• Where to find evidence-based reaction to the shooting in AZ

    I’m shocked and outraged but otherwise don’t have a thoughtful response to the shooting in Arizona. I certainly don’t have anything evidence-based to offer in reaction to it, which would be the appropriate content for this blog. However, there is another blog with contributors that are better able to offer more informed commentary. It’s The Reality-Based Community. The scholars who contribute there have already weighed in. See, in particular, these posts:

    I have no doubt readers of this blog are able to find and follow good, honest news sources and evidence-based analysis on topics of interest. If you are not already doing so, consider also following The Reality-Based Community.

    UPDATE: Though they have been instructive, comments are now closed. This is a necessary step to maintain civility.

    Share
    Comments closed
     
    • They have a “Watching Conservatives” category, but not a “Watching Progressives (and other Leftists)”, so we can be sure that whatever it is they’re writing, it isn’t in any way objective or “evidenced-based.” It reminds me of this blog.

    • I should point out that the phrase “reality based community” is inherently pejorative toward anyone the community decides to exclude.

      I skipped the Pollack but read the Mark Kleiman article. Frankly, it came off as garden variety speculation on motives and causes, with the conclusions entirely predictable based on the general tenor of the site. I have to agree with Richard on that point. I disagree with Richard, however, regarding this blog. Yes, I’ve detected a set of working assumptions that seem to have a distinct political alignment. But I’ve also seen a lot of interesting stuff here, and my impression is that the two of you are honestly searching for answers, and so I continue to read regularly (and comment occasionally).

      • It’s a worthwhile discussion. What’s objective? Can anyone be? Can one be honest about the evidence and about one’s point of view?

        About the last question, I think the answer is “yes” and I think Aaron and I personify it, as do the other contributors to this blog. If you wish to assume we provide only evidence that is consistent with our point of view, I challenge you to substantiate it. You’ll have to read all the posts here first. You can’t cherry pick. On the topic we write most about, health reform, we have been very consistent. We’re pro the expansion of coverage and supportive of the ACA for that reason. We’re concerned about health costs and quality and are critical of the ACA on those grounds. We are also critical of proposals that would undermine coverage expansion, increase costs, or reduce quality. Based on evidence, which I’ve provided, repeal of the ACA would do just that. The CBO and other analysts agree. Some don’t. I also present their evidence. I did so in a post today.

        Not enough evidence and honesty for you? Tell me where to find more (because I’ll go read those folks).

    • I think there’s less politically charged way to discuss this that fits your blog.

      Politics aside, this is really a case of poor mental health infrastructure, no?

      Do we have evidence showing that if we lived in a country where mental health screenings were as common as preventive care screenings that these sorts of situations happen at a lesser rate? Students need a physical to go to high school (and participate in sports), and then again to go off to college, but what of mental health screenings?

    • I suspect you took my phrase “with the conclusions entirely predictable based on the general tenor of the site” to refer to your website. I was referring to the Kleiman article and site. Apologies for having been unclear.

      • @Morgan – Yep. My comments were not aimed at you, but to the other individual. As best I can tell, he doesn’t return to read responses to his words so the evidence-based thing for me to do is to ignore him. But sometimes even I do not follow the evidence. 🙂