SidRosenberg.com
The e-mail I received was rather interesting, because it aptly pointed out my once-strong fervor for getting Don Imus back on the air after the “nappy-headed hos” comments — and it pointed out my relationship to Sid Rosenberg. We all know that Sid has had his moments, in the past, with remarks that caused a stir.
With that in mind, I was asked how, given my defense of Mr. Rosenberg over the years, I could call for Savage’s head since he was simply exercising his First Amendment rights.
And as I’ve said over and over during the course of my career — there is a huge difference between expressing one’s opinion and expressing something that is false as fact.
In the case of Savage, saying autism is “a fraud” is the equivalent of screaming fire in a movie theater that isn’t really on fire. Here’s how.
Take these examples. If someone wrote in a column “Kevin Canessa is a fat man,” though the words aren’t exactly nice, they’re true. Anyone in this country can make that statement. It’s irrefutable fact. On the same level, if someone said “Kevin Canessa held up a bank in Miami over the weekend,” this statement, which is absolutely false, is easily proven untrue — and as such, the writer or speaker of said comment would be open for a slander or libel lawsuit.
From these two examples, it should be much clearer there is a huge difference between expressing one’s opinion and expressing something controversial that is false.
Let’s get back to autism for a moment.
If, on his show, Mr. Savage made the following comment, he’d be clear of much criticism: “People who have autistic children should keep their kids in special schools — and they should refrain from mainstreaming them.” Sure, it’s a bit of a controversial comment to make — just ask anyone who has a child (or grandchild) who is autistic.
On the other hand, when Savage says autism is “a fraud,” he is, in essence, attempting to get his audience to believe there is no such thing as autism — and that those kids who have it are really “brats who act up and whose parents have lost control of them.”
Again — ask any parent of an autistic child, and they’ll be able to tell you that autism is no fraud. Instead, it’s a serious problem that needs more funding and more research.
The First Amendment does not, therefore, protect Savage’s words because he is taking a statement that is false and he’s proposing it as fact. Anyone with a minute knowledge of autism knows it’s not a fraud — and that Savage has done a great injustice the any child with autism, to any family that deals with autism on a daily basis.
And let’s face it, folks. With Savage, it’s a lot more than just this one statement. This is the same guy who was canned by MSNBC for telling a caller he hoped he “died of AIDS.” The guy is a loose canon — and he’s a really disturbed man. He’s in a class by himself, and it’s extremely unfair to compare him with the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Though I often (not always) disagree with the aforementioned two, they’re both true broadcasting professionals and geniuses. Savage is a man who has no problem insulting the defenseless — a man who has no problem spewing great hatred for people who are remotely different than he is.
There’s a huge difference between being protected by the First Amendment and expressing an opinion. I hope this makes a little sense.
And I hope, now more than ever, that in a few days, we get news that its distributor has yanked Savage Nation off the air.
Then, on only then, will there be justice.
And that moment of justice can come not a moment too soon.
The Canessa Corner
By Kevin Canessa Jr.
SidRosenberg.com
TheHudsonLine.com
If you are like many of us who listen to the Sid Rosenberg show on a daily basis — and if you’re a fan (or former fan) of the Imus in the Morning Program — chances are, by now, you’ve been through the gamut of emotions when it comes to April 2007. We all know what happened on a fateful day that month on the radio and on MSNBC.
Of course, we all remember the outcries that followed the so-called “Rutgers Incident.” Whether it was Al Sharpton, Gwen Ifill … whomever … there were so many people who had an opinion on Imus, Sid and Bernie McGuirk it wasn’t even funny. And even more ironic is that for many who opined, a first-hand knowledge of the aforementioned and the kind of people they really are was non-existent.
One of the people who cried out loud for Imus, Sid and Bernie’s heads was a woman by the name of Jemele Hill.
OK — say it out loud.
Who?
Sure, you might be saying the same thing about me, too, since I am new to the Rosenberg Crew, but you’ll get to know me more. So there’s that.
Back to Ms. Hill.
Turns out she’s a columnist for ESPN.com, and according to Andy King, Sid’s executive producer, she is also a periodic contributor to the all-time ESPN great show “Cold Pizza.” When the proverbial crap hit the fan a little more than a year ago, Hill certainly had an opinion of Imus, Sid and Bernie. And for the love of God, she probably didn’t have a clue who any of the three men were.
Here’s a taste of what she had to say last year. She didn’t really like Imus’ initial two-week suspension.
“If it were up to me, security would have escorted the longtime radio jock out of his CBS Radio cocoon days ago. But for now, I'll have to settle for a two-week suspension that doesn't begin until next week. That'll show him. Days have passed since Imus, executive producer Bernard McGuirk and sports announcer Sid Rosenberg took turns taking cheap shots at the Rutgers women's basketball team, but I'm stil boiling because too many people continue to defend Imus behind lame free-speech arguments — remember, speech is free, but consequences are not — and the idea that black women just don't know a good joke when they hear one.”
OK fine. Everyone has a right to opine, even if they’re wrong, about a situation. But it’s not so much about the opinion she had a year or so ago. Have a look at what she said the other day (in case you didn’t hear it on Sid’s show Wednesday morning).
“Rooting for the Celtics is like saying Hitler was a victim. It’s like hoping Gorbachev would get to the blinking red button before Reagan.”
There’s more. Here’s what the dope wrote on her blog.
“If you watched Pistons basketball during the ‘80s, and were a part of the heated Pistons-C’s rivalry you understand that rooting for the Celtics is like rooting for everything soulless, evil and wrong. Rooting for the Celtics is like rooting for the guythat’s caught on “To Catch a Predator” to get away with it.
Jemele: I lived in New England for four years of my life in Newport, R.I. and I knew a lot of people who passionately rooted for the Boston Celtics. None of them are soulless. None of them would want to see the guy get away from Chris Hansen. And none of them found Hitler to be a victim. And none of them wanted Reagan to be second to press the red button.
Of course, Jemele, in your apology through ESPN, prior to your being told you were being suspended, you probably were ready to hide “behind lame free-speech arguments.”
Remember those words? They're your own.
How ironic it is that just 14 months after you lambasted Imus, Sid and Bernie, three good people who do a lot of good things for other people, you yourself, full of hypocrisy, used your position as a columnist and ESPN contributor to parse hateful, bigoted speech — in the context (just like Imus) of sports.
Who’s kidding whom here?
We all know, by now, Imus, Sid and Bernie aren’t racists. But by all indications, you certainly are. And like the buffoons who did the same to Imus, I’ll base this assertion on just a few pieces of evidence — like this blog entry you wrote some time ago when you wrote to “All Young White Men" after Rick Ankiel's HGH story broke last baseball season.
“Today, many of you are shocked, crushed, disappointed. You are befuddled, bewildered and numb that the “feel good” story of the Black Summer of 2007 has been snatched like a gold chain. You are angry at MLB and the media for linking this story to Barry Bonds’ use of performance-enhancing drugs, when HGH is clearly no big deal. You are amazed that anyone is actually discussing this “non-issue”from three years ago. You note that since Rick Ankiel only received a one-year supply, there is no way he could using HGH now. There is no way this is an issue. You note that Rick is perfectly within his rights to “dummy up” and claim client-doctor privileges. Sure, if he was black you’d say if he has nothing to hide, he should let everyone know the entire situation. But this is different. This is the feel good story of the Black Summer of 2007. You are just tired of hearing about all of this. Enough. It happened three years ago…leave the man alone.”
You said some other things in the post, then this.
“But mostly, I hope that, through Rick, other white men learn that society is quite capable of gobbling them up. No extra help is needed.”
What does all of this mean?
It’s really simple, actually.
Jemele Hill is a blatant, no-apologies necessary bigot and racist. But the mainstream media won’t cover the story, because the perp is African-American. If Imus, Sid or Bernie had made the same comments, but in the context of something African-American related, could you imagine the uproar?
Sharpton would be on The Today Show. There would be calls for dismissal from tons of people. And there would be an attempt to smear the names of the aforementioned.
But that’s not going to happen here. Because there’s a double standard in this country that is despicable. And mind you, in Kevin Canessa, you find one of the most liberal Americans on this planet.
Ms. Hill will have an upcoming, unplanned vacation. Thank goodness for that. At least she didn’t get a wrist slap.
But if there were any kind of justice in this world — justice for the likes of the very man who owns this Web site, and for two of his friends who both suffered enough injustices last year to last a lifetime — soon, and very soon, we’ll be watching a video on Sportscenter of the Bristol, Conn., police escorting Jemele Hill out of her coccon at ESPN headquarters, “with belongings in tow.” (Oh isn't it great when you can take someone's words and use them against them)?
And. quite frankly, it wouldn’t get much better than that.
The Canessa Corner
By Kevin Canessa Jr.
SidRosenberg.com
TheHudsonLine.com
Not even the Fourth of July could stop me from writing about this one.
Former U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., died today. He was 86.
In his obituary, the Associated Press, which often prepares these kinds of obits well in advance of the actual death, wrote of Helms' undying conservatism, his hatred of gays and lesbians, his utter disregard for people with AIDS, his segregationalist leanings and his campaigning for office in the 1990s which made it abundantly clear he was still a racist.
Here were a few of the quotes from Helms that really struck me.
In 1993, then President Bill Clinton was looking to appoint a lesbian to the position of Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Based solely on the woman's sexual orientation, Helms said: "I’m not going to put a lesbian in a position like that. If you want to call me a bigot, fine.”
I'd say bigot is more than appropriate a name to call Helms based on this comment.
A few years ago, after Helms wrote a book on his career as a politician, he wrote the following an e-mail to a reporter: “My legacy will be up to others to describe."
Indeed it will.
Today, the very day this 86-year-old man leaves this earth for the next life, there is just too much to say about Helms, his career and his policies, for a blog entry such as this. And yet, on the very same day conservative talk show host Mark Levin told Gen. Wesley Clark to "go to hell," I can't help but wonder: If Clark is deserving of hell, isn't Helms on his way there right now?
This man was as divisive as anyone who has ever called the United States of America home. His hatred for "non-traditional" people as he'd call them — gays, lesbians, blacks, Hispanics, you name it — was as despicable as humanly possible. His disregard for AIDS was almost as bad as Ronald Reagan's was in the early '80s. His desire to keep schools segregated was unmatched. His disdain for African-Americans was clear even as late as 1996.
And yet there are some in this country, including Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ken., who praised Helms as a champion.
Here's what McConnell said.
“Today we lost a Senator whose stature in Congress had few equals. Senator Jesse Helms was a leading voice and courageous champion for the many causes he believed in.”
A leading voice? A champion?
No doubt, McConnell was right about one thing: Important to Helms were "the many causes he believed in." But a champion? A leading voice? What would be so leading about spewing hatred for six terms — 36 or so years in the United States Senate?
Helms indeed will be a man remembered by the masses. Yet what he'll be remembered for are all the wrong reasons. Helms was a man who I'd bet would have owned a slave if he had had the chance. He probably would have had gays and lesbians shipped off to some deserted island if he had the chance.
Thankfully, the progression of America outweighed Helms' senatorial influence.
Today, indeed, the United States lost one of its former leaders.
We are hardly a better nation because of that leadership.
And to once again use the words of conservative talk show host Mark Levin, "it'll be hell" for Helms. And if you're a believer, this notion is absolutely undeniable.
And depending on your beliefs, unbeatable, as well.
Thank goodness for politicians like David Paterson, who put politicians like George Pataki to shame
So when we learned this week the World Trade Center rebuilding project was moving along at a snail's pace — you'd have to be living in a cave not to realize this though — and when he demanded answers as to why it was taking so long, and when he demanded to know how long it was really going to take and cost, I wasn't the least bit surprised.You see, David Paterson isn't like his predecessor. He's not like Gov. Jon S. Corzine. He's not like Jim McGreevey. He's not like the weasel we now know as George Pataki. No, folks, he's not like any of these men. Because he's shown, in a small period of time, what it means to be a true leader, what it means to have honor, what it means to be truthful with the people — something none of the aforementioned men know at all.
Paterson was disgusted to learn the project at Ground Zero is well behind schedule and above budget. And yet, unlike Pataki and company, instead of giving a half-ass excuse, instead of standing before a podium making excuses for the builders, the Port Authority and any others responsible for this mess, Paterson stood up, said this is unacceptable — and demanded ... that's right folks, demanded ... accountability.
For the first time in memory, a sitting governor demanded to know how it's possible this happened. He demanded to know how Pataki allowed all of this bureaucratic crap to transpire for years.
And I don't know if there's anything more refreshing than this from a political standpoint.
It's nauseating to think that when the United States of America pauses to remember the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on Sept. 11, 2011, there won't be a permanent memorial built to recall the lives tragically lost that awful day.
And David Paterson isn't pleased.
He shouldn't be.
Earlier this week, I spoke with my dear friend Sean McDonald, with whom I went to high school. He told me of his journey to Manhattan the other day and the time he spent, in transit, near Ground Zero. He, too, couldn't believe what he saw. Nor could he believe what he heard.
While he stood looking at the site, he noticed a group of tourists who clearly didn't know what was going on with the site. He says the mom in the group said: "Wonder when they'll rebuild here?"
Sean's response to me was priceless. He said: "You know, I wish George Pataki was standingsomewhere close by. I would have gone up to the family and told them to ask him that very same question."
Why?
Because Pataki truly and apparently could care less — nor did he ever care — about what happens at the World Trade Center. If he did, would we be in this mess right now? Would we be struck with the realization it'll be perhaps 11, 12, 13, 14 years after the attacks before a memorial is built? What does Pataki care? He's getting his $10K a speech on the speaking tour.
Sean and I also discussed what it's like to lose a relative. Both of us have had too much experience with these things. It hit me: Imagine if any of us had lost a relative, and the cemetery caretaker told us we'd have to wait 13 years before we were able to put up a headstone.
We wouldn't have it.
Yet George Pataki, for the hundreds of people whose remains were never identified, and whose final resting place is Ground Zero, allowed something similar to happen by ensuring it'd be more than a decade before a memorial was built at the site.
Disgraceful, George. Disgraceful. How can you look at yourself in a mirror and be proud of anything good you accomplished as New York's governor? Because as good as the good things were, this one bad element trumps it all — and I mean everything.
Yet in the same breath, it's comforting to know we've got someone who truly does care in David Paterson.
Perhaps the saddest part of all of this is that it took a governor who made it into office by fate.
Perhaps we'll learn from the mistakes of the likes of George Pataki, and do whatever it takes never to elect him — or anyone like him — to public office ever again.
Then, folks, and only then, will any kind of justice be served.
I defy you to tell me — or the relatives of a 9/11 victim — otherwise.
By Kevin Canessa Jr.
SidRosenberg.com
Remember what they used to say up in Boston, before 2004 and 2007 rolled around, about Bucky Dent? It wasn't just Buck Dent — it was Bucky F-ing Dent (except they used to use the real word, not F-ing). I used to love hearing soundbites where Bostonians would shot this infamous phrase.
But the funny thing is, though they've stopped saying that in Boston — they stopped a lot of things after 2004, including a wholesale hatred of Bill Buckner — I kind of miss hearing that phrase. I miss it a lot. Hell, I miss it so much that I think it's time to resurrect it in New York — but when describing Billy Wagner.
How does it sound?
Billy F-ing Wagner. There, I said it. You try it, Mets fans. Billy F-ing Wagner. Repeat it. Billy F-ing Wagner. Say it over and over. It's going to be theraputic.
Billy F-ing Wagner.
Somehow, this buffoon made it to the 79th-annual All Star Game. And true to his usual form, he prompty went out, faced two batters — and gave up the tying run in the 8th inning — a run that caused the game to go 15 long, tedious and hideously boring innings of AA-quality baseball.
Think about this: In essence, Billy F-ing Wagner has blown six games in the regular season, and now, though I don't think he'd be charged with a BS in the All-Star Game, he's blown yet another big-platform game.
OK. It's the All-Star Game. Not too much at stake, right?
Ask Billy F-ing Wagner, should the Mets find a way to the Fall Classic, whether he'd rather have Games 2-3-4 at home, or 1-2-6-7 at home. Can't you just see it now?
Mets at Boston. Game 7. Fenway Pahk. Mets 3, Sox 2. Jerry Manuel calls on Billy F-ing Wagner to close the game and Series, bringing the Mets their first World Series title in 22 years.
What the F do you think Billy F-ing Wagner would do in that spot, folks?
You and I know it all too well.
Billy F-ing Wagner has become a lefty version of Armando Benitez. And he'll soon go down in New York Mets lore as being the pitcher who could never, ever close a meaningful game after August. He's done it in the regular season. He's done it in the post-season. And now he's done it in an All Star Game.
And that's because he's now on par to the Mets as Bucky F-ing Dent was to Yankees fans until 2004.
Something tells me we'll be saying Billy F-ing Wagner a lot longer than they said Bucky F-ing Dent.
After all, he does pitch for the New York Mets, a team with oh such a glorious history.
One last time — just say it — you'll feel better going into the post-All Star Break portion of the season.
Billy F-ing Wagner.
There.
The Canessa Corner
By Kevin Canessa Jr.
SidRosenberg.com
TheHudsonLine.com
As I normally do, I went to the New York Post's Web site as one of my first stops. And when I saw the headline I am about to discuss, it instantly made me sick to my stomach — literally. The headline read: "MASSIVE WTC COST OVERRUNS LOOK GRIM." The headline was enough, but the story itself was extremely painful to read. And I can only wonder what the people who directly lost someone Sept. 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center must think in reading such an incredulous, yet brilliantly presented story.
The piece, written by New York State Editor
Fredric Dicker, explains that the cost of rebuilding at Ground Zero
will far surpass the originally estimated costs. But worse, the story
reveals what we all sort of already knew: The rebuilding project is way
off schedule, and it may be many years past the originally projected
2012 completion date before everything is said and done at the site of
our nation's worst-ever terrorist attack.Here are some absolutely alarming new projections, courtesy of The Post:
• The massive transit hub, originally slated to open last year, may be scrapped completely.
• The Freedom Tower, scheduled for a 2011 opening, may be pushed back to 2013.
• Towers 2, 3, and 4, scheduled for a 2012 opening, have been pushed back "months," according to The Post.
• The 9/11-World Trade Center Museum, slated for a 2009 completion, may not be done until 2013 or 2014.
• And finally, and perhaps most disturbing, the planned Sept. 11 Memorial, scheduled for a 2009 completion, may not be ready until 2011.
I have lamented, over and over, about how Ground Zero, a place of such great horror, a place of final rest for thousands of Americans and people of many nations, is void, to this day, of a remembrance or memorial to honor those who died that day in 2001. It is difficult to even walk anywhere near Ground Zero, because a once-sacred place is now being treated solely as a pit and a construction site.
Those who died there — the innocent office workers,
the cops, the firefighters, the EMTs, these heroic people who
woke up one September morning in 2001 — are now an afterthought. And
though we've invaded two nations since the attacks of that fateful day,
nothing, nothing at all, recalls the lives that were lost. There's
barely a plaque. The original names that donned the perimeter of the
site exist no more, thanks to construction. The fences around the site
close off this once-sacred place from the view of the people who might
want to come there to remember their lost relative.And now, June 29, 2008, we learn that in all probability, it will be 10 years after the actual attacks before a long-overdue and fitting memorial to the victims is complete and ready to accommodate visitors.
Is this even possible?
We are the United States of America. How on God's great earth could it take 10 years — 3,650 days or so — before a memorial is built? After all, it only took a few months to rebuild the Pentagon. There's a memorial there.
There's some semblance of a memorial in Shanksville, Pa.
Yet
in New York, the site of the largest number of casualties, there isn't
a thing to remember the victims. Nothing. Absolutely nothing at all.A lot of the blame here, according to the Post, belongs with former New York Govs. Eliot Spitzer and, moreso, George Pataki.
Pataki did a terrible job ensuring the pace of the project moved along adequately.
How terribly sad this is.
In 2001, when America's Mayor Rudy Giuliani gave us all comfort after the attacks, always by his side was Pataki. When Pataki spoke, you felt a sense that he cared. You felt a sense he, too, was in pain over the loss of so many people.
And yet, we now know he allowed bureaucracy to slow this rebuilding project down to a snail's pace.
In my lifetime, nothing comes close to being more horrendous than the actual attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But this new news comes very close. Pataki dropped the ball here like no one else ever has for just about any reason.
And the next time you're around or near Ground Zero, stop for just a second. Take a long, hard look at the site where two majestic Towers once stood. Then ask yourself: "How is it possible that seven years after the attacks, there has barely been an inch of progress?"
Then think George Pataki. And then, continue to wonder. Because no answer, no reason, no explanation would or could ever be good enough to explain why there's still no memorial and still very little progress — and how it is possible that it will be 10 long years after the attacks before a memorial is built. Just think of how many who survived the attacks — or many who are surviving relatives — might never, ever get to see the memorial for a plethora of reasons.
For that, Pataki should always be remembered as the governor who said he would — be who never, ever did.
That, my friends, is one of the biggest disgraces in our lifetime.