The consequences of Bear Stearns' failing are simply too great ... the world's financial institutions are bound together more closely than they have ever been before in a web that is extraordinarily fragile. If one string unravels, the whole structure seems poised to disintegrate -- a process that will inflict pain on a far greater number of people than those who go to work in buildings on the southern tip of Manhattan.

It seems that whenever people try to explain why the bailout was necessary, they give us nothing but metaphors. The complex web, the unraveling string, etc. It's beginning to sound as flimsy as the claims that if the govenment can't have unfettered eavesdropping then the terrorists will kill us.

If there's a really good (metaphor-free) explanation for why the collapse of Bear Stearns would have been unacceptable--and I grant that there may be one--I have yet to hear it.

You can argue that they're wrong in their beliefs, damaging to the country, self-defeating in their tactics, any of that, and you'd have a strong argument. But then you attribute their actions to narcissism, self-involvement and spotlight-craving? And you didn't even argue this; you just thoughtlessly assumed it. Why? Just because it was a handy insult, that's why. You have no idea what their motives are, and what does it matter anyway? Can't you even grant that they might believe they're acting in the best interests of the country, even though they're wrong? And can't you see that your feeble attempt to dismiss them on some other, irrelevant grounds (their motives) makes your real argument--that their candidacy is a bad idea--a lot weaker?

I've never voted for Nader and I won't do so this November, but it's these kind of tactics that make me want to. And that lead people like me to think that Democrats are looking an awful lot like Republicans lately.

Wow, somebody's an asshole today.

Count me as another reader at work who can't watch vidoes. You have fun with them, though.

... if the letters thread were video, too. Make that happen.

This video thing might be a fun sidebar to the column (or not), but it's not a replacement for the column, even occasionally. See Damianus' comments upthread.

The day that I find you (or Greenwald) lamely standing in front of a brick wall and reciting your column to me might be the last day I visit Salon.

I hear you, and I don't mean to discount the damage he did, but it sounds like you're saying that Romney was rejected by Republican primary voters because of his poor record as governor. Does that sound to you like the way Republican presidential candidates are chosen? I just find that unbelievable.

... that Republicans didn't fall in love with Romney. A self-made rich white guy, pro-business, fanatical about the GWOT and family values, etc. Plus, he looks the part, and he might be able to pull some swing votes from the Northeast. The minute I saw this automaton, I thought he was a Republican wet dream, especially against the unpredictable McCain and Giuliani. Was the Mormonism really that objectionable? What was the problem?

... add to that the fact that there are only 5 players in the game at a time, and the relationships and communication among the players--both one-to-one and as an entire group--become even more important.

Chemistry is bunk in baseball. Not in basketball.

Please stand by. I'm trying to talk myself into this.

I'll buy it. But it'd be entertaining to hear you talk yourself into it.

His players' (apparently) high opinion of him is mitigated by the fact that they're a highly self-selected group, more so than with most coaches. No kid is going to play for Knight (esp. in Lubbock) who doesn't already think he's the shit, or at least is already predisposed to saying "Yes, Master."

The same is true for his players' high graduation rates. As someone said, it's reported that Knight only selected "good" kids for the team, and if that's the case then you can't give him the credit for them turning into good adults. If he'd coached the "bad" kids and guided them to success, then he'd have something to brag about.

If the best thing about him was that he knew how to win, how does he really stack up statistically, aside from total wins? I'm no stathead, but a quick glance shows at least a dozen coaches with better winning percentages, several of whom have a championship or two under their belt.

... and if they stick with the Roman numerals for Super Bowl 50 it will be Super Bowl L. I mean, seriously, Super Bowl L? It looks more like a size than a number. Good luck to the graphic designer on that one.