RoR: Forum

Andrew, thank you so much for posting this. I missed the show this week.

Post 1

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 8:47am

You're welcome, kat. I was really heartbroken by this video. I've never seen such a stark example of the need for the moral case for capitalism as the look on the poor man's face as Bill Maher and Ward Churchill trashed his brother.

Post 2

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 1:33pm

Boy, the interviewer Bill Maher is a real sleazy slime-bucket isn't he?

It seems that cretinous creep just likes to lick everyone up, pretending to take both sides.

What a left-wing lick-spittle phoney, how can anyone stand watching that guy?

Post 3

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 2:23pm

I shut it off in disgust during Bill Mahers' intro of the son. Slime bucket is a kind description of him. He smiles like he's delivering some kind of stand up punch line instead of talking about the murder of thousands.

Post 4

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 2:35pm

Nausea is an understatement. I died a little inside. Maher had to have known that he was bringing together a man (Churchill) who spent his whole life formulating arguments against Capitalism and the like, and a normal and good man who didn't question the free market, and hence was not as educated and able to defend it like it should have been defended... not to mention that he had the added pressure of defending his own dead brother against this slimeball.

Disgusting and irresponsible.

Was this all over the news? Have I missed it somehow? (I am in the middle of midterms, so it wouldn't surprise me.)

Post 5

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 5:00pm

Nicole:

As far as I know, this hasn't been picked up by major news agencies or anything. I found the link at Little Green Footballs, a blog I visit every now and then.

These two men just seem like quintessential Rand villains--Churchill sitting there with a sneering little smile on his face, and Bill Maher's indifferent malice and setup of the victim. Even the name "Ward Churchill" is evocative of Rand's writing.

Contra a popular complaint, Rand's villains are not overdone; they're real and broadcast on national television.

Post 6

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 5:09pm

Maher's former TV show would have been more aptly titled, not Politically Incorrect, but Politically Correct--in the original sense used by leftists for nihil obstat.

Post 7

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 11:43pm

It's truly sickening that a creature like Churchill is given any air time at all. And Maher, for treating him like a human being, is at least as despicable.

Barbara

Post 8

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 1:13am

I agree entirely with the contemptuous observations here.

But I thought contempt wasn't allowed?!

Linz

Post 9

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 7:50am

Glad to see you back at SOLO Nicole.

Ethan

Post 10

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 8:28am

"It's truly sickening that a creature like Churchill is given any air time at all. And Maher, for treating him like a human being, is at least as despicable."

I actually find Maher far worse than Churchill. At least Churchill never disguised his evil position - whereas that slimey toad Maher trying to look reasonable by agreeing with Churchill's arguments was utterly repulsive.

Post 11

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 8:46am

Churchill is honest. Evil, nasty, but this is undisguised. Maher on the other hand, is the kind of evil that slips through the door on the promise of selling you that new vacuum cleaner, then kills you.

I was disturbed that the audience gave even the slightest applause to either of them. Maher and his ilk have a foot in the door on the popular front.

Post 12

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 10:41am

Lindsay: "But I thought contempt wasn't allowed?!"

I certainly didn't say that, nor did anyone else. I said that it's a horrible emotion to have to feel, that it's not a virtue. Do you feel virtuous when you think of Churchill and Maher? Or do you feel sick?

Barbara

Post 13

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 12:12pm

Oh my God, myGodmyGodmyGod...

A weasel's got my tongue!

But...

I can't hold it any longer...

I can't...

Mmmmmm...

Ward Churchill is a lowdown despicable mealy-mouthed mediocre pygmy-chimp-sized intellectual scumbag.

And more. We are only talking about him because he was lucky enough to stumble into the media spotlight on a fluke.

(Whew! that felt better...)

Michael

Post 14

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 1:34pm

Michael, I don't understand why you are so restrained and timid in your evaluation of Ward Churchill. Your tepid criticisms are no better than compliments.

Barbara

Post 15

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 1:59pm

I saw the show, especially the interview, a couple times. Ward Churchill seemed very hesitant to vocalize his opinion. Bill Maher had to just come out and say it for him. While I feel the point made was a stretch and exaggerated, it harboured truths that are often overlooked. America does have blood on it's hands. I don't know exactly "how much" or what "justice" would constitute "fair value", but, ignoring it with moral indignation certainly is just as exaggerated and extreme as Churchill's initial comparison. We as a society need to scrutinize the people we empower, then hold them accountable for their intolerance and greed, which does exist. We are too easily distracted by baited disunion to "keep our eyes on the ball". While we're polarized, the manipulators run wild and free.

Post 16

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 3:10pm

John,

I completely agree that this evil was disguised... it just struck me as such a gentle evil... that's the only way that I can think of it. It was as if Maher was trying to gently turn this man against his own brother... one of the most disturbing moments in television that I have seen. (The applause especially.) Poison always goes down better with a little sugar.

Rand's villains are very real.

I'm still slimy from this even a day later. Ick.

Daniel,

I was also struck by how seemingly hesitant Churchill was. I wonder how hard it was to hold an opinion as vile as his in front of a man who was as gracious as that victim. (If it were me...) Also, if Maher and Churchill were just in it in order to point out some of the wrongs that America *has* done, 9/11 was the worst example they could have picked, and the victims from that day are the worst examples of scapegoats that one could mention. I do not believe that their goal has anything to do with de-polarizing us, or questioning those in power. There are much more sinister motives afoot.

Ethan,

It's nice to be back. Thank you for your kind words.

(Edited by Nicole Theberge on 3/07, 3:11pm)

Post 17

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 6:01pm

Hey Dan, great to see you. I only saw that itsy bitsy video on my computer. I like Bill Maher, although politically confused he's a very smart and funny guy and regularly bashes religion.

I was taken aback as well here. It was almost like watching a Jerry Springer wannabe. Churchill was essentially blaming the victims and was unable to adequately defend his position. Why, because his position is completely irrational. What's the penalty for treason. Whatever it is, it it not enough.

Post 18

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 6:31pm

I'm critical of the Iraq war and other aspects of US policy in the Middle East, yet I must register my absolute disgust with Churchill and Maher. As has been stated already, Churchill is at least honest about where he's coming from. Maher, on the other hand, is an absolute weasel!!

Here is Maher and Churchill's overall thesis: capitalism caused 9-11. Yeah sure, Mohamad Atta and company were just aghast over sweatshops! They were irate that CEO's make so much more than the janitor!!! Sheeeeeeeeesh!!!!

Post 19

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 5:31am