Wednesday, May 06, 2009

Forget Michael Savage, When Will Britain Ban George W. Bush?


So Michael Savage has been banned from entering Britain? If Britain really wants to do its society a favor, it will ban George W. Bush, who is guilty of vastly greater crimes than any of the two-bit assholes that it included on its newly published immigration blacklist. In fact, Britain ought to ban all the members of the Bush Crime Family, from Dick Cheney to Paul Wolfowitz to Donald Rumsfeld.

Indeed by banning a insignificant mediocrity like Savage, but not banning Bush, it seems to me that Britain is trivializing the very real crimes of Bush. This is a man who embraced torture, shredded the Constitution, and lied America into an illegal war that killed 1.3 million Iraqi civilian men, women and children. (Oh, and let's not forget the 179 British troops who were also senselessly killed in Bush's war of lies).

Savage, by contrast, is an spiteful, nasty little turd. But he's no Bush.

Having said that, Britain did make the right decision in banning Savage. This is a man, after all who has said things like:

And this is just in the past few months. More of Savage's insane, hate-filled ramblings are here.


Jack Jodell said...

That the jerk-ass Savage is demanding an apology from the UK is a joke and shows his insanity perfectly. And the UK won't find a need to ban Bush if we first rendition he, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Addington, Bybee, Yoo, Gonzales, Rice, Fleischer, and Libby off to Spain to stand trial for war crimes, as they should. I don't think any of them would be going anywhere for a while.

Marc McDonald said...

Thanks for stopping and your comment, Jack.
Speaking of the U.K., I've often wondered about the state of talk radio in that, and other, nations. Do other countries have the equivalent of Rush, Savage, and their ilk? Or is HateWing radio a U.S. only phenom?

Jack Jodell said...

I imagine they may have a few very biased pundits, but I don't think Rush would do well in the UK. Europeans as a whole tend to be better informed and take their politics more seriously than we do here. They are also more satisfied with factual content than entertaiunment value. That is why British documentaries blow ours away.

AltandMain said...

It is a sad fact that there are so many people who listen to such talk show hosts to begin with in the US. Here in Canada, most of us view people like Savage and Limbaugh as people who belong in a mental hospital, not a radio talk show host. We also view people like Texas governor Rick Perry as crazy for that matter.

In case you are wondering, there are right wing talk show hosts here in Canada (but they would be considered quite moderate in the US), who have anti-immigrant sentiments and the like. Nothing near the popularity of Rush though (Ex: statistically, 90% of Canadians feel that adding other cultures and ideas adds to the nation and less than a third of the nation feels that there are too many immigrants; most are open to the idea of more immigrants).

Hate media is a phenomenon everywhere where the uninformed live. Education is the best defense against them. They consider themselves entertainers. Well, entertainers like Rush have so much influence that the Republican party in the US is afraid to anger him. With an informed population (ex: one that relies on something other than the US MSM for news), the "joke" will be on them.

Marc McDonald said...

Hi Chris, thanks for your comment. Do you live in Canada? I'm just curious: do you know if Canada has anything like the equivalent of the "Fairness Doctrine" (which the U.S. had until 1987). Basically, it said that since the airwaves are owned by the people, that if the likes of Rush get to spew their lies for three hours, that a broadcaster must give the other side an opportunity to respond.

AltandMain said...

We do, but the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) right now like it or not is more or less owned by corporations, especially when it comes to Internet Service Providers.

Canadian Fairness DoctrineI think that here in North America in terms of telecommunications, we are maybe 5 years behind Europe and Japan. We need more fibre optics. I think that both nations need a technology stimulus for this to work.

As for Rush, his popularity is declining. The average age of his audience is 60. Poor economy not withstanding, radio advertising is on the decline and so is radio for that matter. Internet is going to get a bigger and bigger slice of the pie. His audience is probably not nearly the 20 million he claims it is, perhaps not even 2 million.

Here in Canada, there's no Rush equal. Most talk radio is geared toward local issues more so than anything else. There are a few right wing talk show hosts, although they'd probably considered more in the center than anything else in the US.