|
Man NASL finals were great! Now for a different topic...
I’ve been following the political action quite a bit now and to be honest, I feel so afraid. Not angry. Not even disappointed. But afraid. I fear that the economic downturn is only a microcosm of some festering issues in America.
The economic crisis blatantly proved several things to the world and the American people.
1) Corporate greed was atrocious. And I mean despicable. The major investment banks were lending mortgage securities that they could not cover/afford and had absolutely nothing as collateral. And the formulas and calculations for these securities were not even made known to the Federal Reserve. Corporate executives, easily raking in over 15 million dollars a year, just had to seek new ways to make even more money. I still can’t imagine how they could so easily agree to gamble on peoples’ lives. Money can be lost and regained, but their actions have destroyed families and utterly destroyed lives. To me, this is what happens when government has been politically isolated. Unfortunately, at that time, government control=evil. Supposedly, government oversight is harmful. Hmmm…. look what happened.
2) However, the response to this economic downturn was even worse, and this becomes a political problem. Of course, people began flaming the Republican Party for destroying the nation and naturally voted in a Democrat, Barack Obama. People were angry, that’s to be understood. But this mentality is dangerous. But many Americans somehow expect the economic disaster to be solved overnight. WHAT? An economic meltdown years in the making is somehow supposed to be resolved in a mere matter of 2-4 years? This impatience shows just how easily people forget the true causes of the disaster. They are railing against Obama for “neglecting” the people when in fact, he was the one to inherit this mess caused by fiscal irresponsibility of George W. Bush and the executives at AIG, etc. I honestly hope that the American people don’t do something irrational and just become an angry mob. I hope that voters don’t simply vote because they are not seeing “more jobs”. I hope that voters will have the patience to accept the fact that this economic recovery will take time and perseverance. But I have this suspecting feeling that most Americans won’t be so patient. And out of this impatience, more trouble will befall us, namely the upcoming 2012 election.
3)The polarized nature of Congress right now is a nuclear bomb ready to go off. The debt ceiling crisis is but one example. Here, I am going to place the most responsibility on the President and the Republican Party. I can’t really fault the President for suggesting 4 trillion in tax cuts and demanding some tax deduction loopholes to be removed. It sounds very reasonable to me and I think this is a good compromise for both parties. Unfortunately, the Republicans just don’t seem to understand that their political game is costing people’s livelihoods. Again, it seems like no Republican values the responsibility of being a “civil servant”. I can’t tell if this is some black comedy or if Republicans think this is just some backyard where they can bully anyone they want because they have a majority in the House. They always talk about the economic mess that Obama has done nothing about, but those hypocrites just won’t do a single thing when they have the power to do so. According to a Wall Street article, Eric Cantor, the Republican Whip in the House of Representatives, bought up to $15,000 in shares of ProShares Trust Ultrashort 20+ Year Treasury ETF last December, according to his 2009 financial disclosure statement. The exchange-traded fund takes a short position in long-dated government bonds. In effect, it is a bet against U.S. government bonds—and perhaps on inflation in the future. 2 weeks ago, Cantor pulled out of debt ceiling talks, increasing the possibility of default. And why shouldn’t he? If the U.S. defaults, he’ll make money on his investments. He’ll still have a job because he’s in a safe seat. And an economic collapse makes it more likely that a Republican wins the White House in 2012, which would make Eric Cantor more powerful. Someone from the Republican side needs to just step up and do the right thing for once, for America.
4)The political stalemate along with the angry mobs of voters (e.g. Tea Party) do not help at all with the recovery of America. A democracy hinges upon a knowledgeable voter base and a responsible political party. Unfortunately, both are slowly fading away. Voters are just yelling and screaming for jobs and jobs and more jobs without even considering what has to be done in order to get there. Whilst all of this is going on, we still have politicians pretending everything is just fine at the office and scheduling more political manoeuvring. Seriously, I hope with all my heart that America will once again be restored to her former might. But right now, it seems there is little hope. Both voters and politicians must realize that America is at the precipice of a major social decline and that right now is not the time to simply turn a blind eye to the leadership of this nation. The responsibility falls on everyone and the future of this nation is at stake. Hopefully, we will see some sort of compromise on this debt ceiling negotiations and hopefully the entire nation will come to realize the seriousness of the present political landscape.
 
|
I'd read this if it was formatted a bit. Might consider that if you're looking for discussion with this much text.
User was warned for this post
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
Hello Mr. xXFireandIceXx,
To address the parts of your post that can't be summarized by "fuck Republicans/the corporations":
Please understand that to some people, "more jobs" is not an abstraction, but actually something that affects them personally, and that what you call "angry mobbery" generally reflects a rational response toward policies that are anti-job creation.
Oh, by the way, I believe Eric Cantor (via inflation hedging) is betting against the competence of the overall American political class, which I think is one of the more solid decisions out there.
|
You know what America needs? Some decent non-two-faced politicians discussing issues without secondary agendas, and making a feasible plan that is followed up on. Not to mention some non-biased media coverage that encourages people to find out the truth for themselves so that they aren't spoon-fed opinions. While I'm still dreaming, how about general world peace and an end to poverty....... *sigh*....... -_-
|
I agree with ya, the republicans are terrible these days. I wouldn't be against them if they didn't try to gain control at all costs and if they were logical and consistent in their political philosophy. Some of the paleocons are actually better conservatives than today's republicans. I'm actually a conservative socially but I'd be labeled a leftist because of the democrats' stance on many of those issues. The American political system is pretty wrecked, that's for sure.
|
On July 11 2011 09:31 CrushingShadows wrote:
You know what America needs? Some decent non-two-faced politicians discussing issues without secondary agendas, and making a feasible plan that is followed up on. Not to mention some non-biased media coverage that encourages people to find out the truth for themselves so that they aren't spoon-fed opinions. While I'm still dreaming, how about general world peace and an end to poverty....... *sigh*....... -_-
end to world poverty? empower women, stop treating them like cattle. it's a good start.
non-biased media coverage doesn't exist. I think you want a non-partisan media. A media source that encourages people to find out the truth for themselves instead of being spoon-fed is impossible. You would have to become a journalist/reporter yourself, and go to the actual scenes of events to find out. Your proposition can be done to some degree thanks to the internet, though.
|
It seems like Republicans are simply out of touch with the people they should be representing. While attempting to cut social programs like social security, medicare, etc they pump money into the military, prison complex, and adhere to some kind of trickle down theory that simply isn't happening. I don't understand how the Republicans can still carry the majority of the vote, other than through the use of fear.
Also it doesn't help that lunatics/idiots (perhaps puppets?) like Bachmann, Boehner can get into the positions of power.
|
Yay another economically ignorant opinionated, and sensationalist post.
Just #1) shows that you don't understand these things. A bank would never lend mortgages that would conventionally be so risky if the government didn't simulate a risk free environment by buying out all the repackaged mortgages from the banks with freshly printed money. Which is ridiculous they shouldn't even have the right to do this.
|
yes because it's preferable to have financial collapse than inflation
|
On July 11 2011 09:49 FragKrag wrote:
yes because it's preferable to have financial collapse than inflation
Surely a financial collapse would bring inflation anyway because the USA would be less likeyly to service debt payments and the % of Debt to GDP would skyrocket?
|
First we had the religion thread a few weeks ago, then the sex thread, and now we have the politics thread. Awesome :/
On July 11 2011 09:14 xXFireandIceXx wrote:
I’ve been following the political action quite a bit now and to be honest, I feel so afraid. Not angry. Not even disappointed. But afraid. I fear that the economic downturn is only a microcosm of some festering issues in America.
Yeah, America has a bunch of issues. So does Europe, Africa, Asia and...well, pretty much the entire world. If you want to live a life free of fear then go out into the woods, grow your own food, and live a happy albeit ignorant existence.
It really bothers me when I read things like this. You get it a lot more from the far right and far left, but it's the attitude that we need to fear our government. We elect people to represent us. Sometimes the person we want in gets in, sometimes they don't. Sometimes the people we elect are terrible so we try to get someone else elected. These people are in these positions to listen to us and take these problems on themselves. I feel bad that you have such little faith in the system. "Oh, but the system could fail us and hurdle us into everlasting depression and anarchy!". Fine, but in the unlikely event that all the crap hits the fan are all Americans just going to stop functioning and die? No! We're a strong, resilient people and in the event of disaster we'll do what we do best - survive.
A democracy hinges upon a knowledgeable voter base and a responsible political party. Unfortunately, both are slowly fading away. Voters are just yelling and screaming for jobs and jobs and more jobs without even considering what has to be done in order to get there. Whilst all of this is going on, we still have politicians pretending everything is just fine at the office and scheduling more political manoeuvring.
Knowledgeable voter base? Precious few people are knowledgeable when it comes to politics! I was an RA in a freshman hall during the 2008 election and I can't tell you the number of people I saw jumping the Obama band wagon because he was popular and "not George Bush".
A few years ago I was visiting my aunt. I was on the computer and she was watching the American Idol finale. Before announcing the winner the host said that more people voted for American Idol than voted for the president. Even if half those votes were from individual people it clearly shows that America values its entertainment over who is in charge of 1/3 of the government.
Another story: I have a friend who ran for state senate in my old Michigan college town. He was the "new guy", but he had high hopes and aspirations. His plan to help recover the small city was to start reforming the education system. He had a very lengthy and meticulous plan. If successful, the plan would create more educated city-dwellers thus creating more jobs. He lost to another guy who basically said "I'm going to get more jobs!" without really telling anyone HOW. My friend might not have had the greatest plan, but he had a plan. However, the city has about 10% unemployment, so between the "education guy" and the "jobs guy" the masses of uninformed voters had their work cut out for them. I say "masses", but only around 35% of the city voted. I suppose one could make the argument that if the average citizen doesn't give a crap about politics then naturally those who don't belong in office will stay in office.
Really want to change the way the masses think? It's unlikely one big thing will happen that snaps everyone to attention (unless it was really tragic, in that case defer to my survival comment). The best way you can reach people is doing it on an individual basis. Of course you could also complain about it on a gamer forum, but I don't think anyone reading this is magically discovering something they didn't already know...
|
On July 11 2011 09:25 419 wrote:
Hello Mr. xXFireandIceXx,
To address the parts of your post that can't be summarized by "fuck Republicans/the corporations":
Please understand that to some people, "more jobs" is not an abstraction, but actually something that affects them personally, and that what you call "angry mobbery" generally reflects a rational response toward policies that are anti-job creation.
Oh, by the way, I believe Eric Cantor (via inflation hedging) is betting against the competence of the overall American political class, which I think is one of the more solid decisions out there.
First off, this isn't an attack against the Republicans. Of course, I favor the President in the negotiations, but I'm trying to get at something much larger than just "this party is bad". Also, fact that more jobs are personal furthers the importance of patience. I don't think it's just some other phrase but it will take time to create more jobs. If you honestly feel that Mr.Cantor's actions are justified, then so be it. But betting against the nation you were elected to serve sounds counter-intuitive.
|
On July 11 2011 09:45 Kiarip wrote:
Yay another economically ignorant opinionated, and sensationalist post.
Just #1) shows that you don't understand these things. A bank would never lend mortgages that would conventionally be so risky if the government didn't simulate a risk free environment by buying out all the repackaged mortgages from the banks with freshly printed money. Which is ridiculous they shouldn't even have the right to do this.
The economic practises of the major banks reflect the economic stance of the government. This "risk-free" environment was created because of government withdrawal from economic oversight. The banks do have control over their mortgage contracts and they should show discretion.
|
On July 11 2011 10:17 Servius_Fulvius wrote:
Another story: I have a friend who ran for state senate in my old Michigan college town. He was the "new guy", but he had high hopes and aspirations. His plan to help recover the small city was to start reforming the education system. He had a very lengthy and meticulous plan. If successful, the plan would create more educated city-dwellers thus creating more jobs. He lost to another guy who basically said "I'm going to get more jobs!" without really telling anyone HOW. My friend might not have had the greatest plan, but he had a plan. However, the city has about 10% unemployment, so between the "education guy" and the "jobs guy" the masses of uninformed voters had their work cut out for them. I say "masses", but only around 35% of the city voted. I suppose one could make the argument that if the average citizen doesn't give a crap about politics then naturally those who don't belong in office will stay in office.
I think this is a huge problem at the moment. A lot of people may vote for the presidential election and the major senate/house elections, but not as many people vote in local elections which arguably have a larger effect on themselves.
|
I just can't wait till the dragons come.
|
I don't think the Media should be neglected here. Our sensationalist, polarized media can be disgusting for making all the problems worse. (I'm talking both sides, not just one or the other.)
Everything that people come up with, the portions of the media that are leaning the other direction politically will attack. People call their representatives screaming about issues that the "experts" the media brought in didn't bother to explain in depth, and the process gets paralyzed.
Voter education is the key, I'd say. Too many political issues get turned into these giant, lobby-fed messes full of convoluted wording and doublespeak that makes it impossible to understand what's actually on the table, and if the public doesn't get it, they turn again to the media, listen to the sensation, and scream.
I'm probably not putting this well, but long story short, while I don't believe in censoring the media, I do wish there was some way to enforce them delivering both sides of everything...
|
On July 11 2011 10:32 JingleHell wrote:
I'm probably not putting this well, but long story short, while I don't believe in censoring the media, I do wish there was some way to enforce them delivering both sides of everything...
Then we also have to keep in mind that the media is a corporation itself with economic goals similar to that of any other industry - make money.
What sells more: a fair and mostly unbiased telling of both sides, or a biased article that creates a real-life drama? Given the current status of the media I'd say the latter is favored.
In order to get "the facts" you have to sift through a lot of crap, think for yourself, and discuss it with others. Personally, I don't think you're going to get a reputable news source to give both sides of the coin every time without violating the first amendment. Though one could always hope, right?
|
Even a right wing rag like the Economist has come out in criticism of the Republicans, who are demanding an 85-15 split between spending cuts and tax hikes. Obama offered them 83-17, but they still aren't budging. This whole "debt crisis" is a cynical political game - there is no debt crisis but the one that could be generated by the Republicans.
|
I was an RA in a freshman hall during the 2008 election and I can't tell you the number of people I saw jumping the Obama band wagon because he was popular and "not George Bush".
It's just that at that time, the Republican Party fell out of grace. Senator McCain was a good candidate, but it was his party that lost him the election. So it's not so much band wagon as it is "we cannot have another Republican president from what we have seen in the past 8 years".
Also, with your friend, I honestly feel that you bring up a great point about what voters want to hear and what actually works. I think your friend would have done well in office and certainly shouldn't give up his pursuit of politics. It sounds like he does truly care about that position. However, there must be a balance of what "sounds good" and what will actually work.
|
On July 11 2011 10:39 Servius_Fulvius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2011 10:32 JingleHell wrote:
I'm probably not putting this well, but long story short, while I don't believe in censoring the media, I do wish there was some way to enforce them delivering both sides of everything... Then we also have to keep in mind that the media is a corporation itself with economic goals similar to that of any other industry - make money. What sells more: a fair and mostly unbiased telling of both sides, or a biased article that creates a real-life drama? Given the current status of the media I'd say the latter is favored. In order to get "the facts" you have to sift through a lot of crap, think for yourself, and discuss it with others. Personally, I don't think you're going to get a reputable news source to give both sides of the coin every time without violating the first amendment. Though one could always hope, right?
Yeah, much as I endorse thinking for ones self and taking personal responsibility for actions and decisions, I absolutely despise the amount of digging you have to do with the media here in America.
Of course, on the whole debt issue, speaking of personal responsibility, we can't forget the people who got themselves into messes taking out huge adjustable rate mortgages trying to take advantage of the housing market to make a fortune, and lost money gambling. Corporate greed may have helped, but a lot less people would have had trouble if they hadn't gotten greedy themselves.
No matter who enabled them, bad decisions are the fault of the person who makes them.
|
Of course, on the whole debt issue, speaking of personal responsibility, we can't forget the people who got themselves into messes taking out huge adjustable rate mortgages trying to take advantage of the housing market to make a fortune, and lost money gambling. Corporate greed may have helped, but a lot less people would have had trouble if they hadn't gotten greedy themselves.
That is true and I agree. But I think the banks knew all along the game they were playing.
|
On July 11 2011 11:46 xXFireandIceXx wrote:Show nested quote +Of course, on the whole debt issue, speaking of personal responsibility, we can't forget the people who got themselves into messes taking out huge adjustable rate mortgages trying to take advantage of the housing market to make a fortune, and lost money gambling. Corporate greed may have helped, but a lot less people would have had trouble if they hadn't gotten greedy themselves. That is true and I agree. But I think the banks knew all along the game they were playing.
Absolutely. The banks were morally reprehensible in what they did. But it's like blaming the dealer when you get arrested driving all coked out. They just gave you the means, you still did it to yourself.
As far as government oversight is concerned, as lousy of a concept as that is, it beats the first round of bailouts that turned into huge bonuses for the people that put us in the situation to begin with. And frankly, look at the big deal with money that vanished in Iraq. Obviously when there's large chunks of money involved, the government NEEDS to keep track of what happens to it, or people will go ballistic (as they should.)
And now, to sound absolutely silly after my speech about personal responsibility, I can say from personal experience that Obama's bailouts that required they actually drop the debts they were claiming money for had a real impact on actual people. I had a car that got repoed due to a combination of bad decision making and lost copies of my paperwork when the sleazy credit company "lost" the records of my payments. Getting that cleared so they could claim money actually had an effect on me, the little guy.
I appreciated that one a lot more than the one where the rich guys who helped it all happen got a little more in their bank accounts.
|
You think the US is only at the precipice of social decline...
|
Hmm. I feel like everyone in developed nations always loves to take the line of "god our country is in huge ridiculous trouble" and love to throw around terms like disaster, doom etc. I don't think its the case where everything is in decline and the nation is in huge trouble as you say. It's always been a historically fashionable argument to say that massive trouble lurks ahead. Sure, there are problems that are facing the nation and deadlock has occurred in Congress/Government etc, but this has always occurred at some stage.
On the other hand, I believe that the US has also made some important advances in the day-to-day lives of its citizens. We are now more aware than ever of the social problems that afflict certain groups. Women, and minorities are finding it easier to enter positions of social standing (we still need to work on that). The standard of living in the US has not dramatically changed at all - it's merely that other nations are catching up to that point as well.
Now to address some of your points. (1) Corporate greed is indeed quite high. But at the very least we are aware of the problems brought on by corporate greed. This is far better than in many nations where corporations (and governments) are not forced to disclose any of their profit mechanisms or any of their actions whatsoever. (2) (I'm grouping your points 2-4 here), the political stalemate brought on in Congress is indeed a problem as well. But its a problem in any democratic nation - there will always be fierce divisions (show me one nation where the opposition party does not relentlessly criticize the government in power and willingly cooperates at all times). Furthermore, the deadlock brought on between the current divisions (tea party and what not) is at least better than some of the divisions brought on in previous generations when we saw outright racist and discriminatory opinions held by large parts of the population.
Finally, as to the national debt issue - I do believe that eventually more austere measures will be passed by the government. (higher taxes and lower spending) It will definitely hurt and might take a toll on the standard of living in the US, but I don't think it would affect the nation to the point where you say social decline will occur. The issues brought on by national debt are similarly affecting many other nations as well - it's an issue the entire world needs to face.
|
No 1st world nation will have "real" financial prosperity until the BRIC nations, specifically India and China, are finished developing, because it's just so much cheaper to hire someone in India and China. (and we'll see this with Brazil and Russia soon) Sure there might be some protectionist bubbles in some places, but when corporations gain enough influence to push forward free trade policies, those nations will fill the sting as well.
With regards to corporate greed, corporations are not charities. Corporations don't owe it to the people to create jobs, they exist to make money, and no amount of regulation (even supposing you could turn government against the corporations) will change that.
On July 11 2011 11:46 xXFireandIceXx wrote:Show nested quote +Of course, on the whole debt issue, speaking of personal responsibility, we can't forget the people who got themselves into messes taking out huge adjustable rate mortgages trying to take advantage of the housing market to make a fortune, and lost money gambling. Corporate greed may have helped, but a lot less people would have had trouble if they hadn't gotten greedy themselves. That is true and I agree. But I think the banks knew all along the game they were playing.
Of course they did. Also, you mentioned in the OP about the abuse of derivatives, that banks were essentially gambling with people's livelihoods.
The problem is there's no effective way to ban that. Derivatives are used by pretty much every major corporation to hedge, even Warren Buffet, one of the safest investors out there, says he uses derivatives for hedging in his shareholder letters. You can't ban risky derivative trading though, since accountants will just find a way to make it look like hedging. And banning all derivatives including hedging is a silly prospect, you're just introducing more volatility into an already volatile market that way.
|
!. Establish Alternative Vote system for American elections.
2. Witness creation of multi-party democracy.
3. Enjoy not having to choose the lesser of two evils anymore.
|
The problem is there's no effective way to ban that. Derivatives are used by pretty much every major corporation to hedge, even Warren Buffet, one of the safest investors out there, says he uses derivatives for hedging in his shareholder letters. You can't ban risky derivative trading though, since accountants will just find a way to make it look like hedging. And banning all derivatives including hedging is a silly prospect, you're just introducing more volatility into an already volatile market that way
I'm not saying that these derivatives were harmful. I'm saying that the lax credit conditions set by the banks along with subprime lending and deregulation of government regulation played a large factor in the crisis. In the Senate investigation, they have concluded that "the crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street.”
|
On July 11 2011 10:24 xXFireandIceXx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2011 09:45 Kiarip wrote:
Yay another economically ignorant opinionated, and sensationalist post.
Just #1) shows that you don't understand these things. A bank would never lend mortgages that would conventionally be so risky if the government didn't simulate a risk free environment by buying out all the repackaged mortgages from the banks with freshly printed money. Which is ridiculous they shouldn't even have the right to do this. The economic practises of the major banks reflect the economic stance of the government. This "risk-free" environment was created because of government withdrawal from economic oversight. The banks do have control over their mortgage contracts and they should show discretion.
Um no... when the government creates a semi-private entity which guarantees that it will buy out repackaged mortgages, the banks lose all risk of giving out mortgages.
It is the risk of mal-investment that should serve as oversight not the government. Risk is free of cost, it's there because that's how a real market works. Government oversight costs tons of money which eats into the profits of good investments thus also decreasing the incentive to invest smartly.
Your line of thinking is what got us into the mess we're in.
I'm not saying that these derivatives were harmful. I'm saying that the lax credit conditions set by the banks along with subprime lending and deregulation of government regulation played a large factor in the crisis. In the Senate investigation, they have concluded that "the crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street.”
Lax credit conditions are set by the FED not by private banks. Low rates... they're set by the FED, it makes money cheap in relationship to the future which makes no sense, all common sense should point to the economy only getting worse in the future, because since the inflation is going up it would make sense that people will need to spend more money in the future, so they should be saving more money for the future, so money should be getting more expensive (eg. interest rates should be going up.)
It was government subsidies that resulted in unsafe lending during the Clinton administration, it's not like the banks want to go out there and make bad business decisions, they don't want to lose money, it's when government encourages them to do so by artificially minimizing their risks that it becomes profitable for them to do it.
LOL at the senate investigation. The senate is part of the government they want more power, of course they're gonna blame everything on lack of oversight. Look at the facts over the last 2 decades the economy has been going downhill and the oversight only increased.
|
On July 11 2011 10:32 JingleHell wrote:
I don't think the Media should be neglected here. Our sensationalist, polarized media can be disgusting for making all the problems worse. (I'm talking both sides, not just one or the other.)
Everything that people come up with, the portions of the media that are leaning the other direction politically will attack. People call their representatives screaming about issues that the "experts" the media brought in didn't bother to explain in depth, and the process gets paralyzed.
Voter education is the key, I'd say. Too many political issues get turned into these giant, lobby-fed messes full of convoluted wording and doublespeak that makes it impossible to understand what's actually on the table, and if the public doesn't get it, they turn again to the media, listen to the sensation, and scream.
I'm probably not putting this well, but long story short, while I don't believe in censoring the media, I do wish there was some way to enforce them delivering both sides of everything...
Way too many people confuse the olibermanns and OReillys of the world with actual news. They are not objective, and don't pretend to be, but for some reason people don't realize that. That is the main source of the problem. You're safe to assume that anyone who cites someone like that when forumlating an opinion is a dum-dum.
Most print and tv journalists, whose job is to be objective, are generally that. Bias will occasionally sneak in at even the best places, as it is a business, but that's the best system available. Some outlets tend to have a bit more bias than others (basically anything Murdoch touches)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
