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.

Agreed. Yes, Slate please drop this guy. He's a waste of space.

What does he have to do to get you to act? Isn't making up things (e.g., the Turkish Prime Minister's supposed 'fit of pique' at Davos) something editors frown on in their journalists (especially when they're reporting on filmed events where the reporter's false account can be refuted).