In an essay that bends over backward to accommodate Republican talking points, Galli nonetheless argued that Trump is “a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused” and begs evangelicals to consider “what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior.”
Quite the Litmus test.
sometimes I don’t know how seriously to take Salon.
Or whichever site, right? Salon is on a more even keel these days about featuring interesting stories without truly overselling things that go nowhere or are “guest column” propaganda.
It seems quite a reasonable article which should be taken seriously. I’ve read about Nazi-era cinema and the parallels drawn hold up. (Although the post-War (but of course not truly post-Nazi, many remained in positions of authority) Heimatfilm also seems to have similarities.)
It’s a good point. However, that Trump voters were targeted through the NCIS demographic should be examined more than the Hallmark movie angle. But I wouldn’t be surprised if Hallmark movie watchers were slanting Trump.
God love 'em, if this can become a thing, great, but this is 538 so it’s probably wishful centrism jism:
We are going to Hell, BECAUSE of things like him using his power for nefarious purposes.
I think Bill Barr can go to hell.
Yeah, America’s BEEN hell for some portion of the population since the very beginning of colonization, he’s just mad that he doesn’t get the kind of (barf) “perks” that men like him had in the (barf) “good old days.”
Since the very beginning of civilization? Gee I only changed 4 letters. 
You really think you can just toss around jargon and people will think you’re smart, don’t you?
No, Institutional Review Boards don’t require more documentation than scientific peer reviewers. I know you meant to insult my work as a final “fuck you”, but having put 7 papers into peer review, and sent two grants to IRB in the past year, let me explain some things to you.
The IRB looks at the legal, ethical, and privacy ramifications of your research. They’re typically involved before the study takes place. They evaluate your (sorry, my) research for any federal or state level laws that might be in play. They also evaluate the ethics of how I will collect data (advertise for participation, compensate for participation) and if the conclusions researched will justify for the potential for harm. They also look at secure and private data storage, and if how I’m storing data is in line with any laws (FERPA, HIPAA) and funder storage guidelines.
In practice, these are mostly lawyers and social scientists. They know the law and ethical component, but I’ve never had one comment on study design or stats. The paperwork isn’t that onerous. Most IRB offices have paperwork templates. They are mostly looking for compliance, not the context of the question in the literature. And that’s about it. They’re there for consulting after the fact, and if I want them to check that something is in compliance, they can help. But in most cases, their involvement usually ends when the proposal being submitted. If the proposal is funded, they’ll usually want to see the funded proposal to make sure the study that is funded doesn’t introduce new compliance violations, and can be consulted if you need to change experimental plans.
Scientific publishers, on the other hand, administer the peer review process. When you submit a scientific article, it goes to an editor. If they deem that the article is in scope, they’ll send it to associate editors, like me. We read the article, confirm that it is within scope and is a reasonable study, and send it to reviewers. At the journal I am an AE at, at the time of submission you must provide: the raw data, processed data, code, and any other metadata to reproduce the experiments. That’s in addition to the paper itself. I’ve never filled out an IRB packet that was as long as even my shortest paper. I’ve never seen an IRB that required you to provide all your code (probably since at the point where your IRB is going through, the code isn’t written). I’ve never met an IRB person who could evaluate code, even if they could get it. The IRB can’t ask for data or results, because they’re the ones clearing you to collect them.
It’s apples to oranges. My work isn’t diminished because it goes through peer review. 90% of my work is pure biology, and simply has no reason to ever see an IRB panel. IRBs aren’t a gold standard of scientific quality, and the vast majority of scientific studies will never go in front of IRB, and that says nothing about their quality or integrity.
The supreme court has ruled, 9-0, that the city of Philadelphia must fund religiously-motivated discrimination.
Which religion?
And so much for “The City of Brotherly Love”, eh?
Catholic adoption agencies.
both authors, Laurence H. Tribe and Stephen I. Vladeck, may be familiar.
From what I can see, the male staff at the hotel haven’t shaved in the last three days. And all the female staff have gone. At the reception, room service, the cleaners - women are no longer here.
The background music at the hotel has also stopped. I asked one of the staff, who replied: “Friends are here, so no more music.”
