Howdy!


OK, this is good. My fanatical followers (hi mom!) will remember that my last blog was about the hate speech that can be found at the outer fringes (or inner-fringes, or right smack in the middle...) of right-wing talk radio. I provided some examples of such vitriol from, among others, a radio host named Andrew Wilkow. I pointed out that he had referred to gay people as "filthy sodomites" and called poor people "parasites." I posted my blog and retired for my nightly Calgon bubble bath (pachysandra scented!)

This morning I leave a hearing on criminal justice in Philadelphia and lollop into my car for the 2 hour ride to Harrisburg. I turned on my Satellite radio. OK, I was listening to Dr. Phil if you must know. But about 10 minutes into my ride I get a call from someone who tells me I need to switch on Sirius Patriot, the right-wing talk channel.

I did, and the first thing I heard was someone screaming "What do you think of that Senator Daylin Leach" out of my speakers. And I thought, hey, wait a minute! How many Daylin Leaches could there be? And how many of them are Senators?? Four, five at the most? I began to think this might be about me.

It turns out that Mr. Wilkow had somehow gotten hold of my blog and was commenting on it. He then spent the next hour or so either replying to or referring to me. I must say that it made for most excellent listening for my long ride to Dauphin County.

I'd also note that for being a public figure who routinely calls other people names and attacks their patriotism, intelligence and motives, Mr. Wilkow has awfully thin skin. I mean, this may shock people, but I actually get a bit of criticism myself occasionally, on everything from my views on same-sex marriage to my wardrobe (OK, mostly my wardrobe). I don't stew about it for hours.

Even when folks called in on unrelated conspiracy theories, Wilkow would come back to me. So we heard a lot of phone calls like this:

Caller

Andrew, is it true that the Federal Reserve was

created by a satanic pact between Walter Mondale

and George Clooney?



Wilkow

Absolutely, to perpetuate Socialism. What do you think

of that, DAYLIN LEACH???



Or

Caller

Hey, Andrew. Love the show. Wasn't Nancy Pelosi

actually in the Russian Politburo from 1977-1982?



Wilkow

She sure was, to further Socialism. Do you get it,

SENATOR LEACH???



(Satire alert: If Mr. Wilkow is reading this, the above conservations were satire, and not meant to allege actual quotes. A difficult distinction to grasp, I acknowledge)



Be that as it may, lets explore the merits of what Mr. Wilkow said.

First, he took great umbrage because, as he put it, "I did not call gay people 'filthy sodomites'. I called Perez Hilton a "Vile Sodomite". Oh no. I missed up. My bad. He said "Vile Sodomites" not "Filthy Sodomites." I have wronged Mr. Wilkow. Because if he had said "Filthy Sodomites" that would have been bigoted, ugly, repulsive and sick. Whereas "Vile Sodomites" is a happy-go-lucky, not-offensive-at-all term of endearment.

And of course by saying "sodomites" I'm sure Mr. Wilkow was not referring to Mr Hilton being gay. He would never use this term as a nasty pejorative frequently used by gay-bashing bigots. He was probably referring to Hilton's hair-style or his taste in pungent cheeses.

I must hand it to Mr. Wilkow, this is a brilliant defense. I used it myself frequently when I practiced criminal law. I would just say to the jury "My client didn't shoot the victim in the head, he merely cut off the victim's head with a rotary saw." and the jury would say "Gosh, why didn't you say so sooner?" and set my man free.

Mr. Wilkow's second point was that he never said that poor people were "parasites" He actually did. I heard him. But his point remains the same. Mr. Wilkow never said poor people were "parasites." Instead, as he explained today, he merely said that poor people had a "parasitic relationship" to the rest of society. Wow.

It was quickly becoming clear to me that I was dealing with the master of distinctions without a difference ("I never said he was bald, I said he had no hair on his head!").

He went on to say that since poor people take more in programs than they pay in taxes than they rely on someone else for their survival, and that is parasitic. Anyone, he said, who relies on another is parasitic.

See that's not offensive at all. Lets think of other relationships where people rely on others, at least in part for survival. One example is a child who relies on his parents. And I know if you are like me, (and apparently Andrew) you refer to your children as your "little Parasites." Or maybe you have a cute little nick name for your tots, like "Parasitalopogus" or "my little tape-worm."

Another relationship where one relies on another for survival could be the relationship one has with aging parents, or maybe a disabled person. I suppose under Mr. Wilkow's definition, they are all parasitic (but not "parasites," lets be fair!) .

In truth, most people reliant on government help are children, the elderly, and the disabled. The overwhelming majority in fact. I know I'm talking crazy Socialistic Nazism here, but I view these people as my countrymen in need of aid, my brothers and sisters who should live of decency and dignity in the richest nation in the world, not as parasitic.

It would be nice, and more interesting radio frankly, if Mr. Wilkow would have people who actually make these points on his show. But sadly, almost all of the callers to these right-wing shows refuse to say anything more challenging to the host than "mega-dittos." And what's really tragic, is that this is how some people get all of their information. It's no wonder we have people whose taxes were cut, out on the street in three-corner colonial hats protesting "higher taxes".

Mr. Wilkow did make a promise, and I intend to hold him to it. He swore that when I run for reelection in 2012, he will come and campaign for my opponent. I did pretty well last election. I defeated a well-funded opponent by a little over 24 points. But with Mr. Wilkow's promise, I see a chance to do something that very few politicians are able to accomplish. I think that if Mr. Wilkow came to my district, I have a shot of actually winning my election unanimously.

I know that will be tough. I mean 99% would be guaranteed. But those last few votes; the lady whose gazebo I accidentally knocked over into her living room window, the guy I beat up in 5th grade, my opponent himself, I'll have to work really hard for them. But with Mr. Wilkow in my district, I just may be able to do it.