Don’t cry for Bill Maher - the show is too good to go off the air. Maybe it will go back to cable, and we’ll be able to see it at a reasonable hour in Chicago. Not have to wait until RERUNS of that smarmy Oprah show are over.
Be like the mouse.
Be like the mouse.
Be like the mouse.
They have Demise already!!! :eek:
Eeek, a mouse!
Just an FYI:
This topic is also being discussed in Great Debates, here.
Also, Arianna Huffington has written a column on this controversy.
Those of us spending our 33rd birthday at Club 33 in Disneyland will remain, respectfully, quiet.
Esprix
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Philster *
**
Two asses for the price of one 
Have Fun!! 
There’s a place for Disney - it’s a fun place and I own almost all of their movies. They are tremendous.
I just don’t want the whole world like that. It’s just a little bit too clean for all the time.
Y’know, I was on the fence on this issue, but Philster’s cunning and dramatic use of capitals has swung me 'round to his way of thinking.
I sent the following email to netaudr@abc.com with the subject simply “I support Bill Maher”.
I also added that I found it more offensive to hear Dan Rather apologizing for foul language on amateur tapes of the WTC implosion more offensive than what Bill Maher said. As if it is more disturbing to hear the word “shit” than to watch 7,000 people die in a crumbling inferno. I know its the wrong station reference but I think it underscores the skewed priorites the networks have.
So, this show is called Politically Incorrect, right? Obviously they’re aiming to offend. After several long years on the air one of the sitcom star/news-analysts finally manages to say something worthy of offense, the show takes some heat and then what happens?
Bill Maher cries like a little girl and apologizes.
What the fuck is this? He’s calling the US Government cowardly for not getting enough soldiers’ asses shot off over third world shit-holes and this guy isn’t man enough to stand up to Ari Fleischer, Whitehouse Spokes-muppet?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for Mark Hamill having a national forum for his insightful political commentary. But c’mon folks, pick your battles.
I agree with ya, Vic Ferrari.
I didn’t actually hear what Bill Maher said that was so offensive so all I can offer is an uninformed opinion too. But I watched him act visibly defensive on his show all of this last week, which made me very curious! I swear, every time he spoke he defended his “faux pas.” He seemed fixated on it, constantly trying to receive validation from each of his guests. It made me wonder if maybe he really DID say something offensive! I skimmed his formal apology on the PI website but still didn’t understand what the big deal was.
Maybe I’m just dense.
Anyway, thanks for the quick summary, NothingMan. I really don’t think people should get all uptight over what he said either (to me he’s just a comedian with pundit aspirations). But I also think he shouldn’t let his mouth write a cheque his butt can’t cash!
Er, Philster, I respectfully disagree. Thinking you are going to heaven and actually driving a plane into a building are two different things. That last mile must make them sweat no matter what they “believe.” Why do we have to think murdering bastards are “cowardly?” Japanese kamikazes were not cowardly either. I tend to respect my enemies, but don’t you think that connotes a lack of proper hatred. I think I could do without “cowardly” completely and still hate them just as much.
I think Maher had a point when he said that stand off weapons could be construed as cowardly. Me, I think they are smart. Both sides use whatever weapons are at their disposal.
I refuse to think that war means the end of semantic disputes. Maher simply had a small point about a word. It is used every time we get struck by a terrorist. I am thinking that saying “cowardly” seems to not be lessening the frequency or severity of the attacks. I know rightthink is doubleplusgood, but allow me a little leeway to hate the terrorists for my own reasons. Did you miss the part where I said their target selection was “cowardly?”
I understand…the target selection was cowardly.
In all fairness, Kamikaze pilots and suicide bombers are so convinced that they are pleasing their gods that they pursue their mission straight through until death. I’m sorry, but it ain’t heroic. I know no one mentioned heroism, but it smacks of cowardice, and I prefer to here it mentioned that way.
Anyone who chooses paradise over a long honest campaign on earth is more cowardly than a sailor who stands on the deck of his ship in the Persian Gulf.
The hijackers knew (I mean they were certain) they would be doing one of the greatest things for themselves, their family and for Allah…all culminating in paradise as they cripple the devil.
And by doing this against a civilian target, it makes the total act an act of cowardice.
It is very convenient that their way of life permits them to commit acts wherein resistance is near zero. How convenient that their god permits such acts. Kind of makes them all cowards by default.
“Heroic,” maybe not, but both do require physical valor – willingness to risk all – though they should really not be tied together. In the case of the Kamikaze, theirs were valid military objectives (warships that could and did shoot back at 'em) in open battle, in circumstances where the pilots could expect to be KIA shortly anyway.
The basic disagreement is with “cowardly” as a gratuitious catch-all insult, sort of like saying “bastards” regardless of their actual parentage. There’s moral cowardice and physical cowardice – the true coward has both (e.g. bin Laden, hiding in his cave while ordering death to the defenseless). A guest in Maher’s show, argued (and Maher agreed) that previous US administrations had caved in to a fear of the reaction to body bags rather than do the right thing (take out bin Laden at any cost, earlier). (BTW, I don’t think that was entirely justified – it is not cowardice to base a policy decision on cost vs. benefit. Unheroic, but not cowardly.)
What about every religious believer – Christian, Pagan, Real Muslim, Hindu, etc. – who has gone into outmatched battle facing certain death, not with the intent that deliberately dying will award him eternal bliss but still believing that because he is faithful to his God(s), were he to die that day he will get his reward in the beyond (Heaven, Valhalla, progress in the Wheel of Rebirth, etc.)? Are they less valorous than the atheist soldier who is resigned that this is the end and all that will be left will be the memory? Or are we going to presume that Christians, moderate Muslims, etc. all go into battle doubting their faith and wondering if it’s worth it? Is someone who lives unafraid of death because s/he trusts in his/her salvation less courageous than someone who is scared of what lies beyond that Great Divide?