It is a sad state of my affairs any day that I have a child home sick. I was rousted awake 2 hours early, and woe is me, I didn't spend that extra time doing anything I wanted to. This being two fold, I dealt with the sick child {in this case Captain ADHD} and then went about catching up on my Twittering, which killed off the rest of my free time. I blame me for what happened in Twitter as I thought I would educate a Michael Savage Zombie, the difference between free speech and the mandate to be heard. As always it was merely another learning moment for me, as I had somehow forgotten rule number 1 in dealing with a Savagite. They have no “real world” acceptance of common sense, which is probably why they listen to Michael Savage in the first place.

It was the typical trail of whining, because the United Kingdom blacklisted Savage, and he has spent months now complaining that they have no right to ban him. He has compiled a huge war chest of sycophantic donations to his legal fund so he can sue them, but this isn't enough as he rails against all other talk show hosts who don't defend him in this matter. In reality I believe that what the United Kingdom is doing to him is wrong, but calling upon a sovereign nation that not only doesn't have to respect our constitution, but suffered from it isn't a battle I want to take on. Partly but not completely because I can't stand it when people of other nations tell America what to do, but mostly because I can't stand Savage. It appears to be a battle that other talk show host don't want to take on either, for a bevy of reasons, but I am sure that a major reason is because Michael Savage spends a good portion of his time calling them all names, and getting his audience to do the same.

Now to be fair I have heard a few of them mention the issue and say that they think it is wrong. I personally like the fact that Mark Levin went as far as to say he thinks it's wrong but is not going to devote a lot of time to it because the guy is an insulting whiner. I have always thought that Savage was a great form of “plant” for the Democrats out in San Francisco because if you buy his spiel he not only makes conservatives look like a-holes but at the same time can lampoon, berate, and smear them constantly and cry about how “fair” he is. It's too bad because as a holistic treatment theorist, the guy is a total genius, but still completely undesirable as a human being to me, and I AM a conservative. I don't listen to people who don't entertain me, and the guy doesn't entertain me.

Now of course said “Savage Zombie” had brought the base argument that “Savage burns all the bridges to his island and sits there alone” down to usual Savage speak, “People should speak out about free speech even if their 'feelings' are hurt,” and as always they start getting tuned out like Savage himself. Name calling doesn't get your point across. I'm right, your wrong was the only real argument he had. Oh yeah, I see your point NOW! It still smells of Liberalism for anyone to demand that free speech means a mandate to be heard. I don't take guff from any bullies, and I definitely don't expect a demand from any bully to stand with them on the playground when the rest of the school has decided to kick their rump. The pathetic argument that it could happen to YOU next is laudable, because it happens to conservatives on a daily basis. Savage and all of his whining about being a conservative being picked on doesn't flush because his attitude to the people that aren't throwing down for him is about as viable as Keith Olberman demanding Rush Limbaugh come out for him because they both have opinions.

To Michael Savage I have only one piece of advice. Build a bridge, and invite people in, or keep throwing burning pitch down on your visitors, and look like a fool in a tower with a megaphone. To those that think I have to respect a bully just because he says what I think a lot of the time you get a different piece of advice. Never mind you probably won't listen anyway ;8o)