Sure, he shouldn't have said it. It was rude and in poor taste. But how does the punishment fit the crime? Who are the victims of his off-handed comment? Exactly how did the offended parties (which seems to include everyone but the Rutgers women's basketball team) suffer? If you can't answer that, then maybe you can tell me how Imus' remark even begins to compare to what a real "ho" (stripper, hooker, whatever) did to members of the Duke lacrosse team.
When Crystal Gail Mangum accused three young men of raping her at a party for which she and a friend were hired to strip, people believed her. She was backed by the full resources of the District Attorney's office and the police department. The men, on the other hand, were arrested, charged, and had their lives subsequently turned upside down.
And even when the case began to fall apart, the lead prosecutor forged ahead anyway. What should have been over in a matter of days dragged into a year-long ordeal. Eventually, we found out that Mangum lied, but now we're being treated to the details (assuming, of course, that they are true) of her troubled life.
Personally, I have little sympathy for the spoiled Ivy League twits who spent their parents' money on booze and strippers. I think they were idiots for putting themselves in that position in the first place. That, however, does not excuse Mangum's behavior. For all we know, her false accusation was just as racially motivated as we're told Imus' comment was.
There is a comparison to be made here, yet no one in the media wants to make it. All they can focus on is what an evil, disgusting person Don Imus is. Can someone explain this double standard to me?