Skip

Savage reaction
March 3, 2003 12:34 PM   Subscribe

"You rats! You stinking rats who hide in the sewers! You think you can go after my income? You think you can kill my advertisers? You think I'm Dr. Laura? You think I'm gonna roll over like a pussy?..."
Thus did MSNBC's newest hire, Michael Savage, react to the information that GLAAD is meeting with the head of programming to protest his hiring. What's more, he feels the Bush administration owes him an investigation of GLAAD and any other group that protests his hiring, because "I have millions of people who vote. Mr. Bush wants to get re-elected, and just consider me a politician at that point. I'm going to ask for a trade in favor. If they keep it up, my favor is going to be I want these groups investigated."
Some of Michael Savage's comments regarding America, homosexuals, and the state of the country can be read or listened to here or at his Paul Revere Society site linked above.
posted by amberglow (61 comments total)

 
MSNBC loves that people hate Michael Savage. Why? People read him, they link to him and his detractors recruit other people to read him. This generates page views and this is what MSNBC is selling to it's advertisers. If you really want to affect Savage then the best thing to do is ignore him. Most of his views are from his detractors. The second best thing is to copy his article, verbatim and with proper attribution and post it with your comments interspersed, which should be legal under fair use laws. MSNBC would hate that since they don't get the page views then.
posted by substrate at 12:43 PM on March 3, 2003


something tells me that your average mefi is not a big savage fan...
posted by H. Roark at 12:47 PM on March 3, 2003


I can't help but feeling there might be a resonant relationship between GLAAD and Savage. Mike seems to be building up the image of homosexual conspiracy, and imagining a world where an organized gay political agenda/interest might attempt to, say, keep a media organization from hiring someone whose views oppose their agenda. GLAAD seems to be obliging him.

For every activist, there is an equal and opposite reactionary, perhaps?
posted by namespan at 12:49 PM on March 3, 2003


amberglow, I had been thinking about posting something about this guy to see what people thought of him but never got around to it. I find him to be a truly a repulsive human being. That his hate-filled book could reach # 1 on the best seller list is a testament to something. I'm not sure what that is though. I don't know that he's any more harmful than Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et. al., but since he's following them it is necessary for him to up the rhetoric a bit. This is an interesting article that deals with the phenomenon of these people in general with special focus on savage.
posted by vito90 at 12:51 PM on March 3, 2003


I take it this fellow uses I, a lot in discussions, I have millions of people who vote. Sounds like they're his votes for the choosing. Regardless weather agreeing with him or not, he comes off to me very controlling.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:52 PM on March 3, 2003


You're a very funny person thomcatspike.
OTOH, Michael Weiner Savage is a particularly odious individual. MSNBC competes with FAUX, eh?
posted by nofundy at 12:56 PM on March 3, 2003


"...liberalism is a mental disorder that has undermined our families, our society and our national security."

and fascism is a mental disorder that has eaten savage's brain.
posted by quonsar at 12:58 PM on March 3, 2003


The Savage 9 point plan:

1. Make tax cuts permanent.
2. Close the borders now.
3. Deport all illegal immigrants now.
4. Eliminate bilingual education in all states.
5. Require health tests for all recent foreign born immigrants.
6. Eliminate as many entitlement programs as possible.
7. Reduce the number of Federal Employees.
8. Oil Drilling on U.S. Soil.
9. Tort Reform "STOP LAWYERS".


Justice for this guy would be not being able to FIND a lawyer when he inevitably needs one. Stop lawyers indeed.
posted by norm at 1:07 PM on March 3, 2003


[Adds Michael Savage to her list of people to ignore.]
posted by orange swan at 1:08 PM on March 3, 2003


I don't know about where you live, but even in my conservative hometown, Savage is banished to the pariahland of late evening AM radio.
posted by machaus at 1:12 PM on March 3, 2003


So much for the "liberal media". Fire Phil, and hire this ultra-conservative. Will there be any bastions in the media for the left any more? Or is it following a trend of the right getting their news from television, and the left getting their news internationally via the Internet (since the left is intrinsically "Euro-ish")? What happened to balanced news coverage. Or for that matter, fact coverage. I avoid American media sources because they are no longer serve a purpose other than entertainment for a select group of people. I want facts, cold hard fact.

The fact that anyone still believes that there is a gay conspiracy shows how rampant ignorance is. (Is there? Damn, was I left out again?) Gay people, like straight people, mostly just want to go about our lives, not be shot or discriminated for our sexual orientation, and generally just exist.

This Norman Rockwell scenario of the American family is unrealistic. Liberalism isn't killing American families, it is enabling every family, no matter how it is composed, to have a say in how they run their families, and without the government dictating what a family should consist of. Why is his say of what a family is intrinsically right, and a liberal's wrong? Family is what you make it. I consider my close friends my family, because they mean more to me than anything.

It's all about trying to tell people how they should live their lives, instead of letting them live their lives in freedom.
posted by benjh at 1:13 PM on March 3, 2003


I'm glad this guy is getting a show. I wish it was prime time.
We need to expose the ugly underbelly of Bush and Ashcroft's America. This lump of shit represents the freeper end of the political spectrum, which is a force to be reckoned with.
Shine a bright light on these cockroaches and watch the swing voters swing to the left.
posted by 2sheets at 1:13 PM on March 3, 2003


2sheets, I couldn't agree more.

"consider me a politician at that point. I'm going to ask for a trade in favor."

In a world of open-eyed people, this would be a scathing indictment of both the culture and practices of the Bush administration. Sure, they might not take him up on it (or they even might, but not admit it), but for him to even publicly admit that he's keeping Bush's racist homophobic base safe for him, and suggest with a straight face that he should be paid off for it, reflects very clearly on the administration's pay-to-play ideology. Or in Weiner's case, idio-logy.
posted by soyjoy at 1:32 PM on March 3, 2003


I love that in the first of his diatribes, he refers to GLAAD as "brownshirts."
posted by nickmark at 1:33 PM on March 3, 2003


wow. crazyhuhkookoonuts.
posted by t r a c y at 1:38 PM on March 3, 2003


So much for the "liberal media". Fire Phil, and hire this ultra-conservative

MSNBC has tried the Left and will now try the Right, no big shock there. MSNBC is trying to find a niche in the cable news arena. Donahue didn't work for them, and I don't think that Savage will either.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:39 PM on March 3, 2003


god, i have an earth-shattering thought for them. how about they make REPORTING NEWS their niche??????!
posted by quonsar at 1:49 PM on March 3, 2003


A radio talk show host makes weak, ad hominem complaints about an oranization.

The organization then makes weak, ad hominem complaints about the radio talk show host.

What made you think that this would make an excellent MeFi post?
posted by oissubke at 1:58 PM on March 3, 2003


So GLAAD wants someone they dislike out of a job, and Michael Savage wants someone he dislikes out of a job, and, you know, the whole dang human comedy keeps perpetuatin' itself.

Nothing to see here, move along.
posted by xmutex at 1:58 PM on March 3, 2003


From Savage's site:

Conservative talk radio phenomenon and best-selling
author Michael Savage has been signed by MSNBC to host "The Savage Nation," a one-hour weekly issue-oriented opinion show set to air live on Saturday afternoons at 5:00 pm ET.


After reading the messages in this thread, one would think that the guy was taking over the network. He has been given a ONE HOUR show on SATURDAY AFTERNOON!!! Geez!
posted by Durwood at 2:00 PM on March 3, 2003


i was confused about this fpp for a minute, but then i realized it said michael savage, not dan savage.
posted by kickingtheground at 2:15 PM on March 3, 2003


Michael who? Wasn't he a wrestler?
posted by moonbiter at 2:17 PM on March 3, 2003


Durwood, I agree with you that his one hour isn't so scary, in and of itself. But it's a sign of the times that he has a show at all. Kind of like the fact that Ashcroft is actually in office.

Neither of the two freaks I'm comparing will do as much damage as their hysterical opponents claim, but the very fact that they are in a position of power meant to be occupied by wise persons sets off all kinds of warning lights.
posted by zekinskia at 2:18 PM on March 3, 2003


"What made you think that this would make an excellent MeFi post?"

translation: This is another thread that exposes the racism and homophobia of my political allies.

You didn't object to this op-ed being posted. From Newsmax, no less.

At least you're consistent.
posted by 2sheets at 2:19 PM on March 3, 2003


From the amazon.com editorial review of his new, and quickly selling, book:

Like many talk-show personalities, Savage is confrontational, angry, entertaining, and prone to exaggeration, sometimes all at once. He can also be funny and sarcastic. But while he does offer some interesting observations and enough food for thought to make this slim volume worth a read, his book is essentially one long rant with precious little useful information to back up his often bombastic claims. His angry-man shtick may make for stimulating drive-time listening (and high ratings), but it doesn't make for a particularly convincing book.
posted by Espoo2 at 2:26 PM on March 3, 2003


i was confused about this fpp for a minute, but then i realized it said michael savage, not dan savage.

If MSNBC gave Dan Savage a show, that I would watch.
posted by homunculus at 2:26 PM on March 3, 2003


If MSNBC gave Dan Savage a show, that I would watch.

If MSNBC had a show with Michael Savage and Dan Savage as co-hosts, that I would watch.
posted by NormieP at 2:34 PM on March 3, 2003


Oh yeah, his real name is Michael Weiner.
posted by Espoo2 at 2:35 PM on March 3, 2003


GLAAD needs to go down, and not in the good way. They're nothing but a bunch of whiny faggots and dykes that have done nothing to help improve the image of homosexuals/ity in mass media. They are sound and fury, bad clothing and limp wrists connected to wringing hands who serve no purpose but to perpetuate their own sense of self-importance.

If Savage (Michael or Dan) wants help takin' 'em down, I'm with him.
posted by WolfDaddy at 2:36 PM on March 3, 2003


Ladies and gents, HateFilter!
posted by xmutex at 2:42 PM on March 3, 2003


Nothing to see here, move along.

I started to agree and was ready to move on, but something’s bugging me. Why should we look the other way when someone is given airtime (and pages) to spout bigotry and bias? I don’t care if he’s right or left, any commentator should be held to account for being fair and factual. Michael Weiner/Savage isn’t. For that matter, neither is Michael Moore. Yet people patronize these folks—why why why? Having admired Moore until only a few days ago when a friend pointed me toward spinsanity, I think part of the answer is ignorance. In which case, I’m glad people are continuing to criticize the nonsense of these commentators. Spread the message far and wide, please. (For the Salon article, you can read the article’s provocative intro paragraphs but need a free subscription for the rest.)
posted by win_k at 2:42 PM on March 3, 2003


WolfDaddy: Wow. Not only was your little "hate typhoon" uncalled for and ignorant beyond belief, you are also woefully uninformed as to who Dan Savage is.

Sheesh, you peek under one bridge and all the trolls come out to play.
posted by evilcupcakes at 2:50 PM on March 3, 2003


is this guy bothering you amber ?
(flexes muscles)
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:52 PM on March 3, 2003


I started to agree and was ready to move on, but something’s bugging me. Why should we look the other way when someone is given airtime (and pages) to spout bigotry and bias? I don’t care if he’s right or left, any commentator should be held to account for being fair and factual. Michael Weiner/Savage isn’t. For that matter, neither is Michael Moore. Yet people patronize these folks—why why why?

It's a good question win_k. I'd agree that people like Savage who are 1/10th pundit and 9/10th demagogue and an extra part demon-jerk shouldn't be on the airwaves.

My question is: how much is GLAAD's action going to feed the Savage Trolls? My observation has been that partisan demagogues largely feed off of being able to construct a strawman enemy. They're often fortunate that their opponents are as willing to use spectacle (or accidentally present it) in order to give them material.

"Gay people, like straight people, mostly just want to go about our lives, not be shot or discriminated for our sexual orientation, and generally just exist." Much of America could probably quietly rally around such an agenda. Holding up GLAAD as a knight to joust Savage down from his position could just as easily produce a wacko-conservative backlash as be effective.

Anyway, that was the point of my "for every activist, there is an equal and opposite reactionary" comment.
posted by namespan at 2:59 PM on March 3, 2003


Perhaps someone should mention fajitas. Only food will save this thread.
posted by ed at 3:01 PM on March 3, 2003


Thanks for that link win_k.
posted by Espoo2 at 3:03 PM on March 3, 2003


win_k: Because what GLAAD is attempting to do is a little thing called censorship and censorship is bad, mm'kay? GLAAD isn't trying to counter his views publicly, to engage in discourse, no, they're trying to strangle him.

And as much as I'd like to strangle Michael Savage, it just isn't right. What GLAAD should be doing is taking out airtime during Savage's show, speaking out, that sort of thing.

And fer crying out loud, does anyone really expect factual truth from television commentators? I certainly hope not. User error if that's the case.

There's a difference between criticizing Savage's views, which should absolutely be done loud and clear, and trying to silence him through censorship, which if anything gives him some sort of transparent merit to his own supporters and even some casual thinkers.
posted by xmutex at 3:11 PM on March 3, 2003



The Savage 9 point plan:


Support:
3. Deport all illegal immigrants now.
5. Require health tests for all recent foreign born immigrants.

Indifferent to:
4. Eliminate bilingual education in all states.
1. Make tax cuts permanent.
7. Reduce the number of Federal Employees.
8. Oil Drilling on U.S. Soil.

What does this mean, specifically?:
9. Tort Reform "STOP LAWYERS"
6. Eliminate as many entitlement programs as possible.

Against:
2. Close the borders now.

None of the above seem especially wacky to me, except, perhaps for #2.

I actually like Savage. He's also entertaining, although his SUV-ish side is disappointing.

Basically, I think most of today's "conservatives" embody middle-of-the road positions circa 1960-70, and seek to get attention by styling these positions "conservative."

Then again, a fair number of people think it's outrageous to take out Saddam, so go figure...
posted by ParisParamus at 3:33 PM on March 3, 2003


Oh yeah, his real name is Michael Weiner.

Oh, a another conservative Jew.

It's really funny how Jews are viewed as so liberal, but the neoconservative movement is very Jewish. Cool.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:38 PM on March 3, 2003


evilcupcakes, you have your opinion, I have mine. Mine is full of contempt for an organization that's self-serving, self-important, and propagates an extremely incomplete image of how homosexuals "should" be portrayed and is every bit as fascistic as Mr. Michael Savage ... just from the other side. I also know precisely who Dan Savage is: I was commenting sarcastically on the fact that the last name had caused prior posters to confuse one Savage with another.

I can ignore Mike Savage. I can't ignore GLAAD because they claim to speak for me and my "community" when the only people they speak for are those that conform to a very narrow idea of homosexuality and "community". GLAAD has a very loud voice, one that very often drowns out opinions counter to their own.

I've had the dubious pleasure of having had to interact with several varying levels of the GLAAD organization and have never walked away with anything positive from them. It's direct experience as a gay man that has given me my opinion.

That I state the opinion strongly and with a good deal of anger, that I would dare to presume to criticize my fellow homosexuals and their "work", seems to tick you off and makes you presume I'm ignorant and troll-ish. Piss off, eh? This rainbow's supposed to encompass all colors of the spectrum. Trouble is, the loudest people that say that, GLAAD included, are lying their well-fucked asses off when it comes to their ideas of what the so-called "gay community" actually is. They should know better, and since they don't, they should definitely not have such a loud voice when it comes to trying educate those that need to know better.
posted by WolfDaddy at 3:41 PM on March 3, 2003


translation: This is another thread that exposes the racism and homophobia of my political allies.

1. Michael Savage is not my political ally.

2. If I happen too see right wing editorial rubbish, I'll ask that it not be posted as well.

3. I've made stupid posts. I've been criticized. I learn from my mistakes and I move on.
posted by oissubke at 3:41 PM on March 3, 2003


I like burritos.
posted by xmutex at 3:43 PM on March 3, 2003


Do you extort money from filmmakers because they don't eat burritos the way you do, xmutex? ;-)
posted by WolfDaddy at 3:56 PM on March 3, 2003


The 9-point plan isn't as scary as his rhetoric -- check out that second GLAAD link. It's basically anti-liberal anti-gay ranting intersperced with exhortations to Purity. Anyone can quote the inflammatory claims, but it's the stuff that's between them that's more disturbing, because of the context; it indicates a real-life fascist mindset. Take a look, kids:

Moral purity is equated with utter decadence...America has entered what I'd call the Mangled Century...We have a society that has gone so backward we glorify the sickos.

The far right isn't just on the rise in Europe; it's just that our elecoral system doesn't let them into congress on their own ticket.
posted by Tlogmer at 4:10 PM on March 3, 2003


evilcupcakes, you have your opinion, I have mine...
...I can't ignore GLAAD because they claim to speak for me and my "community" when the only people they speak for are those that conform to a very narrow idea of homosexuality and "community".

That's fine. I don't disagree with either of those points. However, I don't find your derisive use of terms like "faggot" and "dyke" to be constructive, whether you are gay or not.

So yes, I find your post trollish. Piss off yourself.
posted by evilcupcakes at 4:31 PM on March 3, 2003


All right evilcupcakes, since you can't stand to hear or read certain words used in dismissive and derisive fashion at precisely the time when they should be used as such, let's take a look at one of those people I am so derisive towards:

Let's look at Scott Seomin, "entertainment media director" for GLAAD.

That one person within that organization has the power to control and/or influence how gays are portrayed in everything from South Park to hit Hollywood movies. He "suggests" that screenwriters "tone down" what they write about how gays live their lives (is that a lifestyle??). He has the ears of a lot of people, and when people don't do what he "suggests", they get smacked down. Who gave him that power? Who elected him to that office? Who permits him such control? Not I, nor anyone else I know. That worries me.

As far as I know, Michael Savage has yet to get Kevin Smith to pay Savage's favorite charity ten thousand dollars for no good reason or edit his words to be more palatable to a very select percentage of a work's total audience. Scott Seomin has done that, more than once, to more than one person or group of people.

Who's more scary here? Who's exercising their power more irresponsibly while coating it in a sugary sweet glaze of "this is what the gay community wants and needs from you"? It's a tougher call than you might think. GLAAD, especially as personified by Seomin, is far more worrisome to me than some trollish MSNBC commentator. So I embrace the pejorative when referring to GLAAD in general and Seomin in particular.

Would it have made any difference had I posted all this first before calling the people at GLAAD a bunch of self-important dykes and fags? Hmmm, I wonder. I guess it depends on how well-informed you are, and how well you know the people that allegedly speak for you. Personally, I'd rather speak for myself. Hugs'n'pisses to you.
posted by WolfDaddy at 4:45 PM on March 3, 2003


The point being, I'm fairly sure, that GLAAD is an extremist organization. As such, it needs to be called into question. Indeed, it is quite right to savage it: extremists aren't healthy for society.

I think WolfDaddy is right on the money: there are good reasons to denigrate Michael Savage Weiner, but his upset with GLAAD ain't one of them. Both MSW and GLAAD are part of the nasty underbelly of America, and both need to be shown the door.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:06 PM on March 3, 2003


I don't need a group telling hollywood to tone gays down, or tone them up, or whatever the hell they are doing this week with Eric McCormack. I need a group that will focus on things like tolerance, non-violence, and education. PFLAG, HRC, GSAs.

But what we don't need is someone fanning the fuels of hate, which is what this guy is doing. If somebody hired David Duke for a talk show on MSNBC, oh you know you'd be hearing about it from New York to LA 24/7 until something was done. But hey, it's just a fag basher. So let him preach his hate, and fan it across the country, even for one hour. And then we'll have another Matthew Shephard incident. But no one will care.

It's ok to make silly little jokes about someone being gay, insinuations. It's all hilarious, isn't it? Never mind the deep feelings someone has, never mind the suicide rates double or triple straight teenagers. Never mind it all, because it doesn't matter, because it's just a fag.
posted by benjh at 5:33 PM on March 3, 2003


If somebody hired David Duke for a talk show on MSNBC, oh you know you'd be hearing about it from New York to LA 24/7 until something was done. But hey, it's just a fag basher. So let him preach his hate, and fan it across the country, even for one hour.

I don't think it's because Savage is a "fag basher" but because MSNBC is becoming less relevent by the day in terms of being a news source [despite being owned by Microsoft and NBC]. His timeslot couldn't be lower in ratings if it were on in the middle of the night.

If CNN or FoxNews hired this guy, you'd see more than just GLAAD say anything about it.
posted by birdherder at 5:54 PM on March 3, 2003


Being in the Bay Area, I've been able to terribly dislike Savage for quite a while (and I'm not exactly liberal, there was a reason I was exposed to him on KSFO).

But somehow the irony of him coming out of San Francisco and Berkeley strikes me as amusing. An equal and opposite reaction, I guess, but in this case most of the equal and opposite seems to be focused in one terrible, terrible man.
posted by obfusciatrist at 5:55 PM on March 3, 2003


extremists aren't healthy for society

and you don't think this Weiner guy is an extremist (which isn't always a bad thing, imho)?

i have absolutely no problem with extremists, as long as they're (moderately - ha) intelligent and not violent. this guy Weiner is neither (ok, he might be intelligent, but the positions he supposedly maintains are not).

how the heck could we have moderates if we didn't have extremists?

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater.

when i think of it (on preview), this guy Weiner isn't actually an extremist, IMO. i would be very surprised if he actually believes *everything* he says/writes. smells like post-Rush ratings to me. up the rhetoric and people will: a) cheer; b)gnash their teeth. either way, more will listen.

if he really does believe all that crap he says/writes, he should come debate me. i dare him!

[no response]

i didn't think so - pussy!

[from the Savage School of Debate, lesson #1]
posted by mrgrimm at 5:55 PM on March 3, 2003


Is that his real official site?

I just can't be all that offended by someone that's still using Homestead. Sorry Mikey.
posted by gramcracker at 6:04 PM on March 3, 2003


Saying that GLAAD is an extremist group is a lot like saying that EFF or Amnesty International or the NAACP are extremists.

All they are doing is trying to protect the rights and freedoms of their constituency. You may disagree with their methods now and then, but if their methods are flawed, it is the exception, not the rule, and they certainly don't benefit from negative attention. Savage and his ilk, however, thrive on such attention - negative and positive. All press is good press to them, so long as it doesn't get them kicked off the air.

Nobody likes censorship, but everyone wants to have media which is thoughtful and ideally not overtly discriminatory. For this reason alone, Hollywood and TV really do need organizations like GLAAD, and, in fact, benefit from them. You can criticize the "Cosbyesque" gentrification of minorities all you want, but the fact is that it probably makes our television smarter.

If that results in hate-filled programs like Savage not being shown on television, that's good. That doesn't prevent people like Savage from having a soap box, but if he's going to promote hatred, it shouldn't be as public and prominent as it is.

Without such organizations, television could become even more sensationalistic than today... I bet you could get a 20 market share for the "The KKK Show" , followed afterwards with the obligitory crossburning, of course.
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:41 PM on March 3, 2003


"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater.

Much like many good sources of wisdom, you could take that to justify a lot of bad things. Even outright horrible things. Maybe even the USA PATRIOT act.

In fact, I suspect both Savage and GLAAD would happily commander that ideal and be willing to use the quote as a tagline.
posted by namespan at 7:42 PM on March 3, 2003


god, i have an earth-shattering thought for them. how about they make REPORTING NEWS their niche??????!

naw, that's CNN's. *smirk*
posted by Vidiot at 7:54 PM on March 3, 2003


Implying some kind of moral equivalency between GLAAD and Savage is ridiculous.

While you could argue that GLADD or its reps are misguided, it's important to differentiate them from someone who has shown themselves to be a hatemonger.
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:40 PM on March 3, 2003


5. Require health tests for all recent foreign born immigrants.

Applicants for an immigrant visa to the US are already required to undergo physicals, including blood tests and chest x-rays.
posted by normy at 9:29 PM on March 3, 2003


All they are doing is trying to protect the rights and freedoms of their constituency.

Tell me, please, just what constituency you think GLAAD represents? What commonality holds that constituency together, especially in compare to the EFF and the NAACP?

To me, the only commonality in GLAAD's constituency, the only thing we all have in common within that so-called "constituency" is where we choose to put our genitals and other various tingly parts.

That's not enough. That's not enough by far.

And you know it.
posted by WolfDaddy at 12:44 AM on March 4, 2003


Implying some kind of moral equivalency between GLAAD and Savage is ridiculous.

amen to that! While you can dislike some tactics of GLAAD, why is it ok to defame us every day on the airwaves, but not to protest that defamation?
If the mainstream media has recognized that it's no longer in their best interests to mock and ridicule and blame homosexuals, we should be thanking GLAAD, in part, for helping to make that attitude widespread.

I posted this story because i feel it's important to expose nasty people to the light of scrutiny--not to ignore them, or hope they go away. But when i read his reaction to the protests, i saw there's more here than meets the eye--why is it ok for savage to boast of his pull with the administration (and he does have a large constituency of listeners) to silence protest against him with threats? why can't GLAAD use its power as an advocacy group (especially regarding advertisers and sponsorship)? is savage actually scared? (I believe he is, and at the same time, using GLAAD's actions as proof of the validity of his rantings about conspiracy theories.) But what is the right response here?

and thanks sgt!!! : >
posted by amberglow at 5:35 AM on March 4, 2003


i have absolutely no problem with extremists, as long as they're (moderately - ha) intelligent and not violent.

Yeah, but isn't that where this is headed? As the rhetoric inevitably gets ratcheted up, so does the resentment, and so does the chance for violence.

I'm of the mind that this sort of smoldering hatred is bound to explode in full-out political violence in the U.S. at some point in the not too distant future. Maybe over the war or something. America has been remarkably immune to the political violence bug for some time, but this is all a recipe for confrontation.

Which is maybe why people like it so much. The harsh words serve as a substitute for physical violence, a way to smack down your opponent without resorting to fisticuffs - or firearms. But the nature of the flames being fanned say to me that there will come a time when verbal abuse isn't enough. And I'm off to Canada, then.
posted by kgasmart at 10:44 AM on March 4, 2003


an update: ...all six national sponsors of MSNBC's "Savage Nation" debut have publicly withdrawn from the program...
posted by amberglow at 9:56 AM on March 14, 2003


« Older Twins Reunite After 20 Years   |   Do anti-war films glorify conflict? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post