Because I am not really qualified to enter into that discussion. As I said, I like the Independent. But when someone opens a piece by being so inaccurate and, in addition, using what is essentially a resort to authority argument then I become suspicious. It is the same tactic used by right wingers. If Rosenberg can't present an argument based on its merits alone then I prefer to read articles by those who can.

Put another way, why couldn´t Rosenberg just post 'read this article' and give a link instead of writing all the meaningless - and inaccurate - twaddle that introduced his article. The Independent is a popular paper but is not as mainstream as it gets as Rosenberg implies. Also, his fantasy that the press in Britain is free or objective is lunacy.

Just because I might agree with the basic point of Rosenberg´s post doesn't mean I can't also think he's a poor and biased journalist.

I have no complaints about the Independent article which is a much better read than is Rosenberg.

Posted at April 20, 2008 11:34 AM in response to Page One in Britain: Israeli Soldiers Describe Shame At Abusing Palestinian Kids

Corrected format (I hope) - wahtever happened to the preview feature?

The Independent is about as mainstream a British paper as you'll find anywhere.

I am fed up with this guy Rosenberg. First he is sloppy: it may be a trivial point but you can only find mainstream British papers in Britain (i.e., you cannot find a mainstream British paper being published 'anywhere'; e.g., in say, Madrid). Or does Rosenberg mean that non mainstream British papers are being published in Timbuktu?

What Rosenberg presumably means is that the Independent is a mainstream paper in Britain and that in comparison to mainstream papers in other countries, the British press in general - and the Independent in particular - are much more willing to publish what he considers to be 'non mainstream stories' or storie sthat brook some sort of establishment agenda. If Rosenberg is a journalist at least he should take care to say what he means. If he doesn't then why should anyone care what he says?

But the Independent is not at all 'as mainstream as it gets' in the UK. In fact is considered to be a bit odd ball - mainstream papers are the Times, the Telegraph, the Daily Mail and possibly Guardian etc. The Independent is certainly well known but it is hardly 'as mainstream as you will find anywhere.' I happen to like the Independent - but that Rosenberg prefaces his piece with such arrant nonsense shows how sloppy he is. It is a blatant attempt to bias the reader in favor of whatever else he has to say. I didn't read the rest because his idiotic comments put me off. The guy is no more than a propagandist and it is beyond my why TPM lets him post this stuff on a regular basis.

I am not a Hillary supporter and am not in favor of what is going on in Israel re: the Palestinians. But I cannot bear reading pure bilge either.

Posted at April 19, 2008 1:45 PM in response to Page One in Britain: Israeli Soldiers Describe Shame At Abusing Palestinian Kids

The Independent is about as mainstream a British paper as you'll find anywhere.

I am fed up with this guy Rosenberg. First he is sloppy: it may be a trivial point but you can only find mainstream British papers in Britain (i.e., you cannot find a mainstream British paper being published 'anywhere'; e.g., in say, Madrid). Or does Rosenberg mean that non mainstream British papers are being published in Timbuktu?

What Rosenberg presumably means is that the Independent is a mainstream paper in Britain and that in comparison to mainstream papers in other countries, the British press in general - and the Independent in particular - are much more willing to publish what he considers to be 'non mainstream stories' or storie sthat brook some sort of establishment agenda. If Rosenberg is a journalist at least he should take care to say what he means. If he doesn't then why should anyone care what he says?

But the Independent is not at all 'as mainstream as it gets' in the UK. In fact is considered to be a bit odd ball - mainstream papers are the Times, the Telegraph, the Daily Mail and possibly Guardian etc. The Independent is certainly well known but it is hardly 'as mainstream as you will find anywhere.' I happen to like the Independent - but that Rosenberg prefaces his piece with such arrant nonsense shows how sloppy he is. It is a blatant attempt to bias the reader in favor of whatever else he has to say. I didn't read the rest because his idiotic comments put me off. The guy is no more than a propagandist and it is beyond my why TPM lets him post this stuff on a regular basis.

I am not a Hillary supporter and am not in favor of what is going on in Israel re: the Palestinians. But I cannot bear reading pure bilge either.

Posted at April 19, 2008 1:42 PM in response to Page One in Britain: Israeli Soldiers Describe Shame At Abusing Palestinian Kids

Steve Clemons's article treats climate change as if it were a cheesburger to be marketed. His article is a paradigm for what's wrong with the political system - but i's also what's wrong with human society as well so the outlook is gloomy. If a large asteroid were en route to Earth and would collide with it in, say, 30 years, then I think Clemons wouldn't be talking about Ray Kroc. The only difference is the time scale - but that's what makes climate change such a difficult problem. Through evolution humans are hard wired to act selfishly and accrue resources at the expense of others. Only imminent disaster seems to have the necessary galvanizing effect.

All this talk of acting locally and about Gore's house is moot; what will likely happen is that there will be a progression of disasters that will radically affect how humans act on the planet - nations re-arranged, resource wars etc. It's not only climate change - all of the important resources on the planet would still be stressed, even in the absence of global warming, given the expansion and industrialization of China and India. What will finally emerge is unknowable but will probably be bad. That's how humans have typically acted historically. After all, if we are now a global village then the large wars we have seen in the past are bound to be repeated on a truly global scale.

I doubt that this can be avoided, but it can't be avoided by switching to energy-efficient lightbulbs.

Banning private ownership of cars within the next decade - and globally - might be a start. But what chance does that have!

Posted at October 13, 2007 7:12 PM in response to Who Will Own the Climate Change Franchise? The Clintons or Al Gore?

Like Bush, Blair is primarily a politician with little experience in the real world. He sees everything through the light of politics. For example, backing Bush made him invulnerable to foreign policy criticism from the Conservative party. Keeping in with the US also guarantees him huge speaking fees which his wife has already started to collect. Given the large house they bought in London - above their means - they need all the cash they can muster. Even Thatcher admires Blair - he is, in many ways, more Maggie than Maggie.

On a personal level it has all worked out well for Blair - won 3 elections, made sure his future is lined with cash, and started the privatization of the NHS. He and Bush are not that different.

Posted at May 10, 2007 3:41 PM in response to Tony Blair and His Presidents

plainestguy,

Thanks for the comment. I think the "Even after 30 years ..." says it. This is a programme with a history of actual and sustained accomplishment. I worry that too many kudos and prizes for Gore - who is "merely " in the early days of bringing attention to this issue will distract from the need to focus on actual long terms solutions. I say "merely" not to downplay what Gore is doing but to emphasize the difference between being aware and actually doing something.

I think being nominated for the prize would be great but that turning it down would really be an opportunity for Gore to underline the dire seriousness of the situation. Accepting would, in some ways, provide a handle with which nay-sayers could distract the focus.

Having said all that, I strongly think that Gore should run for president.

Posted at February 26, 2007 10:36 AM in response to Gore in Oslo?

It would be premature and would send the wrong message - in other areas prizes are awarded for actual after-the-fact accomplishments. Gore is doing a great job and should run for President but giving him the Nobel prize would tend to suggest to the broad public that the heavy lifting on global warming has been accomplished when it hasn't even started. Further, the peace prize is essentially meaningless when you look at who has won it in the past - it's basically a political endorsement and it's not at all clear that it would be helpful; likely the opposite.

If Gore gets nominated the smart move would be to refuse it very publicly.

Posted at February 26, 2007 8:02 AM in response to Gore in Oslo?

Part of the reason the stock market is hitting new highs is the devaluation of the dollar. Simple indicators such as the DOW really don't tell the whole story either. I think the basic point of the post is valid - the notion that Al Quaeda wants to "break our will" is ludicrous. Not only because that statement is essentially meaningless but because it ignores the one thing that terrorists do understand. Namely that the only way to influence or defeat a large power is to sap its strength through a multitude of incidents which provoke a larger response than is reasonable. That fact has been known since at least Roman times and is working as well in Iraq as it did against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Posted at February 25, 2007 9:42 AM in response to Opposite World

As Benjamin Franklin (I think) said: Any hobby you have to feed will eventually consume you.

We are at the being consumed stage.

Posted at February 25, 2007 9:06 AM in response to Opposite World

...and stars have been exploding for 13 billion years or so, so why are we worried if Iran gets nukes?

Posted at February 7, 2007 7:41 AM in response to Changing Political Climate