No. The article is that it did not tease apart issues, nor did it delve deeply into other correlations, and will become fodder for right-wing racists to deny care to minorities.

No. It is the same nonsense journalism, crying liberal bias.

Not particularly deep, but persuasive, and seemingly unbiased, dealing with the basic virtues and problems of using the production of potatoes to deal with global hunger.

Although well-written, it simply tells of the failure of GM as told by GM. Nothing about the quite noticeable dislike liberal elements had for SUV's, nor the palpable dislike of SUV's for being huge, consumptive, and dangerous. The article seems to present nothing of any environmental or safety concerns that could have served as a warning. Overall, a lopsided, sympathy piece for GM and the auto industry.

Although I think the article is interesting, and in many ways correct, the slant is obviously partisan. It predicts policies that Democrats are likely to implement, most of which are likely correct or close, but certainly not the entirety, and only perceives them as negative. Additionally, the target audience is only the party faithful of the business class, and does not review the positive outcomes likely to ensue, only the negatives that the party faithful keep repeating.

It seems more a piece to laud McCain for his conflicting allegiances, but doesn't really show/prove that he embraces conflicting opinions. It seems more that the author can't parse normal political speech. An item cited "his case for fiscally conservative, smaller government" juxtaposing his denouncement of Obama’s approach to health care. Although it might sound contradictory, parsing it as Republican-speak only means that he will cut social welfare, leave the military juggernaut in place, lower taxes on wealth, and certainly not balance the budget. No one should believe either candidate can balance the budget, considering the expenditures on war and financial rescue as we head into an economic downturn.

As far as in-depth analysis, there is none, since there is little fact provided, actual percentage or numeric increase, nor proof that the increase is related to the market turmoil. Assuming the facts are true, there is little of any big-picture or conflicting opinion. Intuitively, there is not much to contradict here, and likely true, in that many people harbor a belief that Jew's control much of the world's wealth, and when times turn bad, they blame the Jews.

Galbraith wrote about this years ago, that we were past the point of material need, that we could direct our economic energies to services and other quality of life activities, but the GDP measure has won out, to the ruin of American lives. Objectively, GDP has little or no relationship to quality of life, nor does productivity, in its simple form, although there are material, economic benefits related to the rate of GDP growth. Going further, one might likely find negatives related to GDP, such as more hours worked, but again, this has no benefit to quality of life in the developed world. Not much to say, other than just the facts, although many inobjective cases can be made for the necessity of GDP growth to people's lives.

The author makes some points on history, with little mention of liberal and conservative stance, but then makes a nonsensical jump to "the people who opposed the Iraq war and still oppose it are called "liberals." Those who advocated it and still support it are called "conservatives."", which was true then, and certainly now, at least generally. Although there might be complexities and subtleties to the political spectrum, the against-the-war stance was true then as it is now. Liberal, more accurately termed economically-left libertarian, as opposed to economically-right authoritarian (the standard Republican / Conservative), shares many characteristics with the economically-right libertarian, those typically called ... More »

Although I'm an atheist, I do believe it is true that attitudes like religion - a less rigid attitude about spirituality - might be the underlying reason for the correlation, it likely exists. Also, comprehensive overviews would likely show a correlation between high levels of religiosity and low levels of country development coupled with low suicide rates. Religion seems to be the "opiate of the masses," and it is effective, but the bigger picture would show that by-country religiosity correlates with social dysfunction and low degrees of social welfare. Although this piece attempts to be balanced, and is likely accurate, it is too narrowly focused.

The story is told from the Republican point of view. When Republican were in power, courtesy to Democrats likely went out the door, and now that the situation is reversed, prominent Republicans are complaining about the turnabout. The article is thoroughly lopsided.

This article about wealth, and whether this new gilded age is good, was basically a platform speech for the wealthy, with some critique by the also wealthy. No real discussions of wealth or inequality. No justification or refutation. Important to read, but only because someone in the media needs to knock the blowhards and their supporters back with facts about the problems caused, in both the developed and third worlds, by such grotesque inequalities.

Overall, the article provides a balanced view of why many on both the left and the right hate the new bill. Although discreet, the author likely has liberal sentiments, but by liberal I mean concerned about the welfare of the immigrant population, as well as the repudiation of long-standing American values. Obviously, one reviewer, likely conservative, believes he knows what Americans want, strong border control, but obviously the issue is much less one-sided. Another reviewer commented on the use of the phrase "Know Nothings," deeming it an insult, although it refers to a particular political group from the 19th century: The Know Nothing movement was a nativist American political movement of the 1850s. It grew up as a ... More »

Assumes conservative postions are pragmatic, while liberal positions are visionary, or more succinctly, unrealistic. It belies an ignorance of conservative 'practicailty', which in fact is a right-wing and authoritarian ideology. It assumes the right-wing parties coming into power are non-political.... Essentially, this article is fine right-wing, fascist propaganda...

Lopsided viewpoint, only telling a singular and 'conservative side of argument. It's assumption that the group of border control's guards statement against the legislation being significant, ignores the self-interest of the border patrol in pushing the concept of strong borders, as well as its relative meaninglessness. One of the reviewers giving a highly positive recommendation for the article is a friend of the author. Bias, what bias?

This seems just another rant against 'liberal' media, but with no facts to back its claims of bias.