Geez, You’re on TV Andrew!!!
Weird end of the season for Bill Maher who witnessed his own trainwreck of a show. It finished with uber-blogger Andrew Sullivan massaging his own ass for what seemed like an eternity during the credit roll. (pictured). I’m thinking to myself, “Ewww….Sullivan, get a grip!” just as I realized that was exactly what he was doing.
If you can find any way to catch this show during the week of reruns on HBO you’ll see a rarely concilliatory Maher get skewered for no apparent reason throughout the show. It must have been a nightmare to interview Alan Simpson, for example. Simpson took everything wrong. Maher must have been beside himself. Quite interesting. Then Andrew Sullivan laid into Maher too. Sullivan, a favorite of Mahers then went on at the end of the show to grab his own butt and squeeze it through much of the credit roll. Weird, weird show. Great for parties.
This show was one of the best of the season. I couldn’t believe how badly Alan Simpson behaved. Even though he’s been on the show and understands what it is about, he acted like a complete twit. He seemed to think that the joke was on him, and he wasn’t getting it. Alan needs to lay off the crack for a while.
Andrew Sullivan was just being himself. Representing the huge Gay Right Wing Fanatics demographic must be hard work, because he always seems irritable. I will give him credit for throwing his vote to Kerry, however. For those who can’t figure out why he did that, you can read his explanation here: http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20041027 .
The saddest part of the elections being over is that both Real Time and The Daily Show will probably lose their edge that has made them both “must watch” shows for the past year or so.
I didn’t see the show as I don’t have HBO, but the still image cracks me up. Again, I can’t comment on Real Time, but I think the Daily Show will continue to rock. I doubt they’ll have any problems finding material with Bush in power for four more years. As John Stewart said on his great Crossfire appearance, “It would be hard to top this [Administration] in terms of absurdity.”
Side note: as for the “Great Google Ad Test,” I’m seeing “TV Tickets to Bill Maher” and four for blogging. Sometimes AdWords does funky stuff for me too.
I think it is safe to say people were a little overworked and loosing it by the end of the election “season.”
Trying to give Sullivan the benefit odf the doubt, maybe Maher should get new chairs with better padding. I have been forced to sit through meetings where, by the time it was over, my posterior was numb.
But then again, I never actually tried to rub the numbness out!
Ass grabbing aside, Andrew Sullivan tried repeatedly to make thoughtful points between D.L. Hugley’s mindless rants and Maher’s defensive screams. He dared to observe that Maher had given a spotlight to a man whose rabid Anti-Americanism is apparent to anyone outside of Tehran and whose fortune has been made by traveling the globe spewing simplistic revisionist diatribes hidden under the veil of dissent and intellectual moralism. Alan Simpson was also correct in asserting that the Christian segment in American politics cannot be overlooked or demonized by elements within a certain party and an expectation of victory be anything but lunatic. Too bad Alan Simpson went nuts and by the end of the interview was one question away from running naked in the streets screaming Bob Dole’s campaign slogan while humming the “Star Spangled Banner”. Let’s be kind and say Alan Simpson is old, really, really old!
I love people like John Denver here who get all flustered whenever anyone dares to speak to foreigners about prooblems in our country. For these people, the First Amendment only protects you in the United States and what happens in America stays in America. I consider myself a loyal citizen of these United States and I haven’t seen anything anti-American (anti-conservative, sure) in Chomsky’s writing or speaking. But why let reality interfere with good a ole’ conservative witchhunt? Good old Alan Simpson looked so confused, you had to wonder whether he was giving a different interview entirely. Welcome to the new Tough Guy GOP. And, finally, what could possibly be funnier than Sullivan arguing that you really need to respect the religious beliefs of middle America, the same religious beliefs that lead middle America to label Sullivan a sodomite condemned to hell. Oh there is something funnier, actually: watching Sullivan try to convince the world that banning homosexual marriage had nothing to do with Bush’s victory. But, hey, Sullivan backed Kerry…after using his blog to kick Kerry in the nuts for over a year. With supporters like Sullivan, it’s a wonder Kerry didn’t win.
But back to Mr. Denver. One has to wonder if he has actually read anything of Chomsky’s, or just got the Ann Coulter summary.
We were stunned at Simpson’s behavior…transfixed more like…we figured he was having several senior moments…or just plain looney. Bill sure looked non-plused. I guess it makes a difference when you cannot see the audience…but only hear the laughter…perhaps he thought he was being laughed at…ah, who cares anyway…he’s a Republican…and that says it all!
Unusual crack addiction ?! Should say NO to crack !
I hear a lot of screaming from the right about the supposed hatred Chomsky harbors for the US, but very little in the way of refuting his claims. If he is so villianous, prove his claims to be false. If his criticisms of US foreign policy are so far off base, it should be easy enough to do. Well?
Noam Chomsky is like Bob Dylan—proof that Man is born with a finite number of ideas. This Croaking Dungbeetle of MIT has outlived his expiration date; a once-talented and cutting-edge linguistics professor, he has been overreaching into the field of geopolitics (in which he’s become a one-trick pony: It’s ALL America’s fault—gosh, thanks Noam!) for roughly three decades.
Some pinhead earlier asked why the local rightists are so silent when it comes to refuting Chomsky. Plenty of artillery has been fired from the right at Crazy Noam, but it is commonly you don’t have to prove the craziness of the drunken bum lying in the gutter and frothing at the mouth—his madness speaks for itself without your having to “prove” it through discourse.
With that in mind, if you must, here are just two Chomsky gems:
1) When Cambodia was being mercilessly raped by Pol Pot and his chums the Khmer Rouge, Chomsky dismissed claims of massacres carried out by his Cambodian fellow travelers as being “conjecture, based on unreliable estimates and fabricated by the CIA”. He later ratcheted up his Cambodian potboiler theory, saying that any deaths there had very likely been staged by the CIA to “make Pol Pot look bad”. He has yet to offer any contrition for his contribution in glossing over the deaths of some 3-4 million Cambodians.
2) Predictably Noam, who has for decades waged war on the US as a “TV gas chamber culture”, blames the US for 9/11. Presumably most who post favorably about him hold similar views about rape victims who were, say, jogging at night (or through Central Park, perhaps)—they were just “asking for it”. Chomsky also equated Clinton’s bombing of a Sudanese pill factory (at night, no casualties, assumed military target) with the atrocities of 9/11 (taken during broad daylight with the inent to inflict maximum casualties on civilians).
Chomsky is a producer of geopolitical masturbation fantasies for the mentally retarded. If you agree with him, then you’ve self-selected.
Noam Chomsky, like Bob Dylan, proves a man is born with a finite number of ideas, and the Drooling Dungbeetle of MIT is way past his expiration date. You really need reasons why Chomsky doesn’t merit a serious rebuttal? Here are three:
1) Chomsky denies the Holocaust ever happened, and denies the existence of Nazi gas chambers.
2) During the “Killing Field”period in Cambodia, when Pol Pot & his Khmer Rouge killed 3 million of their fellow citizens and neatly stacked their skulls, Chomksy said reports of massacres were “absurd”, put the death toll at “a few thousand”, and said any deaths were probably staged “by the CIA to make Pol Pot look bad.” Chomsky has never offered contrition or recanted.
3) Chomsky feels the US “deserved 9/11” because of its “policy”. This is tantamount to blaming a rape victim for “asking for it”. If you’re into Chomsky, though, you’ve probably made that claim before.
In a saner age, Chomsky would get a hangman’s noose for his troubles; today, as a producer of geopolitical masturbation fantasies for the mentally retarded, he merits only derision and disdain.
I find Chomsky interesting because of his use of the language. His writings are filling with subtle propaganda.Just the “right” (or left) adjective. I think he is mocking the reader. His support of Pol Pot is inexcusable. Then he lies about it later. Tut, tut.
Here’s an article which provides an overview of Chomsky:
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm
Sigh… Noam Chomsky is not a Holocaust-denier. Ask Christopher Hitchens, who once defended him against the same slur. (As I recall, this urban legend stems from an ill-advised blurb Chomsky once gave to some book or other.) If Mr. Garrett has evidence to the contrary, I think he ought to pony it up.
Chomsky certainly does *not* believe that the Holocaust never happened or that the gas chambers did not exist. If you can find one primary citation for this utterly misinformed statement, I will eat my hat. Though I am aware of Chomsky’s many weaknesses as a political commentator, hysterical statements like this are beyond even his level of hyperbole.
Of course I got the Ann Coulter summary! Now hang me up in a corn field to scare the crows away!
first of all j. steven, chomsky has NEVER said the holocaust didn’t happen, in fact he has talked about how denying it is to enter the realm of the inhuman. second of all, i love how you explain chomsky should be executed for making arguments. nice. i will say this though, i bet he wouldn’t have posted the same rant to a blog discussion twice. working hard on it and wanted to prove it huh? well, did manage away to refer to people who have read him as mentally retarted. good show!
Jeez…just sent over here by Sullivan link–and wow! Denial isn’t just a river. Except by the single voice of sanity. I know Dvorak from computer gigs years ago, but never realized he was blogging even further left than Maher broadcasts. Maher blew it to this viewer, not just this show, but by consistently booking guests in a 3 or 4 to one ratio(not including himself so always add an extra number in the former category) to bash the hapless, overwhelmed single Republican defender. DL is so dumb, he must only be booked to prop up Maher’s high IQ pretenses in contrast. Chomsky? Anyone read his work? Read 9/11. Whew…maybe the worst cut and paste job of recycled paranoia I’ve ever purused. He makes Bin Laden seem sane. Chomsky must be an op for Rove; so much of what Noam writes is so crazy that it must be deliberate disinformation to aid the Bush campaign.
Garrett, when you go off the wall to criticize someone, it would help your case somewhat if you didn’t sound more crazy and hateful than the person you are criticizing.
Really, you are the absolute lowest scum of this earth if you think you have to make fun of the mentally handicapped to post a comment.
“geopolitical masturbation fantasies for the mentally retarded”
I can only hope you have more sense than to speak like that in public, if you actually wanted anyone to care about what you thought.
I’ve never read anything by Chomsky, but I’m actually tempted to now seeing as someone so senseless had such a strong reaction to him.
“Chomsky would get a hangman’s noose for his troubles;”
Yeah, I agree, freedom of speech is for the birds. It would be so much saner if we killed people who used it to spread different viewpoints. I suppose Fox News is also on your radar… lol… of course not, they mislead people in a good way.
It’s a lot easier to dismiss Chomsky as a “croaking dungbeetle” than to admit that he may be right. Cause if there was a possibility he was right, then maybe the US wouldn’t be infallible. I just want to suggest that Might might not make Right.
I love how Andrew Sullivan attacks Noam Chompsky and Micheal Moore by calling them “anti-american” and “liars” but offers little to nothing in the way of dismissing their specific claims. The OBJECTIVE facts Compsky brings up about U.S. involvement in overthrowing governments in Chilie or El Salvador or Iran for that matter are not debatable. The fundementalist in power in Iran and Saudi Arabia are there because of U.S. policy. Saddam had power because of us… Sullivan seems to have a naive, childlike perception of American history if he thinks the U.S. is so moral as to be beyond reproach. Chompsky is the most objective person I’ve ever read (he bashes Clinton forgien policy the same way he bashes Reagans)… That doesn’t make him “anti-American” it makes him an objective dissenter…
J. Stephen Garrett is full of shit re: Chomsky. He is not a Holocaust denier (he said that the gas chambers were perhaps the greatest outbreak of collective insanity in human history, and that to enter into a debate with those who deny it is to denigrate one’s own humanity), nor did he deny the killing fields in Cambodia. He called for a careful examination of the death toll at a time when no one really knew what the numbers were, and when people were throwing around wild numbers based on nothing (I notice that Garrett is using the Vietnamese Communist toll of 3-4 million, which is a fiction, but hey, the more the better). Chomsky cited CIA figures at the time, which placed the final death toll in Cambodia at b/w 600,000 to a million, caused by murder, starvation and disease (the final number most Cambodian scholars have settled on is 1.5 mil). Chomsky’s thought crime here was to point to the US bombing campaign that led to the KR taking over Cambodia, in which the US killed some 600,000 Cambodians (CIA figure). Add in the 2-3 million we slaughtered in the rest of Indochina, and we easily surpass Pol Pot’s body count. And if he’s a genocidal monster, what does that make us?
There are criticisms one can make of Chomsky, but Garrett’s take is not serious. Oh yeah, when asked what is the freest country in the world, Chomsky always says, “The United States.” Some American hater.
Andrew has an obvious case of Bush Tush.
Mahre’s show succeeded as entertainment, but failed miserably in it’s content mission. The only purpose of the show from a content perspective was to answer the question, “Dude, what the f***?” There were seven people on the show, including Mahre, and not a one of them voted for Bush. Given Senator Simpson’s impromptu tribute to Alzheimer’s, I’m guessing he either forgot to vote or wrote in Mathew Sheppard. Sullivan performed brilliantly as the token conservative even though he endorsed Kerry. The remainder of the panel included Pat Schroeder, D. L. Hughley, Susan Sarandon, and Noam Chomsky. They, along with Mahre voted for Kerry. The closest thing to an answer to the question came from Sarandon when she explained how Republicans didn’t actually win, they rigged the voting software in Ohio and stole the election.
Here’s the answer to the question. Conservatives visit blue America all the time; Democrat elites never visit red America or Americans and have no clue about them beyond the ridiculous caricatures they read in the NYT. Mahre recounted an argument during his college days with a confused young man who summed up his position as, “Well I believe Jesus is going to come down and solve all of our problems for us.” This single encounter is the only thing Mahre has that could be described as “insight” into the conservative mind. One experience with one confused kid and that is how 30 million American voters think.
I’m pretty sure the last time I visited a college campus I saw a number of confused young kid sporting Che Guevara t-shirts. (I saw a lot for sale in the shops of Soho the week before last.) From this experience I should conclude that 30 million Liberals believe that, “Real Communism has never been tried, and if only we would try real Communism a new era of paradise (but not heaven) would envelope the earth and we would no longer exist in our fallen state. All hail Communism, the salvation to eliminate poverty, racism, sexism, homophobism, and the crippled will rise up out of their wheelchairs and walk!” Oops, sorry, I was channeling John Edwards there.
Bill Maher’s Real Time is a fun show to watch as he has a very interesting mix of guests. I did not even notice Andrew Sullivan’s ass grab, but am amused that is happened. Sullivan makes some good arguements, but a gay man supporting Republicans (even though he did vote for Kerry) makes little sense. Clearly he finally realized that Bush and company are willing to have gays imprisoned if it helps them politically.
As for Alan Simpson, very strange indeed. I was shocked at how he kept accusing Bill Maher of “making jokes” and being “funny.” Well Senator, he is a sarcastic, liberal political comedian…what did you expect? And Maher makes jokes about everybody, he does not, as far as I know, harbor any prejudices toward gays, minorities, women or anyone except maybe right-wing evangelicals. Simpson was way out of line and must truly be on drugs to be saying that Wyoming is a some kind of middle of America Key West.
Real Time is an intelligent program and Maher is clearly very, very liberal. I don’t always agree with him by any stretch, but he is at least an answer to all the right-wing nuts we have to be exposed to on television.
Bill Maher. I don’t like these quote “commedians” who are so snide. It’s the whole attitude, not just the words. The man is arrogant and patronizing. Must he debase everyone that comes on his show? Granted, there are far worse offenders, such as Dennis Miller, but what has happened to real humor, where a clown targets himself more often, rather than have to debase others. That’s far too easy “comedy” What a slacker ! Witty? Well, yeah, but s__ty witty to me.
Maybe there is no such thing as “comic ethics”, but I have my own definition. Letterman, Miller, Maher, ..F ‘ em all !
I only read the transcript, but Andrew Sullivan made some good points in regard to Maher having influence on the voting public and a terse few words to him for his “comedic talents” and out-of-line behavior.
I can’t agree or disagree on Chomsky, not knowing his work, but I say “right on” to Alan Simpson.
What the heck, let’s get rid of all these pompous blow hard “funny boys”.
p.s. : Andrew, about the end of the show…think next time, will ya for gosh sakes ? Not a pretty picture to wake up to in the morning before coffee.
Garrett is perhaps in denial. Chomsky is merely holding the US to the same standards it holds other countries. Why is it alright for the US to invade a country based on false pretences, which the world community did not support? But when another country invades its neighbor to the south (Iraq/Kuwait 1990) then it is an outrage? World support is a great thing if it is in your favor; if the support isn’t in your favor, then “old Europe” doesn’t get the “new world order”.
Interesting; the US invades for “freedom and democracy” not for control and resources. If Garrett and (for the most part) Sullivan believe this reason then they need to step back, read some history and look upon the US from third party perspective and that is what Chomsky does. The truth sometimes hurts. Oil and being seen as the dominant world power are real motivational factors; freedom and democracy are great ideas, but not motivation for invasionor war.
At the end of the day, the US does, and has done, more good than bad, but denying that it does do bad is a dangerous and ignorant position to take.
Even after all the discussion, Andrew Sullivan’s point still stands that you can’t make fun of people and expect them to vote for you.
Is Chomsky a Holocaust denier? He sure pals around with them…
http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html
Werner Cohn?! Ha — you’ve revealed yourself. Cohn is a rabid nut, very pro-Likud/Herut, and I encourage everyone to read his ravings. Only the semi-literate or historically ignorant will take it seriously. For the rest of us, Cohn provides a much needed laugh.
Am I the only one who found Andrew Sullivan’s pithy arguments against that pompous ass Chompsky cogent and relevant?
Maher was barely aware of the Professor’s really radical Philosophy, but plucky Sullivan was ready for him. Pow. It was great.
(As are his muscular gluts, I might add.) All in all, it was a terrific season closer of Bill Maher’s “Real Time.”