Bill Maher takes on Ward Churchill
A review of Bill Maher's latest show.
I was surprised to see Ward Churhill on Bill Maher. He had a sit down with him at the beginning of the show and a family member of one of the victim's of 9/11, Michael Faughnan.
Maher doesn't agree with Churhill's "ikeman" comment, but mentioned that if someone doesn't ride the edge of what is acceptable, then we won't have a democracy to speak of. I agree there, but I don't think Churhill rides the edge. In our current conditions, what is the edge? The Bush administration, while robbing civil liberties at home, likes to use "american freedom" whenever they can, but we know that the edge, is when you speak out about anything that is not part of our pro-fascist government.
Ward talks about the 12-15million american indians we killed via manifest destiny, he talks about all the murders that have taken place at our hand, but Bill disagrees that we "think" about it. Bill's take on this, is that we may care more for our I-pods and SUV's, but we don't wake up wanting to murder people. That is the difference between the "terrorists" and "americans".
Without going into if 9/11 was a hoax, there are still holes in his analysis. Because the "terrorists" are a CIA invention. They learned how to do what they do, from us. These "terrorists" were once called "freedom fighters" by the reagan administration. So, it's hard to accept that "terrorists" have it out for "us", considering the fact that we "made" them. Even today, the engineers of these "freedom fighters" feel it was better to bring down the "commies" and so what if we have a few radical muslims running around, we brought down the soviet union, it was worth it! Churchill makes the argument that the WTC was a legitimate target and it's because we're killers. This is what upsets people. I agree with him, because the WTC was already a target before, you'd have to be stupid to think "terrorists" would want to hit a strip mall before a symbol of American capitalism, especially since they did it before.(even if we stick with the official story)
Churchill seemed a little depressed, maybe he will make the fascists happy and get suicided, but I guess we can speculate on that if/when it happens. First they go after you financially, then emotionally, and then you get "depressed".
Moving on, Michael Faughnan, brother to a victim at Cantor/Fitzgerald, was clearly distraught and he was the "other side" of the debate. He asked Ward Churchill for an apology...he didn't get it. He made the case that Churchill was insensitive to the victims. I agree with that, but, Churchill said, "no more insensitive then we have been". This was met with much applause. However, Michael didn't back down and made another point. His brother was not a killer, not a murderer, he was a "good man". Again he stated that he doesn't understand how Churchill could think his brother was a legitimate target. Churchill explained that it was the "technorati" and as politely as possible, he said his brother was part of that.
Michael got a little teary eyed and came back assertively that his brother was not a killer. This is when Maher asked what he would like and Michael asked Churchill for an apology.
In any case, it was nice to hear Bill mention that he doesn't agree with the comment, but agrees that we are not always the good guys and that Churchill has the right to his opinion no matter how uncomfortable it makes you feel. Bill told Churchill that he faced similar backlash from the corp. media.
The argument that Michael's brother was not a "pull the trigger" killer, I agree with, but one only needs to look at Iraq and ask, are they legitimate targets or are they all killers? I challenge Michael Faughnan to look into the woman's face in F9/11 that asks the same questions he asks. "Why my son? Why my husband? They were just going to work, they were just living, what did they do to deserve this?"
Michael might then be able to understand why, someone other then him, might look at the WTC and everyone in it as part of the killing machine. The janitor had nothing to do with invading Iraq, but like our own government says, "they are just collateral damage". That may be upsetting to hear - take a look at the Iraqi woman, go tell her that her family was a legitimate target and that she is a killer - she'll be the first one in line to be a suicider. This point was brought up in a broad stroke of, "america has done bad things"...but not, "michael, you are the same as that iraqi woman"
The rest of the show was a little lackluster, Whoopi Goldberg was on and said her piece. Other guests included Dave Foley(who knows his geo-politics and left some speechless at times), former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno(said very little) and former NIH administrator Bernadine Healy.(she reminded me of Dr. Laura Schlesinger-too much ambien).
contribute to this article
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion