MSNBC fired Michael Savage for some hateful anti-gay comments on his television show.
"Oh, you're one of the sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage. You have got nothing to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it."
Returning to an earlier theme, some liberals interpret any criticism of homosexuals or gay lobby groups as homophobia. Our beloved Brian Flemming, for example, accuses even me of "rampant homophobia." Our Mark Saleski expects "whining" about political correctness from the right in response to Savage being fired.
Mr. Saleski is mistaken. There will be no such outpouring of sympathy. See, Savage really IS what Brian seems to think everybody to the right of Howard Dean is. Conservatives and libertarians will look at this and say "off with his head." Screw this hateful jackass.
There's all the difference in the world between not being comfortable sending your young son out camping with a gay scoutmaster versus spitefulness and hatred. Even being an evangelical Christian who considers homosexuality a grave sin does not mean wishing suffering and death on sinners. Indeed, I would expect good conservative Christians to make a special point of condemning Savage's wickedness.
I was not sympathetic to gay groups trying to pre-emptively stop MSNBC from giving Savage a show. Even if he's pretty much of an ass, let him have his say. But the guy did this to himself. It didn't take a lobbying campaign from anybody to get him fired.
Indeed, this strikes me more as an act of self-sabotage than of homophobia. He couldn't have thought anything other than that he would be fired for this. Too bad, so sad.
Something's obviously wrong in the guy's head. Maybe he just needs a (very) understanding boyfriend to tell his troubles to.
.jpg?t=20130517094513)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Brian Flemming
Al wrote:
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
This is the sound that erupted from me when I read this.
Take GLAAD out of the picture, and Savage's statement would merely be considered a bit over-the-top.
It is groups like GLAAD that have pushed society to the point that we (in general) realize how offensive anti-gay remarks are. It didn't used to be this way.
Take GLAAD and like groups out of the picture, and Al Barger would be complaining about those who would suggest Savage should be fired, not going out of his way to show everyone how open-minded he is in recognizing hate speech when he hears it.
2 - Eric Olsen
Brian, now this just isn't fair - do you tink Al gives a bent pickle about what GLAAD has to say? He wrote what he wrote because HE was offended by what the butthole said because it was hateful, spiteful, anti-Christian, anti-human and egregiously offensive.
3 - mike
I think MSNBC's hiring of Savage in the first place shows just how desperate the network is. Even Fox would never hire such a knucklehead. Hopefully, it's only a matter of time before NBC pulls the plug on this sorry excuse for a cable network.
4 - Al Barger
I won't say I was "offended." I don't relish feelings of indignance, and Savage's dumb mouth doesn't rate the emotional turmoil. I'll just say that he didn't impress me with either his wit or wisdom.
Brian, you seem always to assume the absolute worst of anybody who doesn't see eye-to-eye with you. I think what I think because it makes the most sense to me. Neither society in general, nor GLAAD nor Fred Phelps in particular are significantly influential on my opinion. What reason have I given you to think that I would be so extremely hateful towards gay folk?
On the other hand, GLAAD does to some extent perform a valuable service in public debate. It may be appropriate sometimes to pitch a bitch about something really bad. The Savage thing was so ridiculously over the top that it didn't require any kind of interest group to point it out.
Pointing stuff out is fine though, and needed in somewhat less obvious cases. That's good.
On the other hand, if you pitch a bitch like a bunch of drama queens anytime you don't absolutely get everything you want, you will erode public sympathy, and eventually their willingness to listen even when you have a legitimate complaint. For example, gay spokespeople in the 80s didn't make much impression on me by blaming Reagan for AIDS - as if it was Reagan who was passing around used drug needles and having unprotected gay sex.
To take it away from homosexual issues, consider the ads for black media in the 2000 presidential campaign. By these ads, Dubya was just nearly as bad as if he had personally help chain poor James Byrd to the bumper of that truck because he didn't support special new hate crime laws. The hateful demagoguery of those ads made me about half want to vote for Dubya for a second.
It's a tendency of all ideologues to get a mindset where they think they know everyone's role in the drama, and that they are the righteously chosen defenders of Truth and Justice, and that anyone who opposes them is stupid or evil. I have to stop myself that way once in a while.
On the other hand, sometimes those who oppose ARE in fact stupid AND evil. :)
5 - The Raging Critic
As a gay man, I can even agree with the basic notion in Al's comments.
We are all situated on a continuum for every aspect of our lives, including our views.
Yes, there is a fine line between the kids who murdered Matthew Sheppard and the ever-so-hateful Justice Antonin Scalia.
However, regardless of where either party is situated on the continuum, the fact remains that both are homophobic (albeit at different degrees). The problem is that, although someone like Scalia might not be out in a cornfield bludgeoning a gay kid to death with an axe, his actions and his words help to perpetuate hate - the same hate that ravaged the two kids that killed Matthew Sheppard. Scalia has gone so far as to compare homosexuality to rape, child molestation, bestiality and even murder. It's no wonder our society is scared to death of gay people.
Although I respect the parents' decision in keeping their kids out from a scout meeting led by a gay man, I cannot help but laugh at the motivation behind it. The lines can be clearly drawn between a parent restraining his own child from associating with any individual versus the parents that unite to legislate against gay people from membership in an organization aided by public schools and partially funded by government dollars. By doing so would send a message to the world that all gay people are child molestors - which is an unfortunate misconception.
Regardless, both actions are similar in that they are fueled by fear. These fears feed off of each other. Therefore, although Al may be right in drawing the distinctions between Mr. Savage and the "concerned" parent, it does not make one right and one wrong - it merely makes one wrong and one worse.
6 - The Raging Critic
Somehow, I experienced technical difficulties. I submitted my post several times. However, the one with the Catholic analogy is missing.
I noticed that there was two of my identical posts and now there is only one. If someone is monitoring, please replace my previous entry with the entry containing the Catholic analogy (then feel free to remove this post as well).
7 - Eric Olsen
RC, There was something wrong with the Amazon link, which was causing none of the comments to show, which led to multiple commenting and various other small hells. I removed your multiples but I apparently also removed your Catholic analogy, and once they are gone, they are gone. Very sorry. Feel free to put it back in as all is working well with Amazon link removed - not that I understand the connection, just trial and error.
8 - Al Barger
Now RC, this just goes to illustrate my basic point. The people who murdered Matthew Shepherd are NOT on a continuum with Anton Scalia. His judicial opinion has been that there is no constitutional justification for the SCOTUS to overturn state sodomy laws. [He has also said he'd vote against those same laws as a legislator.]
You may reasonably disagree with him on this issue. There may be merit on both sides.
This has no similarity to ignorant thugs torturing and murdering someone, however. It's not the same thing. It's not only quantitatively different, but qualitatively different.
If I came along saying that liberal American congressmen were pretty much the same as the Chinese Communist Party because they're both leftists- only maybe not as bad, you'd probably scream blue bloody murder. You'd have some good reason to do so.
See, when you get all unreasonable like that, you're going to start losing credibility. Oh, the gay groups all hate some-and-such Republican and say he's an evil bastard who secretly wished he'd been there to help torture Matthew Shepherd? Yeah, well they say that about pretty much every Republican or conservative, don't they?
9 - Brian Flemming
Al,
Your hostility to interest groups like GLAAD is well established.
Most recently (emphasis mine):
I'm not equating what you said with what Savage said, of course. In my earlier comment I was simply pointing out how even in a post about Savage's outrageous comment, you had to take a dig at groups such as ACT UP and GLAAD.
When you say this...
...I see you downplaying the importance of these groups.
I see radical groups like ACT UP and PETA as pushing us to become more civilized. Anti-slavery groups were once marginalized as kooks, too. Not to mention the early civil-rights movement in the U.S.
It bugged me that you had to take a shot at "lobbying campaigns" while demonstrating exactly the kind of (anti-homophobic) attitude that these lobbying campaigns have willed into widespread existence.
It would be like pooh-poohing PETA while at the same time praising the McDonald's corporation's choice to demand that their suppliers treat chickens more humanely. Without PETA, "animal rights" wouldn't even be in the national conversation.
10 - Al Barger
Yet, Brian, I find myself on the defensive for my supposed place on the continuum of homophobia because I have concerns about sending a sick queer from ACT UP out camping with young boys. Frankly, I think you're just plugging in some cheap ideology here, and not really thinking seriously about the real world.
I don't think that gay lobbying has changed the climate, or it has been of mixed usefulness at best. I'm not an expert in the make-up and activities of all these groups, but some of them have been better than others. The Log Cabin Republicans have probably been pretty effective in their mostly reasonable approach to changing minds and influencing policy. GLAAD maybe has been more mixed, at least in how I take them.
ACT UP, on the other hand, probably held your movement back for a dozen years. I'm not hearing much about them anymore, and gays have gained much greater acceptance. Those two items may not be entirely unrelated. Homosexuals have gained much greater acceptance since, oh, about the time I started hearing more about the Log Cabin Republicans than about ACT UP.
Again it bugs me that you would say that I naturally gravitate to being hateful toward homosexuals, but for the intervention of ACT UP. Actually, it works exactly the opposite. I'm naturally predisposed to being understanding and accepting, but the acting out of these immature ACT UP children pulls me the other way.
I want to make nice, but if you insist on convincing me that you - specifically and personally- are disreputable, then it will reflect badly on whatever organization or cause you represent. At that point, calling me names or accusing me of x-ophobia ain't going to change my mind.
And don't even get me started on the misanthropes of PETA, or I will go into RANT mode. Don't make me come over there.
11 - The Raging Critic
Al,
You obviously do not understand how a continuum works.
The issue for the continuum in which I was referring could be called "attitudes about homosexuality."
In my example, if we were to have a scale from 0-10 (hypothetically of course), with 0 being 100% accepting and 10 being 100% homophobic. Someone like Matthew Sheppard's killers would be about as close to 10 as one could get. Michael Savage might fall around, let's say a 5, and a parent who is concerned about "militant ACT UP fag(s)" might be a 4.
we are all on the continuum. Even I would fall on the continuum, probably a 0. Please note that some gay people have not reached full acceptance themselves due to warped parenting, etc. which could make them even be a 1 or 2. Likewise, many straight people are 0's too despite not engaging in "homosexual conduct."
As for Scalia, you have this man ALL WRONG. If you read any of his opinions carefully, he has compared homosexuality to murder, rape, bestiality and child molestation. THAT, in and of itself is inexcusable. One is 100% consensual and causes no harm to a person, whereas the others victimize an inocent person (or dare I say, animal). Don't be fooled by his proverbial catchall "I have nothing against homosexuals" statements which always conclude his hateful opinions. When he equates gay people with the aforementioned crimes, he is instilling fear into the minds of ignorant people who actually buy his story.
12 - Phillip Winn
I wish I had gotten to this thread before Brian polluted it, but I'll respond directly to Al and say, Bravo! I never heard, saw or read anything by Savage, but he sounds like a ridiculous human being. America is better off for having given even him a chance to speak his piece, and now I honestly think that America will be better off still by asking him to go sit in a corner and think about what makes him so hateful.
Very rarely do I see the labels of hateful or homophobe applied to people who actually are either, but in this case the shoes seem to fit, and I think they're frilly pumps to boot. :)
13 - andy
"The Bible says men aught not lay together....but I reckon the Good Lord wouldn't send a good man like yourself to Haitis mmhmm"
14 - Dawn
Michael Savage got fired because of two reasons, he is genetically stupid as is clear by his remarkably ignorant AND stupid response - I mean couldn't a person who is being paid to be a media personality think of something a little more witty and thoughtful that the quoted response. Even Rush wouldn't have been that stupid - and of course the second reason is because he is a pathetic homophobe.
ANYONE would have been fired for a public post for crap like that. GLADD or no GLADD. That's offensive to all normal humans.
15 - Chris
Raging Critic --
Just want to point out that you are mispresenting what Scalia wrote and meant with the "I have nothing against homosexuals" quote.
If you edit the quote where you edit it, then yes it sounds like the my best friends are black type statement. But, this is what he actually wrote:
"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through
normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of
such matters is the best."
Kinda changes the meaning when viewed in full context.
16 - mike
He should NOT have been fired. Savage is a--well, savage--and as a lefty, I yield to no one in my hostility to homophobia. But people should have the opportunity to say whatever they want when they're given a public forum. That's the point of having public forums. The answer is to reform the media so more voices can get on the air.
If the Klan has the right to march on the 4th of July--and it does--homophobes have the "right" to shoot their mouths off.
17 - Dawn
Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of
such matters is the best.
And Scalia is allowed to be a supreme court justice. I think that is the most mealy mouthed statement I have ever heard. So NAMBLA should be give the right to make their morality my morality? No, I don't think so. Neither should the KKK or the NRA for that matter.
Morality shouldn't be a moving target, but as far as I am concerned homosexuality is biology - and science is an ever evolving thing.
Consensual sexual behavior between consenting adults isn't about morality and to make it so is more about being an imperious nitwit than anything else.
18 - Doctor Slack
"Again it bugs me that you would say that I naturally gravitate to being hateful toward homosexuals,"
Oh, boo-fricking-hoo. If you routinely use phrases like this:
"...I have concerns about sending a sick queer from ACT UP out camping with young boys."
... then expect that people will see you as a homophobe, no matter what protestations you make about being loving and accepting. If someone said to me, "It bugs me that you think I'm some kind of racist just because I don't trust those goddamned coons from the Black Panthers," why should anyone take seriously anything else that comes out of their mouths on the subject? Why should you be any different?
19 - mike
The KKK Took My Baby Away
The Ramones
She went away for the holidays
Said she's going to L.A.
but she never got there
She never got there
She never got there, they say
She went away for the holidays
Said she's going to L.A.
but she never got there
She never got there
She never got there, they say
The KKK took my baby away
they took her away
away from me
The KKK took my baby away
they took her away
away from me
HEY, HO, HEY, HO,
I don't know
Where my baby can be
they took her from me
they took her from me
I don't know
where my baby can be
they took her from me
they took her from me
ring me, ring me, ring me
up the President
and find out
Where my baby went
ring me, ring me, ring me
up the FBI
and find out if
my baby's alive
yeah, yeah, yeah
o-o-o-o-o-o
yeah, yeah, yeah
o-o-o-o-o-o
She went away for the holidays
Said she's going to L.A.
but she never got there
She never got there
She never got there, they say
She went away for the holidays
Said she's going to L.A.
but she never got there
She never got there
She never got there, they say
The KKK took my baby away
they took her away
away from me
The KKK took my baby away
they took her away
away from me
The KKK took my baby away
they took her away
away from me
The KKK took my baby away
They took my girl
They took my baby away
20 - BRICKLAYER
Finally, someone with something intelligent to say!
21 - Al Barger
Mr. Larkin- Savage absolutely deserved to be fired. MSNBC doesn't want anyone representing them on the air talking like that. This is absolutely reasonable and within their rights.
It's not the same thing as the KKK issues. Nobody would hire them for their tv station, nor should they. Their issues are with government. Do they have a right to march down the street like anyone else and say their piece? Yes. So does Savage. If it were the FCC coming down on Savage, I'd be on your side.
However, neither Savage nor the Klan have a right to demand access to someone else's studio or airtime. Savage being fired was an editorial decision by the ownership of the network, not censorship by the government.
On the other hand, if Savage and the Klan went in together and came up with money to buy a newspaper or tv station, then I'd say they could talk whatever kind of trash they want to on their own dime.
22 - mike
Yes, MSNBC was within its rights to fire Savage, which is why I put "rights" in quotes in my second comment above; this is not an example of government censorship or an abridgment of the First Amendment. My point is that if you're going to offer a character like Savage a public forum, you should have the guts to live with the consequences; his AIDs comment was no different that what he's said a million times in his radio show, and MSNBC knew what it was getting into.
If a network hires a Communist to do a TV show, and then fires him when he tells a wealthy caller to give away his property and "die," that would also be cowardice.
23 - Al Barger
Doc Slack- You're expecting exactly the kind of cheap self-censorship that I have no patience for. I'm supposed to ignore the obvious disreputable behavior and carefully avoid even thinking the obvious, or face the consequences.
You seem to demand that I accept and pretend that it's all good when it absolutely is NOT. I'm not gonna do it. Now you can decide that merits your cheap little designation of me as "homophobic," but that doesn't make it true.
I don't support sodomy laws. I don't think homosexuality is inherently immoral or sinful. I am personally perfectly comfortable with gay folk.
From that, if you work up a definition of "homophobe" into which I fit, then you have simply robbed the word of any real negative meaning. If Al Barger is "homophobic," then gay folk should be so lucky as to have a world full of homophobes.
But that does not mean that I will not form negative opinions of individuals who choose to be jackasses. By their behavior, members of ACT UP marked themselves as unreasonable and hysterical, irresponsible fools.
How does recognizing that make ME a "homophobe"?
24 - Al Barger
Dawn, you're SO wrong about Scalia. He spoke absolutely correctly. He is not saying that "NAMBLA should be give the right to make their morality my morality". He's saying that they have the right as citizens to try to convince you of their position. Surely you wouldn't disagree with that.
"Homosexuality is biology" strikes me as being more a real convenient way of taking issues off the table rather than anything based on science or reason. Hey, if homosexual proclivities are absolutely in your genes, then you can't help it, and no one can even try to say that you're immoral or sinful or otherwise responsible.
But if your sexual proclivities are genetic, then why wouldn't you say that humping underage kids is genetic? Perhaps there's a NAMBLA gene that leaves you limp for anything over 13. Perhaps a thousand generations of goatherding among my ancestors has impressed a taste for humping goats into my genes.
I don't claim to know what turns people gay or straight or into being foot fetishists or whatever. There seem to be just lots of different things in biology and personal experience. It's probably a mistake to attribute something so complex to one or two factors.
25 - The Raging Critic
Chris -
No, that is the exact quote in which I was referring. However, I did not feel like looking for it in its entirety.
I did not mean to equate the comment in the manner in which you interpreted it. Regardless, if you read the full quote directly as you have provided, Scalia is attempting to downplay his animosity towards homosexuals by suggesting they have equal rights by taking other avenues.
Mike -
Whether Savage should or should not have been fired should be up to his network. The networks are here to serve the public and if someone crosses a major line, then the network usually yanks them to save ratings. It is the American way (lol).
Although I support Savage's right to say as he wishes, the network has a right to decide whether they will endorse his comments by keeping him on the payroll.
I just like to keep this sweet moment in journalistic history right next to Dr. Laura getting the axe.
The moral of the story?? You mess with the pink and you are history.