A big congratulations to conservative radio host Michael Savage!! We didn’t think it possible, but he’s reached a new low. Yes, lower than when he called a tazer-happy university cop a “bull-dyke fascist”. And way lower than that time he equated gay parenting with child abuse. You’re no doubt wondering, “What could be worse than calling gay parents abusers?” Media Matters provides the putrid details:
On the November 8 edition of Talk Radio Network’s The Savage Nation, a caller told host Michael Savage that while waiting at a stoplight in Midtown Manhattan, “I’m listening to you with the window open. This mean-faced, clipped-hair, liberal type — you know, the type you always talk about. … She comes up to my window and she goes, ‘You’re listening to hate speech. Why are you listening to that?'”
Savage replied to the caller’s anecdote by saying, “Well, what does that tell you about the loving, kind lesbian who just assaulted you in your car?” He continued: “She’s a — the type that stuffed ovens in [Adolf] Hitler’s concentration camps. Whenever I hear anyone preaching to me about how compassionate they are, I reach for my Glock. That’s all I can tell you. They can all drop dead.”
Incredible, right? Not only does Savage imply lesbians helped Hitler destroy millions of people, he admits his own murderous rages! And gays are the evil ones.
We have to give Savage even more credit for curbing his overuse of the word “fascist”. He only used it once in this rant, but sure as shit made it count: “[Lesbians are] the Nazis – the cryptofascists walking around.”
jknight
Has anyone spoken out against him? Shock Jock Imus gets the boot but Savage still on air?
Rt. Rev. Dr. RES
Goodbye. Bishop, Nigel and Norbert.
ajax
Unfortunately, jknight, there’s still a huge gulf in public perception with regard to “nappy-headed ‘hos” as opposed to “lesbian Nazis”. The outrage the second phrase provokes in the general public is a fraction of the first.
Mr. B
Michael Savage is even WORSE than the average hatemongering straight white conservative–most of them at least keep quiet about their desire to kill those they disagree with.
The “mean-faced” dyke committed assault for calling a spade a spade, but it’s perfectly patriotic to want to take a Glock to her.
Inframan
It’s called hyperbole, idiots.
Regardless, it doesn’t matter — it’s not like anyone with a brain reads this blog anyways. (I stumbled upon it with Google)
Scott Berwitz
Inframan – I know we’re not as intelligent as you, but if you had any idea of Michael Savage’s past history and comments, you’d know that his hatred of gays is honest and genuine. I think we all know he’s not out there gunning them down, though it would not surprise me if his bigotry eventually drove someone else to do so.
I disagree somewhat with Mr. B. I would rather have an anti-gay bigot tell me to my face he finds my lifestyle repulsive, etc., than to have someone pander to me in-person and call me a “fag” as he walks away.
Mr. B
Scott, your interpretation of what I said is a bit too literal.
My point was that there’s a difference between voicing your disapproval of “those people” and going on with your life…and declaring that you want to kill them. This is Savage’s usual shtick–open, bare-faced rage. Granted, it just makes him look bad, and I understand your point–I mean, people like Savage and the Phelps clan do more to make people sympathetic to queers than the pols and activists who act like their hatred of us is in the name of “family.”
But what I’m saying is, that son of a bitch is out of control.
Inframan
“Michael Savage Says Lesbians Helped Hitler”
Ha! ha!
That’s a gross misinterpretation of what he said.
“but if you had any idea of Michael Savage’s past history and comments, you’d know that his hatred of gays is honest and genuine.”
How incredibly ironic. Unlike you, I’m an avid listener of The Savage Nation; I don’t get my information from Media Matters, or other propagandists such as the writer for this blog. Savage has said time and time again that he does not have a problem with homosexuals — he has a problem with homosexual pressure groups who are trying to devalue marriage and/or brainwash children right out of the womb. There’s a differential — understand it.
PS: This will be my last post. I try my best not to argue with morons over the Internet.
Scott Berwitz
Mr. B – I think we’re in general agreement here. I agree…red-faced bigotry against homosexuals does more to generate comradery with us among the general population than talk of “family” (of which we are all a part) does.
Inframan – I think I speak for entire blog when I say thank you for taking time out of your intellectual pursuits to humor us morons, if only for a brief moment. While you’re out searching for non-morons, I thought maybe I could direct you to the following:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-07-talk-host-fired_x.htm
When Michael Savage told a caller he was a “sodomite” who “should die of AIDS”, I must have missed the nuance of this being a simple disagreement with the gay lobby. For the record, he was fired for this. He was also dropped by CAA for having said that Melissa Etheridge thanking her wife made him want to “vomit” (fine, he’s entitled to that) and that two women raising children is “child abuse” (not okay, not entitled to make that blanket charge of all lesbians)”. Is that also nuanced? I must have misinterpreted that as a saying he has problems with homosexuals, based on your confident statement that he doesn’t. Or when he says that gays practice a “death style” (a clever take on lifestyle). I could go on – but is there any point? Even facts can’t help me reach the intellectual level you’ve so clearly laid out on this blog?
For the record, I am not a liberal and I think Media Matter is a left wing propaganda organization, quite dangerous. I am a gay independent, and I call things out as they are. Clearly, you call them out as you’d like them to be, without even a nod to reality or the truth.
Just like Media Matters.
Mike Berg
“When Michael Savage told a caller he was a “sodomite†who “should die of AIDSâ€, I must have missed the nuance of this being a simple disagreement with the gay lobby.”
Yes, and? He does not approve of the homosexual “deathstyle” as he calls it — get over it. That’s why he used it as an insult in that particular exchange. However, he does not hate homosexuals. You’d know that if you actually listened to his show for more than three minutes.
“For the record, he was fired for this.”
This is not a good thing. Being fired for speaking your mind is wrong.
“and that two women raising children is “child abuseâ€
It’s not? I presume you believe that men and women do not contribute in any unique way whatsoever when raising children then? You must believe that if you think two men, or two women raising a child is equal to a heterosexual couple raising a child. Hmmm, the homosexual propaganda machine has done well.
“I must have misinterpreted”
You misinterpret a lot of things it seems…
“I am a gay independent, and I call things out as they are. Clearly, you call them out as you’d like them to be”
Ouch… the irony… it stings.
Mr. P
[quote]I presume you believe that men and women do not contribute in any unique way whatsoever when raising children then?[/quote]
That’s actually a very good point. After all, men and women are very different creatures.
[quote]For the record, I am not a liberal and I think Media Matter is a left wing propaganda organization[/quote]
[quote]Media Matters provides the putrid details[/quote]
Scott, your favorite blog here uses MM as a source.
Scott Berwitz
Mike Berg –
You’re post is baffling.
Inframan insisted that Michael Savage has no problem with homosexuals, only with the homosexual “pressure groups.” I think calling someone a “sodomite” who “should die of AIDS” and calling all gay couples with kids “child abusers” qualifies as more than a simple disagreement with the lobby group. There are more examples of this type of rhetoric from Mr. Savage, but it was more than enough to make it clear that he does indeed have problems with homosexuals, despite Savage’s protestations and Inframan’s credulous admiration. I understand he doesn’t approve of homosexuals or their lifestyle and I realize that’s why he uses this inflammatory type of response as an “insult.” Thank you for clearing up my point for me.
Frankly, I agree with you about him getting fired…he’s allowed to be as big of a bigot as he wants to be. But MSNBC has the choice to pay him for it and provide a pulpit for his opinions, just like they had the option to hire him in the first place.
Your logic on the two women raising children is “child abuse” shot Savage takes at all Lesbian families is way off base, to say the least. Let me try to detangle this little web before you respond back. First of all, two loving people providing a good home for a child (and I don’t give a rat’s ass what their gender is) is NOT child abuse. You and I can debate forever about whether or not it is preferable for a man and woman to be raising a child, all things being equal, but that doesn’t make a gay family an abusive one. I never said a word about heterosexual couples – or the unique roles man and woman play as parents – so I don’t know what you’re talking about. Rebutting the absurd and irresponsible remark that gay couples are not child abusers is by no means a judgement on heterosexual couples at all…where you take that leap of logic I have on idea. But it has nothing at all to do with anything I said.
You would do well to understand what I have said and respond in kind than to baselessly accuse me of judgements I didn’t while defending the “DIE of AIDS”, “child abusers” portion of Michael Savage’s broadcasts.
Mr. P…
I don’t remember having declared Queerty as my favorite blog (I don’t have one) but I do like it a lot. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything posted, and it certainly doesn’t mean I am an advocate of every source they pull from. I stand by my position about Media Matters wholeheartedly.
Scott Berwitz
Woops…accidentally hit submit…slightly edited post below…
Mike Berg –
Your post is baffling.
Inframan insisted that Michael Savage has no problem with homosexuals, only with the homosexual “pressure groups.†I think calling someone a “sodomite†who “should die of AIDS†and calling all gay couples with kids “child abusers†qualifies as more than a simple disagreement with a lobby group. There are more examples of this type of rhetoric from Mr. Savage, but what I cited was more than enough to make it clear that he does indeed have problems with homosexuals, despite Savage’s protestations and Inframan’s credulous admiration. I understand he doesn’t approve of homosexuals or their lifestyle and I realize that’s why he uses this inflammatory type of response as an “insult.†Thank you for clearing up my point for me.
Frankly, I agree with you about him getting fired…he’s allowed to be as big of a bigot as he wants to be. But MSNBC has the choice to pay him for it and provide a pulpit for his opinions, just like they had the option to hire him in the first place.
Your logic on the two women raising children is “child abuse†shot Savage takes at all Lesbian families is way off base, to say the least. Let me try to detangle this little web before you respond back. First of all, two loving people providing a good home for a child (and I don’t give a rat’s ass what their gender is) is NOT child abuse, even if you believe another situation would be preferable. You and I can debate forever about whether or not it is better for a man and woman to be raising a child, all things being equal, but that doesn’t make a gay family an abusive one. I never said a word about heterosexual couples – or the unique roles men and women play as parents – so I don’t know what you’re talking about. Rebutting the absurd and irresponsible remark that gay couples are child abusers is by no means a judgement on heterosexual couples at all…where you take that leap of logic I have no idea. But it has nothing at all to do with anything I said.
You would do well to understand what I have said and respond in kind than to baselessly accuse me of judgements I didn’t make while defending the “Die of AIDSâ€, “child abusers†portion of Michael Savage’s broadcasts.
Mr. P…
I don’t remember having declared Queerty as my favorite blog (I don’t have one) but I do like it a lot. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything posted, and it certainly doesn’t mean I am an advocate of every source they pull from. I stand by my position about Media Matters wholeheartedly.
Mike Berg
“You’re post is baffling.”
I’m no master of the English language, but I must ask, are you still in elementary school? “You’re” is the contraction for “You are.”
Baffling.
“Inframan insisted that Michael Savage has no problem with homosexuals, only with the homosexual “pressure groups.—
I don’t think MS has a problem with homosexuals per se; he just has a problem with their narcissistic deathstyle and what they’re trying to do to our society. (e.g. marriage, religion, education)
“I think calling someone a “sodomite†who “should die of AIDS†and calling all gay couples with kids “child abusers†qualifies as more than a simple disagreement with the lobby group.”
I disagree. He’s just a straight talker. No pun intended.
“Your logic on the two women raising children is “child abuse†shot Savage takes at all Lesbian families is way off base, to say the least.”
No, it’s not. Contrary to what you’ve learned from the pink machine, a heterosexual couple is not equal to a homosexual couple — especially when it comes to raising children; that’s because men and women fill unique roles when raising children. Ideally, nature/God intended for men and women to raise children — not single fathers, single mothers, packs of wolves, or same-sex couples. Same-sex couples cannot even have children unless they twist nature to their whim, or adopt them. (which is selfish and disrespectful in itself) Doesn’t that reality tell you something? It’s not normal and it is child abuse; more specifically, psychological abuse.
Scott Berwitz
Mike Berg –
I’ll try this again.
As far as “You’re” I caught that immediately before accidentally submitting it and corrected it before you did. But thanks for pointing it out.
You’re explanation for the “Die of AIDS” and “child abusers” comments is useless. If I am to take the “straight talker” comment as someone who says what they truly believe without being inhibited by PC rules, etc., than I agree. But calling him a straight talker does not negate one thing I said about what Savage has said, nor does it offer any substantive explanation about why it isn’t anti-gay, or how it can simply be waved off as a criticism of gay “pressure groups.” He is a straight talker, so to speak, and what he is very clearly saying is that gays with children are automatically “child abusers” and is clearly not above exhorting a gay person to die of AIDS. Do you understand now?
Perhaps you can elaborate on what gays are trying to do to society, “(e.g. marriage, religion, education.” Without that clarification, it’s just another baseless, blanket accusation.
I am sure I am not the only one who finds your obnoxious little asides, like “pink machine” somewhat revealing. If you’re going to present yourself as at least remotely objective, you might refrain from using those types of phrases.
I think it is at least a fair debate about whether or not a child is better off with a heterosexual couple vs. a homosexual couple, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL. What I won’t engage in is whether or not a gay couple is “equal” to a straight couple in general, a judgement you leave open in your phrasing above: “a heterosexual couple is not equal to a homosexual couple — ESPECIALLY (my capitals) when it comes to raising children.” If you think people are superior simply because they are straight, then that is your problem. But don’t attempt, at the very same time, to advance the argument that this isn’t anti-gay. You are quite clearly saying that straight people are superior to gay people…shameful and dumb.
In an ideal world, I’d agree with you. But I assume God and nature didn’t intend for kids to end up in abusive homes (with Mom and Dad), in drug-riddled homes (with Mom and Dad), in poverty (with Mom and Dad) or with no parents at all (without a Mom and Dad). Many straight couples are great parents – many are NOT, and that’s a sad fact of contemporary life. You seem to think the fact that they are heterosexual is the single biggest qualification they have to be parents. I think being GOOD PARENTS is what’s important – and for millions of children, that’s not the case – with straight or gay parents. So what’s most important is that they end up in a loving home with opportunity to become well-adjusted adults. I’d be just as supportive of a straight couple adopting kids from an abusive gay home as I am vice versa. The issue is the quality of parents they are – not their sexuality.
Adopting children whose parents have given them up is not selfish and disrespectful, it’s selfless and needed. Are you attempting to tell me that a kid is better off with no parents at all than two people who would love and take care of him or her? Nor is it “twisting nature” for a couple to conceive through insemination or surrogates. Ask the kids of these couples if they’d rather be in an orphanage, or a bad home, or worse? Are you really this dumb and/or ignorant?
Nor is a same-sex couple akin to a “pack of wolves” – nor are single Moms and Dads. I know plenty of people who have been raised in single parent homes – and they are no better or worse off than anyone else. What dictates the decency of their upbriging is the quality of the person or people raising them, not whether or not each parent is attracted to the opposite gender’s anatomy.
And if you had the slightest idea of what child abuse means, you’d be advocating same-sex families or anyone else that could get a child out of that horrific environment. But if you don’t care about who these people are, what kind of home they can provide, and what kind of parents they are…only whether they are straight or gay…then there is no amount of logic I can inject into you. Child abuse has literally killed, maimed, and broken the bones of children. It has left them bruised, scared and unable to function. It has left them mentally scarred and emotionally withdrawn for many years afterward. You cheapen that charge and insult those who have experienced abuse by saying any kid in a gay home is suffering “child abuse” It is incredibly irresponsible, Mike.
Mike Berg
“If I am to take the “straight talker†comment as someone who says what they truly believe without being inhibited by PC rules, etc., than I agree.”
“THEN”, you agree, not “than.” (again, I don’t have a Ph.D in English, but come on…)
“But calling him a straight talker does not negate one thing I said about what Savage has said, nor does it offer any substantive explanation about why it isn’t anti-gay, or how it can simply be waved off as a criticism of gay “pressure groups.—
Let me try this one more time.
Disliking or disapproving of the homosexual lifestyle is not synonymous with hatred. Secondly, calling an alleged homosexual man — one who has just insulted you — a “sodomite”, and/or telling him to go die of AIDS is not “anti-gay”; it’s simply churlish. It’s no secret that sexually-active homosexual men engage in anal sex, which consequently puts them at a higher risk of contracting HIV. Do you even know what “anti-gay” means? You’re being overly dramatic here.
“Perhaps you can elaborate on what gays are trying to do to society, “(e.g. marriage, religion, education.†Without that clarification, it’s just another baseless, blanket accusation.”
I would, but it’d just serve as a digression and create another pointless argument that will go unresolved.
“I am sure I am not the only one who finds your obnoxious little asides, like “pink machine†somewhat revealing. If you’re going to present yourself as at least remotely objective, you might refrain from using those types of phrases.”
“Revealing”?
Oh no! Are you going to start accusing me of being “anti-gay” too?! *gasp*
I’ll write the way I want. Thank you.
“If you think people are superior simply because they are straight, then that is your problem.”
With all other things being equal, heterosexual couples are superior to homosexual couples. For one, we don’t have to fuck each other in the ass. (you know, the orifice used by the human body to dispose of fecal matter) Oh I’m sorry, was that too crass for you? We can also reproduce without bypassing/perverting nature. I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
“In an ideal world, I’d agree with you. But I assume God and nature didn’t intend for kids to end up in abusive homes”
You’re going off on a tangent. My point was simply that kids are meant to be raised by a man and a woman; hence it’s healthier for them. That’s all.
“You seem to think the fact that they are heterosexual is the single biggest qualification they have to be parents.”
No. This is just a misinterpretation on your part.
“I think being GOOD PARENTS is what’s important”
That’s one important factor. What’s your point though? I still don’t think homosexuals should be allowed to raise children.
“Are you attempting to tell me that a kid is better off with no parents at all than two people who would love and take care of him or her?”
No.
I’m telling you that bypassing nature’s/God’s will to please your own narcissism is selfish and disrespectful; it’s also psychologically abusive to children.
“Nor is it “twisting nature†for a couple to conceive through insemination or surrogates.”
Sir, in principal men and women can have children without the aid of science or adoption clinics, but two men or two women cannot. That’s a fact of reality. Inseminating a lesbian so she can get pregnant is a perversion of nature.
“Nor is a same-sex couple akin to a “pack of wolves—
Another misinterpretation on your part. Sir, I’m beginning to think you’re stupid. I never directly compared same-sex couples to wolves. Please keep up.
“I know plenty of people who have been raised in single parent homes – and they are no better or worse off than anyone else.”
Why don’t you go do some research before you waste anymore of my time? It’s a well-known fact to people with IQs above 90 that children who are raised by single parents generally do not do as well as children who are raised by traditional families in almost all categories. Go look it up.
“What dictates the decency of their upbriging is the quality of the person or people raising them”
That is ONE factor.
“not whether or not each parent is attracted to the opposite gender’s anatomy.”
Men and women are different on more than just the physical level. That’s why it’s best for children to be raised by a MAN and a WOMAN. Men and women bring different things to the table for the child. The relationship creates an equilibrium.
Mike Berg
I think I’m done.
Scott Berwitz
Mike –
Your grammar lessons are tedious. Not only because I write my responses on the fly because I am trying to make a point not redo the SAT’s, but because it’s coming from a guy who in the very same post he criticizes me in, uses “principal†instead of “principle.â€
Now why would anyone think a gross thing about you like being anti-gay? I mean, just because we have anal sex (the orifice where we dispose of fecal matter, which you helpfully point out), we are all child abusers and nature twisters who sometimes function under an illusion propagated by the “pink machine†that our love and relationships are equal to our gay counterparts, etc…that doesn’t mean you’re anti-gay! Nor does defending the worst things coming from Mike Savage – whose historical comments about gay people go far beyond simply calling us sodomites, exhorting someone to die from AIDS (because he’s gay) and calling all gay parents child abusers simply because they are gay. I mean, that’s just churlish, insulting, disapproving and we’re just being overdramatic! You’ve got to be kidding…if these comments aren’t anti-gay, then what could someone say that WOULD be? What could someone say that would make YOU turn around and think, “Now that was anti-gay.”
Sidenote: you urinate out of your penis, right? Women menstruate out of their vaginas. Many at one time or another have yeast infections, right? I just thought I should point that out. And I think you should inform all straight people that if they engage in anal sex, they have demoted their relationships to something inferior than their more pedestrian counterparts…after all, that’s where THEY dispose of fecal matter, too, right? Just wanted to point that out as well.
I think if you’re down to saying that being “GOOD PARENTS†is simply just one qualification – no more or less important than anything else – when assessing when someone is a GOOD PARENT or not, you’re attempting in vain to break a complete tautology. And if you’re similarly down to saying that being raised by decent people is simply just one factor in the quality of their upbringing, similarly no better or worse than any other factor, you’re just being absurd already. Which is worse for a kid to grow up with: a straight couple where neither are good parents or decent people, or a gay couple where both are good parents and decent people. I am curious to know how you’d answer this.
I also think it would be good of you to inform all straight couples who have needed outside help (fertilization, in vitro, etc.) that they are just as perverse and nature twisting as their gay counterparts. But maybe it’s not the procedure that’s perverse. If there were two women in a hospital getting exactly the same fertility work done, but one goes home to a man, and one goes home to a woman, are they both equally nature twisters? Or is one nature twister worse than the other? Or is it nature twisting at all when there’s a penis waiting for a woman at home after her fertility treatments are complete. Just as God intended.