|
||||||||||
Like other unambiguous realities we'll discuss herein, that distinction was under his nose all along, which perhaps he can't be blamed for, since 98% of all known mass can fit beneath its shadow. Jackson may be Maher's fantasy of a sexual encounter with a pop star, but come now, it's not realistic to say most boys get off on thoughts of being violated by Jacko.
To quote the source article:
On May 3, 2005, while appearing as a guest on Craig Ferguson's Late Late Show (CBS), Maher seemed to excuse Michael Jackson's alleged child molestation behavior. He spoke about the need for perspective when thinking about crimes and criminals. He implied that the alleged behavior wasn't so bad because it was only alleged that Michael Jackson "serviced" the children and not the other way around. After a response from Ferguson, Maher said that getting beaten up by schoolyard bullies was worse than "being gently masturbated by a pop star." Maher brought up the comparison without any prodding or provocation from Ferguson. Immediately after Maher's statement, Ferguson ended the interview.
That incident, one among countless others, pretty much illustrates what we're dealing with when it comes to the lowest of apologists. There are times when a position cannot reasonably be defended, and at such a time, we can count on Maher to run his yammering, apron-boy jism catcher. After all, child molestation can be funny right? No, even better: molesting children with cancer. That's even more hilarious.
For Bill, the choice is clear: he'd take being molested by Michael Jackson over a schoolyard beating any day. And that 's fine... to each his bone.
Now, this falls directly into the question of crazy, and if Maher, of all people, has the right to use the label on anyone but himself. When it comes to critics, Maher applies this label with a broad brush, often suggesting they should think about asking their doctors if Paxil is right for them, etc., blissfully unaware he's betrayed a familiarity with psychiatric medications as to know them by name. Like say, um, someone who sees this brand name first thing in the morning when he wakes up and grabs his glasses, prescription bottle and a some water.
New Rule: Bill's Hit and Run Smears Won't Go Unanswered
Without mentioning my particular thoughts on the events surrounding 9/11, the following video clips are presented as an illuminating contrast between two very different styles of debate. Actually, only one style afforded a semblance of it, the other is just an attack on dissenters.
In the first clip, Maher takes on the 9/11 Truthers in a New Rules segment on his show. The clip is produced by the 9/11 Truthers themselves, and uses Maher's clip in full, in context, and sans editing. Then they proceed to tear Maher a new one. In the second clip, there is no debate; it is simply Maher kicking hecklers out of his audience. But the fact is, Maher brought this on himself, he called them out on national television without provocation, and when they responded with a ready reply, he ran like a little bitch, hands over his ears screaming "Lalalalaa", and refused to debate them on his show. If it really was a group of uninformed idiots, what better way to dispel "wacky conspiracy theories" than to have them shot down on his show, against a hostile audience, facing a host with barbs and insults prepared by a staff of writers?
The 9/11 Truthers didn't fear such a confrontation, they welcomed it, because they knew their argument was compelling. When Maher refused to debate them after publicly attacking them, it was only a matter of time before he'd be heckled for such cowardice.
He attacked a group of well-meaning and educated critics that included structural engineers, architects, military specialists, demolitions experts, etc,, people whom have brought forth some very legitimate questions regarding the official story parroted by Maher and the rest of the mainstream media. In particular, there is the issue of building seven, which Maher never addressed directly in the second clip. Three buildings went down on 9/11. But only two planes hit two buildings. What brought down building seven? Video of the collapse of building seven show it freefalling as in a controlled demolition, with no help from the other towers. Building seven was just one of countless unsettling discrepancies in the official story.
Are they crazy for questioning the media? are you crazy for doing it also? Let me suggest what is crazy: crazy is believing we live in a perfect world where everyone follows the rule of law, especially politicians whom aren't particularly vulnerable to any. Crazy is believing that the media never lies to you, Crazy is believing that the U.S. government is incapable of atrocities against its own people when history says otherwise, and when this history is not hidden witness, but taught in most schools as a warning. There have been instances in America's past that would dwarf even the thought of a staged terrorist attack on 9/11; one clearly designed to launch us into a criminal oil war against Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. Consider these examples which took place on our soil:
-
the genocide of the American Indian.
-
the Tuskegee Experiments on black men whom were infected with syphilis, which only ended in 1972.
-
the forced sterilizations of "undesirables" in over 30 states in a quest for "racial purity.
-
the forced internment of Japanese-American citizens in World War II
|
Also see:So one wonders what made Maher so upset? was it the thought that for all his attacks on Bush, for all his mockery of right-wing pundits, he was exposed for what he was? an enabler of the same fascism he bleats about constantly? a fake that at bottom, is incapable of true debate when it really matters?
It would be all too easy to call Bill Maher crazy and leave it at that, simply on the basis of his own words and public outbursts, but it wouldn't be true. He's sane as they come. The problem is he simply has no character, no backbone, and he should take his free speech award from the Los Angeles Press Club and "gently" shove it up his ass, before someone else does.
UPDATE: October 26, 2007
No Bubba, "How dare you?"?"
As protester questions 9/11 "inside job", Clinton goes to Bat for Bush Administration. Again.
Watch this video and note Clinton's use of a very common network propaganda tactic; employing the "how dare you?" gambit to attack an opponent. It only works, however, in front of a friendly audience of donors and supporters. Outside of it, we tend to remember Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton.
Now, whether he did or not boink Lewinsky is irrelevant. The real insult was the lie in the face of Bill's semen on Lewinsky's dress. Clinton's contempt for the intelligence of the American public was laid bare, and the fact that he lied when he didn't have to was even more insulting. A blow job in the Oval Office, in and of itself, didn't warrant an impeachment as much as a high-five. But it does warrant a justified cry of "how dare you?" by all Americans who know an insult to their intelligence when they see one.
The "How dare you?" gambit is, in fact, a tactic so well-known it is often listed in propaganda awareness and PSY-OPS (psychological operations) literature, such as in the following mirrored page, where this gambit is listed as the second most popular means to attack opponents without specifically addressing their claims. In this clip, Clinton manages to use several items on the list in a literal carpet bombing offensive; specifically items 1, 2, 3, 5,6,7,8.
I will post these items here in case you're too lazy to see the link:
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to -the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
Way to go, Slick Willy. Glad to see you haven't changed one bit, you spineless, smegma-sucking apron boy.
A Timely Warning from a Founding Father
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."
James Madison, 4th United States president, often called the "Father of the Constitution" and a key framer of the Bill of Rights
