Bill Maher vs. Conan O'Brien

[Frostbite]

Why did Bill Maher get axed because he spoke his mind about Bush and his oil buddies, but Conan O'Brien does it practically every night and doesn't? Isn't that playing with fire? Or is he safe because it's a humor program?

 

[aerocontrols]

Why did Bill Maher get axed because he spoke his mind about Bush and his oil buddies, but Conan O'Brien does it practically every night and doesn't? Isn't that playing with fire? Or is he safe because it's a humor program?

I think your memory is wrong. If Bill Maher got axed because of his statements rather than his sagging ratings, the statement that did it was his reference to the US Military as 'cowards' for dropping bombs from X thousand feet. This caused sponsors to flee the show.

MattJ

 

[Frostbite]

Well, that sucks. It was a good show.

 

[renata]

I think your memory is wrong. If Bill Maher got axed because of his statements rather than his sagging ratings, the statement that did it was his reference to the US Military as 'cowards' for dropping bombs from X thousand feet. This caused sponsors to flee the show.

MattJ

More precisely, he objected to 9/11 hijackers called as cowards, and said they are not the cowards, we are the cowards- for the cruise missiles. So not only did he call military cowards, he compared them unfavorably to the hijcakers. He did it shortly (within a month or two, I think) after the attacks. Sponsors dropped him, ratings dropped and he was gone.

 

[Elektrix]

To be even more precise, if I recall, he isn't even the one who brought up the comparison, but simply agreed with this idea brought up by another guest on the show.... although the story was twisted that he simply said the US military are cowards.

He has a new show on HBO I think, but I don't have HBO so I haven't seen it. It sounds though like its very much in the same vein as PI.

Also, for what it's worth, although this incident really did kill the show, it's ratings were already flagging (if anything in the immediate aftermath it drew more attention to the show).... most likely it would have survived if its ratings were better, in some form.

-Elektrix

 

[Regnad Kcin]

More precisely, he objected to 9/11 hijackers called as cowards, and said they are not the cowards, we are the cowards- for the cruise missiles. So not only did he call military cowards, he compared them unfavorably to the hijcakers. He did it shortly (within a month or two, I think) after the attacks. Sponsors dropped him, ratings dropped and he was gone.

Wow, this is like the rumor game.

Actually, Mr. Maher was engaging in an overly picky bit of semantic parsing. In the face of constant references to the 9/11 hijackers as "cowardly," he opined that that event's specific act of destruction, including the willful suicide of the participants, was not cowardly, in that it can be easily observed that they had the (ultimate) courage of their convictions. Drawing a parallel to any remote, and therefore impersonal, attack by missile is problematic in that it risks an apples/oranges problem. The question is not the method, it's the policy.

What BM overlooked, I think, is that there is a secondary meaning to the word cowardice. While the physical attacks on NY and D.C. may have taken a measure of bravery, the act as a method for advancing one's cause was cowardly. Such are not the ways of civilized, brave people.

 

[Elektrix]

Yeah, good point Reg, and you're right. He was really just complaining about the use of the word for describing the act..... sort of hard to believe, when you think about it. But it seems like very small things can blow up into very big ones.

-Elektrix

 

[Frostbite]

Wow, this is like the rumor game.

Actually, Mr. Maher was engaging in an overly picky bit of semantic parsing. In the face of constant references to the 9/11 hijackers as "cowardly," he opined that that event's specific act of destruction, including the willful suicide of the participants, was not cowardly, in that it can be easily observed that they had the (ultimate) courage of their convictions. Drawing a parallel to any remote, and therefore impersonal, attack by missile is problematic in that it risks an apples/oranges problem. The question is not the method, it's the policy.

What BM overlooked, I think, is that there is a secondary meaning to the word cowardice. While the physical attacks on NY and D.C. may have taken a measure of bravery, the act as a method for advancing one's cause was cowardly. Such are not the ways of civilized, brave people.

Nice play on words, but really, seriously, does it really matter if the 9-11 attackers were brave or not? What would we say if a US fighter pilot kamikazed on an Iraqi war factory? He would be considered a hero. Same thing for the guys who killed the 3,000 innocent on 9-11. They're considered heroes for whoever who is on their side.

Anyone with an ounce of intellect knows that it's all about which side of the fence you're standing, and it's true that lobbing missiles from 2,000 miles away is cowardly, in the military sense. Not in the peace-keeping sense, of course. The US has a technological edge, and it uses all means possible to reach its goals.

BM's opinion was politically incorrect in that it was irrelevant. It doesn't matter what he thought, but like someone pointed out, he might have agreed with someone on his show, or contradicted someone who said the 9-11 attacks were cowardly. Because in the minds of the attackers, who weren't insane but rather extremely dedicated to their cause (wether that "cause" is good or bad depends simply on where in the world you were born).

 

[renata]

Wow, this is like the rumor game.

Actually, Mr. Maher was engaging in an overly picky bit of semantic parsing. In the face of constant references to the 9/11 hijackers as "cowardly," he opined that that event's specific act of destruction, including the willful suicide of the participants, was not cowardly, in that it can be easily observed that they had the (ultimate) courage of their convictions. Drawing a parallel to any remote, and therefore impersonal, attack by missile is problematic in that it risks an apples/oranges problem. The question is not the method, it's the policy.

What BM overlooked, I think, is that there is a secondary meaning to the word cowardice. While the physical attacks on NY and D.C. may have taken a measure of bravery, the act as a method for advancing one's cause was cowardly. Such are not the ways of civilized, brave people.

This is pretty funny! I am a politics buff, and think I have a good memory, but both Elektrix and you reminded me of my errors!

So we have several people, all versed in current events and poltiics, all remembering a relatively recent event differently. Witness accounts are worth nothing! It is like a broken telephone game- purple monkey crocodile.


Thanks for the corrections. Sorry, aerocontrols!

 

[Skeptic]

What would we say if a US fighter pilot kamikazed on an Iraqi war factory? He would be considered a hero.

Perhaps; more likely, he would have been considered very rash, if not insane, unless there was an EXCELLENT reason for doing so, such as stopping the "War factory" (whatever that is) from killing his comrades, which could not have been done in any other way.

Second, while a kamikaze attack on a "war factory" MIGHT have been seen as heroic under SOME--very extreme and unlikely--circumstances, a pilot that would have kamikazed into a hotel, or hospital, or office building, etc., most certainly would have been regarded as insane, or at least deeply misguided, not as a hero.

Third, it would most definitely would have been shocking to the American public if it was revealed that this action was part of an overall policy, and not an individual act under extreme circumstances. The discovery existence of such an hypothetical "kamikaze policy" would have been met with VERY strong disapproval--unlike the reaction of Muslims to 9/11, who saw it as a perfectly reasonable general policy.

Anyone with an ounce of intellect knows that it's all about which side of the fence you're standing,

No, it isn't "all about which side of the fence you're standing"-sse below. But thanks for the compliment.

and it's true that lobbing missiles from 2,000 miles away is cowardly, in the military sense.

No, it isn't. Only people who were never in the military think that. There is this perception that the object of soldiering is to be "brave", "heroic", a "fighter", and that the more dangerous (and preferably, hand-to-hand) the fighting is, the "better" soldier you are.

That's true only in the Rambo or James Bond movies. The point of the army is to defeat the enemy; and anything that does this more efficiently, and with less risk to your troops, is better, not worse, militarily. Taking unnecessary risks is the absolute OPPOSITE of what a good army should be about. Bluntly put, a skinny nerd that fires a missle from 2000 miles away that hits the target is a BETTER soldier than a whole division of Rambo-like "heroes" who get killed in the attempt of doing it face-to-face. That won't be the "brave" thing to do, but rather the stupid thing to do--it wastes lives and doesn't get the job done. If anybody deserves a medal here, it's the skinny nerd; the Rambos' division commander would deserve a court-martial for such "bravery".

Because in the minds of the attackers, who weren't insane but rather extremely dedicated to their cause (wether that "cause" is good or bad depends simply on where in the world you were born).

No, it also depends on what the goals of the cause is: whether the cause is freedom or a sixth-century islamic theocracy, equality or the butchery of all the infidels, and so on. The goal of the terrorists--a worldwide islamic theocracy, sans democracy, human rights, science, freedom, "infidels", etc.--is patently horrible. This means their cause is evil. Where you were born has nothing to do with it.

Nazism, too, was very popular for a time in Germany, and unpopular everywhere else. That hardly means that deciding whether Nazism was good or bad depended "simply on where in the world you were born". Nazism, like radical islam, was intrinsically evil.

 

[corplinx]

I never liked Bill Maher or his show. I watched if a few times when it was on comedy central. Do we really need to know what macho man randy savage thinks about foreign policy?

Maher's own insights were no more intelligent than the suppositions of your average FM deejay.

Ron Silver was on the show. Unfortunately, he was a bit too intelligent for it. Square peg.

Maher had a good friend in Kato Kaelin (or whatever the schlep who slept at OJ's place was called). He had him on his show as if he was somebody. He also had Gary Shandling on. Gary Shandling basically piefaced the very dumb and very unfunny Kato (or Cato or whatever his silly name was). Now that was good TV!

Anyhoo, when a major network picked up Politically Incorrect I became baffled. Its a show with an fm deejay liberal moderator and a bunch of clueless celebs being for the most part politically correct.

Good riddinse to bad rubbish. I'm sorry HBO picked up this guy.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Anyone with an ounce of intellect knows that it's all about which side of the fence you're standing, and it's true that lobbing missiles from 2,000 miles away is cowardly, in the military sense.

Well there goes relativism.

Seriously its interesting how many of these extremist liberals always go off about multiculturalism, relativism and avoiding absolutes.


But then go on in a next couple of breathes to criticize the US as doing something "bad" and an act making you just as bad as a dictators, even if you have different aims.

i.e. "They killed people, innocent civilians in a war, ALL such killing is wrong." Sounds absolutist there.

Not that we should let anything like consistency get in the way though. As I may accuse relativists and radicals of many things, but consistency is never one of them.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

The discovery existence of such an hypothetical "kamikaze policy" would have been met with VERY strong disapproval--unlike the reaction of Muslims to 9/11, who saw it as a perfectly reasonable general policy.

A nitpick to an otherwise very good answer -- I would say the reaction of "some" Muslims, or "the militant" Muslims, rather than just "Muslims" in general.

But your other points were on target.


NA

 

[Frostbite]

No, it also depends on what the goals of the cause is: whether the cause is freedom or a sixth-century islamic theocracy, equality or the butchery of all the infidels, and so on. The goal of the terrorists--a worldwide islamic theocracy, sans democracy, human rights, science, freedom, "infidels", etc.--is patently horrible. This means their cause is evil. Where you were born has nothing to do with it.

Nazism, too, was very popular for a time in Germany, and unpopular everywhere else. That hardly means that deciding whether Nazism was good or bad depended "simply on where in the world you were born". Nazism, like radical islam, was intrinsically evil.

I agree with you about the kamikaze thing, it would probably be viewed as very rash and inhumane. And by "war factory" I meant any building that serves war purposes. English isn't my first language so bear that in mind.

A world without democracy, human rights, science or freedom might be horrible and "evil" to you, but it's what many millions of people want. As I said before, it's all about your cultural background. Freedom isn't necessarily needed to be happy, it isn't necessarily what EVERYONE wants. That's what you need to understand. I like freedom (or at least the illusion of freedom of choice), and I couldn't live without it. But at least I realize that some people don't want that. Some people need a spiritual leader to show them the way, to tell them what to do. And I'm not gonna tell a foreigner what they need to do or think, and I expect they won't do that to me either. It's about empathy and accepting that there are different cultures in the world, and that everyone doesn't necessarily want your capitalist system.

I also understand that there's no way in hell we'll even agree on this, because my country wasn't attacked on 9-11. It's your duty as a US citizen to see to the interests of your country, culturally and economically and politically. The US has been very defensive about its political views on the world since then, it's a defense mechanism. But I'm just saying that, strapping yourself with bombs and blowing yourself up for your cause is an act of desperation. I'm thinking there should be attempts to understand that, to understand what's going on in the minds of these kamikazes, how their culture made them what they are. Is there other ways to solve that problem than to lob missiles at them? I believe there are.

 

[BobK]

How many of the 9/11 hijackers realized the intent was to crash the planes(killing them all) and not just a normal hijacking(with a chance to survive)

 

[aerocontrols]

Is there other ways to solve that problem than to lob missiles at them? I believe there are.

The way to solve that problem is to address their complaints:

1) Eliminate the US Troop presence in Saudi Arabia

2) Eliminate sanctions on Iraq.

3) Establish peace between Israel and a Palestinian State.

MattJ

 

[Skeptic]

A nitpick to an otherwise very good answer -- I would say the reaction of "some" Muslims, or "the militant" Muslims, rather than just "Muslims" in general.

But your other points were on target.


NA

Sadly, I would say that "muslims" is pretty accurate.

This is NOT because all, or most, muslims are fanatical terrorists supporting people. But THOSE WHO HAVE THE POWER AND INFLUENCE ARE, AND THEY ARE DETERMINING THE COURSE.

Since radical islam is determining what face islam shows to the world--the radical one--it is not unfair for an outsider to equate "radical islam" with "islam" at this time.

To give an analogy, suppose that christendom was ruled, today, by a fanatical Pope with his spanish inquisition, complete with the setting of the policy of what to do about jews, muslims, etc.

It would not have to be the case that all, or most, christians actually agreed with him, for one to fairly say that "christianity" is acting in the way the pope says. To call it "radical christianity" would be superflous.

 

[Skeptic]

A world without democracy, human rights, science or freedom might be horrible and "evil" to you, but it's what many millions of people want. As I said before, it's all about your cultural background.

You are confusing the fact that millions of people THINK that something is good, with the fact that it IS, in fact, evil.

To give the most obvious example from recent history, millions of people in Germany honestly believed that exterminating the jews and the enslavement of the slavs was good.

So?

Freedom, human rights, democracy and scientific knowledge are ESSENTIALLY good; their opposite--slavery, opression, theocracy, and religious ignorance are ESSENTIALLY bad. The fact that "millions of people" disagree is of no more consequence than the fact that millions of Germans wanted the jews dead. Moral truth, like scientific truth, isn't decided by vote!

Sure, if I had grown up in a deeply fundamentalist muslim home, I would have preferred slavery to freedom today. But if I had grown up in a flat-earther's home, I would probably believe the earth is flat today. But so what? The earth is still round, and slavery is still bad.

Freedom isn't necessarily needed to be happy, it isn't necessarily what EVERYONE wants.That's what you need to understand.

I understand it all right. It's one of the main causes of evil in this world, since those who hate freedom don't simply themselves into slavery to avoid its horrors; they don't want ANYBODY to be free.

I like freedom (or at least the illusion of freedom of choice),

I like chocolate ice cream.

and I couldn't live without it. But at least I realize that some people don't want that. Some people need a spiritual leader to show them the way, to tell them what to do. And I'm not gonna tell a foreigner what they need to do or think, and I expect they won't do that to me either.

But that won't work, will it?

Those who hate freedom hate it ANYWHERE. They don't want ANYBODY to have it. To expect those who hate freedom and love religious fanaticism to respect your rights to anything, is like going into the alligator cage in the zoo and expecting not to be bitten if you agree not to bite THEM.

On what basis do you--an inferior infidel of a decadent culture (according to them)--DARE to NOT want to accept the blessings and insights of islam? How can such an heretical demand be entertained? No, Mr. Infidel; you have no right to do so. Don't you know all the world must be awakened to the truth given to Muhammed by Allah--whether they want to or not?

It's about empathy and accepting that there are different cultures in the world,

...like Nazism, for instance.

and that everyone doesn't necessarily want your capitalist system.

Indeed so; the Nazis, for example, were national SOCIALISTS--fighting against the evil, jewish-controlled capitalism in the decadent democracies. Who are you to tell them they were wrong?

(Oh, and it isn't "my" capitalistic system. It's at least "our" capitalistic system, presuming you live in the capitalistic west. No fair enjoying capitalism's fruits, and then claiming that it's all somebody else's fault when dealing with its problems because it's "my" or "their" system and not yours.)

But I'm just saying that, strapping yourself with bombs and blowing yourself up for your cause is an act of desperation.

No, it isn't.

It is done by fanatics who think they will WIN if they do so--a place in heaven for themselves, islam on earth for their brethen. The more you try to give to such people to stop their "desperation", the more convinced they become that they ARE winning, and the MORE--not less--suicide bombings you get.

You want to stop suicide bomings? MAKE them desperate! Convince them that nothing they'll do will help spread islam! That will stop it in a second--even fanatics don't like dying for a losing cause.

I must say that, for someone who claims to "understand" the culture of the suicide bombers, you are remarkably off the mark in just about every point in your understanding of their culture.

You essentially treat them as WESTERNERS who just HAPPEN to have some odd ideas about liking slavery better than freedom, or theocracy better than democracy--just like some westerners prefer, say, Democrats to Republicans (or vise versa), or for that matter, chocolate to vanilla ice cream.

This is seen by the fact that you think it reasonable to expect that they will respect your desire for freedom (they won't); that you they hate freedom because it makes them "unhappy" to be free ("happiness" in the western sense of the word has almost nothing to do with it); and in thinking that if they commit suicide, it must be out of desperation (because that's when westerners do it.)

You are completely wrong on all counts. They will NOT respect your right to freedom. They do NOT hate freedom because it makes them unhappy, but because it is totally alien to their entire world view, happy or not. They do NOT commit suicide bomings out of desperation, but out of a sense of impending victory.

You do NOT "understand their culture". All you have is a naive--and dangerous--MISunderstanding of it.

I'm thinking there should be attempts to understand that, to understand what's going on in the minds of these kamikazes, how their culture made them what they are.

Indeed.

Is there other ways to solve that problem than to lob missiles at them? I believe there are.

There are. But not by using your view. On your view, making them happier and accomodating their desires will stop their "desperation", and hence, will stop their suicide bombings, while they surely will agree to destroy freedom only where THEY rule, and leave you alone.

But in reality, all such appeasements completely misunderstand the psychology of the other side, which sees all such "understandings" of their view as nothing but weakness and a sign for further demands and threats. The more we will do things according to your idea, the worse the problem will become.

You just have a VERY naive view of what you're up against. And, to make matters worse, after a lifetime of seeing morality as a personal preference, you cannot recognize evil, even when it blows up in your face and kills thousands of people.

Your view of the matters was tried before, from 1933 to 1939. It was called "appeasement". It doesn't work.