My criticism is specific to the presentation. The content itself looks fine, and that's what counts. The presentation is only as absurd as it is because the fa

My criticism is specific to the presentation. The content itself looks fine, and that's what counts. The presentation is only as absurd as it is because the facts were stubbornly included. There is nothing leftist about it either: this article is clearly written to be intentionally moderate. That's precisely what I am criticizing here: the moderate political voice is blatantly shoehorned in a way that makes the whole article incoherent. It would be one thing to actually support a moderate stance; but that isn't happening either. Instead, we have a vain appeasement to the pipe dream that is political neutrality. Who is it for? You?