I’m not alone

I’m not alone
: The very sane, civilized, nice Doc (as opposed to the insane, uncivilized, nasty me) agrees with me on Stern. And he is now deprived of his right to listen to Stern because he lives in a Clear Channel market. [Permalink not working]

  • http://www.scripting.com/rss.xml Dave Winer

    Here’s the correct permalink.
    http://doc.weblogs.com/2004/02/29#thankYouJanetJackson
    Dave

  • angell

    Thing with you leftists is–you only complain when YOUR rights are threatened and shit all over mine. Praying if I want is called free speech. Not being pro gay unions is free speech–yet a teacher was fired for making that comment in public(not at work) and all the leftists cheered. Free speech works both ways–not just being indoctrinated by leftist mumbo jumbo.
    Here is a fitting little piece for you.
    This is a statement that was read over the PA system at the football game at Roane County High School, Kingston, Tennessee, by school Principal, Jody McLoud. I thought it was worth sharing with the world and hope you will forward it to all your friends.
    “It has always been the custom at Roane County High School football games, to say a prayer and play the National Anthem, to honor God and Country.”
    Due to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, I am told that saying a Prayer is a violation of Federal Case Law. As I understand the law at this time, I can use this public facility to approve of sexual perversion and call it “an alternate lifestyle,” and if someone is offended, that’s OK.
    I can use it to condone sexual promiscuity, by dispensing condoms and calling it, “safe sex.” If someone is offended, that’s OK.
    I can even use this public facility to present the merits of killing an unborn baby as a “viable means of birth control.” If someone is offended, no problem.
    I can designate a school day as “Earth Day” and involve students in activities to worship religiously and praise the goddess “Mother Earth” and call it “ecology.”
    I can use literature, videos and presentations in the classroom that depict people with strong, traditional Christian convictions as “simple minded” and “ignorant” and call it “enlightenment.”
    However, if anyone uses this facility to honor God and to ask Him to bless this event with safety and good sportsmanship, then Federal Case Law is violated.
    This appears to be inconsistent at best, and at worst, diabolical. Apparently, we are to be tolerant of everything and anyone, except God and His Commandments.
    Nevertheless, as a school principal, I frequently ask staff and students to abide by rules with which they do not necessarily agree. For me to do otherwise would be inconsistent at best, and at worst, hypocritical. I

  • http://cellar.org Undertoad

    Angell, you are not being repressed. You might want to take a look at people who are actually repressed to see what actual repression is.
    Meanwhile, look to the Saudis to see the long-term effects of using the schools as a bully pulpit for the religion of your choice. Allow religion in the schools and after 40 years you will not recognize the schools. Unfortunately you won’t recognize the religion either, is that what you want?

  • angell

    Now that has to be the funniest or stupidest thing I have read–” using the schools as a bully pulpit for the religion of your choice.” Saudis give you about as much choice as atheists do–my way or the highway. In your opinion you can teach the moral lacking radical atheism to my kids but I can’t object. Take a real close look in the mirror if you want to see a bully–if you are a fundamental atheist a bully will look back at you.

  • Joe Peden

    Clearchannel made a business decision. Who knows if it was correct. “Friends” is just as bad as Stern. Any exposure beyond 39.5 seconds induces a feeling of bottomless hopelessness. Where’s “Amos and Andy” when I need them?

  • http://twistedspinster.com/ Andrea Harris

    Why don’t you tape the show and send it to him? It could be like the underground samizdat press in the old USSR! (I’m not being entirely facetious here — whenever something I really want to see is on cable teevee, which I am too poor to be able to exercise my “right” to watch, I have a friend tape it for me.)

  • hen

    jeff when you are in a hole, stop digging. i’m guessing that your inability to let this matter drop is a convuluted way to prove to yourself that you can’t be wrong. hint: you are.

  • old maltese

    Advance apologies for piling on, but, if there’s a market for Stern in the Doc’s area (presumably there has been), some other station there will sign up Stern before you can say Jack Robinson.

  • http://weblog.burningbird.net Shelley

    Wow, is there an echo chamber around here?
    Seriously, this is not a First Amendment issue. This is not an issue of Free Speech. This is not a new government plot. This is not anything new. This is not anything even that exciting.
    But you sure do attract the ‘spit while you pray’ crowd, don’t you?

  • Andy Freeman

    Remind me – did Doc object to laws that kept other people from hearing political speech that they wanted to hear.
    Or is his ox different?
    Like I wrote, that’s a principle, but not one to be proud of, or even respected.

  • http://myblahg.blogspot.com Robert McClelland

    >Thing with you leftists is–you only complain when YOUR rights are threatened and shit all over mine. Praying if I want is called free speech. Not being pro gay unions is free speech–yet a teacher was fired for making that comment in public(not at work) and all the leftists cheered.
    Thing with you right whingers is–you keep making this same allegation over and over again yet when you ask a leftist how they feel about the teacher being fired, almost all of them respond that it too is a travesty. Every time one of you right whingers brings up this idiotic talking point, it gets shot down. This begs me to ask the question: Are you naturally this stupid or do you work at being this ignorant?

  • Jaybird

    The thing about people like you is that you’re nowhere near close enough to being people like us.

  • angell

    Robert–I could never be as stupid as you even if I live to be3200-I’m afraid it was in your parents’ genes–a unique stupidity–hope you have no kids.

  • Jim

    Here’s a really simple way to figure out which side of line you fall upon…
    If the words “hate speech” have ever passed your lips and you feign outrage over Howard Stern or whichever of your favorites oxes is being gored, then you are a screaming hypocrite on the subject.
    I may detest what someone has to say…I may not want to hear it…I may have recourse to avoid it…I may not…But it’s ALL free speech…
    If you would prohibit someone from uttering profanity or racial epithets or showing genitalia on the airwaves (or take any position that anything in particular doesn’t belong on the airwaves) AND you’re getting exercised because a radio show which mainly appeals to people living vicariously through Howard’s “edginess” rather than getting out from behind the keyboard once in a while and doing it for themselves: you a screaming hypocrite…
    There’s an old saw about an old man and a young lady that goes something like this: he asks her to sleep with him for $1 million, she thinks about it, and hesitantly agrees. He then asks her to sleep with him for $10 whereupon she slaps him in the face saying “What kind of woman do you think I am?”..His answer: “We’ve already established that. Now we’re haggling over the price…”
    It’s actually quite a clarifying analogy. Bottom line: You either agree that society has a right to “draw a line in the sand” or you don’t. Once we’ve agreed to that: we’re just haggling over where to draw it…
    Here’s your REAL problem: you just don’t like where “society” is drawing the line simply because you happen to be standing on the other side of it.
    You may not like where the government or a private concern draws the line, but until you’re willing to say that no line should exist at all, then you’re just whining because someone else drew a line in a place that you didn’t like…
    Quit grandstanding on the “first amendment” and complaining about “Big Brother”…The volume of the self-righteousness on this issue has become deafening…
    I’ll make it easy: Grow up instead…Admit that what you REALLY want is that “the line” should be drawn closer to where you’re standing…

  • paladin

    Howard Stern had a limited run in my small market community several years ago. When the show was cancelled after less than a year, no one complained. I listened a couple of times and found him sophomoric and idiotic. But if this is what passes for “hip” and “cutting edge” in the bigger markets, I say let them have it. NYC will never be SLC, and we should be glad of it.

  • http://weblog.burningbird.net Shelley

    Wow, Jim. You know, you shouldn’t hold back like that, you’ll hurt yourself. Go ahead, feel free to tell us all what you really think of us. And thank you, too. I mean, I woke up this morning and looked at myself in the mirror and said, “Wow. You look like a hypocrite. I wonder why?”
    And I turn here, and you provide the answer. Darn. I am so relieved now. I thought it was something I picked up at the bar the other night.

  • pianoman

    Science Fiction Channel cancelled MST3K. That was a violation of my rights. How dare they? I’m calling my lawyer and start a lawsuit. While I’m at it, I’ll sue for my right to have Dragonball Z in prime time, and for my right to have Stern’s Channel 9 shows rerun continuously on Fox News.
    Must be a sinister plot cooked up in the White House, right? Karl Rove! Halliburton! AWOL! Dental Records! Dick Cheney! (Fill in favorite VRWC theory here!)
    I agree with CT on this one, Jeff. You’re turning into a broken record. I’m a Stern fan too, but since Jackie left the show, it has morphed from a comedy show to a “how much can we get away with” show. Yes, the occasional interludes with Howard and Tom are funny, but I’ve lost interest in Stern’s constant attempts to advance scatalogical humor into the mainstream.
    IMHO, Lileks has the best punditry on this subject that I’ve seen so far (http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0204/022604.html). Money graf:
    “I don

  • Jim

    Shelley -
    The sarcasm is nice, yet what I noticed right away about your response is, in fact, that it isn’t a response…
    What I said – in essence – is that’s impossible to reconcile the hypocrisy of complaining about society’s decision to “draw a line in the sand” simply because where you don’t like where it was drawn this time while you ALSO purportedly agree that a line has to be drawn SOMEWHERE.
    You can’t have it both ways…Either society has a say or they don’t…
    If it doesn’t, then literally ANYTHING goes – no matter how hateful, crass, or harmful…
    If it does then the argument is about where to draw the line – which is a debate worthwhile of being had. What it is NOT is a “First Amendment/ Big Brother” crisis that certain people want to fashion this into because they can’t play radio voyeur any more.
    This is the problem…If you have an issue with the point I made, then make it…Sarcasm may be clever *when accompanied by a point being made*, but without any substance to back it up it’s just noise…

  • anne.elk

    Jeff,
    NPR’s On The Media agrees with me, that you have missed the point, and that this is a story more along the lines of one Lessig would tell. Too bad you hate Lessig so much. Once again your hatred and snarkiness gets in your way. (Remember what you were warned about the dark side….)
    The Free Speech issue, if it exists, is secondary to the media consolidation issue. Clear Channel owns 1200 stations and regardless of the market, Howard now cannot get on any of those stations. That’s not a free speech issue — that’s a media overconsolidation issue — except we know you don’t believe in that.
    Clear Channel clearly did this to curry favor with the FCC and Powell and the Committee to ReElect the President. That comes close to a chill, but it’s more just the typical cronyism, and corruption we’ve come to expect.
    If instead of Clear Channel, we had 1200 fiercely competitive stations in those markets, Doc would have no problem getting his Howard.
    All in all, a shame you don’t believe in media consolidation….

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    Well, Anne, if I disagree with you, On the Media, and Lessig, then I KNOW I’m in the right! Wow, a hat trick!

  • http://twistedspinster.com/ Andrea Harris

    Now cancelling MST3K, that’s a First Amendment Atrocity. Aux armes, mes amis!

  • http://twistedspinster.com/ Andrea Harris

    Argh, forgot a bracket somewhere.

  • JorgXMcKie

    How about we push to get the low-level power stations okayed and make them cheap. Kind of like ham radio? Get lots and lots of under 50 amp (or under 500 amp, I don’t care) stations and have folks like Stern show their power by being on thousands of them.
    I’ll worry about Stern’s problem’s just as soon as Amos and Andy comes back on. Now there’s offensive radio for you.

  • http://weblog.burningbird.net Shelley

    Jim, I never make points with people who write with such surety of belief, while castigating one, all, and sundry with “…here’s YOUR problem.”
    Now, your second comment is easier to respond to, specifically ‘…is that’s impossible to reconcile the hypocrisy of complaining about society’s decision to “draw a line in the sand” simply because where you don’t like where it was drawn this time while you ALSO purportedly agree that a line has to be drawn SOMEWHERE.’
    However, I don’t see any hypocrisy in this at all. In a way, it’s no different than me wanting to change the speed limit on my favorite road. I think 35MPH is too slow, I want it to be 45. But I want some kind of speed limit, and that doesn’t make me a hypocrite because I don’t want to put up with a barely in control high school kid going 100.
    And another point I wanted to make — people respond more intelligently to writing that’s not half in caps, which is tantamount to shouting. You hold the spit, I’ll hold the sarcasm, and maybe there will a decent conversation in these comments.
    Well, maybe not, looking around, but one can hope.

  • Andy Freeman

    > Clear Channel clearly did this to curry favor with the FCC and Powell and the Committee to ReElect the President. That comes close to a chill, but it’s more just the typical cronyism, and corruption we’ve come to expect.
    Clearly? Instapundit is reporting that it was done at the behest of DEM members of Congress.
    BTW – Wasn’t Powell appointed by Clinton?
    Of course, if you’re looking for an argument to bash Bush, such facts don’t matter, but ….

  • anoann

    Put Stern on when the kids ar ein bed and he’s golden.

  • Mara

    Jeff -
    I’ve been listening to Stern since I was in high school and he was on WNBC. I’d miss him if he was off the air. Loved Ron & Fez on WNEW at night but Infinity moved them to DC after the Opie & Anthony fiasco. Does this mean my my rights have been trampled too?
    Stern and company have every right to broadcast. Clear Channel has every right to make a business decision that protects their licenses.
    San Diego has two Infinity stations – Stern’s own company could pick him up if Clear Channel drops him. I’m guessing they’re in the other CC markets as well.
    Somehow, I believe our nation and our freedoms will survive this business decision.

  • http://classicalvalues.com Eric Scheie

    Hey I am pissed as hell about what’s happening to Howard Stern, not because the company dropped him, but because they did so after pressure from the government. This is not the same thing as letting a free market decide (even if you don’t think free speech is affected) because it constitutes government interference with the marketplace. Most of the argument seems to be between people who like Howard Stern, and people who don’t like him. (If the government and citizen activists pressured networks into not showing the Superbowl, I think there’d be more of an uproar.)
    If you like him and you can’t get him, it’s like not being able to buy a favorite item anymore because the government pressured industry to stop selling it (like old-style toilets that used to flush, or stores refusing to sell ammunition.)
    It’s infuriating, except to people who don’t like people buying what they wouldn’t buy (or listening to what they wouldn’t want to hear).
    Anyone who thinks this busybodiness will stop with Howard Stern is being naive.

  • Jim

    Shelley -
    Re: “the kid going 100 mph”
    …You’re missing the point…
    Once you accept that there should be a speed limit, it’s not “big brotherish” or a violation of yours (or anyone else’s) “rights” to set a speed limit not to your liking…
    If society determines that the appropriate speed limit should be 35, and the kid is going 100 then he is breaking the law and deserves appropriate punishment.
    However, just because you happen to believe that the speed limit should be 45 doesn’t mean that your “rights” have been violated because it isn’t.
    It *also* means that if you [or in this case, Howard Stern by analogy] is caught going 45 when you [and he] know the speed limit is 35, then you have to pay the consequences. That’s the way our society works…It’s not “oppression” or “censorship” or any other perjorative…
    *That* is the point…It may be something with which you disagree, but it’s not the sky falling down on your rights or big government putting its jackboot on your neck…It’s just a different decision than one that you would choose to make…
    If those who are defending Howard Stern argued from the perspective that their idea of what should be permitted on the airwaves includes his particular breed of early-teen locker room humor, then that is a defensible position in a debate.
    Here is where I feel it necessary to repeat myself. What I was, and remain, critical of is those who claim that their outrage is based on some sort of imagined wrong perpetrated on their “rights” or as the result of an evil administration out to control their thoughts.
    What I have asked, and continue to ask, is that those who are defending Howard Stern be intellectually honest in their argument. Argue that the line should be drawn more liberally so as to allow shows like Howard Stern’s to operate freely, but don’t complain that yours or anyone else’s “rights” have been violated…That’s a position which is demonstrably false as my original post illustrated…
    Make a credible argument about why your position allowing for more liberality in the rules is the correct one, don’t play the pseudo-victim…It sucks all the credibility out of your argument…
    All that being said, I have yet to hear you make any sort of real defense of your position…Do you have a positive viewpoint in favor of your position or is yours simply knee-jerk negativity to those who have the temerity to disagree with you?
    You see, no one can tell because – in your repeated attempts to play semantic gotcha – it seems you’ve forgotten to actually articulate a positive defense of your position…
    Start there…

  • http://weblog.burningbird.net Shelley

    Jim, I did give my position way at the top. Stern’s show being dropped is not an issue of free speech. No one’s rights have been abrogated. It is a corporate decision based on typical government and consumer hand waving, but we’ve seen this before and we’ll see it again. It is not the beginning of the end. It’s not even the middle of the end.
    Now, it is censorship. But censorship is not the same as a violation of First Amendment priviledges. And this particular censorship is bi-partisan, so no, I don’t believe it has a thing to do with Stern saying Bush Bad.
    Jim, I was clear above with my first comment in this thread. Hopefully I’m clearer with this one. And if you had gone to my web site, you’d have no doubt where I stand regards Stern.
    Everyone is clearer when people stop shouting.

  • Orion

    Offtopic: What happened to “The Kicker”??

  • Mumblix Grumph

    All right! Let’s attack CENSORSHIP! C’mon kids, let’s all fight to the death to get Dr. Laura and Michael Savage back on TV! Yay!
    Uh, where’d everybody go?

  • http://www.tonypierce.com/blog/bloggy.htm tony

    how about this.
    how about if the FCC stopped playing games and just laid down the rules in black and white.
    therefore, if one was going 45 in a 35 zone everyone would know.
    but outside of the “seven dirty words” there arent any clear-cut ways to define obscenity. this is simultaneously lazy and dishonest. it’s easy to pick on someone like stern who likes to tapdance next to the line but its unfair when that line keeps getting blurred.
    the fcc however does not want to lay out the parameters because if it did howard would stay just this side of legal and the fcc would lose most of its fangs.
    this too is unfair, and unamerican.

  • Eric

    Actually the FCC hasn’t been riding his ass. Clear Channel dumped him for no reason, he acknowledged that fact today, and also said that Mr. Kerry was a tool too.

  • KMK

    Amazing hen – the very language that offends you, you have no problem typing anonymously. The FCC put out a threat. Heavier fines and losing your license. CC responded by suspending Stern ahead of their hearing. How courageous of both of you.

  • http://weblog.burningbird.net Shelley

    No, Tony does have a point. The guidelines (as defined here http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/obscind.html and including recent fines) do leave a determination of obscenity up to the local community. In some ways, this is confusing; in others, it’s a good thing–the FCC cannot move on a broadcast until a complaint is filed.
    The danger to Stern fans of a change to regularize these more is there would be a lot less Stern. In fact, it’s in Stern’s interest, and ultimately ours, to keep the FCC and the laws just the way they are.
    For instance, Stern’s show that caused him to be dropped from CC would most likely not have violated the regulations; however it would the Canadian broadcast standards, which are more defined and spelled out.
    No, CC just reacted to a heavy fine, but more likely to this consumer backlash against Janet Jackson. They made a corporate decision. Give it a month, and Stern will be back.
    The FCC is huffing and puffing now and congress is holding meetings. Give it a month, and the next ‘public horror’ will capture attention and we’ll move on.
    As for the caller that supposedly got Stern into trouble, to be honest, I’ve felt that he probably did engineer this–man hasn’t been in the news for a while. Think on the fact that Stern is broadcast on a 9-second delay, specifically for editing out offensive material.
    It’s all just publicity. It’s all just a game to these people.

  • hen

    KMK – there i’m not anonymous – happy? i don’t listen to Stern, not for years, and i don’t find him particularly offensive. when a baby yells “doo doo” over and over again, it loses its ability to bring outrage (at least with me).
    my point is simple: Stern KNEW what he was doing, is trying to make himself a martyr for “free speech”, people like Jeff gladly help him carry his cross (like my Passion references), yet Jeff deletes my posts for repeating exactly what Stern got in trouble for.
    hey let’s throw it all out the window: i want to hear and BELIEVE that KKK, Neo nazis, NAMBLA, beastiality and the rest ALL have a FREE SPEECH guarantee that should FORCE Clear Channel to broadcast their sickness. who are we to say what is beyond the pale? further why can’t i see full on porn on my local TV stations? this is a FREE SPEECH issue right? certainly not me, certainly not you and certainly not Jeff, unless of course you want to transcribe the spewings of little howie here at buzzmachine.
    i’ll say it again: i think Jeff KNOWS he’s wrong, is to small to admit that he went off the tracks and is now trying to pump himself up in order to convince him that the nagging little voice that tells him “jeff you are making a fool of yourself” gets overwhelmed with his sense of superiority.
    but whatever.

  • Lc

    Ct, I am the product of a Christian education–12 years of it. No Greek nor Latin was offered at any of my schools. (As a matter of fact, during grade school, most of my friends in public school were learning a foreign language. Us? We didn’t have the funds to hire a foreign language teacher.) The education was not based upon a “classical” education, at least not the classical education you are defining above. When I reached high school, I was in classes with kids from public school. The public school kids were a good year to two years ahead of me in science and math. (Again, we in the Christian schools had no money for science labs, equipment, etc.) This is the state of all Christian schools in my state. History does not support your argument, nor do current facts about Christian education.
    Andy Freeman: Powell was not appointed by Clinton. He was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Clinton’s administration. This, needless to say, is not an appointed position, but an earned position filled by 4-star generals.
    As for this, “Saudis give you about as much choice as atheists do–my way or the highway,” it’s hard to know where to start. So, including Christian prayer at public school functions is giving Buddhist students a choice? Is it giving Islamic students a choice? Much as you may not like to admit it, your insistance upon the inclusion of prayer, etc., in schools is forcing your religion down others’ throats just as much as the Saudis do. If you think otherwise, you’re simply deluding yourself.

  • Kat

    I wasn’t even thinking about education–I was thinking about gays wanting to declare my Bible hate speech because homosexuality is considered a sin. I was thinking of the Kodak guy who got fired for refusing to celebrate gay day or the teacher who got fired for refusing to buy the gay agenda or the shop keeper who got fined big for refusing to print perverted sex signs. I just want to be free to believe in religion and not be told I can’t because it doesn’t suit some perverted belief of someone else. Believe whatever he hell you want–but don’t tell me what I have to accept.
    I don’t give a darn about Stern–if he abides by the rules he can talk all he wants–I never listened to him before and I won’t start now. My religion says gay marriage is wrong–can I believe that without being called a homophobe–like anyone really fears a homosexual. I am willing to tolerate your atheistic beliefs–don’t put me in jail for my religious ones.

  • Katherine

    Christian homeschoolers and Christian schools are like apples and oranges. My husband went to Baptist elementary school–his family wasn’t Baptist, but the other option was a public school system in receivership. He spent great quantities of time studying such 21st-century essentials as penmanship, and learning about the “War of Northern Aggression.”
    Christian homeschoolers are a different breed, and they do tend toward a classical education, including classical languages, great literature and other worthy topics. The biology curriculum might not be what I’d pick for my child, but hey, it’s not my child.

  • old maltese

    JorgX — Why can’t we call Amos and Andy funny? Seriously (sort of).
    Did everybody smile and nod at Robin Williams’s ‘Japanese’ impression at the Oscars last night?

  • http://www.ired.com/attitude/ Becky

    This is a really boring topic. Be as controversial as you like, but don’t be BORING! I think I’ll surf elsewhere for the next couple of weeks.

  • Trump

    Once again- the issue is NOT Stern. The issue is that broadcasters acted in a very irresponsible manner, and the ensuing outcry (and yes, there was an outcry) has spurred the government to act. Stern isn’t the first victim of this….those of us who didn’t want to see or have our kids see Janet Jacksons boob at halftime were the first victims.
    If broadcasters cannot be bothered to be responsible on their own volition, they will be made to be responsible. PERIOD.
    Jeff, the fact is that the broadcasters are at fault here. They created the situation, they lit the match, they touched it to the fuse.
    I guess they’ll think 2x now before they plan their next halftime show.

  • It’s Pat!

    I heve never listened to Howard Stern on radio as I have never been in a radio market that carried him. I have, however, seen his show on E!, and have to admit that my 23 year old daughter seems to enjoy it. I do not.
    It is not because of his subject matter that I do not like Howard. Don and Mike have similar subject matter, and I have listened to them for the last 12 years in this backwards, God-forsaken radio market (on a Clear Channel station, no less.)
    I don’t have any desire to listen to Howard because I feel that he is not funny.
    He IS edgy.
    He DOES push the envelope.
    He is also the most ego-centric and selfish personality in the media that I have ever been exposed to.
    I don’t give a fat rat’s ass what Howard says, but I will defend to the death his right to say it. That doesn’t mean I don’t think he is anything other than a juvenile asshole.
    I also feel that Clear Channel is not obliged to program juvenile assholes. If they thought that they were going to lose a significant amount of market share, do you really think that they would yank his show?
    Maybe they have finally realized that Mr. Stern only appeals to those who like to feel “naughty”, and enjoy being juvenile, and that the market in the areas for which they have the rights to Howard aren’t quite right for juvenile assholery.
    Let the market forces sort themselves out. Please, God, let everyone from the most Liberal to the most Conservative just SHUT THE HELL UP.
    Howard is an asshole, but I have no objection to other assholes listening to him. I know how to change the channel on my radio.
    But PLEASE don’t try to pretend that Clear Channel taking him off of their stations is censorship. It is an economic decision, and they are entirely within their rights to yank him.
    In short, I like the maximum amount of choice in my listening and viewing. If I don’t like the offerings from a Clear Channel station, I’ll listen to something else.
    By the way, if the Don and Mike Show is available in your area, and you are not listening to it, then there is obviously something wrong with you.
    Unlike Howard Stern, Don and Mike are actually funny.

  • Andy Freeman

    > Powell was not appointed by Clinton. He was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Clinton’s administration. This, needless to say, is not an appointed position, but an earned position filled by 4-star generals.
    Wrong Powell. We’re discussing Michael Powell the FCC Chairman, son of the ex-General (Colin Powell, the father, is currently Secretary of State).
    Powell the son was appointed to the FCC by Clinton in 97. Bush made him chair. (see http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/powell/mkp_biography.html )
    If someone doesn’t know or care to know basic facts about the topic under discussion….