Conservative talk radio is like a big pot of soup filled with chunks of carrots, potatoes, celery, tomatoes, corn and whatever other vegetables were tossed in. Each personality is different, but they contribute to the overall flavor.
Liberal talk radio is a similar pot of soup with the same ingredients but it's been pureed. There are no lumps, and it all looks the same – bland with no personality.
It's no surprise then that conservatives get attention and criticism from the political opposition, which doesn't like to be confronted with differing thoughts and ideas. Political correctness clashes with reasoned opinions.
In addition, conservative talkers have strong personalities. They speak their minds, clearly and to the point. That makes enemies, and the latest victim is Michael Savage, a syndicated host based in San Francisco.
But this controversy is different. While Savage has many times been the target of individuals and groups claiming to be "offended" by his words and ideas, now he's the target of a whole government and has been banned from an entire country!
If it weren't so serious, it would be laughable.
Astonishingly, British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith included Savage on a list of 16 named people she's banned from entering that country because, she says, they have beliefs of such extremism that their expression of them is " … likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country."
"It's a privilege to come to this country. There are certain behaviors that mean you forfeit that privilege."
Aside from Savage, the rest of the people listed are murderers, rapists, terrorists, anti-Jewish extremists, skinheads and others of that ilk.
It's hard to see how Savage fits, except that he's outspoken and blunt with his opinions concerning problems of illegal aliens, terrorism and the threat from militant Islam on both the security of a country and infiltration into the culture,
It's summed up with Savage's philosophy of "borders, language and culture." It means a country must protect the borders from invasion, the language from perversion and the culture from destruction.
So because Smith decided Savage's words are "hateful and threatening," he's to be kept out.
Ironically, Savage hadn't applied to visit – so the point is moot.
But, it isn't.
The man has been libeled and grouped with real undesirables. Forbidding their entry is keeping people out who really might cause trouble and given the terrorist attacks in the U.K., that's wise.
But Savage doesn't provoke or advocate violence. He states his opinions about hot-button topics that the politically correct don't even want mentioned, much less by someone articulate.
I doubt Smith ever listened to Savage, but I have. I've probably heard more hours of his program than anyone else. I've listened since he debuted on our sister station, moved to KSFO where I broadcast (our desks were opposite each other, and I often was fill-in host for him) and then into syndication.
He's made me laugh, got me thinking and often infuriated me, but I've have never heard him advocate violence.
He's brash and outspoken, but not stupid. He is, in fact, very talented and, like the nursery rhyme of the "little girl with the little curl" – when Savage is good, he is very, very good.
Right now, he's very, very angry and threatens to sue Smith if she doesn't remove his name from the list and apologize.
But the ramification of this is greater than a stupid mistake by a politician who probably won't be re-elected.
This is a massive assault on free speech. For a people who decried the fatwa (Islamic promise to kill) against Salman Rushdie – a British author who wrote a book Islam didn't like – this ban should not stand.
But just recently, the U.K. (read Smith) demanded that Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders not enter the country. He'd been invited by a member of Parliament to speak to Parliament. He arrived at the airport only to be turned away!
His "sin"? He speaks openly about the dangers of militant Islam.
Smith is shoving the U.K. down the slope to government control of the media (don't dare broadcast something I disagree with) and toward government control of the movement of people.
I agree with Savage. He deserves an apology. But there's something else that must happen.
Savage is an American citizen who's been vilified by innuendo. His right to speak freely is squelched with no specific instances of malfeasance. His freedom to earn a living is also at risk from such "guilt by association" rulings.
This is a major assault on an innocent, law-abiding American citizen. Our president should demand an apology.
That's right, President Obama needs to stand up to this assault on our freedom of speech and travel and thought.
Jacqui Smith has attacked our country and our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. There must be a response on behalf of all Americans.
Unfortunately, I doubt that'll happen because Obama wants people like Savage silenced. His administration and liberal politicians agitate that talk radio is "too free" and "too right-wing."
They want to change it. They want the imposition of the "Fairness Doctrine" and other measures, which would control program content, reduce the availability of national hosts, and force the elimination of most conservative talk, replacing it with left-wing hosts. They say it would balance things.
No, it would eliminate free choice and is the ultimate tool of thought control. Ultimately, talk radio would be eliminated since no station can survive without advertising income. Businesses sponsor programs with audiences, and the track record of liberal radio is dismal; it's a business failure. If it's forced on stations, talk radio as we know it will disappear.
Unfortunately that's exactly what politicians like Smith – and Obama – want: to silence all opposition.