Large pine marten3

martens Free

Bio--the discipline, that is.

Recent Comments

  1. about 14 hours ago on Jeff Danziger

    Roger Cohen on the insanity at the Gaza fence.

    The dead have died for nothing. Israel, through overreach, has placed itself in a morally indefensible noose, policing the lives of others. Palestinian leaders have borne out Yeats’ lines: “We had fed the heart on fantasies, the heart’s grown brutal from the fare.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/20/opinion/gaza-israel-insanity.html

  2. about 14 hours ago on Clay Bennett

    Cohen, not Comey?

  3. about 19 hours ago on Mike Luckovich

    Nunes, Goodlatte and Gowdy?

  4. 1 day ago on Prickly City

    Twclix, I also am tired to the bone. What good does it do to provide sources and information that is never even read, much less considered in any depth? I put my sources in for you and those like you who care about such things, but I am seeing less and less value in spending effort for those who don’t want it anyway.

  5. 1 day ago on Signe Wilkinson

    I once challenged her saying that if she was not a woman, she couldn’t really know how a woman may feel in certain situations. She came back claiming to be a woman. I assume she was being truthful.

  6. 2 days ago on Signe Wilkinson

    ^Naw, it comes easy to charlie. Bashing liberals is her favorite sport…

    But Signe has made a great point here on role models with the #MeToo comment!!!

  7. 2 days ago on Tom Toles

    From what I know of McConnell, his problem wasn’t that Obama is black but that Obama is a Democrat. From the beginning of his career, he has put party (i.e., power) over public service.

  8. 2 days ago on Prickly City

    But:Do People Actually Learn From Fact-Checking?

    Though fact-checking’s prominence has grown in recent years, little is known about public attitudes toward the format or how exposure to it affects the accuracy of people’s beliefs about controversial political issues. Fact-check readers appear to be better informed than we might otherwise expect, but this inference is limited by the fact that individuals self-select into fact-checking exposure. During the 2014 campaign, we therefore randomly exposed a representative panel of Americans to receive factchecking or placebo content over multiple survey waves. Our findings indicate that fact-checking exposure significantly increases the accuracy of people’s beliefs about contested political claims, especially among individuals with high political knowledge. Notably, we find only limited evidence that these effects vary by whether the fact-check is politically congenial to respondents. Our data also indicates that educated and politically sophisticated people are more interested in fact-checking andthat Republicans feel less positively about the practice than Democrats.

    http://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Enyhan/fact-checking-effects.pdf

  9. 2 days ago on Prickly City

    Rumors and Health Care Reform: Experiments in Political Misinformation

    This article explores belief in political rumors surrounding the health care reforms enacted by Congress in 2010. Refuting rumors with statements from unlikely sources can, under certain circumstances, increase the willingness of citizens to reject rumors regardless of their own political predilections. Such source credibility effects, while well known in the political persuasion literature, have not been applied to the study of rumor. Though source credibility appears to be an effective tool for debunking political rumors, risks remain. Drawing upon research from psychology on ‘fluency’ – the ease of information recall – this article argues that rumors acquire power through familiarity. Attempting to quash rumors through direct refutation may facilitate their diffusion by increasing fluency. The empirical results find that merely repeating a rumor increases its power.

    B.J.Pol.S. 47, 241–262, 2015doi:10.1017/S0007123415000186First published online 19 June 2015

  10. 2 days ago on Ted Rall

    The problem with speaking of the lesser of two evils is that you are making this into a strictly moral question. This is very like what jlocke does, the difference being that his moral code is modeled on some different assumptions than yours. Until you are open to the understanding that there are differences in moral codes that people have and that these differences are going to militate against any uniform political outlook, you are contributing to the demise of the western liberal democratic tradition. Rawls discussed this very point in his rejection of comprehensive concepts in forming the institutions of government of a pluralistic society.