http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-f...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2001/07/dangerous-meatpa...
Not sure how that's a political issue.
"Well, what if I do start crying?" I ask the woman who warns me to keep it together no matter how awfully I'm treated. "Are they really going to fire me for that?"
"Yes," she says. "There's 16 other people who want your job. Why would they keep a person who gets emotional, especially in this economy?"
Not sure how that's a political issue either.
theorique: This article is full of bias. The writer has an anti-business agenda and cherry picked a group of examples in order to make these kind of services wrong.
I think most people, regardless of their opinion of theorique's comment, would agree that this is a fairly political statement. If nothing else, it's saying the OA is political.
The response by minikites: What a rosy Econ 101 view of the world. In reality, tons of people are desperate for money and put up with a lot of predatory business processes. Lots of people work without healthcare because they're purposely scheduled for just enough hours to make them less than full time. followed by two links to the motherjones.com domain
Also a fairly political statement in itself, even disregarding the sources.
However, I commented specifically on the source. Motherjones.com. A site owned by the Foundation for National Progress. It'd be hard to come up with a more political name that doesn't include Republican or Democratic. From their own FAQ page you can pull out several nice-sounding phrases that are thinly veiled Democratic talking points.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a bad site or that liberalism or progressivism is wrong. What I am saying is that you don't try to disprove someone saying a Salon.com article is biased (in favor of the Left) by providing them with corroborating sources from a website even more liberal than Salon.com. It's like combating the Tea Party by providing a Kucinich speech calling Obama a warmonger.