Un-American San Francisco Supervisors Condemn Michael Savage
By: Selwyn Duke
City by the Bayâ€™s Politicians Preach Tolerance But Wonâ€™t Tolerate Dissent
It cannot be a coincidence that those who preach tolerance the most are often the most intolerable. On Tuesday, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to condemn talk show host Michael Savage for â€œhate speechâ€ after a failed attempt to do so in August. Just for the record, there is no discernable correlation between hate and hate speech, except that when leftists hate you, they will accuse you of it.
It is precisely for this reason that Savageâ€™s comments are not really germane to the issue at hand. To be sure, itâ€™s not even correct to say they â€œinspiredâ€ this maelstrom, as the true impetus behind it is a leftist dogmatism that cannot abide rightist dynamism. And if Savageâ€™s comments embodied anything, it was the latter. Here is what he said, as I related it in my first piece on this matter:
â€œOn his July 5 broadcast Savage quipped, â€˜I would say, let them fast until they starve to death, then that solves the problem.â€™â€
It was a joke . . . much like the San Francisco supervisors. Only, a funny one with a foundation in reality.
The supervisorsâ€™ action was a resolution and not a law, which makes it symbolic. Mostly, though, it was symbolic of the supervisorsâ€™ hypocrisy. So letâ€™s examine these inquisitors, these people who preach free love but project free hate.
Gerardo â€œThe US should not have a militaryâ€ Sandoval (yes, he actually said that), the man who introduced the resolution, stated in August,
â€œThe intolerant and racist comments of Michael Savage demand a strong condemnation.â€
Then, in the resolution it states,
â€œWHEREAS, The City and County of San Francisco values the dignity of all its residents, regardless of immigration status, and makes every affirmative effort to ensure that all San Franciscans live in safety, free from discrimination . . .â€
I wonder, does this include people such as Michael Savage? After all, not only have they imperiled him through their rabble-rousing, they also discriminated against him in issuing this condemnation. Moreover, they donâ€™t seem very tolerant, either; that is, not when the term is correctly understood. But since I suspect that the supervisorsâ€™ dictionaries may be gratuitously abridged â€“ or perhaps donâ€™t include many English words â€“ allow me to clarify.
Contrary to the consensus in San Francisco, the word â€œdiscriminateâ€ does not mean acting upon bias against that which leftists hold dear; rather, it simply means to choose one or some from among many.
The word â€œtoleranceâ€ is more darkly understood. The object of tolerance always involves something you perceive as a negative; for instance, youâ€™re not tolerant of a fine car or delectable meal â€“ you relish those things. You would, though, have to tolerate a cold or bad weather, as you would perceive these to be negatives. That is, unless youâ€™re a masochist, in which case you might have helped elect the San Francisco supervisors.
What this means is that if you like illegal aliens or homosexuals, youâ€™re not tolerant of them â€“ you like them. It then follows that only someone who perceives them (or their behaviors) as negatives would be capable of tolerating them.
With this understanding of the lexicon of the left, letâ€™s now examine the oh-so-tolerant and nondiscriminatory San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
They certainly could demonstrate tolerance with respect to Michael Savage, as they view his beliefs as a negative. But donâ€™t hold your breath waiting. Savage is in good company, though, since the supervisors have a history of flaunting their tolerance. In 2006, a Christian youth group named â€œTeen Maniaâ€ held a rally in San Francisco, prompting the supervisors to rally against them. As writer Beth Anderson put it:
. . . the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution condemning the event as an â€˜act of provocationâ€™ by a group they stated is â€˜anti-gay and anti-choiceâ€™ whose goal was to â€˜negatively influence the politics of Americaâ€™s most tolerant and progressive city.â€™ (Emphasis added.)
Continuing the theme of anti-Christian activism, the supervisors also condemned a Christian advertising campaign titled â€œTruth in Love,â€ which sent the message that homosexuals could change their inclinations. The board not only stated that those expressing such ideas were complicit in â€œhate crimes,â€ it even went so far as to issue a resolution asking TV stations not to run the ad.
And what is with all this condemnation anyway? After all, it seems that the only line of Scripture leftists know â€“ and they use it liberally â€“ is â€œDo not judge lest you be judgedâ€; yet, not only do they judge, they issue official condemnations!
Then, if you want to know exactly how much the supervisors eschew discrimination, just ask the Boy Scouts. This great American youth organization was banned from public schools by these politicians.
But not all the supervisorsâ€™ judgments lead to condemnations and bans. For example, they passed a law granting city employees up to 50,000 dollars of the taxpayersâ€™ money for sex-change operations. I guess this isnâ€™t surprising, as many of the supervisors act like capons.
In a similar vein, the board passed a law prohibiting job discrimination against cross-dressers and transsexuals, thereby showing no tolerance for an employerâ€™s moral right to run his business in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience.
Of course, itâ€™s not as if the supervisors squelch all liberty, perish the thought. An advertisement was recently released for the Folsom Street Fair (which is funded through the cityâ€™s hotel tax), which, as CNSNews.com puts it:
â€œ. . . depicts the Last Supper as a sadomasochism party . . .â€ and â€œ. . . replaces Jesus and his apostles with scantily leather-clad men and women sitting at a table adorned with sex toys.â€
The capons and clucking hens on the board had nothing to say about that. I suppose, though, theyâ€™re tolerant of such things. Oh, I forgot, they cannot be.
They like them.
Although itâ€™s easy to make sport of the senseless, there is a serious issue here. The City by the Bay is on the cutting edge of societal devolution. The San Francisco Board of Supervisorsâ€™ use of government muscle to enforce a leftist orthodoxy has become the standard of the fascist left in much of the western world. As I have documented before, in places such as Europe, Canada and Australia, this practice has spawned â€œhate speech laws,â€ Orwellian legislation that has already been used to punish those who dare utter politically incorrect sentiments.
In our nation, the leftâ€™s intolerance first translated into the soft tyranny of speech codes on college campuses, sensitivity training in corporations, and self-censorship by the media and others. Now weâ€™re seeing a transitional phase. It involves accustoming people to both government interference in matters of political and social discourse and the concept that â€œhate speechâ€ â€“ an illegitimate designation â€“ is so damaging to society that it must not be protected free speech. And once this thoroughly imbues our national psyche, enacting hate speech laws will just be a formality.
This is why this issue matters: The actions of the supervisors are a portent of things to come. As Michael Savage said, â€œThis is a dry run against free speech in America.â€ But itâ€™s not the first, and it wonâ€™t be the last.
And if you think that is bad, just wait until practice is over.
That is a negative if Iâ€™ve ever seen one. And itâ€™s not one we should tolerate for a moment.
Contact Selwyn Duke: SelwynDuke@optonline.net
Contact Selwyn Duke or follow him on Twitter