It is neither good or bad. It just states the numbers which could have been shown in a graph.

The article is very insightful and somewhat responsible. The problem I have with the article. Is it sounds almost hopeless. He does bring up points why I am in opponent of the Keystone pipeline. The article never mentions Keystone. Those who argue that the volatile climate, environment is due to natural causes are being irresponsible. They have failed to utilize science to back up this empty argument.

It was brief and to the point. It made its point and was clear and understandable. It was not in depth, therefore it reads more like an editorial.

The problem here is that headlines read the evolution of Fox news but there was nothing about Fox news and the entire clip. For that I was deeply disappointed but there is another clip that may highlight this.

The article poses very interesting opinion into what is wrong with the unemployment. Although Krugman attacks the structuralists, his solution is government spending but he does nothing to show how this will help. if anything, he brings up points that I would like to see opponents of this viewpoints bring up.

The article is confusing and brief to be any help to anyone.

I would be interested to know if the author tried to get an interview with Yakiya Amano. It would be interested to know what his take is on the charges. As a contrast it should be pointed out the US has a long history of being bellicose and the media and people are always willing to think war will solve the problems. The US never wants to appear weak.

It is informative and well written but it appears to be more of a space filler.

this article could have been more in depth. How many e-mails were sent to Lowe's? There was no attempt to contact the church group and no report about how large this church group is.

Not many sources are cited. The author gives a number of scenarios but does not back it up. It is the usual doom and gloom.

The article was well written and the author made his point clearly. But I couldn't wondering why the author was even bothering unless he is not a fan of Poltifact or similar sites.

The article was posted in the Chicago Tribune and the Early Show on Saturday. The credit belongs to the AP.

The article leads with John McCain and like all articles that tries to draw attention to him, there is hardly anything about the nincompoop for the Senate Foreign Relations committee.

This story starts out with a bias and never presents one argument why it just might be flawed. The quote from Jessica Faller is more on the mark. Women can be unmerciful to each other and are blinded by their biases. As an example take any office where women predominate and there is a deep distrust among many of them. For Taranto to become a cheerleader for Palin in unacceptable. As a public figure there is always the danger of both good and bad publicity. So, Taranto should get over it.

The article is one sided but it is the side that I support and it does make some poignant points. I would have been harsher on the Supreme Court since they dropped the ball on this one. The Supreme court has no business making predictions.

As with any economic news lately, it is hard to know what is really going on. There always good news with scattered amounts of slow growth. It is time for economists to state the obvious and that unemployment will continue at their high levels for 2 - 3 years.