Happy 4th of July!
The Haight Street Underworld
Giants Clobber The Astros, 13-0
SFist Tonight
After Supervisor Sandoval introduced a resolution to brand hyperbolic grandpa Michael Savage as a hate speech-spewing loon, it wasn't voted on unanimously yesterday, care of SFsit's favorite coverboy, Ed Jew. (Ah, World Net Daily, where we go to get all of our fair and balanced news, drizzled with a infusion of organic Nazism.)
On July 5, after Savage predictably asked that students undergoing a weeklong fast for immigration reform (and, bonus, to slim down a few sizes) "fast until they starve to death," Sandoval went into action/wasted tax payers' time. But it looks like free speech reared its vile head again, according to Jew, who shot it down.
Curses again, First Amendment, you rat bastard.
Anyway, today, for some reason, "community organizations and immigrant rights groups have scheduled a vigil to take place in front of the KNEW station offices in San Francisco, urging the termination of Michael Savage’s show." So, bring your favorite pitchfork and Bic those torches, kids.
Also, is it true that Savage hangs out in North Beach, screaming at Lawrence Ferlinghetti and other formerly-famous passersby? Is there footage of this ranting available? Because we'd pay loads for such nuttiness. See, our former, cherished roommate used to listen to Savage for kicks during dinner hour, and the talk show host came across like the Bambi Lake of North Beach. He sounds like he might be one crazy-entertaining brunch guest, someone with whom we'd just love to go to Lime.
Well, maybe if he didn't wish AIDS upon us, that is.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
can Jew do anything ELSE to add to his unpopularity?
Dont insult crazy tran legend Bambi lake w/ comparing her to that Savage trollperson (although yes, the ranting is something to behold by Miss Lake)
I am far more offended that our supervisors are wasting their time, and thus San Francisco tax dollars, with this utter tripe.
While some find him vile and others find him amusing (and it is anyone's right to feel either way), Michael WeinerSavage by and large is not and should not be taken seriously. The job of a hyperbolic talkshow host is to be a hyperbolic talkshow host. Anyone who gets too caught up in his statements -- whether over-aggressive fans or A FLIPPIN' SUPERVISOR, who should know better -- scares me.
It's San Francisco's own little "Imus" controversy . . . maybe those students should sue Savage in civil court. That'll learn him.
You're right. My apologies, then, to Miss Lake, who I adore and respect. Fiercely.
If we're going to get rid of Michael Savage, we might as well get rid of Keith Olbermann, or Bill O'Reilly, or Sarah & No Name... this isn't about opinions, it's about our freedom to speak our opinions. To get rid of someone because their views differ from yours is unconstitutional, and I hardly think [the constitution] is something that should be shamed upon.
I occasionally agree with Michael Savage, like I occasionally agree with Keith Olbermann or Bill O'Reilly; and I occasionally don't agree with them. And never have I once heard them say something I disagree with, slightly or extremely, and thought to myself, "their shows should be canceled, how dare they confidently express their opinions."
I am ashamed of the Supervisors who would be in favor of this resolution.
Over at FogCityJournal, Luke Thomas writes about how Jew co-sponsored a similar resolution condemning SFist favorite, Kenneth Eng.
Thanks for the heads up, OtherJeremy.
That's a touch hypocritical of Mr. Jew, even if the situations are a little different (certainly from a $ standpoint). Of course, in my opinion, if Jew had supported the resolution then the whole board would have been wrong.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, Mr. Jew.
Hmm, I coulda sworn I put a link in that last comment.
Jew's refusal to vote for this latest ridiculousness only raises him in my estimation (fogcity's story notwithstanding).
I'm glad to see that all the other problems in this city have been cleared up, leaving the supervisors free to concentrate on this important resolution.
I love these supervisors. Free speech as long as we agree with what you say.
Who cares what a raving lunatic like Michael Savage says? Hell, I doubt he believes any of it himself. SF has just got to stop this nonbinding resolution crapola they are wasting all of their time on.
Agree with all the comments here: First Amendment, blah blah.
Just thought everyone should know that the Jew-hating, gay-basher Michael Savage was born Michael Weiner, and in the 1960s carried on a mad love affair with Allen Ginsberg. There’s even a photo circulating on the internets of Ginsberg and Weiner swimming together in the nude.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!
Now, where are those photos of Ann Coulter burning a flag during a lesbian orgy?
"...those photos of Ann Coulter burning a flag during a lesbian orgy?"
now i won't be able to think about anything else other than that today, rroseselavy.
I have no problem with our Supervisors considering symbolic policy statements like this. These are 1 or 2 page documents that the Supervisors rarely spend more than 5 minutes debating. 5 minutes out of meetings that regularly last over 5 hours. I don't buy the argument that it distracts from their work on the City's more important business.
Every election, the SF ballot has several symbolic policy statements, and the vast majority of voters weigh in on them. It doesn't distract from your day job to decide in the voting booth if you think Bush and Cheney should be impeached. It's a way to take the temperature of the City and express our collective opinions--at the same time as we consider concrete issues like school bonds and paid sick leave.
People love the stereotype of the "wacky" Supervisors from the "zany" city by the bay. But our Supervisors are regularly at the cutting edge of legislation in this country. They were ridiculed for introducing the nation's first smoking ban back in the 90s. Now it's widely accepted. The same thing will probably happen with legislation like Ammiano's health care plan, Mirkarimi's plastic bag ban, paid sick days, the sweat-free ordinance, etc. And every year, the Supervisors balance a multi-billion dollar budget--while also considering symbolic policy statements at the very same meetings.
Finally, about Jess Drake's point that it's only free speech, I don't think it's as simple as that. The line between free speech and hate speech is a slippery, gray, fuzzy line. I think it's important for society to debate what is tolerated and what is unacceptable. In my opinion, Savage urging people to starve to death and Don Imus's "nappy headed ho" comments cross the line, and I don't think they should be allowed on the public airwaves. But it's a complicated, delicate issue. And good for the Supervisors for considering it. I'm no expert on Keith Olbermann or Sarah & No Name, but I've never heard them wish harm on anyone like Michael Savage or Bill "blow up Coit Tower" O'Reilly often do.
Why am I suddenly feeling like a crotchety old man? Dagnamit . . . .
Tendernob's question reminds me of one of my all-time favorite pieces of modern political satire:
http://ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com/
I hate to be the ONLY one here to have the opinion that there can be too much of a good thing. But...
Free speech gone amok: see "Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM)"
Multiculturalism gone amok: see "Sharia Law" and "Ontario, Canada"
Civil Rights gone amok: see SF Weekly's "Wheelchairs of Fortune"
The lesson here is that even our most precious ideals are ripe for abuse if not moderated within reason by a public who's educated enough to understand the intent and the actual practice of such ideals.
Frankly, Savage is a hate monger and polluter of the airwaves and I hope he's forced out of his job by ANY means necessary. He forfeited his rights to freedom of speech the moment he displayed his irresponsible use of it.
If Ward Churchill can be fired from his job at the University of Colorado for comparing 9/11 victims as "little Eichmans", then at the very least Savage deserves to be terminated from his position as a lowly radio demagogue.
Jer_Not_me, you may be right about the limited time they spend on these silly (this one at least, IMO) measures, but look at how much play it's getting everywhere. It's a slight distraction to their time, perhaps, but a large distraction to what they should be trying to accomplish.
THIS is what gets the press, so THIS the voters will be thinking about. It masks whatever good work they are doing -- or the lack thereof. I feel the exact same way about Nancy Pelosi transmitting a press release about how wonderful Barry Bond's breaking the home run record is. Gratuitous pandering that distract us from important stuff.
ED JEW! ED JEW! ED JEW! ED JEW!
Guest -- Excellent points overall, but on the Ward Churchill thing it's important to remember that U of Colo. is a government entity; I'm sure that the private colleges of the world can get away with making all the inappropriate comments that their pocketbooks can stand. Much the same applies for Savage, a private enterprise. When the listenership and advertisers go away, so will he.
Again, I'll agree with my fellow Jeremy that "it's a complicated, delicate issue."
Excuse me, but doesn't that radio yakker spell his name Michael S-E-W-A-G-E?
The line between free speech and hate speech is a slippery, gray, fuzzy line.
Uh, no, Jeremy, it most definitely is not "a slippery, gray, fuzzy line."
What you call "hate speech" is free speech. Period. Nothing fuzzy about it.
That's because if it were otherwise, it would be too easy to brand any speech that one disagrees with or that is mildly offensive as "hate speech" and thereby seek to suppress it. And guess what -- that's exactly what's been going on for years, starting with campus speech codes.
There is no Constitutional way to draw the line between free speech and "hate speech" that can be restricted. It's all free speech. That's why the KKK has been allowed to hold rallies, Farrakhan and Sharpton are allowed to incite hatred against whites and Jews, and Savage is free to say whatever stupid crap he wants to say on the radio, entirely free from government interference or restriction. You're offended by it? Tough titty, because the only permissible antidote to "hate speech" is ... counter-speech.
Now, the government is certainly free to engage in counter-speech if it wants -- and it sounds like that's exactly what the Board of Stupidvisors was trying to do here. I think it's yet another silly-assed act of pandering by the Board myself and that their time would be better spent ignoring Savage, but there's nothing improper about the proposed resolution other than that it's a waste of time and resources.
Also, "guest," Ward Churchill was not forced out of his job for his comments about 9/11, and your statement that he was is completely false. He was forced out of his job for multiple, well-documented instances of blatantly fraudulent scholarship. Sure, his "little Eichmanns" comments attracted the scrutiny that led to the exposure of his academic dishonesty, but that's no different than flipping off a cop attracting the cop's attention that makes him notice that your registration is expired, and then once he has you pulled over, noticing the roach in the ashtray and then discovering the kilo of coke in the trunk when he searches the car.
- Alex
Would love to take credit for Tendernob's image of Ann Coulter, but I cannot...
We must distinguish between calling for a boycott of Michael Savage's show, which is within everyone's rights as an individual and consumer, and putting goverment to task with expressing our supposedly collective opinion about which speech should be silenced.
Guest #14 here.
If only the Rwandan genocide could've been prevented with "counter-speech".
Unfortunately, that's not how the world works.
The world works more like this: Left-wing idiot professor makes stupid remarks once, gets fired.
Right-wing idiot failed herbalist makes stupid remarks daily, his station keeps it's license and he gets rewarded.
So much for "free speech".
Every election, the SF ballot has several symbolic policy statements, and the vast majority of voters weigh in on them. It doesn't distract from your day job to decide in the voting booth if you think Bush and Cheney should be impeached. It's a way to take the temperature of the City and express our collective opinions--at the same time as we consider concrete issues like school bonds and paid sick leave.
And every election the SF League of women voters sends out 100's of thousands of thick books explaining the ballot issues with a pro/con statement... to do so for silly resolutions like this is a waste of tangible money and resources.
That's the problem right there, as I see it: "collective opinions." Who are those supervisor twerps to pretend to represent my opinions?
Guest #14, there's a difference you're willfully ignoring, between what's commonly classified as "hate speech" these days and incitement to violence and murder. The difference is imminence of provoking action.
For instance, idiots on the right(*) like Savage saying that he wishes hunger-strikers would starve to death -- or for that matter, idiots on the left like Zach de la Rocha at Coachella saying that they think Bush & Cheney ought to be shot -- are not incitement, because under the circumstances, there is a very low likelihood that anyone listening to them is going to take imminent action based on those words.
RTLM calling for a "final war" to "exterminate the Tutsis," on the other hand, during circumstances where violence is imminent -- or for that matter, Al Sharpton's supporters shouting "Burn down the Jew store" in a high-tension picket outside Freddy's Fashion Mart -- is something entirely different.
And you're still not being honest about Churchill. He made stupid remarks over and over and over again, for years and years, going back to the "smallpox blankets" hoax and possibly even before that. That attracted the scrutiny that led to his academic fraud being discovered, and even then it took over a year to get him canned. So no, it wasn't a case of making one stupid remark and getting fired.
- Alex
(*) I have doubts that Savage is really a right-winger; he's too cartoonish to not be some kind of parody, and as others have noted, he's got a history of hanging with those on the left like Ginsburg and being associated with froot-loopy hippy stuff like herbalism.
I honestly couldn't sum it up any better than a Matthew D. Gramly did in a letter to Fog City Journal. I insist you all read the letter entitled "Michael Savage and the Supes".
Guest #14 here.
You know, I understand the technicality of your reasoning but I don't buy it.
What someone like Savage, as well as the other hate talk DJs, does is sow the seeds of hatred and violence everyday by constantly drilling into the heads of their audience half-truths (like your Al Sharpton reference - in which Sharpton won a defamation lawsuit against the RNC for in 2001) and inuendo until Savage doesn't HAVE to say "kill"...his listeners know what to do.
In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the criminal(s) who torched that mosque in Antioch last weekend were ardent Savage Nation listeners.
Should we go back into his past broadcasts and reference how many times he said the word "islamofascist" when speaking of muslims of any sort?
They convicted Tom Metzger of the Aryan Nations for less. Savage is fair game precisely because he sows the seeds through hate speech, even if he isn't directly reaping the deadly harvest.
Government shouldn't in the business of censorship, but nothing in the Constitution guarantees that KNEW/Savage Nation has the right to rent that or any radio broadcasting frequency from that which is a publicly-owned resource.
First Amendment aside, I don't see what the big deal is. All he said was the fasters should starve to death, didn't he? If they continue their little hunger strike, isn't that exactly what will happen?
I mean, he told a caller to get AIDS and die, and yet the hunger strike comment is the one the supes get into an uproar over? This recent comment just didn't seem even worthy of the furor it created.
It seemed more like a supervisor trying to pander to a particular base.
Savage is a goof; his entire schtick is an Andy Kaufman-esque satire. The disappointing thing is that anyone actually takes him seriously.
That goes for his critics, who ought to know better (and they probably do, but it's good for some easy cheap demagogue points among the gullible), and doubly so for anyone out there who are unironic fans of his. (And I find it hard to believe that such people exist, but I know that they do.)
Guest 27.
Could that base be the SFist crowd?
Guest 14, you're right. And furthermore, I hereby nominate *you* to be the person who decides what can or cannot be said over the airwaves. Godspeed!!
Guest #14 here.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and no doubt the road to the gas chambers are lined with the bodies of "free speech" advocates.
Interestingly enough, so-called "free speech advocates" routinely oppose the Fairness Doctrine, so the free hate speech they hold so precious cannot be "counter-speeched" unless those who do so have the wealth and access to the same medium as the perpetrators of hate speech.
These are the people who'd rather die on their knees and take us all with them in the name of some bullshit moral cause.
Tom Metzger was not convicted for less. He was convicted for directly encouraging the violence that resulted in the death of an Ethiopian student. You don't have to say "kill" to incite violence, but what Savage said in no way rises to the level of a call to action.