Excellent article ... so far (there are apparently more parts to this story to come). But the article has already dispelled many of the purported causes of the "wealth divide" and shown others to have too little effect to be a primary cause. I'm looking forward to reading the primary causes (and especially the supporting data) for this divide. The comparison of wealth divisions in the US compared with other democracies in the world is also eye-opening.

I'm glad this article wasn't just another Bush-bashing. There is plenty of that to read elsewhere. But I think NPR in apparently trying to be "balanced" is doing so at the expense of objectivity. This is apparently the first in a series, so hopefully this author will display more naked, objective analysis in subsequent articles. However, in starting with a faulty premise (that Americans are undecided about Bush), it seems he would have to betray the series title to do so.

A good op-ed piece that again raises the question of what makes Sarah Palin qualified to fulfill the role of vice president -- or even president -- of the US, using Palin's awful performance in the interview with Couric as the backdrop. He points out, correctly, that the media should be scrutinizing her much more on this issue, and that this scrutiny would likely be to her advantage of this interview performance was just an anomaly. (Of course, we all know it isn't.)

I'm really split on this one. On the downside, I think it adds little (or nothing) to those struggling with issues of faith. On the other hand, what the author seems to feel should convey some sense of comfort for the disbelieving does, in my opinion, ironically paint a very clear picture of the ultimate despair and meaninglessness of life without God. It may be the best-articulated case for why, while we should never discount the possibility of a Godless, soulless life, it should be the option we acknowledge only after all other options have been discredited. And we are far from that point.

I'm hopeful (but not expecting) the mainstream media to pick up on this story and start checking this out. Certainly if the bogus Swift Boat ads merited media scrutiny in the last election, then these claims do, as well.

This article was way too short, apparently targeted to the indiscriminate sound-bite reader. It does seem to provide sufficient data to explain why we *sometimes* (and perhaps even frequently) under/over-estimate probabilities, but the examples -- and the "dream" example in particular -- ignored "inconvenient" improbabilities related to some such cases, and were thus, unconvincing. I leave open the possibility that had the article been longer than six paragraphs, I might have been persuaded that nothing happens in this life more commonly than probabilities would explain. But it would take more than a couple of generic explanations of vague anecdotal examples to get me there. In short, this article bit off as a topic something ... More »

The single weakness in this piece is that it "sounds" one-sided. Surely there must be other possible explanations for some of the seemingly outrageous ways in which both candidates have screwed the public for the sake of the corporations. This article should explore those -- however weak those explanations may be -- to show us that other explanations were explored. That said, I consider this a "must-read" if you want to understand just how closely both candidates are tied to corporate money. This article also effectively quashes the myth/spin that Obama's campaign is being financed by small donors. The one point with which I disagreed with the author is in the claim that it would be "tragic if the real legacy of (Obama's) ... More »

This article provides insight into the political calculations made by any major politician, even the liberals' beloved Obama. It reminds us that these politicians are out to win a race -- which means to gain votes, not love. This is actually only a medioce article from Pat Buchanan. He is usually much sharper than this (except when he gets on a pro-religion or anti-gay theme, at which his brain seems to sadly turn to mush.) What Buchanan seems to fail to recognize is that McCain *has* to appear before the NAACP unless he wants to invite comparisons with the way Bush snubbed them. So McCain pays the NAACP a visit early in the campagn, when his time is less valuable. I'd be surprised if he even remembered who they were -- much ... More »

Some good ideas; a few grossly unrealistic and/or unneccesary. But the biggest problem with the article is that these ideas address only the "mechanics" of elections, which really are the least of the problems facing US democracy. Sadly, election fraud is just the latest step in democracy's decline in the US. Had the title of the article been "A 12-Step Program to Dissuade Election Fraud," I would have given it a higher rating (though my first sentence would still apply).

As an editorial, I liked this piece. Though some reviewers suggest this is an anti-Bush rant, it is not. It's a rant against the current group of Bush-policy "enablers" in Congress (i.e. Pelosi and Co.). It is in many ways a reflection of voter frustration with a Congress that seems more unwilling than unable to provide the checks and balances that voters *thought* would finally return to the Capital after the 2006 elections. Don't read it expecting to learn anything new. Read it with the hope that *maybe* the Democrats will figure out just how badly they are shooting themselves in the foot for the 2008 elections. Bush & Co. are setting them up to have nothing to show for their two years in power other than pork barrel spending. ... More »

This story tied in many troublesome issues. It's not just Bush/Cheney warmongering, but the capitulation of the Congress for the sake of financial support from AIPAC's coffers. Kudos to Israel for knowing how to play our government like a flute, but shame on us for allowing them -- or anyone else (and we all know there are others) -- to do so.

Absolutely first-rate journalism -- a must-read for anyone who *thinks* they know Iran's role in Iraq based on deceptive Bush bluster and faint mainstream media coverage. Reading it make me livid that our elected representatives have yet to put any limits on Bush/Cheney's war-mongering.

This is very poor, slanted journalism. It shows only the pro-war side of the story and hypocritically implies bias without offerring foundation. The closest this comes to supporting its implications is pointing out that MSNBC and CNBC had run ads on *other* controversial issues. But they could not make the only salient point: they could not show that either station had ever run anti-war ads. The real story here is that Freedom's Watch is trying to bully two stations that choose not to run ads on either side of the war debate. Had that been the subject of the story, it would have deserved a stronger rating.

Extremely informative. The combination of historical perspective and anecdotal evidence was very effective (and convincing). This is something everyone who carries insurance should read -- especially homeowners. I know I'll be re-examining my insurance choices and letting my elected US representatives know that I want the federal government to establish oversight of this industry.

I'm a little disappointed that Joyner seems to have taken Patterson both too seriously and not seriously enough (i.e. challenged Patterson much too lightly). Joyner rightly takes Patterson to task for claiming, effectively, that all debate during wartime is treason because it gives "aid and comfort to the enemy", but he fails to point out that *both* the Right, with its "all liberals are traitors," and the Left, for its "all conservatives are war-mongers," are giving the most "aid and comfort" to the enemy of all by helping keep Americans divided. Of course Americans would not be divided if we all agreed with the Right, but we would be just as undivided if we all agreed with the Left. Would that Joyner had pointed out that ... More »

This is pure neocon trash. $1 trillion, thousands of American lives, tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives later, the author tries to write off this abysmal war as merely a front in a larger World War. Clue for Norm: the World doesn't want America creating a global conflict out of this failed debacle. But even worse, the article makes clear that the author doesn't even understand the American psyche, much less the Iranian one. The only people who will benefit from our bombing of Iran are the terrorists. It would be yet another present from our clueless president to that mass murderer bin Ladin and his followers. Favorite (as in pathetic) quote: "Not so George W. Bush, a man who knows evil when he sees it and who has ... More »

This is awful commentary. It glosses over the biggest problem most Americans have with this "amnesty deal" -- a problem thart is the reason that Bush's approval rating actually went *down* after the announcement of the deal. The problem is that, contrary to this editorial's claim, this deal does *not* fix the broken borders problem. Americans want to see the border secured first. Then we can consider the fate of those who willfully entered this country illegally. This compromise bill represents the exact opposite of the American people's will.

One of the few pieces I've read that sheds light on the fact that the proposed legislation leaves the borders (badly) broken. The only thing this article might have missed is that the border concerns are not a Republican-specific concern. This concern is bipartisan, and so not only could George Bush's approval ratings sink even further, but the Democratic-controlled Congress could also feel Bush's approval ratings pain.

Overall I liked this story. It could probably have noted that the Japanese tend toward "society-wide hysteria" over isolated incidents that might barely seem newsworthy here in the US. I did like that they also mentioned that some questioned whether the Japanese media is sensationalizing these stories as a smokescreen to diminish focus on other seemingly more important news. (I often wonder about that in the US, as well. )

An overly flattering assessment of Christopher Hitchens and a meager, cursory review of his latest book. Not at all even-handed. Since I can't tell whether this was supposed to be a book review or an air-brushed mini-bio of Hitchens, I don't know whether to criticize the author not mentioning that this is the same person who *still* insists the (now completely discredited) "yellowcake" story Bush used to support his Iraq war plans is true, or whether to criticize him for not taking Hitchens to task for doing what all atheist writers do -- use the terms "God" and "religion" interchangably as suits their arguments. The writer seems better qualified to write obituaries than reviews of either people or books.

The subtitle is actually a better indicator of the article's content. It is certainly curious that the so-called "liberal media" have not taken Bush to task for this. It is a sad sign of the times that we now live in a world where "noble wars" only require the sacrifices of those who have little or nothing. It is apparently sufficient for the affluent to simply continue partying and profiting from these "noble wars." My, how little has changed since Vietnam.

This was awful. Though the media may not be "hyping" the very recent lull in attacks, I'm quite certain it will be acknowledged if it turns out to be anything more than a momentary anomaly. The media does not have a significant "liberal bias." What they have, rather, is an overwhelming "populist bias" -- their bias is whatever increases ratings or sells more papers. Nothing has made this clearer than the Iraq War, for which the media was all "gung-ho" until it became unpopular with their readers/viewers. The problem with the media is that they are trying to entertain us at the expense of making us better informed. It was the same problem long before the media "switched sides" on the Iraq War.

This story was a real disappointment. Statistics are used very selectively (deceptively so) to suggest that this is a discrimination against women, when in fact it better reflects discrimination against *families*. There are also many logical flaws in the author's arguments. Apparently the only form of "opt-out" that is legitimate in the author's eyes is a case in which the employer wil give the woman anything and everything she desires to remain, but the woman nonetheless leaves. Anytime an employer is unable to accomodate a woman's request for changes in her work schedule/status, this apparently constitutes being "forced out." Aren't employers of women justified in asking why it is that *they* have to make accomodations for ... More »

This article could have been mildly entertaining humor, right up to the point that the author made the mistake of taking himself seriously and implying the failure in the Iraq War is the Democrats' fault. Amazing that this author has forgotten why Democrats are in power in Washington in the first place. Even more amazing that the editors of the Chicago Sun-Times published such a weak story, though.

I love to read Dahlia Lithwick, and this article is classic Dahlia. I'd recommend searching through Slate's archives if you enjoy this, as there are several more (older) gems from her, as well.