The War on Jerk-Off Radio Personalities Comes Home

Nick Gillespie | October 3, 2007

Earlier today (wasn't that a time!), I blogged about the latest flap over Rush Limbaugh, the one about "phony soldiers," phony politicians, etc.

Now comes word from David Harsanyi, Nanny State author and November reason cover boy (subscribe!) that San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, that august political institution what once appointed the Rev. Jim Jones to a city post, is trying to pass a resolution condemning radio show host Michael Savage for "hate speech." Recaps Harsanyi:

This resolution was the board's second attempt to condemn Savage (curiously enough, his show emanates from San Francisco) specifically for his yammering about illegal aliens. The only thing that stops resolution from passing is a San Franciscan by the name of Ed Jew (an American-Asian) vetoes the vote. Not only that, but Jew had the stones to stand up and defend Savage's First Amendment right to free expression. If only such a person existed in Washington DC - on either side - we'd all be better off.

Jew said, "For the record, I do not agree with comments allegedly made by Mr. Savage, but the First Amendment gives him the right to make those comments."
How refreshing to hear such an obvious point said in public.

So then ...

[Supervisor Gerardo] Sandoval responded with a personal challenge to Jew.

"If this commentary was directed at the Chinese-American or the Asian community, you would not be resorting to this rigid formalism on your part," he said.

Yes, yes, I know: It all gets confusing when you throw an Asian American named Jew into the mix (stir fry?). But here's Harsanyi, cutting through the clatter like a hot knife through butter:

Michael Savage is offensive. A elected government official referring to deference of the First Amendment as "rigid formalism" is far more offensive. I have no idea if Jew would adhere to ideological and political consistency if his own ethnicity were attacked daily on the radio. But I do know Sandoval's comment gives us a peek into the mindset of many officials these days. To them, freedom is no longer a priority. Not if it offends them.

More here.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Jennifer|10.3.07 @ 12:18PM|#

"If this commentary was directed at the Chinese-American or the Asian community, you would not be resorting to this rigid formalism on your part," he said.

And Kerry Howley wouldn't be so libertarian if only she had children. Damn! Now I know where trolls get it from!

|10.3.07 @ 12:21PM|#

But I do know Sandoval's comment gives us a peek into the mindset of many officials these days. To them, freedom is no longer a priority. Not if it offends them.

This isn't a new mindset. Freedom has never been a priority for public officials. Using their authority to punish people they dislike always has.

|10.3.07 @ 12:24PM|#

If only a few of our Governmentarians would display a little rigid formalism with regard to Amendment Number Four.

JBinMO|10.3.07 @ 12:24PM|#

I could see condeming Savage, but not for "hate speetch", more for "goon speetch".

|10.3.07 @ 12:25PM|#

Ah yes, San Francisco. You're gonna meet some gentle people there.

|10.3.07 @ 12:32PM|#

the berkeley free speech movement ... ah, the irony.

|10.3.07 @ 12:38PM|#

Do you suppose that Mr. Savage paid off the Board of Supervisors to pass that resolution? I mean, that basically amounts to oodles of free publicity and only confirms all of the worst things he supposedly says about leftists (I have far better things to do than listen to blowhards on the radio).

|10.3.07 @ 12:40PM|#

"To them, freedom is no longer a priority. Not if it offends them."

Let's just face it, to many of those in power, freedom is no longer a right, it is a privilege.

|10.3.07 @ 12:44PM|#

And people ask me why I think government needs to be limited. Ha!

Savage is a hard-line leftist in disguise--an agent provocateur. It's got to be true.

|10.3.07 @ 12:45PM|#

Ugh, why did the Democrats have to copy the Republicans by ginning up another non-controversy?

ed|10.3.07 @ 12:45PM|#

"Hate" speech is a phony crime invented by statists like Sandoval to punish individuals who dare to disagree with them.

pistoffnick|10.3.07 @ 12:50PM|#

If'n ya don't like wot ya hear, thars a leetle knob on yer radio that'll change the station ta sumpthin' ya DO like. Thays also 'nuther knob ta turn tha damn thing off.

Jennifer|10.3.07 @ 12:55PM|#

If'n ya don't like wot ya hear, thars a leetle knob on yer radio that'll change the station ta sumpthin' ya DO like. Thays also 'nuther knob ta turn tha damn thing off.

Not good enough. So far as these bastards are concerned, if they don't want to hear or see something, nobody else should be allowed to hear or see it either.

NP|10.3.07 @ 12:56PM|#

Gerardo Sandoval is such a clown it's simply beyond me why anyone would take him seriously.

jimmydageek|10.3.07 @ 1:01PM|#

That would be too easy, pistoff...

Plus, they add a little job security by passing these pointless resolutions...

On the other hand, I wish somebody would start a petition for a resolution in which these idiots would condemn themselves for wasting taxpayer money.

|10.3.07 @ 1:14PM|#

All the code-pink haters who think code-pinkers are bad should watch this video. Ladies reading the consistution are arrested..I guess you "moderate" libertarians are in favor of this as well.

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/021007_arrested_reading_constitution.html

|10.3.07 @ 1:20PM|#

LOL at "stir fry".

fyodor|10.3.07 @ 1:30PM|#

I suppose the one saving feature of this proposed resolution is that it's meaningless, as law goes, in that it's mere words and carries no penalty. And because of that it really doesn't violate anyone's rights.

But that said, who the hell do these legislators think they are to be passing condemnations of private citizens? Some new form of uber-clergy?

I guess at least passing stupid condemnation resolutions takes time away from them that they could otherwise be using to pass new restrictive laws and taxes.

|10.3.07 @ 1:39PM|#

Gabe Harris- What now? I'm not sure I've ever heard code pink (whatever that may be) discussed here, but I am sure I've read countless defences of freedom of speech for everyone. Perhaps, just perhaps, you should familiarize yourself with the forum before throwing up posts based on erroneous assumptions about what the people here believe.

You could also address the topic at hand, if you are so inclined.

This place has been overrun. It's time to require registration.

jimmydageek|10.3.07 @ 1:57PM|#

Sorry, #6, but if registration is required, I'm outta here...too lazy to have to sign in every time i visit (close browser often...come in for a few minutes...leave)...

...if that's the case, have fun with your silly little "club"....

.....although I very much doubt it will happen...just sayin'

dhex|10.3.07 @ 2:03PM|#

"Michael Savage is offensive. A elected government official referring to deference of the First Amendment as "rigid formalism" is far more offensive."

amen.

it's not even offensive so much as terribly frightening.

dhex|10.3.07 @ 2:04PM|#

#6 - the deal was this: there was a code pink post last week sometime and much mockery thereof was made. gabe took this *very* personally so now he's kinda attached to us, like a goiter.

|10.3.07 @ 2:12PM|#

Do people really take Michael Savage seriously? Go read his book. It reads like Stephen Colbert on an off night.

I suppose he would be offensive if he weren't so dumb.

|10.3.07 @ 2:15PM|#

So does Freedom of Speech not apply to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors?

|10.3.07 @ 2:18PM|#

I suppose the one saving feature of this proposed resolution is that it's meaningless, as law goes, in that it's mere words and carries no penalty. And because of that it really doesn't violate anyone's rights.

One of the nation's top civil rights attorneys offered his assistance to Savage in suing Sandoval.

Daniel A. Horowitz of Oakland, Calif., wrote to Savage after Sandoval introduced his resolution.

"You have a strong federal civil rights action that you can file against Supervisor Sandoval and the city of San Francisco," he advised. "You have a constitutional right to state your political opinions and no city official has the right to lie about what you said or to call for a mob to come to your door to threaten you and to try to have you fired."

Horowitz said the Civil Rights Act of 1871, designed to tame the terror of the Ku Klux Klan, can be used as the basis for a federal civil rights action against the official and the city.

Asharak|10.3.07 @ 2:19PM|#

Michael Savage has made racist comments about Asian Americans before, so I think Supervisor Sandoval is wrong about Ed Jew.

Pro Liberate's statement about Savage is interesting. Savage used to be openly leftist before switching sides, but maybe it's not so much Savage allegedly being an undercover leftist as it as a leftist just becoming his negative perception of a conservative (the same goes for David Horowitz). Why else do you think the ex-liberals who turned into conservatives after 9/11 are especially insufferable?

Minion of URKOBOLD|10.3.07 @ 2:20PM|#

SILLY, SILLY DAN T. FREEDOM OF SPEECH ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE WHO WORSHIP THE DEMAND KURV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GABE HARRIS IS RAPIDLY BECOMING A CLONE OF AN IMITATION OF A PARODY OF RULE #69 OF THE DRINKING GAME ("moderate libertarians")

AS PUNISHMENT, MR. STEVEN CRANE WILL DECONSTRUCT THE ENTIRE BODY OF WORK BY THE EURYTHMICS.

Asharak|10.3.07 @ 2:20PM|#

as it as a=as it is a

Minion of URKOBOLD|10.3.07 @ 2:26PM|#

ASHARAK SHALL REPENT AND ADMIT TO HIS WRONGDOING, ELSE HE SHALL MISSPELL AGAIN.

AND AGAIN.

AND HE SHALL BE REDUBBED, "ANORAK"

|10.3.07 @ 2:33PM|#

How dare somebody say they don't like what somebody else said? That's censorship! Against somebody. The first somebody.

Nick, how DARE you threaten the free speech rights of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors by...uh...you know...saying you don't like what they said?

Minion of URKOBOLD|10.3.07 @ 2:36PM|#

YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT IN TOUCH WITH REAL AMERICANS*

*credit acknowledged for use of that phrase.

TLB|10.3.07 @ 2:40PM|#

minionOfUrkobold|10.3.07 @ 2:41PM|#

wwwwwaaaaaccckkkkoooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!

The Pope|10.3.07 @ 2:43PM|#

Take my work for it. You letting people read the constitution for themselves in public places will be as bad for you as not having Mass in Latin has been for us.

|10.3.07 @ 2:46PM|#

Joe- The source of the objection is this: A person saying "I object to your comment" is one thing. A person making that statement while fingering a pistol is another.
That being said, the San Francisco City Council doesn't really have the power to do much to Savage. It's harmless grandstanding and basic demagoguing. When the US Congress does something similar, the implied threat increases quite a bit.

|10.3.07 @ 2:57PM|#

Joe- The source of the objection is this: A person saying "I object to your comment" is one thing. A person making that statement while fingering a pistol is another.

One laughs at the image of the San Franciso Board of Supervisors brandishing handguns while conducting a meeting.

|10.3.07 @ 3:01PM|#

Gosh, gee, this is terrible! That board of supervisors must HATE free speech!!!!

Can one of you in the Reason brain trust tell me again how this resolution affects Savage's free speech in any manner?

Are you guys in the Reason brain trust happy with the FCC's Nipple rules, and when fuck can or can't be used?

Are you happy that a bunch of non elected bureaucrats make the rules, or would you in general prefer the assholes making the rules be elected?

Or are you just saying that ABSOLUTELY no regulations on speech should be made to any speech on the so-called public air waves?

|10.3.07 @ 3:07PM|#

Number 6,

What about when Congress expresses itself in an opposite manner - by, for example, bestowing an award on some writer or political activist?

Minion of URKOBOLD|10.3.07 @ 3:07PM|#

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, "THANKS" TO THAT POSTER, "GOSH GEE".

RULE #1: GOSH GEE SHUTS UP.

AHHHHH. MUCH BETTER.

OR IS IT??

|10.3.07 @ 3:10PM|#

Gosh, gee, this is terrible! That board of supervisors must HATE free speech!!!!

Apparently they do, if it pisses them off.

Can one of you in the Reason brain trust tell me again how this resolution affects Savage's free speech in any manner?

Who said it did? It doesn't have to affect his ability to engage in free expression to be an obnoxious action by a government body.

Are you happy that a bunch of non elected bureaucrats make the rules, or would you in general prefer the assholes making the rules be elected?

Elected idiots are more accountable for their actions than non-elected idiots, and they are specifically more accountable to the people who, gosh gee, elect them.

Or are you just saying that ABSOLUTELY no regulations on speech should be made to any speech on the so-called public air waves?

I can't speak for the Reason "brain trust," but I would say yes to this, at least to regulations on a federal level.

We can probably agree that Michael Savage is silly. Is there something about this action by the Board of Supervisor's you find not stupid? Please, do tell.

fyodor|10.3.07 @ 3:12PM|#

So does Freedom of Speech not apply to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors?

So has anyone suggested fines or jail time for any of the members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors?

dhex|10.3.07 @ 3:21PM|#

But... Reason told us there was no danger from allowing millions of illegal aliens to enter the U.S., thereby giving power to RacialDemagogues like GerardoSandoval.

i want all of you to be my witnesses. if i EverMeet the Lone Wacko* i know i shall DieLaughing or possibly from a BrokenNeck after i slip in the UrinePuddleOfFear because we passed a TapasBar, so give my regards to Urkobold...on Broadway!

*eh? get it? spaces where there were none before!

fyodor|10.3.07 @ 3:21PM|#

What about when Congress expresses itself in an opposite manner - by, for example, bestowing an award on some writer or political activist?

Well that's, um (how else to say it?), different. Commending someone and condemning someone are, you know, two different things. Now personally, I'd be fine if Congress quit wasting taxpayers' money with even such "positive" pronouncements. But either way, it's hardly inconsistent to object to one and not the other. It's not that they're expressing themselves in a collective way per se (though as I said, I still think that's silly and a waste of taxpayer money), it's that a body with legal authority to exercise force is condemning someone. Now, as I also said already, I don't see this as a violation of rights, and I stand by that. At the same time, it's a noxious and potentially ominous thing for a government body to do. What they don't like about what Savage has said is simply none of their (official) business.

|10.3.07 @ 3:27PM|#

I find Savage a bit more than silly. I find his speech to be racist and inciting and akin to fighting words, which is not protected speech.

Since he is on the public airwaves and subject to all sorts of regulations, I see no reason to think that a county board (that has no affect on his national license) condemning his speech as hate speech is any sort of infringement of speech.

I disagree with many FCC actions -- I am happy seeing ELECTED officials putting in their two cents.

Knocking someone off the public airwaves for hate speech is NOT a free speech infringement.

I think someone should come down on him.

fyodor,

Well that's, um (how else to say it?), different. Commending someone and condemning someone are, you know, two different things. So is getting kicked my left foot and my right foot. The question is, is the difference meaningful?

Should we just assume that every pronouncement of support is going to lead, inevitably, to Congress granting special rights and privliges to the honored subject? If the subject was a Catholic priest, or the book in question contained plenty of references to the Bible, should we interpret that as the establishment of religion?

They're not so very different after all. Either the expression of a legislative body's opinion should be interpretted as indicating a desire to bring force to bear, or it shouldn't.

|10.3.07 @ 3:29PM|#

One laughs at the image of the San Franciso Board of Supervisors brandishing handguns while conducting a meeting.

Tell that to Harvey Milk.

The Pope|10.3.07 @ 3:33PM|#

"Knocking someone off the public airwaves for hate speech is NOT a free speech infringement"

Definatly not, after all history tells us that if you can stop a political voice from speaking publicly, they just drop the idea, right?

|10.3.07 @ 3:44PM|#

"Knocking someone off the public airwaves for hate speech is NOT a free speech infringement. I think someone should come down on him."

So now the government is the arbiter of what is hate speech? The government decides who should and shouldn't be on the air?

Using the machinery of the state in an attempt to undermine Savage's program (which is what this is, albeit a really stupid ploy that will backfire on them if anything) is no different than the state ordering Savage off the air. Both try to do the same thing--use the power of the state to influence political speech. Absolutely impermissible.

dhex|10.3.07 @ 3:48PM|#

Knocking someone off the public airwaves for hate speech is NOT a free speech infringement.

well no one's knocking anyone off anything, as everyone has noted. savage's countersuit - presuming he's dumb enough to bring the funk - is destined to die a lonely, hilarious death. but it's still extremely chilling to hear the first amendment referred to as "formalism" from any public official, no matter how marginal.

besides, since this won't sway you, consider this: let's say savage gets shot down as "hate speech" et al, or is at least restricted from broadcasting in certain venues under penalty of law. (a truly long shot in this day and age, thankfully, but let's just play along for a moment.)

are you really going to tell me you can't think of a single conservative ploy using the same broad criteria? let's say some liberal personality broad brushes "religious conservatives" as "extremists" who want to "destroy america" (or related xyz) and suddenly gets their station/program/outlet smacked up to shit and back because they're promoting religious intolerance...how would you feel about that? (which is technically true in terms of the religious intolerance thing, but i don't really see how the community is better served by locking either one up in mouth jail or calling insulting but broad utterances "fighting words" (a very narrow exception to the first amendment).

dhex|10.3.07 @ 3:49PM|#

Using the machinery of the state in an attempt to undermine Savage's program (which is what this is, albeit a really stupid ploy that will backfire on them if anything) is no different than the state ordering Savage off the air.

hold up hold up hold up

what?

c'mon just cause crazy pants mcgee sauntered in here with his bag of whacky doesn't mean everyone else has to follow suit.

it is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY different. WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY diff'.

Asharak|10.3.07 @ 3:49PM|#

But... Reason told us there was no danger from allowing millions of illegal aliens to enter the U.S., thereby giving power to RacialDemagogues like GerardoSandoval.

This "San Francisco" place must not exist or something. Because, otherwise, everything Reason has been telling us was false.

TLB, it's bad enough that you still troll here, but will you *please* knock it off withthiscrapalready?

And given Reason's support of Ron Paul, why do you keep making such bogus accusations against the magazine, its columnists and its readers regarding immigration?

|10.3.07 @ 3:53PM|#

What about when Congress expresses itself in an opposite manner - by, for example, bestowing an award on some writer or political activist?
It would be hard to find a threat of legislation, implied or otherwise, in something like that. Still, I'd write it off as CongressCritter grandstanding.

|10.3.07 @ 3:59PM|#

Incidentally, Joe, I'm not suggesting that a full-blown freakout is justified in either case. (Limbaugh or Savage). I'm saying that viewing such actions warily makes sense.
Let's not pretend that the line between "we don't like what he said" and "people who say that are going to jail" hasn't been crossed before. One could point to the sedition acts, or the government's use of postal laws to suppress the distribution of "subversive" materials as examples. If Eugene Debs were still around, I suspect he'd also recommend caution.

By "such actions" I meant "condemnation by government bodies."

fyodor|10.3.07 @ 4:07PM|#

Should we just assume that every pronouncement of support is going to lead, inevitably, to Congress granting special rights and privliges to the honored subject?...Either the expression of a legislative body's opinion should be interpretted as indicating a desire to bring force to bear, or it shouldn't.

What special rights or priveleges? joe, if you don't see how condemnation suggests the possibility of force more than does praise, what can I say.

That said, as I've already said, there has been no violation of rights, and that either sort of "expression" is silly and a waste of time and taxpayer money. I'll go half a step further and say this is not really such a big deal, and unless joe pisses me off, I'll likely leave it there.

|10.3.07 @ 4:14PM|#

Number 6,

Let's not pretend that the line between "we don't like what he said" and "people who say that are going to jail" hasn't been crossed before.,/i>

By that logic, we should ban private individuals from expressing themselves, too. Plenty of assaults have occurred because somebody didn't like what somebody else was saying, and objected to it. Put me down in the "open debate of issues and ideas is a good thing" camp.

fyodor,

I gave you examples in that same post. The establishment of religion, for example.

And your silly straw man aside, I never stated that praise suggests the possibility of force to the same degree as condemnation.

Would you care to take a crack at my actual argument? Here it is again:

Should we just assume that every pronouncement of support is going to lead, inevitably, to Congress granting special rights and privliges to the honored subject? If the subject was a Catholic priest, or the book in question contained plenty of references to the Bible, should we interpret that as the establishment of religion?

D'oh!

MattXIV|10.3.07 @ 4:22PM|#

gosh gee,

Since he is on the public airwaves and subject to all sorts of regulations, I see no reason to think that a county board (that has no affect on his national license) condemning his speech as hate speech is any sort of infringement of speech.

I disagree with many FCC actions -- I am happy seeing ELECTED officials putting in their two cents.

Knocking someone off the public airwaves for hate speech is NOT a free speech infringement.

So you're against censorship, except when you're for it. Gotcha.

|10.3.07 @ 4:27PM|#

By that logic, we should ban private individuals from expressing themselves, too. Well, no. That's what we're trying to avoid.
Assault is already a criminal offence, whether provoked by unpleasant speech or not. Banning assault should do the trick if we're worried about that sort of thing.

Look, Joe, no individual wields the power to regulate the speech of a nation's citizens. The government does. Hence, some wariness strikes me as being entirely justified.

|10.3.07 @ 4:39PM|#

Just by the way, Ed Jew is facing a variety of serious criminal charges in SF and in federal court - including extortion charges. I guess you don't have to be a nice guy to defend free speech though.

From SF Gate:

http://tinyurl.com/2s9t6o

MattXIV|10.3.07 @ 4:59PM|#

joe,

By that logic, we should ban private individuals from expressing themselves, too. Plenty of assaults have occurred because somebody didn't like what somebody else was saying, and objected to it. Put me down in the "open debate of issues and ideas is a good thing" camp.

But whether the statement is being made as an or as the official stance of a government entity matters. This distinction is made when we deal with the other half of the first amendment. As individuals, we (including people who hold gov't positions) are quite correctly free to say that we think religion X is totally insane as strikes our fancy, but if the SF BoS were to pass a resolution saying such, it would justifiably be interpreted as a 1st amendment violation despite the fact that there would be no more tangible impact than the resolution decrying Savage on the same grounds that it may be a prelude to disparate treatment.

While I don't think it's a huge deal in the big picture, I'm of the opinion that government entities should avoid taking an formal stance on any issue that doesn't deal with the legitimate functions of that entity. That would include some of the awards and other honorary junk that comes out of Congress. I'd propose as a rule of thumb that if it is illegitimate for the entity to act on the opinion (as it would be in the SF BoS case), they shouldn't have a formal opinion on it

The Pope|10.3.07 @ 5:09PM|#

Do people not realize that one of the dials on a radio changes the station?

|10.3.07 @ 5:19PM|#

Just by the way, Ed Jew is facing a variety of serious criminal charges in SF and in federal court - including extortion charges. I guess you don't have to be a nice guy to defend free speech though.

So Ed Jew is kinda like John Murtha on a local level?

|10.3.07 @ 5:31PM|#

it amazes me that people don't "get" michael savage.

it's a frigging schtick people. this does not mean he doesn't make funny statements, and sometimes even incisive comments.

also, clearly the SF's council's idea of "hate speech" is speech that they don't agree with.

the person i find the most parallels with savage is lenny bruce. listen to some old (not that there are new ones but i digress...) lenny bruce routines, then listen to savage.

also, and even some left-wing reviewers have noted this, regardless of savage's "politics" his stream of conscious rants, and his anecdotes etc. are often quite brilliant. i really mean it. you don't have to agree with his politics to see that. basically, i think it's the kind of thing that's entertaining in small doses.

but it's clearly, to some extent, a schtick. it works. he got the frigging san fran city council to condemn him (or at least try) for "hate speech" proving his very points about the city and their attempts at thought and speech control.

good spoken word/commentary is often most effective when it is offensive, over the top, etc.

lenny bruce worked. so does henry rollins (i've seen his spoken word live several times). and so does savage.

|10.3.07 @ 5:33PM|#

oh, and jello biafra too! jello biafra is AT LEAST as "hateful" as savage is, he just points his invective towards the "evul capitalist rich", etc.

and that's the one group (well that and hetero white males) that you can be "hateful" towards and not be accused of hate speech.

TLB|10.3.07 @ 7:24PM|#

But, seriously, perhaps Gillespie would like to jump back in here and comment on how the open borders that he supports lead to the rise of RacialDemagogues like the SF Supe in this case. Without a bloc of support, he'd just be a far-left voice in the wilderness; with such support (from illegal aliens, race-oriented citizens, and crooked businesses) he's a SF Supe.

Perhaps Gillespie would like to tell us how we could deal with an even more powerful RacialDemagogue who has similar ideas to GS. Wouldn't people like that be a threat to the Great Libertarian Future? Wouldn't the open borders that Gillespie supports give him even more power? How does Gillespie intend to deal with that issue?

Asharak|10.3.07 @ 7:39PM|#

Les|10.3.07 @ 7:39PM|#

whit, I'd appreciate some examples of Savage's "quite brilliant" statements. I've read many of his "quite retarded" statements, but so far, no brilliant ones.

Mad Max|10.3.07 @ 9:03PM|#

It sounds like the authorities in San Francisco need some Ed Jew Cation on the meaning of free speech.

"The Pope,"

You're not even trying. I'm afraid that your attempts at Catholic-bashing are quite tame, and don't come up to H&R standards. If you want to be in the really bigh leagues as far as Catholic-bashing is concerned, you'll have to be a whole lot more aggressive. Some suggestions:

(a) Refer to scandals in which gay priests had sex with underage (usually teenage) boys, and the cover-ups of same. Describe their conduct as "pedophilia." Make clear that you don't object to adult-child sex in principle (you don't want to lose your Libertarian Decoder Ring(TM)); it's the "hypocrisy" that bothers you.

(b) Say that the Church doesn't like sex. I mean, marital sex is boring, and that's all that Church teachings allow for.

(c) Blame the Church for AIDS in Africa. If Africans followed Church teachings on sex, they'd all be dead by now.

(d) Remember the following vocabulary words: "Galileo," "Inquisition," "Nazis."

Now go and try harder!

|10.3.07 @ 9:57PM|#

I just want to say that I am grew up in the same town as Jim Jones.

|10.3.07 @ 10:46PM|#

"whit, I'd appreciate some examples of Savage's "quite brilliant" statements. I've read many of his "quite retarded" statements, but so far, no brilliant ones."

i've READ none of his statements. i am referring to his spoken word. occasionally on his show, he will go into these stream-of-consciousness rants that are really interesting. like i said, it's kind of like lenny bruce's stuff, but also (in retrospect) kind of reminds me of henry rollins.

and when he does dialogue it almost sounds like a mamet play.

Bob|10.4.07 @ 1:15AM|#

Evidently they are so PC in San Francisco that when checking of your ethnicity you can choose Caucasian, Black, Asian, Pacific Islander, Illegal Immigrant. How else to explain the ridiculous question to Mr. Jew?

|10.4.07 @ 2:37AM|#

As a Hispanic who was raised a Catholic, and whose grandmother was an illegal alien, I can only say: thank God for Jew!

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements