This is one of the typical Post stories that while trying to present all sides actually manages to raise eyebrows by its many mentions of all the possible wrongdoings that Obama's team might have been implicated in, even though they were in fact never involved. In other words, its innuendos, even if carefully retracted afterwards ("there is no evidence that...") actually create the impression that something might have been afoot. Careful journalists should reverse the equation. State the facts first, the possible speculations last. The Post should know better.

The reality covered in this article is undeniable, yet this piece barely scratches the surface beyond making a vague connection between poverty, the sex trade, and the HIV risk incurred by prostitutes. Yes, there are a lot of Central America folks in the Miami area; yes, many of them are women; yes, some of them have to resort to prostitution just to survive. But where is the analysis of the true reasons for this degrading situation for the victims? It is as if now that the risk of contracting AIDS from a Guatemalan Maya prostitute suddenly makes their miserable condition, in the US as well as in their home country, somehow newsworthy. There is so much beneath the surface of this poorly written piece, and one would wish that the ... More »

This long article is a foray of psychology into the power of the narrative, a subject that anyone who loves a good read already knows quite well. While it just scratches the surface (for instance it does not dwell for any length on the power of the oral narrations of old, such as the Nordic sagas), it makes some interesting remarks and represents a welcome opening of psychology into the literary field.

FactCheck.org is always very good at digging the details and demonstrating whether a claim is false or true, or exaggerated or glossed over. In this case they address the hyperbolic way in which Obama turned the current Wall Street crisis into a nightmare had Bush & McCain succeeded in privatizing Social Security. While the facts as checked are not correct (no one over the age of 58 would have been phased in into the new system, so technically Obama was wrong) the point made by the candidate was that the whole philosophical approach of privatization is dead wrong. So in this case FactCheck.org, while technically correct, proves to be nitpicky.

This analysis by the WaPost of McCain's attempt to link Obama and a discredited former administrator of Fannie Mae is well-researched and factual. If anything, it falls short of journalistic duty by stopping short of calling McCain's claims not just an exaggeration, but such a stretch from the facts that it comes dangerously close to outright falsehood. Nevertheless, an informative read.

This is a compilation of the good advice Sen. Obama is receiving today from editorials garnered from nine different mainstream publications. Most of them can be summarized by "time to take the gloves off". Interesting to see the variety of angles the writers have taken. A worthwhile read for everyone, which hopefully will be taken into account by the Obama senior strategists.

While presenting a rather balanced viewpoint and stating clearly the conclusion that "Political innocents may wonder why a candidate like McCain, whose campaign is premised on what he calls 'straight talk' -- and to a lesser extent Obama -- have veered from the flat truth. The answer is simple: because it works", this article is too terse, and indeed is not examining at all the role of mainstream media in propagating those lies.

Another stellar piece by the NY Times staff, debunking the myth that Palin proved a reformer while Governor of Alaska, with plenty of good sources to cast serious doubts as to the sanity of John McCain in choosing this VP nominee whose only credentials appear more and more to be her chromosomes and her loony right-wing positions (the article doesn't say that, but I do). There is so much material here that appears well-researched that some of it should be picked up by others in the mainstream media, if they have any respect for the truth.

The St. Petersburg Times' editorial is righteously, and rightly chastising the candidate who used to pride himself as a straight-talker and who promised to take the high road (McCain) is now wallowing in the mud in his altest attack ads, most notably the "sex-ed" and the "lipstick on a pig" slanders. Here is a quote from this worthwhile editorial: "He [McCain] has been a serious public servant willing to say unpopular truths when he thought it best for the country, but he's more than willing in this election to put his name on campaign lies. The leader who says he would rather lose an election than lose a war now risks losing his reputation in an attempt to win the White House."

Excellent and very fair & balanced analysis by the NY Times staff of how McCain is now driving his famed Straight-Talk Express through the muddiest of roads. It even quotes Republican sources in expressing dismay at how loosely McCain is playing with the truth. Here's an example of such a voice: "Mr. Sipple, the Republican strategist, voiced concern that Mr. McCain’s approach could backfire. 'Any campaign that is taking liberty with the truth and does it in a serial manner will end up paying for it in the end,” he said.' But it’s very unbecoming to a political figure like John McCain whose flag was planted long ago in ground that was about ‘straight talk’ and integrity'. " The article is definitely worth reading.

This is very-well researched analysis of why and how the McCain-Palin ad about sex education is a pack of lies. The facts are explained carefully and clearly. The story is non-partisan, and is quite damning of the supposed "straight-talkers" McCain and Palin. A must-read.

This is one "below-the-belt" dirty trick from the McCain-Palin campaign that can't go unnoticed. This story covers it relatively well, although there are other, darker, racist implications in McCain's ad which are completely out of bound. Personally I liked the way the Huffington Post covered it better.

Very good analysis of why Palin's choice does make some sense in spite of all the talk about her mayoralty of a town of 6,500 (read: unfit to be VP). Some of the reasoning, particul;arly towards the end, is rather compelling. What it does not do is make the argument that McCain's grab for disaffected Clinton die-hards is an insult to the intelligence of women who followed that historic candidate for her feminist views, and Palin is so far to the right that to hope any transfer of votes is absurd.

The best thing in this mediocre article is the catchy title. A few good points are outlined but overall this analysis misses the mark too often. There's no mention of Palin's absurd position on Global Warming, or of her being investigated for instigating the firing of an Alaska State Trooper who is in a messy divorce with her sister. Her ties to big oil, albeit in a stormy relationship, are not mentioned either. As for reliable sources... not much. This is one article to skip.

Good summary of why the Democratic Convention was a big success this year, giving credit to many speakers who contributed to that success. The only weak moment comes in the hasty last paragraph about McCain's choice of Palin as VP, which is far too terse to do justice to that event; the article would have been better without even mentioning it, or else with a far more detailed analysis of that recent development.

Wow. This is a good answer to the i-Phone, and the NYT story looks like it checkes out... I may re-consider my current T-Mobile plan. $10 a month for getting free calls in a Wi-Fi zone? When those are growing like a fungus invasion? Yeah. That'd be a good investment.

One of the best examples of what PFAW had warned us about in 2004: "It's the Supreme Court, stupid!" And unfortunately we have to live through this 5-4 adverse morass until the next Democratic prez has a chance to tilt the balance the other way. Un fortunately, Bader-Ginsburg is the next likely retiree, so no gain there. When is the next obtuse SCOTUS judge from the other side liekly to retire or be incapacitated? Thomas and Scalia look like they're indestructible, and Kennnedy is the last remaining "middle-of-the-road" justice (though he drives very much to the right of the middle line). We're in for a number of years of reversals of what we thought was established jurisprudence. That's what happens when the electorate sleeps at the wheel.