In fairness, this is an opinion piece, buut so poorly developed that it has next to nothing to say besides 'the right wing is characterized by ignoramuses'. I expect more salient factual backing of examples and quotations of those ignorant people in a responsible opinion piece.

Mr. Chomsky marshals cogent analysis backed by credible evidence to expose our political system as dysfunctional. Our elected officials are toadies only representative of the wealthy, divorced from the views of those voters they govern. This imbalance prevents solution of problems that are otherwise straightforward and easily rectified, and the situation is so severe that it threatens the very survival of our democratic state.

To its credit, the article does devote one paragraph to the "scientific consensus" supporting AGW and vindicating the scientists accused of distortions, but the rest is follows the "he said, she said" formula for so-called balanced reportage. It fails to review any salient data to show how absurd Mr. Perry's posture is, or relate it to the right wing corporate funded backers of such pap. The Limbaugh quote was the only link to irresponsible media propagandizing that could've been explored. Huntsman's strategist deserved more extensive coverage due to his unequivocal endorsement of science as the only reality we have to trust.

Reich's analogy makes clear the nature of the obstructionism employed for political ends, and the potential damage that the posturing might very well bring upon the citizens. The article is commentary, and too short for development with further evidence, which I'd be more satisfied with.

It is a thought provoking editorial commentary about the mind-set that many have toward insoluble problems; that any darkness may be turned to rainbows and butterflies with the application of money, ingenuity and elbow grease. Yet so many of the situations referenced (and climate disruption with resultant food production instability isn't addressed--a major omission for our future well-being) are progressing toward furtherance of inequities that it should be possible to at least talk, discuss rationally, the problems and options open to our species in its darkening hour. I must note that some European nations are taking steps to prepare for fossil fuel phase-out, and have political structures that make reforms more citizen ... More »

The subject is critical as food supplies become more tenuous due to population growth, climate changes and political turmoilIt is too brief to be very informative, but the link to an also too brief written piece has a 5 minute video with more details, specifically of topsoil loss in Iowa. I'd rather the author watched the video and reported to me what was important in it, otherwise it's superficial and not very effective journalism.

The information is selected for the point of view, but there are omissions or assumptions not accounted for. She does not show that women choose less well paying jobs but that they predominate in them; The prejudice in male-dominated sectors is well documented. Even in non-physical, highly educated professions in academia, business executive levels and medicine, the "glass ceiling" prevails. NOTE ON SOURCE; this organization is a right wing think-tank that was allied with Americans For Prosperity, a Koch Industries creation. The IWF is anti-gender equity (Title X program and affirmative action). Critical papers by university professors have called their work "JUNK SCIENCE".

The extended conflagration of energy developers against preservationists finds fuel in the desert. The story is well-sourced, but with a conservative bias. The conflict may be less than meets the eye, with mutual respect for habitat expressed by both sides. There needs to be a national effort to survey lands if a renewable energy future can be constructed, and the article needs biologists to weigh in on what the costs will be if desert areas are "sacrificed" for the greater good.

The NPR segment is a pretty fair assessment of the appointee's Chicago experience, and explores his view of national reform. Duncan has engaged in grandstanding; firing of all staff of some schools, closing neighborhood schools over parental protest, and been confrontational with teachers. He has had modest success except in the most poverty stricken schools. The strongest arm of his program is the increased hands-on training of recruits, which has produced more effective beginning teachers.

James Baker is given free reign by the WSJ interviewer to proclaim his opinions as truth. He faults Obama's team for not focusing on the economy "quite as laser-like and extensive as the focus that we put on it in '81." He also blames Obama for failing "to achieve the bipartisanship he said he wanted to achieve." He is warm to talks with Iran and Syria if it's "not talking just for talking's sake", and presents a revisionist history of Reaganomics to critique Obama's deficit spending. He does have a valid point with the widely criticized lack of transparency in Obama's transactions with Wall St. financiers.

This Times report uses Defense sources, congresspersons (some anonymous), The Brookings Institute, and the Institute for Science and International Security to bolster the premise that Pakistan is rapidly increasing its nuclear arsenal, or at least materials for it. There are fears that US aid for security and infrastructure may be sidetracked toward this end, and that the US has uncertain controls on the situation. Adding to the rising alarm is the specter of a Taliban takeover of the arsenal. The story would be more credible with support from sources within Pakistan's inner sanctums.

The article delivers a bewildering array of prices, authorities, and some perspective on their meanings, but it is intended for those familiar with financial business. The implicit message is that Treasury is allowing taxpayers to take a beating on TARP sales.

This presents verbatim conservative talking points on health care without any documentation to back a purely ideological stance. The author has worked with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative free market think-hole noted for corporate funding and action resulting in banning an environmental textbook from Texas schools.

The article is too brief to detail the difficulties Boeing is experiencing, although several links are provided. Closer coordination between the parties is deemed necessary to avoid redesign delays. Not mentioned is that that Dreamliner is the first airliner to go from computer to manufacture without a full-scale mockup.

It is so brief as to be useless except to those who were not aware of Republican opposition to all things environmental. It gives a balanced view in a peanut-shell.

This is a very friendly view of Hank Paulson, whose personal style and characteristics are emphasized. There is no critical examination of his account of the fiscal fiasco the Fed and Treasury abetted Wall Street in executing.

The piece is critical of current climate warming legislation, and details the shortcomings, according to multiple environmentalists.

In spite of he misleading headline, Tidwell emphasizes the necessity for a unified national (why not global?) policy structure that enforces "green" living in addition to individual lifestyle choices. The interview is too brief to delve into related issues of media distortions, lobby influences, and political cronyism that prevent meaningful policy formation.

The author details her extensive previous exposition of coal industry damages to the Appalachian mountains, with numerous useful links. She proceeds to detail the affronts to environment through favors bestowed on vested energy interests by the Bush administration, including the most recent, the massive toxic coal waste flood under the supervision of the TVA. A thoughtful ending; she asks if it is time to turn our time and energy away from Bush's "Legacy" to concentrate on holding Obama accountable.

The headline is true, but NHTSA shares the blame, being understaffed and unaggressive in its investigation. The story is excellent in its factual revelations but also in showing officials who declined comment for the story.

Krugman takes an economic view of education as fulfilling the necessary units of obs, and thus of the nation. This view is valid, with negative effects on our nation. However, it does not speak to the need for broadly educated citizenry who can determine what policies are worthwhile.

It lays out the basic conflict between wealthy developed nations and some (China, India) lesser developed. but does not delve into any details of which are emitting how much or their progress toward replacing various pollution sources.

This article lays out the possible solutions to the quality of care problems that tort reform fails to address, in a fair and critical analysis.

Krugman views current Rightist attacks on Obama, via the healthcare proposals, as continuation of the irrational anti-Clinton mania "that eagerly seizes on every wild rumor manufactured by the right-wing media complex. This opposition cannot be appeased." Examples show this to be GOP strategy, which he believes only can be thwarted with "a sense of passion and outrage — passion for the goal of ensuring that every American gets the health care he or she needs, outrage at the lies and fear-mongering."

This is close to non-news, with Washington claiming a key Taliban commander killed by drone-missile attack, but Taliban denying it, while Pakistanis remain silent.

This is a shallow apologia for a failed US health care industry. The author admits it's "in need of reform. It's inefficient, its costs are rising at unsustainable rates and it leaves too many people uninsured." Then he damns by faint praise, "most Americans do get something for the fortune they pour into health care — pretty good treatment, at least compared to the rest of the world."

This commentary puts forth some positions absent from the mainstream media, which the author characterizes as "from the same class as Mousavi's supporters, and so instinctively identify with them". His major contentions: Aside from Ahmadenijad's appeal to the poorer classes, the US black ops are reputed to have been working up to this for two years, also not noted in MSM. The goal of the US is not for a more democratic Iran, but a servile client state willing to be exploited for private profits.

The author presents the liberal agenda as health care reform defined exclusively as universal health insurance. His thesis is that that option is estimated to be too expensive, although he admits no knowledge of the details making it so. The article speculates on what cuts may ensue. There is little substance here.

Reason Magazine is a no-holds-barred free enterprise at any cost libertarian podium which opposes government regulation of anything, including pollution and tobacco. Ergo, predictable bias on upcoming health care reforms. Also note the author is a science correspondent, not a medical or insurance specialist. A few of his observations need balancing; "lower premiums are essentially achieved by imposing price controls." Aren't health care costs in need of control? "Medicare reimbursements already run 71 percent and 81 percent below what private health plans pay hospitals and doctors." Doesn't much of private insurance pay for excessive overhead? The Wal-Mart style downward pressure on providers is admired by free ... More »

The assessment of Reagan's presidency is decidedly critical, but extensively detailed with events to support the negative view. This is a "must read", regardless of your political inclinations.

The article describes an alarmingly crass profit-motivated assault on the dwindling blue-fin tuna stocks. It is a conceivable plot, given the Japanese cultural penchant for delicacies that threaten both shark and whale populations. Unfortunately, the evidence that Mitsubishi intends to decimate the species is asserted by a former fisherman turned filmmaker, but no corroboration is presented. The company contends it is following normal procedures, but both WWF and Greenpeace are agitated about the internationally sanctioned overfishing, which is also exacerbated by illegal catches.

Billions of dollars are dedicated to job retraining unemployed workers, there is a screaming need/benefit to the nation's efficiency, but all is in flux (new products, companies, consumer reticence) so there is uncertainty about how high this plan might fly. There are numerous quotes from "on-the-ground" individuals, a few experts, and no comprehensive analysis of the big picture. The link "Stimulus plan provides boost to green jobs" is a valuable overview of green jobs by Van Jones.

I was curious enough to review some other articles on this fossil discovery, and a much better overview is also from LiveScience, May 20, by Clara Moskowitz. It cites a number of varied viewpoints not mentioned in Meridith F. Small's, and notes criticism of the excessive commercial hype of the announcement by the History Channel and related book promotion by Little, Brown. The bottom line is that it's a prime specimen that offers nothing new.

The video on YouTube is prejudicial in its title, but proceeds to embarrassing simple-minded schlock with no useful information or analysis, and apparent intent to discredit hybrids. The treatment roughly follows; The Prius regenerates power upon braking, but (scary music and melodramatic faces on actors accompany) its electrical system can, OH NO!, kill you. So if you want a safer, less complicated option, go see an all-electric. All electric Tesla is presented with exciting background music. But the price tag is scary. So we logically visit a junkyard, which occasions a mundane lecture on driving your gas guzzler in a manner that releases its "inner hybrid", by not hot rodding or carrying extra weight (good-bye mother-in-law).

The author restricts his analysis with assumptions and assertions that many economists question; "it's not a good idea to try to raise all that extra money just from households with annual incomes of more than $250,000..., a level at which taxes begin to discourage people from working and investing...that would prompt them to invest significant time and money to find new ways to evade taxes...Obama wants to raise the top income tax rate to 40 percent from 35 percent, which is probably as high as it ought to go." Missing from discussion is the effort to target offshore evasion havens, corporate loopholes, the 15% rate for some unearned income, and what may result if we do not soon arrive at "..once the current recession has passed."

This too brief article states that Americans question the IRS enforcement of "arcane requirements" on both IRS employees and mundane citizenry, when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and HHS appointee Kathleen Sebelius walked unscathed from their tax "oops" omissions.