Coward Michael Savage runs away from me
Today on his Facebook
page, Savage posted an announcement about his upcoming book and the
fact that he has been invited to debate by the Cambridge Union Society
in England.
That's of note because it was disclosed in May
that Savage is among 22 or so people banned by the British government
from entering the United Kingdom.
The debate's topic is,
"This House Believes Political Correctness is Sane and Necessary."
Savage will be speaking for the opposition.
Since May, Savage
has made hay about how his "freedom of speech" has been abridged by the
ban. In fact, he has regularly asked his Web site visitors and his
radio listeners to donate to his "free speech" fund. By his account,
many have.
So when I saw Savage's post, I decided to take the
opportunity to ask a simple question: How has his "free speech" been
abridged in light of the facts that he is speaking to the Cambridge
Union Society, people in the UK can log onto his Web site, they can
sign up for his podcasts, and they can buy his books?
How, exactly, has he been muzzled in the UK?
I
expected to be attacked by his followers, but my question didn't last
very long. Rather than just delete my comment, Savage deleted his entire post! And this is the guy who says he's fighting to preserve our freedom of speech from those who would attack it.
Seems Savage is only interested in defending speech when it's complimentary to him.
Hypocrite.
Just encountered your post and went back and read a dozen or so. I appreciate the work you are doing but do have a criticism of sorts.
I beg my progressive friends to listen to that psychotic bastard at least once - for their own protection. His violent and eliminationist rhetoric is being spewed into the car next to you as you drive along unaware that you are being called "vermin" - as Hitler called the Jews - that your very existence (you pervert) is a threat to the life and well being of "the children", that you are a threat to all that is good and decent in America. This isn't an occasional outrage; it's his nightly shtick.
Beck may have a larger audience but Weiner's is arguable crazier and more prone to violence - or they wouldn't listen.
The criticism?
I know it's hard to maintain a constant level of outrage, but I really feel that "Savage" is a threat to us all; that an actual "Paul Revere" is needed to sound the warning; that most progressives have no idea that they are being demonized and dehumanized so thoroughly on their public airwaves and that a thinly disguised call to arms and violence is being emotionally screamed to their neighbors on a nightly basis.
So I would suggest (but HEY! it's your blog) that if you want more attention (I noticed that your posts get few recs and sometimes no comments) you feature one particular outrage from each night's show (or something of the sort) to clue your potential audience in to the fact that this guy isn't simply another wingnut, but a "clear and present danger" literally, and to us all.
September 30, 2009 4:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, uneasyone, for your comment. That's what I try to do, but in reality, Savage doesn't always say a unique outrageous thing on his show every evening.
And I try to keep my comments focused on what he presents as facts. We're all entitled to our opinion, no matter how repugnant they may be to others, so I generally don't get on him for that.
It's when he lies, or distorts facts, that I make my posts.
And as for the small number of comments or recommends, well, I've discovered in the three years since I wrote my book about him and have been blogging about him that people really do not pay him much mind. I was kind of surprised by that, seeing as he's ranked third in terms of audience in this country.
Which leads me to believe that in talk radio, the only spots that matter are No. 1 or 2.
September 30, 2009 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink