“Only a girl”

Michael Savage: Supporting “better” child molesters everywhere.

On the September 27 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage asserted that an employee of The Washington Times charged with soliciting a 13 year-old girl for sex over the Internet “should get a reward that it wasn’t a boy. I actually was thrilled to see it was only a girl.”

Because attraction to young girls is a “normal” perversion, whereas molesting or raping a 13-year-old boy would just be wrong. Heck, let’s reward him!

SAVAGE: Washington Times employee arrested in sting, just popped up. Metropolitan police today charged the director of human resources [chuckle] at The Washington Times with one count of trying to entice a minor on the Internet. Randall Casseday, 53, was arrested at 9:45 p.m. yesterday with where police said he had arranged to meet a 13-year-old girl. He had actually exchanged Internet messages and photographs with a male police officer posing as a girl. Well, OK, great. I actually think he should get a reward that it wasn’t with a boy. I actually was thrilled to see it was only a girl. I’m not saying it was good that he did it. But don’t get me wrong, I was stunned that it was with a girl. I mean, there is still a normal pervert out there. It’s hard to believe. There are still normal perverts? It’s shocking.

I mean, raping little girls is one thing, but raping little boys? Now that’s just un-American.

And we musn’t forget that somehow, those Muslims are to blame:

SAVAGE: I think it’s a very dangerous trend. Not only the obsession with child molestation, which is an obsession, by the way, with the American media right now because they don’t have the guts to take on radical Islam so they make a big deal out of child molestation. It’s like a new hysteria. It’s the new witch hunt. Going after child molesters today is the equivalent of witch hunts in Pilgrim times. Everyone is suspected of being a witch or a child molester because — well, many different reasons.

He’s right. This is clearly a witch hunt, and when this man was online trying to track down girls to sexually assault and got caught. Let’s go kill some more brown people to prove that we take Radical Islam seriously.

Thanks to Una for the link.

Similar Posts (automatically generated):

21 comments for ““Only a girl”

  1. Mikey S
    October 2, 2006 at 11:08 am

    God, I hate agreeing with Michael Savage on anything, but ‘child molesters’ and particularly stranger-danger is a massively overblown problem. The government always rushes to pass new bills limiting MySpace and addressing all the scary problems on Teh Internet, but rarely does anything to address the bulk of the abuse – namely abuse from intimates.

    Now, on the other hand, all this hysteria doesn’t lead to very many false accusations as far as I know. Nor does it mean that people are being unfairly set up by undercover cops to take a fall. Law enforcement should have the tools they need to catch pedophiles like this Wash. Times guy, and we should laud them for doing it. It’s more of the media keeping a culture of fear going around ‘child molesters’ because it’s a sexy story. And I don’t regret using that term (sexy) because I think there’s a real element of titillation in the coverage.

    So in conclusion, Michael Savage is still a giant screeching toolchest, because he actually objects to prosecuting child molesters, and not the coverage of it. And he refocuses it all on ‘radical Islam’ instead of proposing better ways to fight abuse. So fuck’im.

  2. Tally Cola
    October 2, 2006 at 11:29 am

    Stranger-danger IS a massively overblown problem, but real child sex abuse is a very real problem because MOST of it is actually ignored. Everyone freaks out when an innocent (white?) kid gets lured by some asshole on the internet, but no one blinks an eye about the thousands of young children actually being trafficked in sex all throughout the Western world and beyond, girls and boys. You might hear a story every now and then, just so people can feel slightly better about ignoring it the rest of the time, but that’s just a pacifier really. The threat from “radical Islam” is the new hysteria and witchhunt, which I think we can all plainly see.

  3. October 2, 2006 at 12:11 pm

    I think there’s an enormous distinction between the hysteria over Myspace/chat rooms/stranger pedophiles (which is overblown) and the very real problem of sexual abuse of children, usually by those they know and trust.

    Statistically speaking, young girls are more at risk from older brothers and “funny uncles” than from men who message them on the internet. But talking about that makes far too many people squirm, and sends the men’s rights advocates into a profound tizzy.

  4. Dianne
    October 2, 2006 at 12:46 pm

    Why does reading this post leave me with the feeling that Michael Savage probably has a file of internet chats somewhere labeled “hot nubile 13 year olds”? Yeah, the problem is overblown, but Savage’s reaction to is just strange.

  5. The Grouch
    October 2, 2006 at 12:47 pm

    Exactly, Hugo. Like rape of adult women, child molestation is usually a family affair.

  6. Sally
    October 2, 2006 at 12:59 pm

    I think the whole Foley situation, too, is getting slotted into the “internet pedophile” category, which totally obscures the point that Foley was a trusted authority figure who the kid originally met in person, more like a teacher or coach than a random guy on the internet.

  7. ks
    October 2, 2006 at 2:00 pm

    Statistically speaking, young girls are more at risk from older brothers and “funny uncles” than from men who message them on the internet. But talking about that makes far too many people squirm, and sends the men’s rights advocates into a profound tizzy.

    That is an absolutely true statement. Not only does it make the media and others not directly involved squirm, but the family members themselves often refuse to acknowledge/see the problem. I have a ‘funny uncle.’ He’s one of my mom’s older brothers. He tried stuff on her when she was a pre-teen (he was in his 20s at the time) and as a result, she never let him near us except at highly supervised family functions and we were never alone with him. He also molested a couple of my cousins whose mother is only a couple of years younger than him and didn’t believe my mom about it. But while my mom was very protective of her daughters around him and my cousins are protective of their children around him, none of them will actually do anything about it. My sisters and I have all tried to get them (Mom and cousins) to prosecute, or at least make it known, but they refuse because it would ‘hurt the family.’ It’s a shame, really, because the man is a total sicko, but I don’t know what can be done (by me) other than to completely avoid him whenever possible and make it known why.

  8. Thomas
    October 2, 2006 at 2:42 pm

    My extended family maintained its silence, and even sent my cousin into exile as a teenager because she wouldn’t remain silent. When her younger sister told her teacher that she had been molested, she and her older sister sued the grandfather. They got his house.

    He had some access to other children in the family who were not molested. I think he had an acute sense of which ones were isolated and could be silenced. He avoided the ones that were likely to speak out and be believed.

  9. Thomas
    October 2, 2006 at 2:49 pm

    By the way, IOKIYAR has now jumped the shark. The wilder conservative pundits will now rush to the support of people who molest thirteen year old girls as long as they are conservative Republicans.

  10. October 2, 2006 at 3:35 pm

    Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and the scariest screeds contain just enough truth to make the fence-sitters take them seriously.

  11. October 2, 2006 at 4:09 pm

    So, anyone impelled to beat Mr. Savage bloody should be rewarded because he’s only a giant ignorant mouth without two synapses to call his own, and not a real person?

  12. Bitter Scribe
    October 2, 2006 at 4:56 pm

    Elsewhere in that link, Savage says the gay community “won’t let people you see the children dying” of leukemia because it takes attention away from AIDS.

    I guess they haven’t yet gotten around to the hospital where my sister volunteers with sick children. Anybody have Mr. Savage’s phone number, so we can call him when those awful gays show up and form a human chain across the pediatric cancer ward?

    BTW, I now have this image in my head of Michael Savage and Dan Savage in a debate. I’d subscribe to that on pay-per-view.

  13. zuzu
    October 2, 2006 at 4:59 pm

    BTW, I now have this image in my head of Michael Savage and Dan Savage in a debate. I’d subscribe to that on pay-per-view.

    Only if Adam Savage can come in and blow them up or drop them off a building or something.

  14. Laurie
    October 2, 2006 at 5:26 pm

    “I reject your reality and substitute my own.” — Adam Savage

    Thereby showing what a gigantic geek I am. ;)

    I’ll shut up and go away now since I have *nothing* of substance to add to this thread other than “you have GOT to be kidding me!!!” ‘Cause it’s so much less slimy to molest girls than to molest boys.

    *bangs head slowly on desk, annoying cat*

  15. PhoenixRising
    October 2, 2006 at 6:16 pm

    It’s hard to believe that he really said that. But on review, he really said this:

    It’s normal to make unwanted sexual advances to children of the sex-class, but way perverted to make unwanted sexual advances to children of the dominant class who are future leaders of America (read ‘male’).

    I too would pay big bucks, far beyond the PPV fee from my cable company, to see Dan Savage debate Michael Savage. Do you think we could persuade them to do it in a mud pit wearing Speedos?

  16. October 2, 2006 at 6:46 pm

    In a similar vein, Glenn Greenwald blogged about John Hinderaker’s defense of Dennis Hastert’s claim that he doesn’t remember being told about Rep. Foley’s inappropriate emails to a former page. Hinderaker’s defense?

    I’ve never been Speaker of the House, but I can imagine that such a conversation would not be among the most significant Hastert has had in the last year, and would not necessarily make a deep impression. Foley was, I take it, generally assumed to be gay. […] So I’m not particularly surprised that Foley wrote some “over-friendly”–I’m sure I would find them creepy–emails to one or more underage pages.

    Which means what, exactly? Apparently it’s unremarkable to Hinderaker that Foley wrote inappropriate emails to a minor. The notable part is that Foley is gay, but everyone already knew that.

    I suppose Michael Savage would agree — it’s a “normal perversion” to be sexually attracted to minors, but “not a normal perversion” to be sexually attracted to minors of the same gender. See — it’s all about the gays!

  17. exangelena
    October 2, 2006 at 8:29 pm

    This is salon and so you have to watch their ads, but this article about Michael Savage is incredibly bizarre.

  18. Dana
    October 2, 2006 at 9:18 pm

    Why are we discussing which type of abuse is more likely to happen when any idiot could tell you neither type should be condoned? Who cares whether girls are molested more often by one type of person than another, in the final tally? Michael Savage applauds a pedophile for molesting a girl instead of a boy. That’s the original point. The bit about stranger-danger hysteria is a RED HERRING.

    What I really love is this tendency, when a girl is molested, to decide it wasn’t a stranger who did it because the perp met the girl for all of half an hour one day. Oh yeah, she knows him. Sure. Can we stop distracting from the fact she was molested, please?

  19. October 3, 2006 at 12:10 am

    And this is why I’m seriously considering getting my little sister a chastity belt for her birthday. Shudder.

  20. orange
    October 3, 2006 at 1:19 pm

    I’ve read the original article, and I’m exhausted. I’m tired to the absolute center of my bones with people who cannot see that young women are people.

    So I wrote a letter to the FCC. And sent a copy to each of the chairpeople as well. Maybe it’s the wrong way to go about it; but there’s no reason why his hateful speech should go unchallenged.

  21. Rhiannon
    October 3, 2006 at 2:11 pm

    And this is why I’m seriously considering getting my little sister a chastity belt for her birthday. Shudder

    that would just stop anal and vaginal penetration, you gonna sew her mouth shut too, cut off her hands maybe? Nevermind, I’m certain there are perverts out there that would like that too.

    It’s not the girl’s we should be taking freedom away from, it’s the perverts/creeps/molesters/rapists/etc that should be locked up for life and castrated.

Comments are closed.