The New York Times reports that the "back-and-forth these last few months masks a more ominous trend for Fox News."

The litmus test as to whether this event is good or bad depends on the nature of the competitors.

Given the garbage that (still) passes for journalism in the MSN today, i'd say this is definitely a bad thing.

In short, media companies are starting to realize that the market for pablum was larger than expected and now want a piece of the action.

The really scary thought is that this might send a clear message to Faux that they aren't being "Fair and Balanced" enough, that they now have to "take the kid gloves off" to continue being market leaders.

But who is more to blame? The crack dealers or the junkies that buy their merchandise?

Skimming through some of the responses:

Religion is the acceptance of authority beyond any testing.

Or, in other words, religion is based on the assumption that your hypothesis is correct, while science is based on the assumption that it is wrong.

Given that we, the human race, hold the future of the world in our hands (or is it footprint?), which methodology would you rely on?

As far as the economics of climate change and energy scarcity go, it's not the fact that it goes up or down that mattters, but how fast and how much warning there is.

That is why transparency is such an important measure of the health of any economic system. This article implies that the climate change deniers are reducing transparency by hiding the true costs of current energy consumption.

So, the question you need to ask yourselves is this: "What happens to us ten, twenty years down the road if we're wrong?"

until you start hanging some of these malefactors, or invite brussels to put them in a box, the stench of your nation's character will continue to make you unwelcome elsewhere, save among those who are willing to do business with the devil.

That would be the ChiComs. Considering that they essentially underwrote the war in Iraq, i'd say you're right.

I already hear it now...

"But we HAD to do business with them! Otherwise other countries would have gotten to them first and then we'd lose our position as World Leader!"

Y'know, that term, I do not think it means what they think it means...

I have this horrible impression that some future minister in another First World nation is going to include the United States of America in their own "Axis of Evil" speech...

I would also like to see Clark flesh his theory out a bit more while this is still a hot issue and he is given air time. He cold point-out McCain's long record siding with Bushit on almost every conceivable issue. His anti-veteran stance on bills supporting vets, his support for an attack on Iran, his lack of understanding of the economy etc., etc. Then ask the pundit, if they now understand the point he is making. War experience does not translate into leadership or necessarily gave Mccain a leg-up on Obama on how one would face the decision making in National security issues.

Nope. Clark is being quite intelligent and conservative in his remarks, qualities characteristic of the military brass.

Intelligent, because he sticks to what he knows - military command. Being a platton leader or pilot does NOT qualify one for running a divisional command, much less a President. He does not make judgement calls on policy because he is not a politician.

Conservative, because his remarks are kept politically neutral. To do the above would clearly mark him as partisan and would detract from the authority of his earlier statement. He simply lets the facts stand for themselves.

But I am surprised (and concerned) that Obama didn't support Clark's statements. You don't have to have military experience to see the sense in what Clark said; how hard is it to find someone else who does to back it up?