AggieDave 6 #1 January 25, 2007 This is an interesting read. Most of you should know Ben Stein's political history, so his opinion shouldn't be surprising. QuoteThe Lynching of the President By Ben Stein Published 1/25/2007 1:49:40 AM So there I was, lying in my bed in Malibu with my dogs, watching Mr. Bush's State of the Union speech. I thought it was darned good. Realistic, gracious, modest, sensible. I happen to think we should get out of Iraq yesterday, but I thought Mr Bush put forward his case well. And Congress responded graciously and generously on both sides of the aisle. Then, whaam, as soon as the speech was over, ABC was bashing him, telling us how pathetic he was, how irrelevant he was, how weak he was, how unrealistic he was. Right after that, Jim Webb gave a very short speech biting Bush's head off -- but not making any concrete proposals about anything. No network person mentioned how simple minded and unrealistic he was. Then, tonight, the next night, I walked into the kitchen where my wife had left the radio going with NPR to amuse the cats. NPR was having a call-in show talking about the State of the Union. The first speaker I heard was a country music legend, Merle Haggard, who said he had never seen things so bad in this country. Then a legion of anonymous callers chimed in with similar thoughts. And suddenly it hit me. The media is staging a coup against Mr. Bush. They cannot impeach him because he hasn't done anything illegal. But they can endlessly tell us what a loser he is and how out of touch he is (and I mean ENDLESSLY) and how he's just a vestigial organ on the body politic right now. The media is doing what it can to basically oust Mr. Bush while still leaving him alive and well in the White House. It's a sort of neutron bomb of media that seeks to kill him while leaving the White House standing (for their favorite unknown, Barack Obama, to occupy). How dare NPR ask a country singer who hates Bush to spew venom at Bush? Merle Haggard is a truly great singer and musician, but he's just one old guy. There are plenty of country singers who love Bush and would campaign for him right now. And in what sense is Mr Haggard an expert on the state of the union? The truth is that we are in a huge economic boom. We are coming off a mammoth real estate explosion that put the most Americans in history in their own homes. We have totally full employment. After decades of stagnation, real wages are rising. Gasoline prices are way, way down. The nation is wealthier than it has ever been (although this is very unevenly distributed). Opportunities for subsidized higher education are better than they have ever been. Most important of all, who would have ever been rash enough on September 12, 2001 to say there would not be one major or even minor successful terrorist incident against the U.S. homeland in over five years? Who would have thought we would escape without more massive terror? But we have, and it is a foolhardy person who would say that's an accident. Bush may not have done it by himself, but he had something to do with it. True, we are mired in a war without end, costing us far too may great young and old Americans and too many limbs and wrecked families and vastly too much money. But we all know we're getting out soon. It was a huge mistake, but I'd like to see a President who did not make immense mistakes. Compared with the mistakes of Truman and FDR and Kennedy, Iraq is a mistake, but not worse than theirs. True, we have virtually no federal oversight of corporate looting and executive suite misconduct, but we didn't have any under Clinton either. The rich get away with murder. That's what happens in the real world. Bush is to blame, but all politicians cater to the rich, and Hillary will and Barack Obama will, too. It's nauseating and I fight it constantly, but that's life. My point: let's be aware that Bush has presided over a lot of success in addition to substantial failure. My second point: no one elected the media to anything. If we let them lynch the man we elected as President we are throwing out the Constitution with the war in Iraq. In the studios and newsrooms, there is a lynch mob at work. Let's see it for what it is. We have a good man who has made mistakes in the Oval Office. He's the only President we have, and I trust him a lot more than I trust unelected princes of the newsroom. http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10928--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #2 January 25, 2007 as much as I don't like Bush, I do have a great deal of respect for Ben Stein. I may not agree with him on every point, but I still think he's a pretty level-headed, "switched on" guy. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #3 January 25, 2007 How much more accurate does he need to be? It seems he summed it up well and anyone could agree with him, if their hatred of Bush, or conservatism, did not cloud their judgement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #4 January 25, 2007 Ben Stein was a speechwriter for Richard Nixon, just as Pat Buchanan was. On TV, he's a lot funnier than Pat is, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #5 January 25, 2007 Agreed. Bush is not the best president ever, but he is also not the worst president ever. PS: I blame pessimism and lack of rational logic and reasoning."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #6 January 25, 2007 QuoteAgreed. Bush is not the best president ever, but he is also not the worst president ever. Maybe so. After all, there were Ulysses Grant and Warren Harding. Then Bush. So maybe he's the third-worst. Great legacy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #7 January 25, 2007 Apparently Ben didn't listen to the whole show on NPR. I heard it yesterday and the point of the show was to get broad input from all different kinds of people on their opinion of the State of the Union, not the State of the Union speech necessarily but their current take on the state of the US and how it impacts them. Stein.....Stein.....anyone........anyone....... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #8 January 25, 2007 Ben Stein addressed the current state of the union when he mentioned the housing market, the economy, the lack of terrorist attacks, etc... The things that do not get mentioned on NPR because the programming at NPR is biased towards liberals and democrats."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #9 January 25, 2007 QuoteBen Stein addressed the current state of the union when he mentioned the housing market, the economy, the lack of terrorist attacks, etc... The things that do not get mentioned on NPR because the programming at NPR is biased towards liberals and democrates. What's a democrate? Besides, I listened to NPR yesterday and I heard all of the things you mentioned. That's the problem with "liberals". How dare they give us so much information?!? Don't they know that talking points are so much easier to remember? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #10 January 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteBen Stein addressed the current state of the union when he mentioned the housing market, the economy, the lack of terrorist attacks, etc... The things that do not get mentioned on NPR because the programming at NPR is biased towards liberals and democrates. What's a democrate? Besides, I listened to NPR yesterday and I heard all of the things you mentioned. That's the problem with "liberals". How dare they give us so much information?!? Don't they know that talking points are so much easier to remember? Forgive my mispelling, I am only human. I should clarify, I did not mean that the issues do not get mentioned, I mean that only one side of the issues gets mentioned (the majority of the time). PS: I also listen to NPR. I believe in listening to all sides of an issue in order to make an informed decision. I know to many people that only listen to one source of information to make their decisions."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #11 January 25, 2007 I love Professor Stein. And he mirrors a lot of what I think. I like this article because it does not have a real ideological slant. He mentions the mistakes and his lack of support for the war. No vitriol. No hatred. No adoration. No real "feelings." Just thought. He makes good points. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #12 January 25, 2007 Does anyone take issue with the main idea of Prof. Stein's article? Like a few people have said... I think he's pretty close to right on. "The Media" seems to have become a player in an arena where it has absolutely no business. But I guess many people will disagree since they agree with what goes on.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #13 January 25, 2007 QuoteDoes anyone take issue with the main idea of Prof. Stein's article? Like a few people have said... I think he's pretty close to right on. "The Media" seems to have become a player in an arena where it has absolutely no business. But I guess many people will disagree since they agree with what goes on. I believe that he is, as well. Not all that surprising, from the Mao-stream media...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #14 January 25, 2007 >But I guess many people will disagree since they agree with what goes on. The media is entertainment, not a serious policy instrument. When people mistake it for a serious policy instrument bad decisions ensue. We're more at fault than they are. We're the ones that mistake their popular shows for accurate news; we're conflating popularity with pertinence. When the media is saying something one party likes, they're all over "free press" and the benefits of an unfettered media. When the media says something one party dislikes, they're "staging a coup," using a "neutron bomb" to "kill the president." That's been happening with both parties for decades now, to the extent that I cant' take either one very seriously. Ben Stein is a smart guy. But if you agree with what he wrote, you are agreeing with the same media he is condemning. It's quite fashionable for media outlets to decry the negative effects of the very articles they are publishing, but the whole process strikes me as somewhat self-absorbed. Want to get away from this? Ignore what Ben Stein, the CBS anchor, Newsmax etc are saying and go to sources as far from our political process as possible. The BBC isn't bad. Australia's news.com.au is decent as well. They still have bias, but at least it's not going to be republican vs democrat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #15 January 25, 2007 So, what you're saying is that it's near impossible to get objective reporting in this country. Instead we should trust foreigners to give an even take on what's going on here. Is that about it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #16 January 25, 2007 QuoteSo, what you're saying is that it's near impossible to get objective reporting in this country. Instead we should trust foreigners to give an even take on what's going on here. Is that about it? The problem is that the 'take' still isn't even... those patrols in Bagdad where nothing happens aren't 'sexy' enough to be reported on... so the overwhelming majority of what people see on the news are the battles and troops being killed, and they think that is all that is happening over there.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #17 January 25, 2007 QuoteThe truth is that we are in a huge economic boom. We are coming off a mammoth real estate explosion that put the most Americans in history in their own homes. We have totally full employment. After decades of stagnation, real wages are rising. Gasoline prices are way, way down. The nation is wealthier than it has ever been i want some of what ben's smoking"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." A. Sachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #18 January 25, 2007 >So, what you're saying is that it's near impossible to get >objective reporting in this country. No. Some media sources here are fairly objective. But they need not be; there is no law saying they must all be objective, or that they must be balanced instruments of US policy, or that they must even be accurate. Many _are_ accurate, because some people prefer accuracy over hype. Unfortunately, many people prefer hype - and the media obliges. But even the ones who are objective are not perceived that way. Let's take some examples: If party A is having a war that party B opposes, and it's going really well, then the media are the stooges of party A, and party B claims they are hyping the war for purely political reasons - even when their reporting is accurate. If party A is having a war that party B opposes, and it's going really poorly, then the media are the stooges of party B, and party A claims they are reporting only the bad things for purely political reasons - even when their reporting is accurate. Those are claims that have been made hundreds of times on many different topics. For a reversal of what Ben Stein talked about, witness the media hype surrounding the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. Then the media outlets try to rebut the claims of party A, through editorials and whatnot. Other media outlets tsk-tsk the bias, while continuing to report exactly the same stuff - which they think is accurate, but party A thinks is the same old biased stuff. Sort of a meaningless cycle. To avoid this dance you can go to outside sources. Their bias (or lack thereof) may still be present, but there's a lot less chance that they are pandering to the democrats/republicans, and even less chance that they will always be reacting to claims of democratic or republican bias. In other words, it's harder to blame them for skewing the news toward one party or the other because they simply have less reason to do so. They can serve as a good "reality check" for claims of bias. If Australia, the BBC and UkraNews are reporting similar things - it's probably not just FOX's right wing bias. Even the best political spinmeister isn't going to be able to claim that a story from the Ukraine is "just the usual right wing spin." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #19 January 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe truth is that we are in a huge economic boom. We are coming off a mammoth real estate explosion that put the most Americans in history in their own homes. We have totally full employment. After decades of stagnation, real wages are rising. Gasoline prices are way, way down. The nation is wealthier than it has ever been i want some of what ben's smoking Yeah...you might want to look at some CBO numbers first.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #20 January 25, 2007 QuoteSo, what you're saying is that it's near impossible to get objective reporting in this country. Instead we should trust foreigners to give an even take on what's going on here. Is that about it? I'd say that sums it up pretty well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #21 January 25, 2007 Ben Stein said: Quote no one elected the media to anything. If we let them lynch the man we elected as President we are throwing out the Constitution with the war in Iraq. In the studios and newsrooms, there is a lynch mob at work. Let's see it for what it is. We have a good man who has made mistakes in the Oval Office. He's the only President we have, and I trust him a lot more than I trust unelected princes of the newsroom. Bullshit. These were the same arguments made by Nixon apologists during Watergate when, coincidentally (as I mentioned above), Stein was a speechwriter for Nixon. A democracy without vigorous and independent news media is not a democracy at all, for the basic currency of a democracy is information to the people about what its government is all about. The felonies against the people committed by the Nixon White House (including the President himself, referred to by the grand jury as an "unindicted co-conspirator") would never have come to light, but for news reporters. There's a reason why the press is known as "the fourth estate": because it is one of the core institutions that make up a civil society. By the way, Ben Stein is no mere scholar: he's been a partisan professional political operative, and now his own career is in the entertainment media. To promote their own careers, people in the media need to promote themselves, which means they need to get their names and faces and words out there at any perceived opportunity - just like Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, Pat Buchanan and Alan Dershowitz all do. They're opportunistic feeders. To be honest with you, I question the true depth of his sanctimonious outrage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #22 January 25, 2007 QuoteI love Professor Stein. And he mirrors a lot of what I think. I like this article because it does not have a real ideological slant. He mentions the mistakes and his lack of support for the war. No vitriol. No hatred. No adoration. No real "feelings." Just thought. He makes good points. Actually, its somewhat hypocritcal. He has issues with a country singer expressing his negative opinion. Yet, Stein has no issue with putting out a neutral opinion. One person's thoughts deserve publicity over the others as long as it has no slant to it? He made a few decent points, but I was blinded by duplicity._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #23 January 25, 2007 Quote>So, what you're saying is that it's near impossible to get >objective reporting in this country. How can the reporting be neutral if the source isn't? Look at some of the venom that Hillary, McCain and Cheney have dished out in the past week. Hillary bashed only the GOP, esp the Pres/VP, McCain bashed both sides and targeted the VP specifically, and when confronted Cheney went after Hillary because "she is a democrat" and then said McCain is a good guy. _________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #24 January 25, 2007 QuoteActually, its somewhat hypocritcal. He has issues with a country singer expressing his negative opinion. Yet, Stein has no issue with putting out a neutral opinion Stein was a speach writter for Nixon and Ford. He has a JD, A trial lawyer for the FTC, he TAUGHT about civil rights and securities law. QuoteBen Stein (Benjamin J. Stein) was born November 25, 1944 in Washington, D.C., (He is the son of the economist and writer Herbert Stein) grew up in Silver Spring, Maryland, and attended Montgomery Blair High School. He graduated from Columbia University in 1966 with honors in economics. He graduated from Yale Law School in 1970 as valedictorian of his class by election of his classmates. He helped to found the Journal of Law and Social Policy while at Yale. He has worked as a poverty lawyer in New Haven and Washington, D.C., a trial lawyer in the field of trade regulation at the Federal Trade Commission in Washington, D.C., a university adjunct at American University in Washington, D.C., at the University of California at Santa Cruz, and at Pepperdine University in Malibu, CA. At American U. He taught about the political and social content of mass culture. He taught the same subject at UCSC, as well as about political and civil rights under the Constitution. At Pepperdine, he has taught about libel law and about securities law and ethical issues since 1986. In 1973 and 1974, he was a speech writer and lawyer for Richard Nixon at The White House and then for Gerald Ford. As for Haggard: QuoteAfter earning a local reputation, Haggard's money problems caught up with him, and he was arrested for a robbery in 1957. He was sent to prison in San Quentin for 15 years. Even in prison, Haggard was wild. He planned an escape but never followed through, and he ran a gambling and brewing racket from his cell. So I think a guy that taught law and finance know more about the state of the economy than a guy that has a GED and a rap sheet. EDIT: I like his music, but I'd rather have Stein handle my money and value his opinon on legal matters more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #25 January 25, 2007 QuoteBy the way, Ben Stein is no mere scholar: No, but he is more of a scholar than Haggard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
