|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:21 am Post subject: |
 |
|
As I thought, Savage was picked out of a hat cause he's white and conservative. Can't let any government list reflect reality:
| Quote: |
Emails written by Home Office officials privately acknowledged the ban on Mr Savage would provide 'balance' to a list dominated by Muslims - and linked the decision to Gordon Brown and Foreign Secretary David Miliband.
Now, correspondence released under Freedom of Information legislation suggests the banning of Mr Savage, whose real name is Michael Weiner, was based on a party political calculation made at the highest level of Government.
One message, sent by an unidentified Home Office official on November 27 last year, said that 'with Weiner, I can understand that disclosure of the decision would help provide a balance of types of exclusion cases'.
The documents include a draft recommendation, marked 'Restricted', saying: 'We will want to ensure that the names disclosed reflect the broad range of cases and are not all Islamic extremists.'
|
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1202169/US-shock-jock-Savage-targeted-balance-wanted-list.html
How absurd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wasn't it alleged back during the SARS panic that Toronto was put on the WHO's no-go list just so that China wouldn't feel that they were being singled out? I seem to recall some Canadians making this claim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is a transparent political measure aimed at giving the illusion of balance; valueless, as it's just as transparent to those it's presumably meant to appease; and with potentially damaging repercussions should any future administration decide to analyse the criteria on which the decision was based and apply them to every other shock jock or radical preacher out there.
The principle of free speech should not be taken lightly. It would be nice to see a bit more commitment to democratic priniciple from the people in power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Geert Wilders may not enter the UK. Still. Yet:
| Quote: |
Anti-Semitic Saudi chief imam feted in London
Senior cleric of Mecca's Grand Mosque speaks at East London Mosque
Sermon in Whitechapel on Tuesday 4 August
London - 4 August 2009
Despite his sectarian, racist incitements that Jews are "scum...rats...pigs and monkeys," the chief cleric of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Sheikh Abdul Rahman al Sudais, has been welcomed and invited to preach at the East London mosque in Whitechapel tonight, Tuesday evening, 4 August 2009. |
http://tinyurl.com/n3ccrw
I guess he should be given welfare and a megaphone. Maybe be invited to speak at a feminist anti-racist conference.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/113182/Take-it-easy-on-Muslim-extremists-police-told
| Quote: |
| POLICE will be ordered not to charge Muslim extremists in many hate crime cases � to stop them becoming more militant. |
Some are more equal than others. I'm sure this will go over well. All the state, BBC and Guardian need to do is call the BNP racist and the society will stay civil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MollyBloom
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Location: James Joyce's pants
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wuzza wrote: |
He has made disparaging comments on pretty much every ethnic group, including autistic children.
|
Actually, you are incorrect about this. The autism thing with him was how he disagreed that doctors automatically stick kids with any symptoms on drugs. He strongly supports other forms of treatment, especially for autistic children. His problem is with the way doctors/pharm companies act nowadays, NOT the children. He doesn't want to see 3 year old kids misdiagnosed and given massive amounts of drugs, which is what is happening a lot lately. There were other controversial statements about that show, but of course they were taken out of context (wikipedia included). His other point was that parents shouldn't be so quick to solve all problems with drugs... if there weren't so many broken families and latch-key kids left home...sometimes kids just need attention from their families..things along those lines.
Actually, I know a few families that had children misdiagnosed as "autistic" and oh, gee whiz, the parents fight all the time, don't pay any attention to the kids, etc.
Did you know he holds master's degrees in medical botany and medical anthropology and he earned a Ph.D. from the U of California, Berkeley in nutritional ethno-medicine. He also has written books on herbal medicine and homeopathy. It's not like he is just spewing off about something; he has knowledge of medicine.
Something else that was left unmentioned was during the show, a lot of callers, conservative and liberal, were complaining about how people in America abuse the welfare system and suck the government dry while not working and giving birth to more kids so they get more money. That led to a conversation about other forms of government abuse with medications and disabilities.
Plus, did you ever notice he is most critical of WHITE men? No, because you probably don't listen to his show. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MollyBloom
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Location: James Joyce's pants
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Frankly Mr Shankly wrote: |
I highly agree with you on Savage and freedom of speech (especially as a UK citizen) but for the love of kibble, stop having your weepy Glen Beck moment, will you? |
That's funny, because Savage detests Beck and calls him "the hemorrhoid with eyes." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Michael Savage: "In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is."
Doesn't seem like it's actually possible to take that out of context. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MollyBloom
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Location: James Joyce's pants
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sundubuman wrote: |
He has many political enemies, particularly George Soros, who Savage DESPISES.
. |
Correct, and he actually despises most Republicans and conservatives that call themselves such. With that said, there are many liberals and democrats that he admires and respects. As another poster said, he has many listeners all over the world who are LGBT, Muslims, and liberals that are fed up with our country's lies and starting to realize what is going on behind the scenes.
Another poster said to listen to his show, and you should at least check it out for yourself so that you can comment accordingly. Not only does he talk about politics, but he talks about art, food, animals, and comedy, to name a few topics.
http://radiotime.com/program/p_20626/The_Savage_Nation.aspx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MollyBloom
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Location: James Joyce's pants
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
Michael Savage: "In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is."
Doesn't seem like it's actually possible to take that out of context. |
Quoting from wikipedia doesn't make a good case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is not reasonable to take one sentence from the entirety of a persons public record and use it as a hammer with which to destroy his reputation. That is thoroughly totalitarian behaviour.
Reminds me of the evil Rules for Radicals, a leftist manifesto on how to destroy a society from the inside out:
| Quote: |
RULE 1: �Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.� Power is derived from 2 main sources � money and people. �Have-Nots� must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
RULE 2: �Never go outside the expertise of your people.� It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don�t address the �real� issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
RULE 3: �Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.� Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
RULE 4: �Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.� If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity�s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
RULE 5: �Ridicule is man�s most potent weapon.� There is no defense. It�s irrational. It�s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
RULE 6: �A good tactic is one your people enjoy.� They�ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They�re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid �un-fun� activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
RULE 7: �A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.� Don�t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
RULE 8: �Keep the pressure on. Never let up.� Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
RULE 9: �The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.� Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists� minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
RULE 10: �If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.� Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management�s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
RULE 11: �The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.� Never let the enemy score points because you�re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you�re not part of the solution, you�re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.� Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.) |
Anytime a leftist goes after an individual and not an idea/institution I now automatically assume they are being deeply dishonest and nefarious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MollyBloom
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Location: James Joyce's pants
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Again, I'll say you have to listen to the whole show, not a short clip posted by a liberal website. Don't forget, he's not grouping all people with autism together; he's talking about a specific instance of people using the government.
But I'm curious about your opinion on the general topic, Rufus. How do you feel about autism and medicating people diagnosed with it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Molly argued that he was taken out of context. I'm simply arguing that it seems an incredibly hard quote to take out of context. I mean he literally says "that's what autism is", maybe he misspoke, and maybe it was hyperbole saying "99% of cases". He tried to clarify his points but I don't believe he apologised directly for them.
So I think Wuzza's original statement that "he has made disparaging comments [about autistic children]", is totally valid.
Obviously some kids are diagnosed with autism when they don't have it, or they have a mild form of it. Mental illness isn't 'on' or 'off'. The problem I have with his comments are that they supply a negative view of '99%' of kids with autism, this follows on to views about ADHD etc. And I also believe it is generally better to believe a child may have a mental problem rather than generalise and assume a large proportion don't (as Savage did). But regardless, drugs aren't the answer, but this is OT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| Molly argued that he was taken out of context. I'm simply arguing that it seems an incredibly hard quote to take out of context. I mean he literally says "that's what autism is", maybe he misspoke, and maybe it was hyperbole saying "99% of cases". |
I've never heard his show. In fact, I was not aware of his existence prior to this dustup, so I'll not comment after this. The medium of radio is one where the host is speaking for hours a day, often being sensational to keep the attention of the listener. It would seem reasonable to look at the overall thrust of his opinions rather than specific quotes here and there.
Also, the Rules for Radicals I posted above actually doesn't in the slightest exclusively apply to those on the left. Michael Moore, Chomsky and others would take issue with that, strongly. While I enjoy a little character assassination from time to time on message boards, I am more and more hostile with every passing day to the ad homonyms that dominate public debate in North America. End rant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not bothering to read all the pages of this thread, but...
Michael Savage is an @sshole, but for him or anyone else to be denied freedom of movement from one democratic nation to another on account of "controversial views" is disgraceful.
By all means contain the jihadists or their western counterparts (inciters of actual violence, that is) but let the casual bigots and blowhards go where they want. Otherwise, everyone else's freedoms are jeopardized.
I hate to say it, but Britain and much of Europe suffer from not having a written constitution with speech freedoms guaranteed by it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
