The always funny Mr. Graham Linehan today posted this on his blog, and I feel that I have to agree with him. Mostly. Well, thing is, I've always liked Real Time (though it has suffered from the lack of writers and some of the better guests apparently refusing to cross picket lines), and in general terms I tend to be in agreement with Bill on most things. I'm thinking here primarily of his views on religion and Bush being a moron.
But then you have his thing with animal rights. Don't get me wrong, I'm completely against needless suffering no matter what species you are. But getting into bed with PETA is a mistake. I think that if most animal-lovers who donate cash to PETA knew that there core ideology embraced the banning of animal food products, of pet ownership, and of essential animal medical trials (not to mention having links to the no-shit animal rights equivalent of Al Qaeda), then they may reconsider. Check this out:
That aside, you also have Bill cosying up to creationist Ron Paul (although to be fair, he may not have known he was that crazy). And the bit where he wished Dick Cheney dead...
...And the earlier bit where he said the 911 hijackers were brave to have killed themselves in the process of committing mass murder (footage not found). But apart from that, he's a pretty cool guy. And I'm not being snide, I do think he's a cool guy.
UPDATE: Anonymous (if that is his/her real name) has pointed out in the comments section that I wasn't fully clear in my remarks regarding the 9/11 thing above. To clarify, I acknowledge that Bill was responding to the various pundits who had unanimously labeled the hijackers as cowards. Maher said, on his show Politically Incorrect if memory serves, that it was ridiculous to say these jihadists were cowards as they had made the decision to kill themselves in defense of their principles, and such a decision obviously takes courage.
Now this is an example of left-wing reactionism. I consider myself to be a liberal, but you have to keep yourself grounded in reality. The attacks of 9/11 were cowardly. If Al Qaeda had a problem with American military presence in their holy lands, why not get all their guys together and concentrate an attack on a US base in Saudi Arabia? No, much easier to sneak Stanley knives onto planes and crash them into a major tourist attraction. And then get an express pass for themselves and their families into paradise. Deluded, yes. Courageous, no.
That said, you gotta love Maher for calling it as he sees it, standing by his remarks and getting up in Bill O'Reilly's grill so often.
Now I'm going to try to lay off the serious stuff for a while. It gives me indigestion.
6 comments:
you're completely misunderstanding his point on the 9/11 goons.
Which goons are these? The hijackers or the 911 Truthers? I'm with Bill on the conspiracy theorists (moronic fantasists), but defending the hijackers is mind-boggling.
He didn't defend them. Some idiots were calling them 'cowards' and he rightly pointed out that that was a knee-jerk, idiotic thing to call them. The act was crazy, suicidal, evil, but calling it cowardly is just a misuse of the English language.
I understood his point but don't agree. I suppose it depends how you define "cowardly". These people really believed they'd be better off in paradise with their 72 virgins and whatever other cool stuff they get in the martyrdom welcome pack. Plus their families are instantly guaranteed a place in the Allah's VIP enclosure. So from their point of view (depending on how devoutly deluded they were), suicide wasn't such a hardship for them.
Agreed though that those calling them cowards were probably talking bullshit.
Sigh. I always forget my own rule--never argue with people on the internet. Keep up the good work, Declan! You have a keen understanding of human nature.
That was arguing?? I call it civil discourse, sir! I should have been clearer in the post, I forget people can't see the thoughts in my brains. Appreciate the comments!
Post a Comment