People, not corporations, should have fired Imus

I have a beef with Don Imus getting fired. I’m not going to qualify my statement first like by denouncing his words like many a politicians or regular Joe who would feign political correctness. Specifically I am miffed by the statements made by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

They have said, and I quote:

Jackson: “”No one should use the public airwaves to transmit racial or sexual degradation.””

Sharpton: “” … we cannot afford a precedent established that the airways can commercialize and mainstream sexism and racism.””

Two topics of disgust occur here: (1) These two are in absolutely no position to say such things, being the racial hate-mongers they are. Bill O’Reilly has had John McWhorter and Earl Ofari Hutchinson on his program before, and they have identified Jackson and Sharpton as such, just as they have identified Louis Farrakhan and other purported proponents of black society as ultimately detrimental to the future of black America. I implore O’Reilly to have these two back on his show to discuss their thoughts on the situation.

(2) I would ask every reader out there to consider the fact that the airwaves have been a medium of sexual and racial exploitation for the past 15 years, and since the rap “”industry”” is the primary promulgator of such lewd and lascivious music videos, they should be attacked in kind by Sharpton and Jackson.

Why don’t we see that happening? I understand the need to avoid certain conversations with those who would ask beforehand not to bring up such questions during an interview; however, this question needs to be asked of these two in particular. Without doing so, crusades are created by them costing others their jobs and their public lives.

Don Imus didn’t even say a racist remark! “”Nappy-headed hos”” is only viewed as referring to black women because the word “”ho”” has been used and abused sparingly in popular black culture to refer to women! Here’s a news flash for the audience as well: white women have nappy hair too!

But in this new era of 20th-century racist witch hunting – Peter Jackson was apparently racist because King Kong represented a black person – complemented by question-dodging and passing-the-buck-ism, people want an extraordinary explanation for everything, want people to get thrown off their high horse and want their faults (no matter how fabricated they may be) to be exposed.

I don’t think that this sort of language should be anywhere on mainstream media, but I also think that Sharpton, Jackson and others who have hijacked black America need to either become partial and nonpartisan in their crusade against racist language or need to supplant their own control of peoples’ thoughts and ideas, giving the power to the people to decide if a misdeed has occurred.

David Smith graduate student

Federal government right to set drinking age

In response to Aaron T. Fathe’s letter on March 29 (“”States lack power to set drinking age””), the idea that the Highway Act of 1984 exhibits “”federal government racism”” is bit extreme. The highway bill that required states to increase their drinking ages to 21 in 1984 is truly a demonstration of American democracy and the capacity at which interest groups have the power to sway the government at a federal level.

Prior to the passage of the bill, many states actually had already begun to instate a law that increased their drinking age to 21; it was in 1984 that the federal government required any and all states that had not enacted such legislation to mandate it. This was clearly stimulated by research of the number of accidents caused by drinking and driving amongst a certain age group (18-20) in comparison to other age groups (21 and over) at the time.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving took it upon themselves to actively research the numbers and kinds of accidents caused by drunk drivers and divided it into age groups; this is respectable research for such a small group at the time (look up the history of Mothers Against Drunk Driving for the full story).

If the federal government knew for a fact that a certain age group was more prone to accidents, why wouldn’t they enact a federal law in response to it? That would be a gross violation of citizen protection, if you ask me. “”Extortion”” is really an inappropriate word to use in this case. The two go hand in hand: If drunk driving accidents are most prevalent amongst drinkers under 21, then, logically, increase the drinking age to 21.

Why should they have allowed lives to be risked?

Moreover, many highways go across state lines. Why would it have made sense to be able to get drunk in one state where the drinking age is 18 nearby and drive home drunk even though your state’s drinking age is 21? Federal highways need some sort of federal legislation, do they not?

Along similar lines, if you can kill a man in one state where the law is drastically different and quickly speed home on a highway to avoid prosecution, don’t you think the federal laws should universally protect murder victims across the board? For that reason the federal government has every reason to protect drivers across the nation.

And, no, people cannot choose to drink despite being able to “”die for their country.”” As stated earlier, a military career is a clear choice. You (for the most part) know all the possible risks.

Drinking impacts the brain prior to your mid-twenties (when it is fully developed – usually around age 24). So, legally, the government should have the right to protect the health of its citizens, but of course just because the drinking age is 21 doesn’t mean there aren’t high numbers of underage drinkers, and regardless of what the drinking age is today or 20 years from now, underage drinking is a trend that will continue. I do respect your opinion, though, Mr. Fathe.

Ashley C. Emerole sophomore majoring in political science and regional development