After twelve years of concerted effort, slave labor, seemingly endless
waiting and more money than I want to think about, my license for the
independent practice of psychology, issued by The Great State of Texas
arrived in the mail today. So the training wheels are off and now I'm
finally a real boy.
She plans to refocus her blog on clinical and practice matters.
WASHINGTON—An overwhelming sense of restlessness and impatience engulfed the U.S. this week when citizens determined that everything—the morning commute, phone conversations, getting a table at Chili's, making coffee, commercial breaks, everything—was taking entirely too long.
No wonder the Chinese are on board with stimulus. Whether it will save them remains to be seen. But, to me, the precipitous drop in Chinese exports isn't the only staggering figure. Chinese exports more than tripled over the six years leading into the collapse. And we know who accounts for the largest share of that increase--fueled with lots of borrowed money.
I don't write about global warming, but I decided I'd post up this comment from Ed Brayton because it expresses my viewpoint so well:
Cognitive shortcuts are leapfrogs over study and analysis to reach a
conclusion without going through those intermediary steps. The most
common type of shortcut is group identification. If you place yourself
within a group - political, religious, ideological, etc - and you are
confronted by an issue you do not understand, the default response is
to accept whatever the position of that group is and to presume that it
must be correct even though you have not taken the time to do any study
that would justify that conclusion.
If you're a conservative, you will blindly accept the standard
conservative position on global warming. The leaders of the group you
place yourself in have assured you that global warming is a myth,
perhaps even a cover for evil intentions, and that is all you think you
need to know. If you're a liberal, you will blindly accept that global
warming is a serious problem for the same reason, because the people
you respect and follow have told you so.
But in reality, a vanishingly small number of people in either group
has ever looked at the actual data and an even smaller number is
capable of understanding it, analyzing it and reaching rational
conclusions about it. And that includes me. If I took a long period of
time and researched the subject, I am certainly capable of
understanding it and reaching well-informed conclusions. Though I am a
layman without any particular training in science, I have long done so
in regard to evolution and the geological history of the earth and that
is why I can confidently and reasonably take positions on those
subjects and defend them.
I have not done so with global warming, which means I'm using a
cognitive shortcut as well. I defer to many scientists, some of whom
and I know personally, who assure me that the evidence for global
warming and a significant human role in making it worse is real. I
defer to people like Chris Mooney, who has taken the time, in
researching an entire book on the question and interviewing those at
the center of the dispute, to do what I have not.
But I recognize that this is still a cognitive shortcut and that's
why I rarely make bold claims about global warming, because I don't
feel like I can defend them and I don't think it's intellectually
honest to make bold claims one can't defend.
Richard Painter, former Associate Counsel to the President:
...Scooter Libby got a good deal from the President; a full pardon would
have been too much. Perjury traps are not that difficult to avoid if
one uses an old strategy called telling the truth. I regret that we did
not include in White House ethics lectures a warning “do not lie under
oath” but such should be self evident, particularly after the previous
President nearly lost his job over perjury or near perjury on a
relatively minor matter. More at Volokh