This story does not square with the fact that Nancy Pelosi says 2010 is going to be a very tough year for Democrats. You can't accomplish that with astroturf. The article also fails to mention the Democrat tactic of changing the bill continuously so that citizens are never quite sure what is in it. It also fails to mention that similar health care measures in Maine, Tennessee, and Massachusetts are all failing due to costs going up instead of down. It also left out that the last time a health care overhaul was tried Bill Clinton got a Republican Congress for his troubles. The story also tries "the Bush was spending a lot and Republicans didn't complain much" tactic failing to mention that the deficit has tripled or ... More »

The journalism covers the essential points on the Republican position. It comes down to: will ours be a race based society or a performance based society? Equal results or equal opportunity? Skin color and national origin or performance?

This is not quality journalism. It leaves out the fact that Hamas uses civilians as human shields. It makes no mention of the fact that Hamas refuses to allow the wounded to be transported to Israel or Egypt where they can get better treatment.

It seems like all the details are fairly well covered. Kraus got hired and through no fault of his own got fired. That is well explained.

It covers all sides fairly. It even call those launching rockets into Israel terrorists.

It leaves out the salient fact that the climate change seen in the last 30 years may be entirely natural. It also leaves out the fact that even the IPCC expects further cooling until 2015.

This story is pretty good but it leaves out one important word. Stagflation.

This is interesting stuff. But it is all tactical. Spengler of Asia Times (not in the story) got the essence of what is wrong with the Obama campaign. At every step he projects weakness. Spengler says Americans do not want the weaker candidate for President. This is especially true in the National Security era where Obama has talked in the past about disarming America. That is one Area the President controls directly. He is also handicapped by the fact that Republicans understand Democrats but Democrats only have charactures of Republicans to work with. John Kennedy won by going to the right of Nixon on defense. He was credible because he was a war hero. Tactics are not going to change the fundamentals. All in all not a serious ... More »

This is a New York Times smear piece. Almost everything reported is false. She was vetted by the FBI. She did tell McCain about her daughter. The Times no longer reports. If they had asked McCain they could have found out the truth. Instead they found their imagination to be more "informative" and that is who they asked. So where is the story about Biden's brother in a fraud case involving millions? All Palin did was to fire a guy who it was her absolute prerogative to fire since he held an appointed position. A bad hair day would have been enough.

I would have to have totally agreed with this story before the selection of Libertarian Republican Sarah Palin. With the base now energized and disaffected Hillary supporters attracted I think it represents a reversal of fortune. It also represents one of the problems of old media. They don't keep up with the news cycle. Sarah represents a return to Goldwater/Reagan principles that the article says the party has lost. In fact I'd say in this cycle with the current match up it is now the Democrats most in danger of cracking up. They are correct that the Democrats are playing it safe. I don't think that is going to work for them now.

There is no mention of the fact that Sarah is a Libertarian Republican in the Reagan/Goldwater mold who does not let her religious beliefs influence her governing style. It does note that her selection has energized the Republican base and attracted disaffected Hillary supporters. It also fails to deal with the fact that she is a corruption fighter against her own party and an energy expert. No mention was made of her negotiations with Canada over a natural gas pipeline or with Russia over fishing rights. The points the article hits are factually correct but what makes it poor are all the things it left out. It also fails to point out that the Vice President does not have any Constitutional duties except presiding over the ... More »

The most glaring lack in this story is the reports of the rape and pillage brigades the Russians loosed on the Georgians after the official cease fire. Also no mention of events in the port of Poti. It is a good early report given the fog of battle.

One argument that is hinted at through out the Times article but never made explicit is that less government = more children. The more regulated the economy the less viable parenthood looks. They do mention American flexibility in contrast to European rigidity. However, the article fails to take into account programs like Social Security which make children less valuable. The article is marred by the appeal to a Malthusian ethic at the end. People as pestilence and we know where that kind of thinking leads. I'd rate this as a good introduction to the topic.

The story misunderstands our oil situation in so many ways. First of course is to say that the oil currently off limits amounts to a ten year supply. If oil shales are included the supply is more like 50 to 100 years worth. Second, it is not the amount of oil but its effect on marginal prices that is most important. Third is the problem of where the oil exporting countries are "investing" their revenues. Fourth is the amount of money extracted from the American economy. Fifth is the question of maintaining an economy strong enough to develop and deploy alternatives to oil. Sixth is the question of the poor of the world.

This article leaves out important political factors in the Middle East such as Iranian/Syrian war mongering and the Saudi's fear of their influence. High oil prices are buying Iran breathing room. In addition no mention is made of American restrictions on extracting oil from its territory that are mandated by Congress and the States. The article makes no mention even in passing of any of these factors. Instead of looking in the mirror Congress is begging the Saudis and threatening futures traders. The article does discuss those factors and on those it is quite informative.

I think the story under emphasized the main point. Congress is intent on regulating (by inquiry) something it admits it doesn't understand. The story also leaves out the global aspects of regulation. It has nothing to say about global markets. Only American ones. It also makes no note of supply and demand (the underlying forces at work). They leave out Congress' role in limiting American supplies of oil. No mention is made of speculation's role in bringing more supplies on line. I'd rate the article good on political details, bad on economics.

This is a good story about a fusion experiment that shows a lot of promise but doesn't get much press. One of the reasons is that the cost for this years experiment is only $1.8 million dollars. The story does say that the lab will not be releasing any definitive information until after peer review. This shows they are serious. Alan Boyle is one of the top science writers around. His reports are well sourced and generally accurate.

Excellent story. Good sources on both sides of the issue. The critical point is that each side in a negotiation has a maximum opening position. This was the underlying theme of the story. The American Ambassador to Iraq got the right note "...nothing is going to be rammed down anybody's throat."

Nothing in the world prevents private individuals from doing the research and giving it away and thus preventing patenting. If private companies do the research they expect to make a profit which encourages more research. Which was exactly the purpose of patent law. Had the companies not done the research we would be worse off than we are with the companies patenting the research results. After all the results will come off patent eventually and any one will have access. In the mean time there is charity. It always amazes me that as soon as the profit system produces extraordinary results the thieves are out in force.

It opens with some gratuitous swipes at the GOP, but then gets into a well sourced and well reasoned look at the Federal anti-Medical Marijuana Laws. The GOP should take notice. Just as 70 to 80% of all Americans support gun rights, so do similar or greater numbers support Medical Marijuana. I think both parties miss the fact that the US is a basically libertarian (leave us alone) country.

Where the Guardian falls down is in their understanding of American politics. About 70% to 80% of all adult Americans support gun rights. So to conflate gun rights with the right wing is to misunderstand American politics. Or else the right in America is way more numerous than most people imagine. Either way the Guardian miscued. On top of that they use all kinds of emotional language. A dispassionate survey this is not. It does represent wide swaths of British elite sentiment. So as a survey of British attitudes towards the American election it is useful. Otherwise the value would be slight.

This is a typical bait and switch article from Scientific American. Our Congress has made on shore and off shore drilling for new oil illegal in America and then they wish to blame the oil companies who buy their oil (for the most part) on the international market, for high prices. The Congressional answer is to punish the oil companies with higher taxes which will then be passed on to oil consumers. It is like they never took a class in economics. The article does describe how the oil companies are trying to make the best of the hand they have been dealt. Bravo for them.

The article is interesting but overlooks many points. Army retention is above requirements. Doubts about Maliki were erased with his attacks (against American advice) on Shia militias. He mistakes short term retribalization necessary for security for the long term effort of Iraqi unity through fair elections and economic growth (which is currently 5% a year without Saudi help). He also fails to mention that the Basra situation was caused by British policy of "no casualties". All in all too much politics, not enough economics. And certain fatal blind spots (the British rules of engagement and tactics in Basra). The article is good at highlighting problems, poor at focusing on opportunities.

The devastation is indeed horrible. I wonder what is being done in China? We have alternatives that will help some. Nuclear power - stopped by environmentalists. Wind - intermittent and also stopped by environmentalists - Ted Kennedy are you listening? Solar - expensive and intermittent. We can raise the cost of electricity and strain the poor while letting the rich build ever bigger houses. Al Gore are you listening? All the while driving industry to other countries. Or we can mine coal. What is left out of the article is what are choices? All they have presented is the costs. No look at the benefits.

Bush never mentioned Obama. All he said was appeasement is a bad idea and yet Obama felt he had to say something. By chiming in he is admitting that he is an appeaser, or at the very least perceived that way. After all Hillary felt no need to respond. Why did Obama feel that the criticism was directed at him? I guess if the shoe fits. Note that Bush was speaking to the Israeli Parliament, to Jews, who paid a high price for the appeasement of the Austrian Corporal by the Western nations. The story brings out the above points.

Let me see if I get this right. Polar bear numbers are at record numbers compared to 50 years ago. The oceans haven't warmed for at least the last 5 years according to buoys used to measure the numbers. We have at least reached a plateau of warming and temps may be declining slightly. Even warming scientists are predicting cooling due to PDO. Global sea ice is at record levels after a record decline in 2007. The current sunspot cycle (24) is late in starting and NASA says it will not start before 2009 at the earliest. Lack of sunspots correlates to global cooling. Solar scientists say the sun has a 300 year cycle and that the start of this cycle happened in 1850 so we could be in for 150 years of cooling. And yet "Scientific" ... More »

I think you have to judge a nation not only by its ideals but also by the nature of its enemies. Deliberately killing people eating pizza or calling for the destruction of the nation and its inhabitants defines Israel's enemies. By that definition Israel's response has been very restrained and not as far from its ideals as some claim. It all goes back to the Mufti of Jerusalem and his assistance to Hitler's final solution. Current day Palestinians are his political descendants. As such they are being let off lightly.

He lost me at point #2. The Hamas Charter explicitly calls out for the destruction of the State of Israel AND the Jews. To be even handed in such a situation is to be a participant in attempted genocide at the very least. Settlements are not an issue. Israel gave them up in the Sinai to get peace with Egypt. It gave them up in Gaza just to get out.

The story goes on to say that the earth cooled .7 deg C in 2007. The fastest since we have had satellite measuring tools. It could very well mean that we are preparing for the wrong disaster. We should be storing grain for the lean years to come. We won't know for a few years if this trend will hold. If it does the places with carbon caps will be in a world of hurt.

The smart grid idea is actually very old. It is the way aircraft power systems are regulated. Loads are turned off when demand exceeds capacity. The problem in implementing this is that if it is imposed prematurely we will not get the best possible system. The first step is research. The problem there is that $400 million is budgeted but not appropriated. A more modest amount would get things started and be more likely to pass Congress where pork spending takes priority.

The New York Times has never had much faith in Western Civilization. Their support of the Soviet Union through the writing of Pulitzer Prize winner Walter Duranty is notorious. Will Iraq be civilized by five years of effort? Of course not. It takes at least one generation and often two to do the job. The fact that so much has been accomplished in 5 years when the typical amount of time it takes to defeat an insurgency is 10 years is nothing short of amazing. What can you expect from a paper that is ignorant of history. Especially its own.

He almost gets the point.
Optimism sells better than pessimism, even though pessimism may be more realistic.
Optimism is Obama's stock in trade. Too bad his minister has tarnished the brand.

Cosmic rays have been bombarding earth for billions of years. The odds of the "predicted" danger materializing are infinitesimally small. And the zero velocity idea is nuts.

The quickest way to get alternative energy into the market place is to make it cheaper than current sources. The laws of supply and demand would then take over without having to put a government gun to people's heads. The problem is that there are a lot of people who believe that the use of force to get their way is not a bad idea as long as they don't have to hold the gun themselves. Cowards.

The standards have usually turned into perverse incentives. SUVs were the result of discontinuing the station wagon, because the station wagon was a passenger vehicle. Perversely SUVs get worse mileage than station wagons. I think this will cause a full fledged move into trucks. Which perversely get worse mileage than SUVs. It is one thing to mandate the vehicles sold. It is quite another to mandate which will be bought.

As soon as the tax cuts were enacted in 2003 the economy came out of a slump and tax revenues started increasing. In fact government revenue increased faster than projected by the CBO. The deficit is now at about 160 bn a year and falling. Making it about 1.5 % of economic output. It is scheduled to go to zero around 2008. So despite the studies, in the real world it is working.

The author leaves out the fact that despite increases in population commodity prices on an hours worked basis have been declining for 200 years. We can afford to pave over farmland because are farms are so much more productive. We have more trees because farms no longer need so much land.

These types of clashes have been going on for almost a year that we know of. Iran has its proxies all over the Middle East. However, the story leaves out the oil dimension. Iran has to move because it is running out of exportable oil.

If the fairness doctrine is implemented it will only accelerate the decline of broadcast TV.

The job of a TV program is to please its audience. Congress can demand "fairness". It cannot command the audience.