S20.E25: John Waters; Rob Reiner; Sen. Amy Klobuchar

[tessaray]

Air Date: August 26, 2022

Bill’s guests are John Waters, Rob Reiner, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar.

[The Solution]

John Waters alone almost atoned for last week's shitshow of a fuckfest, but this week's panel of Rob Reiner and Amy Klobuchar made this one of the best Maher shows I've seen in quite some time. His showrunners must have been appalled at last week's "show" and found guests that would stand up to and push back on Bill as they should. I mean, he's still an annoying devil's advocate, but that's his job.

[Kenz]

I watched the show for Rob Reiner and Amy Klobuchar, and I appreciated the way they talked circles around Maher, but I find Bill intolerable every time he opens his mouth. I used to think he was a bit funny, but now he is just cringe worthy. He's a spoiled old whiny man.

[arachne]

I agree with the above posters about this week's guests. It's much better when the guests refuse to get sucked into one of Bill's talking points.

Bill needs to steer clear of the abortion issue until he learns to address it like a mature adult. There are plenty of reasons to be pro-choice, other than saying how awful today's kids are. 

Re the final New Rule: A lot of work must have gone into building that "straw man," but it was all for naught. The bit was just not funny. Of course the attack on Salman Rushdie was reprehensible, but I groaned when Bill started going there. I knew he would turn it into a general attack on Islam, and once again, he did not disappoint. 😒

[TakomaSnark]

Great panel this week.

Too bad Bill had to be there as well.

[heatherchandler]

Neither panelist can say if they think it was wrong for the press to quash a story?  They won’t answer.  Is that because they think it’s wrong or because they are worried that they would be in trouble for saying that it is wrong?

[TakomaSnark]

51 minutes ago, heatherchandler said:

Neither panelist can say if they think it was wrong for the press to quash a story?  They won’t answer.  Is that because they think it’s wrong or because they are worried that they would be in trouble for saying that it is wrong?

Because it isn't a story. Hunter Biden is a private citizen. The fact that his laptop and Ashley's diary were stolen and peddled to the GOP - with no understanding of how they may have been doctored/hacked - makes this 'story' completely worthless.

We had four years of Trump's kids making U.S. foreign policy in spite of not being able to get security clearances. There is no equivalence with Hunter (or Ashley).

[ahpny]

1 hour ago, heatherchandler said:

Neither panelist can say if they think it was wrong for the press to quash a story?  They won’t answer.  Is that because they think it’s wrong or because they are worried that they would be in trouble for saying that it is wrong?

There's no good and principled answer to this question, which is likely why both panelists ducked it entirely. A presumed default answer is that, of course, all stories (Hunter Biden included) should be treated fairly, truthfully and consistently. But what if that fair, truthful and consistent story coverage results in the fall of the republic and the effective end of democracy? That might have sounded like a bizarre and ridiculous question only a few years ago, but sadly not so much any more. But given where we are, are there no issues that warrant the press putting a finger on the scale? This question is further muddled by the subjective nature of what stories deserve what amount of coverage. It's not at though the Hunter Biden mess got no coverage at all, and it's also not the case that the "liberal media" is the only media out there. Fox seems to be doing just fine and was (and very much still is) rather vociferous about Hunter Biden. Media, old and new, liberal and conservative, make value judgments all the time about what stories warrant what coverage. Part of their job to determine what's "fit to print," to cite the New York Times' motto.

Thus, I'm not enormously troubled by say the New York Times deciding to put a Hunter BIden story on page 17 instead of the front page. But I concede this is still worrisome and the "slipperly-slopeness" of it all is of concern. I was a bit disappointed that Bill didn't press either of guests to provide any semblance of answer to this question. I get why the senator won't go anywhere near answering, but why couldn't Rob have said something? He's not running for anything as far as I know.

On a happier note, John Waters was a delight (and so is his book, which I'd read several months ago). He should be back more often. Bill gave him the space to shine, and he did.

Edited August 27, 2022 by ahpny

[lovinbob]

John Waters really was a delight. Doesn't take himself too seriously and is so much more powerful because of it. Bill could learn a few things. 

The straw man thing was too reminiscent of Clint Eastwood and the empty chair. Didn't work then, didn't work last night. 

Bill's "they don't hate women" take on abortion is very frustrating. I hear what he's saying -- that people who believe abortion is murder don't think there is any reason it should happen. That's a very difficult position to try to negotiate. I can understand it to some degree. But he can't deny that many people who hold that position hold many other positions that treat women as second-class.

And to look at it another way, impact supersedes intention. Whether they hate women or they don't, the effect of their positions is keeping women (AND GIRLS!) from participating fully in society. Abortion restrictions make women and girls less free than men and boys. Bill needs to see that. 

[DoctorAtomic]

1 hour ago, lovinbob said:

Bill's "they don't hate women" take on abortion is very frustrating. I hear what he's saying -- that people who believe abortion is murder don't think there is any reason it should happen. That's a very difficult position to try to negotiate. I can understand it to some degree. But he can't deny that many people who hold that position hold many other positions that treat women as second-class.

They did a good job with the discussion. Bill is correct, but Reiner pointed out that the real hardcore pro life people are the christian nationalists who do want women to be second class, and they are all correct that these people are in the minority. I think the senator (who is my favorite senator) also said that a strong majority of people are pro choice with reasonable limits. As she said, get out and vote so we can make pro choice a federal law.  

Klobuchar is just a delight. I liked Bill's compliment that she's a 'just get it done democrat'. She got no time for canceling and supposed nazi tiles. 

I was fine with the new rules. The actual strawman was a little gimmicky, but I'm 100% with Bill. There's no one better in this country to criticize religion. Also, Rushdie has been his good friend, and flat out excellent whenever he's on the show. Bill stood up for his friend admirably. The topic, strawman was spot on every time there's discussions about religion. I think many of us here remember the Affleck episode years ago that underscored the problem. I don't know or recall seeing on the news if the motive of the attacker was religious in nature; it's not unreasonable  to assume so in this case. I just don't have time for religion myself; I also support 100% anyone who wants to go to church on Sunday. Just please leave me out of it and don't shove it in my laws or my face. To be fair, Islam can be difficult to criticize because it's not, say, mainstream-ish? Like, every town has a church, but not every town has a mosque. So one could be seen as 'punching down', which I don't agree, but on the other hand, condemning religious violence is entirely fair. This guy has a death sentence, literally, for decades because he wrote a book some people didn't like. I'm going to quote the Orville here, and I think this is was Bill was saying, "I'm sick and tired of everyone bending over backwards to accommodate their bullshit". 

[aghst]

Not a fan of Klobuchar, whose true colors were shown in the way she treated subordinates.

As for the Hunter Biden laptop, there's no proof that Joe Biden did anything illegal.  Maybe his son tried to get him to meet with his "clients" but there's no proof he ever did.

And the "evidence" on that laptop is highly suspect since there's no established secure chain of custody before Republican operatives found it.

This is what Bill wants to take his stand, that Hunter Biden may have tried to peddle influence and access to his father?  He needs a lot more proof than a laptop unless that laptop has a video of Joe Biden saying "fine I will do x for you if you pay Hunter y."

I presume we'd have seen such a smoking gun video by now if it existed.

We may see it some day when deep fakes are refined enough to fool people.

[RealHousewife]

4 hours ago, lovinbob said:

Bill's "they don't hate women" take on abortion is very frustrating. I hear what he's saying -- that people who believe abortion is murder don't think there is any reason it should happen. That's a very difficult position to try to negotiate. I can understand it to some degree. But he can't deny that many people who hold that position hold many other positions that treat women as second-class.

And to look at it another way, impact supersedes intention. Whether they hate women or they don't, the effect of their positions is keeping women (AND GIRLS!) from participating fully in society. Abortion restrictions make women and girls less free than men and boys. Bill needs to see that. 

Also, I'm all for seeing both sides and not jumping to think the worst of people, but it goes both ways. Bill doesn't want the other side to be considered woman haters. So are pro-choice people supposed to deal with being called murderers? That they don't value life? 

[DXD526]

I couldn't disagree more with Bill about the extreme 'pro-life' crowd. It's an anti-woman position, and the 'sanctity of life' is just a cover for many of them. They just straight-up want to control women. You'll never meet a pro-choice incel.

That straw man thing was horrible. It seemed like he wasted about 5 minutes wrestling with it to get it to sit upright in the chair. How about setting it up offstage and having it all ready to go, and all Bill had to do was roll it out? Does that make too much sense?

Great panel. It's so nice to listen to two reasonable people discuss things reasonably. I didn't miss the blowhard RW conservative endlessly spouting (straw man) RW conservative talking points one bit. 

I'd love it if John Waters was a go-to guest instead of Andrew Sullivan. A mere swapping of gay men, but what a huge upgrade!

[canaanite2]

Has Bill ever mentioned going to therapy? Does he have any insight into his motives? Does even know that the only reason he's taken on this anti-college stance so strongly is because colleges personally slighted him? (OMG, cancel culture! Amiright?) Would Bill be willing to go back in time and erase his years at Cornell and replace them with learning a trade and becoming an insta-adult? No, so STFU about it. There are social benefits to attending college that, as of now, only the wealthy can afford. That's the issue. But Bill being Bill has to keep it black and white and refuse to admit there are any benefits to kids attending college. 

There's no nuance to his arguments because they are always about him and who has wounded his ego. Hitting the FF and mute buttons are just part of the routine when I watch this show now. I cringe every time he brings up college or cancel culture or Islam or gender. In the past his arguments were  cringeworthy when he would show his arrogance and his need to belittle those who didn't agree with him (how many times did he simplistically dismiss religion by bringing up the talking snake when he was on his atheist kick?) Now that he's gone full blown narcissist he's unwatchable whenever he brings up his current pet peeves. 

[Kenz]

Canaanite2, you nailed it!

[deirdra]

Well, at least his solar panels must be up and running without a hitch now since they aren't his pet peeves anymore ;)

Edited August 29, 2022 by deirdra

[lovinbob]

On 8/28/2022 at 12:14 PM, canaanite2 said:

Has Bill ever mentioned going to therapy? Does he have any insight into his motives?

I remember when he interviewed Howard Stern and blew off the idea of therapy. Howard was saying how it changed his life so much for the better. Bill scoffed. Which completely tracks. Has the guy ever admitted he was wrong, or that he struggled with something, or that he was anything other than completely satisfied with himself? 

Great post, Canaanite.

[deirdra]

58 minutes ago, lovinbob said:

Has the guy ever admitted he was wrong, or that he struggled with something, or that he was anything other than completely satisfied with himself? 

No, but he has admitted numbing himself with dope to escape reality.

[RealHousewife]

2 hours ago, lovinbob said:

I remember when he interviewed Howard Stern and blew off the idea of therapy. Howard was saying how it changed his life so much for the better. Bill scoffed. Which completely tracks. Has the guy ever admitted he was wrong, or that he struggled with something, or that he was anything other than completely satisfied with himself? 

Great post, Canaanite.

I remember that interview. It was actually a really fun one. When Bill gave Howard a hard time for all the therapy he's had and said that he didn't need it, Howard made a comment along the lines of well we're not all perfect like you Bill. lol

[RealHousewife]

Always enjoy Kyle Kulinski's thoughts on Bill. He's a former fan like a lot of us. 
 

Edited August 30, 2022 by RealHousewife

[Soapy Goddess]

12 hours ago, lovinbob said:

Has the guy ever admitted he was wrong, or that he struggled with something, or that he was anything other than completely satisfied with himself?

Not everyone can (openly) admit they were wrong. If that's an admission for therapy, then someone needs to talk to Judge Judy who always says "I'm never wrong...or maybe I was wrong once in 1967" 

[lovinbob]

Sure, but most people don't scoff at the idea that therapy could be beneficial. Bill is a very angry man, and as deidra mentioned above, he is already self-medicating to some degree. I'm not saying he *needs* therapy, but it seems like he does have some anger and issues that he could work through rather than ranting about what's wrong with everyone else. 

[Soapy Goddess]

13 hours ago, lovinbob said:

Sure, but most people don't scoff at the idea that therapy could be beneficial. Bill is a very angry man, and as deidra mentioned above, he is already self-medicating to some degree. I'm not saying he *needs* therapy, but it seems like he does have some anger and issues that he could work through rather than ranting about what's wrong with everyone else. 

Agree...but isn't it his 'job' in a sense to rant about the issues at hand?  Otherwise we wouldn't have any 'New Rules'.