Though a blog, this is a well constructed and supported story. With the sole exception of the author's implication that psychology is distinct from political and economic leadership, the inaccessibility of science communications, aggressive vested opposition interests and "extremist greenies". Each and all of these elements contain and respond to psychological components. The report of the American Psychological Association is not the whole of psychology or even all that psychology ... More »

While I am an ardent supporter of the cause of dealing with climate change AND a practicing clinical psychologist, I fear that the author has rather overstated the role of psychology and entirely ignored the role of advertising and marketing. In one sense, the advertising industry has long been the public activation arm of psychology, though not under the auspices or control of the psychologists. A failure to recognize the role of advertising leaves a serious gap in the story and ... More »

This article makes its point well, though it does not really speak to how the Dangerous Thinking is to be altered. Probably the most valuable argument presented is that scientists have not yet managed to make their case to the public, and he touches on what they do wrong as well as noting that they are faced with a very communicative opposition. Direct references to things psychological, however, are fairly common knowledge. That said, the case regarding responding to climate change ... More »

This is an opinion piece, but that is not surprising in a blog. The author's assertions about "most people" are never supported by data nor, I suspect, are they very accurate. He raises the concept of a "moral issue" but does not support it well, let alone support the argument that such a thing is swaying the public. His central theme, though, is, itself, unsupported. Was Kyoto a success because after Kyoto there was an increase in climate conscious activity? No support for the ... More »

This is not a story, it is a rant, and not a very well worked out (or spelled) one at that. The author has an admitted bias and that is pretty much all that is in evidence in the piece.

This brief commentary puts into perspective some of the problems with the current health care debate going on, specifically by questioning the validity and merit of eliminating the universal coverage single payer option from the debate.

This article repeats some of the egregious behaviors of health insurance companies, a fact of their existence for the past several decades. It suggests, without evidence, that there are ways to make the insurance industry more effective in health care delivery, mentioning regulation, compulsion to cover high risk subscribers and the effect of competition from a public plan as primary ways this might be done. The article fails to offer any balance in the form of explanations from the ... More »

This article presents the fact that people are arguing over health care far better than presenting any coherent arguments about health care. There are many references to different ideas, but the reader is left to fend for themselves in deciding which might be preferred. The worst moment of the article is where Dr. McCoy is cited as being "outraged by the focus (of the AMA) on reimbursement" and cites the medical profession as having an "altruistic nature". This is a misleading ... More »

I like and respect Robert Reich's opinions, but this article makes one argument repeatedly that is subject to question. He insists that the public plan option will put pressure on the other plans to clean up their acts and improve their efficiencies. He also notes that the public "Medicare's administrative costs per enrollee are a small fraction of typical private insurance costs", and this after many decades of its existence. Where, then, is the pressure on the private insurances to ... More »

The best aspect of the journalism in this article is that it does not go beyond the data and draw conclusions. It points to the contradictions between what the McCain campaign says and what then Mayor and now Governor Palin do. It does open the door for questions regarding the sincerity of Gov Palin's statements in opposition to earmarks. While it describes some of the investigations under way, it does not draw conclusions regarding the Governor's involvement.

The story is good, and well researched. It is neither an attack on Gov Palin, nor an indictment of Sen McCain. It raises the singular question of when and how well the Senator's campaign vetted the woman he named to be his running mate. The lack of vetting leaves this candidacy in a precarious state. Stories about Gov Palin continue to come out as they are unveiled primarily by the press. The RNC and the McCain campaign get left playing catch-up and are in reactive mode. Initially, ... More »

A generally good story, that seeks to assess the impact of the evangelical voters in the 2008 presidential campaign, especially with respect to John McCain. Mentioned only slightly, however, was the apparent divide now appearing in the evangelical community, where traditionally democrat issues of environmentalism and social justice are getting at least equal standing with the marriage, gay and abortion issues that provided the critical wedge in the past few decades. Not mentioned is ... More »

This is a good overview, with numerous additional links to pursue for more information. While it cannot cover the entire complexity of the health care problem in America, it does a good job of laying out some of the barriers to reform.

This is a reasonable job of soft reporting on science. The actual research issues are complex and difficult, and the article avoids the complexity. The intent is clearly to promote and describe the point of view of a single researcher, who constitutes essentially the sole source. As an introduction to the area and the issues, it is fine, but this is still science for the non-science readers and therefore thin.

This article laces the factual story with canards, attacks and characterizations that further the media's spin on the entire campaign process. One such of the latter: Obama's campaign is described as "attracting a biracial coalition". If you break out the numbers, however, what you find is that Obama's 55% vote was 41% black and 14% white (based on estimate of 51% black turnout and 49% white -- "blacks made up slightly more than half of the Democratic electorate"), or nearly 4:1 ... More »

This story continues the media take on the campaigns, characterizing the Obama campaign in a very kind light and the Clinton campaign in a harsh one. With only a single source for quotes, and a few selections from polls, the author seeks to make a case for a tough and tested Obama campaign, having weathered a serious racial attack and won over white voters. Does anyone really believe the Republicans are going to be as or less hard on an Obama candidacy? And the only white votes he ... More »

No, this is not journalism at all, but rather one-sided, biased diatribe. For a blog that rants about getting facts right, it and its registered commentators would do well to research the meaning of the term. Instead, we are served with a swill of name-calling, poisoning of the well, misrepresentation and misstatement amounting to a class project in improper argumentation methods. Mr. Graham is clearly preaching to his choir, and they sing amazingly off key.

A short blogger statement complaining that the Republicans should not repeat claims that some don't trust General Petraeus, since it is a strategically "dumb thing to do". If you have read this, you have the content of the article.

Glenn's critique of Michael Gordon is clear and, if the subsequent alterations by the NYT are any indication, accurate. One would have thought that drumming up a war wouldn't work so many times in a row...

Of considerable suspicion is the fact that this story reads like a promotional piece for the researchers who are currently negotiating the sale of the rights to the process to the drug companies. Hoped for results are overstated, conclusions are overly broad and the cautionary notes are fewer and more tepid than they should be.

The story, while presenting a problematic issue for the current administration, sticks pretty close to the facts of the issue and leaves the conclusions for the reader. If there are significant arguments opposing either the facts presented or the conclusions suggested, these are not presented.

Though the author makes assertions authoritatively, there is no real authority here. Maligning attacks on others are inappropriate, especially as their positions are badly stated. Worst, however, is the extent to which the author really does not understand the subject matter and therefore ends up making very poor suggestions for both the health care system and for Barak Obama.

The author is presenting an opinion piece, but both his history and his logic are seriously flawed. The first Iraq war, for instance, was conducted with a considerable partnership of nations, one of the impressive acts of the senior Bush's administration. The Korean War, cited along with VietNam and Somalia, is actually a case that argues against his own theme. We continue to stay the course in Korea, still awaiting the "mission accomplished" moment, and the situation remains mostly ... More »

The author does a fairly reasonable job of presenting the information, but ends up being somewhat misleading about the nature of the disputes involved. From the article, one might imagine that there is widespread and hard to understand disagreement about the value of ethanol. The issues in the scientific and environmental communities are not so much about ethanol versus fossil fuels (one being renewable, the other very much not), but rather a concern that commitments will be made to ... More »

This story suggests, though does not quite come out and say, that the global warming concern is overblown. It uses extreme statements regarding warming as straw men to argue that the situation is not so bad. It does not tell the reader how good or bad the science of the Duke study is. It gives no scientific commentary on the Duke study. It does not inform the reader of the consequences of the warming the Duke researchers (unnamed!) acknowledge is happening. It finally ends with a ... More »