WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.000 Welcome back to The Deep Dive. We're here again, 00:00:02.140 --> 00:00:05.160 ready to sift through this really comprehensive 00:00:05.160 --> 00:00:07.960 stack of sources you've given us. Articles, biographies, 00:00:08.160 --> 00:00:11.320 critiques. The works? Yep. And our goal, as always, 00:00:11.480 --> 00:00:13.939 is to pull out the essential knowledge, synthesize 00:00:13.939 --> 00:00:16.839 it all for you. And today, we're tackling, well, 00:00:17.140 --> 00:00:20.120 a real titan of American commentary. I mean, 00:00:20.260 --> 00:00:23.120 a figure who's been this constant, high -voltage 00:00:23.120 --> 00:00:26.079 presence in public life for, what, over 30 years 00:00:26.079 --> 00:00:29.120 now? We are diving deep into William Bill Maher. 00:00:29.280 --> 00:00:31.739 You know, he might just be the nation's most 00:00:31.739 --> 00:00:35.070 enduring political satirist. And maybe the most 00:00:35.070 --> 00:00:37.630 successful, a big part of his genius, the sources 00:00:37.630 --> 00:00:40.450 really bear this out, is his refusal to just 00:00:40.450 --> 00:00:42.890 like neatly fit into one political box. Right. 00:00:42.909 --> 00:00:45.250 He seems deliberately positioned to somehow appeal 00:00:45.250 --> 00:00:48.229 to, and at the same time totally frustrate, well, 00:00:48.429 --> 00:00:49.869 pretty much everyone across the political spectrum, 00:00:50.270 --> 00:00:52.289 often at the exact same moment. Absolutely. He 00:00:52.289 --> 00:00:55.130 generates tremendous heat, controversy, but also, 00:00:55.390 --> 00:00:57.770 you have to admit, sometimes real political insight. 00:00:58.070 --> 00:01:01.630 Exactly. So our mission today isn't just to trace 00:01:01.630 --> 00:01:04.349 his path, you know, from stand -up comic to TV 00:01:04.349 --> 00:01:07.209 institution. We want to rigorously dig into his 00:01:07.209 --> 00:01:09.549 philosophy, his views, which, let's be honest, 00:01:09.730 --> 00:01:11.730 can seem pretty contradictory sometimes. Politics, 00:01:12.090 --> 00:01:14.230 religion, culture. And try to find that common 00:01:14.230 --> 00:01:17.689 thread. Is there one? A single coherent idea 00:01:17.689 --> 00:01:19.890 running through all of his work, even the really 00:01:19.890 --> 00:01:21.909 thorny stuff. You've got a massive amount of 00:01:21.909 --> 00:01:25.109 material here. It covers his life from 1956 right 00:01:25.109 --> 00:01:28.010 up to his latest comments in 2025. So we're going 00:01:28.010 --> 00:01:29.769 to look at how this kid, you know, half Irish, 00:01:29.849 --> 00:01:32.430 half Jewish from New Jersey, ends up basically 00:01:32.430 --> 00:01:36.150 holding court on HBO for two decades plus using 00:01:36.150 --> 00:01:38.909 skepticism and satire really as his main weapons. 00:01:38.950 --> 00:01:40.890 OK, let's start right at the beginning. because 00:01:40.890 --> 00:01:44.030 his background, his foundation, it really feels 00:01:44.030 --> 00:01:46.530 like the absolute key to understanding all those 00:01:46.530 --> 00:01:49.069 later contradictions in his philosophy. Marrow 00:01:49.069 --> 00:01:52.569 was born January 20, 1956, New York City. And 00:01:52.569 --> 00:01:55.890 the background itself is fascinatingly dualistic. 00:01:56.049 --> 00:01:58.269 You've got his father, William Aloisius Marr, 00:01:58.310 --> 00:02:00.430 Jr., Irish American, Roman Catholic. He was a 00:02:00.430 --> 00:02:02.609 network news editor, a radio announcer. Then 00:02:02.609 --> 00:02:06.340 his mother, Julie Marr. Ney Berman. She was a 00:02:06.340 --> 00:02:08.699 nurse, Hungarian background, and importantly, 00:02:09.000 --> 00:02:11.879 secretly Jewish. Marhu was raised Roman Catholic, 00:02:12.280 --> 00:02:14.500 didn't even know about his mother's Jewish heritage 00:02:14.500 --> 00:02:18.120 until his early teens. Wow. That's a pretty profound 00:02:18.120 --> 00:02:20.800 duality right there, inheriting these two major 00:02:20.800 --> 00:02:24.199 traditions, but only knowing one initially. But 00:02:24.199 --> 00:02:26.060 maybe the most formative thing wasn't the faith 00:02:26.060 --> 00:02:28.099 itself. It sounds like it was his father's willingness 00:02:28.099 --> 00:02:31.770 to push back against dogma. Precisely. That's 00:02:31.770 --> 00:02:34.189 the key moment, really. When Mara was about 13, 00:02:34.370 --> 00:02:36.629 his father just stopped taking him and his sister 00:02:36.629 --> 00:02:39.110 to Catholic mass, period. Just like that? Yeah. 00:02:39.250 --> 00:02:41.689 But it wasn't like a random decision. It was 00:02:41.689 --> 00:02:44.169 a conscious break. It was driven specifically 00:02:44.169 --> 00:02:46.310 by his father's disagreement with the church's 00:02:46.310 --> 00:02:48.830 official stance on birth control. Oh, OK. So 00:02:48.830 --> 00:02:50.990 that early lesson that even the most established 00:02:50.990 --> 00:02:53.930 religious doctrine is fair game for questioning, 00:02:54.330 --> 00:02:56.669 for challenging that, really became the blueprint 00:02:56.669 --> 00:03:00.009 for Mara's whole career. That's skepticism. That 00:03:00.009 --> 00:03:03.550 decision, challenging institutional dogma. Yeah, 00:03:03.569 --> 00:03:07.129 that became his brand. OK, so he grows up in 00:03:07.129 --> 00:03:09.770 Rivervale, New Jersey, graduates Pasquack Hills 00:03:09.770 --> 00:03:13.409 High in 74, and off to Cornell. Double major, 00:03:13.729 --> 00:03:16.389 English in history, graduates 78. Right. And 00:03:16.389 --> 00:03:18.849 this is where we get the first, like, real glimpse 00:03:18.849 --> 00:03:21.949 of that anti -authoritarian streak, combined 00:03:21.949 --> 00:03:24.409 with, you know, some classic hustle. There's 00:03:24.409 --> 00:03:26.449 this very blunt quote from Maher about how he 00:03:26.449 --> 00:03:29.300 paid for college. Oh, yeah. What's that? He said 00:03:29.300 --> 00:03:31.860 straight up selling pot allowed me to get through 00:03:31.860 --> 00:03:33.699 college and make enough money to start off in 00:03:33.699 --> 00:03:37.180 comedy. Wow. OK, that's a huge detail. It really 00:03:37.180 --> 00:03:39.699 speaks to a kind of early libertarian mindset, 00:03:39.699 --> 00:03:42.280 doesn't it? Using this like counterculture thing 00:03:42.280 --> 00:03:44.919 to fund a creative, unconventional path that 00:03:44.919 --> 00:03:46.719 independence from the very start seems like it 00:03:46.719 --> 00:03:48.439 informed everything else. And that independence 00:03:48.439 --> 00:03:50.500 definitely fueled his career launch. He kicked 00:03:50.500 --> 00:03:53.180 things off in 79 hosting at Catch a Rising Star 00:03:53.180 --> 00:03:54.860 in New York, you know, the famous comedy club, 00:03:54.860 --> 00:03:58.009 and he moved pretty quickly from the club. scene 00:03:58.009 --> 00:04:02.289 to national TV, started appearing on Johnny Carson, 00:04:02.590 --> 00:04:05.250 on Letterman, beginning around 82. That was the 00:04:05.250 --> 00:04:07.990 real proving ground for his timing, his delivery. 00:04:08.030 --> 00:04:10.210 You should probably mention too, he did try acting 00:04:10.210 --> 00:04:13.150 early on, little roles here and there. DC Cab 00:04:13.150 --> 00:04:16.610 in 83, some TV like Sarah, Max Headroom in the 00:04:16.610 --> 00:04:19.209 mid -80s, even a couple of Murder, She Wrote 00:04:19.209 --> 00:04:21.029 episodes apparently. Yeah, they're minor credits, 00:04:21.389 --> 00:04:23.649 sure. They show he was getting comfortable with 00:04:23.649 --> 00:04:25.629 the whole medium of television performance. He 00:04:25.629 --> 00:04:28.370 even hosted a CBS talk show, Midnight Hour, back 00:04:28.370 --> 00:04:30.769 in 1990. So he was learning the ropes. Absolutely. 00:04:30.870 --> 00:04:33.050 And the crucial takeaway here, I think, is that 00:04:33.050 --> 00:04:34.949 before he became this big political commentator, 00:04:35.009 --> 00:04:37.790 he was a working comic, a working actor. He was 00:04:37.790 --> 00:04:40.430 mastering the craft of performance. And all those 00:04:40.430 --> 00:04:43.430 early gigs, they contributed to that mix of comedy 00:04:43.430 --> 00:04:45.410 styles we associate with him now. You know, the 00:04:45.410 --> 00:04:47.509 sharp political satire, the observational stuff, 00:04:47.589 --> 00:04:50.149 that really biting insult comedy, black comedy, 00:04:50.230 --> 00:04:53.449 sarcasm. He was sharp. the tools of confrontation. 00:04:53.730 --> 00:04:55.990 So by the early 90s, the comic was kind of ready 00:04:55.990 --> 00:04:58.930 to merge with the pundit. And that really set 00:04:58.930 --> 00:05:03.350 the stage for his big splash onto cable TV, right? 00:05:03.410 --> 00:05:05.350 The television epi. This is where Marr stops 00:05:05.350 --> 00:05:07.649 being just, you know, a successful comic and 00:05:07.649 --> 00:05:10.189 really becomes a cultural force, starting with 00:05:10.189 --> 00:05:12.670 politically incorrect, of course, ran from 93 00:05:12.670 --> 00:05:16.389 to 2002. That format was genuinely groundbreaking 00:05:16.389 --> 00:05:19.209 for its time. Started on Comedy Central, 93, 00:05:19.730 --> 00:05:22.829 then made that huge jump to network TV, ABC, 00:05:23.529 --> 00:05:26.589 in 97. And the premise seems simple, right? Monologue, 00:05:26.949 --> 00:05:29.430 then guests. Deceptively simple. Topical monologue, 00:05:29.509 --> 00:05:31.829 yeah. Then four guests. But they were intentionally 00:05:31.829 --> 00:05:33.550 diverse. You'd have celebrities sitting next 00:05:33.550 --> 00:05:36.470 to, like, deep dive authors, pundits, actual 00:05:36.470 --> 00:05:39.660 politicians. The mix was key. And the genius 00:05:39.660 --> 00:05:41.939 was that structure. It just naturally fostered 00:05:41.939 --> 00:05:44.660 conflict, which led to these, you know, authentic, 00:05:44.959 --> 00:05:47.000 sometimes really explosive conversations. The 00:05:47.000 --> 00:05:49.000 sources mentioned Jerry Seinfeld, a regular guest, 00:05:49.160 --> 00:05:51.720 compared it to old talk shows, 50s, 60s style. 00:05:51.800 --> 00:05:53.420 Where guests actually talk to each other, not 00:05:53.420 --> 00:05:57.360 just the host. It was like a conversational gladiatorial 00:05:57.360 --> 00:06:00.500 combat. It won awards, cable ace awards, even 00:06:00.500 --> 00:06:03.000 a Genesis award. But, you know, a show built 00:06:03.000 --> 00:06:05.560 entirely on provocation. It's basically a magnet 00:06:05.560 --> 00:06:07.519 for controversy. And that controversy definitely 00:06:07.519 --> 00:06:09.839 caught up with him. Yeah, there are two major 00:06:09.839 --> 00:06:12.240 controversies that sort of bookend the show and 00:06:12.240 --> 00:06:14.259 they really highlight how tough it is to draw 00:06:14.259 --> 00:06:17.279 that line between sharp satire and just, you 00:06:17.279 --> 00:06:20.759 know, genuine offense, especially on network 00:06:20.759 --> 00:06:23.939 TV. First, there was that dogs and disabled children 00:06:23.939 --> 00:06:26.339 thing in 2001. Right, I remember that. Yeah, 00:06:26.339 --> 00:06:28.459 he made this comparison between his dogs and 00:06:28.459 --> 00:06:30.899 mentally disabled children. The backlash was 00:06:30.899 --> 00:06:33.360 immediate, severe. He had to issue this very 00:06:33.360 --> 00:06:36.819 public apology, express deep regret. It really 00:06:36.819 --> 00:06:39.259 showed that his style, even before 9 -11, was 00:06:39.259 --> 00:06:41.120 operating right on the edge of what network TV 00:06:41.120 --> 00:06:43.139 and the public would tolerate. And then, just 00:06:43.139 --> 00:06:46.660 a few months later, the big one, the career altering 00:06:46.660 --> 00:06:49.199 moment, the 9 -11 remark. Just six days after 00:06:49.199 --> 00:06:51.519 the attacks, the whole country is still reeling. 00:06:51.610 --> 00:06:53.810 Mm -hmm, and he makes this statement challenging 00:06:53.810 --> 00:06:56.129 that whole narrative of heroism versus cowardice 00:06:56.129 --> 00:06:58.209 He was actually agreeing with the guest to Nesh 00:06:58.209 --> 00:07:00.389 D'Souza that the terrorists weren't cowardly 00:07:00.389 --> 00:07:02.850 and then he elaborated Yeah, he said we have 00:07:02.850 --> 00:07:05.829 been the cowards Lobbing cruise missiles from 00:07:05.829 --> 00:07:09.009 2 ,000 miles away. That's cowardly Staying in 00:07:09.009 --> 00:07:11.129 the airplane when it hits the building say what 00:07:11.129 --> 00:07:13.649 you want about it not cowardly. You're right. 00:07:13.649 --> 00:07:16.949 Oh The source is really clear on this. Yeah, 00:07:17.149 --> 00:07:19.750 even though he tried to clarify immediately saying 00:07:19.750 --> 00:07:23.209 he wasn't anti -military The backlash was just 00:07:23.209 --> 00:07:25.930 instant, catastrophic. Yeah, the economic pressure 00:07:25.930 --> 00:07:29.009 was immense. Big advertisers, FedEx, Sears, they 00:07:29.009 --> 00:07:31.089 just pulled their ads, gone. And that was pretty 00:07:31.089 --> 00:07:33.509 much it for the show. That revenue loss sealed 00:07:33.509 --> 00:07:37.250 its fate. ABC didn't renew his contract. PI got 00:07:37.250 --> 00:07:40.269 canceled in June 2002. But here's the ultimate 00:07:40.269 --> 00:07:42.509 irony, totally symbolic of his career, right? 00:07:43.430 --> 00:07:45.589 Just six days after the cancellation was announced, 00:07:45.810 --> 00:07:47.949 Marr gets this award from the Los Angeles Press 00:07:47.949 --> 00:07:51.000 Club president, specifically for... championing 00:07:51.000 --> 00:07:54.160 free speech. Wow. So he lost the platform literally 00:07:54.160 --> 00:07:56.579 because he exercised the very principle he was 00:07:56.579 --> 00:07:59.360 being honored for. Exactly. The timing is just 00:07:59.360 --> 00:08:02.399 incredible. But Marr, well, he doesn't say quiet 00:08:02.399 --> 00:08:05.120 for long. That hiatus was pretty short. By 2003, 00:08:05.220 --> 00:08:09.019 he'd moved to the, let's say, safer, more mature 00:08:09.019 --> 00:08:11.980 environment of premium cable, HBO. launching 00:08:11.980 --> 00:08:14.639 real -time with Bill Maher. Right. And crucially, 00:08:15.019 --> 00:08:18.100 that move to HBO, it changed the show's substance. 00:08:18.439 --> 00:08:21.160 How so? Well, Maher himself explicitly said he 00:08:21.160 --> 00:08:24.000 preferred having more serious, you know, well 00:08:24.000 --> 00:08:26.459 -informed guests on real -time. He consciously 00:08:26.459 --> 00:08:29.019 moved away from that sometimes random mix of 00:08:29.019 --> 00:08:31.199 celebrities you got on, politically incorrect. 00:08:31.339 --> 00:08:33.500 Right. He wanted more depth. He wanted discussion 00:08:33.500 --> 00:08:36.220 based on expertise, conviction, not just, you 00:08:36.220 --> 00:08:38.639 know, fame. He wanted an informed discussion. 00:08:38.840 --> 00:08:41.710 So the format shifted, too. to what we know now, 00:08:42.009 --> 00:08:44.730 weekly, hour long, starts with that monologue, 00:08:44.850 --> 00:08:46.929 the famous new rules segment where he gives his 00:08:46.929 --> 00:08:48.990 take on the week's absurdities. Yeah, then usually 00:08:48.990 --> 00:08:51.070 a one -on -one interview, and it wraps up with 00:08:51.070 --> 00:08:52.789 a roundtable discussion, but usually just two 00:08:52.789 --> 00:08:55.210 or three panelists, experts, authors, journalists, 00:08:55.450 --> 00:08:57.330 high -level politicians. And the show's been 00:08:57.330 --> 00:08:59.929 a fixture ever since, over two decades on HBO. 00:09:01.009 --> 00:09:04.110 Racked up tons of recognition. Which brings us 00:09:04.110 --> 00:09:06.879 to that famous Emmy irony. Oh yeah, the Emmy 00:09:06.879 --> 00:09:09.840 situation is wild. He has an astonishing, what 00:09:09.840 --> 00:09:13.480 is it, 41 total primetime Emmy nominations across 00:09:13.480 --> 00:09:18.440 his shows, his specials. It's huge! What? But... 00:09:18.509 --> 00:09:21.649 He holds the record for the most nominations 00:09:21.649 --> 00:09:23.850 without a win in the main categories he's known 00:09:23.850 --> 00:09:27.529 for, like 22 times nominated for hosting or producing 00:09:27.529 --> 00:09:30.690 PI or real time, and no wins for those specific 00:09:30.690 --> 00:09:33.129 roles. The sources say he only won once, right? 00:09:33.269 --> 00:09:35.629 As an executive producer. Exactly. For the HBO 00:09:35.629 --> 00:09:38.750 news magazine Vice in 2014. Not for his own show, 00:09:38.750 --> 00:09:40.970 essentially. So what does that suggest about 00:09:40.970 --> 00:09:43.370 how the TV industry sees his work? Well, it suggests 00:09:43.370 --> 00:09:45.549 they respect his talent, right? His longevity. 00:09:45.690 --> 00:09:47.370 The nominations prove that. But maybe there's 00:09:47.370 --> 00:09:50.220 this underlying... to fully endorsing the weekly 00:09:50.220 --> 00:09:52.840 controversy he courts. Like they admire the effort, 00:09:52.960 --> 00:09:55.200 but are wary of the content. Kind of, like the 00:09:55.200 --> 00:09:57.620 Academy honors his success, the prestige he brings 00:09:57.620 --> 00:10:00.139 HBO, but maybe they're hesitant to give that 00:10:00.139 --> 00:10:03.200 big stamp of approval to the exact kind of provocative, 00:10:03.480 --> 00:10:05.899 line -crossing commentary that defines real time. 00:10:06.200 --> 00:10:08.879 So, celebrated for being successful, but maybe 00:10:08.879 --> 00:10:11.179 his opinions are still just too sharp, too... 00:10:11.120 --> 00:10:13.779 potentially alienating for a mainstream TV award. 00:10:14.000 --> 00:10:16.360 That seems plausible. He remains perpetually 00:10:16.360 --> 00:10:18.620 nominated, perpetually the bridesmaid in that 00:10:18.620 --> 00:10:21.240 sense. Hashtag tech tech CC, broader media roles. 00:10:21.419 --> 00:10:24.120 And beyond his own show. He's kept a pretty significant 00:10:24.120 --> 00:10:26.879 presence elsewhere. It reflects his status, right, 00:10:26.879 --> 00:10:29.480 as this permanent fixture in the political conversation. 00:10:29.759 --> 00:10:32.200 Totally. That executive producer role on Vice 00:10:32.200 --> 00:10:35.600 from 2013 to 2018, that's notable, shows he's 00:10:35.600 --> 00:10:37.879 willing to back serious investigative journalism, 00:10:37.879 --> 00:10:40.519 and he's constantly popping up as a commentator. 00:10:40.759 --> 00:10:43.840 Unpredictable, maybe, but he's been on CNN, MSNBC, 00:10:44.019 --> 00:10:47.259 Fox News, HLN. He gets the 24 -hour news cycle, 00:10:47.480 --> 00:10:49.559 knows how to inject his voice. He even stepped 00:10:49.559 --> 00:10:52.740 in for Larry King back in 2006, hosted his show 00:10:52.740 --> 00:10:55.980 and coincide King's final show in 2010. He's 00:10:55.980 --> 00:10:58.360 a talk show veteran. Absolutely. And all that 00:10:58.360 --> 00:11:00.580 experience kind of allows him to pivot into this 00:11:00.580 --> 00:11:02.700 latest venture, which feels like a pretty major 00:11:02.700 --> 00:11:05.879 shift in focus. Hashtag tech three other work 00:11:05.879 --> 00:11:08.779 documentaries and digital ventures. Yeah. His 00:11:08.779 --> 00:11:11.379 other projects outside real time. They often 00:11:11.379 --> 00:11:14.179 seem to amplify those core philosophical battles 00:11:14.179 --> 00:11:16.759 he's fighting, especially the one against organized 00:11:16.759 --> 00:11:19.789 religion. His most famous side project. probably 00:11:19.789 --> 00:11:22.909 the 2008 documentary, Religulus. That's like 00:11:22.909 --> 00:11:24.950 his definitive statement on the topic. Right, 00:11:25.149 --> 00:11:27.600 he wrote and starred in that. with Larry Charles 00:11:27.600 --> 00:11:30.879 directing. It was this global journey explicitly 00:11:30.879 --> 00:11:33.899 spoofing religious extremism everywhere, really 00:11:33.899 --> 00:11:37.159 cemented his critical anti -dogma stance. And 00:11:37.159 --> 00:11:39.379 this stance goes way back. Remember, in 2004, 00:11:39.379 --> 00:11:42.019 he did that stage show, Hollywood Hell House, 00:11:42.299 --> 00:11:44.480 where he played Satan. Oh, yeah. That was a spoof 00:11:44.480 --> 00:11:47.100 of those evangelical haunted houses, right? Exactly. 00:11:47.139 --> 00:11:49.340 Those things designed to scare kids into Christianity. 00:11:49.740 --> 00:11:52.820 So he uses satire, performance, not just to entertain, 00:11:53.100 --> 00:11:56.259 but to actively confront and, in his view, dismantle 00:11:56.039 --> 00:11:58.399 what he sees as dangerous dogma. He's also kept 00:11:58.399 --> 00:12:01.620 doing HBO stand -up specials. I'm Swiss the Decider, 00:12:01.820 --> 00:12:03.799 and there's another one coming in 2025. Is anyone 00:12:03.799 --> 00:12:06.340 else seeing this? Yeah, but the big question 00:12:06.340 --> 00:12:09.039 now, given his recent announcements, is how much 00:12:09.039 --> 00:12:11.179 longer he'll be doing stand -up at all. Which 00:12:11.179 --> 00:12:14.100 we'll get to. Hashtag tag have BB. The Trump 00:12:14.100 --> 00:12:18.440 orangutan lawsuit anecdote. But first... We absolutely 00:12:18.440 --> 00:12:21.179 have to pause for this anecdote. It just perfectly 00:12:21.179 --> 00:12:23.500 captures the sheer absurdity of the political 00:12:23.500 --> 00:12:26.299 theater he loves to lampoon the 2013 lawsuit 00:12:26.299 --> 00:12:29.399 with Donald Trump. Oh, this is classic. It was 00:12:29.399 --> 00:12:32.019 brilliant satire, really. Commenting on the whole 00:12:32.019 --> 00:12:34.519 birther thing Trump was pushing against Obama. 00:12:34.779 --> 00:12:37.519 Right. Trump had offered $5 million to charity 00:12:37.519 --> 00:12:40.320 if Obama releases passport records or whatever. 00:12:40.519 --> 00:12:43.200 So Marher Flips It offers $5 million to charity 00:12:43.200 --> 00:12:45.840 if Trump produces his birth certificate to prove, 00:12:46.059 --> 00:12:48.419 jerkingly, that his mother had not mated with 00:12:48.419 --> 00:12:51.240 an orangutan. It was clearly a joke, a parody 00:12:51.240 --> 00:12:53.519 of Trump's own baseless demand. You'd think, 00:12:53.600 --> 00:12:55.639 but the source is detailed that Trump actually 00:12:55.639 --> 00:12:58.210 produced his birth certificate. and then immediately 00:12:58.210 --> 00:13:00.870 sued Marr for the $5 million, claiming the offer 00:13:00.870 --> 00:13:03.429 was legally binding and made with venom. That 00:13:03.429 --> 00:13:05.610 is just incredible. A future president using 00:13:05.610 --> 00:13:08.009 the legal system over a satirical joke. He did. 00:13:08.029 --> 00:13:10.429 It was a real lawsuit for eight weeks, until 00:13:10.429 --> 00:13:13.730 Trump finally withdrew it. But the story is essential, 00:13:13.909 --> 00:13:15.870 right? It shows the high stakes of Marr's kind 00:13:15.870 --> 00:13:18.750 of humor. His satire is so pointed, powerful 00:13:18.750 --> 00:13:20.570 people actually treat it like a real threat, 00:13:20.649 --> 00:13:24.460 not just words. Hashtag, tag, tag, see. The Club 00:13:24.460 --> 00:13:28.659 Random Podcast era, 2022 present. OK, now we 00:13:28.659 --> 00:13:30.940 get to the really significant recent development. 00:13:31.639 --> 00:13:34.919 Launching the Club Random Podcast in 2022. This 00:13:34.919 --> 00:13:37.580 feels like a very conscious pivot away from the 00:13:37.580 --> 00:13:40.120 political combat that's defined him for like. 00:13:40.220 --> 00:13:43.080 30 years. It really is the anti real time. It's 00:13:43.080 --> 00:13:45.759 recorded super casually in his home bar. And 00:13:45.759 --> 00:13:48.120 the whole premise, the unique selling point is 00:13:48.120 --> 00:13:50.559 one on one interviews discussing everything except 00:13:50.559 --> 00:13:52.919 politics. Everything except politics after decades 00:13:52.919 --> 00:13:54.940 of being basically forced to react to the political 00:13:54.940 --> 00:13:57.120 outrage of the week. Exactly. He seems to be 00:13:57.120 --> 00:13:59.899 prioritizing the intellectual, the cultural over 00:13:59.899 --> 00:14:02.440 the political grind. And he's had huge guests, 00:14:02.679 --> 00:14:04.559 non -political figures, Quentin Tarantino, Mike 00:14:04.559 --> 00:14:07.419 Tyson, Jimmy Kimmel. But even when he's deliberately 00:14:07.419 --> 00:14:10.039 trying to avoid politics. controversy still finds 00:14:10.039 --> 00:14:12.539 him, like with that Kanye West interview. That's 00:14:12.539 --> 00:14:15.120 right. He made a very clear moral stand earlier 00:14:15.120 --> 00:14:18.139 this year, chose not to release a two hour interview 00:14:18.139 --> 00:14:21.710 he'd already recorded with Kanye West. Why? specifically 00:14:21.710 --> 00:14:24.049 because of the rapper's subsequent anti -Semitic 00:14:24.049 --> 00:14:26.850 comments. So even in the non -political space, 00:14:27.230 --> 00:14:29.509 some lines won't be crossed. It seems so. It 00:14:29.509 --> 00:14:31.250 shows that while he wants to talk about other 00:14:31.250 --> 00:14:34.169 stuff, his core opposition to hate speech, that 00:14:34.169 --> 00:14:37.429 seems absolute. It overrode his usual everybody 00:14:37.429 --> 00:14:40.429 gets to speak principle in that case. And the 00:14:40.429 --> 00:14:42.950 future of this pivot seems pretty big. He launched 00:14:42.950 --> 00:14:46.110 the Club Random Studios podcast network in March 00:14:46.110 --> 00:14:50.230 2024. And then crucially, In May 2024, he said 00:14:50.230 --> 00:14:53.009 publicly he plans to stop doing stand -up comedy 00:14:53.009 --> 00:14:55.820 after this year. That is massive news. Ending 00:14:55.820 --> 00:14:58.340 stand -up, which is often his most direct confrontational 00:14:58.340 --> 00:15:00.960 political platform, while launching this non 00:15:00.960 --> 00:15:03.320 -political conversation network, it really suggests 00:15:03.320 --> 00:15:05.779 a potential final evolution, doesn't it? Moving 00:15:05.779 --> 00:15:08.220 away from the constant friction. Maybe. Maybe 00:15:08.220 --> 00:15:10.320 retiring the full -time satirist and leaning 00:15:10.320 --> 00:15:13.139 more into being a cultural philosopher, a conversationalist. 00:15:13.500 --> 00:15:15.840 It's a fascinating shift to watch. Hashtag tag 00:15:15.840 --> 00:15:18.000 TV, the political and ideological landscape. 00:15:18.139 --> 00:15:20.759 And this shift comes after this entire career, 00:15:21.179 --> 00:15:23.960 defined by just fiercely refusing to into any 00:15:23.960 --> 00:15:26.279 single political category. So let's dive deep 00:15:26.279 --> 00:15:29.120 now into the specifics. His ideological landscape, 00:15:29.580 --> 00:15:31.779 hashtag, tag, tag, tag, tag, monkey tickle A, 00:15:32.059 --> 00:15:34.320 self -identification, and core beliefs. Yeah, 00:15:34.440 --> 00:15:37.480 Marr is famously hard to pin down. He consistently 00:15:37.480 --> 00:15:39.759 pushes back against labels, often just calls 00:15:39.759 --> 00:15:42.259 himself practical. Practical, okay. And while 00:15:42.259 --> 00:15:44.639 his baseline views have generally been, you know, 00:15:45.000 --> 00:15:47.200 moderately liberal supports environmentalism, 00:15:47.539 --> 00:15:49.899 certain social causes, he's also frequently identified 00:15:49.899 --> 00:15:52.460 as libertarian. And recently, maybe with a bit 00:15:52.460 --> 00:15:55.720 of irony, he's called himself a progressive as 00:15:55.720 --> 00:15:58.840 a sane person. Huh. That idea of the sane person, 00:15:58.840 --> 00:16:01.379 that seems like his ultimate benchmark. But let's 00:16:01.379 --> 00:16:04.059 unpack that 9 -11 liberal distinction he came 00:16:04.059 --> 00:16:05.899 up with. What does that really mean? Why did 00:16:05.899 --> 00:16:08.379 he feel the need to invent that label? OK, so 00:16:08.379 --> 00:16:10.919 9 -11 liberal. It emerged in the years after 00:16:10.919 --> 00:16:13.559 the attacks, obviously, driven by that geopolitical 00:16:13.559 --> 00:16:16.200 shock. It refers to this specific group of liberals 00:16:16.200 --> 00:16:18.399 figures like, you know, the late Christopher 00:16:18.399 --> 00:16:21.019 Hitchens, Salman Rushdie, too, who felt the mainstream 00:16:21.019 --> 00:16:24.279 American left was really failing, failing to 00:16:24.279 --> 00:16:27.149 properly confront the danger posed. by religious 00:16:27.149 --> 00:16:29.350 fundamentalism and extremism around the world. 00:16:29.920 --> 00:16:32.679 Basically out of fear, fear of being called bigoted 00:16:32.679 --> 00:16:35.759 or Islamophobic. So it was a reaction against 00:16:35.759 --> 00:16:38.600 what he saw as a kind of moral relativism creeping 00:16:38.600 --> 00:16:40.860 in. Absolutely. As he put it, something like, 00:16:41.519 --> 00:16:44.100 it's ridiculous to label criticism of a religion 00:16:44.100 --> 00:16:47.360 as a phobia of a religion. He believes, you know, 00:16:47.500 --> 00:16:50.360 I'm going to criticize any person or group that 00:16:50.360 --> 00:16:53.159 violates liberal principles. So classical liberal 00:16:53.159 --> 00:16:56.019 principles, free speech, women's equality, church 00:16:56.019 --> 00:16:58.740 state separation. Exactly. The 9 -11 liberal 00:16:58.740 --> 00:17:01.100 thinks those principles have to be defended universally 00:17:01.100 --> 00:17:03.700 even if it means criticizing cultures or religions 00:17:03.700 --> 00:17:06.359 that the political left often defends. And this 00:17:06.359 --> 00:17:09.150 feeds right into his current big battle. against 00:17:09.150 --> 00:17:12.049 political correctness, against the woke nonsense 00:17:12.049 --> 00:17:14.430 peddlers, as he calls them. He has a very sharp 00:17:14.430 --> 00:17:16.390 definition for the difference. Yeah, he draws 00:17:16.390 --> 00:17:19.190 his clear line. Liberals protect people and PC 00:17:19.190 --> 00:17:22.089 people protect feelings. He sees PC culture as 00:17:22.089 --> 00:17:25.130 this, like, censorious force, prioritizing subjective 00:17:25.130 --> 00:17:27.569 comfort over objective truth, over open debate, 00:17:27.730 --> 00:17:29.369 which he thinks is just fundamentally damaging 00:17:29.369 --> 00:17:32.470 to democracy. He thinks it's made the left weak. 00:17:32.589 --> 00:17:34.549 Yeah, weak and ineffective because they're afraid 00:17:34.549 --> 00:17:37.450 to offend. Now, all this relentless criticism 00:17:37.450 --> 00:17:40.450 of the left, it leads a lot of his conservative 00:17:40.450 --> 00:17:43.210 fans to ask, well, why don't you just switch 00:17:43.210 --> 00:17:47.049 sides then? His answer is pure more blunt. Right. 00:17:47.490 --> 00:17:49.569 When someone asked why he wouldn't just go all 00:17:49.569 --> 00:17:52.170 the way and join the Republicans after hammering 00:17:52.170 --> 00:17:54.769 the Democrats on woke stuff, his answer was short. 00:17:55.679 --> 00:17:57.720 because I don't want to live in North Korea. 00:17:58.099 --> 00:17:59.940 OK, that clarifies things. It does. It shows 00:17:59.940 --> 00:18:02.359 that, yeah, he might despise the cultural excesses 00:18:02.359 --> 00:18:05.119 he sees on the left, but his fundamental distrust 00:18:05.119 --> 00:18:07.980 of authoritarianism, the lack of free speech, 00:18:08.440 --> 00:18:11.000 the potential dismantling of democratic norms 00:18:11.000 --> 00:18:13.640 he sees on the far right, That's a much bigger 00:18:13.640 --> 00:18:16.720 philosophical barrier for him. His specific policy 00:18:16.720 --> 00:18:19.779 positions really back up that lack of party loyalty. 00:18:20.240 --> 00:18:23.000 He seems libertarian on social issues, but more 00:18:23.000 --> 00:18:25.240 progressive economically. The mix is really something. 00:18:25.339 --> 00:18:27.640 He's a huge advocate for legalizing cannabis, 00:18:28.160 --> 00:18:30.619 serves on boards for normal marijuana policy 00:18:30.619 --> 00:18:32.819 project, also wants to legalize prostitution, 00:18:33.160 --> 00:18:35.700 gambling, classic libertarian social freedom 00:18:35.700 --> 00:18:38.319 stuff. But then he supports the death penalty. 00:18:38.569 --> 00:18:40.509 He wants to end corporate welfare and federal 00:18:40.509 --> 00:18:42.970 funding for non -profits, thinks it's wasteful. 00:18:43.549 --> 00:18:46.210 Environmentally, though. Lifelong environmentalist. 00:18:46.450 --> 00:18:49.529 Peed a board member since 97. It's a unique mix. 00:18:49.849 --> 00:18:52.690 Hashtag, hashtags, tab B, engagement with elections 00:18:52.690 --> 00:18:55.410 and candidates. And his voting record reflects 00:18:55.410 --> 00:18:58.849 that ideological mix, that disillusionment. He's 00:18:58.849 --> 00:19:01.329 voted for a Republican Bob Dole, Green Party's 00:19:01.329 --> 00:19:04.269 Ralph Nader. Yeah. Protest votes, essentially. 00:19:04.549 --> 00:19:06.730 Right. He's loyal to his principles, whatever 00:19:06.730 --> 00:19:09.190 they are that week, not to a party machine. During 00:19:09.190 --> 00:19:11.569 the Obama years, he was a supporter initially, 00:19:11.789 --> 00:19:13.869 gave that one million dollars to the Obama's 00:19:13.869 --> 00:19:16.849 superpague priorities USA in 2012. But then he 00:19:16.849 --> 00:19:19.109 got critical. Yeah, pretty sharply critical later 00:19:19.109 --> 00:19:21.890 on. Felt Obama wasn't bold enough, didn't push 00:19:21.890 --> 00:19:24.250 hard enough on liberal goals, especially health 00:19:24.250 --> 00:19:26.410 care reform. He seemed to view that donation 00:19:26.410 --> 00:19:28.650 as an investment that didn't really pay off in 00:19:28.650 --> 00:19:30.470 the progressive way he wanted. He even tried 00:19:30.470 --> 00:19:32.170 direct political action himself, right? That 00:19:32.170 --> 00:19:34.819 flip a district contest in 2014. Yeah, that was 00:19:34.819 --> 00:19:37.619 an interesting experiment using his TV platform 00:19:37.619 --> 00:19:40.759 to try and directly influence one specific congressional 00:19:40.759 --> 00:19:45.140 race. He got his audience to pick one terrible 00:19:45.140 --> 00:19:48.019 and entrenched member of Congress. They chose 00:19:48.019 --> 00:19:50.640 Republican John Klein in Minnesota. And he tried 00:19:50.640 --> 00:19:53.309 to oust him. tried to use national media attention, 00:19:53.990 --> 00:19:56.789 shine a spotlight on Klein's record. It was ambitious, 00:19:56.789 --> 00:20:00.490 but ultimately, it failed. Klein won re -election. 00:20:00.930 --> 00:20:02.750 He kind of showed the limits of his platform 00:20:02.750 --> 00:20:05.250 for driving actual local election results. OK, 00:20:05.390 --> 00:20:08.349 moving to 2016. He backed Bernie at first, then 00:20:08.349 --> 00:20:11.049 switched to Hillary. And after she lost, he delivered 00:20:11.049 --> 00:20:14.150 one of his most infamous political takedowns. 00:20:14.250 --> 00:20:16.089 Oh, that comparison was brutal. When Hillary 00:20:16.089 --> 00:20:17.829 Clinton was thinking about coming back into the 00:20:17.829 --> 00:20:19.750 public eye, Marher just told her flat out, stay 00:20:19.750 --> 00:20:21.750 in the woods. OK, you had your shot. You fucked 00:20:21.750 --> 00:20:24.349 it up. You're Bill Buckner. Oof. Bill Buckner. 00:20:24.450 --> 00:20:26.299 For anyone who doesn't know. Yeah, the Red Sox 00:20:26.299 --> 00:20:29.019 first baseman, the error in the 80s World Series. 00:20:29.240 --> 00:20:31.539 It's like the ultimate symbol of choking, of 00:20:31.539 --> 00:20:33.960 catastrophic failure. Maher basically assigned 00:20:33.960 --> 00:20:36.059 her permanent political blame with that analogy. 00:20:36.400 --> 00:20:38.880 Savage. But where he really deserves credit, 00:20:39.000 --> 00:20:41.799 maybe for political foresight, is the 2020 election. 00:20:42.779 --> 00:20:45.279 The sources show he was predicting trouble years 00:20:45.279 --> 00:20:47.539 ahead. This might be his most prescient call 00:20:47.539 --> 00:20:51.579 ever. Seriously. Across more than 20 real time 00:20:51.579 --> 00:20:54.740 episodes between April 2018 and August 2020, 00:20:55.279 --> 00:20:58.619 he was repeatedly explicitly saying Donald Trump 00:20:58.619 --> 00:21:01.200 would refuse to concede the 2020 election if 00:21:01.200 --> 00:21:04.140 he lost. How did he know? Or what was his reasoning? 00:21:04.339 --> 00:21:06.640 He kept pointing to Trump's own words, those 00:21:06.640 --> 00:21:09.319 veiled threats, the references to having support 00:21:09.319 --> 00:21:11.799 from the military, the bikers, the tough people. 00:21:12.099 --> 00:21:14.859 He saw it as clear evidence of an anti -democratic 00:21:14.859 --> 00:21:16.619 move coming. And he wasn't just predicting it. 00:21:16.619 --> 00:21:19.079 He was yelling at the opposition about it. Fiercely, 00:21:19.180 --> 00:21:21.579 he slammed the Democrats for having no Plan B, 00:21:21.619 --> 00:21:23.599 for just repeating, we just have to win big. 00:21:23.940 --> 00:21:26.079 He called out the major media to the Times, the 00:21:26.079 --> 00:21:28.960 Post, CNN for downplaying Trump's threats. He 00:21:28.960 --> 00:21:31.200 felt like they were all dangerously underestimating 00:21:31.200 --> 00:21:32.970 this thing he'd been screaming about for two 00:21:32.970 --> 00:21:35.250 years. And his recent commentary shows he's still 00:21:35.250 --> 00:21:37.269 fiercely independent, still targeting the current 00:21:37.269 --> 00:21:39.609 Democratic leadership when he feels like it. 00:21:39.970 --> 00:21:42.650 Absolutely. Remember in 2019 he said an economic 00:21:42.650 --> 00:21:45.220 recession would be worth it? If it meant Trump 00:21:45.220 --> 00:21:47.779 didn't get reelected. Pretty stark. Yeah. More 00:21:47.779 --> 00:21:50.920 recently, 2024, he publicly called for Joe Biden 00:21:50.920 --> 00:21:53.640 not to run again. He strongly hinted support 00:21:53.640 --> 00:21:56.619 for Gavin Newsom instead. Then just this year, 00:21:56.700 --> 00:21:59.680 2025, he endorsed Senator John Fetterman for 00:21:59.680 --> 00:22:02.359 the 2028 Democratic primary. Fetterman. Why? 00:22:02.619 --> 00:22:05.240 He praised Fetterman's strong support for Israel 00:22:05.240 --> 00:22:08.039 and his really vocal stance against woke culture. 00:22:08.480 --> 00:22:10.819 Seems Fetterman represents that kind of classical 00:22:10.819 --> 00:22:13.579 tough liberalism Marhor wants. And he also went 00:22:13.579 --> 00:22:17.819 after Yeah, called NPR crazy far left in 2025, 00:22:18.160 --> 00:22:20.559 demanded they be defunded, arguing public media 00:22:20.559 --> 00:22:22.440 doesn't need subsidies anymore in today's media 00:22:22.440 --> 00:22:25.099 world. Still throwing bombs. Hashtag tag V, national 00:22:25.099 --> 00:22:27.140 security, foreign policy, and immigration. Okay, 00:22:27.160 --> 00:22:29.140 let's shift now to these really sensitive areas. 00:22:29.920 --> 00:22:31.859 National security, foreign policy, immigration. 00:22:32.140 --> 00:22:34.339 All filtered through that post 9 -11 classical 00:22:34.339 --> 00:22:37.579 liberal lens he uses. Hashtag tag tag A, national 00:22:37.579 --> 00:22:40.640 security and profiling. Right. His views on national 00:22:40.640 --> 00:22:43.400 security are a perfect example of his practical 00:22:43.400 --> 00:22:46.960 but often contradictory skepticism. After 9 -11, 00:22:47.039 --> 00:22:49.579 he actually expressed some limited conditional 00:22:49.579 --> 00:22:52.819 support for the NSA's PRISM data collection program. 00:22:53.059 --> 00:22:56.539 Really? Why? The motivation was purely the existential 00:22:56.539 --> 00:22:59.009 threat. The fear of terrorists getting nuclear 00:22:59.009 --> 00:23:01.710 weapons. For him, that specific threat level 00:23:01.710 --> 00:23:03.990 justified potentially some surveillance. But 00:23:03.990 --> 00:23:06.029 he worried about the principle. Immediately, 00:23:06.329 --> 00:23:08.630 yeah. He quickly followed up, expressing deep 00:23:08.630 --> 00:23:11.390 concern about the slippery slope. What happens 00:23:11.390 --> 00:23:14.190 when less trustworthy people are in charge of 00:23:14.190 --> 00:23:16.390 these tools? It's that constant tension in his 00:23:16.390 --> 00:23:19.829 mind. Security versus freedom. He only leans 00:23:19.829 --> 00:23:21.869 towards security when the threat feels truly 00:23:21.869 --> 00:23:24.589 existential. And on profiling, especially at 00:23:24.589 --> 00:23:26.250 airports. He took a really controversial line 00:23:26.250 --> 00:23:29.259 there. He explicitly endorses certain kinds of 00:23:29.259 --> 00:23:32.380 profiling. He points to places like Israel, arguing 00:23:32.380 --> 00:23:34.279 their security services are effective because 00:23:34.279 --> 00:23:37.039 they focus resources based on intelligence where 00:23:37.039 --> 00:23:39.240 the threat is highest. He thinks the problem 00:23:39.240 --> 00:23:41.640 is just the word profiling. He thinks rebranding 00:23:41.640 --> 00:23:43.599 it would help. Yeah. He suggested if they called 00:23:43.599 --> 00:23:45.940 it high intelligence screening, maybe the controversy 00:23:45.940 --> 00:23:48.900 would fade. His argument is basically being smart 00:23:48.900 --> 00:23:51.599 and targeted is practical. Forget political correctness. 00:23:51.900 --> 00:23:54.589 But despite these, you know, kind of hawkish 00:23:54.589 --> 00:23:57.369 security views, he's still fiercely critical 00:23:57.369 --> 00:23:59.970 of government overreach when it touches free 00:23:59.970 --> 00:24:02.410 expression, no matter who's in power. Exactly. 00:24:02.670 --> 00:24:06.470 He slammed Trump's executive order 13769, the 00:24:06.470 --> 00:24:09.910 so -called Muslim ban. But then he was just as 00:24:09.910 --> 00:24:12.450 critical of the Biden administration's disinformation 00:24:12.450 --> 00:24:15.130 governance board. He even agreed with comparisons 00:24:15.130 --> 00:24:17.849 to Orwell's Ministry of Truth. He'll fight government 00:24:17.849 --> 00:24:20.390 attempts to control speech, period, left or right. 00:24:20.710 --> 00:24:22.890 Hashtag tag be foreign policy views, military 00:24:22.890 --> 00:24:25.329 and Middle East. Foreign policy wise, he generally 00:24:25.329 --> 00:24:27.970 favors a strong military, but he often complains 00:24:27.970 --> 00:24:30.529 about its size, the cost, the defense budget 00:24:30.529 --> 00:24:33.750 overall. Critiques usually aim at exposing what 00:24:33.750 --> 00:24:36.049 he sees as hypocrisy in U .S. foreign policy. 00:24:36.289 --> 00:24:38.650 Like that time he criticized Obama's visit to 00:24:38.650 --> 00:24:42.329 Saudi Arabia in 2015. Prime example. He basically 00:24:42.329 --> 00:24:44.769 urged Obama to drop the diplomatic niceties. 00:24:44.869 --> 00:24:46.670 Said something like, stop respecting their medieval 00:24:46.670 --> 00:24:49.190 bullshit under the guise of, it's their culture. 00:24:49.390 --> 00:24:52.289 He sees this fundamental clash between American 00:24:52.289 --> 00:24:55.029 values and supporting regimes that violate human 00:24:55.029 --> 00:24:57.930 rights. He thinks cultural relativism shouldn't 00:24:57.930 --> 00:25:00.970 excuse illiberal practices. And, worth noting, 00:25:01.160 --> 00:25:03.880 He opposed the Iraq war from the very beginning, 00:25:04.200 --> 00:25:07.200 focused on the huge cost in lives and money. 00:25:07.400 --> 00:25:10.200 His most consistent and probably most challenging 00:25:10.200 --> 00:25:12.920 foreign policy stance is on the Israeli -Palestinian 00:25:12.920 --> 00:25:15.440 conflict. He consistently says he's more on the 00:25:15.440 --> 00:25:17.779 side of the Israelis. He does maintain that position, 00:25:18.000 --> 00:25:21.119 yeah. Even while offering some nuance. He acknowledges 00:25:21.119 --> 00:25:23.960 Palestinians do have gripes. And he's actually 00:25:23.960 --> 00:25:26.319 criticized U .S. financial aid to Israel, arguing 00:25:26.319 --> 00:25:28.400 a wealthy country like Israel should handle its 00:25:28.400 --> 00:25:30.819 own defense. But his defense of Israel during 00:25:30.819 --> 00:25:34.299 the 2014 Gaza war caused a huge backlash. Immense 00:25:34.299 --> 00:25:36.660 backlash. He defended Israel's military actions, 00:25:36.980 --> 00:25:38.519 arguing they showed restraint where possible 00:25:38.519 --> 00:25:40.779 despite high civilian casualties being reported. 00:25:41.640 --> 00:25:44.099 He made this point, saying people who were incredulous 00:25:44.099 --> 00:25:47.099 about Jews going to slaughter in WWEII shouldn't 00:25:47.099 --> 00:25:49.140 be surprised they're defending themselves fiercely 00:25:49.140 --> 00:25:51.779 now. So he frames it as post -holocaust self 00:25:51.779 --> 00:25:54.359 -defense, reflecting his own complex heritage. 00:25:54.599 --> 00:25:57.259 Seems like it. It's a deeply felt position for 00:25:57.259 --> 00:26:00.539 him. He also strongly denounced the BDS movement. 00:26:00.700 --> 00:26:03.440 boycott divestment sanctions. What was his issue 00:26:03.440 --> 00:26:06.160 with BDS? He called it shallow thinking, said 00:26:06.160 --> 00:26:09.460 it relies on this overly simplistic racial binary, 00:26:10.000 --> 00:26:12.980 white Jew versus brown Palestinian. He sees it 00:26:12.980 --> 00:26:15.740 as intellectually lazy, maybe even discriminatory. 00:26:16.140 --> 00:26:18.140 And after the October 7th attacks, he called 00:26:18.140 --> 00:26:21.200 it Israel's 911, took real issue with anyone 00:26:21.200 --> 00:26:23.559 applauding the attacks. But he also cautioned 00:26:23.559 --> 00:26:25.819 Israel not to lose the moral high ground in its 00:26:25.819 --> 00:26:28.680 response. He specifically went after Obama for 00:26:28.680 --> 00:26:31.380 suggesting a moral equivalent between Hamas and 00:26:31.380 --> 00:26:34.180 Israeli actions. Hashtag, hashtag, Tebro, race 00:26:34.180 --> 00:26:36.259 and China criticism. Okay, race and identity. 00:26:36.539 --> 00:26:38.359 This is an area where Maher constantly pushes 00:26:38.359 --> 00:26:40.359 boundaries, often drawing, you know, extreme 00:26:40.359 --> 00:26:43.299 criticism. That House N incident in 2017 is probably 00:26:43.299 --> 00:26:45.480 the most infamous example. Right, he used the 00:26:45.480 --> 00:26:47.920 slur in this live, kind of awkward banter with 00:26:47.920 --> 00:26:50.339 Senator Ben Sasse. The reaction was immediate 00:26:50.339 --> 00:26:52.940 calls for him to be fired. Yeah, HBO had to respond, 00:26:53.200 --> 00:26:55.740 called the remarks inexcusable and tasteless. 00:26:56.420 --> 00:26:58.299 They pulled the segment from future airings. 00:26:59.299 --> 00:27:01.559 Marr apologized, said he regretted using the 00:27:01.559 --> 00:27:04.539 word in a live moment, but what's maybe important 00:27:04.539 --> 00:27:06.759 is how he handled the fallout. What did he do? 00:27:06.940 --> 00:27:09.150 He didn't run from it. He addressed it head on 00:27:09.150 --> 00:27:12.269 the next week on his show, had this really intense, 00:27:12.289 --> 00:27:14.670 difficult discussion about the words impact with 00:27:14.670 --> 00:27:17.369 Michael Eric Dyson and Ice Cube. It showed he's 00:27:17.369 --> 00:27:19.470 willing to grapple with the consequences of his 00:27:19.470 --> 00:27:22.069 words, even the really provocative ones. And 00:27:22.069 --> 00:27:25.609 today, his criticism often focuses on identity 00:27:25.609 --> 00:27:28.970 politics itself. He sees it as overriding merit. 00:27:29.160 --> 00:27:31.279 especially in the Democratic Party. That's a 00:27:31.279 --> 00:27:33.960 huge theme for him now. He famously opposed the 00:27:33.960 --> 00:27:35.920 NFL playing the black national anthem, called 00:27:35.920 --> 00:27:38.359 it segregationist, argued the nation needs one 00:27:38.359 --> 00:27:40.779 anthem. He supports teaching the history of racism, 00:27:41.039 --> 00:27:43.200 but he's a vehement opponent of critical race 00:27:43.200 --> 00:27:46.700 theory, CRT, sees it as divisive politics, not 00:27:46.700 --> 00:27:49.579 education. And he connects this focus on identity 00:27:49.579 --> 00:27:52.700 directly to global competition, specifically 00:27:52.700 --> 00:27:55.450 with China. He does. He criticized people calling 00:27:55.450 --> 00:27:58.430 pushback against the term Wuhan virus racism, 00:27:58.849 --> 00:28:01.190 pointing out diseases have often been named geographically, 00:28:01.289 --> 00:28:04.289 Zika, Ebola, et cetera. But more broadly and 00:28:04.289 --> 00:28:06.329 more critically, he argues the U .S. has basically 00:28:06.329 --> 00:28:09.609 lost the battle for the 21st century to China. 00:28:09.930 --> 00:28:13.670 Lost. Why? Because, in his view, America is wasting 00:28:13.670 --> 00:28:17.289 all its energy on this never -ending woke competition. 00:28:17.509 --> 00:28:19.609 Instead of focusing on innovation, strength, 00:28:19.970 --> 00:28:22.349 intellectual rigor, he thinks the obsession with 00:28:22.349 --> 00:28:24.890 culture sensitivity has made America strategically 00:28:24.890 --> 00:28:28.029 weak compared to China. Hashtag tag tag D immigration 00:28:28.029 --> 00:28:31.470 stance. His immigration views are again pragmatic 00:28:31.470 --> 00:28:33.970 highly situational often disappoints liberals 00:28:33.970 --> 00:28:35.809 who might expect more open borders talk like 00:28:35.809 --> 00:28:38.710 in 2015 when he opposed accepting large numbers 00:28:38.710 --> 00:28:40.789 of Syrian refugees. Right. And his opposition 00:28:40.789 --> 00:28:43.230 wasn't framed around race or origin. It was about 00:28:43.230 --> 00:28:45.710 values. He argued Syrian refugees might hold 00:28:45.710 --> 00:28:48.390 illiberal values citing documented cases of honor 00:28:48.390 --> 00:28:51.230 killings FGM by some immigrants in the UK. It's 00:28:51.230 --> 00:28:53.200 that 9 11. liberal thing again. If an incoming 00:28:53.200 --> 00:28:55.579 population holds values fundamentally opposed 00:28:55.579 --> 00:28:58.500 to core liberal principles, that's a valid reason 00:28:58.500 --> 00:29:02.640 for restriction in his view. It depends on the 00:29:02.640 --> 00:29:05.779 situation. Exactly. In 2021, after the chaotic 00:29:05.779 --> 00:29:08.640 U .S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, he strongly 00:29:08.640 --> 00:29:11.920 urged America to take in Afghan refugees, especially 00:29:11.920 --> 00:29:13.940 those who had helped the U .S. effort. He also 00:29:13.940 --> 00:29:16.279 criticizes Trump's extreme rhetoric, the wall 00:29:16.279 --> 00:29:18.900 proposal, pointing out the hypocrisy given Trump 00:29:18.900 --> 00:29:21.359 married to immigrants. And he holds up Canada 00:29:21.359 --> 00:29:24.349 as a better model. Yeah, he's praised Canada's 00:29:24.349 --> 00:29:26.490 system. Notes it's actually more conservative 00:29:26.490 --> 00:29:29.809 in structure, based more on skills, merit, rather 00:29:29.809 --> 00:29:32.049 than the family connection focus in the U .S. 00:29:32.410 --> 00:29:34.670 He basically thinks both U .S. parties have failed 00:29:34.670 --> 00:29:37.269 to create a rational, practical immigration system. 00:29:37.470 --> 00:29:40.730 Hashtag tag G66. Deep dive into cultural and 00:29:40.730 --> 00:29:43.609 philosophical views. Religion, health, gender. 00:29:44.009 --> 00:29:46.470 OK, maybe the ultimate defining feature of Bill 00:29:46.470 --> 00:29:48.470 Maher, the thing that really sets him apart from 00:29:48.470 --> 00:29:51.309 most political commentators, is his relentless 00:29:51.309 --> 00:29:53.950 philosophical crusade against unexamined faith, 00:29:54.349 --> 00:29:56.609 starting, of course, with religion. Hashtag tag 00:29:56.609 --> 00:29:59.849 Jack A. Religion and apatheism. Yeah, he sees 00:29:59.849 --> 00:30:02.549 organized religion as fundamentally destructive, 00:30:02.990 --> 00:30:05.769 unnecessary, calls it a bureaucracy between man 00:30:05.769 --> 00:30:08.930 and God. His self -label has shifted a bit over 00:30:08.930 --> 00:30:11.289 time. He called himself agnostic and religious. 00:30:11.609 --> 00:30:14.349 He rejects the label atheist, says it's not his 00:30:14.349 --> 00:30:16.650 hobby, doesn't require much time. So he landed 00:30:16.650 --> 00:30:18.910 on apathias. We should probably dig into that 00:30:18.910 --> 00:30:21.880 specific choice. Why apatheism? Apatheism, as 00:30:21.880 --> 00:30:24.099 he defines it, is basically, I don't know what 00:30:24.099 --> 00:30:26.880 happens when you die and I don't care. It fits 00:30:26.880 --> 00:30:29.779 his anti -conformity brand perfectly right. It's 00:30:29.779 --> 00:30:31.960 not a statement of certainty like atheism. It's 00:30:31.960 --> 00:30:34.259 not a statement of inquiry like agnosticism. 00:30:34.660 --> 00:30:37.740 It's a statement of indifference to the unanswerable 00:30:37.740 --> 00:30:40.579 questions. Freeing him up to focus on the earthly 00:30:40.579 --> 00:30:43.740 problems caused by dogma. Exactly. Focus on the 00:30:43.740 --> 00:30:46.299 tangible damage done by rigid belief systems. 00:30:46.480 --> 00:30:48.400 But even though he's indifferent to the ultimate 00:30:48.400 --> 00:30:51.309 answer, He is specific about his level of certainty, 00:30:51.650 --> 00:30:54.490 or lack thereof. Right. He puts himself at 6 00:30:54.490 --> 00:30:58.089 .9 on that 1 to 7 scale, where 7 is absolutely 00:30:58.089 --> 00:31:00.390 certain there's no God. But he always insists, 00:31:00.829 --> 00:31:03.150 doubt is the only appropriate response for human 00:31:03.150 --> 00:31:07.150 beings. That tiny .1 of remaining doubt is crucial. 00:31:07.490 --> 00:31:09.609 It's the intellectual safeguard stopping him 00:31:09.609 --> 00:31:12.609 from becoming as dogmatic as the groups he criticizes. 00:31:12.789 --> 00:31:15.049 And his criticism isn't spread evenly across 00:31:15.049 --> 00:31:18.069 all faiths, is it? Definitely not. While he finds 00:31:18.069 --> 00:31:22.230 parts of Judaism insane, Buddhism crazy, he has 00:31:22.230 --> 00:31:25.069 flat out called Mormonism more ridiculous than 00:31:25.069 --> 00:31:28.069 any other religion. He sees Christianity and 00:31:28.069 --> 00:31:31.630 Islam as historically more warlike. And he emphatically 00:31:31.630 --> 00:31:34.130 argues that present day Islam specifically needs 00:31:34.130 --> 00:31:36.849 its own reformation, its own enlightenment to 00:31:36.849 --> 00:31:39.329 shed what he considers medieval illiberal practices, 00:31:39.650 --> 00:31:41.369 much like Christianity went through centuries 00:31:41.369 --> 00:31:43.329 ago. And that stance puts him directly at odds 00:31:43.329 --> 00:31:45.680 with a lot of the modern political left. This 00:31:45.680 --> 00:31:47.839 is probably his biggest source of friction with 00:31:47.839 --> 00:31:50.140 mainstream liberals. He argues that human rights 00:31:50.140 --> 00:31:52.920 violations suppressing women, LGBT rights supported 00:31:52.920 --> 00:31:55.619 by majorities in many Muslim countries. Those 00:31:55.619 --> 00:31:58.259 aren't fringe extremist views, he says. They're 00:31:58.259 --> 00:32:00.200 mainstream interpretations within the faith. 00:32:00.640 --> 00:32:03.059 And he blames liberals for not condemning it. 00:32:03.160 --> 00:32:05.960 Yeah, he criticizes liberals for failing to condemn 00:32:05.960 --> 00:32:08.019 oppression when it happens in Muslim cultures, 00:32:08.240 --> 00:32:10.319 often under the banner of cultural sensitivity, 00:32:10.740 --> 00:32:12.680 while simultaneously fighting tooth and nail 00:32:12.680 --> 00:32:14.819 for those same liberal values here in America. 00:32:15.259 --> 00:32:17.460 It's that perceived hypocrisy that drives him 00:32:17.460 --> 00:32:20.660 nuts. And for this uncompromising stance, he 00:32:20.660 --> 00:32:23.680 got the Richard Dawkins Award back in 2009, hashtag, 00:32:24.000 --> 00:32:27.299 tag, tag B, healthcare and science. Okay, his 00:32:27.299 --> 00:32:29.490 views on health. They're this fascinating mix 00:32:29.490 --> 00:32:32.809 of progressive policy goals and deep, deep anti 00:32:32.809 --> 00:32:36.029 -corporate skepticism. On policy, he's solidly 00:32:36.029 --> 00:32:38.170 progressive, a big supporter of Medicare for 00:32:38.170 --> 00:32:40.069 All. Right. He's backed Universal Single Pairs 00:32:40.069 --> 00:32:42.730 since at least 2011, argues health care is very 00:32:42.730 --> 00:32:45.470 right. He also slammed the American Medical Association, 00:32:45.630 --> 00:32:48.089 the AMA, called them a powerful lobby that blocked 00:32:48.089 --> 00:32:51.039 real reform before the ACA. But then comes the 00:32:51.039 --> 00:32:53.279 skepticism, especially when he talks about corporate 00:32:53.279 --> 00:32:55.559 influence on our health. He has this profound 00:32:55.559 --> 00:32:57.819 distaste for Big Pharma, for the whole healthcare 00:32:57.819 --> 00:33:00.480 industry complex, argues they basically profit 00:33:00.480 --> 00:33:02.839 from people made sick by other corporations pushing 00:33:02.839 --> 00:33:05.460 unhealthy processed food. He specifically calls 00:33:05.460 --> 00:33:07.799 out high fructose corn syrup all the time. He 00:33:07.799 --> 00:33:10.359 has a very strong personal theory. about what 00:33:10.359 --> 00:33:12.420 causes illness, doesn't it? Oh, yeah. He argues 00:33:12.420 --> 00:33:14.720 something like 90 % of illness in America is 00:33:14.720 --> 00:33:17.119 simply because people eat shit. And the answer 00:33:17.119 --> 00:33:20.059 isn't another pill. It's lifestyle change, nutrition. 00:33:20.759 --> 00:33:23.480 That anti -big pharma, pro -natural health stance 00:33:23.480 --> 00:33:26.160 is a huge part of his public persona. But this 00:33:26.160 --> 00:33:28.319 personal belief system has also led to one of 00:33:28.319 --> 00:33:32.000 his most persistent and maybe most damaging controversies, 00:33:32.420 --> 00:33:36.200 his views on vaccines. Vaccine skepticism. Yeah. 00:33:36.519 --> 00:33:38.480 Critics, including respected doctors, prominent 00:33:38.480 --> 00:33:40.480 skeptics like David Gorski, Stephen Novella, 00:33:40.559 --> 00:33:43.019 they've widely called him anti -science, said 00:33:43.019 --> 00:33:44.980 he's potentially endangering public health. This 00:33:44.980 --> 00:33:47.299 really flared up around his criticism of the 00:33:47.299 --> 00:33:50.319 H1N1 flu vaccine and his speculation about a 00:33:50.319 --> 00:33:52.920 link between vaccines and autism, a link thoroughly 00:33:52.920 --> 00:33:55.160 debunked by science. So what's his actual defense? 00:33:55.240 --> 00:33:57.240 How does he push back against being called anti 00:33:57.240 --> 00:34:00.049 -science? He clarifies. He says, I'm not a germ 00:34:00.049 --> 00:34:03.049 theory denier. He says he believes vaccines can 00:34:03.049 --> 00:34:06.430 work points to polio as a success, but he questions 00:34:06.430 --> 00:34:09.250 the necessity of, say, constant flu shots for 00:34:09.250 --> 00:34:12.199 generally healthy people in LA. argues the focus 00:34:12.199 --> 00:34:14.699 should be on high -risk groups or kids in the 00:34:14.699 --> 00:34:17.139 developing world who truly lack immunity. And 00:34:17.139 --> 00:34:19.559 during COVID. He promoted the lab leak theory 00:34:19.559 --> 00:34:22.039 pretty early on, and he frequently characterized 00:34:22.039 --> 00:34:24.900 media coverage of the pandemic as panic porn, 00:34:25.119 --> 00:34:28.000 driven by some kind of agenda. Still very skeptical 00:34:28.000 --> 00:34:30.260 of the mainstream narrative. On a related note, 00:34:30.380 --> 00:34:32.500 though, we have to mention his consistent advocacy 00:34:32.500 --> 00:34:35.219 for cannabis, which he sees as rational health 00:34:35.219 --> 00:34:37.619 policy. Absolutely. He's an open user, has a 00:34:37.619 --> 00:34:39.739 medical card, and as we mentioned, literally 00:34:39.739 --> 00:34:42.010 credits selling pot. with funding his start in 00:34:42.010 --> 00:34:45.210 comedy. His advisory roles at Norenfellow and 00:34:45.210 --> 00:34:48.210 the Marijuana Policy Project just reinforce that 00:34:48.210 --> 00:34:50.710 libertarian stance on personal choice regarding 00:34:50.710 --> 00:34:53.030 cannabis. It's important, though, to distinguish 00:34:53.030 --> 00:34:56.309 his vaccine skepticism from his views on bigger, 00:34:56.429 --> 00:34:58.769 more outlandish conspiracy theories, right? Yeah. 00:34:58.769 --> 00:35:00.969 He's generally a fierce critic of large -scale 00:35:00.969 --> 00:35:03.690 fabricated conspiracies. He famously threw 9 00:35:03.690 --> 00:35:06.389 -11 truthers out of his audience back in 2007. 00:35:06.710 --> 00:35:09.570 He consistently mocks QAnon. But here's that 00:35:09.570 --> 00:35:12.079 tension again. He did defend Alex Jones's right 00:35:12.079 --> 00:35:14.039 to speak after Jones got banned from Twitter, 00:35:14.519 --> 00:35:17.579 said, everybody gets to speak. That free expression 00:35:17.579 --> 00:35:20.019 principle often seems to override his personal 00:35:20.019 --> 00:35:22.480 dislike of the content, even extreme content. 00:35:22.840 --> 00:35:25.880 Hashtag, hashtag, see gender, sexuality and WGA 00:35:25.880 --> 00:35:28.500 strike. All right, shifting to more recent cultural 00:35:28.500 --> 00:35:31.300 battlegrounds, Maher has been consistently critical 00:35:31.300 --> 00:35:33.800 of the hashtag Me Too movement, described it 00:35:33.800 --> 00:35:36.940 back in 2018 as a form of McCarthyism. McCarthyism, 00:35:37.059 --> 00:35:39.280 how so? He argued the movement often blurred 00:35:39.280 --> 00:35:41.960 the lines, conflating serious abuse with much 00:35:41.960 --> 00:35:44.019 more minor offenses. He defended people like 00:35:44.019 --> 00:35:46.500 Chris Matthews, downplayed allegations against 00:35:46.500 --> 00:35:49.219 Al Franken, suggested some accusations had political 00:35:49.219 --> 00:35:51.820 motives. He worried about due process. He supports 00:35:51.820 --> 00:35:53.900 traditional progressive views on sexuality, though, 00:35:54.000 --> 00:35:56.360 like same -sex marriage. But his commentary on 00:35:56.360 --> 00:35:59.199 transgender issues has become a major ideological 00:35:59.199 --> 00:36:01.639 battlefront for him lately. Huge controversy 00:36:01.639 --> 00:36:04.280 generator. He stated that the rapid increase 00:36:04.280 --> 00:36:07.079 in people identifying as LGBT is partly because 00:36:07.079 --> 00:36:09.699 it's become trendy. And he referred to puberty 00:36:09.699 --> 00:36:12.079 blockers and gender -affirming care for young 00:36:12.079 --> 00:36:15.039 people as literally experimenting on children. 00:36:15.159 --> 00:36:18.119 Which drew fire from groups like Gila Dead. Strong 00:36:18.119 --> 00:36:20.889 criticism. Guilherme pointed to the consensus 00:36:20.889 --> 00:36:23.289 from major medical groups supporting gender affirming 00:36:23.289 --> 00:36:26.150 care. But Mars dug in. He maintains Democrats 00:36:26.150 --> 00:36:28.389 are setting themselves up for political disaster, 00:36:28.630 --> 00:36:31.190 says they'll lose every election unless they 00:36:31.190 --> 00:36:33.449 moderate their stance on trans issues and ban 00:36:33.449 --> 00:36:36.170 gender affirming care for minors. He also seemed 00:36:36.170 --> 00:36:38.869 to align with conservatives on sex education 00:36:38.869 --> 00:36:41.030 in schools. Yeah, he defended the Republican 00:36:41.030 --> 00:36:43.150 push in Florida for that Parental Rights and 00:36:43.150 --> 00:36:45.510 Education Act, the one critics called Don't Say 00:36:45.510 --> 00:36:48.210 Gay. He argued that very young children shouldn't 00:36:48.210 --> 00:36:50.989 be focused on sex and that liberals were confusing 00:36:50.989 --> 00:36:53.469 basic parental rights with pushing a specific 00:36:53.469 --> 00:36:56.090 cultural agenda. Again, adopting a conservative 00:36:56.090 --> 00:36:58.110 position where he feels the left has gone too 00:36:58.110 --> 00:37:00.409 far, become irrational. OK, finally, in this 00:37:00.409 --> 00:37:02.309 section, let's look at the twenty twenty three 00:37:02.309 --> 00:37:05.630 writers guild strike that directly impacted his 00:37:05.630 --> 00:37:08.289 own show real time. It seemed like a perfect 00:37:08.289 --> 00:37:10.769 clash of his principles. It really was a fascinating 00:37:10.769 --> 00:37:13.369 moment, showed some internal contradiction. He 00:37:13.369 --> 00:37:15.550 initially got slammed for comments he made on 00:37:15.550 --> 00:37:18.269 Club Random, said writers are not Not Oda Living, 00:37:18.690 --> 00:37:22.369 called some WGA demands kooky, that was his libertarian 00:37:22.369 --> 00:37:25.309 maybe anti -union streak showing. But he did 00:37:25.309 --> 00:37:28.030 walk that back a bit. Or clarify. He did clarify 00:37:28.030 --> 00:37:30.730 later. Said he supported the spirit of the strike. 00:37:30.969 --> 00:37:33.409 acknowledged writers had legitimate gripes about 00:37:33.409 --> 00:37:36.130 pay in the streaming age. But he stuck to his 00:37:36.130 --> 00:37:38.710 criticism of demands he saw as micromanaging 00:37:38.710 --> 00:37:41.510 creativity, like mandating writer room sizes. 00:37:41.889 --> 00:37:43.989 And his attempt to restart the show during the 00:37:43.989 --> 00:37:45.969 strike. Yeah, his plan to bring back real time 00:37:45.969 --> 00:37:48.110 without the written parts monologue. New rules 00:37:48.110 --> 00:37:50.750 was met with immediate WGA protests outside the 00:37:50.750 --> 00:37:52.889 studio. He ended up postponing the return until 00:37:52.889 --> 00:37:55.289 the strike was settled. Suggests that in the 00:37:55.289 --> 00:37:57.230 end, the practical reality of needing writers 00:37:57.230 --> 00:37:59.750 maybe superseded his ideological stance on some 00:37:59.750 --> 00:38:03.860 of their demands. Alright, just to quickly round 00:38:03.860 --> 00:38:06.760 out the profile. His personal life seems to mirror 00:38:06.760 --> 00:38:09.380 that independent anti -institutional philosophy 00:38:09.380 --> 00:38:12.360 he espouses. Very much so. He's famously never 00:38:12.360 --> 00:38:15.320 married. And his quote explaining why really 00:38:15.320 --> 00:38:22.219 says it all. He clearly values his Datchler independence. 00:38:22.460 --> 00:38:24.400 Although there was that high -profile lawsuit. 00:38:24.739 --> 00:38:26.960 Right, the palimony suit from Coco Johnson back 00:38:26.960 --> 00:38:29.980 in 2005 alleging broken promises of marriage 00:38:29.980 --> 00:38:32.840 kids. It was eventually dismissed. His dating 00:38:32.840 --> 00:38:35.239 history also includes Cara Santa Maria, the science 00:38:35.239 --> 00:38:37.800 educator and fellow skeptic. That relationship 00:38:37.800 --> 00:38:41.219 kind of reflects his interest in rational, skeptical 00:38:41.219 --> 00:38:43.260 thinking. And a quick sports note, he owned a 00:38:43.260 --> 00:38:44.920 piece of the New York Mets for a while. Yeah, 00:38:45.059 --> 00:38:47.940 a small minority stake, sold it in 2020, apparently 00:38:47.940 --> 00:38:50.280 tripled his investment. So a savvy businessman, 00:38:50.579 --> 00:38:53.179 too. Hashtag tag outro. OK, we have reached the 00:38:53.179 --> 00:38:56.460 end of our deep dive into Bill Maher. We've traced 00:38:56.460 --> 00:38:58.900 him from, you know, that ambitious comic -selling 00:38:58.900 --> 00:39:01.340 pot to get through Cornell all the way to this 00:39:01.340 --> 00:39:04.460 television institution whose entire career is 00:39:04.460 --> 00:39:07.340 defined by his willingness to challenge power, 00:39:07.659 --> 00:39:09.920 challenge hypocrisy, wherever he thinks he sees 00:39:09.920 --> 00:39:13.889 it, left, right, religion, healthcare. nothing's 00:39:13.889 --> 00:39:16.170 off limits. And that common thread we were looking 00:39:16.170 --> 00:39:19.050 for, it seems to be this relentless commitment 00:39:19.050 --> 00:39:22.010 to skepticism and to what he defines as classical 00:39:22.010 --> 00:39:25.070 liberal principles, free speech, equality, separation 00:39:25.070 --> 00:39:27.590 of church and state, paired with this really 00:39:27.590 --> 00:39:30.469 profound, almost visceral disdain for conformity, 00:39:30.630 --> 00:39:33.969 for groupthink, for those he dismisses as woke 00:39:33.969 --> 00:39:36.650 nonsense peddlers. He's not loyal to a party. 00:39:36.849 --> 00:39:38.969 He seems loyal only to this self -appointed role 00:39:38.969 --> 00:39:41.929 as the same person fighting dogma on all fronts. 00:39:42.070 --> 00:39:44.820 Yeah. His career has been this one long sustained, 00:39:44.900 --> 00:39:47.599 often very loud political conversation and often 00:39:47.599 --> 00:39:50.639 felt like a necessary irritant, maybe a counterweight 00:39:50.639 --> 00:39:52.559 to the political establishment on both sides. 00:39:53.300 --> 00:39:55.699 So given his stated plan to stop doing standup 00:39:55.699 --> 00:39:58.940 soon and the launch of Club Random Studios, this 00:39:58.940 --> 00:40:01.539 new network dedicated to discussing everything 00:40:01.539 --> 00:40:04.380 except politics, we have to leave you with a 00:40:04.380 --> 00:40:07.119 final provocative thought. What does this potential 00:40:07.119 --> 00:40:10.039 shift really mean? moving away from the nightly 00:40:10.039 --> 00:40:12.719 political fights into less confrontational, less 00:40:12.719 --> 00:40:15.699 timely formats. Does it suggest something about 00:40:15.699 --> 00:40:19.139 the future of political satire itself in America? 00:40:19.400 --> 00:40:21.860 Is the most successful voice of political skepticism 00:40:21.860 --> 00:40:24.059 basically checking out of the daily news cycle? 00:40:24.659 --> 00:40:27.099 Is he maybe acknowledging that the American political 00:40:27.099 --> 00:40:29.480 conversation has just become too polarized, maybe 00:40:29.480 --> 00:40:32.199 too irrational, or just too exhausting to even 00:40:32.199 --> 00:40:34.469 satirize effectively anymore? And if he is stepping 00:40:34.469 --> 00:40:37.349 back from that fight, what kind of new knowledge, 00:40:37.590 --> 00:40:39.690 what different philosophical insights will he 00:40:39.690 --> 00:40:42.190 be trying to explore when he deliberately limits 00:40:42.190 --> 00:40:45.010 himself to discussing everything except politics? 00:40:45.650 --> 00:40:47.530 What's left when you take the politics out of 00:40:47.530 --> 00:40:49.369 Bill Maher? Something for you to think about.