I wish I didn't believe that the events now unfolding in the Middle East are too complicated for unalloyed outrage. I wish the arguments of only one side rang wholly true to me. I am the first to accuse myself of paralyzing moral generosity -- the fatal empathy that terrorists prey on. But ambivalence is not the same as moral equivalence, and holy war, no matter who is waging it, makes my flesh crawl.
Innovators should swarm like locusts on Washington in January, February and March to show the Car Czar how to make fuel-efficient cars.
The fact that Israel decided to launch this massive attack in the waning days of the Bush administration suggests that Tel Aviv, at least, thinks that the days for such an action might be limited.
By choosing tactical advantages over the safety of its citizens, the terrorist organization chose its military goals over the safety of its fellow Palestinians in Gaza.
The surprising trend in American opinion on Gaza may be because the same pundits who are cheerleading Israel's assault once sold the occupation of Iraq, and with a nearly identical set of arguments.
The people our governments are labeling as "one of the great menaces of our times" have an extraordinary story to tell -- and some justice on their side.
It's Obama's own party that's pulling the guy every which way, like some whacked out back seat driver. "Turn left! No! Go straight ahead! What are you doing?!?" Everybody thinks he owes them and they're hell bent on trying to collect.
Israel is not media savvy -- we have installed warning systems and bomb shelters. No casualties means no photos, which means that many incidents aren't even covered by the media.
Do the producers of the Sunday political shows think it's presumptuous to submit high officials to the kind of grilling they brag about when senators or other lesser beings undergo it?
Despite the difficulty for journalists in reporting on the latest mess in Gaza, given onerous press restrictions, it's an obvious topic for many magazines, with most suggesting more reason for fatalism.
America's role as the unwavering good guy is a mythology that has sustained us but may ultimately be our ruin.
Bill Richardson and Barack Obama have always seemed a bit like an odd couple -- Richardson has always been only a step or two ahead of trouble.
Searching for perspective about all these bailouts and huge deficits, I thought I would pick the brain of the ultimate big-government guy, Karl Marx. Of course, he died in 1883, which forced me to get creative.
Leo Hindery, who was an economic advisor to the Obama campaign and authored the interesting book It Takes a CEO, is a real stand out who the Obama team should consider for Commerce.
"Real change" would be to put an investor advocate, and not an industry shill, in charge of the SEC.
It is worth trying to determine precisely what Bush means when he asks us to take a more historical perspective on his presidency.
I don't like to be too simplistic but you either love life in the public eye or you don't. I don't believe Caroline Kennedy loves it.
In essence the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, rather than being our oil safety valve, has become a welfare program for the oil industry and one of the nation's most outrageous boondoggles.
In his latest radio address, President Bush lambasted Hamas for "spending its resources on rocket launchers instead of roads and schools." Is he really that unconscious or does he say these things just to make people crazy?
