Lee Rodgers shows his expertise

My ears hurt

Listening to two hours of the Lee Rodgers & Melanie Morgan Show on KSFO is more than any sane person should endure, but today is the day of their special act of desperation, the “no-holds-barred broadcast” intended to answer their critics. Since I'll be at work and unable to listen to Rodgers and Morgan attack the liberal bloggers who called them to account for their on-air hate speech, I decided I'd catch some of their regular drive-time show. Rodgers was in fine form.

Attacking liberal bloggers as “lying bastards” for supposedly taking audio clips “out of context” (endorsements of torture and summary execution are much more palatable in context, you know), Rodgers opined that we are pathetic creatures who lurk in basements, “playing with themselves.” Sorry, Lee, but speaking only for myself: I don't have a basement and therefore cannot play with myself there. In fact, I prefer the spare bedroom where the computer is. When I play with myself in the computer room, I tend to favor Spider Solitaire, which is pretty cool. (I cannot say what Lee is thinking of when he fantasizes about bloggers playing with themselves.)

Lee was particularly critical of bloggers who use pseudonyms. We're cowards, you see. After delivering that pronouncement, he promptly began to talk about the sad plight of conservatives in the liberal Bay Area, such as right-wing school teachers who fear retaliation and loss of employment if their colleagues were to find out about their political leanings. “I can't give their names, of course,” said Rodgers. Yeah, Lee, they want to remain anonymous, huh? You forgot to call them cowards. (By the way, if they're public school teachers, their support for KSFO is like chickens giving their endorsement to Colonel Sanders. They could be too dumb to be teachers.)

None of that was my favorite moment, however. That came during the 7:00 hour when Rodgers denounced Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for rescinding his directive allowing state police to turn over illegal immigrants to immigration agents. Rodgers declared that this meant Romney had completely lost credibility with Republicans by this egregious surrender to the pro-immigration lobby. One tiny detail, Lee: Romney is no longer the governor of Massachusetts. Didn't you notice the recent inaugurations of the governors elected last November? We even had one here in California. The governor of Massachusetts is Deval Patrick, and he is the one who rescinded his predecessor's directive. I do, however, agree that Gov. Patrick, a Democrat, has no chance of winning the Republican nomination for president.

Lee Rodgers: the consummate conservative political analyst.

By the way, Rodgers cited Fox News as his source for the item about Romney. Either Fox was wrong (totally possible), Rodgers misread the item (certainly conceivable), or they both screwed up (most likely of all!).

An explanation of science

By someone who doesn't know any!

Since I am within reach of KSFO's Bay Area radio signal, I sometimes sample snippets of the programming at HotTalk 650. Most of it is rancid, of course, but it's good to keep an eye on what the wacko right is up to. For fringe rhetoric and incendiary hate speech, KSFO is hard to beat.

Thus it was on Friday morning, March 16, 2007, I was treated to a discourse by Lee Rodgers on the nature of science. He was heaping abuse on one of his favorite topics: Al Gore and global warming. His equally nasty co-host, Melanie Morgan, was instantly ready to chime in.

What follows is my own transcript of the on-air commentary. A few interjections and false starts were omitted to improve the readability, but all of the words were spoken by Rodgers or Morgan:

Rodgers: Got an e-mail from Nevada, Chuck in Fernley, and he raises a point that Al Gore and the poor gullible dupes who follow him can't seem to get through their thick stupid heads. He says the term “scientific consensus” is an oxymoron—regarding global warming or for that matter anything else. In science something is either so or it is not so. Taking a vote doesn't change the reality of it.

It's like saying that there is consensus among mathematicians that two plus two equals four. Those who believe otherwise are not outside the consensus, they are simply wrong.

Morgan: Exactly!

Rodgers: How hard is this to figure out? This is the first thing I learned in, I don't know, seventh grade science or whatever it was.

Morgan: What scientists do is they try to take a premise and prove it to be false. I mean that's what their job is.

Rodgers: Sure! Questioning.

Morgan: Yes, so the fact that they would try to come to a consensus—that's not how the scientific community works.

Rodgers: No. No.

Morgan: And Al Gore is an idiot. He's a big fat idiot, I believe would be the correct term.

Rodgers:Well, we don't want to get personal about this, do we?

Morgan: Yes, we do. We enjoy that.

---

Thanks to Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan (and good old Chuck in Fernley), we now understand that science is about what's right. Rodgers, however, can't tell the difference between right and extreme right. Heck, he can't even tell the difference between right and wrong—and his description of science is just plain wrong.

Morgan gropes around for the germ of the idea of falsifiability, which is indeed one criterion for a scientific hypothesis: can you think of an experiment which would invalidate it? (That's why intelligent design is merely one more version of creationism and not, as noted in the Kitzmiller decision, any version of science.) She completely misunderstands, as does Rodgers, the role of consensus in establishing provisional scientific truth. All scientific truth is regarded as fundamentally provisional—as opposed to absolute—although different aspects of the scientific consensus vary dramatically in their likelihood of being overturned. (No one is talking about discarding the theory that the earth is roughly spherical.)

Consensus is one of the keystones of modern science and not the simple-minded true/false dichotomy espoused by dim thinkers like Rodgers and Morgan. They should mind their own business (right-wing radio ranting) and let the scientists take care of science.

And scientists, by the way, agree with Al Gore in a broad consensus about global warming and climate change. Sorry about that.

Update: Thanks to the kind assistance of Spocko, I was able to create a detailed transcript of last week's babbling by Rodgers and Morgan. This post was then revised to reflect a more complete version of what was said on the air. I'm pleased, however, that my original post turned out to be quite true to the sense of the comments I originally heard on my car radio (with a certain amount of disdainful gnashing of the teeth).

I saw it on the Internets

Reportage 101

Would you like to be a journalist? We who blog aren't journalists, you know, but we can always learn from the example of one of today's highly paid professionals.

This morning on KSFO's Morning Show, Lee Rodgers showed how it's done. Since I have a rather delicate stomach, I never listen to San Francisco's “Hot Talk” radio station for more than a few minutes at a time. Nevertheless, Rodgers is a consummate professional who can always be relied up to deliver some priceless bit of reportage—pronounced in the French manner, of course—so he must be dishing it out nonstop.

Today he was trying to pump some life into the limp story about Pelosi's supposed demand for a castle in the sky. Or was it a stairway to heaven? In any case, Rodgers waxed indignant that Pelosi was allegedly demanding special treatment from the military authorities who provide secure transportation to the Speaker of the House. After all, Speaker Hastert was given a plane that flew him nonstop to Illinois any time he wished. Why should Speaker Pelosi expect more?

Well, maybe because she's from California? Last I heard, that's a little farther from D.C. than the Land of Lincoln. If the current Speaker is to be accorded the equivalent privilege of a nonstop trip to her home district, deemed advisable by the House Sergeant at Arms, it seems reasonable that a slightly more robust plane than Hastert's might be required.

Perhaps Rodgers is weak on geography.

But no! Rodgers sneeringly explained to his listeners that Pelosi was making unreasonable demands and he could prove it. I pricked up my ears. Right-wing radio prefers to offer blatant assertions and specious allegations, so the announcement of forthcoming evidence suggested a new era was dawning for KSFO. Rodgers was eager to tell the radio audience exactly how to examine the proof for itself.

His secret weapon was Google: “Type in ‘Gulfstream,’” Rodgers said. “Type in ‘specifications.’”

He then read from one of the references provided by Google. Rodgers chortled that the Gulfstream III jet previously assigned to Hastert has a range of nearly 4000 miles, providing “proof positive” that Pelosi was demanding special treatment, California being less than 4000 miles from Washington, D.C.

As we all know, information provided by the many tubes of the Internets is carefully vetted, completely reliable, and utterly unambiguous.

Rodgers never got to the part about how a plane's range is significantly affected by passenger load, headwinds, and other flight conditions. Since he didn't read that there are plenty of circumstances under which a Gulfstream III cannot reliably be expected to make it across the country nonstop, that concern magically vanishes.

We mustn't blame him for this. As a highly paid professional journalist, Lee Rodgers must have known that too much research would have made his story vanish, too. He couldn't have that!

Spocko doesn't live here anymore

Note: Is this story getting some attention? Oh, yes! Many bloggers are reporting on it, as you can see from this Blogger list and this Technorati search. Even BoingBoing has now picked it up. Spocko has given an interview to the San Francisco Chronicle, so expect wide distribution in the old-fashioned media soon.

Jack boots and SLAPP suits

I have recounted in a number of previous posts that Coulter-wannabe Melanie Morgan is one of the more noxious creatures to be found on the airwaves. She and her AM-radio partner Lee Rodgers specialize in spewing right-wing venom during their morning talk show on San Francisco's KSFO.

Unless you're as wacky as they are, listening to Morgan and Rodgers is a stomach-churning experience. Few sane people are strong enough or dedicated enough to listen at length and to document the egregious rhetoric of KSFO's dismal duo. One hero who has done so is the blogger known as Spocko. Working diligently on his own, Spocko captured audio files of Morgan and Rodgers issuing threats (how else do you interpret “putting the bull's-eye on” Nancy Pelosi?), gleefully slandering minorities (all Muslims are basically evil, did you know that?), and recommending the torture of prisoners as sound practice for correctional officers (or merely summary execution for journalists who displease the administration).

For a one-man show, Spocko was remarkably effective, persuading some of KSFO's advertisers to pull their commercials from the Lee Rodgers & Melanie Morgan Show. Last month the Visa credit card company yanked its spots, a big win for Spocko over the forces of evil.

Recently I was trying to help Spocko out a little bit by making inquiries concerning the California Teachers Association's incomprehensible practice of running ads on KSFO during the Rogers & Morgan talk show. One of my former coworkers, who has experience at the highest levels of California public education, agreed to ask a CTA leader of his acquaintance why the organization was spending advertising money on a program whose hosts who hate unions, despise public school teachers, and multiply that rancor together when they denounce teachers' unions. The CTA leader replied

CTA generally chooses stations based on the demographics of the listeners to get out whatever message it is that is being sent to the intended target group. I will ask specifically about KSFO and the background rationale.

---

I wasn't expecting to post anything until we got a more specific response, but events overtook us. KSFO finally noticed that Spocko was more than an annoying gadfly: he was starting to get significant results. He had to be stopped!

In retaliation, ABC Radio (the owner of KSFO) set their lawyers on Spocko, insisting that he was violating the station's copyright on its transmissions. They him hard with a SLAPP—strategic lawsuit against public participation—and shut down his blog. Ha, ha! Victory for the bad guys! No one will ever remember Spocko and his quixotic crusade!

Actually, however, the blogosphere is starting to take note. Spocko's blog is down for now, but his voice is still being heard. In fact, let him fill you in on the details of what happened.

ABC Radio Lawyer tells Spocko to Shut Up

Three days before Christmas I got a Cease and Desist letter from ABC Radio regarding my use of audio clips from KSFO radio hosts Melanie Morgan and Lee Rodgers on my blog, Spocko’s Brain.

KSFO is a Disney affiliate whose radio hosts broadcast violent rhetoric directed toward journalists, liberals, Democrats, Arabs and Muslims all over the SF Bay Area and to the world via the Internet. I commented about the content of these host’s broadcasts on my blog and informed KSFO’s advertisers about what they were supporting by letting them listen to the exact audio quotes from the hosts.

Why the C&L Letter Now?

In mid-December I got confirmation that a major national advertiser, Visa, pulled their ads from the Melanie Morgan and Lee Rodgers show, based on listening to audio clips I provided them. I also think that FedEx, AT&T and Kaiser are considering pulling their ads. Visa isn’t the first advertiser who has left KSFO, multiple advertisers have left the station, especially from the Brian Sussman show. In July of this year when KSFO lost MasterCard as an advertiser someone from KSFO “outed” me on a counter-blog (which I won’t link to). This same person has also threatened me with local and federal criminal action for using the audio (which I clearly used under the fair use portion of copyright law). And because they have suggested violence toward me (in addition to talking about suing me “for everything I have”) I have chosen to remain anonymous.

As Thers has said, 95 percent of blog fights don’t mean anything, but I think this one does since KSFO is using the full weight and force of an ABC/Disney lawyer and copyright law against a private citizen blogger. I dared to use the audio content in question for nonprofit educational purposes (I don’t even have ads on my blog!), and thus under the protection of the Fair Use Doctrine set forth in Section 107 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.§107.

It’s about Money not Ideology

Talk Radio is a multi-billion dollar industry. It is also a regulated industry because the public gave the broadcast airwaves to radio stations. There are rules. First there are FCC rules with fines of $325,000 for obscene and indecent speech, thanks to the Christian Right. Interestingly, the radio union (which KSFO hosts hate so much) worked very hard to stop those fines from being directed to individual radio hosts. So the corporation will bear the burden of any fines. Next, there are guidelines at the local station level, the network level and the parent company level. So even if the inciting of violence and hate speech is ignored by the FCC, the continued violent rhetoric has been, and continues to be, approved at the station level (KSFO) the group level (KGO-KSFO) the company level (ABC Radio) and the parent company level (Disney). They are ALL aware of this speech, and because they have not acted in a meaningful way, they all are giving approval for it to continue.

No Management Action

When Keith Olbermann and Media Matters ran Melanie Morgan’s comments about “putting the bull’s-eye on” Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi, management did nothing. Morgan did a jokey non-apology where she never even mentioned she used the term bull’s-eye.

I’m guessing Lee Rodgers may have gotten a memo telling him to stop talking about burning people alive, torturing them and blowing their brains out, because on November 30th, he defiantly said to management and advertisers, “Nobody is gonna tell me what to talk about or not talk about or in what fashion on this radio program. It ain't gonna happen!”

ABC/Disney acted only when they lost revenue. Then they went after ME with a cease and desist letter.

Why me? I’m not the one saying journalists should be hanged, thieves should be tortured and killed, people should be burned alive, stomped to death or have their testicles cut off. I’m not the one saying that millions of Muslims should be killed on the presumption that they are extremists or just because they live in Indonesia. I’m not the one who says that lying is as natural as breathing to Egyptians and Arabs or demanding that a caller “Say Allah is a Whore” to prove he is not an Islamist. I’m simply documenting this speech and providing it to the people who are paying KSFO hosts on commercially supported broadcast radio.

They have Lawyers, Guns and Money. I’ve got a 5th-tier blog and no money

Because I and some other listeners hit right-wing talk radio in the pocket book, they are acting like wounded animals and brought out the big guns, Corporate Lawyers. Am I scared? Hell yes. They can easily squish me like a bug and tie me up in legal battles for the rest of my natural life (and Vulcans live a long time), not to mention that unlike KSFO radio hosts, I’m not getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars and generating millions of revenue for a multibillion-dollar parent company. If I pursue this further I expect the next step is a “CyberSLAPP” suit.

I don’t want to consider the possibility of Morgan’s good friend Michelle Malkin deciding to publish my address and real name so that her minions can send me death threats or “white powder” in the mail. Chad Castagana, was charged with mailing more than a dozen threatening letters containing white powder to liberals. He got the idea from someone that journalists, liberals and Democrats were the enemy and deserved to die.

Brian Sussman proudly poses with his handgun in KSFO publicity shots and says that he thinks that everyone should have the right to have a machine gun. Maybe I’m over reacting, why would they attack me? I’m not famous, I’m not an elected official, I tried very hard to be accurate about what THEY said BY USING THEIR OWN WORDS.

I tried to help companies protect their brands from being tainted with the violent rhetoric and anti-any-religion-but- right-wing-christianism speech. I wanted to help the VPs of marketing avoid being associated with Lee Rodger’s “testicle talk” or Sussman talking about cutting off a finger and a penis of an Iraqi in his imaginary torture sessions.

It’s about Brands: All the Blessings, None of the Taint

I have found out that KSFO is sold to advertisers as “a Disney affiliate” with all the associated family-friendly connotations. So KSFO is getting all the benefit of the Disney name as well as the massive infrastructure of ad sales at the national level. Clearly ABC Radio doesn’t want KSFO hosts’ horrific comments to actually reach advertisers. Advertisers are kept in the dark so KSFO can benefit from the Disney brand glow (ABC Radio News creditability glow?).

Advertisers should be able to decide if they want to keep supporting this show based on complete information. We already know that management at ABC and Disney support these hosts, which means that the ABC/Disney Radio brand now apparently includes support for violent hate speech toward Muslims, Democrats and liberals.

But instead of directing the hosts to refrain from violent rhetoric and hate speech, they go after the weakest person with the fewest resources. It’s cheaper and easier.

Bottom line: ABC/Disney is supporting and profiting from this violent speech, they should at least also accept any negative connotations or financial impact it might have to their image.

What can you do?

1. As El Gato Negro suggested, let’s distribute the audio clips of violent rhetoric and hate speech to multiple locations on the Internet so that the ABC/Disney lawyers will have to find and send cease and desist letters to ISPs with stronger policies than the nice people at 1&1.


2. Crank this up around the blogosphere, if you have a blog please post about this.


3. Let’s see if anyone in the mainstream media cares. Sadly they have a hard time writing about people who want them dead. I would think that at least the PUBLISHERS and MANAGEMENT at the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Associated Press would want to at least defend their own journalists and photojournalists. To date only the LA Times has called Morgan out for accusing them of photojournalist misconduct.
   
   Some members of the press HAVE covered this. When Joe Conason at Salon did a story about Morgan and KSFO he got called a hack by Morgan. When Todd Milbourn of the Sacramento Bee did a story about Move America Forward he got called a liar by Morgan.


4. Donate to groups who would defend bloggers, journalists and others that Morgan, Rodgers and Sussman attack. Specifically I’m recommending you donate money to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and Media Matters. You can also support the journalists who are doing their jobs and are threatened with death from talk radio hosts.


5. Write the advertisers of KSFO. I have a list of SOME of the advertisers who advertise on KSFO. Drop me a line at spockosemail @ gmail.com and I’ll send you a link to an updated list.
   
   As always, be polite, let them know what they are supporting and how it is impacting their brand in your eyes. They often times have their own stated values that they want to maintain, you may want to ask if their corporate values align with what is being said on KSFO (often times the hosts are the VOICE of their brand in the Bay Area, so it’s not just the fact that their ad is run right after some violent hate speech, but that the person who is reading their copy is the person who is spewing the violent rhetoric.)

I’m open to other ideas too.

I’d like to thank everyone who has written letters to advertisers, especially PTcruiser, BP, and Zeno. Thanks, Online Blogintegrity folks for the forum, and special thanks to El Gato Negro.

LLAP,

Spocko

---

Thanks to his friends in the blogosphere, Spocko is getting a little bit of recognition and a growing amount of support. Mike Stark at Daily Kos has now picked up the story and Juan Cole posted a comment at Informed Comment. When the big boys and girls begin to notice, you're not along anymore.

Good luck, Spocko! (And perhaps soon I'll have news on CTA's plans.)

Postscript

Spocko e-mailed me the content of the above message, which he originally sent to several bloggers and was able to post at Online Blogintegrity. When I visited the original post, I noticed that he had been nice enough in the version he sent to me to to insert my blog name in the list of people he thanked. You're welcome, guy, and I wish I could do more!

A good day for paranoia

Carefully contextualized

Yesterday I witnessed an amusing confluence of right-wing angst. In the early morning, Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan of KSFO commiserated over the their exposure to the baleful eye (or is it ear?) of Media Matters for America. In rather subdued tones, they groused over the attention that Media Matters gives to their broadcasts, recording each word and reporting Rodgers and Morgan's more egregious statements on the Media Matters website. They were casting anxious looks over their shoulders, furious at the way that self-anointed media watchdogs were taking their comments “out of context.”

That turned out to be the meme of the day. Later, on the same radio station, Rush Limbaugh decried the way that Media Matters monitored his broadcasts and then took his remarks “out of context.” (Is Karl Rove still faxing daily talking points to Fox News and other right-wing media outlets?) One wonders, of course, just how much context is necessary to properly construe Morgan's remark that “We've got a bull's-eye painted on [Pelosi's] big, wide laughing eyes” or Limbaugh's thoughtful conclusion that the Virginia Tech mass murderer “had to be a liberal.” Both Morgan and Limbaugh also continued to flog the false notion that Media Matters is funded by the wealth of George Soros, one of their favorite bogeymen from the left.

It was deeply satisfying to listen to Rodgers, Morgan, and Limbaugh trying to deal with the fact that they are being held responsible for their words. Ever since the Spocko incident a few months ago, Rodgers and Morgan have been—if not exactly subdued—noticeably anxious and preoccupied with pre-emptive ass-covering. They know they can no longer simply deny having said the things they spout on the air (those words are no longer evaporating into the ether), so they intermittently wring their hands, abruptly check themselves on the verge of launching into a full-throated spate of hate speech, and mewl about “free speech” and “context.” How nuanced they are now!

To do them justice, I should not dismiss their concerns as being nothing more than paranoia. As someone once said, “Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.” Rodgers and Morgan are right to be worried. It's not a matter of free speech. They have the right to climb up on their soapbox any old time they want and rant to their hearts' content. I, for one, would prefer that it be an actual soapbox, perhaps turned upside-down on a street corner in San Francisco's famous Tenderloin district. Appreciative listeners and passers-by could toss them pennies.

You see, freedom of speech has nothing to do with guaranteeing that Rodgers and Morgan continue to enjoy a platform on a five-thousand-watt radio station that blankets northern California. KSFO is a commercial undertaking and is therefore subject to the market forces that its talk-show hosts purport to idolize. If their right-wing rants chase away advertisers and listeners, that's just too bad. Whining about “context” is just making excuses. In the meantime, the Media Matters dossiers on Rodgers and Morgan and Limbaugh just keep getting longer and longer and longer. You'd think they would be pleased that people are listening so closely, hanging on their every word.

We shouldn't be under any illusion that the monitoring of right-wing hate media is likely to drive any of its major exponents into penury. Rodgers is doing well enough to cut back his work week at KSFO to four days. Morgan hawks her book (a sliming of Cindy Sheehan) and uses her radio platform to promote Move America Forward, her vehicle for nonstop fundraising and publicizing the “good news” from Iraq.

Limbaugh continues to be the behemoth of talk radio, even if his ratings have ebbed from their earlier peaks. His acolytes seem capable of forgiving him for anything. Drug abuse? Well, that's understandable for someone in such a high-stress job. Multiple marriages and dalliances? Be reasonable: how can marriage survive when Rush has to work so hard? And do as he says, not as he does. Caught at an airport customs checkpoint on his way back from a visit to the Dominican Republic with a Viagra prescription not in his own name? Okay, everyone needs a little recreation. And we already dismissed any concerns about drugs, right?

We don't have to worry about Rush's survival, even as he moves into his declining years under the burden of constant observation and the specter of continuing difficulties with drug dependencies. His future is secure. One day soon an attractive young thing will look across the room at a GOP fundraiser and what will she see? An anxious, half-deaf, OxyContin-perfused multi-millionaire who has trouble getting it up.

Priceless.

---

---

Update

Media Matters has posted a partial transcript of Limbaugh's remarks on April 20. Here's a pertinent excerpt:

Media Matters, whatever—that website, the front organization for the Clinton campaign, bought and paid for by George Soros and the Clinton people. Media Matters for America, which takes everything that we say here out of context and puts it up there

---

Go check it out and decide for yourself how “out of context” Limbaugh is being taken.

A flunking grade

CTA doesn't do its homework

I am a member of the American Federation of Teachers. My union does a reasonably good job of representing my concerns and ensuring that I enjoy superior working conditions, so you can put me down as a firm supporter of organized labor. The California Teachers Association is another generally reputable teachers union. I am inclined to regard it positively. That's why it pains me when the CTA acts in an utterly boneheaded way. You'd like to think that an organization of educators would possess a certain amount of smarts.

The California Teachers Association runs promotional advertisements on KSFO radio, a right-wing station out of San Francisco that specializes in hate-mongering. KSFO's leading lights are such actinic luminaries as Melanie Morgan and Lee Rodgers, the morning talk-show hosts who make drive-time into a seething puddle of vitriol. Media Matters and Spocko's Brain have amply documented KSFO's advocacy of extremism and eliminationism. KSFO talk-show hosts despise many things. Among these things are labor unions. So why does CTA subsidize this station with their advertising dollars? Or are the CTA commercials merely public service ads that KSFO broadcasts because they are provided for free by the Ad Council?

These questions should not be difficult to answer. CTA, however, declines to respond to inquiries, whether direct or indirect. When I first heard the CTA radio spots myself, I contacted a former colleague who worked as an education specialist in various legislative and civil service offices. He relayed my concerns to CTA representatives in Sacramento but never got an answer. A college professor mailed a letter of inquiry directly to CTA president Barbara Kerr back in February. As of today, well into May, the letter writer has not received the courtesy of a reply from Kerr or any of her staff members. I am in possession of an electronic copy of that letter, which I have permission to publish here. Check it out:

February 19, 2007

Barbara E. Kerr, President
California Teachers Association
Post Office Box 921
Burlingame, CA 94011-0921

Dear President Kerr:

Although I do not listen to KSFO frequently, preferring to choose radio stations that do not insult my intelligence or my profession as a teacher in a public institution, I sometimes tune in for a few minutes during my morning drive to school. I have been amazed to hear advertisements sponsored by the California Teachers Association. What possible reason could CTA have for spending money on one of the most rabid right-wing radio stations in the country, especially during the morning program of Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan?

These people despise unions (referring always to “labor bosses” and never to “union leaders”), ooze contempt for public education (“government schools” is their term for “public schools”), and routinely heap abuse on the notion of human rights (which should be denied to some minorities because they’re probably “illegals,” others because they’re “rag-heads,” and still others because they’re in “immoral lifestyles”). They treat “diversity” like a swear word and rant about how they are oppressed by “political correctness.” The talk-show hosts at KSFO are not your friends. They hold you and your fellow CTA members in contempt.

Documentation of KSFO’s extremism is readily available for anyone who bothers to take a moment to check. One detailed source is http://mediamatters.org/items/200701160001, which I heartily recommend. It contains the actual words of the KSFO on-air hosts.

If CTA uses a publicity service that places radio ads based simply on geographical location and ratings, I can see how CTA’s spots might end up on KSFO. Its listeners, however, are not your demographic and you are wasting every dollar you spend supporting Bay Area hate radio. You should pull all advertising from KSFO and move it to more congenial venues, such as KCBS and KGO, which are in all respects more moderate and mainstream. Otherwise, I question your commitment to your stated mission “to ensure that the human dignity and civil rights of all children and youth are protected.”

Thank you for your attention to my concerns. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

A Teacher & Union Member

---

It seems unlikely that the U.S. Postal Service failed to deliver the letter to CTA headquarters in Burlingame. Either Barbara Kerr or someone on her staff decided that the writer's questions were best ignored. Three weeks ago, the letter writer mailed the CTA a reminder, a one-paragraph missive. I have a copy of that, too:

I have not yet received the courtesy of a reply to my letter of February 19, 2007 (copy enclosed). It seems reasonable to assume that two months is sufficient time for someone at the California Teachers Association to look up the reason that the organization chooses to advertise on KSFO and respond to an inquiry concerning that reason. Would someone at CTA be so kind as to inform me why KSFO is considered a suitable venue for CTA’s promotional spots?

---

Since that didn't work either, I conclude that the letter writer is wasting his time. The California Teachers Association is continuing to run promotional advertisements on a radio station that pines for the good old unionless days of the robber barons.

What the hell is wrong with the CTA?

I don't like name calling

So stop it, jerk face!

Tommy and Larry are relatives of mine whom I've known all their lives. On my mother's side of the family, they are first cousins to each other. A few decades ago, when they were quite young, Larry made the momentous discovery that “Tommy” was not his cousin's given name. It was “Thomas.” This revelation delighted Larry, who then inaugurated a long sequence of questions and comments addressed to his cousin, each one containing at least one painstakingly exaggerated pronunciation of Tommy's given name:

• “Hi, Tom-ass, how are you?”
• “Sure is hot today, Tom-ass.”
• “Hello, Tom-ass. Nice to see you!”
• “You know, Tom-ass, I was just thinking that ‘Tom-ass’ is kind of a dumb name to give a kid. Wouldn't you agree, Tom-ass?”

I'm sure you get the idea. After some half-hearted attempts to spin Larry's name in a similar way (and “Larry,” not “Lawrence,” was indeed his name), Tommy gave up and resorted to the silent treatment. Larry eventually tired of the game.

That's the kind of behavior you expect from children. When they indulge in such activities in the presence of adults, at some point the adults have their fill and order the kids to cut it out. Unfortunately, childish behavior of this kind is standard practice in our nation's political discourse, and there's no sign that the adults are about to say that enough is enough.

The opening of the 110th Congress was the occasion of some attempts at civility. Even Republicans who spent the campaign shrieking about Nancy Pelosi's “San Francisco values” managed to suppress most of their baser instincts as she became the first Californian and the first woman in history to attain the position of Speaker of the House. Her opposite number, minority leader John Boehner, nevertheless promptly pulled a boner in his otherwise gracious concession speech when he referred to his rival in the “Democrat Party.”:

Today, the Democrat Party assumes the challenge and opportunity of majority power in the people’s House. Republicans will hold the incoming majority accountable for its promises and its actions, but we also want to work with the incoming majority for the good of our Nation that we were all elected to serve.

---

Boehner is so steeped in the standard Republican practice of misstating the Democratic Party's name that he cannot avoid the childish mislocution even when he is trying to be nice. Even the president of the United States toes the line. It's sad.

Anyone who says “Democrat Party” is not your friend. This is an infallible dog-whistle test for Democrats.

I have never liked political name-calling. Although I am perfectly willing to heap invective on those with whom I disagree (for example, I can call the president a liar because he traffics in falsehoods), I quickly grow weary of vandalized vocabulary. Thus I refrain from such misbegotten misconstructions as “Rethuglican” (although I'll happily cite GOP members whom I regard as thugs: e.g., Tom Delay, Virgil Goode, and Tom Tancredo). Heck, I've come to think of the unadorned term “Republican” as an insult all by itself. As it should be, given their penchant for slurs like “Dhimmicrat.”

Just this week I heard radio propagandist Melanie Morgan stumble over Governor Schwarzenegger's name. “Oh, no,” she said, “we nearly said it right!” Indeed. Morgan and her talk-show partner Lee Rodgers have a policy of snidely referring to California's governor as “Schwarzen-Kennedy” See how funny that is? He's married to Maria Shriver, after all, and he's a RINO (Republican In Name Only) because of his centrist politics, so Rodgers and Morgan call him a Kennedy. This is priceless political wit at the exact intellectual level you would expect from KSFO.

No wonder I don't want to do it myself. I would be lowering myself to the level of Malady Morgan.

The Pelosi Project

Ha, ha! What did I tell you?

KSFO's Melanie Morgan has clambered from the fetid swamp that is her morning talk show and taken her anti-Pelosi campaign to the big time—Hannity & Colmes. I'm sure she felt right at home. Last week she ranted on the air about the “dirt” that would keep Pelosi from ever becoming Speaker of the House. (You can see my original post on Morgan's threat immediately below; I wasn't too far off in predicting what Morgan would do.) The loonies at Free Republic are trying to push the story into the mainstream media:

KSFO's Melanie Morgan says illegal aliens are working in Nancy Pelosi's vineyard
Hannity and Colmes ^ | 11-13-06 | dfu

Posted on 11/13/2006 7:53:56 PM PST by doug from upland

NOTE: if anyone saw the show, please report

YOUTUBE PRESENTATION WITH INFO ON HER VINEYARD AND HER FAILURE TO HIRE UNION LABOR

I don't know if it is on the FOXNEWS site yet, but something potentially very important occured on Hannity and Colmes tonight.

KSFO's Melanie Morgan was a guest and exposed Nancy Pelosi, speaker in waiting, as employing illegal aliens to work on her wine vineyard in the Napa Valley.

If the charges are proven, how can the House possibly allow Pelosi to become speaker? Draining the swamp, will mean draining her.

As you might recall, Linda Chavez had to withdraw her nomination as Labor Secretary after it was revealed that she had hired an illegal alien in the 1990s.

FReepers, make the mainstream media cover this.

---

Oh, dear! Am I helping the Free Republic wackos and Melanie Morgan distribute a smear about Speaker-presumptive Pelosi? Yeah, right. Like a posting here constitutes major publicity. No, I'm merely pointing out how lame their efforts are. So very sad.

(The following was originally posted on November 10.)

Another right-wing delusion

I agree that it is unseemly for the victors in a hard-fought contest to gloat over the fate of their defeated opponents. Therefore I was pleased that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were gracious in their acknowledgments of the Democrats' success in taking over both houses of the U.S. Congress. I, on the other hand, can gloat all I want.

The day after the election, I radio-surfed among the various talk-radio stations (AM dial, of course) in northern California. Depending on location and time of day, I can usually pick up the Air America affiliate in Sacramento (KCTC, AM 1320) and the regional outlet for the Stephanie Miller Show and other Jones Radio progressive programs (KSAC, AM 1240). That's right—California's state capital has two liberal talk-radio stations. Bouncing back and forth between the two stations on November 8 gave me a heady dose of unreserved celebration and gloating. Yay! Take that, right-wing suckers!

Speaking of right-wing suckers, I can also pick up the highest profile regional source for reactionary rant radio, KSFO AM 560. Stuck in the belly of the beast in the Bay Area, struggling desperately to remain afloat in a region awash with dreaded “San Francisco values,” the conservative talkers on KSFO are led by local luminaries Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan. Since a gloat-fest can only benefit from a dash of Schadenfreude (not that I was feeling much Schade about my unrestrained Freude), I included KSFO in my post-election radio surfing.

Rodgers and Morgan were already trying out the now-official right-wing excuse for the Democratic romp (“The Democrats didn't really win—the Republicans lost; conservatives actually won a moral victory while the GOP took a tumble”). Morgan, however, was also her usual combative and aggressive self. Instead of lying back and acquiescing in the rout of her political allies, Morgan was already planning a counterattack:

She thinks Pelosi can be denied the House speakership.

“I have a lot of dirt on her,” said Morgan, “and I'm not afraid to use it. Nancy Pelosi will never be speaker.” (I'm quoting from memory since KSFO does not archive its broadcasts, but this is an accurate reconstruction of the content of her on-air remarks.)

I grinned at yet another example of Morgan's hubris. The week before she and her political group, Move America Forward, had taken their own shot at creating a “November surprise.” By all indications, Morgan really thought it would have an impact on the election. Now she was sharing another delusion of grandeur.

Using my own gigantic brain, I can speculate on Morgan's brilliant plans to head off a Pelosi speakership. Some aspects of this pipe dream have already been passed around in the redder portions of the blogosphere, although the size of the Democratic victory has muted their voices. The theory has been that several members of the Democratic caucus (particularly those newly elected in recently Republican districts) might be uncomfortable—or even balk—at voting for a dreaded San Francisco liberal as their leader. Here's an apposite quote from Free Republic:

Wouldn't it be sweet if those “Conservative” dems wake up tomorrow and see the light and defect over to the Republicans???

---

Yeah, that's going to happen.

First of all, Pelosi is a very smart woman who understands the two roles that she plays. She is the liberal representative of a liberal congressional district. That's an important role that she fills very well, giving her constituents a voice and a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives. She is also the leader of the Democratic caucus in the House. As the leader of the Democrats, Pelosi's role is to keep the caucus together and to see that it prospers (as indeed it has under her leadership). She therefore works pragmatically with people who do not fully mirror her district or her political philosophy. Even the Democrats from the reddest districts know how much Pelosi contributed to their victories by keeping the troops focused on the key issues. They will unhesitatingly vote to make her Speaker.

Morgan and others will try to resurrect the failed “San Francisco values” attack on Pelosi, no doubt with the addition of the old whispering campaign against the Speaker-presumptive. For example, did you know she's wealthy? That's supposed to expose her as a hypocrite because wealth is obviously a Republican family value. And did you know that the Pelosi family owns a vineyard whose workers aren't unionized? This supposedly makes her a union-buster, contrary to her avowed support of the labor movement. Since no evidence of anti-union activities has ever been offered (and you can be sure the Republicans would serve it up if it existed), the absence of a union at the vineyard probably means the workers are well compensated and have never seen the need to organize. That's a far cry from being a union-busting hypocrite.

That's the sort of “dirt” the right-wing thinks it has on Nancy Pelosi.

We can expect to hear more big talk from Morgan before the Democratic caucus makes it official and confirms Pelosi as their leader and future Speaker of the House. And whatever Morgan says, I'm sure she'll be shooting blanks.

As usual.

How the crazy works

Capitalism in Bizarro world

Last month I briefly indulged my nasty habit of scanning the AM radio dial. As usual, the cesspit that is KSFO served up a memorable dollop of right-wing nonsense. The old stalwarts are gone now—Lee Rodgers to eternal silence and Melanie Morgan to the scandal-tainted Move America Forward—but Brian Sussman and Katie Green are doing their best to maintain the morning program's standard of irrational extremism.

Sussman, a weather man who thinks himself competent to pretend to be a climatologist, has apparently fixated on Hillary Clinton the way Cato was obsessed with Carthage. Although I suspect he will be disappointed with the eventual outcome, his overreach inspires a kind of head-shaking awe. Making money is usually honored by the KSFO tribe, but Sussman was willing to make an exception for Clinton's success. When Hillary makes money, it's evil and corrupt (two words you'll never hear Sussman use while discussing the excesses of the banking industry).

In this particular instance, Sussman was offended that Clinton commands top dollar for her speaking engagements:

Sussman: Hillary Clinton. Remember when she addressed the eBay summit? And we had asked this question: what did she make for this 20-minute talk? We literally asked the question. And now we find out: 315,000 dollars from eBay! Katie, that's your money and my money—because we use eBay.

Katie Green: Yeah, it is.

Welcome to the new KSFO theory of capitalism. Since Sussman is a customer of eBay, he shares ownership of the company's money. Sorry, Brian. When you patronize a company, your dollars become theirs, to do with as they please. Even if that means bringing in a nationally-known speaker to amp up attendance at one of their conferences. Your permission is not required.

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a correction or clarification. That would be fatal.

Media for moron-Americans

I wasn't paying attention

We have been treated to a fascinating spate of right-wing commentary on President Obama's state of the union speech. Former half-term governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, used an interview with Greta Van Susternen (on Fox, of course—the only media she's permitted to appear on) to inform us that it was inappropriate for the president to cite Sputnik. After all, the Soviet Union won the space race, you know. (Unless, of course, you're intelligent and informed—and therefore not part of Palin's key demographic.)

I already knew about Obama's major faux pas since I had caught a few choice minutes of KSFO talk radio on the morning after the speech. Low-rent talk show host Brian Sussman—who replaced the high-priced Lee Rodgers in an economy move—babbled cheerfully with sidekick Officer Vic:

Brian Sussman: So you had Obama giving references to Sputnik. Okay, come on. This was a Russian spacecraft in 1957. Okay. Case in point, Obama went after the young voter to get elected. Right?

Officer Vic: That's correct.

Sussman: Okay, there's a young voter in the room right now with us. Young Katie's here.

Vic: Yeah.

Sussman: Katie's going to be helping us out next week with some news and stuff.

Vic: You should pop on the mike there, Katie.

Sussman: Okay, so Katie, here's my point to you. Here you are, young person, right in Obama's prime demographic, and when he talks about Sputnik—that we need to have our “Sputnik moment” in America—did you have any idea what he was talking about?

Katie: Absolutely not.

Vic: [Laughter]

Katie has a throaty contralto voice that suggests she has a bright future as a Coulter clone, as well as the forgivable ignorance of sweet youth. Her older-but-not-wiser radio companions pressed the Sputnik issue.

Sussman: When you think of the word “Sputnik,” what comes to your mind?

Katie: For some reason, a potato.

Vic: [Laughter]

Sussman: We need to have our potato moment!

Katie: Exactly!

Vic: That would be “Spudnik”!

Katie: I had trouble relating to anything he was saying, though.

Sussman: Well, I'm just wondering how many people were turned off by the Sputnik thing.

Vic: What's a Sputnik?

Sussman: Again, you know, Vic and I, we're middle-aged crackers. All right. We're middle-aged crackers. I didn't know what he was talking about! Come on!

Sussman was born in the year before Sputnik's launch. By the time he got to school, science and math curriculum had been revamped in the post-Sputnik furor. Despite his first-hand experience of growing up in the Space Age and the nature of his profession as political commentator, Sussman confesses that he knows nothing about Sputnik or the shock it delivered to American society. He's too young, of course, to remember having stood outside to look up at the “red star” arcing through the night sky over our heads, but the impact of this epochal event echoed down the decades.

But never in Brian's head, despite the excellent acoustics it must provide.

Idiot America doesn't need history or book-learning or context or even accurate memories. It cramps their style. No problem, though, if they listen to KSFO. It's media tailored to the needs of moron-Americans.

Where's my money?

Teaching for dollars

San Francisco's KSFO, bastion of right-wing talking points for the poor out-numbered arch-conservatives who live in the Bay Area, has been cutting back. High-priced hosts like Melanie Morgan and Lee Rodgers have been shown the door and their erstwhile sidekick, Brian Sussman, has been elevated into the anchor chair. His feet may not be able to touch the floor as he sits in it, but Sussman is now KSFO's monarch of the morning drive time (although actual traffic reports come from “Officer Vic,” who now gets to be Sussman's yes-man).

My inner masochist occasionally takes over when I'm driving and tunes the radio to KSFO, just to see what the crazies are promoting at the moment. On Tuesday, July 27, 2010, listeners were treated to yet another paean to the wonders of running government “like a business.” This shows remarkable resilience in right-wing ranks, especially after the debacle of George W. Bush's “MBA presidency.” Yeah, another dose of the business acumen that destroyed the world economy is just what government needs these days!

During the 7 o'clock hour, Sussman started a little rant about the Obama administration's shocking lack of business people in its top ranks. While Reagan and the two Bushes had over fifty percent of their appointees coming from the world of business, the current administration's tally is only eight percent. Shocking! (While the numbers may be true, they came from one of Sussman's devoted listeners, so a block of salt might be indicated.) With Officer Vic providing sycophantic punctuation, Sussman began to rail against academia—the reputed source of the bulk of President Obama's political appointments.

By itself, this is no surprise. Right-wing talk-show hosts really don't like higher education and its purveyors. We tend to be too liberal for them. (Funny how education tends to make people more liberal, open-minded, and opposed to right-wing radio bigots. No doubt Beck University will fix that.) Nevertheless, Sussman managed to surprise me, a jaded liberal listening to a usually predictable spewing of right-wing talking points from KSFO. You might not guess, however, just how he managed to surprise me.

Check it out:

Sussman: Herein lies the problem. These people live in a parallel universe. They don't understand. How do you get ahead in academia? It's not about being the best. It's not about being— There's no competition.

Officer Vic: No.

Sussman: Basically you go out there and get a degree and maybe another degree and another degree. And then you work your way into— You get a job at a university and you publish papers that no one reads and you publish books that are unreadable and you speak [Officer Vic: You get tenure.] and your speaking can be completely boring and you teach and you can be the worst teacher on the planet but you get tenure.

Officer Vic: Yep.

I begin to suspect that Sussman has never been on a university campus. Good thing tenure is so easy to obtain, though. Practically automatic.

Sussman: And then, you're in! That's it. You're in the club. It's nothing about being the best. There's no competition involved to move up the ranks of academia. It's not like in the real world. And that's who Barack Obama's surrounded himself—a bunch of propeller-heads, who have never produced anything. They've never produced a job. They've never managed large numbers of people. But it's all unraveling for these guys.

It's true. Competition is anathema in academia. We don't compete for choice assignments, office space, grant money, promotions, or anything else. Never, ever. It's contrary to our communitarian nature.

Officer Vic: Payroll.

Sussman: Never had to make payroll, never had to balance a budget. Never had to manage a profit-and-loss statement. Oh, they'll write about profit-and-loss statements, they'll write about how to manage people, they'll write and write and write and write, they conduct all this research. And again, I think it's hilarious. You read some of the books that these people write and they are unreadable. You hear some of the speeches that they give and you can't listen to them. You go to their classes and you listen to them teach and they're awful. But they've got their jobs and they're millionaires.

I don't think Sussman actually goes into classrooms to listen to professors and deem them awful. He strikes me as a class-skipper. But that last sentence? Yeah, that's the part when Sussman took me by surprise. Millionaires? I think I need to talk to my union rep. I may be getting cheated! (Of course, I'm not a university professor, so perhaps I shouldn't quibble—except that I know plenty of university professors who earn less than me.)

So Sussman thinks professors are millionaires who never have to make payroll, never create jobs, and never balance a budget. What an ignoramus. One of the problems at universities is the management of research teams, the budgeting of grant monies, and the allocation of lab space. One jumps through all kinds of hoops to get the funding the first place and then gets to do further mountains of paperwork to document its expenditure on personnel and resources. We even have similar challenges at my community college, even though on a smaller scale. (We seek external funding more frequently now that the state budget is such a mess, but it all comes with strings.) Maybe we have to deal with the NSF instead of the SBA, but many of us can commiserate with the entrepreneurs who deal with the latter.

KSFO's morning oracle continued:

Sussman:I get a kick out of— You go to UC Berkeley, you go to Stanford, you go to these various campuses and these students are out there protesting, “We need more money for our schools!” And standing next to them are the professors. “We need more money for our schools!” Hey, have you ever asked that professor how much money they're making every year? These professors are all millionaires. They're millionaires with big, big salaries and big, big retirement packages. And yet they dress like little schmoes, you know, with their crummy jackets [Officer Vic: Patches on the elbow.] that are twenty years old, yeah, and patches on the elbow. And their ties are askew and their hair's kinda crappy and they drive crummy little cars and they're millionaires. They're all millionaires! And they actually have the gall to stand next to the kids who are protesting because their fees are too high. “We need more money for our schools!” So you can pay these millionaires!

Oh, good. Fashion advice from a radio jockey. Nice hair, Brian. What training academy does it for free just for practice? As a millionaire professor, I shell out $14 for each of my haircuts.

Gods and know-nothings

Clueless at KSFO

The departure of Melanie Morgan from the KSFO commute-time talk show may have reduced the variety of right-wing vitriol, but the Bay Area radio station remains a reliable source of nonsense and idiocy. Sometimes word maven Richard Lederer calls in to promote one of his books or bandy words about, but Lederer represents the apogee of intellectualism when it comes to KSFO. Too bad he wasn't on hand this morning when Brian Sussman and Officer Vic (Tom Benner) were highlighting Barack Obama's supposed lies about his plan to withdraw troops from Iraq. That's probably because Lee Rodgers was off today and prefers to reserve Lederer's visits to his own segments. Thus the B team was in place in his stead.

Or maybe it was the C team. Sussman and Benner don't know the difference between “precipitous” and “immediately.” They mocked Sen. Obama for denying that he had called for a “precipitous” withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Their evidence was a statement on Obama's website that he would begin withdrawals “immediately” upon becoming president:

Sussman: As of Friday, this was still on his website: “Barack Obama's plan. Judgment you can trust.” In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president. You ready for the plan?

Benner: Yeah, Brian.

Sussman: It's on his website. “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq.” Now does that sound like precipitous withdrawal to you?

---

Excuse me, guys, but “precipitous” means “hasty” or “rapid”; it carries connotations of recklessness, which I'm sure is what you were after. By contrast, “immediately” means “without delay” or “right away.” You can begin something immediately (rather than delaying it) and there is no implication that the process you began is either rapid or slow. Tim Conway could immediately start shuffling across the room like the world's oldest man. His progress would be slow.

We must, however, entertain the possibility that Sussman and Benner know full well the distinction between “precipitous” and “immediately.” I think they don't, but it's possible. They are propagandists for a right-wing radio station, so anything that advances their agenda is permissible. Besides, they can count on many of their listeners to fall for whatever they say. Love and war. And politics. It's all fair!

I admit, though, that I think it's more likely that Sussman and Benner are as clueless as they come across during their broadcast. The key bit of evidence came hard on the heels of their colloquy on Obama's alleged contradictions. Sussman segued from his quotation of a statement from Obama's campaign site that contained the word “immediately” to a discussion of supposedly seditious elements that had been dropped from the website:

Sussman: You can't find this link any longer. It's been off for months now. But I still have the copy, when you could link from his website to their website and from their website to his website. This was Muslims for Obama.

Benner: Yes.

Sussman: Their tag-line was “Donate one dollar for one nation under God.” Now I got news for you. I don't think the God they were talking about is the God of Christianity and Judaism and let's include Hinduism and Buddhism and all the other isms. I think it has something to do with—

Benner: The one that says “submit.” [Laughter] Isn't there one? It seems to me. Let me go up to the catalog, Bob. Let's see, there's one here that says “submit or die”! Yeah, that's the one.

Sussman: In a word, yes. Submit.

---

Since Sussman and Benner haven't been paying attention, let's clue them in. The world's three major monotheistic religions are closely related. Just as Christians fancy themselves the successors of Judaism, the religion whose adherents supposedly didn't recognize the coming of their messiah, so do Muslims see themselves as successors to Christianity, the religion whose adherents didn't recognize the coming of the new prophet Muhammad.

In brief, Yaweh = God = Allah. You can have fun quibbling about differences in emphasis (whether the Jews may have also recognized lesser gods, why the Christians adopted a trifurcated concept of deity, and if Muslims regard Allah as the perfected version of predecessor notions of godhood), the fundamental notion for all three religions is that there is one supreme god. Arabs who are Christians use the name “Allah” when referring to God and do not imply by that usage that they are adherents of Islam.

But I trust you noticed the more egregious error in Sussman's ignorant rant. He included Hinduism and Buddhism under the Judeo-Christian “one God” umbrella, where they certainly do not belong, while excluding Islam, which certainly does belong in the line of descent of Old Testament monotheism. Hinduism espouses many gods while Buddhism is content to acknowledge none. English vocabulary words aren't the only things the KSFO talkers don't understand.

That's not the point, though, is it? The agenda at KSFO is not fact-based. The intent is to drive a wedge between the United States and Islamic culture. We need bad guys to ensure more electoral victories for the GOP. We're the good guys. Muslims are the bad guys (along with Democrats, liberals, gays, lesbians, atheists, and evolutionists). They're not like us. Oh, and Obama isn't like us either. Vote Republican.

Thank you, no. Republicans and their shills embrace a crabbed and cramped cultural view of us-and-them that reduces everything and everyone to caricatures. Let us laugh them to scorn. Cheekily borrowing some words from Psalm 2:4, I say that we shall have them in derision. They are so easily refuted. But will that be enough? My one concern about these idiots of the airwaves is reflected in the cautionary words of Adlai Stevenson, who was reportedly told by a supporter that he was sure to get the vote of every thinking American. “Thank you,” replied Stevenson, “but I need a majority to win.”

If you're a thinking person, get out there and make a majority. Otherwise the know-nothings win. And we lose.