This is, after all, an editorial cartoon, but it brings out two interesting points: 1)why DOES the "Norquistian" notion carry any validity at all in the face of no supporting data and considerable data to the contrary; 2)how IS it that calling the "Norquistians" out on their false beliefs is considered unfair and/or unbalanced? Comparing it to the worst of the fundamentalist religious systems does appear to have some merit, though calling those groups on their notions tends to arouse a similar level of antipathy and attack.

On the face of it, this would appear to be a breakthrough in the science of schizophrenia. Unfortunately, such "breakthroughs" have been happening for the several decades I have been practicing, and none of them has ever delivered on the promise they seemed to offer. This one, in particular, is in the category of "differences found between schizophrenics and normals" that are so varied and so lacking in direct connection to the observed behavior that they are likely to, again, fail to meet any promise other than a renewal of the research grant almost certainly involved.

This was a)a tweet and b)a personal opinion, neither of which make for good journalism. Whatever one might think of the debt ceiling issue or the Republicans, this is not the most effective means of expressing it, unless, of course, the intent is to simply add to the public anger rather than present useful information.

This is a single sourced piece, but the single source is the original source and the story is about the reporting of that source. The opening question is valid at least in my experience... in all the reports of the S&P downgrade, NONE have referenced the sentence identified and ALL have suggested that the S&P was only concerned with the level of cuts that had been made, not with the failure to raise revenues. The sentence actually balances out the S&P report quite a bit. The question of why the media has failed to accurately describe the S&P report is a valid one, the reasons offered, I suspect, are the writer's opinion and the least valuable part of this story.

This is a position paper, and does not attempt to suggest otherwise. As such, it lays out the position cleanly without rhetoric or character assassination. The factual statements made are accurate, if not particularly documented. It is a call for progressive action... but it WAS written for The Progressive Populist, after all, which should not impeach its credibility any more than should something published out of the Heritage Foundation.

This is a story that is getting virtually no attention in the media, yet may be a serious canary in the mine shaft situation. The interconnectedness of financial interests related to the political implementation of Michigan's Emergency Financial Manager law of 2011 appears to suggest, at a minimum, an appearance of a conflict of interest. The concern is whether the information presented will be further vetted and explored, or whether it will fail to capture the attention of those who could do so.

A reasonably succinct description of the disparity of wealth especially with regard to the issue of increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans. The position is rooted in real numbers and comparable facts. This is an appropriate chastisement to the outlets attempting to use numeric sleight of hand in order to convince the majority population that the minority should continue absorbing an ever greater share of the wealth of the nation while letting the rest of the nation sink into an economic morass.

With a lot of smoke and mirrors, the single fact put forth in this speech has been mostly obscured and rarely examined in serious depth, yet it is the single greatest dominating fact of American society today. We can continue to ignore the impact of the disparity of wealth in this country, but only for a limited amount of time before the protests become something more like outright rebellion.

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 has to contribute to the issue. On the whole, this was a good and honest overview of the issues and problems faced by those concerned about the public response to climate change concerns.

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.

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 undermines the core thesis. What the author is really referencing more often than not is advertising, and how to move a public. This is not information contained in "dusty books" in the colleges of psychology. It is current marketing data. 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.

Not sure who expects campaign ads to be good journalism, but one could hope for something other than fear-mongering misinformation.

This piece is putting forth one side of an equation, but it is a very complex equation and not quite as simple as the story suggests. Moreover, the central problem presented by the story is not accompanied much by way of solutions being proposed, which is why the equation is complex.

This is NOT balanced, or even good, journalism. This is a position paper utilizing one book and one seriously bad example to try to make a global point. Confusing correlation with causality, cherry-picking the causal factors, drawing parallels between the actions of the Hoover administration and that of the Roosevelt administration as if they were equivalent, grossly oversimplifying the situation and arriving at a conclusion seriously not borne out by the evidence presented, the author pretends to put the icing on the cake of an argument against government intervention in the marketplace. The argument amounts to little more than economic pseudo-science. Compounding this process, he attempts to draw a parallel between the ... More »

The headline for this story is ENTIRELY misleading for what follows. Rather than any additional information regarding Wikileaks or any new revelation regarding the extent to which the government promulgates lies, the article is merely a diatribe against aggressive military action, specifically with regard to the response to 9/11. While this commentary may have considerable merit, it has little or nothing to offer with regard to the current Wikileaks issue, and absolutelly nothing new to offer with regard to government deception.

The score would have been higher had not the included video and its caption been attached. The video from CBS4 in Denver, "Prepare to Pay More For Health Insurance" was abysmal, using numerous cheap tricks to try to make a case. The primary article at hand, however, was quiet, careful and respectful of the facts on the ground, making a diligent effort to actually inform and educate the reader on a very complex topic. Carla K Johnson achieved that end quite well in a surprising display of actual journalism.

Ok, this is not a campaign commercial, only an opinion piece. It utterly fails, however, to meet any standard at all. Again, we get the hyperbolic fear mongering, name calling, accusation hurling screed with little or no substance. The idea of "balance" in this context is a joke. This piece is merely inflammatory, not informative.

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 and the dilemma getting it across to the public is made well. What there is to do about that, however, is not much presented.

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 contention, either of the presence of an increase or the cause thereof. His title, declaring Copenhagen already a success, is undone by his concluding paragraph. If we are not changing quickly enough, then the actions at Copenhagen can hardly be ... More »

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 insurance industry as to why they do what they do. It is popular, in a time when the health care system in the country is so defective, to seek to blame one or more players as being responsible. It is easy to do so because there are a variety of ... 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 distinction. Many altruistic physicians are very concerned about the finances, including their own personal finances, of health care. That said, most of what is "learned" is that the hundreds of thousands of physicians do not speak with one voice. If ... 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 match the Medicare efficiency? This is the weakest part of the argument he makes for the public plan option. He ignores entirely the question of whether insurance, public or private, is an effective method of delivering health care services 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, the stories about Palin appear to be clarifying her intensely right-wing ideological position and her religious stance. These ideological concerns appear to be firing up both bases, the right in favor and the left in firm disapproval. What is still to ... 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 the issue of tone. President Bush's tone and choice of words brought evangelicals to him. McCain's tone and language appears to do the opposite, leaving them uncertain about him. This may, in the end, be more decisive than the issues themselves.

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.