Timely and thoughtful, although i was disappointed it ended before going deeper into broader issue.

I quibble with the point of the exercise -- the unwarranted confidence angle -- was slow in surfacing, but I still recommedn this article to all investors (and by extension to all who deal with expert prognostication) anbout trusting anyone's skills implicitly.

I'm particularly pleased that in a short report the author included a healthy dose of methodology, allowing the reader to determine how much stock to place in the findings.

This is a story from my Web site, so I won't give specific ratings, but I feel this is a timely look at issues that are definitely being lived-out in the wake of the Fort Hood shootings.

I'm not sure the first two paragraphs of disgression on on the author add a lot, but the rest of the piece is an interesting read and offers further discussion points for the view that sexuality/gender is a spectrum and not a binary.

This is kind of an odd little piece. The point it wants to make is important, and the individual anecdotes could be interesting, but the presentation is so spasmodic it's tough to get enthused.

Interesting and timely subject, but the three intro paragraphs followed by a lengthy excerpt makes for a standard blog but unexceptional journalism. Of course, if we looking at Lisa's full article, that's a different matter ...

Stories that look at people motivations using experts who have never met that person always scare me a little bit, and I generally shy away from them. But this piece certainly has resonances beyond that type of piece, especially as more background emerges on how the system treated -- or didn't treat -- Hasan.

Although I think the subhed does a disservice to the nuance of this piece, I find the story here, and the attitude of political appointees towards the troops, both believable and fascinating.

I love several things about this, perhaps most saliently that the author identifies his own biases in a readable manner before laying out his reporting. I also like that he provides a quick and cogent explanation of a key concept without getting bogged down.

I'm not sure why the piece didn't start with the third paragraph, which would certainly have made the op-ed more coherent and compelling. There is profound paranoia out there, something apparent to even the laymen among us, and this piece (sans the first two paragraphs) would have made a good introduction into an exploration of that.

I like that the piece marshals some research to support the questions it addresses, and I'm intrigued that there may be some proof to the intuitive assumption that many extremists routinely believe they represent a majority, but I think by asking "Why are the loudest political voices we hear coming from the most extreme sources?" the piece goes askew since lots of people are demanding center stage, and it's the person handing out megaphones who determines who gets heard best.

The underlying question from this piece is certainly worthy of exploration, but trying to ride this horse based on the Scozzafava race seems pretty sketchy to start. Plus, with Palin and Bachmann as two of the poster children for the conservatives, there needs to be more than anecdotal material to support the thesis that there's "clear gender overtones" to the scuffling.