Savage called Media Matters item "very accurate," continued his attack on civil rights
On the January 16 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage read aloud from a Media Matters for America item documenting his assertion that civil rights are a "racket" and a "con" designed to steal "white males' birthright." After reading the item, Savage said the transcript was "very accurate" and claimed that all of his statements were "truism[s]," adding: "Excuse me, there's not a word of that that I disagree with. Everything I said is true." Savage then continued his assault on civil rights, saying, "Civil rights are used to steal only from the white male -- no one else pays the price."
Savage began his segment by referring to a "group out there, who [he] won't mention" that is "obsessed with" him -- an apparent reference to Media Matters, which Savage previously described as having an "obsession" with him. Savage also called Media Matters an "unknown" organization that "no one reads." He went on to describe a "guy" -- apparently Media Matters President and CEO David Brock -- as "a fake conservative who became a liberal, he's gay. And all he does is listen to this show, and he writes transcripts. But I don't understand what he finds wrong with this."
Near the end of the segment, Savage stated: "I gotta hand it to them. When they made one mistake, all we had to do was threaten them with a legal letter to have them correct it, that's all." Savage was evidently referring to a correction that Media Matters made to an item in order to clarify that Savage had called Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) a "harridan," a "weasel," and a "lying little witch," rather than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Media Matters is unaware of any legal threats from Savage.
From the January 16 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: You know, there's a group out there, who I won't mention -- they're unknown, no one reads them. But they're obsessed with me. The guy was a fake conservative who became a liberal, he's gay. And all he does is listen to this show, and he writes transcripts. But I don't understand what he finds wrong with this. Here's what he published today. He says, "On MLK Day, Savage called civil rights a, quote, racket designed to steal white males' birthright."
I don't understand what's wrong with that statement. It's a truism. That's what it is. Civil rights are used to steal only from the white male -- no one else pays the price. I don't understand what their problem is. Then the idiot writes:
On the January 15 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, in a monologue about Martin Luther King Day, Michael Savage called "civil rights" a "con" and asserted: "It's a racket that is used to exploit primarily heterosexual, Christian, white males' birthright and steal from them what is their birthright and give it to people who didn't qualify for it," close quote.
Excuse me, there's not one word of that that I disagree with. Everything I said is true. After all, who pays for affirmative action? Heterosexual, white, Christian males with straight-A grades, for example, are passed over for less qualified women and minorities. That's a fact of reality.
So what is wrong with that statement that I made? Nothing. I conclude -- they say: He added, "They are the new witches being hunted by the illiberal left using the guise of civil rights and fairness to women and whatnot." From the January 15 edition of the Michael Savage show.
It's amazing. You know, they do very good show prep for me. The transcripts are very accurate. I gotta hand it to them. When they made one mistake, all we had to do was threaten them with a legal letter to have them correct it, that's all. They're so fair-minded. I wonder who watches them. Who watches over the watchers? Who watches over the left-wing watchers of the media? Answer: Nobody, except me.
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
He should take a history lesson and find out WHY there is affirmative action....the supreme court decided it was o.k. because they concluded there were too many people, businesses, etc. that WERE still actively discriminating, despite written laws against it...
To which Mr. Savage would reply, "And so you think that was a bad thing?"
What's he's saying is that "civil rights" is a farce now, and that we don't really need to be concerned about this stuff any more like we used to, and that those who do are engaging in a sham.
He's totally wrong, but it should be noted that he's referring to 'now' rather than before. He also doesn't realize that even by claiming that it's 'now' that he is concerned about, he's still saying that there are no 'civil rights' problems.
Michael Weiner thinks that Media Matters only watches him, and not the thousand other right-wing liars out there. He also can't understand that people may see his rantings as nuts and that he is the only one that watches them.
Melanie Morgan lies about us as well, moron.
how nice of the sickly looking jewish moron to look out for the white christian elite (for those about to jump im not using jewish in a derogatory manner )
...and we all have our own crosses to bear, so to speak...
Savage, Roy Cohn, Henry Kissinger, Meir Kahane, Rabbi Baruch Korff, Rabbi Daniel Lapin...
...Sammy Davis Jr.
an anti semite?
I find it very interesting to hear the so-called opposition to affirmative action claim there is no discrimination. This kind of defense for the status quo became common place when the defenders stated it discriminates against the group with the power, so we should leave it as it is: Unmistakeably white dominated.
As a Black male with above average education and intelligence, I have watched advancement within companies be the sole privilege of younger white males, who are have the age of 50. In most cases, they could be my child -- in most cases, they act like children who have been given too much authority. Tucker Carlson reminds me of this dynamic.
We should never give up on how to level the so called right to ascend. As it stands, one group has a lock on gate to get anywhere. The gate only opens ever so slightly to those minorities who have been lucky enough to have qualifications two fold.
Since Katrina, the American people opened another ugly fact to the unequal access to privilege. Now we can define discrimination along class lines. Yes, to muddy an already crowded issue, low income whites have become the latest victims of discrimination, as exampled by the faces left to die during Katrina's rage.
I hope one aspect of the new congress is the exposure of the "rage shock jock" on the radio and TV. I would like to to see the shock jock speech taken off the air through lack of interest.
Joseph
Did you read the initial thread about Dr. Weiner's diatribe? I hear what you are saying and definitely agree with the assessment.
I made similar remarks in the first thread on this as well.
I also wonder aloud if it makes some uncomfortable when one points out who/what group "runs the show" with regards to the corporatocracy that we live in.
I say this not to register a complaint about the state of things - just recognizing the reality.
The "leveling of the playing field" is going to take a lot longer than the 40+ years we've gone so far..
It will more than likely take the passing on of the baby boomers and well into the gen x'ers being in control until real strides are made (the likes of Scalia and Thomas being long dead and buried).
I hope after I'm dead and buried this "stench" that still hangs over this country and our society has been blown away by the winds of true enlightenment and respect for all.
Wishful thinking, I know..
But more outlets open for all types of speech.
I would debate with you what the purpose of the new congress should be. I would rather see them break up the media monopolies that have entrenched themselves into the national media, than to have the new Congress what with a war and all, make laws against "hate speech".
Its a dangerous precedent to set.
If Congress was to follow that train of thought, we my dance for joy as the EIB mic comes off the mounts and Rush turns the lights off one last time...but who's to say that in the future when the political current sways the other way that our favorite radio personalities get pulled off the air because the opposite idealogy is in power.
White women, vets and the handicapped also get it and aren't made to feel guilty. AA backlash has become a convenient way to make racial stereotypes.
"You know, there's a group out there, who I won't mention -- they're unknown, no one reads them."
Let's see...O'Liar does, Melanie Morgan does, I'm sure Oxy-Boy Rush and Sean Insannity does...
Wonder if Weiner would have been standing alongside Wallace and maddox and would he have swung ax handles...?
name.
Oooh.......you're so sly Weiner!
But unfortunately, you're a big right-wing WEENIE. Yeah Weiner, you're a big right-wing WEENIE.
the " not mentioning their name" bit that most of these sucker-magnets use when referring to MMFA or anyone else pointing out their lies.
Let's see, over here we have MMFA, documenting with transcripts and video the misinformation of the conservative media.MMFA is saying "Look! Look at them! They're lying!", and shining a light on the cockroaches, naming names and citing sources.
And over here we have Der Weiner,saying "somebody's picking on me, and pointing out what a liar I am, but I won't tell you who or back it up."
I'm still amazed that the audience that takes these knobs seriously never seems to catch on that the liar is the one that doesn't want you to see the other side.
And the good guys like to direct attention to the scumbags.
But at least this guy did actually say MMFA did not cut and paste, they got it right 100% and even correct it if they are wrong. So, he disagrees. Fine, he just gave this site the best PR possible!
When Savage says it's true that affirmative action gives positions etc. to less qulified people, he is lying his a$$ off. If two students have a 4.0 GPA and are of different races that is when affirmative action is set in. Affirmative action is not a "quota" system, rather a way to ensure someone was chosen for a position etc. fairly and not discriminated against. And if an African-American student 3.0 and another student has a 4.0, the African-American student will not go ahead of the other. Why do right-wingers feel they are able to lie?
I mention Savages comments on my blog: [link to thespartacist.blogspot.com]
Hooorah...! MMFA is given the Michael Savage seal of approval for accuracy. Does anyone else get the impression that the right wing media loonies are getting crazier and crazier? This guy (Savage) sounds like he is quickly approaching the deep end. I predict that before long one of them, if for no other reason than to get attention, will cause a stir by finally stepping over the line of decendy and taste to the point where even some of their defenders bail out on them.
Hmm. Is there a point of indecency so great that their listeners will abandon them? I don't think so.
As long as Savage et al continue to attack gay citizens, brown citizens, female citizens, Muslims, etc., their white, male listeners will nod and say, "Thas right. Thas right."
They'll only lose their carte blanche if they were to admit that white men are advantaged. Of all the stats regarding the inequity of power along racial, national, and gender lines, the one that drops my jaw is this: 98% of the world's land is deeded to men.
For you fellows out there, read the inverse and feel the kicks in the gut, groin, and head: 98% of the world's land is deeded to women. Land is power. Scarlett O'Hara understood that.
Two words to shatter your hopes that a line of decency will be crossed that causes people to tune out: Howard Stern
Savage/Weiner is probably not "going off the deep end" I really have questions as to whether a lot of these idiots really believe what they are saying or just playing to their audience. This guy is making a ton of money off of professing views that many of us find reprehensible, but he's got an audience that buys it, hook, line and sinker.
Yeah, I kinda subscribe to that notion, too. However, whether they believe their own B.S. or not, am I the only one who thinks that the right wing shock jocks are starting to push the envelope further and further with increasingly outrageous comments? I think there is a frustration and panic that is starting to set in among the right wingers... the Democrats took Congress and Bush's imperial presidency is history. The country may be swinging back towards the center and these guys may be desperate to keep their followers in camp. Just a thought...
...think that they're more outraged. I interview Fortune 500 CEOs for magazine articles and one thing I've learned is that a pink penis isn't worth what it once was. With globalization, the consequent competition forces American corporations to hire the best PERSON, whereas they once hired the best person with a pink penis. So, the substandard owners of pink penises are outraged that their birthright as been withdrawn and in their outrage, they're outrageous. But it is capitalism that demoted the power of the pink penis, rather than brown people or gay people or women.
Never forget that Savage is a failed academic. He is the owner of a pink penis, but that pink penis did not function as pink penises had in prior generations. I believe a woman of color was awarded the academic position that he believed was his birthright.
Savage is a dinosaur. The environment has changed and he's not adapting. Rather, he fixates on 1950s sensibilities and so wastes his days wailing about his birthright.
I would imagine that the Personnel Director had certain directives to "measure" the candidates if they were equal on the surface.
Holly, I must admit that I never viewed hiring from that point of view. Thank you.
Holly has made an excellent point in the funniest and most memorable way possible (not that I'd be likely to repeat it at church, but even so...). Hats--or some other piece of covering--off to her!
I must admit that I get a kick out of employing "pink penis" in an argument.
Now, if Savage were to talk about his pink penis and the pink penises of his listeners, the incongruent, but accurate joining of "pink" and "penis" would end his career. I suspect that his listeners employ "savage" as descriptors of their penises.
I believe that Savage is trying to work through his failures and using his listeners as therapists. And he's unintentionally naked when he blathers about birthright.
Savage would work better as a character of fiction rather than fact. Imagine a man whose surname (Weiner) means both a wimp and a penis. This character fails, probably by dint of inferior talent or grit, to procure his desired position in academia. So, rather than bolster his abilities, he perseverates about the evolving system that denies him his birthright. He changes his surname to Savage: the cornered beast. And rather than adapt to the changing environment and hunt on a changing plain, he snarls for a living. In fiction, he would be an interesting character, although repugnant and tragic. In reality, he is just repugnant and a wimp, for he whines rather than adapt and take to the plain to compete on that leveled surface.
Pink Penises! Damn them to HELL!
"he" fixates? Seems to me you fixate on the "pink penis" and what the hell are you talking about anyway? I don't get it.
privilege.
Prepare. There will be a quiz tomorrow. You'll be expected to understand this.
I'm ditching this class. Mark me absent. Please.
And that's different from today... how?
OK, Holly. Now I get it: "Pink-penis" = "privilege." Why didn't it sink in the first hundred times you used the term? It was as clear as mud all along. Go figure...
I strongly suggest you aquire the requisite equipment
Holly's trenchant synecdochery is over Toobed's head...
Well isn't that just precious???
I think I know why "pink penis" has you all atwitter. You probably contemplate it, albeit subconsciously, as The Holy Golden Peepee. I know that Savage does. Everything he says teeters on the construct of The Holy Golden Peepee.
But let's put things into perspective. You've a guy. A human guy. Consider this: The average Holy Golden Peepee weighs 4 ounces. The average elephant penis weighs 59.5 pounds. So, all of Savage's chittering about his birthright is based on a flaccid 4 ounces.
Alas, it's much ado, much ado.
Now, Toobed, sit up and pay attention. You've repeated this course 42 times. I truly do want you to graduate.
Holly,
I'm serious when I say that I don't know what you're talking about. Your last post left me with the same impression as usual, one of bewilderment. I guess I just don't understand your language. Maybe it's too advanced for me.
Holly, you're hilarious...
I'm standing and applauding....Bravo. Magnificently said.
You'll never get that small percentage that listens to these guys - you've got 28% of this country that still supports Bushco. To borrow from Stephen Colbert - " the glass is 1/3 fulle, but I wouldn't drink it, it's usually backwash" And so you have Savage/Weiner's listening audience, with the exception of the poor bastards at MMFA that actually have to listen to monitor them. What a crappy job THAT would be...
I would ask Mr. Savage this question, if "they're unknown, no one reads reads them" how did you know about them? A dream? A vision? Drug-related sighting? How did this happen? Maybe Mr. Savage, THEY don't exist and the remaining portion of your mind is fooling you.
I don't think so. Your underpaid staff must sift through every website, news article or blog to see if you are mentioned. We all know that ratings are the key. Please, Mr. Savage, be honest....we know you are truthful you always admit as much but please be honest.
Another thing, how do you know that MMFA really exists? Now your silly little staffers are questioning themselves. Read on you young Savages.
I think Savage should embrace his past and heretofore be known as "The Savage Weiner."
If MMFA quotes you accurately, why is the person who wrote the transcript an "idiot"?
"If MMFA quotes you accurately, why is the person who wrote the transcript an 'idiot'?"
-----
Because Savage is forced to consider the source.
I really hope he was wearing his Klan outfit while he said this crap.
Let me get this straight: only white, heterosexual christians should have civil rights and everyone else is subservant to them.
Got it.
David Brock is gay?
As I read thru 42 blogs, I may have found 3 that were worth responding to. The rest were just happy that they came up with the term "pink penis." The truth is that many black people in America don't support affirmative action or the civil rights act. Why?? How is that possible??
Well, many black people who are at the top of their class, both in high school, undergrad, and grad school, would excel regardless of any affirmative action. Then they have the negative stigma of getting "the extra boost," which they never needed in the first place.
The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us. Gen. Banks was distressed with solicitude as to what he should do with the Negro. Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, "What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don't disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot- box, let him alone, don't disturb him! [Applause.] If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone,--your interference is doing him a positive injury.
-Frederick Douglass
Maybe you high-brow liberals would have called Frederick Douglass an "Uncle Tom" if he said things like this today.
It's funny reading what all of the liberal morons have to say about Savage. All of the inaccurate statements prove that liberalism is a mental disorder. Savage does not fear Media Matters; he mentions the site by name on his show. He calls the idiot who runs this site "Mr. Media Matters." Savage is not against civil rights; he's against what the movement has become. He's rightfully against racist, sexist affirmative action. That unconstitutional program has screwed countless white an Asian males in favor of less qualified people. The program doesn't just split a tie between two equally qualified people. No two people are equally qualified anyway. Savage was denied work by affirmative action; he's obviously justified in his hatred for it. Savage is right in pointing out that Dr. King was a plagiarist, adulterer, and communist. Those are indisputable facts. Savage does believe what he says, as anyone who knows him will attest. Maybe we should ask if Michael Moore actually believes the garbage that he spouts. Now that Jimmy Carter has been proven to be a Nazi by his latest book and his intervening on behalf of an SS officer, Media Matters owes Savage an apology. Savage won't get his apology, since Mr. Media Matters (literally) has no balls. Media Matters should instead focus on left wing liars like Randi Rhodes, who is being sued for slander. Savage should be respected by the left for his opposition to China's harvesting of body parts, but the morons who post on this site even attacked Savage for that. Savage should be commended for his opposition to Iran's policy of executing gays, yet he gets no honorable mention in here by the same kind of cowards who sat silent when the Iranian minister spoke at Harvard. Savage should be commended for his opposition to President Bush on many issues, yet he isn't here. In fact, the posters here think that Savage is a neocon "Bushbot." If Bush is "wrong on everything, " as the left says that he is, then Media Matters and the left wing dummies who post on this site should join Savage in opposing Bush's plan to give amnesty to millions upon millions of illegal alien criminals. Come on, libs. You "oppose Bush," so why don't you oppose him on that? Does your hatred for America actually trump your hatred for Bush in that instance? Anyway, Savage for President in 2008. He's immensely qualified. He has a Ph.D. He's written over twenty books. He has a genius I.Q. He'd win a landslide. This is a conservative "Savage" nation, as the recent statewide ballot initiatives prove (gay marriage, English only, affirmative action, and California oil tax). God bless America. It's been a pleasure condensing all of my thoughts into this brief posting.
Catch ya on the radio tubes.
I can't imagine that you have any understanding of America as it really is. "Savage would win in a landslide?" Please.
Savage has been proven right on the Duke rape case. The alleged victim was lying the whole time; Savage knew that she was lying the whole time. Now the Johnny-come-lately mainstream media finally agree. It's time for this website, which originally bashed Savage for his comments back in April, to apologize.
The problem is, many people in positions of power, especially in the south, wouldn't leave the negro alone. They wouldn't listen to what Frederick Douglass had to say; they did everything in their power to annoy him when he went to the ballot box, prevent him when he went to the restaurant...etc. Affirmative Action is the opposite reaction to the conservative/status quo of the time, but it was a reaction. A reaction to the brutal and unfair Actions of a racist establishment. I understand the criticism of affirmative action, but I think you overestimate the "stigma" you seem to think is attached to successful blacks. It's not the first thing people think of when they see one. But it is legitimate to believe that affirmative action is no longer necessary.
"And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also."
Aff. Action is the positive injury he was talking about. And yes, the Stigma is real, regardless how great. I'd be hard pressed to find a intelligent black man or woman today who would not make it in this world absent affirmative action. Now ironically, it is affirmative action that actually creates the association that blacks are not qualified in the professions/ schools they attend. There is the assumption they received the extra boost. This insanity needs to end.
I thought about you post and have concluded that Savage is still an a**hole that is interested in money. What more can I say, you convinced me. Thank God he is really open and honest with everyone and really cares about you.
Thank You Mr. Weiner, I mean, Savage. Signed, Liberal Moron
That is a load of crap. Care to provide any facts to back that up?
Dr. King's adultery and plagarism are documented. Perhaps the definitive book on Dr. King's failings is Dr. Eric Dyson's, "I May Not Get There with You." Dyson argues that we should consider the skidmarks in the drawers of our heroes, for seeing their failings (and understanding our failings) allows us to attempt great things. It's a cogent argument and a worthwhile read. For the record, Dr. Dyson loves and adores Dr. King, as do I. And for the record, any man who denigrates another man, as Savage does King, must drop his drawers and show us his skidmarks. Otherwise, he's no man. Those who subject others to scrutiny must subject themselves to that same scrutiny.
In truth, I knew about some of those things, but I guess I was upset that the poster had chosen to slur Dr. King in the manner that he did. I am not saying that those are not problematic, but I do not feel that this means that Dr. King's leadership and accomplishments should be ignored because of it. It was foolish of me not to mention that knowledge when I first posted, and I apologize for that.
You did it for love and I love Dr. King too.
That's an interesting point, but don't you think that there is still inequality among the races starting at the base foundation of what creates success: Education? Our school system is set up in such a way that those from wealthier communities have access to more facilities and options which create success, while poorer communities are left with nothing but the three R's. Now, there are poor whites, but poor whites are still a minority in their respective racial category, as opposed to poor blacks. Poor, black communities are not getting the same educational opportunities that middle-class, or upper class white communities are getting. This puts blacks already ten feet behind the starting line when the gun goes off. Affirmative action is meant, in part, to try and remedy that problem. Maybe it's not working, but I have to disagree with your notion that hard working blacks would succeed in America without affirmative action, because hard working blacks are still not provided with the same opportunities.