Heh..Howard Stern Show Returns to 5 Cities, Adds 4 More
Jperdue4
http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&oi=news&start=0&num=1&q=http://www.reuters.
com/newsArticle.jhtml%3Ftype%3DpeopleNews%26storyID%3D5556100
Howard Stern Show Returns to 5 Cities, Adds 4 More
Wed Jun 30, 2004 01:28 PM ET
By Caroline Humer
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Howard Stern, the radio shock jock whose show was dropped
in six cities amid a crackdown on indecency, said on Wednesday he had made it
back into most of those markets and added four others.
Stern -- bumped by Clear Channel Communications Inc. in Rochester, New York;
Fort Lauderdale and Orlando, Florida; Louisville, Kentucky; Pittsburgh and San
Diego -- will return in all of those areas except Louisville in mid-July.
Stern said during a press conference carried live on his morning radio show
that Clear Channel is probably very frightened by the news. "They don't want me
back on in these markets because I'll quickly rise to No. 1 in every one of
them," he said.
Clear Channel, the largest U.S. radio station owner, cited a new zero tolerance
policy for indecent antics on the air when it dropped Stern in February as
federal regulators turned up the pressure on radio station operators, with
heavy fines for content they deemed indecent.
"This will teach the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) a lesson -- that
we will fight back," Stern said,
Infinity Broadcasting, the Viacom Inc. unit that syndicates Stern's show, said
it would carry the show in four new markets, including Tampa, Florida; Houston
and Austin, Texas; and Fresno, California. That would put the show on 45
stations in all, 27 of which are owned by Infinity.
Infinity does not have a station in Louisville.
Stern claims the FCC crackdown was a result of the controversy that followed
singer Janet Jackson's breast-baring incident during the Super Bowl half-time
show.
Stern's show often includes conversations with strippers as they disrobe in the
radio studio, talk about sex and bodily functions.
"We do pee-pee jokes and doody humor," Stern said.
Stern said he has been unfairly scrutinized in what he called a "witchhunt"
since Jackson ambushed audiences with her display during an event aimed at
family viewers, while his listeners know what to expect.
Federal regulators have stiffened fines to as much as $500,000 for indecent
material. Stern has responded by calling FCC head Michael Powell "a crack pot"
and "a coward."
Stern said that by regaining his voice in markets in so-called "swing states"
like Pennsylvania and Florida he could end up influencing the November
election, in favor of presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John
Kerry.
Stern said he is considering a move to satellite radio or leaving radio
altogether when his Infinity contract ends in 18 months. He said FCC fines have
had a chilling effect on radio broadcasts, and said if the FCC starts fining
individual radio personalities, his show would be finished.
"I'll sit here and honor my contract by playing music and following the format,
but I will not talk," Stern said.
© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.
"That's just what i need...
a good woman to kick
my butt now and then"
Bob Dylan
Mark (The DunderHead)
"DG" <xx...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:4f06e09pic34hf87s...@4ax.com...
> Jperdue4 wrote:
> >
> >Suck on it.....
> >
>
>http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&oi=news&start=0&num=1&q=http://www.reuters.
> >com/newsArticle.jhtml%3Ftype%3DpeopleNews%26storyID%3D5556100
> >
> >Howard Stern Show Returns to 5 Cities, Adds 4 More
> >Wed Jun 30, 2004 01:28 PM ET
> >
> >By Caroline Humer
> >NEW YORK (Reuters) - Howard Stern, the radio shock jock whose show was
dropped
> >in six cities amid a crackdown on indecency, said on Wednesday he had
made it
> >back into most of those markets and added four others.
> >
> >Stern -- bumped by Clear Channel Communications Inc. in Rochester, New
York;
> >Fort Lauderdale and Orlando, Florida; Louisville, Kentucky; Pittsburgh
and San
> >Diego -- will return in all of those areas except Louisville in mid-July.
> >
> >
> >Infinity Broadcasting, the Viacom Inc. unit that syndicates Stern's show,
said
> >it would carry the show in four new markets, including Tampa, Florida;
Houston
> >and Austin, Texas; and Fresno, California. That would put the show on 45
> >stations in all, 27 of which are owned by Infinity.
> >
>
> Great news for those who want Kerry. It's great that we get the mouth
> of NYC to sway those in swing states. One more nail in the dumbya
> re-election coffin.
Indeed.
Those are the people we really need to encourage to get out and vote.
The kind of people who could be swayed by the likes of Howard Stern.
Maybe you could invite Stern to the Dem convention along with some
of his topless guests (or *THINGS* as Howard believes women are.).
Oh wouldn't it be lovely?
Peace,
Mark
--
Disclaimer:
---------------------------
I say what I say. Take it or leave it.
If you require proof that there are stars in
the sky on a cloudy night, that is your problem.
If you want proof of something I said, find it yourself.
Mark (The DunderHead)
in message news:es07e0p6ud02ifd2g...@4ax.com...
> >Those are the people we really need to encourage to get out and vote.
> >The kind of people who could be swayed by the likes of Howard Stern.
> >Maybe you could invite Stern to the Dem convention along with some
> >of his topless guests (or *THINGS* as Howard believes women are.).
>
> Doesn't matter if he goes to the convention. He's now on in Austin
> and Houston. All those Texans are going to hear him rip dumbya a
> new one.
To what end?
The only people who are going to hear him are the Dem/Libs and
the people who are fans of his and *always* listen to him, election
or not. I seriously doubt that Howy will convince many republicans
to switch sides and vote for Kerry. So all that's left are the folks on
the fence who always listen to him. The folks on the fence who never
listen to him and think he's a colossal jackass (like I do) won't even
hear him at all. With all that whittled down, you're talking about a rather
small audience. Probably close to the number of Native Americans
who vote. (Not that I blame the ones who have good reason NOT to vote.)
> The people of Florida in Fort Lauderdale, Tampa and Orlando will get
> to hear him rip dumbya a new one. Think of all the FL voters who know
> they can make a difference this time.
With an even split of Reps and Dems that know they can make a
difference this time. Kinda cancels out. no?
> >Oh wouldn't it be lovely?
> It will be nice to say President Kerry.
At this point I'm starting to wish they had moved the *election*
to an earlier date instead of the Iraq hand over of power. Get
this thing over with for pity's sake! I honestly think that either
one would do as well as the other because they're both saying
about 80% of the SAME things anyhow. When I defend Bush
I'm defending what he's done mostly over the past 3 1/2 years.
(That being a lot more good than bad, and most of the bad
not being entirely HIS fault.) But what he's promising to do if
he's re-elected isn't all that different from what Kerry is telling us.
(Not surprising though. He got most of it from Bush. ;-) (IMO)
If I vote for Bush it will be mostly to avoid the bedlam during the
change of administration than anything else. Bush (IMHO) has
done very well with the cards he had been handed from the start.
He deserves and GETS my, "Thank you very much!". However,
I don't do "Thank You!" votes. If I think Kerry is offering a better
way of doing things I will vote for him. If Kerry doesn't come up
with a show stopper before the election, I'm going to stick with
Bush for simple convenience.
Mark (The DunderHead)
"DG" <xx...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> Mark \(The DunderHead\) wrote:
I think your news reader has a case of the hiccup's.
This is the 3rd identical message. <BG>
Peace,
Mark
nantuckets finest
>Date: 7/1/2004 2:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <e06d92e5f68ee2e2...@news.meganetnews.com>
And if anyone around here knows redundancy, it's you.
Mark
Mark (The DunderHead)
in message news:20040701080726...@mb-m21.aol.com...
It's so nice to get some recognition once in a while.
Thanx!
Mark (The DunderHead)
"DG" <xx...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> Mark \(The DunderHead\) wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >Those are the people we really need to encourage to get out and vote.
> >> >The kind of people who could be swayed by the likes of Howard Stern.
> >> >Maybe you could invite Stern to the Dem convention along with some
> >> >of his topless guests (or *THINGS* as Howard believes women are.).
> >>
> >> Doesn't matter if he goes to the convention. He's now on in Austin
> >> and Houston. All those Texans are going to hear him rip dumbya a
> >> new one.
> >
> >To what end?
> >The only people who are going to hear him are the Dem/Libs and
> >the people who are fans of his and *always* listen to him, election
> >or not. I seriously doubt that Howy will convince many republicans
> >to switch sides and vote for Kerry. So all that's left are the folks on
> >the fence who always listen to him. The folks on the fence who never
> >listen to him and think he's a colossal jackass (like I do) won't even
> >hear him at all. With all that whittled down, you're talking about a
rather
> >small audience. Probably close to the number of Native Americans
> >who vote. (Not that I blame the ones who have good reason NOT to vote.)
>
> Pitaki, Guiliani, Whitman, Bloomberg, D'Amato, etc.
Was it Howy's endorsement or has Howard just been lucky so far?
> Here ya go:
> http://www.nytimes.com/ <----------- Oh BROTHER!
The Leaning tower of journalism.
> He should have stuck with the coke and booze.
A Bible or a mirror & razor
What is preferable?
That's a tough one alright.
> He spent $87 billion in Iraq and the return on our money is almost a
> thousand dead soldiers.
It was agreed from the start by MOST that the money was NOT a loan.
(That fact is obviously being denied.....*NOW*. how very convenient.)
> He has stifled stem cell research because of his religion. Can't use
> stem cells from umbilical cords because jesus doesn't like it.
That one I DO think is silly. What has the chord got to do -w-
any religious violation.? I don't think Jesus (or God him/herself)
ever said anything about the, "left overs" from child birth.
Peace,
Mark
Mark (The DunderHead)
"DG" <xx...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:m4o8e097hp0mpr4fe...@4ax.com...
> While understanding correlation does not equal causation, I think
> there is a strong causal link.
>
> >> Here ya go:
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/ <----------- Oh BROTHER!
> >The Leaning tower of journalism.
>
> Don't believe the NYTimes? Who do you believe?
Things have gotten so tangled up by ALL sides of this crazy
thing we call an election, I don't *fully* believe ANYONE! ;-)
> >> He should have stuck with the coke and booze.
> >
> >A Bible or a mirror & razor
> >What is preferable?
> >That's a tough one alright.
> Americans would be better off if he was still on coke and booze.
*Americans* would be better off without coke and booze.
(Weeeeelllll, I suppose we should keep the booze. ;-)
> >> He spent $87 billion in Iraq and the return on our money is almost a
> >> thousand dead soldiers.
> >
> >It was agreed from the start by MOST that the money was NOT a loan.
> >(That fact is obviously being denied.....*NOW*. how very convenient.)
>
> Maybe you can clarify what you are trying to say.
See the disclaimer on the bottom.
> >> He has stifled stem cell research because of his religion. Can't use
> >> stem cells from umbilical cords because jesus doesn't like it.
> >
> >That one I DO think is silly. What has the chord got to do -w-
> >any religious violation.? I don't think Jesus (or God him/herself)
> >ever said anything about the, "left overs" from child birth.
> Tell that to the idiot prez. Now he wants EXPERTS to defer to his
> religion.
And (IMO) he's wrong on this one. There's WAY WAY WAY too much
to be gained by stem cell research to stop it cold as he wants to do.
> Government scientists must now be cleared by a Bush political
> appointee before they can lend their expertise to the World Health
> Organization, a change that a Democratic lawmaker said fits a pattern
> of politicizing science.
And (IMO) he's REALLY wrong on this one. There's WAY WAY WAY WAY
too much to be gained by stem cell research to regulate it as he wants to
do.
> Dumbya's such an asshole.
(IYO)
> Maybe someone can rewrite "Dickie's such an asshole" to "Dumbya's such
> an asshole"....
Who says we can't have TWO?
Mark (The DunderHead)
"DG" <xx...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> Mark \(The DunderHead\) wrote:
> >> Americans would be better off if he was still on coke and booze.
> >
> >*Americans* would be better off without coke and booze.
> >(Weeeeelllll, I suppose we should keep the booze. ;-)
> We have an amendment to protect booze. I'm suprised that dumbya
> hasn't gone after that one yet.
Are you kiddin'? If he even *thought* about trying THAT, not only
would he NOT be elected, he would probably end up DEAD! <BG>
> >> >> He has stifled stem cell research because of his religion. Can't
use
> >> >> stem cells from umbilical cords because jesus doesn't like it.
> >> >
> >> >That one I DO think is silly. What has the chord got to do -w-
> >> >any religious violation.? I don't think Jesus (or God him/herself)
> >> >ever said anything about the, "left overs" from child birth.
> >
> >> Tell that to the idiot prez. Now he wants EXPERTS to defer to his
> >> religion.
> >
> >And (IMO) he's wrong on this one. There's WAY WAY WAY too much
> >to be gained by stem cell research to stop it cold as he wants to do.
> >
> >> Government scientists must now be cleared by a Bush political
> >> appointee before they can lend their expertise to the World Health
> >> Organization, a change that a Democratic lawmaker said fits a pattern
> >> of politicizing science.
> >
> >
> >And (IMO) he's REALLY wrong on this one. There's WAY WAY WAY WAY
> >too much to be gained by stem cell research to regulate it as he wants to
> >do.
>
> This is not about stem cell research. Dumbya is beyond that.
> He's already stifled that research.
I don't think he dispenced with all of it. I think the scientist's are
working
on ways to make *adult* stem cell research as effective as the baby stuff.
( "baby stuff" you ask? Ok! So I'm NOT a biologist! ;-)
> He's now trying to politicize science by "approving" scientists who do
> work for the World Health Organization.
Doesn't a term that includes the word, "World" imply involvement by other
countries besides the U.S. in the approval process? I'm not being a
wizeass
here, I know nothing about the World Health Organization.
> This is an outrage. F U W.
If there's anything I've learned over the past 4 years about politics, it's
that things are blown way out of proportion by all sides. 9 times out
of 10 the, "outrage" is in the eye of the beholder who is *calling it*
an outrage. (And of that, most is feigned)
Neil Krueger
wrote on 7/2/04 2:51 PM:
> I'm sure that Neil can enlighten us on where stem cells come from.
It depends on what kind of stem cell. For example, hematpoietic stem cells
come from bone marrow. Human embryonic stem cells, which are the kind of
stem cells that Bush has eliminated government funding for, come from human
embryos.
Peace,
Neil X.
Mark (The DunderHead)
"DG" <xx...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:jpbbe05n0als4dp26...@4ax.com...
> Mark \(The DunderHead\) wrote:
> >
> >DG wrote
> >> Mark \(The DunderHead\) wrote:
> >> >DG wrote:
> >> >> Americans would be better off if he was still on coke and booze.
> >> >
> >> >*Americans* would be better off without coke and booze.
> >> >(Weeeeelllll, I suppose we should keep the booze. ;-)
> >
> >> We have an amendment to protect booze. I'm suprised that dumbya
> >> hasn't gone after that one yet.
> >
> >Are you kiddin'? If he even *thought* about trying THAT, not only
> >would he NOT be elected, he would probably end up DEAD! <BG>
>
> Don't be suprised if he tries. He no longer partakes and probably
> doesn't want you to either.
That's ok, I don't. (any more. ;-)
> I'm sure that Neil can enlighten us on where stem cells come from.
I do know there are some form that can come from adults, something
having to do with the blood & new blood cells.
> >> He's now trying to politicize science by "approving" scientists who do
> >> work for the World Health Organization.
> >
> >Doesn't a term that includes the word, "World" imply involvement by other
> >countries besides the U.S. in the approval process? I'm not being a
> >wizeass here, I know nothing about the World Health Organization.
>
> If they are not allowed to represent the US then nothing else matters.
>
> >> This is an outrage. F U W.
> >
> >If there's anything I've learned over the past 4 years about politics,
it's
> >that things are blown way out of proportion by all sides. 9 times out
> >of 10 the, "outrage" is in the eye of the beholder who is *calling it*
> >an outrage. (And of that, most is feigned)
>
> You might want to read up on this:
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/161177_research19.html
In the article:
> Yale physicist D. Allan Bromley, who was a science adviser to the
> first President Bush, accused the group of their own form of distortion:
> "You know perfectly well that it is very clearly a politically motivated
statement."
I tend to agree.
Then in the article:
>"I don't see it as a partisan issue at all," said Russell Train, who was
administrator
>of the EPA under Presidents Nixon and Ford, and who supported the letter.
>"If it becomes that way, I think it's because the White House chooses to
> make it a partisan issue."
4 things in that 2'nd quote stand out.
(1) "I don't see it as" = his perspective
(2) "IF" = uncertain.
(3) "becomes" = hasn't happened *yet*
(4) "I THINK" = his *opinion*
The fact that the people giving their *opinions* all belonged
to a union says something. A union is a group of people all
with the same objectives. Not entirely unlike a political party, No?
Plus there's more, "he said/she said" in that article than
a bad soap opera. I'm not saying that I'm dismissing it
all together. Some of it could be a fact and some probably is.
But it's not exactly rock solid either.
> and check out this website:
> http://www.ucsusa.org/
Maybe later, but it's probably more of the same
Peace,
Mark
Mark (The DunderHead)
"Neil Krueger" <n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BD0B3AB2.24FEA%n...@comcast.net...
> in article jpbbe05n0als4dp26...@4ax.com, DG at xx...@xxx.xxx
> wrote on 7/2/04 2:51 PM:
>
> > I'm sure that Neil can enlighten us on where stem cells come from.
> It depends on what kind of stem cell. For example, hematpoietic stem
cells
> come from bone marrow.
HA! I was *close* ;-)
I just got finished saying I thought the adult cells had
something to do with the blood and blood cells. <g>
> Human embryonic stem cells, which are the kind of
>stem cells that Bush has eliminated government
>funding for, come from human embryos.
Well, at least it's not as bad as some folks make it
out to be. So there *is* continuing research, but without
any, "baby stuff" as I said earlier. <g>
Thanx for clearing that up for me (us).
Peace,
Mark
Mark (The DunderHead)
>
> >(2) "IF" = uncertain.
>
> If is a conditional.
>
> >(3) "becomes" = hasn't happened *yet*
>
>
> >(4) "I THINK" = his *opinion*
>
>
> >The fact that the people giving their *opinions* all belonged
> >to a union says something. A union is a group of people all
> >with the same objectives. Not entirely unlike a political party, No?
> >
> >Plus there's more, "he said/she said" in that article than
> >a bad soap opera. I'm not saying that I'm dismissing it
> >all together. Some of it could be a fact and some probably is.
> >But it's not exactly rock solid either.
>
>
> "In a report signed by Orians, 20 Nobel laureates and many other
> world-renowned scientists, the Union of Concerned Scientists contended
> that "the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression and
> misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is
> unprecedented.""
>
> Still blind?
>In a **report**
More like a petition that was passed around.
>signed by **Orians**
One sig on the bottom = 100% credibility?
>the *********Union*************** of
That's twice you missed that.
contended = They *SAID*
> >> and check out this website:
> >> http://www.ucsusa.org/
> >
> >Maybe later, but it's probably more of the same
> Yeah, it's just a bunch of scientists anyway.
That have a difference of *********opinion*********** with another
bunch of scientists. (Like Bush's). Even good -ol- Albert was
wrong about SOME things. (IE: A *static* universe)
TO ANYBODY LISTENING HERE.................
I am not disputing the scientist's great work or their
discoveries, just their *belief* that Bush is in some
way intentionally suppressing them for political gain.
We ALL have (some somewhat begrudgingly) accepted the fact
of global warming. So could someone PLEASE tell me what
Bush could gain by denying it? Does he want to weaken
restrictions on greenhouse emissions that were in place
BEFORE he took office? I don't buy it!
He may want to relax a bit on FURTHER restrictions that would
cost a lot for (more like CHOKE) American companies (or put
them out of business all together) FOR THE TIME BEING
because now, RIGHT NOW they need ALL the help they
can get. Or are you going to deny the financial problems
facing American companies right now? Go on..........
I DARE YOU!
> What are they going to do?
> Put some vinegar and baking soda together?
No silly!
Every good scientist knows that baking POWDER works better
to fizz things up than baking SODA. (Arm & Hammer Preferrable)
Peace,
Mark
PS: I don't really know if baking soda works better
than baking soda, I was just bein' a wizeass. ;-)
(But Arm & Hammer *does* work though)
Mark (The DunderHead)
"DG" <xx...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> Mark \(The DunderHead\) wrote:
> >If you want proof of something I said, find it yourself.
> >> Mark \(The DunderHead\) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >DG wrote
> >> >> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/161177_research19.html
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >I am not disputing the scientist's great work or their
> >discoveries, just their *belief* that Bush is in some
> >way intentionally suppressing them for political gain.
>
> politicize science.
>
> I bet it's another one of his conversations with the invisible bastard
> jesus that drove him to restrict science.
>
> >We ALL have (some somewhat begrudgingly) accepted the fact
> >of global warming. So could someone PLEASE tell me what
> >Bush could gain by denying it?
>
>
> >Does he want to weaken
> >restrictions on greenhouse emissions that were in place
> >BEFORE he took office? I don't buy it!
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1382564.stm
>
> >He may want to relax a bit on FURTHER restrictions that would
> >cost a lot for (more like CHOKE) American companies (or put
> >them out of business all together) FOR THE TIME BEING
> >because now, RIGHT NOW they need ALL the help they
> >can get. Or are you going to deny the financial problems
> >facing American companies right now? Go on..........
> >
> > I DARE YOU!
>
> of attacking Iraq.
>
> -= https://home.comcast.net/~d.j.go/ =-
Ok.
You win. <BG>
It's obvious niether one of us is going to back down.
I'll say one thing though, I wish ALL the political post's in here
went the same way THIS one did. Slightly heated yes, but it ends
without anyone calling the other one Hitler and all sorts of other insults
and name calling.
(Well, at least not the part of the thread you and I were in)
Peace,
Mark