Unintentional Irony

[Guest MikeSC]

TAMPA - Legendary reporter Carl Bernstein riffed Thursday night about President Bush, the Martha Stewart trial, the war in Iraq and his affection for Florida.

 

But mostly he talked about an epidemic that troubles him deeply these days. He calls it "the triumph of idiot culture."

 

Speaking to a crowd of about 200 at the Wyndham Westshore, he placed most of the blame on modern media outlets.

 

Bernstein, the former Washington Post journalist who, along with fellow reporter Bob Woodward, unearthed the Watergate scandal that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon, said much of today's news has deteriorated into gossip, sensationalism and manufactured controversy.

 

That type of news panders to the public and insults their intelligence, ignoring the context of real life, he said. Good journalism, Bernstein said, "should challenge people, not just mindlessly amuse them."

 

He said the modern press lacks true leadership, citing such examples as AOL Time Warner and mogul Rupert Murdoch as media owners that have increasingly abandoned the principles of meaningful reporting.

 

"Their interest in truth is secondary to their interest in huge profits," Bernstein said.

 

Still, he said people can change that trend by exploring the Internet and piecing together from reputable sources their own news about important world matters.

 

He offered another solution to avoiding the trash that fills the airwaves: "Change the damn channel. Simple."

 

Bernstein also turned his attention Thursday to the coming election, calling President Bush "the most radical president of my lifetime and perhaps in the century."

 

Bernstein said Bush "is radical in every degree," from a favoritism of the wealthy to a pre-emptive foreign policy to a lack of concern for civil rights.

 

"He certainly seems more ideological than any of our presidents," Bernstein said.

 

Even so, Bernstein said he hopes a genuine debate can take place this year about the future of the country, rather than the petty quarrels and meaningless accusations that so often dominate campaign coverage.

 

"Let's move beyond the absurd name-calling and sound bite journalism," he said. "It is our job ... to force a real debate."

 

Try as he might, Bernstein could not escape the ghosts of Watergate, even for one night. A man stood during the post-speech question-and-answer session and asked if Deep Throat, the anonymous source used by Woodward and Bernstein, was a real person.

 

Bernstein smiled and broke into an impression of Nixon, grumbling to an assistant and wondering himself about Deep Throat's identity.

 

"It is one person," Bernstein said, finally. "We did not make it up."

 

And when Deep Throat dies, he said, "We will reveal him."

He opposed an "idiot culture" --- and calls Bush the most radical President of his lifetime and of the century (not really fair, since he's the ONLY President of this century).

 

Man, he beats out LBJ? Reagan?

-=Mike

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

TAMPA - Legendary reporter Carl Bernstein riffed Thursday night about President Bush, the Martha Stewart trial, the war in Iraq and his affection for Florida.

 

But mostly he talked about an epidemic that troubles him deeply these days. He calls it "the triumph of idiot culture."

 

Speaking to a crowd of about 200 at the Wyndham Westshore, he placed most of the blame on modern media outlets.

 

Bernstein, the former Washington Post journalist who, along with fellow reporter Bob Woodward, unearthed the Watergate scandal that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon, said much of today's news has deteriorated into gossip, sensationalism and manufactured controversy.

 

That type of news panders to the public and insults their intelligence, ignoring the context of real life, he said. Good journalism, Bernstein said, "should challenge people, not just mindlessly amuse them."

 

He said the modern press lacks true leadership, citing such examples as AOL Time Warner and mogul Rupert Murdoch as media owners that have increasingly abandoned the principles of meaningful reporting.

 

"Their interest in truth is secondary to their interest in huge profits," Bernstein said.

 

Still, he said people can change that trend by exploring the Internet and piecing together from reputable sources their own news about important world matters.

 

He offered another solution to avoiding the trash that fills the airwaves: "Change the damn channel. Simple."

 

Bernstein also turned his attention Thursday to the coming election, calling President Bush "the most radical president of my lifetime and perhaps in the century."

 

Bernstein said Bush "is radical in every degree," from a favoritism of the wealthy to a pre-emptive foreign policy to a lack of concern for civil rights.

 

"He certainly seems more ideological than any of our presidents," Bernstein said.

 

Even so, Bernstein said he hopes a genuine debate can take place this year about the future of the country, rather than the petty quarrels and meaningless accusations that so often dominate campaign coverage.

 

"Let's move beyond the absurd name-calling and sound bite journalism," he said. "It is our job ... to force a real debate."

 

Try as he might, Bernstein could not escape the ghosts of Watergate, even for one night. A man stood during the post-speech question-and-answer session and asked if Deep Throat, the anonymous source used by Woodward and Bernstein, was a real person.

 

Bernstein smiled and broke into an impression of Nixon, grumbling to an assistant and wondering himself about Deep Throat's identity.

 

"It is one person," Bernstein said, finally. "We did not make it up."

 

And when Deep Throat dies, he said, "We will reveal him."

He opposed an "idiot culture" --- and calls Bush the most radical President of his lifetime and of the century (not really fair, since he's the ONLY President of this century).

 

Man, he beats out LBJ? Reagan?

-=Mike

I believe he meant the twentieth century. It would be sneaky for him to imply the twenty first.

 

I'm ignorant on the history of American politics, so I couldn't give an honest answer, but he doesn't seem to have changed the state of the nation as much as "most radical" would suggest.

 

I always assumed FDR was the greatest president of the twentieth century, and I thought most radical was a part of that since to be the greatest president you have to make some major changes in the country. Correct me if I'm wrong people.

[Ripper 0]

The argument could be made. Not a great one, but it definately could.

 

I can't remember many other presidents that proposed a constitutional admendment to support his personal religious beliefs and when was the last time that the US went to war despite the disagreement of a majority of the world community. Add in his plans for space exploration and the EVIL tax cuts (that one's for you mike) and you got a case.

 

I don't agree, but a argument could be made.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well he right to a certain extent with the media. The media has reduced themselves to nothing more then a tv version of the national enquirer. I don't know how many times "BREAKING NEWS: HERE FIRST!" has scrolled across the screen of ALL OF OUR cable news networks, yet within fifteen minutes it is taken down because it is just another story leading nowhere, or something fabricated extremely.

[Firestarter 0]

the US went to war despite the disagreement of a majority of the world community

Which, of course, is the best and most moral argument for the war.

[NYU 0]

The argument could be made. Not a great one, but it definately could.

 

I can't remember many other presidents that proposed a constitutional admendment to support his personal religious beliefs and when was the last time that the US went to war despite the disagreement of a majority of the world community. Add in his plans for space exploration and the EVIL tax cuts (that one's for you mike) and you got a case.

 

I don't agree, but a argument could be made.

Don't forget the fact that he wants to completely clean up the airwaves, going as far as to request FCC fines to be raised to $500,000 per violation. If anything controversial happens to be broadcast over the radio or basic television, there could be a hellstorm to pay. Add this to the radical tally of President Bush: willing to fine an absurd of money for a controversial topic, or revoke station licenses if said incidents reoccur, despite the fact that it happens to go against the First Amendment and the outrageous "Freedom of Speech" idea.

[Highland 0]

The part about the media fostering an "idiot culture" with what amounts to a near endless stream of intelligence insulting fluff is certainly accurate.

Edited March 19, 2004 by Naibus

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Bernstein also turned his attention Thursday to the coming election, calling President Bush "the most radical president of my lifetime and perhaps in the century."

 

Isn't "radical" usually aimed at left-wingers? I digress.

 

FDR did a few wacky things, too.

 

I'm still waiting for Deep Throat, Mr. Bern (not the movie, Ripper, the source)...

[NYU 0]

FDR did a few wacky things, too.

Well, I don't understand how the "New Deal" - a plan designed with the intentions to bring the country out of a depression - can be compared to creating an amendment with the purpose to ban gay marriage.

 

Although some of FDR's ideas were radical, many were still created with the intention to help the country.

 

How does banning gay marriage and exploring Mars really help those in the United States right now?

[Guest Cerebus]

Well he right to a certain extent with the media. The media has reduced themselves to nothing more then a tv version of the national enquirer. I don't know how many times "BREAKING NEWS: HERE FIRST!" has scrolled across the screen of ALL OF OUR cable news networks, yet within fifteen minutes it is taken down because it is just another story leading nowhere, or something fabricated extremely.

That's why I have stopped watching all tv news except for Bill Shneider and the sunday morning talk shows (and occasionaly News Hour on OMGPBSPUBLICTELEVISIONTOOMANYJOKESTOINCLUDEINONELINE LOL 2004!)

[Guest MD2020]

FDR did a few wacky things, too.

Well, I don't understand how the "New Deal" - a plan designed with the intentions to bring the country out of a depression - can be compared to creating an amendment with the purpose to ban gay marriage.

 

Although some of FDR's ideas were radical, many were still created with the intention to help the country.

 

How does banning gay marriage and exploring Mars really help those in the United States right now?

Please let me know when Bush starts packing the Supreme Court in order to have gay marriage ruled unconstitutional.

 

 

I like FDR, but the guy did try to abuse his power.

[NYU 0]

FDR did a few wacky things, too.

Well, I don't understand how the "New Deal" - a plan designed with the intentions to bring the country out of a depression - can be compared to creating an amendment with the purpose to ban gay marriage.

 

Although some of FDR's ideas were radical, many were still created with the intention to help the country.

 

How does banning gay marriage and exploring Mars really help those in the United States right now?

Please let me know when Bush starts packing the Supreme Court in order to have gay marriage ruled unconstitutional.

 

 

I like FDR, but the guy did try to abuse his power.

Do you mean......after Bush carefully handpicks a new Justice that would vote against abortion, thus making it illegal in this country? Because, as you must know, that is the plan. And with a razor-thin 5-4 vote last time on abortion, an alternate Supreme Court Justice could have an incredibly large effect on whether or not abortions remain legal, or a woman must go back to using a coat hanger in an underground doctor's office.

 

The plan is already for Bush to appoint a new Justice that would make abortion illegal. What's to say this new Justice wouldn't be against gay marriage as well?

[Guest MikeSC]

FDR did a few wacky things, too.

Well, I don't understand how the "New Deal" - a plan designed with the intentions to bring the country out of a depression - can be compared to creating an amendment with the purpose to ban gay marriage.

 

Although some of FDR's ideas were radical, many were still created with the intention to help the country.

 

How does banning gay marriage and exploring Mars really help those in the United States right now?

Well, when some of his bills were rejected by the Supreme Court, he wanted to simply add more supportive justices to pass all of his agenda.

Do you mean......after Bush carefully handpicks a new Justice that would vote against abortion, thus making it illegal in this country? Because, as you must know, that is the plan.

And it's LESS radical than packing the Court --- or allowing abortion to remain legal simply because a majority of justices like it?

And with a razor-thin 5-4 vote last time on abortion, an alternate Supreme Court Justice could have an incredibly large effect on whether or not abortions remain legal, or a woman must go back to using a coat hanger in an underground doctor's office.

World of difference between a President exercising his Constitutional power to appoint judges and a President deciding that if a branch of the gov't doesn't agree with him sufficiently, he'll simply add enough members gto the branch to swing it to his side.

The plan is already for Bush to appoint a new Justice that would make abortion illegal. What's to say this new Justice wouldn't be against gay marriage as well?

So, Bush would appoint a judge who wouldn't require states to do something that a majority of Americans oppose?

 

DAMN HIM!

-=Mike

[snuffbox 0]

FDR did a few wacky things, too.

Well, I don't understand how the "New Deal" - a plan designed with the intentions to bring the country out of a depression - can be compared to creating an amendment with the purpose to ban gay marriage.

 

Although some of FDR's ideas were radical, many were still created with the intention to help the country.

 

How does banning gay marriage and exploring Mars really help those in the United States right now?

'Evil-doers on Mars'

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

So, Bush would appoint a judge who wouldn't require states to do something that a majority of Americans oppose?

 

DAMN HIM!

-=Mike

 

As everyone has said ad nauseum...

 

The majority of Americans opposed Brown v. Board of Education, too. Should we resegregate, Mike?

[NYU 0]

The plan is already for Bush to appoint a new Justice that would make abortion illegal. What's to say this new Justice wouldn't be against gay marriage as well?

So, Bush would appoint a judge who wouldn't require states to do something that a majority of Americans oppose?

 

DAMN HIM!

-=Mike

Don't believe the hype.

 

From CBS.com

(AP) A majority of Americans support abortion rights, but that support is highest when a woman's life or health is in danger or there is evidence the baby will be physically or mentally impaired, recent polls suggest.

 

Public support for abortion rights wanes in later stages of the pregnancy and when abortion is chosen because the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child.

 

More than six in 10 in a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press said they oppose the Supreme Court completely overturning the high court's decision 30 years ago allowing legal abortions. That number has been essentially unchanged for more than a decade.

 

But public support for abortion rights varies considerably, depending on the circumstances.

 

Nearly six in 10 in a Gallup poll, 57 percent, said abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances. A quarter said abortions should be legal in any circumstances.

 

Here are some examples of public support for abortion rights in different circumstances, according to the Gallup poll:

 

85 percent support abortion rights when the woman's life is endangered.

 

77 percent support abortion rights when the woman's health is endangered.

 

76 percent support abortion rights when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest.

 

55 percent support abortion rights when there is evidence the baby's physical or mental health may be impaired.

 

35 percent support abortion rights when the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child.

 

The Pew poll of 1,218 adults was taken Jan. 8-12 and the Gallup poll of 1,002 adults was taken Jan. 10-12. Both have error margins of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

 

 

© MMIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

 

Not all Americans disapprove of abortion. Certainly not enough that it should be completely overturned.

 

And this case, President Bush would actually be taking AWAY a right from the people. It's a guarantee that if abortion became illegal, there would be many more dangerous backdoor abortions that could then put the mother's life in danger as well. Then, if that's the result, why would it be done? The people that would have abortions are STILL going to be having abortions - only in a more dangerous way. Religion is fine if Bush wishes to honor it, but his religion is starting to dictate the policy of this country and the rights that U.S. citizens have......and that's where it's becoming a major problem.

[Firestarter 0]

You're all such bullshitters. The President's nominees to the bench have proved time and time again that they do not legislate their personal beliefs, which is more than can be said for most liberal judges. Bill Pryor himself ordered Roy Moore to remove the Ten Commandments monument because it was against the law - and he's one of the people you cretins try to paint as a raving right-wing Christian fundamentalist. Several of the President's other nominees have ruled in favour of abortion proponents - when the law and the facts favoured them. The simple fact is that liberals try to set social policy by imposing judicial decrees on unwilling citizens, as in Roe vs Wade. Conservatives do the same (though to a lesser extent), as in the case of Roy Moore. Constructionalists, such as every last one of the President's nominees, do neither. They strictly interpret the words of the Constitution, consider the facts, and apply the law. They refuse to make up new laws, and they send flawed ones back to the legislatures. And that, in case you've forgotten, is precisely what judges are SUPPOSED to do.

 

Claiming that a person is unfit to be a judge simply because he or she personally disagrees with abortion is nonsense on stilts.

[BUTT 0]

I think he meant gay marriage.

[Justice 0]

The plan is already for Bush to appoint a new Justice that would make abortion illegal. What's to say this new Justice wouldn't be against gay marriage as well?

So, Bush would appoint a judge who wouldn't require states to do something that a majority of Americans oppose?

 

DAMN HIM!

-=Mike

Don't believe the hype.

 

From CBS.com

(AP) A majority of Americans support abortion rights, but that support is highest when a woman's life or health is in danger or there is evidence the baby will be physically or mentally impaired, recent polls suggest.

 

Public support for abortion rights wanes in later stages of the pregnancy and when abortion is chosen because the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child.

 

More than six in 10 in a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press said they oppose the Supreme Court completely overturning the high court's decision 30 years ago allowing legal abortions. That number has been essentially unchanged for more than a decade.

 

But public support for abortion rights varies considerably, depending on the circumstances.

 

Nearly six in 10 in a Gallup poll, 57 percent, said abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances. A quarter said abortions should be legal in any circumstances.

 

Here are some examples of public support for abortion rights in different circumstances, according to the Gallup poll:

 

85 percent support abortion rights when the woman's life is endangered.

 

77 percent support abortion rights when the woman's health is endangered.

 

76 percent support abortion rights when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest.

 

55 percent support abortion rights when there is evidence the baby's physical or mental health may be impaired.

 

35 percent support abortion rights when the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child.

 

The Pew poll of 1,218 adults was taken Jan. 8-12 and the Gallup poll of 1,002 adults was taken Jan. 10-12. Both have error margins of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

 

 

© MMIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

 

Not all Americans disapprove of abortion. Certainly not enough that it should be completely overturned.

 

And this case, President Bush would actually be taking AWAY a right from the people. It's a guarantee that if abortion became illegal, there would be many more dangerous backdoor abortions that could then put the mother's life in danger as well. Then, if that's the result, why would it be done? The people that would have abortions are STILL going to be having abortions - only in a more dangerous way. Religion is fine if Bush wishes to honor it, but his religion is starting to dictate the policy of this country and the rights that U.S. citizens have......and that's where it's becoming a major problem.

... Those polls really don't help you. I mean, 35% support it when the family can't support the child, which is EXTREMELY low. A majority are okay in cases of rape or incest, but that's mainly common sense. And don't even say "Well, not to Right-to-Lifers!" B.S. because for every one of them there is a person who supports choice without any sort of restriction, which is easily just as dumb. Abortion is about 50%, give or take 5% on either side when you are just straight up asking the question as "Do you support Abortion or not?" When you start to throw in variables, you'll easily get different results. I mean, I'm sure that more that 35% of Americans support abortion, just as less than 85% support it. Get some sense, man.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Bill Pryor himself ordered Roy Moore to remove the Ten Commandments monument because it was against the law - and he's one of the people you cretins try to paint as a raving right-wing Christian fundamentalist.

But Pryor said, when questioned by Democrat Senators, that he wouldn't take his kids to Disney World on Gay Day. He was actually asked this during a nomination hearing. What an extremist.

 

Oh, and regarding FDR – Sure he’s the father of many of our failed social experiments, but I still like him. I shudder to think what would have happened had a modern-day politician (99% of them anyway) been in charge during the Depression and WWII.

 

This just got me thinking. If W. was in charge of the White House back then, what would have his enemies calld him? I mean, Hitler was alive and we really didn't know all of what he was doing, so calling him "Hitler" really wouldn't have been an option...

[Guest MikeSC]

So, Bush would appoint a judge who wouldn't require states to do something that a majority of Americans oppose?

 

DAMN HIM!

-=Mike

 

As everyone has said ad nauseum...

 

The majority of Americans opposed Brown v. Board of Education, too. Should we resegregate, Mike?

Hate to break it to you, but gay marriage isn't quite the same thing.

Not all Americans disapprove of abortion. Certainly not enough that it should be completely overturned.

I was actually referring to gay marriage there.

And this case, President Bush would actually be taking AWAY a right from the people.

A right that, and let's be honest here, doesn't actually exist. The Court pulled it out of thin air.

It's a guarantee that if abortion became illegal, there would be many more dangerous backdoor abortions that could then put the mother's life in danger as well.

Well, heck, then let's legalize it for that reason.

 

People also share dirty needles, so hospitals should ALSO give out heroin for free, too.

Then, if that's the result, why would it be done? The people that would have abortions are STILL going to be having abortions - only in a more dangerous way. Religion is fine if Bush wishes to honor it, but his religion is starting to dictate the policy of this country and the rights that U.S. citizens have......and that's where it's becoming a major problem.

As has been pointed out, pro-life judges manage to set THEIR preferences aside and not change laws on a whim.

 

Funny how liberal judges seem incapable of doing the same.

-=Mike

 

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Bill Pryor himself ordered Roy Moore to remove the Ten Commandments monument because it was against the law - and he's one of the people you cretins try to paint as a raving right-wing Christian fundamentalist.

But Pryor said, when questioned by Democrat Senators, that he wouldn't take his kids to Disney World on Gay Day. He was actually asked this during a nomination hearing. What an extremist.

 

Oh, and regarding FDR – Sure he’s the father of many of our failed social experiments, but I still like him. I shudder to think what would have happened had a modern-day politician (99% of them anyway) been in charge during the Depression and WWII.

 

This just got me thinking. If W. was in charge of the White House back then, what would have his enemies calld him? I mean, Hitler was alive and we really didn't know all of what he was doing, so calling him "Hitler" really wouldn't have been an option...

Well, if he was like FDR, probably a Jew whose wife is a lesbian who is going to Russia to learn unspeakable sexual acts.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

All Bush and FDR have in common is that they practically destroy the Constitution in the name of security.

 

Otherwise, Bush is a guy who probably has good intentions but has gone about almost everything the wrong way.

[Guest MikeSC]

All Bush and FDR have in common is that they practically destroy the Constitution in the name of security.

 

Otherwise, Bush is a guy who probably has good intentions but has gone about almost everything the wrong way.

I could mention that, in the long run, FDR's policies didn't work either (He didn't end the Depression, that's for sure) and left us with an economic boondoggle in Social Security that nobody is willing to touch.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Yes, but Bush has never met a spending bill he wasn't willing to sign.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yes, but Bush has never met a spending bill he wasn't willing to sign.

I'm not aware I ever defended Bush's spending.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Hate to break it to you, but gay marriage isn't quite the same thing.

 

Sure, it's a different issue. However, you're using lack of public support to condemn the courts, and that's utterly ridiculous. That body isn't reliant on public support, it's reliant on the Constitution. If you believe that gay marriage is against the spirit of the constitution, that's one thing, but your argument that public support has to be on the side of the courts for them to make a ruling is utterly dumb.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Part of what would make Bush "extreme" (no idea if Bernstein included this or not when making his observation) is not just him but his administration. Take Reagan for instance: is he more or less "extreme" than Bush? Probably depends on your opinion. But for example, Bush's gaggle of neo-cons in the Pentagon is, IMO, far more extreme than Weinberger and his crew were, and this ends up ultimately rubbing off on Bush. I don't think you can make a comment about any president without it ultimately being a comment as much on their whole administration than them personally.

[Guest MikeSC]

Hate to break it to you, but gay marriage isn't quite the same thing.

 

Sure, it's a different issue. However, you're using lack of public support to condemn the courts, and that's utterly ridiculous. That body isn't reliant on public support, it's reliant on the Constitution. If you believe that gay marriage is against the spirit of the constitution, that's one thing, but your argument that public support has to be on the side of the courts for them to make a ruling is utterly dumb.

You're correct --- but how is it "extreme" to oppose something most people oppose? I didn't say it should be outlawed because it's unpopular. It should be outlawed because there is no legal justification for it.

 

What "rights" are denied? Homosexuals can't have long-term committed relationships right now?

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Part of what would make Bush "extreme" (no idea if Bernstein included this or not when making his observation) is not just him but his administration. Take Reagan for instance: is he more or less "extreme" than Bush? Probably depends on your opinion. But for example, Bush's gaggle of neo-cons in the Pentagon is, IMO, far more extreme than Weinberger and his crew were, and this ends up ultimately rubbing off on Bush. I don't think you can make a comment about any president without it ultimately being a comment as much on their whole administration than them personally.

And what is so "extreme" about his Pentgaon staff? And when did the "neocons" become the bogeymen of the left?

 

Does that mean Karl Rove is no longer your anti-Christ?

-=Mike