Tag Archives: stupidity

Diamond Dave

[angryroth.jpg]When Howard Stern left terrestrial radio (thank God) and moved to satellite, he left a gaping hole in morning drive radio. Infinity Radio decided to replace Stern with David Lee Roth in some markets (including Pittsburgh), and I think it was of the few smart decisions they’ve ever made. Diamond Dave’s show rocks.

I’m the kind of guy who usually hates talk radio in the morning. The last thing I want to hear when I’m still half asleep on the way to work is a bunch of idiots trying to be funny and failing. I want music. Better yet, I want music that’ll wake me up. If I must listen to talk, it better be good. When Stern was polluting the terrestrial airwaves, I avoided him like the plague. His adolescent shanigans were old 10 or 15 years ago. I only found him interesting at the end because he stopped being perverted long enough to talk about the real issues surrounding how his bosses were stifling his free speech, generally behaving like asses, and having no appreciation for the man who made them filthy rich. But I digress.

When Roth replaced Stern, I decided to give him a shot. I figured since almost every decent rock station has talk shows on in the morning, I’m pretty much stuck listening to one. Maybe Roth Radio will be good. Well, it is. In fact, it’s better than good. David Lee Roth is a breath of fresh air for morning drive radio. He is intelligent, funny, fair to his callers, has interesting guests, cool people in the studio, and his format is not the same ol’ song and dance. In short, he’s not only the least of evil morning talkers, he’s interesting to listen to. I actually look forward to tuning in and I’m bummed when I forget to.

Dave’s producers, though, want to change all that. The ratings haven’t been what they’d hoped for. So he’s lost most of Stern’s audience, so what? Who wants folks who act like their IQ is lower than their shoe size? Tom Chiusano and his overlord (whose name I’ve forgetten) want Dave to change his format entirely in order to better cater to the demographic that matters to them, white Generation X males whose favorite style of music is classic rock. Well, I’m a white Generation Y male who digs classic rock and I don’t want Roth to change a thing. If you feel the same way, save a copy of the above graphic, put it on your site, and spread the word. Let’s overwhelm Infinity with a grassroots Roth revolution!

Addendum 03/09/06: Here’s some additional info that should make it clearer what kind of crap Roth is dealing with.

"After David Lee Roth’s bosses had a little talk with him about ways to improve his low-rated morning program, Roth cut loose on the air Wednesday morning, calling his superiors ‘social retards’ and ‘beige baby-food sissies.’ He was referring to WFNY/New York station manager Tom Chiusano and CBS Radio programming VP Mark Chernoff. ‘They want me to copy Howard [Stern],’ Roth said, according to the New York Daily News. ‘But I refuse to regiment this show… I told them I would quit if they will not let me do what I was hired to do, which is create something unique.’"

"Roth explained that his bosses told him he should appeal to ‘a 35-year-old white male who likes Lynyrd Skynyrd’ and that they asked him to stop using ‘foreign’ and ‘ethnic’ music for soundbeds. He responded by saying, ‘This show isn’t designed for a demographic. It’s for everyone.’"

….

"Roth also said that he was told he will soon have a female newscaster to read current events so that he can make comments. ‘That’s Robin Quivers,’ he said. ‘But there’s only one Robin Quivers. Just like there’s only one Howard and only one David Lee Roth.’"

"Roth did admit that his show was rocky for the first four weeks, saying, ‘I was like a fish flopping around at the end of a stick.’ But he said he’s a quick study and noted Stern’s comments to Sean Hannity on the Fox News Channel where he said a new radio show can’t be judged for 15 or 20 months. ‘Howard took his old audience,’ Roth said. ‘We’re after a new one.’"

Too Weird For Words

From time to time I get bizarre email. Some of it is from Fundies giving me a “drive-by” Bible-thumping. Some is from Muslims trying to enlighten me. Most is spam. Occasionally, though, I get a message that I just can’t quite classify. It’s something so strange that it just has to be shared with the world. In that spirit, I give you the email “drinkme” by “super genius from outer space”.

“A conduct can be pathological or non pathological (phisiological), no
external or middle case is expected. 90% of the people who killed a parent
is declared mentally healthful, this means: non pathological conduct,
phisiological conduct (genetic or non genetic), good doctor, not ‘infected
cattle’.”

“Medicine is an exact science, jurisprudence is an exact science. Enemies and
friends, of the mental hygiene only : war between doctors isn’t expected
value; Fighting with islam against the devil : announcing this obvious
information could save some health.
Siegmund Freud lies not knowing to be lying: he is a conceptual pedophile
who says children has sexual attraction for parent (edipus) and that mind is
partitioned in 3 parts (ego superego es). False premiss brings wrong result:
like Freud says, cognitive error is associated with pathological conduct,
biological group self-destructive activity.
‘Your parent acts with you like with friends’: the medical doctor must
suggest this or enhanced reflection to the habitants, for excluding
non-genetic behavioral epidemics. Slapping child is a crime and a mania,
like by the general rule, ‘if child doesn’t born genetically stupid,
handicapped, diseased, socially dangerous’. Habitants of the planet kill
gays but children don’t born gays, habitants corrupt and kill children doing
a ‘sacrifice to the devil’: this non genetic epidemic is familiarly but not
geneticaly transmitted.”

“With baptism christians forgive themselfs from god’s sentence.
If vegetarian diet gives longer and better life than non-vegetarian diet,
non-vegetarian diet is alimentary behavior pathology. Eating another
human is a behavioral disturb; a cow has 96,5% dna perfectly matching
with human dna. I am racist: i think animals is inferior race, so i don’t
have to eat cadavers, thing that induce a phisiological genetic reflex :
vomiting.”

“You are authorized by the author to the use u think is necessary, pls
forward. This is a final version or close, you will be excluded from future
mailing.”

The last bit really caught my attention. This bad acid trip is somebody’s idea of a final version. What of, I do not know.

Goin’ Down (or, a Young Woman’s Perspective on Why Oral Sex Sucks)

I am writing this post in response to two comments made on a post at Ambivablog on the teenage culture of oral sex. That post is a response to an Atlantic Monthly essay on the development of that culture. Essentially, Amba argues, the culture is bad for girls because it takes sexuality out of the larger context of the whole person. Amber Stuart responds in comments saying that this culture helps to build self esteem in both girls and boys. Amber Stuart's comments bother me for a number of reasons, both personally and philosophically; I will take each in turn. I think it important to note here, that this is not an argument against oral sex for all people in all situations (that can be discussed some other time), but against casual sexuality amongst teens. Continue reading

Have Christian Bloggers Lost the Plot?

 

[bloggerpatron.jpg]I’m worried that Christian bloggers have lost the plot.

My grandfather used to say that the habits or faults of other people that annoy us the most may be ones we are also guilty of. I guess that was his atheistic Quaker version of Luke 6:41. I am very often reminded of that lesson and it has been an important part of my maturation process and growth in faith. It’s a lesson I have to relearn over and over again. It’s painful; the saying is true – no pain, no gain.

There are times (too many to count) God puts me in a situation in which I find myself correcting someone for a fault I too am guilty of. Sometimes I get sort of a “spider sense” feeling as I reprove a friend, knowing all the while that I’ll learn Pop-pop’s lesson before I’m through. Other times, I’m too blinded by my own self-righteousness to see what’s coming. It’s a very humbling a experience either way.

What I’m trying to say is that the irony of this post is not lost on me. How can I reprove others for a sin I’m just as guilty of? This isn’t going to be a self-righteous lecture. If you insist on believing it is, then imagine me as the recipient rather than the deliverer.

If I had to summarize in one sentence the main reason I blog and how I choose what to blog about, I’d say that I’d like to help people stop begging questions, talking past one another, and calling each other silly and rude names, and start thinking critically, listening to one another, and treating each other with, at minimum, the same love they’d ask for themselves. That, of course, is easier said than done. Popular legend has it that G.K. Chesterton, among other eminent authors of his time, was asked by a newspaper to write an essay on the theme “What’s Wrong with the World?” His reply? “I am.” When it comes to the kind of acerbic and caustic blogging that I believe is poisoning the Body of Christ, and the rest of the world for that matter, I too am guilty.

Continue reading

French Bishop Urges Vatican to Reopen Debate on Whether 1+1=2

Oh, wait, he just wants the Vatican to reconsider birth control. God save us from such an episcopate!

"Pope Paul VI banned contraception in the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, arguing that sexual intercourse was meant for procreation and any artificial method to block a pregnancy went against the nature of the act."

"That encyclical prompted Catholics to leave the Church in droves and undercut papal authority. Many practicing Catholics now simply ignore the ban and some say it weakens the Church’s message on other moral issues such as abortion and bioethics." 

Say what?!? First of all, Pope Paul VI didn’t pull that ban out of thin air. The Church has always forbid contraception. The point of almost every papal encyclical, just like councils, is to clarify an eternal truth in modern terms. Paul VI only reiterated what the Church was already teaching to a generation itching for sexual license (among other stupid things). Secondly, the people who left the Church over this issue were never faithful Catholics in the first place. I mean, that’s a pretty flimsy excuse for leaving the guardian of the Deposit of Faith. Either you trust that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it or you don’t. Thirdly, if Humanae Vitae undercut papal authority, it’s only because the episcopate and the presbyterate failed miserably in their efforts (or lack thereof) to explain Catholic sexual ethics to their flocks, and continue to do so. Lastly, I’d very much like to know how the Catholic Church’s hestance on contraception weakens her message on abortion and bioethics. It’s all of a piece.

The primary ends of sexual congress are procreation and unification. To block conception is to interfere with both of those ends. Contraceptives, particularly barrier methods, interfere with complete self-giving (an element of unity). They also interfere with the natural product of intercourse, a child. Furthermore, all human life is precious and deserving of respect. Abortion, like contraception, treats conception as an undesireable side effect of a primarily pleasure-oriented act. It also murders children, the true primary product of what should be a love-oriented act. Likewise, embryonic stem cell research murders unborn children and justifies that act by redefining the beginning of human life to some unspecified time beyond conception. It also seperates the creation of humans from the natural procreative act, treating them not as children to be protected and loved, but as raw material to be consumed. Incidentally, these reasons are similar to those for why the Church opposes artificial means of conception, such as IVF. Abortion and ESCR both result from a contraceptive mentality. Denying that sex should be a life-giving activity allows one to justify both the destruction of life if it interferes with pleasure and the production and consumption of life for one’s own purposes.

This Reuters article is very much wrong in its protrayal of Catholic sexual ethics, and reproducing it without commentary or caveat was an irresponsible choice on the part of the editors at CathNews.

(For similar thoughts, head to  Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate)