Opinion: Top 10 time!
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
Before the fires threatened to swallow half of Southern California, we put out opinion sections, and you read them. What did you find most readable? A mix of genocide, war-hawkery, reconsiderations of polarizing political figures and cow flatulence. In other words, the usual. Your Top 10 list for Oct. 12-18:
1) Al Gore: the anti-Bush, by Jonathan Chait.
2) Killer cow emissions, Editorial.
3) Labeling genocide won’t halt it, by Niall Ferguson.
4) The genocide vote: Now is not the time, by Jane Harman.
5) Clarence Thomas is not the hypocrite, by James Kirchick.
6) The myth of the Latino voting bloc, by Steven Malanga.
7) Letters to the editor.
8) Why be pro-life?, by Jonah Goldberg.
9) Preemption, Israeli style, by Joshua Muravchik.
10) Stonehenges all around us, by Craig Childs.
Read a few sympathetic reactions to Jonathan Chait’s Gore-is-the-anti-Bush piece after the jump.
As most people know, Gore won [the Nobel peace prize]. Will he run? I don’t know but doubt it -- but if he’s responsible as he sounds, he must. Apparently, he isn’t.
One guy gets a Nobel Peace Prize, one guy faces the prospect of international trial for war crimes. I don’t think the Nobel guy wants to trade, really.
[W]hat’s with the hate for Gore? He’s a messenger of a belief system that’s widely held (and accepted worldwide, sans a mouthy majority in the US) that our climate is changing, most likely from things we’re doing to the planet during our everyday lives. He’s not saying ‘gimme your babies’, ‘homosexuals don’t shower as much as I do’, or ‘that elephant logo makes it look like you have two wangers’. He’s saying we can live more harmoniously with our terrestrial home. Why is that wrong?