted in sessions evocative of the selection of Pope, we do not know who led, passed, bluffed or called. They’re all good buddies, so they worked it out. For the time being, the steamroller was left in the garage, without intensifying adjectives.

Some people believe that Gov. Spitzer should have defied the Legislature, challenging them to do their worst, veto the engorged budget they would have adopted, and try to prevent an over-ride by an alliance with the Senate Democrats, who appear to be his truest friends in Albany apart from the people he has appointed. If his vetoes were over-ridden by Bruno, Silver and their loyal legions, he could distance himself from the bloated budget, and argue the case for the reduction of expenditures and the public debt. Gov. Pataki’s first budget, in 1995, was far leaner than the Spitzer budget, but times were worse then.

The governor chose instead to lead, to participate in the budget process, and to work with both houses to reach agreement. This enables the Legislature to proceed to other matters, if its leaders are willing to let that happen. Normally they sit on everything until the session is about to adjourn, then pass what they like in the dead of night, accompanied by messages of necessity which waive the three-day period during which bills are supposed to age on members’ desks.

This provision also affords legislators the opportunity to read the bills they will vote for.

By the budget agreement, a drawn-out struggle has been averted. We have also avoided the unlikely possibility of the state having no budget adopted.

WHY was Gov. Spitzer anxious to reach a budget agreement by April 1?

The Sun’s Jacob Gershman suggested the: STATE SURPLUS PLAYED BIG ROLE IN BUDGET TALKS.

What he meant is that since New York State’s elected officials like to spend every cent they can lay their hands on, if the lobbyists and interest groups (hospitals, unions, the education complex) were fully aware how much more tax money they could find in the state’s piggy bank, they would have pressed even more vigorously for a larger budget than the one that was approved.

In New York, the $121 billion budget is salted down with $170 million worth of pork. At this time information as to which piggy put what pork in the pricey package is a State secret, although we understand that disclosure may be on the way. As of today, professional researchers for a top civic group could only find $101 million in pork, the remaining $69 million of fat was so marbled into the budget that it was undetectable.

One thing you should know about political pork is that there are worthwhile projects which are blended in with the sleazy scams and sinecures.

Although receiving pork is unlikely to result in the dire consequences, the recipient still incurs a debt to the politician which may be repaid on Primary or Election Day, by gifts of money or services.

There is another aspect of the pork problem: Once a state budget is adopted, which presumably treats everyone in a similar situation in a similar way, with benefits coming as a matter of law and not personal whim, why should Little League A or Fire Company B receive substantial additional funds because of the clout of a local senator or assemblymember? Why should legitimate civilian groups incur obligations to individual incumbents? To those whose organizations are not riding the gravy train, the network of subsidies for a privileged few seems unjust. In fact, it is.

We have not considered those delectable cases where the legislators who provide the pork eat it themselves. The creation of fictional organizations that exist only on paper, the accompanying no-show or seldom-show jobs for girlfriends, relatives and good buddies of the elected official who bill the “organization” and consequently the State for “consultant services” that might even be performed in the home of an elected official, there being no need to waste money renting office space for so gifted a rainmaker to use to secure clients. Unless, of course, there is a building in which someone who knows someone has an interest.

This area is ripe for investigation by Attorney General Cuomo and his new public integrity section, as long as he does not interfere with the United States Attorneys who are probing some of the same or similar situations.

StarQuest@NYCivic.org

Not4Publication.com by Dom Nunziato
Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form.