Blog Master G

Word. And photos, too.

Blog Master G random header image

Bill Maher

Tuesday, September 2nd, 2003 · 3 Comments

My favorite quote from Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher (as best as I can recall it): “Gas prices are so high because first we have to kill the people who live on top of it, then we have to extract it, refine it, and ship it. So of course it’s going to be $2 per gallon. You’re going to pay $2 and you’re going to like it. Or you can ride the bus with the poor people.”

I’m also delighted to find that Bill Maher now has a blog. Here’s the most recent post on alternatives to watching television while flying JetBlue: “Strike up a conversation with the guy sitting next to you just so long as it’s not me. If you’re a woman do some kegles. If you’re a man play another round of, ‘If they put a gun to my head and forced me — which one of those stewardesses with the dried apricot for a face could I masturbate to?'”

Tags: television

3 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Heather // Feb 25, 2004 at 11:01 am

    Political Correctness Takes The Job Of Southwest Airlines Employee

    In his Dallas Morning News column, Steve Blow tells the story of Jeff Bogg, who lost his job at Southwest Airlines because he inadvertently offended someone. It all starts with a December 5 Christmas party for handicapped children:

    A photographer was there taking pictures of the children with Santa Claus. “Instead of saying ‘Say cheese’ to the kids, he was saying ‘Say monkey.’ And the kids would laugh real big,” Mr. Bogg said. “My wife and I talked about what a good line that was to get a smile.”

    Move on to the Southwest Airlines maintenance department’s December 6 Christmas party:

    during the course of the evening, Mr. Bogg passed by a fellow employee who was there with several family members.

    Someone was taking their picture, and as Mr. Bogg walked by, he blurted out, “Smile! Say monkey!”

    It was a black family. Both the fellow employee, Kevin West, and another family member informed Mr. Bogg that his remark was offensive and not appreciated.

    “I told them both, ‘I apologize. I assure you I didn’t mean anything by that,’ ” Mr. Bogg said. “We went on our way, and I really thought that was the end of it.”

    But at work a day or two later, he was summoned to meet with a young staff member from Southwest’s human-relations department. “She said there had been a complaint, and I told her everything that happened ?– including about the party the previous night. I told her there was no racial intent and that I apologized immediately.”

    Last month Bogg received a termination letter. He was fired because his remark “created a negative environment for those who heard your comment” – it was perceived as offensive even though it wasn’t intended as such.

    Steve Blow reports another interesting fact: Kevin West’s brother – State Senator Royce West – had made repeated phone calls to maintenance vice president Jim Sokol, insisting that Bogg be fired. There is no word on whether Kevin West is as ardent about Bogg’s firing as his race-baiting brother. Little else is known about the firing decision:

    Southwest spokesman Ed Stewart said he couldn’t say much about the situation since it was a personnel matter. But he said, “That one was thoroughly ?– and I do mean thoroughly ?– investigated, and the company certainly feels the appropriate action was taken.”

    In its treatment of Jeff Bogg, Southwest Airlines has created the very “negative environment” its policies seek to discourage. Think about the message this sends to our children: if an apology for an unintended insult means nothing, then why should we apologize for anything?

    Bogg should get his job back, with back pay, and Senator West should be impeached for seeking to rob a man’s career for the sake of scoring a few political points.

  • 2 Damien // Mar 13, 2004 at 3:25 am

    Howard Stern RULES

  • 3 Walter G. (Buzz) Luttrell // Mar 24, 2004 at 8:55 pm


    How would you like to expose right-wing radio and the Fox Republican News Network for what they really are – a carefully controlled
    and completely one-sided platform for people who “hate” something (liberals, blacks, women, foreigner’s, taxes, etc.) and a money-making machine for the hosts and radio group owners who make big bucks “mining” (manipulating) the anger and frustrations of their listeners.

    Just watched Richard Clarke on CNN coverage of the 9/11 Commission Hearings today thoroughly debunk claims that his book is “bunk!”

    NOW, ASK YOURSELF… what would happen if someone proposed that The FOX Network host a face-off between Clarke and the top
    right-wing radio talk show hosts – who commonly mersmerize their audiences by ranting, uninterrupted for the most part, for hours about the lies Clarke is spreading about the Bush Administration. Being a former radio talk show host, I can assure you that the only way Limbaugh, O’Rielly, Savage and the rest have built their large audiences is by controlling the microphone and the “kill switch” – shouting down and/or screening out
    intelligent and informed challengers, and cutting them off the air when they DO get through.

    Visualize Clarke sitting across from Limbauch, O’Rielly, Hannity, Savage, and Ingraham (just as he faced the 9/11 Commission), in a 90-minute
    format that allows each of them 1-min. ask a question (no filibustering as they do on their shows); Mr. Clarke gets up to 3-min to respond; then a 1-min.follow-up question is allowed with a 2-min. response – for “two rounds.” To close, each questioner gets 90 seconds to make final comments with Mr. Clarke responding in the same amount of time. The Moderator/time-keeper is “Mr. Neutral”, Brian Lamb of C-SPAN!


    1] Gives FOX chance to live up to their motto: “Fair & Balanced” (How will it look if they decline??)
    2] Gives radio fans a chance to see how their favorite talk show hosts perform when they don’t control “the stage” (O’Reilly has been rejecting
    the “right-wing” designation lately; might decline to paticipate – so give him a chance to differentiate himself from the others =(;-o)
    3] Gives Mr. Clarke a chance to refute some very interesting charges made by this group – on the air!
    4] Shows the broader public how right-wing radio serves as an extension of the Bush Admin. communications apparatus.
    5] Will educate & inform many, many people who would never take time to read Mr. Clarke’s book.

    BOTTOM LINES: (A) FOX gets an offer they can’t refuse; exposure to an audience that sees them as a joke; (B) Right-wing radio hosts get a live “shot” at someone they villify everyday; (C) Clarke gets a chance defend himself against that villification; and (D) The viewers get a valuable education in a controlled forum where the venerated Mr. Lamb maintains order – and C-SPAN gets a nice little “bump,” too!

    Please think about this and push the idea with everyone you feel has the influence to make it happen.

    My regards,
    Walter G. (Buzz) Luttrell (You may strip my name from this message; I want no credit – only to see the show!!!)
    Natick, MA

    NOTE: This idea comes from an earlier thought sent to some of you and you may want to review it (below). The earlier
    idea still has great merit, I think, for exposing how right-wing radio for years has been dividing the country (Conservatives
    against Liberals) and serving as an extension of the Republican Party communications arm.

    Either off these formats will force “born-again Christian” GWB to accept or reject the often vulgar and hateful positions presented by people who
    invariably and loudly support him. (WHAT A DILEMMA! He accepts their support; he’s a hypocrite. He rejects; the decline of “hate radio” begins! Once the challenge is publicly issued and the format revealed, the right-wingers will look like cowards if they decline. (The progressives can bring in comments from right wingers not even represented on the panel, i.e. WTKK/Boston’s Jay Severin – “Hillary is a fat-assed bitch… and a god-damned whore!” – and ask if those present think such language is appropriate in describing a former “First Lady” of this country? Then, later, Bush can be asked if he supports this kind of filthy language delivered on his behalf?) The strategy:

    [A] The presenter of this idea cites the well-documented “take over” of talk radio by “radical right-wing conservatives,” explains how they manipulate their audiences by screening calls to make it sound like 9-of-10 listeners support their views, then challenges, i.e., Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Michael Savage, and Laura Ingraham to debate Ed Shultz, Paul Begala, Jim Hightower, Mario Cuomo (his “progressive” show failed), and Jeanine Garofalo (killed Tucker Carlson in Crossfire debate). By the way, O’Reilly will likely protest being “lumped in” with the right-wingers – resulting in considerable “in-fighting.”

    [B] Ask Fox TV to present the debate (that’s the target audience), with C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb, the most “neutral” man in media hosting the session; the participants get equal time to query each other; Lamb is there only as unbiased “time-keeper”/referee and to take calls in this two-hour “talk-fest.” It will attract a huge audience and the progressive’s will likely win because the “hate-meisters” cannot prevail without controlling the microphone and the “kill switch” – with which they seem invincible… without which they are LOST (trust me, I’m a former radio talk host…controlling the mic [screening calls] and kill-switch are the real keys to “hate radio’s” success!)

    [C] The debate format will allow each participant to query the opposing side about their position in this election and the tactics used to support their views in the first hour; then take alternating calls from “right and left” viewers for 40 minutes (C-SPAN style) – no orchestrated “love fests” ONLY challenging questions or comments; with alternating right-left wrap-up comments & retorts (ala “rapid fire” on Crossfire) to close.

    [D] Arm the progressives with the nastiest, most vicious, vulgar and hateful quotes you can find from each of the right-wingers (sh/be readily available from groups that monitor hate radio, print features on them, etc.) – ask them how they can cry about “Bush bashing” today, when hate-radio (keep using the label) has been bashing ALL liberals for the past 15-20 years, since Limbaugh began fine-tuning the format.

    [E] It’s AFTER this telecast, when the public has been made more broadly aware of the vulgar, hateful comments hurled at Democrats by right-wing broadcasters, that President Bush should be asked to accept or reject the support of these people.

    [F] Severin and Savage (maybe others) have called for dropping a nuclear bomb on Iraq and other countries with which this administration has differences. The right-wingers (and, later, President Bush) should be asked how our relations with other nations might be affected when foreign visitors hear this kind of invective over American air waves?

    [G] This would be a GREAT opportunity to debunk some of the myths perpetuated by “hate radio” jocks. They love to claim that the Democrats consider anyone making $70k/yr. to be wealthy and should be taxed as “rich!” Frightens MANY working-class listeners. They ALL hammer away on the fear that affirmative action is costing white men huge numbers of jobs; remind them/viewers that white women have, logically,
    benefited most from equal employment opportunity guidelines – because they are the largest affected group. Why do the right-wingers focus their anger primarily on blacks, unless it is to promote racial animosity? After all, blacks make up only about 11% of the population and still suffer an unemployment rate about twice that of whites.

    Etc., etc…. this could be a fantastic vehicle for revealing the tactics of the radical right-wingers, pointing out how the Republicans have encouraged and benefited from this kind of divisive programming to bring working-class people into the “party of the rich” as a continuation of their “southern strategy” – whereby they opposed virtually all civil rights initiatives to bring southerners into the party. Emphasize that you wouldn’t see nearly as many women, blacks, nor OTHER minorities in high corporate and politicalpositions without the civil rights movement; and the U.S. would be even LESS well prepared to compete in the emerging “global market” if our government and U.S. corporate leaders were as “lily-white” today as they were 40 years ago. Even vice president Cheney’s wife (who sits on corporate boards and supports affirmative action) agrees with that!!!

    # # # #