I know they are popular, and I know I don't have to read them. But my guess is that most people get sucked-in by the title or header like I do.

The columns carry very little information beyond what is already in recent headlines. Beyond that there are only broad generalizations and weak opinions. His columns are very un-Slate like; they are better suited for Newsweek; they are a waste of time and electricity.

Today's column is a perfect example: The dollar is continuing to get weaker. America has-been and is known for managerial skill. But lately we've been screwing-up. And for most of us that is a bad thing.

Throwing-in a Carl Icahn quote and a family anecdote does not make it a rewarding experience.

I agree. The headline definitely made me expect more than was delivered. Especially since, as someoen else pointed out, there was no conclusion!

I was hoping to hear him say what we could do to solve the problem. Then I realized he didn't actually give any evidence for the problem and suddenly it all made sense: you can't solve a problem if it doesn't exist.

The funny thing is, Slate hands out checkmarks sometimes to posters who basically call their columnists idiots. So, I think they are well aware of the "problem" and post deliberately shitty articles to draw more eyeballs to the fray.