December 10, 2007 - December 3, 2007
we wouldn't do this, but like the man himself says,
it's the hypocrisy that made us do it. If you're going to accuse people
of things you normally don't disapprove of on the off chance that your
disrespectful treatment of their private affairs might be embarrassing
in some way, then you have to expect that others might do the same
thing to you. So here goes.
Bill Maher is a SCAM, not that there's anything especially wrong with that, but you don't hear him talking about it much, and we do think SCAMs have an obligation to tell absolutely everybody they meet, just so they'll know. The proof isn't hard to find. For example, we found the following at CelebHeights.com:
He's somewhere between 5'6" and (maybe) 5'8". Yet he's calling himself
5'9" and wearing lifts. Let's
face it. Any man who misrepresents his height for the purpose of making
people think he's taller than he is is short. Short and not quite honest.
Our next key revelation is hinted at by the fact that Maher may have once dated Ann Coulter. Whether they dated or not, they do have something very serious in common. They both went to Cornell. This is something that everyone should always be told about in advance of any sort of conversation. Just so they can prepare. You know. That's why we have previously felt obliged to disclose the same unsettling fact about Keith Olbermann (who's as dumb as they come, by the way, if that tells you anything). And it's why we've written more about the alarming attributes of Cornell than anyone else in the blogosphere (which you can read here). Not that we're prejudiced or anything. It's just that the American people have a right to know these things and make up their own minds how to respond to alumni of the most disturbingly depressed, envious, and pseudo-intellectual institution in the Ivy League. Coulter. Olbermann. Maher. Draw your own conclusions.
Finally, Wikipedia discloses that Maher has himself admitted that he is "is the product of a "mixed" marriage (Jewish mother, Roman Catholic father)." We hasten to say that we don't personally see anything wrong with this circumstance. In fact, many (or at least one) of our friends have similar backgrounds, but, you know. Facts are facts. Bill Maher is a mongrel.
Short, Cornellian, And Mongrel. That makes Bill Maher a SCAM. We know there are a lot of people who turn and walk in the opposite direction when they see a SCAM coming. We're not like those people. And we know and like many people who are short or Cornellian or mongrel, if not all three at once. So we're not condemning him for what he is. Just for the, you know, hypocrisy.
That's what we had in mind in outing him. It must have been. Or why would we have done it? It's not like he's gay or anything. Or is he?
Well, that would be up to him to tell you, wouldn't it?
There's a curious thing about reason. It almost always seems
reasonable, especially to its most ardent practitioners, but when it's
unhooked from common sense, it tends to float off into detached
self-absorption, which provides its own immunity against criticism of
any kind, practical verities, and, yes, common sense. In the process, it somehow turns
reason into its opposite -- from a logical progression toward the right
answer to a mere mechanism of rhetorical condescension.
Glenn Reynolds has abundantly documented the pilgrimage of Andrew Sullivan along this path, heh-ing, for example, over the fact that Sullivan's sense of his intellectual gravitas entitles him to review his own book in the most glowing terms while scorning all so-called conservatives who dare to challenge his intellectual and educational superiority. Never mind that even the most casual observer can chart Sullivan's course to Bush hatred from the first instance of the administration's opposition to gay marriage.
I have long believed it one of the saddest aspects of American life that lawyers have so dominated our political life, because legal education is expressly designed to separate reason from common sense, to camouflage ordinary, obvious reality via the pyrotechnics of semantically acrobatic somersaults until the plain facts are rendered bizarre, stood on their heads in a disorienting contortionist's pose. Then it is that the oh-so-rational attorney drily informs us that there are no plain facts except for the ones he chooses to present in his summation. In fact, his real triumph is to substitute himself and his appearance of rationality for common sense.
This is the means by which we journeyed from Martin Luther King's color-blind dream to a Kafka-esque oxymoron of equality achieved by dizzying amounts and degrees of racial discrimination peddled under the rational sobriquet 'affirmative action.' It's how we progressed from the basic moral requirement to be fair to others even if they're different to the latest incarnation of 'poliical correctness' -- blaming ourselves for all the ways we are different from those who view those differences as a reason to annihilate us. It is this exquisite brand of reason that transmutes tolerance to a self-hating death wish. Interestingly, the mechanism by which this sleight of hand is accomplished is not actually reason, but the air of detached objectivity and farsightedness affected by those who presume to know.
And now I am about to commit an unpardonable, irrational sin of the contemporary Internet. I'm going to criticize the Blogfather. In the week before the election, Glenn Reynolds offered up his pre-mortem, explaining why and how Republicans were sure to lose, and mused that a Republican loss was well deserved. He linked to multiple sites in which conservatives and pseudo-conservatives announced they were planning to vote Democrat. I read what they, and he, had to say and sent Glenn the following email:
He didn't bother to answer, which is his prerogative, of course. But
since the election, he has more than once referenced his own pre-mortem
in a self-congratulatory way, as if the election were some kind of
academic exercise in which he had acquitted himself well. I suspect
that's all it really is to the paper tigers of the war on terror.
Actually winning it isn't as important as being the smartest one in the
room about it.
Today, he has already begun the process of being superior to the political anarchy that has been unleashed by the Democratic win he sort of kind of hoped for. His response? Two of his patented "Hehs" in a single screen. (Scroll to the entry after Dean Demands Recount.) Is that what we have to look forward to from InstaPundit for the next two nighmare years? An endless succession of "Hehs"? Sorry, but this stuff was predictable months ago, and it's just not that funny.
I continue to have great respect for Glenn Reynolds. However, I have begun to doubt the accuracy of the title of his book, An Army of Davids. True Davids are more focused on winning than being the most brilliant doyenne at the party. What Davids do is go to war for the purpose of winning when everyone else is trying too damn hard to be reasonable.
Like my father used to say when he disciplined me, "This hurts me more than it does you." I mean it and I'm sure I will pay for it. But what's the point of being a little guy if you can't load up your sling and take a shot?