• http://prosario-2000.blogspot.com Pedro Rosario

    It is really pathetic up to what point Fox News has to go to really convince people that the all-out war in Iraq as well as the deaths of US soldiers and incredible spending on US budget is good for the economy. Reality is that the US cannot borrow money forever, and if the deficit gets to be too critical, it will place the US and the world in general in another recession.

  • sameer

    Surely I cannot be the only person hoping to see at least a partial transcript of that broadcast? I would imagine that to avoid this blog being hit by a Fox lawsuit, we only need to find a conservative blogger who has license to wax eloquent about its main points?

    Any one out there who can provide me with a few moments of idle entertainment?

  • Adam

    Man. This is the kind of thing I’d expect to be a humourous exaggeration of Fox’s bias, something seen in a Fark photoshop contest. This is so pathetic it’s funny… but still pathetic.

  • http://theantisthenes.blogspot.com/ leon cohn

    this made me chuckle, it is sort of as if they are saying; “massive death, it too can be productive for american interests”

  • http://metaandmeta.typepad.com “Q” the Enchanter

    This is why I’m for bias in the media. A sanity bias, that is.

  • http://www.hyperwords.net Frode Hegland

    Yes indeed. This is why we declined to add ‘Fox’ to ‘News’ on Hyperwords, our Firefox Extension that makes all the words on the web interactive (like the sales line there?). When we make it customizable, people can add Fox if they like, but for now, it just ain’t news in our editorial opinion.

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    This FOX headline is a blatant example of the mindset that places “good” in opposition to “evil.” Once one does that, its easy to rationalize violence. Such a mind would ask – “But wait! I want to read the transcript. Perhaps there is a valid point here.”

    I’m always a little irked when I see “cost of the iraq war” counters on websites. I realize that the intentions of such counters is to try and scrounge up as many arguments as possible against the war, so in that sense I have sympathy. After all, if such arguments can push some war-supporters back, they have validity. But on the other hand, it sends an empty message, failing to reach to the core of the issue. It implies that if the monetary cost was not outrageous, there might exist justification for the murder of thousands. Humanity need not an “argument” against war. Humanity need not the “transcript” to this FOX discussion.

  • Tom

    It implies that if the monetary cost was not outrageous, there might exist justification for the murder of thousands.

    Well, the sad truth of the matter is that $250 billion hits a lot closer to home for a lot of people than 35,000 dead foreigners. All a money counter really implies, though, is that the monetary cost can be ascertained from a single reliable source and will stop accumulating after we leave.

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    Tom said:

    All a money counter really implies, though, is that the monetary cost can be ascertained from a single reliable source and will stop accumulating after we leave.

    Yes. A money counter on its own doesn’t imply anything more than that. I should have said that such money counters could be used to escape the central issue at stake by attacking this human war on superficial grounds. That, of course, is not a problem with the counter. It is a problem with the person creating significance out of a relatively insignificant statistic. How much this war costs is not significant in my eyes, as I am not interested in stopping just this war. I am interested in stopping war.

    You were right in pointing out that I was painting a broad conclusion that those whose post a counter are automatically implying that $$$ is what is primarily at stake. Sorry, I didn’t mean that – it came out wrong.