Bill Maher: Over the edge!

Bill Maher: Over the edge!

: Bill Maher has on Ward Churchill tonight and it is an unbelievable performance. Unbelievable terrible, insensitive, numbnutty, offensive, wrong-headed, anti-American, rude….

Maher sits Churchill down and says, “Some things we have in common, some things we don’t… I know to a degree what you’ve been going through, some things taken out of context… You’ve been Dixie-Chicked….” He says they disagree but: “I think you deserve to be heard.”

Maher then leads the apparently inarticulate Churchill down his path. He asks Churchill to talk about “the blood that America has on its hands.” Churchill can’t get a paragraph out. Maher keeps leading: “Just tell the folks what you think…” Churchill mutters how the attack on the World Trade Center was not senseless because “anything that was that well-planned wasn’t senseless.” Anything this poorly expressed in senseless. Even Maher can’t take it…. because Churchill isn’t making the point Maher wants him to make: the blood-on-our-hands point.

So Maher says, “Let me do it for you… There was the bringing over of the slaves… Then we’re talking about the Indians in America, your people, you’re part Indian…” Churchill nods. And they add up numbers. Maher continues: “So we have a lot of blood on our hands… So then you talk about the first Iraq war. How many died there?…. And then the sanctions… I know we don’t want to hear this but the country of America has blood on its hands…. Not to mention in Germany and Japan when we were close to winning the war we obliterated Dresden….”

Good God, man! But it continues.

Churchill says that, “First of all the government doesn’t kill anybody.” He says that Americans do it.

Maher asks him whether fighting Hitler was wrong. Churchill says, “I wouldn’t say that opposing Hitler was wrong but some of the ways he was opposed were wrong.”

Maher: “Even if America committed these crimes I don’t understand what you’re saying. I don’t understand how the average American can be as guilty as you say they should be.”

Churchill babbles about the “technological elite” in the buildings. He says that janitors weren’t guilty.

Maher: “You said they were not innocent.”

Churchill says that if you were “performing a technical function… you were not innocent. You were performing a function” like Eichmann.

And the torture continues. Maher brings out a 9/11 family member, Michael Faughnan, who lost his brother at Cantor Fitzgerald. He says the brother disagrees with Churchill but supports him.

We couldn’t find anyone who doesn’t support Churchill, Bill? We had to exploit a family member?

Now Maher wimpily questions Churchill but still attacks America: “I don’t understand how you can compare the passive aggressive… We’re lazy and arrogant and greedy and myopic, and all those things cause some misery around the world. But Eichmann was proactively killing people.”

When did genocide become the subject of MBAspeak: “technical function,” “proactive”…. It’s murder, men!

Churchill says that by displacing profits and “moving labor to sweatshops in Maylasia you’re doing things comparable to what Eichmann did.”

The brother says that Eichmann was evil and his brother was not.

Maher, doing his very bad imitation of an afternoon talk-show host, asks the brother, “Do you think he owes you an apology?” The brother does. Churchill grunts and offers none and Maher doesn’t even push him or wait a second. He lets him off the hook.

Instead, Churchill says that, OK, this poor man’s brother wasn’t guilty but then he says, “Would you make the counter argument that there was no one who fit the description… that there was immaculate genocide?”

Immaculate genocide? What the F does that mean?

Maher can’t leave bad enough alone. He says that “I’ve gotten in trouble for many things” and one of them was proposing that at the World Trade Center site, we should build a “Why They Hate Us Pavilion.”

He has the nerve, the incredible insensitivity to ask the brother whether he agrees. “I don’t think that’s an appropriate place,” the man says, all too politely.

Maher continues: “Don’t you think there are reasons why they hate us and they’re valid….?”

The audience applauds at this.

Don’t you think there are reasons why people hate you, Bill? And you, Ward?

: I will bet that another Maher storm and Churchill storm will follow.

I’m not a Maher hater. I’ve quoted his good lines often enough. I’ve also been agog and aghast at his ludicrous lines. But this is over the edge.

: It’s almost as if Maher is making an argument of academic freedom when he says that Churchill deserves to be heard.

Well, he was heard. Having him on TV means that you want him heard again, Bill.

This isn’t about academic freedom or freedom of speech; it’s not about left or right. It’s about judgment: the bad judgment having Churchill on to spew again.

: LATER: There’s an entire blog devoted to Churchill’s offensiveness. And another.

: What Roger L. Simon thinks of Maher.

: LATER: Crooks & Liars has video. So does Ian.

: SATURDAY UPDATE: Democracy guy says:

As a Democrat, I move that we put Bill Maher on a plane and send him to Martha Stewart’s ranch as a stable boy so he can shovel actual horse shit for a living. He should be fired for this show. Period.

As for Churchill, when you see him on Maher’s show, you begin to wonder if anyone ever embodied the stereotypical head up his ass, anti-social, blinking, twitching, insane homeless blogger better than this guy. Not bloody likely.

Maher ends by suggesting we have a “Why they hate us” display at ground zero. I have a better idea. This video should be placed in the DNC lobby, running on a continuous loop 24 hours a day, under the banner “Why voters hate us”.

  • richard mcenroe

    Now see, Jeff, a real liberal would have celebrated Maher for his willingness to embrace a broad diversity of opinion and
    ow, think I sprained my brain.

  • Mike G

    Are we done with Bill Maher now? His self-infatuation has grown as his audience has shrunk, and whatever interest he had is long since gone. I think there’s a time slot on Air America calling for him next.
    As for Churchill, he just proves that even the average TV jackoff is 100 times more articulate than the average leftwing prof who’s been talking into an echo chamber of moonfaced undergrads for two decades.

  • Hovig

    Jeff – Thanks for watching it, so we didn’t have to. It was painful enough to read.

  • Tom

    Hovig, I second your sentiments. This just seemed scary. I wonder how many people watched this and it DID make them reconsider 9/11.

  • Mumblix Grumph

    NOW can we question their patriotism?

  • Nelson Muntz

    “Anything this poorly expressed in senseless.”
    Ha. Ha.

  • Doug C.

    After watching the Bill Maher show, I can’t believe Ward Churchill is a university professor. How can someone so inarticulate be in such a position? The segment didn’t offend me as much as Mr. Jarvis, but Churchill only succeeded in portraying himself as quite the dullard.

  • J. Peden

    Thanks, Jeff, that was a riot! But I probably would have killed another tv had I watched.

  • badger

    “There’s an entire blog devoted to Churchill’s offensiveness.”
    Ooh a blog, a blog, a blog. Mushrooms Mushrooms!

  • Daniel

    “I’ve gotten in trouble for many things.”
    Boo-hoo Mr. Maher. God forbid the evil Ari Fleisher interrupted your precious schedule of banging Playboy Playmates for a few seconds, while you got a new show on HBO after ABC decided to fire your ass for bad ratings. Oh, but of course you’ve sacrificed so much by buying a Prius. Matthew Ridgeway ain’t got nothing on you Mr. Maher. How stupid we all must be for not recognizing your bravery.
    Maher (back when he was interesting) used to give out something called “The Get Over Yourself Award.” You all know where this is going, so I won’t elaborate further.

  • John

    On last week’s show, Maher put down Tim Robbins when he questioned whether or not as many civilians would have died in Iraq had the U.S. not invaded, by reminding Robbins of Saddam’s mass graves. Judging by the contents of Friday’s show, Bill must have felt he had to do pennace tonight for that seemingly pro-Bush remark.

  • SteveMG

    Radical Islamist jihadists have been killing fellow Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, animists and any other person(s) who don’t follow their brand of Islam for more than a decade, if not longer.
    From the Phillipines to Afghanistan to Sudan to New York city, any and all that do not embrace their teachings is viewed as infidels who must either be converted or killed.
    Sweatshops in Malaysia or sanctions in Iraq or the lack of a Palestinian state are minor contributors to their hatred of those who don’t follow their teachings.
    Has Maher been asleep this past decade?
    Maher has stated that he wants to have a more diverse studio audience instead of the current ones that cheer liberal/left statements and boo and hiss conservative ones. “But the conservatives don’t like me”, he adds.
    This is why, Mr. Maher.

  • Jeffersonian

    Pornographic, just pornographic. What a stomach-churning display of utter moral disintegration and ethical bankrupcy. Bill Maher has hit rock bottom and dug with a ferocity unmatched in known history.

  • There are lots of professors who are as morally repugnant as Churchill. That’s not what makes Churchill so singularly and stand-out offensive. The thing that makes him special is, as you point out, Jeff, how freakin’ dumb the guy is.
    Professors say idiotic things all the time, but they can at least muster enough multisyllabic rhetorical dressing to put the barest of an intellectual veneer as a gild over the stupidity.
    Churchill can’t even do that. He sounds like a stoned Freshman in a dorm hallway pontificating about “the fascists” at 3 am over mozzarella sticks.

  • Mean Mister Mustard

    I just want to second what Russell Wardlow has to say. He knows morally repugnant, offensive and stoned freshman from first hand experience!

  • Mean Mister Mustard

    I just want to second what Russell Wardlow has to say. He knows morally repugnant, offensive and stoned freshman from first hand experience!

  • I recall an incident from Maher’s old “Politically Incorrect” on ABC. He had a pair of American Indian activists on and tried to pull his usual dominate the conversation with them. They shut him down so fast it wasn’t even funny. No matter what he did, what he tried the two basically ran the show as they liked. He never had people like that on again for as long as the show ran.
    Maher is a control freak, he hates when people show any sort of initiative. Want to get on his bad side, speak up for yourself.

  • Brendan

    Let’s review: the Dixie Chunks went on foreign soil and attacked the commander in chief during a time of war, in a clumsy attempt to ingratiate themselves with an anti-Bush audience. Needless to say, a lot of people sensibly took offense. The country music biz is predominantly conservative, and they pissed off a good chunk of their fans, who responded in kind. The Left loves protests and boycotts, but not Republican-inspired boycotts. If Trent Lott, Jimmy the Greek, Eason Jordan, or Bill Maher can get bounced for some ill-advised words or “opinions,” the Chunks are no different. Words and actions are not consequence-free. Despite their inflammatory rhetoric, the Chunks maintain the right to make bad albums, and their critics maintain the right to boycott them. Welcome to democracy. They’re not being “punished” any more than Bush is being punished by those like Maher or Churchill who refuse to vote for him.

  • Russell definitely hits the nail on the head. There are so many different scandals in the Ward Churchill mess. Churchill’s own offensive speech that started this. Churchill’s fraudulent “scholarship”. Churchill’s dishonesty.
    But Ward Churchill is the poster child of just what a fraud “ethnic studies” is.

  • Daddy

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…
    …what in the HELL gives expatriated canucks like Maher, Peter Jennings, Melissa Barf-der-More, etc., the RIGHT to come to OUR country, take OUR money, and tell US how to run things??
    Bill, your idea of a “Why They Hate Us” Pavillion is misguided–simply because YOU AIN’T US!!
    GOD, they hate capitalism, but they never criticize our money….
    Go back to your igloo.

  • Eileen

    How utterly sickening. I am three hours behind in PST, but I’m going to do my damndest to stay awake and witness it first hand.
    I’m not surprised – for who else would even have Churchill on as guest to begin with?
    Censor me, please.

  • Mauser

    I think instead of Prince Harry, Ward Churchill should go visit Auschwitz.

  • Dan Irving

    Mehr is still on the air? (look ma I made a funny!)
    I stopped listening to that guy years ago …. he’s like a Chiuaua that won’t it’s yap (and yes – that was an insult to Chiuauas everywhere).

  • Dan Irving

    /insert shut between ‘won’t’ and ‘it’s’.
    I’m sucha n00b.

  • Mike

    Bill Maher’s suggestion for a “Why they hate us pavillion” on the WTC site makes as much sense as putting a “Why they hate us pavillion” at Nazi death camps. There is no justification for the acts committed in either case. To suggest one or to try to understand pure, unbridled evil is futile.
    What a weasel.

  • I used to love Bill Maher, but he’s running out of ideas. WTF happend to the guy? “Politically Incorrect” was a great show. Now Maher is scraping the bottom of the barrel for laughs.
    As for Churchill… he’s just a fraud (fake Indian, fake artist, etc.) and frankly, dumb as a rock. For a guy that gets so much airtime, it’s amazingly hypocritical to complain about “free speech”. What he really wants is to unload his braindead vitriol without being questioned on it. Sorry Ward, ain’t gonna happen. It turns out the first amendment actually applies to us all, not just to Ward. Bummer.

  • Why is anyone paying attention to this toys-in-the-attic-crazy, hateful, morally bankrupt barking lunatic?
    Especially when he has Ward Churchill on his show.

  • What Bill Maher’s show desperately needs is for someone in the audience to stand up and scream “Run, Forrest, Run!”

  • JesseE

    How can you complain that Mahr has given Churchill more exposure when you know very well that the very reason he was on the show was to respond to the storm of criticism stirred up by the blogosphere? Now, you “predict” that the appearance will garner yet another exercise in outrage (a humble portent, considering it is your own post that has inspired Glenn, Roger, and the rest of the Web to pounce on the “story”). Maybe if you stopped blogging about Churchill’s stupidity, we won’t have to hear any more of it. Somehow, I doubt that will happen, though.

  • As a political pundit, Bill Maher’s skills match those of Saddam Hussein as a military tactician.

  • Ward Churchill is a far left idiot, but Jeff Jarvis is Glenn Reynolds’ sucker. Megadittos, Jeff, megadittos. Maybe the cool kids will invite you to the lunch table now.

  • Eileen

    JesseE says: “How can you complain that Mahr has given Churchill more exposure when you know very well that the very reason he was on the show was to respond to the storm of criticism stirred up by the blogosphere?”
    Is that ‘the very reason’? Aside from THAT, were Churchill’s comments otherwise thoroughly broadcast across the MSM? Anyone like you who can muster a way to criticize Jeff in the process of ‘defending’ Maher (that’s the spelling) and Churchill must be part of the Yale liberal front. We ain’t buyin’ it no way, no how, no mo.

  • Eileen

    The cool kids invited you to pancake breakfasts even in the face of your hatred and you declined, Oliver. So go starve.

  • The_Real_JeffS

    Oliver is playing with that red kryptonite again.

  • Jesse: It was hardly just a storm in the blogosphere. It was a storm in the sane world.
    Oliver: You’re sounding more insane than ever. Let’s see… by your logic, if Glenn and I both happened to criticize the BTK killer for torturing and murdering women, I would be sucking up to him. What is the lunch table you so desperately lust after, Oliver?
    Oh, that’s right, I get it: You think that by attacking me you’ll get invited to the Deaniac lunch table because you think they all value the world as you do: He who attacks my enemies is my friend; he who attacks them stupidly is even better: my loyal eunuch.
    That may be true of some of them, Oliver, but they’re smarter than that. And saner than that. And, dare I say it, more loyal Americans than that.

  • Well, Oliver, I see that you, too, are throwing around Nazi labels.

  • terrye

    I followed your link on dear willis and I have to say I think there should be a moratorium on Nazi comparisons. Unless those comparisons include turning people into lampshades or millions dead in gas chambers. This myopic knee jerk reaction from folks who fancy themselves progressive just makes them look and sound as if they are trivializing the horrors of WW2. If they really want to rant about mass murder they could always look to the left and make the comparisons to communism. But that might enrage all those reactionary revolutionaries out there.
    For them it is a simple concept. Right = nazi = Bush. Left = Stalin = what mass graves?
    idiots. This is why I stopped listening to people like Maher, they have the substance of lime jello.

  • Jeff, don’t you suppose that without his infamous remarks about 9-11 Churchill would be a nonentity today? Which obviously was a failing he was seeking to overcome. And he has.
    For Maher to coattail on churchill’s obscene statements isn’t really that shocking. He got attention in the beginning by parodying the obscenities committed daily by the peoples’ ‘representatives’ in D.C.
    Remember that illustration you posted, of the ultimate weapon against titillation, oops, I mean, objectionable broadcasts. It has an on/off button, and a channel changer. It comes highly recommended.
    And if I take the risk of being offended in order to see what Maher, or any of his compeers say, I don’t think I can blame them, it’s me.
    Further, if I don’t agree with anything you say, I have the same option. But for the most part, like your large contingent of regulars, I find it valuable enough to risk the occasional loopiness.

  • Chaunce Hayden

    This is the first time I’ve seen Churchill on any show to defend (however poorly) what he has written and said, but I haven’t been watching cable news all that much either. If someone with LexisNexis is willing to put together some stats on how many shows have talked about the controversy vs how many of those shows WC has appeared on I’d be interested to see them.
    In the meantime, here is a link to letter written by the brother of the WTC victim who was also there:

  • Bob Frunk

    Bill Maher has put away enough drugs in the past few years to drive a thousand herds of cattle mad. His brain has more holes than a trainload of swiss cheese. Pity him, dear people, pity him.
    But the sad fact is that we leftist badly need a hero. And for now, Churchill is the only person willing to step up to the plate. What has Michael Moore done fur us lately? Not much.

  • Rich DiNardo

    Maher has redefined the word shallow, and frankly is not worth much discussion.
    As for Churchill, he seems unaware of the fact that it is to some degree precisely the people he derides as “little Eichmanns” who create the society of abundance that allows institutions such as Colorado to function, and thereby hire parasites like him.
    Churchill should be canned, but not for his 9/11 comments, however offensive they were. He should be fired for perpetrating a fraud on Colorado by passing himself off as an Indian to get hired. His scholarship is now under the kind of serious scrutiny that it should have received under any kind of promotion or tenure process. Here, it also seems that he has made stuff up, such as the 1837 massacre of Indians by the Army, and there are allegations of plagiarism.
    Churchill should be fired, but he should not be alone in line for punishment. Who were the Deans, department heads and faculty at CU who aided and abetted in Churchill’s hiring and rise? Their dereliction of duty has damaged the insitution, and they should bear some of the blame.

  • Kat

    Oh, come on , give the guys a break. He has lots of leftists agreeing with him. Hell, he’s just a drug driven goofball. No one with half a brain gives idiots like Churchill and Maher any credit. I’m much more concrned with what Clinton says, and the fact that some want to make his wife next Pres.

  • LT

    Bob Frunk
    I would have to say that Michael Moore hasn’t really done anything for anybody. I hope if your party looks for a hero, it looks to someone who doesn’t perpetuate lies, based on a series of half truths and snippets of interviews taken out of context. As you can imagine, a film that so blatantly twists and distorts facts, does our country no good. In fact, it probably serves as a rallying cry for anti-US peoples around the globe, reinforcing any negative opinions which they already had. Way to go Michael – you really do your country proud. His assertions about there being “no terrorist threat” is also ridiculous, if one considers the fact that before the twin towers fell, terrorists tried to take it down once before; the uncovered video recons of landmarks by suspected terrorists; and the video threats of Bin Laden and Zarqawi. He’s an idiot. I hope you guys know better. Of course, this is all just my opinion.

  • jd

    Unfortunately, this kind of talk is all over the place among the lefties. I was listening to a liberal talk show the other day and the host called James Dobson and Jerry Falwell Osama Bin Ladens. The lefties have gone absolutely hysterical. But then I guess ranting about Nazis and Hitlers and Bin Laden is one step short of the Hunter Thompson solution.

  • pilsener

    If you want to understand the state of Ethhnic Studies at CU look at this Counterpunch column by Ward churchill’s replacement as department Chair.

  • Neo

    Maher seems to think that he deserves a TV show .. no matter, because he has the superior intellect and the rest of America is in a “funk” that only he can rouse them from. He’s on a mission from .. well I know it’s not God. Add together Ward “IINO” Churchill and you’ve got a mutual admiration society on would-be benevolent dictators.
    Every time I channel surf to HBO and this twit is on I just keep going. I think that this time Bill Maher has finally topped the Sapranos.
    It’s time to cancel HBO for something better like .. the WWE LOL

  • Mike NYC

    Wow, a leftie who’s an idiot. How shocking. Thank goodness there aren’t any idiots on the right.

  • Gregg

    Anyone who says there’s no echo-chamber in the blogosphere should visit this comment thread…thread….thread….

  • Joss Ackland

    Here is my question: Why is Bill Maher still on tv? Why don’t we do a Whoopi Goldberg and bombard HBO, that commie fucking network, and launch a boycott until they remove his slimy Marxist ass from the air.
    Boy, am I glad I canceled HBO last year. The network sucked to begin with; having Maher on makes it so much worse.

  • I’ll have to check the video later, though reading the transcript was painful enough. What, didn’t Maher want to tell us again how courageous the 9/11 bombers were? And Churchill pretending to be a professor is the biggest joke around. Is he providing such deep insight to the CU students? I think not.
    Nonsensical anti-Americanism.
    I’ve got several discussions of Churchill and his silliness on my blog, if anyone’s interested.

  • This isn’t about academic freedom or freedom of speech; it’s not about left or right. It’s about judgment: the bad judgment having Churchill on to spew again.
    That’s just pathetic, Jeff. And to think I wasted the better part of last weekend trying to defend your sorry ass on the grounds of free speech and the necessity of public introspection, no matter how painful or stupid.
    Denounce him all you want, but Ward Churchill got one thing right – in a democracy, the people are ultimately responsible for the actions of their government. We can debate the merits of Churchill’s screed until the cows come home, but enough with the outrage and the wounded naivete already. If you don’t think what our nation does abroad doesn’t have repercussions for us all then you’re truly living in some kind of fantasyland.
    Just because Ward Churchill is an idiot doesn’t invalidate the axiom that actions have consequences.

  • Um, you could’ve turned the channel….

  • Nobody

    Surely if someone wants to discuss the relationship between actions and consequences they can have the judgement to do so without ratifying the ravings of an idiot.

  • Mike G

    Jersey Exile, you’d have half a point if anybody on the left debated the real consequences of what America actually does. But the version of it you read in the Chomskyite alt-universe that Churchill is a minor figure in is so riddled with proven falsehoods (that the US was the main supplier of Saddam, for instance, or that the killing fields were a fiction), dogma-driven misinterpretations (everything is Vietnam and El Salvador), and willful blindness to other data (anything that contradicts the America-is-responsible-for-everything thesis) that the leftie vision is largely valueless.
    There’s an excellent book that makes this point while almost completely ignoring the left: James Mann’s The Rise of the Vulcans, about Bush’s foreign policy team and how their various views developed over the last three or four decades in public service. It’s by no means a pro-Bush book, in many ways it’s an account of hubris like The Best and the Brightest, but it does an excellent job of chronicling the foreign policy debate that took place mainly inside Republican administrations from Nixon on between the realpolitik types and the neocons. Those were the two factions thinking seriously and thoughtfully about the world and America’s place in it– and meanwhile the left was off having a wank (and being taken over by children like Oliver Willis who, honestly, is reduced to desperately crying for attention in Jeff Jarvis’ comments section).

  • Jersey Exile: Just because Ward Churchill is an idiot doesn’t invalidate the axiom that actions have consequences
    Additionally, just because actions have consequences doesn’t invalidate the fact that Ward Churchill is an idiot.
    And a fake Indian. And a fake artist. And a plagiarist.
    Thanks again, Hollywood! Or for that matter, academia.
    Condi in ’08, baby!!

  • John N.

    Anything this poorly expressed in senseless.
    We couldn’t find anyone who doesn’t support Churchill, Bill? We had to exploit a family member?
    Don’t you think there are reasons why people hate you, Bill? And you, Ward?
    Jeff, you tend to slip into heavy use of ad hominems & non sequiturs when you simply don’t like something. They add little to the “conversation,” and really help with any rational discourse/deliberation of the issues.

  • It’s almost as if Maher is making an argument of academic freedom when he says that Churchill deserves to be heard. Well, he was heard. Having him on TV means that you want him heard again, Bill.
    Are you making a claim that one’s “right to be heard” has a quantitative limit?

  • Patricia

    Maher first says he’s having conservatives on the show, then he books Churchill. He must be really desperate…
    I read Emma Perez’ comments on the whole thing and note happily that there are now organizations designed to train trustees and educators to take back academe (maybe I can come out of my pro-Iraq war closet on campus now!) and also that she ascribes the success of “people of color” solely to the efforts of their left wing compadres. I hate to tell you, Emma, but it’s the American people, people of pallor like me, who changed their hearts and society. You’re way behind the curve on this one.

  • Kat

    I just cancelled HBO and then I wrote to them and told them why. I decided to ‘Dixie Chick’, Maher. I won’t have this bloviating F–kstick spewing in my front room.

  • If you don’t think what our nation does abroad doesn’t have repercussions for us all then you’re truly living in some kind of fantasyland.
    If you think that’s what Jeff is saying, you’re living in a fantasyland.
    Anyway, responsibility comes on many levels. Ward Churchill is not above criticism, repercussions, or responsibility either. If his diatribes motivates someone to kill Americans, he bears responsibility for that, and so does the University of Colorado who hired him. I’m willing to accept responsibility for the actions of the government I voted for, but Churchill isn’t interested in being held responsible for his actions.

  • Hovig

    Note: I hereby revise my view of the video. I encourage everyone to watch. Churchill and Maher are so stunningly ridiculous, the best word to describe it is one used by Michael Faughnan: pathetic. And Faughnan by the way does a nice job of defense, and even receives some applause from the audience, arguably even more than Maher does. Everyone watch Maher and Churchill as they shoot themselves down in flames. Watch and enjoy Churchill’s career end in real-time. Maybe Maher’s too. Watch them before they get stuffed and put into a museum. Maher’s statements to Faughnan about putting up a “why they hate us pavillion” on the site of the WTC is simply the most disgusting thing I’ve ever seen. I’m saving a copy of this video to my hard drive.
    Jeff – Now it’s my turn to thank you for bringing this video to our attention. This thing’s gotten me more riled up than coffee could ever have done.

  • richard mcenroe

    Rob Frunk

  • Zimmer

  • JohnN.: Jeff, you tend to slip into heavy use of ad hominems & non sequiturs when you simply don’t like something. They add little to the “conversation,” and really help with any rational discourse/deliberation of the issues.
    He’s right. If you disagree what Maher & Churchill have to say, how does creating a blog post full of insults and “Good God, man!” and “What the F does that mean” empty rhethoric add to the issue? Unless you have something constructive to add to the conversation, just change the channel and move on.

  • qwerty

    Bill Maher should be off the air as soon as he’s not funny anymore. Fortunately, he is funny and he also does these antics, that get a rise out of people. So, you know, the usual comedian (see also: Lenny Bruce, Chris Rock).

  • SteveMG

    Michael Zimmer:
    If you don’t like Jeff’s comments and the followup posts and don’t have anything constructive to say, why don’t you change the blog and move on?

  • Prove It Zimmer

    Michael Zimmer – What “right to be heard”. There is no such right.

  • sbw

    It’s probably genetic. Friday’s Wall Street Journal wrote on mirror neurons[subscription required]: “Mirror neurons also let us feel another person’s pain. The same cortical neurons that process the sense of touch also fire when you see someone else touched. ”
    The article pointed out the autistic may have too few mirror neurons and thus may have difficulty projecting. Bill Maher and his ilk may have too many. No wonder knee-jerk liberals [as opposed to those like Jeff ;-) ] resonate to the phrase “I feel your pain.”

  • Why is it that the kind of people who tend to piss and moan most about the Fox News Channel’s alleged right-wing slant also tend to use the “then change the channel” argument when it comes to arguing for shows THEY like?

  • Zimmer :
    Then change the channel.
    LOL. Similarly, if you don’t like what Jeff writes on his blog, then read another blog!

  • I’m not suggesting a “right to be heard” – I surmised such a right from Jeff’s statement: “It’s almost as if Maher is making an argument of academic freedom when he says that Churchill deserves to be heard.” (emphasis mine). Perhaps I mis-read this statement.

  • kl

    Anyone care to take bets on how many hours the O-Dumb can go without complaining about Glenn Reynolds?
    “Anyone who says there’s no echo-chamber in the blogosphere should visit this comment thread…thread….thread….”
    Thank you for being brave enough to speak up about it.

  • Kat

    Maher hasn’t been funny for some time. What’s funny about suggesting that the WTC site become a pavilion to honor islamic homiciders? That’s not funny–that is sickening. Does Maher want a statue of the homiciders with the koran at their feet? Is that his idea of funny? 3000 people dying and we honor the killers is funny? I don’t have a lunatic’s sense of humor.

  • J. Peden

    That’s right, Gregg, the truth does echo. Or does it domino?

  • JRK

    Kudos to Jeff. I’m on the other side of the aisle in most matters, but when the WOT is the subject, JJ always steps up to the plate, unlike most of his party–especially the celebrity branch. Brendan, Maher’s not a Canuck–if that matters. (He’s actually an NYC/Jersey kid.) I’m glad the Dixie Chicks came up in the discussion, only because the motivations for both Maher and the DCs are so similar. They both wanted to ingratiate themselves to the Hollywood crowd by slamming the US. The DCs have long sought to transcend the low rent, Nascar image of Nashville. Though they’re really Dixie Hicks, they had their eyes on a national crossover move to Hollywood. Their management had groomed and pitched them as sitcom or variety show performers based in LA. The remarks made in London weren’t unlike the kind of retarded political stage patter they’ve performed outside of the south for years–only this time some bloggers paid attention and moved the story to the MSM. It’s a sign of their political acumen that the Hicks believed that everyone outside the Nascar circuit would share and applaud their insights into the WOT. Dumber still was the notion that they might recover by playing the victim card and set themselves up as martyrs to the truth.
    Same thing for Maher. The broadcast magazines reported that his ABC show was on life support and the network wasn’t interested in renewing–nor was HBO or any other cable entity interested in hiring the aging, self-proclaimed libertine hipster. His desire to be seen as this–or any–generation’s Lenny Bruce had dissolved. His disheveled standup routine had devolved into digressions into his barely cloaked jealousy of Jerry Seinfeld and other–less worthy in his opinion–comedians of his age who’d become sitcom zillionaires. It wasn’t until his inflammatory and ill-advised television comment on the WTC bombing that he’d become ‘relevant’ and marketable again–and he and his management played his ‘bravery’ (ironically unaware that he was parodying his characterization of Atta et al.)
    So it all comes down to cynical career calculus–including Churchill. Even the most deluded (Oliver?) wouldn’t pretend that this phony Cherokee might be hired at CU had not his resume been so harshly leftist and anti-American. Same for Maher–the ‘heat’ around his dead career came only from his anti-Americanism and his subsequent talk-show tour as the aggrieved victim of the right-wing neocon conspiracy. Only then did the suits at HBO terminate the radioactively Republican Dennis Miller and slot Maher in as his replacement. Churchill may be an idiot (OK, he is based on the evidence of incoherence on Maher) but this controversy is proving to be a smart career move, financially. An obscure fool is now embarked on an endless tour at $10K an evening–at your expense.

  • richard mcenroe

    Michael Zimmer

  • tootie

    Sorry Jeff. Read through the posts and found very few thoughtful and responsive to your story. So as I was told to do, I’m moving on.

  • Eric Anondson

    Why is Bill Maher still on TV? To prove that the left really does agree with Ward Churchill on America’s deservedness of 9/11.
    You know, Bill’s show is doing a great service to all of America by providing by daily reminders of just what leftists sound like, and say, when no one but the left is paying attention. We just need an occasional right-of-center blog volunteer to TiVo his shows, watch them, and provide summaries and transcripts.

  • Yes, Jeff, I happen to believe running around pinning threats on peoples doors is straight outta the Nazi playbook. I don’t think Republicans are Nazis, but this bunch I wrote about are.

  • Richard McEnroe – I accept your point that perhaps confronting rhetoric is better than changing the channel.
    But I don’t understand this statement: “Of course, serious thought has long since atrophied on the left, as witness buffoons like Sheen staggering around with his mouth taped to represent his suppression while appearing weekly on national television, or the NYU professors who bully their immigrant students and threaten them with psychiatric confinement for not following the party line of the academic lounge.”
    When did Martin Sheen become representative of “serious thought” of the left? That sounds like a straw-man arguement.
    And is there a particular incident of a NYU professor bullying an immigrant student with threats of “psychiatric confinement” that you’re referring too? I just don’t know if you’re talking about an actual event, or just making a generalization.

  • Maher is still on TV only because of HBO. His comments that the 9/11 terrorists were not cowards demonstrated his leftist ideology.
    Terrorists are cowards. What else can you call so-called human beings who must pose as innocents, target innocents, and murder without even sticking around long enough to accept the consequences?
    And Maher is a coward for giving aide and comfort to such filth.
    Not that I have a strong opinion on the subject…

  • Aristotles

    A => B
    C => D
    A => D
    Your inference that A => D is false.
    Oliver’s suggestion that you are Glenn’s poodle could still be true, even though many people agree that Ward Churchill’s brain is fried.
    For what it’s worth, I’ve been dead for 2300 years or so, and I had to come back to say that I think you’re Glenn’s poodle too. Arf! Good Poodle gets snacks from the table!

  • Michael

    Ward Churchill is the best thing to happen to the Republican party since Michael Moore. He’s the gift that keeps on giving. He’s like a rotten onion. Peel a layer and you’ll uncover even more rot and decay. And even better for the right-wing pundits, the Bill Mahers and the DemUndies of the world, dive into the same mentality that has lost them the past two elections, i.e. if someone is saying something that enrages Republicans then that person must be doing something right.
    Forget the “little Eichmanns” essay. This guy has lied, cheated and stole his way into a lucrative position, and spews anti-capitalistic rhetorical from his safe, insulated coccoon of tenureship. How could anybody with two brain cells to rub together want to have this guy in their camp? As conservatives smack their lips and rub their hands together with glee as yet another Ward Churchill scandal breaks, the further the radical left embrace him as a :::gag::: martyr of free speech.
    That he does have some points about America’s history of genocide and disastrous foreign policy is all the more reason for liberals to shun him. He provides an dependable excuse for the Bill O’ Reillys and Rush Limbaughs of the world to paint the dissenters and anti-war activists as anti-American via guilt by association. “See how corrupt they are,” they chortle as they showcase these idiots’ unblinking support of a recalcitrant fraud.
    And the radical left continue to play directly into their hands. Bill Maher invites this sociopath into his echo chamber so his audience of yesmen can further validate this disturbed person’s neurosis as a genuine voice of the left.
    Bottom line: Democrats will continue to lose elections as long as their primary M.O. is to annoy right-wingers rather than making their party appealing to the undecided.

  • Kat

    Actually, Ollie, you are yours are more closely algned with Nazi thought than any republican. Your little heroes, in the checkered headrags are the closest thing to Naziism since Hitler. Militant Islamism is one of the fastest-growing movements in the world today and has been for years.. Like Nazism, Islamism is a brutal, coercive utopian movement

  • Michael: No, a qualitative limit. Maher made an editorial decision to have Chuchill on. He could have had a drunken bum on the street on his show but he chose not to because the bum had nothing worthwhile to say. By having him on, Maher is saying he has something worthwhile to say. I say he doesn’t. So I say that Maher’s judgment is bad. Qualitatively.
    And as for the exclamations in the post, Michael, I saw people die that day. I saw no Eichmanns. I am appalled that Churchill says that and that Maher continues to walk down the road that somehow those innocent people deserved their own murders. That deserves plenty of exclamation: more than I gave it.
    Oliver: What do you have to say about Byrd? The Republicans can ask you that, since that’s your stand: You have to criticize whoever Oliver says you have to criticize or else you’re obviously on their side. And if you don’t criticize, you’re agreeing. So is Byrd a good example for the party throwing out the Nazi references? That’ll never end, Oliver. And it still judges the world like a middle-school playground; it’s still about the cliques; it’s not about the issues.

  • From a strictly sports blogger’s perspective…
    Yeah, Ward Churchill’s a loony, but what else would you expect from Colorado, an institution that uses sex as a football recruiting tool and has piles of cash laying around to use as a “slush fund”. Nothing good comes from that school.

  • richard mcenroe

    Michael Zimmer

  • Read it Ollie

    Oliver – Many Arab Muslims=Nazis

    “Hitler’s Mein Kampf currently ranks sixth on the best-seller list among Palestinian Arabs. Luis Al-Haj, translator of the Arabic edition, writes glowingly in the preface about how Hitler’s “ideology” and his “theories of nationalism, dictatorship and race

  • richard mcenroe

    Add Michael Zimmer

  • That’s an interesting site, Richard. But, given that this is a “free society,” students are “free” to attend many different universities, take many different courses, and choose freely among many different professors. Such threats are wrong, but the problem of “indoctrination” on campuses is probably over-blown.
    Also, Noam Chomsky is not a Democrat – he describes himself as a libertarian socia1ist. And Sheen is invited to rallies not becuase he’s the “serious thinker” of the Democratic party, but becuase he draws media attention. Politics in this country gave up on “serious thinking” long ago – right about the time television became the preferred medium for political discourse.

  • Jeff – I now understand your qualatative reservations.
    BTW, your comment-spam blocking software wouldn’t let me submit a comment with the word “socia1ist.” I had to spell it here with the digit “1” instead of an “l” becuase within that term is the world “cia_lis” which is a penile dysfunction drug.

  • Jeff: How about you read Byrd’s comments before agreeing on the Instapundit interpretation? They were quite applicable to the situation at hand, unlike the Cynthia McKinneys of the world who are just idiots and roundly condemned as such by the left (unlike the right, who invites their bigots to the White House). Idiots like Churchill, who have never had any say on the left, are useful tools by the right to smear all of the left – including the Democrats. Jeff, take a look at the posts of yours that Instapundit chooses to link to. There’s a pattern, so he can fulfill his duty to smear the entire left as Ward Churchill. You’re helping him do that. And your smarter than that.

  • That’s an interesting site, Richard. But, given that this is a “free society,” students are “free” to attend many different universities, take many different courses, and choose freely among many different professors.
    Wrong. The lack of moderate / conservative profs make it difficult for moderates / conservatives to find a professor or university they really like, especially in the field of social studies, so they end up having no choice but to attend a university or class by some extremist nut like Churchill. Alternatively, they have to go and study something else.
    Campuses are just off the wall these days. It’s like a snowball. As extremist profs move up the ladder, they hire more extremist profs, who move up the ladder and hire extremist profs, and so on.

  • Oliver: That’s “you’re smarter than that,” not “your smarter than that.”

  • JRK

    I love this! Oliver links to Byrd’s own site, assuming we’re all so stupid (like Kryptonite?) to notice that the KKK Senator’s original words and speech aren’t at the link…instead we read an incredibly lame apologia retroactively refining, err…rewriting the original Nazi accusation. The latter video exists everywhere on the web, ‘course we’re all too dazzled by Willis’ subterfuge to notice the substitution of ex post fantasy for fact.

  • Gunther

    This is total crap. The only reason that people like you keep bringing up Ward Churchill is that he’s a convenient club to use against those on the left who you disagree with. And right-wingers are only too happy to join in the liberal-bashing. Ward Churchill has as much to do with Democrats and liberals as Russell Hale has to do with Republicans and conservatives.
    As for the so-called “Democrat”, I’ve seen both good and bad things in posts on your site, but this last comment has to be the most asinine I’ve come across. Bill Maher has never been a Democrat. As far as I know, neither is Ward Churchill. So why exactly do Democrats have to apologize for their idiotic behavior?

  • Jeff, take a look at the posts of yours that Instapundit chooses to link to. There’s a pattern, so he can fulfill his duty to smear the entire left as Ward Churchill.
    Oh jeez, behold the Instapundit conspiracy everybody! LOL.
    Oliver, by attacking Glenn when he lays into Churchill, you do more to reinforce the perception that the left likes Ward Churchill, than Glenn and Jeff does. Lefties like Jeff remind us that there are still many lefties who are rational and intelligent, and not prisoners of their parties.

  • JJ is repudiating extremists on the left, just as Republicans repudiated David Duke and (to a much lesser degree) Trent Lott.
    What would it sound like if Republican pundits made Oliver Willis’ noises?
    “Don’t you dare criticize David Duke! He’s an idiot and an extremist, but when you repeat the Democratic line, you’re just helping them to use David Duke as a tool against us!”
    Who really is more guilty of enabling Republicans to use extremists as tools against Democrats — the Democrats who repudiate and distance themselves from the extremists? Or the ones who defend and excuse them?

  • Jeff: you’re right. :) I never claimed to be gramatically superior to anyone besides GWB (a low bar, to be sure). Now, about addressing that point…
    Republicans repudiated David Duke? LOL. In what universe?
    I’m not saying Jeff shouldn’t criticize Churchill. I’ve criticized Churchill. But devoting this much attention to him weeks after the initial story in order to weave some grand theory about the left (of which Churchill isn’t even remotely a part of) is the issue at hand here. Jeff says he’s a liberal, so I’m continously curious why he makes it a goal of his to assist the right’s smearing of the left.

  • Michael Zimmer:
    I wrote (to Jeff):
    “Remember that illustration you posted, of the ultimate weapon against titillation, oops, I mean, objectionable broadcasts. It has an on/off button, and a channel changer. It comes highly recommended.
    And if I take the risk of being offended in order to see what Maher, or any of his compeers say, I don’t think I can blame them, it’s me.”
    Essentially, I said: “as you (JJ) said, you can turn it off or change the channel”.
    While you wrote essentially, ‘turn it off’.
    As you can see, writing in less than multisyllabic form, you got a lot of invective. Try using words requiring a higher degree of intelligence, and the simplistic won’t understand what you said. Saves a lot of answering drivel.

  • Michael

    Oliver: “Idiots like Churchill, who have never had any say on the left, are useful tools by the right to smear all of the left – including the Democrats.”
    My point exactly. That’s why it enragres me when a narcissist like Maher rolls out the red carpet and provides him with an obsequious audience to publicly declare their open support for him. Ward Churchill is a sociopath, a plaigiarist, a liar, a bully and a fascist. But he annoys conservatives and Bill Maher just can’t resist kissing his ass.
    Why is it that your outrage is over the fact that Jeff Jarvis blogs on it and thus providing Glenn Reynolds a tasty blog post of his own? As a Democrat activist, shouldn’t you be angrier with Bill Maher for providing Jeff and Glenn with the material? You know that both of them always make a point to single out such obnoxious behavior. I could be wrong but it appears that you are buying too much into “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” mentality to lay blame where blame is due.

  • Michael

    Oliver: “But devoting this much attention to him weeks after the initial story in order to weave some grand theory about the left (of which Churchill isn’t even remotely a part of) is the issue at hand here.”
    Not to be gratuitous but I reiterate my point. Why isn’t your outrage directed at Bill Maher who provides Churchill a televised forum in which his sociopathic views are embraced and accepted but instead it’s directed at the bloggers who can’t resist reporting on it?

  • richard mcenroe


  • Michael

    Ask yourself this. What if Bill O’ Reilly brought on Jerry Falwell after his infamous, post 9-11, the-liberals-of-the-world-brought-this-on rant and instead of thoroughly denouncing it (which incedentally is precisely what he did), he gave it an Oral Robert’s style “I concur” and proceeded to kiss his ass and praise him for his brilliant insight?
    Would you be able to resist blogging on that? Can you honestly say you would leave that alone and still judge Jeff Jarvis and Glenn Reynolds for taking Bill Maher to task for further legitimizing such a hateful douchebag? You’re blaming the messenger, dude. Cut the problem off at its source. The radical left are too busy arguing over the fact that Ward Churchill has the right to be heard, they haven’t stopped to consider whether or not he should be heard.

  • Kat

    Ruth, but if he wrote in bigger words, would you understand, or are you implying that you elitist leftists are smarter than we rednecks? Just what are you implying, Ruth? Are you smart like the lunatic professor–if that’s the case I now understand your drivel.

  • richard mcenroe


  • Kat:
    Obiously you do not.

  • Jaybird

    Oliver, the true patriots look into their own party, criticize and seek to improve it. Simply saying “The Republican Party is WORSE!” does not make the problem go away or help America improve itself.

  • Eileen

    The logic is stunning. On the one hand, Oliver claims that Churchill (who flamed Americans as being Nazis) is (just) an idiot who ‘never had any say on the left’, while in the same breath he defends and extols grand Senator KKK Byrd (who flamed Americans as being Nazis) comments as being ‘quite applicable to the situation at hand’. Makes sense to me.
    The frequency with which democrats of various stripes are attacking Americans in general – and the administration in particular – as being Nazis, is also stunning. The more they spout this trash, the more they furiously hammer nails into their party’s coffin. [Note I do Not suggest that any incineraters will be involved.]
    Oliver, if you and yours were smart, you’d be thanking Jeff for demonstrating what little sanity remains in your party.

  • Ward Churchill is not the Democratic/leftist poster boy. To assume he is and say things like “You know, Bill’s show is doing a great service to all of America by providing by daily reminders of just what leftists sound like, and say, when no one but the left is paying attention”. How exactly is that supported by Jeff arguing against last night’s nonsense?
    It’s very easy to take one extreme example of Ward Churchill spewing and apply it to everyone, but what’s the point of that? Is it to make thought less necessary, allowing for more time for self-congratulations? Compartmentalizing people into neat little stereotypes is convenient, I guess, but it’s not an excellent plan.

  • Oliver: “Republicans repudiated David Duke? LOL. In what universe?”
    Duke was not endorsed or supported by the Republican party in his bid for election; no significant Republican pundits or politicians (or insignificant ones, as far as I know) sought to defend Duke publicly on any level. Republican talk show hosts did not sympathetically feed friendly questions to Duke, and Republicans on college campuses did not invite him to come and speak anywhere. That is the universe we are talking about, not the mythological universe of revisionist fringism.
    The fact that you believe that Republicans supported Duke simply because you wish it to be true of your despised opponents shows who, between you and JJ, has a firmer grasp on reality.

  • Brendan

    I’m confused. Does Maher think the 9-11 terrorists had a “point” or a legitimate grievance? Say it ain’t so, Bill.

  • John

    If HBO and Bill Maher, or anyone else want to continue to offer Ward Churchill a platform to spout his inanaties, fine, let them do it. But instead of allowing him to vent with only head shots of his face, Maher’s or a long shot of the stage on the screen, why not show the Sept. 11 video clips while Ward is talking? Not the ones of just the towers on fire or the moments when the buildings collapsed, but the images that have been banned from TV since about on 11 a.m. on the day of the attacks — the shots of people jumping from the upper floors of Tower 1, the mangled bodies lying in the street below. And if HBO or Maher’s production people want to help Ward’s argument along, they can do a little freeze-frame on the person falling to their deaths and the words “Little Eichman” can be superimposed on the screen. Then resume the tape so we can watch the person explode on contact with the ground while Churchill foams on about their contributions to America’s evil ways.
    Unfair? Churchill has taken advantage of the fading of those images from the public conciousness to spew his venom on college campuses across the country, which is made easier as the horrific nature of that day receeds into the past thanks in part to the images being shielded from view. If Ward wants to keep up his attacks, fine. Just rerun the images every time he’s on, so those watching the show are remainded that the World Trade Center victims weren’t just symbols for some shyster prof’s anti-American polemic, but human beings.

  • Just hit me, I shouldn’t have responded to that. If Oliver Willis insists on missing the point, that’s fine. We need him and all the Kossacks and all the Deaniacs and all the DUers and all the MoveOn.orgers to keep fighting to keep the moderates marginalized.
    Keep up the great work, OW! Somewhere, you’re making Karl Rove smile. ;)

  • Mamapajamas

    Oliver: “Republicans repudiated David Duke? LOL. In what universe?”
    The universe everyone except fringe leftie lunatics live in.
    The fact is that the Republican party doesn’t even acknowledge his presence… we don’t finance any of his runs for various offices, and usually run an alternate Republican candidate in those runs. “Not noticing” him is, in our view, much worse than calling him names. He’s a non-entity.
    There is no worse repudiation than saying that he isn’t a Republican at all.

  • Democracy Guy isn’t a Democrat. If he says he’s one, I call him a liar.
    Ward Churchill and Maher have never been, and never will be, Democrats.
    So why is that boob saying that they give people good reason to hate Democrats:
    Answer: Democracy Guy is a Republican. He’s pushing Republican talking points, recycling Republican LIES about the Democratic party, and doing everything he can to slime the Democratic party and what it stands for.
    People like Jeff should absolutely stay in the Democratic party. I disagree strongly with how he uses his platform, but I don’t doubt for a second that he honestly considers himself a good Democrat and a liberal.
    Fools/liars like Democracy Guy who think that Ward Churchill represents us should get the hell out.
    Hear that, Democracy Guy? The door’s over there. Use it. And stop calling yourself a Democrat, you DINO poseur.

  • I didn’t see this, but WC was mostly coherent when he was interviewed on Air America: Mike Malloy + Ward Churchill = magic
    Here’s a DU thread on WC: Ward Churchill isn’t a “liberal” or a “progressive” or a “lefty” he’s scum. However, as noted here, one of the widely-approved following comments says: “Ward Churchill may not be one of you but he’s definitely one of me.”

  • Franky

    Aside from Churchill’s idiocy (and as much as I like Maher when I’ve seen him, and respect his general approach to trying to push the boundaries of what gets said and what doesn’t, there’s no denying that interview was a piece of crap) this seems to me like a rerun of the why of 9/11. On one side people insist that there was a reason for it occuring (this faction ranges from those who think America deserved it, to those such as myself who reject that but want to understand what was the cause) to those mainly on the right who believe any attempt at understanding the reason is to somehow legitimize or emphasize it. The concerted campaign to make Churchill representative of the left aims to shut down any discussion of the why so we can simply retreat in to “they hate our freedom” cocoon.
    I would point one thing out on the seemingly unending discussion of Jeff’s liberal creditienals – why is it always someone you associate with the left that raises your anger rather congressmen suggesting the nuking of Syria or Coulter’s latest drivel?

  • Franky:
    Another example of ‘damning by association’: Sen. Byrd warns that the curtailing of individuals’ liberties is dangerous to our freedom as a country, and cites the Nazis as an example. Now we see posts accusing him of “calling Americans Nazis.” Kind of begs the argument, doesn’t it?
    “Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

  • where should they put the “why they hate us” pavillion then? yankee stadium?
    we were attacked in dramatic fashion and any time someone goes to that location people should ask, among other things, “why did this tragedy happen?”
    sure it’s outrageous. personal and social reponsibility during these days of Bush seems downright foreign. but to pretend like that attack, and the one at the pentagon, and the crash in PA, was totally out of the blue, is more outrageous.
    the only thing more crazy is going to war with iraq when we still havent caught obl or dealt with saudi arabia. as if 15 of the 19 were a mere coincidence.
    with that said, churchhill was shockingly poor-spoken last night, and now i can understand why he’s in the mess that he’s in.

  • Ward Churchill is a fraud and a clown; he certainly has no business on television and Maher is a fool for having him on. His career does say something about the problems of universities and the idiocy of campus PC, but it says almost nothing about the Left. No one on the Left ever heard or him or cared about what he said; he is not a political figure at all (except to the cyber-Right, now) but he is a fine example of a species I have often encountered: the academic hustler.

  • Chaunce Hayden

    If a controversy is worth talking about on television, then I think it’s worth having the subject of the controversy on to explain himself.

  • Just Passing Through

    I see a not so subtle reframing going on in this thread – Oliver and Geek being the two most recent and obvious suspects.
    Oliver seemed to believe that repudiating Churchill is not necessary because he is not an avowed democrat, which may be true, and moved from there to say he does not represent nor is a part of the left, which is patently ridiculous. Geek bought in another blogs statements concerning the Maher show and rather vehemently uses that reference as background to also remove the democrat label from Churchill.
    Gentlemen – so what?
    For one, Churchhill is most certainly a memeber of the left and pretty far out there. Being a member of the far left does not require that one be a democrat also – Chomsky is a good example – just as being far right does not mean one must be a republican – LaRouche’s party being a good example.
    However, many Democrats ARE part of the far left, just as many avowed Republicans ARE part of the far right. The point that both Oliver and Geek miss and that both Jeff and the Democracy guy are trying to make is that Maher’s show consistently presents itself as a champion of the ideas of the DEMOCRAT far left, and has become firmly indentified with it (if you don’t think Maher’s pavilion at Ground Zero is a far left idea, read no further). Having Churchill on the show, asking questions and making statements that have become firmly associated with the far left at large wasn’t done in a vacuum. It was done on a show that has a national audience and consistently champions democrat talking points. The association with the democrats is there because Maher wants it to be there. The left in general, and democrats in many cases, have made Maher’s show what it is. You can’t talk away the association because you think it shouldn’t be made in just this one case. That was Maher’s decision to make and he made it when he opted for a controversial far left guest and spoonfed that guest the same talking points he would have fed M Moore.

  • Kat

    I know why 911 happened. Same reason the Buddhists were murdered, the Copts, the Armenians,Jews, and Hindus.
    {On that basis, and in compliance with Allah’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:
    The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it,~~~~~~~~
    Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
    World Islamic Front Statement
    23 February 1998
    Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin
    Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt
    Abu-Yasir Rifa’i Ahmad Taha, Egyptian Islamic Group
    Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
    Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh}

  • richard mcenroe


  • richard mcenroe

    Geek, Esq.

  • Jamal
    An excellent article that shows why Democrats fare poorly with regards to issues as national security and terrorism.

  • who was in office during 9/11?
    who didnt act after getting a pdr titled “bin laden determined to strike in US”?
    who has spent our country into the biggest defecit ever and bin laden is still on the loose?
    who let a gay male hooker with a fake name writing for a fake news agency into the white house for two years?
    if the dems fare poorly in regards to nat security and terrorism then the repubs fare even worse.
    your best bet jamal is to try to lay low on the topics that you brought up and instead jump on the f ward churchill and the f dan rather bandwagon like your fellow dittoheads. there you may have an audience.

  • Kat

    Who was in power when?
    The first World Trade Center bombing on February 26, 1993,
    * 10 months later in Mogadishu, an attack on American military forces who were in country to bring food to starving people, eighteen American soldiers were killed and the body of one was dragged through the streets
    * In 1995, Ramzi Youssef was captured in the Philippines with plans to use commercial airliners to blow up CIA headquarters among other targets.Plans to tighten airport security were rejected by the White House on the grounds that they might be construed as “racial profiling.”
    * In 1996 in the Khobar Towers, 19 U.S. servicemen were killed
    * In 1998, they blew up the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania

  • tim

    The number of people who are so smart they’ve figured out that I’m not really a Democrat, but a paid Republican, stands at something like half a dozen.
    Coincidentally, it’s the same number as those who use pseudonyms when they make that claim.
    You guys are such sleuths. Perhaps you could bother yourselves to go to my “About” page, and check it out. I’m so cleverly disguised that I spent the last 15 years working on Democratic Party campaigns. All just to fool you.
    Genius. I rest my case.

  • Eileen

    Thanks, tim. I was going to reference your About page but I figured you’d show up. Glad you did.

  • Mike G

    Jay Rosen– Ward Churchill is not a nobody nobody ever heard of until now. His books are, if not world-famous like Chomsky or West’s, a definite part of the scholarship apparatus of leftwing teaching of history and sociology– hell, there’s a “Ward Churchill Reader,” even, which shows that he’s at least a mid-level name in that world.

  • Neither Ward Churchill or Bill Maher are anywhere near the Democratic Party. If you guys watched anything beyond Fox, Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Reynolds you’d know that. Do you see the folks your heaping red meat to here, Jeff? These aren’t moderates or centrists of any sort. They’re far right Republicans who want you to help destroy the Democratic party.

  • Monica

    Oliver –
    What you believe to be true and what a MAJORITY of the country believes to be true are different. I suggest that instead of bitching about the Republican party, you work hard at fixing the Democratic party, it truly needs it.
    I believe that this country needs a 2 party system, and with the way things are going on the Left, this is becoming less and less of a possibility.
    Just saying…

  • S. Weasel

    I just watched the video of Churchill on Maher. I think he was tranked to the gills. Maher couldn’t have carried him any harder if he’d stuck a hand up Ward’s butt and moved his mouth. I’ve seen other clips of Churchill where he could at least — you know — speak words and stuff.

    As to whether Churchill was an exception, has everyone read the piece in Counterpunch by Emma Perez, his successor to the chair? Paranoid, wandering, poorly written, shrill.

    I don’t so much mind finding out the academy believes offensive ideas or differs grossly from the mainstream. I pretty much knew that. But I’m madder than hell to discover how stupid these people are.

  • SteveMG

    Who said the following?
    (1) “The way President Bush [has] conducted the war on terror [has] converted us from victims into perpetrators.”
    (2) President Bush [has] silenced all criticism by calling it unpatriotic.”
    (3)”Bush is pushing the wrong buttons when he says, ‘Those who are not with us, are against us,’ ” he said. “[Bush] has an imperialist vision in which the U.S. leads and the rest of the world follows.”
    Of course, Bush never said that “those who are not with us, are against us.” He said that those nations that support terrorism must now recognize (post 9/11) that those who are not with us in fighting terrorism and who continue to support or give aid to terrorism are considered against us. Profoundly different statements.
    (4) “It is only possible if you have a regime change in the United States – in other words if President Bush is voted out of power. “I am very hopeful that people will wake up and realise that they have been led down the garden path, that actually 11 September has been hijacked by a bunch of extremists to put into effect policies that they were advocating before such as the invasion of Iraq.”
    (a) Ward Churchill
    (b) Noam Chomsky
    (c) Howard Zinn
    Correct answer. (d) None of the above.
    It was your boss, leading donor to the Democratic Party, Mr. George Soros.

  • richard mcenroe


  • Richard McEnroe:
    Would you suggest that people who equate David Duke or Fred Phelps with the Republican party should be Republicans?
    As a Democrat, Jeff should be ashamed of himself for linking to that Democracy Guy post and endorsing it. Jeff has effectively endorsed the Ann Coulter view of the Democratic party. But he will whine when people wonder why he calls himself a Democrat.
    Newsflash, Jeff:
    Ward Churchill has nothing to do with the Democratic party, and the Democratic party has nothing to do with him.
    Do you understand this Jeff? Because I don’t think you do.
    Not everyone to the left of Bush is a Democrat. This isn’t rocket science.

  • Churchill and Maher. Is this a case of “chickens of a feather come home to roost together”?

  • “Ward Churchill, flagship of the left,” says Richard McEnroe. Not Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Paul Krugman or even Ted Turner, but Ward Churchill.
    He’s a clown– a left-wing campus clown and hustler, who turned to PC scholarship out a deep mediocrity that he knew about.
    And now after your “flagship” statement, you’re a clown too, Richard.

  • Jay Rosen, Franky, etc.:
    You’re giving this persona too much importance.
    Sort of the (Who was it Kato Kaolin of the O.J. trial) the comic sidekick here. Who exactly is saying Ward Churchill is anything but the total straw dog the Republican left is dying for? to go back a decade, color me unconvinced. This is a stooge of the first water.

  • George Soros isn’t my boss, though his money’s as good as anyone else’s. I’m not seeing the problem with what he said, however, except that it isn’t deferential enough to your beloved president. Thats how things operate, bud.
    richard mcenroe: And the Klan members, Rush Limbaugh, and militia right voted for Bush. What’s your point?

  • richard mcenroe

    Jay, I may be a clown, but I’m not paying my hard-earned party tips to listen to Ward Churchill. Takes a Democrat academic or entertainer to do that.

  • richard mcenroe

    Geek, Esq.

  • JRK

    Why have all the university and college organizations that have paid for appearances have a leftward–or extremely leftist–drift? In fact, many of the campus groups who’ve invited him indeed have valid Democratic and leftist credentials. Look at his speaking venues listed on his resume, his university homepage–or just google his appearances. As for his anonymity to Rosen…so what? Heck, as a university professor and journalist for 25 years I’ve never heard of Rosen til Jeff mentioned him!

  • SteveMG

    So when Soros says that Bush has silenced all criticism in the US, you consider that a responsible and reasonable statement?
    And when he says that the US is a “perpetrator of terrorism” (shades of Ward Churchill), you view that as a reasonable statement, too?
    And when he says that the US is an “imperialist nation”, you find that a cogent and salient observation as well?
    This is not a question of being, as you simplistically try to put it, “deferential to my president”, although you may wish to deflect the issue to that direction.
    So, if your answers to the above are Yes, Yes and Yes, then Reynolds, Jarvis et al. are right, bud.
    You and your party are in a whole heep of trouble. When you start to piss of people like those “right wingers” Reynolds and Jarvis and Roger Simon, the problem isn’t with them, my good bud, it’s with your narrow-minded ideology.
    Instead of hunting down perceived heretics, why not try converting folks? A little harder to do intellectually, admittedly, but in the long run the benefits are enormous.
    Nah, it’s easier to just piss on them. Right, bud? Good, but don’t complain when you and Brock have turned the Democratic Party into a tourist attraction.

  • WhySteveMG

    “So when Soros says that Bush has silenced all criticism in the US, you consider that a responsible and reasonable statement?”
    Yes, I have heard that from scientists about the government, I have heard that from folks kicked out of Social Security Q&As, I have heard that from associates of Powell remarking on his leaving the administration.
    “And when he says that the US is a “perpetrator of terrorism” (shades of Ward Churchill), you view that as a reasonable statement, too?”
    Yes. I see an AG throwing American Citizens in jail without due process or habeas corpus. I see torture of our prisoners. I see British Citizens released after 2-4 years into British custody and then promptly released with no charges.
    “And when he says that the US is an “imperialist nation”, you find that a cogent and salient observation as well?”
    Seems salient. We are building 14 permanent bases in Iraq and looking for more bases in Afghanistan. Meantime, Afghanistan poppy production is at an all time high.
    Yeah, as a father of two draft age girls (5 and 7) I am very much concerned that Bush is absolutely ruining our country, dragging us through the mud, bitterly dividing us, wrecking our culture and our pocketbooks, and creating hatred throughout the world.
    And I am baffled that such mild statements by George Soros in a free country with a 1st amendment get such a treatment here from you. You’re truly a scary idiot. It is you and your type that make me understand how Germany could travel from one of the most educated and well off countries to Nazism. You help me understand the dangers of Nazism and fascism and how it could arise anywhere.
    So thank you SteveMG, Jeff Jarvis, Glenn Reynolds, et. al., your acts have truly helped me understand the quagmire of Germany and the heroism of the USA.
    Now piss off.
    This is not a question of being, as you simplistically try to put it, “deferential to my president”, although you may wish to deflect the issue to that direction.
    So, if your answers to the above are Yes, Yes and Yes, then Reynolds, Jarvis et al. are right, bud.

  • kl

    They’re drafting five-year-olds now? That stinks!

  • WhySteveMG

    Yes it does stink. Given how long we will be in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and NK, my kids our perilously close to the draft. I agree, and thank you for your statement of concern as well.

  • kl

    I mean, just think how quickly they’ll grow out of their uniforms.

  • SteveMG

    Hmm, I find some of Soros’s allegations over the top. As in, we have NO dissent in America? None? Zero. Nada?
    And your response to my observation is that Reynolds, Jarvis and me are Nazis?
    Nice comeback.
    Good luck with that debating technique. I’m sure you’ll win over a lot of converts with that style.
    Facts? Logic? Evidence? Reason?
    Nah, who needs those silly things. Let’s just call ’em Nazis. I’ll feel superior and to hell with everything else.

  • Nazis do not support George Bush. They’re pro-Palestinian and anti-Neocon
    From David Duke:
    “This band of traitors, in collusion with Neocons in the media, launched this war by a litany of lies and deceptions. If Americans were going to foot the cost of this war to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars (the equivalent of thousands of dollars for every working family in the United States), at the cost of thousands of maimed or killed American troops, at the cost of making the United States hated by millions, increasing the ranks of the terrorists, and becoming the target for terrorists all over the world f

  • Grow a skin you whiny people.
    Did Maher offer a journalism moment here? Yes.
    Did he expose Chruchill as a poor excuse for a dullard? Yes.
    Was it damn compelling? Yes.
    The guy out there who had his brother killed on 9-11 came off as the most articulate of the three in the segment.
    Do you have to agree? No.
    Did it take balls? Yes.
    Ward Churchill is on people’s minds. He’s relevant news and a complete tool. Maher had him on the show. The segment was compelling. See above and repeat.
    And for those saying Maher should be fired – you sad sacks can’t be challenged on anything apparently. Woes the time when you hear something you don’t like. Maher’s the best thing on TV right now when it comes to debating the week’s issues. Just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean you have to break out the pacifier and the diapers.
    And wait five minutes and you’ll probably find yourself agreeing with Maher. None of you seem to really know what you want, though apparently running scared is top of your list.

  • LT

    If Afghan poppy production is at an all time high(good pun by the way), and we are looking to build bases there, as you say, does that make our actions right or wrong? Maybe we’re building bases there to combat the problem. Also, maybe, just maybe, the combat and such that we do daily in Iraq, will keep your daughters safe from military service in the future. Its my opinion that if we don’t do something now, it is more likely that they WILL see service. And about America as imperialists. I thought an imperialist nation instigated conflict out of a desire to attain/acquire/annex a land for its own. I hardly think that’s our intent, or has ever been. I would say that its been entirely opposite. The United States has always rushed to DEFEND countries from invasiion. Oh lets see – Europe in the 40’s seems like a good point. I’ll just leave it at that. Good day.

  • YetAnotherRick

    “Geek, Esq.

  • OW blythely pops off about the KKK supporting the Republicans, but this is sheer sophistry. Self-sophistry, to boot. Again, he believes the worst to be true of his rivals because he wants the worst to be true about his rivals.
    How many Klansmen do you know, OW? Have you done any surveys on what politics they support? Just because they are racists, what makes you suppose that they are in support of conservative economic policy? Most of the virulent racists I’ve met here in Texas (and yes, I have to admit that there are still some) hate George Bush; I’ve worked with some, met friends’ relatives, etc; they are pro-union (which party would that be, now?); and many of them are just simply Democrats because their daddy’s daddy’s daddy (etc) has always been a Democrat. I recently had the displeasure to be berated with an anti-Bush rant along these lines… “Bush is an idiot, Bush gettin’ the kids killed in Iraq, Bush and all his g–d— n-gg–s.”
    I am happy to report, though, that the existence of this sort of character is in steep decline. It’s not the fault of Democrats that this sort of person favors Democratic-style politics along with his racist hate; but it’s beyond the pale for Democrats to keep charging the Republican party as being a haven for the KKK when their most revered old Senator is an ex-Kleagle who, like the Texas racist, somehow still hasn’t gotten the word “n—-r” out of his vocabulary.

  • Bob

    keep on keepin on, little eichmanns. of course eichmann and his family never considered themselves as “eichmann’s”. sweet dreams.

  • Franky

    Your point that the one democrat you met was a racist is simply bullshit. Bullshit. It’s rare that I simply won’t dignify an argument, no matter how stupid, with a response, but if you’re going to claim that somehow a racist was pissed off with George Bush becuase of the “goddam niggas” and instead supported the party that actively supports affirmative action, it’s just bullshit.
    It’s so boringly typical to come from the mouth of a republican – the right never promoted anti-semitism, the right was never racist – yawn.
    I’m loath on principle to agree with anything David Duke said but can you find something incorrect in that paragraph you cited? (carsonfire, here’s your chance to connect me with a racist – jump for it!!!!)

  • Franky, it was more than “one”, I’ve lived in Texas most of my life. And I have yet to hear one say anything about affirmative action, one way or another; they just don’t want to be around people of color, or at least take joy in demeaning them to build themselves up, to make up for their own deficiencies. This is *not* a political question.
    My point wasn’t that a racist hates Bush *because* he holds racist views; really, the point is that racism *transcends* politics, at least in that both major political parties agree that racism is bad. The ignorant racist doesn’t think about affirmative action, he only sees Bush appointing people like Powell, Rice, and Estrada to high office, and it makes him burn.
    If he worries about any political initiative, it would more likely be NAFTA, something that hits him closer to home. But Republicans and Democrats share the “blame” equally for NAFTA.
    Despite the continued insistince by the left to demagogue race, it is more and more a non-issue in party affiliation. Racists don’t choose sides depending on which side they think best supports their racist views. They are racist *despite* their political leanings, their support for unions, tax breaks, or whatever.
    Despite your bilious objection, I have cited actual racists that I have met to support this. What racists has OW cited? David Duke? As somebody else pointed out, Duke rails against Neocons. This is *not* the Republican party of David Duke.
    And please stop using indignance as an argument. It’s embarrassing to watch, and ineffective, to boot.

  • Franky: “yawn”
    Heh, please, Franky. I’m trying to quit my obsession with reading DemocraticUnderground, you’re going to draw me back in. I love watching posters there argue by yawning at each other, accusing each other of being right wingers, and reminding each other that everything that was ever good came out of the Democratic party.

  • Oh, sorry to keep hopping back in here. I’m also remembering the most racist policy initiative that was put forth during the last election: Kerry’s mania about outsourcing jobs to India.
    *If* there are racists who hate affirmative action, they would have to love that one. “Stop sending ‘murican jobs to brown skinned people!” That is, of course, how liberal media would have portrayed that suggestion, if such an ugly idea had come from the right wing. Kerry got a pass on that, but I really think that deserves more scrutiny: while the Republican incumbent was making great strides to promote people of color to high offices in the land, the Democratic challenger was making racist policy proposals. You don’t think this might have tipped a lot of fence-sitting racists back towards the D side?
    Just asking.
    I don’t think Republicans should get a free pass on matters of race. They certainly didn’t get a free pass when Trent Lott’s kind words to an old man on his birthday party became his political undoing. Thing is, Democrats *demand* a free pass for even prominent Democrat leaders to be racist, while accusing everybody they hate of being racist at the very same time.

  • jd

    I have to agree with those folks whos say, “Let these idiots keep on talking!” Give them a soap box to stand on and let them continue to bury themselves in the garbage they spew out each time the TV is turned on.
    I know some, perhaps a very few will believe their dribble but to most Americans with any sense at all they will be seen as they are, completely ignorant of what America is all about…

  • WhySteveMG:
    You’re completely freakin’ nuts, you know that? I mean, you make Oliver look like a paragon of good sense by comparison… And that takes some doing.
    SteveMG (the original, accept no other):
    Yeah, it’s funny how there is no dissent whatsoever in America these days. 280 million little Rove-bots running around. As demonstrated by this thread… Oops.

  • Peg C.

    Jeff, thanks for covering this so those of us with high blood pressure don’t have to. The more these nitwits (Maher, Churchill, etc.) spew their bile, the less likely we are to settle back into complacence and a false sense of security. This poison in Western thought needs to remain visible to all so that we keep up the fight.

  • Thanks for those blog links… I will try to remember to add them here. I am sorry to say that Prof. Churchill is a graduate of my university.

  • You wanted Bill Maher to go out and find a Sept. 11 family member who thinks Ward Churchill should shut up? That’s what you’re really suggesting when you say that he should have found a family member who disagreed with him, but supported him.
    That’s just as exploitative as finding a family member who disagrees, but supports him. Perhaps worse, since no one’s asked Bill Maher how he found his Sept. 11 family member. It could have been at random, which wouldn’t have been exploitative at all.

  • Jersey Dave

    Just remember that Bill Mahrer (Jewish, liberal, part of the arts community) would be one of the first shot by Al Quaeda terrorists if they had their way. In Afghanistan under the Taliban, art was destroyed, artists were killed, and anyone who did not confess the “true faith: (In whatever way the man with the gun saw it being that particular day) was murdered.
    Perhaps some people think that kissing up to the enemy is good for survival if the enemy wins, but I see no reason to take the chance. After all, critic of the USA or no, the enemy would kill him. They didn’t poll the people on the planes and hand out parachutes to ones who agreed with some of their arguments before they plowed them into buildings.

  • And wait five minutes and you’ll probably find yourself agreeing with Maher. None of you seem to really know what you want, though apparently running scared is top of your list.
    Are you implying that people are “scared” by Bill Maher? LOL
    I avoid Maher. I criticize Maher.
    I avoid eating turd sandwiches. If a fan of turd sandwiches insisted that I eat one, I would offer a reasonable criticism of turd sandwiches.
    Criticism is not an effort to silence. As Dan Perkins (Tom Tomorrow) said, “There’s nothing in the Constitution that guarantees your right to exercise freedom of speech free from criticism.”
    Criticsm isn’t fear, but criticism is often an expression of revulsion.

  • steveeboy

    churchill was “inarticulate” because he was most likely weighing every word very carefully so that anything he said could not be used against him by the tenure-review board at CU.
    maher was lame in the segment as well, the leading questions were annoying.
    However, I fail to see just where the right wing gets off now demanding that MAHER be fired as well.
    It is bad enough that the right fails to understand what “academic freedom” means, but it is also clear that they do not understand what the 1st Amendment means.
    For people that fetishize freedom, they sure have a distorted view of the concept.
    It does not mean “you are free to say whatever you want as long as the right-wing fringe agrees with it.”
    Churchill argues that events since 1492 have been one long catastrophe for the various indigenous peoples wiped out by the European colonizers. In essence, he views what we would now refer to as “globalization” as a crime for which millions–billions?–have been killed, enslaved, exploited, etc.
    Having that viewpoint explains why he made his arguments about those working in the WTC. Those people were at the pinnacle of global capitalism, thus, in churchill’s mind they bear some responsibility for the excesses, suffering, and abuses perpetuated in the name of global capitalism.
    In any case, that part of his case seems weak, he was on stronger ground when he argued that WTC was a legit target because it housed a CIA office, thus making it– in his argument, like the Pentagon– a “military” target.
    All of these points are pretty well articulated in his original essay, which was written @3-4 years ago.
    This never would have been such as issue if the right wing, led by their pal O’Reilly and others, hadn’t chose to make it so…
    One thing is for sure, Churchill is on the far fringe of opinion in the academy.
    Attempts by the right to make him some sort of typical poster boy are absurd.
    This just further illustrates why tenure is needed for academics. Without it, intellectuals would be vulnerable to the same sort of purges in this country as those that typically occur in totalitarian regimes.
    Hitler, Stalin, Nussolini, Castro, et al all attacked academics. Nice company you people are keeping
    –And I note that one hears no complaint from the right when their own bomb throwers like Ann “mcveigh should have blown up the NYT building” Coulter make similarly outrageous comments.

  • steveeboy

    reading the comments above provides what I think is a wonderful idea:
    that whole “why they hate us” pavilion at the WTC was one of the dumbest ideas Maher had…
    someone on the thread said the “Why they hate us pavilion” should be at Yankee STadium…
    That gave me an idea, What they really need is a “why we hate the YANKEES” pavilion in NYC.
    I am sure that is an idea that many Americans would wholeheartedly support.

  • richard mcenroe


  • AJ

    Churchill supporters unplugged, from calls to KHOW 630am here in Denver: (Windows media player)
    Caller/guest ‘Glen’ –
    Caller ‘Mike’ –

  • Sebby

    Bill Maher is one funny idiot. It would have been funny to see him living in 1941 Europe where he would fit right at home praising Hitler against those evil Americans who “have it coming”
    Morons like Bill Maher and his new girlfriend Ward Churchill are nothing more than publicity wh*res and should not be viewed as anything other than that.
    Any REAL MAN WITH REAL CONVICTIONS would never dare :
    #1.) Accept any American money.
    #2.) Live in America.
    #3.) Be part of an evil capitalistic society.
    #4.) Live a Hollywood lifestyle of drugs, prostitutes, and booze that lands you on the cover of National Enquiror.
    #5.) Give lectures, book signings, and tv appearances for CASH!!!
    Because now YOU ARE THE EICHMAN that you hate so much. You are contributing to that “empire building machine” that dominates and enslaves mankind.
    Watching those two chronic mutual masterbators for even three minutes will make people dumber than they were three minutes ago. There is nothing to be gained by watching two stupid white dudes discuss something that is obviously over their heads and beyond their control.
    History will not remember fools like this, only liberal idiots will for 1 year or so.
    It wasn’t the big mouthed idiots that saved Europe from invading Nazis, it was the American soldiers and their allies.
    It won’t be the liberal idiots that will change the face of the Middle East and bring about democracy throughout the world, it will once again be American soldiers and their allies.
    Liberals are pathetic pukes, all they ever do is talk talk talk talk talk talk talk and more talk…
    Thank goodness gutless chicken sh*ts like this didn’t run the world during times of trouble or else we would all be speaking and typing in Arabic right now.

  • Churchill is a fraud… Maher is a media whore
    the results take pathetasad to a new level
    the only reason this is worth comenting on is alot of you don’t seem to get these people are only famous because they are idiots

  • Note to commenters:
    If you use two common phrases that mean nothing in the same post, people will learn to ignore you. See e.g.
    Another example of ‘damning by association’: Sen. Byrd warns that the curtailing of individuals’ liberties is dangerous to our freedom as a country, and cites the Nazis as an example. Now we see posts accusing him of “calling Americans Nazis.” Kind of begs the argument, doesn’t it?
    Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
    Posted by Ruth at March 5, 2005 06:22 PM

  • Joel Vos

    Give me a break, folks. If most of you would have watched it you would be looking at Churchill as a complete idiot (which we knew already) and Maher as the guy that proved Churchill’s idiocy to the liberal folks in his audience. Maher tried to give Churchill some traction, but the fool couldn’t tie his shoes on that stage. Maher may have said some non-patriotic things, and editorialized a bit, but that’s what he’s paid for. Get over the fact that he said it, and think about what the issue is. Come on, folks, if most of you had actually watched the show and not just read the transcript you would see Maher shrinking away from Churchill in disgust at his idiocy. It reads poorly, but you can see that Maher couldn’t lead Churchill to a coherent statement. Maher proved a point, as you could see as he dismissed Churchill shaking his head. I was thinking the same thing, Churchill, you are a man with his head WAY too far up his a$$.

  • Birkel:
    thanks for your meaningful comments on issues.
    As noted by you, these quotes which have lived through the ages cannot possibly be used in present contexts. Very perceptive. Let’s do away with the past.
    Oh, yes, as an aside. I’m liberal and educated.
    By all means, ignore all possible meaning.

  • And my favorite poster, surely some one made up the ultimate ignorant poster, and gave it a name, (as several times other posters have asked, aren’t you a kid who has gotten on mummy’s computer with no one watching).
    “Ruth, but if he wrote in bigger words, would you understand, or are you implying that you elitist leftists are smarter than we rednecks? Just what are you implying, Ruth? Are you smart like the lunatic professor–if that’s the case I now understand your drivel.”
    Hey,isn’t it great to have people post on Jeff’s nickel who wouldn’t know an actual issue if it shook their hand.

  • steveeboy

    the right-wing needs to prove that churchill got hired due to minority status and that he was “unqualified” for the CU job.
    He has published numerous books and articles and has a decent record of scholarship. According to news reports, he is a popular teacher with full classes–but I guess the “market” speaking is only accepted when it is favor of the right-wing’s ideology.
    If the issue is his not having a PhD, that is NOT a disqualifier. Plenty of people work in the academy with only a Masters.
    Get the job, publish three peer reviewed articles and a book within 7 years, and don’t fuck any students and typically you will be awarded tenure.
    The argument that he was an affirmative action hire based upon his etnic status has never been supported that I know of…
    Where’s the proof?
    Put up or shut up.
    Otherwise it is just more right wing drivel spoken by those with no experience in the academy.
    And, I say again, I suspect CHruchill kept his mouth shut because he is already in deep shit and is trying to lay low until after the tenure review is completed.
    He is a good writer, His written work amply diplays his ability to articulate his views, and he puts words together than 99% of the rest of the population.
    Maher’s questions were idiotic, and the format didn’t relaly lend itself to a serious, nuanced debate on the issues.
    If nothing else, Churchill displayed balls just by going on the show.
    Note too that he refused to apologize and stood by his arguments.
    It may be too much to ask, but you right wingers need to start thinking about the rest of the world and how things are perceived amongst other peoples instead of falling back on your jingoism 24/7.
    Churchill was trying to explain how/why 9/11 happened and to answer that question “why do they hate us.”
    Smart people don’t rely on religious mumbo jumbo like “they are evil,” they look for explanations based in the real world.
    Just because you don’t like his explanation doesn’t mean you get to have him fired.
    –although I know that is the sort of totalitarian society you right wing extremists would prefer.

  • stevek: ‘Smart people don’t rely on religious mumbo jumbo like “they are evil,” they look for explanations based in the real world.’
    Stevie, stevie, stevie… poor stevie..
    The new king of the Democratic party has just got through saying, unambiguously, that we right-wingers are “evil”. Are you saying the good doctor and the huge crowd of DUers, Kossacks, and other fringists who agree with him are incapable of finding explanations based in the real world?
    Wait, you might be on to something, there!

  • Oops, quick correction: that quote was from steveeboy and not stevek. All you Steves look alike to me.

  • Who in the hell would “TRUST” Maher on an Airplane!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • oakland

    You people are idiots! Maybe you can use Maher and Churchill and human shields in Iraq like your elected official suggested. Iraq needs a constitution. We can give them ours. Thanks to people like you, we aren’t using ours anyway.

  • kharma

    Keep your minds closed as usual. Just listen to your talking chimp head and his fake reporters and town hall ‘participants’. Don’t bother questioning the ‘truths’ they tell you.

  • Scott Lochmandy

    Churchill and Maher have a right to their opinion and a right to publicly express it without all the useless threats from anti free speech right wingers. If Churchill was invited to speak at my collage I would go listen to him, if I disagree with what he has to say I can get up and walk out..thats my right.

  • Frank

    I thought Professor churchill was incredibly inarticulate, and possibly a little bit crazy. However, his “immaculate genocide” remark is a bit poigniant. Bill Mahr accepted the argument that the united states has recent blood on its hands. If it does, then some REAL PEOPLE, probably loving people, with families, children who the drive the soccer practice every saturday because all they want to do is make little Johnny happy, REAL PEOPLE are culpable.
    Also, Ward Churchill probably should have never been given tenure in the first place, but taking it away from him would begin to tear away at academic independence.
    And last but not least: Someone brought up Prince Harry. I stand by Prince Harry. He wore a Nazi Uniform to a “Colonists and Natives” themed costume party. He could (or perhaps he wasnt smart enough to) have quite easily been drawing an analogy between the Holocaust and the Genocides perpetrated all around in the name of european colonialism.

  • Pravin

    Bill Maher was right to put Churchill on. I am usually a supporter of many “chickens coming home to roost” viewpoints in many scenarios. Even in this case, it applies to our government to a certain extent. If we never meddle in the middle eastern politics and just quit that region cold turkey a long time ago, NONE OF THIS WOULD HAPPEN. Sure Israel may be in trouble, but is it worth the billions we spend each year on the middle east and the lives lost because of one foreign country’s security and a little cheap oil? Why the hell would we want to walk in fire on purpose, and then complain it burns, is beyond me. You want human rights? How about helping africa with the fraction of money and lives lost in Iraq alone? At least in Africa, we would have less past baggage compared to Europe.
    Having said that, let’s get back to Churchill. Bill Maher’s point was not totally unacceptable, but he was stupid to say we should put a reminder at the point of attack and there is blood on a lot of nations hands, not just America’s. England and France started the whole middle east problem in the first place by carving up countries arbitrarily. And Europe has caused unending misery in Africa. Anyway, stuff like this should be discussed in history books and other places, not the WTC site. And CHURCHILL? What a fucking joke this guy is. He was so inarticulate. His Eichmann analogy was incredibly stupid because Eichmann, while he did not kill people directly, KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING when he made trains run more efficiently. He knew exactly what the consequences were going to be. The people working in the trade center, however bad you may want to paint the government, have no relation to what is going on.
    On the other hand, if Bush starts a draft, and you voted for Bush, then I would enjoy seeing you bitch and moan about it because you led to this.
    Ward Churchill should be fired, not because of provocative statements, but the guy is a joke who doesn’t know how to debate. The one argument he tried to bring up was dead wrong.

  • Pravin

    By the way, I didn’t imply there was going to be a draft. I just used it as an example of when one could blame the common person for something unfortunate happening to him. This is where I find Churchill’s viewpoints stupid because he adopts it in such a broad fashion. The way he was squirming in his chair clearly indicates he has the personality of a bully who is at loss when put on equal footing in a neutral setting. And I don’t know who those idiots in the audience were clapping for. And I don’t think the WTC victim’s brother had any obligation to say he supported him. Maher should have said he merely supported his right to free speech because support would imply his right to act like a total retard and keep his tenure. I do not think a professor with tenure is entitled to speak without logic and without being receptive to other ideas.

  • john

    I agree with bill and I think his comments were right on. Instead of 9/11 retaliation, how about thinking WHY this happened and how to change it.