Savage said Rice was "pushed up the ladder ... because of social engineering"
On the February 7 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage claimed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "was chosen by George Bush as part of an affirmative action program in order to make his Cabinet look like America" and called her "a schoolmarm who has been pushed up the ladder all of her life because of social engineering." Savage also stated that President Bush's secretary of state "should have been a man because he would have more respect in the Middle East than does a woman to begin with."
Later in the same program, after reading the headline of an Associated Press article -- "Israeli dig at holy site stirs anger of Muslims" -- Savage said: "What doesn't upset a Muslim? Tell me what doesn't upset a Muslim somewhere in the world. They have nothing to do but throw bombs and cut people's throats."
The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it the third most-listened-to talk radio show in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.
From the February 7 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: How can a schoolmarm like Condoleezza Rice conceptually deal with the complex problems of this world? She was appointed to the chancellorship at Stanford because of affirmative action. She was chosen by George Bush as part of an affirmative action program in order to make his Cabinet look like America. I mean, do we have to mince words for the rest of our life? She's over her head. She's way over her head. Now, you could have picked an African-American person, if you want to call people of color that, but it wouldn't have been Condoleezza Rice. It should have been a man, it should have been a man who speaks Arabic, it should have been a man because he would have more respect in the Middle East than does a woman to begin with. It has nothing to do with race, it has to do with the fact that she is a schoolmarm who has been pushed up the ladder all of her life because of social engineering.
[...]
SAVAGE: "Israeli dig in holy land upsets Muslims." What doesn't upset a Muslim? Tell me what doesn't upset a Muslim somewhere in the world. They have nothing to do but throw bombs and cut people's throats.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Savage's racism and sexist filth also hits Republicans. The man hates anyone, Ive listened to his show a a few times.
Patiently waiting for folks to come to his defense.
"What doesn't upset a Muslim? Tell me what doesn't upset a Muslim somewhere in the world. They have nothing to do but throw bombs and cut people's throats."
Savage = Racist Bigot
I guess you are waiting for some links to stories about opressed woman in the muslim world? You want to see some links of daily violence brought forth by the muslim world? I am not summing all muslims up here.
When I hear him talk like that above, I understand he is talking about the radical/moderate Muslims. Why don't you?
There are not two kinds of Muslims: radical and moderate (as the US media frequently claims). There is as much diversity in Islam as there is in Christianity, but it suits the interests of the US government to pigeon-hole certain Muslims as 'extremists' (by what definition are the Iraqi Baath Party radical Muslims?) and others as moderate (the Saudi regime? Moderate???). This has more to do with geopolitics and - yes - access to oil than it does with the real theological and philosophical gradations within Middle Eastern Islam.
In this particular case, I understand that Palestinians are complaining because of Israeli digging on the site of the al-Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount, the third holiest site in Islam. Palestinians have objected to the sight of bulldozers approaching the mosque and - they fear - undermining its foundations. It certainly does seem an act of unnecessary provocation (how would Catholics feel about bulldozxers closing in on the crypt of St peter's basilica?), especially given how intensely political any archaeological work in Israel is.
You are right, there are also Liberal Muslims. Most of them have moved here into the great America. Moderate Muslims are just borderline radical.
Could you please substantiate that statement, or will you just let it fester by itself in its own little racist cesspool?
substantiate what?
http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2005/RAND_CT251.pdf
That is a pretty good article. I was listening to a Terrorist gone Peace activist the other day. I forget his name off hand. He was brilliant and explained in depth the differences. The article above is pretty good.
That's an interesting report but it doesn't support your assertion that a "moderate Muslim is a borderline radical."
There is only one difference. A moderate has not yet acted in violence. It is a fine line Rusty. Very fine.
By that logic the only difference between you and Jeffrey Dahmer is you haven't killed and eaten anyone yet.
LOL. That was pretty funny.
It is a fine line Rusty. Very fine.
You just cant help but regurgitate your bigotry can you?
And how is that racist you pansey.
If you don't know, all the education in the world can't help you overcome your ignorant bigotry.
And what the hell is a "pansey?"
By definition you MORON
Because he doesn't use the words "radical or extreme" or any other adjective - simply the word Muslim. Let me ask you, when Bush stood in front of the banner that said "Mission Accomplished", did you see extra words that read....."except for the coming civil war, a couple thousand more U.S deaths, a few hundred billion more in U.S tax dollars, a prisoner abuse scandal etc...etc..."? This amazing power that you have to clarify someone's message with words that they never used is remarkable. Perhaps you could work as Weiner's press sec. when he runs for the White House.
Or as Rush would have put it, Condi only got where she is because the liberal media has been very desirous that an African-American become Secretary of State.
Yeah..leave it to a FLAMING LIBERAL like W to have THOSE TYPE OF PEOPLE (Powell and Rice) in that position, right Weiner?
Savage actually does think that Bush is a flaming liberal. He's said that he considers Bush to be more liberal than he is conservative many times.
that only further displays his ignorance.
It is actually very true that George W. Bush is not a conservative on many, many issues. He has been portrayed by hard-left Democrats as a radical right-winger (Eric Alterman has called him a "radical," right-winger so did Molly Ivins, just to name two). But really, George W. Bush is a conservative-leaning communitarian -- someone who believes in government aid for most things. George W. Bush really has no conservative credentials beyond these: support for the Iraq War, support for tax cuts, opposition to gun control, opposition to abortion, support for the Patriot Act and other forms of domestic surveillance, opposition to gay marriage, support for limited private accounts with Social Security, and support for "faith-based" handouts (although government-sponsored charity is a liberal idea, anyway). I honestly can't think of anything else that George Bush is conservative on (beyond the strictly rhetorical, that is). I'm sure I'm missing a couple, feel free to add in. He's liberal or moderate on these issues: health care (the mega-bucks Medicare expansion), immigration (support for 'earned citizenship'), spending (monster deficit via discretionary spending), government bureaucracy size (Homeland Security dept., for example), education (NCLB is an insanely statist, collectivist liberal piece of work), raising the minimum wage (he's for it, which conservatives that believe in choice in the free market don't; although, he does favor tax breaks for small businesses along w/ it), and a couple of others. He is also the man who said that America was "addicted to oil," something a truly free-market conservative would never say. I don't really think it's that outrageous to say that George W. Bush has done a lot of liberal things in this country. It's just that the most **noticed** things he's done have been conservative: tax cuts and the War on Terror.
Very well said. I think it's funny how liberals often criticize Bush for not being a "true" conservative, but I don't think that they would like a true small government conservative any better. Bush is a big government conservative, and the libs should like his big spending policies. He's actually like them in many regards. I can guarantee you that if someone like Pat Buchanan were President, the libs would hate him a lot more than Bush. He would be a true small government conservative who would greatly reduce the size of government and drastically cut spending. The libs should be happy that we have a President that has spent such a large amount of money on domestic issues.
Good post. Just curious: why would a true conservative never say that America is addicted to oil?
You make some decent points, but it kind of centers on what your definition of conservative and liberal are.
Just spending more doesn't make a bill more liberal. That may seem to be a conservative ideal, but many people who call themselves conservatives were pushing for more money and more beaurocracy in order to increase security spending.
The medicare drug plan and Bush's immigration position could also be described as a give-away to corporate interests by providing cheap labor to corporations and by not allowing the government to negotiate prices with Big Pharm. Some may view serving corporate interests as a conservative ideal.
Although the NCLB may be described as liberal in part, there are portions in it that open up the potential for controversy in regards to discussion of creationism in the classroom. Also, NCLB has not been fully funded as I understand it and may not have ever been inteded by the President to do so.
Out of all of the things you cited, raising the minimum wage is the only inarguably liberal item and even the President will not support it unless a bone is thrown to Small businesses. I would regard that as a surprisingly fair compromise and a moderate position, but not an entirely liberal one.
At best this president has a few moderate positions, but most of the other positions that may seem liberal, have arguably conservative underpinnings to them maybe just not the way you view conservatism.
http://www.theocracywatch.org/faith_base.htm
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight..
Not a true conservative. That I agree with more of a far right radical statist, with fascist leanings
Michael Savage aside, he makes a valid point. I have always believed that Ms. Rice, although a very accomplished and competent person, was the wrong candidate for her position. In addition, the fact that men are more respected than woman in their culture cannot be denied to satisfy our cultural expectations. Also, speaking Arabic would be an invaluable asset as Secretary of State, especially during these times. Sometimes telling the truth about a situation may appear sexist or racist, but the truth cannot be glossed over or denied to accommodate such political correctness. Not in the time of war.
Thanks, C.
So the decision about who should be Secretary of State should depend on the cultural biases of the Middle East?
Appeaser.
Rustyboy,
Let me educate you. An appeaser is one who sacrifices their principles for expediency due to weakness. On the other hand, standing by your principles firmly with resolution and making smart, calculating decisions based on your enemies weaknesses is the antithesis of appeasement. Choosing a candidate that Mr.Savage outlined is based on the latter.
Thanks, C.
To-may-to, to-mah-to.
I agree that there are probably plenty of better people for the job than Condi, but I don't think Bush should pick a man over a woman just because powerful women make Muslims uncomfortable.
"powerful women make Muslims uncomfortable"
More like the most muslim men in the middle east have no respect for woman.
I understand from a strategic point of view why congress should send a man over there.
Images of Tehran, Iran You Don't See Everyday
By the way, if I recall, a woman was actually Vice President of Iran for awhile. Granted, she was an extremist and was nicknamed "Screaming Mary" for all the anti-American chants she would start during the Iranian hostage crisis.. but hey, look: a woman in power!
I think that line of reasoning is valid if, let's say, you had 2 or more totally equal qualified candidates- then the matter of gender may be a factor dependent on how the person is perceived by others (which then opens the door to the argument, 'let's break these stupid arse stereotypes down one by one and let the bigots stew in their own juices or they can learn to respect others and differences among others...') ...BUT, in this case, Rush is saying she is not qualified because he thinks she has been propped up all her life, without knowing anything about her...
"Rush is saying she is not qualified because he thinks she has been propped up all her life, without knowing anything about her"
Wrong. Savage said that. Not Rush. You can't blame Rush for everything.
LOL....I do that ALL the time...I...I just can't...they all sound the same to me..I'm a hatist!!
LOLOLOLOL....
If he said what you said, the way you said it. We wouldn't be having this discussion, but he said what he said the way he said it and he's a bigot.
You can exclude the man's history when speeaking about black people.
You make some good points not to mention that a Russian expert as Sec of State doesnt really make sense nowadays but she is an intelligent and capable person. She is a horrific liar but since that doesnt disqualify anyone in the Bush administration its irrelevnt. Savage is just an insane bigot. He needs to increase his medication and seek the help of a mental health professional immediatly
Celia,
Savage may make a point worth pondering, but once again his foot gets stuck in his mouth and much like Rush, it becomes impotent. Why can't he make his points without reference to race? Oi!
Since you mentioned that speaking Arabic would be an asset for anyone min Ms. Rice's position, and since we are, as you say, "at war", do you think it served our national security to ferret out the Middle Eastern language interpreters and translaters from our military because some were gay?
Worrier,
Your question was not posed to me, but I will say it was an abhorent and completely idiotic decision.
Of course it made sense, Worrier. Middle Easterners don't respect homosexuals, and we have to base our strategic hiring decisions on their cultural biases.
MOre than do not like. The fanatics, a larg portion of hte middle east would LOVE to see all gays die. Want some links?
No, thanks EL. I'm aware of many Muslims' loathsome attitudes towards gays and women.
"MOre than do not like. The fanatics, a larg portion of hte middle east would LOVE to see all gays die. Want some links?" --EL
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You sure you aren't mistaking that for something Wiener or other conservatives have said? It is getting difficult to tell the difference between the social positions of the American conservative and the Muslim fanatics.
No, Weiner et al. want all LIBERALS to die.
It's a fine line, OM. Very fine.
It was a senseless decision that has had very negative repercussions. Military translators, unlike high level Cabinet positions that demand direct contact with leaders of Middle Eastern and Arabic countries, are a valuable asset to the United States, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Thanks for the quick response, Celia.
I agree with you about the language specialists.
Well, interestingly almost everyone in the UN speaks only 1-4 languages. Should we send only those who know every langauge, of every culture on the earth?
I would perfer a person who has experience in international negotiations and law (thats why we have translators). I mean while we elect our officials, in countries like Saudi, the officials our people meet with are un-elected (what, royal families will now only give birth to infants that have the ability to speak multiple languages?)
Or put it this way, it would be nearly impossible to select some one who speaks the languages of every country we have issues with, or may have issues with in the future (during their term). Would you rather have someone who needs a translator but has all the other skills? Or someone who knows the language and does not have any other skills?
I think we should send whoever will best represent our interests and not pander to bigots.
Dan Rather once flew to Iraq for CBS to interview Saddam Hussein. While sitting down he rested his leg on his knee and in the process gave Saddam a good look at the sole of his shoe. This is an insult in the middle East. Rather recognized his blunder but didn't fall over himself apologizing. He simply put his foot back down on the ground and smiled at the SOB.
I'm all for empathy. I'm all for understanding and respecting cultural beliefs to a point. But we are Americans Dammit! We respect women here. We respect religious beliefs here and there was a time when we were the epitome of human rights and decency. I don't care if you have all the oil in the world and we need it; we should not compromise our principles to appease a bunch of backward bigoted dictators. The Secretary of State is the envoy to the world, not just the areas that speak arabic. Personally I think we should send Dick Cheney's gay daughter while pregnant to speak to the punks in Saudi Arabia and the UAE. We should treat them with a contemptuous "respect." For some reason even the blood thirsty cons seem content to coddle dictators as long as their is a buck to be made.
Now I like you!
Thanks Evil. You understand me!
;^}
Right on, Bing. You said it much better than I did.
I agree Rusty. I often let my emossions take over, and it makes it hard for me to explain in such a rational way as the poster above has. I am working on it though.
Exactly Bingvan, to a point.
I mean no matter who we send, we should still try to be civil (even Dan Rather, noticed he made a mistake and put his leg down). The "we are the US, frak you!" attitude could lead to more problems than it sovles.
But we should not compromise our culture to appease everyone. The british don't when they deal with other cultures, so why should we? But like us they do learn about the other culture before we go in to talk, that way you learn a little about those you are dealing with and avoid situations that could cause the other party to stand up and leave the room.
Actually, this was a fairly strong point. Although her credentials are undoubtedly there, a man who speaks Arabic would have a far easier time than someone like Condoleezza Rice in the Middle East. Is that fair? No. It is true? Yes.
What's up with the hat?
Don't tell me Dr Weiner's a cowboy now too.
I was waiting for someone to comment on his 'look'. He's attempting to be tough... I guess? Doesn't quite work does it.
No it doesn't seem to be working for him.
He looks more like a rabid veterinarian to me.
Maybe he's looking for some Brokeback action with Imus.
The good doctor gives new meaning to the term "a man's man".
disgusting rusty! :0)
And Weiner wouldn't have a job if he wasn't a jew with a homosexual past.
Hey! Like I said before, that is just a rumor, mr. weiner is not gay. Nor does the gay community want him.
A few people get confused, there is a gay man by the last name of Savage, Dan Savage. He's a gay sex and relationship writer. Mr. Weiner changed his last name, and I have heard Dan Savage call him a fake savage.
As far as I'm concerned.. the only REAL Savage is Macho Man Randy Savage.
8 million people listen to this guy?
I've never heard his radio program, never even heard of him until I started posting here.
I think I'd get a headache listening to his rants.
While Condi Rice may well be over her head as Secretary of State, she is obviously a bright woman whose talents have been wasted with this motley crew of an administration.
Whether or not she was helped along by affirmative action is a moot point. Affirmative action cannot magically produce a productive intelligent person, all it can do is give someone a fair shake to reach their potential.
That summed it up perfectly.
More important is Savage has stated the other day he's mulling a presidential run.
Funny, as much as I like to listen to him, I told another dear friend of mine, a savage follower to the end, voting for him would be like the movie, "V for Vendeta" I could not do it.
It would be great for Media Matters. I'd vote him on his main issue alone---immigration ...Border, Language, Culture..
Those are my #1 issues. I have much respect for him because no matter how much he may offend someone, he is right most of the time. Not his name calling, but his, "Calling it as he sees it".
"he is right most of the time."
-----
Yeah. Extreme right.
On the one hand, all of the neanderthals like who are like Michael Weiner Savage criticize Affirmative Action, yet they praise Condoleezza Rice. I'm not sure if Savage ever praised Condoleezza Rice, but other troglodytes are hypocrites. I wouldn't be surprised if he previously did.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
The key to moving up the ladder in this administration has nothing to do with color. It has extra-nothing to do with competence, that's for damn sure.
It's all about faith. Not faith in God, but faith in Bush, who many people seem to perversely believe is the next best thing. And faith in the storyline. "What? There's no evidence that Saddam was trying to get Yellowcake as Bush told the country? We'd better shoot the messenger then, pronto".
That's Bush's kind of employee right there. The "ends-justifies-the-means", "keep-doubling-down-until-you-win" mentality, where it will all be alright as long as you stay the course and stay on script. If Bush wanted to hear intelligent dissent, Colin Powell would still be there.
And this continuous enabling by otherwise intelligent people has put this country on a collision course with history, like Bill Murray driving on the tracks towards an oncoming train in "Groundhog Day", with Bush saying "I'm betting he's gonna swerve first...".
He's shameless. But the mindset is understandable. Bush grew up in a world where merit is seen as a quaint concept The world was literally on a string, everything was or could be wired.
Rice is yet another example of social engineering gone wrong. Until the US stops looking at the color or sex of a candidate (I for one would even vote for Hillary....if she wasn't a socialist)we will never have the best person for the job. Shouldn't cabinet positions simply go to the BEST candidate? Simply, put anyone who says that certain people are given a leg upi n order to atone for America's history of bigotry is fooling themselves. Condi's record as Secretary of State is a sick joke. If her name was Carl Rice and she was so pale she was tranlucent Mr. Savage would still criticize her. Don't forget she was all for the jews handing back the gaza strip because it would bring peace.....or a better place from which Hezbollah could bomb Israel. She is a failure.
Hillary Clinton once sat on the board of WalMart. She is no socialist. And perhaps Condi was chosen by Bush based on her race, or that her race would give a preferred political perception but that's not affirmative action. The difference between cons and libs regarding race is this, cons perpetuate the myth of color blindness while libs recognize people aren't color blind. Affirmitave Action may have it's faults but it's still needed. There are disproportionate numbers of minorities in poverty and in jail, to build a more perfect union we owe it to ourselves to fix that.
I was too busy last night to blog so I'll go ahead and respond now. Hillary has already said she wants to socialize healthcare, said it "takes a village" to raise children, and said she wants to "take the profits from oil companies" in order to fund a search for other fuels. Just because she was a board member at Wal-Mart means nothing. On the issues SHE IS A SOCIALIST.
Oh and the "disproprtional minorities in jail thing"....should we not send people to jail if they are not white? Or should we just send more white folks to jail to even out the numbers? People go to jail because of their actions, unless it's a hot female teacher who sleeps with a male student
How many strawmen can you fit into one post? The point is that poverty (and by extension, prisoners) is disproportionate. It's social inequality, and that should be corrected. Nobody is saying people shouldn't go to jail for their actions or that more white people should be sent.
It's funny that you mention poverty in your response since you are actually communicating with someone who came from VERY humble beginnings, yes it is possible that white people are poor too. However, what I did, just like anyone else can, is go to the military for college money and am now working on my second degree. I guess you can also blame the extremely high rate of single parent black families on white people too? Is there any problem faced by minorities today that cannot be blamed on the history of bigotry in this nation? The easiet way to disprove your argument that the US is still by in large a racist nation is to look at the asian community. The asian community was paid peanuts to build the railroad and was later sent to detention camps (by a democrat), and this act is not even as far back in our rearview as slavery. Now the asian community has just as much success as white students. Is there past in this country not also a shame? Were they given an easy road? No, they weren't but they also don't have people like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson who MAKE MONEY off of keeping the perception that this nation is still a racist place.
It's funny that you mention poverty in your response since you are actually communicating with someone who came from VERY humble beginnings, yes it is possible that white people are poor too.
And I grew up in a poor neighborhood too. Nobody said it was exclusive, just disproportionate. It's actually not some sort of funny coincidence I mentioned poverty because it was explicitly mentioned in the post that you responded to so dishonestly.
However, what I did, just like anyone else can, is go to the military for college money and am now working on my second degree. I guess you can also blame the extremely high rate of single parent black families on white people too? Is there any problem faced by minorities today that cannot be blamed on the history of bigotry in this nation?
Some black people overcome obstacles just as some white people do. That doesn't change the fact that it's still disproportionate. Some people will make it, some won't, and if there's a much higher percentage of black people starting from those circumstances then more of them will end up dying young or in prison. The question you need to ask yourself is "is there any problem faced by minorities that can be blamed on their own inherent character flaws?". Because, for example, if you really want to argue that poverty doesn't cause crime, then you're arguing that black people are inherently more violent, less civilized, etc. That's something you might want to ponder a bit.
The easiet way to disprove your argument that the US is still by in large a racist nation is to look at the asian community. The asian community was paid peanuts to build the railroad and was later sent to detention camps (by a democrat), and this act is not even as far back in our rearview as slavery. Now the asian community has just as much success as white students.
Talk about apples and oranges. First off, I don't see where I said it was a "racist nation" (that's "by and large", incidentally). Most people are not racists, but that doesn't mean that the long-standing effects of past racism aren't still there. Second off, you admit the railroad workers were paid, not owned. Exploitation and slavery are not the same thing. More obviously, there is not nearly the same amount of negative prejudice based on skin color for asians. If anything, people have internalized the positive stereotypes of intelligence and hard work, which is going to help an asian person just a little bit more than a black person in that job interview.
Nothing you've said disproves the obvious point that black people are disproportionately poor, and as a society we should try to fix that. You can blame it on their inherent character flaws if you like, but don't imagine you can justify it to any rational person.
You still did not answer my question....how has the Asian community excelled while the black community has not? The answer is the "subtle racism of lower expectations". This is to say that if you have race baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson finding discrimination like the SAT or ACT test being "racially biased". If you tell someone long enough that they are being "kept down" by the man and unable to compete in open society they will believe it. Yes there are more blacks than whites in prison but there is also a dissproprotionate numeber of asians and jewish people in higher learning even, GASP, Ivy League schools. Here's something I'm going to say and I'm sure you'll say I'm a racist so I'll leave you a link....Why is it that whites and Asians whose family income is in the poverty level score higher on SAT tests (on average) than Black who come from families that make over $70,000 a year? www.laugriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm . Is it completely inconceivable that the racial groups are different in more ways than the color of their skin? For example would you argue that the average african american athlete is not more talented athletically than the average white? Watch a football, basketball, trackmeet, etc., and get back to me on that. At this point I'm sure you probably think I'm a foaming at the mouth hate monger. I assure you I am not. But what I can do is understand that while one group might be better at one thing another group might be better at something else. We are not all the same. I do believe we are created equal but not in all the same ways. There is scientific evidence of this but it is thrown under the rug because it would ruin the "whites keeping blacks down/america racist" theory. www.bluecorncomics.com/dsouza.htm is another link for you dissproving the "slavery is the reason blacks can't make it" theory. Simply put IT IS NOT OUR FAULT. It WAS our fault until the civil rights movement. The playing field is now EVEN.
Until the US stops looking at the color or sex of a candidate... - WeinerRocks
Note that it was your hero Weiner who brought up her sex and color. There is absolutely no evidence that Bush chose her for Sec. of State because he wanted a black woman. None. Just Weiner's persecution fantasies.
But if you'd like to talk about foolish affirmative action hires, let's discuss Clarence Thomas - the least qualified member of the Supreme Court in recent history.
First thing, Dr. Savage is careful to say that this is just his opinion that Bush is trying to appeal to more to the left and minorities. It is only the Dr.'s OPINION that rice was an affirmative action hire. He says this not to imply that the ridiculous racist affirmative action policy had a direct effect on her hire but that bush is trying to look more pc. On the other hand Clarence Thomas is CLEARLY qualified for his position....a law degree from Yale, assistant attorney general of the state of missouri, legal officer for civil rights at the department of education, chairman of the equal employment oppurtunity commision, and a judge in the D.C. court of appeals. I would say that Mr. Thomas is not only qualified but a shining example that ANYONE, even if they're black, can succeed in America.
Actually...
I think Condi Rice was originally offered the job of quarterback of the Washington Redskins... because she was black. I think I heard Rush Limbaugh mention that once.... I dunno, maybe I could be wrong. ;>)
One of the main reasons I listen to him is because he will cover stories that the pancake make-up idiots on FOX NEWS won't cover. Today he refused to discuss Anna Nicole Smith because that is only thing the mainstream media will cover. There has to be more important things going on in the world than talking about a degenerate dropping dead. At least she is with her son in heaven,sober. Today's show was particularly enjoyable. He had a conversation with a man in New York for about an hour that I believe you will find very inspiring. It transends both liberal and conservative. Once the show gets posted on talkradionetwork later this evening I highly recommend you listen to it. Check it out.
By the way the picture of Savage you see on the screen was taken from a live event he did in 2004. you can find it on youtube.
Condi is a contradiction to me. She grew up under Jim Crow, in the worst social conditions that an African American could. Yet she made Big Oil a ton of money. She supports a political party that holds strong racist and classist views. She is in love with Bush (she made the slip and called him her husband by mistake in an interview on TV not too long ago) and while Katrina was going on, she was shopping for $1200 shoes. I just wonder sometimes what happened to her to cause her to basically become a tool for the Man. What would cause someone to support the people that have a philosophy of hate, inequality and destruction?
Actually I personally like the Family Guy episode where Stewie goes too far back in time and see's Condi during her college days.
Maybe that explains it?
Family Guy is one of the best shows on TV!
Once again it strikes me as funny that Savage and his loyal listeners who want this mythological colorblind world are the first people to bring up race. If you want to talk the talk you have to walk the walk. If you want a colorblind world then stop bringing up color when discussing an issue where it doesn't belong. Talk about her performance, credentials, ect. but why keep briging up race if not to stir the pot and inflame the passions of racists and biggots. Don Rumsfeld is pretty much the picture of failure as well as this entire administration so to pick on Condi and insinuate she got her job based on color is just pandering to the closet racists.
I think Weiner brought up affirmative action in this context because it was the only way he could blame a cycle of continuous failure by conservatives on some liberal root cause. "Well, yeah, everything the right-wing warmongers has done has been a miserable failure, but only because LIBERALS demand that black women be promoted above their capacity."
Perhaps so, but he has stated that he personally lost out on either an academic job or admittance to a particular school, or both, due to affirmative action.
Unless the job he lost out for was Bush's Secretary of State, he has no basis for making that claim about Rice.
Are Radio Show Host God? Or God's Fill In?
I know God is busy. Especially dealing with the backlog left over from X-mas wishes. Does the all mighty appoint radio show host to fill in for her/him?
I ask the question because of the righteous nature to claims to know truths. With the name Savage, you would think he is the fill in for the other all mighty. Yes, the Devil.
If there is a Heaven and Hell, radio show host have something to do with who going where. These guys have got it all figured out. I wonder if Savage the all mighty knows where socks go when we put two into the dryer only to get one when the dryer finishes. The next time you speak or call into one of the right wing all mighty shows we must ask: Where the hell are my socks?
Joseph
http://readingitreal.blogspot.com/
According to one dictionary I consulted the name Savage comes not from Hades but from England while another dictionary says England and Ireland.
I thought it was about her sociopathy and eagerness to lie and cheat and kill her way to the top...like every one else in the White House. Ruthless ambition creates monsters like Rice.
I agreed with the doctor on this issue, and I interpreted the abrasive and shocking way in which his opinion was expressed as an appropriate response, considering the implications of this small part of a larger problem.
We will certainly not deny that as members of Western society, we are loathed and our lands are coveted by the practitioners of the Koran-inspired Jihad. The UK, France, and the rest of Europe has all but capitulated to their new populations of Arab Muslims, hearing cries for Sharia law from emboldened imams who study demographic trends a bit closer than the elected leaders of their respective countries. Political correctness and universal niceness is being exploited by jihadists to destroy our society. We are loathed as western infidels, whether we are "peace now" liberals or not.
So is really still the time for apologizing? Will we squabble and call each other bigots? Or shall we call weakness for what it is? Party lines and political viewpoints be damned! Where is the strength? I don't see it in Condi! Show us leadership!
Word that!