[Ed. Note: Political rant ahead. You’ve been warned.]

Forget what I said about UVSC student Sean Vreeland in yesterday’s comments on the Michael Moore controversy. If you’ll recall, I complimented Vreeland on his statement that student fees would’ve been better spent on people from the presidential campaigns than on a celebrity like Moore. When I said that, I believed that Vreeland was simply a “guy on the street” who had voiced a reasonable-sounding opinion to a reporter and been quoted in the article I linked to. Apparently I didn’t read the article closely enough. Today’s article on this whole Moore-at-UVSC imbroglio clarified the situation for me. It turns out that Vreeland is in large part responsible for the stink that’s being raised over this event. He is the mastermind of a petition to “recall” (i.e. cancel) Moore’s appearance and oust Jim Bassi and Joe Vogel, the student body officers who invited Moore to speak.

Vreeland claims that he’s up in arms over what he considers to be misuse of student funds, but I think he reveals his true colors with today’s quote: “Of course, Sean Hannity isn’t quite the extremist or activist as Michael Moore, but it’s still on the student’s dime.” Uh-huh.

Sounds to me like Mr. Vreeland is justifying his little crusade with the money issue, but when it comes right down to it, he’s really just like all the other hysterics who don’t want that nasty Michael Moore setting foot on the sanctified soil of the U.C. The pertinent phrase that leads me to this conclusion is, “Of course, Hannity isn’t quite the extremist… as… Moore.” Vreeland is, in effect, saying that Hannity is a more acceptable speaker and that spending student fees on him, while wrong, wouldn’t be quite as wrong as spending them on Moore. Sorry, kid, I’m not buying it. Either you object to the spending of your fees on celebrities or you don’t. To start saying that one celebrity pundit (and, by extension, that pundit’s viewpoint) is more worthy of the fees than another is to undermine your whole argument. Why not simply admit that you’re just another Happy Valley conservative who finds Moore so offensive that you don’t want him on your campus? The misuse-of-funds thing is just a tool to stop Moore’s appearance. As for your assertion that Hannity is not as extreme as Moore… please. The subtitle of Hannity’s bestselling book, Deliver Us From Evil, is Defeating Terrorism, Despotism and Liberalism (my emphasis). Anyone who compares his political rivals to terrorists and despots, and who denounces them not merely as wrong but as downright evil, is, in my book, the worst form of extremist. I don’t mind that Hannity has his fans and Moore his detractors, but let’s try to keep things in perspective, shall we? They’re both cut from the same cloth and they both make a living by firing up their faithful and pissing off their opponents.

I tried to remain even-handed in yesterday’s discussion of this issue (not counting the jibes about Ned Flanders) but I am fast losing my temper over all this nonsense. Protests over the arrival of an unpopular celebrity are one thing, but this is fast swelling into another of those episodes of reactionary breast-beating that Utahns seem to be so good at and which so often make me feel embarrassed to admit that I come from this state. I simply don’t understand why some people in this state seem to think that if they don’t approve of something, than no one else should either. That’s what’s really going on here, isn’t it? Certain people not wanting others to hear a particular message. Or is it?

If the point of this blow-up is that student fees have been spent in one huge lump to lure a single, controversial speaker instead of spending them on other, more practical things, well, then, that’s something worth examining and maybe taking action over. But the more I learn about this mess the more convinced I am that the money isn’t the issue. I’m 99% certain no one would have cared if that $40K had initially been offered to Hannity (who, incidentally, normally charges $100K for his presence but is waiving his speaking fees in this case; sounds to me like UVSC got a real bargain, two high-profile speakers for less than the price of one of them). But I’m convinced the thing that’s actually got everybody’s knickers tied in knots is not the money, but rather who it’s going to, namely the harshest and most inflammatory critic of President George W. Bush we have going right now.

There’s a linguistic term for this sort of attitude, people. It’s called a double standard. And it’s an attitude that Republicans, especially of the Utah variety, have elevated to a high art form. Republican pundits — not to mention a whole lot of GOP “civilians” — have spent decades spewing inflammatory, bilious, hateful garbage about Democrats and liberals, with no pang of regret and the smug certitude that they’ve done nothing wrong because they’re speaking “the truth.” But then along comes a representative for the other side who uses pretty much the exact same tactics for pretty much the exact same reason — because he’s certain that he’s speaking the truth — and the Republicans suddenly launch themselves into a complete tizzy. They are so offended by the mere mention of Moore’s name that suddenly it becomes necessary to shoot the messenger, and anyone who may have heard the messenger, and anyone who may have seen the people who heard the messenger.

Think I’m overstating my case? I don’t. Consider the goals of Vreeland’s petition drive. Not only does the petition call for cancelling Michael Moore’s appearance, but also for the student-body president and vice president to lose their jobs — in essence, punishing them for having the audacity to invoke the liberal demon. This is a scorched-earth policy that goes way too far, for no good reason that I can see aside from partisan gamesmanship, and it may in fact make more problems for UVSC. (There is some concern that Moore might sue the school for breach-of-contract if they cancel him, and he keeps the $40K either way.) But Vreeland doesn’t care about that, because he’s got his principles to uphold. Damn the principles of the Constitution, and the principles of what higher education is supposed to be about, we need to wipe out all that liberal eeee-vil.

In addition to Vreeland’s efforts, there has been talk of high-roller-types threatening to pull their donations to UVSC and never support the institution again if Moore is allowed to speak. What nonsense, what arrogance, to punish an institution in perpituity because of a single event that will be forgotten about six months from now. There simply is no rational explanation for such an extreme reaction. No rational explanation, but an obvious emotional one: plain old-fashioned hatred, and maybe even a little fear.

Fear, you say? Why would the dominant party in Utah — and let’s not dissemble and pretend that it isn’t partisan Republicans who are screaming the loudest over Moore’s appearance — be afraid of a liberal pundit speaking in their territory? I honestly don’t know, but the folks who are protesting this certainly seem to be worried about something. Are they maybe just a little bit afraid that Moore might be right?

Let me reiterate what I said yesterday: I don’t like Michael Moore. He’s an asshole who produces smug little propaganda movies with obvious agendas that do little to move the debate forward but sure do stir the shit, and I can understand why Republicans hate his guts. (Same reason we liberals hate Limbaugh and his ilk; shoe’s on the other foot now, isn’t it?) But I still don’t think it’s appropriate to prevent him from speaking just because you don’t like what he says. It may not be censorship per se, but it certainly leans in that direction.

Look, if Moore’s viewpoint is demonstrably incorrect, then Republicans should welcome the chance for him to speak and make a fool of himself. If Moore is simply offensive, then they should just say that and plan not to feed his bank account by attending the show. Either way, he should be allowed to do what he was hired to do.

Personally, I don’t like Sean Hannity but I really don’t care if he speaks somewhere in this state because I don’t have to go see him. Same rules apply to Michael Moore. If Moore offends and angers you, don’t go see him in person, don’t read the newspaper account of his appearance, and don’t watch the TV news the night he’s here. Simple solutions to something that’s not really a problem. Then if Moore fails to sell enough tickets, he won’t be invited back and might not return even if he is. (Too late for this strategy, actually: his appearance is already sold out. Although I wonder how many of those tickets went to people who are actually interesting in hearing him, and how many to hecklers.)

One final thought about this story: all the articles I’ve read about this keep saying that Hannity’s appearance is to provide “balance,” and in today’s article a member of Republican Jon Huntsman, Jr.’s campaign says that having Hannity speak will “give everybody a chance to hear a Republican view of the world.” What nonsense. I think everybody who lives in Utah has heard the “Republican view of the world.” As for balance, I think you’d have to bring in an entire liberal convention, including Moore, Al Franken, Molly Ivins, Garrison Keillor and half of Hollywood, to even begin to balance the overwhelmingly Republican tilt of this state. Who do these guys think they’re kidding? The conservatives in this state act as if they are so endangered by one lone liberal speaker, when in reality they’ve got all the cards in their hands. One evening with Michael Moore inside Utah’s protective dome cannot hurt them. I wish someone had the guts to stand up and say that…