That’s “Entertainment?”

Why are there never any Word Police around when you need them?

First off, a couple of ground rules. Not gonna use my subject’s real name. For one thing, I don’t want to add to the social media echo chamber validating his empty existence. I do that, and the terrorist wins! And for another, I don’t want any of his acolytes finding me while doing a search for their hero’s name, and leaving hateful, misspelled, all-caps comments that common decency would compel me expend time eliminating.

Also, just as a writing exercise, it should be a challenge. It will be like writing about the Lorax without using the words short, orange or tree-hugger.

Second rule: No ad hominem attacks. Not only is it poor sportsmanship and lazy writing, but in this fellow’s case, nothing I say—no matter how devilishly clever!—is going to make him come off any worse than will simply repeating his own remarks. The reader may draw their own conclusions as to his relative character without me having to furnish them with a blueprint.

I am referring to recent comments made by a popular radio “shock jock” where he called a young woman who testified to Congress a slut. Repeatedly. And at length. It was like listening to a Tourette’s sufferer having a bad moment, on auto-loop.

Third rule is, I will also not mention prescription drug abuse, as it is not part of this story. Not directly. That we know of. That can be corroborated. Although it would go a long way to explaining such erratic behavior…

Before I get serious though, one quick digression: When I was coming up, me and my fellow juvenile delinquents always distinguished sluts from whores as ‘sluts do it for free.’ A whore, by common definition, expected payment for her services; sluts, likewise by definition, did not. The fact that, in this radio personality’s experience, apparently even sluts made him fork over the long green before they’d make the acquaintance of his short pink speaks volumes about the man.

God, no wonder he seems to hate women so much. If he didn’t, he’d stop serially marrying them. (Maureen Dowd reported this morning that The Radio Personality is so wealthy, he could afford Elton John to play his fourth wedding. My question to Elton John is: How much fucking money do you need to have? It would be like Henny Youngman agreeing to play Oktoberfest at The Eagle’s Nest because the money was right.)

That having been said… His hateful harangue falls well within the limits of that which is protected by the First Amendment.

Nor am I shocked that this particular fellow is seething with rage that is just looking for a host-organism to attack and live off of for a while. It’s what he does for a living. Come on! This is still America; a man’s got a right to earn a living.

Remember his Michael J Fox impression? In my mind, he would be hard-pressed to equal or surpass that, and this just doesn’t. Not even going so far as to suggest that young women receiving government-subsidized birth control be required to film and post internet porn videos as a quid pro quo to America’s decent, hard-working taxpayers.

Disgusting, sure. Nothing I want my six-year-old son to hear (too late, thanks Today Show!) but hardly shocking. More revealing, really, as a peek into The Radio Personality’s world view; again, if women are having sex, The Radio Personality expects money to change hands.

Anyhow, he hasn’t shocked me since the Parkinson’s Impersonation Incident. And even then, I was more shocked at the people who, eh, hurried, to his defense. Folks, some shit is reprehensible, even when celebrities you usually admire do or say it.

God, I hate party fealty.

Back on point: What I did find surprising at first was how eager this right-wing icon was to turn the national conversation to a topic that is historically a loser for his fan-base, until it was pointed out to me that this fellow’s business is better, a lot better, when he is playing offense than defense. Specifically, if Obama were to lose the election, he would have to go back to defending unpopular decisions of the new GOP administration, instead of attacking every single position of the current administration.

A GOP ass-kicking in November would really lift this Republican standard-bearer’s boat, and he figured it out way before I did. Kudos!

My real quibble is with calling this person an entertainer. That’s the standard GOP office-holder response to the increasingly hateful, ridiculous pronouncements of The Radio Personality: Oh, he’s just an entertainer.

I don’t even care that they’re dodging their complicity-by-omission by not repudiating his comments. Politicians’ moral shortcomings have also long-since lost their shock value.

But how is what The Radio Personality does by any definition entertaining? I’ve heard a bunch of his shtick, and I’d use a lot of robust adjectives to describe it, but “entertaining” would never be one of them.

Dennis Miller, with whom I disagree politically, is entertaining. So is Bill O’Reilly. Even Glenn Beck is entertaining. George Will is terrifically entertaining. Sam Kinison, with whom I disagreed on almost every political issue of the day, was entertaining as hell disagreeing with me.

But all The Radio Personality does is spew venom. It’s not clever wordplay. There is no structure; no set-up, build-up, punchline… Just wrath. 

Call him an agitator. Call him a rabble-rouser. Call him a well-intentioned patriot, if you must. By some definitions, he could be any of these.

But I’ll be damned if I can think of any honest way I could describe what he does as entertaining.