At the link (to Metafilter) there are links to those 190 videos, with the date of the show and the names of the guests. What a great resource! What did Bryan Cranston and Little Richard talk about on June 14, 2002? Don't you want to know what Phil Hartman brought to the table on March 14, 1997? Ray Davies (with Suzanne Somers!) on April 29, 1998. Way too many crazy match-ups to mention them all in this little post, so I'll leave you with this:
Politically Incorrect was cancelled by ABC in 2002, thanks to an incident that happened six days after 9/11. Maher and political conservative Dinesh D'Souza had this conversation on the show:
D'SOUZA: Bill, there's another piece of political correctness I want to mention. And, although I think Bush has been doing a great job, one of the themes we hear constantly is that the people who did this are cowards.Video here. Maher's comment was misinterpreted as saying the U.S. military was "cowardly." D'Souza's role in the conversation was ignored. A backlash followed. Several major advertisers (FedEx, Sears, General Motors) pulled out of the show and 17 ABC affiliates dropped it. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer denounced Maher's comments. Several months later, ABC cancelled the show citing poor ratings. Political (in)correctness had killed Politically Incorrect.
MAHER: Not true.
D'SOUZA: Not true. Look at what they did. First of all, you have a whole bunch of guys who are willing to give their life. None of them backed out. All of them slammed themselves into pieces of concrete.
MAHER: Exactly.
D'SOUZA: These are warriors. And we have to realize that the principles of our way of life are in conflict with people in the world. And so -- I mean, I'm all for understanding the sociological causes of this, but we should not blame the victim. Americans shouldn't blame themselves because other people want to bomb them.
MAHER: But also, we should -- we have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly. You're right.
Posts
35 comments:
The U.S. military insists that every enemy we face is somehow larger than life. Cunning, ingenious and virtually unstoppable. Of course, our military, the "best in the world," is up to the task. They just need a ton of money and a population willing to look the other way while they behave like savages.
Churchill, my emphasis
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.
I would have preferred he say that terms like bravery and cowardice are not applicable to religious fanatics. I would have preferred he not take a gratuitous dig at the US. He would have been wiser to wait a while before saying anything, but his words were only a big deal because of the timing.
And the timing was awful.
We, as Americans, believe that every enemy we face is somehow larger than life. Al Qaeda was the latest cunning, ingenious and virtually unstoppable adversary that threatened our democracy. It's some sort of religious mania that impels us to confront every psycho out there like he's the anti-Christ. And our military has a vested interest in this mania. The military gets tons of cash and a population willing to look the other way while its soldiers behave like savages.
Belmont Club on the Western motives:
The important thing to grasp about al-Qaeda is not that it is a religious conspiracy, though it is, but that it is a conspiracy: a cabal with leaders, sources of funding, wellsprings of legitimacy — the works. The accidents of the conspiracy are less important than its essence. But the Obama administration insists on treating it like a species of copycat crime, a random collection of individual misdeeds unrelated in any meaningful sense. Boko is just a bunch of people filled with “hate”, no different from you average intolerant Christian. Exit warfare. Enter lawfare.
I think the issue is the use of the word cowardly to separate our actions from theirs.he was trying to say it takes a lot of courage to sacrifice yourself in a plane that you deliberately fly into a building. That does take courage, but I wouldn't say it was courageous (denoting a positive use of courage)
Whereas dropping bombs doesn't require a lot of bravery on our part.the word "cowardly" is wrong and inflammatory though.
Its impersonal and matter of fact to drop bombs or do a drone strike, but not cowardly. Its efficient.
"we have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly."
So "that's cowardly" was misinterpreted to mean "that's cowardly"?
Those dark, uncertain days after 9/11 did not lend themselves to philosophical discussion. Bill Mather and D'Souza wanted to have a nuanced discussion on whether or not a bunch of jihadists, who had just taken down the twin towers with two hihjacked planes, were cowardly mass murderers or warriors.
Considering the time and place, the mood of the public and the venue, it was an arrogant, asinine, thing to do.
No one knew who D'Souza was when he espoused an unpopular premise. He got a pass. Maher was the "personality" and he paid the price for expressing his opinion on the airwaves, when most folks just wanted to get the S.O.B's responsible for attacking our country so brazenly.
Bad timing and tough sh** for Mather.
But, they (the TV network) brought him back.
Bill Mather was and still is an asshole.
D'Souza is most likely on his way to the slammer for violation of campaign finance laws.
The conclusion: Neither one of these guys was being "pollitically correct" when the people were calling for swift and bold action against terrorists.
Spiros Pappas, you might want to review the definition of "savages."
"Its impersonal and matter of fact to drop bombs or do a drone strike, but not cowardly. Its efficient."
Dropping bombs in World War II resulted in a 33% mortality for air crews in the 8th Air Force. The guys directing drone strikes are sitting in air conditioned control rooms.
The religious fanatics who flew those planes into the World Trade Center are similar to the fanatics who blow themselves up with suicide bombs. That's not courage, which Hemingway defined as "grace under pressure."
They are deluded and we had better recognize it before we have any more Fort Hood outrages.
The swordsman always accuses the archer of cowardice.
I genuinely hope we can work Donald Sterling and/or the Duck Dynasty guy (Phil?) into the comment thread.
Following bad plans to an honorable death to prevent family shame is not the Scots-Irish way of war. Finding the weapons and devising flexible tactics to win battles is our American way.
Maher was told off for glorifying the cultures of the losers.
The Enola Gay crew were winners. Honor those men. Losers wanting everyone to commit suicide for the Sun god emperors or black rocks in Mecca. deserve no honor whether they are brain washed into loving death lighter than a feather.
Spiros Pappas,
Here is Chief Master Sergeant John Gebhardt behaving like a savage.
Oh! My bad! The Iraqi insurgents that murdered her entire family and shot her in the head are the savages. The American serviceman behaved like an angel.
Michael K wrote:
"The religious fanatics who flew those planes into the World Trade Center are similar to the fanatics who blow themselves up with suicide bombs. That's not courage, which Hemingway defined as "grace under pressure."
They are deluded and we had better recognize it before we have any more Fort Hood outrages."
blowing yourself does require courage in the same way being a serial killer does. But I can't argue that it wouldn't take courage to do something like that. And if courageous is the wrong word, then how about lacking of fear.
Doing a drone strike is like playing a video game. Still, if that is the way we can kill our enemies without getting our own guys killed, I'll take it.
Several years ago, when Diane Sawyer was still on Good Morning America, she interviewed a teen-age Palestinian girl who wanted to become a suicide bomber and blow up Israelis. Diane did her best wide-eyed, incredulous look and said to the sweet young thing: Would you really be willing to die for your cause? And I yelled at the television set: That’s the wrong question; ask her if she would really be willing to kill and maim men, women, and children for her cause.
We allow ourselves to be blinded by the fact that these people kill themselves, when what matters is that they kill other people, in the case of 9/11, our people.
Is that why Maher turned into a bitter lefty?
My problem with Maher is that for the most part, he is a liberal whack job. He hid behind being politically incorrect, when in reality, he was just a shill for the DNC, et al. Nothing politically incorrect about taking the politically correct view of Republican administrations and politicians. I enjoyed him for a short while, but then quit watching when his political correctness overwhelmed whatever whit he may have had.
Spiros Pappas:
"The U.S. military insists that every enemy we face is somehow larger than life."
Example, please? In my experience it doesn't.
"Cunning, ingenious and virtually unstoppable."
No, but when our armed forces allow themselves to be surprised, it's reasonable to ask them why they allowed themselves to be. We're always accused of trying to fight the last war. So we get our cunning and ingenious people (google Paul van Riper for a good example) to try to think like an enemy: How would I hurt us if that's what I wanted to do?
It's not a bad practice, I think. If you have a better idea, I'd be interested to know it.
"Of course, our military, the 'best in the world,' is up to the task."
Nice scare quotes. All things being equal, I think we have the most capable military in the world. We should: We're a large, wealthy (for now) country and we've made it a priority. Others are better at some tasks, and if geopolitics permit, we tend to partner with them and let each do what it does best.
"They just need a ton of money"
Inarguable. Still, a much smaller percentage of GDP than it used to be. Consider the ratio of defense to welfare spending at the height of the Afghan and Iraq wars versus, say, 1962. Consider too that our military was a bargain in, say, 1913, 1938, 1949 and 1999.
"and a population willing to look the other way while they behave like savages."
I can't speak for the whole military, being at the moment just a low-ranking part-time soldier. But I don't want the population to look the other way while I behave like a savage. To my recollection I haven't behaved like a savage, and don't want to.
As for those I've served with, a few are assholes. Quite a few are amazing. The huge majority were thoroughly decent men and women, bright, irreverent yet respectful, barely older than kids, burdened with life-and-death responsibilities, who comported themselves in combat zones with honor, and with as much kindness as they could show to local civilians without getting themselves killed. Day in and day out, one year on and one year back home; repeat.
You may, of course, give me examples of soldiers who've committed true atrocities. I think they should be shot, and I'm by no means the only one. To take them as representative is either malicious or delusional.
In short, your slur on my fellow soldiers tells me nothing about them, and quite a bit about you. I wish you a peaceful Memorial Day.
Maybe so, but it is undeniable that Maher is a porpoise nosed sack of crap as subsequent events have proven.
Richard Fernandez over at Belmont Club has an essay up today "Burning the Steak" that discusses all of this. Good read. Actually Richard is a must read everyday. When logging on it's Fernandez first then Althouse second...no offense to the Professor.
Did they ever establish that the. 9-11 hijackers who we're not "pilots" knew that the pilots' mission was to crash?
rhhardinsaid..not going to post..to long,,but..it is never a bad idea to look to Churchill for wisdom
No tears for Maher. He's like the alcoholic that spent his life drunk, then finds out his liver is toast.
His moronic philosophy led him to cancellation. Its just a shame that he got away with it for so long.
Only in America could the commie pinko lefties see Maher as a hero.
I struggle mightily to see the talent. And a world class phony. "I am not a racist, I gave a million $ to Obama's campaign."
A fundamental assumption/premise in war is that your enemy does not want to die in the act of fighting you.
All forms of deterrence are based on that premise being true.
When it is true, you have a whole range of options, from the non-combat 'our obvious and overwhelming strength, and the will to use it, deters any attack' on one end, to 100% genocide of the threat, on the other.
When the assumptions isn't true, only two options exist. Complete surrender or 100% genocide of the threat. By all means necessary.
By his nature, the enemy tells you which one you have to use.
JPS
Thanks for your excellent rebuttal to Spiros Pappas. I was gonna go on a rant, but your wisdom sums it all up perfectly.
I have always loved/hated Bill Maher's perspectives. He was taken out of context in this discussion but the mood of the country was not nuanced at the time.
No tears shed though. His biased perspectives, especially on religion, can get reptilian. I'd say he is generally bold, but then again he needs a very supportive live audience to carry his points and to laugh at his partisan "jokes" that offend half the country.
My favorite moment ever on his new show was when Christopher Hitchens flipped off his audience full of sycophants.
How courageous is it to commit suicide when you are guaranteed a place in an eternal paradise?
jr565, the problem with the D'Souza/Maher take on courage is that too many of the people who make it with regard to Islamic suicide bombers would see a Christian martyr like Pastor Sayeed or Meriam Ibrahim as nothing but a gullible fool.
"Others are better at some tasks, and if geopolitics permit, we tend to partner with them and let each do what it does best."
Whenever I hear this I think of the Japanese economic minister (Nagano?)in the early 90's who famously said, "the United States should stick to producing wheat and Marines and let Japan manage the global economy."
Right before the Japanese economy imploded.
JPS I almost always met a better class of people in the military than I routinely met in publishing or the film business. Maybe not better known, or better paid, but smarter, more decent, better educated, more compassionate...
...and that was in the infantry. Lord knows how refined the ladeeda REMFS were.
I'm not sure how Maher's phrase was "misinterpreted" as saying the US military is cowardly, given that he cites something the US military does and then says "That's cowardly".
But whatever, he was just trying to get a reaction and got a little too much of one. He's done fine since. What bothers me, though, is that the version of the event that HE tells is that he was fired for saying the terrorists weren't cowards. Um, no -- the part that pissed people off was saying that American soldiers were cowardly.
If Maher were on fire, I wouldn't bother to cross the street to urinate on him. It wasn't that his statements were politically incorrect, it's that they were stupid, offensive, and wicked. And by no means were his stupid, offensive, and wicked statements limited to this occasion; that's Maher's entire shtick, the only thing of any novelty that he has to sell. Such people should be shunned and driven from public life, not because they hold distasteful views, but because they are themselves toxic people.
Maher's mistake was using the word cowardly to describe our actions. Just because they are not cowards when blowing themselves doesn't mean we are cowards if we don't.
Maher's comment was misinterpreted as saying the U.S. military was "cowardly."
Huh?
No, that's exactly what he said. The primary doctrine of how we FIGHT wars is to pound the (pun intended) living hell out of the opposition from a safe distance until resistance has been minimized and then send in the shooters. IF WE CAN. Sometimes that doesn't work, sometimes we need a specific person alive and able to talk (or a whole lot of someones) sometimes the "collateral damage" is too high.
But standard doctrine since we invented artillery was to use range weapons to minimize "our" casualties and maximize theirs.
If lard butt chickenshits like Maher want to call that cowardice, they can damn well step up to be the first guy out the back of the airplane, the first guy off the truck or the guy right behind the guy who kicks the door open.
And why is it progressive fucktards like him always get to "clarify" their remarks?
If I ever meet him I'm going straight to jail and it will be SO worth it.
Post a Comment