Dude, what a funny day.

My li'l nephew calls me "the dude" with much affection. I'm his li'l buddy, and he's a technical genius beyond his toddler years. I show him how to utilize a digital camcorder, and he goes nuts torturing family and friends by recording them during their weakest moments with the ability of a paparazzo going after Lindsey Lohan.

He's that good, and he practices his craft with an innocent grin on his beautifully innocent face.

That's funny.

However, as the brilliant comedian Harry Shearer noted on Keith Olbermann's "Countdown" tonight, the problem with Don Imus' barbs against the Rutgers' women's basketball team was that while funny trumps everything, everything else trumps "unfunny."

Dude, he nailed it.

Now, I don't know that this axiom works in every situation, but I do think it works here. A colleague who I respect tremendously (she's my age and worked for Clinton, which endears me toward her on two fronts) asked ME if I was surprised that Imus got fired.

Without hesitation I said, "No."

My explanation was brief: In this business, talent understand that if what they say causes advertisers to abandon sponsorship, for any reason, their existence becomes doomed.

You can blame political correctness. You can say that the advertisers were pressured unduly. You can make any argument you'd like; however, advertisers are allowed to make decisions to protect their companies and brand.

Look, it was Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn who attacked NBC and, I think, General Electric (?) for sponsoring an uncut version of "Schindler's List" because it was "too salacious." I suppose if the market powers who be had agreed with him, somebody would have been fired. However, the marketplace of ideas decided that his supposition was preposterous.

Nevertheless, I have a personal stake in this, one that I'll freely admit.

My sainted mother likes Imus. Likes watching him, I should say. She watches him every day and has even noted to me that "one day, somebody is gonna shoot that son of a gun," a statement she says jokingly, with an understanding that what he and his cohorts say is off-color and often offensive.

Imus is a regular part of her daily routine, something that brings her joy.

It's not that to her he's funny when he called scholar athletes some "nappy headed hos." She abhors speech that's unnecessarily mean toward anybody.

However, she knows that with Imus, that's what you got. He's like that every day, but the context of the things he says don't trump the good that the man does on other fronts. Beyond that, to her, he's generally funny.

My point is thus: To the people who watch him all the time, he's funny enough. To the people who only heard this comment, he ain't funny, both of which are legitimate opinions that underscore the polarized thoughts about Imus within the context of Shearer's commentary Friday night.

Funny trumps everything, but everything else trumps unfunny.

It's really an astute comment on Shearer's part.

That's why, to me, it's completely reasonable that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and anybody else with such sensible minds and hearts should go after Rush Limbaugh for the heartless, mean comments he made about Michael J. Fox during the 2006 election season, suggesting that he was feigning symptoms of Parkinson's to garner sympathy votes in important local elections.

It's reasonable that Michael Savage, who stops short of saying gays should be executed, should be dismissed from American airwaves.

Neither observation is funny in the slightest. To me, they're worse than anything Imus said. Sorry.

Savage's statements are so ridiculous, nobody gives them credit. However, Rush has an audience of millions and is respected by many in radio, therefore, where is the outrage every time he says something idiotic and unfunny?

Well, it turns out that the effort to oust Imus was quite concerted. Read this, an article that details the machinations behind the furor against Imus.

My bigger point is thus: Liberals should focus their efforts on those whose demise would actually be worthwhile to the beliefs we hold dear. From a political perspective, Imus actually did us more good than not. Rush brings nothing to the table for liberals, and his words are regularly more incendiary than anything Imus said.

So, is it a double standard? You bet.

Is it sad that sexist, racist banter dominates the airwaves?

My colleague asked me that in fewer words tonight, to which I said, "Uh, isn't that really the foundation of modern morning radio, well, at least for people who listen to anything besides religious broadcasts or NPR?"

Touche.

I'm a libertarian when it comes to free speech. I do NOT think there is an analogy to be made between good and bad interpretations of the second amendment and the first, as Olbermann made tonight. Sorry, Keith, I think the first amendment is absolutely absolute.

You can't shout fire in a crowded theater, unless there is a fire, but you should be able to say damned near everything else. Some folks have to learn to take a joke, and others have to recognize that what's not funny to them might be to somebody else. At that point, it becomes a matter of taste, and the market forces will dictate what happens to that morning show host.

If it were truly the masses who terminated Don Imus, I could accept it. However, it was a concerted, political effort, and it was an effort by my people, politically speaking, which I think would have been better focused against those whose agendas truly propagate hate.

It's another example of how we liberals sabotage ourselves.

Speaking of sabotage, it seems that former Idol contestant Paris Bennett has encouraged the show's watchers to vote for Sanjaya Malakar to demonstrate to the masses that the world's most popular television program has become "a joke."

And, to think I liked Princess P in Season 5.

She says Sanjaya represents Idol's slip into a pattern in which the show promotes the most popular instead of the most talented.

Excuse me?

The show IS a popularity contest, no matter how much you'd like to believe otherwise. The fact that some of the contestants are more talented than others only partially plays into its results.

Truth is, Sanjaya isn't the worst "bad" contestant the show has had.

John Stevens. Bucky Courington. Scott Savol. Nikki McKibbin. Kevin Covais. They all come to mind.

How about Jasmine Trias, Camille Velasco and countless others?

It makes me not feel bad that Sanjaya is doing well in this Season 6 competition. First, it's not hurting Idol ratings. While they're down by 10 percent from last year, daylight saving time came four weeks early this year and no show can keep the numbers Idol has over the past five years.

While he's not nearly the singer that most of the other contestants are, he's still a 17-year-old kid with parents, a sister, friends and other relatives, all of whom love and support him.

So, I say more power to our little brown Idol friend who sings with a soft effeminate voice. He might not ever be on track to sell as many records as a Kelly Clarkson or Carrie Underwood, but I'll be damned if I affirmatively participate in an effort to humiliate him further than he's willing to humiliate himself.

I know, it's a backward sort of compliment, but it's damned funny, no?

And, as we now know, funny trumps everything ... right?