Mike Savage hurling gay slurs on RKO

[ciao99]

That was a really patronizing comment. What makes you think only white people are in positions of power? Sounds to me like you have a real low opinion of minorities. Newsflash: Minorities own property, banks, they are in corporate America.

It's usually conservatives who give me grief for this opinion...

From your point of view, what was the patronizing part? That I think most positions of power in this country are held by white people? Or because I believe that whoever has more power in whatever relationship has a greater responsibility than the person with less power? (not legally, but yes, morally).

Sure, black folks are gaining power - like the CEO of American Express who pulled the plug on Imus. And Obama who just raised $25 million. And Rice who is representing this country internationally. And, if they were talking about blue-eyed white devils on the radio, I would care. And, if a large majority of black folks were talking about blue-eyed devils AND everytime I applied for a job, they were the ones I had to talk to, I would be up in arms about it. As it is, I don't really care, so the people talking about blue-eyed devils get a pass from me - I just don't care as much that they exist.

Conservatives tend to say no - if it's wrong to say verminous black people or liberals or homosexuals, then it's wrong to say blue-eyed devils. And, conversely, if it's okay to say blue-eyed devils, then it's okay to say the reverse. I say yes, technically, that is correct, either it's all wrong or it's all right, but since we can't run around making everyone perfect, and some speech does matter more than other speech (i.e. we discriminate), I take a more pragmatic approach and say the people with power have to be more careful than the people without power. And right now, white folks have more power and therefore, I tend to worry more about what they say than other folks.

So, I do care that someone like (Savage) Weiner talks about verminous ____________ (insert anyone not like him) - because he represents the millions who agree with him, and they represent power.

Along the same lines, that's why we care about being called infidels - cuz we need oil and they have guns. If we didn't and they didn't, we'd just laugh at them.

What is patronizing is to assume that only white people are powerful and to portray minorities as helpless victims.

I agree that either you allow everyone to be offended or you offend no one. And I'm a liberal.
Your brand of liberalness is hypocrisy and a major flaw for progressives.

 

[Finn]

I understand why you disagree. But, I don't understand why you think it's hypocritical and would love to hear your view.

 

[Finn]

By the way, I make a distinction between whether people are capable of having power and whether they do in fact have power. And, the standard I hold someone to changes as their circumstances change - if someone (don't care who) is starving or is stuck somewhere and grabs a piece of food off of a food stand, I hold them to a different standard than if they take the same piece of food even while they had the money in their pocket to buy it. Some people would say it makes no difference to them. Well, it makes a difference to me. And I judge people who have a lot who steal a lot more harshly than people who have little.

And, just because people are not currently in power doesn't mean that they are not capable of having power. But, reality is also reality. To pretend that someone has power when they don't seems unrealistic to me.

 

[TSBench]

So, I do care that someone like (Savage) Weiner talks about verminous ____________ (insert anyone not like him) - because he represents the millions who agree with him, and they represent power.

They do? Although its obviously anecdotal, through my past business experience, and through my wife and other relatives, I know lots of 'powerful' people, major decision makers, in business, banking, advertising, the media, manufacturing, and investing and financial services, and the number of these folks who 1. listen to Savage, or 2, pay attention to him, is absolutely Zero.

Most of these folks, when they devote time to the media, tend to gravitate to news, sports (sporting events are considered a prime advertising vehicle for reaching executives) and serious talk such as Finneran, NPR, Imus ( in the past, for the laughs and the interviews) and occasionally Carr (for the entertainment value, such as it is.)

It's tough not to sound condescending about this, but the chances of anyone who takes their 'marching orders' from someone such as Savage having any meaningful impact on your life, is just about non-existent, with the exception of screwing up your to-go order.

Along the same lines, that's why we care about being called infidels - cuz we need oil and they have guns. If we didn't and they didn't, we'd just laugh at them.

Actually, we care about folks who call us 'infidels' because they want to kill us, because we are, to them, infidels.

It is odd that you'd bring up the 'oil' red herring, since it is obviously incorrect, unless you are talking about Europe rather than the US, or have actually managed to find one of those 'progressive' radio stations for information. The largest exporters of oil to the US are Canada, Mexico, and Nigeria, hardly hotbeds of Islamic terrorism. In fact, of the 10 countries which supply almost all the US oil imports, (three being in the Middle East) only Saudi Arabia is a major player (4th. just about tied with Venezuela, which is actually ahead of Saudi Arabia when you look at refined, rather than just crude, petroleum) with Iraq and Kuwait pretty far down the list supplying very modest amounts (although Iraqi imports will probably increase, and the Kuwaiti oil is, or was, part of a deal resulting from the first Gulf War.) The US, domestically, is the third largest oil producer in the world, after only Saudi and Russia. So, unless you consider Molson laced with strychnine to be a potential threat, you should probably look elsewhere than oil for US motivation in the GWOT.

I find this entire idea to be somewhat reminiscent of a Pacifica program I heard in the late 60s positing that the US was in Vietnam because they wanted the massive offshore oil reserves and, believe it or not, rice. I found it strange that nobody was looking for all that oil, especially with the entire 7th Fleet in the area for protection (and still haven't found it almost 40 years after) and that the US was, at the time, the largest rice EXPORTER in the world. I guess there is nothing intrinsically more accurate about 'progressive talk' compared to conservative variety.

Regards,
TSB

 

[Finn]

So, I do care that someone like (Savage) Weiner talks about verminous ____________ (insert anyone not like him) - because he represents the millions who agree with him, and they represent power.

They do? Although its obviously anecdotal, through my past business experience, and through my wife and other relatives, I know lots of 'powerful' people, major decision makers, in business, banking, advertising, the media, manufacturing, and investing and financial services, and the number of these folks who 1. listen to Savage, or 2, pay attention to him, is absolutely Zero.

Most of these folks, when they devote time to the media, tend to gravitate to news, sports (sporting events are considered a prime advertising vehicle for reaching executives) and serious talk such as Finneran, NPR, Imus ( in the past, for the laughs and the interviews) and occasionally Carr (for the entertainment value, such as it is.)

It's tough not to sound condescending about this, but the chances of anyone who takes their 'marching orders' from someone such as Savage having any meaningful impact on your life, is just about non-existent, with the exception of screwing up your to-go order.

Along the same lines, that's why we care about being called infidels - cuz we need oil and they have guns. If we didn't and they didn't, we'd just laugh at them.

Actually, we care about folks who call us 'infidels' because they want to kill us, because we are, to them, infidels.

It is odd that you'd bring up the 'oil' red herring, since it is obviously incorrect, unless you are talking about Europe rather than the US, or have actually managed to find one of those 'progressive' radio stations for information. The largest exporters of oil to the US are Canada, Mexico, and Nigeria, hardly hotbeds of Islamic terrorism. In fact, of the 10 countries which supply almost all the US oil imports, (three being in the Middle East) only Saudi Arabia is a major player (4th. just about tied with Venezuela, which is actually ahead of Saudi Arabia when you look at refined, rather than just crude, petroleum) with Iraq and Kuwait pretty far down the list supplying very modest amounts (although Iraqi imports will probably increase, and the Kuwaiti oil is, or was, part of a deal resulting from the first Gulf War.) The US, domestically, is the third largest oil producer in the world, after only Saudi and Russia. So, unless you consider Molson laced with strychnine to be a potential threat, you should probably look elsewhere than oil for US motivation in the GWOT.

I find this entire idea to be somewhat reminiscent of a Pacifica program I heard in the late 60s positing that the US was in Vietnam because they wanted the massive offshore oil reserves and, believe it or not, rice. I found it strange that nobody was looking for all that oil, especially with the entire 7th Fleet in the area for protection (and still haven't found it almost 40 years after) and that the US was, at the time, the largest rice EXPORTER in the world. I guess there is nothing intrinsically more accurate about 'progressive talk' compared to conservative variety.

Regards,
TSB

I agree about the top of the heap powerful people not not fans of (Savage) Weiner - many of his listeners are low socio-economic status white guys who take comfort in someone pointing out they are not on the utter bottom of the food chain. But power is about the relationship between two people - if a mortgage broker steers certain people to loan products that are slightly more expensive, even if it's done unconsciously, it has a negative impact - and that mortgage broker has a bit of power over that person. Multiply that 1000 times and a seemingly small issue has a significant impact. I personally know of someone who told me that her husband, an apartment complex manager - not a high level job - was really good at preventing black people from moving into the complex because "if one black person moved in, their best tenants would all move out." That's power, and that apartment complex manager listens to conservative talk all the time, which reinforces his notions of people. (Incidently, I happen to know that even he doesn't like Savage).

Re oil - your description of who the US imports oil from is more or less along the lines of what I have heard, so we agree on the facts. And, certainly, we care because 'they' want to kill us, ostensibly because we are infidels. But, the Christians in this country consider Jews and Muslims and heathens (my ilk) infidels as well, but for the most part they do not want to kill them.

So to me, that explanation is not sufficient. Why do they want to kill us? And, it raises the issue of why we went into Iraq, since they were about the most secular Arab nation in the middle east. Because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Because they were collaborating with Al Q? Let's set aside the fact that there is no evidence of either of these things so far. That Iraq was secular makes the simplistic explanation 'they want to kill us because we are infidels' fall flat. Got to be other reasons. Same if they are collaborating with Al Q.

So, I look at the region and wonder what's different about it - what makes it of strategic concern that is different from other places in the world. Well, oil. They have the money to pay for weapons because of oil. We have significant business interests (all industries, not just petroleum) in the region because of oil. And, even if the US has other sources of oil, as the self-appointed world's only superpower, we have made it our business to make sure the flow of oil is not disrupted.

So, there you go. I think oil is a major reason why we are there. Which is also why I think energy conservation is a strategic, patriotic issue. Incidently, so does the US military, which was reported in the Wall Street Journal last week. Good article, you might want to check it out.

 

[TSBench]

I agree about the top of the heap powerful people not not fans of (Savage) Weiner - many of his listeners are low socio-economic status white guys who take comfort in someone pointing out they are not on the utter bottom of the food chain.

Well, that argument precedes Savage by about 300 years. It was one of the standard reasons given why segregation persevered in the South. If these folk get positive reinforcement from Savage, it's ok by me, because listening to Dr. Phil isn't about to change their minds because their minds can't be changed and they don't want to be changed. Their problems neither start nor end because of three hours of radio talk.

But power is about the relationship between two people - if a mortgage broker steers certain people to loan products that are slightly more expensive, even if it's done unconsciously, it has a negative impact - and that mortgage broker has a bit of power over that person. Multiply that 1000 times and a seemingly small issue has a significant impact. I personally know of someone who told me that her husband, an apartment complex manager - not a high level job - was really good at preventing black people from moving into the complex because "if one black person moved in, their best tenants would all move out." That's power, and that apartment complex manager listens to conservative talk all the time, which reinforces his notions of people. (Incidently, I happen to know that even he doesn't like Savage).

See above. Garden-variety bigotry is a condition that resides in the heart, and nothing is going to change it. Certain talk hosts, like Savage, may pander to it, but it has to be there first for it to be pandered to.

But, the Christians in this country consider Jews and Muslims and heathens (my ilk) infidels as well, but for the most part they do not want to kill them.

Well, I don't know anyone who considers Jews or Muslims or heathens infidels, except in sort of a technical Catholic Encyclopedia kind of way (and I know of nobody, outside of Muslim terrorists and some nutballs in Northern Ireland, who wants to kill someone because of their religion, or lack of it.) But that doesn't mean those 'infidels' are immune from criticism or from having someone disagree with them. If someone does criticize them, as long as they don't cross the line to inflicting bodily injury, what's the big deal? As they say, your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose. As does your right of free expression.

So to me, that explanation is not sufficient. Why do they want to kill us?

Because we are infidels.

And, it raises the issue of why we went into Iraq, since they were about the most secular Arab nation in the middle east.

Unless you were a Shia or Kurd, for whom secular vs religious was pretty much a distinction without a difference.

Of course, you can make that argument for Afghanistan, but nobody seems to think that was a bad idea.

Interestingly, it was the infidels in the west who defended and fought for the Muslim governments in Saudi and Kuwait, and when it came to protecting the Muslims in the Balkans, it wasn’t the UAE army which came to their aid, it was those infidel westerners, who happen to be still there..



Because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Because they were collaborating with Al Q? Let's set aside the fact that there is no evidence of either of these things so far.

Well, the intel on the WMD was believed by everyone, from Hans Blix to the Germans, French, Brits, and Italians. It was also believed by the one person in the Senate who had probably had more access to intelligence on the Middle East in general, and Iraq in particular, than anyone else there, and she voted to oust Saddam.

That Iraq was secular makes the simplistic explanation 'they want to kill us because we are infidels' fall flat.

Yes, it made no difference to them whether Iraq was secular, Muslim, or run by Seventh Day Adventists. But I don’t know anyone who’s carrying a brief that Muslim terrorism is driven by the war in Iraq. Now, they may have a case about their pals in Afghanistan, but nobody in the West seems to have a problem with that one.
But, yes, there are folks who interpret the Koran as advocating death to the infidels. Or even those who stray from the Muslim line. You may want to check with Salman Rushti on that one.

Got to be other reasons. Same if they are collaborating with Al Q.

See above.

The reason Muslim countries hate the west is because the infidel has been so much more successful. And that is because we’re not governed by, or observe, Islamic law. The Muslims have nobody to blame for their problems but themselves, but they don’t regard their predicament as a problem. In some Islamic schools, the only, and I literally mean only, item on the curriculum is memorizing the Koran.
Some refuse to teach any history of the world since the fall of the Caliphate in 1924 because history won’t restart until the return of the caliph (Al Qaeda actually is, and literally means, an attempt at that reinstatement .) They routinely throw away half of their brainpower because of the Islamic attitude toward women. The spend oil revenues on palaces, BMWs, and stipends to citizens to keep them in line (sort of a Middle East version of bread and circuses) and go out of their way to perpetrate a social system predicated on perpetual victimhood (Palestinians.) Nothing is ever their fault. And what has it achieved for them? Nothing worthwhile has come out of Arab lands in 1100 years, except for oil. One company, Hewlett Packard will apply for more patents this month than the entire Arab world has in the last two decades. They’ve become almost totally dependent on outside assistance to run their countries. I’ve been to the Middle East twice since 1990, and in places like Bahrain and Saudi you can’t find a plumber, electrician, or any tradesman or technician who isn’t either a Filipino or South Korean. They even contract out their soldiers and airmen.

There isn’t a problem in the Arab world which couldn’t be solved with a little democracy, a little secular government, and a lot of oil money (sort of like Israel, except for the oil part), Somehow, I don’t think that the current policy of referring to the US as the ‘Great Satan” and blaming their problems on the Israelis and the West. while waiting for the resurgence of the Ottoman Empire is going to be the path to success.

So, I look at the region and wonder what's different about it - what makes it of strategic concern that is different from other places in the world. Well, oil.

Well, if you look at a map, you’ll also see that there are some strategic points of interest, plus choke points, and important features such as the Suez Canal. The only economic feature of the entire area is the oil (what’s the old joke about how the Jews wandered in the desert for 40 years and managed to settle in the only area without oil.)

They have the money to pay for weapons because of oil.

They only have money to pay for ANYTHING because of oil, and the only reason they have that is because westerners managed to find a way to get it out of the ground for them. The three biggest customers for US arms in the Middle East are Israel, Saudi, and Eqypt. They buy are what we sell to friendly countries, and consist of big ticket items, such as C-130 cargo planes and anti-aircraft missiles, which are either conflict neutral or defensive, and F-16 fighters, which are also used mostly for defensive purposes.

We have significant business interests (all industries, not just petroleum) in the region because of oil. And, even if the US has other sources of oil, as the self-appointed world's only superpower, we have made it our business to make sure the flow of oil is not disrupted.

Ok, no problem with that. But guarding the economic health of itself and its world trading partners is a strategic interest of any country, and would, when you think of it, be reason enough to go to war rather then letting your economy be crippled. But that isn’t the reason the US went into Iraq or Afghanistan.

So, there you go. I think oil is a major reason why we are there.

Which would seem to be counterintuitive, since it is a hell of a lot cheaper to buy oil than fight a war. The US participated in the “Oil for Food Program (the French and Germans, not to mention the son of a UN secretary general and son in law of a Canadian prime minister, participated in the “Oil for Palaces Program”) and could have just said ‘the hell with it, and ended the Iraq oil embargo. And Saddam could have spent his time with worthwhile projects like supporting terrorists and feeding folks into plastic bottle shredders.

Which is also why I think energy conservation is a strategic, patriotic issue. Incidently, so does the US military, which was reported in the Wall Street Journal last week. Good article, you might want to check it out.

I don’t think you’ll find anyone who disagrees with that (provided that energy saving device isn't spoiling the view from the helm of their sailboat.)

Regards,
TSB