A portion of radio-host Michael Savage's commentary on the tsunami disaster:
"I wouldn't call it a tragedy. ... We shouldn't be spending a nickel on this."Some other quotes: "This is more a UNICEF deal, it's a U.N. deal, it's a Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, George Soros, Bill Clinton bleeding-heart-liberal deal. I don't want to send them any money. . . Many of the countries and the areas in these countries that were hit . . .were hotbeds of radical Islam. Why should we be helping them destroy us? . . . I truthfully don't believe in foreign aid."
This chucklehead is called a conservative. There's nothing conservative about this idiocy. A joyless, hyper-libertarian sect might make such statements, but not conservatism.
After all, it's conserving the mores of the Western, Christian heritage. The sacredness of human life, the duty to help the helpless, the justness of giving to the needy, this healthy humanism is what we're preserving. Find the Good Samaritan ethic anywhere in Savage's comments.
Conservatism shows respect for the collected wisdom that's accrued in custom and tradition over the ages -- what C.S. Lewis calls the Tao. Compassion, aid to the needy and the preservation of life run through the Tao. Savage jettisons this in favor of Ayn Rand's cold-blooded new morality. Fortunately, the rest of the conservative world has been very proactive in supporting tsunami relief.
Conservatism is warmer, deeper and more human than the sterile individualism Savage is selling. Allowing him to be one of our spokesmen both perverts the movement and plays into every false stereotype the critics make about us.
We justly critique the Left for embracing the fabrications and betrayals of Michael Moore. But we need to keep our own house in order as well.
Welcome, Insta-Peeps! Feel free to browse the rest of Le Sabot for first-hand Ukraine updates, conservative politics, and thoughts on gentrifying the Christian ghetto. :-)
Posted by Discoshaman at janvier 9, 2005 12:48 AM | TrackBack
..Disco,I wont defend these exerts being reported.I missed this particular show so my comment would be totally an opinion.The one thing I will say Dr. Savage is far from an embarrassment.He does have a staunch opinion of self reliability,free from government meddling,excuse me but is that not what a libertarian position is suppose to be.His NYC upbringing is obvious,brash,in your face,but refreshing to the simplicity of the conclusion he normally inspires.To convey the opinion that he is not a compassionate man is ludicrous.His views insire folks not to rely on the government to be your salvation,do it yourself.I hope he will come here and explain his position on this issue.
Not sure where this came from but my gut is telling me its from and extreme liberal left position that the government is the answer to everything.Sorry I am of the opinion in most cases government is only an impediment.
..Media Matters..shessh I certainly nailed that one..Disco,its your right, but these folks are sooo far off the page..at warp 9,(: it would take eons just to reach the edge..."BE HERE OR BE NOWHERE"..M.S.
Posted by: Rob_NC at janvier 9, 2005 03:14 AMRob-
I'm not crazy about the source, either. But if they were fake quotes, Savage could hit them for libel. I believe the source, despite my personal feelings about them. Here's some more of what Savage said:
"It is the Savage Nation out here on the West Coast. We've had rain for five days. We have another five days of it. I need some aid right now. International aid. Because I may be suffering from seasonal affective disorder if this keeps up. Maybe I should go to the U.N. [United Nations] and see if I can get some special psychotherapy and sun lamps."
Remember back to how you felt after 9/11. Remember the shock, the sick anger, the desire to add an extra hole to the head of each person involved in killing 3,000 Americans.
Now think about what you would have felt if some commentator had made a remark as flippant and dismissive of America's suffering after the attack as Savage made above.
The tsunami killed 50 TIMES as many people. You say it's ludicrous to call him uncompassionate. I disagree, at least in the context of these remarks, which is the context in which we're speaking.
"You could argue, maybe this is God's hand, because some of their brethren struck Christian America. Maybe God speaks the truth but waits. Seeks the truth and waits. I don't know. You could argue: God struck them. Now, I don't argue that because I'm not a theologian."
THIS is who we need for a spokesman? Isn't Falwell already embarrassing enough?
You: "He does have a staunch opinion of self reliability,free from government meddling,excuse me but is that not what a libertarian position is suppose to be."
Perhaps it is. But that's the whole point of my post -- conservatives will be blamed for these comments. But these aren't conservative ideas. And even if they were libertarian, the spirit with which they were said is calculated to bring more harm to his cause than good. If his opponents were paying him he couldn't have chosen more damaging words, it seems to me.
You: "Not sure where this came from but my gut is telling me its from and extreme liberal left position that the government is the answer to everything."
You're not sure where what came from -- Savage's comments, or mine?
Anyway, I never like to tick off a friend or a reader. But every movement needs to police itself, and I'm going to criticize things on the Right which are off-base. Maybe Savage isn't a universal embarrassment, I'll certainly yield to your experience in that. But these comments have made him into one for the time being.
Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 9, 2005 03:40 AMSavage's local station in Los Angeles - KRLA - has been running those as a promo for his show. I'm SO glad KRLA has given us back Hugh Hewitt from 5-6, and delayed Savage. He's an embarrassment - to conservatives, to Californians, men, English speakers…
Posted by: Richard R at janvier 9, 2005 04:45 AMSavage's local station in Los Angeles - KRLA - has been running those cuts as a promo for his show. They are very real. I'm SO glad KRLA has given us back Hugh Hewitt from 5-6, and delayed Savage. He's an embarrassment - to conservatives, to Californians, men, English speakers…
Posted by: Richard R at janvier 9, 2005 04:47 AMthey are not phoney or out of context quotes...Savage is savage and was thrown off his last station for being him... I just happened to run into him again and he was quite subdued...He has recovered now and viscous to everyont..
I can understand his point but....???
Yeah, but whats really annoying is a sitemeter box that opens on top of the article, without a close button, that displays no other information other than that there should be a sitemeter here.
Opera 7.54 final on NetBSD 1.6.2/x86.
I can't vouch for the actual quotes, but the parts that I can see do sound a lot like what he's been saying lately.
Posted by: anachronda at janvier 9, 2005 04:56 AMRob, your otherwise interesting comments are drawn way down by your appalling grammar. Either you don't know good English, or you just don't preview your posts. Please try to clean up your entries so that you can be taken seriously by your readers.
Posted by: Rojak at janvier 9, 2005 04:58 AMRight on! Savage's comments are out to lunch.
Posted by: Mark at janvier 9, 2005 05:07 AMMichael Savage inspires in me the same response Jane Fonda inspired in Clive James. Whenever I hear him espousing a position I hold, I immediately re-evaluate that position...
Posted by: Richard McEnroe at janvier 9, 2005 05:15 AManachronda-
I recently changed my template format, and am trying to get that darn sitemeter window out of the way. Until then, I can only recommend you try opening it in a different brower. :)
Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 9, 2005 05:17 AMI periodically hear Michael Savage's show if I happen to be driving while he is on. His primary focus is Islamofascists, a term he uses for the enemies of our nation. He does not hold all of Islam responsible for the attacks, but certainly questions why moderate Islam hasn't done more to repudiate the faction that seeks death and destruction - much in the same way that you, as a conservative, are repudiating his view of the tsunami disaster.
I heard a self-described liberal call into his show and pin him down on this very question. Michael's response was that he opposes ALL foreign aid, including countries friendly to the United States. He specifically included Israel as well.
So he is consistent.
And to say (or imply) that Michael Savage speaks for the right in the same way that Michael Moore speaks for the left is simply untrue. Did you see Savage sitting next to an ex-president at the convention? He gets nowhere near the same credibility or impact.
Savage frequently castigates the Bush administration also for giving in to political correctness regarding airport screening and the like. This is a view shared by a significant portion of Americans.
But his bombastic style, and self-righteous attitude, and frequent habit of insulting and hanging up on callers will never allow him to be considered a spokesman for anyone but himself.
It sounds like Savage is against aid to the tsunami victims, but to characterize that point of view as libertarian is, I think, a mistake. One can be against the government (i.e. coerced) aid, but in favor of individuals aiding the victims of such a catastrophe.
Posted by: James at janvier 9, 2005 05:21 AMSavage is a pig. Truly an embarassment to conservatives. It's difficult to smack-down a moonbat about Michael Moore or Al Sharpton as long as Savage and others like him allege to speak for those of us on "the right".
Posted by: Old Coot at janvier 9, 2005 05:29 AMJames-
That's why in my primary post I called it a hyper-libertarian position. This is more an Ayn Rand, altruism-is-evil sort of libertarianism. Creepy.
Go Lakers-
"And to say (or imply) that Michael Savage speaks for the right in the same way that Michael Moore speaks for the left is simply untrue."
No, but he is one of the top rated radio hosts, and it wasn't liberals that made him that way. He's not a spokesman to the same degree, but he IS a spokesman for the right. His ratings demonstrate this -- if conservatives were shunning rather than supporting him, he wouldn't be successful.
I'm not even calling for them to shun him, necessarily. I /am/ saying that these comments are anything but conservative, and that he should be called out for them. Healthy social movements have this sort of internal check going on all the time, to enforce a rough intellectual cohesion and to weed out elements that are destructive -- witness the expulsion of the John Birchers when they started calling Eisenhower a Communist.
Unhealthy movements DON'T have this sort of intellectual immune system. Witness the roll of shame that comprises the modern Civil Rights leadership, or the corrupt bosses which came to reign in the Labor Movement. I critique because I love. :-)
Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 9, 2005 05:30 AMSavage is not a conservative. you have to be human, first. I am convinced he is from an alien planet and sees humans as fodder for his species. :-)
Posted by: A.W. of Freespeech.com at janvier 9, 2005 05:37 AMYes, and did he say he opposed individual aid or all aid (let 'um die), or just governmental aid?
There are those among us who can make such distinctions.
Thou I personally agree with our Government's aid.
Leave Ayn Rand out of this. First, Savage is no "Hyper-Libertarian"; he constantly rails against the ACLU and is ultra-protectionist. (If it were up to him, Rand would've starved in Siberia rather than find fame and fortune in the US).
Second, Rand was only against compulsory charity (a contradiction in terms). She'd have absolutely no problems with someone, seeing the carnage in the Indian Ocean, giving for the cause because they wanted to improve the situation for their own sense of self-fulfillment. (If the givers were all honest, we would admit this as their motive also.)
By grouping Rand ans Savage toghther as spokesman some homogenous far right-wing, you've revealed your ignorance about what both of these people stand for!
Posted by: Protagonist at janvier 9, 2005 05:40 AMDiscoshaman,
Does he even claim to be a conservative, much less a spokesman for them?
Or claim to be a libertarian?
Are you actually claiming that through ratings, we determine who are spokesman, so that I can't even listen to someone without being rightfully called his apostate?
Your point about Michael Savage's ratings is true. Yet I would politely disagree that those ratings equate to being a spokesman for conservatives.
"Desperate Housewives" has good ratings. That doesn't make it a spokesman for my values.
Michael Savage makes sense on occasion. More frequently, he is harsh and unwilling to hear alternate viewpoints.
When I have discussions with liberals regarding radio hosts or television pundits (or blogs, for that matter), Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly are frequently mentioned. Michael Savage? Never. I mean, not once.
I wouldn't give him more credit than he deserves.
Posted by: GoLakers at janvier 9, 2005 05:43 AMI have to agree with James that it is entirely a mistake to categorize Savage as libertarian...even hyper-libertarian. Apparently you haven't heard him drone on and on about protecting HIS famed "borders, language, CULTURE." When it comes to domestic policy, he seems to rely heavily on the government to protect him and his ilk from the downfall of American culture due to the advancement of the "gay agenda" (whatever that is), etc.
Further, I hate to see Rand's name even mentioned in the same post as this guy...unless it is to point out their inherent differences. (ie. http://editorialreplies.blogspot.com/2004/12/blasphemy-is-strong-word.html)
Personally, I believe Rand would have supported aid for the Tsunami victims, as having a flourishing Asian market can only help the American economy and individual American businesses.
Posted by: Benjamin at janvier 9, 2005 05:44 AM"We justly critique the Left for embracing the fabrications and betrayals of Michael Moore."
The difference, is that Mike Savage is a comedian and makes no bones about it. His M.O. is to take a extreme positions -- something far different from MMs fabrications.
I didn't take notes during the show, but I believe the context was with regard to the US sending additional $$ (beyond the direct aid coming through our military) and he was making an audacious response to UN/MSM accusations that the US was slow and stingy in his response.
Frankly, my own instinctive response to the UN allegation was, 'screw them.' Michael just said it out loud.
dung.
Posted by: Moose Dung at janvier 9, 2005 05:44 AMprotaganist-
Thanks for weighing in. Savage didn't make any universal statement about it being wrong for individuals to give -- he said that he didn't want to send money. In your terms, his self-fulfillment didn't need to. He understands the "Virtue of Selfishness", in Rand's monstrous phrase.
As for his hyperlibertarianism, I'm speaking in the context of these statements -- in other words, in regard to his view of the role of government in spending tax dollars.
I'll also mention that I think Rand is a figure of such miniscule importance, that I'm not overly bothered if my exegesis was off on her exact position on altruism. She was the leader of an intellectual fad -- an ideological cult, and nothing more.
Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 9, 2005 05:53 AMMoose, GoLakers, Benjamin-
I have to hit the rack -- church in the morning. I'll let you take a few more pokes at me while I sleep, and I'll do my best to respond tomorrow afternoon. I have to write up a Ukraine update and get to bed.
It seems to me that people are reading WAY too much into the statement that he's a conservative leader. Please pick whatever term you think fits best to describe someone who claims (to the best of my knowledge) to be teaching conservative beliefs and to whom millions of people listen every day.
The term "leader" isn't central to my point -- namely, that conservatives need to critique their own.
If intellectual honesty isn't a strong enough motive, self-preservation should be.
Moose-
Did you read the article I linked? However "audacious" his points, he was being an idiot.
I agree with you about the UN's allegation. I'm putting together a post on it tomorrow. :-)
Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 9, 2005 06:03 AMMichael Savage is an idiot. He's like the Michael Moore of the right. Thank God he's not getting the same attention as Moore, or conservatives would be toast.
Posted by: Trippin at janvier 9, 2005 06:19 AMSavage did say it, and made no distinction between government aid and private giving.
His rationale seemed to be that some of the recipients were Muslims, and because Muslims attacked us on 9/11, screw the whole lot of them.
Savage tries to entertain by acting brash and outrageous. Sometimes he talks about himself and his life. He's a very strange guy, indeed.
No role model, that's for sure.
Posted by: Grumpy Old Man at janvier 9, 2005 06:29 AMI listen to Savage occasionally when I am out and about at night. He's pretty extreme, but certainly not a "hyperlibertarian". As someone stated earlier, his motto is "borders, language, culture" - and he lives up to it - expecting the government to fight a xenophobic culture war at home, and taking apparent glee in the hardships and failings of those abroad, as if others failings strengthen our cuture and society here at home.
His motivation for opposing aid would be based on a zero sum view of government resources, rather than on any particular devotion to limited government. As a libertarian, I too, have an opposition to tax dollars being requisitioned outside of the constitutional confines established for our government. The best explanation for this rational can be found in a parable told by Davey Crockett, and oft cited by TRUE libertarian Ron Paul, here:
http://www.holtorf.com/Ray/NOT%20YOURS%20TO%20GIVE.htm
Let me qualify my comments by stating, that while, if you ask me "Should the government provide this relief aid?", I'd have to, in good conscience, say "No, they have no right to do so,", there are a myriad of other abuses and usurpations of authority that concern me much more than this, and thus, I am not about to go marching in the streets or anything.
Also, if I'm gonna espouse the theory that private charity needs to take care of this situation, I'm gonna have to pony up to make that a reality - and thus I have - along with 1 in 3 other Americans, I might add.
As for Ayn Rand, dismissing her as insignificant is thoroughly unreasonable. Sure, she too, was extreme, but her writings brought up some very valid and unaddressed points regarding the place of industry and the merits of capitalism and markets which may now seem trite, but were revolutionary at the time they were written. Would I want her anarchist society implemented in its purest form? Certainly not. No more than I want Marx's Communist utopia implemeneted. But it's folly to call either one of them a "figure of miniscule importance".
Posted by: rox_publius at janvier 9, 2005 06:35 AMSorry to rain on the parade a little, but Savage is no conservative. As at least one writer noted, he is a crank, and a self-proclaimed libertarian, and a bit off the edge.
His comments toward the entire Hmong community in northern Wisconsin after that whackjob killed six hunters were pretty reactionary. He pretty much asked the government to throw them all out.
His comments recently toward Bush and the Republicans in general have been somewhere between harsh and fighting words. Sure the elephant has deserved a swift kick lately, but not in the nuts.
He's a kook.
Posted by: Jerry Hurtubise at janvier 9, 2005 06:43 AMGood post. It's important for us disavow nonsense, even, or maybe, especially when, it comes from "our" side of the fence. I've never been able to listen him more than five minutes at a time. Just when I think I agree with him, he takes it too far. I also think some posters are being too nice to Ayn Rand. She was very right at seeing what was wrong with socialism, even brilliant in exposing it, but her alternative was as much a fantasy as "the workers paradise." I liked the comment recalling Falwell, he is an embarrassment, even though I agree with him sometimes. With this trash from Savage, we just need to put it out with the garbage.
Posted by: anselm at janvier 9, 2005 06:43 AMRox-
Okay, I really am going to bed. But this first:
"As for Ayn Rand, dismissing her as insignificant is thoroughly unreasonable. . . No more than I want Marx's Communist utopia implemeneted. But it's folly to call either one of them a "figure of miniscule importance".
I'm speaking about her place in history. Once her theories have led to a 50 year Cold War, caused Revolutions around the globe, and taken over much of the American university system, then I'll accept the analogy. Until then she's the founder of a philosophical system which had a mild vogue in the mid-20th and has remained around largely as an intellectual curiousity since then, the fires tended by a few acolytes.
Given the number of would-be prophets that come through this world, my point was that I think I can be forgiven if I've forgotten an aspect of her teachings. We aren't talking about Jefferson or Rousseau here, after all.
I read a good bit of her in college. She hated many of the same things I do. Her ideas are certainly not all bad. :-)
Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 9, 2005 06:46 AMDiscoshaman, the idiotic Savage didn't say "he" didn't want to send money. He said "WE shouldn't send a nickel." Which is as outside the ballpark of Rand as the government deciding for us that WE should send billions. Rand was against any government or fool deciding for individuals what to do with their property (in the name of "charitable giving" it's even more of a joke). Rand was in favor of, you know, actual charitable giving. Strictly speaking, nobody gave anything when it comes to what the government did. It TOOK money and then redistributed it without the consent of those who created that wealth. The virtue of selfishness here being that without your selfish choice to volunteer aid for your own reasons by your own volition, we're not even talking about "virtue" at all. You don't get credit for virtue (or blame for vice) when you are forced to do something without your consent.
Personally, I think that global-scale catastrophes are an exception to the rule, because they are an exception to nature's rule. I don't mind the government pledging the money. I don't have a problem with it, so it comports with my wishes. Michael Savage does have a problem with it, but he has no choice in the matter. Where's the virtue in his "contribution"? Where's the virtue in mine? Neither of us had a choice in the matter. (Unless we consider it a virtue that someone whose idea of morality is different from ours should have his money taken away and "donated" to causes we believe in.)
Anyway, you don't understand Ayn Rand, I'm afraid.
Posted by: Red Rover at janvier 9, 2005 06:49 AMSavage is a barbarian, at best.
He was fired from his national television show on MSNBC when, during an argument, he referred to an on-air caller to his show as a "sodomite" and said he should "get AIDS and die."
He doesn't do conservatives any favors on the air. Rush, Hannitty, Hewitt et al are much better for us than this pre-evolutionary simian.
Posted by: Tim at janvier 9, 2005 06:57 AMRed-
"Anyway, you don't understand Ayn Rand, I'm afraid."
I appreciate you guys correcting me on this aspect. It was an offhand comment, and I can see now that I've forgotten a lot of what I'd learned of her (it's been a few years since Uni.) I think her system is off in other aspects, but I'm happy to grant you the point when it comes to compulsory charity. Cheers. :-)
Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 9, 2005 06:58 AM"Once her theories have led to a 50 year Cold War, caused Revolutions around the globe, and taken over much of the American university system, then I'll accept the analogy."
I'll happily concede the point.
Posted by: rox_publius at janvier 9, 2005 07:03 AMDiscoshaman:
Is it wrong for Savage to fail to give money to save ten good samaritans? A hundred? Thousands? Millions? If his fortune is drained by doing so, is he morally obligated to earn more? If he fails to spend 100% of his life's effort to save every samaritan he can, is he still "immoral" and "selfish"? What reimbursement or incentive does Savage receive from doing so? More importantly, how is Savage to live when he gives everything he owns away? Finally, if all society lived under this moral code, what would be the product, except that all resources would flow to the most incapable, incompetent and undeserving?
The need of one person, with no other reimbursement or consideration, cannot alone be made to expunge another. Otherwise you are left with moral system where the need of others--an infinite and nebulous "wishing well"--becomes an absolute imperative, a first mortgage on someone's right to exist.
Now, in case you're wondering, I'm not an Objectivist, but a Christian sympathic to Rand's arguments. I believe in biblical agape, that every human life has innate value, and that every reasonable person--recognizing that value--would work to protect that value. However, there is a limit to human value and how much we are suppose to love someone. As proof, consider that Jesus taught us to love God with all our heart/soul/mind/body, but to love our neighbor only as much as ourselves. We're to love God totally, and love people less than totally. The altruistic moral system would basically give our neighbor the worship that God deserves, an idolatry of bums and tramps.
In other words, there are limits to how much one person should give to preserve another, and not all people are deserving of our aid. In a limited sense, Savage may be wrong for not giving, in that he would allow the destruction of people who are of value to him--if nothing else, for the aesthetic loss of people of beautiful, God-breathed human beings. The best metaphor I can think of would be someone who fails to contribute to the neighborhood beautification society, and see the value of his house drop as a consequence.
However, the immorality of his actions must be defined by the loss to himself. If we define the immorality by the lost to "our neighbor", standing alone, then we invent the moral code wherein we become, not our neighbor's keeper, but our neighbor's slave.
If you haven't read any Rand, I highly suggest you do so. There is a huge chasm between what Rand said, and what people think Rand said. Her writings firmed up alot of ideological loose ends and free-floating assertations I held to be true. Her philosophy has much more in common with Christianity than either she or Christianity knew about.
Posted by: Protagonist at janvier 9, 2005 07:08 AMI listen to Savage because he's on my drive time, but I frequently have to bail out to NPR, of all things. He just makes you feel dirty if you have any inkling of conscience. You hit the nail on the head when you put him in the Rand camp. Whittaker Chambers made similar points in his famous review of Atlas Shrugged for National Review many years ago.
Posted by: Hunter Baker at janvier 9, 2005 07:13 AM"More importantly, how is Savage to live when he gives everything he owns away?"
Which is, in essence, Rand's argument: we have no moral compunction to give anything to others, though we are free to do so if we wish. A moral demand would be what Rand called a "blank check".
It's a straw man argument. Few ethicists have argued we have an unlimited responsibility to others. That doesn't mean we have a limited responsibility, within the confines of our means.
Still, as others have pointed out, Rand was not against charity, so long as it comported with one's values. Objectivists help other Objectivists all the time; the ones I knew during my Ayn Rand phase were quite generous to my ex-wife and I when we found ourselves in financial straits. With a mass tragedy, you can justify assistance based on the in-kind principle: if your nation faced such a devastating event, wouldn't you appreciate the help of others in rebuilding? And wouldn't they have a selfish interest in helping you rebuild and rejoin the global economy? Of course you would, and of course they would.
The interesting twist in all of this is that the Ayn Rand Institute recently released a fiery op-ed about the disaster, then had to issue a "clarification".
I often feel dirty when I listen to certain talk radio shows (the John and Ken show is another example). They love to cross the line in offensive, rude and crude ways, and when they succeed (when they manage to say something truly pervetely wrong) the radio station either forces them to weakly apologize OR uses the sound bite as a promo for the next week. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I wish more people would admit they're actually being voyeuristic listeners (and enjoying this crap) and (for the good of their soul) change the station. I know the choices may be slim...but then the Savage's (and John and Ken's) would be quickly replaced or at least consigned to time slots where the sun doesn't shine.
Posted by: Andy at janvier 9, 2005 07:43 AM***Content deleted on suspicion of trolling. Drop me an email if this is you, and you think I made a mistake.
Posted by: Brother Squirrel Roberts at janvier 9, 2005 07:45 AMDiscoshaman: you're a gentleman and a scholar, sir.
Posted by: Red Rover at janvier 9, 2005 07:53 AMThis has nothing to do with Rand, but helping your enemy during a war. His point is essentially that the same people who got hit by the tsunami are essentially the same people we are fighting in the war on terror. Aceh, Indonesia, is a hotbed of radical Islam, and is ruled by Sharia law. The people who live there would like to extend that to the rest of the world.
Basically, this is like helping the Japanese or Germans during WW2 if they had been hit by a natural disaster. Helping people who would kill you if they had a chance is generally not the way to win a war.
At this rate, everyone will be wearing beards and burkas and no one will fight back because it's not politically correct...
Posted by: JeremyR at janvier 9, 2005 07:57 AMMore times than not Savage makes a point drives to the absurd with over the top hubris strictly for shock value. Which in turn tends to irritate a lot of people part of his M.O. Looking at it from his position of insuring ones own show and viability makes a lot of sense, self preservation
Just another point of view.
Posted by: Chris at janvier 9, 2005 07:59 AMAll- Okay, I'm just going to be tired for church. It's too late to do that "sleep" thing.
Red Rover-
Ditto. :) Good to have you here.
Jeremy-
"Basically, this is like helping the Japanese or Germans during WW2 if they had been hit by a natural disaster. Helping people who would kill you if they had a chance is generally not the way to win a war.
Browse my archives, and you'll see that I'm a strong advocate of the War on terror. I continue to support the democratization of Iraq.
I think you're wrong here. I'm sure there's a great deal of anti-Americanism in the affected area. But that doesn't translate into them killing us, if they had the chance. I just spent two weeks in Egypt, a place with a much more consciously jihadist minority. I travelled freely there, and not a single person was so much as rude to me during my stay. And this despite my being open about my nationality.
The average person in any society wants to live his life in peace, and has no more desire to kill than you or I do. There are millions of these average people suffering right now, and we need to help them. We should do it intelligently -- giving direct aid to the individuals, rather than to politically unreliable governments. But we SHOULD help them.
I don't know your belief system, but Christ said to love our enemies.
Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 9, 2005 08:23 AMJeremy R.
The problem with your comment is that in WW2 we were fighting states. the GWOT is not against states, but rather actors. MOST states are quite benign in the GWOT. To the best of my knowledge (and I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong), the Indonesian government is NOT a major protagonist in the GWOT.
Zero Boss:
I'll concede it was a clunky argument, but a necessary one. The ethicists of which you speak will put an purely arbitrary limit on the compulsory aid one has to give to his fellow man, but the moral injunction they ask of people is still ends up being categorical and boundless.
"How much is enough to give to others?", I may ask. Suppose we place the lowest minimum, enough for them to biologically survive, and nothing more. Yet there are thousands around the world who would die but for me flying halfway around the world to help them.
"Then only the ones you can reach," the altruist may assert. Yet even then, it would still drain all my time, energy and resources to save them.
"Then only the ones you can reasonably reach," the altrust responds. But what is "reasonable" when we are talking about the all-important sanctity of human life. Enough to keep myself barely alive? Or some higher level of comfortable preservation, but nothing higher than that?
Even under such arbitrary rules, I would still face a moral universe where I am the slave of others, where strengths are punished and haplessness is rewarded, where self-fulfillment is paradoxically defined as the fulfillment of others, and where no one is allowed to reach his or her full potential because of the misfortune of others.
Posted by: Protagonist at janvier 9, 2005 08:46 AMI agree with Protagonist that the establishment of a moral duty to help others, or more broadly the ethics of altruism, has, in fact, written a blank check on tens of millions of lives that were extinguished in the last century in collectivist societies based on exactly that premise. It's not a theoretical slippery slope, it's a proven one. As soon as we conclude that someone's need confers a moral duty on those around him to give him their assistance, we have established an operating principle. When others need, you must give. Your freedom ends at another person's need. The requirements of others determine your freedom. That's but one banana peel away from an ethics of slavery, in which all moral acts, good or evil, are abolished and replaced with a compulsory substitute in which no individual has a choice in participating. An operative principle tends to assert itself, unless challenged as such.
Rand, by the way, was sympathetic to Christianity to the extent that it sees morality as the exclusive province of the individual, that it postulates that there is in fact such a thing as ethics (good and evil), and that its end is a kind of meta-selfishness (a virtue to her, remember) since it proscribes for individuals a path to their own salvation -- not a selfless objective, after all. In this sense, she believed, Christianity does not call for totalistic and nihilistic self-sacrifice for its own sake but offers a rationally self-interested motivation for moral behavior. Emmanuel Kant came along and claimed that if there was any selfish motivation in performing an ethical act then it didn't count as an ethical act: hence the birth of modern altruism with its anti-individual collectivist premise of ethics. Given the choice, Rand preferred Christianity.
(Just an interesting sidenote. I'll stop with the Rand now.)
Posted by: Red Rover at janvier 9, 2005 09:17 AMRed Rover, Protagonist etc have all weighed in on the Ayn Rand issue quite effectively, and it is refreshing to see Discoshaman admit that he was mistaken - shows an open mind, and a rational perspective. Not something you see in the MSM, is it....
Coming back to the main issue, I think its a mistake to think of Ayn Rand or libertarianism for that matter as 'insignificant'. I think the irony for conservatives is that the American leader who most clearly espoused the cause of individual liberty in the 20th century was none other than Ronald Reagan (even if his policies were inconsistent on that front).
PS And in a more mundane, day-to-day example, lets not forget that Greenspan was one of Rand's associates and wrote chapters in at least one of her books (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal).
Posted by: Rahul at janvier 9, 2005 09:29 AMI agree with Eric from ClassicValues.com regarding Dr. Savage. I firmly believe he is an "agent provocateur", his primary purpose is to provoke unrest within Conservative circles.
He is a former liberal, and as a liberal myself, I do not think he is the "real deal", that is, a real Conservative. He is troublemaker.
Posted by: Geneva at janvier 9, 2005 09:51 AMReagan, in fact, does mention in the latest book of his correspondences that he was an admirer of Rand. The editor of that book, Martin Anderson knew both Reagan and Rand quite well and considers himself lucky to have known "the two most influential people of the 20th Century." So I guess it's a matter of opinion. ;)
Posted by: Red Rover at janvier 9, 2005 09:54 AMAs to Savage: I've heard his show and I, too, get the impression Geneva and Eric got. Put it this way: if someone wanted to smear conservatives and cast them as the caricature the left paints of them, one could hardly think of a more (sustainably) effective way to do it than his noxious and thuggish interpretation of conservatism going out on the airways. I get the same feeling when I read comments at Lucianne.com -- some things posted seem like such crude Archie Bunker-like bigotry that images of liberals snickering as they tap their editorial sabotages into the discussion threads spring to mind. Maybe it's wishful thinking -- certainly there are yahoos in every crowd. But it sure fits the liberal playbook -- it's not as though such tactics are against their principles, since the ends seems to justify the means so often in their thinking (with the rationalized justification that rightwingers do the same thing). It's their "all's fair in love and war" attitude that begets the same kind of phenomenon even in prestigious news rooms, where bogus documents are broadcast as the genuine article on the eve of a presidential election.
In either case, when I see some comment on a conservative or pro-war website, for example, that weighs in on the war with something like "Let all the filthy Islamic rats burn!!!" I deposit into one of two recepticles: 1) A shameless plant who must distort his political opponents' views to make them match his distorted view of them or 2) a mad dog who doesn't represent any side of a civilized discourse.
Posted by: Red Rover at janvier 9, 2005 10:12 AMSays Rahul:"Red Rover, Protagonist etc have all weighed in on the Ayn Rand issue quite effectively, and it is refreshing to see Discoshaman admit that he was mistaken"
What I find interesting, is that none of those people are members of the "cult" (Objectivism). I have to say, that's some pretty good influence for a mere "intellectual fad".
Posted by: Seerak at janvier 9, 2005 10:54 AMSavage isn't the only Conservative Freakshow:
SCARBOROUGH: And, Anne, let me begin with you. I know that there are tens of thousands of people out there that are asking this question. If we are God‘s children and our God is a loving God, as you say he is, then how could God allow such suffering and death in Asia, 150,000 of his children right now killed? Some estimates, that maybe three, four times as many may be dead by the time they finish counting all the bodies. Is that a loving God that would allow that to happen?
ANNE GRAHAM LOTZ, ANGEL MINISTRIES:And, Joe, what is interesting about this, that this tsunami did not increase death. All of those people who died were going to die anyway.
SCARBOROUGH: Now, Jennifer Giroux, you believe that this may be a sign from God and this may be God punishing people because of their sins. Explain.
JENNIFER GIROUX, DIRECTOR, WOMEN INFLUENCING THE NATION: Well, you know, throughout history and reported early in the Bible, God has always used plagues, floods and natural disasters as a source of punishment.
'Scarborough Country' for Jan. 4
Link
Hah!
What's so inflammatory about that, Steve J?
Where the tsunami victims never going to die, but for the tsunami?
What Anne Graham Lotz has said is so true as to be trivial--there is nothing bad to be drawn from it!
Everyone dies. This is a simple fact. If not of one thing, then of another. There is no moral opprobrium deserved for pointing this out--only for what one makes of it.
Jennifer Giroux's comment is also trivially true, if you substitute her "history" with "the Bible".
In the Bible God continually sends floods and plagues and famine on Israel, generally for the sins of Israel's kings. The common people suffered, innocent and guilty alike.
Again, no moral opprobrium is deserved merely for pointing this out. It is what one makes of it that matters.
Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at janvier 9, 2005 01:00 PM
Hmm. What you seem to be implying, Gabriel, is that God punished the victims of the tsunami. Well, you don't SEEM to imply it, you're saying it outright.
Some problems with that:
A) Hubris; you're speaking for God
B) Children and babies
C) Christians on vacation
D) Moderates of all religions who are God-fearing practitioners of their faith, who do not wish death upon the followers of other religions (unlike yourself?)
E) All others
I suppose, if we are really, really lucky, God willing, a few terrorists, too, got killed in the the quarter of a million people who lost their lives.
I understand the need for there to be a reason for this to happen when thinking about God, but to catch all these different people in that net and condemn them all seems a bit un-Christian, don't you agree?
Posted by: Red Rover at janvier 9, 2005 01:26 PM"...if I've forgotten an aspect of her teachings..." then you would do well to not shoot off your impertinent mouth about her until you bloody get your facts straight.
It's the least you could do in service of the truth, unless you're not interested in that.
Billy Beck-
"then you would do well to not shoot off your impertinent mouth about her until you bloody get your facts straight."
Thanks for reminding me why I stopped going to Objectivist Society meeting back in university -- they were FULL of people like you.
Here's a link to Yahoo personals. You need to discover girls, or something.
Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 9, 2005 01:54 PMSee, now, that's where I wonder, in regards to Billy Beck, whether he's for real. That approach instantly tars Objectivism with surliness that would turn anyone off to Objectivism. We are left only to wonder: 1) is this someone trying to caricature Objectivists? or 2) is this someone who is not capable of civilized discourse. I suppose there is a third alternative: someone who came into the discussion without reading the thread and reacted to the first reference to Rand without understanding the discourse that has already transpired on that subject. Or a fourth alternative: Billy Beck is illustrating my point on purpose.
Anyway, this could be an illustration of the original topic of this discussion and the question of whether Michael Savage is a plant posing as his opposite to discredit it. This might be an example of the phenomenon IN ACTION!
Otherwise, I disavow this approach, as someone whose disagreements with Rand I consider minor, even though I do not consider myself "an Objectivist."
Posted by: Red Rover at janvier 9, 2005 02:06 PMRahul-
Greenspan -- the single Saint in the Objectivist holy book. ;-)
"I think the irony for conservatives is that the American leader who most clearly espoused the cause of individual liberty in the 20th century was none other than Ronald Reagan (even if his policies were inconsistent on that front)."
This is an irony how exactly? Considering that conservatives were in the forefront of the limited government and anti-Communist movements, I don't see how there's any irony here. And his beliefs on values issues were anything but Libertarian. Read "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation" sometime.
You've misrepresented me, incidentally. I at no time called Libertarianism "insignificant." The libertarian wing of the post-WWII conservative recrudescence was vital, and continues to be. But if you read the writings of the thinkers who created this renaissance, they were influenced not by Rand, but by von Mises, Hayek, and especially Nock. Rand was written out of the canon early, a passing reference to her by Reagan aside.
That said, I'll cheerfully allow that she had indirect influence. Her mind was powerful, and her writings were trendy during a formative time, and read enough to provide some small bit of flavor to the conservative/libertarian stew. So insignificant, but not overwhelmingly so.
Seerak-
"What I find interesting, is that none of those people are members of the "cult" (Objectivism). I have to say, that's some pretty good influence for a mere "intellectual fad"."
Actually, that rather proves my point. Arguably the second largest blog in the world posts a piece critical of her, and where are the Objectivists? You have a handful of people who don't even claim her philosophy pointing out a factual error. THAT'S big inflience? I imagine if Instapundit had posted an essay by me that was critical of Scientology, at least one Scientologist might have shown up.
Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 9, 2005 02:16 PMObjectivists and Randian fellow-travellers:
I have some objections to the woman's teachings, and doubt I would have wanted to go pub-crawling with her. But she's just not that big of a deal to me. I only criticized her because I thought it might be a good way to get Alan Greenspan posting on my blog, and I thought he would bring a zany, devil-may-care atmosphere to the place. Anyway.
I come in peace. You don't need to keep defending her. I'm very glad that the limited government movement has a militant wing to it.
Today's target was Michael Savage. I've posted some additional quotes by him in the early portion of this comment thread. If you'd like to weigh in on the merits of his commentary, please do.
One thing- I /am/ curious where you see his statements contradicting Objectivism. I just reread them, and I don't see the disconnect. Of course, I haven't slept, either. So if you can play nicely, please feel free to show me the contradictions between Savage's comments (follow the link in the OP) and Rand's beliefs. Thanks!
Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 9, 2005 02:33 PMHi Discoshaman,
I suggest that "the Objectivists" exist out there in a different way than most sects or disciplines or political affiliates do. What I mean by that is that if you really agree with the things Rand says, you wouldn't go about calling yourself "an Objectivist" and represent yourself as such. The whole philosophy is about judging for yourself with your own mind and is necessarily individualistic. It's about breaking away from the status of true believer or fellow traveler or good soldier in a cause you don't comprehend personally and claiming the right to understand and take control of your own choices. It's about reason, which is an individual-only activity that leads in an infinity of unpredictable directions. This much is what I've gotten from it, and I've gotten nothing like that from any other philosophy going today, just as a personal note. I'm quite persuaded by Rand's arguments. She's definitely worth more than a flippant dismissal (not that yours was flippant!) to any honest seeker of the truth, that's for sure, in my estimation.
So, in that regard and appropos to your argument, I guess I'm an Objectivist, as much as I'm a Darwinian, a Newtonian, an Aristotlean, etc. In other words, I agree with them. They make sense. Until and unless something makes more sense, I think they are right, with minor reservations. So count one "Objectivist" in the list of those who have responded, Discoshaman. Because this is probably the most "official" representative there'll be for this uniquely individualistic set of ideas, I'd wager.
-Red
Posted by: Red Rover at janvier 9, 2005 02:57 PMI think the best thing about Rand is the example she set:
A boyfriend (married) and a husband.
I'm going to have to talk to the first mate about this. (BTW such discussions are great training in learning how to avoid punches and thrown objects).
Actually, Discoshaman, I was wondering that very thing, until I followed the link above about the "clarification" the Ayn Rand Institute put out about their position on the tsunami aid. Very telling and interesting about "Objectivism" and counter-intuitive to it's widespread image, I think.
But I offered my support for the aid before reading that and after disagreeing with the Ayn Rand Institute's first "statement" on the issue. I certainly don't check with "Objectivist Central to find out what I should say, and that's why I think anyone who agrees with the fundamental ideas Rand expressed doesn't call themselves "Objectivist." It's the aversion to "group-think" in general that draws people to the ideas of Rand. Make of that what you will, I'm just trying to put down something honest on this subject, which I have seen too little of, in general. I think her influence, on intellectuals of every political stripe, is much bigger than you're likely to ever hear about for exactly this reason.
M. Simon:
There's a book coming out about that affair stuff timed for Ayn Rand's centennial celebration next month, exerpting her own journal entries about it and exactly what went down from her side of the story. Since that will be the first time her side of that whole story has been seen, reserving one's judgement on it may be warranted until it comes out.
Posted by: Red Rover at janvier 9, 2005 03:40 PMRed,
In this case I prefer the legend to the truth.
That way no reservations required. Judgement or otherwise.
:-)
Posted by: M. Simon at janvier 9, 2005 03:56 PMYou're probably right.
Posted by: Red Rover at janvier 9, 2005 04:02 PMRed Rover-
No, I meant from her works, I was hoping someone could show me where Savage's statement contradicted her philosophy. Because rereading it, I'm not seeing the disconnect. Remember, it was this original statement by me that got everyone up in arms:
"Savage jettisons this in favor of Ayn Rand's cold-blooded new morality."
Savage is essentially saying:
1. These particular people don't have a claim on our help.
2. It's tactically a bad idea to help these particular people.
3. The government has no business using tax dollars in such a way.
Now I conceded the point earlier, but now I'm wondering why. Again, this may be due to sleep deprivation, but I'm not so sure.
I consider myself pretty conservative - I haven't voted for a Democrat for 20 years, I was a poll-watcher for Bush this year - and I can't stand Savage. He's a big, fat idiot.
Posted by: DBL at janvier 9, 2005 04:10 PMI'm suffering from sleep deprivation, too. Night shift, and all.
But let me just quote some Rand on the subject of charity from the "Ayn Rand Lexicon" after I dust it off:
"The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance."
Those are Rand's own words on the subject.
Posted by: Red Rover at janvier 9, 2005 04:10 PMRed Rover-
I know, you all reminded me of that aspect of her philosophy earlier. But how do Savage's comments run afoul of this?
His comments clearly contradict Christian morality -- both in their callousness and their content. While not recognizing an unlimited duty to give to others, Christianity DOES teach that we have a profound duty to one another -- we ARE our brothers keeper, so to speak.
Given his comments both on the nature of government, and in recognizing no moral obligation to help the victims, he really does sound like the old girl.
As an aside, I appreciate the tone you've brought to the discussion. All of the Rand apologists, with one exception, have been great. :-)
Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 9, 2005 04:20 PMI appreciate the tone, as well. I think this discussion has been a model for others on how very different ideas can be discussed constructively, and you are the reason that that is happening here, so thank you, for that, first of all. Let's hear it for Discoshaman!
As for how Rand's ideas about charity differ from the devil-may-care, let-them-eat-cake insouciance of Michael Savage, or even the aggressive "they're islamic scum let them go to hell" attitude, I think that is very clearly countered in the link above where the Objectivists clarify their position. Innocent human beings stricken by a catastrophe warrant the mercy of those who can and want to help for the simple reason that humans value humans and regard humans as a value that should not be destroyed. Kind of obvious, but sometimes the "selfishness" behind "selflessness" is kind of obvious.
As to the "duty to one another" Rand was against it, fundamentally. Was she against helping one another? No, obviously, from the other quote. It was the whole DUTY thing, the idea that in order for you to be moral you must sacrifice YOU. That's what she rejected. Is that essential to religion? Well, many think so, and so Rand must be covered in calumnies, unfortunately, by some.
Her thoughts are worthy, however, of contemplation, I think. Coming from the implosion of horror that was the Russian revolution, she seems to have a special insight into the practical effects of certain ideas when taken to their extreme. Well, I shouldn't really speak for her, so here's a particularly relevant quote from Rand on the topic at hand for our consideration:
"It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others -- a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal...
"To view the question in proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism's terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste -- then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice, when the giver can afford it..."
On this basis, we may have expected more Hollywood stars than Sandra Bullock and Leo DiCaprio to pitch in a bit, but it's still up to them, and Ayn Rand would back up their decision not to donate to the tsunami victims even though they are the most able to give.
-Red
Posted by: Red Rover at janvier 9, 2005 04:58 PMWell, seeing as how I've never read any Rand, I'll leave that discussion to the rest of you. (Which has been quite well done, I might add.)
I no longer read the blog of the guy who inspired me to get off the fence and start a blog of my own. The reason is pretty simple. Most of what he began posting was full of anger, bitterness and hostility with a good dollop of nastiness thrown in. One day I realized that I didn't need to subject myself to that daily dose of bile.
Michael Savage is just the radio version of the same thing. I don't care what his positions are, I want no part of him.
Posted by: LittleA at janvier 9, 2005 05:17 PMExcuse me everybody, but what the hell does the tidal wave have to do with us? Savage makes an excellent point: must of our foreign aid is wasted on countries that a) hate us and b) the aid never gets past the ruling elites' Swiss bank accounts.
Why doesn't the 'Arab street' come to their aid? Where are their islamic brothers and sisters? You blowhards obviously should read Emerson's 'Self reliance' (1841): 'are these my poor?' The impulse of American isolationism has a longer history than Savage, and your critiques of him show ignorance and historical amnesia. I'm ashamed that many of you call yourselves conservatives. You're giving me a bad name...
Posted by: Jeff at janvier 9, 2005 06:28 PMMy opinions of Michael Savage aren't that different, as I wrote here.
Posted by: Bird Dog at janvier 9, 2005 07:05 PMJeff-
must of our foreign aid is wasted on countries that a) hate us and b) the aid never gets past the ruling elites' Swiss bank accounts.
This is too often true. I think it's ridiculous that during the Cold War our 2nd largest aid recipient, Egypt, voted over 90% of the time with the Soviets in the UN. It was ridiculous that our humanitarian aid sometimes propped up very evil governments and perpetuated the misery.
This is different. This is a one-time, gargantuan natural disaster. We can be of immediate help to people, and should be.
Why doesn't the 'Arab street' come to their aid?
They should. Just as they should have resettled the Palestinians by now, as the Israelis did with displaced Jewry. But a child dying of cholera in Indonesia shouldn't suffer for the wrongheaded policies of the Arab elites.
Excuse me everybody, but what the hell does the tidal wave have to do with us?
We have a carrier battle group in the area. We have giant transport aircraft in our arsenal. There is a lot of stuff needing moved, and a lot of people needing help. These people are "human beings." If you were to try acting a little more human yourself, you might catch a glimpse of why that's significant.
I'm ashamed that many of you call yourselves conservatives. You're giving me a bad name...
I think I'll just consider the source on that. :-)
Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 9, 2005 07:10 PMLittle A!
It's good to see you, man. I was wondering where you'd been. . .
"Most of what he began posting was full of anger, bitterness and hostility with a good dollop of nastiness thrown in."
Don't worry about that here -- we cut our bitterness with a 50-50 ratio of whimsy. Incidentally, it tastes great on shortcake.
Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 9, 2005 07:12 PMSure, Savage's remarks are "out there," but are they as far from the 'right' as some of DU's and MoveOn's remarks are from the left? I think not.
Conservatives often have a tendency to get "finessed" by liberals who frame the argument in their terms.
Mr. Savage may have stepped outside the bounds of "'William F. Buckley, Jr.' and 'Russell Kirk' conservatism," or, for that matter, even Randian Objectivism; that doesn't put him in the same boat with Attila the Hun.
He's made what I, and apparently all of you, consider to be a false equation: Terrorists come from the countries hit by the tsunami, therefore, we shouldn't help them.
Harsh? Yes.
Loopy? Yes.
Deserving of censure or banishment? No.
Let him rave -- he speaks for some people, no matter how few.
Let's not drag Ayn Rand into this.
Posted by: Randy at janvier 9, 2005 07:38 PMI used to listen to Savage regularly when he followed our great local afternoon conservative talkshow (on KVI). But now that he competes with it, I seldom listen. Also, over the months I have learned that you can never tell which Savage will show up. Some days he can be funny, witty, informative, etc. and others, well...previous posts have covered that.
I just wanted to make a few points that I don't believe have been mentioned above.
First, his conservatism. Savage came up with the phrase "compassionate conservative" several years before the Bush campaign used it. Savage very passionately expouses many conservative views: anti-abortion, enforce/reform immigration laws, against legalizing drugs, limited federal government, against PC hyprocracy, against special rights for gays and homosexual marriage, and more.
Second, because of many of his conservative beliefs, he would not fall into the Libertarian camp.
Finally, I found him to be weakest and most offensive when he talked about religion. His knowledge and understanding of the Bible are llimited and inaccurate and yet he speaks authoritatively. Often, he borders on blasphemy although I don't think he intends to. His statements about God and the Bible often come across as patronizing to his religious listeners. He's very intolerant of most Muslims who call in and really slams them if they try to justify their beliefs but ignore what is in the Koran.
One is left to conclude that Savage is, well, Savage. He's unique, usually entertaining, arrogant (regularly reminds you of his UCal PhD, that he's authored 15-20 books, his last two best sellers), and offensive to many. He's not afraid to take controversial stands, many which have cost him his job (MSNBC one of latest).
Several million listeners tune in each day to the Savage Nation because they agree with many of his ideas (and enjoy his humor).
However, I don't think we will ever have to worry about him being considered a legitimate spokesman for the conservative movement or the Republican party.
Posted by: Curt at janvier 9, 2005 07:42 PMFrank-
I'm curious, did you read the full article? I actually wasn't able to post some of the uglier stuff due to space considerations.
I'm not calling for us to drag him outside the gates of the conservative polis and stone him. I DO think that people should state clearly that this isn't conservatism, and that these were really dumb things to say.
Randy-
Heh. You're about 75 posts late with that comment.
Curt-
We've decided not to get hung up on the "leader" word, for the sake of conversation. Let's just agree that he's a high profile conservative, and that not all of those millions of people listening to him "get" his uniqueness. To many of them, he's A Conservative. If he's defining conservatism for groups of swing voters, this type of commentary is really detrimental -- not only morally, but electorally.
If someone like him had been my introduction to conservatism, I'd never have joined. Even if I thought his ideas had merit. He'd cause an "I'd be a Christian if it weren't for the Christians" style response in me.
You seem to be right about the religion stuff, btw. In the article he meanders on about judgment and drops in that God isn't omnipotent. This was probably news to both God and the Christians tuning in. . .
Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 9, 2005 07:54 PMMichael Savage isn't a Conservative -- he's a Nationalist.
His motto, which he uses to sum up his viewpoint, is "Borders, Language, and Culture".
He is also rapidly anti-free-trade.
He certainly doesn't represent the type of "conservatism" represented by say the National Review. He's much more Buchanan-ish. In fact, he makes Buchanan look like Hillary Clinton...
Posted by: Adam at janvier 9, 2005 08:09 PMSavage is certainly extreme, but you have put all of his remarks into the context of his belief that Western Civ is threatened with extinction.
What if Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan had been hit by natural disaster during the early years of WW II, when it looked likely the Allies would lose and be enslaved by brutal mass murdering fascists? Would we be issuing condolences and sending aid or cheering and sending more bombers? I don't agree that these places are comparable to where the tsunami hit, but viewed from that perspective Dr. Savage's comments are not that shocking. Islamofascism is certainly making some frightening inroads into Europe, not the least consequence of which is the return of anti-Jewish prejudice. Many people are waking up to the fact that "multicultularism" tends to translate as "dhimmitude" in certain Islamic quarters. While the vast majority of conservatives (myself included) don't share Savage's views, let's remember Churchill was also considered a warmongering savage in his time, and Neville Chamberlain the enlightened peacemaker.
Posted by: TallDave at janvier 9, 2005 08:20 PM
Most of the framers of the Constitution would be shocked and horrified that any money is taken out of the treasury for the purposes of charity. That is just plainly the case. I fail to see the morality in taking people's money by force to give it to others. Do you break into your neighbor's house with a gun, take their money, and send that to the poor? Would that be moral?
I think a better governmental case for aid can be made in this instance. We want to make sure that the region doesn't become destabilized.
Posted by: Geoff Robinson at janvier 9, 2005 08:27 PMEmerson is easily quoted out of context, for reasons which are immediately obvious if you have read his essay "Circles"--'. . .the way of life is wonderful, it is by abandonment. . .'--he saw consistency from one day to the next as a hypocritical virtue. (He is, for instance, frequently embraced as a fellow traveler by environmentalists because of his lyrical passages on the lessons we may find in nature, although by far his more consistent position on Nature was that Nature is the servant of man--she is the mirror of the individual, and her lessons to him are simply the lessons of his own nature reflected back at him.)
As for Emerson's views on charity and one man's obligations to another, certainly he would have agreed with Ayn Rand when she says (or has her hero Howard Roark say to Gail Wynand) 'I would die for you right now but I wouldn't live for you'. That is, I will not betray the commandments of my own nature in order to follow some abstract ideal imposed on me by society. Charity is, in Emerson's view, moral as long as it is in accordance with the command given by one's own individual, essential nature.
Emerson himself was deeply involved in the anti-slavery movement of his own day--though indeed, he often chafed at having to share his commitment with other people in the same movement, at having any external system of morality "packaged into convenient cakes" for public consumption make a claim on him. It was not charity in itself with which Emerson had any quarrel, but the imposition of charity on him by external forces. The only moral code to which Emerson was prepared to submit was that dictated by his own nature--and this he thought a severe enough taskmaster; as he said to anyone who thought this a lax rule with which to guide one's life, "Let him keep its commandment one day". As for the section of "Self Reliance" which you quote, Jeff, Emerson describes a situation in which he gives a coin to a beggar but instantly regrets it; he gave the beggar a dollar "but it was a wicked dollar" because it was not according to the dictates of his own nature that Emerson gave the beggar money, but rather out of societally imposed guilt.
But, of course, Emerson did not believe there was any intrinsic good in charity either--that much is true--since Emerson was, in fact, a true solipsist who denied the possibility of real sympathy between human beings. As he said in his essay "Experience", "The soul is not a twin birth"--there is only the individual at the center of the spherical mirror which is Nature, and perhaps Emerson's pantheistic God permeating both. It is, in the end, the sentiment behind every action and not the action itself which makes it right or wrong to Emerson--he was, after all, a Romantic.
I know few conservatives who would knowingly espouse this kind of radical moral relativism.
Posted by: alex at janvier 9, 2005 08:30 PMI would think that governments, by their very nature, would be rather offensive to the framework laid out by Ayn Rand, whose personal life did not nearly live up to the principals she laid out. (Yes, a cheap, irrelevant shot there).
Because governments exist largely on tax payments which are compulsatory, and tend to spend that money on things that at any one time are violating the desires of millions who contributed those taxes, it would seem tsunami aid is just one more thing on a long list, from roads, to school aid, to $500 dollar toilets, to funding same sex benefits (if on is in, say, San Fran).
Indeed to sit using Rand's paint brush to analyze the giving of aid by a government is a futile effort, for this is not the first, and will not the last, of any government trying to "do good" against someone's wishes; until we are quite ready to overthrow the government -and few of us are or really desire such an outcome- Rand is really of little importance in this discussion.
Additionaly, someone suggested that Rand and Christianity had a certain sort of affinity in terms of how they approach behavior. I would agree in that both systems are very much about the individual, and making decisions (right decisions in Christianity's case) via freewill.
However, I would suggest it is a total distortion of Christianity to suggest that actions it asks us to take are necessarily (and rightly) motivated by selfishness (as in: I must do good so that "I" can get to heaven).
The selfishness found in Christianity is more a byproduct of human nature, rather than reflective of Christianity itself. In most cases, we are supposed to be freely choosing "good" mainly to benefit others, and to please God, regardless of whether we get any immediate (or longterm) benefit. The idea being that God is our friend, and by doing good, others too are brought into the party, and gain joy by being able to hang out with a loving God.
Now of course, visualizing God, and trying to please that invisible old hand is much more difficult to do in selfless manner, so often enough we resort to utiziling the fear of hell or the pleasures of heaven as motivation to keep our wills "on point", to keep ourselves from the deep pain that can be found when you love unconditionally. We need something more intense, rather than the love of a distant God, for seemingly unrequited love is hard to handle. (And what is Christianity but practicing unrequited love over and over till you are dead).
Now Rand might even look at the actions of Christ on the cross as an act of selfishness. He died for our sins why? To bring us up to heaven, for his pleasure. However, one doubts if that was actually the easiest route in terms of selfishness. He very well could have started a batch of humans from scratch, but love factored in, and he wanted US, rather than any old batch of creations.
In the end (and I guess back on point), much of this is about love. Something like "Doing unto others" and all that. Debating whether government is violating some kind of "objectivist" path in taking action, and decrying it, is like mourning the nature of a dog because it barks loudly, uses your money for food, and sometimes poops in the middle of your comfort. That is the nature of dogs- and governments. (Governments are so far across the Ayn Rand line by their very taxing nature, that one must be resigned to such, or overthrow them). As for Savage, his name speaks for himself.
Posted by: tv at janvier 9, 2005 08:44 PMI would simply like to second what Red stated above. Disco has been quite the host in what has turned out to be quite an interesting discussion. I only wish I had more time to be involved in it. I only hope too that if I ever have a post on my own site that turns into a discussion post like this, I only hope I can show the same level of humility, as well as intellect.
Secondly, I think Red has provided the most succinct definition of Rand's philosophy regarding charity...and how it relates (or doesn't) to Savage's philosophy of charity towards Muslim countries.
Posted by: Benjamin at janvier 9, 2005 10:02 PMThe sheer number of comments tell me one thing at least: LOTS of people listen to Savage. Let's be honest, he's a guilty pleasure and very funny much of the time.
He's many things, but not evil incarnate.
Lots of isolationists have witnessed the gratitude of foreign people who spit in our eye after receiving our help. I think he was just tapping into that resentment. But he's missing our motivation, which is humanitarian, not political.
There's no Jedi mind trick on the Savage Nation, just interesting and very funny commentary.
Everyone RELAX.
Posted by: Jim from New Jersey at janvier 9, 2005 10:47 PMI don't imagine that anyone remembers or cares about my comment or Billy Beck's response to it, but anyway--
Billy Beck, learn to read. I didn't say or imply that God was punishing people with the tsuanmi.
If you can't read better than that, how do you expect to argue?
For the record, I'm an atheist, not that it's your business. Of course you leap to assume I'm some kind of fundamentalist Christian, based entirely on your inability to comprehend what I wrote.
There are a lot of people out there who beleive that nothing happens without God's will, or at least his consent. Of those people, a few of those would believe that the tsunami was divine punishment and everyone who died in it got what they deserved. But that is an extreme position and a bit of a straw man.
People who believe that the tsunami was God's will, or even God's judgement, do not necessarily believe everyone who died in it deserved to, or even that the majority of them do. You're ascribing additional views to someone with no basis based on one thing that they said--much like someone assuming that a person who voted for Kerry also would happily run an abortion clinic and burn the flag.
In short, don't assume too much from what people say, but actually LISTEN to them before passing judgement.
Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at janvier 10, 2005 12:15 AMI am a conservative. I don't listen to Savage. When he first came on, I tried him. It isn't merely that he is crude. He doesn't worry about being factual. I bail on that note. I can abide stuff I disagree with, but I do believe that a person before the public like that has an obligation to get the facts straight. I am not talking interpretation but basic numbers, sequence of events, etc.
Janet in Tucson
Posted by: Janet Nickell at janvier 10, 2005 12:43 AMSorry guys....the conservative movement has been taken over by guys like Savage and the people that love Ayn Rand...that is it's problem. Conservatism used to be a noble political philosophy (and still is in the old form) but since the advent of Rush Limbaugh et.al, the meanest part of humanity has joined it. I know, I live in the south. Many of the people I know think just like Savage. No aid for the brown, or blacks or yellows, or anybody that disagrees with them. The GOP took these so-called Christian meanies in to take power. Look at Jimmy Swaggert...he recently said that "if some man looked at me with lust, I would kill him and tell God he died". And Limbaugh of course famously said that people who did drugs should be locked up for a long time...hmmm...guess he did not mean people like him. And of course Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and the very on the edge of homosexuality himself Rick Santorum. (Read his comments about gays and animals and marriage...he goes off on a protesting TOO much tirade!) And then Frum, and Pearle and the grandaddy of them all Leo Strauss. These guys are now the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement. Which will lead us to very bad places...unless those of you who are truly conservative try to save your political movement from these guys. You could start by demanding that Savage be fired or at least letting him know his speech has consequences like YOU DON'T LISTEN TO HIM ANYMORE! Then the free market kicks in and takes him off the air. Right now reform lies with those of you who are in the conservative movement. GET BUSY!
Posted by: LLL at janvier 10, 2005 02:27 AMI share your comments about Savage. He claims to be an educated man. Baloney. Were he at all educated you would think he would have some knowledge about the concept of charity. He claims at least, some libertarian roots - his only roots are bigotry.
There are good reasons to debate how we should help in this tragedy (how much, if any should come from government, which aid agencies should be supported) and good conservatives should be able to think about those issues without personal rancor. But Savage sets this up as a way to think about narrow minded xenophobia.
Unlike LLLs comments, I think there are a lot of very good conservative commentators across the spectrum on talk radio - the fare from Laura Ingram, Rush, Dennis Prager and Michael Medved comes in a lot of varieties and beats anything on Air America. But with Savage, the remaining 20 or 25 stations that are fool enough to carry him will learn that his kind of hyperbole does not work well for more than a microsecond.
If, indeed, Savage really does hold a degree in Epidemiology - he should go back to the lab and find out how to cure the infection of his own bile.
Wow, Disco, you are doing a great job with this blog!
Posted by: Gideon Strauss at janvier 10, 2005 03:01 AMGideon!
Good to see you, old buddy. It really has been fun the past week -- the entire country is shut down for the holidays, which means I've had the time to put in here. Hopefully I can keep this ball in the air now that workaday life is returning.
I noticed your comment over on Michael Totten's blog. You just assured yourself a place on my Christmas card list in perpetuity. :-)
Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 10, 2005 04:17 AMThis is exactly the kind of response Michael Savage wants. He and other 'entertainers' like him (Ann Coulter, Moore, Limbaugh,...) say controversial things just to get attention - I doubt that he really even believes what he said. But it'll get his name in the papers, maybe tv, and discussed on weblogs, which in turn will sell more copies of his new book and get more people to listen to his show - probably even quite a few who have posted negative things about him here. People love being all outraged and offended, it makes them feel superior - thats why most people listen to his show.
Posted by: Del at janvier 10, 2005 04:51 AMCurt--Yes, Savage claims to have invented the term 'compassionate conservative,' but what he means by the term is quite different than what Bush and the genuine compassionate conservatives mean. He used to have a whole section on his website (I can't find it anymore) talking about his definition of 'compassionate conservatism' and he's turned it inside out and on it's head. His compassion extends only to white Americans of Western European descent and no further. On a related note, I'm not entirely sure that his claim to have been the first one to use the term holds up cronologically--he says that he invented the term in 1994, but Marvin Olasky's book The Tragedy of American Compassion which is often cited as the genesis of the concept of compassionate conservativism came out in 1992. In other words, Savage is not only twisting the concept, he's claiming credit for something that isn't even his.
I first heard Savage when I was in college in North Georgia, I had never heard of him before then, and when I heard him I didn't know that he had a huge national audience and was considered a mainstream radio host--my first impression was that he must be on the air because all of the racist Klan-sympathizers in the area listened to him. His borders-language-culture line has very strong white supremist undertones, he talks about how black people and foreigners are all diseased. One day, Pat Buchanan was on promoting a book and they were both lamenting that due to race mixing (which they blamed on immigration) the white man was becoming an endangered species in America.
It's people like Savage, and the fact that an awful lot of conservative people listen to Savage and defend him, that caused me to spend several years seriously questioning whether I wanted to identify myself as a conservative because I don't want anybody to group me with folks like him.
Posted by: kathryn at janvier 10, 2005 08:17 AMWho cares what Ayn Rand or Michael Savage says--it is clear as Christians that we have a duty to help those in need.
Romans 15:1-4
We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2 Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. 3 For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, "The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me."
Even if they hate us or would kill us, we are to love our enemies.
Using TAX dollars is further proof of America's Christian heritage.
Posted by: Marty in Oregon at janvier 10, 2005 08:34 AMGabriel, I think you're upbraiding Billy Beck for something I said.
If you're original post was a mixture of irony and some summary of facts, well, I just didn't get it.
This is the exchange you were commenting on originally:
SCARBOROUGH: Now, Jennifer Giroux, you believe that this may be a sign from God and this may be God punishing people because of their sins. Explain.
JENNIFER GIROUX, DIRECTOR, WOMEN INFLUENCING THE NATION: Well, you know, throughout history and reported early in the Bible, God has always used plagues, floods and natural disasters as a source of punishment.
So, naturally, when you said there's nothing wrong with that because that's what the Bible says, I assumed you were saying that, to quote the quote in question here: "God has always used plagues, floods and natural disasters as a source of punishment."
I was trying to pay attention, honestly, to what you were saying, but I think you may have misread the quote from Giroux regarding the punishment for sins in relation to the tsunami. That's what I thought you were agreeing with. Sorry if I'm still getting your point wrong, though.
Maybe you're saying that it's unsurprising that a Christian would say that?
Posted by: Red Rover at janvier 10, 2005 10:01 AMI've never heard Mr. Savage, so I can't really comment about him one way or the other. At risk of being flamed, however, I'm not entirely sure that the comments are per se wrong. A good many of the countries affected by the tsunami took what could best be termed a position of strategic opportunism with regard to American interests. In effect they would pay no price to help the U.S. and would seek advantage vis-a-vis the U.S whenever possible. From what I've been able to tell, many of the countries continued to follow this strategy in the post-9/11 GWOT. Now, I'm not necessarily saying that this bad on their part. One can hardly blame other countries for looking out for their own interests. That said, a blanket policy of charitable behavior to these countries (especially if focused on their need for help) would send a very distinct message to the world. In effect, we between the extent to which a country is friendly to American interests and the extent they can count on American aid, assistance and goodwill. In that context, why should any country go out of its way to favor our wishes or interests? Why wouldn't those that do be anything more than sentimental fools?
Posted by: Bill at janvier 10, 2005 10:46 PMWhen I was a freshman in college, a professor said to me, "Ayn Rand is just a fad that will go away."
That was 1959.
Objectivism has grown ENORMOUSLY since then. Rand's writings sell at about half a million copies a year today. Everyone with any intellectual bent has heard of her and knows at least something about her philosophy. There are even Objectivist philosophers in a few college philosophy departments.
Offhand, I can't remember another thinker who was alive and popular when I was in college and who is still popular today.
One of the LAST things anyone can say about Rand's philosphy is that it is a "fad."
I might add that when asked about her alleged "cult" once, she responded by pointing out that her philosophy is a philosophy of individualism--individualism being the antithesis of cultism.
Rand's philosophy is slowly moving into the mainstream because it's the only rational one around.
Posted by: Burke at janvier 10, 2005 11:43 PM"JENNIFER GIROUX, DIRECTOR, WOMEN INFLUENCING THE NATION: Well, you know, throughout history and reported early in the Bible, God has always used plagues, floods and natural disasters as a source of punishment."
So what was he punishing Florida for with 4 hurricanes?
And as for the tsunami killing folks that want to kill us (i.e. Islamofascists) I think Savage and his ilk need to learn a little more about where the jihadists are coming from. Indonesia and other Muslim nations in East Asia are not really big participants in the mostly Arabic jihad. If you read closely about Afghani and Pakistani reactions to Al Qaeda, you'll see a whole lot of disdain of the "foreigners" from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt and other points West, who generally make up the terrorist forces.
I'm not a fan of Islam, or Christianity, or any religion that believes an anthromorphic "God" uses such punishments against the beings "he" created. Or who cares who wins a football game. But I do get in a lather when someone with a nationally syndicated show on public (i.e. I own them) airwaves spews such thoughtless, venomous garbage.
Posted by: Scamper at janvier 11, 2005 12:48 AM"Mike Savage is a comedian" - Riiight - and so is Ann Coulter. And so is Dennis Miller. (Hah-hah, a little joke at the expense of Miller's declining career.)
"So what was he punishing Florida for with 4 hurricanes?" - Jeb Bush. Kidding.
It's hard to know where to start with all of this: no, Savage clearly isn't an Objectivist. He sounds more like a particularly vile version of Pat Buchanan - a conservative protectionist - though I'm guessing he was *for* the war in Iraq, so I guess the moral of the story is: people aren't easily pigeon-holed. Remember that conservatives like Bob Novak have expressed their doubts about Iraq, despite defending Bush actively elsewhere.
On another front, if you're a Christian (I'm not) and your complaining about this aid to foreigners or our enemies (which shows a real lack of understanding about who our enemies are), then perhaps you should drop the whole "Christian" facade all together and start some new religion - "Selfishbastardism" perhaps. After all, Christ exhorted us to "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" and he also exhorted us to pay the most attention to the commandment "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
Now, if you're not a Christian and you want to dismiss these, fine. But if you claim to be a Christian and think it's wrong for us to aid these countries, these people, then go read those verses and (oh these too: http://www.topical-bible-studies.org/24-0003.htm) and don't come out of hiding until you've ridden yourself of your bad, UNCHRISTLIKE attitude.
Posted by: Bob the Do-Gooder Atheist at janvier 11, 2005 02:26 AM'"So what was he punishing Florida for with 4 hurricanes?" - Jeb Bush. Kidding.'
That would be funny, if people hadn't already suggested it quite seriously. I got into an argument with some people on Slashdot over precisely that claim.
Posted by: kathryn at janvier 11, 2005 02:44 AMThat would be funny, if people hadn't already suggested it quite seriously
Well, I'll be the first to say that to even entertain that seriously is idiotic and reprehensible. Just as suggesting that the victims of the tsunami got what was coming to them would be idiotic and reprehensible.
Folks ought to leave God and His Will out of such discussions. It's a symptom of superstitious thinking.
Posted by: Bob the Do-Gooder Atheist at janvier 11, 2005 03:27 AMSays Discoshaman: "Actually, that rather proves my point. Arguably the second largest blog in the world posts a piece critical of her, and where are the Objectivists? You have a handful of people who don't even claim her philosophy pointing out a factual error. THAT'S big influence?"
Actually, that proves *my* point. Yes sir, that is precisely what I consider influence.
It's not about people, personalities or the head count of "believers"; it's about ideas. Fifteen or twenty years ago nobody except an Objectivist would have noticed that comment, let alone challenged it. But now? She damn nearly steals the show in a topic on "arguably the second largest blog in the world!" And with no help at all from actual Objectivists.
Yes, that's influence; it's the influence of ideas. If all you do is count heads and look at personalities (like Billy Beck) instead of looking at the ideas, you'll never see us coming.
And that's fine by me.
Posted by: Seerak at janvier 11, 2005 11:49 AMdamn, that could have been edited a LOT better. My apologies for the runny post.
Posted by: Seerak at janvier 11, 2005 11:50 AMwhy are any of you surprised at Savage? This is what 'conservatism' has morphed into thanks to Karl Rove, George W. Bush and the rest of the neo-cons and fundamentalists you've welcomed into the increasingly small tent of the GOP.
Your ideology has transmogrified from one dedicated to classical conservative values, into a dogma that just happens to justify and rationalize the worst in human nature.
This is the state in which hate-mongerers like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and the like have brought you to. Don't act so fucking surprised, spare me your fucking tut-tutting. You right-wingers are reaping the whirlwind of the hatred and death and selfishness you've sown.
You can't shake hands with the Devil and say you're only kidding.
Posted by: renato at janvier 11, 2005 11:52 AMRenato-
"you've welcomed into the increasingly small tent of the GOP.
This would be the small tent that won 52% of the national vote, has like 30 governors, a majority of state house seats, the House of Reps, the Senate and the Presidency? Yep, if we shrink any further, there won't be a Democratic dog catcher elected in the country. You'd better hope we stop shrinking. ;-)
Or did you mean the small tent that allowed prominent liberal Republicans to speak at the convention, the most high profile moment of the political season? Remind me, how many conservative Dems spoke at the Democratic convention? Oh, I think that number was zero. . .
Kudos on the "They Might be Giants" reference though. GREAT band.
Seerak-
Your editing is fine. I still disagree with the point though. What we saw wasn't influence, it was fact checking. Something the blogosphere is great for. :-)
Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 11, 2005 12:06 PM..first ROJAK many apologies in my choice of posting..as in anything people are going to take what they want and discard the rest..soooo..as in this little exercise more than proves the point..if Dr. Savage causes one to stop and ponder his views,then if one chooses reject them out right,is that not actually what he is wanting...as any Prof. would do ..make your on conclusion...dont just follow the crowd...love him; hate him.. you take some.. you throw away some...
Posted by: Rob_NC at janvier 12, 2005 04:40 AMHunter Baker wrote:
You hit the nail on the head when you put him in the Rand camp. Whittaker Chambers made similar points in his famous review of Atlas Shrugged for National Review many years ago.
You do know that Whittaker Chambers later admitted that he hadn’t actually read Atlas Shrugged when he wrote his “review” don’t you?
A point that was obvious to anyone who actually read Atlas Shrugged and then read the supposed “review” which had nothing to do with anything that Rand had actually written.
Michael Savage is right. Why should America send foreign aide to them with our tax money? I am not against celebrities sending money, I am not against people starting up private charities, but it is none of our governments concern. It is a UN situation.
Posted by: Gerald at février 26, 2005 08:46 PM