Interesting article, good fact-checking, could use a weighting function.

This is an interesting but insufficient article. How is the potentially variable supply from solar and wind different from the variable demand? It's the variable difference that counts, and the capacity of the grid to deliver when the demand is greatest. What about transmission losses? Will upgrading the grid make the system more efficient?

The article doesn't have any depth, it simply settles for state regulators vs friends of the earth. Very little real information on the site, on any new impacts, on the arguments.

Schjeldahl's review is remarkably snarky and larded with perjoratives. It's the weakest review I can remember reading in the New Yorker.

This is an excellent essay that makes sense of John Yoo's recent WSJ article and predicts the shape of Yoo's defense.

This article is weak, conflating the author's personal reaction to the inauguration with anxious but speculative criticism. As the last week has shown, it is a mistake to extrapolate Obama's transition to Obama's presidency. Moreover, I do not consider his appointments "less than inspiring." Certainly, there is a great amount of implementation on the Treasury and Commerce side that needs to occur, but why tar Obama with the last sins of the Bush administration? This is not a legitimate op-ed piece, but a series of anxieties thrown together.

Excellent story, very balanced consideration of a diplomatically difficult problem

Good recap of the state of the recount, little apparent bias.

The framing of "Seven Deadly Sins" weakens the story. To make the numerology work, the author has to stretch for seven distinct failures. The article would work better if the author simply enumerated the major Administration failures, starting with the largest. Which is certainly not their refusal to agree to mandatory reductions: this would never have passed Congress in Bush's first 6 years, and probably not in his last two. The counterposition of the "Obama Mission" segments is weak as well. These segments would have benefited from some political realism. I'm not sure Congress has the teeth for any of these things.

The article makes clear points about the bizarre voting in Alaska. It's missing a comparison of Alaska's turnout with other western states, and does not indicate whether Alaska's voting machines are electronic. But good and direct reporting.

This story represents excellent journalism. It exposes the abrogation of civil rights conducted by the St Paul police, and gives important background information about the protesters, about their arrests, and about the charges that will be levied against them. Finally, it identifies a critical reason why a municipality might be led to conduct such outrageous police actions, in that St Paul will be indemnified for the first $10M of claims against the city for its actions. I can only hope that the total of the civil claims will far exceed this amount.

Alterman clearly lays out Milbank's abuse of selective quoting. Why hasn't the Washington Post issued an apology or a complete retraction?

I think this is a tremendous entry-level article on renewable energy. It touches too briefly, however, on one critical point: transmission losses for electrical energy. More than a third of the electrical energy that we generate in this country is lost in transmission. Gore argues that we need to upgrade our electrical grid to reduce these losses. But clearly, a large part of our transmission losses are determined by our centralized power generation and the distances that energy must be transmitted. While it is gratifying to look at a map of the United States and see the potential for tapping renewal energy, we will also have to optimize the distribution of power generation.

This is an important article, but it only touches the surface of the engineering problems in China, which led to many of the unnecessary causalities. Why was there such a discrepancy in building practice between nearby buildings?

This story is remarkably biased and petty. It misconstrues a joke/remark that is about Helen Clarke's indestructibility as a comparison of her to a cockroach, it magnifies a mispronunciation of Medvedev, and it presents a second truthful remark (Putin having no soul) as a diplomatic slight, where Bush's original comment (about seeing Putin soul) is the real travesty. McCain misspeaks more in a single speech, and without actually telling truth. This article is exactly the sort of tainted reporting that your website should be warning people about.

The article is weak in that it doesn't get to the heart of the matter. There is no explanation of why the attorneys were fired, and no one at DoJ appears to make the decision to fire them. Sampson is simply an aggregator of names that (unnamed) other people suggest should be fired. Which Gonsales proceeds to do, without discussion.