Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (258823)	8/24/2014 10:20:39 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542787

:-) We didn't even feel it. It wasn't that far away, and I guess some of my Facebook friends woke up, but I sleep through everything. End of the world? If it happens after bed time I'm not going to wake up for it :-) We had no damage at all. (Napa and the North Bay sustained the damage, apparently)

To: JohnM who wrote (258823)	8/24/2014 10:51:27 AM
From: T L Comiskey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542787

re...earthquake most of that plate edge ..is like a shattered mirror... its a..... strike slip fault... the ..movements..create stresses...but they are not distributed at the same time.... iow..the pieces jostle against one another...but dont ....slip at the same time.... "Scientists have learned that the Earth's crust is fractured into a series of "plates" that have been moving very slowly over the Earth's surface for millions of years. Two of these moving plates meet in western California; the boundary between them is the San Andreas fault. The Pacific Plate (on the west) moves northwestward relative to the North American Plate (on the east), causing earthquakes along the fault. The San Andreas is the "master" fault of an intricate fault network that cuts through rocks of the California coastal region. ."

To: JohnM who wrote (258823)	8/24/2014 10:59:09 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542787

6.0 in Napa. Didn't feel a thing here. No deaths.There was a fire at a mobile home park, 4 homes burned, water lines were out.

To: JohnM who wrote (258823)

8/24/2014 4:04:09 PM

From: koan

Respond to of 542787

I believe I have consistently posted this thought for at least ten years.

<<

Krugman. Spot on.
------------------------------------
Attack of the Crazy Centrists
August 23, 2014 11:10 am

I’m by no means the only person, or even pundit, who sometimes (often) feels that centrists are the craziest people in our political life. Liberals these days rarely stake out really extreme positions (more on that in a minute); conservatives may denounce Obama as a Muslim atheist communist, but at least they know what they want. The really strange people are those who insist that there is symmetry between left and right, that both are equally far out and equally at fault for polarization, and make up all kinds of strange stories to justify this claim.

Barack Obama is, of course, the biggest target of these delusions; it’s really amazing to see pundits accuse him of being chiefly to blame for Republican scorched-earth opposition — you see, he should have used his mystic powers of persuasion to bring them into the tent. But liberal commentators also get hit — usually via gross misrepresentations of what we said. And of course I get this most of all.

Today Jonathan Bernstein leads me to Andrew Gelman, who catches an assertion that I’m all wrong about the difference in conspiracy theorizing between left and right.

What I said was that conspiracy theories are supported by a lot of influential people on the right, but not on the left. They misrepresent this as a claim that most conspiracy theorists are on the right, and point to evidence that “motivated reasoning” is equally common on left and right as proof that I’m wrong.

This is doubly wrong. For one thing — Gelman doesn’t say this as clearly as I’d like — motivated reasoning isn’t the same thing as conspiracy theorizing. Believing that official inflation numbers understate true inflation, based not on understanding the data but on political leanings, is motivated reasoning. Believing that the BLS is deliberately understating inflation and unemployment as a political favor to the White House is a conspiracy theory.

And there’s a big difference even when it comes to conspiracy theorizing between having something believed by some, maybe even a lot, of people and having it stated by influential politicians and other members of the elite.

So how did my claim about elites and conspiracy theories — which I think is very defensible, even obvious — turn into a supposed claim that isn’t defensible, and can be dismissed as foolish? Well, you know the answer: centrists want to believe that liberals are just as bad as conservatives, so they see shrill partisanship even when it’s not really there.

It is, in short, a classic illustration of politically motivated reasoning.