Pangloss

The exaggeration is yours, not CNN's. You want us to believe the economy is "unraveling". CNN, in that article at least, is just reporting what Greenspan said, which is that the economy is being impacted by the current financial crisis. They changed his choice of words for that headline, obviously, but not through intent to deceive, so far as I know. The worst-case scenario here is economic recession, not depression. That doesn't gel with your interpretation of his "'once-in-a-century' crisis" quote, since a recession would automatically not be as severe as the Great Depression of the 1930s, which was less than a century ago. So obviously he meant the crisis to the financial industry, not the crisis to the economy as a whole. On that level the crisis may indeed be more severe than the financial crisis that triggered the Great Depression. That was a very different time, with far fewer controls on the economy. He certainly knows about controls on the economy. Put another way, what Greenspan said does not support your proposition that the economy is "unraveling". CNN made a mistake with the headline. That's it. Of course, if you want to try and tell us how Alan Greenspan is unaware of the history of the Great Depression and its impact on this country, well hey, you go right ahead. I'm all ears.

Perspective is a funny thing. Nuclear weapons certainly seem like a big deal, don't they? The Wikipedia article on hurricanes cites a research study suggesting that the amount of energy they produce is the equivalent of 10 megatons every 20 minutes. And of course they go on for a week or two, sometimes longer. Reminds me of some of the Ringworld problems, where Louis Wu's always struggling with the scale of the thing.

Yes he did, he said it would impact the economy. I agree with that statement.

Financial crisis. Not economic crisis. It's a crisis for the financial industry, not for the economy. Greenspan made that clear. "Significant impact". Not "unraveling". Recession, not depression, etc.

Their examples expose their bias, but I guess they make no secret about that anyway, and yes, they're right about that.

Actually in the case of SNL that's not a new thing -- they're very aggressive about getting their stuff yanked ASAP in order to push their own video service. THAT gets censored, however, and rather severely -- some of their best sketches are deliberately delayed for dramatic presentation, or in some cases may never show up at all due to public-reaction controversy. But you're right about YouTube censorship on the rise; it's seemed that way to me as well, and I think it's a really bad sign.

Interesting post, iNow. I read a little about the View thing yesterday and my reaction was "gee, how oddly insightful and informative for that crowd". A bit of a shibboleth on my part -- I don't mean to sound sexist, but I don't have a whole lot of respect for the "Sex in the City" segment of our society (as demonstrated by any movie in which women are depicted dancing together in a kitchen and/or lamenting about The Evils Men Do). But that story gave me pause and I wondered if I should reconsider my perspective a bit. But that quote is a perfect illustration of what you're talking about, because it's so clear that in our current, highly-charged state we're not only more prone to extreme rhetoric, we're also more prone to extreme reaction. Not that I'm suggesting Behar was wrong in calling them "lies", but rather it's (a) stunning that she would say that to a presidential candidate (good on her), and (b) stunning that he would defend them. The point being that maybe we need to take our newfound confrontational political skills and turn them back on the memes that put us here in the first place. It's difficult to be fair with this -- I can't imagine Joy Behar making the same accusation to Barack Obama over his "100 years" comments -- but maybe that's what has to happen.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

So you aren't defending bascule's egregious exaggeration of your statistics, from 15% to "at death's door". Got it. Most stressful, perhaps, but also arguably the most medically cared-for individual on the planet. And if the statics weren't significant then you shouldn't have posted them. It has to mean something that you prefer to say something like "quite large" instead of "15%" (one term) or "32%" (two terms). I think what it means is that you want people to think the number is larger than what it actually is. And since we're talking about lies and exaggerations in "the depraved state of US politics", I think that what I think of what you're doing is spot-on relevant to this thread. If you don't like what's happening in American politics right now, stop cutting and pasting it. line[/hr] By the way, both Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush are now 84 years old, in spite of having served in "the most stressful office on the planet". Both continue to make personal appearances even decades after leaving office, and so far as I know neither is "at death's door".

I thought you guys were going to knock this stuff off? Do I have to close another thread?

More likely than Obama? Yes. More likely to die than not die during his term in office? No, he is not. And you posted the statistics on that yourself. So you are, above, participating in the same exaggeration as bascule, albeit in a less inflammatory manner. Why are you doing that? And neither of these things what bascule said: I hope you're not defending that comment, iNow.

I think if McCain had made a prayer at the Wailing Wall like that the left would be in an uproar about the danger to the country.

It isn't always religious people, but it's certainly a thing the religious right has become known for, I agree. A common example would be victim's rights advocates, e.g. the O.J. Simpson book.

No, he is not. And it's ironic that you're in here complaining about popular memes from Republicans while spreading one from Democrats yourself.

FactCheck had a bit on this as well; I just got a copy in email.

As the Politics moderator I can understand your concern and we realize there's a down side to the rule. I would be more than willing to discuss an exception for academic purposes, if you want to drop me a private message through the board software.

Interesting bit of controversy brewing for the iPhone today over the revelation that apparently it takes a screen shot every time you hit the Home button. It does this so that it can make that cool wipe effect that leads you into the next program, and when it's finish it supposedly deletes the shot, but apparently it can be (and has been) recovered by forensics experts and used as evidence. http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/09/hacker-says-sec.html

Rofl. For what it's worth, that's more or less the level I'm coming to view her participation in this election as well. It's unfortunate, actually. Given a few years to mature her positions and open her mind a bit, she might have become an interesting candidate for president. I like the idea of a governor-and-mother-of-five running for that office -- the level-headedness, the natural resistance to pressure, the necessity of fair play -- it's hard not to see value for the country in that kind of perspective. With experience and intelligence and worldly knowledge that could be a really powerful combination. Unfortunately there was a lot of that in the interview. The whole thing played out like a hard-right soccer mom used to badgering her liberal friends with logical fallacies but who's been prepped to dodge questions instead. line[/hr] Interesting article in the Washington Post today by Charles Krauthammer, who created the term "Bush Doctrine". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Rofl. I'm sure we can come up with some kind of name. Something that accentuates, you know, the social aspect of the concept.

The only time I support control over the dissemination of information is when it's either with regard to children (and there specifically only to avoid premature exposure), and in the case of temporary withholding in order to either guarantee the rights of individuals against mob rule, police state, etc (such as undercover agents or victims of crimes). As with flag burning, we can't call ourselves a free society unless we're willing to tolerate even those things which we abhor. Tolerance is NOT the same thing as promotion. It just is not.

Actually after watching the interview I don't think she suggested that that one simple fact gave her particular insight into Russia, I think she was just making a comment about something she thought was interesting. The McCain camp does seem to be playing up that insight angle, but I don't think she was doing so in that interview.

Well actually what I was asking is when we can do TWO things that are right at the same time, as opposed to insisting that only one of those things be done because if both are done then people might stop doing the more important thing.

When do we start?

No, I don't know that the McCain campaign is worse, and I don't see the point of determining which one is. I just popped back in here for a moment to post this graceful interlude from divisive politics that was seen earlier today when the two candidates, who had earlier agreed not to air any attacks on one another today, took the time to visit Ground Zero together: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/mccain-obama--1.html

Oh was it? I thought it was "John McCain wants us in Iraq for 100 years." Well look, I could post a few sarcastic "really..." and "I'm shocked..." reactions to your comments above, but in an effort to find common ground, I do understand the sentiment of annoyance with the current administration. At the very least, it's somewhat more legitimately-based than Republican "ABC" sentiment at the end of the Clinton administration. But, per the tone of the OP, you're absolutely right and we really need to move on past this sort of thing. It just gets us no where. Speaking of which, did anyone catch the Lou Dobbs Independent Convention this week? I saw a little bit of it, and thought it was pretty good. He's obviously a populist ala Bill O'Reilly, and that's his schtick and all that (gotta sell that air time, ya know), but I think he makes some pretty good points now and then.