Yes. Cites specific examples of discrimination. Cites a credible study and tells us it's a non-profilt human rights & legal group who did the study. Cites another study that also seemed to find the same results. Includes statistics that would seem to support the finding. Quotes from people involved in the industry commenting on the issue. People who were discussed were invited to comment.
To be fair, I usually don't read editorials. I don't usually care what some random person's opinion/personal rant is. So I have a personal bias against Editorials themselves. I prefer to read things that are (at least theoretically!) unbiased. The authors clearly state their opinion early and often. They claim the fighting is being reported in a particular manner "neglecting to spotlight the fact that Georgia started this fight." and later on when they claim Saakashvili planned an invasion. Clearly they've already decided how they stand and want to share it with you! I agree that there has been a definite trend (at least in US news) to identify Georgia as "former soviet republic". But maybe there's another ... More »
I usually like Daily Kos, but this writer should have kept quiet if he's "no foreign policy maven" as he admits and prefers watching women in swimsuits bouncing balls instead. How many times can he explain that Georgia is a country? Or belittle this by calling it "obscure". Sure, snarky commentary about how dumb Americans are is all fine, but get to the point of your article! Once he gets to his point it improves, but I can't say I agree with his analysis. I admittedly did not know much about any of the NATO stuff, so that was interesting. But as someone who is quite wary of Putin and his attempts to hold/gain power by any means necessary - I did not see America's actions as all being motivated by NATO issues & Republican's ... More »
It is an interview with someone who is providing her point of view. Therefore I do not expect her to be unbiased. The fact that I belive her argument is true, of course, adds to my enjoyment of this piece. Seeing someone articulate things that I have thought or said makes me like the piece. Why on earth is being smart a bad thing? As Jon Stewart said a few weeks ago, I want elite , I want someone smarter than me running this country -I don't want "someone "I can have a beer with".
Yes, tried to give us information so we could understand what was going on there. Tried to give some history of the area. Used qualifyign words as "doesn't APPEAR" so as not to make a claim they couldn't substantiate.
I've never heard of this website, and at first I couldn't even tell where the "article" was on the page - but I thought this person did a good job of providing context. I had heard about the Ledbetter case and the travesty of the Supreme Court's decision through feminist news channels, but this also gave me new information. I had no idea McCain hadn't returned to vote on the Ledbetter bill!
Ok, this obviously a pro-Obama person, so it's not some objective outside source. But it is important because he was THERE and heard the remarks. Even though he is obviously biased towards Obama, I think he makes a solid point about making sure to get the context of what someone says. I would definitely recommend reading it to get the context of the remarks. The clips I've heard are inaudible, so we have only FOX or CNN giving us the few phrases they've decided are the most inflammatory. I don't think it's dismissive or condescending or eltist to speak the truth. Perhaps PENN voters are embittered - the important thing is what he will do for them. The context of the quote shows that he was not dismissing them. He was trying ... More »
I like that the reporter bothered to track down subject matter experts in the field. So often the media takes a miniscule percentage difference between 20 rich Yalie undergrads and makes it seem like that study has the answer to life, universe & everything. This seemed a reasonable consideration of a long held theory. It discussed possible problems with the original theory, with the polling and in general seemed a very well rounded discussion of the issue at hand. As the writer points out there are many variable (how you phrase a question, the cultural issues, relative vs. absolute measures, etc. etc.) I'd much rather read a consideration of the issue like this than some "fluff" piece announcing "money CAN buy happiness" ... More »
Social linguistics has always interested me, but never more so than when I saw it used for nefarious purpose and the creation of a totalitarian regime! The Bush regime started manipulating words to do bad things. (healthy forrests=cut trees, liberate Iraqis=invade a country, defend marriage=deny happines to gay couples, etc.) This article gives an excellent number of examples, places the use "euphemisms" in a historical context and is very well cited. Apart from my finding this a fascinating and compelling read, I also thought it was well written. (Ok, maybe the classics quote at the beginnig was a bit much... but still, it was well written).
It did report a lot of facts. It did quote a lot of sources. It did try to be fair. Examples were cited. Statistics shown, not just referred to. People from all sides were interviewed. I would have like to see some consideration on how this is also part of a vicious cycle. The perception that cops are unfair to African-Americans - then makes them (understandably) more likely to be contempuous and distrustful of cops - which probably leads to more behavior that the cops see as obstruction/contempt. I was a bit bothered by the outdated usage of binary color terms to denote ethnicity.
Yes. It updates us on what has happened. A promise was made and then broken. Context is given. Stakeholders are quoted.
Not sure. It's more of someone listing historical background on torture to support his point. I enjoyed reading it.
This is an opinion piece - not straight news, so I try to cut it a break. So I can respect that he has this opinion while I think it is wrong. I think he is wrong in saying there is no difference between Dem & Rep in terms of foreign policy. Don't get me wrong, I've got issues with the Dems on this as well. But just because Obama isn't as great as he may like -doesn't make him a warhawk like the neocons who invaded Iraq. I also think he needs to read some of Ron Paul's rather racist rants before he puts Paul forth as a better candidate for protecting his rights, respecting his ethnicity and providing better foreign policy. Or do we have to remember how Ralph Nader's 3rd party bid helped bring us Bushie Jr. & the invasion of Iraq?
It's just a short editorial, so I don't hold it to the same standards as other articles. It's a bit snarky in tone, so at first I was a bit confused as to the point.
The topic itself is interesting (who doesn't hate SPAM?) And I found it mildly interesting to hear how Mr. Kirsch is inspired to do things like this (works on things he finds frustrating) Not sure why the long divergent tangent about his cancer and other people with cancers. Totally unnecessary. And then the long tangent about his philanthropy and poltical views also did not contribute much to the story. I was about to stop reading the article when it finally came back to what I was interested in and what it purported to be about - stopping spam. Mr. Kirsch's approach sounds interesting but I felt they did not explain enough about the ratio/receiver profile for lay users to understand how it worked. I did not understand ... More »
(comment refers to full article) More »
Yes, reports on something that may affect many people, a specific instance of something that is part of a wider trend. Brings awareness of data-mining and what companies are doing with our private data. Spotlights basic losses where companies automatically sign you up/opt you in to things you may not even know about.
Doesn't just repeat the usual news about Yahoo selling out Chinese dissidents, it points out that many other companies are doing the same thing under the radar. It goes further in depth to discuss the morality/ethics of doing business with China if it means sending pro-democratic people to jail.
It analyzes a campaign "promise" and shows whether or not it's realistic. This is excellent and we need more of this.
Why does it have to be framed as DEMOCRATS taking away our civil rights? Seems like it's both sides willing to pass this awful legislation. This article was worth reading simply because I hadn't heard they were trying to EXPAND the Patriot Act. (thought we were trying to investigate how badly they'd misused what we already gave them!)
I don't know why we care what someone's opinion is when they're criticized. The important thing is the review itself (which it's good that the article mentioned).
I admit it. I hate David Buss & think he's a quack. I'm sick to of "evolutionary psychologists" who pervert the results of their studies to try and fit a social agenda they have by claiming biological gender drives social behavior. However, at least this time it seems he actually asked people questions about their behavior, instead of taking stereotypical socialized behavior and trying to claim it was biologically or gender based. And in this case they actually revealed several things that go against stereotypical beliefs about men and women's attitudes todwards sex.
The title initially put me off as it seems to fall into the pattern of encouraging the extremist appellations given to atheists (ie "evangelical athiests") and creating a false picture that equates atheists with religious extremists. As a subjective EDITORIAL piece (that does not pretend to be objective or "news") - it is a very strong piece. His premise is that "the public has been bombarded by pro-religious propaganda from time immemorial" and that "until now it has been virtually impossible to get a fair hearing for critical comment... it was considered impolite, in bad taste, and it threatened to raise doubts about Gods existence or hegemony". So any comment from an atheist is viewed as an ATTACK on God. Any response to ... More »
I don't think it's reporting on a divide - more like trying to create one by finding extreme examples of each side and pointing out how they don't agree on very controversial issues. Most atheists I know are very polite & respectful. I'm an atheist and outside of my friends.. unless someone asks I don't mention it. I still go to church with my family twice a year as part of the tradition. I'm not militant or attacking them for having their beliefs. Nor are the religious people I know trying to impose their beliefs on others. That's only coming from the far-right religious extremists who want to convert everyone into thinking and behaving just like them and run the country to their own standards & morals.
Yes. It give actual numbers. Instead of saying something general like "most" or "few" people it actually says. 784 people said this. The conclusion from the analysis of this data is that: "The majority of highly religious Americans believe that they do not need to change the society around them to conform to their religious beliefs, but instead can live the best possible personal religious life, or focus on one-on-one conversion." I wish Bush & co would read this & stop pandering to that small majority.
Biased opinion of someone who is trying to promote the idea that there's some kind of "WAR" between believers & "MILITANT" non-believers. ("fascinating new war going on in the culture between self-proclaimed "scientific atheists" and theists. Militant atheists who believe that God is a "delusion," as Richard Dawkins would have it, and believers who adhere to the idea of a just and loving deity.") Again, atheists are being attacked ("The atheists are on the offensive, one might say"). I'm sure that phrasing was intentionally done to call atheists offensive. If he hadn't been so firmly in one camp the idea of someone who believes in God but doesn't think it is an entity worthy of respect/worship might've been interesting.
Seems like a fairly balanced review of the book (though he does call Dawkins an "enemy: which I thought was overly harsh). Good summary of the authors arguments. Points out the good parts and also comments on flaws. States specific examples and explains his comments. In genearl a good review that not only made me wish to read the book but made me aware of somethings I should pay attention to while reading. However, there were two things I was bothered by: 1. the author assumes it was just the latest thrust of "intelligent design" attempts to force Creationism - perhaps this is a larger reaction to the last few years of religious extremists try to force their religion onto us, onto our bodies, into our laws & government. ... More »
I agree with an earlier comment that it is missing some information. I would have preferred a more fleshed out article than this small blurb. However the results it reported still interested me and provided me with enough information to feel that I was getting factual information.
Insultingly biased rant. His attempt to reframe "new atheists" as illogical extremists is ridiculous. Like most authors on this subject trying to stir up problems, he refers to a simple debate/issue as a "BATTLE". This constant use of miltary terms like "Battle", "War", "Miltant" reframe what could be an interesting discussion from all kinds of people into a US v. THEM WAR where only one person can "WIN". Can we not have open discussions and polite debate? He pretends to call for that but really he's doing the opposite. How can he pretend to be civil and objective when goes so far to state that atheists think "Everybody who does not join them is an ally of the Taliban". I am sick of people attacking atheists and accusing ... More »
