****Note: This post is rife with links which will only work if you are on the page itself (ie. not a blog reader)
Yesterday was the last broadcast of the World Soccer Daily radio show/podcast, a program I have listened to for a few years and about which I have posted several times over that period. Host Steven Cohen announced that the decision was based upon threats to himself, his staff and his family by Liverpool fans.
He got crosswise with several official LFC supporters groups over a period of years in which he said some pretty controversial things about the 1989 Hillsborough tragedy in which 96 people were crushed to death by their fellow fans. His opinions were in part based on his impression of Liverpool fan's involvement in football hooliganism during the 70's and 80's and also the Heysel Stadium deaths which also involved LFC fans. These were the origins of the rift between Steven and LFC but in the past few months it has gotten much larger than that.
Liverpool supporters groups began a boycott about 5 months ago after Steven made some demonstrably false statements that he was forced to retract. It involved people contacting WSD's sponsors and asking them to either support what Cohen was saying (and thus be the subject of a boycott) or pull their sponsorship from his show. It was largely effective and many major sponsors did withdraw their support.
Since then the boycott has turned to getting Cohen off the air completely - which was achieved this week. So that's the situation and here are my thoughts....
Whatever off the cuff statements he may have made, Steven has been consistently clear on several points about Hillsborough:
- He has always expressed sympathy for the victims and their families
- He acknowledges that Hillsborough justice groups are right in their suggestions that both Hillsborough stadium officials and the Sheffield Police bear most of the responsibility for the tragedy
- He doesn't believe that the fans whose desire to get into the stadium eventually led to their compatriots' deaths acted maliciously and purposely caused the tragedy
- He does feel that anytime - not just at Hillsborough - people are crushed to death by their fellow man, those who were part of the crowd must accept some measure of responsibility
Over the past few years on WSD these have been consistent points in all discussions about the topic. His claims may not be true or substantiated by the facts but they are, in reality, only his opinions.
Steven has claimed that the success of this boycott is a victory for censorship and a defeat for freedom of expression.
I cannot agree with this assessment. Steven Cohen was free to share his beliefs about Hillsborough and in the same way LFC supporters groups are free to share their displeasure in the form of a boycott and contacting sponsors. WSD has been condemned by some of the biggest names in the football world including Liverpool FC itself, Chelsea FC, Heineken (main Champion's League sponsor), 4-4-2 Magazine and others. It's hard to gauge the importance of this but it certainly gives credibility to the boycott side of the debate. That said, when it comes to actual freedom of expression, neither the government nor any other regulatory institution was involved (or asked to be involved) in any way.
If this situation had ended as a battle between two instances of free expression then so be it, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Steven and Kenny [Hassan, Steven's co-host] have made the claim that threats of violence have been made against them and their families. From the other side I have read that those on the Liverpool supporters' side have faced similar threats from WSD loyalists. Steven and Kenny have read out hateful and anti-Semitic emails purported to come from LFC supporters. "Tony from New Mexico," a former regular caller to the show, says that he has an FBI case number as proof of the threats he has received based on an on-air falling out with the hosts.
These things are unacceptable but I have no way of substantiating any of these claims. Thus, while the claims of threats are relevant to the truth behind the situation, it doesn't really do anything for the discussion.
Conclusion:
After all of that, here is what I think....
Based on years of listening I suspect (though I've never met him) that Steven can be a snarky and unpleasant kind of person if you get on his bad side. Once the LFC contingent did so in trying to get a retraction, it turned into a tit for tat conflict that spiraled down to where we find ourselves today.
I think that Steven's opinion on Hillsborough is a bit muddled and intermixed with a life long dislike of Liverpool as a place and football team. He makes some valid points but he is also prone to making outlandish statements which are not designed to be constructive.
I hate the idea that this involved actual anti-Semitism or intentional and blatant attacks on the memory of 96 innocents who died but I also think that people need to get thicker skin. Just because you dislike what a person says doesn't mean it needs to turn into a 'campaign' or claim that your ethnicity is under assault.
I also think that LFCNY and all those involved in this campaign have done themselves and all of us US footy fans a great disservice. This is the only show of its type. Even in the UK I don't know of another daily show, let alone one that could get the quality of guests that were regulars on WSD.
I relied on it for much of my football education - not just of the current game but also the history and tradition. They have robbed many ardent fans of an outlet and a forum. It seems to me that because these types of supporters groups have been able to silence dissent so effectively in the UK, it was inconceivable that someone might break the code of silence in the US.
I'm not crying about their demise - Steven made his bed and he has to sleep in in - but I enjoyed their program and will miss it. That's moderation. I'm not going nuts on either side and isn't that where most of us usually stand on things?
Tammi and Slicky, you are free to vent here about LFC supporters and the situation.
Posts
This is a thoughtful and well put together set of thoughts. Whilst I am slightly biased being a Liverpool fan - I believe that Mr Cohen forgot the gold rule - Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword. If you are happy to build your popularity and express your views on the internet then you must be prepared for the backlash of the Internet.
ReplyDeleteThose people who supported the campaign against Mr Cohen were expressing their free speech as much as Mr Cohen was doing it.
Take Care all and lay off the HaterAde!
Frank, respectfully I actually did make all of those same points... Sorry if the post itself was too long for you to bother reading.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm an LFC supporter as well.
I won't group all LFC supporters together, but the ones that are responsible for some of this are cowardly children who hide behind keyboards. They are pathetic excuses for men, and are nothing more than children who should grow a pair.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't even like Steven! But I have listened to every minute of the podcast since Sept 07, and while I may consider myself smarter than some, it doesn't take a high percentage of brain cells to see when people completely jump the shark.
Tony from NM is a testosteronely challenged man - you could tell that from the times when he still called into the show. I did enjoy the people who claimed that they were contacting the FCC and filing lawsuits to get WSD off the air. Morons. The FCC never had Steven on anything and a lawsuit wouldn't pass the laugh test. My irritation with this lies solely in the fact that a group of (fill in your own word here) will now think they have won, and sit like a bunch of armchair quarterbacks (excuse the sports crossover) pretending that they are nothing more than children who never got to sit with the cool kids in high school.
I did laugh at the post I read who put a Cubs-esque curse on LFC -- no silverware for 100 years. Right now, I'm on board with that. Sorry babe - you know I don't like to root against you like that :-(
Tam,
ReplyDeleteI can respect that opinion but I must correct the record on the individuals leading this boycott thing. They have been more than willing to identify themselves (usually with photos) and their intentions. All have posted first and last names from the start and speak openly (and proudly) about what they were doing in contacting sponsors.
You can agree or disagree with their goals or methods but as far as I can tell they haven't hidden behind anything. If anything they've been more guilty of self-promotion; thriving on the attention that has turned them from provincial bit players to the center piece of the LFC world.
In my listening to WSD and looking into the LFCNY side of things I would say that Steven is the more churlish and petulant in this situation.
Your post is largely accurate but there's one fairly glaring mistake:
ReplyDeleteHe acknowledges that Hillsborough justice groups are right in their suggestions that both Hillsborough stadium officials and the Sheffield Police bear most of the responsibility for the tragedy.
That's not true at all. In the clip from WSD from Feb 20 discussing that the 2nd leg of the CL quarterfinals were scheduled for Apr 14 and 15, the latter being the 20th anniversary of Hillsborough, Cohen said:
Not only is this is a tragedy, it's a tragedy of their own doing! They've done brilliantly with this, with the Heysels and the Hillsboroughs, they've done brilliantly, they have taken events that they were solely responsible for or largely responsible for and have somehow turned the world on its head and made themselves the victims. The victims!
Steven Cohen: But no, they should not change the date for something that happened 20 years before, if they want to honor them than have a ceremony before kick off, get on with it! The world does not stop for Liverpool, and the events that they have created, that they are not the victims, they are the perpetrators!
Cohost: (laughs) He's trying to make up for yesterday's rant that was missed, it was a cracker.
Steven Cohen: I'm not, I'm telling you, they are the perpetrators. You are not going to change my opinion on this. And then they come out with this bollocks about "oh well we don't want to play a game on the 20th anniversary, we really want..."(makes numerous noises mocking Liverpudlian accent) Just unbelievable, they are the most despicable people. And you know who's behind this... the Hillsborough bleeding Justice group who couldn't be more corrupt and more blatantly ridiculous when they get to something like this. Play the bloody game, UEFA, don't fall for this, at the end of the day, they are just as guilty for what happened there as the police, the stadium and everything else, don't let them off the hook, they don't deserve it, and it's not a question of not respecting the 96, its not respecting the 8000 who showed up at Hillsborough without having tickets hell-bent on getting in"
That's a little different from the "consistent statements" you claimed, no?
I didn't think the day would come when I would sound like I was defending Steven....
ReplyDeletesome of the people behind it have identified themselves. Not the majority, as can be seen with some of the emails. The hate speech has been ridiculous, and the fact that those who are classless enough to promote a lot of it came out on the "winning" side of things is nothing short of pathetic in my opinion.
Could Steven have done more to smooth it over? Yes. Did he cause more problems for himself in some of his reactions? Absolutely.
But the only thing he was wrong about, he retracted. The rest is his opinion. The report isn't even a good comeback because there are "reports" about 9/11 that are a farce (not saying the Taylor report is a farce, just that you can't totally rely on something just because it says "report").
He has his opinion. If you don't like it, change the channel. People who don't like Howard Stern and Ann Coulture do it all the time. It's pretty easy. Most of us learned it when we were young. Turns out I have the ability to think for myself, and I mistakenly believed that it was a widespread ability.
Like I said, my frustration lies with the fact that a small group of people felt the need to inflict their views on everyone else -- they did the real damage to the memory of the victims, but don't tell them that. They might boycott me. Not that any of them give a toss about the African continent, so I shouldn't be worried.....
Horace, I stand corrected. I won't even bother to check your quote since I recall the show and the statement.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest I was referring more to his orchestrated statements than his rants, at least giving him the benefit of the doubt that when he gets going, he says things off-the-cuff that he hadn't really thought through. He often deals in hyperbole and as such I didn't really take what he was saying very seriously. Still, the fact remains that he did say that and I heard him say it. Thanks for the correction.
Tammi,
I was referring to the organizers. I was careful in the post to make a distinction between the organized boycott by the leaders of the campaign and whatever lunatics may interpret this as license to act like an animal. I have looked through a lot of the info by the LFC folks (forums, boards, sites, etc) and nearly every piece clearly instructs people to be civil in their disagreement.
As I said, there are people on both sides claiming threats, intimidation and hatred and I'm not going to wade into "he said, she said."
Valid point on the distinction, and I agree. However even the organizers, who you are correct in that they are clearly identified, also seem to have selective hearing and as such have turned this into a level of insanity. In statements on all sorts of websites, the leaders of the boycott have said things that make me think they never listened to the show on their own and only read someone else's cliffs notes versions of the show. And yes, most of the official people have stated their desire for the response to be civil, but just because they can take half a sentence out of context and act like it was a complete thought doesn't mean they have a leg to stand on. They are just as responsible for instigating the stupid people who don't think for themselves.
ReplyDeleteJust like you, I have listened to every minute, so it isn't like we formulate our respective opinions by taking other people's word for it. If Steven actually said (in context) 1/2 of what he has been quoted as saying, I might boycott him as well. But just doing it to instigate things is where my respect flies out of the window.
Oh yeah, and there are a few thugs on WSD's side of the aisle who also need to grow a pair and stop lowering themselves to meet the other side head on. No question about that.
And again I ask, how hard is it to change the channel?
Tam,
ReplyDeleteI also just remembered that ever since Steven started talking about the threats, the LFC guys (again, the public face of the boycott) had offered to help WSD track down the offenders if Steven was willing to give them IP and email addresses. They promised to make sure that those people were kicked out of any LFC supporters club over which they presided. Apparently none were given.
This is what I meant about Steven. I'm still upset that we lost the show but from listening to him and reading about both perspectives, Cohen comes off as by far the less sympathetic character.
And that's your opinion, which shockingly enough...you are entitled to!! Who knew?!?!?
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that it is entirely accurate about no emails being given to some of the boycott organizers, but that's going to get into the he said-she said nonsense.
Anytime free speech (that isn't hate speech) loses out to a minority, my sympathies will always lie with the speech. Not with Cohen, but with the fact that a small group of people think they actually won something.
I could see forgiving Cohen for a one time rant but he's made similar comments on numerous occasions. The first one I remember hearing on Fox Fone-In was probably about three years ago. Each time Cohen would say something inflammatory, apologize the following show, and then wait until it died down before making the same comments. The LFC groups didn't organize a boycott until after the Feb 20 comments so Cohen had two years to get his act together.
ReplyDeleteThe most damning part for me, and why the "if you don't like it, change the channel" comments don't hold water is that Chelsea even went so far as to condemn his comments, stating:
"We have distanced ourselves and will continue to distance ourselves from any comments that disrespect the memory of Hillsborough. We can see no benefit of giving him legitimacy by the club singling him out. Giving Mr. Cohen oxygen is the worst thing we could do. He is not a representative, nor ever has been a representative of the club."
One final note is that Cohen subtly threatened that "Tony from New Mexico" that was leading the boycott--after reading his name on the air, Cohen said in an email to Tony that he wanted to wish Tony's wife a happy birthday on the 24th. Telling a random person you know his wife's birthday is a fairly implicit threat, and if someone mentioned Cohen's children's birthday or some other personal detail, I'd have no problem with him turning over the IP addresses to get to the bottom of it.
Anyone using the words "free speech," "censorship," or "first amendment" in this discussion really needs to take high school civics. These terms all apply to governmental restriction of free speech. At no point did the government silence Steven Cohen. Steven Cohen is still free to express his opinion wherever he likes, he may just have a problem finding advertisers.
ReplyDeleteHorace, I saw it, I read it, and that was Tony's opinion to take it as a threat. He can react to that how he wants, regardless of the fact that I disagree with it. It's his life, he can respond how he wants.
ReplyDeleteAnd the change the channel statement will always hold water in this country. It would have held the same amount of water as if Chelsea supported him. The fact is that grown people always have a choice in what they listen to, and to abdicate that responsibility is just apathetic. If you have any question about the water-holding property of the concept, please check out the battle between Fox News and CNN. It holds water legally, metaphorically, and practically.
The thing is, what you decide to believe in this is your opinion as well -- I wouldn't try and tell you or anyone else what to think about it. That's my entire point. When people say things that offend me, I choose not to listen or remove myself from the situation, and don't understand why others don't see that as an adult and valid response.
And before you get into high school civics, keep in mind you are talking to a lawyer -- my constitutional law classes and practical experience will, in fact, trump high school civics. I respectfully encourage you to pick a different battle.
I suggest you keep in mind you're speaking to a Supreme Court justice (obviously I can't post under my real name) which trumps your mere con law classes. I am somewhat morbidly curious how you think "free speech" is relevant when private companies decide to withdraw advertising because of comments made on a radio program? Feel free to use Wikipedia as a reference, it's one of the more popular legal guides for internet lawyers:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Horace,
ReplyDeleteYou may be well informed on the specifics of the case but you'll struggling with debating the subtitles of law with Tammi. No one has mentioned the 1st Amendment or censorship here so let's not put up strawmen in the midst of a perfectly enjoyable debate.
That said, I'll take it even further and say that even hate speech is free speech. The Klan is free to hold rallies (at their own idiotic risk, of course) and Steven is free legally to be as hateful as Sirius, his audience and his sponsors allow him to be so long as he doesn't directly incite criminal activities. This isn't Europe where Holocaust denial is a crime and you can be arrested for making insensitive statements about sensitive groups.
And there you have it. Lack of understanding just dropped to the level of childish banter, and I will no longer engage you in it. Have a nice day arguing with yourself -- I find myself well sorted in my accurate and legal understanding of constitutional law (and most lawyers wouldn't use wiki as a reference due to its inaccuracy).
ReplyDeleteHave fun with this one Matty. I am proud that you, having never sat in a law class, are right about the distinction you mentioned. Hate speech is merely a distinction of speech that is not legally protected.
hee hee -- molatin was my word :-)
For the record my last comment was written and posted prior to "Horace's" which, if it is true, does negate my statement and leaves me as the odd man out amongst all these "esquires."
ReplyDeleteOf course it also negates my previous claim that the higher echelons of the boycott revealed their true identities. haha
I will say that I must be a gifted blogger to have attracted such high-end commenters.
Regarding the letter Steven Cohen allegedly received, about a month ago, he read on air an email which supposedly came from a member of an "official Liverpool supporters club" that contained various anti-Semitic remarks, possibly threats as well. LFCNY asked a) how Cohen knew the author was a member of an LFC supporters group and b) for a copy of the email with full headers in order to try to identify the offender by the IP address. Cohen didn't pursue the matter any further with LFCNY.
ReplyDelete"Freedom of speech" is specifically mentioned in the first amendment and the person who mentioned it later specifically mentioned con law. I would like to know how Cohen's right to free speech was infringed upon. Free speech issues are not germane to the discussion because the government was not involved unless the FCC somehow stepped in without my knowledge.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, I had no role in the boycott myself, and today's actually the first time I've ever posted on the subject of Steven Cohen because other people were doing a good enough job. I think it's repugnant that I have yet to read a single internet post outside of ones from LFC supporters that's anything but sympathetic towards Cohen when Cohen has done nothing remotely deserving of sympathy.
OK, the only reason I will make one more comment is because I just can't have the law mutilated like this.
ReplyDeleteI will make it very simple and then not address you again.
The government does not have to be involved for it to be a free speech issue. The doctrine can apply to purely commercial speech as well.
Supreme court justices would know that ;-) You can read up on the rest yourself, although I wouldn't recommend wikipedia.
That's it! Can't wait to hear what Slick says -- he will laugh when he reads this string.
Thank you Tammi.
ReplyDeleteHorace?
Well, having read each and every comment on this particular post - I will add this.
ReplyDeleteI'm saddened to hear about WSD. I never did get the opportunity to listen to it, as I while I've made it to the blogosphere, I rarely venture into podcasts - my loss I know. For those of you who loved WSD, my sincere condolences - as I too long for intelligent and credical sports discussions.
To the consideration of hate speech, I will not entertain you with my legal chops (due some academic violations of a classmate - he stoll my final paper and gave it to his roommate - I only received a "C" in my con-law class), but I regret the perception and reality of racism and anti-semitism that is pervasive in Soccer.
While the US is not without racism in sports and society - I have noticed that the increase in the interest of soccer in America, the increase of racism and anti-semitism in and at American sporting events has increased as well. Sad, true, and regretful. Sports in general, and the great sport of footy has no room for such speech or actions. Just my two cents.
Sorry again about WSD, I hardly knew yee...
If you truly graduated from law school and passed the bar, and you are still so ignorant that you think an organized boycott of advertisers on a radio show somehow interferes with "freedom of speech," commercial or otherwise, you are a disgrace both to your profession and your law school. The first amendment and free speech specifically apply to governmental issues, not a boycott of advertisers because the host of a program made offensive comments.
ReplyDeleteI really hope you're taking the piss because it would be a sad state of affairs if someone who graduated from law school and passed the bar really thought an organized boycott of a talk show host's program somehow infringed on someone's free speech.
Matty don't worry about replying to him. I read back over to see if I had been unclear in any of my comments, because I do like to be accurate. Turns out Horace can't read, so I don't have to clarify anything. I can rest comfortably on the laurels of knowing that he is wrong about what I said. You can try and get personal with me dear, but I do take care to read things before I respond to them, something you would do well to remember ;-) You don't make yourself sound intelligent and/or reliable by trying to lower the conversation to rudeness. Matt's blogs tend to attract a higher level of conduct than that.
ReplyDeleteMark- nice comment there chief. So sorry to hear about the infamous con law paper fiasco -- we should get a telethon going!!
Horace,
ReplyDeleteI don't care if you're a supreme court justice, a supreme pizza or the supreme commander of allied forces, you better act civilly here or you aren't welcome.
I understand the reasoning behind your unwillingness to use your real name but that doesn't give you license to insult people from behind that veil.
Horace,
ReplyDeleteI should also add that I have appreciated your input and thank you, Tammi and Mark for spending some of your valuable time on my site.
Please be respectful of the fact that this is simply a family blog with some opinions on politics and culture sprinkled in. I'm more than willing to host a good-natured debate but please stay away from ad hominem attacks (that goes for you too Tammi).
Hey 'Horace',
ReplyDeleteRemember, this isn't the basement under a grid iron stadium. haha
I'm the only person in this thread other than the blog owner posting under my real name, so I don't know why you would put "Horace" in quotes. The part about me being a supreme court justice was a joke as I am no more a supreme court justice than "Tammi" is a lawyer. Incidentally, "Tammi," you might want to brush up on basic sentence structure before whipping out such
ReplyDeletedaggers as "Horace can't read!"
Matty, I'd like to know how calling people "pathetic," "testosteronely challenged," and "morons" counts as "civil." I think I was remarkably civil responding to vitriolic comments like that, plus extremely ignorant ones about "free speech."
I also don't know why you find it so amusing that I spend a couple months a year in Philadelphia, but congratulations on being able to use Google or a whois on an IP address. Perhaps you can show "Tammi" how to Google "freedom of speech" and how an advertiser boycott is related to "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."
No problem Matty-I serve at the pleasure of the President (or the blog owner, as it were). I am simply going to sit here loving that you worked ad hominem into a sentence :-)
ReplyDeleteIt might be more interesting to use "ad hominem" in a sentence if "ad hominem" were used correctly.
ReplyDeletead hominem: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
Calling people "testosteronely challenged" and "the people who never got the sit with the cool kids in high school" is an example of an "ad hominem" attack. I have said nothing negative other than direct responses to the issue of "free speech" not being germane to an advertiser boycott and the fact that someone claiming to be a lawyer doesn't even know something as basic about the constitution that a high school student should know.
Matty, I'd like to respectfully suggest in the future that you consider the content and not the author when responding to comments in your blog.
Horace,
ReplyDeletePoint by point...
First, if Horace is your real name I once again stand corrected. I was simply taking you at your word when you said it wasn't.
Second, I once again took you at your word when you claimed to be a Justice. Maybe you actually are and just didn't like my gentle ribbing, maybe you aren't... I don't really care since we've all agreed to the fact that a boycott in no way infringes upon free speech. It doesn't take a lawyer. Although...
"Tammi" (w/quotations in the interests of fairness) actually is a lawyer. I know this for 100% fact but I can't expect you to take my word for it.
Lastly,
You're right, Tammi's initial comment was less than civil but she is given the benefit of the doubt because she's a known entity.
To be honest I am less worried about people politely referring to the principles in the case (ie Steven and campaign leaders) than I am to civility between the people engaged in the thread.
Further, most of her comments were directed towards those who (it has been claimed) sent anti-Semetic, hateful, threatening messages or (once again claimed) tried to go at Steven through the FCC. I think we can all agree that both of those methods are out of line, right?
Either way, she got the same warning as you did.
As an aside, here's a better Heysel-esque Philadelphia joke you can use:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.kyw1060.com/pages/4874039.php?
Horace,
ReplyDeleteYour suggestion is accepted with the humble spirit in which (I assume) it was given. I will be more careful in requesting civility on further posts.
PS. calling a person ignorant qualifies under most definitions of ad hominem.
Umm, I'm honestly confused. You've roused my curiosity, Horace. What's the connection to the news story you posted? Clearly it's not funny but I'm coming up short in figuring out the sarcasm.
ReplyDeleteI know you may be absolutely tired of this thread but before you leave, please explain.
Horace, I really can only say this one more time and sincerely hope that you listen. I appreciate your love for constitutional law, and you are not incorrect about some of your points in law. The problem is that you are using them to argue against something I did not say. You are arguing apples and oranges. Or maybe apples and mangoes. I love mangoes....
ReplyDeleteOK back to the point.
You said "I would like to know how Cohen's right to free speech was infringed upon." At no point did I say his right to free speech was infringed upon. What I said was "Anytime free speech (that isn't hate speech) loses out to a minority, my sympathies will always lie with the speech."
I genuinely don't know how that was unclear. My point was, and will remain, that Cohen was exercising his right to free speech, and people who took offense to it chose to raise a ruckus instead of exercising their right not to listen. In that case, free speech lost out, and as such we all lost a great source of information on football in this country. It didn't need the government to interfere, or anyone else to interfere with his right to free speech. The fact is, at the end, the expression of his opinion lost out.
I have been more than patient with your unwarrranted (ad hominem :-))attacks at my legal capacity, but it is mostly because I knew you were arguing with yourself. Maybe now your hostility can subside just a bit.
I don't want to throw fuel on the fire, but this occured to me in a "Sneakers" sort of way.
ReplyDelete"Horace Steenblatter" is actually an anagram for "ahh rebottle centers" - and he is just crying out for a greener earth by promoting recycling.
Perhaps it is "abash rotten reelect" and wishes to express his political views, in a circumspect manner of course.
Either way, free speech is alive and well. Which is pretty awesome, since the best anagram of my name is "kram" -which takes me back to Con-Law - and has very little bering on free speech, other than I'm writing this in the USA and not N. Korea.
"too many secrets" Pass it on...
Enjoyed the post! I am happy to hear coherent commentary regarding what cohen said vs did not say. i think avid listeners understand that for everything he said, he retracted and backtracked most of the time. and as you pointed out...it's one man's opinion!
ReplyDeletepeople had a choice to not listen to it. i will miss wsd...but won't miss the punditry.