posted on September 24, 2001 04:19:09 PM
In a way, it should be expected from the host of a show called 'Politically Incorrect' to say things that are, you know.
However, from what I've seen of Maher he is a mean-spirited little p*ick so I'm not very concerned about however any fallout affects him.
posted on September 24, 2001 04:27:45 PM
I don't know. Usually I agree with Bill Maher. It's one thing to talk about war but another when you're in the face of it. Maybe he's feeling the stress just like everyone else (???)
posted on September 24, 2001 04:32:04 PM
Another example on how the liberties this country is based on can be curtailed at the drop of a hat. For many freedom os speech applies only to *their* speech and that of people who say the same things.
posted on September 24, 2001 04:42:07 PM
I've never watched the show before - first time I heard of it was from the news reports shortly after this segment aired.
I think he had a right to say what he did - and I don't think anyone is saying he cannot say that.
But, televisions stations are on the air for money. When their major advertisers back out, they don't make money.
The advertisers backed out because they feared that by advertising during the show, they would be associated with Maher's comments.
Maher just learned a lesson - use tact! Some things are fine to be politically incorrect about - some you have to watch your timing, and use a bit of tact.
I really don't think this is a 1st ammendment issue.
posted on September 24, 2001 04:46:28 PM
I don't agree with his statement either, but a campaign to shut down the show because of disagreement with it seems just a bit extreme.
posted on September 24, 2001 04:50:34 PM
Yes, TV stations are on the air to make money. However, there are plenty of people who use that fact to get things taken off simply because *they* don't like them. Censorship plain & simple--not by the TV stations themselves, but by people who don't want anything aired that isn't in lockstep with *their* POV.
posted on September 24, 2001 04:57:19 PM
Since when is having a talk show on a major TV network anyone's "right"? I don't think anyone's saying Maher should be sent to jail or shot for speaking his mind.
Frankly I'm not one of the many people who view the term "politically correct" as synonymous with knee-jerk, unreasonable self-righteousness. Maher seems to think that he should be able to spout off with any "politically incorrect" notion that crosses his mind and that "politically correct" folks should just shut up and not challenge it. Well guess again Bill. Yes it's your right to say whatever fool thing you want. Just like it's my right to call you on it. Or the right of the people who pay your salary to yank your show off the air.
He occasionally has a point but I've long since tired of listening to his whiney, boo-hoo, straight white men just can't get a break in this country routine.
posted on September 24, 2001 05:15:13 PM
With regard to the specific comment that got Bill Mahar in trouble, I think it needs to be acknowledged that the men who commit suicide to further their cause certainly aren't "cowards" -- it's the people who CONVINCE and SEND those men to commit suicide and then watch the resulting carnage from their safe locations that are the cowards. It's the terrorist leaders who live in luxury while the rest of their countrymen starve to death, who convince impressionable youths that America should be destroyed because it's America's fault that they are starving, who are the cowards.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 24, 2001 05:47:24 PM
From CNN:
"Clark noted that the U.S. military has "become obsessed with fixed targets, with anti-materiel warfare rather than anti-personnel operations. We have become allergic to close combat." "
posted on September 24, 2001 06:52:31 PM
Moving from the sublime to the ridiculous ...
There's a Seinfeld episode in which Kramer takes part in an AIDS benefit walk. When he goes to the registration table at the start of the walk, a volunteer takes his name and hands him a red ribbon to wear on his lapel.
"No thanks," Kramer says, "I don't need a ribbon."
"But you have to wear a ribbon," she insists.
"Not me," he says, and starts walking.
As Kramer and the other walkers proceed down the streets of Manhattan, one of them happens to notice that Kramer isn't wearing a ribbon. "Where's your AIDS ribbon?" the other walker asks.
"I'm not wearing one," Kramer replies.
"Why not?" demands the other walker. "Aren't you against AIDS?"
"Of course I'm against AIDS," says Kramer. "I just don't want to wear a ribbon."
"Hey Cedric, hey Bob!" the walker calls to to two men up ahead. "This guy refuses to wear a ribbon!"
Cedric and Bob spin around, glaring. "Who? Who won't wear zee ribbon?" Cedric demands to know.
The walk comes to a stop as Cedric and Bob get in Kramer's face. Other walkers circle him so he can't get away.
"You must wear zee ribbon!" Cedric hisses. You must!"
Kramer shrinks a little in the face of confrontation but he remains firm. "No," he says.
And the crowd beats the hell out of him.
-------------
In another thread, jamesoblivion provides a link to an article that opens with something Thomas Jefferson once said. It's a twist on a famous saying, and it seems appropriate to quote it here. Keep in mind that the words belong to one of the framers of the Declaration of Independence:
Divided we stand, united we fall.
If we can't stand together despite our differences ... if we can't accept that we're a nation of individuals with different opinions and different ways of looking at things ... we're all doomed.
posted on September 24, 2001 07:08:55 PM
With the current political climate it seems to me we need an anti-neutron bomb.
The neutron bomb was invented to flood an area with high energy neutrons - killing everyone even deep inside armored vehicles and bunkers with so little heat and blast that very little damage would be done to property. Perhaps a few broken windows and grass fires.
Now what they need is a bomb that causes all the man made materials to dissolve and fall apart so that the scene is one of devastation with houses falling apart and bridges coming down and Uncle Freds boxer shorts unraveling - but all the people are unharmed standing in this plain of shredded junk as far as the eye can see unharmed.
posted on September 25, 2001 11:22:08 PM
Antiquary:
Not everywhere. I live in St. Louis and our local affiliate no longer carries it as of last Thursday. The distributor dropped it. One of three distributors in the U.S. I believe. I'm hoping we get it back, but I'm not holding my breath.
Just seems incredibly silly to drop a show called "Politically Incorrect" for saying something politically incorrect.
I watched the show that caused the uproar and what he said has been totally taken out of context.
Sorry to hear that. I talked to someone yesterday evening, after this information was posted, who had watched the show and it seemed to have been very much exaggerated. I used to watch it but haven't for a while. I have the last two nights though, and it's been very thought-provoking. Perhaps, when some of the hysteria dies down, your distributor will pick it up again.
posted on September 26, 2001 12:28:22 AMPresumably, if Maher had made those same comments on Sept. 10, nobody would have batted an eyelid.
Yes, agreed, but he didn't.
Maher built his show on Clinton/Monica jokes. That style of flippant "political incorrectness" is not going to work now, not taking pot shots at an administration that is waging war.
I often disagree with Maher's ideas but I enjoy the round table discussion when I've seen the show (not often). There's a difference, though, between jokes about Clinton's sex life, and bombing Afghanis.
posted on September 26, 2001 12:31:35 AM
He didn't take a potshot at the current administration. Quite the contrary, he was referring to former administrations.
posted on September 26, 2001 01:17:49 AMYou must wear zee ribbon!
----------------------------------
Dissenting Voices Less Welcome Now
By DEB RIECHMANN
.c The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - Uneasy with America's flag-waving fervor? Button up or risk being ostracized.
Expressions of patriotism are so fervent since the terrorist attacks that citizens who do or say anything against the tide risk suffering a public backlash.
After getting an earful from angry residents, school superintendent Louis Ripatrazone in Roxbury, N.J., rescinded his order to remove ``God Bless America'' from school signs. He thought a religious reference might be offensive at school.
University of Texas professor Robert Jensen received unfriendly e-mails and calls after writing an editorial suggesting that the attacks were ``no more despicable than the massive acts of terrorism'' committed by the United States.
University president Larry Faulkner dismissed suggestions that Jensen be fired, but called his views a ``fountain of undiluted foolishness.''
Peace activists in Buffalo, N.Y., say they were labeled ``un-American'' and ``crazy communists'' by hecklers.
Since thousands died in the Sept. 11 suicide crashes in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, some Americans have been pondering what it means to be patriotic.
Is it unpatriotic to sell stocks? Is it wrong to flip the channel when ``God Bless America,'' not ``Take Me Out to the Ballgame,'' is sung in the seventh-inning stretch? Is it un-American to criticize President Bush?
When it comes to being patriotic, ``a lot of people are willing to talk the talk,'' says sociology professor Charles Moskos of Northwestern University. ``But if you really want to walk the walk, then donate blood or enlist in the military.''
On the other hand, Moskos says it's not unpatriotic to openly disagree with the president, refrain from flying the flag or sell stocks in a down market. ``If I sold the stocks and sent the money out of the country, that would be unpatriotic,'' he adds.
And switching TV channels? ``What's patriotic about watching flag-waving while `God Bless America' is being sung?'' Moskos asks. ``A lot of this is make-believe patriotism - patriotism on the cheap.''
To some people, patriotism is unquestioning loyalty of the my-country-right-or-wrong variety, says John Bodnar, chairman of Indiana University's history department. To others, patriotism celebrates the rights guaranteed by American democracy, including the right to dissent.
``People have carried the flag for many reasons,'' Bodnar said.
Since the attacks, some Americans, in the eyes of others, are failing the patriotism test:
In Fort Myers, Fla., the head librarian at Florida Gulf Coast University apologized for ordering employees to remove ``Proud to be an American'' stickers to avoid offending foreign students. An outcry brought university president William Merwin quickly back from an out-of-town meeting to rescind the order and exclaim: ``Patriotism on campus is welcomed.''
In Boca Raton, Fla., the National Council of Compensation Insurance Holdings Inc., reminded employees that to avoid divisiveness, the company banned flags at work. After flags were taken from cubicles, the company Web site was flooded with angry e-mails. The company apologized and handed out paper flags and patriotic lapel pins.
Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., posted a police guard outside his congressional district office in Lowell, Mass., after receiving threatening phone calls. A newspaper had quoted Meehan as saying he didn't believe Air Force One was targeted by terrorists, the reason the White House gave for delaying President Bush's return to Washington the day of the attacks. Meehan said his views were misrepresented, and that he believed Bush has done ``an excellent job.''
When Bill Maher, the host of ABC TV's ``Politically Incorrect,'' called past U.S. military practices ``cowardly,'' viewers complained. ABC stuck by him, but FedEx and Sears pulled their ads. Sears spokesman Lee Antonio said the retailer decided not to advertise on the show after ``customers voiced a concern for bashing our leaders, our military and the country.'' Maher said he only meant that the government has been scared to let the military do its job.
In Berkeley, Calif., firefighters were ordered not to fly large U.S. flags from their trucks because officials feared the rigs would be targeted by anti-war protesters. After the city received a blistering response from around the nation, fire officials apologized and issued smaller flags to fly on the trucks.
Tired of the flag flap, Mayor Shirley Dean said: ``Put the flags on the trucks and get on with it.''
posted on September 26, 2001 01:44:32 AM
Yes, I did read the link. Sorry if my post went over your head.
Will ABC necessarily wait until Maher starts making jokes about bombing Afghanis? Or will they pull the plug now? As I suggested before, there is a big difference between jokes about a president's womanizing, and jokes about collateral damage in a war.
This isn't some college radio station we're talking about. It's a major television network. And it's obvious which direction Politically Incorrect would have to take.
posted on September 26, 2001 02:00:33 AM
I'm a little confused, twinsoft. In another thread, you write, "AFAIC, it's gloves off" in reference to what sort of armed response America should make. In other words, you're all for going in there and vaporizing anyone who might get in the way.
Yet in this thread, you would begrudge a TV personality the right to make some pointed comments -- not jokes, as Antiquary has already observed -- about the situation.
How do you reconcile your "gloves off" philosophy with this sudden sensitivity for what a pundit says on TV? Seriously. In one thread, you publicly advocate destroying the terrorist threat by whatever measures necessary (and one must infer that killing Afghanis would be okay with you if the need arose) but in another you categorically deny Bill Maher's right to say essentially the same thing on TV (if he chose).
posted on September 26, 2001 02:40:01 AM
Ah, but Maher *wasn't* advocating it--and even criticized how it has been done in the past. For some that makes all the difference, I think.
posted on September 26, 2001 07:21:46 AMSpaz, yes I think it's gloves off time. That does not mean I support indiscriminate murder. Or the use of nuclear weapons. However, it is known that terrorists will hide in civilian centers. Some collateral damage is inevitable, and we should realize that. That is my opinion.
Regarding my comments vis Politically Incorrect, that was not my opinion. That was my interpretation of ABC's standpoint. Politically Incorrect is structured to be a provocative show. PI "made its bones" during MonicaGate and the impeachment. The situation with the War on Terrorism is different. I don't believe ABC will sponsor a show that takes pot shots at American policy during war time. And that is exactly what the format of PI calls for.
Personally, I think a round table discussion of American policy is fine. All opinions should be welcome. But not when the host, or the show, is structured to take an anti- position. That would be inappropriate.
