It may be one of the better articles analyzing what the 2009 election means.

I'm not sure what this is trying to prove. Assuming that the donations and activities are part of a will or other legal document, what is the problem.

It just states the fairly obvious. I suppose the fact that Newsweek runs it is significant.

History is always useful, especially for those who haven't lived through some of it. What the article omits is how the country got out of the fear induced overreactions. And it omits the role of the Democrats in fearmongering in the so called Solid South.

It tries to summarize the inputs to Obama's decision making process on Afghanistan - and makes an assumption about the aims of the war. It ignores the idea that Afghanistan has never really had a strong central government.

The report combines interviews, reviews of reports, opinion, personal stories, etc. It speaks to a real problem that keeps being ignored.

It points to what the author believes is an increasing tendency toward self-censorship because of perceived threats - either terrorist or economic. And the author believes this is something new. She doesn't mention the Obama Administration caving in to a right wing talk person!

Categories like 'factual' don't really fit this piece. It's a moving exploration of the relationship between foreign correspondents, and the local reporter-factotums without whom they probably couldn't report. It has a broader context - the vlllagers who 'cooperate' with will intentioned nation builders, and who are killed when someone decides that the nation has been built - and the builders leave.

This is an interesting take on health problems which I, at least, haven't seen before. And it forecasts an interesting future political battle. Agricultural policy has been another political 'third rail' for many years now - this should be fun to watch.

It's good in that it pinpoints the role of Fox News and the radical Right in bringing down a White House Advisor - and faults the left for letting it happen without much protest. It is not really a rant, but a challenge.

It's a well thought out piece on economic theory and theorists, probably of more interest to economists than 'lay people'. Lurking in the unstated background is the question of who presidents and other policy makers listen to, and why.

It shows some of the problems one congressman is having. Readers need to extrapolate.

It's a somewhat scary view of what may really be going on. Sourcing seems plentiful, if mostly anonymous, but there is a quote from Holbrooke. I

This summarizes in one place a lot of the individual problems often covered by media.

It seems to be n accurate summary of what is happening to some Congressmen. What I don't think ti answers is the question of whether theaw are fringe people, or people representing something near a mainstream.

The column advocates for one possibility for funding health care reform - which probably is not going to happen. It ignores the issue of cost control, which is probably the real issue.

It gives the view of a Westerner who has considerable experience in and presumably understanding of the Middle East. And it's a different view than appears in most of the Western media.

The story seems to be based on personal interview and observation. It shows a major weakness in Western efforts in a place they don't quite understand.