more entertaining and less scripted both. :)

hopefully fixed.

 of the Keating Five, through marriage. THE Charles Keating with ties to the other financial crises in Savings and Loans.

 The story is being intentionally shoved in your face, by old crooks, liars and cheaters.

 No wonder John McCain's talking points sound like they are about 20 years old.

No thanks. John Stossel proved himself to be a special kind of jack*ass -- the kind who perpetuates a pervasive, pernicious myth while claiming to be exposing myths -- here:

May 16, 2007

The Tax-Cut Myth

By John Stossel
 

Yes, the tax cuts stimulated the economy and increased tax revenues.

[skip] 

Let's give President Bush some credit for the falling deficit. Because of his tax cuts, tax revenue...is pouring into the government's coffers.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/the_taxcut_myth.html  

If Stossel, a supposed journalist supposedly focused on exposing myths and setting people straight, had bothered to check with, oh, say, economists on this matter, even conservative economists, even Bush's own economists, he would have found a strong consensus that the Bush tax cuts had had a net negative impact on revenues, and that revenues were up despite the Bush tax cuts, not even in part because of them.

Sorry, I just have zero respect for a so-called journalist who so sucks so much, and I can think of better ways to spend my time than to watch or read anything he generates.

First, you've gotta see this cartoon:

Okay, anyway...

Nice analysis of how our system limits the range of discourse. I want to point out that what you describe isn't really a "fallacy of the middle ground"  since it this opinion covers the entire ground. In other words, it might be better described as a problem of a lack of imagination, or a lack of effort in seeking out alternative opinions, or just an unwillingness to think for yourself.

Also, I think it is worth nothing that  "middle ground" makes sense if we view these opinions as negotiating positions rather than issues of objective truth. In this case, each party states his ideal, and the practical negotiator finds some intermediate position that is agreeable to each party. Of course, even in this light, pure "middle ground" is lazy because the mutually agreeable space may be very strongly biased towards one end or the other. However, if both parties agree from the beginning, then there is nothing to discuss.

Finally, your comment is interesting because I've been thinking about how the Internet (and Swords Crossed, specifically) could function to expose people to a greater range of opinions, and thereby increase the range of proposals that are seen as reasonable by the general populations. I've been reading a lot of stuff by Democratic partisans about how the Republicans shifted the  "Overton window" such that previously radical ideas don't seem so radical...of course, the Republicans didn't invent this strategy.

Oh yeah, the Economist has been pointing out how Georgia's President participated in the recent fiasco. I appreciate how they are willing to admit the failings of both sides in a conflict (whether Russia/Georgia or Israel/Palistine) but still come to a judgement who deserves our support or opposition (and in what way we should support/oppose them).

I also heard Counterspin discussing the how Georgia's President clamped down on press freedom, and how the mainstream media refrains from making a fuss even though they make a big fuss when someone like Chavez does the same thing.