Forums:
Taxonomy upgrade extras:
I have just sent an email to CNN News, concerning the Don Imus "incident", comparing it to the ridiculous and bigoted things that are said by Michael Savage. The following is the text of the email:
"My comment concerns the Don Imus situation, although somewhat obliquely. What Mr. Imus said WAS wrong, and he should be taken to task for it, but..what he said was certainly no worse than things being said by another so-called talk show host, Mr. Michael Savage, whose attacks are aimed at
gays, lesbians, bi people and Trans people. Many times he has leveled vicious diatribes at those groups, yet NO ONE is calling HIM to task for it, while Don Imus, who said ONE thing, is being pilloried and threatened with the loss of his career and income. does this strike ANY of you as fair? How is what Savage says, often and consistantly, somehow all right, but what Mr. Imus said, one time, is considered tantamount to attacking motherhood, apple pie and the United States of America?
Mr. Savage has publicly called the aforementioned groups, "freaks" and "sickos" and worse, yet NO ONE is taking HIM to task for it!
Is it a case of no one really caring about those groups, so it doesn't matter what anyone says about them, or is it a case of The "Reverend" Al Sharpton seeing yet another chance to stick his face in and on the news?
Or, is it more a case of the simple fact that gays, lesbians, trans or bi's don't HAVE anyone comparable to Al Sharpton to speak for them?
Fairness for all, is what I'm talking about here. If it's okay to attack Don Imus for what HE said, then the same should be said of Mr. Savage and the things HE says.
Conversely, if it's NOT okay to take Mr. Savage to task over what he says, then it should be equally not right for anyone to be attacking Mr. Imus for what HE said.
Thank you for reading."
With respect, I am,
(I signed with my Male name)
The link to send emails to CNN NEWS is included in this post.
I feel VERY strongly about this, and about everything I said in my email to CNN NEWS. WHERE is OUR voice? Who speaks for US when WE are maligned by unthinking bigots like Michael Savage?
Am I alone in this? Am I the only one who is willing to speak up, in some other way than anonymously on a message board?
I now await the inevitable flames of derision. Fire away folks.
Cathy_t_
Flog Michael Savage
with out of style lingerie! What right does he have to say its ok to kill beat and abuse transgenders gays or lesbians??? In case you want a glimpse of this radio show talk host here he is in some of his glory http://mediamatters.org/items/200703210018 . Mr. Imus is no better! We need a voice. We need legal respresentation. We need legislative action to include abuse of us as a federal hate crime and to remove/reduce the medical community and state abuses of laws to hinder/harass/impede us from being who we are or from living.
Sephrena Lynn Miller
Freedom of Speech
Somehow, people think that the Constitution guarantees the right not to be offended by someone else's free speech. T'aint so. I don't approve of Mr. Savage or what he says, but nothing says I have to. The same with Mr. Imus or Mr. Stern. I also don't much care for Rev. Sharpton either. But the U.S. Constitution gives them the right to say the things they do, whether I like them or not.
I'm all for boycotting the shows, and their sponsors; and letting the sponsors and the stations know. However, if you think that getting these people kicked off the airwaves is going to effect some fundamental change, well, it's not. There will always be people who hate, denying them a forum to espouse their hatred will not change that.
As I said over on Storysite when this first came up, we need to educate the next generation, those now growing up. Just as the Civil Rights movement of the Sixties led to a generation today that is much more tolerant of racial differences, educating the children of today will result in a more accepting future for the LGBTI community.
But the idea of "hate" crime makes me uneasy. Isn't hate the reason most violent crimes occur? And defining "hate" speech seems to tread on the line separating free from prohibited speech (the classic yelling fire in a crowded theater example). As one who is effectively Libertarian, I become concerned when laws are passed prohibiting the free exercise of the rights guaranteed to me by the U.S. Constitution. That's a two-edged sword, which can be used against us just as easily.
No flames, just my two cent's worth.
Karen J.
"A dress makes no sense unless it inspires men to want to take it off you."
Francoise Sagan
"Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.”
George Carlin
Expanding on my comment
Regarding educating the youth of today, I found this "warning" when I clicked on a story by Samantha Michelle (Emily and Me) I think it says what I was trying to say very well, especially the part I've highlighted in bold.
A tip of the hat to Samantha Michelle, an excellent author and one of my favorites.
Karen J.
"A dress makes no sense unless it inspires men to want to take it off you."
Francoise Sagan
"Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.”
George Carlin
Re: Freedom of Speech
Freedom of speech is the right to speak your mind in opposition to government policy without fear of imprisonment. By extension, it also allows you to express your opinions in a broad range of areas without prior restraint or having to clear a censorship board.
However, what it does not allow you to do:
1) Threaten others. There are many permutations of this, including extortion, intimidation, and blackmail. Those are crimes clearly not protected under the First Amendment. (You do not have the right to express the desire to kill the President, for example. This is expressly forbidden by law. You do not have the right to call for lynchings or beatings, either.)
2) Libel or slander others. Spreading unprovable, or provably false and detrimental allegations about someone is a tortitious act.
3) Commit treason. Calling for the overthrow of the government of the US is prohibited. (Not to be confused with working to replace present officeholders by peaceful electoral means, of course.)
4) Use the public airwaves in a manner injurious to the public. This is open to interpretation, of course, and by the FCC mostly. The public airwaves are legally a trust, and the government licenses broadcasters to support the public good and benefit.
In the matter of "Hate Speech," it is clear that such speech often violates all of the above points. Practitioners of such speech threaten violence, spread lies, oppose our government and constitution for affording human rights to all individuals, and injure the public via the public airwaves.
Furthermore, the right of free speech is not the right of unopposed free speech. It is not only our right to speak up against those so-called "opinions" which are criminal in their nature, but perhaps our duty to do so. It is our right to be coarse and abusive and angry in response. There is no right for a speaker of hate speech to even be met with civility. Scum is scum and should be told so in no uncertain terms.
I ABSOLUTELY detest hate
Dear Cathy,
You have my complete agreement with your feelings. I quite agree, too, with your vehicle. If I could be allowed one little bit of advice, it would be to tone down the retoric some. It has been my experience that most people react much more favourably to calmly stated, well ordered complaints than to comments filled with yelling and accusations. You email is just the proper method of contact in this day-and-age and you message is completely correct, in my opinion. But, and I don't know about yours, but, my mom taught me, it's easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar. (Why one would want to CATCH flies instead of just killing the damn things was never quite clear to me, though.)
I missed the telecast you speak of so I can't really say I know all about this.
Thank you for reading my "two cents worth".
with love,
Hope
with love,
Hope
Once in a while I bare my soul, more often my soles bear me.
Nope
I can't agree with you Hope.
My mother taught English. She would correct the letters I sent her from college with a red pen, and then send them back to me. That was her take on "tough love."
Sometimes we need to use a red pen. Sometimes the truth is found best at a visceral level.
Yes -- they should fire Imus. They should also fire Rush, Savage and all the other people who make a living poking their fingers in peoples' eyes. But they won't. Not unless no one is willing to sponsor their shows -- and that won't happen unless no one is willing to listen. Two Imus sponsors have quit, how many others are standing at the door to take their place?
People will quit listening when they understand how vile the shock jock's remarks are. Unless pople use their pens as Cathy T has, to plainly state the problem, it will be ignored.
This issue has become a media circus. AOL showed a picture of the Rutger's team this morning. Every girl in the picture was black, which isn't true of the team. Sometimes the medium is the message.
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
I understand ...
... your feelings, but you're facts aren't quite accurate. This isn't Imus's first time in trouble with racist and other non-PC remarks, and Savage has been removed from a committee or two and fired from a television show on MSNBC for non-PC anti-gay and transsexual remarks. Check out Wikipedia because it's easiest. It isn't my normal go to source because of biases on sensitive and political issues, but it seems to be reasonably straight-up there.
Imus is employed by CBS Radio, not CNN, and through them, syndicated by Westwood One. MSNBC broadcasts his daily show. Savage is syndicated by Talk Radio Network.
"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."
Mahatma Gandhi
"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."
Mahatma Gandhi
Aardvark..
You seem to missing my real point here. It doesn't matter who works for what network. I emailed CNN because that's where I saw the first reports and they are a news organization, not because I think they can do anything other than inform, which was my intent. To inform people who might not be aware of Savage and his bigotry and hatred.
My point is, Imus was wrong. No question. and I am not defending him. I'm merely saying that if it's okay to drag him through the press and threaten his job and livelihood, then the same should hold true for Michael Savage, whose offenses are more aggregious, and done more often than Imus's are. Yet no one seems interested in going after Savage.
Why is this? I believe it's simply that we, gays, lesbians, Bi's, trans, have no voice. No one to speak for us when things like this happen. It's as if it's not okay to "dis" blacks, but it's perfectly acceptable to "dis" us, since no one is going to make a big deal out of it the way Al Sharpton and others are doing with Imus.
Savage needs to be held responsible for the horrible things he's said about us, and the things he's advocated to deal with us. What he says is no different from what Imus said. It's just aimed as a group of people who, apparently, don't matter as much as other minorities...US!!! And THAT, pisses me off!
Hence, my diatribe and email campaign which seems to be limited to myself. So be it. But tell me this. Isn't anyone else aware, or doesn't anyone else CARE that Savage says and advocates the things he does? Is what he says not as bad, or worse, than what Imus said?
It doesn't matter who he works for. What matters is that he's wrong in what he says, and no one seems willing to take him to task for it, yet the whole world is outraged by Imus's comment/slur.
Think about this as well. Michael Savage and his show are number TWO, eclipsed only by Don Imus and his show, in importance and influence, according to polls.
Think about that and then try to sleep tonight. I can tell you that it turns my stomach and strengthens my resolve to make SOMEONE aware of Savage and his bigotry and prejudice!
Cathy_t_
As a T-woman, I do have a Y chromosome... it's just in cursive, pink script.
Uhh...
Just restating what I said before, Savage has been punished for anti-gay and transgender statements already. Look at the Wikipedia article for Michael Savage. The man was fired from his TV show for it, and removed from a committee for another incident. Savage is considerably more important on talk radio than Imus, BTW. Savage is ranked #3 in listeners while Imus is #14.
A minor diatribe on Imus:
Yes, Imus was dead wrong to say what he did. Still, the man and his crew, like Stern, are paid to seek the "edge" of permissible conduct and language. Imus has been doing the same thing for decades, insulting people, and people tune in to be amused or live vicariously through his outrageous putdowns. I can well imagine, as he says, that he strayed over the line, in this case, "way over the line" inadvertently because he hugs it so closely. Apologizing to Al Sharpton, a man he calls friend, the Al Sharpton of the Tawana Brawley fraud, a race merchant and hypocrite if I ever saw one, was incredibly ironic, and must have been humiliating. The damage he did was to those Rutgers student-athletes, who, I thought, would have been better served to simply call him one his own favorite insult words, a "jerk" or "moron" and blow him off as an insignificant flea bite, than portray themselves as seriously offended, or, worse, do what one of the young women did, to say that she could be "... scarred for life ..." by the incident, but what the heck. To his credit, he is meeting with them to explain his remarks.
There is so much to be said about this incident, so many angles to come at it. One could speak about racial double standards, the meaning of equality and racism, free speech, and the culture of victimhood, but this is not the forum for that. I doubt that Imus will be fired or even lose any money. To me, this is relatively small potatoes, blown way up by the publicity. In the end, I think, this will only serve to increase his ratings.
/rant
Savage, as you say, is quite another story. Unlike Imus, with two masters degrees and a doctorate, this man has a brain. He's a radical Libertarian and despises the Republicans nearly as much as the Democrats, which is all a part of his normal fare, politics. When the subject comes up, he makes no secret that he considers gays and transsexuals abnormal, has used the word "sodomite," and thinks that the gays, at least, are trying to acquire protected status, in effect legally elevating themselves "above" the rest. I did a search on Michael Savage yesterday. He doesn't advocate violence, but insists on his right to his own opinion. He's written a few bestselling books, so his opinions, as odious and ill-informed on gays and transsexuals as they are, are out in the open.
Nothing of what he says, as far as I know, is in violation of any free speech or FCC laws in the US. In the EU, it would be a different matter. When he gets fired it is due to decisions from his employers, who may have their own standards of conduct, and who listen to the backlash from viewers, listeners, and interested parties like yourself. You have a perfect right to protest, write letters, and should do so if you feel the need. With enough numbers it can and does work. Where Michael Savage is concerned, you are not alone.
On the other hand, sometimes it's a good thing to have people rant and rave about subjects that have no basis in reality. Left to their own devices, they often come off as hypocrites or fanatics and condemn themselves.
This has nothing specific to do with Imus or Savage, but what the heck:
Personally, I'd rather have the laws we have here, than the free speech stifling laws and the insane, in my opinion, PC of the EU, which, with their recent actions in Brussels of "banning" and discouraging certain words in the press, is only getting worse. If one can't bring all sides of a subject up for fear of being thrown in jail, as countries within the EU have done to its subjects when they have discussed the "wrong" side of certain topics, then rational discourse on that subject is lost. Protected speech laws, although done with the best intentions (occasionally), is the basis for a thought police tyranny, a la 1984.
A quote from Theodore Dalrymple, noted British author and columnist:
"Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."
Aardvark
"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."
Mahatma Gandhi
"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."
Mahatma Gandhi
because I'm too stupid to keep quiet...
When I first learned the word 'libertarian' it meant something besides 'no new taxes'. I don't think that Savage can raise that flag while at the same time condemning the liberties o others and expecting protection and privileges from a government supported by all. He operates under a license from the government of the USA, and therefore does not get the unfettered protection of the 1st amendment that a private citizen does.
Long ago the FCC had the 'fairness doctrine'; it did not always work but it limited the extremes we now see in talk radio, because equal time had to be given to opposing views. At about the same time that rule was lost the limits on he number of broadcast outlets owned by one entity disappeared too. The cost of stations rose and small broadcasters were shut out. Fewer voices, and many of those owned by people with definite political agendas, resulted. It isn't liberty when it is subsidized and restricted; let Savage say what he wants, let others respond fairly. (Except, as I understand it, he has condoned and celebrated violence, even if he has not openly advocated it.)
Anyway, Aard, I think that except for that we mostly agree (maybe not; but I certainly do not mean this as any kind of attack. If I ever lose it enough to do such a thing it will be on the thoughtless, not the thoughtful.): Imus is an oaf, paid to offend (This must be a slow news cycle; he isn't worth it.). Savage is a sad little hanger on, who in old age has found a platform to get attention and would say anything to get it. It is just more than sad that hate sells so damn well.
But as to 'political correctness', who exactly is it that is trying to stifle discussion? If I object to an insult, must I hear some talking head (paid, perhaps, by someone who has twice had American law changed just so he can have his huge - politically biased - media empire) say, "NaNa wittle PC wimpy fairy...." Who is ending dialogue then? Who demanding doublespeak and trying to control discourse with simplistic slogans. Who is denying the reality? Who is most crouching their words for the correct political effect? Who demanding silence from others? The words "Politically correct" have become a synonym for "shut up; I don't want to think", and we need thought.
I missed the 60s (just barely though(I was there, just not aware) but I once did believe in a coming world where "peace would guide the planets and love, rule the stars." Really stupid, huh. Now I awaken each day more scared than when I went to bed. Really stupid, huh?
Hugs all;
Jan
Liberty is more than the freedom to be just like you.
Nappy Headed Poem
Reading all the above has inspired me to pen this bit of verse, a magical forced fem retribution fantasy about Don Imus (who, as you might recall, got in trouble back in April for calling a predominently African-American women's basketball team a bunch of "nappy headed hos"...) BE WARNED: This it is quite graphic, and laden with profanities and ugly racial stereotypes. A crude poem about a crude man...
NAPPY'S LAMENT (the Don Imus story) by Laika
I once was Don Imus but now I'm a slut,
who gets fucked in the cunt and the mouth and the butt.
Yes I once had my very own radio show;
when I talked much mo' better, and not like no Ho.
All I can say now is things like: "Sho 'nuff";
"Yowza!" and "Um-gawa" and "Feets do yo' stuff!"...
And to negotiate prices for services rendered,
by this dumb two-bit floozy of a new race and gender.
Oh I used to be famous all throughout the land,
I basked in fanatical praise from my fans.
The more vicious I was the more money I made.
Such a damned cynical cavalier jade.
I made fun of homos, spicks, spooks and chinks,
and my mysogynist raving always raised quite a stink!
And when some bleeding heart took exception to me,
I sneered in disgust and I called him PC.
My life was a playland of thoughtless bombast
with no consequences, that I thought would last.
But the night that the Rutger's girls played Tennessee.
Everyone suddenly came after me!
Maybe my comments pushed the limits a bit;
but tell me those home girls weren't skanky as shit!
The girl's basketball coach wanted my head on a pike,
Well what can you expect from a man-hating dyke?
"Suspended? You're kidding! Now come on here, folks;
You know how I am! Can't these coons take a joke?"
Then when bigmouth Al Sharpton waded into the fray,
I needed a drink in a serious way.
I saw nothing amiss when approached in that bar;
It's just one of my perks as a media star.
She was young black & smart and she praised my aplomb,
her journalism class all thought I was da bomb.
She apologized for the overreaction
of a certain hysterical liberal faction.
"Words can't hurt anyone," I said. She agreed,
and said, "Regulation of speech we don't need."
And that, "Only a wimp would expect the State
to act as their nanny and forbid us to hate.
Opinion's protected, even if it's not 'nice'",
she said as she swirled her Drambuie on ice.
She railed against censorship, free speech was her passion
(Laying her trap in a sinister fashion...).
She'd had her hair processed, her features were fine;
As I lit her cheroot her hand lingered on mine.
Why can't they all be as cultured as this,
I thought as she leaned in and gave me a kiss.
We went to her room & knocked back some more booze,
as we disrobed I noticed she had lots of tattoos.
She threw her wadded panties into my cowboy hat;
I smirked my opinion: "A lucky shot, that!"
She said, "Wanna bet? If I land this successfully,
then I call the shots here for all we do sexually!"
I told her, "You're on, but if it lands on the floor,
then I get to screw your sweet little back door."
In hindsight, I know... I should have spotted a hustle,
but at the time I was thinking with a whole different muscle.
She tied me to the bed which seemed nice and kinky;
then she recited something made me feel all hinky.
Her voice got real deep and it thundered- Satanic!
As her eyes burned bright red I'll confess that I panicked.
She sneered, "You insulted my sisters and me,
before the whole nation, quite offhandedly...
"But I looked good enough when you wanted to fuck,
you butt-ugly bastardly hypocrite schmuck!"
And then I beheld in the mirror above me,
a scene straight from the X-Files! (w/ David Duchovny)
I was shrinking and turning a much darker hue,
my dick and balls shrivelled my boobs grew and grew!
And when that mysterious glow did subside-
"Oh where did my weenie go?" I cried, cried and cried.
I wailed, "Whatchoo wanna do me like dat fo?
Oh lawdy lawdy, I'se a nappy-haired Ho!"
She smiled, "We'd agreed that free speech was fine.
Well when I said that spell I was just practicing mine.
"Words can't hurt people, isn't that what you said?
So now come and meet your new pimp, Memphis Red."
Cruel ethnic slurs can be jolly good fun,
until you insult a center who's skilled in Vodoun.
Oh once I was famous, and raked in the green,
'til I ran afoul of a B-ball voodoo queen.
And that's how I wound up out here on this corner;
My life's just a blur now of backseats and boners.
I'm a pure sex machine, my profile's obscene,
a vile racist cartoon like from 1913.
I'm a walking, jive-talking black stereotype:
leopard skin + red spandex, purple wig, a crack pipe.
The red six-inch stilettos with which I walk the street,
are somehow indelibly fused to my feet.
My skin's like the night sky, my lips freakishly large,
as are these tits on which my tricks all discharge.
My customers think that it's really quite strange
that I blow them for quarters & give them back change.
They don't understand this accursed compulsion
to act in a way that fills me with revulsion.
The Ho on the outside is living her dreams,
while deep down inside her the man I was screams...
Thankewvurrymuch,
Laika
"Government will only recognize 2 genders, male + female,
as assigned at birth-" (In his own words:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1lugbpMKDU
Nappy Poem
What a hoot! It reminds me of some of the finer doggerel from Mad Magazine, especially a takeoff I seem to remember on the Rime of the Ancient Mariner.