Twitter roundup

Comments

[David in Cal]

Obama scandals:

At least Brendan acknowledged that Obama might be treated less harshly by the press than some of his predecessors. Alter wrote thousands of words without even mentioning this obvious possibility.

As I recall, when Brendan posted his article last year, I commented that media bias was the entire explanation for Obama's lack of scandals. I predicted the bias was so strong that there would never be an Obama scandal (as defined by Brendan).

I think Fast and Furious supports my POV. It had everything. Misdeeds by the Obama Administration led to the murders of numerous Mexicans and a number of Americans. Our law enforcement people working with Mexican gangsters to help arm them. Mistreatment of our ally, Mexico, who was not informed of this fiasco. A program so badly executed that it could never have worked. A cover-up at the Dept. of Justice, whereby people with specific knowledge were prohibited from testifying to Congress. At least one of them resigned in order to testify. Lies and/or misstatements to Congress that had to be "clarified". Fairly clear evidence that the Attorney General lied in his testimony to Congress.

The fact that all of this still didn't produce a scandal (as defined) supports my contention that media bias is the key factor.

[Rob]

Brendan links to a news report about a New York City Department of Education attempt to prevent words like "poverty" and "dinosaur" (and several dozen others) from appearing in standardized tests and asks, "Is this real?"

Yes, Brendan, all too real. It seems the NYC Department of Education doesn't want sensitive subjects to be a "distraction" to test-taking students.

But as is so often the case, the collateral issue here is the dog that didn't bark. The story was covered by the New York Post, the networks and the Associated Press, but I've been unable to find even a hint of it in the New York Times. It's news, but apparently it's not fit to print. Does the Times not want to expose educational bureaucrats to ridicule, or is there some other agenda at work? One is taken back to the bad old days analyzing the omissions and slant in Pravda to infer the workings of the Kremlin's collective mind. The Times never disappoints.

[David in Cal]

That fascinating article about trust in science more or less implies that the drop in conservatives' trust in science may have been caused by the global warming issue. I think a lot of climate research has been flawed, and I'm disappointed in scientific institutions' inability to deal firmly with bad research. However, the problems with the global warming research only became visible after climategate and after it became clear that the trend in rising temperatures had leveled out, at least temporarily.

Climategate was 2009 and the leveling out of temperatures only became apparent in the last 5 years or so. However, Conservative trust in science started dropping in 1986. So, I think other factors must be involved.

I'd hazard a guess that growing focus on evolution and, more recently, a focus on the supposed link between vaccines and autism may be factors in conservatives' dropping trust in science.

[Rob]

With respect to the purported decline in conservatives' trust in science, Glenn Reynolds posted this comment from a reader:

I tracked back to the original paper (http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/asr/Apr12ASRFeature.pdf) to see what the exact survey question was.

The GSS asked respondents the following question: “I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them [the Scientific Community]?” (page 172)

The confidence in “people running these institutions” was being measured, not “Science” itself. Huge difference. HUGE!

She's right. And the efforts by scientists to put a thumb on the scale of public policy, a phenomenon that began decades ago (see, e.g., the Union of Concerned Scientists), may well play a role in the change in attitudes.

This should serve as a useful reminder of the value of going back to original sources and not trusting secondary sources' spin.

[David in Cal]

It turns out that the survey did NOT measure Trust in Science. It measured Trust in the People Running the Institutions of Science. Quite a difference!

I tracked back to the original paper (http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/asr/Apr12ASRFeature.pdf) to see what the exact survey question was.

“The GSS asked respondents the following question: “I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them [the Scientific Community]?”(page 172)

The original paper invited misunderstanding. It repeatly used the incorrect phrase, "Trust in Science". That phrase was used in the first two sentences of the Abstract and in the chart.

Thanks to this paper, I now have less trust in the people running the institutions of the science of sociology. :)

[David in Cal]

HCR would "allow govt panel to make decisions about end‐of‐life care for ppl on Medicare"

Seems like an ambiguous question. HCR does not allow a government panel to decide whether a particular individual will or won't get end of life care, based on his/her individual circumstances.

HCR does allow the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to decide what treatments Medicare will or won't cover for end of life people, as a class. Furthermore, many supplemental insurance policies key their coverage off of Medicare. If Medicare doesn't cover some procedure, supplemental insurance may not cover it either.

I really don't know what limitations there are on the IPAB's power to regulate coverage. As far as I can tell, HCR would allow the IPAB to define some formula to measure quality of life and then rule that patients who score too low on that formula would not receive certain end of life care.

[David in Cal]

On further reading, my comment above appears incorrect. It says at pbs:

Because the health care law prohibits the board from rationing care, restricting benefits, or changing eligibility criteria, IPAB will be left with few options for its cost-cutting recommendations except such payment cuts.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/07/whether-rationing-or-controlling-costs-medicare-board-draws-heat.html