February 27, 2004
A funny definition of "indecency"
So the evil conglomerate Clear Channel is waging war against indecency - they've dropped Howard Stern from the 0.5% of their member stations who were running his show, they've fired Bubba the Love Sponge, whose antics in Tampa they were surely unaware of before now, and they've got everyone from local DJs to industry insiders all abuzz about the new trend in Non-Shock Radio.
And how do they prove their commitment to decent, clean, family-friendly airwaves here in Houston?
Clear Channel may have dumped Stern and Bubba the Love Sponge, but it recently added controversial radio jock Michael Savage to its lineup at KPRC in Houston.
MSNBC fired Savage last summer after he referred to a caller to his weekend cable TV show as a "sodomite" and said he should "get AIDS and die."
Ken Charles, Clear Channel regional vice president of programming for Houston, did not return calls from the Chronicle on Thursday.
Yeah. That Michael Savage
Here's Ken Charles' contact page. Feel free to thank him for doing his part to make the airwaves so much more clean and decent here in Houston.
Posted by Charles Kuffner on February 27, 2004 to Society and cultcha
Savage really annoys me. He gives conservatives a bad name, and his rants are excruciating to listen to. It's not like there aren't plenty of other good conservative/libertarian talk radio programs -- in addition to the already-represented Sean Hannity, Rush, and Glenn Beck, there's Laura Ingraham, Michael Reagan, Neal Boortz, G. Gordon Liddy, etc.
Thanks for the link, Kuff. My opinion re Savage (which tracks yours entirely) has been duly expressed.
"It's not like there aren't plenty of other good conservative/libertarian talk radio programs -- in addition to the already-represented Sean Hannity, Rush,"
For varying values of "good," I guess.
Unlike Weiner, aka "Savage," Stern uses his real name. Ba-ba-booey to y'all!
Helpful historical context: Stern also turned against the first Bush for GHWB's anti-choice stance, among other things. And remember it was Stern "reporter" Stuttering John who almost single-handedly defused the Gennifer Flowers bomb (by asking her when she planned to date other candidates): Hello, President Clinton. Not only is this latest development not a coincidence; it is likley a pre-emptive (pre-election) move inspired by business the current Bushies probably feel was left unfinished by George I. Sound familiar? Stern, we know, still has pull; better for the W crew to take him out now.
The Passion of Dr. Fill writes,
"Helpful historical context: Stern also turned against the first Bush for GHWB's anti-choice stance . . ."
I just love how these liberal phonies call someone "anti-choice" who merely opposes cutting up little unborn babies and throwing them in garbage cans. Why don't you at least be honest with yourself instead of attempting to cloak a naked evil in morally neutral terms like "choice."
While I do believe Michael Savage sometimes goes overboard in his harshness, I have heard much worse from the far left.
yeah the far left hope gay men get aids and die--yup sure
I would be very interested to hear what the homosexual man said to Michael Savage to illicit that kind of response. It was clearly too awful to even play on the air because the man's message was cut off.
Obviously, a television personality has a greater obligation to control his temper; however, let's not ignore the fact that all of us are capable of losing our cool and saying things that we really do not mean when we are personally attacked.
What the "homosexual" man said: "I need to suggest that Don and Mike [a Washington, D.C.-area radio duo] should take over your show so you can go to a dentist appointment, because your teeth are really bad."
I put homosexual in quotes because the article I got this from describes the caller as a "confirmed prankster". I think it's up for grabs whether he is actually gay. If he is or not does not excuse Savage's vicious reply:
SAVAGE: Oh, you're one of the sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage?
Etc. It gets more ridiculous from there.
Savage excuses this because "...the man made a personal attack on me. Not at my ideas, but he attacked my vanity. He attacked my looks. And it got very down and very dirty very fast."
It got down and dirty because that's where Savage took it. He's an adult; there is no excuse for his over-the-top reaction. If you can't see that this man is a menace then you, Justin, are just as much part of the problem this country has as he is. People like him and Rush Limbaugh and all those right-wing hate guys get on the airwaves and make it cool to be angry and rude and that spreads out through society. Gays get bashed, women get beat and ethnic minorities get shot on the streets of their own cities. Savage and his ilk make these things okay with their public anger.
So, Debby, do you believe that people like Rush, Savage, and the other "right-wing guys" have no right to speak their minds on the air? Do people who hold to the traditional view that homosexual sex is contrary to the natural moral law have no right of free speech? If this is your belief, then you are an intolerant hypocrite.
I believe that the hypocricy of the left is what is generating so much of the anger that makes people like Savage so popular. For example, we remove a judge in Alabama for not removing the Ten Commandments out of the need to respect the "rule of law" while a Mayor in San Francisco flagrantly violates the rule of law of the state of California. These liberal hypocrites who attacked Judge Moore for being a disobedient insubordinate hail the Mayor of S.F. as a hero. Why? Because he is advancing a liberal agenda. So, I suppose the message is that the rule of law can be violated so long as the violator is advancing a cause of the left such as gay marriage.
Moreover, Mel Gibson has recently been the victim of a vicious assault by supposedly "tolerant" liberals who believe the movie should never have been made. These are the same people who defend such things as paintings of the Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung and depictions of Christ dipped in chauldrons of urine. Liberals seem to embrace every manner of filth as something that needs to be accepted by society out of "tolerance"; however, a traditional person has no right to make a film that represents the perennial Christian view clearly evident in the Gospels.
It is this outright hypocricy that is causing the anger from many decent tax paying Americans who have every right to uphold traditional values. Can you see this, Debbie, or are you too intolerant and narrow minded to grasp it?
Sorry to change the subject guys, but I was hoping someone here might be able to help. I recently read an old Buzzflash article from January 2003 (http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/01/23_Priorities.html) that talks about the cost, at that time, of the Clinton/Lewinsky investigation compared to the cost of the 9/11 investigation. At the time, Clinton was $62 million, and 9/11 was a measly $3 million, if you can believe it!
So I was wondering if anyone knew where I could find current numbers for both categories. I'm guessing the Clinton investigation is over so that is probably around $62 million still, but what about the cost of the 9/11 investigation?
Can anyone help???
debby, mostly I just lurk here and read. With fondness, let me say you missed the sign. "Please don't feed the trolls!"
It only encourages people like Justin, who can't understand anything different than their own narrow point of view.
Putting aside Justinís misinformed (and misspelled) diatribes for the moment, hereís a serious question. I had always believed that the purpose of an exchange of political ideas was to help the parties involved come to an understanding, if not an appreciation, of each otherís POV. The underlying idea is that more information leads to better decisions, including better compromises. However, as a recent immigrant to Blogland, I have quickly realized that there arenít many minds being changed. So, if the point isnít to come to understanding, what IS the point? Iím asking in all seriousness here: Are we simply preaching to the choir, or troll-baiting, or what?
Thanks, and Iíll hang up and take my answer off the air.
I've deleted Justin's most recent comment and banned him from further comments. As a reminder to all, abusive behavior is not permitted. I appreciate everyone's understanding.
To answer CrispyShot's actual question: I can't speak for anyone else, but I consider myself an advocate for what I believe in. I hope to present my case in a way that helps people understand what I believe in. That's my style, and it doesn't work for everyone, but it is what I'm aiming for.
Rush, Hannity, and O'Reilly are entertainers!Savage is so rude no one listens. If the founders of this nation had talked this much, we'd all be speaking with English accents. Stop fearing and start doing something! A. Stop speaking Spanish. B. Stop acting like you're embarrassed because you have morals. C. Stop accepting the unacceptable because you're afraid you'll lose your job. STOP TALKING ON THE INTERNET AND START TALKING TO PEOPLE!