No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 August 2011
As we proceed through our final year of editing the Review (something we approach with mixed feelings of relief and satisfaction), we will reflect from time to time on lessons learned, changes achieved (or perhaps only observed), and trends still underway.
1 Readers may recall the effort in the 2000 Presidential election, only half in jest, to get Democrats from “safe” states (e.g., California) to become temporary residents of important “swing” states (e.g., Florida). That presumed, of course, that having arrived there they would have had the slightest chance of understanding the Florida ballots.
2 A standard test might be this: Were newly elected Republican representatives more or less likely to have been intransigent (e.g., to have opposed the first Boehner Plan) the more securely they were able to return to their prior profession with little economic loss (and hence objectively could be more immune to sanctions)?
4 One widely accepted guide to such norms is given by the American Anthropological Association's Code of Ethics, particularly Section III. http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/upload/AAA-Ethics-Code-2009.pdf
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.