Colbert New Comic-in-Chief

scottzak writes "Hail to the Chief! Stephen Colbert addressed the White House Correspondents Dinner Saturday (attended by the President, the elite of Washington politics, and the White House Press Corps) and told the truth. Jaws dropped. Eyes popped. The live audience gasped. Scalia laughed his ass off. You want to see a brilliant comic display some real courage? Look no further. Enjoy the reaction shots, and Colbert's audition for Press Secretary job." The BBC covers the act just prior to Mr. Colbert's, where the President and a look-alike took turns making fun of his speaking skills.

Comments

Poor Colbert?

[crazyjeremy]

I find it odd that the only people in politics that "say it how it is" can be found on the comedy channel. It's almost... funny.

What's sad is, once he does say it how it is, he loses the room...

Re:Poor Colbert?

[Anonymous Coward]

When there's more news content on Colbert/Daily Show than on the evening newscast, which is more dead, journalism or irony?

Re:Poor Colbert?

[hviezda14]

Well, I wonder when politics in our country will make fun of them self, anyway we are going to have elections soon, so the campaign is fun, but I hope people will not vote because of billboards, www.freso.sk

Re:Poor Colbert?

[Yst]

I think Jon Stewart and Tucker Carlson cut to the heart of the matter in their famous exchange. Namely, when Carlson seemed to attempt to challenge Stewart on the basis of the contention that his comedy show had journalistic standards no better than those of mainstream journalism:

CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?

STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls. What is wrong with you?

and

STEWART: If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome to ... If that's your goal ... I wouldn't aim for us. I'd aim for "Seinfeld." That's a very good show.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[piper-noiter]

Actually no. Witty satire has often been an important part of exposing the public to political movements. (I've always been a fan of G.K. Chesterton) Your comment reminds me of a recent Article by ol' Dvorak:

No sense of humor. Today's papers have no collective sense of humor or fun. This is partly because of the [Pulitzer style] J-schools and the need to be "professional." I haven't seen anyone laugh in a newsroom for decades. This may come from political correctness, or perhaps from some public-guardian ego trip. Maybe too many of the people working daily news beats are just duds.

While recently perusing 1950s-era San Francisco Examiner issues, I was shocked to find that the paper was crammed with small and interesting stories, many of which now would go into the reject folder. The paper had real life to it thenlife that is now missing. Let's not blame the Internet for this.

Some of what he said was your basic "good old days" ranting, but lets face it, if you're going to challenge people you've got to amuse them too. It should be a sin to be as boring as the modern news; playing stories that don't offend, don't challenge, and are remarkably similar to the same stories they played last week. You know, the ones that got the big ratings.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[arivanov]

Neither. Reality

By the way, as I am in old foggy Blighty I did not see it, but here is the full transcript: http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/30/1441/59811 .

And all I can say, applause, applause...

Re:Poor Colbert?

[martin100]

if mainstream journalism is terrible, and we are getting our news from it, then shouldnt we be pointing our fingers at ourselves? we have options, and it is our responsibility to educate ourselves, not tucker carlson's. jon stewart did a disservice to us, by furthering the notion that we should hold mainstream media responsible for educating us, and if they don't, they are "hurting america". we are the ones who are responsible for educating ourselves! chewing out carlson just continues the idea that we are not to blame. and with so many options out there for information, shouldnt we blame ourselves if we cant get the whole story? if anyone is "hurting america", it is stewart, for implying that any media source a responsibility to do anything other than report whatever they want. free speech doesnt hurt america. relying on one point of view and holding them responsible does.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[orthogonal]

I find it odd that the only people in politics that "say it how it is" can be found on the comedy channel. It's almost... funny.

There's historic precedent: in Imperial Rome, often the only public criticism of the Emperor came from comedians and satiric poets.

Additional comparisons to Rome after the fall of the Republic are left to brave commentors. (But hint: never-ending Proconsulships in the Middle East, a rubber stamp Senate ignored by the Emperor.)

Re:Poor Colbert?

[g2devi]

Actually, it's an old tradition. Court Jesters ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_jester ) have been able tell the kings things no-one else would dare say, in the guise of comedy for centuries.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[Mr. Slippery]

if anyone is "hurting america", it is stewart, for implying that any media source a responsibility to do anything other than report whatever they want.

Inherently contradictory. If any media source has no responsibility to do anything other than report whatever they want, then as a media source, Jon Stewart has no responsibility to do anything other than report whatever he wants, including the idea that media sources have responsibility to do things other than report whatever they want.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[rolfwind]

Yeah, everybody I know adores the performance, someone even opened a website http://thankyoustephencolbert.org/, but look what I read New York Daily News:

As for the after-dinner entertainment, the conventional wisdom was that Bush killed with his self-mocking routine -- "The President was fantastic," gushed staunch Dem Patricia Duff -- while the hired talent, Comedy Central star Stephen Colbert, bombed badly. "It was an insider crowd, as insider a crowd as you'll ever have, and he didn't do the insider jokes," said BET founder Bob Johnson

WTF?! Bombed? Maybe with the crowd, but he was bloody brilliant. Fucking balls of steel to say what he did with the president a few feet away. Most other comediens would turn on the fake chuminess, "oh schucks, you know I'm just kidding" after every bland joke, and then kiss and make up with old Georgy boy.

WTF is with the NY Daily! Really, every other blogger is praising Colbert like nobody's business.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[rolfwind]

Forgot to link to that stupid NY Daily story:
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/413575p-349 690c.html

Re:Poor Colbert?

[Eli Gottlieb]

Great! I'll catch the next plane to Baghdad to "educate myself". And die in a suicide bombing.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[Malakusen]

The old dinosaurs are jealous. That's my guess.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[The Snowman]

The United States is too large with too many things going on at once for us to educate ourselves. I for one am not about to move to Washington, D.C. and spend my time listening to Congressional briefings, White House press conferences, etc. to hear news from the horse's mouth. I have a family and a job. I rely on the news media to present information to me that I do not have time to collect for myself.

The important thing is to learn how to read and to listen. I read multiple news sources, even the same story (which often is rehashed AP stuff, but can have a different slant). While I am reading I am thinking critically, asking myself questions: sure, the article says point A, but I think there's a valid counterpoint B: what are the facts here? Often enough, by reading carefully from multiple sources, I can piece together the whole picture. Another thing I've noticed is journalists like to slant the first sentence or paragraph heavily, setting the reader up to a particular point of view. Be careful with that. Another thing is often those counterpoints that might just break the whole article are left to the last paragraph. They can claim journalistic integrity by keeping it in there, but this has two effects. First, not everyone reads the whole article. If they do, they get the idea that since it's so far down it isn't important or maybe not even valid.

Don't blame the media for biased reporting, or the people for not speaking up. Blame people who trust blindly and don't learn proper communication skills. Reading and listening are far more important than writing and speaking, and in some ways, far more difficult.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[chazwurth]

Shakespeare nailed this one: the fool is the only person in the room who can say the truth about what's really going on. This is exactly the same. If a news anchor got up and gave a performance like Colbert's, s/he'd be dangerous. But when the funny man gets on stage and heckles the king, it's expected.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[deanj]

I think you've answered your own question. Look at the main (and by that I mean, popularly known) liberal voices (Al Franken, Michael Moore, etc). Those are labeled comedy, and are put in the humor section of bookstores. They're considered "parody".

There's a good reason for that. You can't get sued for "parody".

Re:Poor Colbert?

[The Clockwork Troll]

Certainly not self-pithy.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[rk]

No mod points, either... so I friended him.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[maxume]

When all you have to choose from is dancing monkeys, all choosing does is produce better dancing monkeys.

Carlson started the whole thing by wearing a bowtie, err, asking Stewart if Stewart had a responsibility to ask real questions. It was perfectly appropriate for Stewart to point out that that was Tucker's job and ask why he wasn't doing it.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[dubl-u]

we are the ones who are responsible for educating ourselves!

This is true.

chewing out carlson just continues the idea that we are not to blame. [...] if anyone is "hurting america", it is stewart, for implying that any media source a responsibility to do anything other than report whatever they want.

That's ridiculous. The Crossfire guys weren't presenting themselves as entertainers; they were allegedly trying to do a serious political show. However, Stewart's critique was that it was fake journalism, a hypocritical farce. I grant that consumers should eat Doritos responsibly, but that doesn't mean that Frito Lay can say that they fill your fruits and vegetables requirement.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[blue.strider]

Don't forget, if your apendix goes out in flames, you ought to educate yourself and learn some surgery and then perform it on yourself.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[schtum]

Well, they're right. He did outsider jokes. So outsiders, such as ourselves, ate it up while the insiders squirmed uncomfortably in their seats. He basically stood up there and told everyone in the room that they suck at their jobs, and then proved it by providing more insight in 10 minutes of comededic monologue than most of the people in that room have given us in their entire careers.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[cayenne8]

"...but I hope people will not vote because of billboards..."

You know...at this point, what difference will it make? With only the 2 parties...it isn't like we have much a choice. Will be a vote between the lesser of two evils again...and it appears this time it will be an even harder to make choice, since they both are offering such bad candidates...

Re:Poor Colbert?

[Shihar]

WTF?! Bombed? Maybe with the crowd, but he was bloody brilliant. Fucking balls of steel to say what he did with the president a few feet away. Most other comediens would turn on the fake chuminess, "oh schucks, you know I'm just kidding" after every bland joke, and then kiss and make up with old Georgy boy.

That is kind of the point. It might have taken balls of steel, but it wasn't all that funny. I have developed a strong distaste for comedians during politically intense times because comedians seem to be under the delusion that I come to them for political advice.

One of my girlfriend's favorite comedians is Margaret Cho. I like Margaret Cho too, but my girlfriend really loves her. I took her to go see Margaret Cho just before the last election. A comedian that normally has me in tears left me pissed off that I had spent money to get in the door. Hell, it was so bad I wouldn't have seen it for free.

The entire set was a series of Bush jokes. For the first few minutes I chuckled because yes, Bush does act like a fucking idiot more often then not and it is fun to point and laugh at the stupid kid who is trying really hard. After about 3 minutes of it though, I was done. There are only so many ways you can reword "Bush is stupid" before it really stops being funny. To add insult to injury, the already shitty jokes were delivered with absolutely painful mind numblingly bad timing. After about 5 minutes of sitting there I realize that I had just blown 45 bucks for a a shitty drink with no alcohol in it and an anti-Bush rally. Sufficient to say, I was not all that happy.

Watching Colbert at the dinner (w00t C-Span) was like watching Margaret Cho. I tried chuckling the minute or two and then simply gave up. If his goal was to preach, he did a great job. If his goal was to actually be funny, he failed miserably. You could sit there and nod in agreement with his message but still recognize that what he was saying wasn't even a little funny. His timing was absolutely atrocious and the jokes themselves were lame and predictable.

I think people are blowing this out of proportion. People didn't laugh not because they were pissed off, but simply because it wasn't funny.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[pjgeer]

I read multiple news sources, even the same story ... While I am reading I am thinking critically, asking myself questions... Often enough, by reading carefully from multiple sources, I can piece together the whole picture.

What are you doing on Slashdot? I cast thee out!

Re:Poor Colbert?

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States is too large with too many things going on at once for us to educate ourselves.

This is why I consider podcasts so vitally important. Screw music -- if you use an iPod/mp3 player and iTunes/amaroK solely to subscribe to niche-interest but professionally presented podcasts (some of my favorites are NASA, Science Friday, On the Media, etc) describing the less glamorous things happening around the world, you have a fighting chance to educate yourself on the things that are important to you. You can press 'pause' at various points and think over what you just heard. And in a country where time is tight, you can do this during your work commute.

I think this is so important that I'm burning cd-rw's of podcast playlists for friends who have car cd players, and why any iPod upgrade will come out of my mental 'education' budget and not my 'entertainment' budget.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[prurientknave]

And he should take career advice from a nobody like you because?
 
Or is this post some kind of confessional for you to air your unpopular views safely and without the consequence of people treating you like a social pariah?

Fools got the country into the mess it's in the people looking to get it out of the mess don't need more of the same kind of advice. You can stay the stupid course on your own.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[The Snowman]

This is why I consider podcasts so vitally important.

Podcast and blogs are both important, but they bring their own challenges. First-hand accounts of events are crucial to maintaining our history. For example, we have records of battles in the Civil War. However, we also have first hand accounts from spectators (yes, spectators, just like watching fireworks or a football game) who witnessed the combat. We have financial reports from the Great Depression, plus thousands of articles, letters, memos, journals, etc. from people who lived it first hand. I truly and honestly believe that podcasts and blogs are the current generation of these grass roots journals.

Like anything else, you need corroborating information to get a good picture. Some wacko might write about how financially prosperous he was during the depression, and we know he's full of shit because of the thousands of other people who paint a more bleak picture with their words. In a day and age when news happens quickly and an issue might light up a hundred blogs in the span of hours only to die out by the next morning, we don't necessarily have time to build corroborating evidence and get an accurate picture. However, I think these podcasts, blogs, etc. are crucial in the big picture. While we have mainstream media to report on issues, the little guys help fill in the cracks. They have fewer restrictions and guidelines.

My main gripe is that blogs tend to play off each other. One reports some news, someone else grabs it, adds their two cents, and posts something about it. Generally speaking, if you cut out all the middlemen, there are only one or two primary sources for a particular event in the blog community. That kind of homogeny is not good for news accuracy. As more and more people start blogs and report news as it happens, instead of just rehashing other blogs, we'll have an amazing source of news that grows in response to world events, is accurate, and highly trustworthy.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[cagle_.25]

I for one am not about to move to Washington, D.C. and spend my time listening to Congressional briefings, White House press conferences, etc. to hear news from the horse's mouth. I have a family and a job. I rely on the news media to present information to me that I do not have time to collect for myself ... While I am reading I am thinking critically, asking myself questions: sure, the article says point A, but I think there's a valid counterpoint B: what are the facts here? Often enough, by reading carefully from multiple sources, I can piece together the whole picture.

But why not read from the original sources themselves? It doesn't take *that* much more time to listen to CSPAN radio instead of news or music on the way to work, or to look up actual bills on the appropriate .gov site instead getting the summary from Drudge/CNN/Fox/Kos. I'm very dissatisfied with journalists' "summaries" of news events not simply because of bias but because they seem unable to correctly assess the most important details and communicate them to the public.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[sgt_doom]

Exactly so!

This is exactly why the Fourth Estate is accorded freedom of the press in the US Constitution!!!

This is why the media should not be an entirely corporate McNews endeavor.

[Breaking news: Bush Administration appoints Rush Bimbo new Drug Czar!! (OK, actually new Drug Czarina!!!)]

Re:Poor Colbert?

[sgt_doom]

What's really sad, and most telling, is that Bush couldn't have held that comedy roast down in New Orleans or the Mississippi area.

He needs as much protection today to walk the streets of America as he does to walk the streets of Pakistan (an outer ring of military protection and an inner ring of those draft dodgers from the US Secret Service protecting him).

Re:Poor Colbert?

[sgt_doom]

Don't blame the media for biased reporting?????

Ahhh....yeah, you most certainly do blame the media when there has been an epidemic throughout this country of this administration sending - and news stations showing - phony videos which have been portrayed as real news.

Sounds to me as if you haven't been doing much reading and listening lately, dude!

[The ultimate response to creationism: Intelligent Sex!]

Re:Poor Colbert?

[martin100]

not contradictory.

i am saying stewart (and carlson) has no responsibilty to do anything other than say what he wants, and he is free to hurt america by attempting to mislead us by being wrong about the media's responsibility. the mistake is listening to stewart or crossfire. stewart is incorrect, but that doesnt matter unless we listen to him, which we shouldnt.

i didnt say stewart has any responsibility to be correct, only that we shouldnt listen to crossfire or stewart or hold them responsible for educating us.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[martin100]

crossfire was not marketed as a hard news show, crossfire is a polical arguments show, with opinions, not journalism. one guy presents one side, the other guy yells at him. thats what crossfire is. i don't think they really marketed themselves as anything else. and if they did, so what.

it should be apparent to everyone that if you are making decisions based on facts you heard from jackasses (including stewart) yelling at each other on crossfire, then the problem is yours, not theirs.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[dubl-u]

crossfire was not marketed as a hard news show, crossfire is a polical arguments show, with opinions, not journalism.

This is only partly true. Anybody can have opinions. But when you put a show on a news network with serious politicians, journalists, and writers running it, I think there's some obligation to make it a show with serious content. Crossfire is not and should not be Jerry Springer.

it should be apparent to everyone that if you are making decisions based on facts you heard from jackasses (including stewart) yelling at each other on crossfire, then the problem is yours, not theirs.

Those jackasses, as you call them, include a variety of senators, congressmen, ambassadors, and other political movers and shakers. Given that they are running the country, I want to hear what they have to say, and I want it in an environment where they will answer hard questions, not just spew talking points and stay "on message". European journalists still manage to do this; it's only here that hard questions have apparently become taboo.

Although Crossfire apparently used to be that kind of show, I think we both agree that by the end it wasn't. You think that's fine. John Stewart didn't, and I happen to agree. If you don't like that, then by all means wallow in your talking points. (Or Jerry Springer; I'm not sure which you're promoting here.) There's plenty of that out there.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[martin100]

we do agree that by the end of crossfire's run it wasnt a serious news show. so why not just find something else? it isnt as if there are arent opinions and news spewing out of thousands of different sources every day.

if you and i started show where we yelled at each other, i would resent it if some loser came and told us we are hurting america. we just want to yell at each other, is that so wrong? and if we want some jackass politicians to come on so we can softball them questions, that should be ok with everyone. you want hard journalism, go find it. read whatever you think is noble enough for your needs. nobody is stopping you from finding whatever news sources are up to your standards.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[daigu]

You can't have an informed decision if you don't have the information. Take the NSA wiretap issue, if you didn't know about it at all as the President intended, you wouldn't know to have an opinion on it. The whole point of the press is to bring significant issues to the fore, so we "the people" can hold the government accountable. It's more than reading through slant, it is also having all the relevent information in front of you. Anyone can dictate the conclusion if they can limit the premises.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[Lish]

I think I agree with you, but parsing that sentence is giving me a headache...

Re:Poor Colbert?

[The Snowman]

I do read some of the stuff on Congress' web site, such as debate, voting records, etc. but I don't use that as my primary source. Sometimes I do dig deeper on the important issues, especially stuff like the unPatriotic Act that is a make or break voting issue for me.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[spoco2]

you want hard journalism, go find it

OK, I'm not in America, I'm in Australia, but we have a lot of the same problems with our news coverage.

Give me some examples of good tv journalism, not websites that you have to wade through or the like, but national tv journalism that the majority of the US can sit down to catch up on some real news pertaining to your country... without huge wallops of bias or pandering.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[ClamIAm]

Question: Does this explain why Dvorak's articles are hilarious?

Re:Poor Colbert?

[Cheaty]

The only real question is great White House Correspondents' Dinner entertainer, or greatest White House Correspondents' Dinner entertainer?

Re:Poor Colbert?

[martin100]

i dunno if that exists, or if we should even expect it to. tv is bad medium for in-depth news. i figure if anyone really cares about being informed they would have to read, and invest a little time into it. but i am too lazy. then again i am not a prick going around calling anyone else out, like J. stewart.

tv works great for partisan hacks to yell at eath other in political discussions though.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[dubl-u]

we do agree that by the end of crossfire's run it wasnt a serious news show. so why not just find something else?

I'd love to. But as long as the major players are content to lob softballs and sell it as serious political debate, I don't have a lot of choice. The pols get the airtime they want, so they have no incentive to actually sweat a little.

Even if I do switch, there's no reason not to call the Crossfire pundits on their hypocrisy. You'll note that when Jon Stewart tore them a new one, they never claimed, as you do, that they were an inside-the-beltway version of Jerry Springer. Instead, they tried to hold Jon Stewart, who runs a comedy show, to the higher standard of journalism, one they apparently subscribed to.

you want hard journalism, go find it.

I have tried reading every major newsweekly in America. the best I can find is a British publication, The Economist. It's swell, but for US news it just doesn't have the same pull that a major US publication or network would. I've completely given up on TV news; fiberglass insulation has higher nutritional value.

I want our journalists to fill their important democratic role of holding politicians' feet to the fire. If they're not doing that, the should give up the pretense of being journalists and become entertainers or stenographers. It's shameful that Stewart and Colbert, who pretend to be newsmen, do a better job of getting at the truth than the actual ones.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[_Splat]

The congressmen don't read the bills... why should we?

Re:Poor Colbert?

[dubl-u]

Sorry to respond twice, but I just realized that your position is inconsistent.

if you and i started show where we yelled at each other, i would resent it if some loser came and told us we are hurting america.

If they're not doing a serious show and it's just about argument as entertainment, then what Jon Stewart did was perfectly appropriate. He out-argued and out-entertained them.

Of course, his comments only were powerful because Crossfire pretended to be a serious show, and he ripped that veil away. If they were really serious, they could have dealt with him seriously. If they were honestly just entertainment, they could have treated it as more entertainment. Instead, they were gobsmacked. And, later, canceled.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[martin100]

you don't seem to get that a political talking head yell-at-each-other show is not serious journalism, and only idiots expect it to be.

i dont expect anyone to find lots of real serious journalism, i expect us to piece together what is going on the best we can from multiple sources, all of which are biased to some extent.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[martin100]

crossfire was a debate show, not a news show. they gave you their opinions and argued, they didnt report news. i dont feel like there is some standard of argument that i should expect from shows or they are hurting america. do you actually think a couple dorks yelling at each other on tv "hurts america"?.

i actually do think carlson's reaction wasnt bad. he was sort of suprised that jon stewart is gonna come on show and preach at him about journalistic standards. if you don't like somebody's perspective, that is fine, but to claim that they are hurting america by voicing their opinion? that is way over the top, and stewart takes himself way too seriously. possibly because everyone lavishes praise on him as if it is a suprise that you can pointedly make fun of politicians pretty easily.

i don't think is particulalry praiseworthy for a comic to come on tv and get on his high horse and talk down to political talking heads, because talking heads really have no real responsinility to do anything other than get ratings for CNN. perhaps he should have taunted them for poor ratings, because attracting viewers is actually their job. educating america with quality journalism isnt. since everyone loves to claim stewart is actually educating america more than the news is, at what point do i get to come on his show and tell him he isnt up to standards? i mean, if people are looking to him for guidance, he should provide us with a proper education on the issues right?

the point: when it isnt tucker carlson's responsibiity to educate us on the issues, calling him out only misdirects the blame from the ignorant public, who think they should depend on crossfire for a smart take on the news.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[martin100]

oh and to more directly answer your question, i think part of the problem with stewart is that he was serious, and not good-naturedly debating the state of journalism. he was taking serious personal shots at the guys on the show. that is sort of like me going on conan o'brien and telling conan he sucks, that i am serious, and i think he is a waste of time. thats an ok opinion, but if you did that to conan you would really be a dick, why not just not go on the show at all? maybe carlson should go to the daily show and sit in the audience and heckle stewart after every joke. even if the jokes really sucked, that wouldnt be appropiate.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[martin100]

"I think there's some obligation to make it a show with serious content." thats where we disagree. i dont think they are responsible to do anything, certainly i am no place to tell them what they should do. "Crossfire is not and should not be Jerry Springer." again, i dont feel like it our job to tell crossfire what they "should" be. again, that is implying that they have some responsibility to educate us. thats the mistake. we should carry that responsibility ourselves.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[edunbar93]

it is stewart, for implying that any media source a responsibility to do anything other than report whatever they want.

Oh sure. CNN could report whatever they wanted to. They could report on the tiddlywinks championship in Peru if they liked, but ultimately, it's their job to give the public what it wants, or it's going straight down the tubes.

And what does the public want from CNN? The news. Which implies the truth. But historically, you couldn't find the truth in the news if you chased it down an alley with a baseball bat, and these days it's no different. Today we say that this or that news outlet is balanced or impartial, but that's just a nice facade really. The exterior tells a story that looks like it might be truthful, but you can tell lies by omission just as well. So it *looks* like they're giving us what we want, but they're not really.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[dubl-u]

do you actually think a couple dorks yelling at each other on tv "hurts america"?.

It seems to me that, not unlike the people I'm complaining about, you more interested in argument than dialog. But I'll give it one more try before I give up.

I think that a political debate show on a major news network is not just any couple of dorks yelling at one another. I believe that the news media, of which the Cable News Network is a part, has a responsibility to be more than vapid entertainment. News media has a critical role in a democracy, and rightly has special constitutional protection because of that. To abdicate that responsibility does indeed hurt America.

And I'm not the only one who thinks that Crossfire was trying to do something more serious than Bum Fights with guys in suits; Begala and Carlson clearly claim that as well. I just watched the segment again, and you can see Carlson repeatedly argue for that higher journalistic standard to be applied to Stewart as well. Giving ground, Begalia tries to claim that they are a debate show; Stewart comes back to say that he'd welcome debate, but Crossfire is to political debate what pro wrestling is to sport. And their claim of a higher standard fits with their backgrounds: Carlson was a journalist and Begala a political heavyweight, and both continue to write seriously.

So yes, I'm saying that news networks today fail to fulfill their democratic role. And as both a citizen and a consumer, I say it's bullshit.

I am a big fan of vapid entertainment, and don't mind that it fills 97% of the pipe. But I do object to vapid entertainment masquerading as news, and to the near demise of serious journalism in the US. That includes both obvious news shows and what you call the "talking heads". That they are now idiots is undeniable, but the Crossfire Wikipedia entry makes clear that this is a recent phenomenon. It can be a temporary one--if that's what we demand.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[martin100]

i dont feel like any particular "news" source, or media, any even any individual has any real responsibility to me whatsoever, unless we have an explicit agreement for that person to provide that service. as an individual, i think i bear the responsibility to educate myself on the topics i find important or interesting.

and certainly the press plays a big role in democracy. but the press as a whole, not as individual news outlets. if we depend on one source to be our filter and aggregator of information, we are asking for trouble. and i might be able to rescue a tiny nugget of interesting truth from crossfire. but i would be smart not to trust it until i had seen some other perspectives.

of course you are right, the news networks are not good at delivering news. but now, more than any other time in history, you have virtually unlimited news sources. for almost any event in america some independent person is blogging about it and what it means. you do not need, and probably should not, depend on cnn or any single news source (particularly on tv, which doesnt lend itself to in-depth analysis) if you actually care about what is happening.

i find that it is relatively easy for me to figure out my opinions from the information i collect from the world, even if dont see crossfire or tv at all. of couse, i might have to read my local papers as well as a few international ones, and mayeb even a book on the issue in question. and that is my responsibility as a person who wants to understand what is going on. and i think it is really counterproductive to lay the blame on any individuals other than myself for that.

i would like stewart better if he said "hey you guys are doing your thing, bringing a perspective to the table, having your say, and that is cool with me, but i dont really trust you, and i would hope americans are smart enough to seek out a broader perspective.

because just offering your opinion for our perusal, that doesnt hurt america. an extra voice is always good, no matter what they are saying. the problem (if there is one) is people who don't take responsibility for their own ideas and perspectives and want it presented to them by arguing hacks on cable tv. and furthering that problem is stewart by encouraging the idea that any single news source should do anything but present a perspective. one among many.

an opinion, spoken and argued about by jerkoffs, no matter how stupid, never hurts america.

like i said, if you and i started our show and yelled at each other and called it "news according to two losers on the internet" and we got really popular, and we even got picked up by cnn, would you feel like we were hurting america by adding our stupid voices the opinions available? i wouldnt. if we became the world's only source of information, that would be pretty bad. but as long as were just one of the millions of options, i think we are helping america, if only for having a dialogue, no matter what we say.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[ncstockguy]

The problem is the media. All national broadcast media in the US are now owned by six, count them, SIX multinational corporations with agendas far broader than reporting the news. News is just a sideshow for them. Witness the fact that "Frontline" on PBS is now the only regularly scheduled documentary on broadcast television.
Newspapers aren't much better. Knight Ridder, a decent chain, just sold itself to a mediocre chain and there are far fewer newspaper owners than there used to be as well.
The result: What we are getting now. Inferior reporting, lapdog journalism and programmed blandness.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[The Snowman]

I do read AP crap from multiple sources. While sometimes the stories are identical, often the individual reporters just use AP source material, quotes, etc. and while the stories wind up being similar, they have differences. Still, this is just one source, as you mentioned. I do go to other sources as required.

For example, you mention the sunni/shi'ite struggle in and around Iraq. I actually took a college class on religion that devoted a whole chapter to this struggle in Islam. Yeah, just a chapter, and not an in-depth look. But certainly more detailed than most Americans get. There are many nuances to their culture that would require not only a specialized degree in foreign studies but years of living there among them to learn. While the media certainly oversimplifies many things and gets many other things plain wrong, I have to trust them to some degree to deliver facts to me. I can use my knowledge to filter it out and get the important ideas. I can look up topics in an encyclopedia or wikipedia. I even have a primary source in an Iranian woman I know who lived there for many years. If the topic is something different than the middle east, I have other sources I can use both to check facts and to learn more in-depth knowledge.

I think you allude to the fact that AP newswire is good enough for the masses who don't yearn for more knowledge. I think knowledge is one of mankind's greatest assets, and it is a shame that more of us don't try to self-educate on topics we know little about. It is our nature to be afraid of the unknown and to make shit up, such as mythology, to fill in the blanks. Some of us can fight the urge and use science to learn about our universe, but many of us are just plain lazy. While some people argue that turns us into armchair scientists, it sure beats the alternative -- a layperson wearing blinders.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[cagle_.25]

Sad but true. The vast majority of your legislation is written by 20-something staffers.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[Descalzo]

But Freedom of the Press implies the freedom to to become a corporate McNews endeavor.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[prurientknave]

coward!

Re:Poor Colbert?

[BroncoInCalifornia]

I really see very little difference between the US media and old-school Soviet Propaganda.

I see a big difference. In Soviet Russia they stopped swallowing the "truthiness" of their media.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[sgt_doom]

No - corporations DID exist at that time but were not recognized in the US Constitution for very good reason, and Jefferson purposefully would never allow it as long as he lived!!

The corporation was not accorded their obscene and phony legal status until the late 1800s, early 1900s, based upon a casebook note, that is, a summary note (which actually had nothing to do with the case it was attached to) on top of a legal case dated 1886. Such a note has never been legally submissible. Make of that what you will!!!

Re:Poor Colbert?

[Descalzo]

That wasn't what I was trying to say. If I own a printing press, I am free to sell it or hire it out to anybody I wish, even an evil corporation. If I am a journalist, I am free to sell my soul or hire it out to anybody I wish. That's all I'm trying to say. I wasn't trying to comment on whether it's good or bad. I wish it were not the way it is, but I don't know how to stop it, short of regulating it, which would make it no longer free.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[sgt_doom]

When all the media is for-profit - owned by only six major corporations - it is not "free" - it is most definitely regulated.

To go back to some semblance of unregulated media - the monopolies must be done away with (go back to the laws the way they were prior to Republican-controlled congresses (although the neoliberal dems are in no way guilt-free).

Re:Poor Colbert?

[Raging_Bob]

CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery? STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls. What is wrong with you? and STEWART: If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome to ... If that's your goal ... I wouldn't aim for us. I'd aim for "Seinfeld." That's a very good show.

Sorry I love John Stewart but I side with Carlson on this point. The problem isn't the media, it's the people. People want to be entertained people don't want to watch political material unless it's funny or two people are at each other's throats. Stewart comments that Carlson's show is 'theater' well he's right it is! That's the only kind of political show that can stay on the air anymore! Nobody watches CSPAN for a reason, it's BORING! Presidential candidate have gone on Saturday night live, and late night Telivision. Comedy shows are arguably a much more powerful political force than hard news shows. So Carlson is right to criticize Stewart. When it comes down to it Stewart had the opportunity and didn't ask Kerry the hard hitting questions that he seems to think everyone else should ask except for him. If the only shows that Kerry shows up for are the Daily show, late night, Saturday night live, and the tonight show then who should be asking the hard hitting questions? Hard media is dead folks, it died a painful painful death in the early 80s. You can pretend that you care with your posts here but if they brought back a hard news show you wouldn't watch it and if Carlson listened to Stewart his show would be dead too. It's always easy to criticize others about something you yourself don't do.

Re:Poor Colbert?

[Trepalium]

No, it's worse than that. Most of it appears to be written by lobbyists, then it gets read by 20-something staffers and then summarized and presented to the elected jackass who then champions the cause. But I might just be a little cynical.

Torrent

[remembertomorrow]

Here is the torrent link:

http://www.mininova.org/tor/296239

Colber Repor (phoenetically)

[Kreigaffe]

Funniest show ever. The bit with meeting each district's elected representatives? Every time he finds some new way to insult and/or embarass them. I love it. Some of them come off pretty well -- they get the joke, and try to go along. Some really show how dimwitted they are. Not in the GW, I can't speak dumb, but the vapid popular kid who can speak and act well enough but has absolutely nothing behind the eyes but being popular and the latest GAP commercial jingle.

Full Footage on youtube

[nanop]

Crooks and Liars doesn't have the full footage. Instead, check out the 3 segments on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcIRXur61II

The transcript is also available here:

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/30/1441/59811

Re:Full Footage on youtube

[Arker]

Bloody flash. Why do people do this?

Ok, who's already figured out how to get the actual file saved?

Re:Full Footage on youtube

[niktemadur]

It ain't just Flash, mate, it's streaming content within a Flash frame. I'm using Download Embedded 0.4 for Firefox and all I can save to the disk is the player empty of content. Forget it.

Re:Full Footage on youtube

[gabebear]

Wow, they cut off some of the funniest stuff, great link

Re:Full Footage on youtube

[damiam]

Use the VideoDownloader extension for Firefox.

Re:Full Footage on youtube

[assassinator42]

Since this was on CSpan/from a Government thing, is it in the public domain? It would've been nice if they uploaded it to Google video instead, since Google actually lets you download the original files.

Wasnt that funny

[KaizerWill]

I mean, It had its highs and lows, but mostly it was just Colbert up on stage, being nervous.

Re:Wasnt that funny

[Aqua OS X]

I don't know about nervous... he was playing to an audiences full of people with sticks firmly crammed up their asses.

Re:Wasnt that funny

[Skreems]

Yeah, but wouldn't you be nervous doing that act ten feet from Bush? I thought he came across as quite cool and collected, given the situation.

Re:Wasnt that funny

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it you really don't understand what you saw...? The lack of response in the audience is the important part - it isn't indicative of him "bombing" in this case.

Re:Wasnt that funny

[BiggerIsBetter]

I'd be nervous too.

I want Bush gone as much as the next guy, but after reading the transcript it comes off disrespectful more than humourous, especially in front of that audience. I don't like Bush, but I still respect the power he holds...

Re:Wasnt that funny

[bitkari]

You shouldn't respect power, rather, you should respect the virtue of one's actions.

Re:Wasnt that funny

[shmlco]

"I don't like Bush, but I still respect the power he holds..."

There's a major difference bewteen respecting the office of the president... and its occupant.

Re:Wasnt that funny

[246o1]

Agreed! I think the problem is that some people don't know the difference between fear and respect. Power earns one, virtue the other.

Re:Wasnt that funny

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I don't like Bush, but I still respect the power he holds...

Me too, although it's like when a guy starts waving a gun around in a Wendy's - sure he's a nutjob, but he could end you if you're unlucky.

Re:Wasnt that funny

[Knutsi]

"People should not fear their gouvernments, gouvernments should fear their people"
- V for vendetta

Re:Wasnt that funny

[Ingolfke]

Thou shant quote from comic books and expect to be taken seriously anywhere other than /. (Put that one in your pocket and take it with you young man).

Re:Wasnt that funny

[killjoe]

In this case Bush is unable to wield his power because that would backfire on him. He could not even walk out. What he will do instead is to release the dogs of war on him and let the talk radio/fox news wage war on him. Lucky for Colbert he can win that fight with one hand behind his back.

The nightmare scenario for colbert is that a few freepers will take the fatwah declared against him seriously and put a bullet in his head. All it takes is one freeper with a gun and the dogs of war know how to push their buttons.

Re:Wasnt that funny

[DreadfulGrape]

Parent poster is absolutely correct -- it just wasn't that funny. At times it was almost painful to watch -- reminded me a bit of when Don Imus was at the same event ten years ago while Clinton was in office.

Watch the whole routine -- he basically bombed.

Re:Wasnt that funny

[geminidomino]

People should not fear their gouvernments, gouvernments should fear their people

Err... I don't think that word has a "u" in it, even in Europe.

Re:Wasnt that funny

[Knutsi]

Sorry, not everyone has English as their first language. It still makes it wrong of course, so here is the corrected version, according to M$ Word (with some unspecified dictionary, probably Oxford English, as that is the official of the place I work) ;)

"People should not fear their governments, governments should fear their people"
- V for Vendetta

I wonder sometimes where language is going. Elements of English both in grammar and sound snear into my beloved Norwegian, and the same the other way around. Well well, guess there are other apocalypses for fear more than people not understanding one another, something that is allready upon us... ;)

Re:Wasnt that funny

[geminidomino]

Sorry if it came across as a flame at you. It was more a dig on the "color" vs "colour" arguments that pop up all the time. ;)

Re:Wasnt that funny

[dsgitl]

And meanwhile, Bush decides the Consitution isn't important anymore.

You think it's so important to give up your rights and the Constitution just because this chimp finangled his way into office? Give me a break. What Bush is doing is dangerous. If he can't handle the slightest of challenges, we should all feel very afraid.

Re:Wasnt that funny

[amliebsch]

Well here's a real quote for you then:

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
T. Jefferson

Re:Wasnt that funny

[Knutsi]

No worries, no flame-feelings (:

Re:Wasnt that funny

[ivan256]

Even though you both expressed opposite views, you both missed the point.

Respect the office, otherwise when somebody you agree with holds that office it won't mean enough to matter.

Re:Wasnt that funny

[StrongBow67]

I read the transcript first, and laughed at just about everything. When I watched the video, I got the sense of the nervous tension in the room and found myself thinking that it wasn't as funny. I like the Colbert Report, but it seemed that the audience at this dinner didn't get the joke. In the end, what he did was funny and truthful, but the audience's discomfort made me want to look away -- kind of like a Bush press conference (the look away part, not the funny and truthful part).

Re:Wasnt that funny

[Anonymous Coward]

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

How far we've come in the past 10 years.

In the mid-1990s, such a statement would have gotten you branded as a right-wing terrorist sypathizer by the popular media and entertainment establishment. Now it's considered patriotic dissent.

"We recognized, once again, that we can't love our country and hate
our government."
-The President of the United States
  Weekly Radio Address
  http://tinyurl.com/a2nwa

  - - - - -

...I would like to say something to [those of you] who believe the
greatest threat to America comes not from terrorists from ... beyond
our borders, but from our own government.

I believe you have every right, indeed you have the responsibility, to
question our government when you disagree with its policies. And I
will do everything in my power to protect your right to do so.

But I also know there have been lawbreakers among those who espouse
your philosophy.... ...How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in
tyranny.... ...[T]here is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or
pretending that you can love your country but despise your
government.....

-The President of the United States
  Michigan State University (Spartan Stadium)
  http://tinyurl.com/bln3j

  - - - - -

...So if somebody believes someone who is working for the government
has mistreated them, take it to the appropriate authority, make it
public if you want to, but be specific. But do not condemn people who
work for the government. That's the kind of mentality that produced
Oklahoma City....

-The President of the United States
  Billings, Montana
  http://tinyurl.com/a6bnr

It's almost funny how people complaining about the "new wave of McCarthyism" during the Bush adminsitration couldn't lap up enough of it during the previous one. But then, it was their guy in charge, which is more important than any principle.

Re:Wasnt that funny

[amliebsch]

It also amuses me that there is a large overlap between those who express fear of government power and abuse, but don't believe in the peoples' rights to own military-grade weapons.

Re:Wasnt that funny

[Anonymous Coward]

You are part of the problem.

As long as people want to respect a President like a King, it won't work. It simply won't work.

While I concede anarchy is stupid, blind reverence is, too! Remember the President is there to serve the people, not otherwise.

The man is wrong and you are supporting him! Who's worse: the dumb or the one who follows the dumb?

Now, think about one thing: I'm a foreigner and can call GW dumb. Are you, as a free citizen, able to do the same? Oh, yeah, you could, but you just don't want, huh? And smoker can quit smoking easily, too...

Colbert is nervous and that tells a lot about him and the USA:

1. He's a very courageous fellow, a reason for pride among Americans. Wish I had a fellow countryman of such boldness. He made History. Simply that.

2. America is fouled up since McCarthy. The system used to attack individuals in public! As long as we have people like Colbert, democracy still got a chance.

There's evil outside the US and inside. And they're acting together.

Good people inside and outside would better start acting, too.

Re:Wasnt that funny

[uberjoe]

My favorite Jefferson quote goes something like this:

I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.

I know he was talking about slavery but I think it still works in the current situation.

Re:Wasnt that funny

[Senzei]

The nightmare scenario for colbert is that a few freepers will take the fatwah declared against him seriously and put a bullet in his head. All it takes is one freeper with a gun and the dogs of war know how to push their buttons.

Actually I doubt that is the case either. What is it going to look like if Colbert dies or is seriously injured anytime soon? If I were Bush I would be praying that the man doesn't slip on a flight of stairs.

Re:Wasnt that funny

[deanoaz]

When you do a comedic show in front of a live audience and they don't laugh that is 'bombing'.

Colbert overplayed it and it didn't work. Part of the problem was that he followed the President. Bush had just put on a very good show that was funny and self-deprecating. On the strength of that, the audience had to have been, at least temporarily, in an appreciative mood for his effort. They were not ready to buy into Colbert's badly staged ankle-biting routine at that moment.

Many of them may not have understood what he was trying to do either, since he made very poor attempts at pretending he was pro-Bush and then immediately attacked him non-stop for the rest of the show. It made Colbert look like a mental case if you were not aware of his Stephen Colbert character and what it is supposed to be about (a parody of Bill O'Reilly).

Re:Wasnt that funny

[jZnat]

Uh, no. The audience hardly responded because they were pissed that Colbert was attacking them all with the truth and satire. They didn't like having a comedian who wasn't kissing their collective asses, and it showed. Do you laugh at people who make fun of you without praising you first? Didn't think so.

Re:Wasnt that funny

[srgtick]

Think the difference is, I think he knew he would. He bombed to them and stayed true to himself. Imus was just full of jealousy not moral outrage.

Re:Wasnt that funny

[deanoaz]

>>> Do you laugh at people who make fun of you without praising you first? Didn't think so.

Ever seen Carlos Mencia? He attacks everyone in the audience and everyone laughs. Are you saying that leftist media types just can't take a joke? Are you saying they won't even laugh at a joke that is against Bush if they have been the butt of a joke as well?

This is a pretty serious indictment of liberals. Coupled with the way Colbert bombed, it implies they can neither take a joke, nor make one, when the chips are down.

Re:Wasnt that funny

[KaizerWill]

The point is most certainly not to be nervous and uncomfortable. The colbert report is funny because he takes extreme opinions that he doesnt personally espouse, and express them confidently and unapologetically, to poke fun at those who genuinely hold them.

Stephen Colbert's Other Achievement

[Dante Shamest]

He accurately predicted the Oscars using his Da Colbert Code. Watch him celebrate.

Re:Stephen Colbert's Other Achievement

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget the oscars, he predicted the Irak war before the first bush election!

During the Daily Show indecision 2000* election coverage:
STEWART to COLBERT at "the election center": What do you have for us? What's the word?

COLBERT: Well, Jon, of course, this year is the closest race since 1960, when a young John Fitzgerald Kennedy battled it out with Richard Milhous Nixon, winning by the slightest of margins and ushering in an era of untold promise, hope, and enthusiasm. Of course, an assassin's bullet ended all that. John?

STEWART: Stephen, are you seeing parallels with tonight's election, a country flush with prosperity, two young, energetic candidates, perhaps ready to lead us back to Camelot?

COLBERT: No, I'm getting more of a 'Nam vibe: you know, unwinnable wars, inescapable downward spiral, chaos in the streets. That sort of thing. But you know the night's still early. Be here till 11.

And lets not forget Steward on the recount thing: "People, when we came up with the name InDecision 2000, we thought it would be cute. Funny. We didn't expect you to run with it!"

Also, on the whole speaking truth to power thing, there was the Jon Steward on crossfire thing. (We thought wou were gonna be funny, "No, I will not be your monkey!")

The funny thing is that during the Daily show interview with Colin Powell Steward predicted that Powell that was the closest "they" would ever come to the Bush administration, I guess he was wrong there ;-)

But the best "comedy" political analyis was Jon Steward on Dave Miller live (from memory):
I guarantee that no matter who wins this [2000 presidential] election, we will be showing up on Bill Clintons doorstep butt naked with a sigar saying, "put it anywere you want, but please, come back"....

Downright scary...

Re:Stephen Colbert's Other Achievement

[bchernicoff]

That was pretty good. Thanks for the links.

Rip it. Seed it. Spread it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Speak truth to power.

The BBC?

[Steve Ballmer's Fat]

WTF? That BBC article was not only pointless, but about three paragraphs long. At least post an article that discusses the topic, like maybe... E&P story

Re:The BBC?

[leuk_he]

Don't worry. Dupes of this story will be posted soon.

In the men time pick your favourite bushism here.

Re:The BBC?

[MrSteveSD]

The BBC is going downhill. For example, their "Have Your Say" forum is nothing of the kind. You can only have your say if they approve of your comments and often perfectly valid and non-offensive points of view are censored.

For example, they had a forum about the Google/China censorship issue and some people started pointing out that the BBC engages in censorship on it's forums. The BBC started removing the posts at breakneck speed but they gave up in the end as those posts were getting a lot of votes.

Take a look at the top scoring posts! http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy =2&threadID=824&edition=2&ttl=20060501133750&#pagi nator

I used to complain a lot about the censorship on "Have Your Say" until I discovered the BBC Message Boards, which did allow immediate and uncensored posts. Sadly in the last few days the message boards have also been locked down and are now running in the same censorship mode. It's annoying enough that the BBC censors the public but its infuriating that we are actually paying to be censored through our license fee.

There is a UK website which, among other things, keeps an eye on the BBC. See www.medialens.org

We really need a Slashdot style site for political/current affairs discussion. The forums on www.opendemocracy.net are quite good but they always have server problems.

Re:The BBC?

[theolein]

The BBC lost any courage it ever might have had after the David Kelly and Andrew Gilligan affair which was about the dramatizing of the WMD claims by the British Government, where the director was forced to resign. The result is that the BBC now is terrified of criticising the Bush administration, even though all the WMD claims were proven false and that the UK government was lying as much as the Americna one was.

The BBC has become just a mouthpiece of the UK government, that censors any criticism against it.

Cajones

[PaulQuinn]

All I could think watching this, with Colbert never wavering, never holding back, never hurrying his words, was this man has balls.

Big, brassy, get-put-on-a-no-fly-list, cajones.

And kudos for being kinda funny too.

Re:Cajones

[ocp]

You know, I guess, that you mean 'cojones' (as in testicles) and not 'cajones' (as in a boxlike compartment in furniture that can be pulled out and pushed in).

Re:Cajones

[killjoe]

In addition to the president he took on the sycophantic press. It was a refreshing change from the news coverage you get these days.

Somtimes the truth gets to be so rare that you are shocked and praised for speaking it at a public forum. Sad but true.

Re:Cajones

[geminidomino]

People have been lampooning presidents since the first joke about wooden teeth. It doesn't take big brassy balls to do this, just some bad jokes.

The difference is in the amount of pure effort that has gone into insulating Redneck Nero from JUST this sort of criticism. As someone else pointed out, the clowning at this event is usually limited to the daily goofs (Cheney's malfunctioning aimbot, 'Bushisms,' terrist pretzels) and not policy.

He stepped out of that box and took the opportunity to lay it out. It may not be his best work, but he got to say his piece without it being filtered before reaching Bush. That's a worthy accomplishment, regardless of whether the format is nervous and somewhat weakly-written comedy or an organized protest.

All of this assumes, of course, that he's not SO stupid that he thinks Colbert was being sincere.

Re:Cajones

[Breakfast Pants]

Using the word "Redneck" really helps your readers know that you are about logic and not about mudslinging.

Re:Cajones

[geminidomino]

The term I used was "Redneck Nero." A title. Not unlike "President." The difference being that "President" is a title of respect and authority, and from me, Bush has neither.

Re:Cajones

[Breakfast Pants]

I don't like Bush either; but it has nothing to do with his accent. When I explain my dislike I typically try and give examples of bad conduct on his part. I don't say "lol look at his haircut."

Re:Cajones

[l0b0]

For a bit more of "sad but true", take a look at Bill Hicks. He must be spinning in his grave ever since the U.S. elected another Bush.

Re:Cajones

[geminidomino]

Who said anything about his accent? "Redneck" has to do with far more than having a southern[0] or Texan accent. Jeff Foxworthy, self-proclaimed "redneck", describes it as a "lack of sophistication," a definition I'll build on rather than reinventing the wheel.

Bush shows a remarkable lack of sophistication in thought which is clearly evidenced by his unflinching, unquestioning adherance to bullshit evangelical superstition, and the inherent insecurity for those that do not; his apparent inability to concieve of the concept of personal responsibility; a total and utter disregard for the concepts of honor, truth, fidelity, and courage; his demonization of intelligence itself...

The list goes on, but if I haven't made the point by now, going further won't do any good anyway. So no, it has nothing at all to do with his accent.

[0]Admittedly, I have a common Yankee failing in that I have a soft spot for a girl with a Georgia accent...

Re:Cajones

[cyber-vandal]

Oh for heaven's sake a foreign language spelling nazi :(

Re:Cajones

[Ohreally_factor]

So, where do you safely store your cojones when you are not using them? In your drawers?

Re:Cajones

[tgibbs]

There was no courage in this. People have been lampooning presidents since the first joke about wooden teeth. It doesn't take big brassy balls to do this, just some bad jokes. Stop making this out to be some sort of heroic act.

I think that it takes some courage to lampoon the President to his face. And I noticed that Colbert did not look away from Bush as he did so, but on several occasions looked at him and spoke directly to him.

Re:Cajones

[HardCase]

The difference being that "President" is a title of respect and authority, and from me, Bush has neither.

As we said in the Navy, you salute the rank, not the person.

Re:Cajones

[wolfemi1]

Just a foreign-language grammar-Nazi point:

Cojones is the commonly used word used to refer to testicles. cajones literally translates as "drawers", like in a hutch.

So you could, for example, say that Colbert needs a set of cajones to hold his enormous cojones. :)

Re:Cajones

[geminidomino]

That's what kept me out of the service when I finished High School. I decided that if I couldn't "salute the rank" but tell "the person" to his face that he was a worthless waste of biomass who detracts from humanity by his mere existance, that I wanted no part of it.

Of course, this was before the current assclown took office.

Re:Cajones

[Brandybuck]

That's a worthy accomplishment

Why? Because Bush heard him? Do you really think so little of the president that he will change a policy because some comic tells a joke? You might have a spine that limp, but no one that can manage to get through the primaries does. Sheesh.

Re:Cajones

[Brandybuck]

In the weeks before the 2000 election, I was at a party where an aquaintance glimpsed a picture of Bush wearing a cowboy hat on the television. He lost it. He started yelling and spraying spittle and turning bright red. I thought he was going to drop dead of an infarction. He was screaming "who the $*#!@ does he think he is? A &*$@ cowboy? I'm going to kill any %$@* who votes for him!"

Such behavior is commonplace now in certain circles, but back then it was shocking. Just because someone from Texas was wearing a cowboy hat. Unbelievable. There is something about the modern liberal mind that goes bugshit when they get reminded that rural America exists.

Re:Cajones

[FurryFeet]

Perhaps he meant his cojones were so big, he actually needed cajones to keep them in?

Re:Cajones

[chrissam]

Big, brassy, get-put-on-a-no-fly-list, cajones.

I would say, "muchos huevos grandes."

Torrent link

[moosesocks]

For the love of God, save this guy's poor server, and use a torrent instead. Remember to seed after you're done downloading. there's a pretty big demand for this clip.

Be forewarned however... the torrent contains the entire C-Span broadcast of the event. Colbert's speech starts around the 54 minute mark. Some of the other bits are pretty funny, including bush playing along with an impersonator, although absolutely nothing can beat Colbert's speech. Watch it. It's funny on so many levels. I've never seen such a huge disconnect between a comedian and his audience -- it took some major guts to do what he did.

I think this one's going to go down in the history books, and is by far the funniest thing ever broadcated on C-Span's airspace.

Re:Torrent link

[isd_glory]

"I think this one's going to go down in the history books..."

25,000 people using bittorrent to download an hour-long C-SPAN special
That should go down in the history books as "the day that the anti-filesharing lobbies collectively went: WTF??"

Re:Torrent link

[DanTheLewis]

I don't think you can Slashdoteffect Crooks and Liars. It hosts video all day every day. It is one of the top 20 blogs on Technorati (as of now, #17).

Re:Torrent link

[drawkbox]

C-SPAN is the new viral video demand. The internet is an amazing thing, so was Colbert, a damn eagle afraid of no bears. How much doesn't the media get it? I repeat C-SPAN is the new viral video of the day.

Re:Torrent link

[Heembo]

I've never seen such a huge disconnect between a comedian and his audience --

And he didn't even miss a beat. The camera cutting to the silient disbelief-stricken audience made me howl with laughter! :)

Re:Torrent link

[rbochan]

That 25K+ is only for that one torrent. So far I've seen at least a dozen _different_ torrents, as well as literally dozens of other direct links to videos and transcripts.

And that doesn't count the insane amount of 25-190 meg copies that have been emailed already. :o/

Re:John Amato's C&L blog?

[evil agent]

Unfortunately, for most people, a source isn't biased if you agree with it.

torrent link

[tritone]

http://www.demonoid.com/files/download/HTTP/333327 /

It's really quite fascinating

[sheldon]

I gotta give him credit. He stood up there and pointed out failures not just with the administration, but with the Media as a whole.

Well done.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[c0dedude]

Yeah, but he didn't get the point of the lecture. The point isn't to rip into serious policies, but the daily gaffes of the administration. Ripping into serious policies makes it seem mean-spirited. E.G: Dick Cheney shoots someone - good! Iraq war - bad.

Basically, the whole audience should be able to laugh, not just half.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[nick this]

And I'm not sure you got the point of Colbert's monologue. I don't believe he was playing for laughs. I think he saw an opportunity to actually put his money where his mouth was, and took it. You are right. It was out of place for the event, but I think that was exactly the point. Letting everyone laugh comfortably while we prosecute a war in another country without being able to answer a fundamental question like "why did we go to war" wasn't on his agenda. And it shouldn't be. Good for him, I say.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[c0dedude]

Yeah, but why can't we take a break, relax, and go to a nice dinner without a protest speech? I mean, the protests will resume today, anyway.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[adpowers]

Exactly. You, sir, understand what is going on.

I think this is Stephen Colbert's Crossfire appearance. Jon Stewart played Crossfire the same way: pointing out all the faults of the people he was with. Stephen Colbert's audience was even more prestigious than Jon Stewart's. I didn't know about this appearance until after it happened (so I download the video last night) and I was amazed that he had the opportunity to chew out the president... right to the presidents face!

Unfortunately, I think some of the humor was lost on people who didn't realize the character Colbert plays. However, I also think he has made a lot of new fans this weekend.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[adpowers]

Well, for one, the president is often insulated from the protests. Honestly, look at his "town hall meetings". There are maybe two people in attendance who wouldn't get on their knees right then and there to give Bush a blowjob.

Second, have you seen how horrible a job he is doing? 2/3 of the country disapproves of his job and, as Stephen said, the last 1/3 is backwash anyway. It is our job to call him on his wrong doings and try to get this country back in line.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[NitsujTPU]

Colbert never could have pwned that event like Jon pwned Crossfire. I find the two events to be a little similar, but, simply put, Colbert knew that he couldn't flip the crowd like Jon did, and he didn't even try. That's why he stuck to jabbing at the media's engagement of the President, rather than at the President, and why he, really, only made a couple little jabs, with a lot of material in between (that one joke took 7.5 minutes, and really didn't say anything very harsh directly to the people that he was criticizing).

So, essentially, no, it wasn't Jon doing Crossfire. It was a poke. If this were his Crossfire, he'd have had the White House in an out of control situation that they didn't know how to take care of. He didn't do that and it's obvious that he didn't try.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[c0dedude]

Frankly, I thought he was doing a horrible job 2 years ago. But now, as his presidency seems to have hit rock bottom, his policies are beginning to improve. I think he was doing a horrible job, I don't think he is now.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

You can register a message of thanks at ThankYouStephenColbert.org. Given his style (and segments like "who's honoring me now") I presume that if it gets popular enough he'll mention it on the show.

Jedidiah.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[SpryGuy]

I thought he was doing a horrible job 6 and 7 years ago. But then I lived in Texas under his inept Governorship. And I think he's still doing a crappy job now... it's just that he's managed to lower the bar so far that "crappy" seems to be really improved or even approaching competent. But it's really nothing of the sort. Frankly, the only thing to surprise me over these last few years is the lack of imagination on my part for just how bad he'd actually be as President. I knew he'd be horrible, but never in my wildest imagination did I imagine he'd be as bad as he's been, or do as much damage as he has. It's sad and frustrating.

Thank God for people like Colbert, who hasn't let himself be intimidated into silence like so many in the media and even the general public have.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but why can't we take a break, relax, and go to a nice dinner without a protest speech?

We have been out to dinner for years now. Colbert just said "Check please."

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[nick this]

I don't know. I think this played on many levels. On one level, you are right... he's Steven Colbert playing a commentator who believes he's praising the president, but the praise backfires and the results are comedic. Ha, ha, he's lampooning O'Reilly.

On a level deeper, though, Steven gets to say thing as the commentator that he couldn't just stand up in front of that crowd and say. He gets to say what he really believes, only say it in a way that's funny when coming out of the mouth of Colbert the pundit.

Example: he's asking the president why he wasn't considered for the part of the white house press secretary. At which point, he stares right at the audience and says "I have nothing but contempt for these people". Look at his face when he says it. He's playing it for laughs, but he's deadly serious. He has nothing but contempt for those people. Meanwhile, they laugh... they LAUGH... because ha, ha.. he's lampooning O'Reilly. Except he's not.

You can see that same mechanism in effect in several of his "jokes". He really is pushing wickedly vicious attacks at the president and the press, and they can't decide whether to laugh or not, because they aren't sure what level to take it at.

I thought it was brilliant -- he was able to attack them savagely, and still come across like he was tossing softballs. Amazing.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[Ohreally_factor]

WTF is wrong with you people anyway? What did we do to you to deserve getting W? Seriously, let's get this out in the open where we can discuss this is a civil way and make some sort of reparations for what ever it was that we did to you. And let's do it soon, before the twins are old enough to be elected President.

You guys aren't still mad about the Civil War are you? Can't we just let bygones be bygones?

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[Ohreally_factor]

Both situations are comparable in that each were defining moments for each man. In each case, the "victims" were presented with some harsh truths about themselves in public.

There are a number of differences, however. Stewart wasn't "in character" for his Crossfire appearance. Colbert was in character (which is really the only way that such criticisms can work as humor). The biggest difference was in the main targets. Colbert took on the most powerful man in the world. There's really no way to minimize this. Stewart, on the other hand, took on Tucker Carlson, who is a comparative nobody. Seriously? Who the fuck is Tucker? He's an asshole in a bowtie with a TV show. I'm not trying to play down Stewart's moment, but there is a difference in orders of magnitude.

Hopefully, both these men will have other moments, other opportunities to skewer the arrogant and the powerful.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[NitsujTPU]

The very fact that people are citing Stewart's action places Colbert in his shadow. I think that both guys are great, and Colbert is certainly making a name for himself, but to really stand out, he has to do something that Stewart hasn't done. Even if he is doing things that Stewart did, but better (and, hey, perhaps he is), The Colbert Report and this are just too close to what Jon Stewart has done to "define" the guy.

The guy is (hopefully) not looking for the eulogy at his funeral to read something like, "Stephen Colbert... he did everything that Jon Stewart did... only better."

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[apparently]

Yeah, but why can't we take a break, relax, and go to a nice dinner

because our soldiers can't take a break, relax, and go to a nice dinner.
because the families who have lost husbands, wives, daughters, and sons to the war can't take a break, relax, and go to a nice dinner.
because the Iraqi people can't take a break, relax, and go to a nice dinner.
because reality doesn't stop for everyone else while you're safe at home.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[avdp]

At which point, he stares right at the audience and says "I have nothing but contempt for these people". Look at his face when he says it. He's playing it for laughs, but he's deadly serious.

You're reading way too much into "his face". That's his shtick, he always says his jokes with a straight face (and succeeds most of the time). I wouldn't read too much into it (like he really really means it this time).

I'll say it here, but it applies to many many of the other posts I've read today - this is not a great political statement he has made. It was a comedian act, in an event that hosts such act every year. He's a comedian. He was invited to this event to deliver political humor in front of political-aware people, and he delivered. Trust me, nobody (president included) lost sleep over it. Nobody in the press reported on it, because it's NOT NEWSWORTHY. It was fun to watch though.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[lysergic.acid]

You do realize that people are dying every day because of our indefensible foreign policies, right? As members of a purportedly free democratic society, we are accountable for the actions of our government, actions which result in the loss of life and other injustices around the world. So, no, we can't just take a break and relax and be so nonchalant about the acts of aggression carried out in our name.

Your attitude is exactly why half the world hates Americans. That kind of insouciance towards government & media corruption is exactly how these travesties are allowed to be carried out unmitigated. You act as if protests to government policies are just annoyances in our nation's political life which have no urgency of purpose. Sorry, but those of us who choose to exercise our democratic prerogative to affect government that are unjust will not rest until changes are made.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[Mr. Slippery]

Yeah, but why can't we take a break, relax, and go to a nice dinner without a protest speech?

In a sane world, a man responsible for as many deaths, mutilations, acts of torture, and assorted high crimes as George W. Bush, would not be able to go anywhere (except the jail cell he has so richly earned) without encountering a protest.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[radtea]

I'll say it here, but it applies to many many of the other posts I've read today - this is not a great political statement he has made. It was a comedian act, in an event that hosts such act every year. He's a comedian

You seem to imply that because he is a commedian this is not a great political statement.

That is a complete non sequitur. If you really believe it, do please adduce some evidence for it. Please note that the proposition you must defend is not "some commedians are incapable of great political statements" but rather "ALL commedians are incapable of great poltiical statments, and NO commedy act is capable of great political statement." I believe, given the many counter-examples, you will find it very, very hard to create a rational, fact-based defense.

Many commedians have made great political statements, and Stephen Colbert has just taken first place in their ranks. He spoke the raw truth, in public, to the face of power. With an administration that has lied and obfuscated its way through six disasterous years of unnecessary deficit and unjustified war, that is a great and wonderful thing.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[hey!]

Oh, I think he was playing it for laughs, which shows he doesn't know the way to play the game.

Self-righteousness and humor don't mix.

No, first you're self-righteous, then you make an indignant and self-serving appeal to humor after you've been called out for lying and pandering to ignorance and bigotry.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[sheldon]

This wasn't protest. It was satire.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[limekiller4]

There is a point where Colbert is talking about Scott McClellan and says something like, "Scott, you're taking time off to spend time with Andrew Card's kids."

I can't think of any other way to read that except "Andrew Card is fscking Scott's wife." Maybe someone has a different explanation.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[greenrd]

How do you define newsworthy? To me, this was very newsworthy. It's not often a comedian gets a chance to do this, and I thought Colbert pulled it off really well. Certainly more newsworthy than the kind of fluff pieces you find in newspapers these days that are little more than puff pieces for some "new" government policy, or some corporate "survey" - regurgitated press releases, in other words.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[avdp]

He didn't speak the "raw truth", he didn't even speak half truths. He exagerated facts, twisted them in a funny way, made up other facts to fit the theme, and collaged the whole thing into a funny piece. Don't get my wrong, it does ring true to people with a certain political inclinations (like me, and obviously you) but don't delude yourself into thinking that this was anything but a good fun piece of political satire/comedy. Other than on Slashdot, and perhaps a few other websites, it's not gonna make news other than a few lines within a larger article about the event itself.

Don't get me wrong - I love Colbert. I haven't seen too many of his new shows, but I am a huge fan of the Daily Show. I laugh my ass off when I watch that show. I largely agree with the general "liberal" overtones of the show. But it's a comedy show, and nothing but. John Stewart himself had to remind the two clowns on that Crossfire show in person (now THAT was a bit of a political statement about the press, but he was there as himself and not in character).

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[avdp]

It was somewhat newsworthy in a sense that it takes some balls to make fun of somebody in his/her face, especially when that person is the "leader of the free world" (or something like that). I'll give you that. But it's also what was expected of him when he was hired for the gig, and the content of his act was nothing that wasn't heard before by him, or countless other comedians.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[avdp]

I heard that part, and didn't get it. Must be a real insider's joke, or just not funny. I don't know, maybe somebody can explain...

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[limekiller4]

avdp writes:
I heard that part, and didn't get it. Must be a real insider's joke, or just not funny.

IMO, the joke is fairly straightforward. It's a variation on "how's your wife and my kids?" More specifically, "how's your wife and Andy Card's kids?"

The only thing that makes me think it can't be this is because that would be, I think, even out of bounds for a roast.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[limekiller4]

avdp writes:
You're reading way too much into "his face". That's his shtick, he always says his jokes with a straight face (and succeeds most of the time). I wouldn't read too much into it (like he really really means it this time). I'll say it here, but it applies to many many of the other posts I've read today - this is not a great political statement he has made. It was a comedian act, in an event that hosts such act every year. He's a comedian. He was invited to this event to deliver political humor in front of political-aware people, and he delivered. Trust me, nobody (president included) lost sleep over it. Nobody in the press reported on it, because it's NOT NEWSWORTHY. It was fun to watch though.

While I realize this conversation can't go any deeper than "yes you are" and "no I'm not," I think you're dead wrong and the key here is the audience reaction.

If we can agree that the majority of audience members looked decidedly unamused then that's where I'll draw the line. I think Colbert said a lot of things -- hell the entire speech, really -- that people are not used to hearing said and to a man that isn't used to hearing it, either.

If the audience was laughing it up in the good-natured way that roasts tend to be, then I'd agree that it was pretty much not newsworthy. But the audience, by and large, looked like so many deer in headlights.

As an example; the "Cheney isn't here to shoot me in the face" stuff. Funny. Roast material. People laughed in the way people laugh at unusually harsh material that you'll find at a roast. But when it came to the "Bush believes on Wednesday what he believed on Monday and it doesn't matter what happened on Tuesday" stuff, almost the entire audience was mute.

What you traditionally find at a roast is guffaws and a laughter with a "I can't believe he just said that" overtone (viz: Scalia and the gesture of now-infamous Italian descent). There weren't many points in Colbert's "act" where you couldn't hear the crickets outside.

I pretty much agree with the people who say that this roast was Colbert's "Stewart-Carlson" moment.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[Mac Degger]

Yeah...might be. But explain to me this: why is the president's hack skit then considered newsworthy? It's something which every president does at these dinners. The headline act comedian afterwards totally criticising most of that president's reign, as well as the media's responce, all this to a hostile audience which doesn't recieve this well...I think that's much more newsworthy than Bush being an arse. But who get's aired on ALL the media? There was narry a word on Colbert for doing something rare; the air was filled with 'news' about a president doing the same old schtick.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[Stephen Ma]

He didn't speak the "raw truth", he didn't even speak half truths. He exagerated facts, twisted them in a funny way, made up other facts to fit the theme, and collaged the whole thing into a funny piece.

OK, list them. What major point did he exaggerate or twist? Maybe a few minor things received a bit of comedic overemphasis, but that is how satire works. On the major issues, Colbert was spot on (the supine press, the Iraq war, the WMD lies, the illegal NSA wiretapping, the unprecedented level of corruption, Katrina, global warming, and so on).

And the White House press correspondents at that dinner hated it! Hoo boy, did they ever hate being called out for their almost Stalinist censorship of the news. Witness how little coverage Colbert's takedown is receiving in the mainstream media. It didn't happen, history has been rewritten, you must be deluded to believe that someone named Stephen Colbert ever existed -- see, there are no pictures of him, never mind the suddenly empty spot in this photo!

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[senatorpjt]

Because, as far as I'm able to tell, this is the first time anyone has been able to say this stuff to his face.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[avdp]

Yeah, I get it. Not funny. Unless it's the truth, then it's not really funny either (but probably newsworthy).

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[avdp]

List them? Ok, here it is: the supine press, the Iraq war, the WMD lies, the illegal NSA wiretapping, the unprecedented level of corruption, Katrina, global warming, and so on. I guess he must be "spot on" because you say so? The only thing that was spot on was his impersonation of a conspiracy theorist.

I hate Bush, I love Colbert and I loved his performance. But it was just that, a performance. He hasn't said anything that anybody hasn't said before (on the Tonight Show, for example). Everybody loves to make fun of Bush, makes him look like an idiot (just because he says "nucular") and incompetent. It's not original, it's not unusual, it's not newsworthy.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[justins]

At which point, he stares right at the audience and says "I have nothing but contempt for these people". Look at his face when he says it. He's playing it for laughs, but he's deadly serious.

You're reading way too much into "his face". That's his shtick, he always says his jokes with a straight face (and succeeds most of the time). I wouldn't read too much into it (like he really really means it this time).

Since the whole design of his nightly show is based on contempt for the political press, what you've quoted is not much of a stretch.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[edunbar93]

"Are you having that dream again where you make all the white people riot? I told you to stop that."

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[ccp]

I'll say it here, but it applies to many many of the other posts I've read today - this is not a great political statement he has made. It was a comedian act, in an event that hosts such act every year. He's a comedian. He was invited to this event to deliver political humor in front of political-aware people, and he delivered. Trust me, nobody (president included) lost sleep over it. Nobody in the press reported on it, because it's NOT NEWSWORTHY.

Wosh! Wosh! Woooshhhh!...

(Sound of every and each one issue discussed here going over your head)

Cheers,

CC

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[ccp]

Your attitude is exactly why half the world hates Americans.

My friend, you're being rather modest.
Reality is more like:

Everybody minus Tony Blair

Cheers,
CC

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[avdp]

Thanks for the mature reply. It brings a lot to the discussion.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[ccp]

Thanks for the mature reply. It brings a lot to the discussion.

Maybe it's not a lot, but still is much more that what you brought.

Relax a little.

Cheers,
CC

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[avdp]

Hmmm... I guess the moderators disagreed with you on that one.

I am perfectly relaxed. One could say serene, even.

Re:It's really quite fascinating

[ccp]

Hmmm... I guess the moderators disagreed with you on that one.

Good for you!

CC

Re:Mirror?

[remembertomorrow]

http://isohunt.com/btDetails.php?id=11023245

I just checked, the tracker is up for me. (demonoid.com's tracker)

Isn't it funny?

[greg_barton]

Ain't it funny how Colbert is being ignored? This happened on Saturday. It was a biting, harsh criticism of Bush, to his face, in front of the nation's journalism establishment. Did it make the major news sites? Type "Colbert" into google news and see what pops up first thing.

Re:Isn't it funny?

[roystgnr]

It was a biting, harsh criticism of Bush, to his face, in front of the nation's journalism establishment.

Maybe it's being ignored because it was also a biting, harsh criticism of that journalism establishment?

"Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!"

Re:Isn't it funny?

[c0dedude]

Or maybe it was a completely inapproprate speech that made everyone there uncomfortable and the media has chosen to ignore it and pretend it never happened, since they chose Colbert anyway.

Re:Isn't it funny?

[NitsujTPU]

Either would have done it. He did pretty much directly insult the entire press, the president, and everyone what the event supposedly honored (save 1 or 2 people). It's kind of expected to be grilled a bit.

Even so, option three is that nobody cares about these speeches anwyay. Did anyone reading this article watch as second of last year's White House Correspondent's Dinner? I know that I didn't.

Re:Isn't it funny?

[geminidomino]

Or maybe it was a completely inapproprate speech that made everyone there uncomfortable and the media has chosen to ignore it and pretend it never happened, since they chose Colbert anyway.

In other words, doing exactly what he took them to task for doing?

More points for Colbert.

Re:Isn't it funny?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two reasons its being ignored:

1. The press is, generally, in Bush's pocket. Part of it is 9/11. Part of it is that war makes news organizations (and their parent companies) money. Its well known the Jack Welch pressured NBC news while he was CEO of GE. I would wager this has continued and expanded. (aside - It really says something about a president who can have such backing in the press and still manage to go down to the thirties in approval rating.)

2. Colbert skewered the press as much as the president. He called them on not raising a fuss, not making waves. Why would they want to bring attention to their own short-comings?

"But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!"

A real journalist would probably recognize Colbert's performance as the only news-worthy thing to happen during the event. Here Colbert is providing the best politically satirical speech in years (a generation?) right in front of the bubble boy president. Of course, a real journalist would probably not attend these sort of "buddy up to the administration" events. The fourth estate (ideally) should provide a check on those in power.

P.S. I love Colbert, but whats this doing on slashdot? I guess it is "news that matters" but not in any tech sense AFAICT.

Re:Isn't it funny?

[slashdotmsiriv]

Relax dude, even Fox played it repeatedly today.

Re:Isn't it funny?

[ShakaUVM]

Ignored? It's front page on the drudge report.

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Re:Isn't it funny?

[barefootgenius]

It was on the news in New Zealand. No mention though of "biting, harsh criticism". Just that it was funny and was a yearly (?) event with an invited audience.

Re:Isn't it funny?

[spongeboy]

Maybe because it was part of the Foreign Correspondants dinner, which has a tradition of being a 'roasting' of the President.

Last year had the First Lady saying the Bush Jnr. tried milking a bull.

Re:Isn't it funny?

[FuturePastNow]

The media isn't covering it much because there's nothing special about it. Every year, the Correspondent's Dinner has a comedian, and every year they make fun of the president to his face. Colbert was a bit...harsher than usual (IMO because he's not a stand-up comic but a comedic character actor, and he was in character). Believe it or not, this really does happen every year.

Oh, and the crowd definitely laughing, you can see it when the camera pans on them. You can't hear them because there were no microphones in the audience. If you're ever in a "live studio audience" for the taping of a show...look up, there are dozens of mics hanging from the ceiling.

Re:Isn't it funny?

[Ohreally_factor]

A guy points out that the emperor is not wearing any clothes. The rest of the people in the room, ashamed of their own nakedness (or perhaps fearful that their delusions of being clothed will be destroyed), pretend not to hear or dismiss the speaker as being mean-spirited and out of step with the purpose of the gathering.

Re:Isn't it funny?

[geminidomino]

Yes, I'm familiar with the story, as well as the moral of it.

And...?

Re:Isn't it funny?

[Glock27]

It was a biting, harsh criticism of Bush, to his face, in front of the nation's journalism establishment.

It was also a criticism of the press corps, which is more warranted than a criticism of Bush IMO.

If the main question was "why did we invade Iraq?" delivered by the lovely Helen Thomas, then this guy was bluntly disrespectful to the President, to his face.

I doubt anyone who's ordered men to their deaths in combat is happy to have those decisions mocked. That President Bush "didn't smile" when he met Colbert later is unsurprising.

I'm sure the decision to invade Iraq wasn't an easy one. There is also a clear history on Iraq's part of a) possessing WMD, b) defying the UN and its inspectors, and c) supporting terrorism. Let's also not forget that by all accounts, fewer are dying in Iraq now than did under Saddam Hussein. It is also a good thing that a full democratically elected government has just been formed.

In the long run, I think you'll find that Bush turns out much like Reagan. Unpopular during his time in office, but in retrospect he'll be viewed as a good president who actually made a positive difference in the Middle East.

Re:Isn't it funny?

[Khamura]

I'd hate to live in a time with such a funked-up definition of "positive difference".

Re:Isn't it funny?

[dwpro]

Haliburton. I will never forget the no bid contract for the rebuilding of iraq given to the vice president's company. That is blood money in my mind, and damn him for pork-barreling it. I will not forgive him for that. The usa-patriot act. I could keep going. Do I really need to go into detail for all of the reasons this man will go down in history as the opposite of what you described?

Re:Isn't it funny?

[Straif]

I hear this all the time but I was just wondering, do you know just how many companies specialize in this type of rebuilding in highly dangerous environments? At the time I heard the number 2 being thrown around with Haliburton being the biggest and most capable to respond. There is a reason they get so many of these contracts, even before Bush was in the WH, and it's not all insider trading.

If a person is breaking into your home do you call the police or take time to shop around to give everyone a chance to make you an offer? This is not just some general construction contract that the team from Extreme Makeover can handle, it requires a great deal of security and a very specialized infrastructure, and while I'm sure Haliburton has used and abused their monopolistic position to their advantage, it's hard to blame the current administration for that. But this is a free market society so if you care so much go ahead and start your own international company to compete.

So please, if you are going to complain about no bid contracts, point out which competitors were also in the running and could have gotten resources on the ground as fast, otherwise it's pretty much a moot point.

Re:Isn't it funny?

[Asic Eng]

Iraq had a history of possessing chemical weapons, but those were the weapons supplied by the US, right? Supporting terrorism - was there anything besides financially supporting the families of suicide bombers who get kicked out of their houses, regardless whether they agree with the terrorist's goals or not? What are the accounts of fatalities based on? It seems the US doesn't count Iraqi victims, so how do we know numbers? What were the numbers before the invasions, btw?

Please treat those as honest questions, I'd like to know your opinions and information on this.

Re:Isn't it funny?

[professionalfurryele]

"Or maybe it was a completely inapproprate speech that made everyone there uncomfortable and the media has chosen to ignore it and pretend it never happened, since they chose Colbert anyway."

I'm with everything you said, except the inappropriate bit. The media are doing as piss poor a job as the President, and I for one am greatful that Colbert had the guts to make himself very unpopular with the whole room by going up on stage and basically turning to that pitiful excuse for an audience and saying "You are all worthless".

Re:Isn't it funny?

[Spaceman40]

Right - ignored by the mainstream news.

Re:Isn't it funny?

[drinkypoo]

P.S. I love Colbert, but whats this doing on slashdot? I guess it is "news that matters" but not in any tech sense AFAICT.

"News for nerds. Stuff that matters." You think nerds only want news about nerdly things? Some of us do not have our heads completely up our asses and would like to know about the rest of the world, too.

Re:Isn't it funny?

[drinkypoo]

In the long run, I think you'll find that Bush turns out much like Reagan. Unpopular during his time in office, but in retrospect he'll be viewed as a good president who actually made a positive difference in the Middle East.

The only statistically significant people who like Reagan today are A) the same people who liked him when he was in office and B) the people who have converted over to republicanism due to acquiring big piles of money 'twixt then and now.

Reagan was a blight. Like most presidents both before and after him he did irreparable damage to foreign relations, not to mention what he did to our national financial status.

You are right about one thing though, Bush Jr. and Reagan have some things in common. Both crap presidents, and both with some kind of impairment (Reagan was going senile before he left office - Bush Jr. is just an idiot.)

Re:Isn't it funny?

[DaveJay]

Or maybe it was a completely inapproprate speech that made everyone there uncomfortable...

Hmm. In the past, when celebs (even d-list) make public asses of themselves, the news covers it, because it's entertaining to watch someone fall flat on their face.

So why not cover Colbert's "flop"? Could it be that the media folks recognize that it is they, not Colbert, who looks like they've fallen on their faces?

Re:Isn't it funny?

[dwpro]

well, 2 > 1 as you have said yourself, and being as there is a glaring conflict of interest in choosing a, perhaps they should have chosen b, or made it an open contract. This is assuming, of course, that 1 enormous contract was the best way to go about the rebuilding process, and perhaps it was. As a state employee I am forbidden from doing many things that are seemingly benign due to a potential conflict of interest (accepting meals from contractors is considered such.) How does this compare? The police are in almost no ways comparable to Haliburton, nor was the situation close to someone breaking into a house, so that analogy plain sucks.

Re:Isn't it funny?

[scotch]

I can give you the name of another country that has a clear history of a) possessing WMD's b) defiing the UN and c) supporting terrorism. I'll give you a hint, it starts with United States of America. With such easy justifications like that, the case for preemptive military actions of any number of countries against any number of other countries is within the easy grasp of potential war makers. God save us all from living in a world where your standards are used to justifiy the initiation of hostilities. You are bat-shit crazy if you think this war is a) unequivocally justified (moral), b) well executed, c) unarguably beneficial with clear, achievable long-term objectives, d) and e) worth the staggering cost to the American public and the loss of American lives. Without all 5 of those qualities, America has no business being in any war.

Also, I'd like to see a source for your number of deaths pre- and post- the unilateral unprovoked US invasion if a soveriegn nation.

Bush makes Reagan smell like a rose, and don't forget that 20 some-odd members of the Regan administration were convicted of bad ju-ju.

Re:Isn't it funny?

[TheSenori]

He's being ignored?

I mean, I might be ignorant, but I've seen footage of the speech on, for instance, CNN.

Re:Isn't it funny?

[justins]

I doubt anyone who's ordered men to their deaths in combat is happy to have those decisions mocked.

I'm pretty sure Bush lost the right to get all outraged about Iraq jokes with the "look under the table for WMDs" joke routine at this same dinner a year or two ago.

I'm sure the decision to invade Iraq wasn't an easy one.

I'm sure it was hard work. It must have been hard. The work, that is. Hard work, and he knows it is hard.

In the long run, I think you'll find that Bush turns out much like Reagan. Unpopular during his time in office, but in retrospect he'll be viewed as a good president who actually made a positive difference in the Middle East.

That would help his position in history an awful lot, yes. Although at this stage I'd be happy if the Middle East doesn't become a slag heap.

Re:Isn't it funny?

[Straif]

In addition to being one of only a very small number of companies in the world capable of handling this type of situation (I still don't see anyone putting forward a competitor who also wanted the contract and was capable of delivering timely assistance), if you bothered to look up the facts, I know this is Slashdot and gut reactions always take precedent over facts, you may find out that Haliburton actually holds a LOGCAP contract with the US military. The LOGCAP system is indeed a competitive bidding process and esentially sets up one company to have front of the line status for instances where the normal bidding processes take to long. Winning companies have classified response plans on the ready to be put into action wherever a need arises.

Halliburton also won LOGCAP contracts under Clinton and was used in much the same way as the current admin uses it. Under both admins Haliburton was also awarded temporary no-bid contracts outside of the LOGCAP because they were seen as best company for a particular job and time was of the essence.

And I just love your well thought out attack on my anology.

Re:Isn't it funny?

[dwpro]

I did not know much about LOGCAP before you mentioned it, so thank you for giving me something to reasearch. However, I read the first three articles I could find on LOGCAP and none of them mentioned the competitive bidding process, nor anything comptetive or monetarily responsible that I could see. I would love some links to the competitive nature of the sytem.

HaliburtonWatch was on the top 3 links regarding LOGCAP and provides a none-to-flattering view of this program. Of particular interest is they assert a 9 million dollar study was given to a subsidy of haliburton (KBR) to determine whether or not private companies should be involved in these logistics and that, not suprisingly, the classified study found that the goverment SHOULD subsidize it. After getting the contract in 1992 Cheney became the CEO in 1995. After allegations of fraudulent billing practices in 1997 ( not a Texas megaconglomorate overcharging!) KBR/Haliburton lost the contract to Dynacorp. However, dynacorp was fired when Cheney took office again in 2001, and Haliburton resumed the contract, like clockwork.

Regardless of which puppet party is in control, the issue to me is the conflict of interest, and the repeated violations of trust by halliburton, outlined in detail at halliburtonwatch.org are indicative of the brother-in-lawing that is goin on here.

I don't mean to summarily dismiss your arguments or analogies, I really like this type of discourse, but I really do see very little in common between a for-profit private company getting a no bid contract while the (former?) CEO is vice president, and a public entity like the police being called when someone is breaking into a house.

Re:Isn't it funny?

[Straif]

Not a lot of time for a full response so I'm just poting the first couple of links I found when searching for LOGCAP.

The LOGCAP site (warning, government website designed by 15 year old in 1992)

A bit on Cheney/Halliburton relationship (a ver detailed breakdown with lots of stuff I hadn't seen before).

A bit more on the Haliburton government contracts.

I think I've already said that I'm pretty sure that Haliburton abuses it's near monopoly in the industry for their own benefit, and I'm not debating that. All I'm saying is that the fact they happen to get all these contracts has more to do with the fact they are the only group in town than the fact they are connected to the VP, as displayed by the same 'favoritism' they received under the Clinton admin.

Zaphod Beeblebrox

[xixax]

So is successful President wielding power here or drawing attention away from it?

It's certainly got more media mileage than anything else he's done recently.

Xix.

Re:Zaphod Beeblebrox

[The Snowman]

The government as a whole draws attention away from power. The people who hold real power are CEOs, lawyers, and big businessmen. The government just panders to the masses and runs interference.

Re:Zaphod Beeblebrox

[unitron]

"So is successful President wielding power here or drawing attention away from it?

It's certainly got more media mileage than anything else he's done recently.

Xix."

"The purpose of the office of the president is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it" Douglas Adams

Watch it, enjoy it, believe it

[jambarama]

It is really worth the watch. Colbert starts about 40 minutes into the video. Get the torrent or watch it on youtube (part 1, part 2, and part 3). If you haven't seen the Colbert report - it is quite good. Comedy central has a bunch of videos up - my favorite is the "know a district" ones.

The Colbert Report is really high quality political humor, like the Daily Show with Jon Stewart - it is funny because so often it is true.

Re:Watch it, enjoy it, believe it

[EmoryBrighton]

Please mod parent up. The videos in the linked article have horrible quality, not to mention they are clipped.

On another note, it's sad to see that digg is censoring that article:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=137823232& size=o

Re:Watch it, enjoy it, believe it

[jambarama]

And sadly enough the press is ignoring it. If you search front page stories at Digg.com - you'll find the same story has made it to the front page of digg three times in the last day and a half - and each story has been buried.

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, just fear from Bush supporters to allow criticism of Bush. I'm conservative, and I have some major reservations with Bush - but too many of my GOP friends really can't stand discussion. It is too bad that news agencies are too afraid to print accurate criticisms. Though with all the NSA wiretapping and executive gag orders who can blame them?

Re:Watch it, enjoy it, believe it

[ShakaUVM]

Front page Drudge Report, darling of conservative "indie" news readers.

Fox is covering it too.

Why would only the liberal media be ignoring it? Thats the real question. I'd expect stories tomorrow night.

Re:Watch it, enjoy it, believe it

[Scudsucker]

Why would only the liberal media be ignoring it?

You can't ignore something if you don't exist in the first place.

Re:Watch it, enjoy it, believe it

[ShakaUVM]

>>You can't ignore something if you don't exist in the first place.

Every person is biased, and stories always reflect the political orientation of the writer, whether consciously or not.

So instead of looking at stories and arguing if they're biased toward a liberal or conservative POV, it's more instructive to just look at how reporters vote. I recalled it being reported back in the day that something like 90% of reporters voted for Clinton (vs Bush Sr.), so I dug around to find some references.

Start here, and scroll down:
http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/MediaBiasBasi cs.html#HOW%20THE%20MEDIA%20VOTE

The funny thing about hard numbers is that you can't just wave your hands in the air or stick your head in the ground when confronted by them.

I personally think it would be very beneficial for every editorial in a newspaper to have a small Nolan Chart next to the name of every writer, and that TV news (especially) try to have reportage from people of opposite ends of the Nolan Chart.

Re:Watch it, enjoy it, believe it

[Scudsucker]

it's more instructive to just look at how reporters vote

No, it's not. This old chestnut was put to bed a very, very, very long time ago. In the first place, these surveys are bullshit, because they (deliberatly) select a tiny sample. In the survey mentioned in your own link, they polled 240 journalists out of tens of thousands nationwide.

The second reason this argument is bullshit, is because in the words of Eric Alterman, "you are only as liberal as the man who ones you". The owners of big media are very conservative, and with consolidation explosion after the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the amount of media they control keeps getting larger and larger.

Furthermore, even longstanding, famously liberal media sources feel compelled to offer conservative voices an equal voice in their space, while conservative media sources wouldn't think for a second of returning the favor.

So, in summary: the media has never had a liberal bias; if it did, we'd be in the middle of Al Gore's second term right now. The supposition that it is, however, was the Devils gift to the Republican Party.

Re:Watch it, enjoy it, believe it

[ShakaUVM]

>>240 journalists out of tens of thousands nationwide.

An interesting way to try to avoid the issue.

Meet statistics: that's a 6.25% margin of error (240 out of 10,000, 6.32% for 240 out of 100,000).

Also, the survey results have been repeatedly confirmed over and over. Liberal reporters outnumber conservative reporters by up to a 9-to-1 ratio. This is throughout various populations, and throughout the media establishment, not just at the reporter level (who do indeed write the articles or do the reporting in question -- bias seeps into everything one does, it's unavoidable).

People are quite good at sensing unspoken bias. People are comfortable listening to people speak that have the same set of operating beliefs as them. People become distraught and angry when they hear words spoken with a different set of underlying beliefs. Hence liberals do not believe the media has a liberal bias, and conservatives overwhelmingly do. Except for Fox News, which conservatives think is pretty well balanced, and liberals constantly mock and/or hate.

I'm personally center-wing, and get irritated at both sides. =)

As someone who has studied the media rather thoroughly (comm minor), I agree that you are right: they do indeed have big business' interests at heart. And they are also liberal. It's an odd synergy of philosophies, but is the dominant one in our mainstream media today, and has been for many decades now. So you'll see them hammering Bush on one hand, and then supporting measures like the DMCA on the other (if they even report on it at all).

As far as the people controlling the media being conservatives? No.

Ted Turner is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. He thought the 9-11 terrorists were "brave men", and thought the world would be better if Al Gore was elected.
Sumner Redstone is a self described "liberal democrat"
Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, and Tom Brokaw were all liberals.
NPR is unquestionably liberal. I've been listening to NPR and public radio here in San Francisco for years, and the closest thing I've heard to a conservative voice on NPR was a conservative attacking Bush for his spending policies. Which is actually a favorite tactic of a liberal media wanting to present "both sides".

>>The second reason this argument is bullshit, is because in the words of Eric Alterman, "you are only as liberal as the man who ones you".

I personally find it amusing that you'd use a quote from a contributor to Mother Jones' magazine to make a point that there's no liberal bias. "His books include What Liberal Bias? and The Book on Bush: How George W. (Mis)leads America" -- a juxtoposition I find to be particularly amusing.

Unless you don't think Mother Jones' magazine has left-wing tendencies? Which, uh, would be at least a novel point of view.

Honestly, anyone who believes the media doesn't have a liberal bias is simply delusional. Well, I take that back. My favorite writing professor was a communist. He thought the media always represented big business (which is generally true, except when it comes to heavy industry) and that the media wasn't liberal enough. To him, Peter Jennings sounded like Sean Hannity. He simply couldn't be convinced otherwise.

That's why it's important to recognize one's own bias in trying to classify a reporter as liberal/conservative, and why I, whenever discussing the issue, always try to disregard opinion for fact. I know facts are dirty words to some people, but the nice thing about them is that one's own cognition can't change them.

9-to-1 voted for Clinton vs Bush Sr.

Dig your heels in, grit your teeth, pull your hair out, argue that a 6.23% margin of error is really a much larger number, whatever -- those are the facts.

Re:Watch it, enjoy it, believe it

[Scudsucker]

An interesting way to try to avoid the issue.

It's not avoiding the issue. There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and then there are really bad polls trying to masquarade as statistics.

Also, the survey results have been repeatedly confirmed over and over. Liberal reporters outnumber conservative reporters by up to a 9-to-1 ratio.

Over and over by more bad polling, and by making one of more of the following fallacies: someone is liberal if they say something opposing a conservative candidate or official, if they are to the left of Strom Thurmond, or are a Democrat. None of which are necessarily the case.

For example, when Kenneth Tomlinson, the formoer CPB chairman, was monitoring PBS for "liberal bias", his consultant tagged Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, as "liberal" for having some disagreements with the Bush administration and misgivings over Iraq. However, Hagel got a 100% conservative rating from both the Christian Coalition and the Eagle Forum that year.

On the second point, someone you would call "liberal" today is likely to be more conservative than a "conservative" 30 to 40 years ago, before the rise of think tanks and the God-gun-free market jihad. "This country is going so far to the right you are not even going to recognize it." Know who said that? John Mitchell, Nixon's attorney general. Know when he said it? 1970. Just because someone is not a rabbid neocon or a hardcore conservative does not make them "liberal". Which leads to....

9-to-1 voted for Clinton vs Bush Sr.

Oh, please. Clinton famously made many Republican issues his own during both his campaigns and as president. Balancing the budget (remember when the GOP was for a balanced budget amendment?), welfare reform, free trade, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, putting more cops on the street, and COPA. Democrat != liberal.

And your "journalists" argument is bullshit for a third reason: by focusing only on reporters (of which there are a good more than 10,000) you ignore the most conservative part of the media: talk radio. This also allows you to ignore the talking heads on Fox and the pundits on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. And even if you are right, you are still wrong, because media owners call the shots, and the great majority of those are conservative, especially the big outlets. And if repoters are so liberal, then why did they have a massive hate on for the Clintons, Dean and Gore while having a love affair with Bush?

Ted Turner is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal.

CNN is a fraction of the news media, and Turner hasn't had anything to do with it for years.

He thought the 9-11 terrorists were "brave men"

They certainally were brave, just as the Pentagon was a legitimate military target. The fact that they were murdering bastards who ended the lives of thousands of innocent people does nothing to change the fact that it took balls of steel to do what they did.

and thought the world would be better if Al Gore was elected.

Of course it would have been. 9/11 might have actually been prevented had Gore become president, as he would have paid more attention to the warnings put out by Clinton administration officials. We are of course dealing in "what if's" here, but is is very likely that Gore's AG would have been more concerned with terrorists than covering up boobies on statues in the DOJ. We also wouldn't have added a couple trillion dollars to the national debt while passing more and more tax breaks for the super rich, while silently depending on the AMT snaring more and more of the middle class to offset even larger defecits down the road. We also wouldn't have gone into Iraq and lost over 2,000 more American lives based on the piss poor evidence that Bush used. So, yes: the world would be a better place with Gore in office.

But back to CNN. The CNN that routinely gives conservatives like Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck their own shows while not doin

Re:Watch it, enjoy it, believe it

[ShakaUVM]

>>It's not avoiding the issue. There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and
>>then there are really bad polls trying to masquarade as statistics.

And there are people that don't understand basic concepts like margin of error by complaining about only a couple hundred people in a poll.

The key thing about the polls is not self-reported "conservative" or "liberal" which tends to get misreported, but rather who they voted for. In every election, people in the mainstream media, across all levels from reporter to executive, vote Democrat over Republican by a wide, wide margin.

This is unquestionable.

>>Over and over by more bad polling

No, this is exactly the correct question to ask. Not "are you liberal or conservative?" but rather who they voted for.

>>, and by making one of more of the following fallacies: someone is
>>liberal if they say something opposing a conservative candidate or
>>official

See previous statement.

This isn't what was asked at all, but rather who they voted for which is a nice black and white question that eliminates pollster bias.

>>And your "journalists" argument is bullshit for a third reason: by
>>focusing only on reporters

See above statements. The trend is across the entire spectrum.

>>For example, when Kenneth Tomlinson, the formoer CPB chairman, was
>>monitoring PBS for "liberal bias", his consultant tagged Chuck Hagel,
>>R-Nebraska, as "liberal" for having some disagreements with the Bush
>>administration and misgivings over Iraq.

Correct. The story was liberal, even if the person was not.

Liberals rather famously try to appear "balanced" by using conservatives on their show that disagree with other conservatives.

Read this, learn this.

For example, NPR last month had a conservative economist who was bashing Bush's economic policies. Not that I disagree with the economist, in fact, but it earns a liberal tag, not a conservative one.

This is in contrast to, of course, actually running a conservative viewpoint.

>>you ignore the most conservative part of the media: talk radio

Correct. Talk radio rather famously became conservative because conservatives grew frustrated at the lack of their viewpoint being seen in TV and print. Rush Limbaugh's explosive success was not the result of his charming personality.

Again, it's not something you can even really argue about. The mainstream media is overwhelmingly liberal. It's not even a stance, simply a fact.

>>1970. Just because someone is not a rabbid neocon or a hardcore conservative does not make them "liberal".

Uh, Neocon means they have adopted traditionally liberal positions in relation to the government's role in society. Big government? Liberals and neocons believe in that one. That's the main reason Bush is losing his conservative base.

>>>>NPR is unquestionably liberal.
>>Nonsense. Name me a media source less biased than NPR.

Well, right. Exactly my point.

I've been tracking NPR stories here in SF for about two years now, and have yet to hear a single one with a conservative viewpoint. The balance is about 70% liberal, 30% neutral.

I call, for example, a story about defending the environment a liberal story, but a story about, say, the actual enviroment (such as Yosemite's pass being closed by a landslide) neutral. Conservatives attacking conservatives counts as liberal.

>>Oh, so because he's a self professed liberal, he's automatically discredited?

Not a self-professed liberal, but contributor to Mother Jones', then yeah.

>>You might pay attention during the parts where he lists conservative
>>pundits who will admit that the "biased liberal media" is nothing more
>>than political propoganda by the GOP.

As someone who has studied the media, I can tell you I wish more people were capable of recog

Re:Unbelievable!

[Brandee07]

Mocking the president is not too special. Mocking the president in front of his face, the media, and all of his armed guards takes major balls.

If I were ever to meet him myself, I would probably be confirmed in my opinion of him as an idiot, but I think his armed guards would keep my smart mouth in line.

Worth a watch

[lightyear4]

Oh he didn't entirely lose the room. Far from it, considering the exceptionally dry speakers preceding the Bushes and Colbert. (All praise the invention of fast forward). Colbert's greeting of Scalia, comments regarding Fox, boxing a glacier, DC the mallowmar city, Plame, and Helen-Thomas-the-stalker were all priceless. The interviews of the press corps in their little caves and 'presidential humor - cspan style' segments were great too. By all means watch it if you haven't.

Re:Worth a watch

[sgt_doom]

How sad to see those people in the audience laughing when the Bush Administration's actions have such serious, mortal consequences. The disastrous effects on the US economy will be felt for decades to come, assuming it actually ever recovers.

The number of murders of innocents by this administration in its mindless pursuit of greed and power. And most scarey of all, if it was truly the American electorate, and not just those Diebold machines, which was responsible for the reelection of the most seriously moronic president in history!!!!!

Ohhh, woe is us.....

Re:Worth a watch

[HardCase]

The disastrous effects on the US economy will be felt for decades to come, assuming it actually ever recovers.

Indeed - with the stock market well over 10,000 and unemployment under 5%, it's an absolute disaster.

The number of murders of innocents by this administration in its mindless pursuit of greed and power.

They eat children, too!

And most scarey of all, if it was truly the American electorate, and not just those Diebold machines, which was responsible for the reelection of the most seriously moronic president in history!!!!!

No kidding! That wretched democratic process ought to be done away with. The people can't be trusted with that kind of power!

-h-

Re:Worth a watch

[fatboy]

They eat children, too!

Only when market forces allow it, not all the time.

Re:Worth a watch

[drinkypoo]

No kidding! That wretched democratic process ought to be done away with. The people can't be trusted with that kind of power!

Done away with? We'd have to have one first. The US is a Republic, which is a "representative democracy" - which in turn is an oxymoron.

There has never been a true democracy. Even in Athens only male, racially privileged land-owners were permitted to vote.

How would we actually know if the people could handle that kind of power or not? No people in recorded history have ever had it.

Re:Worth a watch

[deanj]

You know, you'd be taken a lot more seriously if you'd have said this during Clinton's administration when thousands of innocents were slaughtered in Rwanda?

What's your big idea of how to handle Iran, now that they seem dead set on getting nuclear weapons?

Disastrous effects on the economy? I think you need to take an economics class. The economic news has been great. Just an example: http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php? content_id=125531

As for the rest of your diatribe.... We get it. You don't like Bush. You attribute all that is wrong in the world to him. ....Yawn.

You seem to have all the answers. I'd like to hear your ideas. See if you can actually do it without ripping on Bush. I seriously doubt you can.

Take your hate elsewhere.

Re:Worth a watch

[quax]

Indeed - with the stock market well over 10,000 and unemployment under 5%, it's an absolute disaster.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

Re:Worth a watch

[Tekzel]

Because, much like pure socialism, pure democracy can NOT work. And here is why: Anything that involves people becomes corrupted. I say this not so much as a bad thing as reality. Frankly, I am glad we are the way we are. If not for all the wars and such in the past, we would not be able to appreciate the level of civilization we have today, in fact I highly doubt we would be anywhere near as technologically advanced. Really, think about it. Nothing drives pure research like competition. NOTHING. War is basically just our competitive nature expressed at a very high, nationalistic, level.

    This is why communism doesn't work. If you are going to try to debate that point, don't. Just walk away. Lack of competition equals stagnation. Here comes a shocking theory. Could we, as a species, survive without war? Would we stagnate and just waste away? I don't necessarilly believe this, but I also am not going to discount it off hand.

Re:Worth a watch

[Tekzel]

Oh, I feel I need to add something to my post.

Don't take what I said to mean I like war, I dont. I like competition. I am in love with it. We, as a species will progress towards a point where one of 3 things will happen. We will destroy ourselves, we will lose our competitive nature, or we will learn how to use our competitive nature in a constructive rather than destructive manner. The first and second scenarios are both equally horrible in my mind, they both spell our destruction. The last one, in my opinion of course, will be our success.

Keep in mind, I am not some kind of social scientist or anything. I am just an ignorant American. High school dropout, GED, no college degree. So, take everything I say with a grain of salt, because, I r dum.

Re:Worth a watch

[sgt_doom]

Gee, the poverty levels have risen approximately 1 million per year since 2000 (that would be when Bush took office). And you claim the unemployment is under 5% - you mean the number of Americans who are still able to receive unemployment benefits is under 5%!!!

Please, one must always specifically define what they mean. I have seen post after post where people linked to BLS stats - two problems: BLS stats have been mightily revised over the past 10 years again and again - just study the daily listings over the previous 10 years, and, again those stats only reveal the number who are receiving unemployment bennies - which has been drastically altered over the pvious five to six years....

Re:Worth a watch

[sgt_doom]

Negative, sonny, the news is simply further and further super-concentration of wealth in this country. The very moment they stop counting debt as part of the GDP (and please, take a little while to research why it was changed from GNP to the term now used today, GDP) they economy will realistically be shown to be shrinking.

Hate???? I'm not a war profiteer - I've never received money for the deaths of others. My family and friends aren't responsible for the extraordinary number of innocents who have died in Iraq, the US military and those unfortunates who perished on 9/11/01 - and for what purpose?? Simply to further enrich Cheney, Bush, Halliburton, Wolfowitz, Armitage.

Re:Worth a watch

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, the Three Card Monty game that is supporting Bush Jr.

How 'bout some commone sense? I know the president has no use for facts
as he chooses "faith over facts" (go look it up, that is one of his
better ones, the ones that can't be chalked up to 'mis-speak' but actually
shed some light on the depths of his ignorance) but the rest of us may
find them interesting.

>>with the stock market well over 10,000
The stock market never has, nor ever will be, a meaningful indicator of
anything meaningful to the populace of this country. It is about as
significant as those numbers surrounding your CPU name, pretty pointless
in the bigger scheme of things and only meaningful when the other parts
of your system are taken into consideration. All these Bushies are basically
saying, "We are fine because we have a 9.9 GHz cpu..." never mentioning
(or even considering) that this is running against 8 Mb of memory...

>>unemployment under 5%
Another trickery. Take into account those who have given up on the job
market and then let's talk about how many jobs he has created. It would
pain the Bushies, but meaningful things like pay rates, pay-to-inflation,
and all those other things that actually make a figure like this mean
anything beyond, "Ain't he grand?"

>>They eat children, too
Ah yes, the famous "They aren't THAT bad, so they aren't bad" logic.
Not even worth the time. Ignore 10,000 deaths because noone got "eaten".
Disgusting.

The last comment is so brainless it is beyond comprehension. Not that
some dolt would try to make that 'point' but the fact that someone who
had their leader APPOINTED would make some flippant comment about the
sacredness of democracy.

The thing that truly terrifies me about this country is not Bush. It is
the 32% (haven't checked the latest figure for this hour) that are so
completely without objective thought.

Re:Worth a watch

[drinkypoo]

Democracy - and I mean real democracy - is harder to game than a republic, which in turn is more difficult to game than communism, which is more difficult to game than straight fascism, the latter of which is a game, and little else.

In response to your response to yourself, the sibling to this comment: Don't feel bad about being uneducated, it doesn't necessarily make you wrong any more than being educated might make someone else right. Education is like a shovel - in the hands of the wrong man it's wasted like any other tool, and in the hands of the utterly stupid is can only make them more dangerous.

Re:Worth a watch

[Anonymous Coward]

What you call "hate", I call rational and necessary opposition to corruption and incompetence. I also call it an exercise of free speech (we still have that right, don't we? Or has the Bush Administration nullified that aspect of the Constitution too?). I also call it legitimate debate by pointing out facts to people trying to pedal spin as if it were "reality".

I'm a fiscal conservative, and this administration is one of the most recklessly irresponsible when it comes to fiscal matters that has ever held the office, coddling and enabling one of the most financially irresponsible and corrupt congresses ever. And it's pure Republican. Conservative? I don't think so.

I also believe in the rule of law. This administration flouts and belittles the rule of law at every turn. With over 750 "signing statements", Bush actually signs bills into law with one hand, while claiming he won't abide by it if he doesn't want to in the other. In a single stroke, he's seized the power of both the judicial and legislative branches, and utterly spit upon the concept of the separation of powers and the idea of checks and balances.

I also believe in putting the country and the welfare of its citizens above petty party politics... again, the opposite of this Administration and the Republicans currently in power, who are willing to commit treason to further their party's power and control and to prevent anyone from pointing out inconvenient truths.

I also believe in rational discussion and debate, in reality over dogma, in changing ideas and opinions to reflect new information and realities on the ground, and learning from mistakes. Again, all things this Administration eschews and even snears at. The steady stream of spin and deception, half-truths and out-right lies on all fronts from this Administration has been stunning. They lie right to your face, even when they know you know you're they're lying to you. It's utterly shameless.

It's not 'hate', it's utter disgust. It's outrage that these corrupt and incompentent jerks are getting away with destroying this country's credibility, destroying this country's economic future (with its massive debt and outrageous spending and borrowing more from foreign nations than all other admininstrations in this nation's history, COMBINED), shredding the constitution and our civil rights, utterly dismissing any environmental concerns or any sort of long-term thinking, the destruction of the very necessary and beneficial separation of church and state... the list goes on and on and on. In fact, it's hard to come up with any RATIONAL reason for anyone to support this administration. If a Democrat had done even half the things Bush has done (let alone said even a quarter of Bush's verbal goofs), Republicans would be screaming bloody murder. It's the hypocrisy that is the worst.

Maybe you shouldn't be mindlessly letting yourself be brainwashed by paid propaganda outlets like FOX News and Rush Limbaugh.

Re:Worth a watch

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

well, my stocks are only vaguely in the ballpark that they were in before the first president with an MBA took over. And I spent a pretty long time unemployed last year, so the personal effects of this great stock market and low unemployment havent really trickled down to me yet. but thats not really here nor there.

Um, perhaps murder is a rather harsh term, but hey, we don't even count fatalities from collateral damage. WTF is up with that? Not really confined to this administration, *obviously*, but they do seem particularly Fuck You about rubbing it in everybody's face that they just dont give a fuck. At least Clinton didn't smirk when talking about military operations and collateral damages.

people get stupid when they act in groups. I reserve the right to bitch about what people do when they get stupid together. For example, I reserve the right to bitch about the results of a democratic election; to bitch about the campaign tactics used by one party in said democratic election; and to bitch about the edicts promulgated by the winner of said democratic election. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with an attack on the priciples of democracy. Its just sour grapes, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Its a total bullshit rhetorical style to slam-dunk an argument that was not given, rather than addressing what was actually said. You think you're being clever, but you're not. You're just proving that you dont really have anything to say besides, "i disagree with your idealogy." and there's nothing wrong with that, either, just dont try to masquerade it as intelligent discourse, 'cause its not.

Re:Worth a watch

[Grax]

UNICEF puts the number of child deaths blamed on the 1990s embargo of Iraq by the US under crowd-favorite Bill Clinton at 500,000. Those deaths are said to have come from malnutrition and disease.

But I am sure that starving or dying of disease is much more comfortable than dying from a bullet or terrorist bomb.

Re:Worth a watch

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

whoops, *ideology*

Re:Worth a watch

[Grax]

No more laughing. I expect the proper somber attitude from now on.

Seriously, there are all kinds of horrors all around. If you wait until everything is fixed before anyone gets to laugh you certainly won't be laughing in this lifetime.

Re:Worth a watch

[VGfort]

Indeed - with the stock market well over 10,000 and unemployment under 5%, it's an absolute disaster.

Those numbers really dont tell the whole truth. How many of the employed, now have better higher paying jobs, or jobs with healthcare? And there never is a stat for UNDERemployment. The middle class isnt getting stronger. Those numbers dont really mean much, just like the GDP goes up whenever a tree is cut down or someone gets cancer.

Re:Worth a watch

[Grax]

Thanks for the article. It looks like helpful information.

Re:Worth a watch

[willtsmith]

What's your big idea of how to handle Iran, now that they seem dead set on getting nuclear weapons?


The intent and the capability of making nuclear weapons are two separate issues. The experts say they are a good 20 years away. We have a little time to work the issue diplomaticaly. There is no crisis concerning Iran. There is only a President who has popularity numbers lower than Hoover and is desperately trying to find an issue to get himself out of the cellar. Hmm... reminds me of the conditions "pre-9/11".

Regarding the economy, Wall St looks at things from the investors standpoint. Yes, investors are doing well. The adherents of vodoo economics claim that this effect will "trickle down" to the shrinking middle class. The truth is that unions are being busted, health care costs are going up, wages are stagnant and you aren't counted as unemployed once your benefit check runs out. The actual "employment" numbers are calculated with surveys and models predicting the number of individuals who are "self employed" (regardless of whether self employment pays the rent).

Look closely at the numbers and you'll see a lot of smoke and mirrors. The truth is that from the "mythical little guys's" perspective this economy stinks. It stinks even more when people who don't work for dividend checks pay only 15% while you have to pay both FICA and income tax on your hard earned money.

Re:Worth a watch

[CrazyFool]

The experts say they are a good 20 years away.

Yup. I mean look at the North Koreans - they are still years... oh wait...

Re:Worth a watch

[justins]

Remember, the "unemployment" figure refers to new jobless claims or something equally useless. Perhaps that almost goes without saying: of course more than 5% of us don't work, I guess that is common sense.

Re:Worth a watch

[Gob Gob]

"What's your big idea of how to handle Iran, now that they seem dead set on getting nuclear weapons?"

Let them. Only 1 country has ever used them. It seems no pre-requisite on peace or war.

**News Flash**

These are world killers - The knowledge is already out in the wild, the how to.

Maye people of the world have freinds and family and other things they dont want to see made into a dusty radioactive pool of rubble either. Worth a thought perhaps some trust and definatly hope.

Re:Worth a watch

[mobilemic]

Well, how does the rest of the world handle the US? They have nucular weapons ...

Oh, and since you seem to be such a Bush fanboy, it's *nucular*, not nuclear.

Re:Worth a watch

[Ninjaesque One]

For every exclamation point excess of the normal one, your sanity starts slipping away. Frankly, right now, you're at 'extremely, extremely angry, in terms of righteous flames directed at government', but you're pushing 'pop-yer-veins, do a do-si-do' angry. Then comes insanity.

Re:Worth a watch

[sgt_doom]

In your post you neglected to mention anything factual - to make sense to a normal person, one must include facts.

I realize these are pesky little things as I've met people who are convinced Bush is a war hero, and John Kerry never served in combat.

There is one positive aspect of the horrendous Iraqi War, though; returning combat vets will now be experienced in controlled and uncontrolled demolitions and explosions and other incendiary events. Now when they happen to view the collapse of the WTC on 9/11/01, it will look quite obvious as to what took place there.

Re:Worth a watch

[Wonko the Sane]

Also don't assume that the process that occurs in American public schools and education are in fact the same thing.

Re:John Amato's C&L blog?

[general_re]

A quick search on Google news for "colbert white house" gives over 400 hits on the same event. Gotta wonder why such a slanted source was the one selected.

Actually, no, I think you've nailed it already.

Re:Funny?

[Fallen Kell]

Too bad there was a little too much truth mixed in there... That might be a reason why it was so painful to watch.

Re:John Amato's C&L blog?

[adpowers]

"I just read it for the videos."

Since I don't often read the non-video posts, I use Crooks and Liars mainly as a source for keeping up on the news, because they cherry pick the most telling videos of the day.

Or, are you trying to say that they are a "far left smear website"? Well, in the words of the great Stephen Colbert, "Reality has a well known liberal bias."

Andrew

Re:John Amato's C&L blog?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, for most people, a source isn't biased if you agree with it.

On the other hand, for most people a source is biased if they disagree with it. "Biased" is short-hand for "I don't like it". In politics, it's *very hard* to find an unbiased source, if at all possible. Why does it even matter and in which way does it affect the video?

Re:John Amato's C&L blog?

[MillionthMonkey]

Oh, there's a nice unbiased source.

Well then what's wrong with a biased source?

Being "unbiased" doesn't automatically make you credible. In fact it can cost you your credibility.

What I find most interesting...

[DeadPrez]

Is that the mainstream press coverage has mostly covered the Bush lookalike and not the pure political embrassment Bush suffered at the hands of Colbert. Perhaps the educated guess for this strange disconnect would be that the press hosts the event and it would be less noteworthy if the President stopped attending.

Re:What I find most interesting...

[Ogive17]

Why does everyone seem to think Colbert bashing Bush wasn't to be expected? Have you ever WATCHED The Daily Show before? When he was invited to speak, I believe they knew exactly what he'd do, and he did it.

It's possible he went a little farther than the organizers expected on a few topics. Personally, I'm not surprised at the things he said because I've seen him on other programs and I've seen the past two events.

Re:Funny?

[PaulQuinn]

Bush violates the law and constitution. OH SNAP! I'm a "Bush Basher".
Ignore the fact that Bush violates the law and constitution.

Kill the messenger, ignore the message. I'm sure those are tomorrows talking points.

The best part about this

[Anonymous Coward]

The best part about this is that the funnier and more incisive he gets, the quieter and quietier and quieter the laughter gets.

Too bad that nobody will hear about this except the people who read Slashdot, the people who watch Comedy Central, and the people who watch C-SPAN on saturday night. In other words, the exact people who are most likely to already agree with what Colbert is saying. Everybody else, well, everybody else will just hear about that part the BBC covered-- you know, the bit where Bush demonstrated what a down-to-earth, wouldn't-you-just-love-to-have-a-beer-with-me kind of guy he was by getting up on stage with a body double and deliberately mispronouncing words.

Which means Colbert's little song and dance here doesn't really matter. All right, so somebody criticized the president to his face for the first time in four years. (No, Kerry at the 2004 debates doesn't particularly count.) Okay, so what? The 32% who still approve of Bush's job-- who are, after all, the only people who matter-- won't hear about this, and if they hear about it, they won't listen. The 2006 elections still will go to the Republicans, because even if everyone gets pissed off at Mr. Bush, they still won't like the incompetent, spineless democrats any better.

The Republicans will continue to hold congress after 2006; nobody will ever investigate any of the laws Bush has broken; Bush will quietly leave office in 2008, Iraq will someday eventually get electricity and running water, and talk show hosts and revisionists will nostalgically talk about what a great leader Bush was until nobody remembers him as anything other than a second Reagan. (And how well do you remember the Reagan administration? Yup, that's what I thought.) Nobody will remember that freakish, depressing third half of the Bush presidency where major american cities were destroyed and the President was admitting to impeachable offenses on national television and nobody did anything about it. Everyone will just remember that first, inspiring part of the Bush presidency after september 11, when Bush said that God told him how to lead the country, and everyone believed him.

Re:The best part about this

[theurge14]

I was with you up until you started talking about a third half of something.

Re:The best part about this

[audi100quattro]

Is that what your gut says?

Re:The best part about this

[Lendrick]

Really, now, if that 32% listened to *anything*, they'd have stopped approving of Bush by now. Colbert didn't imply anything that wasn't already public knowledge.

We're down to the religious nutbags now. It's interesting, really, to see what percentage they make up, and I'm glad it's only 32... at one point I was worried it was in the 40s. Bush will have a really hard time losing these people, because they're the ones who believe that he was sent by God (as opposed to, say, reelected in a questionable and impossible-to-verify manner).

Re:The best part about this

[geminidomino]

It's interesting, really, to see what percentage [the religious nutbags] make up, and I'm glad it's only 32...

You know, it scares the hell out of me that we've reached the point that we're glad only 1/3 of the population is composed of these fuckwits...

Re:The best part about this

[Brandybuck]

We're down to the religious nutbags now.

The reason the Democrats will lose the White House again in 2008 is because they keep deluding themselves that only religious nutbags can possibly vote for a Republican. The Democrat Party is slowly but steadily losing its core, and if doesn't do something to stop the hemorrhage, the only thing left in a few years will be the fuzzy lunatic fringe. It's almost as if they want a single party state for the entire next generation.

Re:The best part about this

[rm999]

I disagree - parties rise and fall in waves, and the democrats will rise again. The only place for the republicans to go from here is down :)

Re:The best part about this

[DeadPrez]

Carter was an evangelical who brought that vote out in numbers for the first time, but it was Reagon who truly exploited evangelicals for political gain. Now it seems the exploitation has evolved into a science.

That and/or evangelicals tend to have more kids.

BTW, I still think their are still some people who believe he is a conservative in that 32%.

Re:The best part about this

[killjoe]

Although religious nutbags are not the only ones who vote republican they all vote republican. If Jesus ran as a democrat the religious nutbags would vote against him.

Who else votes for the republicans? Mostly idiots who believe the republicans when they say they are for fiscal responsiblity and smaller govt despite the fact that the only presients who ever shrank the govt in my lifetime were democrats and even Carter ran the economy better then Bush.

So there you have it, religious nutbags and idiots. Alas there are too many of them in the country.

Re:The best part about this

[Tracy Reed]

I'm confused. Are you seriously predicting the destruction of major American cities over the next couple of years? Seems pretty unlikely to me.

Re:The best part about this

[Tracy Reed]

Ok, but I don't see how hurricane Katrina was Bush's fault. Seemed like an act of nature to me. And you said "cities" plural.

Re:The best part about this

[divide overflow]

> I was with you up until you started talking about a third half of something.

You're obviously a member of the Factinista. The parent was speaking straight from the gut. You Slashdot Nerds clearly don't "get" the concept of truthiness. So sad....

Re:The best part about this

[geminidomino]

Jesus, dude. I know you were pulling a Cobert, but when you throw it all together like that, you sound like an Orz.

Re:The best part about this

[Frozen Void]

Probably right but there remain archived sites
blogs and forums that have negative views of his presidency and that
WILL NOT GO AWAY.

Re:The best part about this

[Alomex]

Then you need to look up how the Bush administration refused to reimforce the levies in spite of clear advice that they would fail given a category 3 hurricane.

Re:The best part about this

[dwpro]

interesting you noted that, as it coincides with the immigration policy (yes, stereotyping, but that doesn't mean its not true)

Re:The best part about this

[Anonymous Coward]

And let me guess . . . these same levies somehow were stronger during Clinton's terms in office?

The failure of the levies in New Orleans was not the fault of the federal govt . . . it was a system of incompetent and corrupt LOCAL leadership. The Dems and Reps on the federal level had nothing to do with it.

As an anarcho-capitalist / neo-objectivist I have no patience with either party, but let's put the blame where it belongs. Squarely on the head of the New Orleans leadership.

No account - sorry for the AC post.

Re:The best part about this

[Guppy06]

Does President Bush seem like the kind of man who'd let something as silly as the Twenty-Second Amendment get in his way?

Re:The best part about this

[Tony]

And let me guess . . . these same levies somehow were stronger during Clinton's terms in office?

Well, yes, they were. Things decay over time, and require routine maintenance.

The army corps of engineers determined the levies required maintenance. There was money in the federal budget to work on those levies. The money was taken out of the budget and redirected to a war in Iraq.

Now, I'm not saying they money should have been there in the first place. Personally, I believe we should have a small federal government, and stronger state governments, and even stronger municipal governments. But I'd rather see my tax money going to reenforce levies in New Orleans than spending it on the destruction of Iraq.

Re:The best part about this

[BobaFett]

Finally an intelligent comment on Katrina. C'mon people, if you live ain a city below sea level, you are dealing with a *predictable* disaster. Not only you know it'll one day happen, you know exactly what will happen. Every building should have a red line drawn on it with a sign "this will be the water level if levies fail". Every city office, police, firefighters, school bus drivers, should have emergency plans for what to do when the city floods, and the first thing they should do every morning when they come to work is to make sure they remember what it the first thing they should do when the levies break.

I understand getting surprized by an unpredictable disaster, like an earthquake (you don't know what exactly will fail) but if a city needs federal government to tell them to drive school buses to a higher ground when flood comes in, then perhaps it should be flooded and washed away.

Re:The best part about this

[maraist]

Who else votes for the republicans? Mostly idiots who believe the republicans when they say they are for fiscal responsiblity and smaller govt despite the fact that the only presients who ever shrank the govt in my lifetime were democrats and even Carter ran the economy better then Bush.

I can't believe I'm going to defend a Republican congress.. Please believe me, I have no love for those currently in power (the people, not the party), but there is a subtle difference between the republican-led waste and the democrat-led waste.. The republicans are currently blatently spending all their money bribing the public.. Bribing with wars (to encourage patriotism), bribing with tax cuts (to bring on the middle and upper class STRONGLY to their side), bribing with pennys from heaven (hundred dollar rebates during election years) to bring the poor to their side. But, if you can look past that, they're trying to dismantle the entitlement society (which is slowly approaching Europe in terms of a stangnant upper-bound economy where you can't fire anyone, and 60% of your salary goes to pay for your medical drugs; with US-level medical addiction).

I'm ignoring the pure corruption of funneling money through to coffer projects as pork and riders that ALL congress people do.

The democrats push their "bribes" towards entitlements which have very serious long term consequences.. Now you may be of the opinion that we should have a semi-communist or at least a healthy socialist nation (nationalized oil, nationalized doctors, nationalized collage)... And if so, I can't say that you're wrong.. I just don't think that you're right. But the dollar amounts are comparable. If you don't believe me.. Social security was the single biggest permanent tax hike in US history. A full medical coverage of every man woman and child (which most democrats promote) would be the second largest permanent tax increase.

Currently the democrats are the "party of fiscal responsibility" ONLY because it's money being spent on projects that aren't their own.. I've yet to hear a single democrat say that they are for lowering spending.. THey merely comment on how badly the republican's are spending.. And when republicans call the democrats on it, they merely blandly dodge the topic saying "yes, but not for those purposes". Yes they'd raise taxes (permanently), yes they'd increase spending (permanently).. Arguably, the public would vote yes to those increases.. But if they could, the public would vote that their salary shouldn't go down as a result of it. Funny that...

Re:The best part about this

[maraist]

Squarely on the head of the New Orleans leadership.

Perhaps you missed that part of the video clip of Bush sitting there in his briefing of New Orleans.. Saying not a word...

Every major US incident has an identical depiction of Bush.. Completely inept.. Should the Chocalate mayor go? Sure.. Why not.. It's politics; you live and die with the winds of opportunity.

Should Bush stay in office? I'm too biased to even *cough* suggest..

Re:The best part about this

[Brandybuck]

What makes you think so? The Federalists never rose again. The Whigs never rose again. Both were major parties at one time.

Re:The best part about this

[Valdrax]

The reason the Democrats will lose the White House again in 2008 is because they keep deluding themselves that only religious nutbags can possibly vote for a Republican.

No, the reason Democrats might lose again is because their base consistently treats religious people as "nutbags" instead of trying to bring them to the table with shared values of love for your neighbor and for alleviating the suffering of the poor and by failing to point out the contempt that many Republicans have for real Christian values like charity, mercy, and peace.

Populists -- people who support both government regulation of morals and of business are a real swing vote that have been consistently dragged into voting for the richer to get richer and for the way business is done to get more heartless by wedge issues like abortion, gay rights, etc. Religions black voters are almost all populists, for example. The Republicans know how to court them without giving them everything they want and by slowly turning them into conservatives who worship Mammon right beside God. If Democrats courted them more, they could win the election, but the hard Left has an utter disdain for these people because they don't see the parts where they have agreement and only see the smoke screen the Right has thrown up to put religious people all in a single block that votes Republican.

Filter motherfucker, do you speak it?

[DoctaWatson]

If you don't like the politics on Slashdot, then why not use the freaking built-in filters to keep political stories from showing up?

Re:Filter motherfucker, do you speak it?

[EQ]

Because maybe he is interested in politics that affect nerds, not mindless leftism or rightism. Even somone as apparently as partisan as you can admit this had no bearing on any "nerd" issues.

Re:Filter motherfucker, do you speak it?

[bblboy54]

It's amazing that I received this link two times before I even read it on slashdot... both came from nerds. It's News for Nerds and Stuff that Matters.... and it appears that to most on slashdot, this is news and it does matter. WTF is everyone's problem on here that doesnt like something so they whine and moan hoping to take away something that other people actually may enjoy. Heaven forbid they just change their preferences -- they want to change everyones!

Re:Filter motherfucker, do you speak it?

[geminidomino]

Heaven forbid they just change their preferences -- they want to change everyones!

Just like the guy it so upsets them to see ripped a new one... funny, that.

Re:Filter motherfucker, do you speak it?

[seriesrover]

Its really not that hard - I LIKE to read political stories relating to tech issues. I DONT like sifting through partisian bickering that has no tech relevance whatosoever and only got through because of an editors bias.

Re:John Amato's C&L blog?

[general_re]

Or, are you trying to say that they are a "far left smear website"?

Throw a stone into a pack of dogs, and the one that yelps is the one that got hit.

Actually, I didn't say anything about which way it slanted, just that it was slanted. Rather telling that you immediately jumped to that conclusion, I think.

Quotation from Will Rogers

[mindaktiviti]

"People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke." --Will Rogers. Seems oddly appropriate.

Re:Quotation from Will Rogers

[buswolley]

Well I guess because the comedians aren't BUSHY WHIPPED.

Re:Quotation from Will Rogers

[ThePromenader]

I think you meant "Bushwhacked".

Strong precedence

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never seen such a huge disconnect between a comedian and his audience -- it took some major guts to do what he did.

This is exactly the role that court jesters used to play. The only way for bureaucrats and lesser functionaries to get bad news and criticism to the King without losing their heads was to do the job with humor.

Just yet another step down the slippery slope to a Constitutional monarchy.

It wasn't just embarassing for Bush

[DoctaWatson]

Colbert skewered the press pretty strongly too. I'm thinking the news blackout has more to do with the mainstream media's own shame than any courtesy to the President.

Re:It wasn't just embarassing for Bush

[Therilon]

I think it has more to do with the fact that newspapers aren't published on Sundays.

Re:It wasn't just embarassing for Bush

[SpryGuy]

I felt a similar feeling in my gut watching this as I did when watching the movie "V for Vendetta" ... that painful truths were being told in the guise of entertainment. And not enough attention has been paid to either, I'm afraid.

In honor of Colbert's speech, I went and saw "V for Vendetta" again, and it's even better the second time. Given it's relatively lukewarm box-office numbers, here's hoping it does better on DVD. "Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November... The gunpowder treason and plot. I see no reason why the gunpowder treason Should ever be forgot..."

Re:It wasn't just embarassing for Bush

[robbo]

I agree 100%. The only media conspiracy at work here is the one where all the journalists who would cover this story were too drunk to file before press time. I suspect the AP story was written and filed before the event took place.

Re:It wasn't just embarassing for Bush

[spyinnzus]

If you liked the movie in any extent, you'll like the graphic novel much much better. Don't wait for the DVD, get the original!

Re:It wasn't just embarassing for Bush

[dubl-u]

Colbert skewered the press pretty strongly too. I'm thinking the news blackout has more to do with the mainstream media's own shame than any courtesy to the President.

To be fair to the press, it's a very hard thing to cover. And of course, press skills have atrophied over the years so that they just look for quotes from two "sides" so they can call it fair. Which sides do you pick here?

Frothing right-wingers (and frothing left-wingers) both immediately turned it into Colbert vs Bush. But as you point out, it was both broader and more nuanced than that. Combine that with the extra care required when the media writes about the media, and I can see that they decided on a quiet Sunday at home. But now that there's a huge public reaction, they'll go back and cover that. Much easier, much safer.

Re:It wasn't just embarassing for Bush

[SpryGuy]

You're certainly not the first person to make that recommendation. I'll certainly pick it up.

Stephen was bang on...

[Hamster Lover]

Stephen was in great form with such lines as:

"Wow, what an honor...to sit here, at the same table as my hero, George W Bush. To be this close to the man. I feel like I'm dreaming. Somebody pinch me. You know what? I'm a pretty sound sleeper, that may not be enough. Somebody shoot me in the face...is he really not here tonight?" (in reference to the Vice President) "The one guy that could have helped."

That killed me. Later:

"I believe in democracy. I believe that democracy is our greatest export. At least until China figures out a way to stamp it out of plastic for three cents a unit. As a matter of fact, Ambassador Zhou Wenzhong, uh welcome. You're great country makes our Happy Meals possible."

Huge groan from the crowd on that one.

He got some huge laughs, but some got no reaction and I can only assume that either those in attendance were brain dead and didn't get it or offended by his frankness. Either way, he was dead on and hilarious.

Re:Stephen was bang on...

[Raul654]

Yah, because the audience is *really* likely to laugh a Valerie Plame joke with Karl Rove (who could very well be indicted by the end of the month) sitting right there.

No, they didn't laugh at what Colbert said because a lot of it cuts pretty close to home for those sitting in attendance. Case and point - when Colbert thanked the press for all the hard work they did during Bush's first term ignoring all his lies and misdeeds.

Re:Stephen was bang on...

[Breakfast Pants]

The whole Cheney shooting a guy thing was such non-news. Right as the patriot act was in danger of not being renewed, Cheney shoots a guy and all the news jumps on that; patriot act renewal slips through. Perfect planning.

Re:Stephen was bang on...

[courtarro]

Part of the "illusion" of minimal crowd reaction was likely due to CSpan's audio configuration, which leaned heavily on the speaker and very little on the crowd. Since most comedy shows mic the crowd for cheering and laughter, it's somewhat strange to watch a comic when you can't hear that live reaction. I think that this is the case here, and I'm guessing the laughter was quite a bit stronger than it seems in the video.

Re:Stephen was bang on...

[BVis]

Seriously, the Right keeps propagating the stereotype of the "whiny Liberal". Seems the Right is no stranger to the snivel either.

Re:Stephen was bang on...

[dubl-u]

He got some huge laughs, but some got no reaction and I can only assume that either those in attendance were brain dead and didn't get it or offended by his frankness. Either way, he was dead on and hilarious.

As somebody else points out, the lack of mics in the audience makes audience reaction look much weaker than a normal comedy show. But even watching it with pals on the other side of the continent, we were cringing at some of the brilliantly too-close-for-comfort material.

Re:Stephen was bang on...

[porkThreeWays]

I thought the same thing, but there were some neutral generic jokes people got and felt comfortable laughing at that were heard pretty well.

Re:John Amato's C&L blog?

[general_re]

Well then what's wrong with a biased source?

Why is it even necessary to present someone's slanted commentary on the thing? Just put it out there on its own merits and let the folks who missed it have a look. Unless this is all just an excuse for something else, that is.

Re:Colbert Bombed

[Dasein]

Yep -- he bombed, in that room. But, I bet that a huge number of people watching at home laughed until almost puked. I thought it was the funniest thing I'd seen in a long while.

Re:Liberal Bunk

[popo]

Then why is the US dollar currently pissing itself?

Never wavering?

[roystgnr]

That "glass half full/half empty" flub wasn't just a script misreading, the man looked nervous. I'd swear he was afraid that someone would cut his mike before he got to the good lines.

Big, brassy, get-put-on-a-no-fly-list, cajones.

Naah, that would be a PR nightmare for the White House. I wouldn't say anything embarrassing over the phone if I were Colbert, though. Those things have a way of leaking out.

Re:Never wavering?

[LaurenBC]

Ever watched the Colbert report? He trips over his own words almost nightly, no matter what the subject matter or context. It's just part of the Colbert charm by now. During 'The Word' segment earlier in the week he stopped to curse and laugh at himself over it. It's been hit or miss, when for a while it seemed he had gotten over it. Granted he did seem a tad nervous in this video, that's my take.

Re:Never wavering?

[Nasarius]

It happens to all the Daily Show correspondents too, or really anyone doing live comedy. The great thing about Stephen Colbert is that he knows how to turn a screw-up into further comedy. The "Filliam H. Muffman" bit wouldn't have been half as funny if Stephen hadn't cracked up.

Re:Never wavering?

[austad]

I don't think it was a slip up. I think he was referencing the time Bush screwed up that saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" and instead screwed it up and had to explain at the end, "the point is, you can't fool me again".

Re:Never wavering?

[Some_Llama]

Bush screwed up that saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" and instead screwed it up and had to explain at the end, "the point is, you can't fool me again".

Which he also got wrong as the meaning of the "saying" is that once you have been fooled you should have learned from your mistake and if you are fooled again you have no one to blame but yourself.

My favorite bush quote is after the preztel assasination attempt, where he explained that his mother had to repeatedly tell him to chew his food before swallowing it. Repeatedly. How to Eat. Seriously.

Re:Never wavering?

[Some_Llama]

I was actually trying to quote the parent, but forgot the quote marks, first paragraph was the parents =/

Re:Funny?

[plasmacutter]

sounds more like he was pissing you off on stage.. to me it was quite the laugh riot, and keep in mind it's finals week where I am.

How bad has it been in the past?

[wh0me]

I'm all for a skewering of authority, whoever happens to be at the helm. But, after viewing the whole video, while some of it has got to make some of the audience decidedly uncomfortable (note the camera cutting to Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame!) I got the feeling that this is de rigeur for this kind of event, simply that we're paying more attentino because it's featured on Slashdot, BoingBoing, and wherever the hell else.

So, how accurate is that perception?

Has anyone seen one of these from years past? Even last year, with the war in full swing, there would have been sufficiently biting grist for a ballsy comic. Is older video of these annual press club dinners on C-Span or somewhere else? How biting is that commentary? How was it during Clinton's run? Or Nixon's?

That's what the 'net is so great for... putting something like this into a very broad context, not just believing that Steven Colbert doing a bang up job here is the first and last time it's ever happened.

Re:How bad has it been in the past?

[Breakfast Pants]

I've heard that Imus did it one year and it was much more ballsy than this. I didn't see it, but I'l love to see it pop up on youtube or somewhere similar.

Re:How bad has it been in the past?

[kernelklink00]

This is an event I try to catch from year to year, though this year I've decided not to watch TV so I missed it.

However, Cedric the Entertainer was very funny last year when he talked about the two sides of Condoleezza Rice. There's Connie, the self-assured and accomplished diplomat, and there's Doleezza who doesn't want to miss her shows on the WB and don't take sh*t from nobody.

That was hilarious.

The White House Correspondent's Dinner really is something worth recording every year. Lewis Black did one recently that was also hilarious (though not nearly as biting as Colbert this year).

Re:How bad has it been in the past?

[jimkski]

I recall Norm Macdonald's roast of Clinton years ago. It happened around the whole Lewinsky affair and as I recall Norm made quite a few brutal cuts at Clinton. At one point, Macdonald cringed a little and asked the audience, "Is he laughing?"

Re:How bad has it been in the past?

[OakDragon]

I agree with your assessment. And I don't really see what is so "ballsy" and piercing about Colbert's act. It seemed pretty standard, to me.

Re:How bad has it been in the past?

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing about Imus was that he wasn't funny in any way - his speech 10 years ago for Clinton was basically him being disgusting and rude and insulting the President and his family. He was completely humorless and the only people who enjoyed it were people who hated Clinton and wanted to call him names. I imagine that is a little ballsy to stand next to the President and his family and explicitly insult them instead of make fun of them but considering that it was Clinton who was already used to that sort of thing it's not as big of a deal.

Re:How bad has it been in the past?

[limekiller4]

wh0me writes:
I got the feeling that this is de rigeur for this kind of event, simply that we're paying more attentino because it's featured on Slashdot, BoingBoing, and wherever the hell else. So, how accurate is that perception? Has anyone seen one of these from years past? Even last year, with the war in full swing, there would have been sufficiently biting grist for a ballsy comic. Is older video of these annual press club dinners on C-Span or somewhere else? How biting is that commentary? How was it during Clinton's run?

I related the Colbert story to my boss this morning and he told me that Don Imus eviscerated the Clintons so badly that they no longer speak.

Re:How bad has it been in the past?

[Altima(BoB)]

Last year's event was available for free in audio form on iTunes, and is now only available there when you purchase the full comedy album of the speaker that year, Lewis Black. I've really like Lewis Black's insanely furious energy in the past, and at one point he even described being next to Dick Cheney as "I've never stood so close to pure evil before..."

Yet there he was, giving a followup speech to a speech by none other than... Dick Cheney. He didn't handle the venue nearly as well as Colbert did, most of his jokes were nervously commenting on how hard it was to be a comedian at that venue. The venue itself also didn't suit his form of humor, since his political material is so founded upon broad rage that it would likely be the same joke no matter who was in power, and combining that style with his inability to say "fuck" at such an event (a keystone of his style of delivery) and you got a bad performance.

Rest assured, What Colbert pulled off was extremely impressive. I could only hope I'd have the balls to follow in his footsteps were I ever to find myself in a similar situation.

Re:How bad has it been in the past?

[justins]

I got the feeling that this is de rigeur for this kind of event, simply that we're paying more attentino because it's featured on Slashdot, BoingBoing, and wherever the hell else.

So, how accurate is that perception?

It's really hard to say. I've only seen bits and pieces but they're sometimes awfully vicious to the president at these. Usually over less important stuff, which might be the heart of it.

My impression is that it was a combination of Colbert striking home so well, Bush and the press corps not liking to laugh THAT MUCH at themselves about their many failings, and underneath it all the fact that the failings Colbert was joking about have cost a lot of people their lives.

If he'd been a little more cunning he might have found a way to skewer Bush first and leave the press for last. He'd have gotten more laughs from the press corps audience that way, maybe, but it wouldn't have suited the Colbert persona. So this ended up being a performance for people who weren't there in person to enjoy it.

Re:How bad has it been in the past?

[klatty]

Imus's Speech:

http://imonthe.net/imus/ispeech.htm

Re:Funny?

[adpowers]

Unless you like the idea of someone pissing off the president on stage, the content wasn't humorous IMHO.

That was just the icing on the cake.

Re:Unbelievable!

[zorkmid]

But how does it take balls? Did you expect Dubbya to have his SS guards shoot the comic in the knees? Make him "Disappear". Order the IRS to audit him?

What could the poor idiot do but sit there and take it?

Re:John Amato's C&L blog?

[adpowers]

Well, considering their link patterns (websites like Daily Kos), their commentary, and how they usually position Fox News in a negative light, then unless you are a member of ELF or a communist, you probably consider it left-wing.

Re:I don't get it.

[plasmacutter]

"Good Grief. Has it come to this that a smarmy comic is getting accolades for his great courage?"

in case you haven't been keeping tabs on the "news", as it's so quaintly and nostalgially called, yes it has!.. doesnt that suck?

i mean if we had real news not only would this story not be in its current place, but neither would bush, our troops, or the DMCA be in their current place.

Transcript

[CODiNE]

For us deaf peeps... http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/30/1441/59811 /

Re:Transcript

[Kyrene]

I found one here: http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/30/1441/59811

Re:watch Colbert Report instead

[_ph1ux_]

This wasn't about being funny - it was about being, uh, truthinessful.

He made some brilliant remarks up there - and he held no punches. The "Scott McClellan can say nothing like nobody else" was terrific.

I hope this inspires more people to have the balls to say what they feel and know about the tyranny that has strangled this nation.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I could give or take the humor, but the fact that it was a solid HALF HOUR of sticking it to the preseident's face in that manner was unprecedented. The humour depends on your politics; the balls to carry out an aggressive 30 minute assault on the president to his face is admirable. Make no mistake, this was not done out of comic pursuit; this was a statement. Not what he said, but the context in which it was delivered and for how freakin' long!

The difference between this and traditional presidential roasts (and I've seen more than a few - CSAN nerd here) is that this did not lampoon one or two or ten aspects of the Bush administration, but mocked it's very existence and legitimacy. To his face. In front of the Washington elite. For 30 solid uniterrupted minutes. Think about it: it's the difference between "Slick Willy got a BJ! Ha ha!" and "Monica knows the Clinton administration as well as everybody else - it leaves a bad taste in your mouth!"

Wow

[ShakaUVM]

Must be a slow news day when Slashdot is reporting on Stephen Colbert making fun of republicans.

What's next, the NY Times not agreeing with the president on Iraq?

Dog bites man

Re:Funny?

[spacecowboy420]

Set your alarm for 2007, after midterms. You may want to pay attention then.

Re:Liberal Bunk

[oaklybonn]

double-plus-plus funny, brother! Well played! Enjoy your $100 Texaco gift card!

Re:Funny?

[c0dedude]

See! See that moderation above- flamebait! That's a liberal bias! The exact converse opinion - that it was a great slash at Bush and hysterical sits at the top of this page with +5 Insightful. Disagreement is a cheap reason to mod someone down, and because there are more liberals than conservatives on /., we need to be especially careful, because driving away divergent opinions will turn slashdot into a lousy political blog whose readers take the author's words as gospel.

If it bends its funny....

[popo]

... if it breaks it isn't.

and I distinctly heard a snap.

Re:Unbelievable!

[geminidomino]

That's the third time in as many days that I've seen the title of the Secret Service abbreviated and wondered why the hell they didn't change the name of the organization a long time ago...

It's hard enough as it is to not think about the other SS while watching Redneck Nero do his thing.

Re:Liberal Bunk

[Le Marteau]

God Bless George W. Bush. God Bless America.

Hey, fuckwit, who are YOU to tell God what to do? DEMANDING of God something? The PROPER phrase is, "MAY God bless XXX".

That is key. Anyone who demands things of God is a shithead. Whenever you see someone saying "God bless" without the proper qualification... well, you can safely discard anything else they have to say, for they are truly spiritually retarded, and are probably nothing more than a drone.

This cracked me up

[Raul654]

I watched the video and this comment cracked me up: "I mean, nothing satisfies you. Everybody asks for personel changes. SO, the White house has personel changes. And then you write "oh, they're just re-arranging deck chairs on the titanic." First of all, that's a terrible metaphor. This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. if anything, they are re-arranging deck chairs on the Hindenburg"

Re:I don't get it.

[Simon Garlick]

As a previous poster stated, we now live in a world where politicians are jokes and only comedians tell the truth.

Dilbert

[adnonsense]

Am I the only one who read the story title as Dilbert New Comic-in-Chief ?

Re:Dilbert

[Umbral Blot]

wow, I made the exact same mistake, but I thought it must have been some kind of neural fit, you know where all the neurons go: "screw coherent thought, lets do whatever".

Colbert on 60 mins

[Stalyn]

Stephen was on 60 Minutes this Sunday. Link to video. And the CBS text.

Re:Unbelievable!

[rjung2k]

"What could the poor idiot do but sit there and take it?"

He could do to Colbert what he did to that garage door after Laura mildly rebuked one of his stump speeches...

Re:watch Colbert Report instead

[Pyrion]

Yeah, because under a truly tyrannical system, unlike the mockery we pay lip service to, once you've said your piece, you disappear from the face of the Earth.

I Watched It Live... And Wasn't Impressed

[TheFlyingGoat]

Normally I like Colbert's stuff. Most of the time he's witty, intelligent, and makes me giggle like a schoolgirl.
medioc
I watched the bit live on TV after I got sick of listening to the draft coverage. I don't blame most of the dignitaries for not paying much attention. His whole presentation must have gone on for 20 minutes or more, with 6-7 minutes of it being about that crazy (and fugly) White House reporter that always asks really stupid questions. Well this bit had him running across the entire Eastern seaboard just to get away from her questions about Iraq. Ok... I can understand turning that into a 30-60 second clip, since there were a few funny parts, but the remaining 5:50 was just him running and screaming. It was very underwhelming. There was actually almost a minute of him fumbling with his keys, trying to get it unlocked and started, just for the punchline of realizing he had remote keyless entry (funny, but not worth 60 seconds of leadup).

As for the rest of his jokes, there were a few good ones, but they came after listening to a handful of poor ones. I actually wondered outloud to my wife that his normal writers must have been unavailable.

Keep in mind when you watch the video that 99% of the guests at the press dinner were press, meaning they probably agreed with most of the things he said. However, there was audible laughing only a handful of times during the whole presentation. It was really a poor comedy routine to say the least, even if it did "stick it to the Administration".

Re:I Watched It Live... And Wasn't Impressed

[Breakfast Pants]

Unfortunately you may have watched so much television with laugh tracks that unless people are laughing you can't distinguish funny--I feel for you, and don't worry, you're not alone.

Re:I Watched It Live... And Wasn't Impressed

[The Cydonian]

In short, works well as a political commentary (whether you agree or disagree with him), but falls short as an intended comic narrative.

I think the real reason for that is that Colbert couldn't connect with his audience; had his gags been addressed to a nameless audience on late-night television, they'd have worked, mostly coz the target of the jokes were abstract entities. Otoh, here they were real in flesh-and-blood, and stood only a few feet away from him; methinks most found it difficult to laugh coz it got a bit too personal.

Which is why I think Colbert didn't have the requisite confidence to pull it off successfully on the podium; a couple of bad deliveries here and there, and, suddenly you begin to sense the difference between being wildly funny and saying 'oh well, got a few laughs'. His performance here wsa a bit like Jon Stewart at the Oscars, really, in that neither could successfully convert their comic wit into a live monologue.

Now, here's for the most difficult part, which folks here may or may not appreciate: I think it's possible to say all of this, without commenting, or even agreeing, with his politics.

Re:I Watched It Live... And Wasn't Impressed

[midknight32]

Fortunately in my case, I've watched enough TV with laugh tracks to be thoroughly sick of them... as the canned laughter is usually laughing when something isn't funny to me.

I've seen enough live comic performances to know that if the guy is doing his job right (also known as "funny"), people are laughing.... which makes me suspicious of anyone claiming he was doing a great job with the audience when they aren't laughing, or worse, because they weren't laughing.

...And the sheer elitism of claiming that anyone who didn't think it was funny is too jaded from bad sitcoms or stupid to get it... *shakes head*...

Re:I Watched It Live... And Wasn't Impressed

[dubl-u]

I've seen enough live comic performances to know that if the guy is doing his job right (also known as "funny"), people are laughing.... which makes me suspicious of anyone claiming he was doing a great job with the audience when they aren't laughing, or worse, because they weren't laughing.

When you see a comic live, you're sitting in the audience, and their laughter makes you laugh more. (Seriously. I'm a big laugher and my comic friends would give me free tickets because I'd start the ball rolling.) When you see stand-up on TV, the audience is heavily mic'd for the same reason. CSPAN didn't do that, so the naive will think that Colbert bombed.

I watched it with a group of people and we enjoyed it quite a bit. Parts of the video were kinda slow, but generally when we weren't laughing we were hand-over-mouth with shock that he would say things so true. And that's how a roast should be, IMHO.

Re:I Watched It Live... And Wasn't Impressed

[blamanj]

Why is it (both here and on Metafilter) that you can't critique Colbert's performance without being accused of being a right-wing tool.

I'd give Colbert points for sticking it to Bush with him in the room. Great, so he's got balls. He said some things the press needed to hear. ("Bush decides. I announce. You write it down." was great.) But as comedy, it was pretty mediocre. The whole Helen Thomas as stalker thing was badly done. To be effective, you either need very good timing or, better yet, to create a real sense of danger or urgency. Fake key fumbling does neither.

Part of the problem is also his shtick. Seeing a pompous ass is funny mostly when there's someone to deflate him or play off of him. Watching a real pompous ass is mostly annoying.

Re:I Watched It Live... And Wasn't Impressed

[mattwarden]

There was actually almost a minute of him fumbling with his keys, trying to get it unlocked and started, just for the punchline of realizing he had remote keyless entry

Erm, no, not quite. The entire clip was dramatic to the point of being completely ridiculous. He is being "chased" by a feeble old woman who poses him no danger, yet he is completely afraid of her and doing everything possible to avoid her questioning. He's running. She's slowly walking. The background music spells danger, but all she's holding is a tablet and pen. He fumbles for his keys for a long period of time to further exaggerate the drama. When he finally gets into the car and pulls out, he screams in terror until his automatic windows nearly form a seal, after which he slowly drives away.

Might you get the punchline now? If you think it was the fact that he had keyless entry, I'm afraid you're missing it completely. This is about the ridiculous adversarial relationship between the media and the Executive, the fact that the most scary member of the WH press corp is a feeble old woman who dares to ask a few non-softballs, and the fact that those non-softballs actually get the idiots at large to think about everything (remember when Colbert talks into the emergency call box?).

And there are about 4 other levels of humor in that clip.

There's a pretty good rule of thumb with Colbert: if you don't think it's funny, it's because he's smarter than you.

Re:I Watched It Live... And Wasn't Impressed

[Breakfast Pants]

This is often true of CSPAN broadcasts but simply isn't true here. During the doppleganger Bushes, you could hear loud laughter.

Re:I Watched It Live... And Wasn't Impressed

[dubl-u]

his is often true of CSPAN broadcasts but simply isn't true here. During the doppleganger Bushes, you could hear loud laughter.

As you were writing this, I was actually going back and watching the video again and comparing. I know I'm not supposed to say this on Slashdot, but you're right. I still think the audience was poorly miked, but Colbert definitely didn't get the yucks that the President and his impersonator did.

Re:I Watched It Live... And Wasn't Impressed

[darkmeridian]

I laughed my ass off. The Helen Thomas bit was a reference to a run-in she had with President George W. Bush. The well-known figure of Washington press basically called the President of the United States a liar who sent soldiers to die in Iraq for no good reason. President Bush kind of sputtered in response. He probably still has nightmares about Helen Thomas. Oh, and Thomas got moved all the way back in future press releases. Heh, heh.

Re:Liberal Bunk

[rossifer]

Then why is the US dollar currently pissing itself?

Because the euro is gaining credibility as a stable currency and states around the world are diversifying their national currency reserves from the dollar to the dollar and euro. When the euro starts being the currency of choice for oil transactions, you'll see another reduction in the value of the dollar.

This hurts US consumers and travellers, but US businesses (and eventually their employees) tend do quite well. In the end, it should be a wash for you and me (though my marriage in Norway this summer is getting more and more expensive as the year progresses).

As an aside, this is the inflationary pressure that Bernake is (rightfully) worried about. Not internal, but external. He's been paying close attention just like he should. Over the rest of this year we'll get a chance to see if he can play the financial markets with the same finesse that Greenspan was able to.

Regards,
Ross

Re:John Amato's C&L blog?

[general_re]

Do you consider it left-wing?

Re:Liberal Bunk

[Simon Garlick]

Probably because the House just passed the "Iran Freedom Support Act" 397-21.

Yes, you read that correctly. Only 21 votes against.

Freedom stay the course terror terror. God bless America.

Re:Unbelievable!

[Pyrion]

Mocking the President of the United States in front of his face doesn't take nearly the same amount of chutzpah as, say, mocking the President of Iraq in front of his face, ya know, before he was reduced to hiding in a hole in the ground.

Re:Mmph

[Drachasor]

Excuse me, but you say that Slashdot has a "liberal bias", for its multinational/multicultural readership that make this up are more liberal than mainstream America.

Then you say that the news that this populace cares about, that this populace would say "matters", is somehow innappropriate? I say it is the right venue because, at least according to you, most of the people on slashdot want to actually hear about things like this. You are the one in the minority, and only because you disagree with the message. It isn't as though non-technology news is a recent phenomenon on slashdot. We've had things like this for years. "Stuff that matters" doesn't just mean technology and science, but other very important issues of the day. Hence something like this pops up now and then, and that's how it should be.

I totally agree

[sentientbrendan]

>It was a GWB bash-o-thon disguised as humor. Even if it was Bill Clinton, I still wouldn't have found it funny.

Right on man. If he had lampooned Clinton for screwing up the war in Iraq, having a low approval rating, or generally being incompetent, no one would have found it funny. It's such a total double standard that it doesn't apply the other way around.

Seriously though, you don't need to *disguise* a GWB bash-o-thon as humor. It *is* humor.

Re:I totally agree

[DigiShaman]

That question is addressed here. The answer seems to be little to no relationship. As for the Congressional Democrats in office, their ratings are worse.

Do you know what this suggest? Let me spell it out for ya. Americans are pissed at the Republican party, but even more so of the Democrats. Given the immigration issue (whome both parties are pandering too), the political enviroment is ripe for a third party to garner support. A wildcard indeed...

Re:I totally agree

[LewsTherinKinslayer]

simple response to this: correlation is not causation.

the price of gas and bush's approval may be related, but where's your evidence that one causes another?

Re:I totally agree

[Stalyn]

Right on man. If he had lampooned Clinton for screwing up the war in Iraq, having a low approval rating, or generally being incompetent, no one would have found it funny. It's such a total double standard that it doesn't apply the other way around.

If Clinton was in the same situation as Bush I think the press would be pretty harsh on him. We are talking about a President that was impeached because he lied about getting a blowjob. Also people make jokes about Clinton to this day, until Bush he was the most lampooned President. However if he had made the same mistakes as Bush he would have been impeached and convicted, I am pretty sure of that.

Re:I totally agree

[Alsee]

You know the REALLY funny thing? As often as not the rises and drops on Bush's approval rating preceed the changes in the gase prices.

And now factor in the fact that there is an inherently lag time in all approval rating polls. There's a few day time span of the poll itself, but more importantly there is a time lag in changes in poeople's oppinions - as it takes days or more for news to percolate to and through the public and for oppinions to change.

So there's basically two possibilities. Either the changes in oppinion of Bush are causing the changes in gas prices, or both the approval ratings and gas prices are reacting in the same way to the same other cause. And I think it quite likely that they are both reacting to Bush's fuck-ups and the mess in Iraq. Gas prices go up beacuse Bush is fuckign up Iraq and beacuse he's fucking up with hurricane Katrina and beacuse of the economy and because Bush has absolutely trashed our international relations. And on and on and on.

But heay... maybe Bush's approval ratings are going up and down for no other reason than reflecting gas prices... and the entire American public are all psychic (we're cool that way) and can see into the future half the time... explaing how the approval ratings often go up and down before the gas prices. People poll dissapproval of Bush when they get a psychic vison of future gas prices going up. Yep, that's it.

Or maybe you just get all of your news from FoxNews, and and you are simply ignorant of the very good reasons that the entire political center dissapproves of Bush and the very good reasons that even Republican Faithful are increasingly getting fed up with Bush. 32% is absolutely ABYSMAL. You cannot hit such depths without seriously screwing up so badyly that you even piss off a substantial precentage of loyalists from your own party. Hell, Nixon's approval ratings were 23% when he resigned in disgrace. Bush is in spitting distance of there. Bush is a whopping 9% above Nixon resignation levels.

-

Re:I totally agree

[Loonacy]

Yes! Preach on, brother! And in response to global warming, it's those darned pirates! Here's a graph that proves it.

I bet I get modded down for this, too, because these liberally biased slashdotters can't handle the truth!

Re:I totally agree

[Covetous Knight]

Bill Clinton wasn't impeached.

Also, he was a pretty horrible president himself. Forget lying about having sex with an intern. He bombed the only asprin factory in Sudan during the trial to divert the public's attention. And then he lied about that.

Re:I totally agree

[jeaton]

Bill Clinton wasn't impeached.

Yes, he was.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common /briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm

William Clinton

On December 19, 1998, the House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment against President William J. Clinton, claiming the president had "willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process." The Senate trial began on January 14, 1999, and once again arguments focused on the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Falling short of the necessary two-thirds vote on either article of impeachment (Article I, 55 to 45; Article II, 50 to 50), the Senate acquitted President Clinton on February 12, 1999.

Re:I totally agree

[internic]

Bill Clinton was impeached by the house of representatives, but he was not convicted by the Senate. See here and here.

Re:I totally agree

[tgibbs]

Also, he was a pretty horrible president himself. Forget lying about having sex with an intern. He bombed the only asprin factory in Sudan during the trial to divert the public's attention. And then he lied about that.

At this point in time, it is amazing that anybody would criticize Clinton for possibly being overaggressive in his attempts to get bin Laden and destroy weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. Even if it was an error (and US Intelligence still stands by its assessment that the plant was involved in WMD manufacture), it pales next to the damage that has been caused by US attacks in the wake of 9/11.

It is too bad that the Bush administration did not continue the Clinton administrations efforts to attack bin Laden's operations, only belatedly realizing the threat after 9/11

Re:I totally agree

[Cerebus]

(whome [sic] both parties are pandering too)

Usually when people say things like this, it's code for "I disagree with something popular and I clearly know better than the peasants." Just thought you should know.

Re:I totally agree

[geminidomino]

it's code for "I disagree with something popular and I clearly know better than the peasants." Just thought you should know.

That's what living on the right-end of the bell curve is all about, after all.

You don't think Shrub is the first SOB to demonize "intellectuals" to the common drooling masses, do you?

Self-mockery: an American tradition?

[gobbo]

Who'da thunk it? Here I was, smug that Monty Python exemplified very british values like self-mockery, and that the canadian export of comedians was because we're always trying to make up for coming last, and then americans go and prove that excessive blind jingoistic patriotism doesn't exclude a little poke in one's own eye now and then.

Really! I've been saying that one thing that sets Canada apart from our important southern neighbOUrs is that we regularly have our leaders immolate themselves on the pyre of national comedy television, and you'll not see something like that in the land of the brave. I mean, it isn't entirely a hair shirt kind of penance that GW did, since it was an elite gathering for the Gang, and not explicitly a guest appearance at one's own national skewering, like Chretien letting Rick Mercer put extra pepper on his burger (Jean once commented on the pepper sprayings at APEC that he just liked it on his steak).

Giving Colbert the lectern without a trap door, and doing the mumbling chimp routine with his doppleganger, that really took cojones. I haven't had that much political fun since Mary Walsh got Chretien to whack her with a golf club, in his own office.

"By the way Mr. President, thanks for agreeing to be on my show" --one of the jokes. I mean why not? It's not like he doesn't have time. The guy gets more holidays than a perfesser.

Re:Self-mockery: an American tradition?

[whynotme]

"you'll not see something like that in the land of the brave" It's fairly common, actually -- Richard Nixon even appeared on "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-in" in 1968 while he was running for President. (his line: "Sock it to me?", which was one of the show's catch-phrases...)

Re:Self-mockery: an American tradition?

[gobbo]

It's fairly common, actually -- Richard Nixon even appeared on "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-in"

You know, I'm actually old enough to remember that? As a rerun in the 70's, mind you.

But I have two questions for you: 1) does this common activity actually open the politicians up to self-immolation on the pyre of humour, or do they just have cameos? 2) do you really think referring to one notable event 38 years ago--before most readers' birth--really convinces anyone that it's a common event?

Re:Liberal Bunk

[physicsphairy]

It's what is known as an idiom.

Grammatically, if it were an imperative it should be written as "God, bless America!"

I think it's probably a good rule that anything that any phrase commonly appearing on bumper stickers is an address to other humans (excepting "Vote for Pat Buchanan" of course).

State Secrets Privilege + EFF v. AT&T =

[DanTheLewis]

The President broke the law. AT&T gave customer data on millions of people to the feds and allowed them to tap all their pipes to data mine Americans' private phone calls. EFF sued them for violating FISA, the 4th Amendment, and for the AT&T customers whose private data was handed.

One witness, one expert, and a few internal documents filed, and Bush asserts a State Secrets Privilege; the lawsuit cannot continue. What did he not want us to know?

I don't know how to connect the dots any more obviously. If you don't smell a rat, I suggest you update your BS detector.

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/

Re:State Secrets Privilege + EFF v. AT&T =

[usurper_ii]

Yeah, and the more I think about AT&T, I can't help but think that they didn't make the government pay, and pay A LOT for that fat pipe to its backbone...and I'd bet AT&T is probably working hard to charge Google to make sure people get to it at full speed...even though AT&T customers already pay for a Net connection to do what THEY want to do and go where THEY want to go. This doesn't seem to be getting much press, but I hope this blows up in AT&Ts face so bad.

Usurper_ii

Re:State Secrets Privilege + EFF v. AT&T =

[StikyPad]

It's not over yet:

April 28, 2006
Government Moves to Intervene in AT&T Surveillance Case

DOJ Will Assert Military and State Secrets Privilege and Request Dismissal of Lawsuit

San Francisco - The United States government filed a "Statement of Interest" Friday in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF's) class-action lawsuit against AT&T, announcing that the government would "assert the military and state secrets privilege" and "intervene to seek dismissal" of the case.

EFF's lawsuit accuses AT&T of collaborating with the National Security Agency in its massive surveillance program. EFF's evidence regarding AT&T's dragnet surveillance of its networks, currently filed under seal, includes a declaration by Mark Klein, a retired AT&T telecommunications technician, and several internal AT&T documents. This evidence was bolstered and explained by the expert opinion of J. Scott Marcus, who served as Senior Advisor for Internet Technology to the Federal Communications Commission from July 2001 until July 2005

Much of the evidence in the case is currently under seal, as AT&T claims public release of the documents would expose trade secrets. A hearing on the issue is scheduled for May 17th. http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_04.php#00461 3

Colbert's humor is not for everyone...

[perrygeo]

... as evidenced by the reaction here on /.

I for one find Colbert hillarious. His tone is such that you can never figure out exactly what he's saying and, with this particularly anal-retentive crowd, their confused reactions were priceless and precisely the mood his comedy hopes to invoke. That uncomfortable, "did-he-really-say-that", "am-I-supposed-to-laugh?", "is-this-politically-correct?", "Is-he-making-fun-of-me-or-agreeing-with-me?" tension was all too apparent and I got a real laugh out of it.

Colbert's comedy hinges on making people feel uncomfortable. The people who get it are the people who aren't offended yet somehow enjoy seeing others squirm. Count me in.

Not his best form

[btempleton]

Actually, I watch The Colbert Report fairly regularly, and I don't think he was as funny in this as he is on the show. The audience was laughing (the C-Span audio does not provide the audience at fairly high volume) though I would agree it probably wasn't as strong as the time I went to the correspondent's dinner during the Clinton years when Al Franken roasted Clinton. Franken dug pretty hard at Clinton for a democratic comic. ("You're going to take some hits," I remember him saying to the President.)

This seems to happen a lot. You get somebody who has to be funny every night and does a good job, and then you give a big job, like this dinner or the Oscars with lots of time to prepare, and it doesn't seem like they do as well. Happened to Jon Stewart, to David Letterman and many others. Is it because of expectations? Or pressure?

Anyway, watch the show for the real Colbert. The main thing that's interesting about this routine is that Bush is there taking it in, not entirely happy. But as I said, the time I got to go there were icy stares from Hilary at Franken's Whitewater jokes.

Re:Not his best form

[Breakfast Pants]

The CSPAN audio thing is bunk in this case (though I definitely have noticed it on CSPAN in the past)--you can see cuts to the audiences faces and additionally during the Bush doppleganger skit you could hear roaring laughter, so I don't buy it.

Re:Not his best form

[btempleton]

Oh, they probably did laugh a bit harder at Bush's routine, after all there is no reason to be afraid to laugh when the President is making fun of himself.

But no, the audio was way quieter than say, what you would set for a show studio audience, such as the Colbert Report.

While it wasn't Colbert at his best, it was funny stuff, and that crowd has been drinking and is in a good mood and ready to laugh. It was definitely set lower than what you would expect for a comedy routine. Remember this is CSPAN, they mostly do lectures and congressional hearings where the audience is not important.

Re:Not his best form

[Breakfast Pants]

It wasn't a bit harder, it was a lot harder. This event traditionally has comedy acts--CSPAN knew this and they mic'ed the audience just fine. No, they weren't mic'ed as loudly as they are on shows with studio audiences, but you can still hear from the difference in the two acts that Colbert bombed. Listen when he cracks on China; you can hear louder grumbling than you ever hear laughing throughout the rest of his act!

Re:Unbelievable!

[niktemadur]

But how does it take balls?

Dude, I'd like to see you try it, in front of the president and a thousand of his supporters. Try toasting your best friend at his wedding, see how long your stomach takes to untie the knots afterwards, and that's in front of a friendly crowd. Colbert was standing alone on the podium in front of a huge politically hostile audience, saying what no one has dared to say to the president's face in five long years.

The jug-eared face of a man who has sent tens of thousands of people to their death and does not accept criticism of any sort may not give you a spontaneous case of indigestion, but the presidential seal will. Colbert's intestinal fortitude is now the stuff of legend.

Not unlike Jon Stewart at the Oscars...

[Elrond, Duke of URL]

Colbert's routine reminded me a lot of Jon Stewart's performance at the Oscars (one of the only times I've ever even watched). What I saw that night was a decent and funny performance delivered to a crowd that was so full of itself that it could not emit a laugh. They were present for awards sans comedy.

In Colbert's case, though, the crowd was most certainly attending for comedy. However, I think their blank stares were the result of hearing something they'd rather not. The dinner is always a roast and fun is always "poked." But... I think perhaps this went to a new level.

I see one of two possibilities. One is that Colbert misjudged his audience and that's why his routine did not do well. Or, Colbert recognized that he was given a rare opportunity to speak directly to the President, in a public setting, and in a place where the President could not simply leave. *If* that is the case, then yes, it did take balls. Huge balls.

Of course, unless Colbert actually comes out at some point in the future and makes known what his intentions were that night, we may never really know.

I have to wonder what I might do in such a situation. Like many Americans, I do hold a certain respect for the office of the President, or for any elected office, I suppose. It's that respect which keeps most (though it seems less so lately) political discourse civil. But surely there comes a time when transgressions like Bush's reach a point where you need to take a stand, respectable office or no.

Maybe this dinner was one of those times.

Re:Not unlike Jon Stewart at the Oscars...

[Propagandhi]

The guy stars in and writes his own ironic/sarcastic talk show every day of the week, I'm fairly confident he knows the kind of message he's sending when he says things like:

"Sir, pay no attention to the people who say the glass is half empty, because 32% means it's 2/3 empty. There's still some liquid in that glass is my point, but I wouldn't drink it. The last third is usually backwash."
(regarding Bush's polls)

He had a chance to say things he felt needed to be said, and he took it... No doubt about it.

Re:Not unlike Jon Stewart at the Oscars...

[Nomad37]

I don't suggest that Bush's Presidency is so godawful as to invite public uprising, and I'm not an American. However, it's important to note that the history of the US and the reason why, historically, you have the right to bear arms etc is that the American society decided a long time ago that public officials are not to be trusted. Even elected officials can abuse their power, and the people should always retain the right to call them on their abuses. A less extreme example is the trenchant insistence that Americans have for 'freedom of the press' sometimes to a degree other societies think is pushing the envelope just to make a point.

In any case, the point is, don't let respect for the office silence your criticism of the office holder. The two are separate and the holder of the office should not be allowed to bismirch it, or in time neither will be worth respecting.

Re:Not unlike Jon Stewart at the Oscars...

[gEvil (beta)]

Of course, unless Colbert actually comes out at some point in the future and makes known what his intentions were that night, we may never really know.

Yeah. It's a shame that he doesn't have some sort of forum where he can make his voice heard on a regular basis...

Re:Not unlike Jon Stewart at the Oscars...

[rbochan]

...Like many Americans, I do hold a certain respect for the office of the President, or for any elected office, I suppose...

And that, sir, is one of the biggest problems facing this country today.

Regardless of what's been pounded into yours, mine, and your neighbors' brains ad-nauseum since the instant we were born, idolatry is bad in any form.

Re:Not unlike Jon Stewart at the Oscars...

[ben there...]

One of the only sincere lines Colbert had in his speech was when he talking about how he was perfect for Press Secretary, and said something along the lines of: "I'd be perfect for the job. I have nothing but contempt for these people." He disguised it as a joke, hidden among all his sarcastic remarks, but he was being honest at that moment. He absolutely despises them for giving the President a free ride for the past 5 years without serious questioning of his actions. I think he couldn't believe that they'd actually invite him to an event like that, and rather than attempt to win a few hundred press people as fans, instead took the opportunity to use satire to tell them how he really feels. About them. To their face. Which is that we have a weak press (outright lying in the case of FNC) and a corrupt government.

Re:Not unlike Jon Stewart at the Oscars...

[guisar]

Respect and restraint is due, in my opinion, only when you should expect a similar level of respect and restraint in return. I save my respect for the holder of the office, not the office itself. In a monoarchy for instance, it's appropriate to honor the office since they have little choice in who holds that office. They honor the office and expect those who hold it to live up to the position. In a democracy we should know who we're electing and not put anyone in place whom we don't respect as much or more than "the office".

Re: Not unlike Jon Stewart at the Oscars...

[GSwarthout]

Since when is respect idolatry?

The Look-alike Act

[Onan]

Scarce indeed are the things for which I'm willing to praise George II. But one of those very few is his willingness to condone and even participate in mockery of him. The act itself was only moderately funny, but the fact that Bush was willing to play along is likable.

Of course, the cynical side of me says that this has nothing to do with Bush one way or the other; that Rove has correctly foreseen that this is an act that would make even a Bush-loather such as me inclined to give him some credit, just told him to do it whether he liked it or not. Certainly it does take the "nukular" barb away from Bush's detractors when he uses it on himself.

And I suppose that the fact that it kept to small issues like his speaking skills--rather than more substantial matters like his military adventurism--does imply that this was less good-natured self deprecation, and more staged campaigning.

Re:The Look-alike Act

[ben there...]

Did you even listen to Colbert?

Or just the Bush impersonator?

Re:The Look-alike Act

[Onan]

I actually watched Colbert's bit before the impersonator bit, and both of them before seeing the slashdot story. So, yes.

Colbert's piece was mostly quite good, though the pacing was a little off. I think he could've done with a little bit more direct excoriation of the press for their uninquisitiveness, and the pre-filmed bit with Helen Thomas was funny, but far too long for how much joke was actually in there.

But I'm a big fan of the Report, so I probably came to this piece with very high expectations, thus guaranteeing at least mild disappointment.

Re:Colbert Bombed

[niktemadur]

I thought it was the funniest thing I'd seen in a long while.

You know what makes it funny with an added, ultra potent edge? The fact that you're watching history as it's being made. History in a Patrick Henry "Give me liberty or give me death" crossed with "Extra Extra! Read all about it! 'Twain rips McKinley a new one'!" sort of way.

It's a classic dilemma

[jesterzog]

I find it odd that the only people in politics that "say it how it is" can be found on the comedy channel. It's almost... funny.

It seems like a standard dilemma to me. Comedians such as Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart have nothing to lose. They're certainly not going to lose popularity with their audience, and if anything will gain more followers. They'll probably never have another chance to do what they've done, but they probably wouldn't have anyway.

For journalists and news networks on the other hand, the nature of how the competition works means they have everything to lose. If a journalist steps too far outside the bounds of what the government considers "acceptable" for a journalist, they probably won't be allowed in again... unless everyone does the same thing at once making it impossible for the press secretaries to ignore, which seems unlikely. Access to high government officials is everything to many news networks, especially the larger ones, so getting the network rejected could spell a big demotion if not the end of a journalist's career.

Re:It's a classic dilemma

[TubeSteak]

If a journalist steps too far outside the bounds of what the government considers "acceptable" for a journalist, they probably won't be allowed in again... unless everyone does the same thing at once making it impossible for the press secretaries to ignore, which seems unlikely.

Except that's exactly whats been happening.

Why do you think Mcclellan is getting replaced? Why do you think his replacement has already been nicknamed "Snow Job"?

Mcclellan has been on the recieving end of an escalating series of aggressive questions and it was blindingly obvious that all he did was give non-answers.

I hope the press corps isn't mollified by 'more access'. I'd rather they get 'more answers' instead. If Tony Snow plans to do anything besides blow smoke up their asses, he's going to have to give answers. Otherwise, I'm assuming the press is going to get just as hostile with him.

On a side note, you seem to be lumping the handful of talking news heads with every other journalist. Networks don't get 'rejected', reporters do.

Re:It's a classic dilemma

[Ryan Amos]

No, typically the press secretary for the white house is a one or two year job anyway. The press gets tired of asking the same questions to the same person. The same person cannot change his answers for fear of looking inconsistent and "flip-floppy." They also get tired of hearing the same non-answers, so you bring in a new guy to not answer their questions in the hope of making it LOOK like you're being more forthcoming.

Re:It's a classic dilemma

[cayenne8]

"hy do you think his replacement has already been nicknamed "Snow Job"?"

Because if there was another Blow Job in the oval office, there'd be calls for impeachment?

:-)

Re:define liberal...

[geminidomino]

Well said. You should have posted under your name.

NY Times

[caitsith01]

Surprisingly enough, the article, which appears on the font of the NY Times website, doesn't even mention Colbert's name or make any reference to his performance. Instead it rambles about the Bush impersonator bit for the entire article.

The Times can hardly be called a part of the great right wing conspiracy - so one must conclude that Colbert has pissed off the media establishment, rather than the conservative political establishment. Wait, I mean "as well as" the conservative political establishment.

When you think about it, he's the only guy other than John Kerry who's had the opportunity to stand (effectively) face to face with Bush and tell him what he really thinks of 6 years of lousy policies. And he did a much better job than Kerry.

Re:NY Times

[Cl1mh4224rd]

When you think about it, he's the only guy other than John Kerry who's had the opportunity to stand (effectively) face to face with Bush and tell him what he really thinks of 6 years of lousy policies. And he did a much better job than Kerry.

Colbert in 2008! :-)

Re:NY Times

[Malakusen]

I would support Humor as a political party, but I'm more in favor of it as a religion. That's why I'm a Secular Humorist.

Re:NY Times

[ineffible]

"The Times can hardly be called a part of the great right wing conspiracy" are you kidding?
Do recall the buildup to the Iraq war and the how the NYTimes fed us the pres's line
in front page stories?

Re:NY Times

[bogie]

"And he did a much better job than Kerry."

Only through great skillfullness could someone possibly lose to that idiot. Kerry must truely be a genius. The election was handed to him on a silver platter and he still somehow managed to fumble it. I'll never forgive him.

Look for Dems to squander the fall as well. They couldn't find their a-holes with a map and a flashlight. Boo!

Re:NY Times

[drinkypoo]

Only through great skillfullness could someone possibly lose to that idiot.

Yeah, through the great skillfullness of people like the CEO of Diebold.

Re:NY Times

[Shajenko42]

Also, it's not really news. People are saying, "omg! this guy made fun of the preznit, who was standing right in front of him!" But this happens every year.

But they DID mention the Bush impersonator, who did the same thing, except less harshly.

Re:Liberal Bunk

[Le Marteau]

It's what is known as an idiom.

Indeed it is. Indeed it is. But who was it that said, "words have meaning"? One does not go lightly casting such phrases. One had best not be idiomatic if one is invoking God. That was my point. Anyone who goes saying "God bless" this and that is a piker. A fool. The sort who knows not, and believes not, in what they speak.

Video clip of the two GWBs...

[antdude]

Yahoo! News has the streaming ABC News video clip with both GWBs on stage. It was quite amusing and weird to see! They even made fun of the nuclear pronouncation!

Re:Video clip of the two GWBs...

[antdude]

Also on YouTube according to VideoSift.

Re:Video clip of the two GWBs...

[mdecarle]

Yes! That's the movie we want to see, with the nucular pronounciation.

I just can't understand how that other video does not include that part. What's up with that?

I get it.

[moogleii]

I'm seeing a lot of courage.

Old science fiction story

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

The story's premise was that it's possible to measure the percentage of truth in a statement.

Physical science papers and textbooks were only in the 90-95% range. If you said the age of the Eath was 4,388,765,309 years, for example, that might be 100% true but you'd never get published. In other fields, the socially tolerable level of truth was far lower.

The story's punch line was that only two groups of people were socially permitted to make 100% truthful statements: research mathematicians, and comedians.

(Also look up the history of "court fools").

Wait a minutle..

[hackwrench]

You Spanish speaking facki...er ...nistam,you!

Re:I don't get it.

[MuNansen]

Actually no, the event is not a roast. Yes there's usually a handful of jokes at the government's expense, but no more than any other awards show. The only difference is that the President and heads of state attend this one. Check out the DVD they're releasing of Clinton's performance at one of these things. He really needs to do a SNL gig.

No one has EVER stuck it to the President and the rest of the government this seriously at this event. EVER. Not even close. Not to say no one would, but has a comedian ever had THIS much material? And considering how aggressive the material was, I doubt many would have the guts.

Cheers to Stephen Colbert for not pulling any punches, which no one has ever done at this event.

signed - mindless sycophant that actually has some perspective on the event.

Re:John Amato's C&L blog?

[adpowers]

On some topics, like social security, then yes I do feel they are left wing. However, I am not a fan of Bill O'Reilly and his ilk, so I do agree with some of their politics. Like I said, though, I mainly go there to get video clips and to stay current on current news and scandals (in addition to Google News and Findory). Of course, I do realize that by only presenting some of the video clips, they are acting as a filter.

Re:Liberal Bunk

[Le Marteau]

Well, at least I know how to use a comma.

Re:Mmph

[niktemadur]

Slashdot has a liberal bias

Reality has a liberal bias, too. As for Slashdot, hey, News For Nerds? The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, duh! Now those, my friend, are two shows geared towards the inner geek in all of us, so posting about Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert in Slashdot is as apt as, say, posting about Linus Torvalds or Steve Jobs.

Re:Funny?

[Anonymous Coward]

No true conservative would be defending Bush or his administration... and that has NOTHING to do with alleged 'liberal bias' (funny how you never hear of the far more prevalent 'conservative bias' in this country... interesting). If Clinton had done even a quarter of the things Bush has done (especially in terms of vastly expanding the power of the Federal Government and the Presidency in particular, never mind the budget-busting spending, the nation-building, etc), you'd probably be screaming bloody murder. It should be no different just because the man in office right now *calls* himself a conservative, without actually exhibiting any meaningful traits thereof.

All my thinking conservative friends are busy bashing Bush as my liberal friends are... because they can see how horrible he is, and because they're not complete hypocrites. They're embarassed by this completely inarticulate, incompetent man and his completely corrupt cronies who are destroying their party and thumbing their noses at the very essence of what it means to be 'conservative'. Bashing Bush doesn't necessarily make you liberal, it just means you're paying attention.

every day is a slow news day at the Times

[infinite jester]

"What's next, the NY Times not agreeing with the president on Iraq?"

Unless that was an attempt at irony, you really should pay closer attention to current events. The New York Times was pro-war from the beginning. Remember Judith Miller, the NY Times reporter who ended up in jail for contempt during Scooter Libby's grand jury hearing? She wrote one article after another for the Times backing up the Bush Administration's false claims of WMD. She was their star reporter, their headlining act, the woman with the (erroneous) inside information. When Joseph Wilson wrote his op-ed piece calling out Bush on his State of the Union lie, Scooter Libby leaked information to Judith Miller that he hoped would discredit Wilson. That's how she ended up in jail, because she refused to reveal Libby as her source. There's lots more to the story, but the crux of the matter is that the only difference between the New York Times and the New York Post as regards the war in Iraq is that the Times uses a classier typeface.

Re:Mmph

[killjoe]

"I hate to use this terrible phrase, but slashdot has a liberal bias - it draws a multinational, technological crowd, all of whom are more liberal than the mainstream American."

Yes. Studies show that people who are educated, who read nespapers and get news from diverse sources, people who have passports (only 20% of Americans), people who travel, people who speak more then one language, people who are in the IT industry tend to be liberals.

But hey it's a big internet. There is always the free republic if you want to hear the other side. At least nobody here anywhere nearly as bad as your average freeper.

Re:Unbelievable!

[sweetwayne]

Well, I don't remember which comic gave Clinton a good roasting at the correspondents' dinner during his time in office. I certainly don't remember it being news on /. either. I think the significance here is that Colbert's "jokes" hit on a policy level with the administration. He did not lampoon, but attacked, for lack of a better term, GW's environmental policies, foreign military policy, etc... even ridiculing the joint chiefs(the "stand at a bank of computers and order men into battle" line got zero laughs as far as I could tell, and rightly so. It is sad, not funny). The final blow was a video application for the job of whitehouse correspondent, where he initially gets some laughs bashing on the reporters and mocking the deflect/dodge manner of whitehouse press conference Q&A. Then he hammered home his point with the question: Why did we go to war? But he did it in a comedian way, I suppose. Notice what W makes fun of himself for: the fact that he's a mumbler, and incessantly redundant ad nauseum, etc...? Yes, that certainly is shocking! Anyway, the point is, half the time Colbert wasn't making fun, he was pointing out serious issues that this administration needs to be accountable for, but never will. They can't. The president cannot, at this point, admit any mistakes were made, or that he was wrong at any given point. And Colbert had the balls to come out with real issues and put them right in the face of the president and his administration and the media. Yes, I found it shocking, but also very refreshing at the same time.

Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[mrraven]

When Edward R. Murrow brought down McCarthy he was lionized. When Cronkite read the number of soldiers killed in Vietnam he was lionized for telling the truth. It's not that modern reporters can't show guts, it's that they they don't chose to show guts, i.e. they are a bunch of sniveling cowards afraid of losing their fat corporate sponsored pay check. Ironically though as history shows those that show leadership don't end up losing their pay check but go on to greater rewards. Our current batch of blow dry "news anchors," though aren't real reporters and perhaps don't even have the mental tools to show leadership. Hopefully the rise of indy media, blogs, and being humiliated by "fake news," etc will shake them from their complacency in the long run, and they will hire some real reporters and we will receive some real news. One can always dream and in the meanwhile their is the internet and the comedy channel.

Re:Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[TapeCutter]

I generally agree with what you say about journalists who point out the "wizard behind the curtain", but try not to be too judgemental about the "current crop". US journalists are still being thrown in jail for sticking to their ethical codes, and the "mass media" is still printing insights from experienced war correspondents such as Robert Frisk.

People like Murrow are rare, and even if there is a "Murrow" lurking somewhere in today's media machine they won't be generally recognised as such for another decade or so.

Re:Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[miskatonic alumnus]

It's not that modern reporters can't show guts, it's that they they don't chose to show guts, i.e. they are a bunch of sniveling cowards afraid of losing their fat corporate sponsored pay check. Ironically though as history shows those that show leadership don't end up losing their pay check but go on to greater rewards. Our current batch of blow dry "news anchors," though aren't real reporters and perhaps don't even have the mental tools to show leadership.

Of course, when they do show guts they might just be eviscerated like Jane Akre and Steve Wilson were for trying to expose Bovine Growth Hormone. The corporations are locking everything up, including the truth.

Re:Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[demachina]

"When Cronkite read the number of soldiers killed in Vietnam he was lionized for telling the truth"

In fact the country had already largely turned on the Vietnam war by the time he acted. It would have been a bit braver if he had exposed Vietnam as a failed policy a few years earlier. Cronkite did help take down LBJ but the war continued on for another 5 years before it was lost, so he didn't really make much of a difference.

In some respects it feels kind of like Iraq where the media didn't let out a whimper when the foundation was laid for the bloody and expensive disaster, they waited until it was obviously a bloody mistake and now they are piling on against it now that its too late to do anything about it (i.e. the two options now being stay the course or withdraw and watch Iraq explode in civil war).

"When Edward R. Murrow brought down McCarthy he was lionized."

On Murrow you are totally misrepresenting reality. Murrow, Friendly, "See it Now" and others at CBS paid a dear price for what they did.

Don Hollenbeck, was another CBS news anchor who lauded Murrow's attack on McCarthy on air. He was eviscerated by right wing editorials for the next 3 months and branded as a communist. He then committed suicide in a gas oven.

Murrow and Friendly continued attacking sacred cows in that 1954-1955 season, including an expose on a Texas land scandal that infuriated their main sponsor, Alcoa, which pulled their funding and put the nail in the coffin for "See it Now".

Many of the people involved in the McCarthy expose were laid off.

Walter Pally and CBS corporate felt Murrow and Friendly overstepped their bounds on McCarthy and throughout their controversial 1954-1955 season and that they were making news rather than reporting it. They pulled See It Now from their prime time slot and stuck them on Sunday afternoon in a form of putting them out to pasture as they ran out their contract.

Murrow eventually became completely disillusioned with TV news, precisely because of the pressures to make it entertaining, profitable, to avoid controversy and to avoid alienating corprate sponsors.

What Murrow and Friendly did was brave beyond belief but the retaliation that followed created a precedent that served to discourage journalists and networks from attacking the power that be, especially when it involved their sponsors.

In a more recent CBS precedent there is Dan Rather's recent attempt to expose George W's borderline criminal National Guard record. Unfortunately they relied on a forged letter to support their story which was wrong. But ... it is likely the forged letter was essentially accurate, the commanding officers secretary said its content was quite plausible. Its just most of the incriminating evidence in his record was most probably purged by Bush operatives, something that was especiallay easy to do when Bush was governor of Texas and commander in chief of the Texas national guard. Rather was of course driven out of the CBS anchor chair and the producer was fired.

"they will hire some real reporters and we will receive some real news"

It would run completely counter to how news networks work today. They are competing for audience with 50 other TV channels, games, internet, etc. The only successful news shows are going to be the most sensationalist ones, pandering to what their audience wants to see, and most of their audience wants to see celebrity scandals. Most audience also have a massive case of cognitive dissonance, they want their news to reinforce their world view not disrupt it. Thats why Fox is the #1 cable network, lots of people watch Fox because Fox says what they want to hear, America #1 in particular.

Journalists can only attack Presidents when their poll numbers are in the toilet because then they know the majority of their audience wants them to attack the President then. When a President's poll numbers are riding high they generally dont touch them. Journalists are at the head of the like supportinh going to war as long as their is a patriotic fervor whipped up for it, and then journalists can turn against the war when it turns long, bloody and costly and the public has already started to turn on it, like Cronkite did.

Re:Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[Doctor Faustus]

Unfortunately they relied on a forged letter to support their story which was wrong. But ... it is likely the forged letter was essentially accurate, the commanding officers secretary said its content was quite plausible.

I still think Karl Rove fed CBS the letter so that it would be reported, and then announced as a fake. It killed the overall story pretty well, anyway.

Re:Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[cayenne8]

"ur current batch of blow dry "news anchors," though aren't real reporters and perhaps don't even have the mental tools to show leadership."

I have to agree with you on this, however, on a lighter note, I really do like the trend we've seen, started by Fox News of hot looking 'news chicks'....

The networks may be spewing drivel, but, at least there is something pleasant to look at while they're doing it now.

:-)

Re:Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[PinkPanther]

We don't want guesses, we want facts. We can't afford to have every media blowhard make slanderous statements and ruin people's careers and reputations.

Your completely kidding us, right? That was pure sarcasm, right?

If not, you haven't been watching any of the mainstream news at all. Lou Dobbs? Bill O'Reilly? Ann Coulter? These people are offering facts???

Granted, they aren't offering guesses. They completely sell the bullshit they make up.

Re:Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[demachina]

"We don't want guesses, we want facts."

The facts are its almost a certainty George W. shirked his guard responsibilities. He may well have refused a physical which lead to him being grounded which is a bad thing for a trained pilot, and he may have ducked it for fear his cocaine use would be detected.

Its also a fact that all the evidence to prove it has disappeared.

So what do you do in the case where someone who did wrong was successful in destroying all the evidence. He gets away with it. By your standard if Nixon and the plumbers had only been a little better at their coverup, or Woodward and Bernstein a little less persistent in their investigation, or if Deep Throat hadn't put his neck on the line, Nixon would have gotten away with subverting our government and it would have been OK.

George W.'s once exceptional political skill has been his ability to cover up his embarrassing past and getting away with it. The cocaine use (and probably arrest in Texas for it) that was expunged from his record thanks to his dad's power in Texas, his out of control alcoholism, and the fact that not only did he duck the war in Vietnam but he also shirked his National Guard service which was the condition for avoiding the draft. Again his family's connections secured him a spot in the Texas Air National country club though he did supremely bad on the testing and he was picked over people far more deserving.

There is just immense irony in a spoiled rich kid using the National Guard to duck his generations war, and not even fulfilling his limited obligations, while he is sending this generation's National Guard to die in Iraq wholesale.

"Now that's a reputable source!"

As a matter of fact she is, since she is one of the few people that was around when George W. ducked his guard service, who is still alive and still willing to talk.

Re:Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[sgt_doom]

No offense meant, but that's Robert Fisk (it's important to get his name out there again and again and correctly spelled so no one gets the wrong message, of course).

Of course, you are right - quite a number have been thrown in jail or severely intimidated by those Homeland Security goons (don't have time for the links, but it has been happening). Of course, if one takes down a salary one should be doing something to earn said salary - otherwise they are just a bunch of useless farts....

Re:Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[mrraven]

I'm not talking about real reporters who work for British newspapers like Fisk, I'm talking about the anchor "personalities" who read corporate propaganda from a teleprompter for CBS/MSNBC/CNN/FOX/ABC. Why am I not holding my breath that Katie Courcic (sp?) will be the next Edward R. Murrow? OTH I suspect we'll be hearing a lot more about kid napped white girls, Tom Cruise, and other such red herring fluff stories in the future.

Re:Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[SpryGuy]

Very true. The concentration of media outlets into the hands of giant corporations is one of the serious problems that has lead to the current state of affairs. The other aspect is the elimination of the "Fairness Doctrin" in broadcasting ... it was removed during the Reagan Administration, and it certainly helped lay the groundwork for the lop-sided spin-filled "news" we get today as well.

And the result? The best news sources now seem to be fake news shows, as real news shows are all spin or lies-by-omission. Thank god for John Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

Re:Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[demachina]

The issue isn't really whether the letter is a fake or not. The issue is whether George W. shirked his National Guard duty. The preponderance of circumstantial evidence is he did. He went to Alabama to work on a political campaign and as nearly as anyone can tell just just left, abandoning his Texas guard duty and the Texas National Guard approved the transfer to Alabama after the fact, not before he moved like ordinary guardsmen. In Alabama he was notorious for partying drugs and womanizing. He was trained as a fighter pilot at great expense and moved to an Alabama guard unit where he couldn't fly.

The circumstantial evidence is also that he shirked a flight physical which also grounded him rendering him useless as a pilot and probably also should have resulted in him being transfered to regular Army duty and Vietnam having not met his guard duty.

And finally he apparently shirked his guard service all together when he went to Harvard Business school before his tour was done.

There should be a paper trail a mile long showing all this dereliction of duty but it is mostly missing which frustrates a lot of people who want the Bush family held to account. That is the story. The Bush family concealed dereliction of duty by a black sheep of a son who went on to become President, though he was uniquely unqualified for the job, and who is now cavalierly sending today's young people to die in a war in Iraq likewise based on a web of lies, a war his dad was wise enough to avoid because he knew it would be an ethnic and religious quagmire.

Re:Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[sgt_doom]

You are, of course, exactly right!!!! Good mind...good thinking...and no doubt a brave spirit as well.

Look for Karl Rove's indictment to occur between 5/17 to 5/23 - after Mother's Day of course (does that worm actually have a mother????).

Re:Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[maraist]

This isn't liberal vs. conservative or any such thing, this is a matter of justice--you don't hang someone on fabricated evidence, even if they are a villain.

You are very wrong sir. There is no such thing as fact. And the media is not a court of law. If the media can not follow down "leads" that provide ill public impression of what is likely to be wrong-doing - to open the doors so that other reporters can eventually find more concrete associations of that wrong-doing, then what is their job? They are not police, they are not private investigators. It is wrong to say that the role of the media is to merely report on what private investigators and police and the government say. The role of the media is to draw public attention to things that are important for them [the public] to know.

If a reporter points out repeatedly that a particular CEO is likely selling off his stock (through indirect evidence), then (so long as it can not be shown that there is conflict of interest in the media company) the added attention brought will very likely bring about competing investigations until something very close to the truth is revealed..

Now what I assume you are alluding to is true slandor.. Making sh*t up to purposefully hurt somebody.. No, you are right.. The media shouldn't do that.. We should let the billions of campaign dollars do that instead (not sarchasm). Oh, but don't let the media try and investigate the sources of the money, because political parties will have very well hid all their sources; anything that was found would almost certainly have to have been acquired illegally.. Hmm. kind of reminds me of the DMCA.. The digital clue that says, "if you've gotten this far, you're already going to jail".

Sorry, I don't believe in fascism...

Re:Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[willtsmith]

They said it was reproduction of an actual document. The secretary said the document was faked as this was not how they typed things. But that she believed the content was real. She would know as she would have typed the document.

Colonel Killian was sucker punched. Rove was cunningly masterful, as usual. No doubt Satan will have him at hell's poker table once his time is up on Earth.

BTW, I would beg you to apply the same journalistic standards to every Clinton scandal except the Monica Lewinsky issue. At the end of the day, they were all conjecture and all dead ends. Even the Jennifer Flowers issue that started it all was a fake. Flowers named their first meeting place as a hotel that had not even been built yet. The girl was a wackjob serial liar. The press did not care because they wanted their story. And they never bothered cleaning up after their BS because they were always hot on the trail of the next BS scandal being spoon fed to them by the right wing.

Re:Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[whatthisis]

Dude. I don't want anyone's guesses (or BS, for that matter). Not Ann Coulter's, not O'Reilly's, and not Rather's. I don't care which party it supports, slander isn't acceptable, and as you can see, reliance on questionable evidence calls the whole case into evidence, EVEN IF there's good reason to think that the case, absent the fabrication, was solid. For example, look at the OJ trial This isn't liberal vs. conservative or any such thing, this is a matter of justice--you don't hang someone on fabricated evidence, even if they are a villain. At least when they got Al Capone on tax evasion, he had *actually* committed that crime; it wasn't something they invented for the sole purpose of taking him down. http://www.attorney-directory-online.com/ And that's a good thing, because the minute people can throw those they don't like in prison on BS charges, we end up with injustices like http://www.attorney-listings.com/ Abu Garib or Gitmo, which further my point about why one should speak out about injustice *everywhere* it is committed, no matter what political party they support.

Re:Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[TapeCutter]

"No offense meant, but that's Robert Fisk"

None taken, thanks for the correction.

Re:Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[TapeCutter]

"I'm talking about the anchor "personalities" who read corporate propaganda from a teleprompter"

Doh, I thought those people were actors not journalists.

Re:Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[mrraven]

Clap, clap, clap I bow to you...

Re:Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[ShakaUVM]

What an interesting world you live in when you know the Gennifer Flowers story is fake.

When, you know, Clinton himself has admitted to having an affair with her.

Unless you know better than the people in question?

Hm.

Odd, very odd.

Re:Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[PinkPanther]

Yet those "conservative" folks remain on the air (I looked up "conservative" in the dictionary...I don't see how that label applies to those I mentioned).

But as others have pointed out, the media is not judge, jury nor prosecutor (though arguably they can be the executioner). Rather's mistake was simply that: a mistake. He did not do it knowingly; he honestly believed that he was bringing a serious issue to light. He is like the scientist who is looking to prove a theorem, finds an experiment that affirms it, but fails to test some of the negative cases. Error, yes. Criminal, no.

Re:Bzzzzzt history says you are wrong

[StikyPad]

I really do like the trend we've seen, started by Fox News of hot looking 'news chicks'....

Yeah.. that Greta Van Sustren... Rrrrrraaooowww!

Re:watch Colbert Report instead

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Even under full-blown totalitarianism there's a graduated response. In the old Soviet Union people could find themselves hassled, demoted, or fired well before getting prosecuted for protesting or getting disappeared without access to a lawyer or even to family

Re:I don't get it.

[aitikin]

I agree with you on the fact that it was mediocre comedy, but how many times can anyone point to an that the president was at and say that he just got his ass handed to him. There were a few points that I really enjoyed it, otherwise he was just someone showing the president what many people have been saying, and not just the president, the news. But, like many other Slashdotters have mentioned, this has not and will not be covered in any form of news other than things like Slashdot and Comedy Central.

I wish he had said more, because there is a lot more that could be said. There are plenty of ideas that have been pointed out long ago that would have made me respect Colbert much more. I'm certain that this is really pointless, and that nothing will come of it, because, like Good Night and Good Luck reminds us, "[media] in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us."

Just my $0.02

seriously.

[YesIAmAScript]

Those most surprised by this are those who pay the least attention. The White House Correspondents Dinner is similar to this every year. Last year the first lady roasted Bush.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-05-01-lau ra-bush-comments_x.htm

This year's commentary was a bit more biting than usual, and it actually targetted the correspondents (and not Bush) a bit more than usual. Net result: a wash.

Re:seriously.

[SamNmaX]

Last year the first lady roasted Bush.

Daily Show had a great segment on this, where Colbert goes over the top with his presentation of her 'after-hours' version:

http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=1615

Re:Funny?

[Tiro]

If you want a good bashing of Mr Clinton, see Don Imus' speech at the WHPC dinner a few years back.

It wasn't that funny, although it attracted headlines for saying rather vulgar things about the president [which later turned out to be true].

Re:Liberal Bunk

[Kuj0317]

god bless you, my child :-D

Those are some incredible special effects!

[moultano]

Oh, there's a nice unbiased source.

I'm amazed at how well they were able to mimic Stephen Colbert with that computer animation! Forget gollum, that clearly deserves a technical oscar. And Bush, man oh man, he wasn't on screen long, but that was an incredible likeness. The crowd stuff was a little lame though. They didn't laugh enough to be realistic. Were it not for that, and the fact that this is such an unbelievable video from such a biased source, I might have even believed it actually happened!

Re:Those are some incredible special effects!

[general_re]

Were it not for that, and the fact that this is such an unbelievable video from such a biased source, I might have even believed it actually happened!

There are none so blind as those who will not see. When you get done patting yourself on the back for your cleverness, perhaps you'll scan the commentary that accompanies the video from this source. And then ask yourself, why select such a slanted site to present it? I mean, as someone else pointed out, it's not even the complete video - the complete video is available elsewhere. But then you wouldn't have the commentary. So, let's all stop and ponder whether the video is really the thing you're supposed to be interested in.

Take off the blinders for a moment and pretend it's President John Kerry, with video selections and commentary provided by Little Green Footballs or Free Republic. Is that still cool, or do you want to award some more Oscars?

Re:Those are some incredible special effects!

[moultano]

When you get done patting yourself on the back for your cleverness, perhaps you'll scan the commentary that accompanies the video from this source.

The only thing I can find in the description of the video on that site that deviates from simple factual reporting is this: "Faux press briefing"

Are you objecting to the prior reputation of this site, or the actual article text?

Re:Those are some incredible special effects!

[general_re]

Alas, I don't think you stopped to ponder any of the issues I raised. Oh, well. Perhaps your mouse is broken, and you can't click on the link to read the four or five hundred comments praising Colbert for sticking it to Chimpy McBushitler. At least here you have one or two lone voices objecting to Colbert's presentation, but no such thing there. So I ask you again, is the video the thing you're supposed to be interested in? If so, why not select one of the many sites that present the entire thing, rather than selected portions, without the comments?

Re:Those are some incredible special effects!

[ben there...]

And then ask yourself, why select such a slanted site to present it? I mean, as someone else pointed out, it's not even the complete video - the complete video is available elsewhere. But then you wouldn't have the commentary.

AFAICT, C&L was one of the first sources to have the video, Saturday evening. Most people don't sit around ripping from C-SPAN, so it was the second run that was ripped I believe. It was linked to on another site I frequent later that night. The better quality versions have come since. In fact, I'm encoding an mp4 version of it now.

Re:Those are some incredible special effects!

[general_re]

If this was posted an hour after the event and this place was in the business of hot breaking news stories, then I might buy that. OTOH, this story wasn't posted until 36 hours after that, and by then there were a zillion sites with the complete thing, including the Youtube links someone posted below.

The most benign explanation I can come up with is probably the correct one - Zonker didn't bother to look at the source for the article, and just cut'n'pasted the thing as is. Standard Slapdash incompetence, in other words, in which case I call shenanigans on the article submitter for taking advantage of the kid who rides the short bus.

Political Parties Aren't Not Where It's At

[rolfwind]

Who care if the Republican are voted in again. Your answer seems to be the Democrats.

Political Parties are not where it's at. It never was and never will be. And by "it", I mean answers for the future.

In his farewell address as President, the other George (Washington), warned us against political parties. And since then, we promptly split into party lines:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac /49.htm

Have political parties ever spearheaded any worthwhile movement? Woman's suffrage? Civil Liberties? Hell, even Slavery? Not, if it cost them votes or it became the "right thing to do" with the public, meaning they got so late into the game as not to make a difference any longer. Look what parties make of issue these days to see the lack of courage in Washington to take any definitive action.

Have political parties caused you to stop looking at who you are voting for, and instead make you vote down the party line? Congratulations, you played into their hands. Are all Republicans really that bad, as to be always worse than their Democratic counterparts? Or the other way around?

Will it matter if the Democrats come in? Other than unions, won't they get funded by the same corporations as long as they follow corporate interests? And they will.

Hell, Jesse Ventura was one of the better Governors that there was in a long time. I wouldn't have believed it if I haven't seen it, but he was. And he was independent and not a career politician.

Why can't we vote more people like him in?

Think Independent. And Vote Independent. The parties won't fix jack shit. They have all their fingers smeared by the same pie and are beholden to the same interests.

Re:Political Parties Aren't Not Where It's At

[novus ordo]

A part that I found most appropriate for this occasion:

"It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened."

Thanks to Colbert for doing his part.

Re:Political Parties Aren't Not Where It's At

[moosesocks]

Think Independent. And Vote Independent. The parties won't fix jack shit. They have all their fingers smeared by the same pie and are beholden to the same interests.

I like the sentiment, but quite honestly, voting independent is like voting for the party you oppose the most (in this case, most likely the Rebpublicans)

If you really want to make a change, vote for a moderate. Moderates have the best track record for actually getting stuff done, and aren't afraid to vote against their party's beliefs. John McCain will be running in 2008, and if elected, would do a lot to fix the mess that is the Republican Party. Even though I veer twoard the side of liberal, unless the democrats manage to field an excellent candidate (NOT Hillary or Kerry!), I intend to vote McCain in 2008. The other republican forerunner, Giuliani is also quite moderate. Can't say the same for Condi though.....

Re:Political Parties Aren't Not Where It's At

[evilviper]

In his farewell address as President, the other George (Washington), warned us against political parties. And since then, we promptly split into party lines:

I'll repeat what I've said hundreds of times before on /.

"Just because someone famous said it, doesn't make it true."

For founding fathers, people always quote the ones who expoused a view similar to the one they want, and ignore the 50% of founding fathers to staunchly disagreed with that view, and said quite the opposite.

But hey, some of the founding fathers believed in slavery, so it's a real shame our country has deteriorated so much as to let that wonderful institution be outlawed...

Re:Political Parties Aren't Not Where It's At

[Pendersempai]

The really tragic thing about your post is it sounds like you're completely unaware that the Independents are a political party.

"Vote Independent," you say. Escape this tyranny of parties... by voting for a different party.

Re:Political Parties Aren't Not Where It's At

[senatorpjt]

Who knows? I used to like McCain, but lately he's been licking Bush's asshole so much that I don't know what the hell he'd do.

Re:Political Parties Aren't Not Where It's At

[senatorpjt]

Do you live in New York? There is an "Independence Party", which is not independent. There was some noise about this a while ago, when it turned out that people who thought they weren't registering in a party, were. To register as an independent in new york, you have to pick "No Party" on the registration form.

Re:Political Parties Aren't Not Where It's At

[maraist]

There is no difference between the two major parties. They're both as stupid, evil, and greedy as the Republicans.

Yes, but (and forgive me if you are a lawyer), this is the logical conclusion of the system our fore-fathers have constructed. Is there a better system? I don't know.. The old boys were pretty stern about limiting the efficiency of government rule to prevent tyranny...

See, here's the trajady.. A good system (like good soil) will cause it's population to grow and grow until the pot can no longer contain the population. Diseconomies of scale will eventually occur.

Now through no credit of their own, the old boys established a loose central government.. Theoretically this would facilitate several pots, each capable of managing a smaller population.. But eventually scale hits them (just like big-O).

Every thing that is being done is to Science (as I'm sure most /. readers would agree). Every aspect of the generic commodity known as the public is studied, scrutinized and refined. There are natural innefficiencies and natural monopolies.. A single unit can not process ALL the information that is out there... Moreover the demand for information is it's own commodity. So by playing to the scarcity of information and the cost of information acquisition, you can manipulate the market.

It's all game-theory.

So, as part of gaming it out, you can't have a single party.. Then you'd always be to blame; you'd always be outed by the public.. You need at least two parties.. More might be nice, but at least two.

Now, once you have two parties, every possible "cause" (beit moral or immoral) has to find it's voice.. If you have 3 or more parties, then you run a huge risk of backing a losing horse.. So any good "cause" manager (yet another commodity manager) is looking for the best representation.. So they pick the strongest party.. But, some causes are mutually exclusive.. Can't have green-peace and oil-drilling in the same party - kind of hard for a politician to do it with a straight face. So there are natual sides that occur.

While I have not directly taken government studies classes, I've taken lots of economics classes which happen to also deal with government policy.. And in those classes there are wonderful 2D charts which show virtually every cause you could be interested in.. They are oriented in a classical "leftist" and "conservativistic" manner.. I don't recall with the second dimension was.. In such a simple layout, you can draw a straight line splitting all the causes in two.

Intelligent stuarts of a cause will solicit representatives that fall on one side or the other - as is appropriate for the dividing line.. So now you have your "base".. The rest is this slightly non-precise dividing line which can shift slightly in the various dimensional directions... This represents the coveted middle ground.

The final aspect is the commodity of "voters".. The science continues on to maximizes voters of your side while minimizing the voters of the other side.. Each action a politicians team makes might encourage their own base at the expense of riling up the opposing base.. So each marketing action (or political decision) must be carefully weighed against the information of the "political-elasticity" of this semi-voting public.

We probably have not perfected the art of to-vote or not-to-vote.. But we certainly have maximized political association of causes (and thereby campaign contributions).

Now, in a small enough community, communism works brilliantly.. I can't believe people thought it would actually work for millions of people. But I'd say the exact same thing about democracy - though arguably democracy works up to a much larger scale.

So, where are we currently? I think a combination of things are in order. 1'st we have no choice but to vote for the party not in power except for the RARE cases of presidents that actually do have honor, integrity, intelligence, and political clout. 2'nd we ne

Re:Political Parties Aren't Not Where It's At

[maraist]

Would McCain work for or against cleaning up the bribery

Look, I like McCain.. His "shtick" is integrity.. I'm just enough of a sucker to forgo Abortion, good fiscal management, strong international diplomacy, opportunistic policy, just to restore that word to the office.

But McCain is just swinging integrity just like Republicans are swinging $100 bribes to the poor, $1,000 bribes to middle class and $1,000,000 bribes to the wealthy. Or like Democrats are swinging "free gas and free drugs". These are all just political tools. And if you watch McCain enough, you can see it in him too. Believe me, I liked the guy enough to pay attention to every word.. And the politician in him definitely shows.

Though I will say, my favoite paraphrased quote from him was that he came to congress as a boy-scout.. And congress just has to eventually kill that in you.. Otherwise it just kills you.

Re:Political Parties Aren't Not Where It's At

[maraist]

But hey, some of the founding fathers believed in slavery, so it's a real shame our country has deteriorated so much as to let that wonderful institution be outlawed...

Now now now.. You're taking slavery out of context. Slavery had many facets to it.. One was a more desireable alternative to debtors prison. Another was what you did to conquested countries so that they couldn't provide guarilla warfare against you (you know, like the Romans did, until they stopped doing it and got taken over by those they didn't kill). Granted, it was so common place, that people felt that just because they could steal a couple natives, put them in a boat and ship them overseas, they had a commodity which was virtually identical to the other two points.. The consumers of this didn't ask questions - it was on it's surface legitimate and moral. Much like how we don't question tuna.. We don't question whether our house was built with 100% American labor (with SSN's to back it).. We look the other way because we feel that we couldn't know for sure that there WAS illicit elements to this thing we so love (cheaper products and better tasting fish).

Moreover, it's moral relativism.. Will capitalism be looked at as horrendously demonic 100 years from now.. Government sponsored oppression of the working and under class?? Communists tried and failed this route I guess.

Will the death penalty be viewed as horrific and inhuman?.. There are reports this past couple weeks about how much a death penalty person suffers (the supreme court case of a man questioning his method of death).

Will usurping our environment be considered morally defunct because we KNEW that we were killing our future? Ignorance or feeling that since-everyone-else does it is my moral escape clause??

Re:Political Parties Aren't Not Where It's At

[rolfwind]

For founding fathers, people always quote the ones who expoused a view similar to the one they want, and ignore the 50% of founding fathers to staunchly disagreed with that view, and said quite the opposite.

But hey, some of the founding fathers believed in slavery, so it's a real shame our country has deteriorated so much as to let that wonderful institution be outlawed...

You're trying to take someone out of his time and apply your moral to him. We'd all like to think we're all upstanding, good people, but how much of what you think is shaped by your time versus something you came to your own conclusions to? There are very few people who have the courage to blaze a new trail and not follow the crowd, Gandhi for instance. Unfortunately, most of us are sheep, simply following the social mores of our time with little thought other than fitting in - the Milgram experiment has proven this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

That said, out of all the Founding Fathers, there are a few that everybody has heard of and that carry special weight because they were extremely immersed in beginning our Government. Washington, along with Jefferson, is such a man, he was the only president I'm aware of that wasn't associated with a political party, and also set many voluntary standards up, like two-terms to a president (until FDR broke tradition) that probably was beneficial for us in the end.

I don't see any flaws of voting independently of partly (and preferably someone independent of party) - except for maybe the same naivety that the founders of Communism display - that human beings can't be made to fit that mold no matter how well meaning.

Re:Political Parties Aren't Not Where It's At

[rolfwind]

I like the sentiment, but quite honestly, voting independent is like voting for the party you oppose the most (in this case, most likely the Rebpublicans)

This sentiment amoung people causes a self-fulfilling prophecy of the two party system. Thankfully, the voters of Jesse Ventura didn't think this way.

In my line of thinking, voting for either party is a zero-sum game, I lose either way, because they're both corrupt and the same in the end. If I vote independent, I can either help get someone better in, or like the strong Ross Perot showing in the 1990s, at least get the parties to discuss the independent platform/issues.

Re:Political Parties Aren't Not Where It's At

[rolfwind]

Where are not there is an "independent" party is irrevelent. Voting independent is about voting for the best guy, independently of party line and hopefully said candidate is independent of party status.

I used to be republican, but did I really care about/for the whole platform? No. All I care about was balancing the budget, and fiscally responsibility (both of which the neocons have thrown out the window while paying full lip service to it).

I didn't care about banning gay marriage or most of the social program. And I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that vote generally for one party or another, who really don't care about 90% of the platform. That's why it's better to vote independent, where you can look at a candidate more objectively.

Re:Political Parties Aren't Not Where It's At

[evilviper]

You're trying to take someone out of his time and apply your moral to him.

As are you. Perhaps the founding father's minds would be changed about voting independantly of political parties, if they had been born in modern times.

Unfortunately, most of us are sheep, simply following the social mores of our time with little thought other than fitting in - the Milgram experiment has proven this:

The Milgram experiment was not about social mores, but about the pursuasive effect of authorities, over your own personal objections. Really completely different issues.

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

Hi,

The September 11 attacks were the first time that Slashdot really seemed to be very much at all about politics, and the story wasn't even posted right away (I was watching on the news, and this was years ago, but, at least, I seem to remember it that way, perhaps you'll go back and prove me wrong).

Before this, people were complaining that Slashdot had lost its initial focus (bear in mind, this is 5 years ago). Kuro5hin.org was started. K5 was initially about tech, but the articles are reader selected. You got REAL whack-jobs on K5. Doubt it? Try this, an article was FP'd over there that criticized the media for praising the police in NYC in the fallout of the attacks because police are, "the sworn enemy of the black man." No lie.

When JonKatz was posting a column to the site, it seemed an attempt to broaden the site a bit. There was a backlash. Many readers didn't care for it, and, well, he doesn't post a column any more. The content? Well, Voices From the Hellmouth is probably his best known work. You could, perhaps, compare how that relates to content related to technology, and where it sits politically, and extrapolate a bit to see how that relates to "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters." Now, try the same with this.

To come on and tell me that this has been going on for years on Slashdot is merely to indicate how much the site has changed. When I signed up the majority of articles were about tech and pro-open source. The complaining that got people fired up initially for K5 wasn't politics... it was that it seemed that lots of managers and business people were becoming interested in Slashdot, and perhaps a bit of the politics that seeped in with the afforementioned column. Oh, and talking about stock prices. It seemed that a lot of the readership wanted to talk about stock prices when "insider info" from Slashdot seemed a good way to get info regarding RedHat's stock (back when you could buy it cheap and become a millionaire if you wrote a Linux utility that found its way into the distribution).

So, no, you're wrong. I don't want to make you feel bad. I don't want to call you out, but you're just wrong. I want to talk about open source, and software, and technology. I like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, but that doesn't have a damn thing to do with what this site is about, or, at least, what it was about when I joined.

Need a bit more feedback on it? Read the article where the big Taco himself asked what people wanted out of Slashdot. Read a few of his replies.

Re:Funny?

[c0dedude]

I could care less about moderation points - I'm an M2 and have karma to burn. What I do care about is not discouraging a point of view just because you disagree with it. While it may start a flamewar to go against the grain and post a controversial opinion, isn't that sort of independent thinking what slashdot is supposed to be about? As is often said, democracy starts at home, and if we aren't checking to be sure that we aren't failing to consider opposing viewpoints today, then we can be as bad as any ideologue we despise tomorrow.

Re:watch Colbert Report instead

[niktemadur]

One way for a system to get truly tyrannical is to go about it through phases, the increasing concentration of power proportional to the conditioning of the population to accept the freedoms they are losing as a "necessary evil" for some grand yet vague scheme of "national defense" and "imminent danger". Whatever the population loses along the way is quickly forgotten, for yet another constitutional guarantee is now being assaulted, one by one, systematically and relentlessly, with a bombardment of propaganda by media pundits in cahoots with those in power. This should all sound familiar to anyone keeping abreast of US national news. One day, you just might look around you and find out that all your rights as an individual are gone, and only a catastrophic reversal can bring things back to how they were, in a generation or two.

Surely we cannot afford to wait until things are 'truly tyrannical' to try to reverse the damage, can we? Surely we can and must detect any symptom at an early stage, oppose this nefarious process and attempt to stop it in its' tracks before the bastards have their hands around our throat, while our individual voices still mean something.

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

I tried to find the studies that you cite, but could not find them in Google. Would you care to share a source. I know that I foe'd you a while ago, but, this has nothing to do with that. I'm sure that a study has been done, and I cannot find it.

As for the IT set, anecdotal experience indicates that there are more libertarians than the general populace, but not necessarily more Socialists/Communists/Democrats, which would be the more liberal on the fiduciary front.

DefCon did have an event where they all run off into the desert and fired off their guns... I guess that they are Democrats... except when it comes to gun control.

ESR certainly seems to like guns. He advocated carrying them on airplanes to fight would be hijackers on an emailing list that I was a member of. He definitely isn't a Democrat. Lots of people here like him though.

This is all just anecdotal though.

Stephen Colbert Thank You Site

[grokgov]

http://thankyoustephencolbert.org

For serving as an example, telling it like it is, I've thrown together a site to collect thank yous for Mr. Colbert.

Hopefully this site will help boost awareness of this story, which is already being distorted in the mainstream press.

Go over and say thanks.

Colber and Stewart should not be needed

[ecorona]

This video along with John Stewart's appearance on "Crossfire" should go into textbooks. As much as I like Colbert and John Stewart, how I wish they were not needed. How I wish the press were half as dedicated to the American people as they are to keeping their jobs. How I wish that fake news organizations that push the Government's agenda only existed in dystopian futurstic worlds in sci-fi novels. Fox news uses logical fallacies to justify Republican led efforts and demonize Democrats in general. Fox news is unofficially the Republican news channel. I stress that this wouldn't be as big an issue if they weren't dishonest in the way that they present their arguments. There is nothing wrong with having a different opinion, but convincing others of such opinions via malicious distortions of the truth is insidious. It should be called out with the full ferocity and scandal the press is capable of. This is dangerous for a "news channel" to do because some people don't even know what a logical fallacy is (maybe like 32% of people?).

Re:Colber and Stewart should not be needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox news is unofficially the Republican news channel.

And the Democrats have ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, Time, Newsweek, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.

But the problem with today's media is Fox News.

Re:Colber and Stewart should not be needed

[sfjoe]

And the Democrats have ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, Time, Newsweek, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.

The New York Times? You mean the New York Times that was the first newspaper to call for Presidnet Clinton's impeachment? That New York Times? Wow - imagine what might have happened if they weren't part of the "liberal media".
Can you imagine Fox ever calling for bush's impeachment? Me either.

Re:Colber and Stewart should not be needed

[kilfarsnar]

Ah, yes, did we mention disingenuousness? The media outlets you cite are nowhere near as egregious in their slant as Fox News is. Fox News' internal memos have shown that they have a policy of making the Republicans look good. This is a specific policy, though unofficial. Anchors, commentators and correspondents are specifically told what they should talk up and emphasize; how they should spin the story. Those who don't toe the line are disciplined. This does not happen at the other media outlets. I'm not saying they don't have pressure from editors and whatnot. But there is not a concerted effort to elevate one party over the other, as there is at Fox News. The "Liberal Media" as the Republicans define it does not exist.

Re:Colber and Stewart should not be needed

[limekiller4]

ecorona writes:
This video along with John Stewart's appearance on "Crossfire" should go into textbooks. As much as I like Colbert and John Stewart, how I wish they were not needed. How I wish the press were half as dedicated to the American people as they are to keeping their jobs.

While I agree with you wholeheartedly, it isn't going to happen. The problem is rigged right into the system and other people have pointed it out in this thread. You can pretty much destroy your career if you piss off the White House. You don't get to be at the top of your game with a White House Press Corp gig only to go down in flames over a question.

Helen Thomas notwithstanding.

The core problem is that the White House has no obligation to answer the press. Heck, it was learned this week that Andrew Card is considering doing away with live press briefings entirely.

While I don't anticipate this happening anytime soon, I think it would be nice for American citizens to vote on which questions to ask the president. These questions are submitted in writing and the president himself has a chance to answer them (not a spokesperson, er, flack, er, lying sack of sh*t mouthpiece (did I say that?)).

Really, I could care less about Snow taking over the job. Scottie is gone ONLY because he got burned for having the stupidity to vouch for Rove and Libby. Literally, that's his only failing. NOBODY can not answer a question like Scott McClellan. When backed into a wall he'll claim he answered the question already and refuse to repeat the answer. I've seen it dozens of times.

Me, I think it's a slap in the face of every American citizen every time he does it, but that's just me.

Remove the sword of Damocles for asking the "wrong question" and you'll start getting the "right questions." It's really as simple as that.

Re:Colber and Stewart should not be needed

[Senzei]

This is dangerous for a "news channel" to do because some people don't even know what a logical fallacy is (maybe like 32% of people?).

You sir, are making a logical fallacy in your assesment of how many people truly understand logical fallacies.

Re:Funny?

[geminidomino]

once the Democrats take back the House and/or the Senate...FINALLY there will be some accountability in this government once again

I was with you up until this point. What makes you so sure the Dems won't use the ill-gotten power the Republicans had once they take it for themselves?

It almost seems like you don't think they're just as much for sale.

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

Let me go ahead and follow up on this, and then finish some experiments.

There is a politics section, but there is a lot of politics in technology. That doesn't make the whole of politics have a relationship to tech. Philip Zimmerman and Kevin Mitnick might have a thing or two to say about how technology relates to politics. This article, does not. Mitnick probably talked a bit about this on Coast to Coast AM tonight, when he was talking with, of all people, Steve Wozniak.

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

Oh yeah. I was also going to mention "Your Rights Online." That's also been another section that gets that tired "well, this is the politics section," line.

It's "Your Rights Online," not "Your Rights... Presented Online."

Get it? If it hasn't anything to do with the Internet, it doesn't belong there.

Re:Mmph

[rolfwind]

He couldn't pwn the president on his own turf like Jon Stewart did with Crossfire. Not only would it not work, but it would have been poorly received... even in the absence of some ubar police state.

Are you serious? This comparison is non-sequitor. I mean, comparing pwning (or not pwning) the president to pwning Tucker Carlson and his co-host? Why not compare it to Jon Stuart pwning (or not pwning) Hollywood at the Oscars? I think Jon did pretty mediocre there. But at least it is a comparison of a semi-big event with big egos as well.

And it is news for nerds somewhat. Colbert has shown time and again he is/was a nerd. And we like to cheer one of our own from time to time.

Not going to help the case for that ...

[moultano]

Am I correct in thinking that C-span is still copyrighted video?

Re:Not going to help the case for that ...

[dsgitl]

C-Span assures me that is is "offered as a public service." Considering your tax dollars pay the salaries of many people in attendance at the event, and presumably the cost of food and whatnot, I think you can feel okay downloading this particular video.

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

That's kind of what I meant. Jon Stewart couldn't have done that to the Oscars, and Stephen couldn't have done that in this case. He had gutz, and the events are comparable, but they aren't the same.

Re:I don't get it.

[bblboy54]

Disclaimer: Not a republican. Not a democrat. I loath both wings of our crappy single party system equally.


Shit, dude... do you like anything?

Re:Mmph

[killjoe]

You were not looking. If you did you would have found them. It's not just one study. People have very carefully studied the voting habits of every niche of people they can define. Political parties do this constantly so there are hundreds of studies done to see how a group of people vote.

For example when I put in the phrase "voting habits of people with passports" the second link was this URL http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/09/21 /overseas_voting/index.html (watch out for slashdot mangling).

That took me all of 30 seconds. You are telling me you were not able to find that artice at all? What kind of searches were you doing?

"As for the IT set, anecdotal experience indicates that there are more libertarians than the general populace, but not necessarily more Socialists/Communists/Democrats, which would be the more liberal on the fiduciary front."

Well as soon as use the word communist to describe people who disagree with you the argument is pretty much over. You need to hang out at free republic with like minded people. You know the ones who go around saying "hitlery" and "demoncrat".

"ESR certainly seems to like guns."

Yes he is a liberterian. So?

Bah

[Rhinobird]

Everyone says Clinton got a blow job, big deal. Nobody remembers that the lie was part of his sworn testimony in a court case. The blow job wasn't that big of a deal...embarrassing, but no big deal. Perjury is a crime.

Re:Bah

[utexaspunk]

Nobody remembers that the lie was part of his sworn testimony in a court case

Right. His sworn testimony regarding something that was nobody's business in a court case that was nothing but a political witch hunt. Bush tells bigger lies every day, he just gets away with it because he refuses to go under oath for anything.

Re: Bah

[tgibbs]

Clinton's approval ratings never dipped throughout the Lewinski scandal because the American public saw through the "perjury is a crime" spin, and realized that it all occurred because an politically-motivated investigation cornered the President into answering improper questions about his personal life. The public correctly realized that it was the witch hunt, not Clinton's attempt to conceal his affair, that was harming the country.

On the other hand, Bush's approval ratings are in the toilet because most of the American public believes that Bush's policies and the fantasies/lies (choose one) of his Administration are harming the country.

Re:Bah

[starman97]

Clinton specifically asked the judge to define 'sex',
the judge said 'mutual genital contact'
Clinton replied ' I did not have sex (as you defined it) with that woman'

Re:Bah

[Shajenko42]

And of course the opposing counsel should have then asked for clarification. But they dropped the ball.

Re:John Amato's C&L blog?

[TapeCutter]

"Being "unbiased" doesn't automatically make you credible. In fact it can cost you your credibility."

The problem with "unbiased news" is that given enough time everyone who is in the news ends up hating you. For example, the fact that both the far-right "fundies" and communist China despise the BBC would seem to indicate it is worth reading.

I also agree there is nothing inherently wrong with a "biased source", the other half of the story is sure to exist in another equally "biased source".

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

Dude. Communism is an extreme of fiduciary liberalism. I'm not "labeling" anyone, I'm listing a political party, not painting someone negatively.

I don't care one way or another if people are communist.

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

Oh yeah. My search terms were education and liberalism.

Also, that article doesn't mention education at all.

Re:Mmph

[niktemadur]

Hello there.

I've been coming over to Slashdot for a couple of years now, originally for the Physics and Astronomy posts, but now I'm hooked. As a relative newbie, I realize Slashdot is not, and has not been for quite some time, what it was in the beginning. Heck, I don't even know what it was like in the beginning, for I wasn't here then.

However, I must tell you that I love this site very much as it is now, for all the growing pains I read about from esteemed veterans such as yourself. There are minds of the very highest caliber here, from all over the world, and it is fascinating and enlightening to read and participate in the dynamic among Slashdot users on topics that include, but are not limited to, Open Source, Software and Technology. Furthermore, the moderation function, a feature that is still unique to Slashdot AFAIK, lends itself beautifully to the type of dynamic that occurs here.

I realize politics is a particularly hot potato, lending itself to heated discussion and not a small amount of silliness (myself included, of course), but the Colbert issue hit a nerve, and I was delighted to find the topic here tonight, for I would much rather discuss it in Slashdot than anywhere else. In Democratic Underground or Free Republic, to name a couple of usual suspects, discussions are nothing more than group hugs, and anyone who doesn't talk the talk gets censored and banned, which makes for some very boring and soulless reading. Slashdot, however, makes for vibrant reading, among walls graffitied by trolls and anonymous cowards lurking in the shadows, sometimes in colourful ways, sometimes in pointless and vulgar ways, but always there, and always modded -1. My god, man, I couldn't live without it, and if I couldn't live with it, there are always the filters.

So yes, Slashdot may be watered down when compared to its' salad days of 1996-2000, but it's also richer in so many other ways. You didn't think you could keep this place a secret for too long, now did you? Slashdot has grown to almost a million suscribers, yet Open Source, Software and Technology are still, and will continue to be, the heart and soul of Slashdot, with a few additional sections of course, so I hope we can raise our glasses in 2030 to toast and wax nostalgic about Slashdot's salad days of 1996-2010 and, hopefully, beyond.

In the case of the Oscars

[Sycraft-fu]

It's not that they didn't want to laugh, it's that they didn't want to be made fun of. If you look at most Oscar host speeches they are light, general humour. The jabs at Hollywood are mild, if there are any at all. Stewart went after Hollywood pretty mercessily, as one would expect, he's a satrist, that's kinda what he does, you know? However they didn't want to be on the recieving end of jokes. They probably thought he'd come and make fun of the president, since political humour is frequent on his show and that's something almost all of them like. No supprise to me he pocked something different (why go and do your show in another setting?) and that the audience couldn't handle it.

As for Colbert, I think they just didn't know what they were getting in to. To me, he seemd right in character. Ok, so maybe it was a little more biting than his normal show, but not much. I can't believe the Whitehouse was stupid enough to invite him. Have you seen the man's show? He is not kind to this administration. If they didn't like it, too bad, it needed to be said and they should have known what they were getting. Get a standup comic if you want someone to come play the fool for the event, but stay away from Comedy Central's satirists.

Re:In the case of the Oscars

[elrous0]

Get a standup comic if you want someone to come play the fool for the event, but stay away from Comedy Central's satirists.

It cracks me up how many people are still completely ignorant of shows like "The Daily Show," "The Colbert Report," "Real Time with Bill Maher," et. al. and what they're all about. It boggles the mind that so many people can still come on these shows and be completely caught off guard when the host starts asking them irreverent questions.

It's like Jon Stewart himself once said after a particularly funny interview segment with a befuddled Senator, "Why do people still talk to us?"

-Eric

Re:In the case of the Oscars

[elrous0]

I understand that. But would you agree to be interviewed for a show and not even bother to ASK someone about the nature of the show before you did it? Should someone that stupid be allowed in Congress?

-Eric

Well what the fuck did they expect?

[Sycraft-fu]

Have you watched the Colbert Report? Ok this is what he does, this is his shtick. He pretends to be a super patriotic to the point of stupidity pundent that supports the administration (Bill O'Reilly would be the closest analogue) but it's actually biting satire that's criticising it. Whatever he's pretending to make look good, he's actually ripping on, and masterfully so I might add. Since he's playing the government loving windbag, they are the most frequent target. The media is another frequent target.

Well, you ought to know this when you book him. This is what he does, so this is what you are going to get. Getting pissed that he ripped on the administration and the media is like getting pissed becuase you book Carlos Mencia and get racial humour. Of COURSE that's what you get, that's what he does! If that's not what you want, book someone else.

This was Colbert doing what he does best. That it fell flat on the audience because they don't like being made fun of is of no concern. If you can't laugh at yourself, don't hire a satirist because they are likely to pick on you. This goes double if you are already a favourite subject for them. I have no idea what the Whitehouse was thinking booking him. It's not like it's hard to find out what he's about. He's on national TV 5 nights a week for you to see.

Re:Well what the fuck did they expect?

[courtarro]

"That it fell flat on the audience because they don't like being made fun of is of no concern."

I don't think it fell as flat as it seemed. CSPAN's audio mixing put considerably less emphasis on the audience than is typical during a comedy act. When we're used to hearing crowd reaction, it can be weird not to hear it, and I'd bet the laughter (and groaning) was stronger than we heard in the video.

Re:Well what the fuck did they expect?

[bloosqr]

I was thinking the same thing. I'm actually wondering if they may actually have not realized that it was satire. There was a really interesting John Stewart / Karen Hughes interview during the presidental campaign where Karen Hughes said something like, oh I loved yesterdays show about Kerry's character and flip flopping , he skies to the left and then skies to the right and then back to the left. And Stewart pauses for a second and says, something like that was satire. An even then Hughes just didn't get it.

The other part of this is, I think Kristol from the weekly standard was being serious when he said he pushed for Colbert to be part of the show. Kristol does get Colbert's humor. I also think Kristol isn't really that much of a Bush fan but he has the street creds w/ the administration that when Kristol said something like conservative pro-bush satire, they didn't understand exactly what it meant.

On the other hand I still somewhat surprised the entire speech wasn't precleared by the whitehouse. To be honest, even the bush & bush 2 speech was pretty eviscerating, perhaps the whole thing actually was precleared and they are actually okay w/ it?

Re:Well what the fuck did they expect?

[Sycraft-fu]

The Bush on Bush thing isn't supprising. As noted, some self depricating humour is what the event is about. It's not like Bush doesn't know he has speaking problems, he's joked about it before, and when you get down to it, it's very unimportant. However policy is important, it's not something like like criticism and it is what Colbert is all about.

Re:Well what the fuck did they expect?

[StikyPad]

Actually, the event is put on by the press, not the White House. The President has attended since (I think) '45, but it's not an official government function. This reply is also directed at the sibling post above.

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

Perhaps, though, honestly, I feel that the site has become kind of watered down, and that the absence of such articles would bring it to a more concentrated strength. I wouldn't mind it, except that I feel that the presence of these articles change the focus group of the site. Filtering them out wouldn't do what I want, you see. I want the hardcore technophiles to hammer at the fun articles, and feel that this sort of stuff makes the signal to noise ratio much lower.

Perhaps you're right though. There are plenty of people with 5 digit and lower UIDs who seem to agree with you. I'm just not one of them. If it's any consolation, it doesn't seem that anything is as it was in the olden-golden days, (not that a guy in his 20's can claim much seniority on anyone), but perhaps at the end of this confusion, the net will be better.

One has to remember that chat is different... forums are different... It's all different. Not necessarily better, but perhaps it's my interest that is waning, not so much the quality of the medium. Not in technology mind you. I hammer away at a few papers a day, bury my nose in books, and am working on 3 research projects at the moment (and, yes, my associates think that this pace will kill me eventually, quite literally).

Eh, oh well. I probably should spend less time on such things anyway, and more time sleeping or something :-D

No media coverage on Colbert EXCEPT

[layer3switch]

You guessed it (or not), Fox News. Not CNN, MSNBC or Bloomberg (yeah, I watch all of them). All of them except Fox News just mention Bush duble and that's it. Only Fox News had a take on Colbert's rip on Bush and Administration. Although the take was pretty much saying Colbert went overboard and bombed, but at least Fox News mentioned it in the news.

Yeah, Fox News.

Re:No media coverage on Colbert EXCEPT

[solitas]

I'm no great fan of Bush, however I can appreciate him for his tolerance of the comedy and parody directed against his office and his mannerisms. IMO: colbert came-off as a tiresome asshole and I wonder who 'owed him money' - they could have picked someone competent.

Re:No media coverage on Colbert EXCEPT

[frank249]

CNN actually ran a segment Sunday afternoon. The teaser was and after the break "Stephen Colbert at the press dinner". After the commercials the segment mainly show the bush twins and maybe 20 seconds of Colbert. The talking head comes on to say that the wins was funny and Colbert was not and that was it. A search of CNN.com comes up with 0 hits for stories on Colbert.

You have to give Colbert credit for having the guts to tell the emperor that he is not wearing any clothes. Even the video about the press secretary position had a powerful message. You can try and ignore the truth but in the end it is still there.

Re:No media coverage on Colbert EXCEPT

[maxume]

People laud the fake news on comedy central for being better than the real news. Is it any wonder that the fake news on Fox News is also better than the real news?

Re:No media coverage on Colbert EXCEPT

[maxume]

If you watch Bill Orielly and don't think he's an idiot and an asshole, you aren't in a position to attack other people for not thinking for themselves. Some of the other 'personalities' are better, but the wacko-right-wing-bias is a alot more evident on fox than the wacko-left-wing-bias is on CNN.

The problem is that each 15% of the country that is *really* either left wing or right wing thinks that the other 85% of the country is made up of morons, where in actuallity, the centrist morons keep their mouths shut and the morons on either side of the 30% are flapping their gums about the-thing-they-don't-care-to-understand-this-week- that-gets-them-on-TV.

I mostly just don't watch any news. I like to watch the Daily Show/Colbert. They're funny. One of the best things they do is show clips of 5 or 10 different administration officials on fox news repeating the same damn talking points over and over. It's hilarious. They can't make it up.

Re:No media coverage on Colbert EXCEPT

[maxume]

So O"Rielly is a liberal kook in conservoland? I don't think so. He's pretty far right on the spectrum.

As far as broadcasting out of red or blue states, what about orange and yellow and green states? The idea that states are either red or blue, cut and dried, is vastly more cynical than anything I have expressed.

Re:No media coverage on Colbert EXCEPT

[ccp]

Bill O'Rielly might be "right" of you, but he's left of most conservatives. I would consider him a moderate for the most part.

Hey, Adolf! Nice to hear you're still alive.
So, there's Internet in the Paraguayan jungle?

Re:No media coverage on Colbert EXCEPT

[ccp]

The right wing in America are Ronald Reagan, free market, less government, freedom and democracy loving, family value types. Where have you been? Living in the 60s?

Or is it that you're living in the 80s?

Friend, Bush II is emphatically NOT RR, neither even Bush I (talk about lowering the bar).

Cheers,

Re:No media coverage on Colbert EXCEPT

[ccp]

The rarest of Slashdot's rarities, civilized discussion! Let's enjoy...

I totally agree with you about Bush and so do many conservatives. Just because we voted for G.W. instead of the alternatives does not mean that we are any less Ronald Reagan types.

Well, I'm a conservative too. I liked Goldwater, liked Reagan, and were I an Usian, I'd have voted for them. But Bush II gives me the creeps. How could he have been RE-elected is beyond me. You know, fooled once, shame on you, fooled twice...

My point was that America's right wing is totally different than Europe's version of right wing.

Just as America's left wing is totally different from Europe's version of left wing.
You see, USA's political spectrum is orthogonal with the rest of the world's (not just Europe's). IMHO yours is saner, but as a result of the very unique circumstances of USA's geography and history, is unexportable. It has failed to catch even in your colony, the UK, despite the best efforts of Maggie the First.

Now, I'm going to invoke a Godwin's Law exception, in order to talk about Nazis. ;>)

Americans, as a rule, are ignorant about European political history (no offense intended, you have no reason not to be).
They think of Nazism and Fascism as the loony fringe of the European right, wich they're not. They're a profoundly different ideology, a poisonous caricature of right wing tought, in almost every way opposed to traditional conservative values, wich were old and established before Columbus set sail.
But the point is, Hitler, Mussolini et al took their respective countries' right wingers for a ride into disaster.
And Bush II is no conservative. He's just the sock puppet of a profoundly different ideology, a poisonous caricature of right wing tought, in almost every way opposed to traditional conservative values, and he indeed took American conservatives for a ride. A ride to where, is another discussion.

They have communist socialists on the left and nationalist socialists on the right. Either way you get socialism.

Let me guess, you're reading Hayek and Mises? We all did.
Not a bad influence at a certain age, you'll outgrow them. Like a first love, really.

Best wishes,
CC

Re:No media coverage on Colbert EXCEPT

[ccp]

Let me guess, you're reading Hayek and Mises?

No, but thanks for introducing me!

Well, if you still haven't, you're in for an enjoyable ride. I'm kind of envious.

Cheers,
CC

Re:Liberal Bunk

[Echnin]

It's not imperative; it's subjunctive, a.k.a. conjunctive, a grammatical mood which is rarely used in modern English but which was common until not all that long ago and still exists in German and French. Part of the reason this mood has disappeared from common usage in English is likely because of the similarity to other cases, often the imperative case. "If I were rich" and "long live the king" are also in the subjunctive mood.

The evolution of straight man comedy

[mentaldrano]

Steven Colbert is the new Don Adams, who was the new George Burns. Each has a unique twist on their straight man routine, but if you watch old George Burns stand up comedy routines you can see a clear link. Combine that with Adams' "Get Smart" style and mix in a bit of politics, and you get Steven Colbert!

Re:I don't get it.

[rolfwind]

I agree. According to Bush's poll numbers, Colbert was simply saying what 2/3s of the country is probably thinking.

Some people may point out that Colbert should have shown more respect, that this was not the venue to do it in, blah, blah, blah. But I say Bush deserves it, he's been pushing decidedly more nonconservative (bigger governmentment, not smaller), invasive legislation and been lying to our faces the last few years on so many things. And with Iraq, put our Country into such a difficult situation for years to come - financially, politically, and responsible for babysitting a bunch of people who hate our presence no matter how much money we throw at them, their country, and their infrastructure.

IMO, Bush got the amount of respect he given us and has earned from us - the general public. 0.

Re:Colbert was doing the wrong act

[n8_f]

It was supposed to be self deprecating humor, not beat up Bush and the Press night. See the Bush act - mocking himself (and it was pretty funny). All the others pretty much did the same, except Colbert with his attack act.

WTF? It was supposed to be "self-deprecating humor, not beat up Bush and the Press night"? Like how Bush mocked himself? Do you even know what this was? This was the White House Correspondents' Dinner. It is a yearly gathering of the Washington, D.C. press corps with their celebrity guests and leading politicians. They hire a comedian to poke fun at the politicians and the press. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO! This has happened every year for decades. IT ISN'T A SURPRISE! Watch the clip reel they showed at the dinner, if nothing else. Do you really think they hired Stephen Colbert to make fun of Stephen Colbert? If not, do you understand what "self-deprecating" means?

For example, here's a quote from Al Franken's speech at the 1996 dinner: "So, Carl [Leubersdorf, outgoing WHCA president], you can rest assured. I'm not going to do any jokes that could make the President or the First Lady even remotely uncomfortable. And if you believe that, I've got some land in Arkansas I'd like to sell you. "

And in case you are wondering why they hired Al Franken; as you will no doubt recall, Al Franken had a huge bestselling book out and was a hot political comedian. Kind of like how Stephen Colbert has a hit new show out now and is a hot political comedian.

Hmm, who else have they had? For Gerald Ford, they had Chevy Chase, who became famous doing a mocking impersonation of President Ford (well, that was the Radio-Television Correspondents' Dinner, but same thing). For George H.W. Bush, they had Dana Carvey. For Clinton, they had Darryl Hammond. Hell, in 1998 they invited Paula Jones to the dinner (not as a speaker, but still), who was then engaged in a sexual discrimination lawsuit against the President. Having Stephen Colbert fits right into that.

And what do you mean by "all the others pretty much did the same"? Did you watch the show? Everyone else did normal speeches. The only comedic speeches were George W.'s and then Stephen's. Did you switch channels in-between or something?

Stephen lifted a bunch of his material directly from his show. They got exactly what they were expecting. If you can't laugh, perhaps the joke hits a little too close to home.

Re:Mmph

[Legion303]

"I want to talk about open source, and software, and technology."

And yet here you are, talking about politics.

Funny how that works.

Re:Mmph

[Ohreally_factor]

No, he's saying that anything that doesn't confirm his right wing notions is against him, is wrong, and is therefore liberal.

I'm a registered Republican, and because I happen to think that the whole "liberal media" thing is a fiction made up by right wing ideologues to discredit both criticism and the facts, he'll accuse me of being a liberal, too. Or maybe he'll profess a disbelief in my Republican credentials. I get that all the time when I tell other Republicans that I oppose President Bush.

People who still support Bush, that meager 32%, are the true believers, fanatics. Some are fundamentalist right wing Christians, some are just caught up in the cult of partisanship. A very small minority support Bush because they benefit financially from their friendship with the administration.

Here's another one....

[n8_f]

I was digging through some of the old speeches, and I came across this one from the 2001 Radio-Television Correspondents' Dinner. The first book of "Bushisms" had come out a couple of months before and President Bush reads some of the quotes from it and tries to explain what he meant. It is quite funny. I'd love to find a copy of the video. C-SPAN (and the networks, for the older ones) should put up all of these old correspondents' dinners. They offer a very rare glimpse into the lighter side of our presidents.

Re:Colbert was doing the wrong act

[Ratbert42]

It was supposed to be self deprecating humor, not beat up Bush and the Press night.

If they wanted self-deprecation, they should have booked Jon Stewart, not the truthiest man on television.

He didn't play all those years of Dungeons and Dragons without learning something about courage.

Re:Colbert was doing the wrong act

[GravelordBocephus]

Is that a terribly obscure reference to Spycraft card The Gamer? Or does the quote come from elsewhere?

The whole dinner is rather insulting...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I saw it live, and when Colbert came on I said to myself "are they fucking stupid?!" Stephen Colbert is of course no fan of the president and I was suprised to see him hold his own up there as the audience refused to really laugh. Stephen bombed, not because he wasnt funny, or truthfull but because the audience seemed affraid to laugh.

The whitehouse bit with Helen Thomas stalking him wasnt that funny. Stephen was funny overall though. It was interesting to see him be polite towards the president after having just said "the country doesnt like you and this whole thing is a mess"

Stephen did well considering the audience...

And thats what i'm really insulted by... (I'm not insulted by Stephen, i loved it) but the audience, the members of the press, the celebrities, the politicians, lawyers, judges, lobbiests... :)

Something just feels off when the press has a dinner with the whitehouse administration, plus celebrities. It just seems like a big get together of the wealthy and powerful for no reason.

For example, anyone that watched it on C-span, you would have seen George Clooney surrounded by 10 or more girls at a time after the dinner. There were no guys around Clonney, and i just found it histerical because they let 30minutes pass before showing clooney on tv again, and there he was with another 10 girls surrounding him wanting pictures :)

OK Clooney has political motives, but what about Phil Simms? Tiki Barber? Ludicris?... What could they possibly have to do with the whitehouse reporters?

It just seems like a slap in the face to the public. I dont think the Press should be "hanging" with the press. And i certainly dont think it should be a big celebrity dog and pony show.

What i found histerical is the number of old white men with young hot dates :)

The whole thing is rather phoney, and by that i mean the government, and the press

Re:The whole dinner is rather insulting...

[swimmar132]

CSpan's microphones didn't cover the audience very well, unlike the audio setup on most comedy shows.

Re:Mmph

[geminidomino]

Excuse me, but you say that Slashdot has a "liberal bias", for its multinational/multicultural readership that make this up are more liberal than mainstream America.

I've been pondering this... Obviously, the fact that we have such glorious flamewars on political subjects suggests that both "sides" seem to have representation among the users (not to mention the libertarians, centrists, etc...) so one has to wonder: does slashdot itself actually have a liberal bias?

Before you downmod, consider this: There wasn't a "politics" section before this administration, an administration that makes no bones about the fact that anyone who dares oppose them is a dirty "leftist" or "liberal" despite the terms having no actual validity with regard to the ones being labelled.

Considering for a moment another poster's claim that essentially amounted to "intelligent people are more likely to be liberal," one has to think of exactly what "definition" such a claim is using. "Intelligent" people are, in general, more likely to question, criticize and distrust authority in general, and in the "hacker" culture that slashdot was born from, it's practically tradition.

Do the posters claiming a "liberal bias" honestly beleive that when, the "liberal" party regains power, that slashdot will suddenly no longer post government-critical stories? I suppose it's possible but I don't see it as very likely, personally.

Authority, regardless of who it is, is all about "walk this way, talk this way, think this way, don't do that..." and going against that has always been the baliwick of the intelligent.

Just an idle rumination. Now back to your regularly-scheduled flamefest.

Re:Mmph

[rking]

The September 11 attacks were the first time that Slashdot really seemed to be very much at all about politics

Nope, remember "US and UK unilaterally atack Iraq" back in 1998? That sticks in my memory because there was such a storm of comments at the time thanks to the REALLY partisan summary text, plus the disabling and reenabling of comments, but it wasn't the first political story by any means - just a very controversial one three years before the September 11 attacks.

Court jester

[Explorador]

In Shakespeare's King Lear, it is the jester who, through his jokes and impersonations, proves to be the wisest character in the play, the best of the king's advisors, and the only one who can tell the King what he really thinks of his actions. Colbert should be named Bush's court jester.

What courage?

[Aaron England]

I really enjoyed Colberts routine, but what is this couragous act you speak of? This isn't the Soviet Union and Colbert wasn't in the prescence of Stalin insulting him. This is America, where insulting the president is tolerated. I promise you, Colbert won't dissappear to some secret European prison or be sent to Guantonimo Bay.

Re:What courage?

[srgtick]

I have this feeling if you were in front of the President of the United States and a room full of people who you were about to insult you'd crap yourself and run away crying. Armchair douches like you always do.

Re:What courage?

[thatguywhoiam]

This is America, where insulting the president is tolerated.

+5 hysterical

Re:Liberal Bunk

[Yvanhoe]

God Bless George W. Bush. God Bless America.

Good thing He hasn't the right to vote...

Re:Do please be specific

[Nasarius]

You're obviously not not paying attention. Even the administration has admitted that Bush violated federal law in the warantless NSA wiretapping. Whether or not he violated the Constitution...well, there are a couple of cases in progress that will hopefully make their way to SCOTUS soon enough.

Re:Liberal Bunk

[Garse Janacek]

Poor retarded shithead Tiny Tim :(

Re:Funny?

[Datamonstar]

He was pausing for emphasis. That's a speech tactic, ya know.

Terrible job that Prez is doing.

[ArcherB]

The economy is booming; stock market is steady, unemployment is virtually non-existant, interest rates are low, and inflation is not a problem (except at the gas pump).

Granted, the world is not perfect. We are at war in two countries with a third looming. Gas prices suck and it is an election year. But it's not 66% bad.

Poll numbers are not a reflection of a president's job. Those numbers are a reflection of the press's portrayal of the president and the president's effectiveness at countering that negative portrayal. Clinton and Reagan were masters at bypassing the press. The Bush's suck at it.

Re:Terrible job that Prez is doing.

[Mr. Slippery]

The economy is booming; stock market is steady, unemployment is virtually non-existant, interest rates are low, and inflation is not a problem (except at the gas pump).

Which shows how economic statistics are disconnected from the reality of working class life. To all except the ruling class, the peformance of the stock market matters much less than the size of one's weekly paycheck.

Unemployment may be low but underemployment is tremendous; it is not economic progress when after a factory closes, a skilled worker can only find a job stocking shelves at Wal-Mart with the very Chinese-prison-made goods that put his old employer out of business. Wages are not keeping up with inflation, and you can't conveniently exclude the gas pump (and heating fuel). More and more people can't afford health insurance, and real estate prices are so high that new home buyers are saddled with enormous mortgage payments.

Economically these aren't the worst of times, but they sure as hell aren't the best either.

Meanwhile the Bush administrations kills tens of thousands, engages in torture, violates civil liberties, and treats the Constitution with even more contempt than the past few presidents, essentially asserting that "Commander in Chief" means "Emperor". In any sane society, it would be recognized that this man (who believes, you'll recall, that God speaks through him) would be institutionalized for his on protection and that of others.

ITMFA.

Re:Terrible job that Prez is doing.

[sheldon]

"Poll numbers are not a reflection of a president's job. Those numbers are a reflection of the press's portrayal of the president and the president's effectiveness at countering that negative portrayal."

Oh come on. You gotta be a spoof. Nobody serious would believe that.

Re:Terrible job that Prez is doing.

[ArcherB]

Oh come on. You gotta be a spoof. Nobody serious would believe that.

Nope, no spoof. I just thought back to the Internet Bubbl...er... Boom in the 90's under Prez Clinton. All I saw on the news was how great the economy was. It even became a campaign slogan. Remember "It's the economy, stupid?" We were at war in the 90's with a country that didn't even have any oil and fewer mass graves that have been found in Iraq.

In other words, things were not a whole lot different back then than they are now, except for how the press reports it. I can tell you off the top of my head a rough number of Americans dead in Iraq (2200+), can you tell me the count from Bosnia or Mogadishu? I googled it and still couldn't find an answer. When the Dow hit 10,000 in the 90's it was huge. Do you remember when the Dow hit 11,000? Compare the treatment the swift boat vets received and compare that to CBS's fake document story. It's all perception and the press controls that perception. Compile that with the fact that over 70% of the press voted for Dem candidates in the previous two elections while under 50% of the general public did.

I'm not saying anything is right or wrong, but either this prez is getting a bum wrap of the last one got an easy ride, but the raw facts between the two are not as different as the public's perception.

Re:Terrible job that Prez is doing.

[quax]

Clinton did not put any boots on the ground in Bosnia. That is why no GIs died in this war. If there had been casualties it would have been devestating for Clinton. The right wing punditry hated that war.

Re:Terrible job that Prez is doing.

[timeOday]

The economy is booming

If it's booming at all, it's on borrowed money. It amounts to taking out a loan and calling it income. The piper will be paid.

Re:Terrible job that Prez is doing.

[portnoy]

I can tell you off the top of my head a rough number of Americans dead in Iraq (2200+), can you tell me the count from Bosnia or Mogadishu?

http://www.aiipowmia.com/other/hostilechron.html

Official count for the Mogadishu incursion is 14 KIA, 29 due to non-hostile activity. Bosnia's official count is zero.

Re:Terrible job that Prez is doing.

[ArcherB]

Official count for the Mogadishu incursion is 14 KIA, 29 due to non-hostile activity. Bosnia's official count is zero.

The fact that you think the count is zero proves my point. Don't feel bad, it's taken much googling to find anything at all.

The USA Today 02/19/96 edition speaks of the first American death in Bosnia. I also recall seeing on the Military Channel where an Apache or two went down as well. But for the life of me, I can't get an total count of American lives lost in Bosnia.

Re:Terrible job that Prez is doing.

[ArcherB]

Clinton did not put any boots on the ground in Bosnia. That is why no GIs died in this war. If there had been casualties it would have been devestating for Clinton. The right wing punditry hated that war.

The fact that you think the count is zero proves my point. Don't feel bad, it's taken much googling to find anything at all.

The USA Today 02/19/96 edition speaks of the first American death in Bosnia. You are correct in saying that the right tried to hang it on Clinton's neck. (Personally, I supported the Bosnian mission. The fact that my brother was serving over there didn't change that.) I also recall seeing on the Military Channel where an Apache or two went down as well. But for the life of me, I can't get an total count of American lives lost in Bosnia. But that's my point: You see morbid death counts every hour of every day on the war in Iraq.

Re:Terrible job that Prez is doing.

[SpryGuy]

Exactly. With deficit spending at record levels, and with this administration borrowing more money from foreign nations than all previous administrations combined, it'd be hard NOT to have some sort of numerical "economic growth" on paper. Imagine what the economy would be like if Federal spending weren't at record levels. Eventually the credit card is going to max out, and the economic house of cards is going to come tumbling down...

Re:Terrible job that Prez is doing.

[quax]

Well, this soldier died in an accident. Not sure if it's fair to count this. Fact is Bosnia was fought and won by the air force campaign. That there were no troops on the ground was heavily criticized at the time as Serbian militias conducted ethnic cleansings in Albania. But it goes to show how much this kept American troops out of harms way. At the beginning of the war the Serbs did captured some GIs on the border and exploited them for propaganda purposes. This did create quite some media stir - with camera crews camping on the front lawn of the poor soldier's family homes. So I really don't see how you can make the point that the media did not pay attention to this.

The death count is really on an entirely different scale in Iraq and from my point of view this is anything but over-reported. Especially since you only hear about the death count - the number of severely injured soldiers is not even released.

Re:Terrible job that Prez is doing.

[sheldon]

No way. You're for real?

I and a few of my friends spoof righty arguments out on blogs, and yours is the type of claims we'd make. It's very much like how Stephen Colbert makes fun of you guys.

I'll have to write these arguments down, so that next time I'm spoofing a righty I can use 'em. That's good. That all the bad news is the media's fault, not the Presidents for invading Iraq without any justification.

It's always someone elses fault, ain't it?

Re:Terrible job that Prez is doing.

[sheldon]

The fact that you think the count is zero proves my point.

There were zero combat fatalities during Operation Allied Force. There were accidents, such as planes crashing and so forth.

But you gotta be kidding me to claim that support for Iraq is failing solely because of press accounts of deaths? I mean the public is completely utterly numb to such news reports.

The reason the public is not so fond of Iraq is it's been THREE YEARS since President empty suit got up there and declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. Yet we're still there. We're still under fire. We're dumping billions of dollars a month into the country, and seeing no return on our investment.

Roosevelt won WWII in 4 years, and with a hell of a lot larger causaulty count. What's wrong with Bush? I'll give you a hint: Roosevelt had an end goal objective. Bush doesn't even know where to start. That's the problem.

Honestly, the moonbats who still defend this President don't get a lot of sympathy from me. If you can't see everything that is wrong, then you need to remove your rose colored glasses, stop listening to Fox News and quit reading the Pravda news releases from the Whitehouse.

Re:Terrible job that Prez is doing.

[sheldon]

One more thing.

Americans don't like losers. They don't like whiners who blame all their problems on someone else.

That's largely why Bush is sucking it at the polls. Even my girlfriend who doesn't pay attention to politics can see this. The day after he came out and blamed Saddam Hussein for not leaving the country in better order before we invaded, she was like "Well I guess he's blamed everybody else for his failure, why not Hussein."

Suck it up, admit your policies are a failure and then move on.

Re:Terrible job that Prez is doing.

[ArcherB]

it's been THREE YEARS since President empty suit got up there and declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
The Prez didn't put that sign up, the sailors did. And for them, MISSION was ACCOMPLISHED.

Roosevelt won WWII in 4 years, and with a hell of a lot larger causaulty count.
And we still have troops in Italy, Germany and Japan. They were fighting insurgents for about 10 years after the official war was over. Back to my point of Bosnia, we still have troops there. Weren't they supposed to be home by Christmas... of '96?

We're dumping billions of dollars a month into the country, and seeing no return on our investment.
Not seeing mass graves filled with women holding their children is return enough for me. It's the same return we received in Bosnia and it was a good investment there too.

Honestly, the moonbats who still defend this President don't get a lot of sympathy from me. If you can't see everything that is wrong, then you need to remove your rose colored glasses, stop listening to Fox News and quit reading the Pravda news releases from the Whitehouse.
I don't expect any sympathy. I can see plenty that is wrong. I don't limit myself to a single news source. I'm members of both LittleGreenFootballs and DailyKos. I watch CNN, MSNBC, BBC, CSPAN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and yes, FoxNews. CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS all lean far to the left. Both Fox and MSNBC both lean slightly to the right and left respectively, but both networks will actually try to portray both sides of the story, even if it's just you yell at them (Bill O'Reilly and Chris Matthews).

In your next post, you mention the "Prez's failed policies", which takes be back to my original statement of Back when Clinton was Prez, it was "The Economy, Stupid". Now, the economy is just as strong as it was back then and it's "The Prez's Failed Policies". I'm not trying to shill for Bush, but I see a difference in the way the Clinton and Bush administrations have been portraid by the press and public opinion of the sheeple follows.

Re:Terrible job that Prez is doing.

[sheldon]

I'm not trying to shill for Bush, but I see a difference in the way the Clinton and Bush administrations have been portraid by the press and public opinion of the sheeple follows.


Yeah, Bush get's much more favorable press coverage.

It took us a fucking year after Bush approval ratings fell below 50% for the Press to stop referring to him as a popular President. Only now with him around 32% do they refer to him in even the most half-hearted negative fashion, and even then they can't help but shilling for him.

Meanwhile when Clinton was in office, with approval ratings over 60%, the Press continued to refer to him in negative terms.

If you think the Press has been unfavorable to Bush, you're sniffing glue. My god, he's had the Press just lapping up his bullshit for the past 5 years without question.

Americans hate Whiners, and that's all the Republican party has turned into. Whine whine whine, it's not our fault we follow an ideology blindly and don't understand why our policies fail.

Re:Terrible job that Prez is doing.

[ArcherB]

I guess I'm not the only glue sniffer.
From here:

The press has "battered" President Bush this election season, according to a Project for Excellence in Journalism analysis of 817 print and broadcast stories that ran between Oct. 1 and Oct. 14.
        Mr. Bush "suffered strikingly more negative press coverage than challenger John Kerry," according to the study, which will be released today.
        "Overall, 59 percent of Bush-dominated stories were clearly negative in nature," while "just 25 percent of Kerry stories were decidedly negative," according to the study.

and here:

That so many Americans believe that the occupation of Iraq is going very badly -- far worse than is the case -- undoubtedly has something to do with consistently negative press coverage. As this essay is written, insurgent attacks have dropped by one-third to one-half in the past month, and, according to Lawrence Kaplan,3 Coalition and Iraqi forces have captured and killed "scores of insurgents in lopsided battles." For some months, Iraqi civilians have been reporting arms caches and insurgent activity to U.S. and Iraqi forces, and more recently some have even taken up arms against insurgents in their midst.

There are many more, but it's time for me to go home. You make some good points, but they are ruined by the personal attacks and hyperbole.

nice typing with you.

Re:Terrible job that Prez is doing.

[sheldon]

I guess I'm not the only glue sniffer.

No, there's a good 34% of the American public sniffing glue.

I mean, you complain about negative news coverage during the election. What'd they count? The dead bodies coming back from Iraq. Well jesus fucking christ in a handbasket. Of course Bush got negative press. He's a fucking moron, and the results prove that.

That he got elected despite being a fucking moron is evidence of the superiority of glue sniffing to negative press coverage.

You make some good points, but they are ruined by the personal attacks and hyperbole.

I really honestly don't give a shit. I am so fucking sick of whiners.

And just so you know, I found my own personal Jesus. If you were to go back through the Iowa State Daily letters to the editor in 1987 you'd find a letter written by myself sounding very much like the whining you just spewed onto this forum. Something about how the biased media doesn't like conservatives or some such.

This is nothing new, the Republicans have been doing it for at least 30 some odd years. It's tiresome. Can't you just give it a rest and realize that sometimes bad policy has negative results? If you just accept that, you can change the policy and try something different and nobody will think the less of you.

It's worked for other great Presidents, like Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, two Roosevelts, Reagan and Clinton. You realize the reason why Clinton was beloved by the public was because he wasn't tied to a stupid ideology, I hope.

Re:Terrible job that Prez is doing.

[ArcherB]

And just so you know, I found my own personal Jesus. If you were to go back through the Iowa State Daily letters to the editor in 1987 you'd find a letter written by myself sounding very much like the whining you just spewed onto this forum. Something about how the biased media doesn't like conservatives or some such.

Funny! I used to be a Democrat.

Re:Terrible job that Prez is doing.

[sheldon]

Funny! I used to be a Democrat.


Not surprising. The parties have reversed what they stand for in the past 30 years. The Republicans today are like the Democrats of the 1960s. Big spending, entitlements, statist mentality.

Re:Mmph

[0xdeadbeef]

Cry more, n00b.

So, what, we should keep running "Your Rights Online" pieces bemoaning the destruction of civil liberties but we shouldn't attack the people responsible, 'cause it might offend some knuckle-dragging retard who listens to talk radio?

Take a side, you coward. Either get with the program or go lick some boots at a right wing political blog. Because for everyone with the intelligence necessary to understand technology, hating this administration is mainstream.

so how long

[bobamu]

before this guy has a tragic accident or has a suprise heart attack? Or will it just be a good old traditional case of finding it difficult to get work due to unpopularity?

Or is this just paranoid ungoodthink on my part?

I Predict....

[EXTomar]

I predict there will be a show on The Colbert Report where he complains that the "media blackout" on this event is because he was speaking the plain and honest truth. The reason why this show as well as The Daily Show are funny is because of stuff like this: Could he be right??

I've seen the video and some of the barbs aren't particularlly funny by themselves but when put in the context of the event, a dinner where the President and some of his closer allies couldn't just kick him out or walk away, it becomes a very potent jab.

Transcript

[aepervius]

Do you know if there is a transcript available ?

Re:Do please be specific

[TheConfusedOne]

So, what law did he/they violate? Why aren't they being prosecuted on it?

Glen Greenwald isn't exactly a learned legal scholar upon which to hang one's hopes. If you want to get detailed legal analysis of the NSA program than maybe you should read up on volokh.com.

Re:Funny?

[TallDave]

He didn't break the law or violate the Constitution. He gathered intel incident to the use of military force, which every court has held falls under Presidential Article II powers.

Frankly, it baffles me that anyone could be upset about better monitoring of Al Qaeda suspects. It's pretty asinine. Why do they think we haven't been attacked in five years? Every FISA warrant requires a mountain of paperwork. If you want to track every call made this week by someone who talked to Al Qaeda last week, good luck going through FISA; you'll need a forest's worth of dead trees.

You know, in most of Europe you don't EVER need a warrant for this kind of thing. Hell, in France they don't even have habeas corpus: they can just hold you in prison till they feel like letting you go, for any crime. So I'm getting really tired of hearing about the Dark Night of Fascism under Bush.

Robots. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

Your leftist slip is showing, this has zero to do with technology or anything remotely interesting to Nerds. Get over the 2000 and 2004 elections, your dream boy(s) lost, get over it already.

Get over WWIII. . ?

It's that kind of strange and deliberately myopic thinking which lends weight to the idea that Bush supporters are just pretend robot versions of actual human beings.

-FL

Civil War woes

[willCode4Beer.com]

You mean the guys who started the civil war, by attacking and killing soldiers of the United States Army, are still upset about losing the war?

Re:Mmph

[Straif]

Personally, I thing the whole "liberal media" thing comes from the fact that over 80% of MSM personnel self identify themselves as liberal (and sometimes higher when selecting specific organizations) and usually of the further from center variety.

In the old days that may have meant a lot less, but as on-air hosts and newspaper columnist are now being called upon more and more to let their personalities shine through instead of simply reporting the facts (have to differentiate yourself for the ratings afterall), their biases is becoming abundantly clear.

Just to use your comment for example, while unlike others you are not directly accusing Bush of being the anti-Christ, using terms such as "meager", "fanatics", "fundementalists right wing Christians" and in this case to a lesser degree "cult" all leave a reader with a very clear indication of your personal views. This is just a /. post expressing your opinion so that's fine, but very similar language is also often used when reporting on any Bush related story in the MSM.

The same can be said for many conservative commentators, but as they are a very small minority in this business, they have much less of an impact on the average persons daily life.

I also remember seeing a PEW study (I'm pretty sure it was PEW but have to get to work so no time to search for a link) asking people to identify the bias of certain media organizations. The result is that those who were identified as conservative or centrist both came out with an almost identicle listing of right-wing/left-wing/balanced media outlets. Those that were identified as liberal were able to define right-wing quite clearly but much less able to identify clearly left leaning sources.

I don't like laugh tracks

[Augusto]

I think he also lost the audience in some places because some of the jokes were not really that funny in the first place.

Sometimes it doesn't mean people don't laugh because they don't agree, I laugh at stuff I find disagreable, sometimes it just means the joke is not funny or the delivery stinks.

The Panama Canal joke, about the president ignoring reality, was really flat "Let history decide what did or did not happen." He fumbled the 32% support 1/3 glass full joke (which actually wasn't really a bad joke, he just tripped over it). The audition video with Hellen Thomas was not really funny either, it had lots of potential at the beginning but then just got boring.

I like Colbert, I just don't think it was a stellar performance of his. A lot of people are just reacting that he got to make these jokes right there next to the president.

Re:I don't like laugh tracks

[ben there...]

The whole speech wasn't designed so much to be funny. It was designed to wake the country, and especially the press, the fsck up.

Re:Courage???

[GReaToaK_2000]

Yes, it is brave and courageous to do what our troops are doing, but that is because their jobs require that of them. They signed on for this.

It is the lies and deceit of our current administration that has put them in harms way. Which has forced our military into a situation where we can't simply pull out, because it would make matters worse then BEFORE we went into Iraq? Duhbyah's father KNEW this. He even wrote a paper or two on it. One of which was published in Time Magazine.

It ALSO takes bravery and courage to speak out in the current climate of this country and government. To point out the lies and deceit of this current administration spurn hatred and argument. If this continues and the laws that continue to be put forth (some pass) which deny civil liberties it is only a matter of time before speaking out WILL be a crime.

I think lines have been drawn and at this point and no one wants to concede. The facts point out everything, but a vast section of this country doesn't want to admit they are wrong.

Re:why on slashdot?

[Frozen Void]

I assure you Slashdotters aren't all like this,thats a stereotype.Besides We see the net news far more often.Its not a closed world.
Social activities are overrated and most of us prefer forums and instant messaging as superior medium
to share thoughts.Its a personal choice.
If you never heard of it,Internet has dating sites too.Not that everyone has to have a girlfriend/boyfriend,it just an option.

Just think of your words.Dose of Reality?
How YOU get information?
You have the option of watchign TV and listening to radio(completely unbiased sources!).You can't just fly to washington and talk to bush directly or socialize with him.If you read news on internet your whole criticism falls apart(what makes you superior to slashdotters? When you can't get news you search from from the usual media).

Re:Funny?

[TallDave]

I'm getting so tired of hearing how "Bush lied us into war." It's a nice sound bite, but it's utter crap, which any 5-year-old can see through by askng the simplest of questions:

How did George Bush trick George Tenet into thinking the WMD case was a "slam dunk?"

Obviously, he didn't. The intel was simply wrong.

And frankly, it is damned unpatriotic to spread these kinds of lies about Bush.

I hadn't heard that

[GuloGulo]

"Even the administration has admitted that Bush violated federal law in the warantless NSA wiretapping."

Please link to that admission, I'd love to read it.

Re:I hadn't heard that

[Nasarius]

Read anything Bush or Alberto Gonzales has said on the subject of FISA. Bush's statements were along the lines of "We didn't like the FISA requirements, so we ignored them." If you know anything about this situation, you know that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (ie, a federal law) requires federal authorities to obtain a warrant from the FISA court before conducting the kinds of surveillance that Bush has admitted took place without a warrant.

Re:John Amato's C&L blog?

[avonhungen]

unbiased? as you would know if you had watched, the truth has a well known liberal bias.

Better quality videos

[b0wl0fud0n]

Here's some links to better quality versions of the video.

Part 1
Part 2

Fuck you

[GuloGulo]

No seriously, fuck you. I am so tired of disingenuous garbage from people like you.

"His sworn testimony regarding something that was nobody's business"

Bullshit. He was on the job, and while he's on the job he answers to the people. P-E-R-I-O-D. Don't bother replying to that, it's unassailable fact, and you'll just sound like a bigger asshole if you try.

YOU may be ok with him lying about his behavior while in the employ of the people, but I'm not. I expect my elected representatives to do their fucking jobs, and answer when held accountable.

The reson you disagree is that you're a simpering Democrat apologist, and you know it.

Re:Fuck you

[GuloGulo]

"Asshole."

Thanks for signing your post. I appreciate knowing who I'm talking to.

"So as long as you never hold Bush accountable..."

WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT BUSH? Why is it that the only response you think was worth posting is a pathetic equivocation?

Is it perhaps possible that what I said applies equally to ALL my elected representatives regardless of their political leanings?

I am so tired of people like you posting garbage like you did, as though refuting one type of bad behavior is possible by drawing attention to another.

I expect accountability from ALL of my representatives. I have never said nor done anything that suggests otherwise.

Now explain why the best response you could come up with is the same one 4 year olds rely on when caught? Explain why you addressed my comment about accountability by name calling and irrationally attacking me?

Or did that "simpering Democrat apologist" comment strike a little too close to home, and make you feel the need to lash out in order to draw attention from how accurate it is?

Re:Fuck you

[Cerebus]

Oddly enough, lying in the State of the Union address is also perjury.

Re:Fuck you

[LynnwoodRooster]

And he lied? About what? Surely not about WMDs, because those have been found. Likewise with nearly 2 tons of yellow cake uranium. And lots of other banned things... So, what was the lie about?

The end of innocence

[Straif]

First, and I'm sure this has already been said, but with the exception of the use of various P2P and streaming media apps to transmit this Colbert video, how exactly is this anything other than a blatent "Bush is Evil" type post. Don't we get enough of this from every single thread, even those that aren't in any way political. Do we really need unsolicited main page postings.

Second, and just to jump into this non-technical topic with both feet, "When in Rome" and all that, isn't this a better example of the most recent trend of declineing civility in debate than of a comic who, while normally quite funny, bombed at a press gala (and by most accounts, except for those of the more far left variety, he did indeed bomb). When was it exactly that people started losing respect for the various events they were invited too (press galas, award shows, charity drives) and instead thought it more important to "speak truth to power" whenever they could get a mic, especially these people that have any number of ways to get themselves heard outside of the event in question.

(I still maintain that unless you are in mainland China or some such place, the term "speaking truth to power" really has no value except to try and boost the speaker's, and his/her supporters, feelings of self-importance; but that's a discussion for another off topic thread.)

Colbert's choice of material was reminiscent of that comedianne they had on The Apprentice a while back. The material itself may not have been all bad, but that was definately NOT the audience for it, and not because of their pretentious nature, but because it was personally insulting to many of the attendees. Even in a roast type atmosphere, jokes are meant to be good natured ribbings and not overtly mean.

Now compare Colbert to the Presidents schtick, which was in perfect keeping with the self deprecating theme of the event, and which received genuine laughs from everyone. There is no question in most people's minds which was the funnier of the two.

Re:The end of innocence

[ben there...]

To me your post sounds like you'd basically just want him to shut up.

We've heard that a lot in the past 5 years we've been at war. That it's not politically correct or "in keeping with the...theme of the event" to express disagreement with the President's actions.

What's significant is that he actually had the balls not to shut up, and furthermore to blame the press for their silence, while he had all of them in the same room.

Bush's permanent red face was priceless.

Re:The end of innocence

[mbius]

First, and I'm sure this has already been said, but with the exception of the use of various P2P and streaming media apps to transmit this Colbert video, how exactly is this anything other than a blatent "Bush is Evil" type post. Don't we get enough of this from every single thread, even those that aren't in any way political. Do we really need unsolicited main page postings.

Well, at the risk of wearing my politics on my sleeve, it's kind of sad and true that "for nerds" is the only filter that let this "news" through. Mayhap nerd means critical thinking, and since branded media is no longer a forum where that takes place, we have nerdy debates about things that *aren't* tech-related. It's a nice respite from worn-out meta-humor about not having a girlfriend.

isn't this a better example of the most recent trend of declineing civility in debate

No. That trend is copyright Rush Limbaugh. He moved being a deliberate jackass from Howard Stern's fringe to the mainstream. To intimate that Colbert is an example of incivility for doing a send-up of The O'Reilly Factor is to deliberately miss the point. When was it exactly that people started losing respect for the various events they were invited to

When these events stopped being worthy of dignity. Media elite, Hollywood elite, or political elite congratulating themselves for being unfathomably rich does not, by itself, merit decorum. The material itself may not have been all bad

The absurdism and the delivery weren't great. What Colbert was *trying* to do hung in the air; he was clearly not comfortable reading all the material he'd written. It looked like his first priority was to self-consciously decline the appearance of being gladhanded, when it should have been delivering knock-out punches. He seemed to meander in and out of character. Now compare Colbert to the Presidents schtick, which was in perfect keeping with the self deprecating theme of the event,

If you have ever criticized the media-at-large, it is impossible to take "the event" seriously. I sorta puked when the MC said the press is called lapdogs by the left and liberal by the right, so by way of irritating everyone they must be doing their job.

I also think you're allowed to laugh with the President when he makes fun of himself only if he's had a good presidency in other respects. I don't find his personality traits and leadership style cute, or funny, in light of the damage they're responsible for.

Re:The end of innocence

[Straif]

If you read my post again you will see that my main concern was not for his comments but for his choice of venue.

This is akin to you inviting me to your wedding, and during the toast going into glorious detail about all your past sexual exploits or the details of the bachelor party. In another setting, when it's just the guys, that type of talk is perfectly fine, but when you're sitting next to your lovely new bride surrounded by friends and family, it's way out of line.

It's all about decorum and respect. If he wants to rant on about the press or whatever perceived injustices he sees in the world there is a time and place for that, perhaps on his daily television show.

Re:The end of innocence

[Straif]

Sign. Another extreme left poster trying to use a guilt by association strawman to make an argument (you can always tell the extreme left posters because they like to disguise their identities through the use of AC postings while attacking the bravery of those they disagree with).

For the record I watch Fox News for a couple shows, 'Hannity and Colmes' and 'The O'Reilly Factor' chief amongst them, but I get most of my daily news from 'The Today Show' (that bastion of right-wing propaganda), the local newspapers and various websites, both various blogs and news sites (mostly CTV.CA and CBC.CA). That specific enough for ya or do you want me to send you a copy of my PVR's hard drive so you can scan it to be sure. If anything big comes up I usually go to CNN first, and then if I think about it Fox, and then channel swap back and forth.

And my view of which was funnier was which one made me laugh. Here's a hint, it wasn't Colbert, and by the look of responses in the room, I wasn't alone.

Even most of the people standing up for his routine aren't commenting so much on how funny it was, but like you, how much they hate Bush and how good it made them feel to see someone standup to him and the press. As if that really takes all that much bravery for an entertainer to do in an industry so left leaning. And honestly, what is the President going to do to Colbert besides not invite him to his daughter's birthday party?

Re:The end of innocence

[ben there...]

This is akin to you inviting me to your wedding, and during the toast going into glorious detail about all your past sexual exploits or the details of the bachelor party.

It's more akin to me inviting you to my wedding even though you're President of my country and have rapidly diminished my rights as an American citizen and have gotten thousands of my fellow citizens killed in an illegal war.

Nah, maybe that's just a really bad analogy.

Bush is a public figure with the extraordinary power (being President) to affect all of us (and our future generations). The event was a Press dinner, where politics are almost surely always involved. He may not have made any friends there, but I think he cares more about his country and their negative influence on it than he does about them or their dinner.

Is Slashdot Escapism or Reality Dialogue?

[Fantastic Lad]

Sorry, but politics affects everybody today in every way.

We have new copyright laws and legal issues affecting all aspects of New Media, we have government agencies spying on the populace using high tech snooping techniques on internet, phone traffic, and even through hardware built directly into the PC, we have the, "How'd They Do That" of crashing passenger jets into 'important' buildings, we have the space program being used for spying and weapons use, we have hundreds of all-consuming video games which are based on war simulation, we have highly political science-fiction dramas on the telly and in film, (Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, Star Wars, and the now defunct Star Trek. . .)

And ALL of it as direct results or reactions to U.S. political maneuvering and general Bushite insanity.

Anybody who claims that Slashdot shouldn't be linked to politics because "It's supposed to be about News for Nerds," is living in a dream world and is probably a fucking neocon trying hard to keep his head in the sand.

But that's just my soon-to-be-utterly-worthless-due-to-a-crashed-U.S. -economy, two cents.

-FL

Re:Do please be specific

[Nasarius]

So, what law did he/they violate?

FISA. Do you really not know this?

Why aren't they being prosecuted on it?

They're claiming the Constitutional authority that the President can pretty much do whatever he wants. Someone with legal standing needs to challenge this, you can't just be "prosecuted on it".

If you want to get detailed legal analysis of the NSA program than maybe you should read up on volokh.com.

Judging from your total ignorance, I'll pass.

What's interesting too is...

[danpsmith]

...that this article was featured on digg, got like 1900 diggs and then mysteriously vanished in just a few minutes. They had a link to a torrent with the entire c-span show, which I happened to be able to get before losing the link. But I was wondering how a story with so many diggs got lost so quickly.

I watched the whole thing and let me tell you, you could almost sense that he was really trying to make a point when saying things like "guys like us, we get it, right Mr. President?"

To see a person stand there and do an ironic inpersonation of one of the president's supporters so obvious so poignently while the President was in the same room was almost overpowering. My question is: did the administration think that he was going to tone his act down, or did they really not get the joke of the show to begin with? I couldn't help but think someone was going to catch hell for letting Colbert host the show.

This performance coupled with the one from Jon Stewart on Crossfire make up the two best live TV moments I've seen in the last few years.

I'm becoming convinced that Jon Stewart and associates are the last people remaining with balls in the TV/media realm.

Re:Do please be specific

[GuloGulo]

"FISA. Do you really not know this?"

That's not specific. Please cite the EXACT law, and give a link to whenre you think the administration admitted breaking a federal law.

And please, I've read FISA. If you plan to respond with that, back it up with more than a snide comment.

"They're claiming the Constitutional authority that the President can pretty much do whatever he wants."

That's incorrect, and a grossly simplistic assessment of the arguments involved.

Please cite the SPECIFIC law (statute number, and preferably a link) as well as a quote that show the administration admitted they broke a federal law.

Or are you another lying, disingenuous slashtroll who thinks that blindly asserting things that the majority around here agree with is sufficient, and actually researching something before you make claims about it is unnecessary?

Because so far, all you've done is make assertions and call names, despite the only thing being asked for is a specific citation of the federal law you claim the administration admitted breaking.

Frankly, I know what you are, and so does evryone else. Do me a favor, and respond with more unsubstantiated assertions and name calling so that the slower ones can see it too.

Re:I don't get it.

[Manchot]

Speaking of Saturday Night Live, Stephen Colbert actually hosted it (albeit indirectly) on Saturday while this was going on. He is the voice of Ace of the Ambiguously Gay Duo, the animated TV Funhouse series. The Duo "hosted" the Best of TV Funhouse special on Saturday.

Interestingly enough, Steve Carrell is the voice of Gary, the other duo member. Needless to say, when the series began in 1996, neither he nor Stephen Colbert were as famous as they are now.

Re:Do please be specific

[Nasarius]

Frankly, I know what you are, and so does evryone else.

Oh no! I'm one of those mean horrible people who doesn't like the President and isn't stupid enough to believe everything he says. Sorry.

Re:I don't get it.

[TummyX]

The humour depends on your politics; the balls to carry out an aggressive 30 minute assault on the president to his face is admirable. Make no mistake, this was not done out of comic pursuit; this was a statement. Not what he said, but the context in which it was delivered and for how freakin' long!


WTF? His career is based on bashing the Bush administration. It takes *NO* balls to do what he did because there's nothing at risk and a lot to gain. He'll get more viewers and several thousand geeks wetting their pants watching it.

I would have more respect for him if he just respected the event instead of using it to, well, repeat nothing he hasn't already repeated on his show(s).

You'll notice Bush shaked his hand and patted him at the end (as any statemans would). Unless colbert ends up dead in the potomac tomorrow, I really seriously think you need to get over the "he's so brave" crap.

Re:Mmph

[conureman]

I guess I have a liberal bias (cynical, actually, according to Peter Tork.) but I get most of my news through the Slashdot/Daily Show filter. It saves me a lot of time, and I am far more well-informed than my neighbors.

Re:Do please be specific

[hublan]

That's not specific. Please cite the EXACT law, and give a link to whenre you think the administration admitted breaking a federal law.

• The list of the relevant statutes.
• The specific law dictating the requirement of a court order.
• An article about the issue.
  
• Or if you prefer it, straight from the horse's mouth.
  

It boils down to this: For the NSA eavesdrop on a conversation, where one of the participants is a US citizen and/or resident, they require a FISA court approval, whether this be done beforehand or retroactively (up to 24 hours after the fact). In essence, the president authorised the NSA to eavesdrop on telephone conversions that were either inbound to or outbound from the United States, whether they involved US citizens/residents or not (the illegal bit, according to the law cited above). Another sticky bit is that NSA is only allowed to monitor communications partially or wholly outside of the US. With the AT&T plumbing program, it has opened the possibility that the NSA might've been listening to fully domestic conversations, which is also illegal. This is what the EFF wanted to find out with their lawsuit.

That good enough for you?

Re:Liberal Bunk

[gEvil (beta)]

That's better than knowing how to use a colon...

Not exactly

[GuloGulo]

You're one of those childish people who listen to the people in their dorm, and read the daily kos, and think they're informed.

Then, when asked to provide SPECIFICALLY the information used in drawing their conclusions, they do what you've done. Dodge the issue, in an attempt to draw attention from the fact that they've never bothered to check and see if what they've been told is accurate.

And you did it agian, and we all know why.

You;ve never followed any of it up. That's why your response to the law that was broken was "FISA..snide comment". Because you've never bothered to actually read it, and educate yourself on the legal issues.

As far as hating the president, who gives a fuck? Hate away.

But don't act like you have facts on your side when it's pretty clear by now that you haven't examined them.

How dare you act as though you're informed on this topic? When asked to cite a specific point that ANYONE who IS informed on this topic could easily locate, you respond with insults and hot air.

And by the way, the reason I'm asking is because I DO know the answer, and I expect if you and people liek you are going to run their mouths that they engag in at least a cursory level of research first.

Re:John Amato's C&L blog?

[From A Far Away Land]

"a source isn't biased if you agree with it."
Why else could Fox News get away with their insane claim that they are Fair and Balanced? About 32% of Americans eat up their tripe, even after people like Colbert give the truth in his truthiness style.

Re:What kind of news for nerds is this ?

[LionKimbro]

Perhaps the reason this is tech-relevant, is because, were it not for the Internet, none of us would know about this.

Re: try news.google.CA

[saskboy]

Google News isn't bad for giving a picture of American life, but if you really want to balance out your news sources I recommend a minor change to your visits. Load up http://news.google.ca/ instead of com and you'll get North American news. You'll see stories about the USA, but written not only by people being paid by General Electric, Fox News, or Viacom.

Thanks

[GuloGulo]

But I wasn't really talking to you. I am aware of the laws in question, as well as the legal arguments.

My issue with GP related to the all too common tendency around here to run off at the mouth about this issue without ever having read any of the associated case law or documentation.

I love though, that when I ask someone to identify the source of their argument, I get a huffy response.

Re:John Amato's C&L blog?

[evil agent]

Wow, thanks for providing yourself as proof of my claim.

Link to a more relevant article

[Simulant]

This one talks about Colbert's performance

courage?

[bkirkby]

why do people keep saying it takes courage to disrespect the United States? Freedom of speech is so fundamental, you can even tell blatant lies about those in power and never have negative consequences.

you wanna show some balls? speak out against saddam in pre-war iraq or go to north korea and "speak truth to power" about kim jong il.

i'm reminded of the "courage" of bullies who insult and assault docile amish who are twice their size knowing full well they will not fight back as a matter of principle.

Re:courage?

[quax]

why do people keep saying it takes courage to disrespect the United States? Freedom of speech is so fundamental, you can even tell blatant lies about those in power and never have negative consequences.

Try and explain this to ambassador Wilson who BTW - just as Colbert - was not disrespectful to the United States but did write and say things this administration did not want to hear.

Just because this government has fortunately not yet the power of a dictatorship does not mean that they won't use any means and influence at their disposal to damage their perceived enemies. The Valerie Plame case demonstrates that in that pursuit they even won't hesitate to break the law if they think they can get away with it.

Re:courage?

[startled]

you wanna show some balls? speak out against saddam in pre-war iraq

Would the courage be in the speaking, or in testing out your brand new time machine?

Re:courage?

[darkmeridian]

Ask Valerie Plame if freedom of speech has no costs.

Re:courage?

[kinglitho]

Not to start a flame war, but Joe Wilson lied about so many things (such as knowing about the forged Niger documents which didn't exist at the time he made his trip), that his "truthiness" is suspect in every way.

As for his wife, since when is it a bad thing to know when a government employee uses nepotism to send an unqualified relative on a sensitive mission?

Re:courage?

[quax]

Indeed to try to drag out the whole Plame affair is beyond the scope of this thread and /. is not a good place for this discussion anyway. At any rate your question:

As for his wife, since when is it a bad thing to know when a government employee uses nepotism to send an unqualified relative on a sensitive mission?

is completely beside the point. Even if this claim was true - and we only have the word of the administration for this - it does not matter as far as the law is concerned. Plame was under cover. If she wasn't there'd be no investigation. This means that every front-business that she ever pretended to worked for and all foreign sources that she ever cultivated have been exposed by this little character smear that Rove, Libby et.al. engaged in. A character smear that you obviously bought into. Strange how ambassador Wilson turned into such a lying weasel when back in the day Bush Sr. gave him a most glowing review. Odd back then conservatives loved this guy.

If you have not noticed by now the pattern that every person who takes this administration to task in a serious manner is vilified than you have some serious perceptions issues. Just of the top of my head: Clark, Scowcroft, Murtha and any retired general who has the odacity to critice the war plan receives the same treatment. All of them have in common that they are hard core patriots who have dedicated large parts of their live to serve their country.

If you love your country more than GOP talking points you may want to readjust your BS detector.

Re:courage?

[bkirkby]

heh. she just signed a book deal for 7 figures. did you say cost or payoff?

Re:Liberal Bunk

[mooingyak]

Not knowing how to use a colon presents all kinds of problems.

Re:Liberal Bunk

[gEvil (beta)]

You:re telling me!

Re:John Amato's C&L blog?

[From A Far Away Land]

"Wow, thanks for providing yourself as proof of my claim."
I didn't. I never said Colbert wasn't biased, clearly he has a bias in that he'll make more fans if he embarasses the President with the truth. The difference is that he is a reliable source of information about what's happening in the world, and Fox News is not giving anything but the "conservative perspective" which may or may not be how things are.

Not Tax dollars

[MountainLogic]

My understanding is that CSPAN is paid for by the cable industry

Re:Not Tax dollars

[dsgitl]

It is. I'm saying that many in attendance (the president, for example) are paid for by you, assuming you pay taxes.

C-Span is a gift from Ted Turner.

Re:It's... a video.

[From A Far Away Land]

The C&L video cut out the parts where Colbert blasts other people, giving the biased impression that he was only picking on the Presdient.

Re:Thank you Mr. Colbert...

[pudge]

Dude. Sigh. Colbert was there BECAUSE of what he was going to say. How much courage does it take to do what the organizers of the event, and the President, expect you to do?

Do you comprehend SPECIFIC?

[TheConfusedOne]

Merely shouting FISA doesn't cut it. In fact the case law as examined by knowledgable people and presented over at volokh.com shows that FISA could very easily run afoul of the Executive branch's enumerated powers especially with regards to war time and defense. (Note that the Clinton admin used the same reasoning to justify warrantly PHYSICAL searches performed INSIDE the US.)

Here's two rather detailed analyses from the site that come down somewhere in the middle with a big caveat that we lack sufficient details to draw conclusions one way or another (THAT being the significant point when someone from either side claims this is completely legal or obviously illegal):
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_12_18-2005 _12_24.shtml#1135029722
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_12_18-2005 _12_24.shtml#1135189430

Re:I don't get it.

[Jett]

After the time when Bush played his "Searching for WMD" slideshow he is fair game to mock and insult by any means necessary. The fact that he would make such a disgusting joke about the "flawed intelligence" that has cost thousands of lives was so completely fucked up - any respect he still deserved as President went right out the window. Colbert could have literally taken a crap on Bush's dinner plate, that is fine by me at this point. Bush and the media elite at the event deserved everything Colbert gave them and then some.

Bush v. Clinton

[guisar]

Clinton was attacked for his personal faults- far more than professional incompetency. Few people attack Bush's personal traits beyond those which affect his ability to perform.

Re:Slashdot Moderation Bias

[dr2chase]

The facts have a liberal bias.

Re:Liberal Bunk

[mooingyak]

I actually didn't notice the colon on the first two reads.

But I didn't mean that kind of colon.

Colbert's Cojones

[alienmole]

Plenty of people have backed down from an opportunity like that. Lewis Black did the Radio and TV Correspondent's Dinner, and even without the President in attendance, he was quite off his game largely out of not wanting to cross too far over "the line". As he result, he came pretty close to sucking.

Colbert did no such thing: in fact, he pushed the envelope farther than anyone I can recall having seen. If you're tone-deaf to that sort of thing, then it may seem like no big deal to you, but just because you can't perceive it, doesn't mean something extraordinary didn't just happen.

Re:Hate *is* a Liberal value?

[0xdeadbeef]

Notice I never identified myself as "liberal". Not because I've internalized its use by the talk radio set as an insult, but because I have only contempt for their devotion to tolerance. I wish those "weaklings" would concern themselves more with acquiring power and influnce, because it is the only thing that will protect us in the end.

Colbert Bombed

[deanoaz]

I watched the show live.

Bush and Bush were hilarious.

Colbert was stunning the audience into silence. The audience was composed of White House Correspondents, hardly a conservative group. They didn't think he was funny. Everyone there politely tolerated Colbert's show because that's what is expected.

I watch The Colbert Report regularly and love his send up of O'Rielly. The problem was, he didn't make a good enough attempt to establish any credibility for his 'Pro-Bush' facade. By blowing that off and concentrating the entire show on anti-Bush rhetoric, he came off as a mean-spirited, crack-pot comedian with mild schizophrenia as his only redeeming gimick.

Bush killed, Colbert shilled.

White House fumbling with keys...

[Imazalil]

I'm not sure if I would call 'why are we really in Iraq' a stupid question, and the White House has been fumbling with 'their keys' for years now. It was drawn out to make this point painfully obvious. Like getting shot and then having someone press their thumb on the wound for five minutes. It was on purpose.

Im.

Re:Colbert Bombed

[pudge]

I disagree entirely. I thought it was very good -- and I am conservative, and Republican, and a journalist, and I've seen every episode of The Colbert Report -- and I think most people were not laughing because most of what he said was directed at the journalists themselves.

Conservative Media

[Jerim]

Conservatives see a liberal media. Liberals see a conversative media, or maybe just one that is unwilling to fight back.

So basically, the media has no friends.

Re:Conservative Media

[Valdrax]

The media has no friends (amongst the people) because it deserves none. The media is just as corrupt as the Republican and Democratic Parties for the exact same reasons -- they all largely depend on the largesse of the wealthy and powerful (i.e. donors or advertisers) who pressure them into pursuing the interests of the wealthy and powerful. Only on rare occasion can they be brought to heel by the people under the current system.

The trend of mega-mergers of media conglomerates has only worsened the situation over the past 30 years as the power to shape public opinion has become more concentrated and thus more easily bribed by sponsors.

Re:Funny?

[stinerman]

The sad thing is if the Dems gain control (which I don't think they will), they won't be going after Bush for the right reasons. It'll be for partisan gain, not because they actually care about the direction the country is headed.

Video link...

[nodnarb1978]

C&L can get a bit overloaded at times; here's another direct-download video link:

Colbert WH Correspondents' Dinner Address

My server has proven pretty slash-worthy in the past, so no worries. :)

What's so courageous?

[mi]

I think that it takes some courage to lampoon the President to his face.

Why? Its not like he could have been taken away and shot for the disrespect, even though some anti-Bush hysterics claim exactly that...

A "nerve" maybe, but nothing exceptionally courageous. Takes more courage to ask a group of loud fellow subway riders to turn it down a bit.

Re:What's so courageous?

[Brandybuck]

Look up the word courage. There was no courage, because there was no danger to withstand. The worst that could have happened to him was that he would never again be invited to speak before the president. Whoop-de-do. That took about as much daring as switching to decaff.

Re:What's so courageous?

[Dyolf Knip]

Have him arrested? Put on a no-fly-list? Detained indefinitely for giving aid and comfort to 'the enemy'? Decide that Comedy Central needs some attention from the FCC? Any number of things that Bush has declared is well within his right to inflict on the American public.

Re:What's so courageous?

[Brandybuck]

Terrorists, suspected terrorists, and those who receive phone calls from suspected terrorists might have a problem, but not comedians.

p.s. A few unlucky folks might get false positives on the TSA, but there is no evidence whatsoever that Bush uses it as a shit list. Cases of false positives are either explainable (sharing a name or alias with a terrorist) or purely anecdotal. That conspiracy theory has about as much creedence as Clinton using IRS audits to harrass his opponents.

Re:What's so courageous?

[Dyolf Knip]

but there is no evidence whatsoever that Bush uses it as a shit list

There is no evidence whatsoever about what Bush is using it for, good or bad. Which is the whole problem. But considering the people who show up on the No-Fly list (higher-ups of third parties and environmental and anti-war groups) and the fact that people the White House has publicly admitted to be utterly innocent are _still_ being held in Gitmo, I see no reason to think this administration is above abusing phone taps that even the ridiculously tap-happy FISA court wouldn't grant. Shit, look what it took to force them to give Jose Padilla a trial; and he was _nothing_, just a lousy nobody street punk.

And c'mon, who the hell is running that No-Fly list? First, to actually put a name like "T Kennedy" on it, WTF were they thinking? Second, consider for a moment what it actually is. Even if it worked perfectly, it is at it's core a list of people soooo dangerous and lethal that they cannot be allowed onto an airplane for any reason, ever. Oh, but we can't arrest them for anything.

People will abuse power if they can get away with it. Period, end of statement. To suggest otherwise implies the naivete of a child. They have done so for the entirety of human history and there is no reason to think they will stop anytime in the future. And the surest way to get away with it is to keep your abuses secret. So tell me, exactly why I should trust a dishonest, lying scumbag like Dubya not to abuse his secrecy.

Re:What's so courageous?

[mi]

There is no evidence whatsoever about what Bush is using it for, good or bad. Which is the whole problem.

I can see, how this could be the problem for Bush's personal enemies: "we know, he is guilty, but we can't prove it". The rest of us are fine.

But considering the people who show up on the No-Fly list (higher-ups of third parties and environmental and anti-war groups)

Name three...

utterly innocent are _still_ being held in Gitmo

You are talking about the few unfortunate Muslims from China, who are still at Gitmo, because they have nowhere to go to (China would, likely, kill them). It is an awfully unfortunate limbo, and I wish, US took them in as refugees (from China), but no such dangers threaten public figures like Comedy Central comedians.

And c'mon, who the hell is running that No-Fly list?

Morons, of course, like the rest of the government bureaucracy. But the thread is not about No-Fly list, it is about whether or not it takes any courage to criticize the President. I may even submit that people doing so on the street need to overcome fears of police threats (real or perceived), but a comedian doing it on TV at the White House dinner? Please... If anything, he has immunity now.

Re:What's so courageous?

[Dyolf Knip]

Rebecca Gordon and Jan Adams, two journalists with a San Francisco-based antiwar magazine called War Times

Virgine Lawinger, a nun in Milwaukee and an activist with Peace Action

Doug Stuber, who ran Ralph Nader's Green Party presidential campaign in North Carolina in 2004. Who also "claims he was able to discern a long list of progressive political organizations. Among those he was able to make out clearly on the list: the Green Party, Greenpeace, Earth First! and Amnesty International".

the few unfortunate Muslims from China

A) It was closer to 10% of the prison population at Gitmo, B) You are missing the point entirely, and C) Gee whiz, how truly kind of us to keep them incarcerated because it's too much trouble to turn them loose.

I can see, how this could be the problem for Bush's personal enemies: "we know, he is guilty, but we can't prove it". The rest of us are fine.

Ok, Bush has gone on national TV and admitted that he is guilty about the wiretapping. So there's no question of proof. He just says it doesn't matter, and like a good little lapdog you accept his judgement. The same judgement that got us into Iraq. The same judgement that put Brownie in charge of FEMA. The same judgement responsible for the GOP's faith-based government. The same judgement that turned a budget surplus into record-breaking deficits. The same judgement that tried to appoint to the Supreme Court a woman whose only qualification was that she was a friend of his. The same judgement that signs everything Congress puts in front of him so he can just ignore it when he wants to.

We have checks and balances because it is the surest bet in the world that people will abuse power. Bush ignores them and you say, "I have no problem with that". Well guess what genius, some of us don't blindly trust someone because they have an 'R' next to their name, hate gays and non-christians, and help their friends get rich.

"Bush's personal enemies"? And what does that make you, his personal friend and ally? It is truly awe-inspiring how quickly the Republicans have developed a cult of personality about their Dear Leader. Bush is a true American, he can be trusted with unlimited power to save us! Bush is Christ reincarnate and loves Freedom Fries! Bush has never made a mistake! Personal enemies of Bush are personal enemies of me and of America!

And no, the rest of us are not 'fine'. What are his poll ratings down to? Nixon plus 7%? The only people left who suport him are like you; the man could rape and murder an entire girl scout troop on primetime and you'd swear "it was a dirty liberal plot to help our enemies". Geeez, what a sucker.

Re:Colbert was doing the wrong act

[sponglish]

It's actually a pretty good and obscure (depending on how old you are) reference to the X-Files "Jose Chung's From Outer Space" episode.

It sure takes balls...

[jgclark123]

It takes a lot of balls to insult someone with a 32% approval rating; even more so to do it anonymously.

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 1

[snowwrestler]

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Now read this report from the Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/artic les/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/?p age=full

The President and his administration have been systematically usurping or undermining the Congressional power of legislation. Consider Article II, Section 3:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Emphasis mine, obviously. This is a classic example of the problems with single-party power...even as their power is being illegally undermined, Congressional leaders will not challenge the president for fear of weakening the all-important party. They place personal gain over the Constitution and the nation.

Re:Mmph

[killjoe]

Just like ethnic cleansing and mass murder are the extreme of right wing politics. What's your point?

Re:Mmph

[killjoe]

You need to learn how to search. You can't keep going through life being so wilfully ignorant. It will bite you in the end. Type this into google "voting patterns of people with degrees". Here is a quote for you.

" In the process, some of the nation's best educated and highest income communities have become Democratic bastions, and some of the nation's poorest white counties -- especially in southern border states -- have turned into GOP strongholds.

In 2000, the voters in 17 out of 25 of the nation's most affluent counties -- all with high percentages of people with advanced degrees -- cast majorities for Al Gore, sometimes by more than 70 percent.

In nine out of the 10 poorest counties in Kentucky, for example, places where the Democratic Party of Harry S. Truman ran roughshod over Republican adversaries, George W. Bush won, frequently by margins the mirror image of Gore's in the nation's richest and best educated counties.

These new voting patterns are changing the composition of the House. According to a study by the National Committee for an Effective Congress of the 88 congressional districts that shifted from Democrat to Republican from 1994 to 2000, 59 had average incomes below the national norm, and in 68, the percentage of residents with college degrees was below the national average.

Conversely, of the 46 seats that went from Republican to Democratic, 29 were districts that had higher than average incomes. "

Re:Real courage??

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

How much courage does it take to be rude to President Bush?

Watch the video? He wasn't rude, he used biting humor. And it was directed not only at Bush, but at the media, Tony Snow, Scott McClellan, Jesse Jackson, etc.

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

Wow, I'm intellectually bankrupt, yet you can't say anything coherent.

Lets look at those political articles you cite. Oh, most of them have something to do with computers, whereas this doesn't.

"You, whiny, intellectually-bankrupt tool." (I fixed that comma for you, you moron.)

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

I don't consider myself willfully ignorant. I become annoyed when people don't cite statistics that they claim, and so, asked for a citation in a manner that I considered to be polite.

Re:Real courage??

[sponglish]

So I take it you agree that Colbert showed no courage at all in his performance, which was my point.

I still think his behavior was rude, but then he works in Hollywood where they don't consider mouthing obscenities on live TV to be crass and vulgar--it's "edgy". By those standards, he was well behaved.

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

I bow to your brilliance. Truely, I am humbled. You must be a professor of political science I take it.

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

No, ethnic clensing and mass murder are actions.

Communism is a political party.

Did you never see a political compass in high school, or a political ruler?

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

Sorry, it fired me up when you were rude to me about the search engine results and called me willfully ignorant, but I shouldn't return in kind, because I feel that it lacks class.

What I meant was.

You are citing actions. I was citing parties.

See, Communism really is at the far left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Here, here's the "spectrum," or "ruler.

The farthest left is communism, the farthest right is fascism.

See, it's not just "politically charged words," it's "real political parties." I'm not saying "communist" to fire people up, I'm saying it because it's fact. You, however, were just looking for charged words.

The stock market may be high

[DoctaWatson]

but so are fuel and energy prices, interest rates, education and health care costs, the Federal Budget defecit and the international trade defecits.

Re:Funny?

[Abcd1234]

And frankly, it is damned unpatriotic to spread these kinds of lies about Bush.

This is a troll, right? Please... please, let this be a troll. I mean, I've heard of people using the word "unpatriotic" when describing criticisms of the President, someone who is, to put it mildly, the most important person in the entirety of the United States to criticize. But I kinda hoped it didn't actually happen. But here you are, doing exactly that.

So I have a question. What the fuck is wrong with you? Your president isn't a superhero. He isn't infallible. He most certainly isn't above criticism. And he's the last person you should be trying to protect, because it's part of his *job* to be criticized, and it's the job of the electorate to criticize him, to ensure that he's doing the job he was elected to do. It is *not* the job of the electorate to wrap themselves in the flag, plug their ears, and sing the national anthem to themselves while simply trusting their elected representatives to do their jobs properly.

"Unpatriotic"... it makes me sick to see people using that word in order to shut down others. "Incorrect", "misinformed", those are good reasons, and very well maybe be a valid criticism of the GP. But "unpatriotic"? That's simply a fallback position... kinda like "communist".

Except it is

[Guuge]

a) The media can say whatever they want because ultimately we educate ourselves.

b) Jon Stewart is hurting us by forcing us to be educated by him.

Hence the contradiction. If Jon Stewart can possibly hurt the country then you must admit that the media *does* play a role in our education, which invalidates the first point.

By the way, I happen to agree with Stewart. Consumers have every right to demand better behavior from the media, just as we have every right to demand better service from our utility companies.

Re:Except it is

[On Lawn]

The problem with that is Stewart clearly takes himself seriously, and hides behind the skirt of sarcasm.

Re:Funny?

[SpryGuy]

They aren't "just as much" for sale. Oh, they're for sale all right, no argument there, but don't try to equate two things that differ by orders of magnitude. I really hate false equivalencies like that.

And the fact will be that Democrats will at best gain one house of Congress, and the opposing party will be in the Presidency, and thus the Democrats will actually have *some* power to check the excesses of the Republicans, and power to actually investigate those things that desperately need investigations, charges, indictments, and convictions. But they won't have anything close to the "abosolute power" that is currently utterly corrupting the Republicans.

I read a study once that some of the best economies are those that are governed by a split Federal government, where the checks and balances actually work to restrain the excesses of both parties.

Re:Mmph

[killjoe]

"I don't consider myself willfully ignorant. I"

Of course not. Nobody considers themselves ignorant, smelly, racist, bad driver or humorless do they?

It's not my job to hunt down every single piece of research done on voting patterns of people in different demographics. I showed you two simple and straightforward google searches that anybody could have done in one minute or less and confirm my points.

I find it highly unlikely that somebody who hangs out at slashdot is incapable of similar googling so that only leaves unwillingness to be exposed to facts which don't fit your ideology. In other words wilfull ignorance.

But hey what do I know, I am a communist right?

Re:Mmph

[killjoe]

So in your world there are the democrats/communists and the republicans/facists right?

Re:Slashdot Moderation Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

True, true ... as in "liberals have a bias against facts that do not support their position".

Re:Courage???

[TallDave]

"It ALSO takes bravery and courage to speak out in the current climate of this country and government. "

What a crock. No it doesn't, bashing Bush is the easiest, least brave thing in the world. It puts in you in absolutely no danger and a third of the country will canonize you for it.

Your ignorant talk about "lies and deceit" just proves the paranoia and delusion that leads you to believe this is some kind of bravery. The consensus estimates of the world's intelligence were not made by Bush, nor was the statement that the WMD case was a "slam dunk," nor did Bush force Bill Clinton to say exactly the same things about Iraq that you call lies. You can dwell on picayune details about aluminum tubes and trailer labs, but nothing will change those larger facts.

Re:Real courage??

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

So I take it you agree that Colbert showed no courage at all in his performance, which was my point.

You take incorrectly. To use biting humor in that venue took courage.

Re:What kind of news for nerds is this ?

[senatorpjt]

This is the first time i've ever said this...

MOD PARENT UP!

Sigh

[TheConfusedOne]

I don't think you should conflate "signing statements" with any deliberate program to break the law.

You ironically emphasize one part of the Constitution over another. Congress also cannot pass laws that supplant the Constitution so how could the Constitution bind the Executive branch to a law if it is in violation of the Constitution? If such a conflict exists then it becomes the role of the Judicial branch to resolve it.

Also, since they were so willing to toss off this whopper:
But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.

Since I already showed you that there simply isnt' enough details to make such sweeping statements about the legality or illegality of the program, we can see that this is in fact not a serious legal analysis.

Though you do have to worry about those evil NeoCons who use presidential signing statements to ignore the law:

I do object to the provision in the Act concerning the transmittal of abortion-related speech and information. Current law, 18 U.S.C. 1462, prohibits transmittal of this information by certain means, and the Act would extend that law to cover transmittal by interactive computer services. The Department of Justice has advised me of its long-standing policy that this and related abortion provisions in current law are unconstitutional and will not be enforced because they violate the First Amendment. The Department has reviewed this provision of S. 652 and advises me that it provides no basis for altering that policy. Therefore, the Department will continue to decline to enforce that provision of current law, amended by this legislation, as applied to abortion-related speech.

I'll give you two guesses as to who wrote that one.

Re:Funny?

[geminidomino]

They aren't "just as much" for sale. Oh, they're for sale all right, no argument there, but don't try to equate two things that differ by orders of magnitude. I really hate false equivalencies like that.

And don't mistake opportunity for motive. They're not as bent at the moment because they simply don't have the power to be worth buying out. Were the situation reversed with the dems in full control, I doubt you'd see "orders of magnitude" of difference.

And the fact will be that Democrats will at best gain one house of Congress, and the opposing party will be in the Presidency, and thus the Democrats will actually have *some* power to check the excesses of the Republicans, and power to actually investigate those things that desperately need investigations, charges, indictments, and convictions. But they won't have anything close to the "abosolute power" that is currently utterly corrupting the Republicans.

But as your sibling post pointed out, they will be doing it to demonize the Republicans, not because they care about wrong vs. right.

Re:I don't get it.

[TummyX]

Are you retarded? His side show regarding WMD just shows that he is confident that, despite there being no WMD, going into Iraq was right.

Re:Liberal Bunk

[Bryan Ischo]

If you're referring to the phrase "God bless America", then I don't think you do. So other's comments about the subjunctive case for all the proof you need that everything you have written on this subject was a complete was of time.

Re:Rip it. Seed it. Spread it.

[StrongBow67]

I understand now why it wasn't funny to the audience. "The liberal media is destroying America" ...does he mean it? ...is he making fun of people who say that? ...I'm a liberal, maybe I am destroying Amerika; ...I'm a conservative, I already know they're destroying America

Re:I don't get it.

[TummyX]

No one has EVER stuck it to the President and the rest of the government this seriously at this event. EVER


I thought he was a comedian. I wish he would stop with the self-righteous, smug, arrogant "comedy" that he produces both on CC and during the event.


close. Not to say no one would, but has a comedian ever had THIS much material? And considering how aggressive the material was, I doubt many would have the guts.


Then why didn't he use it rather than just talk about Iraq? The other stuff was typical of *any* administration.


Cheers to Stephen Colbert for not pulling any punches, which no one has ever done at this event.


You're congratulating him for being self-serving? He couldn't even put his politics (and it is just politics, he is not a prophet) aside for one evening and instead used it to boost his career? Oh well, I guess he did well enough to get a job hosting the Emmys next year and maybe even another 4 year contract for his show on CC.

It's worse than just phone, it's everything

[bewert]

It's semantic datamining in realtime all the data that flows through AT&T's San Francisco peering point. See http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/8/14724/2 8476

BushCo just used a rather obscure Federal Secrets action to try to get the EFF v. AT&T lawsuit thrown out last Friday afternoon. See http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/ (It's the third or fourth story down)

Oil for stupid ...

[willtsmith]

Saddam Hussein got oil out just fine during the embargo via both smuggling and oil for food. The fact that he chose to build palaces with it can hardly be put at the feet of Bill Clinton. The fact that the man was STILL in office instead of overthrown by a Shiite uprising in the South can be laid at the feet of Colin Powell and GHW Bush Sr.

There is a fundamental truth that one must accept in the world. You cannot solve everyone's problems. But you can try to not make them worse.

check out Bill Hicks if you haven't already

[rye]

"You know, when I'm done ranting about elite power that rules the planet under a totalitarian government that uses the media in order to keep people stupid, my throat gets parched. That's why I drink orange drink."

Boy does this whole thing make me miss Bill Hicks, another great comedian with a political bent. Here's clip from 92 that's eerily reminiscent of today...

http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2004/07/bill_hick s_on_b_1.htm

"People ask me where I stood politically you know. It's not that I disagree with Bush's economic policy or his foreign policy. It's that I believe he's a child of Satan here to destroy the planet Earth. A little to the left..."

"People would say to me, 'Bill, you vote for Clinton, he's gonna raise your taxes. A vote for Clinton is a vote for higher taxes.' See, I have news for you, folks -- the reason I didn't vote for George Bush is because George Bush (along with Ronald Reagan) presided over an administration whose policies towards South America included genocide. So the reason I didn't vote for him is because he's a mass murderer. I'll pay that extra nickel on a liter of petrol just knowing that little brown kids aren't being clubbed to death like baby seals in Honduras so Pepsi can put a plant down there."

Ouch.

Deeper issue ...

[willtsmith]

Two issues to touch on:

a) Why did Bush abandon his post at the same time that the Air Force was instituting mandatory drug testing. We know President Bush was a cocaine user at one time in his life due to the carefully worded denials with regard to the statue of limitations.

Yes, and why doesn't the Republicans apply the same standards to "their own". When Clinton was implicated in smoking a joint (overseas in a country where it was legal) the press went nuts. When GW made his "statue of limitations" denial, the "liberal" press collectively shrugged and moved on.

b) Who did Daddy Bush pay off to get little George bumped to the top of the list when his test scores were sub-standard. GW Bush took a position from some guy who deserved it. That guy likely ended up in Vietnam.

GW is a deeply flawed individual. So was Clinton. But the distinction is that Clinton is a flawed man with MERIT!!!! How does a man with such a deeply troubling past, terrible school record, terrible business record, terrible military service record, terrible driving record end up being president of the United States. And exactly what kind of example does this send to America's youth?

a) You can consistently screw up all your life and achieve the highest office so long as your Daddy's lackey's follow you around and fix everything for you.

b) Be like me and screw around instead of paying attention to what you're doing.

Colbert is impossible to retort ...

[willtsmith]

The way Colbert packages his criticism is impossible to retort. He simply amplifies what you say in order to criticize you and makes it plain how absurdly ridiculous it is.

No question about it ... Colbert bombed in that room. But I thought it was funnier than snot. I also know that Colbert walked into a room of real power brokers and bitch slapped ALL of them (except Helen Thomas). Scalia seemed to be the only one laughing, that's probably because nobody can fire him.

I would have LOVED to be a fly on the wall to see the tirade that GW threw after Colbert's monologue. I'm eagerly awaiting the response from the right wing. I really don't think they have a response for Colbert. The only way to fight comedy is to with comedy. And honestly ... conservatives aren't funny.

Well, I take that back. People will laugh at what conservatives say ... but it's not funny. It's just mean. When conservatives laugh with each-other it's just a way of saying "I'm an asshole too".

What OS does this run on?

[kevin7kal]

Why is this slashdot news????? Why did it even make it past the 'moderators'? Oh yeah...yahoo owns slashdot...I see. This is crap! PLEASE GIVE ME A NEGATIVE FOR INFLAMATORY>>>OR BETTER YET>>>IRRELAVENT!

Re:Perhaps to you

[niktemadur]

An anonymous coward, to be precise.

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

I think that I've clarified that communist issue for you a number of times.

I don't know if you're communist, are you?

Also, you can give me the line of leading a horse to water all you want. You cited statistics that you made up and then gave a kind of thin study to back it up.

I don't need to argue this point with you, since it is obvious that you will be swayed by nothing. I could turn your little "I gave you the search..." mumbling back on you, and point out that I sent you a link to the political spectrum that demonstrates my point, and that I was merely pointing out communism because it is a liberal political ideal. If you want to take it as a politically charged word, then you can.

I suppose that I can turn your little point about being willfully ignorant back on you as well.

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

"In my world."

No.

If you read the spectrum, you would realize that these are completely different ideals, and that I never made the inference. You jumped on my statement that communism is a liberal ideal. What can I say, you are unwilling to accept this. You feel that I am making an attack on you because you are uncomfortable with the idea that you're liberal, and that communism is extreme liberalism.

Your personal insecurities have nothing to do with what I was saying. You can leave them out of this discussion.

Seriously, you decided that that's what I was saying, and drew the lines to absurd ends so you could feel that you won the argument. The world that I was speaking in is the world that everyone speaks in. It's the one that's taught in high school civics classes, and the one that is taught in modern political science classrooms.

I'm not expert on the topic, I never claimed to be, but even an amatueresque understanding of the topic yields these rather obvious facts. Perhaps, again, you are "willfully ignorant," since you'd rather feel that Communists are bad guys off in China and Cuba, and ones that we beat when the Berlin Wall came down.

All of that, but you'll be damned if we don't push taxes up and to bolster welfare programs.

Anyway. The very fact that you have to change what I have said demonstrates that you've lost this argument. I'll continue to post back about your strawman argument until you stop beating on that drum, so I guess that this could take a while unless you add some other rhetorical flaw to your repetoire.

Don't make the classic mistake

[snowwrestler]

...of assuming that because I point out the flaws of a president of one party I therefore consider presidents of the other party above reproach. Single-party rule is dangerous no matter what the party, and illegal is illegal--whether through a "deliberate program" or isolated infractions. So go ahead and quote signing statements all day if you want; my opinion of them will be based on their respective substance, not the political affiliation of the people who wrote them. You however seem fixated on the latter.

You ironically emphasize one part of the Constitution over another. Congress also cannot pass laws that supplant the Constitution so how could the Constitution bind the Executive branch to a law if it is in violation of the Constitution? If such a conflict exists then it becomes the role of the Judicial branch to resolve it.

The executive branch is not authorized to act legislatively AT ALL, whether affirmatively or negatively, whether within or without the bounds of the Consitutional power of legislation. That power is reserved solely for the Congress. Raising the limits of Congressional power in this discussion is a pure red herring--the topic is the limits on executive powers.

Signing statements that contravene legislative language are simply illegal--as illegal as the line-time veto which Clinton wielded and which was struck down. However the Judicial branch can only rule on the cases that come before them, which leads to my last point, that common political affiliation makes the necessary legal challenges much less likely to occur.

A court need not rule on an action for it to be illegal; if I shoot someone and never get caught or judged, it was still an illegal act. Don't think that just because the Supreme Court hasn't said it is illegal, it is therefore legal.

Re:Mmph

[killjoe]

SO you have chosen to ignore the links I sent you and now went back into your dream world where the republican/fascist are for less taxes and want to cut spending. The fact that you have swallowed this lie hook line and sinker shows exactly how much of a zealot you are. Even a cursory study of republican administrations shows that they don't shrink the govt and yet you continue to believe that they do. In fact the govt ran shrank under the clinton administration and grew under the bush administration.

As for communism why even bring it up? I didn't bring up fascism when talking about republicans why do you bring up communism when talking about democrats? According to you communism is a liberal idea well crusades, inquisitions, ethnic cleansing, genocide are conservative ideas. I didn't bring those up and yet you reflexively reached for the communist word. That tells me everything I need to know about you.

There is only word that describes people like you: Republitard.

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

SO you have chosen to ignore the links I sent you

Link. One link. Education was never mentioned. Ownership of passports was, but that doesn't say much about education.

and now went back into your dream world where the republican/fascist are for less taxes and want to cut spending.

Those facets of the Republican political agenda never entered this conversation, neither did my personal political orientation (I might have mentioned that I'm Libertarian at some point, but it's never really been a focus. Anyway, your idea that I'm Republican is way off.)

The fact that you have swallowed this lie hook line and sinker shows exactly how much of a zealot you are.

See the above. Anyway, all I said, really, was that I wanted fewer purely political articles. You decided that the reason for that was because I disagreed with the liberal slant of the article. I actually like Stephen Colbert quite a bit. I'd just rather go back to the Slashdot that was predominantly about tech.

The fact that you have swallowed this lie hook line and sinker shows exactly how much of a zealot you are. Even a cursory study of republican administrations shows that they don't shrink the govt and yet you continue to believe that they do. In fact the govt ran shrank under the clinton administration and grew under the bush administration.

Boy, you're just making up stuff now. I already said that I'm Libertarian. If it matters at all. Apparently it doesn't

As for communism why even bring it up? I didn't bring up fascism when talking about republicans why do you bring up communism when talking about democrats?

I actually never spoke about democrats at all. I spoke about liberalism and listed a handful of liberal ideas. The socialist party is actually a significant influence in the town in which I currently reside, which, by the way, prints its own currency. The "Ithaca Hour."

According to you communism is a liberal idea well crusades, inquisitions, ethnic cleansing, genocide are conservative ideas.

You really didn't read my link, did you. Communism is a liberal idea. That's just life man. All of those other things, those are acts. The communist party is a liberal political party. Look it up. I can back my stuff from text books. You're just trying to find inflamatory words. Then again, we already went over this. Have fun with your straw man. I've already disarmed this one. Reiterating it really won't help your already weak case.

I didn't bring those up and yet you reflexively reached for the communist word.

Goodness. I just listed a political party. Get over it. You could have said fascist. Fascist is the only correct word to use in the place where I used Communist. Not genocide... yadda yadda. This is a political party. Even so, I didn't bring it up for shock value. You're still beating your strawman.

That tells me everything I need to know about you.

I don't think you needed much since you made up most of it.

There is only word that describes people like you: Republitard.

Hahaha. You're so smart to be able to turn "republican" into "republitard." Where did you come up with that clever one? Anyway, I'm very well educated, and, again, I'm not Republican. You just decided that I was because you wanted to fight.

So, what are you mad at me for again? Aside from being Republican... which I'm not.

Re:Mmph

[killjoe]

"ink. One link. Education was never mentioned. Ownership of passports was, but that doesn't say much about education."

I gave you two links. One talked about passports the other one about education levels and income. You chose not to be exposed to information which contradicts your zealotly held beliefs.

"Boy, you're just making up stuff now."

Are all liberterians as stupid as you? I bet you are one of those people who call themselves liberterians because you are too ashamed to say you are a republican. Either way though you are a republitard. That's somebody who believes things that have no basis in reality.

"All of those other things, those are acts. "

Those are all results of conservative idealism. Josef Stalin was not a liberal. Pol Pot was not a liberal. These people were conservatives who were anti intellectual just like most republicans today.

"Even so, I didn't bring it up for shock value."

So why did you bring it up then? You still haven't told me.

"Hahaha. You're so smart to be able to turn "republican" into "republitard." Where did you come up with that clever one? Anyway, I'm very well educated, and, again, I'm not Republican. You just decided that I was because you wanted to fight."

You are a republitard. I made that name up by the way. A republitard is somebody who believes things that are factually wrong and can easily be demonstrated to be so. A republitard refuses to absorb any information which contradicts their rigidly held beliefs. I think that fits you perfectly.

"So, what are you mad at me for again? Aside from being Republican... which I'm not."

I am mad at you for being a republitard. I am mad at you because you and republitards like you are a source of shame and embarassment for my country. People like you give all americans a bad name. few rotten apples and all that. It is because of you and your ilk that this country is where it is.

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

I gave you two links. One talked about passports the other one about education levels and income. You chose not to be exposed to information which contradicts your zealotly held beliefs.

Nope. I checked. How about coming back and posting those two links in your next reply :-D

Are all liberterians as stupid as you? I bet you are one of those people who call themselves liberterians because you are too ashamed to say you are a republican. Either way though you are a republitard. That's somebody who believes things that have no basis in reality.

Wow, you can't even find anything to say, so you just call me stupid. That's clever. I'll have to remember that technique. Anyway, no, I'm Libertarian. Sincere, real, Libertarian. Registered as one and everything.

Those are all results of conservative idealism. Josef Stalin was not a liberal. Pol Pot was not a liberal. These people were conservatives who were anti intellectual just like most republicans today.

Dude. Listen. Communism is a liberal political belief. What do you want? Really, do you want me to find a text book and point you to the page? Dude, I gave you a citation. That's what we do in academia. That's good enough for us. It should be goof enough for you.

So why did you bring it up then? You still haven't told me.

Actually, I did. It was one in a list of liberal political parties. That's all it was. I used it casually, and you blew up because you can't handle the idea that communism is a left-wing political party.

Here's the exact usage, "As for the IT set, anecdotal experience indicates that there are more libertarians than the general populace, but not necessarily more Socialists/Communists/Democrats, which would be the more liberal on the fiduciary front."

See, all I did was to say that, in my experience, I've met more libertarians, who would be further to the right on economic issues, in IT than people who would be to the left in IT... Those parties are to the left.

You are a republitard. I made that name up by the way. A republitard is somebody who believes things that are factually wrong and can easily be demonstrated to be so. A republitard refuses to absorb any information which contradicts their rigidly held beliefs. I think that fits you perfectly.

Which beliefs are these? Your incoherent prattle has done nothing to sway me in any way. Do you think that calling me names is really a valid technique to change my opinion? Do you think that that makes you sound well educated?

I am mad at you for being a republitard. I am mad at you because you and republitards like you are a source of shame and embarassment for my country. People like you give all americans a bad name. few rotten apples and all that. It is because of you and your ilk that this country is where it is.

Wait, wait, wait... So, you're saying that you can't cite anything that I've done.

While we're at it, lets analyze a few of those "conservative" ideals that you were bandying about (not that I'm a conservative, I'm in the middle).

You're mad at me, supposedly, because of my political orientation. You really want me to just shut up and die because of it that's:

• Bigotted
• Censorship
• Though-policing

I'm sure that you get the idea.

All of this intolerance that you cite as a consequence of the conservative ideals that you supposedly rail against, and yet, you're going to tell me that you're a liberal, and I'm a conservative, and that you're for the tolerance that you can't seem to extend to me.

Seriously, I'm a busy man. Why are you wasting my time? You're not listening to anything that I've said. You're not even making sense. You're ignoring all of the strong arguments that I've made against you and inserting strawmen in their place. If you can't win the argument, you should just admit it to yourself and pack it in. Really

Wow

[TheConfusedOne]

Well excuse me for making the "classic mistake". Of course, I wasn't making any such mistake. My point with the signing statement example was to show that this isn't some new routine created by the current administration.

I not that you're getting further and further from the point and wandering further and further afield. This whole debate began with an accusation of Bush breaking the law on the NSA surveillance program so I said "be specific, what law did he break?"

Well, there has been no specificity, there's been a shout of "FISA!" and I pointed out that much more learned legal minds have stated that there is no prima-facie case for a violation of FISA and that there is in fact a strong case for the Executive branch's Consitutional powers superseding legislation with regards to prosecuting a war.

Since then we've now wandered off into the fever swamps with rants about signing statements and how the President is making an unwarranted power grab with them. Well, first off he's not the first one to attempt to invalidate laws with signing statements and also these statements do not have the force of law. At best they can be considered by judges when interpretting issues related to said laws.

Your ending "example" is worthless. A court HAS ruled that murder is illegal. There is no established case law in this area. Well, actually there is, and it supports the President's position.
"The Truong court [United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 4th Cir. 1980], as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. *** We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

Re:Mmph

[0xdeadbeef]

LOL. Ah, yes, the halcyon days when Slashdot was all about "open source" and RMS was a celebrity... and there was nary a political thought.

Today the government is using the FCC as a bludgeon to punish networks who offend them, the owners of the internet backbone are colluding with the government to spy on American citizens, DRM is being legislated, and oh, creationism is being taught in schools... obviously there is nothing political for the nerd to be interested in.

By all means, let's bring back vi vs. emacs! Let's get to the heart of things!

Here is a little tip, free and under a creative commons license... if your primary interest is giving away software, you don't matter. No one cares what you say, and all your whining about the intrusion of politics into your little world is as pointless my attempst to enlighten you. Just suck the pap and be content.

Re:Colbert Bombed

[Jeffool]

Bushes killed and Colbert shilled?!

Which of the two acts, Bush&Bush or Colbert, seemed to be under the house's employ? And which one drew blood?

Re:Colbert Bombed

[deanoaz]

The two "W's" act was very funny. It killed.

Colbert shilled for the hard left's 'Defeat at any Price' lobby so completely that his act was largely not funny, even to the leftist media types in attendence.

Re:Mmph

[mhollis]

It didn't get mass coverage because things like this never get mass coverage.

Huh?

It aired the next day on NBC Nightly News. I know, I promoed it in the Nightly Headlines I edited for air the next day.

MSNBC had it on all day the following day -- and they aired the complete performance (I hope they had rights, else NBC will do staff cutbacks to pay for the lawsuit like they did after MSNBC aired whole performances of Frank Sinatra way outside of the "Fair Use" window after he died).

I definitely did see a clip on CNN, though I don't know how much time they devoted to it.

I also saw someone tuned to Fox "news" channel and they had it on.

Frankly, I looked at this as an attempt by a pretty politically bankrupt administration trying to look like "the good guys who can take a joke" more than anything else. But this may run in the family. Bush I invited Dana Carvey to do his routine on him in his waning days as President -- and that got lots of airtime.

Re:Liberal Bunk

[Le Marteau]

Wasn't a COMPLETE waste of time. Had fun, got some karma points out of the deal, and I managed to piss some people off. People of the sort I ENJOY pissing off.

BTW, I was referring to the the AC who called me an idiot.

Re:I don't get it.

[Jett]

I must be retarded because that sounds like the stupidest thing I have ever heard. You really thought his WMD slideshow was funny? You didn't think it was, at the very least, in poor taste? You didn't think it was disrespectful to the troops who have put their lives on the line in Iraq? If I were shipped to the other side of the world to fight a dictator because I had been told he had WMD and was a clear and present danger against my nation and then the next year I saw my commander at some fancy party joking about it I would not take that as an expression of his "confidence".

Re:Mmph

[killjoe]

I will repeat myself.

You are a republitard. You and people like you are a stain on America. You and your ilk give the rest of the country a bad name.

Why don't you go and do some reading for a change. Stop getting all your news from talk radio and fox news.

Re:Liberal Bunk

[thatguywhoiam]

spiritually retarded

My new favourite phrase. Thank you for that.

Re:Colbert Bombed

[thatguywhoiam]

I disagree entirely. I thought it was very good -- and I am conservative, and Republican, and a journalist, and I've seen every episode of The Colbert Report -- and I think most people were not laughing because most of what he said was directed at the journalists themselves.

Too true - and how sad is it that the press didn't then take this golden chance to redeem themselves, and actually report Colbert's speech? Even though it would be painful? But no, silence. It figures.

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

Those political stories belong here because they have some technical content.

This had none.

Hey, turn this into a political site if you want. It'll be great.

As for being "enlightened," all I did was say, "boy, it would be interesting it Slashdot was still on topic."

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

Eh, ok.

Then why is everyone complaining that it's not being aired?

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

You keep repeating yourself.

I have important things to do. You apparently have nothing important to do.

I am not a Republican.

I read. I don't watch Fox News... I don't even have television (I own the device, but have no cable, and there is no antenna signal here because of the geography). I get all of my news from newspapers (New York Times and campus papers). My friends come from a fairly diverse, multinational background.

As for education, I am pursuing my PhD.

As for my political orientation. I'm not a republican.

Your continued insistance that I am is only a sign that you want to win. You want, finally, to win an argument and feel smart. Simply put, you need to stop. You really need to stop. You're pissing me off. You're not replying to my posts. You can't answer a simple question. You can't reply to a single response, and you can't post that second URL. Every time I catch you in something, you just drop that from the conversation. Which is why all you have left is your stupid "republitard "word, something that an elementary school student could have contrived, which is indicative of your education and the fact that you're trying to emulate a talk radio host.

The fact that you can't enter into mature, intelligent discourse is indicative of the fact that you're just unwilling to accept that you've lost.

So, answer me these, if you're so intelligent:

1) How was my use of communist all that offensive? How did I indicate that this usage was because it is a charged word?
2) How was your usage of "genocide" like mine?
3) What are those two URLS that you posted further up?
4) What is my political orientation?
5) Why do you feel that using "retard" as an insult is appropriate behavior, when mentally retarded people cannot help their situation? Do you feel that this is appropriately sensitive?
6) What is your level of education?

and, as a bonus
7) Why can't you answer these questions and enter into mature discourse.

Failure to answer these questions will have you permanently established as a complete moron who is incapable of mature discourse.

Re:Mmph

[killjoe]

I never called you a republican. I called you a republitard.

I don't for once second believe that somebody who is unable to read and unable to do google searches is educated. If you are going to shcool then it must really suck.

"Why can't you answer these questions and enter into mature discourse."

Because it's impossible to have a mature discussion with a republitard. You refuse to absorb information that contradicts your zealotly held positions. Fundamentalists are like that.

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

I did a quick google search on your nickname.

Perhaps "killjoe" is just a popular nickname, but it seems that your primary interests are FPS's, ranting incoherently, bandying your stupid term, and that you're not even American, you're Canadian.

Also, trust me, I'm at a very good school, not that that matters

Also, while we're at it, the world you're looking for is zealously, not zealotly, though, it's a nice attempt at correct diction.

You still dropped all of my questions, because you can't provide a proper response, because you know that you are wrong. If you are so intelligent, then answer the questions and stop with your new rhetorical flaw, "losing what shreds of coherency you started with."

Re:Mmph

[killjoe]

LOL I am canadian??? Where did you get that from? You really can't read can you.

"You still dropped all of my questions, because you can't provide a proper response, because you know that you are wrong."

Wrong again. I gave you links. You were unable to read and understand them.

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

Why are you trolling like this?

Seriously, you sent me one link the whole time. That one link doesn't address the other 6 questions that I asked in the GGGP.

Also, seriously, you're just picking on the things that you've made up. You're wasting my time. You're an idiot.

Want me to insult you too?

Ok, you're a stupid jackass liberaltard. Look, I made up a new term. It fits you perfectly. A liberaltard is someone who needs to make things up in order to win arguments. Most are in their 30's, but still live with their mothers.

Re:Courage???

[StikyPad]

The facts point out everything, but a vast section of this country doesn't want to admit they are wrong.

To be fair, most people don't want to admit when they're wrong. It's just a shortcoming of humanity in general. It doesn't help matters that there are compelling arguments for both sides of most issues.

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

killjoe!! We've wonz0red!!! LOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

I saw NitsujTPU typing to you. I snuck up behind him and snapped his neck!

Viva la resistance!! We'll kill all over those republitards tonight!! I'm off to censor a conservative broadcast that NitsujTPU was going to make on his conservative radio talkshow.

We'll silence all points of view that don't agree with ours in any way that we can... And I mean any way! (Since I don't believe in guns, I'm just going to bomb everyone. LOLOLOL!!!)

Anyway, From each according to his means, to each according to his needs! That's what I say, but not in a Socialist way!

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

http://www.xfire.com/profile/killjoe

The right to bear arms

[Reality Master 201]

Well, we actually have the right to bear arms because of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." I believe the original intent (as expessed there) was to defend the nation against foriegn invaders. The founding fathers very clearly didn't want a standing national military in the US, and so state or local level militias would be required to provide a ready supply of soldiers should national defense be necessary.

That said, the same guys also didn't trust government to stay uncorrupt. "A little revolution, from time to time, is a good thing," as Jefferson once said. The unfortunate fact of the matter is, however, that the current government has a large standing army with weapons that far outstrip what even the most well armed civillian has. Effectve armed rebellion against the federal government and the persons running it is, for all intents and purposes, impossible.

And finally, regarding our freedom of the press. It seems like the most use they've made of it in the past 10 years or so was providing in depth reporting of the whereabouts and activities of Bill Clinton's penis.

Re:Liberal Bunk

[Le Marteau]

Thank YOU. For a moment, I thought I might have 'coined a phrase'. But a quick Google showed me that that phrase has been used before.

Oh well. I guess I'll just have to keep working and waiting on the perfect, unique phrase to come up which gets me into "Bartlett's Familiar Quotations"

Re:Mmph

[killjoe]

W00t. So you saw the word "killjoe" there and decided that...

A) I am the same person.
B) That Xfire is an authoritive source on the location of people who adopt pseudonyms.

What a fucking republitard!.

Re:Mmph

[killjoe]

So have you googled about the relationship between having degrees and voting for democrats (er I mean communists) yet?

Re:Courage???

[GReaToaK_2000]

I completely agree with you, and I am/(have been) willing to look at the other side, but find it increasingly difficult when all I get is argumentative tones.

I appreciate your comment.

Thanks,
G

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

Yes, but you never posted the link that you claim to have.

Also, I never called democrats communists.

You just decided that I have.

So, anyway, go away until you can speak like an adult.

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

Liberltard, duhhhh. Hahahahaha!

killjoe, you're so smart. How can I be like you?

Have you learned how to answer a question yet? What a liberaltard!

Stop wasting my time.

What about the 6th Amendment?

[Valdrax]

The 6th Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Note that this text lacks any requirement that the accused be a US citizen (not that that matters in the case of Jose Padilla). Note that the text lacks a clause of "but not if the accused is a really, really bad person." Nor is there a limit on borders within the US government must behave. Now, what part of locking up prisoners indefinitely in Guantanimo Bay without charges, without access to lawyers, without access to a jury trial, and without access to all witnesses against them is not in violation of the text above?

This government wanted to go even further than that. They actually argued unsuccessfully before the 9th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals that prisoners in Guantanimo have no standing to challenge their detention and treatment even if they were being tortured and summarily executed!

Regardless of what you think about the guilt or innocence of terrorist suspects, there is a truly frightening aspect to the idea that this government has asserted its right to "war powers" in an indefinite length conflict against terrorism to abduct people worldwide (including US citizens like Jose Padilla) and hold them indefinitely in overseas prisons where they assert the right to torture and execute them with no judicial oversight. The only qualifications to fall into this legal black hole is that the government says that you're an "enemy combatant" or a "terrorist suspect" and to be successfully seized and flown out of country. After that, they would argue that you essentially have no rights. There is a reason we have rule of law and protections for the accused -- to prevent people from being disappeared, Soviet-style.

Wake me up if/when impeachment proceedings start. Otherwise, stop spreading FUD.

Impeachment means nothing. It's a partisan political tool now. Clinton was impeached and threatened with removal from office for lying under Oath about an act of sexual infidelity. Bush has essentially wiped his rear end with the Constitution, defied Congress repeatedly, and blatantly broken laws meant to restrain Presidential power, and because the Congress is controlled by his own party, nothing will happen to him.

Saying that he's innocent of crimes because his own buddies won't hold him accountable displays a cowardly and contemptable disregard for reality and standards of law.

Re:Mmph

[killjoe]

LIberterian: Somebody who belives no two people can have the same nym. Somebody who takes the word of a web site as an authoritive source on the geographical location of a nym.

Nope, that's not a liberterian. The liberterians I know tend to be pretty smart people. At a minimum they don't confuse liberals with communists and they seem to be savvy enough to do google searches.

If you are liberterian you are an especially stupid one. SInce the term republitard covers all people who are gullable then it's an accurate description of you. The fact you call yourself a liberterian does not negate your obvious feeble mind and willingness to accept absurd facts.

Re:Mmph

[killjoe]

"Yes, but you never posted the link that you claim to have."

So you are not convinced that educated people tend be more liberal (er I mean communist) right.

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/6885.h tml

http://eastcoastconditionzero.xgs-rules.com/themes /bismarck/playerstat.php?playerID=%5B%7C%3DN1CF%3D %7C%5Dkilljoe%3CMJR%3E&config=cfg-default.php

Where's your link about democrats and education?

And, why are you picking on me (and looking like an idiot... it's not working)? Again, I've done none of the things that you seem to claim.

Your cool little term seemed to be a hit with everyone here:
http://www.brainshrub.com/canadian-comment-invade- iran

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

I actually never said that I'm not convinced that educated people are not more liberal. I asked you to provide a citation. Again, that's what we do in academia. That's what's expected if you're going to cite statistics. I've provided a citation from an academic instition, written by a professor, that asserts that your statistic is a statistical myth. That the largest contributor to the mix is your fiduciary background.

You just never provided a citation. If you did, then you could cut and paste the link for me in your next message.

I realize that you need to feel that you've won this argument. I realize that you think that simply repeating your stupid term, calling me stupid, and ignoring all of my arguments will help you to win. It won't. It won't make you look smart.

You can't even state what facts you think that I cling to. You just say that I cling to them and that I'm a republitard.

But how about this. I'll just say you won. You can feel special then.

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

I should clarify, just in case you do choose to actually read the link rather than falling back on your tired insult (which isn't that clever). It doesn't directly address education, it does address wealth. These aren't really intrinsically related, but then, neither is ownership of a passport.

One thing is for sure though, it does debunk a the myth regarding incomes. Another thing is for sure, it's actually written by authoritative sources, who apparently felt that financial background was a more important contributor to this matter.

Anyway, good luck with your link :-D

Re:Mmph

[killjoe]

I'll even create a URL for you because I know how incompetent you are.
Here. It's a lot of words though so you are going have to read OK? I'll pull out a quote for you.

"Liberals have the highest education level of any typology group 49% are college graduates and 26% have some postgraduate education. But the Enterprisers also include a relatively high percentage of college graduates (46%), although fewer Enterprisers than Liberals have attended graduate school (14%).

Pro-Government Conservatives stand out among Republican groups for their modest incomes. About half (49%) have annual household incomes of less than $30,000; just 13% of Enterprisers and 26% of Social Conservatives have incomes in that range. Pro-Government Conservatives' annual household incomes are comparable to those of Disadvantaged Democrats and Bystanders, and much lower than those of other GOP groups.

Huge disparities in education also divide both Democratic and Republican typology groups. Just 13% of Disdvantaged Democrats have completed college (9% college grads, 4% postgraduate), compared with nearly half of Liberals. Educational differences between Liberals and Conservative Democrats are nearly as large (49% vs. 16%).

Among Republicans, just 15% of Pro-Government Conservatives have completed college, compared with 45% of Enterprisers. There also are wide disparities in education among the three independent groups, with Upbeats (37%) far more likely to have completed college than Bystanders (13%) or Disaffecteds (11%). "

That's from the Pew research center. There are more if you want to read about it.

So you are still convinced that I am the same killjoe that is playing those games huh? Good for you. You don't let any logic enter into your brain at all. Keep your wilfull ignorance. You are going to need it when you vote.

Finally I am glad the republitard meme is catching on. The world needs less people like you and the best way to do that is to shine a light on your kind.

Re:Mmph

[killjoe]

It doesn't "bust" it, it just provides a finer grained detail about the voting patterns inside of richer and poorer states. It admits that richer states vote democratic and also admits that there is a higher degree of agreement inside the rich states regardless of income level.

If you read that article and came to conclusion it "busted" anything then you seriously need to brush up on your comprehension skills.

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

I just wanted you to post the link. Thanks.

Actually, I was never all that convinced of it. Are you still convinced of all of the junk that you just made up about me?

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

The bottom line, the study suggests, is that little has changed in terms of income's general influence on individual voting patterns: in every presidential election since 1952, the richer a voter is, the more likely that voter is to vote Republican, regardless of ethnicity, sex, education or age.

I guess.

Perhaps you need to brush up on yours...

Re:Mmph

[killjoe]

I am fully convinced that you are incapable of absorbing information that disagrees with your already made up irrational beliefs. Furthermore I am fully convinced that you remain wilfully ignorant so that you will not be exposed to ideas that might cause you to actually think about whether your beliefs are based on fact.

That makes you a republitard. In fact that's the definition of the word.

So yes, I am still convinced of all that "junk".

Re:Funny?

[Valdrax]

How did George Bush trick George Tenet into thinking the WMD case was a "slam dunk?"

He didn't. He and others in his administration made it quite clear that that's what they wanted to hear. In the face of the downgrading of the role of the CIA in intelligence gathering as Rumsfield has acted to shift such responsibilities to the Pentagon and in face of his own personal career gain, he gave the President what he wanted to hear.

This is despite the fact that people told him the source of the "mobile biologicql weapons labs" allegation was completely unreliable. This allegation was again made on May 28, 2003 after the war and after others had said they were most likely used for making hydrogen for weather balloons. Then there was of course the CIA analyst who thought that aluminium rocket tubes where meant to be parts for a uranium enrichment centrifuge despite their agreed upon lack of sutability by nearly all other experts (wrong shape, wrong size, coated with a weather-proofing material that would poison the reaction, and even if true would make less potent centrifuges than the ones Iraq has already used pre-Gulf War). A complete debunking is here. The CIA knew the yellowcake in Niger argument was wrong in March 2002 thanks to Wilson's report.

Now, in spite of all of these supposed "intelligence failures" and in spite of failing to connect the dots to prevent September 11th, the President gives George Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom in December 2004. Isn't that just chummy?

And frankly, it is damned unpatriotic to spread these kinds of lies about Bush.

They're not lies. The evidence has been amply documented that the administration had access to intelligence that debunked all their WMD claims and even had made a mole out of one of Saddam's inner circle who told the CIA that Iraq had no WMD programs. Instead, they chose to go forward with the claims to get the American people behind the idea. I know that I was sold on the idea after the 2003 State of the Union address until all the debunking started to come out over the next few months.

Furthermore, I think you sincerely fail to understand what patriotism is. I'll turn this question around on you: Was it unpatriotic for Iraqis to question Saddam Hussein?

We have leader that has contempt for the electorate and contempt for rule of law as shown repeatedly by his actions in this war. It is in fact our patriotic duty to criticize the President. To mutely accept and praise whoever is in office is the antithesis of one's duty as a citizen of a democracy.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

--Teddy Roosevelt, 1912

Re:Mmph

[NitsujTPU]

You never told me what my irrational beliefs were. Rather, you did, but you just made them up.

Which irrational beliefs do you think that I hold on to?

It doesn't really matter. You can go off and feel that you've won. I already told you that. You're just going to keep harping at this pointless argument. All of that aside, I couldn't really care less what you think of me, since you have no impact on my life whatsoever. Also, I don't have a very high opinion of your intelligence, and, as such, don't believe that anything you say really reflects "fact." The fact that you become so riled up upon being asked for a citation exposes that you, in essence, are unwilling to accept any question of your authority on any topic. Unwillingess to be questioned in this matter, however, means that you are not used to actually having to speak with authority. Sure, you might manage a few people, you might even be in a position of power, but you're not used to having to back any of your claims with actual "fact." As such, your word can be accepted as no more than narcissistic blather.

Again, you can go off and feel that you've won. Please stop making this an insult-fest. If you are so gifted intellectually, then surely you can see that when you entered into this discussion, you sought nothing more than to sling some insults around and call me an idiot. This isn't how an intellectual would approach this conversation, nonetheless, this is how you approached it.

Also, as for my ignoring anything that goes counter to my beliefs. Every time I find a front on which to throw a fact at you, you just ignore that fact, or drop that front. I continue arguing the matter, but you censor anything out of thought that goes against your beliefes. It would appear, my foe, that you are, in fact, the republitard. I, on the other hand, have evaluated every one of your statements, and read your article, and everything. The same obviously can't be said for you, as, had you actually read one of the links I showed you, you would see that it was a prior discussion that you had entered to, in which nobody had cared of your "republitard" meme. Not even a slap on the back. Perhaps because they see it as a purile insult, the sort that would not grant them any intellectual endorsement.

In short, you're not too bright.

N Korea not really our problem ...

[willtsmith]

The North Koreans are on the footsteps of China. The bottom line to the whole situation was if China was comfortable with a nuclear armed North Korea, there was nothing we could do about it. We were fought to a standstill in the Korean war and we would have been fought to a standstill in any new Korean conflict. At the same time, the North Koreans are boxed in by American troops to the south and Chinese to the north.

So you see, North Korea's nukes change NOTHING. We cannot invade North Korea, and the North Koreans cannot invade anyone else. North Korea cannot actually USE their nuke as we would evaportate them in retaliation.

Mutually assured destruction works just as well with micro-powers as it does with super-powers. Except that is ... the micro-power typically cannot destroy the US. Typically, they cannot even deliver those weapons to the US, they would have to attack a US ally instead. The only thing that really changes is that invasion of that country (in some cases) becomes a non-option. If you're an asshole who thinks you have the right to tell everyone what to do, thats a big problem. If you're a decent person who believes you need to convince people of things, it's not really a problem.

kudos to colbert

[koroviev (begemot)]

He was funny. He told the truth. The truth is sad. What would you rather be - funny, sad or truthfull? Can you be ALL at the same time? Colbert rules..