He once said that he respects Chris Rock because Rock was not afraid of saying things to a black audience that would get them upset. This is why I like them both, because there is a serious shortage of people in mainstream media willing to say anything that has a chance of alienating potential viewers.
It is also a sad state of affairs that this is coming from a comic and not from the halls of congress.
I disagree. In fact, I vote that it’s not funny.
I don’t know this for a fact, but I’d be willing to bet a fair amount of cash that Ward Churchill despises the Democratic party. Most radical leftists do.
For the people that pronounce it “knee-zher” it didn’t make any sense at all. Now that I understand the context, it still seems a bit stupid. Bravo for the rest of Maher’s comments, though.
Yeah, that was part of my point.
He’s quite explicit about having very little time for either major party, and argues that they have both been responsible for very similar depredations and injustices over the years. His work on the FBI’s COINTELPRO escapades, and on American policies towards native Americans, make quite clear that he holds both parties pretty much equally responsible for most major problems.
I’ve always thought that people like him are lazy thinkers. Rather than trying to determine what the specific strengths and weaknesses of each party are, and making a decision based on studied thought, he takes the easy way out and declares that both sides are equally bad. This allows him to be a posturing “lone hero” who isn’t expected to actually win any battles. Well, guess what-you won’t find very many instances in life where both sides of a conflict are absolutely equal. If you haven’t got the guts to take a side, get your ass out of the battle and shut the hell up.
Czar, it is possible for a person to try to determine what the specific strengths and weaknesses of each party are, and make a decision based on studied thought that they both suck. I think the sheer apathy of the American electorate — notoriously one of the most who-gives-a-fuck electorates on earth — speaks volumes about the fact that the dichotomy drawn by the Big Two bears no resemblance to real life.
I also think Larry Borgia is right. Churchill is one example, and Michael Moore is another. As he confessed in an interview:
If you know anything about me, anybody who’s followed me, I’m the anti-Democrat. I have railed against the Democrats for a long time. They have been a weak-kneed, wimpy party that hasn’t stood up to the Republicans. They let the working people down across this country. I rallied against Clinton when he was in office. I didn’t vote for him in ‘96. I didn’t vote for Gore in 2000.Nevertheless, he was invited to speak at the most recent Democratic convention, and Democrats on this board have defended him mightily.
And I agree with F. U. Shakespeare. It is utterly remarkable that conservatives have not assembled with torches to burn down the mission over the Plame incident. What the fuck does it take to break people — left and right — out of their partisan stupor?
By inviting him to speak at their convention and defending him mightily, didn’t the Democrats show that at least they were interested in the changes he’s proposing? I don’t see a chance in hell of anything of this sort happening at a Republican convention. And if you can’t see a difference in the way the Congress is operating under the Democrats as opposed to the way Republicans ran the place, I might have to start thinking that you are another who uses the “false equivalence” fallacy as an excuse, too.
You mean you might start thinking less of me than you always have? :eek: We’ll need a new number system to quantify your new contempt. 
Only when you make cheap shots in lieu of answering questions, Liberal.
De you really think that the country is equally worse off under the Democrats as we were under the Republicans?
Do you really think I said that?
No, I am asking if you believe that.
Of course the Democrats never bomb random countries, perform clandestine CIA operations that make you embarassed to be an American, or get involved in conflicts that kill millions of people for bullshit reasons.
Joking aside, I will concede I would prefer the Dems in power right now compared to the Republicans. I’d also prefer to get kicked in the knee rather than the balls.
I think the Pubbies are too hung up on the letter of the law and finding ways to interpret it such that outing Plame would not be a crime. Let’s assume for a moment that she wasn’t technically covert- it was still reprehensible to out her as an act of political retribution. Regardless of its legality, the reason for the outing was to make her husband less credible in criticizing the case for war. Legal or not, that stinks and is a gross abuse of power. If her outing was not legal, then it’s gross abuse of power AND treason.
I agree with your larger point. However, I’ve seen this (quoted above) sentiment expressed in many places and I don’t understand. If anything, the association to a spy should increase his credibility, shouldn’t it? I mean, presumably spies know their shit, especially one involved in WMDs. I thought the entire idea was simple punishment to Plame in particular with the general addition of the intended chilling effect it would have on other spies or simply people in the know who work in the govt. who may feel compelled to speak the truth to the press.
But you’re right. It’s important to keep in mind this all goes back – as almost everything seemingly does with this administration – back to Iraq and the push for war back in 2002.
Maher had Dan Rather on a few weeks ago, and Rather pointed out that in the past few years that it was primarily the comedians (Maher, Stewart, Colbert) who were speaking (uggh, his words not mine), “truth to power”. As opposed to politicians and the mainstream media.
I thought it was a good point.
Say what you will about Maher, but I find the discussions on his show more relevant, honest, and intelligent than most other stuff on the air on a weekly basis.
He speaks to authors, reporters, and insiders and he doesn’t let the politicians on his show just straight-up stump when they’re talking to him. Sure, he definitely grandstands more than someone like Tim Russert or Bob Shieffer, but that’s part of his schtick, and it doesn’t mean that his guests don’t get to say their piece.
And, his bit on Bush & Cheney’s treason this week was a classic.
See, i disagree with this. Not regarding Ward Churchill specifically, but regarding those who tend to point to the iniquities of both parties, whether from the far right or the far left.
Another far left example might be Noam Chomsky. His dislike of both parties isn’t the result of lazy thinking. You might accuse Chomsky of many things, but i don’t think lazy thinking can reasonably be one of them. In fact, his criticism of both parties involves a fairly complex institutional analysis which concludes that not only do they share many assumptions and goals about how government should work, but that their similarities are almost inevitable, considering the nationalistic and self-perpetuating tendencies of governments.
A lot of libertarians make similar institutional arguments, positing that government is problematic even when run by those with the best of intentions, precisely because the structure of government and the need for marshal support among the populace leads to certain types of behaviors and serves to marginalize positions that call the system itself into question.
I should add, also, that it is possible to make those sort of critiques and still recognize that one of the major parties can do a better job than the other. Chomsky does this, and you can also see it among libertarians, many of whom used to hold their nose and vote Republican, and who now hold their nose and vote Democrat.
For me, having “the guts to take a side” involves also having the guts to say that there are more than two sides, and that neither of the two major parties has the right to assume that i will only be choosing between the two of them.
Despite whatever disagreements we might have had, Mhendo, I couldn’t agree more with your replies above. Your description of holding one’s nose and voting the lesser of two evils is spot on.
You have a good point. I think part was to undermine Wilson’s credibility, suggesting that his trip to Niger was just a boondoggle arranged by his wife the secret agent. As if a trip to Niger is something to be coveted (no offense to the good people of Niger). And another part was just striking back at his family, partly for revenge and partly to try to intimidate him from making more reports. If any or all of these are the case, it really isn’t what the taxpayers are paying Bush and Cheney for.