October 18, 2008
Well, on last night's show he had Martin Short, Ben Affleck, and Bernie Sanders.
Martin Short is a Canadian Comedian.
Ben Affleck is an Actor.
Bernie Sanders is a member of Congress.
To compose a trio of people more out of touch with reality, they'd have to shoot Martin Short and replace him with Fred Phelps.
I kid. Only a little.
Martin Short is silly enough, but he thinks that the Canadian Health Care System was successful and good. In his astonishingly profound ignorance he actually said that he doesn't "understand why socialism is so bad."
Moving more into the darkness, Ben Affleck is explicitly anti-capitalist. He's passionate about his socialism although I didn't hear him call himself socialist. He's probably just a very energetic and stupid Democrat.
Bernie Sanders is evil. He looks like Elsworth Toohey and he calls himself a Democratic Socialist. As the senator from Vermont, he advocates some of the most wildly destructive legislation and tyranny ever concieved. In a brief outline of things he'd like to see here in America he says, "In Norway, parents get a paid year to care for infants. Finland and Sweden have national health care, free college, affordable housing and a higher standard of living."
In having him on the show, Maher is all but endorsing this vile evil.
Now, I know people, even Maher, would argue that having someone as a guest does not imply his agreement with their positions or political ideology. In fact, he often has Republicans on his show and we know he doesn't agree with them.
The problem is that although he may not agree, he does think their point of view has some intellectual merit. He thinks that there is something to be gained from giving them a forum to communicate, argue, and defend their respective ideas and ideology. He thinks that their ideas contribute to furthering and enriching the political discussion.
That might be true if such people like Bernie Sanders were rational, if he weren't hell bent on using the force of the mob to deny everyone their right to their person, property, and even life.
It's one thing to have a few mistaken premises here and there and to be pursuing the truth through the act of noncontradictory identification. But it's quite another to have stopped reasoning and fully embraced an ideology of tyranny, violence, and intellectual mysticism. There is nothing to be gained by engaging those people in discussion and only harm can come of giving them a pulpit from which to preach their hateful ideology.
But Bill Maher didn't just give Bernie Sanders a pulpit. He sat there listening intently, even smiling approvingly as Sanders went on about how wonderful Norway is and Ben Affleck railed against the accumulation of wealth. He doesn't hold his tongue that way for Republicans or religionists. For those people he engages in the Fox News style of debate wherein one interupts and talks over one's opponent. But for socialists, he lets them go on at length.
The entire display was so disgusting that I had to turn it off.
Yeah, well, it's easy to be for socialism when you're a successful entertainment entrepreneur in a capitalist country, where the government still allows you to make a good living and they don't take you out to a remote killing field and shoot you for criticizing the leader of the country.
1) Such people don't evaluate facts correctly. I don't regard a country where 1/3 of my income is taxed to be successful. I don't regard a country where the medical industry is not free to be successful. I don't regard a country where the government steals my money to provide "security" for everyone to be successful. All those things are abominable by definition. So, the issue of whether the ends justify the means does not even arise. They don't.
2) Such people don't think in principle and therefore don't understand the long-term consequences, or are so vicious that they do, yet don't care about it. Governments are not static. People think that just because a welfare state provides them with goodies or meets their standards for a "just" society in the present means that government has arrived at an ideal state. In fact, that government is moving back and forth on a spectrum between Stalin and Jefferson. The fact that it is currently in a (allegedly) desirable state simply means the tug of war has not been lost yet. However, every step towards harnessing people to serve others is a step towards Stalin. There is no ideal middle ground, only a state of not being a dictatorship... quite yet.
Posted by: mtnrunner2 at October 18, 2008 03:01 PM (08+MS)
69 queries taking 0.2265 seconds, 172 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.