ass grab
Geez, You’re on TV Andrew!!!

Weird end of the season for Bill Maher who witnessed his own trainwreck of a show. It finished with uber-blogger Andrew Sullivan massaging his own ass for what seemed like an eternity during the credit roll. (pictured). I’m thinking to myself, “Ewww….Sullivan, get a grip!” just as I realized that was exactly what he was doing.

If you can find any way to catch this show during the week of reruns on HBO you’ll see a rarely concilliatory Maher get skewered for no apparent reason throughout the show. It must have been a nightmare to interview Alan Simpson, for example. Simpson took everything wrong. Maher must have been beside himself. Quite interesting. Then Andrew Sullivan laid into Maher too. Sullivan, a favorite of Mahers then went on at the end of the show to grab his own butt and squeeze it through much of the credit roll. Weird, weird show. Great for parties.



  1. James Deuter says:

    Am I the only one who found Andrew Sullivan’s pithy arguments against that pompous ass Chompsky cogent and relevant?

    Maher was barely aware of the Professor’s really radical Philosophy, but plucky Sullivan was ready for him. Pow. It was great.

    (As are his muscular gluts, I might add.) All in all, it was a terrific season closer of Bill Maher’s “Real Time.”

  2. Helen says:

    Apologies for my double post – blog seems to have a 6-hour lag (!) & I assumed mis-post.

    James: Agreed, there are plenty of cogent arguments to be made against Chomsky’s politics, but Sullivan demonstrated few of them, apparently preferring the “liar liar pants on fire!” approach. His own pompous-ass insistence that “There are no two ideas…there is either freedom or there is not, there is either democracy or there is not….!” is so intellectually puerile I was embarrassed FOR him.

    Surely you have to writhe for someone who crows “That’s why you lost!” when he voted for the same candidate. Between Simpson and Sullivan, it was a schizophrenic free-for-all. And most entertaining.

    No comment on the glutes; I prefer a jeans man myself.

  3. John Denver says:

    Q. “I ask you this question because I know that you have been plagued and hounded around the United States specifically on this issue of the Holocaust. It’s been said that Noam Chomsky is somehow agnostic on the issue of whether the Holocaust occurred or not.”

    A.” My “agnosticism” is in print. I described the Holocaust years ago as the most fantastic outburst of insanity in human history, so much so that if we even agree to discuss the matter we demean ourselves. Those statements and numerous others like them are in print, but they’re basically irrelevant because you have to understand that this is part of a Stalinist-style technique to silence critics of the holy state [i.e. Israel] and therefore the truth is entirely irrelevant, you just tell as many lies as you can and hope that some of the mud will stick. It’s a standard technique used by the Stalinist parties, by the Nazis and by these guys.” Noam Chomsky Here’s what Chris Hitchens is saying now – http://www.slate.com/id/2109377

  4. Ed Thorpe says:

    On October 28th, I saw Andrew Sullivan read a typically articulate and well reasoned piece presenting his arguments against G.W. Bush, at BlogJam in DC. Many in the overwhelmingly gay crowd hissed as he approached the podium. He DID manage to keep his hands off those “rock hard power glutes” while on the low stage, just as certainly as I wished to get mine ON them. Woof.

  5. moe99 says:

    Even worse, now Sullivan is referencing this blog on his own blog. Some people have NO shame…..

  6. Stephen says:

    I watched the last episode, and hile I didn’t notice Andfew Sullivan’s grab, I was distressed by the total lackof civility shown by all. I watch Bill Maher precisely for his snideness and arrogance, because he’s FUNNY. I was dismayed to watch Alan Simpson go nuts on him to start the show, but in retrospect it makes sense. We in the ‘blue states’ are often condescending to our red states neighbors; I attribute it to their holier than thou preoccupation with religion. We tend to be secular and like it that way- much as Tom Jefferson and his two bibles.

    Yes, there were way too many liberals on the program that night, but they too have the right of free speech, at least for a little while longer. Some of us who live in this great country often wonder why when the rest of the world soes something we don’t like, they are evil, but when we do it, it is acceptible. While I would never equate the current administration with Hitler, his invasion of Poland was based on “the fear that Poland would attack” With what- the Horse cavalry? We attacked a country that had no airforce (thanks to our no fly zone), no missles that could travel more than 3000 miles, etc.
    Now I had to do a position paper in which I backed the war, based on everything I had read and heard at the time. Guess what- I was wrong, and I admit it. Why is it so wrong to admit when you’ve f***ed up? I think that what infuriates Blue staters like myself is the denial that the US ever does anything wrong, be it preemptive wars, installing dictators, funneling money to those who would elect political opinions that we don’t subscribe to, etc.

    In plain English, we are also human and so are our leaders. If we are held accountable for our actions by our bosses, spouses, society, etc., shouldn’t our leaders also be accountable?

  7. Mike Voice says:

    Helen,

    This Nebraskan Democrat on a family farm is rather glad you’re off visiting a blue state somewhere instead of on my doorstep. Pffft. Think of me next time you eat a loaf of my un-American elitist bread.

    You go!, girrl.

    Thanks for a good, out-loud laug. :)

  8. Anthony says:

    Helen,

    Amen from another native Nebraska Democrat.

    One Republican talking-point that I am sick to death of is the assertion that Democrats are nothing but a bunch of arrogant, latte drinking, elitist liberals from NY’s Upper West Side who are nothing but condescending to the red-staters. This seems to me to be not an honest point, but an intellectually dishonset strategy to undermine an opponent’s argument.

    -Facing a liberal opponent? Don’t actually debate them–that might imply that your opponent actually has a valid point of view, and you don’t want to validate your opponent in any way whatsoever. Instead of arguing, attempt to nullify you opponent’s entire position by slandering them or by making accusations of condescension, elitism, liberalism…

    If I am ever skeptical or critical of Christians and conservatives, it does not spring from some elitist, ivory tower point of view–I was born among Christians and conservatives. I gew up among christians and conservatives. I am seriously outnumbered in my own family among Christians and conservatives.

    And BTW, it does seem a bit petulant and self-indulgent for conservatives to suddenly start whining about others somehow treating them unfairly or condescendingly. Where I live, conservatives openly and unabashedly use the word “liberal” as a scornful invective [and in mixed company, no less]. I’ve been openly put down for my liberal sensibilities my entire life.

    Also, as a gay man…well, growing up gay in middle America isn’t a Norman Rockwell experience. It’s a little hard to take pity on the Christian Right for feeling condescended to when taunting, insulting and demonizing gays and lesbians has always been an essential part of their modus operandi.

    Patrick Buchanan sits on a panel on MSNBC and self-righteously complains of liberal condescension to conservatives one minute, then moralistically denounces gays as sodomites unworthy of basic civil liberties the next minute?

    PS–Andrew Sullivan is a big girl anyway.

  9. davod says:

    People like Chomsky have every right to say and write what they want. The problem is that so many people read it and think he writing from an evaluation of the facts. Those who look upon Chomsky’s work as anything but non-fiction are in the same boat as those who believe Stones depiction of the Kennedy assassination is the truth and that Farenheite 911 is a true representation of the facts.

  10. Chris says:

    Chomsky said that people have the freedom to say whatever they want, no matter how stupid. Everyone seems to use that right very well. Fight for freedom, huh?

  11. Chomsky’s been around for several decades, remember. Maybe someone will be interested in these excerpts from Sidney Hook’s memoir Out of Step, detailing his clashes with Chomsky during the early Seventies:

    *****

    Although there was much to criticize in American domestic and
    foreign policy, what struck me was the one-sidedness, unfairness, and systematic use of the double standard in the attacks against the United States and South Vietnam. … He called upon the United States “to denazify itself,” but not North Vietnam or China. What practices in the United States, compared to the barbarous practices of Cuba or of China or of North Vietnam, warrant such a characterization? In those countries how long would one survive who whispered the kind of criticisms Chomsky was perfectly free to broadcast in the United States and be rewarded for it?
    — Sidney Hook, _Out of Step: An Unquiet Life in the Twentieth
    Century_, 1987

    The United States was taxed with following a policy whose logic was “genocide” for helping South Vietnam deal with “a peasant-based insurrection led by Communists” while the genuinely
    genocidal practices of North Vietnam in liquidating whole categories of the population were not mentioned. On his visit to Hanoi, Chomsky publicly held North Vietnam up to the world as a model of social justice and freedom. Whenever Chomsky and those who repeated some of his absurd views were challenged, they often cited as their authority someone else who had uttered similar absurdities, as if this vindicated the point they were making.
    — ibid

    The grim consequences of … Hanoi’s victory are now incontestable. The record of the last decade has brought a
    realization to some, who had been of the same view as Chomsky, of what they helped to bring into being in Vietnam. Protests have been organized against the continued existence of concentration and re-education camps, and the systematic barbarities practiced against dissenters. But Chomsky is still unrepentant. He has refused to join any protest, on the ground that it would serve the interests of the United States. In short, he has followed the double standard to the last, for he never hesitated to utter the most extravagent criticism of the United States on the ground that it would serve the interests of the Soviet Union.
    — ibid

  12. Real Time Phil S says:

    Chomsky this, Chomsky that.

    What the hell does he have to do with the price of china in Egglund here, huh?

    Ya’ll have gone way damn off thread here, bigtime.

    Of course, the thread remains where it should stay. Where�s that? Where I want to put it, of course.

    You’re welcome.

    Now, what’s all this brew high house about this Chumpski guy anyway ?

    Someone up top mentioned something about Bob Dylan too. Well, ain’t that special !

    And yes, so avent garde, too. (or however they spose to spell that there word.)

    Everyone get over this chump. Use your own judgment about politics, life, etc. for gosh sakes ! ! !

    Either that, or just get own back to where ya done come from�drinkin� a brandy with a cigar in your hand near the edge of some campus of one of the great universities of the universe.

    Be a legend in ya� own damn mind ! Us legends work !

  13. Raul says:

    Good lord you people on the right – the extreme right – have a hard time accepting truth. Chomsky is absolutly correct in his comments on the U.S. All he is doing is quoting Washington P.Planners and all you guys on the right are doing are getting frustrated over actions that your country has been invovled in and condemmed all over the world. Chomsky is against any form of tyranny incuding those on the ideological and extreme left – there is actully no difference all state powers act in the way to enhance their own interests. That is, they use violence to dominate and control resources or people. Moreover that guy simpson, foaming at the mouth, did he actually take on one of Chomsky’s arguments? I have yet to see anyone on the right refute Chomsky.

  14. Good lord you people on the right – the extreme right – have a hard time accepting truth. Chomsky is absolutly correct in his comments on the U.S. All he is doing is quoting Washington P.Planners and all you guys on the right are doing are getting frustrated over actions that your country has been invovled in and condemmed all over the world. Chomsky is against any form of tyranny incuding those on the ideological and extreme left – there is actully no difference all state powers act in the way to enhance their own interests. That is, they use violence to dominate and control resources or people. Moreover that guy simpson, foaming at the mouth, did he actually take on one of Chomsky’s arguments? I have yet to see anyone on the right refute Chomsky.
    http://www.shareok.com

  15. LOOK AT THIS LINK

    Andrew Sullivan Grabs …

  16. yao says:

    Even after all the discussion, Andrew Sullivan’s point still stands that you can’t make fun of people and expect them to vote for you.

    —————
    http://www.etrusoft.com

  17. Marnie Bowen says:

    Whatever has Real Time turned into, this new season, anyway?

    Has Bill Maher become a mouthpiece for the Likud?

    Tom Bombadil seems to think so:

    Bill Maher: The Dennis Miller of the Likud Party

    Whereas the show used to be oftentimes a riot, it now seems stale and contrite – almost “staged” even, to a degree, though I am sure it is not.

    Marnie

  18. Tax deduction tips…

    A tax is a financial charge or other levy imposed on an individual or a legal entity by a state or a functional equivalent of a state…