It seems that the junior senator from the Ocean State is making quite a splash in Congress, particularly on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Could there be a Whitehouse in the White House one day? Time will tell (unless Newsweek picks up the story first). 😉
From the Washington Post:
Early Verdict on Whitehouse Favorable
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) was getting needled by his peers from the moment he walked into his first meeting of Judiciary Committee Democrats in early January.
“Hey, Sheldon,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) barked at the newcomer, a member of one of his state’s oldest families. “Normally, you’ve got to be a Jew or a Catholic to get on this committee. You’re the first WASP.”
“Hey, Chuck,” Whitehouse shot back, looking over a room filled with four Catholics, five Jews and himself. “This is the first time in my life I’ve brought diversity to a group.”
Three months later, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the committee chairman, invoked the story to demonstrate that the former federal prosecutor and Ocean State attorney general has, indeed, brought a new aspect to the Democratic side of the panel. “Here’s a man who knows what it’s like to be in the courtroom,” Leahy said.
Whitehouse’s experience, particularly his four years as the U.S. attorney for Rhode Island in the mid-1990s, has come to the fore as the committee has probed the Justice Department’s firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year. Nine of the 10 Judiciary Democrats have at least 14 years’ experience in Congress, making Whitehouse the lone Democrat to have any practical legal experience in the past 15 years. [full text]
Kmareka.com 
I am offended by the term “WASP” and have been scarred by such language. Schumer should resign.
Wow, that’s a knee-slapper, Crowd Surfer. Which part of the acronym “WASP” did you find offensive? White? Anglo-Saxon? Protestant? Yeah, those are some derogatory terms, absolutely equivalent to calling members of the Rutgers’ women’s basketball team “nappy-headed ho’s.” Nice to see you haven’t lost your perspective.
It is all about perspective, isn’t David. I don’t listen to Imus, and I thought his comments were disgraceful. And I think CBS has every right to fire Imus if it so chooses.
What’s sickening is how we feign outrage as though our virgin ears have never heard such vile. CBS owns MTV for crying out loud. Shouldn’t we also be disgusted, then, by all comments which might be found offensive? Should we boycott comedians like Chris Rock? How about Bill Maher for his negative comments about Christians? Shouldn’t there be a bunch of firings for the words used to describe the Duke University lacrosse team during the past year?
Chuck Schumer looked at Sheldon Whitehouse and said WASP. Of course I am not really offended. But some could be; as you said it’s all about perspective. I just ask, whose?
For what it’s worth, I continue to be offended by blonde jokes.
You are right, Crowd Surfer. The comments made by Imus were utterly disgraceful and indecent (although the FCC might disagree on the latter point, since Imus didn’t flash a breast on air).
But the reason we should take issue with such comments is not that they are offensive but that they are demeaning and derogatory. If we tried to ban any and all content that people found offensive, we would have to ban virtually all content. Offensiveness is highly subjective. It’s in the ear of the listener and the eye of the viewer.
Some people might be offended by the liberal tone and content found in this blog. If that is the case, they may feel free to take leave of this site and find a blog more suitable to their taste. Similarly, if one does not like Chris Rock or Bill Maher, one can choose not to watch the shows they are on. I choose not to watch Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck or to listen to Rush Limbaugh. Should any of these folks be dismissed from their jobs because people are offended by what they say? I do not think so. Should they be canned if they are spewing hatred and saying things that are demeaning and derogatory? I think they should. Such behavior is hurtful and often intentionally so. The offenders of such ought reap the negative consequences.
And there’s the rub. For it is the offenders—not the offensive—that we ought decry. It is not the sting in the bite that is deadly but the venom.
Well argued David, and for the most part I agree. But demeaning and derogatory are also subjective, and difficult to define. Keith Olbermann is arguing that Rush Limbaugh is equally an offender. Where is the line drawn?
Bill Maher’s comments about Christians have been particularly disgraceful. He has a history of tough language, which cost him his job at ABC after the 9-11 attacks. Do you believe demeaning and derogatory language towards Christians should result in such negative consequences? Yes, you can turn him off. But couldn’t you also turn off Imus?
I believe your distinction between offensive and offender makes sense. And I believe that Imus’ comments towards young, success college students and athletes moved him into the venomous category. But the line is more fluid than you describe, and that worries me. Whose line? Whose perspective?