The Debate On Public Vs. Privates Continues. By Tom Danehy (Author's note: Let's be honest here. This column was written awhile ago, during that two-week period when Stern's movie was actually in the theaters and the Wildcats were making their run. Guess which one people will remember longer.) THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM used to be that shock jock Howard Stern was a foul-mouthed, no-talent jerk who inexplicably became rich telling peepee jokes on the radio. But now in a revolting twist, he is trying to paint himself as a misunderstood family man and (ahem) champion of First Amendment rights. And he has a most distressing ally in this effort, a media gone mushy and unfocused. It's like a practical application of chaos theory. Somebody (probably Stern himself) went out in the middle of the desert and whispered that he's really a combination of Mike Brady and John Peter Zenger. The whisper turned into a breeze, in which the media morons were all too happy to flap. That frenzied chorus of hot air was used to try to whip up a hurricane designed to alter public opinion. I used to have a moderate amount of respect for the media, even some of those gushers who covered entertainment. Imagine my chagrin when the media masses swarmed all over Howard Stern like lemmings, battling one another to see who could shove his nose the farthest up Stern's cellulite-infested butt. (I have to be careful with imagery like that. Stern might use it on his show in an effort to go one more day without doing anything that's actually funny or interesting.) Please be aware that this isn't Tom the Prude coming to the fore. I have a blue-tinged vocabulary that could make a construction worker blush. The Navy should hire me to teach sailors how to cuss. I've never bought into that argument that intelligent people can communicate without the use of bad language. I know all too well the value of a well-placed F-word. I grew up on the streets and am well-versed in the vernacular Talkshitonics. But I also know that a word which is acceptable in the locker room can be entirely inappropriate for the classroom. I cuss all the time, but I don't do it on the radio. I don't do it around kids. And I don't do it just to shock people. This doesn't make me a hypocrite. It makes me an adherent to a code of conduct which helps hold society together. One which shows respect for people and ties one generation to another with an understanding that each person will learn things in his own time. Actually, I'm wildly libertarian when it comes to most of Stern's topics. If an adult wants to rent a highlight film of a Tijuana floor show involving a woman and a donkey, that's his business. (Of course, one of those PETA dorks will probably complain the poor donkey climaxed against his will.) The viewing of such a video can be controlled. Heck, I wouldn't even care if they showed it on cable, since the technology exists whereby parents can screen out material which they find objectionable. And if they fail to do so, it's then simply a matter of their shirking their parental responsibility. But no such technology exists for radio, and that's the main issue here. Any kid with a homemade crystal set to a ubiquitous Walkman can tune in and catch Stern talking about the size of his privates, lesbian lovemaking techniques, and God knows what else. It isn't right. And it damn sure isn't funny. My friend Jimmy Kimmel used to love Howard Stern; he thought Stern was great for radio. Jimmy was a newlywed back then. I told him to wait until he had kids and then tell me if he thought Stern was good for radio. Stern, I told him, is the radio equivalent of that line, "That's as funny as a truckload of dead babies." When you're young and stupid, you might laugh at that line. But after you've had a child (or your IQ hit 70), it kinda loses its humor. Jimmy thought it was ridiculous to base one's sense of humor and outlook on politics on whether you have kids. He later learned the truth. Heck, the presence of children in this world kept Nikita Khrushchev from starting World War III. You should never underestimate their impact. If there were a way to make sure that only adults had access to Stern's radio show, then I'd say more power to him. He still wouldn't be funny, but at least he wouldn't be doing any harm. Let me make this perfectly clear: He's not funny. I'm like that Robert Wuhl character in Good Morning, Vietnam. I know funny and he's not funny. And I like a wide range of funny. I like everybody from Spike Jones to Spike Lee. Peewee Herman to Herman Goehring. (Hey, the Reichsmarshal was a hoot in those black stockings and bustier.) I've suffered through Stern's morning radio show on several occasions, thinking maybe I just didn't get it the other times. I read his first book, which, when my life is tallied up, will go in the category of "Wasted Day and One-Half Wasted Night." And I plunked down four bucks to see his sorry excuse for a movie. (I really hated to add to his weekly take, but I felt that, to be fair, I'd have to see the thing. It sucked.) He likens himself to an actor who plays a part and then goes back to being himself. No, Howard, Laurence Olivier played Hamlet and then went home to try to take care of manic-depressive Vivien Leigh. You're just a guy who peddles dirty verbal pictures for a living. You love your wife? You ought to; she's your wife. You're faithful to her? Have we reached such a low point in our society that we now applaud people for doing what they're supposed to do? What's most vulgar about Stern is his attempt to hide behind the First Amendment. Numerous court cases have made it clear there are limits to free speech. I don't care if every adult in America thought he was funny; he still shouldn't have the right to say those things on the radio. He's not a constitutional crusader; he's a flesh-and-blood Beavis and Butthead, locked forever in arrested development. The Pied Piper for the criminally low-brow. Oh, and have I mentioned? He's not funny.

		© 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth