Michael doesn't like in-your-face?: As an avid listener to Michael Savage, I found Ron Russell's story about the talk-show host's background interesting reading [“San Fran Sicko's Angriest Man,” July 19]. However, Mr. Russell's characterization of his message as “anti-immigrant, anti-gay, and anti-Muslim” is misleading, as anyone who regularly listens to the show would tell you.
While Michael Savage is against gay marriage and against unprotected sexual activity that may lead to the transmission of HIV or other infectious diseases, and while he is against gay activism having an undue influence on politicians, he is not against people living in homosexual relationships or having legal protections and benefits as registered domestic partners. Just as liberals do not like his “in-your-face” attitude, so he dislikes the “in-your-face” tactics of gay activists. Michael Savage is not anti-immigrant. Rather, he is against illegal immigration and openly expresses his contempt for those who obfuscate the issue by referring to immigration, rather than illegal immigration, which is just what Ron Russell did in his article. Finally, Michael Savage is not anti-Muslim, and he frequently has Muslims as guests on his show. He is specifically against radical Islam fundamentalists; you know, the kind who would slit Ron Russell's throat if given the chance. Of course, the best way for SF Weekly readers to get the facts would be to tune in to Michael Savage and hear his message unfiltered by reporters with personal agendas.
Armchair psychology: When I saw Michael “Savage” Weiner on the front of your most recent issue, I wondered why he merited a cover story. After all, he wouldn't be the first child, unloved at home, who spent his whole life trying to prove his self-worth.
Plenty of boomers turned their back on their left-leaning beatnik days and became unprincipled hucksters anxious to make a buck. And sadly, many repressed homosexuals spew vitriol on the community to which they'd so desperately like to belong.
History is filled with insecure, impotent men who will do or say anything, no matter how hate-filled or divisive, because it garners them notoriety from others in their pitiable situation, while causing reasonable, caring people to be vigilant.
Michael “Savage” Weiner is not news nor newsworthy. Listening to him berate his critics as “nobodies,” any high school psychology student can identify someone compensating for low self-esteem.
Touché: You shitbags hate Savage because he exposes you degenerate fucks for who you are. He is a great voice of reason. He is the Paul Revere of the 21st century. You liberal degenerate crudfucks are evil, miserable, ignorant, and self-loathing. Trust me, more of us love Savage than hate him. You crudfucks are a minority.
Ten million lazy, apathetic listeners can't be wrong: The article on Michael Savage and his success in radio reinforced a thought I have had for some time: Hate and thoughtless anger are easy. They produce the most fire and smoke and demand the least amount of insight and compassion. He appeals to the part in all of us that wants to see life in a dichotomous fashion — as good or bad, right or wrong. I fear we have a nation that is running headlong away from critical thinking because it is too much work. We want someone to think for us — and it had better not require me to break a sweat or acknowledge there are two sides — or more — to the issue. His anger and name-calling appeals in some circles because there are those who cannot or will not work too hard. Savage is inclined to tell people they are lazy for one reason or another and yet he appeals to the part in all of us that is spiritually, emotionally, and intellectually lazy and apathetic.
Um, [sic]: History is a Practical Joke that society plays on senial old farts who should know better!!! Never try to understand history; simply revell in it. This is the approach I take whenever I try to understand the illogical, i.e., Middle Eastern Politics, the Celebracy of Prists and Kevin Smith Films [“Go-Nowhere Men,” Robert Wilonsky, July 19].
Smith made his fortune making a small 'slice of life' film about whinny dead-end losers who refuse to grow up, mature and move on with their lives. What I think is funnier than shit is how Smith has gone more than full circle in 'recycling' Clerks I to make Clerks II.
Smith made three great movies (Clerks I, Chasing Amy and Dogma) and he's made three absolute shit movies like Mallrats, his last Silent Bob movie, and that sappy movie better not cited.
His fan base deserting him, Smith believed his only salvation was to make the kind of 'paycheque' films fading Hollywood “Corn Recyclers' make that fans want to see. So, instead of writing scripts about DANTE, Smith BECAME DANTE — its like watching Sir Aurthur Conol Doyle 'paying Sherlock Holmes' to find his car keys! Unreal!!! Life imating Art?
We fans also need to take the hit here. When I went to my 20 year High School Reunion, I feel gyped when our class clown' acted responsible. I was waiting for Scott to take his dick out and pound out the theme to Gilligan's Island on the dining room table like 'the good old days' Instead, All he did was smile, drink, eat and go home. Days later, we all mused: “What's gotten into Scott? Man, he's no fun no more!!!”
So why do we like our Assholes being Assholes? People like their touchstones, as it provides grounding in an uncertain and ever changing world. We like our class clowns to forever remain class clowns and never grow—-kinda like Smith?!!!
Watching Smith abandoning his 'cutting edgeness' to become another Hollywood 'Corn Recycler' (picking out the corn from the shit and re-selling it as earth-friendly vegetables) is PAINFUL. How Sad…I'll save my next Smith rant for Clerks V.
Michael C. Goncalves