STERN –vs- POWELL

Or more accurately: the Shlub –vs- the Shnook

Does anyone remember back to those wonderful days of yester-century when there were real issues of import concerning the First Amendment? One recalls how enthralled we all were with Larry Flynt –vs- Jerry Falwell (1983) Now there was a honest to God case of import! Men were glued to their TVs every day that court let out to see how Flynt was taking it all, and more importantly, if any Hustler centerfolds were going to prance about naked and tease Jerry Falwell… Maybe yank on his… Toupee. (which in some corners of Southeastern Europe is considered an invitation to marriage.)

This is pretty much what the guys are still hoping for, only now it is Stern and Powell. Mr. Powell is head of the FCC. FCC here stands for things I wouldn’t want to print. Powell has been wicked in doing all he could to completely dismantle the very wise laws put into place in the 30’s regarding media ownership and monopolies.

But once again we seem far more concerned over Stern’s being allowed to be completely and totally revolting rather then over real issues that DO threaten something critical to the First Amendment – namely wide and clear avenues of communication, be they newsprint, internet, television or radio NOT controlled by global-straddling corporations who’s ONE AND ONLY concern is continued profit at virtually any expense. The people that control these behemoths don’t give a rat’s ass about free speech because if they have a grievance they pick up their satellite phone and call Tom DeLay who, after listening attentively asks a few simple questions, the first being: …And now your card number… Uh huh. And the expiration date… Uh huh. Thank you Mr. Murdock! Your vote will be delivered on or about…
Who gives a damn about the ever pubescent Stern! He doesn’t represent the STRUGGLE to maintain free speech! Being allowed to be vulgar and disgusting was not and IS NOT the litmus test for whether or not free speech is being threatened.
If you want to know where and how free speech is really being threatened I’ll tell you – since I have an odd, personal connection to this story. Go out and buy a copy of the book you see advertised here. The newer editions speak to what actually happened during the Wounded Knee incident of the 70’s. And the man responsible for making sure – for years – that the story could not be told recently showed what a fine upstanding citizen he really is – Bill Janklow, former governor of South Dakota…

Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2

Article tags

Spread the word
Bookmark and Share
Profile image for marlowe

Article Author: Marlowe

"You have a somewhat peculiar sense of humor,” he said.
"Not peculiar," I said. "Just uninhibited."

Visit Marlowe's author pageMarlowe's Blog

Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own
  • No image found

Article comments

  • 1 - Scoota Rey

    Oct 27, 2004 at 3:51 pm

    Yeah, I agree with that. Besides, Howard Stern is garbage anyway. Who wants to see old bisexual midget grandmothers whose tits are used by children to jumprope? I'll pass.

  • 2 - Hal Pawluk

    Oct 27, 2004 at 5:18 pm

    You're right on Stern (both of you) and you're right on Powell, a59.

    Give 'em hell.

  • 3 - Victor Plenty

    Oct 28, 2004 at 5:43 pm

    You got their numbers, Al!

    Stern may think he's a defender of free expression, or maybe he knows he's nothing more than a distraction from the real threats to free speech, just like Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" (which also spurred Powell into high dudgeon, predictably enough).

    Either way, Stern's main worry seems to be for his continued ability to rake up gobs of money from the lowest common denominator demographic.

    As for Powell, if I talk about him too much, I might really get insulting. And you're so much better at that than I am.

    Keep at it!

  • 4 - narom

    Oct 29, 2004 at 4:11 pm

    It would seem that many people mistake media attention for personal significance. While I'm sure Stern believes himself to be at the forefront of the fight to maintain our freedom of speech, that delusion will ultimately only cause that 2nd amendment right to be represented by the selfish passions of an individual who does not see the big picture.

  • 5 - narom

    Oct 29, 2004 at 4:12 pm

    Ermm .. I meant the FIRST amendement. My bad. (Why isn't there an edit feature on this comment app?)

  • 6 - jack e jett

    Oct 29, 2004 at 6:30 pm

    Who wants to see old bisexual midget grandmothers whose tits are used by children to jumprope?

    I for one would be very interested in seeing old tits being used for a jumprope. I would be thrilled to see Michael Powell be the one jumping that rope.

    I am not forced to watch anything. Bush offends me far more than Janet's titty. I just switch channels or turn off the tv. It is really very simple.

    There is no need for Michael Powell. At this very moment, there is no need for Colin Powell. One is a lame fuck and the other a lame duck.

    jack e. jett

  • 7 - Lioness

    Oct 31, 2004 at 10:55 am

    I don't think there's anything noble abt Stern or his fight, either. He's an absolute idiot whom other idiots seem to love. Fair enough. What annoys me is the assumption that you can be an idiot regardless of anything bcs of the 1st ammendment. FIND the right venue, you git. Wasn't there a contract signed along the way?

    Janet's boob didn't bother me the least - America's reaction to it did. It's only a boob for pity's sake. Aren't there worse things shown on the telly every day? Where is the uproar for that? Quaker remnants are very very SCARY.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for May 22, 2013

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for April

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs