shotbanner.jpeg

February 16, 2005

Just the FAQ, Ma'am

Powerline just printed a "Frequently Asked Questions" list. This reminds me - it's time for me to do the same.

I try to answer my email, but I don't always. So I've put together a digest of my most common questions, and added answers.

Hope this helps.

Q: Have you ever eaten a bug?
A: Unintentionally.

Q: What was your first car?
A: A 1973 Malibu that I bought for $125 and a case of beer. Yes, in North Dakota there's a space for in kind payments on the title transfer forum. Well, there was. And that's my story and I'm sticking by it.

Q: Michael Savage - genius or hateful crackpot?
A: Neither. Crazy like a fox, adept at pushing buttons, laughing all the way to the bank.

Q: What's the best shoe deodorant?
A: Desenex. No contest.

Q: Are you aware of any proof of the existence of Hell?
A: "Captain Planet"

Q: Hillary Duff or Lindsay Lohan?
A: Summit.

Q: Why don't you criticize conservatives?
A: The City Pages, the Strib, Air America, MPR, the U o M, the Saint Paul City Council and Macalester College told me to stay off their turf.

Q: Why does Nick Coleman say "I'm no monkey" 30 times an hour?
A: I don't know, but I'm told it's an improvement, and that I shoudn't ask for details.

Q: Are bloggers going too far in their assault on the media?
A: I'll let you know after we've brought Chris Conangla down.



Posted by Mitch at February 16, 2005 05:21 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Hmmmm. This all seem so vaguely familiar...

Posted by: LearnedFoot at February 16, 2005 07:56 AM

Mitch,

Regarding your comments about Michael Savage:

> Q: Michael Savage - genius or hateful crackpot?
> A: Neither. Crazy like a fox, adept at pushing buttons, laughing all the way to the bank.


So what is your opinion of Savage's comments like these:

[Of tsunami aid:] “Many of the countries and the areas in these countries that were hit by these tidal waves were hotbeds of radical Islam. Why should we be helping them destroy us? ... I think what we're doing is feeding our own demise. ...We shouldn't be spending a nickel on this, as far as I'm concerned. ... I don't want one nickel of my money going over there. ... I am sick of being bled to death by every damn incident on the earth.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501050006

[While comparing the SF Human Rights Commission to Nazis:] “When you hear "human rights," think gays. When you hear "human rights," think only one thing: someone who wants to rape your son.”

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408050004


[Comparing the left to Al Qaeda]: “Tell me the difference between Al Qaeda seeking to hurt us financially and the left of America. Tell me the difference between Osama Bin Laden and the ACLU.”

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408190009


Harmless fun just trying to get a rise out of the left, is that it?
/jc

Posted by: Slashjc at February 16, 2005 09:42 AM

As usual, Slash, you've phrased the argument in such a way as to completely pervert my intentions.

Harmless? Depends. I'm not one to defend Savage, and I resent your facile attempt to put me in that position. Are words on the radio harmful? It depends.

Does Savage say things that are ugly, stupid, harmful to people? Sure. Is it out of hate, or does it come from a talent at pushing peoples' buttons, and using that talent for his own profit? I suggest that it's the latter.

Posted by: mitch at February 16, 2005 12:12 PM

Don't dodge the question Mitch, what kind of bug did you "accidentally" eat? Inquiring minds want to know!

Posted by: Thorley Winston at February 16, 2005 01:12 PM

Mitch,

You say, "Are words on the radio harmful? It depends."

In your opinion, under what circumstances and what kind of words on the radio would be harmful?

You seem to suggest that Savage's words aren't harmful, so I'm curious as to your standard for when words on the radio would be harmful.

Wouldn't want to pervert your intentions.
/jc

Posted by: Slashjc at February 16, 2005 01:26 PM

Slash,

You say "You seem to suggest that Savage's words aren't harmful" - but I said "Are words on the radio harmful? It depends".

You're being disingenuous, and relying on strawmen to pick an argument I'm not taking part in. I neither defend, care for nor listen to Savage. I'm merely calling for some perspective on the issue (admittedly, never your strong suit).

There is no right not to be offended. Offense does not necessarily equal harm. Were Savage to say "US Attorneys are a bunch of loafing dirtbags who should all be fired", it might be offensive - and pretty much par for the course for Savage - but where's the harm?

Does he fan endemic bigotries? Among those who take him seriously, certainly. That's harmful. But then you knew that, right?

Because I'd hate to think you were breaking form and asking a question for any reason but argument for its' own sake.

Posted by: mitch at February 16, 2005 01:36 PM

As to eating bugs...when I lived overseas in a third world country I learned that one goes through several phases of comfort level, illustrated by what you do when you find a bug in your food at a restaurant:
Phase One: Send the food back, eat somewhere else.
Phase Two: Send the food back, order something different.
Phase Three: Pick the bug off your food and eat around where you found it.
Phase Four: Pick the bug off, eat the food anyway.
Phase Five: Eat the bug first
Phase Six: When you see another person with a bug on their food, ask them "Are you going to eat that ?"
Perhaps this is what happened, Mitch ?

Posted by: Just Me at February 16, 2005 02:27 PM

Mitch,

You responded:

> You say "You seem to suggest that Savage's words aren't harmful" - but I said "Are words on the radio harmful? It depends".
You're being disingenuous, and relying on strawmen to pick an argument I'm not taking part in. There is no right not to be offended. Offense does not necessarily equal harm. Were Savage to say "US Attorneys are a bunch of loafing dirtbags who should all be fired", it might be offensive - and pretty much par for the course for Savage - but where's the harm? Does he fan endemic bigotries? Among those who take him seriously, certainly. That's harmful. Because I'd hate to think you were breaking form and asking a question for any reason but argument for its' own sake.<


I asked the questions in order to clarify your position so it could be analyzed and discussed. You post your views here, right? Are we, your readers not supposed to analyze and weigh the merits of your stated views?

I thought that's what comments were for.
/jc

Posted by: Slashjc at February 16, 2005 02:40 PM

Mitch,

Let's try this again. Your site has a nasty habit of cutting off portions of my posts. Not that I'm blaming any VRWC, mind you? ;-)

Okay, from the top:

You responded:

"You say "You seem to suggest that Savage's words aren't harmful" - but I said "Are words on the radio harmful? It depends".
You're being disingenuous, and relying on strawmen to pick an argument I'm not taking part in."


I was responding to your original statement that Savage was "[n]either" a "genius or hateful crackpot," but rather "[c]razy like a fox." So I asked you to clarify if by that you meant that Savage was only engaging in "[h]armless fun just trying to get a rise out of the left."


You continued:

"There is no right not to be offended. Offense does not necessarily equal harm."


I absolutely agree and never suggested otherwise.

But you also said that whether radio talk could be harmful "depends," so I asked for your criteria.

You gave this example:

"Were Savage to say "US Attorneys are a bunch of loafing dirtbags who should all be fired", it might be offensive - and pretty much par for the course for Savage - but where's the harm?"


Expanding on this hypothetical, suppose for the sake of argument that Savage falsely portrayed the actions/characteristics of a person/group, and encouraged his listeners to form negative opinions about that person/group, and even suggested that his listeners call for that person's/group's firing/resignation/loss of support/jailing/death, etc.? Would that be harmful under your criteria?

You seem to suggest so:

"Does he fan endemic bigotries? Among those who take him seriously, certainly. That's harmful."


I'm glad we agree.

But, I recall you attacking President Clinton and Governor Gregoire for criticizing inciteful, hate-filled radio talk. Such radio talk would seem to meet your criteria for harm.

You concluded:

"Because I'd hate to think you were breaking form and asking a question for any reason but argument for its' own sake."


I asked the questions in order to clarify your position so it could be analyzed and discussed. You post your views here, right? Are we, your readers not supposed to analyze and weigh the merits of your stated views?

I thought that's what comments were for.
/jc

Posted by: Slashjc at February 16, 2005 02:50 PM

Yes indeed - this is what comments are for, and your last was a good one.

"suppose for the sake of argument that Savage falsely portrayed the actions/characteristics of a person/group, and encouraged his listeners to form negative opinions about that person/group, and even suggested that his listeners call for that person's/group's firing/resignation/loss of support/jailing/death, etc.? Would that be harmful under your criteria?

You seem to suggest so:"

As re calls for resignation, jailing, other non-physical threats; If, as you say, the call relies on false, defamatory information, then I'd say slander law applies, right?

Without that - and I think you'll find Savage stays well to the legal side of that line - then I'll assess each such call individually. Calls for Clinton's resignation were thoroughly justified (I know you disagree). Gregoire made, IIRC, a specious link between a threat and talk radio.

Calls for death? Dumb, pretty much indefensible.

Again, I'm taking pains to point out that I really don't like or listen to Savage; his show *is* pure manipulation, and any harm or offense aside, it bores me silly. I can see the artifice of it all - the guy's a genius at button-pushing, no mean trick - and I'm just not interested.

Posted by: mitch at February 16, 2005 03:04 PM

Mitch,

Now we're getting somewhere.

You respond:

"As re calls for resignation, jailing, other non-physical threats; If, as you say, the call relies on false, defamatory information, then I'd say slander law applies, right? Without that - and I think you'll find Savage stays well to the legal side of that line - then I'll assess each such call individually."


Well, defamation claims would only arise if the speaker spoke a false fact about a specific person. There is no legal claim for defaming a group (though it's been tried unsucessfully). So, e.g., if Savage says that gay people want to rape your son, that's a false, harmful statement, in my opinion (and I hope yours) that's not actionable under defamation law.


You continued:

"Calls for Clinton's resignation were thoroughly justified (I know you disagree)."


I was speaking more about Clinton's criticism of radio and other inciteful anti-goverment speech, such as calling federal law enforcement officials "jack-booted thugs" or other speech suggesting that the government and particular politicians are not just wrong, but treasonous, anti-American, evil monsters who should be killed or otherwise attacked. Clinton argued, and I agree, that when discourse descends to this level you do encourage the creation of the Timothy McVeigh's of the world. No hint of government censorship, as you suggested, in making this connection and encouraging people to speak out against such hate-filled inciteful rhetoric, which is what Clinton did.


You also said:

"Gregoire made, IIRC, a specious link between a threat and talk radio."


Again, I think her point was akin to Clinton's, that there's political debate and even sharp criticism, and then there's demonization and incitement to hate and even violence. Say when Coulter calls all Democrats traitors and suggests that the NYT building should be blown up.


You say:

"Calls for death? Dumb, pretty much indefensible."


And yet you've repeatedly praised Coulter.


You conclude:

"Again, I'm taking pains to point out that I really don't like or listen to Savage; his show *is* pure manipulation, and any harm or offense aside, it bores me silly. I can see the artifice of it all - the guy's a genius at button-pushing, no mean trick - and I'm just not interested."


And my point is that he's not just harmless fun, he's actually crossed the line into harmful and should be called for what he is.

Not praised for laughing all the way to the bank.
/jc

Posted by: Slashjc at February 16, 2005 03:26 PM

Let's start at the end:

"Not praised for laughing all the way to the bank."

It wasn't praise. It was an observation, with no judgement as to ethics or merit.

Saying "Hitler was a great orator" isn't praise, it's a technical observation. So is saying Savage is a supreme button pusher.

"Well, defamation claims would only arise if the speaker spoke a false fact about a specific person."

Duly noted.

"I was speaking more about Clinton's criticism of radio and other inciteful anti-goverment speech, such as calling federal law enforcement officials "jack-booted thugs" or other speech suggesting that the government and particular politicians are not just wrong, but treasonous, anti-American, evil monsters who should be killed or otherwise attacked."

Clinton - or the Clintons, really - made a very illogical leap, from the inflammatory rhetoric of a few talkers to a smear of the whole genre.

By the way, I'd have loved to have seen your reactions had you been hanging around rural North Dakota about this time 20 years ago, when the feds WERE acting like the Gestapo during the Kahl manhunt. They probably created more Posse Comitatus...comitati? Comitatae? More tax protesters with that manhunt than with 70 years of IRS tax code.

"Again, I think [Gregoire's] point was akin to Clinton's, that there's political debate and even sharp criticism, and then there's demonization and incitement to hate and even violence."

She took a square threat and jammed it into the round hole, trying to tie the threat to the criticism (to the best of my knowledge, all civil) she'd been getting on talk radio and in the blogs.

" Say when Coulter calls all Democrats traitors and suggests that the NYT building should be blown up."

Wow. Tell you what - I'll toss her over the side when you shiv Paul Begala or Janeane Garofalo. Deal?

"And yet you've repeatedly praised Coulter."

Yep. She makes some great points amid the hyperbole - and yes, I separate the two. She's a great - no, a GREAT - interview. Would I rather she not call Democrats traitors - at least, the majority that aren't? Sure.

"And my point is that he's not just harmless fun, he's actually crossed the line into harmful and should be called for what he is."

As I said earlier, yes - he DOES cross the line occasionally. And I do call it what it is.

But the note in my FAQ was not a complete explication of Savage's ethics - it was an observation about his technique.

One that bores and occasionally offends me.

Posted by: mitch at February 16, 2005 04:04 PM

Oh for the love of....

Look, "Slashjc". Mitch thinks Savage is embarrassing. He's manipulative. That's not a compliment. He's good at pushing buttons to make himself rich. That's more like an insult than an endorsement, and it sure as heck isn't "praise."

The fact that it took you 800 posts pretending to be Perry Mason and have yet to arrive at this is ... aww leave it. You won't get it anyway. You'll probably think you have great material for more scintillating debate when you do the math and discover you did NOT have 800 posts quite yet. You got me Perry.

Peace out.

Posted by: Doug at February 16, 2005 11:24 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi