Air America suspends Randi Rhodes for calling Clinton & Ferraro "whores"

Never piss off the person who signs your paycheck.

That doesn't change the fact that I agree with you on this, philosophically.

I don't really see how freedom of speech enters into this. The first amendment doesn't guarantee our right to engage in slander. If Air America wants to fire this person, they're well within their right. She was making a statement in public at a company function. I'd say she screwed up.

Her solo on "Crazy Train" is still awesome though.

When asked to comment on Rhodes' remarks Air America founder Tom Athans responded, "Do you know where I can find some quality hookers for $150 or less?"

Despite what impact it has on the idea of free speech (hear her repressed comments on YouTube!), I can't get too mad when someone is punished for calling a woman a "whore."

I guess they'll have to exercise the restraint it takes to not call someone a "whore."

I'm curious, would you be equally nonchalant if she were punished for calling a man a whore? Is there something uniquely offensive when the person being insulted is female? Just sounds a bit sexist, is all I'm sayin'.

Actually, I pretty much side with you on this one.

Ar least she didn't call John Edwards a "fag". Or Barack Obama a "magic negro". Because those would be career-ending offenses.

In all fairness, if she went on a tirade about Bush she'd still have a job. I don't think this is about using the word "whore" in so much as, the people who fund Air America were offended and Air America has been circling the drain since it started, economically speaking. It's the golden rule, he who has the gold rules.

Having not heard the comments in any kind of context, I don't know how I feel about Air America's decision. At the same time, I don't think this has much of anything to do with freedom of speech.

Also, Matchstick...don't you think the word whore takes on a different meaning when applied to a woman, rather than a man?

You're right (and you're allowed to preach to the librarian). I shouldn't have used the word "slander," as it does have a specific legal definition. However -

There's a big difference between political humor and a vicious, nasty insult. Calling a woman a "whore" is about as vile as one can get, short of dropping the ol' c-bomb.

Oh, and -

Calling a woman a whore is sexist - it's an insult specifically designed to assail her character via her gender. So, yes, when calling a woman a whore, there is something uniquely offensive about it because she is female. Calling a man a whore can rarely have the same impact.

This isn't a matter of being negative, though. It's a matter of being insulting, and it certainly doesn't help matters that it's specifically gender-oriented in this case (and, yeah, Strickland - there is a difference between a woman being called a whore and a man being called a whore, because language depends on societal context to give it further meaning).

Political commentators have gone negative for as long as there have been politicians to go negative on. But what exactly does calling someone "a whore" bring to the debate? If anything, the continued existence and popularity of idiots like Rush Limbaugh who are all about negativity shows that you can go pretty far in terms of being insulting without fear of reprisal. So I applaud the fact that a liberal agenda-ed station is trying to keep the discourse at a reasonably high level by having some standards for what its hosts say.

I don't think it's worthwhile to get up in arms about some radio personality getting reprimanded or suspended or even fired for saying something that doesn't represent the views of that station. It's their prerogative to have standards, and I would suspect that adhering to them in this case will have more negative effects on their ratings than positive - so bravo to them for taking this stand. I wish the TV networks had higher standards even when it came to defying ratings - news reporters might be expected to actually pose real questions to presidential candidates, critically-acclaimed, but unwatched shows might get a chance, and we might have something to watch other than reailty TV.

This isn't really a free speech issue at all. Rhodes was hired specifically because the radio station wanted her voice to represent them in some respect. It's not as if she's entitled to her own radio show - she's allowed to have one by virtue of getting hired for the job. If she wants her voice heard, she has the same options available to, say, me. She can start up a blog and call anyone that she wants a whore. It's not Air America's obligation to give her a platform.

I do.

She was wrong to say it (as "wrong" as anything can be in a standup routine) and her employers are within their rights to do whatever they want, but they had to know that a) she'd say something like this eventually and b) the worse the punishment, the more publicity it gets.

I don't necessarily agree with Air America's decision, but I can understand why they did it and their right to do so. Same goes with David Shuster.

For me personally, I suppose the difference is between these instances and say, Imus, is that Imus had a deep history of racism. I don't think that David Shuster and Randi Rhodes are sexist.

Hypothetical question: When will it be okay to claim that words like "whore" and "pimp" are common vernacular now, divorced from their origins in the sex trade?

Since it's the oldest profession, I'd say we're in it for the duration.

When they, um, are?

Aren't we doing that when we use the words in the appropriate context? I guess those words will always have their original use and will sting as a result of that. But I think reappropriating offensive words does serve some real function. I can't imagine that "Pimp My Ride" offends anyone but the most militant anti-pimp people. Or when girls sling around with each other phrases like "shoe whore," exactly how offended should one be?

I totally knew it was Strickland who said that and not you, I just wanted to pick a fight with you for no good reason. *backs out of room, hoping people buy that excuse...*

Wait, pimp is offensive?

People who are legitimately offended by slang are funny. Did anyone really take this to mean Senator Clinton is actually a whore, turning tricks on the street corner? Of course not. This is just silly.

Depends on the context. Just like saying that someone likes watermelon and fried chicken.

It's easy to say that when you're in a relative position of power as a man, and we're talking about a word that's been used to keep women "in their place" (even if it's not being used with that intent here, necessarily). It's quite easy to not be "legitimately offended" when you haven't been in a situation in which a word's been leveled at you with genuine dislike and the power dynamic doesn't favor you.

I think it's kind of bullshit for a man to suggest that women shouldn't be offended by insults that are pretty much never applied to them with any seriousness, just as it's bullshit for a white person to say that black people should be okay with white people using the word "nigger," because black people use it amongst themselves.

Actually, it's bullshit for anyone to decide for others what should be offensive. If you're telling midget jokes, and you didn't happen to notice the midget behind you, you're the asshole for telling the jokes; he's not the asshole for being ticked off.

So I can't call John McCain a whore for selling out what principles he has by hitching his wagon to Bush Co. for a craven grab at the White House?

It's all about context. If you're saying that Clinton trades sex for money or using the term just to offend her based on gender be offended all day long and I'll agree with you 100%.

Right. The McCain example is fine, and would be fine applied to Hillary (theoretically), but it seems as though Rhodes was using the "woman + bad = whore" sense of the word, and that's worse. How much worse, and what kind of reaction is appropriate, I don't know.

No idea on the context, would be good to see a YouTube video or transcript.

But pimp and whore are used a lot today in the "non sex trade" context, that much should be obvious.

I don't want to come of all insensitive but what was the context? If it was said in passing during a presumably profane stand-up routine, I really don't see what the fuss is about. But if she came out like a crazy bible lady calling them whores, for example, for being assertive and independent, it would definitely be wrong.

It's all about context.

It's Air America's right to do it but I don't agree with it. Randi Rhodes strikes me as pretty sensible and informed; she was probably just trying to be funny by dropping a "colorful metaphor."

Gosh, how terribly offensive. This makes the South Park episode with Mr. Slave and Paris Hilton and the pineapple look like Mary Poppins. Rhodes wasn't suspended for calling someone a whore, she was suspended for saying something Air America's advertisers didn't like.

She basically called Dick Cheney a bigot; where's the outrage?

Seems more and more likely this was either politically motivated or just really, really stupid decision making.

But, under this, can you ever tell a joke that may offend someone (anyone at all) and not be an asshole?

This is why I long stopped worrying about being an asshole.

Matchstick, for the record, I agree with you; I just felt your argument was vague and so I wanted more clarification. I'm inclined to agree that "whore" is a term that has more complex connotations for women than men.

Anyone remember the O.J. trial when Marcia Clark lambasted Johnnie "Chewbacca Defense" Cochran over the use of the word "hysterical" to describe Clark's courtroom behavior, partly because it was sexist (but mostly because it was a false accusation)? I remember being a bit confused at the time, because I didn't associate the word "hysteria" with the female gender in general. I thought it more universal. Granted, the word itself has a gender-biased origin (hysterikos, which is Greek for "from the womb"), and of course in the 1800s doctors would sometimes pronounce that a woman was suffering from "female hysteria," a truly sexist notion. I just thought by the time the O.J. trial happened that the sexist connotations had faded away and the word had a more generic definition.

I guess my question is if a word was once used in a gender-specific way (or race-specific or whatever), but gradually evolved to become a more general term, is there ever a complete break? Will there always be a gender-specific connotation, even if the person using the word didn't consciously intend it as such?

You can tell all the jokes you want. If you offend someone, don't act like a self-righteous douchebag - just apologize. It's not up to you to decide what others should find offensive.

It seems pretty simple to me.

In our society, women are still regularly treated as less rational, more emotional than men. This stereotype provides a handy out if you're a man in an argument with a woman, because you can dismiss all of their points without actually addressing them. In short, while the origin and connotation of the word "hysterical" might not be consciously known to everyone, the notion that women are far more prone to hysteria (or even other words with less gender-specific origins, like "irrational") is still very much in play.

As with "whore," these words can be applied to men, but they carry a more specific type of meaning when applied to women.

This = AWESOME

Just to clarify something that I think deserves clarification, given the number of times I've seen Freedom of Speech mentioned in here:

Freedom of Speech is a right guaranteed to the people against the Government. The government has legal restrictions placed upon it (dependant on a factor-based test) regarding when, where, and if they may censor content-based speech.

These restrictions, guaranteed by the First Amendment, do not apply between a private citizen and a non-governmental corporation.

And even if this were somehow a true FOS case, Rhodes' comments (which I have not analyzed, and have only heard about through third parties, so forgive any misrepresentation) were seemingly baseless, defamatory, and intended as insult. In such a case, such speech may be protected (never say never) but its far more likely it would not be, because it has arguably zero value in our political discourse from a judicial standpoint.

Speaking personally, I dislike Rhodes, and I think she brings the same bottom-feeder mentality to the Left that's all too prevalent on the Right.

And she's apparently out.

Has anybody gotten word to Rhodes' listener? He or she might be interested in this turn of events.

To insult a woman by means of her liberal sexuality is to engage in a cruel and destructive act, one which is the exact opposite of paying it forward. The world needs another sexually embarassed woman like it needs Bush in charge.

So the difference between Randi and Ann Coulter?

Ann is a rainmaker, bringing bucks in along with preaching to the choir.

Air America was always destined to fail miserably. You can't get commercial backing for it, and you can't get anyone to listen. I've listened to it for many hours (back when the SNL writer was still on mid-day) and it was never funny. It was always bitter and angry. I'm sure that was the demographic population the network was aimed at, but far-left folks just don't spend money when they finally do get off the commune.

As opposed to the laff-a-lympics, sunshine and ponies time that is conservative talk radio? Yep, no anger or bitterness over there, lemme tell ya!

And I don't even know what the "commune" line is supposed to mean. I dunno, maybe people on the left are just better capable of thinking for themselves, and don't tune in to get daily talking points spoon-fed to them by some bloviating asshole.

Seconded. That's the main reason I never had any interest in Air America - I really don't want to listen to someone else tell me how I should feel when I already know how I feel, and I can't stand talk radio personalities regardless of their political orientation.

A few friends once said "Oh, listen to Randi, she's angry and prone to political rants just like you, I think you'll enjoy it!" After I stopped short of screaming "FUCK YOU what do you mean I'm 'angry'?!?!", I tuned in and couldn't have been more bored.

Honest question to whomever wants to answer: What's the appeal of left-wing or right-wing political talk radio? I'm not trying to browbeat or bully anyone, I'm just genuinely curious.

Yup, that's right, there's nothing to be legitimately angry about over the last few years, as the mainstream media just towed the Bush line. Besides, of course you don't find liberal jokes funny. You're too busy judging them for being liberal. After all, Rush Limbaugh's a comedy goldmine and not at all angry.

Also, good job dismissing the far-left as a bunch of broke hippies. I suppose that's why they're all spending their money in record numbers for the Obama campaign. Or why even though O'Reilly gets bigger ratings than Olbermann, Olbermann's target demo is much more sought after by advertisers. Don't let those facts get in the way of your hopelessly outdated world-view.

For the record, i'm not a huge fan of Air America or Randi Rhodes. Sam Seder and Rachel Maddow are okay though. I like 'em in the mix.

It's entertaining and informative to listen to a discussion of politics, even with a severe partisan bent. If you have enough intelligence to distinguish opinion from fact (and take the "facts" with a grain of salt), you can learn quite a bit and get a few laughs in the process. Some of the hosts are interesting personalities who inject some pretty decent humor into what they do. And they usually score pretty good interviews too.

I catch some of Glenn Beck's show on the way to work, Limbaugh or Hannity when I drive out for lunch, and Mark Levin or Michael Savage on the way home. I'll listen to some of Alan Colmes' show on my drive to and from the gym. Oddly enough, I find myself agreeing more with Colmes than the conservatives lately, as the Bush years have caused many conservative standard bearers to abandon all common sense. But the conservatives have vastly more entertaining shows.