It’s finals week here at college, so I don’t have much time for posts, but I really needed to share this. Michael Savage, a conservative talk show host from San Francisco’s KNEW, has been placed on a list of 22 people the British government will not allow into the country. British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith publicly released the names of 16 of these individuals, including Mr. Savage, saying that it was necessary so that people would "understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here [in Great Britain]." Amazingly, the list is comprised mostly of terrorists of all persuasions: leftists and right wingers; Muslims and Jews. Savage shares his berth on this exclusive list with white supremacists, Hamas militants, Russian gang members, and more.     

While I am disgusted at the U.K.’s attempt to censor those who don’t agree with their view of the appropriate "public interest," that is not my main concern. The U.K., being a sovereign nation, can block whomever it desires. Furthermore, Britain has no formal constitution, merely a collection of relevant documents, and the appropriate extent of freedom of speech in the UK is somewhat vague and easier to manipulate than in the United States. While I question the sanity and motivation of the British government’s decision to include Mr. Savage on this list, there is no denying that they are within their rights. What truly disturbs me are some of the comments that San Franciscans have been leaving on sfgate.com, a news site that covers the city. I have shared some below:

Comments from: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=39618&o=8#commentslistpos

l0ungeb0y:

Good, it’s time these far-right pundits realize they are no different than the Taliban, white supremacists and other hate groups.

dough1:

Hey Brits: I think the guy’s a stone waste of homosapiens too, but my fingers and the dial on my radio manage to keep his lunatic ravings out of my head without the assistance of any government, thank you very much anyway…

RAZORMAN:

He is a self-righteous fascist…..UK was right to ban that idiot!

whitebengali:

They should ban him in this country too!

saltzmaj:

Why tolerate the intolerant? 
Why should they allow someone into THEIR country whose career been built around sensationalism and mean-spirited rhetoric? 
They have the right to protect their citizens from someone who’s most like to be abusive and not respectful. 
Would you invite this "prick biting prima donna" to dinner?
Why should they?

amerikanik

Savage is an unethical Jewish warmonger profiteer. He makes money by playing off the idiots who hate Muslims, and there still seems to be plenty around. He’s the equivalent of the Christian warmongers Carl Rove and Limbaugh, but far less sophisticated. He is always rabble-rousing for a fight, and then when someone responds, he tries to sue them. What an embarrassment to human intelligence.

Granted, I have picked some of the most egregious offenders, but the support for the principle of free speech was not exactly overwhelming. Most of the commentators who didn’t outright support this censorship did little besides discuss Savage’s reputation and complain about the free publicity he is receiving. If these are the comments coming from San Francisco, one of the nation’s strongest liberal bastions, then I really have to question liberalism’s claims to tolerance and acceptance. Of course, I’d only have to question it if I had believed in it to begin with.

Leftists and liberals are no different from any group in the history of mankind. So long as you values are compatible with theirs, then you are accepted. That’s only logical, but given their meteoric rise to power in the 1960s was centered on the claim of universal tolerance, it is immensely hypocritical. Liberalism rose to power as a champion of universal freedom, but, like everything before it, finds that it must enforce its own standards of morality to ensure the gains of the revolution remain.  

You and I are in the enjoyable position of bursting their bubble of delusion and self-righteousness. It is far easier to attack something than it is to defend it, especially when it is so blatantly hypocritical. Don’t be shy when you encounter a poor, misinformed leftist. Expose their hypocrisy and shake their faith in their moral superiority; it’s fun and it will sow seeds of confusion and discontent. The cacophony of protest from the enemy camp betrays the frustration of the one-time revolutionaries. By resorting to such extreme tactics, they cede any remaining claims to moral superiority and pain a bigger target on themselves.  Expose the hypocrisy and make a difference. Here are a few nice talking points for your day to day conversations.

Liberal (in a discussion about torture): We must obey the letter of the law and the U.S. Constitution.

You: OK, no gun control, limited congressional power, and state sovereignty! All right!

Liberal: Bush is a fascist. He is a war criminal. He is a (insert inflammatory noun here)

You: Interesting. Do you remember how FDR sent thousands of Japanese American citizens to concentration camps for the public good? Remember Woodrow Wilson’s political prisoners from World War I?

(DISCLAIMER: I don’t support torture, but the details of the "torture" are still hazy and it’s a bad precedent to prosecute Presidents for doing what they thought was right if FDR and Wilson are valid indicators)

Liberal: Right wing commentators are so inflammatory; we have to get them off the air!

You: You’re right, let’s clean up our airwaves. If we’re serious, let’s not limit ourselves to ideology. Force reform across the board for the sake of our children. Which hosts have been making remarks that possibly violate FCC regulations… oh right all those left-wing tea bagging comments.

Liberal: Our healthcare system is terrible, we need to spend more money and offer universal healthcare.

You: Oh I agree the healthcare system needs improvement. Unfortunately studies show that, because of the government’s involvement in the insurance industry, we pay more and get less than any other country due to bureaucratic costs. It would be foolish to throw money at a problem of overspending. Don’t forget that universal healthcare has many problems. In Great Britain, there is a chronic shortage of specialists. There are also dangerously long waiting times for some emergency specialists and the state will not pay for any treatments costing more than $60,000 per year. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9272