Kevin Drum

Why Does Everyone Think Lolita Is a Teenager?

| Wed Apr. 23, 2014 9:20 AM EDT

This is way off my usual beaten path, but here is Hillary Kelly in the New Republic:

People have the wrong idea about Lolita, and Lolita. Today, the name is widely used as a synonym for a sexually precocious young girl. But the most important fact of the novel is that Lolita is a 12-year-old girl....This makes the oversexed, hyper-titillating cover art that has been repeatedly slapped on Lolita incredibly bizarre—not to mention disturbing. We aren't meant to find Lolita sexy. We shouldn't find Lolita sexy. Nabokov himself said that readers were "misled" by the book's repuation "into assuming this was going to be a lewd book." I'm not so naïve as to imagine book covers always faithfully replicate the literary intentions of their authors. But Lolita covers aren't simply exaggerated or oversimplified representations. They're downright creepy.

Huh. I didn't know that. But there's a good reason for this: I've never read the book. Like a lot of people, however, I have seen the movie. And in the movie, Sue Lyon plays a teenage Lolita. So I always figured Lolita was indeed a high-school age girl. I don't know if Stanley Kubrick made this decision for artistic reasons or—ah, wait. Sure enough, the ever-helpful Wikipedia informs me that "Lolita's age was raised from twelve to early teens in the film to meet the MPAA standards. As such, Sue Lyon was chosen for the title role partly due to her more mature appearance."

Anyway, I wonder if this is the wellspring of much of the common confusion? I'll bet a whole lot more people have seen the movie than ever read the book.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Most Independent Voters Aren't, Really

| Tue Apr. 22, 2014 7:31 PM EDT

I write from time to time about the myth of the independent voter, which goes something like this: there aren't any. Oh, lots of people say they're independent, but it turns out that most of them lean in one direction or another, and when Election Day rolls around the leaners vote just as reliably as stone partisans. True independents—the ones who switch between parties from election to election—make up only about 10 percent of the electorate.

Still, 10 percent is 10 percent. It's not quite nothing. But it turns out that it really is. Today, Lynne Vavreck breaks things down a bit further and explains just how these folks vote:

Only a small percentage of voters actually switched sides between 2008 and 2010. Moreover, there were almost as many John McCain voters who voted for a Democratic House candidate in 2010 as there were Obama voters who shifted the other way....On average, across districts, roughly 6 percent of Obama voters switched and just under 6 percent of McCain voters switched.

So, yes, there are some true switchers. But mostly they're going to cancel each other out. The net result from a huge push for swing voters is likely to be no more than 2 or 3 percentage points. In a few high-stakes states in a presidential election, that might make them worth going after. But in your average congressional election, it's a waste of time and money. So what does make the difference?

On turnout, the numbers were not evenly balanced for Democrats and Republicans. Only 65 percent of Obama’s 2008 supporters stuck with the party in 2010 and voted for a Democrat in the House. The remaining 28 percent of Mr. Obama’s voters took the midterm election off. By comparison, only 17 percent of McCain’s voters from 2008 sat out the midterms.

....It may seem hard to believe that the [2010] shellacking was more about who turned up than about who changed their minds between 2008 and 2010, but it lines up with a lot of other evidence about voters’ behavior. Most identify with the same political party their entire adult lives, even if they do not formally register with it. They almost always vote for the presidential candidate from that party, and they rarely vote for one party for president and the other one for Congress. And most voters are also much less likely to vote in midterm elections than in presidential contests.

The problem is that going after turnout is every bit as hard as picking up the crumbs of the swing voters. Traditional Democratic constituencies—minorities, low-income voters, and the young—simply don't turn out for midterm elections at high rates. They never have, despite Herculean party efforts and biannual promises that this time will be different. But it never is. They'll vote for president, but a big chunk of them just aren't interested in the broader party.

So what's the answer? Beats me.

Male Doctors Bill Medicare for More Services Than Female Doctors

| Tue Apr. 22, 2014 1:45 PM EDT

Via German Lopez, today brings us an interesting study from Andrew Fitch of NerdWallet. Long story short, he finds that male doctors get paid a lot more by Medicare than female doctors.

Obviously there are several reasons for this. Chief among them: Higher paid specialties tend to be dominated by men, and men see more Medicare patients than women. But here's the most interesting bit:

  • Male doctors perform more services per patient treated.  To explore this, NerdWallet Health devised a metric to calculate a physician’s average “service volume” per patient. We found that male doctors billed Medicare, on average, for one more procedure per patient than female physicians (5.7 services performed per patient by male doctors vs. 4.7 services per patient by female doctors).
  • This gap in service volume is true across specialties. Male doctors performed more services per patient than female doctors across nearly all specialties. In a specialty like pathology — where doctors infrequently provide services directly to patients — we found no variation in average service volume.

On average, male doctors bill 5.7 services per patient vs. 4.7 for women! That's a huge gap. And it's not just that cardiologists tend to bill for more services than, say, pulmonologists. Even within specialties, men bill for more services than women.

But why? Are they just generally more aggressive? Are they gaming the system? Do sicker patients prefer male doctors for some reason? If this analysis turns out to be true, it would sure be fascinating for someone to follow up and try to figure out what's going on.

Chart of the Day: Wind Turbines Don't Kill Very Many Birds

| Tue Apr. 22, 2014 11:22 AM EDT

Tom Randall is fed up with hysteria over wind turbines being responsible for bird genocide. The numbers just don't support it:

The estimates above are used in promotional videos by Vestas Wind Systems, the world's biggest turbine maker. However, they originally came from a study by the U.S. Forest Service and are similar to numbers used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Wildlife Society — earnest defenders of birds and bats.

....It’s nice for wind-farm planners to take migration patterns and endangered habitats into account. But even if wind turbines were to double in size and provide 100 percent of our energy needs (both of which defy the laws of physics as we currently understand them), they still wouldn’t compare to the modern scourges of high-tension power lines or buildings with glass windows. Not even close.

Wind turbines can be noisy and they periodically kill some birds. We should be careful with them. But the damage they do sure strikes me as routinely overblown. It's bad enough that we have to fight conservatives on this stuff, all of whom seem to believe that America is doomed to decay unless every toaster in the country is powered with virile, manly fossil fuels. But when environmentalists join the cause with trumped-up wildlife fears, it just makes things worse. Enough.

America's Middle Class is Losing Out

| Tue Apr. 22, 2014 9:20 AM EDT

First, there was Wonkblog. Then came 538. Then Vox. And now we have The Upshot, a new venture from the New York Times that aims to present wonky subjects in more depth than you normally find them on the front page. Today, David Leonhardt and Kevin Quealy kick off the wonkiness with an interesting analysis of median income in several rich countries. Their aim is to estimate the gains of the middle class, and their conclusion is that America's middle class is losing out.

Their basic chart is below. As you can see, in many countries the US showed a sizeable gap in 1990. Our middle class was much richer than most. By 2010, however, that gap had closed completely compared to Canada, and become much smaller in most other countries. Their middle classes are becoming more prosperous, but lately ours hasn't been:

Germany and France show the same low-growth pattern for the middle class that we see in the United States, but countries like Norway, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Britain have shown much faster growth. What's going on?

[The data] suggest that most American families are paying a steep price for high and rising income inequality. Although economic growth in the United States continues to be as strong as in many other countries, or stronger, a small percentage of American households is fully benefiting from it.

....The struggles of the poor in the United States are even starker than those of the middle class. A family at the 20th percentile of the income distribution in this country makes significantly less money than a similar family in Canada, Sweden, Norway, Finland or the Netherlands. Thirty-five years ago, the reverse was true.

Note that these figures are for after-tax income. Since middle-income taxes have been flat or a bit down in the United States, this isn't likely to have had much effect on the numbers.

Quote of the Day: Here's How the GOP Shows Its Enviro Cred

| Tue Apr. 22, 2014 8:58 AM EDT

Jonah Goldberg says it's unfair that environmental groups are almost uniformly anti-Republican:

Contrary to what you may have heard, GOP politicians still care about the environment, but they take their cues from public opinion, not from the green lobby. This often means that when the green lobby denounces Republicans (or centrist Democrats) for supporting drilling or fracking, the greens are at odds with the majority of Americans.

So there you go. Conservatives care deeply about the environment, and they demonstrate this commitment by ignoring "global warming hysteria" and instead pandering to public opinion polls at every turn. I'm glad we got that straightened out.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

In America, Spending Cuts Are Driven by the Rich

| Mon Apr. 21, 2014 3:15 PM EDT

Over at the Monkey Cage, Larry Bartels presents the remarkable chart on the right. Its message is simple: In most affluent countries, there's net support for government spending cuts, but it doesn't depend much on income. Not only is the level of support modest, but it's the same among rich and poor.

But not in America. Here, demand for spending cuts is driven almost entirely by the well-off:

What accounts for the remarkable enthusiasm for government budget-cutting among affluent Americans? Presumably not the sheer magnitude of redistribution in the United States, which is modest by world standards. And presumably not a traditional aversion to government in American political culture, since less affluent Americans are exposed to the same political culture as those who are more prosperous. A more likely suspect is the entanglement of class and race in America, which magnifies aversion to redistribution among many affluent white Americans.

....The U.S. tax system is also quite different from most affluent countries’ in its heavy reliance on progressive income taxes. The political implications of this difference are magnified by the remarkable salience of income taxes in Americans’ thinking about taxes and government....Income taxes seem to dominate public discussion of taxes and tax policy. For example, years of dramatic political confrontation culminated in a grudging agreement to shave a few percentage points off the Bush tax cuts for incomes over $400,000 per year; meanwhile, a major reduction in the payroll taxes paid by millions of ordinary working Americans expired with barely a whimper.

It's no surprise that spending cuts are popular in other countries: most of them spend a lot of money, and they fund it with high tax rates on just about everyone. But that's decidedly not the case in the United States. Our government spending is relatively low and so are our tax rates. But none of that matters. Rich Americans don't like paying taxes, and as we know from multiple lines of research—in addition to plain old common sense—the opinions of the rich are what drive public policy in America. Add in longstanding grievances against providing benefits to people with darker skins, and you've got a big chunk of the middle class on your side too. This works great for the rich. For the rest of us, not so much.

A Criminologist Takes On the Lead-Crime Hypothesis

| Mon Apr. 21, 2014 12:25 PM EDT

Dominic Casciani of the BBC has a good piece up today about the hypothesis linking lead exposure in small children to violent crime rates later in life. Here's my favorite part:

So why isn't this theory universally accepted?

Well, it remains a theory because nobody could ever deliberately poison thousands of children to see whether they became criminals later in life. Lead theorists says that doesn't matter because the big problem is mainstream criminologists and policymakers who can't think outside the box.

But Roger Matthews, professor of criminology at the University of Kent, rejects that. He says biological criminologists completely miss the point. "I don't see the link," he says. "If this causes some sort of effect, why should those effects be criminal?

"The things that push people into crime are very different kinds of phenomena, not in the nature of their brain tissue. The problem about the theory is that a lot of these [researchers] are not remotely interested or cued into the kinds of things in the mainstream.

"There has been a long history of people trying to link biology to crime — that some people have their eyes too close together, or an extra chromosome, or whatever. This stuff gets disproved and disproved. But it keeps popping up. It's like a bad penny."

If Matthews didn't exist, someone would have to invent him. He plays the role of closed-minded scientist to perfection here. He obviously hasn't read any of the literature about lead and crime; doesn't care about the evidence; and is interested only in sociological explanations of crime because he's ideologically committed to a particular sociological school of criminology. Beyond that, he apparently figures that because phrenology got debunked a century ago, there's no real point in reading up on anything more recent in the field of neuroscience. All this despite the fact that mainstream criminology is famously unable to reasonably account for either the epic crime wave of the 60s through the 80s or the equally epic decline since then.

In any case, if anyone really wants to know why the lead theory isn't universally accepted, the answer is easy: it's not universally accepted because it's new and unproven. Nor does it pretend to be a monocausal explanation for all crime. However, there's pretty good reason to think that neurology might indeed mediate violent behavior, and there's pretty good reason to think that massive postwar exposure to lead may have been a very particular neurological agent mediating a large rise in violent crime starting in the mid-60s. The evidence isn't bulletproof, but it's pretty strong. It deserves more than cavalier dismissal.

Quote of the Day: Will Obamacare Deliver More Votes Than Medicare?

| Mon Apr. 21, 2014 11:35 AM EDT

From Jonathan Bernstein, questioning whether Obamacare will ever be a vote winner for Democrats:

After Medicare passed in 1965, voters “rewarded” Democrats for Medicare with big midterm losses in 1966 and then by putting Republicans in the White House in five of the next six presidential elections.

Actually, that's....true, isn't it? Even granting that there was a lot of other stuff going on in 1966, let's hope that history doesn't repeat itself.

Paul Ryan Goes Small on Medicare Reform

| Mon Apr. 21, 2014 11:11 AM EDT

If you have a good memory, you may recall that a couple of years ago I had an unexpectedly positive reaction to Paul Ryan's latest Medicare reform plan. His 2013 edition was still based on premium support (i.e., vouchers), but he'd made some changes. Instead of simply capping the vouchers at the rate of overall inflation, which wouldn't come close to keeping up with medical costs, Ryan proposed that insurers would bid for Medicare business. Vouchers would be set at the cost of the second-lowest bid, and seniors could use their vouchers to buy into traditional Medicare if they preferred.

Not bad. In fact, it was basically Obamacare with a public option. But there were still problems. Ryan kept his inflation-based cap, which suggested he didn't really believe in the power of competition after all, and seniors would still end up paying more under his plan than they do now.

But over at TPM, Sahil Kapur points out something I missed: Ryan's 2014 Medicare plan is different still. The voucher is now based on the average bid, not the second-lowest bid, and the inflation cap is gone. The market will either produce savings or it won't.

That's good news. But it also goes to show the difficulty of truly reforming Medicare, especially if you don't tackle the broader problems of health care costs at the same time. The CBO has analyzed the effect of Ryan's 2014 changes, and they conclude that by 2020 the Ryan plan would save a grand total of $15 billion per year. That's 2 percent of net Medicare spending.

Now, this is nothing to sneeze at. Savings are savings. However, like the cost containment proposals that are part of Obamacare, this represents a highly speculative estimate. We might get the 2 percent, we might get nothing.

The bottom line is this: Without root-and-branch changes to our health care system, you're simply not going to get big cost savings. If you make radical changes, as Ryan originally tried to do, it comes out of the pockets of seniors. If you keep seniors whole, you're going to get small savings at best. Ryan's 2014 plan might be a good one, but is it worth the experiment for such a small and questionable payback? Hard to say.