Bill Maher Says George Bush Has Taken Away Your Civil Rights

Photo of Noel Sheppard.

Can Bill Maher do an entire episode of “Real Time” without attacking President Bush?

For those that can actually bear watching his program on HBO, the answer would be a resounding, “NO!” Yet, in the March 16 installment, Maher came very close.

Having seemingly suffered through more than 55 whole minutes without saying something disgraceful and offensive about the most powerful man on the planet, Maher, who must have been having an allergic reaction to the uncharacteristic civility on display, made up for it in spades during his final “New Rule” rant.

Entitled “Orewell That Ends Well,” Maher repeatedly made the asinine assertion that since 9/11, President Bush has actually stripped Americans of their civil rights (video available here):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

New Rule: Liberals must stop saying President Bush hasn’t asked Americans to sacrifice for the war on terror. On the contrary, he’s asked us to sacrifice something enormous: our civil rights.

Hmmm. Did Bush really do that? For those familiar with message board lingo, I’d love to ask Maher to “link or slink.”

That said, Maher followed this inanity with a “joke” about the president with a punch line even my pet cockatiel saw coming from a mile away:

Now, when I heard George Bush was reading my e-mails, I probably had the same reaction you did: George Bush can read?

That squawk you just heard was from my cockatiel writhing in pain. You know, even the audience seemed nonplussed by the sophomoric obviousness of that one, Bill. If that’s the best your staff can do in a week, maybe you need to hire better writers.

Regardless, Maher answered his own pathetic question by shamelessly exaggerating the truth:

Yes he can, and this administration has read your phone records, credit card statements, mail, Internet logs. I can’t tell if they’re fighting a war on terror or producing the next season of “Cheaters.” I mail myself a copy of the Constitution every morning just on the hope they’ll open it and see what it says.

Amazing distortion of reality, wouldn’t you agree? Makes one wonder what the color of the sky is in Maher’s world.

Alas, he wasn’t done yet:

So, when it comes to sacrifice, don’t kid yourself. You have given up a lot. You’ve given up faith in your government’s honesty, the good will of people overseas, and six-tenths of the Bill of Rights.

Six-tenths? Really? George W. Bush has eliminated six of the original ten amendments to the Constitution? Wow, he’s good!

Maher then enumerated the rights the President has supposedly stripped from us by executive fiat:

Here’s what you’ve sacrificed: search and seizure; warrants; self incrimination; trial by jury; cruel and unusual punishment. Here’s what you have left: hand guns, religion, and they can’t make you quarter a British soldier.

Well, even if true – which, of course, it’s not! – this certainly wouldn’t amount to an elimination of six original amendments, would it, Bill? Or did you flunk math along with history when you were a student?

Moreover, I didn’t realize that the police or government agents can now search my house without a warrant, and that I’m no longer entitled to a trial if accused of a crime. I must have slept through that, Bill. Or, are you dreaming all this up?

Regardless of the answer, Maher’s vitriol was beginning to crescendo:

Look, George Bush has never been too bright about understanding “furreigners.” But he does know Americans. He asked this generation to sacrifice the things he knew we would not miss: our privacy, and our morality.

Morality? Bill, on a weekly basis, you tell your viewers that morals are an illusion of the weak-minded who believe in God and religion. When did morals become important to you?

Yet, the best lie was still to come: “But he [President Bush] made a cynical bet that we wouldn’t much care if we became a Big Brother country that has now tortured a lot of random people.”

Tortured random people? You mean like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and other terrorists that were captured in Iraq or Afghanistan? Those “random” people, Bill? Those sworn enemies of our country that have vowed to kill us? Those people?

What a joke, and I don’t mean humorously.

What follows is a full transcript of this segment for those that can take it.

BILL MAHER, HOST OF HBO's "REAL TIME": New Rule -- Liberals must stop saying President Bush hasn’t asked Americans to sacrifice for the war on terror. On the contrary, he’s asked us to sacrifice something enormous: our civil rights. Now, when I heard George Bush was reading my e-mails, I probably had the same reaction you did: George Bush can read? Yes he can, and this administration has read your phone records, credit card statements, mail, Internet logs. I can’t tell if they’re fighting a war on terror or producing the next season of “Cheaters.” I mail myself a copy of the Constitution every morning just on the hope they’ll open it and see what it says.

So, when it comes to sacrifice, don’t kid yourself. You have given up a lot. You’ve given up faith in your government’s honesty, the good will of people overseas, and six-tenths of the Bill of Rights. Here’s what you’ve sacrificed: search and seizure; warrants; self incrimination; trial by jury; cruel and unusual punishment. Here’s what you have left: hand guns, religion, and they can’t make you quarter a British soldier. If Prince Harry invades the Inland Empire, he has to bring a tent.

You know, in previous wars, Americans on the home front made a very different kind of sacrifice. During World War II, we endured rationing, paid higher taxes, bought war bonds, and in the interest of national unity, people even pretended Bob Hope was funny. Right, like you laughed at him. Okay, women donated their silk undergarments so they can be sewn into parachutes. Can you imagine nowadays a Britney Spears or a Lindsay Lohan going without underwear? Alright, bad example, but.

Look, George Bush has never been too bright about understanding “furreigners.” But he does know Americans. He asked this generation to sacrifice the things he knew we would not miss: our privacy, and our morality. He let us keep the money. But he made a cynical bet that we wouldn’t much care if we became a Big Brother country that has now tortured a lot of random people. And yet, no one asks the tough questions like, “Is torture necessary?” “Who will watch the watchers?” And, “When does Jack Bauer go to the bathroom?” I mean, it’s been five years. Is he wearing one of those astronaut diapers?

In conclusion, after 9/11, President Bush told us, “Osama bin Laden could run, but he couldn’t hide.” But, then he ran and hid. So Bush went to plan B: pissing on the Constitution and torturing random people. Conservatives always say the great thing Reagan did was make us feel good about America again. Well, do you feel good about America now? I’ll give you my answer, and to get it out of me, you don’t even have to hold my head under water, and have a snarling guard dog rip my nuts off. No. I don’t feel very good about that. They say evil happens when good men do nothing. Well, the Democrats prove it also happens when mediocre people do nothing.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

All I have to say about thi

All I have to say about this is the National ID and RFID chip issues had better be a hoax, otherwise I'm going to agree with Maher.

"Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither." -Ben Franklin.

The National ID program has n

The National ID program has nothing to do with violating individual's civil rights in my opinion, it's to verify you are indeed a citizen of this country.  In some sort of way, your social security number already is doing this.

Despite the explicit words

Despite the explicit words appearing on my SS card? (Warning, I've got the old kind...) Why, that would mean the government's lying, again, wouldn't it??
JMR

sarc - I noticed that little change too.

sarc - I noticed that little change too.

I think we should just tattoo everyone at birth with a unique identifier.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

aca,This would be a much be

aca,

This would be a much better solution....

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

MM, that was interesting read

MM, that was interesting reading, however, any technology can be defeated.  An EMP or magnet will destroy such chips so even if the government wanted to do it, it simply would be too difficult to maintain functioning for very long thus impractical.  

RFID while subject to abuse is a practical means of inventory, the conspiratorial arguements being raised against an ID system or RFID here are on the same level of saying people shouldn't have guns because they could be used in crime.  Just as guns don't kill people, people do; national ID or RFID for inventory purposes doesn't equate to a government dictatorship and 24/7 surveillance, only power hungry thugs do.

Bottom line here is a National ID system is a necessary thing in todays world of illegal immigrants and terrorists.  We need to know who is in our country and we need to remove those who don't belong.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

dscott,A national Id then l

dscott,

A national Id then leads to the question of: Who needs to reference it and why?

Example: A drivers license needs to be referenced by a police officer to prove that a driver has the privilage to drive in his state. It is also a picture Id used to identify oneself. Most, if not all states, have some form of non-driving related picture Id that can be obtained if one does not drive. The problem is these are not standardized for all the states. In some states you can get a DL by just bringing in a Utility bill! Why not have federal documentary standards for valid state ids rather than a national ID?

<edit> Just wanted to add that we already have a type of national ID, it's called a passport!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

My major beef with this who

My major beef with this whole issue is that any and every form of identification has been and will be forged, copied, duplicated, etc. When I took a Computer Security class last semester, the first thing the professor told us is, "My intent is to make you paranoid." And the entire first week was about how even the most secure policies can easily be broken.

I'll be reading Identity Crisis: How Identification is Overused and Misunderstood by Jim Harper and Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government plan to track your every move with RFID by Katherine Albrecht in the near future. Just the titles alone scream, "We're heading into 1984!" to me.

I'm already of the opinion that, in order for our nation to be secure, the citizens and government officials simply need to live honest hardworking lives, effectively punish criminals, and stop giving incentives for illegal aliens to cross into our nation and steal our tax money.

I've ranted long enough.  I'll let a quote by one of my heroes finalize my point.

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." - Ben Franklin

People also mistake things

People also mistake things intended to engender the feeling of security (such as identity regimes run by big government) with actual security. It can make a person very unpopular to point-out the difference, especially in airports, where I've learned to shut up & just try to minimize the duration of an increasingly bad experience. The TSA has both stolen and broken (deliberately, IMO) my property. Have they also actually protected me? I don't know. But I know about the theft/vandalism they've done, for sure.
JMR

&quot;Have they also actual

"Have they also actually protected me?"

Well Sarc, If on your last plane ride, you didn't have to step over the bloody bodies of flight attendents to re-commandeer your plane from Hijackers, then... I'd say yes, they have actually protected you. Especially since terrorists seem to like to use methods that have worked in the past.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

I'm sure the Jews allowed the

I'm sure the Jews allowed themselves to be 'marked' by Hitler in the name of security in the 1930's.

With all due respect, I don

With all due respect, I don't believe that would apply to a national id (something I do not condone) since EVERYONE (not just one group) would be required to be "marked".

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

I think you answered your own

I think you answered your own question, since the basic minimum standards for creating a secure ID is not recognized in all 50 states, this required the Federal Government to get involved, I believe it's called the Real ID Act.  Basically all states issuing IDs must adhere to minimum standards to insure the person who is IDed, is who they say they are, thus no Federal ID card is necessary.  Why carry extra forms of ID when the driver's license performs the same task? Second, I believe the SS # under this Act is strictly prohibited from being used for ID purposes to stop ID theft, the SS# is for SS, nothing else.

You will know you are in a police state when it becomes illegal NOT to carry an ID.

Finally, a passport is for foreign travel unless you want the police to say: Papiern Bitte!  (Papers Please!!!) 

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

Funny everytime the police wa

Funny everytime the police want to ask me a question, even on the street they ask for ID.  If they cant ID me they get uneasy.  When I cash a check they ask for ID, when I go into a club they ask for ID, so basically if u dont have an ID u cant do much. 

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.

Exactly right, having and car

Exactly right, having and carrying ID is totally voluntary.  But with just one caveot: just as you have a right to privacy, those who do business with you have a right to demand to know who they are dealing with.  You have a right NOT to deal with them and they have a right NOT to deal with you, it goes both ways.  A store has a right to demand ID for a "non cash" transaction to determine if what you present for payment is legitimate otherwise you might be stealing.  That being said, if you pay cash, then the store has no right to know who you are because unlike checks and credit cards, cash is legal tender.  A club serving alcohol has a right to protect itself from lawsuits by parents of minors and being arrested by the police if they serve a minor alcohol, therefore a club has the right to demand ID to verify a person's age.  The police have no business demanding ID on the street if you haven't done anything or done something suspicious (probable cause).  However, if you have done something suspicious and you have no ID they do have a right to haul you downtown to determine who you are, after all you have to charge the proper "individual" responsible for the crime. So if you never put yourself in the situation of being questioned by the police you could literally go through "most" of life without any ID. 

But quite frankly concerning ID, this is a facetious argument, birth certificates (ID) have been issued since the founding of the Republic, the necessity and practicality of this practice has been understood since the founders, it's a little late now to be complaining about being identified by the authorites.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

Define suspicious, I believe

Define suspicious, I believe police have the right to ask for ID of anyone pretty much at anytime.  We trust they wont abuse the privilige we give them.  They could, if they wished, say we looked suspicious, but they have many things to do than ask ordinary citizens for their "papers".  They are overworked as it is and really dont have the inclination to harrass us law abiding people.

Also any private or for that matter public accomodation could if they wished ask for ID if they wished.  In my building I have to have an ID on when I come in the morning.  The guards ask for it and demand it.  If I dont show it they have the right to throw me out or forbid my entrance.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.

1. See fossten's post above

1. See fossten's post above, because

2. No, "we" don't trust law enforcement entities who abuse prosecutorial discretion during a war to go-after the very same porno THE HYPOCRITES THEMSELVES WERE SELLING.
JMR

fossten's post is out of line

fossten's post is out of line, the US government is not targeting select groups for annihilation or persecution and to suggest some evil motive is totally silly.  I think you need to acknowledge there is a difference between what is possible and what is probable.  It is possible to abuse authority and misuse a National ID, it is improbable that the US citizenry will allow such abuse.  This is on the same level as claiming our civil rights have been taken because the government is paying attention to who is making calls to known terrorist phone numbers.  If you are calling a known terrorist phone #, you should be in jail, that's responsible government not abusive government.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

I disagree, and at the time

I disagree, and at the time I'm sure German Jews thought genocide was "improbable" as well. The entire point of the US Constitution's limits on government power is to make the "improbable" impossible. Once you slowly make abuses possible, Franklin's warning about security vs liberty becomes true. Eventually, evil men WILL take control as government grows larger and larger. History says so, over and over. And once it fully happens, it's too late to "not allow" it anymore. We're not talking here about terrorist phonecalls, either. We're instead (see above again) talking about the National ID card we were promised Social Security allegedly WASN'T going to be...
JMR

Sarc, my understanding of his

Sarc, my understanding of history is that those numbers tatooed on the Jews was preciously for only one thing, to exterminate them and the Jews at the time understood it all too clearly.  No one else received such tatoos to my understanding.  Once Kristal Nacht occured there were no illusions as to Hitler's future intent.

Second, it is against the law for your SS# to be used for ID purposes, that was dealt with by the Real ID Act.  Your SS# should not be on your drivers license or any other ID, period. 

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

(I think you meant precisel

(I think you meant precisely, but) my bet is that the Jews' tattoos were justified by nice-sounding "security concerns" at the time, regardless of the eventual murderous intent.

SS seems to have slowly-become a quasi-ID over the course of my lifetime in spite of the plain words on my card (don't make me take it out!) and I don't think the "Real ID" act or any other law has helped. What would help is a return to Constitutional government, but as everyone can see from the porn-hypocrites if nothing else, we're not on that road as a country.
JMR

According to a holocaust surv

According to a holocaust survivor, the tattooed number put on Jews was put on at the concentration camp not before.   Lapid said, adding that Mofaz and Ben-Eliezer also were displeased with the practice and that both had pledged action. During World War II, concentration camp inmates, most of them Jews, had numbers tattooed on their forearms.  But I stand corrected Jews and others were tattooed, that is all those who were rounded up.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

Finally, a passport is for

Finally, a passport is for foreign travel unless you want the police to say: Papiern Bitte! (Papers Please!!!)

Actually, you can use your passport as ID, even if it is expired (yes, that is legal). I like to whip out my expired one as ID when shopping. All my credit cards are 'signed' with the words 'PHOTO ID ONLY' forcing the cashier to ask for same. They usually mumble 'OK' and quickly close out the sale.

D


A day without NewsBusters is like a day without sunshine.

Old wording Sac

I always bring up the wording to people on my old SS card when I refuse to give them the numbers. I tell them it was a bargain that the US govt and I struck back in the '50s and it hasn't changed.

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

Funny, or maybe not so much

Funny, or maybe not so much, how they conveniently-deleted the words on the card without ever changing the law, eh? Brings to mind a certain "how to boil a frog" story, if you ask me, because I doubt your kids will feel like the 2 of us do regarding a deal buried somewhere in the US Code's verbal tonnage...
JMR

Despite the explicit words

Despite the explicit words appearing on my SS card?

A pet peeve of mine, I dislike the fact that everyone and his brother wants my SS number for ID, a purpose it was not intended for.

I already have a National ID card, it's called a Passport. You can get one in most countries.

D


A day without NewsBusters is like a day without sunshine.

Precisely, you have a right t

Precisely, you have a right to tell them NO!  And they can't force you to do so by denying service.  It is up to you the individual to force complaince with the law by reminding those who attempt to sidestep it with ignorance or just plain ignoring the Law.  In fact, all companies and government agencies are required to create an internal control number in lieu of the SS#.  I think the IRS is an exception due to the income reporting requirement to SS.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

If this wonderful (I agree!

If this wonderful (I agree!) right to say "NO!" is so-important, how come the words "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND TAX PURPOSES--NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" no-longer appear on the cards. It's almost as if someone had an agenda, and I hereby predict we'll never know the name of the person who made that decision. "Rights" which are forgotten (with the explicit but anonymous help of bureaucratic action, in this case) and which end-up buried in the thousands of pages of the United States Code & interpretable only by lawyers, tend to wither. As this one obviously-has...
JMR

They can and will deny you se

They can and will deny you service, now they amy let you make an alternative ID but sometimes the wait aint worth it.  Interestingly the state of Texas requires a fingerprint to get a drivers license.  I told thenm I would not and they told me to get lost. and that was the end of my argument.  I rolled over quickly and became a citizen of the state. 

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.

It depends on you what hassle

It depends on you what hassle is worth.  As far as fingerprints go that's pretty detailed info, but if you presented a passport and other supporting ID like a birth certificate then the State to my understanding can't deny you a drivers license for not showing a SS#.  There is nothing I know of in the law that prevents finger prints from being a part of an ID or getting it.  In fact, Disney World and Bush Gardens require a finger print scan to use your ticket to enter the park.

On the Texas driver's license, is the finger print displayed on the license or just part of the documentation to get the license?

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

It is on the mag strip on the

It is on the mag strip on the back, of course I work around high gauss magnets and my mag strip is probably ruined.  Ohh darn, of course I have not tried to crack it yet.  I have no big problems against real ID like prints or retina scans or any other method short of implanation of a chip or a tat.  I was squemish at first but have "gotten used to it" possibly in teh same way teh jews did in WWII.  Hmmmmm

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.

Dyne,I'm with you there. As a

Dyne,

I'm with you there.

As a libertarian, I trust government about as far as I could push it, and it matters not which party is in charge.

This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.

I have no idea why Dennis Mil

I have no idea why Dennis Miller defends this rectum.  I have to admit when Clinton was the President I hated him, but I never went around talking trash about him in public or with my constituents.  This guy is beyond ridiculous, he is ignorant of the facts. 

Trashing Clinton

When Clinton was in office, I did not start to trash him until the Lewinski fiasco. Then he was very trashable. He lost all my respect.

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

I still can't believe HBO can

I still can't believe HBO cancelled "Dennis Miller Live" and replaced it with this show. DML was reason enough to pay the extra cash on the cable bill... well that and The Sopranos.

Needless to say, HBO has been off our cable bill for about 4 years now.

*****

"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine no possessions?'" - Elvis Costello

Hmmm, from the man who has ad

Hmmm, from the man who has advocated the removal of the President and VP by asassination or impeachment, he still seems to be on the air.  Well, either Maher is a fool and a liar or the Department of Homeland Security is completely incompetent in not searching his house, keeping a complete log of his conversations, arresting him and locking him up where the sun don't shine.  As dictatorships go, we must be the most inept one on the planet. 

Ok Dick, you need to invite this guy for a hunting trip.  I expect to see his head stuffed and mounted on your trophy wall.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

Maher hates Bush.

Maher hates Bush.  <new?>

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

apathy

Gozalez will resign and this freak Maher will remain on the air. America has been turned upside down.

NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal

Funny how these Libs complain

Funny how these Libs complain about losing their civil rights when their entire political philosophy is based on the supremacy of the State over the Individual.

Again, do any of these celebr

Again, do any of these celebrities grasp the self-contradicting hysteria that Bush is denying them the right to dissent? The expression of the paranoia proves the content of the paranoia is wrong.

The celebrities sneer that the president has asked us to surrender our liberty but to go shopping, but that's because they refuse to do what the president actually asked for. The president asks for patience and endurance. Why is patience more important than rationing? Because every country that fears the U.S. has a "body-bag" strategy. They can't defeat the U.S. military in any sustained fight, but they hope to inflict enough casualties to horrify the American public into stopping the military from home. They all admit that this is their strategy, from al-Qaeda to Cuba. They openly admit it.

How do you counter that strategy? The counter-strategy is for the American public not to fall for it. Patience is the counter-strategy. For that counter-strategy to work, unfortunately, you can't afford to screw up once, or try the public's patience any more than necessary. Yet there were plenty of screw-ups: no WMDs, abu Ghraib, allowing the looting, etc. The administration put themselves into the position of needing to play a perfect game, but that was impossible.

To be honest, I don't like the war. History proves that asking a native population to help a foreign occupying force doesn't work. Oppressed people survive oppression by keeping their heads down. They don't stick their necks out for nobody ... and if the post-war strategy depended on them to risk their lives to help us, it was a dumb strategy. They weren't going to do that anyway.

What's frustrating, however, is that at each mistake ... the Democrats and media played up the mistakes. They didn't oppose the war ... they just undermined it. They exploited every mistake for their own advantage. That's what the president asked us to sacrifice; not our rights but judgments. If the plan had any chance of succeeding, it needed the media and Democrats not to pour fuel to every fire  ... but there was no chance of that. They would never sacrifice that. They wailed that Bush was a Nazi, and that Bush is trying to stifle their civil rights!

It's being childish while playing a dangerous game.

Maher

It's time to lighten up. Bill Maher, like Dennis Miller, is a comedian - not a politician or policy-maker. If you check Friday's "Real Time", Hillary and the Dems were in Maher's crosshairs, too. In fact, if you re-examine his controversial remarks of a few weeks ago, nowhere did he advocate the asassination of the Vice President. I'm sure Tony Snow would not have appeared on Maher's HBO show last year if the "Real Time" host was the monster that some on the right have proclaimed him to be.

We read his words, the fact t

We read his words, the fact that he didn't denounce such talk but talked matter of factly about it means he advocates it.  We all know what he said, so you can't spin that away.  You should curse Al Gore for creating the internet.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

If it was simply Maher, I wou

If it was simply Maher, I wouldn't pay attention, but it's the argument itself. Bush isn't trying to stifle civil rights. (If he is, as several others have said, he's doing a lousy job of it, so why worry?) Also, you often hear the argument that Bush never asked us to sacrifice anything for this war. That charge is fairly common among Democrats, see Charlie Rangel and John Kerry.

I think that charge is dangerous, because it misrepresents what Bush really is asking for: patience. Without patience, the body bag strategy will work. If so, there will be only two alternatives.

  • We will only fight one-punch wars. This means, in turn, that our enemies only need to duck once, and they can then freely continue to snipe at us.
  • The military will not allow press coverage of an extended war. Much as I despise the current media, I think that would be a mistake.

It isn't Maher or Letterman or Rosie ... it's what these shallow ideas can lead to. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I still believe that ideas have consequences.

Exactly right, Mr. Mulville.

Exactly right, Mr. Mulville. These leftist celebrities like to imagine that they are real dissidents, courting censorship or blacklisting by criticizing the administration. In reality, they owe their modest success almost entirely to their putative dissidence. How successful would a Maher, Franken, or Garafolo be without their political activism? Their careers are built on it.

Yes, and more people will die

Yes, and more people will die as a result of this collaboration with the enemy just to satisfy their so called civil right of dissent.  Freedom ceases to be free when it comes at the expense of others.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

Liberals need to shut the h

Liberals need to shut the hell up about taking away civil rights. They enjoy it as much as the next guy for the sake of "safety." Such as:

1)Colorado recently passed a smoking ban. Smoker's civil rights are being infringed upon

2)Seat belt laws are being more enforced. It's my right to NOT wear a seatbelt

3)There's an actual speed LIMIT. There's a reason why Montana is so massive: To drive through it as fast as possible.

Seat belt laws are being more

Seat belt laws are being more enforced. It's my right to NOT wear a seatbelt

Interesting thought there, but since driving is a privledge and not a right, you are going to lose that argument.  Just because you don't want to do something doesn't mean you have a right NOT to.  This is a case of taking the Libertarian position too far into Anarchy.  Just because it isn't written in the Constitution doesn't mean government can't pass a law or the individual can decide to NOT live cooperatively with their fellow citizens.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

I struggle with laws like thi

I struggle with laws like this a bit. While I wear seatbelts and don't smoke, I think some of the laws are extreme.  While you say it's a "privilege" to drive, how many things do we presently think of as rights will soon be regulated down to privileges?  I think some of the smoking laws are justified, but seatbelt use should be between the (adult) individual and his insurance company.  What about rollerblading?  Where I live, you have to wear a helmet for that, or face a heavy fine.  Is rollerblading a privilege too?  The natural progression of that is to license rollerblades, and of course charge a tax for it. 

Brad

Brad,

I struggle with all this as well. On the one hand, how could behavior by me, which only has a possible negative impact on me, be regulated by the government?

On the other hand, as most people carry car insurance, health insurance, and life insurance, and premiums are based on group risk, can't it be proven that your decision to not wear a seatbelt or a helmet when rollerblading drives up the group's expenses?

Yet, couldn't this all be carried too far? If this is all about insurance dollars, shouldn't the government outlaw or regulate all activities that carry risk? For instance, maybe sky diving, SCUBA diving, and other dangerous recreational activities should be made illegal to lower everybody's premiums and the cost of health care. 

Pretty absurd, no?  ns

For instance, maybe sky divin

For instance, maybe sky diving, SCUBA diving, and other dangerous recreational activities should be made illegal to lower everybody's premiums and the cost of health care. 

Actually, the insurance companies charge a premium for those activities, therefore you are free to do them but at a higher cost.  Just try to get a life insurance policy being a SCUBA diver, sky diver, rock or mountain climbing, or flying a private plane, either you can't or you get a high priced life insurance policy.  Same goes for smoking, a smoker pays a premium on both health and life insurance for their habit which is only fair to the rest of the group.   As time goes on, the insurance companies who you pay a fee to cover you (lifestyle choices) slap on premium fees to cover certain high risk activities in order to keep the cost low for the rest of us who don't engage in high risk activities.  So in this sense, there is no need to pass micromanaging laws as they will either be discouraged by their true costs or their potential outcomes will be fully and knowingly accepted by the particpant without forcing others to pay for it.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

Dan

Dan,

Certainly, a proposed insured pays a higher life insurance premium based upon such activities. However, that wouldn't be the case for health coverage. And, regardless of the additional premium for life, it is still quite likely that the costs associated with these activities are somewhat absorbed by the group. This of course is the case in terms of healthcare costs.

The point is that all such costs would decline if the population took less risks. If this is the excuse government is making to intervene, where could such intervention end?  ns 

Agreed, at what point does go

Agreed, at what point does government micromanagement need to be stopped.  Of course everyone would be safer if they took no risks, but the problem is life is all about taking risks.  Insurance and government are two different things, insurance is a personal choice and financial contract to diminish/shift risk, whereas government is a societal arbitrator to make sure everyone goes about their business without negatively affecting each other.  If I voluntarily enter into a financial contract with an insurance company for them to accept my risk, they charge me according to the risk I present.  Not so with government. Quite frankly, health insurance companies need and will follow the lead of the life insurance companies in pricing premiums. This is where Democrats lose all sense of proportion about the reason for government.  They treat government as if it were insurance.  Insurance is voluntary (except car insurance), government is not.  Insurance assigns a financial value to a person's wellbeing and life, government assigns a totally different set of values for the individual.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

Noel, one of the reasons the

Noel, one of the reasons the Insurance industry gave for supporting seat belt laws was that an unbelted driver has about 3 times the injuries that a belted driver does.  Now, it is impossible for an insurance company to know which drivers do or do not use seat belts.  I think they went about it bass ackwards, though.  I believe the states should have allowed the insurance companies to allow an exclusion of medical costs if the individual is not wearing his/her seatbelt at the time of an accident.  That way, the insurance company does not incur unduly large losses from a driver, and the individual driver decides for himself/herself how much risk they, individually, are willing to assume.

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan

As long as there are multip

As long as there are multiple insurors, might risky behaviors not be best left to that horrible old free marketplace instead of our immense and growing population of friendly regulators? Once there's only one "company," and it's the government of course, IMO you've kinda unwittingly explained just why even greater big government control over medicine than we have right now (which is substantial!) will naturally lead to even greater government control over people.
JMR

Sarc

J,

To quote you, I must have had my sarcasm cloaking device on!  :-)

I was using this example to point out the flaw in this approach, and what could occur if you took it to its extreme. As such, I don't believe government should regulate personal safety issues such as helmets and seatbelts regardless of the possibly beneficial economic impact.   ns

Sorry I misinterpreted!! An

Sorry I misinterpreted!! Anyway, as insurance companies grow, IMO they're likely to behave more and more like governments, anyway. The ultimate libertarian position, I must admit, is to let certain elements of the gene pool bleed-out by the side of the road and die if they choose to do risky things and inadequately-or-self insure & something bad happens. This idea doesn't "sell" well politically, and neither does my saying "life is not a risk-free proposition" all the time, I'm told. :) But The libertarian approach, in the end, provides its own very effective (albeit graphic) warning system, which -- like the built-in often-positive effect on the human gene pool -- is one of the "hidden bonuses."
JMR

That was my point exactly. 

That was my point exactly.  Now, WRT your original post,  I'm really at a loss to name any civil rights I've forfeited under President Bush.  Perhaps Mr Maher can tell me what freedoms I've lost.  He certainly hasn't lost any alleged right to dissent. 

I think you are mixing a pub

I think you are mixing a public safety issue with trivial matters of personal choice.  The stats are there on safety belts saving lives (hence tax payers) and since the "public" pays for the roads, issues the driver's licenses to certify people understand and operate vehicles (which are also regulated in their design) safely that ride upon the road, the government has an interest in insuring the safety of those participating in an activity that is promoted and participated in by the (public) tax dollars expended for this activity.

That's not to say that some people like Democrats take this too far to involve themselves in matters of personal choice and lifestyle such as the Transfat ban issue.   Like you I think getting involved in Rollerblading or bicycling is a bit on the micromanagement side.  If someone wants to smoke a cancer stick in their house or outside, it's none of my business nor is it the business of government.  Government should be dealing with the communal essentials of society not personal minutia.  Any government that seeks to micromanage becomes a tyranny of the politically correct.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

I agree with you more than I

I agree with you more than I disagree. Driving obviously has to be reglated to some degree, but I think regulation should be as minimal as possible.  Obedience to traffic signs and lights, speed limits, etc. is all obviously directly related to public safety.  Not using a seat belt, although stupid, seems to me a personal choice, or "micromanagement"  in your terms.  This law IMO tends towards the "slippery slope" of the more frivolous ones I mentioned.  Use of (especially questionable) stats could lead towards all kinds of intrusion of personal choice.  I'm on board with the rest of your argument. 

as an ordinary citizen, i gue

as an ordinary citizen, i guess i'm confused as to why an arrogant, wealthy entertainer thinks i will believe that my civil rights have been taken away by President Bush

am i missing something?  what rights are gone?  i voted in the last election, i still own guns and i am currently exercising my freedom of speech by writing this ... i don't get it. 

bill mahers personal phone calls, emails being read by gov't agents?  unless he's plotting to assassinate someone, what does he have to fear ... can his phone calls or emails be any worse than the sewage he spews so publicly? 

 does maher really think that his rhetoric would have been tolerated during WWII?  does anyone tire of the continuous lack of substance to these peoples arguments?  if maher is going to reference historical events (WWII) he could at least give the impression that he has read about the subject matter.

i swear, the more these people talk,  the more i drift to the right.  the constant crying and whining ... the self-loathing ... the permanent negativity syndrome ... calgon, take me away! 

"At some point, the 'public' has to contribute more to society than just exercising its rights" - [PMOH]Buck

MAHER

This fellow should pray for Geore W. Bush's health and longevity. Without Mr. Bush, this fool would have absolutely no career or means of earning a living.

Do you think he could make jokes and ridicule Hillary or that Obama person and make a living?

He is a one subject mouth that roared, and about to become unemployable, as he sure can't make it on his looks.

Do you think he could make jo

Do you think he could make jokes and ridicule Hillary

Not unless he wanted to end up like Vince Foster...

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

If Bush really were what they say he is

If George W. Bush and Co. were really the people the left says they are, critics like Maher and Olbermann would have been arrested on trumped up charges and never heard from again.  It's too bad these extremists have audiences, but as it has been said, no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American people.

&quot;... Maher and Olbermann

"... Maher and Olbermann would have been arrested ... and never heard from again."  And this is a bad thing how?

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan

I always laugh when people ar

I always laugh when people are up in arms about a national ID card.

RIGHT NOW your personal imformation is being bought and sold legally. Credit card company's, mortgage company's, supermarkets, just about everyone you do business with is selling your personal information.

Your personal information is available on the internet, some for free, most for a nominal fee.

RIGHT NOW a kid from eastern europe is rifling through your personal computer because your kid download free smiley faces.

LOL....bring on the national ID cards!!!

Banks, credit card companie

Banks, credit card companies, and supermarkets, etc. indeed sell information, but they don't ever deny it, or deny wanting to use their cards to identify us. Those of us annoyed with how the SS card has "evolved" are annoyed by a broken government promise printed right on the face of my SS card, which, had a private entity made that same promise and then broken it, would have probably been a legal cause of action for victims. While you're correct about the private entities' behavior, it would be nice if big government's behavior could meet the same standard. I want to sue, but all I can legally do is bitch.
JMR