by Hurd Hobson
June 12, 2003

Right wing talk show host Michael Savage has brought suit against three small web sites: takebackthemedia.com, savagestupidity.com, and savagesucks.com.

Savage is trying to show these web sites that they can't mess with a man's livelihood and get away with it. The lawsuit comes on the heels of Savage's steep decline in radio numbers and the anemic Nielsen ratings of his show, "Savage Nation," on MSNBC.

I have looked at these sites and they are shameful in the way they treat Mr. Savage. I can tell you that Mr. Savage has every right to call on high-priced lawyers, even though he so often has criticized the legal profession on his shows. Two of the sites being sued are just mean-spirited parodies of Mr. Savage's fine program.

The sites go to great pains to remind readers that Mr. Savage's real name is Michael Weiner. It's not clear whether this rhymes with "weener" or "whiner," but one site points out that either would be appropriate. Can you believe the gall of these people?

The sites even have the nerve to provide snippets of Mr. Savage's show that they use to illustrate how stupid and wrong-headed Mr. Savage can be. I find this outrageous, and I hope Mr. Savage recovers a bundle from each of these slanderers.

Parody has its place. Satire has its place too. I'm just not so sure that place is on web sites making fun of good conservatives like Michael Savage. After all, conservatives are not well known for their senses of humor. Remember Bob Dole and Richard Nixon? I can't imagine either of them ever laughing.

Both sites refer to Savage's programs as "Weiner Nation," which has driven away scores of people. After all, who wants to say "I watch 'Weiner Nation'" or "I like listening to a talking weiner"?

It's time that we conservatives took note of what was happening in the media and take the fight back to the liberals. If we don't, the next thing you know, they'll be making fun of how fat Rush is or how Hannity wears a toupe or how Dr. Laura has nudie pictures on the internet. And, we just can't have that.

by Hurd Hobson
May 29, 2003

On June 2, the F.C.C. will likely pass new laws that dramatically change the landscape of media ownership in this country. Basically, the changes in the laws will permit large multinational corporations to own more and more of the TV stations throughout the country. It will also permit newspaper publishers to buy TV stations in cities where they publish papers, something they are currently prohibited from doing.

F.C.C. Chairman Michael Powell has shown the courage to proceed even though most of the public is dead set against the changes. The right course is, however, often shunned by the masses.

I believe the rule changes will actually benefit Americans and, in particular, American values in three key ways:

First, we will have fewer channels to flip through. I find it terribly frustrating to have to worry about what's on 200 channels. Sometimes, I spend 30 minutes just flipping the remote. I'd rather there be only two or three stations, which I understand is the ultimate goal of the F.C.C. rule changes.

Second, fewer channels to flip through will mean fewer repetitive stress injuries caused by overusing the remote control. I know that I have woken up many days with a ache in my thumb caused by having to scan through 200 channels.

Third, the changes are likely to improve the quality of programming that we see. Assuming Rupert Murdoch is successful in buying up most of the other stations, I would expect more shows like the O'Reilly show and that show hosted by Joe Scarborough over on MSGOP.

In fact, I will share with you a rumor I've heard, which is that Murdoch will rename his network the "Republican Broadcasting Network" and, in turn, make subtle changes to some existing TV shows.

For example, on "Will & Grace," the gay character will get AIDS and die and be replaced by a strapping heterosexual Christian man. President Bartlet will be impeached for having sex in the White House on "The West Wing" and be replaced by a president modeled more after George W. Bush. Also, there will be no more nudity on "NYPD Blue" and crime dramas like "Law & Order" and "CSI" will focus more on crimes against the unborn.

Hopefully, cable prices will decrease since we'll only be two or three channels but, then again, it's possible they won't. After all, someone has to pay the the high price of all this deregulation.

by Hurd Hobson
May 15, 2003

It's not quite official, but here's the news: Dennis Miller has officially retired from the comedy business. Expect a formal announcement to come any day now.

The news may surprise some, but it really shouldn't. Miller hasn't been funny in years. In fact, there has been a somewhat contentious debate among comedy critics over the years as to whether Miller was ever funny. A majority of critics argue that Miller has never, ever been funny, while others contend that he flirted briefly with being funny and even succeeded at being slightly funny during his Saturday Night Live days. The Miller supporters say that at least one of two of his sketches were good enough to almost bring a smile to their faces. There is a consensus mong critics, though, that the SNL days were indeed Miller's glory days, when he, Pauley Shore, and Carrot Top were all poised to seize the mantle of unfunniest comic (a prize ultimately won by Pauley).

From there, of course, Dennis's career has gone downhill. You have Miller's appearances on "Monday Night Football," which I don't think were intended to be funny. Each week, Dennis regularly reminded the audience that he knew even less about football than comedy.

In retrospect, Dennis has never really had much success with comedy. His real success has been in playing very, very minor characters in Hollywood blockbusters like "Bordello of Blood" and "Joe Dirt." For example, it's hard to overlook his insignificant appearance in 1990's "Madhouse" where he appeared as the totally forgettable "Wes." Oh, and every time I watch "The Net" and see the scene where Miller's character dies, I am almost able to forget that this is the same guy that made SNL's "Weekend Update" an unwatchable, putrid mess.

Miller is expected to spend his retirement years as a paid spokesman for the President Bush and the Republican party, a job to which he's perfectly suited. The job requires no humor, little intelligent thinking, lots of blind faith, and the ability to repeat party mantras and remind the public that Bill Clinton stuck his ying-yang and his cigars where they didn't belong. Judging from his frequent talk show appearances, Miller has already mastered all of these things. Dennis, it looks like you've finally found your calling.

by Hurd Hobson
May 8, 2003

Word has it that the Justice Department is investigating whether the so-called Democratic Party "debate" that occurred in South Carolina last Saturday night violated the provisions of the Patriot Act. If so, the nine Democratic candidates could be looking at carrying on their campaigns from behind bars... or worse.

The Patriot Act was passed to prevent our enemies from aiding terrorists. Anyone who takes any overt action to overthrow our government can be found guilty of violating the Act and become subject to fines or imprisonment.

The problem facing the Democrats is that each of the nine candidates has argued that he or she should become President. Of course, we already have a President - George W. Bush. For one of these people to become President, they would have to replace George W. Bush.

It is widely known that all nine of the contenders have been under FBI surveillance ever since Senator John Kerry made his infamous comment calling for "regime change" in Washington. I am told that fighter pilots have been on "stand by" ever since Kerry uttered this remark, ready to launch a defense of the White House should Kerry and his band of Boston terrorists try to take it by force.

To make matters worse, each of the Democratic candidates has been openly soliciting contributions to help in the overthrow of President Bush's government, actions which could subject not only the candidates but the supporters as well to treasonable charges by John Ashcroft's Justice Department.

The only way that we can have a stable government is to stifle those who seek to overthrow the powers that be. It makes little difference if it's Al Qaeda or the Democrats, Osama Bin Ladin or John Kerry.

By the time you read this, don't be surprised if the nine Democrats who openly plotted their ascension to leadership and their replacement of George W. Bush are tucked safely away on Guantanamo Bay or some other equally terrible place.

Now, about that Ralph Nader character....

by Hurd Hobson
March 3, 2003

More anti-war demonstrations erupted over the weekend, as troops converge on Iraq. One particular gathering in Los Angeles has garnered national attention, not for violence or sheer numbers, but because of its use of incredibly disturbing images in an effort to derail the war effort.

What happened was that a group of protesters led by actor, Danny Glover, gathered at the federal building in Los Angeles over the weekend. Joining them were four women followers of the so-called Raelians, a cult that believes life on Earth was created by space aliens. You may recall that these are the same people who claimed to have cloned a human not long ago.

These four women had the audacity to strip down to their thong underwear to show their opposition to the war. If this wasn't bad enough, one of the women commented: "Whenever everybody undresses, the ego goes away and then we can make decisions. Imagine President Bush nude addressing the state of the union. Imagine Saddam Hussein nude."

Upon hearing this, a chill went up my spine. The thought of President Bush, standing nude or adorned in a thong underwear, giving the State of the Union address was not a pretty site. I suspect it would be even uglier for those seated behind him. I can't begin nor do I want to imagine Saddam Hussein without his clothes on.

These images created by the Raelian women are deeply disturbing. After hearing the Raelian speak, my wife said she had nightmares all last night, in which not only President Bush but Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft were all prancing around in thong underwear firing rifles in the air and laughing like mad hyenas. Her doctor has had to sedate her to settle her nerves.

It's one thing to make up posters and display anti-American sentiments on the streets. It's another to demean the President of our country by portraying him naked or in women's underwear.

The Raelians may be few in number, but they have succeeded in doing what many liberal protesters have failed to do so far. My dear beloved mother told me she can't look at George Bush anymore without laughing out loud. This was a woman who was block captain of the Bush-Cheney election campaign in 2000.

I fear that the Raeilians have exposed our Achilles heel. This country can withstand a great deal. We have shown that with our resiliency after 9/11 and our never say die attitudes. Mental images of the President in lace undies, however, may be too much for even the strongest of us to overcome.

by Hurd Hobson
March 3, 2003

It's time the authorities clamped down on the peace movement, and the Albany police have struck a blow for patriotism.

In case you haven't heard, a man was arrested in New York for wearing a horribly offensive t-shirt in a public place. The man, Stephen Downs, was walking around at a shopping mall, wearing a shirt emblazened with the words "Give Peace a Chance." He was in the food court with his young son when two security guards approached him and demanded that he take off his shirt. He refused and was arrested and could now face up to a year in jail.

I have very little tolerance for people like Mr. Downs who seek to inflame the masses with all their "Give Peace a Chance" talk. Why peace? What's so great about peace? Why seek to calm people down when President Bush is working so hard to prepare the nation for a fight?

Peace is overrated. I think it's time we gave war a chance.

President Bush knows that war is the answer, and he has enumerated the reasons time and time again. For those who have been too busy attending anti-war parades, here are a few of the reasons why we must - repeat, must - attack Iraq now, if not sooner:

1. We think Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction. Granted, the inspectors haven't found any yet, but they must be there if President Bush says they are. Besides, Colin Powell had all those great slides he showed at the U.N., which should have dispelled all doubts as to the existence of these terrible weapons.

2. We think that Iraq is in league with Al Qaeda. Now, we don't have any cold, hard evidence to support this, but I need to emphasize that it COULD be true. I mean, they are all Arabs, right?

3. We think that if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, even though we can't find them, and if Al Qaeda and Iraq are working together, even though we can't prove they are, then there is a possibility that Iraq could give Al Qaeda some of its weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaeda could use them on us. This is the clearest cut reason for why we must go to war now.

4. We dearly want to bring democracy to Iraq and the middle east. The good people of Iraq deserve democracy. To help them get a good start at it, we'll pick out the first leader for them and maybe help them pick out a Congress and a few good judges. I would suggest perhaps sending Katherine Harris over to monitor their first real elections to make sure that every vote is counted.

5. We have to liberate the people of Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. This is an important one too. Saddam is a tyrant. President Bush says we will liberate his people using any and all means available from our arsenal, including nuclear weapons if we have to. In the end, those people who survive the nuclear blast will be grateful to us for their liberation.

I challenge the liberal-communists to give me one good reason we should not go to war or why we should prefer peace to war. Any takers? I didn't think so.

In New York, a man has learned a lesson the hard way. Wave that peace flag in our face and we'll beat you silly over the head with it. Then, we'll head over to the middle east and use it on them.

by Hurd Hobson
February 10, 2003

President Bush has challenged the United Nations to show some backbone and stand up to Saddam Hussein. So far, his challenge has fallen on deaf ears. The problem, as I see it, is that the U.N. cannot stand up to the challenge because it has no backbone.

President Bush says that the U.N. will become irrelevant if it doesn't stand up to Hussein. The U.N., he argues, should follow the lead of the United States, which is doing what is right and honorable for the good of the world.

This may be a rather simplistic vision but President Bush has never been accused of having complex thoughts. There is good and there is evil. We're good and Saddam is evil. There is no middle ground for the U.N. to stand on.

Having backbone means having resolve. It means being able to stand up for what is right. Since the views of President Bush are right, it means standing up for what President Bush believes in. It means giving President Bush exactly what he wants: a resolution to bomb the daylights out of the Iraqis and to install a new pro-Western government. Any failure of the U.N. to follow President Bush's Iraqi agenda to the letter may be properly characterized as an absence of backbone.

The U.N. clearly has another agenda in mind, one that it is stubbornly clinging to even as U.S. troops are amassing along Iraq's borders. Unless the U.N. changes its views and adopts those of President Bush, the U.N. will become irrelevant, as President Bush predicted, and will ultimately collapse under its own weight.

by Hurd Hobson
January 21, 2003

President Bush celebrated Martin Luther King, Jr., Day by proclaiming that his administration would formally intervene and object to an affirmative action program at the University of Michigan. The time was ripe for making a stand on this issue, and the President's position on this issue will certainly please many civil rights activists.

The President is acknowledging that people should get what they deserve. When you work hard and make good grades in high school, you get in a good college.

Years of conservative leadership have leveled the playing field in education. No longer do we have "separate but equal" schools. A child from an inner city school has the same opportunity as a child living in a rich, affluent suburb. Children of privilege enjoy no greater advantages than ghetto children.

Racial sensitivity, particularly in the South, has also increased. Recently, Senator Lott became so offended by his own remark praising Strom Thurmond's segregationist efforts that he forced himself to resign as Senate Majority Leader.

The President's message is that hard work equals success and who should know better than he himself? He studied hard and labored long to get into his alma mater of Yale University. No one can accuse him of getting in because he was a legacy or because his father was George H. Bush. He proved that even if you make "C's" on your report card and score below average on your entrance exams, you can still get into the country's top school.

In his political career, he has worked even harder for everything his father has given him, from his jobs in the oil industry, to his ownership of a baseball team, to a governorship of a state, to the Presidency itself.

The time for affirmative action is past. Today, it's time for just plain old action.

by Hurd Hobson
January 7, 2003

With the Republicans dramatically seizing control of the Senate again with mid-term elections, it's time to once again consider Judge Charles Pickering for an appellate courtship. Judge Pickering was rudely treated by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee last year when Democrats held the majority on that committee. Now, it's time for Judge Pickering's reversal of fortune.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Judge, he is from Mississippi and deeply devoted to conservative issues. He switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party in 1964, embarrassed by the way national Democrats were carrying on about new civil rights laws. From within the Republican Party, he devoted himself to upholding traditional conservative causes.

He is staunchly pro-life but promised during last year's hearings to uphold the law as it currently stands "until it is reversed." That's a pledge of genuine impartiality, and there's nothing more you could ask from a judge.

During last year's hearings, he also stated when questioned that he would not vote today as he did twice in the 70s to support a state-funded agency known as the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission, which was active in opposing integration. The liberals on the committee tried to pin him down about a case in which he allegedly assisted a defendant who had participated in a cross burning. Judge Pickering didn't have too good of a memory of that case. I'm willing to bet the liberals just made it all up to try to humiliate the Judge.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky praised Judge Pickering and defended his remark that "all men's conduct should be judged" by the Bible. Senator McConnell said, rightfully so, that anyone disagreeing with this remark was just being "hostile towards religion."

Senator McConnell also praised the Judge's "moral courage" during the civil rights era. As the Senator pointed out, it would not have been wise for the Judge to have pushed harder for civil rights reforms because it might have incited violence. The better course was to implement reforms slowly instead of all at once. After all, people needed time to adjust to black people voting and going to the same schools with white children and sitting in the front of the bus and drinking from the same water fountains as white people.

By all counts, Judge Pickering is a fine man, with a sterling record. If a further endorsement is needed, I should mention that Senator Trent Lott also supported his nomination.

President Bush made a good choice in trying to get Judge Pickering on the Court of Appeals. Now, with the Republicans controlling the Judiciary Committee and the Senate, we believe President Bush should aim higher than the Court of Appeals. With Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor possibly ready to hang up their robes, we believe President Bush should consider Judge Pickering for the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, we can picture anyone better sitting between Justices Scalia and Thomas.

by Hurd Hobson
January 5, 2003

Congressional Democrats and political pundits have been posing the same question ever since tragedy struck our country on September 11, 2001. An independent investigation is currently ongoing to gather facts and reach conclusions.

That question is this: What did President Bush know about the terrorist threat on and before that fateful day?

A careful review of the events of that day reveals that while the cowardly hijackers were taking control of four or our airplanes, our commander-in-chief was at an elementary school reading to children a story about goats. One of his aides told him about the attack shortly after the first plane hit the World Trade Center. The President kept his cool and continued reading the goat story to the kids. When the second tower was hit and the President again interrupted with the news, he responded in a peculiar way: by continuing the goat story for another 20 minutes.

His actions on the morning of September 11 compel me to the only logical conclusion I can make, which is this: President Bush knew absolutely nothing on that terrible morning. Oh, people may claim he knew something, but I think his actions show that he was totally clueless at the time. A deer caught in the headlights.

His critics sometimes overestimate him, but the President, who once distinguished "book learning" from the kind of learning you don't get in books, clearly was taken by surprise. How else can you explain how he reacted? Had he been poised to defend a terrorist attack, wouldn't there have been some planned response? Wouldn't he have turned to Condi or Rumsfeld and said "Code Blue," "Wild Turkey Rising," "Saddle Up the Camel," or some other code phrase that set into motion a defense of our country? I certainly think he would of because I know him to be a man of great intelligence, wisdom and forethought.

The man we saw reading a goat story to children was not a man who had any forewarning of the terrible events that were unfolding on our soil. This was a man blindsided, caught off guard, and completely clueless, no matter what people may say otherwise.