Case studies in wingnuttery- Savage edition

So, I thought I was having a pretty horrific day yesterday until a friend alerted me to this NPR segment that is just breathtaking. Let me explain. On Tuesday, right-wing bigot Michael Savage was inexplicably invited to appear on Talk of the Nation after it was revealed that Savage had been banned from entering the United Kingdom. Yeah, just take a moment to savor the hilarity of this. Savage is in good company since included on this no-entry list were two leaders of a Russian skinhead gang, ex-KKK Grand Wizard Stephen ‘Don’ Black, the Phelps Church and Hamas terrorists. In making this decision, UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said the following-

Coming to this country is a privilege. We won’t allow people into this country who are going to propagate the sort of views… that fundamentally go against our values.

Can we give her a medal already? Predictably, Savage’s NPR appearance was absolute mayhem with his rants about those crazy Britons and their bad food and even worse teeth and of course, those intolerant liberals. Coz you know, the real tragedy here isn’t that Savage is a hate-filled bigot who spews racist/homophobic garbage to millions of listeners and actually gets paid a shit ton of money to do it. Yeah, we crazy liberals with our la-la views about tolerance and respect. The best part of the interview comes at 6:44 when a listener calls in and what follows is just….well, spectacular. Here’s a rough transcript-

Caller: Uhh, if you listen to Michael Savage, if every time he says Islam or Muslim, you insert either Jew or Christian, he would be off the air in one day. I’ve had Muslim…

Savage: Wait a minute, I don’t want to listen to this foaming lunatic. I came on the air to give you an opinion, not to listen to someone in pajamas in a mental asylum in Iowa…

(Crosstalk)

Savage: No no, you listen to me, you’re a nobody and I’m not gonna talk to you. Now, Neal, if you’d like to continue the discussion, I’ll do so. Otherwise I have more important things to do than talk to someone in pajamas in an institution in Iowa. 

Neal Conan: Then go do them. 

Savage: Thank you (hangs up). 

Umm, wow? Now, the irony here is that while Savage blathers on about free speech, he reveals his own intolerance of speech that may differ from his, like with the poor caller. But yeah, you aren’t a real conservative unless you’re a total hypocrite. See, what Savage means is that free speech is protected only if it’s his nonsense. Everyone else can just shove it. Now, instead of retreating to the cave he apparently dragged himself out from, Savage is doing what any rational right winger would do- sue Britain, of course. Yeah, that’ll show them! You know, just this once, I would like to see narcissists like Savage expend the energy they commit to feign outrage at alleged indignities like these and actually give a shit about something legitimate, like you know, the war in Iraq or poverty. But this means that Savage would have to display some intellectual honesty and we all know that’s a losing proposition.      

-Indira

One big gay family

My column this week is all about the hateful legacy of James Dobson, founder of the equally pernicious Focus on the Family, a far-right Christian organization. Dobson stepped down as the Chairman of the group recently and it remains to be seen what the future of the group will be.

Anway, in the column, I briefly mentioned a children’s educational video featuring the lovable SpongeBob Squarepants that Dobson protested due to its promotion of “homosexuality” and “tolerance,” since we all know that the two are truly heinous character traits. Incidentally, the video was created by the We Are Family Foundation in order to promote multiculturalism and tolerance after the 9/11 attacks, not that this matters to whackos like Dobson.

Well, I was able to dig up the video from 2005 and it is posted here for your viewing pleasure. I must warn you though that watching this may result in catching teh gay. A gold star for those who can actually spot SpongeBob.

-Indira

Q: Why do women hate El Rushbo?

A: Hmm, maybe it’s because he’s a misogynistic ass.

Seriously. Very few Republican dudes have spent this much time hating on women so I’m speechless at Rush Limbaugh’s convening of a “female summit.” The idea of a summit comes after a new public opinion poll found a huge gender gap in the radio talk show host’s favorability ratings.

46% [of American voters] have a positive perception of him with 43% viewing him negatively. There is a massive gender gap in those numbers, with 56% of men but only 37% of women holding a favorable opinion of him.

My question is, who are these 37% of women and what medication are they on? Limbaugh, however, feigned concern for the ladies.

Be ready at any moment for me to declare the summit officially underway, and we will take calls only from women who want to seriously discuss the proposition of this giant gender gap that I have, and what I could do to close it. In other words: What could I do to attract a higher favorability rating among more women in America? I own the men, and what must I do now to own women? And who better to ask than women?

Now, granted I’m not the target audience for tripe like his but nevertheless, I would humbly suggest the following. Stop calling women ugly and mocking their appearances, referring to rape survivors as “hos” and claiming that we “ask” for sexual harassment and of course, treating us like inanimate objects.

Tune in for next month’s summit- why do minorities hate Rush Limbaugh?

h/t- feministe

-Indira

Some thoughts on General Pace

A few days ago, the Bloomington Faculty Council at IU passed a resolution “regretting” that General Peter Pace had been appointed the Poling Chair, a prestigious leaders-in-residence program offered by the Kelley School of Business. Pace’s appointment was deemed controversial because of his bigoted views on homosexuality. In a Chicago Tribune interview, he said the following-

My upbringing is such that I believe there are certain things, certain types of conduct, that are immoral. … I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.

My opinion has always been that it was a pretty dickish move to appoint Pace, mostly because it was a slap in the face to GLBT students in the Kelley School. I’ve actually met Pace and in our conversation, he came across as very funny and interested in my lowly college life, not the caricature associated with him. Still, his appointment was a mistake but I’m not sure the BFC resolution accomplishes anything.

That being said, there was one argument being propounded by detractors of Pace that I found interesting and it had to with race. Even one of our Indiana Daily Student op-eds made the claim that if Pace was a racist, he wouldn’t have been appointed to the Poling Chair. Coz you know the gays have it so much worse than the blacks. How I loathe such arguments!

There are two problems here with the if Pace was a racist argument, the more obvious one being that it proposes some sort of oppression hierarchy, where the discrimination faced by gays is far more acceptable than that faced by blacks. The other issue here is that such an argument assumes that racism has officially ended and that only a fool would admit to harboring racist sentiments. False on both counts. I’m not about to engage in some oppression Olympics myself but suffice to say that the legacy of racism remains etched in our institutions. To assume that we are somehow less tolerant of racism is to dismiss the vocalized incidents of racism, whether it be the highly charged NY post cartoon or the acts of violence directed against undocumented immigrants. Moreover, I would contend that minorities are often taught to internalize bigotry in order to appease the racist structures around them. So, it’s not that racism has decreased, it’s that minorities don’t want to talk about it for fear of appearing too whiny.

When gay rights activists endorse the whole racism vs. homophobia debate, they are also denying the intersection of oppression. In doing so, they are silencing the voices of GLBT individuals who identify as people of color and the whole point here is to work together, not against each other.

And while we’re at it, just replace the word gays with white women in this post and I’ve just written on the failings of second wave feminism as well.

-Indira

Post-Racial America

Remember, after we elected Barack Obama, everybody was twittering about the end of racial barriers in America? Yeah, not so much. Today, the New York Post published a cartoon referencing Obama and the stimulus package, offensive even by the Post’s disgustingly low standards.

Where to begin? On matters of fact alone, the cartoon is grossly inaccurate. While it is true that Obama is the public face of the package, he’s not the author and never purported to be. More problematic though is the imagery. Depicting a black man as a monkey while two police officers stand over him with a smoking gun? Not cool and incredibly racist. Instead of apologizing for publishing this nonsense, the NY Post blamed the furor on all those whiny, over-sensitive minorities.

Col Allan, the Post’s editor-in-chief, said the cartoon “is a clear parody of a current news event.”

“It broadly mocks Washington’s efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist,” Allan said in a written statement.

I love that we’re so past racism, we don’t even need to acknowledge it any more. It’s nice living in post-racial America.

UPDATE: Here are ten more disgusting cartoons from the loathsome cartoonist Sean Delonas.

-Indira

No love for PETA

My latest piece about my disdain for animal rights groups, particularly PETA, is up. I’ve written about this issue before so some of the material will be familiar. An excerpt-

In 2005, PETA launched a nationwide tour, “Are Animals the New Slaves?” The campaign compared the lynching of blacks to animal cruelty and juxtaposed images of black men hanging from trees with pictures of slaughtered cows. In response to the controversy, the group’s founder, Ingrid Newkirk, released a statement titled “We are all animals, so get over it.”

Just two years earlier, PETA launched a campaign equating animal slaughterhouses to the Holocaust.

Most recently, PETA’s ads have featured women in various states of undress as they extol the benefits of vegetarianism, achieving the bigotry trifecta.

Therein lies the issue that animal rights groups often forget – there is a moral and ethical difference between an animal and a human being. Most people recognize this; we wouldn’t hesitate between saving a drowning woman and a drowning cat, and that’s a good thing. To even suggest that the lives of black people or Jews are comparable to that of an animal makes a mockery of the oppression these groups claim to be fighting.

Read the whole piece here.

-Indira