If Savage was smearing only misdiagnoses of autism, why did he previously call autism itself a "phony disease"?
SUMMARY: In a rebroadcast of The Savage Nation that aired on the program July 9, portions of which were previously included in a YouTube clip posted on June 30, Michael Savage acknowledged having called autism "a phony disease." The rebroadcast undermines his claim that when he characterized autism as "[a] fraud, a racket" on July 16, Savage was drawing a distinction between the "truly autistic" and those who have been misdiagnosed.
A rebroadcast of The Savage Nation that aired on the program July 9 further undermines Michael Savage's claim that he was referring on July 16 only to misdiagnoses of autism, and not to the disease itself, when he characterized autism as "[a] fraud, a racket." During the rebroadcast, portions of which previously were included in a YouTube clip posted on June 30 -- more than two weeks before Savage made the "fraud" comments that he now claims were taken "out of context" -- Savage acknowledged having called autism "a phony disease."
As Media Matters for America noted, on the July 16 broadcast of his program, Savage said in reference to autism: "In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out." Media Matters further noted that in response to the extensive criticism Savage received, on his July 21 show, he recast those comments to claim that he was "take[n] out of context," falsely suggesting that in his July 16 comments he distinguished between "the truly autistic" and those he described on July 21 as "the misdiagnosed, the falsely diagnosed, and the outright fakers in the autism field." The comments he made that were rebroadcast on July 9 -- acknowledging that he called autism a "phony disease" -- further undermines his claim to distinguish between the "truly autistic" and those who have been misdiagnosed.
In the edition of his show that was rebroadcast on July 9, Savage said:
SAVAGE: Here, remember two weeks ago, I said to you that autism is a phony disease? Do you remember I said that to you? That how could so many children suddenly have it and there be an autism epidemic? In my day, if a kid was a troublemaker, he was a troublemaker. If he shot his mouth off in a classroom, he wasn't called autistic, he was called a pain in the neck. They sent him to a special school for pains in the neck. Now he needs medication. He's got autism.
He also said of autism:
SAVAGE: [A] lot of it [autism] is a racket to collect disability payments from the government, from basically poorer families who've found a new -- a new way to -- to be parasites on the government, which is if -- if you want to collect a little money and get free medical care, you want to get the kid to take tests with help where the answers are given to him before he takes it, just say he's got an illness -- ADD, DDD, ASA. To me, there is one disease that they all have; it's called S-T-U-P-I-D. That's the main illness most of these kids have.
From the July 9 rebroadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Talk radio, if it's good, it's about social commentary. I don't know if you understand that. And it is. You have to be a pretty good social analyst to survive in this business. See, anyone could do politics, you know, read -- they read through the 18 papers in the morning, and the next thing is they're a great pundit that evening, or that morning -- read this -- a pundit.
That's easy to do. That's baby talk at talk radio. It's the social commentary and weaving it together in a political format that makes for interesting talk radio. And nobody can beat me at it -- nobody. Nobody. I'm the super heavyweight champion of social commentary in radio. Nobody comes near me; ask anyone who listens. I don't care if they're my detractor. They know I'm better than anybody.
But what I'm getting at is have you noticed that liberals laugh at herbal medicine. They laugh at homeopathy. They laugh at nutrition. They're all gung-ho, all of a sudden AMA-establishment medicine? How did that happen? That only conservatives -- we conservatives -- understand the value of complementary medicine, which is what it was once called, or alternative medicine, which is what it was once called. How can we understand it and these so-called liberals, who are into liberalism and freeing themselves, do not free themselves of the yoke of modern medicine? How come? You have an answer to that one? 'Cause I do, and I understand it very well. I know very well.
Here, remember two weeks ago, I said to you that autism is a phony disease? Do you remember I said that to you? That how could so many children suddenly have it and there be an autism epidemic? In my day, if a kid was a troublemaker, he was a troublemaker. If he shot his mouth off in a classroom, he wasn't called autistic, he was called a pain in the neck. They sent him to a special school for pains in the neck. Now he needs medication. He's got autism.
Today, they've done -- re-diagnosed -- redefined a troublesome children. And now they're calling him autistic all of a sudden. They all have a syndrome.
First of all, a lot of it is a racket to collect disability payments from the government, from basically poorer families who've found a new -- a new way to -- to be parasites on the government, which is if -- if you want to collect a little money and get free medical care, you want to get the kid to take tests with help where the answers are given to him before he takes it, just say he's got an illness -- ADD, DDD, ASA. To me, there is one disease that they all have; it's called S-T-U-P-I-D. That's the main illness most of these kids have.
Now you say, "Well, where do you come up with this? That is so cruel of you, Michael." Guess what? I was right again. MSNBC, which is a super left-wing website, has a new article out, called "Autism 'epidemic' may be all in the label." You hear this? Do you hear this finally again confirmed? Savage was right again.
Dateline: Atlanta, by Mike Stobbe, Associated Press: "A few decades ago, people probably would have said kids like Ryan Massey and Eddie Scheuplein were just odd. Or difficult. Both boys are bright. But Ryan, 11, is hyper and prone to angry outbursts" -- hey, the kid's a born talk-radio show host -- "sometimes trying to strangle another kid in his class who annoys him" -- maybe he's a born martial artist.
"Eddie, 7, has a strange habit of sticking his shirt in his mouth and sucking on it." He's an idiot. That's a different story. "Prone to angry outbursts" and "hyper" means he's probably going to be a good -- either a lawyer or a good talk-show host. "Sometimes trying to strangle another kid" -- he's got to control it. He'd probably be a good martial artist or a good ring fighter.
The brother, though? Hopeless. "Sticking his shirt in his mouth and sucking on it" -- finished. Nothing will help him. Give him as many shirts as he wants.
"Both were diagnosed with a form of autism. And it's partly because of children like them that autism appears to be skyrocketing: In the latest estimate, as many as one in 150 children have some form of this disorder." That's bullcrap.
There's not that many children. What it is, it's a racket. It's the drug companies trying to sell a disease. And the American Academy of Pediatrics, I oughta tell you -- the sickest, just the sickest doctors in the country is the American Academy of Pediatrics. They want every child screened -- screened by the age of 2. "Put them on this. Put them on that."
See, there was a time that pediatricians were the lowest-earning doctors in the constellation of MDs because they didn't prescribe drugs. Then they got the idea that they could become just like the other drug peddlers in the medical industry if they could find diseases that they could sell -- peddle drugs to -- whoa, now they have it.
So, there's your answer. I see it all through the lens of correct -- clarity period. "Autism has always been diagnosed by making judgments about a child's behavior; there are no blood or biologic tests. For decades, the diagnosis was given only to kids with severe language and social impairments and unusual, repetitious behaviors." OK, fine.
"Many children with severe autism hit themselves or others, d[idn't] speak and d[idn't] make eye contact." Sounds like most liberals I've known. Most of the kids in Marin County sound like that. They hit themselves with marijuana once a day or they hit themselves with a spike in the night or they hit themselves -- they don't speak. No, they don't. They're like, hmm. And they don't make eye contact -- absolutely born liberals.
Here's another one: "[E]ight years, been in the day program with intense service, still doesn't talk. He's not toilet-trained" -- 19 years old? He doesn't talk. He's not toilet-trained? And "he has a history of trying to eat anything -- even broken glass"?
My friends, that is not autism, that's insanity. He belongs in a mental hospital. That's what they were built for: poor, unfortunate children like this, so that they could get the proper care that they need. They're not autistic. They need a mental hospital with attendants.
So, now, there it is. Now we got a spectrum of so-called illnesses -- autism. They're mentally retarded. It's a sad thing. It's not anything to laugh at. It's not something to laugh at, but stop diagnosing every idiot, moron, stupid kid with a disease to give them a justification. Somebody doesn't bang his head against the wall. Does that -- does that get you going on the right track? Or not?
So you're saying that the people of this country are evil, lying, fascist, racist, sociopathic, vile hate-mongers, just like Liar Michael Sewage continues to be.
"Jackass, The Movie" was #1 at the box office. It represented NEGATIVE things about the people who watched it.
Sewage's large audience of liars, fascists, racists, homophobes, sociopaths, white supremacists, scum, and all combinations therof represente NEGATIVE things about the Sewage Nitwits who listen to him.
Cleveland Plain Dealer, July 25, 2008
Radio station drops Savage over remarks about autism
"This guy's a knucklehead and I want to get rid of him" - Mark Jaycox, WHK AM/1420 station manager.
parents, doctors, school staff, ect taking advantage of this can go to HELL as well
Why?
You can not read can you. I said, PEOPLE ect TAKING ADVANTAGE.........
But then, you can not seperate politics from reason can you.
"parents, doctors, school staff, ect taking advantage of this can go to HELL"
What part of the phrase, taking advantage do YOU not understand? My god.......
You mind if I TAKE ADVANTAGE of your daughter? Understand now?
Again - you sound like Savage! I took your WORDS. Noothing more. Why don't you try thinking about what you want to say, and posting it clearly. (I can stand by 99% of what I post.) (But I'm only about 70% , a C-, when it comes to spelling and typing though!) :(
Your words are against you. Sorry.
Dear writer: I'm a big fan of Michael Savage, you'd have to listen a little more than you have heretofore to get the whole context of his comments. I don't get that he's ranting on against parents who truly have autistic children, only that that "vetting" process (my words) has seemingly gotten out of control and nobody's talking about it. You'd have to admit he does get things started. That he complains about this website often is one reason that I'm here looking around.
Hope the discussion can be furthered and knowlege expanded and something good will come of it.
All right! Is this going to be like Rush's "phony soldiers" smear on our military, where Weiner's supporters come here and tell us this was taken out of context, and if we'll only listen to an unrelated show from a week earlier it will all make sense?
I hope so, that was zany fun.
10 million listeners is a heck of a lot of people...
Have his ratings gone up or gone down because of this incident?
"But again, we aren't talking audience draw, we're talking lost sponsorship. If your sponsors bail, regardless of your audience draw you will fail because the bottom line is how much money you make for the man."
Which would explain why air america is bankrupt. Perhaps they are one of those companies that had 10 million listeners, but no one would sponsor them? Somehow I don't think it works that way. Savage may lose a couple sponsors, but if his listenership stays at 10 million, other sponsors will jump right in and take the slots that others left.
You're right, it's all about 'how much money you make for the man'. And with the money that flows because of Savage, there is always someone willing to share in it. I hardly think Imus had close to 10 million listeners. Another thing that is absolute. He has more liberals listening. But, you people were already glued to his radio show before this, right? I know rabbit-lover says he listens every chance he gets.
Another station dumps Savage:
http://www.charlottesvillenewsplex.tv/news/headlines/25838589.html
Oh and don't forget to post the story about the station that picks up the Savage show after it became available in their area.
I wouldn't count on Michael Weiner gaining any affiliates after this latest episode. What we're witnessing is The Beginning of The End for "The Silly Savage Nation".
Question for you, writer. Have you read the article linked from mmfa by Wendy Fournier (president of the National Autism Association)? Did you know she believes many (if not most) autism diagnosis's are not true autism, also? Read her statement and tell me what you think of her belief in the medical community to properly diag autism. Here's the quote I noticed:
" Your child may very well meet the current diagnostic criteria for Autism, but what if he or she is really suffering from heavy metal toxicity or auto-immune encephalopathy, for example? Those illnesses are known to cause symptoms of Autism. If your doctor kept digging to find the cause of your child’s neurological dysfunction, you would likely come out on the other side with a treatable illness and hope for the future, not to mention health insurance coverage for treatment. But instead, you are told that your child has autism, there is no treatment, hurry to get on a waiting list for behavioral therapies. Mainstream physicians need to start recognizing and treating the underlying medical issues that are causing the symptoms we collectively observe and diagnose as autism, only then will we start to make some real progress. My hope is that one day, no child will be diagnosed with “Autism”, that all sick children will be properly diagnosed and successfully treated for the illnesses that they truly suffer from."
The president of the National Autism Association says that she thinks autism isn't the disease, but rather something else that goes undiagnosed and a label of 'autism' is attached to something the mainstream medical community hasn't a clue about.
" My hope is that one day, no child will be diagnosed with “Autism”, that all sick children will be properly diagnosed and successfully treated for the illnesses that they truly suffer from. "
Now, how is that different from what Savage said?!? Ms. Fournier just claimed that autism isn't a real sickness and she hopes one day that the true illness will be discovered. In her statement (linked to at mmfa), her biggest complaint against Savage is his belief that free medical and greedy lawyers are involved in the autism "racket". She believes that the government is using a vast conspiricy to allow (and force) the poisoning of our children and to treat them like "lab rats". (she didn't use the word conspiricy, but that's the only way to describe it) Explain to me why the president of a major autism society isn't being lambasted like Savage is when she says essentially the same thing??
More about WINA dumping Michael Savage...
Last week on his nationally syndicated show talk host Michael Savage made some very uninformed and reprehensible comments concerning the growing issue of autism in America. NewsRadio 1070 WINA vehemently defends the right each of us has to the freedom of speech. We also understand that sometimes people make mistakes. However, Michael Savage has shown no remorse and offered no apologies for his fact-less tirade and has, in fact, tried to justify his insensitive remarks. Our mission at WINA has always been to offer the best possible and most stimulating talk for Charlottesville. It is clear that Michael Savage no longer fits with our or your high standards.
Starting tonight WINA is proud to replace Michael Savage with The Dave Ramsey Show. Dave Ramsey has been a fixture of the WINA Weekend Lineup for years and can now be heard every weeknight from 8pm to 10pm. Particularly during these tough economic times we feel that Mr. Ramsey’s message is much more useful and positive.
Which would explain why air america is bankrupt.
They still bankrupt, Phil, or are you still living in the past? Last I saw they were doing quite nicely...
They still bankrupt, Phil, or are you still living in the past? Last I saw they were doing quite nicely...
They are doing fine. While Air America filed for bankruptcy protection in 2006, they effectively left bankruptcy when they were bought by Mark Green in 2007. However, Philib was then and is now what we commonly refer to as "mentally bankrupt".
:-)
"Weiner-Savage claimed.... He's too obtuse to realize what an idiot he really is." - Dr. Matt
Well, doctor, being too obtuse is one diagnosis. But maybe we need a second opinion: "People with high-functioning autism are not mentally retarded; they have an average or above-average IQ. Although they typically have adequate vocabulary, their comprehension is generally behind neurotypical peers. Typically they use less emotional content in speech and are less able to interpret non-verbal cues, such as when listeners are bored with or distracted from the topic of conversation."
From the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-functioning_autism
"1 out of 150 children have some form of Autism is "statistically impossible", "
Perhaps you can show with statistic proof that (304,682,731 / 150 = ) 2,031,218 people in America are autistic when 'fightingautism' says there are 265,388 diagnosed cases. Which is 10% of what you claim as fact. You whine that Savage brings faulty stats, but so do you! Can you bring factual stats to this arguement??
http://www.fightingautism.org/clock/ , http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
Phil,
All I asked is why he called it a phony disease. Misdiagnosing a disease, calling a disease phony is another. What do you think he is trying to accomplish here?
"All I asked is why he called it a phony disease."
I thought you'd back-track when shown FACTS. Facts to a liberal must be like a cross to a vampire. This entire fiasco that mmfa is committing against a professional with an opinion started because mmfa questioned his statement about 99% autism fakers ( http://mediamatters.org/items/200807170005?f=h_top ).
FACTS show that 87% of autism cases can be claimed as faking. Either that, or 87% are cases that are misdiagnosed. In which case, can we trust the medical community to care for our children if they can't properly diagnose 87% of the time??
"FACTS show that 87% of autism cases can be claimed as faking."
Facts show nothing of the kind. First of all, as a matter of logic, %100 of autism cases can be "claimed as faking" -- but only by people who make baseless claims. Facts and statistics say nothing about who can make any claim.
More importantly, though, the data you've cited only shows a distinction among diagnoses of autism among the general population, autism among children, and a basic distinction between autism and autism spectrum disorder. You haven't presented a single statistic or fact to support the claim that any percentage of the people with these diagnoses are 'faking'.
If you have a coherent argument to support your position, I'd like to hear it.
"Can you explain his inconsistent comments?"
I believe I just showed he has an opinion that is only few percentage points away from reality. Check the facts yourself. I provided both links---just like you always want. I showed how the math is done (in case you went to public schools).
You never bothered to give you opinion on how many cases are faked (from a previous thread), so we'll never know how far off your 'guess' is. Will we? But that won't stop you from whining about Savage guessing 99% when reality says it's 87%.
How can you not know that not all of the people in the USA are children?
How can you not know that the claim was about Autism and Autism-related issues?
P: I showed how the math is done (in case you went to public schools).
Your arithmetic is fine, but you still failed the word problem by conflating autism with autism spectrum disorders. And don't start bragging about how you didn't go to public schools: you might be branded an elitist by conservative pundits.
"but you still failed the word problem by conflating autism with autism spectrum disorders."
But, Savage wasn't talking about "spectrum disorders" was he? Did you ever see him mention that? I thought he only complained about autism. So, who's playing the word game?
In the 1970's the incidence of autism was 1 in 10,000. Today, it is 1 in 150. There are numerous theories as to why the incidence of autism has risen so dramatically, and no one knows with certainty what the real cause is. In any event, comparing the general population to the current incidence of autism is a non sequitur since the disorder has only in the last 10 to 15 years become so prevalent.
In any event, Michael Savage and his minions stand alone when it comes to his harebrained theory that the increased rate of autism is caused by parents trying to get government benefits, since no benefits exist.
Moreover, you amateur math does absolutely nothing to support the blanket unqualified statement that 99% of the cases are simply brats who have not been told to cut the act out, since the statistics you are citing include all cases of autism, including the false positives (to the extent there actually are any).
How about you go do some real research Philip about the financial impact of an autism diagnosis on families, or the long-term prognosis for people diagnosed with autism. Then come back to me and we can continue this discussion on a meaningful level.
"How about you go do some real research Philip about the financial impact of an autism diagnosis on families, or the long-term prognosis for people diagnosed with autism."
How about what Wendy Fournier says about autism? She is the president of the National Autism Association (she should know a little of the disease). She claims autism isn't the disease these kids suffer from. She claims there is another illness that the children "truly suffer from". She questions the government role in forced poisoning of our children without anyone stepping up to take responsibility for what they caused. She thinks government forced immunization programs are giving kids "symptons" similar to "autism" and lazy doctors leave the diag at autism because of simplification. Wendy says that because the disease isn't a true disease the financial burdons are even worse on families who suffer through a diagnosis of autism on their kids. Because there isn't a specific disease to blame, (but rather only the syptoms are the diagnosis for autism) insurance companies don't pay as much toward medical treatment or physical therapy treatments.
Are these the kind of financial questions you wanted to discuss?
http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/savagestatement.php This link is also provided at the home page of mmfa.
P: "How about what Wendy Fournier says about autism? She is the president of the National Autism Association (she should know a little of the disease). She claims autism isn't the disease these kids suffer from."
It's interesting you should say that, because the statement you linked to by Ms. Fournier seems pretty clear and contrary to your portrayal of her position:
You did read what she wrote before you linked to her statement, right? Here's another passage:
I'm glad you acknowledge that Ms. Fournier knows a thing or two about autism, but I'm a little shocked that you seem to have missed the bit where she expressed her profound disagreement with Savage:
Wow. She seems pretty clear on the matter. So... how does her statement in any way support your position?
your "facts" are disgusting. if you bothered to scroll the page on the autism you chose to quote the table shown distictly says the increase in people ages 3-22 years old. not the entire the entire population of the united states. the 1 in 150 figure is only including children. not senior citizens not middleaged adults but children and to lesser extent young adults. so your arithmetic is simply ignorant uneducated garbage, designed to inflate numbers and and make it look like something is untrue.
man I feel just like franken stickin it to rush.
As I understand the issue -- and I do not claim to be an expert -- the 1 in 150 statistic is based on a sampling of children at age 8 or so who have conditions that fall under ASD, or autism spectrum disorders.
Of course children with autism grow up to be adults with the same condition, but diagnosis generally occurs in childhood, and many adults today with ASD conditions would have been diagnosed as children as suffering from mental retardation, emotional disturbances, or other mental disorders. There's actually a nice explanation of this here: http://www.unstrange.com/essay.html .
As the author of this points out, it's a bit like calculating the number of people with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome:
Many audults with autism spectrum disorders simply are not diagnosed as such. So yes, 1 in 150 children -- as I understand the claim -- does translate into a speculative claim about 1 in 150 adults who would have been diagnosed with ASD had the current diagnostic procedures and standards existed when they were children.
But here's the critical thing to keep in mind: even if diagnoses have risen, and even if the standards for diagnosis have changed, this in no way supports Savage's ludicrous claim that 99% of people with ASD are jujst acting out and need to be told to behave. Again, consider FAS: just because diagnosis of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome suddenly rose thirty years ago, it doesn't mean that the condition is fictional or that people who are diagnosed with FAS are just seeking attention and welfare.
This all seems to me to be a red herring that distracts from the issue at hand: Savage has no evidence to support his claim that people with autism and ASD are undisciplined brats. Savage has every right to offend people and make baseless and hurtful claims, but his employers have -- in my judgment -- ethical responsibilities to their audiences and to the public as public broadcasters. Savage wants to spread this garbage? He's more than welcome to do so on his website. But he doesn't have a right to a paycheck, corporate sponsorship, or a radio network for doing so.
Hi Phil,
For starters, the claim isn't that 1 in 150 children are diagnosed with autism -- it's that 1 in 150 children have some form of autism. More specifically, it's that 1 in 150 children have an ASD - autism spectrum disorder. And as the name implies, its a spectrum of conditions ranging from autism to Asperger's to pervasive developmental disorders. (See http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-02-08-autism_x.htm )
If Savage's claim is that 99% of _these_ conditions are frauds, and that these are kids who just need some discipline, then I'm not sure how that's any less offensive to a parent raising a child with Asperger's.
Hope that helps.
Perhaps you can show with statistic proof that (304,682,731 / 150 = ) 2,031,218 people in America are autistic when 'fightingautism' says there are 265,388 diagnosed cases. Which is 10% of what you claim as fact. You whine that Savage brings faulty stats, but so do you! Can you bring factual stats to this arguement??
Here's the problem Phil. All American children are people. But not all American people are children. (i.e. 304,682,731 is not the right numerator for your equation.)
"Here's the problem Phil. All American children are people. But not all American people are children."
I guess we have another problem. All the American children, that make it, grow up to be American people. Unless autism heals itself with age, the "rate" of affliction from children to adults will not change.
Right, so what you're saying is that if the same "criteria" for diag'ing autism was around in the 70's, then my stats would be correct. But, since they used a different criteria for diag'ing autism back then the numbers I used are flawed?
Since you can't say whether autism was actually applicable in the 70's to cases that are diag'ed today you are simply guessing that my numbers are incorrect.
I'll try again: here's why I disagree with "your numbers". You divided the population by 150 and then showed that this is not the same as the number of people with autism. That's all you did.
What you failed to take into account is that the original statistic refers (a) to 1 in 150 children, not the population as a whole, and (b) refers to autism spectrum disorder, not autism.
The same website you cited, fightingautism.org, also shows that rates of autism cases are increasing. So if you're going to rely upon this website's statistic about the total number of autism cases, then you should also rely on its data which indicates that rates are higher among younger populations.
My disagreement with you isn't based on a guess -- it's based on the sources you cite and the way you use them. The very sources you cite contradict your conclusions: the original statistic refered to ASD but you conflated that with autism; you conflated rates among the entire population with rates among an age cohort, even though your own sources show that those rates are different.
Now you're right that I am speculating about the cause for the increase in incidence of ASD diagnoses: there could be environmental factors, there could be different screening methods or diagnostic criteria... I don't know. We can debate the different possible reasons, but that's unrelated to the question of why your number-crunching doesn't invalidate the 1 in 150 statistic.
"Dr. Matt" would like us to know that
Memo to Mr. Savage: "Show us your facts, please!"
Where did he get that 99 percent statistic?
The same place he gets all his other facts. Out of his a$$.
On a side note: How many more protests will be taking place outside radio stations again?
I don't know what there is to take out of context here - what he said was obvious - he considers/ed autism and ADHD to be a phony disease manufactured by drug pushers in the FDA. As a matter of fact when I first heard these comments this was the impression I got when I heard these statements, and the accuracy of his side point (profit-driven pharmaceutical companies who make money off your illness) along with his credentials in biological sciences made his original statement seem true.
The thing to note is how Savage is trying to change the whole discussion here - it went from "autism is a phony disease" to "drug companies making money off illnesses" to "Stalinist Nazi homosexual anti-American communist are out to get one of America's last patriots". So what are we talking about here?
The herb salesman had you fooled momentarily. That's the best he can hope for from a thinking person. Good for you!
Rick
what he said was obvious - he considers/ed autism and ADHD to be a phony disease manufactured by drug pushers in the FDA.
Except there is not a single pharmaceutical treatment for autism at this time or at any time in the past, so there is no reason for your straw-phantom "pill pushers in the FDA" to "manufacture" anything of the sort.
Not entirely true. While there is no drug "cure" for autism, there are many drugs that are used to treat symptoms. For comparison, while the diseases are not comparable, "colds" are caused by viruses that are unaffected by cough syrup, but nonetheless people take cold syrup to help alleviate the symptoms.
Did the fallen tree that you did not hear prompt your question?
histybuffsands is following in the footsteps of his muse, D.H. Rumsfeld:
"As we know,/There are known knowns./There are things we know we know./We also know/There are known unknowns/That is to say/ We know there are some things/We do not know./But there are also unknown unknowns,/The ones we don't know we don't know. -- Feb. 12, 2002, Defense Department briefing"
Hmmm?
What about the unknown knowns?
The fact of the matter is this goes back to the intent of the good Dr's point: Grossly overmedicated children diagnosed with a plethora of ailments cheered on by the pharmaceutical industry. It's just a fact of life, thanks to the implementation of medicines, parents don't have to parent anymore. Give them a cell phone, an xbox, a television set with cable and toss some ritalin down their throats. It's the truth of it. You little minded people could care less about these "autistic" children and more about the evil Michael Savage expressing a viewpoint YOU DO NOT LIKE. And that is the long and short of it.
I don't know where this drug pushing conversation is coming from, there is no drug for autistic children to take, theres therapy and doctors but they don't prescribe medicines
I hate when someone uses the "back in my day" line because back in his day kids didn't ride in car seats either it doesn't mean that was the right way.. the kids who were just instituionalized and written off as nobodys back then are now getting help and thats a problem? what a small man
Just did a quick Google search and came up with a few sites that list them. Like I said earlier, none of these drugs can "cure" autism. But they can alleviate symptoms. A few of the drugs listed are Luvox, Ritalin, opiate blockers, anti-psychotics, and tranquilizers. That being said, I'm sure there are more that I didn't see.
http://www.faqs.org/health/Sick-V1/Autism.html
And here's another article that says 80% of children with autism and Asperger disorder are treated with at least one psychiatric drug. It does say further down that 64% of children with autism are given at least one drug. It also gives some other facts about treatments.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/565002
Here's my two cents (probably less) on the subject. In the article in talks about the degree of impairment being highly variable. I think that is one of the major contention points between people about autism and many behavior disorders in general. The sometimes subjective diagnosis of these behavioral diseases contrasts what many people have experienced with pathogen based diseases. If you have a bacteria infection, there are some external symptoms, but blood analysis can be done to confirm the infection. Since their (behavior diagnoses diseases) diagnosis is in many cases subjective and behavior based, and there is no "blood test" to collaborate the behavior signs, the variability leads to a blurry line that can be crossed between someone that has a disease and someone that may be "acting up." That's how I feel. There ARE people that have autism. There ALSO ARE people that are misdiagnosed with autism. That will probably always be the case with any behavior diagnoses disease.
But what I'm getting at is have you noticed that liberals laugh at herbal medicine. They laugh at homeopathy. They laugh at nutrition. They're all gung-ho, all of a sudden AMA-establishment medicine? How did that happen? That only conservatives -- we conservatives -- understand the value of complementary medicine, which is what it was once called, or alternative medicine, which is what it was once called. Comedian Savage
According to a lot of conservatives liberals are hippies? And I also thought hippies believed in herbal remedies, especially a certain plant by the name Mary Jane. I know plenty of liberals that believe in holistic medicines. What the hell is this idiot talking about !!!
Yes I thought that too...this is interesting, because at health food stores where I shop,the parking lot is always filled with Democratic bumper stickers, and I would say many shoppers and employees would fall into the new age, or hippie classification.
It's almost too funny.
Yet wasn't Joel Wallach referred to as the "Rush Limbaugh of medicine" back in the early-mid '90s for his promotion of alternative medicine?
I think it is pretty evenly balanced. Most people, generally, believe in good health, I know all political persuasions that use some type of alternatives. Heck when you get right down to it, vitamins are considered alternatives.
Lets not turn this into a fight about which political party believes more in HEALTH for crying out loud.
Some perspective on this manufactured controversy:
http://selwynduke.typepad.com/selwyndukecom/2008/07/judge-mentally.html
It is sooo gay! But what caught my eye was the first line;
It seems as if taking offense is the recreation of choice in modern America.
Why does that sound so familiar? Oh, I know, it was in one of the wingnuts posts on the recent Weiner threads.I don't really feel like looking for it, but either this is the blog of one of the visiting con posters, or we have yet another plagiarizing GOPper.
It's all in the transcript. Full of little adjectives and qualifiers like "so-called", "phony",
and "S-T-U-P-I-D". Face it. Your boy screwed Up. Again. And like many other gas bags that have access to a microphone, he sure can talk tough until he's called out. Then he screams and cries like the puss he really is.
If the "overdiagnosis" of mental disorders is the "true spirit" of Savage's remarks, why couldn't he just say it? He could have easily said, "I think people who quickly diagnose their children with mental disorders actually hurt those who have authentic mental disorders."
But the fact of the matter is Autism is a much more severe mental retardation disorder than ADD or ADHD so to speak. He didn't seem to have any real proof that Autism itself is actually at this point.
The Whiny Hiney Weiner tells his audience, daily, that he is a genius and has one of the most brillient scienticic minds on the planet.
So why, speaking as a scientist quoting percentages of 99% would he later claim it to be "hyperbole"?
Every time the Whiner sticks his foot into it and the public goes nuts over his latest outrageous comment, or claim, his favorite refuge is: "Hey, I was only kidding! What? Don't you morons get it? This show is about sarcasm and hyperbole. I didn't acrually mean what I said; I was making a broad social commentary to illustrate how crazy our world has become...yeah, that's the ticket...yeah, I'm...I'm the messiah. Yeah, the messiah and I've been sent here to ris the world of...of you filthy vermin...I'll sue every one of you..you...you and you..."
he becomes a misunderstood martyr.
When I first found about the Savage Weiner's commnets I offered him the opportunity to come and try out his theories on my two sons with autism.
I haven't heard from him so I am assuming that he is like most neighborhood bullies just a big chicken. Cluck!, Cluck!
Does it hurt to ask?
No I am not.
C: Does it hurt to ask?
Well, if you're going to ask someone to volunteer details of his or her children's medical conditions, then it seems fair to explain up front what difference the answer would make to you. So -- and I say this with the assumption that you have nothing but the best of intentions -- where are you going with this question?
If, when Savage called autism a "fraud and a racket" he was referring to the disease itself, rather than misdiagnoses, how could it be that "in 99% of the cases, it's a brat that..." could be referring to the disease itself, rather than to misdiagnoses. If you believe Savage thinks autism does not exist (i.e. the "fraud and racket" comment) how could you then interpret his 99% remark to refer to autism rather than to misdiagnoses of autism...after all, we just acknowledged that Savage believes autism does not exist!!! Had he just left it at "autism is a fraud and racket" and did not follow up with the 99% remark, the interpretation that Savage was referring to the disease itself would be plausaible. Is Media Matters's position (and the position of most of the posters on here) that Savage thinks 99% of people with a disease he considers to be non-existent are spoiled brats???
Is Media Matters's position (and the position of most of the posters on here) that Savage thinks 99% of people with a disease he considers to be non-existent are spoiled brats???
I can't speak for the others, but that is a big YES to me.
I also think that Savage is spoiled rotten, inside and out.
I've seen some interesting rhetorical pretzels here, this one seems fractily recursive somehow.. When did I acknowledge that Savage believes autism does not exist!!!(?)
When does the quote, "could be referring, end?
I confess that I think I need a diagram with big red arrows to understand what your trying to pound home here.
you would have to admit it is a racket first, and I have not done that, even tho some on here think it is a racket, I do not.
Aw, king, I will leave that to radio show hosts...guessing and conflating are their forte's.
Face it, Savage was wrong, he is backpedaling as fast as he can to cover his @ss. No amount of "look over here" is going to change that.
So then Chris be clear, what is your battle on a thread that is about Savage and his hate speech (whomever the speech is directed at this time around).
If it is about the medical community then please point out what thread that might be rightly found on, and perhaps I will go there and do battle with you. I think sometimes big pharma does get a little to big for its britches sometimes.
Why, because people on here are dismissing the truth behind what he said. Politics before reason. He is a as$, but like I said before, who is the real demon.
Savage the hate monger
or
Doctors that over perscibe.
Christopher, since you seem to be such an expert on the "autism racket" please answer the following questions:
What incentive do parents have for their children to be diagnosed with autism? Is there some appeal that I am missing to having your child as being labeled with a life-long neurological disorder?
What is the government benefit that is give to families with autistic children. As the father of an autistic child I would really like to get my hands on that, instead of living paycheck to paycheck with thousands in therapy bills each week.
What drug has a primarly label treatment for autism? As you will find, there is none -- so why do the "greedy pharmaceutical companies" want children diagnosed with autism again?
What incentive do school systems have for a child to be diagnosed with autism? Autistic children cost 10 to 12 times more to educate than neurotypical children, since school districts are bound by law to provide PT, OT, Speech, psychologists and social workers, not to mention separate classrooms, for most autistic children.
I look forward to hearing your answers Chris!
You are asking me loaded questions.
Ok, but please let me make myself clear. If you child is indeed Autistic, my future statements have nothing to do with your and your child. Agreed? I hope so.
One group of parents I have met personally had their son diagnosed Autistic. He is a hyper child, and it obviously in need of attention. Otherwise, he seems liek a fine young boy. The father is a fire fighter, not around so often. His mother works fulltime, and spends what time possible. IMO, it was easier for the parents to accept the kid is autistic rather then face the fact THEY as parents need to spend more time with him. He needs loving attention, which I do not see.
They can get government assistence to help with a problem that MAY be able to be solved with in the home.
It happens all the time. Place the person as a victim to appease ones failure rather then face up to the reality of the situation.
You've got to be kidding. Seriously.
I will say it again. There is no "government benefit" that goes to families that have an autistic child. Having an autistic child is financially devastating even to families that have exceptionally high incomes.
As for accepting an autism diagnosis to avoid responsibility for parenting failures, now you are going to Michael Savage crazy-land. An autism diagnosis is like a punch in the gut. Less than 5% of people with autism are able to get a job, marry, or live independently. A diagnosis of autism very likely means that all of the hopes, dreams and aspirations you have for your child are not going to come true. And you think that people want that diagnosis for their child?
I owe you my thanks Christopher. Thank you for providing Exhibit A as to why Michael Savage's comments were more than just offensive and false, they were harmful.
You see, one of the best things about having a child with autism is having other people look down their nose at you when your child acts up in public. When you're doing everything you can to fix the situation, there's nothing better than the dirty looks, the loud dramatic sighs, and the snide comments about kids being such brats these days.
Now, thanks to Michael Savage, everyone's an amateur psychiatrist. His comments provide grist to people like Christopher, who now feel all the more justified in looking down on the fireman's family and pronouncing that the kid's not really autistic, he's just a hyper ill-behaved brat because dad's not around and the parents don't want to take responsibility for their own parenting failures.
So, to reiterate, thanks for proving my point Christopher.
"Like I said, no answer good enough" CKing
Thats what you gave him, No Answer.
Christopher, I never asked for your pity. I am not angry that I have an autistic son -- it was the lot I was dealt in life and I accept it freely because I love my son and will do everything I can to help him feel better.
By the way, did Michael Savage actually provide you with his secret playbook? Because it appears that you have. Your attempts at misdirection failed -- you cannot conjure up a legitimate reason why doctors, schools or families would misdiagnose someone with autism. Which is all that I have asked you to do.
So you resort to Savage's old standby -- the ad hominem. Michael Savage has nothing substantive to say to Media Matters? OK, well then they're a Soviet-style fascist homosexual cartel of America haters! Yeah, that's the ticket!
You just did the exact same thing. No substantive response to me. Instead I "DESERVE" having my autistic child because I am an "ANGRY" person unworthy of your "pitty" [sic].
Michael would be so proud of his minion.
I'm going to assume that when you wrote, "Otherwise, he seems like a fine young boy" you meant that otherwise he seems perfectly healthy, because there's nothing mutually exclusive about having a medical condition and being a fine young boy.
But I'm not sure how your judgment of neglect and potential misdiagnosis of this child has anything to do with Savage's remarks. Do you think this child is a stupid brat? Do you think he's lazy? Do you think he'd get better if his parents told him to stop acting like a fool? Because that is what Savage actually said.
If this child was misdiagnosed, then of course blame should fall upon the doctor, who should be trained to distinguish between a child with a neurodevelopmental disorder and a child who is dealing with attachment and abandonment anxieties. Either way, what good does it do to call this child a stupid undisciplined brat -- which you are not, but Savage is?
Opinions need to be based upon facts.
There are no facts that allow for the opinion you hold or the opinion that Savage held to be justified.
I could have the opinion that the Earth is flat. I should be ridiculed if I have that opinion. I should be asked challenging questions about my knowledge of the facts (like you were above) to try to disabuse me of that nonsense opinion.
If I shrink from the challenge, and refuse to question the basis upon which I built that opinion, and refuse to admit that I simply pulled that opinion out of my butt without regard for the facts, then I deserve all the razzing anyone might heap upon me.
Act reasonably and you won't get razzed. Base your opinions upon nonsense, Chris, and you'll get the razzing you deserve!
Chris,
Decent dialogue requires decency on both sides. I've been following the posting on this topic; I've have seen you defend Savage and when presented with facts that you don't like, or questions that you don't like, you ignore them or call them "loaded questions." They weren't loaded questions, they were, in fact, accurate questions. You've spouted bile, attacked those who disagree with you, and have not provided information to back up your claims. Don't ask for something you're not willing to do yourself.
You are asking me loaded questions.
You are displaying your ignorance.
My question, who is the real demon here.
Savage for being a blow hard?
or
The Doctors, for a deliberate over diagnosing of our kids?
Who is doing more harm?
Savage for spewing hate is the worst.
Like someone said....perhaps parenting can cover the over prescribing problem.
Yep politics....right.....
So, now, there it is. Now we got a spectrum of so-called illnesses -- autism. They're mentally retarded. It's a sad thing. It's not anything to laugh at. It's not something to laugh at, but stop diagnosing every idiot, moron, stupid kid with a disease to give them a justification. Somebody doesn't bang his head against the wall. Does that -- does that get you going on the right track? Or not?
You know it is always about "the children" when a con speaks.
Get over it Chris, Savage is a bull headed hate monger. When you get that blind faith picked out of your head, maybe you will see that.
No I don't. You are again speculating and projecting.
It is you who is not using a modicum of reason here.
I gave you a choice. You chose Savage over Doctors directly harming our chlidren.
As the parent of an autistic child, we have seen more than half a dozen different doctors, in various different fields, regarding my son's condition. Only one of those doctors even mentioned the possibility of prescription medication, and did so in a low-key no-pressure way. There is no primary label drug for autism. There are a few drugs that are used to treat certain symptoms of autism, but prescription medication is not a major component of the treatment of autistic children.
Ironically, the only area where there seems to be snake-oil salesman and high pressure sales tactics is in the area of alternative medicine that Mr. Savage espouses. There is no shortage of quacks promising miracle autism cures in the area of alternative medicine ranging from chelation (which is extremely dangerous) to hyperbaric chambers to vitamins to diet therapy, none of which has ever been proven to have any actual value. The actual medical establishment, which Mr. Savage so hates, is far more circumspect and willing to admit the true limitations in cheating a child with autism.
That I would like to see.
Just where is this "battle" taking place. What are you doing in your battle for the truly autistic? Which pharmaceutical company have you taken on that is on the "racket" thing. What doctors are you corresponding with that are falsely diagnosing thousands of children with autism.
Please tell us so we can extend out kudos, and our help.
I speak out for the truth. No different then you.
heh, no different that you telling me i chose to harm "children" now is it.
Where exactly do you SPEAK OUT
Would that be here? Else where? What? You protest? Which ones?
No really, chris, inquiring minds want to know.
Frodo Failed, Bush has the ring now.
Is it happening? Sure, but to the extent you seem to claim?
Is that not sinking in? I already agreed that there are issues, my point of contention is the extent. You're gonna have to provide a little more than an opinion to convince me that pharmacuticals are pushing drugs like candy. From my perspective, the pharmacutical problem is more along the lines of patent control and FDA approvals. They make more money by keeping generics off of the market than they do just peddling drugs.
Yep, that is where my beef is too. That and ingredients in the meds that they do not tell you about, that CAN harm you. Like some time ago they put thimerosal in vaccines for a preservative. That would be mercury to the rest of the world. And yes, some people think that this is dangerous, and can CAUSE mental retardation, and autism.
FYI, mercury is deadly in some circumstances.
go figure.
Actually, they discontinued the use of Thimerasol in 2001. However, Autism rates in 8 year-olds have not declined yet. In two years, if they still haven't gone down significantly, it likely wasn't the thimerasol. More likely environmental factors, other pollution.
Still, I wouldn't recommend injecting mercury into your kid either.
Why do you believe Savage when he says that there is a deliberate overdiagnosing of kids with autism? Has he somehow established credibility with you? Have you considered getting treated for that?
Contrary to what Savage says, doctors do not diagnose kids with autism simply because they are late talkers or like to line things up. The diagnosis is based on the child meeting numerous criteria within four different categories.
All of Savage's ranting this week about misdiagnoses and false diagnoses is a strawman, a red herring, designed to divert attention from what he actually said -- that autism is a product of poor parenting and nothing else. There is no "government benefit" that goes to a family with an autistic child. There is no prescription drug that has a primary label treatment for autism. There is simply no incentive on the part of doctors, drug companies, families or schools to falsely diagnose a child with autism.
Try getting your news from somewhere other than Michael Savage. You might actually learn something that way.
Why do you believe Savage when he says that there is a deliberate overdiagnosing of kids with autism? Has he somehow established credibility with you? Have you considered getting treated for that?
Because he is absolutely correct when he says children are being overdiagnosed and overmedicated. Dr. Savage uses a sledgehammer to drive his points home as he did this time. As a rational human being, I do not need him to tell me that he is overstating the obvious to deliver a hard message. That's why you liberals will never, ever get it. It's easier to join the crowd of peasants with pitchforks and scream for his head instead of listening to the "intent" of the message. His frustrations exists because in his psychi he feels he has to get a message out and feels he needs to give a double barreled shotgun full of WTF to express it.
Tiptoe around the true issue at heart all you want, Savage just provided a welcome wake up call to the Pyschiatric racket that we are watching.
Who said anything about me being a liberal? I am a politically conservative father of an autistic child, and I fully applaud what Media Matters has done to expose this idiot by doing nothing more that publicizing his own words.
Savage said that in 99% of the cases autism is a kid who has not been told to cut that act out. He then went on to clarify his "intent" -- that fathers not disciplining their children has caused them to become brats who are then diasgnosed with autism. His comments were patently and verifiably false. Why don't you defend what he actually said last week, instead of what he now falsely claims what he meant to say???
All of the crap that he has been spewing this week about overdiagnoses has nothing whatsoever to do with his original statement.
Comon sense has been thrown out the window in todays America. Todays passtime is finding a reason to play the victim.
And you do it exceptionally well.
Yep, impaired....
No use.
You are the belittler. Impaired though you may be, still the belittler.
Yes, and Savage plays that role about as much as anyone on radio. "Boo hoo, CAIR is publicizing what I actually say about Muslims, so I'm going to sue them!" "Boo hoo hoo, MediaMatters publicizes what I say about autism when I call kids stupid brats... waaaah! MediaMatters is gay!"
Please. Michael Savage is a professional victim.
You keep saying that, yet you are the one who cannot back up what you say. Name one drug that is overprescribed to autistic children. I asked you to do that and you refused because it was a "loaded question." What a crock. The fact is, there isn't one. So how again, is this about the pharmaceutical industry?
I also you to name one financial incentive for families or schools to have a child diagnosed with autism. Because why would there be an "overdiagnosis" problem unless there was an incentive of some kind or another to label a child with a life-long neurological disorder.
You failure to answer these basic, fundamental questions about the facts underlying your opinion speaks volumes, Chris.
Oh, and a quick debating tip, Chris. People who spout off unsupported unsubstantiated opinions should not invoke the name of "reason."
One in One Hundred and Sixty Children have Autism, according to Savage.
ASOA says its more like 1 in 150.
To Be Specific, 1 in 94 Boys.
Where do we get the numbers?
Autism Society of America (new window)
Everyone trashing Savage agrees with these numbers, I suppose.
If you think that perhaps, just maybe, the numbers are exaggerated, and the attention has been taken off those who actually do have Autism, you may want to rethink your position.
His loudmouthed free-speech rhetoric aside, that is the real issue.
You don't believe those statistics? Try visiting a special needs school. Ask the teachers who have been around twenty or thirty years whether there is an autism epidemic. They will tell you how in the last ten to 15 years the number of truly autistic children in their classrooms has grown exponentially. They will explain to you how they don't know how they can keep up with it, since their resources are stretched to the limit as it is. While you are there, take a look at the autistic children, who are unable to make eye contact or communicate, who are engaged in repetitive behaviors, who are struggling to make even small strides forward.
Try that. Then come back to me and try and argue that there is no epidemic. That these teachers are somehow encouraging kids to be labeled as autistic. I'd love to see it happen.
But instead, like Savage, you will simply continue to spout off about something about which you know absolutely nothing.
I deal with school-age kids as well, hundreds a month, for nearly 3 decades. I have seen the "increase" in ADD, ADHD and Autism.
Observing tens/hundreds of thousands of kids with and without parents present, I can say with confidence that the increase of ADD, ADHD is pretty much inline with the disappearance of actual parenting.
Dozens and dozens of school teachers have expressed this to me, especially since the early 90s.
Autism does affect many children... I'd agree with about 10% of the numbers being thrown about... But with young inexperienced parents looking for signs like these (from ASOS):
... I can definitely agree that it can be diagnosed very often. Easier to drug the kid than tell an adult mother or father to actually try acting like a parent.
Putting every child you can on the "special bus" does neither them nor society any favors.
Remember the mention of thimerosal earlier....
here is a list of what mercury does to children
Mercury's harmful effects that may be passed from the mother to the fetus include brain damage, mental retardation, incoordination, blindness, seizures, and inability to speak. Children poisoned by mercury may develop problems of their nervous and digestive systems, and kidney damage.
I have met a kid I felt that way about. parents said he is autistic. I feel he needs more attention from his parents.
My sister in-law is mentaly retarded but regarded as Autistic by the family.
My brother in-laws son is a Intovert but the Doc wanted to put him in the Autism class.
We have a friend whos daughter is Autistic, and it is very obvious.
You are right. We would encounter many Autisic children in a Special Needs School. I'd also encounter many conservatives at a cigar lounge and liberals at the CNN Christmas (Holiday) Party. So what?
I encounter these kids, ACTIVELY ENCOUNTER them with participatory games. I actively insure that these kids win prizes by EARNING them.
Amazing how many mothers and fathers comment on how their children rave about the ten cent toy they've "won", while whining that they don't "appreciate" the gifts that Mom and Dad buy them.
These kids CRAVE acknowledgement and accomplishment. Poor parenting is the overwhelming cause of brattiness, "ADD" and "ADHD". Being a human child seems to be the main culptrit for a lot of the modern Autism diagnosis.
Not saying these things doen't exist, but they are (too) often being used by lazy parents and it is hurting those with the problems.
Har de Har, Har
the few words he used to express his concerns were, in this instance, inartfully phrased.
Dr. Savage's comments did facially appear to be directed at children who suffer from autism, and clearly could be perceived as such.
the Network does believe that there has been an effort by Media Matters to take advantage of an inartful lapse on the part of Dr. Savage in failing to supply full context, caveats and explanations in the 84 seconds of comments at issue.
So there ......is the non-apology
Good bye Mr. Savage, your days are numbered. Your a sick, sick man.
How can anyone possibly defend these statements?
Wow!!
Nice deflection on this post about a dispicable man who has made crass and hurtful statements about children who have no way of defending themselves, puttting the blame on the parents supposed lack of parenting skills. As a parent of an Autisc child has replyed to you again and again, there is no government benefit thyey receive for having an child diagnosed with Autism.
Why don't you spend the time you seem to claim you have helpingh to ensure that the false statements that this man has made do not end up becoming part of a narrative to beat over the head of people who would be struggling to deal with this problem. I have three close friends with Autisc children and, having seen up close what they have to deal with day in day out, i'm glad to know that they all have a large family to fall back on for help. l shudder to think how these kids would get on in the future if they were only with one parent, and yes unfortunatly there are people callous enough to walk out on their spouses leaving them to deal with things on their own.
Savage's claims were aborrent, only people with an equal disregard to social graces, and equally lacking in humanity, empathy or common decency would waste their time trying to find ways of defending it.
Media Matters should get a better proof reader before they post transcripts that refute their own headlines. Dontcha think?
Funny that people here have such fetishes for getting others they don't like "kicked off the air". That would be as insane as saying "Media Matters should be kicked off the web". All I am saying is, "Look at yourselves. Don't look at me, look at you. Only you can help you." Do you really want to become the monsters you accuse others of being? Do you?
Because I don't think that you do.
I have been listening to Dr. Savage for years, and therefore have a pretty good idea what he stands for. He has always rallied against the over-medicating of our children. But you won't hear that on this site. You may argue that I went into this with a pre-determined opinion and that nothing would have swayed me. What you must understand about Savage's listeners is that we are not all neo-con's. I'm generally fiscally conservative and socially liberal... generally. And I don't agree with Savage on everything (e.g., I support gay marriage). If you haven't personally seen a family member or friend fall victim to this unneccessary type of medicating, it may be hard to understand. I'm not saying autism or ADD does not exist... but it's become way to easy for parents to take the easy way out and get a pill for their kid, so they do not have to deal with root issues that may cause some of the behaviors that are starting to be associated with these conditions.
Dr. Savage has the, excuse me for saying it, balls to stand up for what he believes on the issues and he does not pander to the political parties like that rest of the commentators on the radio (e.g., Rush Limbaugh for the right, Randy Roads for the left). Yes, he leans right and most often very far right, but he is not afraid to bash Bush and does so often on issues like spending, immigration, the minimum wage (you probably didn't know that Savage is a proponent for increasing the minimum wage to a more liveable level) and the way the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been handled. Most of the people on this site would not know that because you have already made up your mind about him and are being fed only the soundbites that Media Matters and the other liberal presses want you to hear. They don't like this guy because he speaks from his heart and doesn't pander to anyone.
David: Dr. Savage has the, excuse me for saying it, balls to stand up for what he believes on the issues and he does not pander to the political parties like that rest of the commentators on the radio (e.g., Rush Limbaugh for the right, Randy Roads for the left).
If that's what Savage was doing, then yes, it would be brave and worthy of some respect. But it doesn't take balls to call sick children undisciplined stupid brats. It takes even less manhood to refuse to apologize for doing so.
I'm all for decrying overmedication and overdiagnosis. If that's all Savage had done, this wouldn't be an issue. Instead, he called autism a phony disease and attacked the children who are diagnosed with neurological conditions for not "cut[ting] the act out".
I appreciate that you want to defend Savage's right to free speech, and so do I. But his employers have every right -- and I think, every ethical imperative -- to let him express himself the way he wants to without their paychecks and away from their airwaves.