WHRW feminazis
March 25, 2006
Stephanie Wolff,
Program director, WHRW
In response to your 2.28.’06
No, the word “shit” cannot be heard on the Nirvana cut you cited. At the place where it might be projected, Cobain as if deliberately slurs any “t” sound, so that what some eager beaver monitor might hear as “shit” is actually “shoot the Shii-a” -- a patriotic song!
"If you can't hear the 't', it can't be "shit", and if it can't be Shit, You must Acquir.") (he he he ... that's how we talk show hosts go, ya know! -- wouldn't have missed it for the world)
So whoever “brought it to your attention” was an eager beaver malinformant, like "curveball" feeding dope about Saddam Hussein's WMD to Janet Miller. Guess they had shit on (or for) their brains, he he. Imagine trying to silence patriotism. Didn’t keep you from “warning” me, though, did it, whether you heard not or not.
It is not for any of your or your informant’s business at WHRW to interfere with the language used for assessing the psychohistorical situation in America, however indecently odious it might “certainly” strike someone as being. The words “anal rape” were NOT used simpliciter in my remarks, but in the context of the qualification “male”. “MALE anal rape” .. as in Arnold Schwarzenegger’s use of “girliemen” – the California Democrats got the point. But what point they got must be stated, for the sake of making what is happening explicit, if you are going to Talk America. Responsibly and truly. But maybe the point is to keep that from happening
Judging by the feminine gender of your first name, you know nothing about the subject addressed, right? Women are barely part of the degredation of Muslin/Arab males at Abu Ghraib showed. They are like little Lynddies, holding the dog-leash, so to speak, come home pregnant. You have taken my words out of context, projected hysterical women’s noxious sensitivities onto a strictly masculine subject of national discourse.
I had the same thing happen in a philo class once. I was trying to explain a point about male homosexuality, from Freud, and had put in extended effort to bring together material it required time to present, when this open lesbian young woman, having heard the discussion turn to homosexuality, apparently assumed the topic concerned herself, and kept interrupting to the point where I shut down class. Another of those god-awful disciplinary hearings ensued. Same thing again here. “Anal rape is anal rape is anal rape, one size fits all”, the bob-tailed reasoning goes. That’s all it hears. In one ear and out the other. But… No. To drop the contextual “male” qualification (it isn’t happening to women, to judge my news reports, though some cults encourage it for the sake of enlightenment) is to assume the “anal rape” under discussion has something to do with everyone, including females. Men haven’t complained; nor would they, I think, because they would be doing what it refers to (turning text into tokens, like Donal Trump saying “You'r fired”). So let the skirts take a hike, whatever they want. It’s like what John Lennon said about using the “N-“ word in “women are the N---ers of the world”. It wasn’t the blacks who complained. They got the point. My show isn’t for everybody, as the disclaimer says.
Your statement “While this (my use of terms, taken out of context) is not necessarily an obscenity, it most certainly is indecent” confuses words with what they stand for. That’s third grade, not university. No one appointed you or anyone else in WHRW guardians of truth vs. “decency”, although of course flagrant abuses -- which my scentilating clinical uses are not -- would require notice and comment. In fact, reference to anal rape by males – once widely practiced on a periodic basis by rival clans in medieval Europe, sources say – is certainly no more indecent than TV reference to breast cancer treatments ad nauseum which the FCC says nothing about. But this isn’t really about the FCC at all, is it? that’s just an excuse to stuff it up the old prof’s wazoo.
3. Making accusations of indecency in sign-uses (mine), after taking them out of context, is a smear and insult that cannot be overlooked. Lying about hearing “shit” on Nirvan’s CD’s; hallucinating indecent intentions toward themselves – these are part of the smearing, insulting mentality. But they, in fact, precisely illustrate the thesis.
The analysis, itself, is so amazingly accurate that only by distorting its language, in context, can it be responded to without answering. The threat must be silenced and controlled. The freedom brought by truth will kill a demon soul.
The underlying current of contemporary historical group-fantasy in America, to repeat again – and again, unendingly; facts are facts – is: “war on terror!” = “defend my (ass/portside) from Muslim/Arab penetration”, defining the psychic condition of the GOPUSA/AIPAC neocon Republican cabal responsible for pushing America into war in Iraq, then re-electing Bush, to keep it going, there – and here, too, apparently. This edge has now been taken over by the Zionist media* (*use of this has been explicitly defended by NYC’s Mayor Bloomber as a free speech issue) and turned into a political text of manhood: those who will, and those who won’t, torture prisoners, including sexual humiliations.
If you approve giving me a show, cut out the bullshit. I don’t intend to let it go without an apology. On air. Accompanied by commendation for doing just what a real university Public Affairs radio program ought to do, today, unique to Harpur College --with expression of full confidence in the host's use of material and how it is handled.
I have never, nor will I ever, sign any document abrogating my freedom of speech in discussing political ideas in academic terms. This refers to your statement “As a PA host, you have been taught and have signed a contract regarding the FCC regulations as well as our station rules.” That is another lie, although I might sign something if it did not abrogate my rights. Please produce whatever document you were basing that statement on, and I will apologize for calling you a liar; it touches a matter of principle. Without such a document to show, you will be required to explain the grounds for this statement.
If you have any further questions or problems regarding my show or general participation in the life of WHRW, please address them to
www.sidthomas.blogspot.com, where this will appear. Or: sbthomas55@stny.rr.com
I tend to overlook public bulletin board messages.
Sid Thomas,
Associate Professor of Philosophy, emeritus
Stephanie Wolff,
Program director, WHRW
In response to your 2.28.’06
No, the word “shit” cannot be heard on the Nirvana cut you cited. At the place where it might be projected, Cobain as if deliberately slurs any “t” sound, so that what some eager beaver monitor might hear as “shit” is actually “shoot the Shii-a” -- a patriotic song!
"If you can't hear the 't', it can't be "shit", and if it can't be Shit, You must Acquir.") (he he he ... that's how we talk show hosts go, ya know! -- wouldn't have missed it for the world)
So whoever “brought it to your attention” was an eager beaver malinformant, like "curveball" feeding dope about Saddam Hussein's WMD to Janet Miller. Guess they had shit on (or for) their brains, he he. Imagine trying to silence patriotism. Didn’t keep you from “warning” me, though, did it, whether you heard not or not.
It is not for any of your or your informant’s business at WHRW to interfere with the language used for assessing the psychohistorical situation in America, however indecently odious it might “certainly” strike someone as being. The words “anal rape” were NOT used simpliciter in my remarks, but in the context of the qualification “male”. “MALE anal rape” .. as in Arnold Schwarzenegger’s use of “girliemen” – the California Democrats got the point. But what point they got must be stated, for the sake of making what is happening explicit, if you are going to Talk America. Responsibly and truly. But maybe the point is to keep that from happening
Judging by the feminine gender of your first name, you know nothing about the subject addressed, right? Women are barely part of the degredation of Muslin/Arab males at Abu Ghraib showed. They are like little Lynddies, holding the dog-leash, so to speak, come home pregnant. You have taken my words out of context, projected hysterical women’s noxious sensitivities onto a strictly masculine subject of national discourse.
I had the same thing happen in a philo class once. I was trying to explain a point about male homosexuality, from Freud, and had put in extended effort to bring together material it required time to present, when this open lesbian young woman, having heard the discussion turn to homosexuality, apparently assumed the topic concerned herself, and kept interrupting to the point where I shut down class. Another of those god-awful disciplinary hearings ensued. Same thing again here. “Anal rape is anal rape is anal rape, one size fits all”, the bob-tailed reasoning goes. That’s all it hears. In one ear and out the other. But… No. To drop the contextual “male” qualification (it isn’t happening to women, to judge my news reports, though some cults encourage it for the sake of enlightenment) is to assume the “anal rape” under discussion has something to do with everyone, including females. Men haven’t complained; nor would they, I think, because they would be doing what it refers to (turning text into tokens, like Donal Trump saying “You'r fired”). So let the skirts take a hike, whatever they want. It’s like what John Lennon said about using the “N-“ word in “women are the N---ers of the world”. It wasn’t the blacks who complained. They got the point. My show isn’t for everybody, as the disclaimer says.
Your statement “While this (my use of terms, taken out of context) is not necessarily an obscenity, it most certainly is indecent” confuses words with what they stand for. That’s third grade, not university. No one appointed you or anyone else in WHRW guardians of truth vs. “decency”, although of course flagrant abuses -- which my scentilating clinical uses are not -- would require notice and comment. In fact, reference to anal rape by males – once widely practiced on a periodic basis by rival clans in medieval Europe, sources say – is certainly no more indecent than TV reference to breast cancer treatments ad nauseum which the FCC says nothing about. But this isn’t really about the FCC at all, is it? that’s just an excuse to stuff it up the old prof’s wazoo.
3. Making accusations of indecency in sign-uses (mine), after taking them out of context, is a smear and insult that cannot be overlooked. Lying about hearing “shit” on Nirvan’s CD’s; hallucinating indecent intentions toward themselves – these are part of the smearing, insulting mentality. But they, in fact, precisely illustrate the thesis.
The analysis, itself, is so amazingly accurate that only by distorting its language, in context, can it be responded to without answering. The threat must be silenced and controlled. The freedom brought by truth will kill a demon soul.
The underlying current of contemporary historical group-fantasy in America, to repeat again – and again, unendingly; facts are facts – is: “war on terror!” = “defend my (ass/portside) from Muslim/Arab penetration”, defining the psychic condition of the GOPUSA/AIPAC neocon Republican cabal responsible for pushing America into war in Iraq, then re-electing Bush, to keep it going, there – and here, too, apparently. This edge has now been taken over by the Zionist media* (*use of this has been explicitly defended by NYC’s Mayor Bloomber as a free speech issue) and turned into a political text of manhood: those who will, and those who won’t, torture prisoners, including sexual humiliations.
If you approve giving me a show, cut out the bullshit. I don’t intend to let it go without an apology. On air. Accompanied by commendation for doing just what a real university Public Affairs radio program ought to do, today, unique to Harpur College --with expression of full confidence in the host's use of material and how it is handled.
I have never, nor will I ever, sign any document abrogating my freedom of speech in discussing political ideas in academic terms. This refers to your statement “As a PA host, you have been taught and have signed a contract regarding the FCC regulations as well as our station rules.” That is another lie, although I might sign something if it did not abrogate my rights. Please produce whatever document you were basing that statement on, and I will apologize for calling you a liar; it touches a matter of principle. Without such a document to show, you will be required to explain the grounds for this statement.
If you have any further questions or problems regarding my show or general participation in the life of WHRW, please address them to
www.sidthomas.blogspot.com, where this will appear. Or: sbthomas55@stny.rr.com
I tend to overlook public bulletin board messages.
Sid Thomas,
Associate Professor of Philosophy, emeritus
posted by Sid Thomas | 10:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home