Jon Chait comments on recent polling showing that residents of Alabama and Mississippi mostly don't believe that Barack Obama is a Christian:

My good friend Michelle Cottle, a southern expatriate, took umbrage that this was “cultural profiling.” Okay, but why are these states the first ones we’ve seen that have sullen convicts in garish prisoner stripes hauling around ballot boxes? We have been able to follow primary voting in many other parts of the country without wondering if we had dropped in on a scene from Cool Hand Luke. A flustered Wolf Blitzer, taking in the scene, commented awkwardly, “they’ve been asked — they’ve been told, actually” to haul ballot boxes. What we have here is a failure to communicate.

And speaking of a failure to communicate, the Republican war on TelePrompTers has poetically backfired. It began as a quasi-racist meme among the fever swamps of the right, a way for right-wingers to express their belief that Obama is a brainless talking doll. By catering to it, Republicans backed themselves into a position where they can’t use TelePrompTers at all. The result is a series of rambling election night speeches that manage to be at once frightening and dull. The speeches, like the race, just go on and on and on.

Do all those terrible election night speeches really suck because the candidates are refusing to use teleprompters? I thought it was just because each one of the remaining Republican candidates is either awkward or snarling or self-righteous or some combination of all three. But here's what I really want to know: what's the legal truth of the whole TelePrompTer vs. teleprompter thing? If I use it without all the weird capitalization, will some Madison Avenue lawyer send me a nasty letter demanding a correction? According to Wikipedia:

The word teleprompter, with no capitalization, had become a genericized trademark, because it is used to refer to similar systems manufactured by many different companies. The United States Patent Office does not have any live trademarks registered for the word "teleprompter", but this does not rule out the possibility of a company enforcing the trademark without registering it.

Hmmm. The actual TelePrompTer Corporation sold its prompting business in the early 60s and got into the cable TV business. The corporation was later sold to Westinghouse, then to the New York Times, and finally to Bright House Networks. So if there's any trademark here at all, presumably it's owned by Bright House, which isn't in the prompter business and couldn't care less if I capitalize the name.

So why do so many people keep doing it?

Steve Benen is amused at renewed conservative love for the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan:

Perhaps now would be a good time to note a relevant detail that's gone largely down the memory hole: Republicans used to hate the Simpson-Bowles plan. In fact, the reason it's called the "Simpson-Bowles plan" instead of the "Simpson-Bowles commission plan" is that GOP officials on the panel refused to support it, guaranteeing the commission's failure. Indeed, how many of the Republican lawmakers on the panel agreed to endorse the chairmen's plan? Zero.

Actually, I don't think that's quite true. The Republican House contingent all voted no, but the Republican senators supported the plan. It failed because it needed a supermajority of 14 out of 18 votes, but failed to win support from three Republicans and four Democrats.

But this doesn't spoil Steve's point much. The House Republicans were the tea party contingent, the ones who represent the base of the party these days. And they refused to support the plan because they refused to support anything that included so much as a nickel of revenue increases. This remains firm Republican orthodoxy to this day, which means that anything like Simpson-Bowles remains dead to this day.

On the campaign trail, claiming that "President Obama ignored the report of his own commission!" might be a good applause line among the muppets1, but the plan Obama did support during the debt ceiling fracas last year was actually more right-wing friendly than Simpson-Bowles was. And Republicans erupted in revolt against that too. There's just no there there as long as Republicans remain stuck in holding-their-breath-til-their-faces-turn-blue mode.

1According to Greg Smith, this is how Goldman Sachs directors refer to clients that they consider gullible and naive. Since this is how Republican leaders seem to view their own supporters, it seems appropriate here too.

Someone at Modeled Behavior — they like to coyly keep us guessing who — tweeted this today: 

Yeah, probably. But that reminds me. Apropos of something I posted a few days ago but don't remember, as well as a recent blog conversation with Matt Yglesias about the value of empirical research, plus Mark Kleiman reminding me a few days ago of the old saw that "you can't take the con out of econometrics" — anyway, apropos of all that, I think the world desperately needs someone to write a regular feature called "Is it Science or Is it Bullshit?" This would most likely focus on headline-grabbing research in the areas of medicine, economics, sociology, and general culture, but there's no reason not to find some bullshit in the harder sciences too. Just not as much, probably.

In any case, think of it as after-the-fact peer review with an attitude. The winning candidate for this position will have a pretty good mathematical background, a sneering contempt for sloppiness, an obsessive attention to detail, a willingness to read mounds of tedious crap, and probably a fairly severe case of insomnia. You'd also need to be really fast, since debunking bullshit a month after every news outlet in the country has hyped it does no one any good. It needs to be debunked the day it hits the streets. (Or praised, of course. We're looking for rigor here, folks.)

Oh, and the job doesn't pay anything. Anyone interested?

Greg Smith quit his job at Goldman Sachs today, and he quit in a way that most of us can only dream of: by giving his firm a gigantic middle finger on the op-ed pages of the New York Times. Goldman, he says, just isn't the hardworking, principled firm it used to be:

What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm’s “axes,” which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.

....It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as “muppets,” sometimes over internal e-mail. Even after the S.E.C., Fabulous Fab, Abacus, God’s work, Carl Levin, Vampire Squids? No humility? I mean, come on. Integrity? It is eroding. I don’t know of any illegal behavior, but will people push the envelope and pitch lucrative and complicated products to clients even if they are not the simplest investments or the ones most directly aligned with the client’s goals? Absolutely. Every day, in fact.

Felix Salmon, for one, is skeptical of Smith's motives. I'm having a hard time too. If this were someone who started working for Goldman in the 60s, it would be easier to find him believable. But Smith started out at Goldman in 2000. He was a senior member of the firm during the height of the housing/derivatives bubble. This was not a period of time famous for its integrity and client-centered focus. So what, exactly, has changed in the past four or five years compared to then? Smith is maddeningly unclear about this.

So it's a little hard to know what to make of this. Is Greg Smith a disgruntled employee? A genuinely outraged man of honor? Hopelessly naive? Angling for a job at the SEC? Planning to open his own boutique firm and hoping to gain a reputation for unusual probity? It is a mystery. But it'll be interesting to follow Smith on the talk show circuit, which is his obvious next destination. Perhaps things will become more clear after a few more people have grilled him about this.

John Holbo muses over tonight's razor-close election results:

One of the many, many reasons to hope the unusually silly primary season stretches on and on is that eventually we get to New York (April 24). Maybe all the way to California (June 5). What if California actually matters? If Newt and Santorum are still hanging on, how are they going to pander shamelessly to California voters?

This is a good question, and one I've been wondering about too. When was the last time a California presidential primary really mattered? 1968? And what happens this time if the race actually goes that far?

One thing to keep in mind if you're not from California is that our Republicans are not like, say, Maine Republicans: kind of moderate because they live in a basically liberal state. California Republicans are fire-breathing, take-no-prisoners, down-with-the-ship Republicans. I live in Orange County, which most people think of as ground zero for conservatism in the Golden State, and it's true that we're pretty conservative here. Our county board of directors routinely turns down federal money if it's sullied in any way with connections to Obamacare. Still, as near as I can tell, OC Republicans are pussycats compared to Central Valley Republicans. I don't know if the Central Valley Rs are more conservative than Alabama Republicans, but they'd sure give them a run for their money.

Anyway, all this is to say that although Romney seems like he'd be the best bet to win California — it's a big, media-driven state; he's ahead in the polls; he's got good connections; etc. — a guy like Santorum has a chance. Maybe even a pretty good one. Does anybody out there who pays a lot of attention to state politics (which is decidedly not my thing) care to weigh in on this?

The Encyclopaedia Britannica has seen its final print run:

The last edition of the encyclopedia will be the 2010 edition, a 32-volume set that weighs in at 129 pounds and includes new entries on global warming and the Human Genome Project.

....The oldest continuously published encyclopedia in the English language, the Encyclopaedia Britannica has become a luxury item with a $1,395 price tag; it is typically purchased by embassies and well-educated, upscale consumers who feel an attachment to the set of bound volumes. Only 8,000 sets of the 2010 edition have been sold, and the remaining 4,000 have been stored in a warehouse until they can be purchased.

Sad. I have a 1993 copy of the Britannica, purchased in 1994 for about a hundred dollars. I never cottoned to the macropaedia/micropaedia thing, and like everyone else, pretty much stopped using it once the internet became the font of all knowledge. As you can see, today its primary use is to lift my monitor to eye level, which I suppose is especially humiliating when I'm using the monitor to read something from Wikipedia. But it had a good run. R.I.P Encyclopaedia Britannica.

I don't get HBO and didn't see Game Change this weekend, so I missed the fact that the film unearthed yet another howler to add to the Sarah Palin hall of fame. Apparently she believed that the Queen of England was in charge of the armed forces:

Her confusion emerged during a coaching session with Steve Schmidt, a top McCain adviser, who asked Mrs Palin what she would do if Britain began to waver in its commitment to the Iraq war.

In one of the many rambling responses that steadily eroded her credibility during the campaign, Mrs Palin reportedly replied that she would "continue to have an open dialogue" with the Queen.

A horrified Mr Schmidt informed her that that the prime minister, then Gordon Brown, would be responsible for the decision.

If the economy had stayed strong just a year longer, Palin might well be a heartbeat away from the presidency as we speak, my friends. A heartbeat away.

Hat tip goes to T.J. Simers. Just goes to show that a habit of reading the sports page during my morning, uh, rituals occasionally pays off.

Why are tacos from food trucks better than tacos from restaurants? Felix Salmon has a theory:

My favorite theory is that it basically comes down to the amount of time that elapses between the taco being made and the taco being eaten. Fillings can stay warm and delicious for a while, but the tortilla really is at its very best within seconds of coming off the stove, rather than getting soggy at the bottom of a tortilla warmer brought to you by your server. I suspect that if you could walk into the kitchen of a decent taco restaurant and get the chef to make you one then and there, it too would taste better than the same taco ordered off the menu.

This sounds right. My favorite taco place (a restaurant, not a truck) seems to deliver tacos to my table in a pretty fresh state. I'm no foodie, but the shells seem to be hot off the griddle most of the time, and that does indeed make the taco taste better.

Alternatively, if we did a blind taste test maybe it would turn out that tacos from trucks aren't any better than tacos from restaurants. Perhaps we just like the idea of eating food from trucks?

The Misogyny Bubble

Is misogyny worse than it used to be? Kathleen Geier thinks so:

One way in which things are much, much worse for women these days than 20 years ago is the sheer amount of virulent misogyny that is openly expressed, and tolerated, in our society. It feels to me that, in many ways, our culture is much more openly sexist now that it was then. Rush Limbaugh’s comments about Sandra Fluke are only the most recent and notorious example of this new misogyny. You see it online; women bloggers, for example, report they are frequently the target of vicious verbal abuse, up to and including rape threats and death threats. Female political leaders of both parties are held to a double standard and subjected to much humiliatingly sexist treatment. Many movies and TV shows, and reality shows especially, traffic in extremely sexist stereotypes; TV commercials sometimes seem to go out their way to be offensive to women. Tabloids obsessively police the bodies of female celebrities and cruelly ridicule any famous woman who dares to go out in public looking less than perfect.

....When I was growing up, there was certainly a lot of sexism in television shows, but misogyny is something different. Sexism was Archie Bunker calling his wife Edith a dingbat; annoying and insulting, certainly; sexist, definitely; but not violent or hateful. An example of misogyny is, for example, the way the character of the daughter, Meg, is portrayed in the popular cartoon sitcom, The Family Guy. Meg is frequently the subject of rape “jokes” and cruel jibes about her supposed ugliness; a frequent theme is that she is worthless and beneath contempt because she is not “hot.”

I'm too disengaged from popular culture to have a strong opinion about this. I don't watch much TV and I almost never read blog comments. I see enough references elsewhere to these things to believe that Kathleen is probably right, though. But why?

The internet allows many people to be extremely nasty anonymously, with impunity — that’s certainly part of it. Pop culture has become more vulgar, and porn has become more widely available, and thus more influential, I think. The proliferation of everything from home video to cell phone cameras to the internet has caused us to become a more visual culture, which partly explains why women today are judged much more harshly on the basis of their looks. We’ve become a much more conservative country, politically, and the Christian right, which is explicitly anti-feminist, has become more powerful. But that can’t be the whole thing.

At a guess, another part of the reason is that a lot of misogyny that was more-or-less private a couple of decades ago is now more-or-less public. We might not be more misogynistic than we used to be, but our misogyny is a whole lot more public than it used to be. That makes it seem like there's more of it. In reality, we're just being forced to confront the fact that there's always been, and still is, a helluva strong misogynistic streak in American culture.

But it's disgusting regardless of whether there's a real upswing or simply more media channels to make it public. I do think there's some occasional carelessness here, where mere nastiness toward a female target is mistaken for real misogyny, but that's a minor thing. There's too much of it, and if lefties won't call it out when they see it, who will? Examples in comments, please.

Last night I argued that Ezra Klein went too far when he suggested that presidents have little power to persuade. Today, Ezra acknowledges a distinction between agenda-setting and persuasion. In the case of Iraq, for example, it's true that public opinion about invading Iraq never actually changed much between the late 90s and 2002. But George Bush unquestionably put Iraq on the national agenda. Before 2002, it wasn't a big deal. After 2002, it was.

So we agree about that. But then there's this:

Kevin also argues that Ronald Reagan’s presidency changed the public’s attitude towards taxation in an enduring way. This is conventional wisdom, but it’s not evident in the polling. If anything, the belief that the income tax people paid was “too high” fell after Reagan.

It’s clear that Reagan’s presidency — and, perhaps as importantly, George H.W. Bush’s presidency — changed the politics of taxes inside the Republican Party. But I’m not certain that the country’s attitude toward taxes changed dramatically. Bill Clinton raised taxes when he was president, and he seemed to do okay. More recently, Barack Obama has had considerable success arguing for tax increases on wealthier Americans. But I’m sure there’s more thorough scholarship on this subject, and I’m open to being proved wrong.

There are some important points to be made about this. First: we should be careful not to take opinion polls too seriously. Gallup may say that attitudes toward taxes didn't change a lot pre- and post-Reagan, but the real world says different. Before 1980, it was possible to raise taxes both locally and at the federal level. After 1980 it became virtually impossible, and after the early 90s it became very nearly literally impossible. In Congress and at the polling place, where it really matters, public opinion was loud and clear: higher taxes were a killer.

Second: it's not just broad public opinion that matters. Persuading the base matters. Ramping up intensity matters, even among a minority. Raising money matters. And persuading the chattering classes matters. Those are all things that presidential persuasion can affect, even if they don't get picked up in the latest Gallup poll.

Third, there's always a pendulum effect. If your campaign to lower taxes succeeds in lowering taxes, it's natural that even the tax fighters will start to relax some and become more open to the idea that existing tax rates are OK. That doesn't mean persuasion on taxes has failed. Just the opposite: it means it worked! But no amount of persuasion will keep people heated up no matter how low taxes go. That's just not a realistic bar.

Now, I don't want to pretend that the tax revolt of the past 30 years was all Ronald Reagan's doing. It wasn't. He came into office on a wave of anti-tax sentiment that was already ramping up, and there was a big institutional movement to back him up. But did he really have no effect at all? That's a tough nut to swallow. He was the most important public face of the anti-tax crusade, and I think his choice to talk about taxes endlessly for eight years made a difference. Three decades later, it still does.