Michael Savage: When Hate Crosses the Line

(I know, when is MS not crossing a line.)

I've hit up Michael Savage a couple times in the last month, specifically for the well-documented rage against Muslims and more recently a rant against Heath Ledger. I have also received appropriate feedback pertaining to my posts - to a certain extent.

When Michael Savage spit his acid at Muslims and, specifically, CAIR, that's all happy hating opinion, and fine in America, even if contemptuously hideous. The same goes for his frequent rants about how homosexuals are ruining America and San Francisco in particular: it's ugly speech, but protected speech; turn it off or blog about it or yell at your neighbors about it if you don't like it.

However, when he says that Heath Ledger intentionally killed himself "with needles" because he couldn't handle how his portrayal of homosexuality ruined the image of "great America itself," that is slander. Slander is "a false and defamatory oral statement about a person," and the statement about Heath Ledger fits right in there. And that is not protected speech.

So this past Tuesday, Savage was harfing our more verbal filth, this time against the educational establishment, and said "most sociologists are child molesters." So where does that fit on the protected speech-o-meter? He's not really talking about specific person, but he's clearly attributing a social deviancy to a specific group of people delineated by vocation. What are your thoughts?

And since it's Valentine's Day, I thought this appropriate:



So how's that fit in to our discussion?

St. Peter in Chains - One Hour Delay

I was monitoring the school delay listings today and spotted one rather curious entry: St. Peter in Chains School. Obviously, my mind immediately flitted to BDSM pornography, then to the Jesus and Mary Chain, then Tori Amos singing "Crucify" (cha-i-a-i-a-i-a-i-ains, who-oah) before I finally realized I had no actual reference for why this obviously Catholic School (Catholics are retarded for saints) had taken such a curious name.

Well, Simon Peter, a.k.a. St. Peter (denied Christ, first pope, yada yada) was imprisoned by Herod Agrippa who was going to kill him. But before he could be killed, an angel - yes, an otherworldly entity - woke him, allowed his binding chains to fall, and let him walk straight out of prison. And - surprise, surprise - it even has its own Feastday.

FYI: "San Pietro in Vincoli (Saint Peter in Chains) is a basilica in Rome, best known for housing Michelangelo's statue Moses." And he looks a lot like Zeus. Christians had to get their limited-use God-face from somewhere, silly.

So back to Yay! St. Peter was saved! Of course, not long after that, he was again captured. Legend has it he did not believe he was worthy of dying in the same manner as Jesus and was crucified upside down in Rome. Which, of course, leads to the line of questioning: if the founder of the Christian Church was crucified upside down, why is that a symbol of evil? Why not use an upside down cross as the prime religious symbol (you know, maybe without the corpse nailed to it)?

Why? When your religion has enough bureaucracy to fill its own country, you do not get to ask why; your beliefs have been modified and fortified and formulated and heated and put in a nice, neat bottle for you. All you need to do is suck.

Japanese Ronald McDonald Mashup

What the fuck?