The Lottery and the Poor

| Sat Sep. 13, 2008 1:28 PM EDT

THE LOTTERY AND THE POOR....Poor people spend a much larger chunk of their income on lottery tickets than rich people. Why? Because they're dumb and don't realize the odds are bad? Because they're desperate and therefore more willing to take a chance on a big payback? Because they're too poor to afford better forms of entertainment?

Maybe. But apparently the mere feeling of being poor, as opposed to any objective result of actually being poor, is also enough to get people buy lottery tickets. George Loewenstein, a neuroeconomist at Carnegie Mellon University, performed a study of low-income riders at a Greyhound bus station in Pittsburgh. Each person was given $5 to participate in a survey, and then told they could take some or all of the money in lottery tickets. But not everyone was given exactly the same survey:

We randomly assigned subjects to either feel relatively poor or relatively rich by having them complete demographic questions that included an item on annual income. The group made to feel poor was asked to provide its income on a scale that began at "less than $100,000" and went up from there, ensuring that most respondents would be in the lowest income tier. The group made to feel subjectively wealthier was asked to report income on a scale that began with "less than $10,000" and increased in $10,000 increments, leading most respondents to be in a middle tier. The group made to feel poor purchased twice as many lottery tickets (an average of 1.27) than those made to feel relatively wealthier (0.67 tickets, on average).

What this means is that lottery marketers — i.e., state governments — have a big incentive to make people feel poor because this helps them sell more tickets. Do you think they succeed? Do the lottery ads in your state make you feel poor? Is this a problem?

Via Mark Thoma, who doesn't think the state should have any role in lotteries at all aside from regulating private operators.

Advertise on

Georgia Withdrawal Update

| Sat Sep. 13, 2008 1:05 PM EDT

GEORGIA WITHDRAWAL UPDATE....I fully realize that no one cares about any non-Sarah P. news at the moment, but just in case you want a break, here's the latest on Georgia. It appears that, so far, Russia is sticking to its agreement to pull back its troops from Georgia proper:

Russian soldiers and armored vehicles rolled out of six checkpoints and temporary bases in the Black Sea port of Poti and other areas nearby, Georgian Security Council chief Alexander Lomaia said [on Saturday].

''They have fulfilled the commitment'' to withdraw from the area by Sept. 15 under an agreement European Union leaders reached with Russia last week, Lomaia told The Associated Press.

....Lomaia said some 1,200 Russian servicemen still remain at 19 checkpoints and other positions, 12 outside South Ossetia and seven outside Abkhazia. Russia said it would pull them out by Oct. 11 as long as 200 European Union observers are deployed to strips of territory surrounding the two separatist regions by Oct. 1.

No special comment on this. Just keeping everyone up to date.

Dam Aliens

| Fri Sep. 12, 2008 10:52 PM EDT

600px-Volta_lake.jpg Freshwater ecosystems are losing even more species than terrestrial or marine environments. Why? Because of dams. More than 80,000 major dams and 2.5 million smaller reservoirs have altered natural hydrology across the U.S. The result: nearly 1,000 introduced species disrupting native aquatic systems.

The study published in the September Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment concludes that dam construction and biological invasions are closely linked, reports Environmental Science & Technology.

A University of Colorado Boulder team analyzed conditions in 4200 natural lakes and 1081 impoundments in Wisconsin and Michigan. They looked at five widespread nuisance species: Eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), spiny water flea (Bythotrephes longimanus), rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), and rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus).

Campaign Miscellany

| Fri Sep. 12, 2008 9:39 PM EDT

CAMPAIGN MISCELLANY....Here's a miscellaneous core dump of campaign stuff. Just some links and random thoughts, none of them especially pressing.

  1. The headline on the Washington Post's main campaign piece today is "Obama Campaign Vows Aggressive Response to GOP Attacks." And I have to say: that's a headline you really don't want to see. It makes you sound like a 98-pound weakling promising that next time you get bullied you're going to write a stern letter to the editor about it.

    Unfortunately, the reason for the headline is obvious: it's because David Plouffe sent an email to reporters this morning vowing an aggressive response to GOP attacks. That's really dumb. If you're going to attack, then attack. If you broadcast it beforehand you're practically hanging a sandwich board over your head announcing that the stuff you're planning to air next is just a political ploy and you don't really believe any of it. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

  2. Note the difference between this and the way Republicans act. No matter how dumb or revolting their attacks are, they spray 'em like they mean 'em — and reporters, who are intimidated by this kind of thing, react accordingly. Democrats should take note.

  3. In Slate today, Farhad Manjoo observes that John McCain is lying a lot in this campaign and that it's working. Then he explains why. So why isn't Obama lying a lot too? He doesn't have an answer for that.

  4. Maybe Chris Cilliza has the answer:

    Republicans have always — or at least for as long as the Fix memory lasts — adopted a realpolitik approach to political campaigns.

    That is, they use tactics that work — whether or not they are "fair". Republicans are, typically, far less concerned about the approval of newspaper editorial boards and the so called "eastern media elite" than their Democratic counterparts, a fact that allows them almost total freedom when it comes to how they conduct their campaigns.

    Democrats, on the other hand, always promise to play as down and dirty as Republicans but when the rubber hits the road tend to back off somewhat.

    That certainly seems to be the case today, anyway. Plouffe promised a more aggressive response and we ad mocking McCain for not knowing how to use email. I bet that has them quaking in their boots over at RNC headquarters.

  5. OK, so what would a Republican-esque attack on McCain look like? Steve Benen half-jokingly suggests that Obama try to tar him as anti-Israel because he's vowed to end earmarks — and aid to Israel is technically funded as an earmark. But that won't work. Not because it's too moronic (I'm not sure we've plumbed those depths yet), but because every attack needs to start with a kernel of truth, and this one doesn't have it. There's just nothing plausible to hang it on.

  6. So what would work, smart guy? Beats me. Anyone who'd hire me as a campaign consultant would be an idiot. And my mind doesn't really work this way anyway. But if I had to take a guess, it would be a vicious attack on McCain's honor. It's character-based, there's much more than just a kernel of truth to hang it on, and it would put McCain on the defensive.

    I'd never do it because I'm a wimp. But I'll bet FDR or Bill Clinton could have figured out a way to make it work. Maybe Obama ought to head back to Harlem and have another chat with the Big Dog this weekend.

  7. Sure, sure, you say, that's all very clever. But what do I really think? Answer: I think E.J. Dionne has the right take:

    Here's the problem: Few voters know that Obama would cut the taxes of the vast majority of Americans by far more than McCain would. Few know Obama would guarantee everyone access to health care or that McCain's health plan might endanger coverage many already have. Few know that Obama has a coherent program to create new jobs through public investment in roads, bridges, transit, and green technologies.

    In short, few Americans know what (or whom) Obama is fighting for, because he isn't really telling them. And few know that McCain's economic plan is worse than President Bush's. As Jonathan Cohn points out in the New Republic, McCain would add $8.5 trillion in new debt over the next 10 years. It's McCain who should be on the defensive.

    It should not be hard for Obama to use crisp, punchy language to force the media and the voters to pay attention to the basic issue in this election: whether the country will slowly continue down a road to decline, or whether, to invoke a slogan from long ago, we can get the country moving again.

    Bottom line: Democrats aren't Republicans. Slamming McCain is fine, but I just don't think Obama can pull off the kind of Lee Atwater gutterball that the GOP specializes in. And if he can't do it with conviction, then he shouldn't do it. Instead, he should figure out a way to make his real message resonate with voters. If he does that with conviction, voters will respond just fine.

The Newsweek Enquirer

| Fri Sep. 12, 2008 8:39 PM EDT

Move over, McCain and Palin. The strangest bedfellows of this election season are the tabloids and the mainstream media. Check out this week's cover of Newsweek, featuring a gun-toting Sarah Palin:


And the National Enquirer online, featuring a gun-toting Sarah Palin:


Logos aside, can you tell which photo treatment is which? Yes, the Enquirer broke the story of John Edwards' extramarital liaison before the MSM. It seems the mainstream media is now taking artistic cues from them as well as story ideas.

—Nikki Gloudeman

Actor's Racism on Fox Makes Even Anchors Squeamish

| Fri Sep. 12, 2008 8:11 PM EDT

Brad Garrett, the 6'8" costar of Everbody Loves Raymond, apparently doesn't love everybody. Especially Fox anchor Steve Doocy. And black people. And lesbians.

In an after-show special from his appearance on Fox and Friends, Garrett managed to offend just about everyone on set with his "comedy," even the black cameraman, and the blonde make-up artist who had the audacity to act like a "proper white woman" when Garrett accused her of drinking on the job and having sex with the cameraman in a van.

Garrett's offensive tirade prompted Doocy to call the moment Fox's "most offensive interview ever" and tell Garrett that "I just don't appreciate you making fun of people in such a personal way. People who are total strangers not in the public eye." Doocy, by the way, slammed Obama for attending a "madrassa" and having the middle name Hussein. He's also been seriously misinformed about a number of issues, from the US Code to Sarah Palin being a foreign policy expert. But this latest incident makes me think a tiny, little bit better of him. Maybe defending his co-hosts and crew from racist, misogynist attacks is part of those "small-town values" Republicans are always talking about. Or maybe he just didn't like being upstaged.

Advertise on

Friday Cat Blogging - 12 September 2008

| Fri Sep. 12, 2008 3:53 PM EDT

FRIDAY QUILTBLOGGING....The cats think they're the center of attention this Friday as usual, but today is actually Friday Quiltblogging. Marian (currently the president of the Smocking Arts Guild of America, by the way, and you should attend their annual convention in Atlanta this year if you enjoy that kind of thing) is a champion quilter, and although you've seen bits and snatches of this particular quilt before, today's photos show it in all its glory. Enjoy!

But this photo shoot was kind of weird. The pictures of Domino were all fine and I had plenty to choose from, but every single picture of Inkblot was out of focus except for the one you see here. Why? Does Inkblot have some magical focus-blocking powers? Did the quilt eventually figure out what I was doing and steal the focus in order to highlight itself? Does my camera not like white fur? Very mysterious.

UPDATE: Sarah Palin on cats.

Campaign Realpolitik

| Fri Sep. 12, 2008 3:23 PM EDT

The McCain campaign has lied about the Bridge to Nowhere, Obama's tax plan, and his vice presidential pick's record on earmarks, attacked the media for not treating Sarah Palin with sufficient deference, and run a series of highly disturbing ads against Barack Obama that leave little doubt they are designed to play on racial fears and stereotypes. "Morally unfit" to be president, one commentator lambasted McCain, who had previously vowed to run an honorable campaign, and been the victim of such vicious smears himself during his unsuccessful 2000 Republican primary run against George W. Bush. If there were a referee, perhaps he could be implored to cry foul and make it stop. But, having lived through 2000 and 2004, it's also not so surprising to observers that this is the kind of campaign that McCain has chosen to run at the top of the GOP ticket. He's determined to do whatever it takes to win, and his party has used such tactics, and successfully, in the past.

So what about seeing the political campaign world as it really is, and not how candidates say they would like it to be? So suggests's political writer Chris Cillizza in this chat today:

St. Louis: Since you're so "in the know," I was wondering if you've heard from Republicans -- off the record, of course -- that they're surprised by McCain's campaign. His traditionally Republican campaign is smart -- they win -- but it also seems so out of character for the old McCain we knew in 2000. What are Republican insiders thoughts on this change?
Chris Cillizza: Hmm, was that "in the know" comment a shot at me?
If so, well played. Onto the question....
Republicans have always -- or at least for as long as the Fix memory lasts -- adopted a realpolitik approach to political campaigns.


| Fri Sep. 12, 2008 3:17 PM EDT

EARMARKS....So now John McCain is flatly saying that Sarah Palin has never requested an earmark? That's just....confused.

Oops, sorry, confused is a code word for "old," so strike that. What I meant is that he's fibbing because he knows that a huge TV audience will hear what he said and that only about 1% of them will ever see or hear the correction.

But as long as we're on the subject, the infamous Bridge to Nowhere is a pretty good example of why this self-righteous nonsense about earmarks is so annoying. It's true that Congress killed the BtN, but this didn't save the American taxpayers a nickel. Sarah Palin just took the money and used it for other Alaska projects. And that's the way all earmarks work: they're simply ways of directing spending. The actual amount of spending is set elsewhere, and it doesn't usually change whether or not any of it is earmarked.

In other words, even aside from the fact that earmarks don't add up to an awful lot of money, killing them wouldn't appreciably change spending levels anyway. The real question is whether members of Congress should have some direct say in where money is spent in their states and districts, or whether federal bureaucrats should make all those decisions. There are actually pretty good arguments on both sides. The bureaucrats have a better sense of the big picture but members of Congress have a better sense of what local residents really care about. Bureaucrats are less likely to be corrupt but members of Congress are less likely to make decisions with only a shallow knowledge of local conditions. And both sides are probably about equally likely to waste money on idiotic boondoggles.

Personally, I don't care much about earmarks, but to the extent I do, these are the grounds for debate. Not total spending. If I had my way I'd simply set aside a fixed amount for earmarks in transportation and infrastructure bills (say, 2-3% of the total) and then sit back safe in the knowledge that local residents have some direct say in how local money is spent, but that the vast majority will be spent in ways that make sense on a larger regional/national basis. But I'm just dreaming.

Quote of the Day - 9.12.08

| Fri Sep. 12, 2008 2:01 PM EDT

QUOTE OF THE DAY....From McCain advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin, commenting on why he thinks Republicans continue to campaign manically on tax cuts even though it's plain that tax increases will be necessary in the near future:

"It's the brand. And you don't dilute the brand."

That's what the American auto industry thought too. It hasn't worked out so well for them.