… you must read “Out of Print” by Eric Alterman in The New Yorker. It’s a great look at the past, present, and future of American newspapers and journalism in general.

I think I’ve discovered a new mental illness. It’s called Severinitis. Persons suffering from this disease are under the delusion that they can somehow get Jay Severin to soften his position or rhetoric on anything by presenting a rational and factual argument. They feel a compulsion to attempt this feat no matter how many times they try and fail.

I suffered my latest bout of Severinitis this afternoon.

David: Hi, Jay. I spent a fair amount of time preparing for this call, so I hope you’ll do me the honor of listening to me for a while and not cutting me off right away.

 

Jay: You do yourself and us the honor of performing well, so please proceed.

 

David: OK, so you said that because of Barack Obama’s background, he should be subject to a higher level of scrutiny, so –

 

Jay: No, I said that he might is not an unreasonable notion.

 

David: OK. So would it be reasonable to subject him to that higher level of scrutiny on the air right now?

 

Jay: Why not?

 

David: OK, so what I’m going to do is set up a little stall next to yours in the marketplace of ideas, and offer some additional information — some truthful information — and I’d like to do it in the form of a quiz, if I might.

 

Jay: OK.

 

David: So the first question is, you point out that Barack Obama spent some time outside of the country while he was growing up. Do you know where he spent that time?

 

Jay: Couldn’t care less.

 

David: It’s irrelevant?

 

Jay: Irrelevant to me, and I think to most Americans. It think the only thing that’s relevant here, again, is that you combine someone about whom we know nothing, or very, very little, tantamount to nothing, compared to other presidential campaigns. Here’s a guy who might be president in a few months, about whom we know very little, and who has, who shares a background, heritage, and other things, which happen coincidentally to be common to a people who are in the business of killing us. And so that might cause people to say “hmm, maybe I need to know a little bit more about this fellow than I know so far.” That that would be a curious thing –

 

David: Well, I, I certainly –

 

Jay: [inaudible] than if his middle name was, you know, O’Reilly. Yeah, I think that’s entirely understandable.

 

David: Right, I agree, it might help to know a little bit more, but you don’t seem to be interested in getting that information yourself, so I’ll let you know –

 

Jay: David, can we stop being tedious? If you have something to add, please do.

 

David: Fine.

 

Jay: Otherwise all your preparation will be for naught.

 

David: Obama was not schooled in Africa as you said last week, but rather in Indonesia. In Jakarta, Indonesia.

 

Jay: Much more a hotbed of Islamofacism than Africa, so thank you for the upgrade.

 

David: Now you’ve pointed out that Barack Hussein Obama shares his name with his father. Could you tell us at what age his father left the household — [Jay hangs up on me after about 2 minutes 45 seconds; better than the 15 seconds or so I got on Friday]

 

Jay: Well, I hope not. You shouldn’t be hearing anything, except this:

Jay then simulated a test tone from the old days of television. In fact, what one hears after being disconnected is silence, followed by a “fast busy” signal.

The answer to question number two, by the way, is that Barack Obama fils was two years old when Barack Obama pere left Hawaii to return to Harvard. I had three more questions ready for Jay, which he must be glad he avoided:

1. True or false: While in Indonesia, Obama attended a type of Muslim school known as a madrassa. (False, of course.)

The other two questions were designed to counter Jay’s point that calling the candidate “Barack Hussein Obama” is fair game because that is how Obama refers to himself.

2. True or false: On his web sites and on the cover of his books, Obama identifies himself using his middle name. (False, of course.)

3. What was the caption next to Obama’s picture in his high school yearbook. (Answer: Barry Obama. Yeah — this is clearly someone who identified very closely with his Arabic-Muslim heritage.)

As fate would have it, the next caller was a fellow named Jerry, who was also a Severinitis sufferer:

Jay: Jerry, from Roslindale. If I’d known that was A-hole David, we wouldn’t have taken the call. Jerry, from Roslindale, how are ya?

 

Jerry: Not too bad, how are you?

 

Jay: I’m well, thank you sir.

 

Jerry: Good. I just wanted to follow up on what that last caller was saying, and then I want to take it into [inaudible] about the Muslim extremists.

 

Jay: Sure thing.

 

Jerry: Basically, the … do you consider General Abizaid — should we look at his background because of his Muslim heritage?

 

Jay: I don’t believe that General Abizaid is about to be President of the United States.

 

Jerry: So the only criteria is the President of the United States.

 

Jay: I’d say that’s the only one I’m discussing.

 

Jerry: OK, so how about Omar Bradley, who had a Muslim background?

 

Jay: Omar Bradley, is he living?

 

Jerry: World War II hero.

 

Jay: Yeah, he’s not living is he?

 

Jerry: No.

 

Jay: I would say that case is moot, then, wouldn’t you?

 

Jerry: You don’t question how American he is because of his first name?

 

Jay: You’re missing the point, my friend.

 

Jerry: OK, well let’s forget about that. I would be more concerned, however, and I –

 

Jay: Let me ask you a question, wise guy. Since we learned today that there are thousands of illegal aliens in this country registered in flight schools right now, —

 

Jerry: I–

 

Jay: Since we learned today — Shut up and listen for a second if you want to stay on the radio, it’s up to you. We learned today there are thousands of illegal aliens in this country registered in flight schools. If you headed up the division of the FBI that was going to take a look at the thousands of illegal aliens now enrolled in flight schools across the United States and you didn’t have all the manpower and money that you might like and you had to prioritize whom you would review first, would you pick first the people with Arabic Muslim names or would you pick people with Irish or Italian names?

 

Jerry: Uh, –

 

Jay: Thanks, Jerry, thanks a lot. [Jay disconnects Jerry.] Yep. The prosecution rests. Anybody who doesn’t see that we have enemies and that those enemies remain discernable by virtue of certain traits and backgrounds, anybody who doesn’t wonder more about Muslims praying aloud in the airport, moving around, standing up, you know, asking for extra seat belt extensions — I’m talking about the case of the Muslim imams who were in Minnesota going to Dallas, and they were acting strangely in the airport — anybody who isn’t worried when they see people of Middle Eastern background acting suspiciously is a fool. Anyone who equates the same behavior taking place involving a bunch of Catholic nuns and at any given moment across the airport in another gate, a bunch of young to middle-aged Arabic men who are acting suspiciously, and then again, at the other gate, Catholic nuns doing the same thing — anybody like Jerry and David, who just called, who think that those behaviors should attract and warrant equal scrutiny, that you should be equally worried or unworried about the nuns and the Muslims who are doing the same thing, anybody who’s that stupid, anybody who’s so politically fascistically correct that you think that despite the discernable traits of people among whom are our sworn enemy, if you would equate the behavior of the nuns, you would profile at the airport as many Catholic nuns as you would young Arabic men with backpacks who are saying their prayers aloud, if you would give the same level, if you would devote to each group the same level of scrutiny, Jerry and David, then you are — you can read about yourselves by reading Darwin. You are the fools, you are the inferior creatures who evolve away. I don’t intend to join you.

Pretty incredible, eh? He complains we don’t have enough information about Barack Obama, I call up to give him the information, and a few minutes later he’s turned my comments into a discussion about flight schools and an incident from November 2006. (They were going to Phoenix, by the way, Jay, not Dallas.) It’s the same change-the-subject tactic he employed against me last week. Of course, he can only do this when we are no longer able to respond.

Now although Jerry and I were unable to overcome our mental illness, it does seem that we rocked Jay’s world just a little bit. After Jerry’s call, he went on the defensive to a degree unusual even for him. Jerry’s call finished around 5:45, maybe 5:50. Jay’s show runs until 7:00 pm. Perhaps Jay was afraid that other callers might agree with us, so he took only two more calls for the rest of the show. As a substitute, he serenaded his audience with rants like these:

Jay: [I want to say something about] David and Jerry. I am absolutely and very earnestly appalled and frightened, I’m frightened and disgusted at the notion that there are two people in this entire radio audience, let alone two in a row, who may not be the only two, I am disgusted and frightened that there are two ostensibly grown people who take umbrage at the notion that we have a guy named Barack Hussein Obama who may become President of the United States and that that ought to make Americans curious, a little more curious about his background, someone about whom we know nothing, who was a state senator a few years ago, and his name is Barack Hussein Obama, an Arabic first name, an Arabic middle name, an Arabic last name, a Muslim middle name, Muslim school, Muslim father, Muslim grandfather — given the circumstances of the moment on planet Earth, the notion that he should receive scrutiny — and I go back to the example, if you’re at an airport, and you have two groups of people out loud performing religious services, kind of in a loud and unreasonable way, and you find one group is the Mormon Boys Tabernacle Choir or the other is Catholic nuns and a third is Middle Eastern men, or Muslims? This is so stupid that it’s not even worth discussing. If you don’t think the Muslim men are the ones that you check first, if you don’t think that they deserve a more immediate or higher level of scrutiny than the Catholic nuns, you’re just being intellectually backward and obstinate for laughs, or you really are so stupid that you shouldn’t be allowed out on the street without someone accompanying you [inaudible] or something. This is what worries me the most. [Read slowly and carefully now … Jay’s thought process gets a little loopy here.] If I were a member of a group that wanted to take over this country — now hear me clearly and don’t misquote me — were I a member of a group, real or imagined, were I a member of a group, and that group had religions affiliations as well as cultural and political affiliations, and I had tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, no, millions of my people surging into this country, setting up shop, identifying themselves as, well, let’s call them X-Men, OK? For no particular reason. If the X-Men came here and the X-Men regarded themselves apparently as X-Men first and Americans second, and there are millions of them, and part of the routine preaching in the X-Men house of worship is the death and destruction of the West in general and of Americans in particular, and if I found that in over the course of, say, ten years every single — not most, not the vast majority of them — every single act of murder and violence against Americans was both preached and perpetrated by X-Men, and I saw their numbers continue to grow, and I learned as I heard about one group (I won’t name them, but I happened to have heard about a group just last night, in the middle of the night, listening to BBC, either last night or Saturday night) that there’s a certain group in this country whose young people are being encouraged by their religious leaders to go into journalism, law, and politics — journalism, law, and politics — by way of changing the system, by way of changing the system how? If the X-Men believe you[?] — this imaginary group, the X-Men — if the X-Men regard themselves first and foremost as X-Men and only secondarily if at all as Americans, and now they have stated their intentions in addition to their sermons we hear so much about to go into political science, journalism, and law in order to change the system… If, David and Jerry, if you think that doesn’t require, doesn’t spark any curiosity or shouldn’t require a higher level of scrutiny than if a bunch of Irish-Americans did it, then again, you’re just going to evolve away pretty quickly. We’re just going to lose you off the scale, because you’re too stupid to survive. We’re talking about the most fundamental set of perceptions available to human beings: Are there people among me who mean me harm? Are there or aren’t there? Well, there are. And if there are, am I able to discern who they are? Not all of them, and not flawlessly, but if I know, if I establish as a fact there are people among me who wish me harm, me and mine, then am I able to distinguish, discern, identify them? If I am, if I put together Facts A and Fact B, Facts A and B, if there are people among whom I’m living, who wish me death and destruction, and if I’m able to discern, distinguish, or identify them, for me not to pay attention to that, for me not to devote a little bit more of my time, a little bit higher level of scrutiny to that than I would to people among me who mean me no harm, then I’d be like you: the really stupid end of the animal kingdom that evolves away. I mean, you’re just a step above mollusks. I think you should probably bow to and salute mollusks, if that’s the way you think. [Note to Jay: Mollusks have been around for more than 500 million years. I don’t think they’re going to evolve away any time soon.] And there is no more dangerous, there has never been in American culture ever, there has never been a threat as grave as the threat that you just heard from A-hole David and A-hole Jerry. Imbeciles who wrap themselves in a new dogma of political correctitude and say to you at the subway station or at the airport you have no right either to search or investigate or even suspect in the privacy of your own mind, your own home, late at night as you fall asleep in bed, you have no right morally, certainly not legally, to suspect anybody, even though you know there are killers living among you who have already killed and who are planning now to kill more, you have no right to try and figure out who those killers might be even though on a factual basis you can discern who they are. You have no right to do that. And that any attempts or any inclinations to do so make you a racist? That is the most grave threat to the continued existence of the United States of America than anything in our history. Far and away more of threat to us than anything in our history. Far, far greater than any of the false sins of the politically correct (i.e., bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, sunspots, fluctuations in the stock market, the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa). Of all of the sins they falsely accuse us, reasonable people who are trying to survive, none of them (even were they true) begin remotely to approach in their catastrophic importance, in their profundity, the importance of making sure that people like David and Jerry are recognized for the fools they are, and we make sure that their blind political fascism doesn’t prevent us from doing the most basic human thing we need to do, and that is survive, that is protect ourselves, it means discern, distinguish, identify a threat and to make sure that we are not harmed. That does not apply to any group of all people, but it certainly applies to some people within certain discernible groups. And again I bring you back to the airport. If you’re the head of airport security, and you toss a coin, you flip a coin to decide whether to investigate a bunch of nuns who praying out loud, and they’re acting a little unusually, and they’re praying out loud, Catholic nuns, and over here you have a bunch of Islamic clerics who are praying out loud and doing something a little unusual — if you have to flip a coin to determine which of those two incidents, if either, should cause you any concern or ought to be given some scrutiny, well then you’re like David and Jerry. And the day that most of us, the day that 51 out of 100 of us become like David and Jerry, there will be no more us.

A little later on, Jay claimed he had a nine-year perfect record of not being guilty of hypocrisy,

notwithstanding idiots like Dave and Jerry. And I like some of your flavors, though, Dave and Jerry. I must say I buy sometimes the Chocolate Fudge Packer Pal, which — Dave, I think that was yours. You invented that one. [But no one should accuse you of homophobia, right, Jay?]

Jay also compared Jerry and me to Nazi collaborators in Vichy France, claiming that

no one is going to hurt us unless they hurt us from the inside, and they’ll only hurt us from the inside by finding collaborators. And the people at the Council on American Islamic Relations couldn’t be any happier than to have people like David and Jerry. Just stick to the ice cream, would you, David and Jerry, who called in earlier to slam me for discussing the notion that some people might warrant some extra scrutiny than other people based on who they are, what their heritage is, and all that. So I’m sure that at an airport, as I said, Dave and Jerry, instead of making ice cream — which they’re good at — if David and Jerry were in charge of airport security at Logan, they’d see a bunch of young Muslim men doing their prayers very loudly and sweating profusely and doing odd things, and then they’d see a bunch of Catholic nuns, and then they’d also see the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, and they’d say “we just don’t know who to search first, because no one deserves extra scrutiny, because all the people are equally innocent and wonderful.

It’s simply amazing to me that this guy makes a million dollars a year spewing this nonsense. Hey, WTKK: I’ve got an idea for you. Want to save some money in these tight financial times? Tell you what. I’ll do Jay’s job, and I’ll do it better and cheaper. Hell, I’d be willing to do it for a mere $900K. Have your people call my people — preferably on the air.

Why am I spending any of my time on this guy? I have no idea. But I can’t help it. Here’s his latest offense.

Jay, along with at least one other radio talk show host, likes to refer to the junior senator from Illinois as “Barack Hussein Obama.” Why does he do this? Because, he says, that while this country is at war with radical Islam, there are several “facts” about Obama that are worth noting. Among them:

• That Obama’s father was a Muslim.
• That Obama’s grandfather was a Muslim.
• That Obama went to a madras ([sic] — Madras is a city in India (and Oregon) and a type of fabric; I’m pretty sure Jay means “madrassa,” which is a type of Muslim school.
• That Obama “grew up in Africa.”

I won’t bother arguing the first two points. Even if they are true, they are completely irrelevant. Obama’s father left the family when Obama was two years old, and he was raised by his mother, his maternal grandparents, and others. (The Chicago Tribune wrote an extensive background piece on Obama’s childhood last year.)

Point three — that Obama attended a Muslim school — was a false claim that has been thoroughly and completely debunked and debunked and debunked.

Point four is a Severin original, as far as I can tell. I’ve never heard anyone else make that claim, probably because it is demonstrably untrue. What is Jay thinking? I can only imagine that Jay read somewhere that Obama spent some time as a youngster in Jakarta. I suppose the word Jakarta looks and sounds somewhat similar to Dakar and Lusaka, which are indeed in Africa. And of course, Obama’s father’s family was originally from Kenya — also in Africa. So perhaps Jay assumes that Jakarta is in Africa as well. But Jakarta, of course, is in Indonesia — which is most decidedly not in Africa.

So which is it Jay? Are you being intentionally dishonest? Or merely grossly incompetent?

I called in again on Friday to set the record straight, but after one sentence out of my mouth — following a 90 minute wait on hold — he hung up on me after accusing me of misquoting him (which I hadn’t). Finally, at 6:15 that day someone corrected him — sort of — about the Africa angle. Unfortunately, the caller was also confused on the facts, and thought that Obama had gone to school in the Philippines. Jay was quick to issue a correction, in his own style:

OK, I’ll tell you what. Until I know specifically — I don’t know the years and so I could be wrong, so I will hold that in abeyance and I thank you for that criticism.

Jay later took the opportunity to restate his position (and, as is his wont) to amplify (I’ve added a few of comments in red):

Neither you [the caller] nor I know [Obama’s connection to Islam]. Your statement is like Nora O’Donnell’s statement when she was talking to Chris Matthews last night, when she said “He’s not a Muslim.” Listen, she only knows what she’s read in the paper. Nora O’Donnell no more knows the religious or theological proclivities of Barack Obama than she knows whether or not I have a birthmark on my left buttock. Although there was that night — she may actually know that. How does your wife feel when you say such things, Jay? But anyway, she doesn’t know that. You don’t know it. I don’t know it. So you’re calling Barack Obama a liar? …. I’m sure you can appreciate that the mere fact that we are debating these things, and maybe, and I don’t mean to say this in a way that is in any way argumentative or offensive, I honestly don’t, (then how do you mean it?) but if you have been born and have grown up in America, the very notion that we are debating these fine points of in which countries — like I may be wrong about Africa or certain years about Africa, you know maybe a madrassa (hey, you got the word right this time) in the Philippines instead, he may have gone to a radical Muslim school in the Philippines instead of in Africa for certain years (actually, he never went to a madrassa or any other type of Muslim school) — the mere fact that we are debating the fine points of a guy who may become President of the United States who has Muslim connections (I enjoy falafel and hummus; do I therefore also have Muslim connections?) and has a background like his is so very extraordinary. I’m not saying it’s necessarily bad though I’m not going to be coy and tell you I think it’s good. I only can tell you that having been born and raised here in America and made my life’s work the culture of this country, you know, I know that people find it wicked queer. People? What people? If you mean you find it wicked queer, say so. They may not in the end find it sufficiently troubling that it is significant or determinative but it is a wicked queer thing to be holding a candidate election for president in which one of the candidates has this much of a connection (you mean that the family of his father, who left him when he was two, were Muslims? that much of a connection?) to a faith or a group that has declared war on the United States of America, under which there is a current state of war, of murderous slaughter against our people. Ah, so we are at war with the entire Muslim faith, are we? No wonder you want to kill them. The notion there could be any connection, no matter how remote, that we should even be asked to consider it or to parse it is what makes this so extraordinary. And I’ll tell you, you guys can’t have it both ways. I don’t mean again to be argumentative, [caller], but you can’t have it both ways. Please don’t tell me America is close-minded, racist, biased, bigoted, prejudiced, all these things. I’m not sure a lot of people are saying that about “America,” Jay. I think they’re just saying it about certain Americans, like you. The mere fact that a candidate like Barack Obama, with his beliefs, and his heritage, the mere fact that he could be as serious a candidate for president as he is means that we are the most open, wonderful country Yes, we are so open, we welcome all comers from all nations. Right. — of course a lot of us already knew that, a lot of us are not like Obama-Mama, Michelle Obama, who only recently for the first time felt pride about our country. Most of us know this is the most wonderful place on Earth. And Barack Obama’s candidacy proves it. Which is why you’re such a strong supporter of his, correct? I just want to know: If Barack Obama wins — and this is a trick question, I know this answer, and so do you — if Barack Obama wins, can we stop hearing people bitch about how racist America is? Can we put that to rest? If Barack Obama is elected by a majority of voters in the United States of America, (You mean like Al Gore was in 2000?) does that mean that we can now say that it is a false claim to assert that America is a biased, bigoted, racist country? No, watch and see. We’ll elect a black president and we’ll still have to give in to people who argue we’re a racist country. Give in how? What are you talking about? Although among people who are intellectually honest (Like you, Jay? Give me a break) and adroit to any, even minimal, degree, the notion that we could elect Barack Hussein Obama (there you go again) and you’d still declare that we’re a racist country is laughably ludicrous, frighteningly ludicrous. But it will still happen. Oh, and if Mrs. Clinton — ahh! ahh! ahh! — pardon me, if Mrs. Clinton becomes president will that be the end of bitching about how phallocentric, patriarchal, sexist a country we are? Nah.

Too bad radio talk show hosts keep their jobs because of their ratings and their ability to refrain from saying “um” on the air, rather than on the strength of their logic, accuracy, or intelligence. Jimmy Severino would have been off the air a long time ago.

The Onion has it summed up perfectly:

You Know What’s Stupid? Everything I Don’t Understand

Although I disagree with John McCain on several policy issues, and although I’m not convinced he’s really the squeaky clean straight talker he claims to be, I do find his willingness to challenge his supporters refreshing. Too bad Jay Severin has vowed he will never vote for McCain. I’d love to hear McCain’s reactions to some of the things Jay has to say about Obama.

As I mentioned in the last post, I was on the radio yesterday with Jay Severin (the talk show host formerly known as Jimmy Severino). I guess I got under his skin, because this is what he said to his listeners after the break (apologies for any transcription errors — my recording quality wasn’t very good this time). This monologue went on for a little over six minutes, longer even than our original dialogue.

(Chuckles) I love the power of our program, and I love that it turns people on, and I love that it provokes people. Can you imagine being — (laughs) — someone who — (laughs) — he’s staying home, hovering around the radio, waiting for me to say something controversial like “the poor don’t bathe as often we do and as a result they may not smell as nice.” Can you imagine, can you imagine like taking such great umbrage at that, that you call up and say “Let me quote you! Let me get this right about the poor and bathing! Whoa! An expose!” What is this? Some pathetic half-assed wanker from the local membership of Media Matters? “Let me get this right! Did you say the poor don’t smell well?” It’s really very sad. You know, and one thinks about bloggers, all the things they say about bloggers. This just reinforces it. Some friendless, underemployed, wanking dwarf sitting at home going “Did you say that the poor don’t bathe?” Well I’m happy to be of service to everyone. (Laughs) Six-one-seven, eight-two-two, one ninety-six nine, Verizon Wireless callers pound ninety-six nine. The thing is, I don’t doubt that this wanker in question could find an audience for the notion that people would be offended that I might say that the poor don’t smell nice. Because, don’t forget, these days the incipient fascism which rules in our land is that the true spirit of freedom of speech is gone, dead, and buried, and shame on you, because you’re allowing it to happen. I don’t mean to place this burden on you and me, but who else is going to protect it? Who else but we are going to protect this? That’s exactly what’s happening. Freedom of speech — the spirit of freedom of speech — is gone, dead, and buried. You know this from everyday life. And as I’ve written about and as I’ve said, the new standard is not whether what you said is true, and for many centuries truth has been the standard. In English common law, and down until today, in our own system of jurisprudence, in libel law, truth is an absolute defense. If you write about someone or say about someone something damaging, you can prevent any liability to yourself by having written it or said it if what you said is true. That’s it. End of the story. No matter how damaging or embarrassing it might be. If what you wrote or said is true, end of story. End of case. Truth is an absolute defense in libel law. That has guided our public discourse for many centuries. And now we live in a time in which the standard has passed from whether or not there’s an element of truth to what you’ve said or whether or not it can be established to be true, was it, you know, your personal opinion; now the standard is “did somebody’s feewings get huht?” Is somebody’s feewings huht? ‘Cause if you huht someone’s feewings …. What you do, when someone on the radio or someone at your dinner party or anywhere else says something that you regard as offensive, what you do is, you reach and you turn the dial. Or you don’t extend them an invitation to your next dinner party. What you don’t do is join a mass of imbeciles who want to deprive someone of their livelihood because they’re expressing their opinion. If you are so easily bruised that the expression of opinion damages you, then you need psychiatric help and quickly. Because big grown-up women and men are presumed in our society to be able to withstand the slings and arrows of conversation and of opinion, even if some of that opinion is a little bit out there. Truth is an absolute defense, and even when it’s not, opinion is opinion, and the most sacred of the amendments to our Constitution, of our Bill of Rights, the reason I believe the founding fathers chose it as the first one, is the freedom of speech. And with all we have to discuss, that some poor, friendless, unemployed wanker is sitting at home, trying to get my exact words about whether or not I said the poor smell … what can I say? Except I think he probably smells.

Allow me, if I may, a point-by-point rebuttal and commentary.

“he’s staying home, hovering around the radio, waiting for me to say something controversial” — Objection: assuming facts not in evidence. In fact, I heard Jay’s original comment on my car radio, got ticked off, got home, called in, and did a bunch of work while I was on hold.

“the local membership of Media Matters” — Objection: assuming facts not in evidence. I am not in fact a member of Media Matters. But I can see why Jay might think that. Go to their web site and search for Severin. They’re compiling a dossier of his most outrageous remarks.

“one thinks about bloggers, all the things they say about bloggers. This just reinforces it” — Psst, Jay … You’re a blogger!

“Some friendless, underemployed, wanking dwarf” — Objection: assuming facts not in evidence. Only some of these characterizations are true.

“the true spirit of freedom of speech is gone, dead, and buried” — Objection: relevance? Did I ever say anything to suggest that Jay should be prevented from saying stupid things or punished for doing so? No, I only asked him to consider whether he really wants to be on record as believing that the poor smell bad. By changing the subject to freedom of speech, Jay tries to escape an argument he’s bound to lose by turning it into one he’s bound to win.

“in libel law, truth is an absolute defense” — Objection: relevance? Did I accuse you of libel or slander? I don’t think so. Furthermore, what you said is demonstrably untrue. All I need to do is find one poor person who doesn’t smell bad. Do you really think that would be hard? What you are guilty of is not libel, it is prejudice and bigotry. And truth is not an absolute defense for that.

“when someone on the radio … says something that you regard as offensive, what you do is, you reach and you turn the dial” — Oh really? What happened to your marketplace of ideas philosophy, Jay? Are you actually saying that anyone who disagrees with you should just shut up? Do you really want to be on record with that position? Because it contradicts what you’ve said on the radio many times.

“a mass of imbeciles who want to deprive someone of their livelihood because they’re expressing their opinion” — If you lose your job, Jay, it will be because of poor ratings, not because I object to anything you say. Although I will admit that by exposing your weaknesses I do hope to have your listeners take you less seriously and ultimately choose to turn the dial themselves.

“big grown-up women and men are presumed in our society to be able to withstand the slings and arrows of conversation and of opinion” — That was the presumption I made about you, Jay, but you proved me wrong.

“I think he probably smells” — Ooh, that hurt. What would be an appropriate response? Something on the order of “it takes one to know one?”

I’d go on, but I have a wanking appointment in ten minutes.

Jay Severin is Boston’s local version of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, etc. How anyone takes him seriously, I don’t know. One of my guilty pleasures is listening to his show and, when I’m able to get through, berating him on the air. Here is a transcript of my call with him from February 25, 2008 at about 5:45 pm. The conversation lasted 5 minutes, 45 seconds. That’s a LONG time in talk radio.

David: Hey, Jay!

Jay: Hey, David.

David: I’m doing a little blogging, and I wanted to get you on the record about what you said previously about the poor. And I know you don’t like to be misquoted, so maybe you’d want to just repeat that about, exactly what you said about their hygienic habits.

Jay: Well, I don’t recall exactly. Would you like to ask me a question? I’ll be perfectly candid with you.

David: Well, what I thought you said was "I don’t have anything against the poor, except for the fact that they don’t bathe very often and don’t smell very good." Is that accurate?

Jay: I did say — The best of my recollection is I said that or words to that effect.

David: And you believe that?

Jay: Well, obviously there was some dark humor involved in what I had to say, but I — You’re asking me whether I said it, and so –

David: Well, because –

Jay: (inaudible) … words to that effect.

David: You’ve previously said something to the effect of "you don’t say anything on the air unless you honestly believe it."

Jay: OK, well, all right. If you wish a debate here, if you wish a parsing of words I’m certainly not reluctant to administer one. You know, the — Now again, this is not necessarily in relation to what we’re talking about, but if you’re asking me to speak to this, a smarter man than myself would just, you know, not pick this fight, but I’m here and what I say is fair game, therefore what I’m saying is that poor people, socio-economically speaking, poor people have different habits of every kind than do the affluent. That’s to say, by the way, people of different classes have different habits in every realm of their lives than people in other classes. And the fact is that if you were to say that there are some people who have better or not so good practices of personal hygiene, clearly the more affluent one happens to be, the better one’s practices of hygiene happen to be, by and large, and the poor tend, for one reason or another, not to have either access to or inclination toward hygiene the same as the middle, upper-middle, or upper classes. It seems to me that’s a straightforward socio-economic or sociological observation.

David: OK, but that’s not what you said. You didn’t say that wealthier people tend to bathe more often –

Jay: No, I didn’t say that. You’re saying that.

David: Right, you said, I think — and again, I don’t want to misquote you, this is why I’m on the phone — you, essentially you said that poor people smell bad.

Jay: I said, I said something like, very much like, in fact maybe even verbatim, I said something like "poor people are boring, and often smell."

David: OK, so they’re often smelly but they’re always boring.

Jay: I didn’t say always.

David: You just said that. Poor people are boring and they often small bad. So –

Jay: I don’t contest that.

David: OK, so can you define "poor" for me then? Because I just want to let these folks, you know, know who they are that you think are boring.

Jay: You know, I enjoy a good joust, but I’m not a fool. No, I think you can probably go on from here and identify the poor.

David: Well, I don’t know, I mean … anyone who makes less than you?

Jay: I think I’ll let you define the poor. The Democrats, of which you are clearly one, you define pretty well who the rich are, like anyone with a family income of $75,000 or more? So I’ll let you do what you’re so good at, because by the way, the Democrats practice every day the religion of class warfare –

David: Now now, now wait a minute –

Jay: I’ll let you define the poor.

David: No, no. You’re all about "words have meaning." You know, you’re very precise in terms of language.

Jay: Indeed I am.

David: And so if you’re going to use a word like poor, I assume you know what it means. It’s a relative term, so what does it mean to you?

Jay: "The poor" is not a relative term. The poor are the poor.

David: What do you mean it’s not a relative term?

Jay: I mean it’s not — I mean "the poor" is not open to interpretation. The poor are the poor.

David: Are you talking about the definition of the poverty line?

Jay: Look, my opinion of the poor is not different than your opinion. There’s a certain fact quotient here. The fact quotient is that either one is poor or one is not. One may disagree on the standards, but the fact is somewhere, somehow, there’s a definition of what it means to be rich, much as there’s a definition to be what it is to be poor.

David: Well, I would suggest then that you –

Jay: What are you after? What do you want me to tell you?

David: Basically, I want you to admit that you said something stupid for once. Why can’t you just do that? Why is it so hard for you to be confronted with something stupid that you said and say "you know, gee, that was a dumb thing to say. I take it back."

Jay: I don’t take it back. I was clearly — I was clearly trying to have fun with everyone when I said words to the effect that poor people are boring and they don’t bathe a lot. Now, if you can’t be — Is that something you might maybe hear on Saturday Night Live or someplace else?

David: You don’t hold yourself out as a comedian, Jay. You hold yourself out as one who offers social commentary and wisdom.

Jay: I’m asking you, is it reasonable that you might hear someone say that — Is it reasonable that you might hear, say, Eddie Murphy, or Chris Rock say that in the course of their performances?

David: It’s totally irrelevant whether they would say it or not. I’m not going to answer that question –

Jay: Totally irrelevant quickly is –

[At this point Jay hung up on me. I was unable to get to a radio in time to hear the final comments he made before going to commercial or the next caller.]

This is classic Severin:

• He ridicules callers who disagree with him if they don’t know the dictionary definition of words like racist, bigot, and discriminate. He lights into people when they things like "what I mean by sexist is…" But he refuses to define a word that he brought into the conversation, and even refuses to admit that "poor" is a relative term. Is someone with a $25,000 salary and $2,000 in the bank poor? In some places yes, in some places no. Jay, if I ever hear you roll out that "words have meaning" line again, I’m going to call you a hypocrite. And I’ll be right.
• When trapped, he tries to counter his opponent by changing the subject and demanding yes or no answers to irrelevant questions. The Saturday Night Live thing was typical. Fortunately, I didn’t take the bait.
• He will note that politicians’ true sentiments are conveyed in off-hand remarks, and he may have a point there. But in this case he tried to simultaneously stand by and distance himself from his own outrageous, off-hand remarks. You can’t have it both ways, Jay.
• He seems to pride himself on his debating skills, yet he makes fundamental errors that most of his listeners either can’t or won’t point out. He scoffs at the (conveniently unnamed) Democrats who define "rich" as anyone with household income over $75,000. By that logic, $75,000 is too low; one shouldn’t be considered rich unless one has household income of perhaps $100,000 or $200,000. And he seems to think there’s a pretty clear division between being rich and being poor. So in other words, Jay, you think that all people making less than $100,000 or $200,000 — that is to say, the vast, vast majority of Americans — are boring and smell bad. Is that right, Jay?

Jay could have taken it like a man and left it at that. But after the 6:00 news, he felt it necessary to further impugn my credibility, referring to me as an unemployed wanker. I’ll post the transcript of that bit when I get a chance. I’m actually NOT unemployed, so I may not get to it right away.

The pundits on CNN (including my former babysitter) are pretty good when they talk about the complexities of the presidential campaign. They talk about proportional voting, congressional districts, the difference between regular delegates and superdelegates, and so forth. But the visuals tell a completely different story. The largest graphics on the set are the national maps where the “winner’s” color gets spread over an entire state, regardless of the margin of victory. Even when the delegate counts are shown, there is rarely a clear distinction between regular and superdelegates.

The Republican race is over, so I don’t much care what they do about that. But the Democratic campaign is going to be the closest imaginable. The viewers deserve visual representations of the battle for delegates that don’t oversimplify and mislead.

We’ve all seen the red state / blue state maps. That’s essentially what CNN is using now. But how about something that shows not only final result but margin of victory. For example, take a look at this map of the 2004 presidential election from Electoral-Vote.com — the darker the color, the bigger the win:

Or maybe a true district-by-district map, like this one by Mark Newman that shows us the party affiliation of the current House of Representatives:

If CNN can assemble the best political team on television, they ought to be able to spring for some decent cartographers.

Dear political interviewers:

Can you please explain to me exactly what you’re trying to do during this primary season? Because it sure seems to me that you have little interest in helping your viewers make an informed, intelligent decision in the voting booth. Instead, it seems that your chief concern is to ensure that you get people tuning in every night to watch the cockfights that you are staging.

Please do us a favor and stop asking questions that candidates can’t answer without provoking a new round of squabbling. It’s obvious that the candidates don’t want to get those questions, but I think you somehow interpret their reluctance to respond as a sign that you are onto something important that we, the voters, need to know. That’s really not the case. We don’t need our politicians boiled down to nasty caricatures of themselves, nor do we want this election to be about one or two decisions that any of these folks made 5, 10, or 20 years ago.

What we need is a better understanding of how these people will behave once they stop campaigning and start governing. I’m not talking about specific policies. We all know that any action requiring legislation is going to end up a lot different from what the next president originally proposes. So don’t ask whether a certain number should be $100 billion or $150 billion, or whether a health care plan would cover 98% or 99% of the public.

Instead, how about asking the following:

• Who are your top domestic and foreign policy advisors right now? Whose counsel would you seek in those areas if you are elected?
• Generally speaking, under what circumstances should the will of the majority be trumped by the rights of the individual or the minority?
• When you get conflicting advice from people whose opinions you trust and respect equally, how do you make a decision?
• Sometimes it’s necessary to make short-term sacrifices for long-term gains. But it’s hard to get popular support for anything that causes short-term hardships. How would you get the American public to rally behind programs that might be painful to swallow?
• Does the United States have any responsibility to pursue policies that might improve the lives of people in other countries at the expense of its own citizens’ well-being? If so, give some examples and explain why this is appropriate. If not, what are some current or past examples of policies in this arena that have been wrongly pursued?
• What kind of person should be nominated to the federal judiciary in general and to the Supreme Court in particular?
• When is it appropriate for the president to use a signing statement to reinterpret or even negate legislation that has just been enacted?
• It is inconceivable that the United States would ever allow a foreign government to establish a military base on U.S. soil. Generally speaking, without specific reference to Iraq, when, where, and why is it appropriate to have U.S. military bases established on foreign soil?
• If a current federal law conflicts with your religious beliefs, would you work to have that law overturned or perhaps simply unenforced? Why or why not?

If you like those questions, give me a call. I’m sure I can think of some more. And yes, I will submit these questions at Politico.com.

As I saw the headline about today’s arguments regarding lethal injection, it occurred to me that this year’s campaign has been uncharacteristically quiet about the judicial branch. Where are all the questions about activist judges, litmus tests, strict constructionists, and so on? Just because none of the current SCOTUS justices are currently in intensive care doesn’t mean there won’t be a vacancy or two in the next four years. And we’ve got oodles of openings in lower courts. Why is nobody talking about this?