Howdy!


I have discovered that one of the many collateral benefits of being mentioned on extremist right-wing talk radio is that you subsequently receive a lot of extremist right-wing blog comments and E-mails. This has several advantages. First, you know that your computer is indeed working. You also have the opportunity bask in the warm glow of the knowledge that there are many people far more insane than you. Also, I think I get USAir miles, but I'm not sure.

Because most of the people leaving messages on my blogs are anonymous, I have no way of replying to them directly. All I can do is post another blog. Either that or go to a Sarah Palin Rally and just start chatting with the all of the "Patriots" who "love America" but hate almost everyone in it. But if I want someone to wink at me and say "you betcha" a lot, I'll just hang out with "Squawkers" the plastic parrot my wife gave my for my birthday. So instead, I will reply to one point that many of my right-wing friends made in their replies to my blog.

To recap, I said that Mr. Wilkow referred to gays as "filthy sodomites". He said that he said "vile sodomites" instead (which is actually worse, if you are filthy, at least you can clean yourself up. Vile is forever) and that in any case, he wasn't referring to all gays, just one named Perez Hilton. This argument was picked up by his followers many of whom wrote a version of the following to me:

"Hey, you America hating hippie. Are you stupid, or dumb, or not very intelligent, I can't figure it out. I say stupid, but my girlfriend says dumb. My mother in law however thinks its more like an idiot...(this went on for a while). Andrew Wilkow, is absolutely right about Perez Hilton. He was not being anti-gay. Perez Hilton commits Sodomy, so he is a "sodomite", and Andrew thinks he is vile, so he is a "vile sodomite". See Andrew was technically correct. And my sister just called and said you were more of a dufus than a moron...etc.

So the argument here is that Mr. Wilkow is literally correct and therefore not being offensive at all. This is of course nonsense. But lets deconstruct it a bit.

First, before we even get into parsing the phrase, one wonders why Mr. Hilton's sexuality is even relevant. I do not know anything about Mr. Hilton. I understand he is some sort of gossip columnist. I do not read gossip columnists. Until Lindsey Lohan, or Heidi Montag or Brangelina or Bennifer start caring about my personal life, I'm not really that interested in theirs. So I have no brief for Mr. Hilton.

But whatever it is he did to piss off Mr. Wilkow (and based on Wilkow's reaction to me, it was probably saying something less than worshipful about Mr. Wilkow), it probably had nothing to do with who Mr. Hilton sleeps with. So Wilkow's choice to use any term for "gay" in connection to Hilton would be a homophobic statement. Why mention it if it isn't relevant unless you think it will cast Hilton in a negative light.

But more to the point, lets look at the term "sodomite". That is a pejorative term. Gay people do not refer to themselves as sodomites. No mainstream politician or media refers to them by that term. Only people who don't like gay people use that term.

The only other time I've heard the word is in the context of religious-right preachers talking about how gay people will all go to hell (as opposed to Pat Robertson, who swindles sick people by claiming he can heal them through their television, for whom God has prepared a special place of eternal splendor and bliss!).

It is true that when one hears the term one recognizes that it refers to gay people. I am Jewish. Historically the term "Kike" has referred to people like me. If you hear the term "Kike", you probably know the speaker is referring to a Jewish person. So if someone were to refer to a Shule-going individual as a "Vile Kike", you could argue that it is technically true. Similarly, someone could refer to Clarence Thomas as a "Vile N-Word", knowing that the N-Word is a well-known, if horrific term for black people. So you could argue that you are just being technically correct.

Along the same lines, since these folks argue that Mr. Perez does commit sodomy (I've never actually witnessed that, but I'll take their word for it) he can be appropriately referred to as a "sodomite" no matter what people think of that term. But aren't Arab-Americans insulted by people referring to them as "Camel-Jockeys". I suppose you can say that "jockeys technically ride animals" and that "camels are animals" and that some people living on the Arabian Peninsula ride camels, that using the term "Camel-Jockey" is just being literally accurate. But I wouldn't try it on a trip to Bahrain.

But could you seriously argue that you are not being offensive, hateful or bigoted? The short answer is No. Actually, the long answer is No too. So it is a bit disingenuous to say that Wilkow was just being informative when he chose to identify Mr. Hilton as gay and then use an offensive pejorative, prefaced by the term "vile". If a stupid dufus like me can put that together, surely an infallible genius, who is always right while we are always wrong could figure that out as well. And that's the end of the story.

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.

Sometimes, I treat myself to little gifts. I will see something and say to myself,  "Do you deserve this and so much more Daylin? Yes Daylin, I think you do."  My team of psychiatrists thinks I should put into my mind a "new tape". One that focuses more on "others" and less on "self". So I tried that. When I saw my friend had a new Satellite radio installed in his car, I played the new tape: "Do others think you deserve this and so much more Daylin? Yes Daylin, I think they do". And you know what, my psychiatrists were right. That did feel better.


So I got the Sirius Satellite Radio, which includes thousands of channels. For music there are all kinds of niche channels, including one that plays Bruce Springsteen and another that plays the Grateful Dead non-stop. My personal favorite is the Wang Chung channel where everybody gets to Wang Chung tonight and every night, all night long. But when I'm not listening to Wang Chung (or Wang and Chung individually, after the breakup) I find myself listening to a channel called "Sirius Patriot". This is the right-wing talk radio channel.

I expected to disagree with the commentary on the Patriot Channel. I'd heard Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly before. Sure, they brought the crazy with them in a big green duffel bag. But nothing prepared me for what I heard on Patriot. This was crazy unplugged. This was the unrated director's cut. This is not only your crazy uncle off of his meds, this was your crazy uncle on meth in a circus cannon. And when I start using metaphors that even I don't understand, you know things are getting out of hand.

The hosts on Patriot do not feel bound by the admittedly loose rules of broadcast television or radio. They feel no need to preface the list of people they hate with a pro-forma "I'm not saying I hate anybody". For example, there is a host named Andrew Wilkow who I sensed was possessed of some reluctance to support gay rights. My first clue was the fact that he refers to gay people as "Filthy Sodomites". At first I thought he was being ironic, like when I refer to Larry King as "an attractive youngster" (yeah, I do that a lot). But nope. He calls gay people "filthy sodomites" because, as he explains it, "they are filthy and commit sodomy". At least he's linguistically consistent.

One thing Mr. Wilkow is not is open to different perspectives. The slogan of his show, screamed at every commercial break is "We're right, they're wrong. End of Story!!, which I must say is more punchy and effective than the liberal equivalent often whispered on NPR, "We're intrepid, they're Jejune, lets start a dialogue!".

Subtlety is also elusive on shows hosted by people like Mark Levin and Mike Church, who feels that "Obama-bot-Zombies" (a great name for a ska band incidentally) are leading this country towards a "Nazi, Maoist Hellhole" with such radical proposals as marginally increasing the gas mileage of cars in a way the car companies have agreed to. I had no idea this was what Maoist Nazis were all about. I knew the Maoists liked hats, and massive, violent transfers of city-dwellers to agrarian collectives, using summary executions and planned starvation as a tool.

And as a Jew, I thought I was pretty clear on what the Nazis were all about. Who know both of these groups had, as their true agenda more accessible health care and better oversight of industrial pollution? I guess my German was just too poor to realize that "Mein Kampf translated into "My Arts Funding". Also, when you think of the jackbooted thugs of dictatorship, does Harry Reid really come to mind? Do you remember the old Romper Room game "Which of these things is not like the other"? Lets try that now. Which of these things just isn't the same:: Genghis Kahn, Caligula, Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Russ Feingold?

Of course, while hate courses through these shows, the Patriot hosts get very offended when you blame them for threats and violence. They are shocked and appalled by the suggestion that if they tell millions of people of varying degrees of sanity that Obama and the Democrats are trying to take their guns so they can round them up, steal all their money, give it to gay welfare recipients and then heard them, their families and all Christian "True Americans" into labor camps to support the Socialist Utopian Leviathan, that somebody listening might get pissed!

It's like when I was in third grade, and I'd tell the schoolyard Bully (which was his actual name) that the weakest kid in the class called him a wuss and said he could take him (I also did this in law school incidentally). The Bully would then beat up the weak kid to a pulp, and I would stomp on his glasses. I would then act SHOCKED when the teacher accused me of contributing to the violence. Then I'd cry, and the bully would beat me up, and the teacher would stomp on my glasses. Hence the team of psychiatrists we discussed earlier.

The simple fact is that the Andrew Wilkows and Glen Becks of the world are just ignorant demagogues who foreseeably, if not intentionally incite people to violence (and Sarah Palin is their less intelligent but more perky enabler) There have been others in history, but I had hoped and thought that America had matured beyond their ilk. Clearly I was wrong. But do we have an obligation to continually call these people out for what they are? Yes Daylin, I think we do.

This blog is now located at http://daylinl.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://daylinl.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

There are, in this world, a number of things people just take for granted. The sky is blue, wheat is a plant, all of the proposed political reforms in Pennsylvania are good. The weird fact however is, that absolutely none of these pieces of conventional wisdom are at all true (except for the first two).


As a co-chair of the Senate Cost-Cutting Commission I have seen the hundreds of E-mails we solicited asking citizens to suggest ways to cut costs in state government. A percentage of E-mails are interesting, by which I mean BOTH kinds of interesting. The interesting that leads you to say "Wow, that's a really good idea", and the other kind of interesting which leads you to say "Wow, One of Xenu's Planets is missing some of its Body Thetans". But by far, the most common suggestions (about 8 out of ten) are some variation of the following:

"I have an idea on how to cut costs. How about we start by cutting legislator's pay...to ZERO!! Then, lets cut the size of the legislature, term-limit them, make them part-time, eliminate their pensions and their health care and stop reimbursing them for mileage and hotels. Then, when all that's done, lets cut the pipes on their water fountains. Who the hell are they to get water just because they are thirsty. And the heat, lets get rid of that too. Oh, and if there's a way to make their shoes too tight...etc."

I'm sure it feels good to bash legislators. We have chosen a profession where part of the job description is being called stupid, corrupt, insane, incompetent, smarmy perverts. People can even call us these things anonymously. There is something very empowering about sitting in your underwear in your mother's basement, eating Cheetos and typing your musings into a computer ("I SAID, I'll be done in a minute MOM!!"). Anyway, where was I? Oh yes...smarmy perverts. Right.

The problem with the "legislators are bad people" meme is that it is almost entirely untrue. And the "reforms" based on it are almost all really bad ideas which would do great damage to our state. I know this is not a popular position to take, but if I cared about being popular, I'd probably drop my "Apple Pie Sucks" crusade.

First, I've seen firsthand that the overwhelming majority of people you elect to represent you are very smart, extremely honest, competent, hard-working people who care a great deal about making Pennsylvania a better place. There are bad apples (which incidentally make bad pies) like there are in any profession. There are bad plumbers (see "Joe the...), bad butchers (see ...of Seville) and bad goat herders (see...uh...Harvey the Bad Goat Herder). But when the press write that the PA Legislature is corrupt, they are taking the bad exception and disingenuously making it the rhetorical rule.

Most of us have never given or received a bonus for political work and I frankly have never even been offered a bribe. Although people have offered me money to "go away and leave me alone" that pre-dates my political career and doesn't directly impact public policy. Further, the budget didn't pass late because we are lazy, or forgot about it. It passed late because we have divided government with sincere and strongly-felt disagreements about the role of government. In other words, the budget passed late because individual legislators were fighting to do what the people of their districts elected them to do, whether that be cutting taxes or fighting to save important programs.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against all reform. I believe that if we instituted 2 reforms, we would solve 90% of our political problems. Specifically, we need to end political gerrymandering (which is, incidentally, my bill) and publicly finance campaigns so elected officials don't have to ask people they represent for money. As for the rest of the reforms, here's a quick primer on why they are bad ideas:

Term Limits - It's amazing to me that people who spend so much time complaining that politicians have too much power, support this obscene power grab. I have never been to Venango County, mostly because they have an Apple Pie Festival each year and I can't be a part of such an abomination. But it seems to me that the people of Venango County should be the ones to pick their representatives, not me. If I voted for term limits, I'd be telling the Apple Pie Queen and the rest of the Venangoians that even if they like their Senator, I know better and I am going to prohibit them from choosing who they want.

Aside from being anti-democratic, term limits result in people running the legislature who have only been there for a couple of years. I prefer to have someone who has been through a few things as Speaker or President Pro Tempore of the Senate, rather than some dude who is still saying things like "uh..how do you get to the men's room?" or "uh...how do you get out of the men's room?"

Shrinking the legislature - It is important to note that we already have one of the smallest legislatures in the nation, judged by the only reasonable measure of such things, which is how many people we each represent. It's not very revealing to say that we have more legislators than Idaho. There are no people in Idaho. Literally. No people. Not one. Most people don't know that. Except for in Idaho, where everyone, which is no one, knows that. The average state Senator in America represents 160,000 people. Pennsylvania Senators represent 275,000. Making the districts bigger would only mean poorer constituent service, concentration of power in fewer hands, and districts which are easier to Gerrymander and marginalize groups of voters.

Part-time legislature - This is the dumbest idea of all. Lets say you were getting brain surgery, either medicinal or cosmetic, doesn't matter. Would you rather have a full-time Brain surgeon or a guy who sells Lazy-Boy recliners full time, but cracks open a cranium for a few days every other year? Whether you like the results or not, legislators do important work. They decide how our education system works as well as numerous complicated health care programs. They make life or death decisions involving capitol punishment or abortion, they run our state's transportation system. I prefer that the person who does that spends all of their time learning, reading, studying, talking to interested parties and experts and debating these critical issues rather than someone who pops by every few months and says "So, the state pensions need fixin', I guess I can squeeze that in before lunch. I have to show a Buick LaSabre this afternoon."

When I talk to people who favor these reforms, it really all comes down to one thing. Most of the time, people don't like the policy result on some issue. They may think abortion shouldn't be legal, or that there should be more gun control or their taxes are too high. And they are mad that the world is not as it should be. So they think that by hurting legislators they will be avenging an evil policy decision (or a series of them). But the fact is, that they will really just be punishing their state.

If you can't get enough of my views on political reform, WAMS or redistericting reform, you can read my editorials on my Senate web site: www.senatorleach.com/media/editorials

Daylin