easy solution to don imus problem

so don imus, a privileged white male, insulted black females on his show, right? fire him and hire a black female to replace him, and have the same radio network, cbs radio, carry it, on all the same radio stations, and have msnbc show it on tv, just like before. i know just who would be perfect for the role. cynthia mckinney. it would be instant karma. she would bring some fairness and balance to the situation, all right. she alone could probably take on 20 right-wing white male talk-show hosts. the thing that really bugs me about don imus is he is the one who convinced all the “mainstream media” idiots who came on his show that joe lieberman was a good senator and deserved to be re-elected. look at what joe lieberman is going around saying now. he is almost as bad as john mccain. what a bunch of idiots, don imus and joe lieberman and the rest of ’em. there would be a special place in hell for such cretins, if hell existed. now does this mean i have to support hillary clinton because she is a woman or barack obama because he is black? hell no! politicians have to prove that they are worthy of holding high office, and neither of them has proven themselves to me yet. in fact nobody has proven themselves worthy of the presidency except senator russ feingold, who is not even running. so, i have to settle for someone inferior to russ feingold, someone who is less open, less honest, less courageous, less visionary, and most of all, less humble. he is far too humble to run for president. instead i have to pick among a pack of people with inflated self-worth. right now i am backing dennis kucinich even though he comes off as a bit wacky at times, although nothing close to the wackiness of joe lieberman, john mccain, george w. bush, ralph nader, or mahmoud ahmadinejad, who are all certifiably stark raving mad. as for don imus, i think he is just a grumpy old asshole who hates everybody. who cares about him? nobody... his 5 minutes of fame are about to wind down in a few days. what really gets my goat is all the people insulting nancy pelosi for visiting syria even though plenty of republican politicians have been doing the exact same thing recently and gotten a lot less attention. and newt gingrich, in jerusalem, declared it to be the one and only eternal capital of israel, directly contradicting official united states policy since 1948 that had said that this matter needed to be negotiated between the israelis and the palestinians (prior to 1967, substitute "arabs" for "palestinians"). and don’t even get me started on tom delay, who denied that palestinians even exist, and made ridiculous claims that israel ought to basically wipe palestine off the map by expelling all of its inhabitants. how is that any different from saying israel should be wiped off the map? there is such hypocrisy in the media, in how they mistreat people like nancy pelosi who did nothing wrong to provoke such criticism. and frankly it is ridiculous how much coverage don imus is getting now. he ought to be retired from the industry, along with rush limbaugh, fox news, michael savage, and ann coulter. now i realize don imus is a “centrist” and not a republican, but centrists are basically a group of washington elitists who think a bunch of wealthy white male politicians know better than a majority of the american people and the views americans make clear through public opinion polls. centrists believe that politicians from the 2 main political parties should make deals with each other and conspire to enact legislation and policies opposed by most americans, things that only benefit the top 1% of people, people like don imus. centrist publications like time magazine, the washington post, and the new republic continuously try to undermine any opinions that are not already popular among politicians, reporters, and lobbyists in washington, d.c. they are just useful idiots for the spin machines of the politicians, dumb enough to believe anything if the person who says it is wealthy and powerful enough to be considered "credible". now a “moderate” is something entirely different from a “centrist”. while centrism is a morally indefensible claim that you should always walk the middle of the road and never do the right thing if there are people advocating doing the wrong thing, moderation is quite different. a moderate is someone who believes that both sides of the political spectrum have good ideas and valid arguments at least some of the time, but who is not dumb enough to fall for whatever bullshit they hear. centrism is actually a form of radicalism, because it means going against what the majority of the people in your own political party want, again and again and again. moderation just means recognizing when those on your side are wrong about something, and doing what is right and what you believe in. but you have to be careful what you are moderate about. if your judgement is not sound, you may end up siding with your own side when they are wrong, and siding with the opposition when it is wrong, making you worse than anyone else. so a true moderate listens to the will of the people and obeys it without fail. that is why joe lieberman is no moderate; the majority of connecticut voters are not supporters of the war in iraq. he went out on a limb all by himself, taking an unpopular and incorrect position and going against his own party. he might be doing what he thinks is right (which is debatable) but the man has lost his marbles and does not know up from down anymore. and the same goes for don imus, one of many elitists in the media who condemned bloggers and the blogosphere after joe lieberman lost the primary. bloggers are ordinary people, not elite media fools who are lapdogs of the politicians. i have never met nancy pelosi, only observed her from afar, and my genuine support for her means a lot more than the support of some shitty journalist who never leaves the capitol building. i am a real person, who lives out in the middle of nowhere, and has hardly any money. people like me are what made this country great, people who live in the middle of nowhere and have hardly any money. we are the only ones who actually do any real work, although some (like me) are a bit lazy. but we are uncorrupted by wealth or power. we are the true moral center of the nation. centrism ought to be about following the will of the 50th percentile of the american people in public opinion polls. like suppose you have a poll on whether to end the war in iraq immediately, have a timetable for withdrawal by the end of 2007, have a timetable for withdrawal by the end of 2008, have a timetable for withdrawal by the end of 2009, keep troops at the same levels indefinitely, increase troop levels in iraq slightly, increase them to 1.5 times the current amount, or double the current amount. and everyone would pick one of those options, which would all be stacked on top of each other in a bar graph from most anti-war to most pro-war, so the percentages all add up to 100%. then look at what the opinion of the people at the 50% line is, and do it. polls like that could be done on every major issue. true centrism or moderation ought to be doing what the 50% right at the middle think is right. but don imus is the other type of centrist, the elitist type, who think that joe lieberman has an entitlement to hold a position of privilege and how dare anyone question someone in such an exalted position. you know, george w. bush always does whatever he believes is right, even when his views are obviously incorrect to the vast majority of people. that is not the type of moderation we need. george w. bush, despite being anti-intellectual, has more intellectual arrogance than anyone, thinking that his opinions ought to determine all government policies, regardless of what anyone else in the government or anyone outside the government thinks of those policies. he thinks he knows better than everyone else in the entire world. i make no such claims, and have no such delusions of grandeur. i am but a simple blogger, one of millions, just one of a cacophany of different voices, each with its own unique message. i am no don imus. i do not have a large audience. i do not claim to know better than everybody else in the world, just certain public figures i have been able to observe. and as for my atheism? well, along with the majority of people in the world, i do not believe that sunni islam is correct. along with the majority of people in the world i do not believe that shi'ite islam is correct. the same goes for hinduism. and buddhism. and roman catholicism. and protestant christianity. and each of the other religions. so if the issue is reduced to whether one specific religion is correct or not, no matter what the choice, i agree with the vast majority of people in the world. so in a sense, atheism is the majority view. it is just that most people disbelieve in all religions except 1 that they make an exception for. i do not make any exceptions, because i do not believe that the beliefs and cultural traditions of any one religion are superior to those of any other. i do not play favorites among religions; i treat them all equally. now my quaker upbringing has influenced me, certainly, and there are quakers i have known all my life who are family friends, but as an intellectual matter, i do not believe in the superiority of quakerism to any other particular religion out there. they are all equally flawed; it is just that people see the speck of dust in the eye of those they disagree with, but not the log in their own eye, to quote jesus. you see, every religion is full of self-contradictory nonsense that demonstrates it does not really have the right answers to everything. the only way to have a religion without that is if all the statements of faith were tautologies. and as for the rutgers women’s basketball team, i am sure they are even more upset with the constant questioning from the media than they are with don imus. the media are like vultures that circle dying animals, or rats leaving a sinking ship, or many other appropriate metaphors that may come to mind. and they are always 10 steps behind public opinion, struggling to catch up. they only lead public opinion when major unforseen events suddenly occur and catch them by surprise, causing them to actually have normal human reactions to events, instead of the usual robotic parroting of talking points.