Savage on SF Police Dept. transgender sensitivity training: "brainwash[ing]" by a "freak," "sort of like toilet training for adults"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Michael Savage declared that a sensitivity training program for San Francisco police detectives on transgender issues is "sort of like toilet training for adults," and described the program as a "class ... to teach normal men how to have sensitivity to a psychopathic sex-change operative who should be in a mental hospital."
Radio host Michael Savage continued his attacks on the transgender community during the January 7 broadcast of The Savage Nation, declaring that a sensitivity training program for San Francisco police detectives on transgender issues is "sort of like toilet training for adults" and describing the program as a "class ... to teach normal men how to have sensitivity to a psychopathic sex-change operative who should be in a mental hospital." Savage also published a "memorandum" about the sensitivity training program -- which he claimed was "sent to me anonymously by ... someone in the [San Francisco] police department" -- on his website under the headline: "Exclusive: SFPD forcing detectives to undergo brainwashing by transgendered dick."
On The Savage Nation, Savage added:
The San Francisco Police Department is forcing detectives to undergo brainwashing by a transgendered detective.
[...]
Now, we have a homicide epidemic in San Francisco; we have a gang problem in San Francisco; we have a bum problem in San Francisco; we have a mayor problem in San Francisco; we have a supervisor problem in San Francisco. It's a city out of control. We have government anarchy, and these psychotic SOBs are wasting detectives' time in sensitivity training for a transgendered lieutenant.
Later, regarding his own experience with diversity training, Savage also stated:
If I were the inspectors being forced to do this, I would, as a group -- I would, as a group, refuse to go. I would not let myself be brainwashed by this freak. Now, I did this. When I worked at a local radio station, they forced the entire staff to take diversity training. I was the only one who challenged the freaks giving the diversity training. I fought them every step of the way. All the other big mouths, including ex-Marines and ex-this and ex-that, sat there quietly and said nothing. And I challenged them every step of the way and they never had diversity training again in that radio station. Never. And the police should do the same thing. The military should do this. It's enough with the freaks ruling these places.
As Media Matters for America has documented, Savage previously described a transgender murder victim as a "psychopath" and a "freak" who "should have been in a back ward in a straitjacket for years, howling on major medication." Savage also blamed sexual reassignment surgery for the Columbine massacre, stating that "the capital of [sexual reassignment surgery] is somewhere in Colorado, near Columbine. ...You wonder why the kids shoot each other there with black raincoats."
From the January 7 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: The San Francisco Police Department is forcing detectives to undergo brainwashing by a transgendered detective. Now, this transgendered detective did not pass the lieutenants' exam, she failed it. He failed it -- it's a she-to-he detective -- failed the lieutenants' exam, was promoted anyway, and now they're forcing the other detectives to pay attention to sensitivity issues of transgendered detectives. If it gets any sicker than this, I'd like to know where.
This has ramifications for the rest of the nation, because this is total insanity. And you can see the memorandum sent to me anonymously by the -- someone in the police department, who I will not disclose, and it says: "Transgendered training for the investigations bureau. Lieutenant Stephen Thorne" -- that's a female-to-male detective -- "is facilitating transgendered community awareness training. Below are the dates, times, and locations of the training offered." Offered -- of course they have to go. "Please direct your lieutenants to have all members pick a date for training." Training: sort of like toilet training for adults, only, in this case, it's very serious business.
Now, we have a homicide epidemic in San Francisco; we have a gang problem in San Francisco; we have a bum problem in San Francisco; we have a mayor problem in San Francisco; we have a supervisor problem in San Francisco. It's a city out of control. We have government anarchy, and these psychotic SOBs are wasting detectives' time in sensitivity training for a transgendered lieutenant. "The signup lists are due in Room 400 by Monday, January 5, 2009, and we are to note that space is limited to 35 members per class." It's a class now to teach normal men how to have sensitivity to a psychopathic sex-change operative who should be in a mental hospital.
[...]
SAVAGE: Now, I've got to tell you something. If I were the inspectors being forced to do this, I would, as a group -- I would, as a group, refuse to go. I would not let myself be brainwashed by this freak. Now, I did this. When I worked at a local radio station, they forced the entire staff to take diversity training. I was the only one who challenged the freaks giving the diversity training. I fought them every step of the way. All the other big mouths, including ex-Marines and ex-this and ex-that, sat there quietly and said nothing. And I challenged them every step of the way, and they never had diversity training again in that radio station. Never. And the police should do the same thing. The military should do this. It's enough with the freaks ruling these places.
[...]
SAVAGE: Question number two -- which goes back to the first story: Should the police detectives in San Francisco refuse to accommodate this transgendered freak and the psychopath running the city, "Any-twosome" Newsom, and simply go on strike and not submit themselves to transgender training?
[...]
SAVAGE: Well, I think we can move on. I'm talking about the enforced transgendered training in the San Francisco police department. Apparently, no cops in San Francisco have the guts to call this show, which explains to you why we have a homicide epidemic in San Francisco and why they're willing to bend down and roll over for a transgendered freak show, imposed upon them by the sickest city administration in the history of this great city, and so I don't care about the topic. If you're willing to be -- shall I say, let me use the right word here since it's a family show -- turned into a capon by this transgendered administration, go ahead. What do I care? I did your work for you. I tried to show America how you and the SFPD are being abused by the so-called liberals, and you don't want to call this show on it? That's your problem, deal with it. Then roll over for a transgendered freak. I don't care. I don't care about Israel. I don't care about the police. I don't care about the Republicans. I really don't care about anything right now. Why should I care? So let's talk about something else.
[...]
CALLER: I can't believe what I just heard. Why don't the lieutenants association go on strike? I can't believe that.
SAVAGE: I just told you: because the SFPD has been caponized. They have fundamentally been turned into geldings. The city administration is such a terrorist organization in favor of homosexuals, transgender rights, whatever, that the police themselves are terrified to stand up and speak out against this outrage, this brainwashing.
[...]
SAVAGE: In San Francisco, which is suffering a drug epidemic, a gang epidemic, a homicide epidemic, a bum epidemic, they're forcing detectives in the San Francisco police department to be diversity-trained by a transgendered freak show, someone who failed the lieutenants' exam, according to what I am told, but was pushed forward in the dark of night by "Any-twosome" Newsom and his cronies, pushed over others who qualified on the exam, and made into a lieutenant, and now this transgendered freak is going to have the pleasure of telling normal detectives how biased they are, how illiberal they are, how mean they are, how cruel they are for not being more sensitive to transgendered individuals. Isn't America great? Isn't San Francisco great that they can devote so much time to such an important topic?
Sounds to me like the SFPD is trying to avoid lawsuits, much in the same way they have to avoid lawsuits that arise out of race and gender harassment. But it appears Savage is more content to taxpayer money being lost to litigation.
Lawsuits? Police should behave appropriately and professionally regardless of race, gender, or transgender. Sensitivity training won't stop some litigating happy lawyer from suing anyone. I would rather have the police on the streets keeping them safe than in some class worrying about being insensitive or hurting someone's feelings.
Police officers do those things and are quite capable of additional training.
SF, and most every city, have far too many problems, and money spent far better elsewhere, than this silliness. Sorry.
Most of this training is incorporated into their regular training which is required, the cost is nothing compared to the lawsuits, sorry.
I never conceded the lawsuit angle at all, in fact I questioned it. Incorporated into their regular training, as in how? Additional classes or just a casual mention?
Sensitivity training won't stop some litigating happy lawyer from suing anyone. - tommy
I was under the impression if a lawsuit is frivolous, it is dismissed.
I would rather have the police on the streets keeping them safe than in some class worrying about being insensitive or hurting someone's feelings. - tommy
And I'd rather they be in class learning to not shoot unarmed people under their control.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/06/BART.shooting/index.html
Ok, we agree, if during sensitivity training they are taught not to shoot unarmed people, I am all for it. Great point.
Ok, we agree, if during sensitivity training they are taught not to shoot unarmed people, I am all for it. - tommy
Even in the classroom?
Great point. - tommy
Why thank you
"I was under the impression if a lawsuit is frivolous, it is dismissed." + "And I'd rather they be in class learning to not shoot unarmed people under their control."
Good points, Old. However, not all frivolous lawsuits are dismissed. And, even if they do get dismissed (eventually), the time and money spent beforehand is not a small amount.
So, you agree with Savage that you don't need cops in gayness sensitivity training? You're not going to be liked here, with that attitude. The BART cop shooting isn't at all related to the SF police. How do you draw that conclusion? BART police are not actually even police. Besides, perhaps the guy had 'something down there' and the BART cop hadn't attended gayness sensitivity training yet. See, there could be a perfectly logical reason for that one.
You are clueless once again. I agree with nothing Weiner PhD says.
I'm clueless?? You're the one who thinks BART cops are real cops. You're the one who thinks frivolous lawsuits immediately get dismissed at no cost to the government/individual.
So you are the decider of who are real cops and who are not? You obviously know nothing of the history of police attitudes and brutality towards the gay community in San Francisco. Was Dan White a "real" cop in your opinion?
You may think gay people are degenerates and find their rights unimportant, but they are Americans too and your life and well being is no more important than that of a gay person. I find it interesting that many so called conservatives have seemingly abandoned the mantle of promoting and protecting the individual rights and liberties of all Americans, instead choosing to only care about the rights of those who supposedly share their narrow definition what constitutes having values.
As for frivolous lawsuits, no unfortunately they do not always get dismissed. It is definitely one of the problems with our justice system. However, if I were a gay or transgendered person and I was harassed or beat by a police officer I would hope that my lawsuit would not be considered frivolous by my fellow citizens (who are just as susceptible to abuse at the hands of those with more power).
"However, if I were a gay or transgendered person and I was harassed or beat by a police officer I would hope that my lawsuit would not be considered frivolous by my fellow citizens"
Do you think your lawsuit is more important because you are gay/transgendered? Or, if someone normal is beaten up by those cops would you hope their lawsuit isn't considered frivolous also? Which "cop beating" lawsuit is deserving of a higher award: gay/transgendered or normal?
Not more important, it's just that, generally speaking, the police in this country have a history of picking on certain groups of people more than others. I am talking about when an officer beats or harasses someone specifically because they are gay or transgendered. Some people in this world still have the attitude that anyone who is gay or transgendered are asking to be abused.
Yeah, like shooting people in the back in BART Stations? Sounds like the SFPD could use a lot more sensitivity training. The real issue here, is why Savage is (1) allowed to make such hateful comments about a minority group of human beings that would not be tolerated if directed towards other, less maligned minority groups, and (2) what's Savage hiding that makes him so hateful?
"Sensitivity training won't stop some litigating happy lawyer from suing anyone."
The training is supposed to stop the lawyer? Or is it supposed to help prevent the offending behavior in the first place?
"I would rather have the police on the streets keeping them safe than in some class worrying about being insensitive or hurting someone's feelings."
Does appropriate, professional behavior regardless of race, gender or transgender not require some level of sensitivity?
Of course professional and appropriate behavior is part of a police officer's training, I never said it wasn't. What is at issue here is the need for transgender sensitivity training. Any training that a police office undergoes should include treating a transgendered person no differently than any other person. Period.
This is most likely fueled by SF's considerable transgender and gay community's clout, in other words special interest groups exercising their political influence. Of which, on principle, I am against.
"This is most likely fueled by SF's considerable transgender and gay community's clout, in other words special interest groups exercising their political influence."
I guess so, if you believe the Savage Weiner's version of events. As for me, I'd rather get some details from a more unbiased source before I make up my mind.
I am very familiar with SF politics and I know the power the gay community has there. And that is perfectly fine, as long as that power is used for good. This appears unnecessary and ridiculous, as I have stated, and I think it should be pointed out. And I don't like politicians who cave to special interest groups, no matter what party they belong to or who they are. Newsom is a classic example of that in SF.
It would be unnecessary and ridiculous, if it wasn't for the fact that the SFPD has had accusations of bias against transgendered / transexual and cross-dressing people.
I guess that on one particular day a police officer could be insensitive to "Bob" on Monday and insensitive to "Roberta" the next. Boy, it sure don't pay to be police officer in S.F.
While this train is going on about SF training, Tommy, have you noticed twice this week we've had instances in Chicago and Texas where a black man was shot in the back by a white police officer while lying down? One of them was Robbie Tolan, the son of former Cincinnati Reds outfielder Bobby Tolan. Would more training have prevented such a flagrant act by the police?
oops, california, not chicago...
Snoop, I am not familiar with the particulars of the cases you are referring too, and they should go through the process before anyone is deemed guilty, but what you are describing has nothing to do with "sensitivity" training. It would be training, period.
All this time I thought sensitivity training was all about how to deal with race and gender relations in the line of duty. Could you provide a better definition?
Shooting someone in the back is not from lack of sensitivity training, come on Snoop.
Tommy, the one man I mentioned was shot in the back in his own driveway, and the reason he was accosted in the first place is because the cops in question didn't think he belonged in the neighborhood he was in and thought he stole the car he was driving. Racism, profiling, whatever you want to call it, it's pretty insensitive to assume a black man doesn't belong in a wealthy mostly white neighborhood.
Newsom is a classic example of that in SF.
I think Newsom is sincere, he's just not too smart.
His smart-alecky words to anti-gay folks really helped Prop 8, because every campaign ad they ran had him mouthing off something like, "It's here to stay, there's nothing you can do about it now...." and they said, 'oh yeah?'
The training is supposed to stop the lawyer? Or is it supposed to help prevent the offending behavior in the first place?
Both. Most of these kinds of training programs (diversity, sexual harassment, sensitivity, etc.) are run by people who sincerely believe that they will have an effect on the behavior of those who undergo them. But failing that, the class itself does provide a layer of legal protection to holding a public or private entity responsible for the actions of it's employees contrary to that training.
Do you know what this training entails? I don't. But if you do, please let us know the details while highlighting anything you see as "a waste of time". Otherwise you would appear to be having a knee-jerk reaction based on your ignorance.
I have no idea. But I can give you a two second training class right here on how to treat transgendered people if the situation arises. Ready? Grab a pen now? Ok? Here goes > No different than anyone else. Done, class dismissed.
Come on Tommy,
You're little rant about sensitivity training is really not too well thought out, like most conservative bluster.
Training individuals to be aware of--and respect--differences in the community makes the community stronger. This goes for police officers, teachers, WalMart workers, car salesmen, lawyers and everyone else.
The vicious right-wing scum (not you Tommy) like Mr. Sewage tears down the community.
So what about training people to respect every individual equally is not well thought out?
How would go about searching a suspect who is transgendered? Would you search them or would a female? I'm asking you cuz I don't know. Maybe its something that can be discussed in a short meeting. idk. But how can you judge anything (besides issuing a simplistic platitude) without any knowledge of the seminar nor any idea of the relationship between the GBLT community and police.
I can't. Can you?
So I, as a non-transgendered person, don't get treated "sensitively"? So if I get arrested along with a transgendered person, that person gets benefit of police sensitivity training, and I don't? Well, that smells of a discrimination lawsuit for me.
Don't you see how silly this can get?
On face value it may seem "silly" (and you may be right) but if you have no insight into what the program consists of, then how can you make a judgement? I expect it from Savage, but not from you.
Because when something like this comes down the pike, I, and hopefully the citizens of San Francisco, have every obligation to judge it until and unless it is deemed appropriate, necessary and worthy of one red cent, or one single minute of time, from those proposing it. It is on them to tell me why, I don't have to sit around and be patient, or silent, until they decide to get around to it.
And Savage and the SFPD would make a big issue out of nothing
Savage sure is intimidated by GLBTs. I wonder why?
Because they are terrorists. Who use violence and physical threats to get what they want. And, when they don't they violently riot. They perform illegal acts 'in the name of their group' so they don't get any legal recourse performed to them. And use the same name to cause financial loss to others while claiming the right to do it, then sue you if you attempt anything similar towards them.
http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10807&news_iv_ctrl=0 , http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84812 , http://www.christianpost.com/Opinion/Columns/2008/12/thug-politics-28/index.html
Your first link shows nothing other than people in this country have a right to express their views and take action against that which they don't like. If it were fundamentalist christians speaking out against Obama choosing, let's say, the Dalai Lama to deliver the invocation, would you have a problem? Or are you just advocating that gay people and their supporters remain silent when it comes to something they disagree with?
As for your second link, WND is hardly a reliable source of news, I once read an article on WND that hilariously claimed soy causes homosexuality. To those with even a modicum of intellect WND is a joke. Even if what the article says is true, that doesn't make gay activist terrorists. I don't agree with firing people over their political stances no matter what they are, but somehow I don't think you took that view when Anita Bryant and John Briggs launched their campaign for proposition 6. Besides, your "side" is that which wishes to deny a whole group of American citizens their rights and privileges, so if I were you I wouldn't want to be the one to start a contest over who is doing what horrible thing to whom.
As for the third link, I don't condone violence perpetrated by anyone, and although I agree with those who opposed prop 8 I think violenlce only diminishes the cause. Still, it doesn't prove anyone to be terrorists as you say. They are angry citizens, some of whom may have gone too far. People often become belligerent in large groups. Would you say that those who riot after a sports game are terroists, or are they just being crazy overzealous?
Look, many people were rightly upset by the passing of prop 8, but I don't agree with the actions of some who I might otherwise be politically aligned with. The truth is whether you, or Weiner, like it or not gay people have come too far and are not turning back. They will continue to fight for their rights and eventually they will succeed. When that time comes we will be one large step closer to being a nation that truly stands for liberty and justice for ALL.
"Tens of thousands of people have flooded the streets in the weeks after the passage of Prop. 8, showing that the LGBT community is willing to continue the decades-long fight for equality."
That was a quote from the first link. What do you think they were doing as they "flooded the streets"? It certainly wasn't any peaceful expression of their views. And, another quote from that rightfully expressive link: "Revolutionaries and progressives should support the efforts of LGBT organizations to remove Warren from the inauguration ceremony.". What does he mean by "revolutionaries"? To me, it sounds like another way to say terrorist.
I do find it funny (hypocritical) that you find an article from the 'party for socialism+liberation' web site to be more than credible (even preferred), while denouncing anything written on the WND site.
"The truth is whether you, or Weiner, like it or not gay people have come too far and are not turning back."
You sound a lot like Newsom. And, I'm glad you have that attitude. If it hadn't been for Newsom saying virtually the same thing, you may have gotten your way in this election. That arrogant attitude is what cost you the prize you seek. Too bad Obama does NOT support gay marriage too! Are these terrorists saying anything bad about Obama because of HIS denial of gay marriage 'rights'??? No! Those hypocrits aren't saying anything about Obama saying gays should NOT have marriage rights. They are strictly attacking the Christian. Why is that?
People have a right to take to the streets. If it were an anti-abotion rally you would have no problem I'm sure. People can take to the streets peacefully, and I am sure many of those people were peaceful. Maybe some were not and I will not make excuses for people who behave badly. Revolutionary is not a code word for terrorist, you just made that up in your mind. I guess if I call everyone who supported invading Iraq a terrorist it must be true because I decided.
I didn't dismiss the first or third link because I am not familiar with those sources, but come on, WND is a joke. I gave you a concrete example of why I find WND to be a silly place to go for information. Nonetheless, I made an argument supposing the WND article is reliable, so now you are just nitpicking. I never said I preferred the first link, it's just that WND is such a joke I can't believe anyone buys into their tripe. Mind you, I said nothing about the credibility of the third link either, which is obviously conservative in nature. You are assuming you know what I think, and you don't.
I really don't care if I sound like Newsome. So we share an opinion, so what? My attitude is not one of arrogance but one of inevitability. Women fought for their right to vote and they got it. Black people fought for equality and the civil rights act was passed. Gay people have been fighting for a long time for the right to marry and with every new generation people are becoming less bigoted, so eventually things will change. That is the way thing work. Maybe we are not ready yet, but some day the majority of people won't be opposed to gay marriage.
However Obama feels about gay marriage is irrelevant to the eventuality that someday gay people will have equal rights. A lot of people do have a problem with Obama's stance on gay marriage, and I am one of them. The difference in why people are more agitated towards fundamentalist christians is because they are actively seeking to demean and dehumanize gay people whereas someone like Obama isn't out actively trying to oppress the gay community, he just doesn't support them as much as I would like. It is like the difference in me saying I don't like you and me saying I want to kill you. There is a distinction.
I notice you almost never refute anything I say or answer any of my questions. All you do is find little insignificant points to nitpick, make mountains out of molehills and fabricate controversy. Would it be okay with you if christian conservative protested the Dalai Lama giving the invocation? Did you oppose prop 6? Was Dan White a real cop? You know what I find funny (hypocritical)? That you call liberals out for things conservatives also do all the while acting as if you are some sort of righteous truth teller on the side of good. You have no real insight into any topic. You remind me of a petulant child throwing a fit over things you don't understand.
I don't understand why the right-wingers don't just abandon San Francisco and let liberals have it. Except for a few cities here and there the entire country is conservative, so I don't understand why they feel the need to impose their beliefs where they're not wanted.
What about the conservative people who live there who feel differently?
what about the liberal people who live in the rest of california and feel differently?
Savage can't make any money in living in a city with citizens and local politicians that he has no complaints about.
I've been told the opposite regarding cities, more liberal than the rural parts of the country.
If your correct, I'm confused as to where all those liberal voters are coming from.
MTF under current medical protocals is considered one of the most sucessful surgical proceedures in the world. Dam few complaints from the people who have undergone it. The FTM side is still to be considered a true sucess. Its hard to make a normal sexaully functioning male from a physical female. Whats availible is still enough for some of this turn of sexual identity though.
What a waste of money. Of course this is the SAME city that is spending $40,000,000 to make the Golden Gate Bridge safe for suicidal people. Wow, no wonder the very wealthy try to find ways of getting out of their taxes. I wonder how many homeless shelters could be set up with the same amount of money that is being spent to "make sensitive to trans-genderism" police officers.
If it's not San Francisco, does the city you live in spend your money how YOU see fit?
It's supposed to.
Of course this is the SAME city that is spending $40,000,000 to make the Golden Gate Bridge safe for suicidal people.
And little kids who can slip through rails. Ever been on that bridge? The railing is like four feet high-- spooky and scary.
Spooky and scary?? Why are you taking a little kid over a dangerous bridge? Probably because you want to traumatise the little kid and risk his personal safety. What good parent would put their little kid in danger like that? For what sane reason could there possibly be?
You know there is Mt Everest. Have you taken your little kid to the top of Mt Everest?
Am I the only one finding it ironic that Savage-Weiner is calling transgenders "psychopaths"?
No, not at all. Sadly, nobody can call him on it.
I agree with you. What about nominally normal people who feel they need plastic surgury to feel good about themselves? The number of breast implants performed. Are these people somehow different from a TS?
I find it ironic that Savage even lives in SF - it seems to be everything he hates. Well, let me qualify that - he hates soooo much, that SF is so much of what he hates. There is the rest of the world that Savage hates that is not represented by SF. The musings that Savage is a closet gay guy have always explained the paradox of why he lives in that city.
It's mosty an act-- like when Hannity and o'reilly go nuts over the City, and then-- oops-- you see them reporting from there, on their vacations. A few years ago it seemed like everyone at FOX found any excuse they could to "report" from S.F whenever they could--
Oops, just had an earthquake in L.A....
I ran outside. You can't be too sure....if it's, you know, the big one.
I don't know, gloating about the weather today to East Coasters might not have been too good a karma.
And that's how he repays you?
I thought God might lay off you guys for at least a couple months after passing Prop 8, but you must have don't something else recently to set him off.
Carl and the Colonel and everyone else on the left coast, stay safe. (You too Tommy).
"The musings that Savage is a closet gay guy have always explained the paradox of why he lives in that city."
Savage isn't any more a 'closet gay' than col sanders. Well, I can't say that because I don't know what kind of person col sanders is. Well, that's true for Savage, also. And neither does anyone else know what kind of person he is. So, it is simply and solely a group of people denegrating a person because he has his own opinion. One that doesn't agree with that group of people's agenda, so they hate and curse and lie about him until someone....anyone believes them. It's sad, but that's the way this group of people are. They have no remorse for being that way, and will defiantly defend their right to denegrate him as much as they will deny they are complaining about his right to his own opinion.
BTW, he doesn't live IN San Fransisco. He lives in Marin, which is near SF.
Insert your favorite Anne Coulter joke here.
Hmmm....So, 2009 is the year that Savage focuses his rabies on the transgendered community. Two years ago it was the immigrants, last year he split his time between Arabs/Muslims and handicapped kids, and now this. And what does he have to show for all his spit and venom? Let's see - he supported and endorsed George Bush for both presidential runs - and the whole world sees what a disaster of global proportions that has been. We have the country mired in two unwinnable wars (for both of which he drummed up support on his show); we have a ruined economy (compliments of the president he helped elect); and our constitution is damaged as a result of the Patriot Act which was passed in a climate of near hysterical fear (fomented by Mr. Savage Weiner et al).
Great work Savage! With friends like you in the country, who needs Al Qaeda?
And IRT GWB - one minute he'll sing his praises, and the next he'll call him the worst ever.
I do give him credit on his consistency on that one POW and the one trick hockey mom.
Personally, though, I could trust Savage on Nat'l Sec. (some of this stems from national identity), though I'm wary of him on social issues
one minute he'll sing his praises, and the next he'll call him the worst ever.
That is because Savage expects his listeners to be dumber than a doorknob and only have a memory span that can last for ten minutes. That's why he has to "lecture" them, and say every tenth minute that "liberalism is a mental disorder". Just in case they forgot.
Which is just insulting and condescending towards his listeners - but hey, unless they know better, its their problem.
.....it certainly is mis-spent energy on his part but the mis-information angle is what I don't get.
Probably things like:
Hey, if you don't like it in San Francisco, Hitler-Savage, why don't you move to some place that suits your right-wing extremism better? Like Topeka, Kansas, where you can live with your uncle Fred?
Maybe he likes the sour dough?
I'm going with the butt-sex. At least until someone's offended and my post gets deleted! ;) LOL.
But yeah - the sour dough does rock!
I have no idea what this specific sensitivity training consists of--but I had a number of discussions with my next-door neighbor growing up, who retired from the NYPD a a Detective Captain. One of the worst aspects of the work is that they always see people at their worst--even so-called normal people hysterical, shouting, weeping, lashing out--and it all begins to look like a freak show from inside the cruiser.
Sometimes 'sensitivity training' mainly consists of sitting down and hearing the stories of the people involved. Instead of having image of a TG person as a grotesque clown and an insane asquerader, just having the image of that person as a normal person working out tough problems, Who go to work and order pizza and curse credit-card companies--that may help balance thingsout the next time they run into a guy dressed up like a girl.
It's an occupational hazard, according to my friend. Things like this do help their professionalism.
I'm sure it was a typo, but the word "asquerader" kind of undermines your [extremely valid] point. :)
I'm curious about how much the whole of it costs, but something like what you're describing, pbg, doesn't sound like would cost much - if anything - except for the couple of hours (or so) that you'd have to devote to it. In fact, I'd imagine the cost would be negligible as the distressed groups would (or should) foot most of the bill aside from hourly wages.
I tend to agree with Tommy, in that all people should be treated with equal respect regardless of their particular appearance / lifestyle / whatever (provided that doesn't violate the law and/or another person's pursuit of happiness) but I can understand a little better now what the 'sensitivity training' might be. Interaction with real people of different types seems like it should be a normal part of the training and recruitment of more people can't be that bad of an idea ...
lol...I find it extremely ironic that a man who advocates nuking the Middle East thinks that transgendered individuals are psychotic.