Palin’s WTF Moment, Ctd

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

Palin said:

Well, the spudnut shop in Richland, Washington – it’s a bakery, it’s a little coffee shop that’s so successful, 60-some years, generation to generation, a family-owned business not looking for government to bail them out and to make their decisions for them.

The Spudnut shop Palin speaks of is half a mile from my house in Richland, WA and it's really good (the secret is potato flour in the batter).  She may not realize that the federal government buys most of those doughnuts: the annual budget for cleanup of the nearby Hanford Nuclear Reservation is more than $2 billion, employing about 11,000 workers, and spudnuts are the pastry of choice at meetings there.

The Decline Of Studying, Ctd

by Patrick Appel

Philip Babcock e-mails:

The blogger at Games With Words has misinterpreted our study, which is perhaps understandable given the level of detail in the papers. There is no sleight of hand here and it’s worth clearing things up: It is unequivocal in the data that students at selective colleges study less they used to. We compare selective schools in 1961 with *the same set* of highly selective schools in 2003. All comparisons are made across identical sets of colleges and all declines are large and highly statistically significant.

Several Dish readers argued that technology makes Babcock's finding irrelevant. A typical e-mail:

I take issue with the implication that studying fewer hours means less education is happening. I recently completed my undergraduate in a fairly technical field (chemical engineering) and, like all sciences, comparing the pre-computer 60's to today is beyond absurd on its face. In those 10 hours of studying, as a junior undergraduate, I can complete months or even years worth of calculations in the 60's. 

Babcock addressed this point in his original post:

Of course, new technologies could have made students more effective at studying than they used to be. But most of the decline in study times predates these technologies.

Is This Really A Wise Priority?

by Conor Friedersdorf

Over at NR, Daniel Foster, one of several bright young staffers there, has a piece of reportage up about efforts by Arizona Republicans to oust Sherrif Clarence Dupnik from office. They're upset that in the aftermath of the Tuscon shooting he gave interviews blaming right-wing rhetoric for inspiring the crime:

When National Review Online asked Pima County GOP chairman Brian Miller whether there was any doubt in his mind that Dupnik, a vocal liberal in a state with comparably few, had used his office to score political points in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings, an almost incredulous Miller responded: “No doubt at all. It’s inarguable. It’s been videotaped.”

Pima County Republicans are more determined than ever to do something about it. They’ve launched dumpsheriffdupnik.com, the virtual locus of a money-bomb that hopes to raise $100,000 to oust the 30-year, seven-term incumbent. While the election isn’t until 2012 and the $100,000 figure is being called just “an initial goal,” Miller says his party is intent on keeping its foot on the gas and doing all it can to retire Dupnik.

Sherrif Dupnik behaved badly in the aftermath of the shooting, and is utterly wrong about what caused it. While I understand the impulse of these Republicans to punish him politically for his remarks, however, I can't help but question their actions. Is he a good sherrif? Over his 30 years in office, is crime up or down? We're never told by Mr. Miller, who doesn't seem to find that to be a relevant question.

As Dara Lind notes, "according to Arizona Department of Public Safety reports, violent crime has dropped 15 percent in Pima County since 2002." Personally, I'd support an LA County Sherrif who shot his mouth off about the Lakers, disparaged my political beliefs, and made fun of my haircut if he turned in those numbers. That isn't to say all misconduct should be forgiven if the crime rate is falling: a sherrif who routinely violates civil liberties, undermines the rule of law, and engages in racial profiling – someone like Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County – would be worth getting rid of even if he successfully reduced crime in his jurisdiction (he doesn't).

But a political remark about a singular crime unlikely to repeat itself doesn't have much bearing on Dupnik's effectiveness at his job. It isn't that I want Pima County Republicans to turn the other cheek exactly. Forcefully point out the guy is wrong. But maybe it would be better to direct your focus and your $100,000 elsewhere. And yes, I'm sure if the circumstances were flipped the Democrats would be seeking this guy's ouster. I'm not saying these Republicans are especially guilty of showing bad judgment – I'm just encouraging them to rise to a level of maturity and cold logic that one doesn't often see in these situations. It would help if voters were mature enough to disconnect they're impulse to give money from their sense of aggrievement.

“Skipping” Iowa

by Patrick Appel

Mitt threatens. Jensen urges him not to. David Bernstein protests:

I am writing to ask my fellow journos and pundits, wherever they may be, to resist echoing the ridiculous verb "skip" in discussing this. If Romney spends less of his resources on Iowa this time (as I have long suggested he will), it will be because he believes he can't win there, and doesn't want to be seen as trying and losing.

In most competitions, this is called "conceding defeat," or something along those lines. For instance, if Jon has me facing certain checkmate in five moves and I tip over my king, this is not called "skipping the game against Jon."

Jonathan Bernstein nods.

Thoughts On Client 9

by Conor Friedersdorf

What I never realized about Elliot Spitzer is that the escort whose name we all learned, Ashley Dupre, is someone with whom he only slept once – its a different escort who he hired regularly, she is now a commodities trader, and the recently released documentary about Spitzer's rise and fall manages to include an on the record interview with her. All things considered, I enjoyed the film. Its thesis is basically that the former New York governor's powerful enemies helped orchestrate his downfall, and that the investigation into his hooker habit may well have been politically motivated. The evidence presented is circumstantial but persuasively put. Is that what really happened? I have no idea. Spitzer says he brought about his own downfall. And that is definitely true, whatever else transpired.

For understandable narrative reasons, the documentary focuses on Spitzer's least sympathetic critics. We hear lots of people accuse him of being a power mad bully. Most are wealthy Wall Street figures accused of illegal or unethical behavior that puts them in a very bad light. Ask around New York state and you'll hear from less powerful, more sympathetic people with Spitzer horror stories from his days as attorney general. I understand why those stories were beyond the scope of the film. But I wouldn't have minded an allusion to them.

And I wish the film had taken up a question that I thought about when the story broke. Like many Americans, I'm beyond sex scandals. It seems to me that they're so common in politics, so inevitable, that the associated investigations and resignations are more trouble than they're worth. Frankly I don't even care that Spitzer broke the law by hiring an escort. What I do care about is the wildly expensive addiction he apparently developed. In that sense, the egregious behavior of Bill Clinton – blow jobs in the Oval Office, for shame – are less worrying from a good governance standpoint. He didn't have to come up with any money for Monica Lewinsky. Whereas I'm curious about how much total money Spitzer spent, and for how long he could afford to keep spending at those rates. Would it ever have reached a point where financial corruption was required to keep his call girl habit going?

Interestingly, my moral judgment on the question of who is worse – Clinton or Spitzer – is flipped. Both cheated on their wives. It's a tie there. But an educated $10,000 per day escort has a lot of agency. These aren't the prostitutes who are forced to be in that position. Whereas an intern and an ultimate boss more than twice her age? Bill Clinton knowingly used her, and at minumum risked doing long term emotional damage. Interesting how, for their respective sex scandals alone, some politicians remain beloved while others are thought of us callous jerks. Judgments about which label better fits who vary.

While these are the questions that interest me, the film's decision to focus elsewhere is a perfectly defensible narrative choice, and I enjoyed the product. Almost two hours long, it seemed to go by a lot quicker than that as I watched, it unearthed new information, it impressed in getting so many involved parties to talk on camera – Spitzer himself included – and if you're interested in this case or documentaries about contemporary politics generally, I'd recommend Client 9 for your Netflix cue.

Putting Fox’s Ratings In Perspective

by Conor Friedersdorf

A reader writes:

It's all well and good to take the high road and try to persuade and all of that bla, bla, bla.  However, the *entire* reason FOX has the ratings they do is because they do all of that ranting which appeals to the undereducated and uninformed masses.  The majority of these viewers consistently vote against their best interest simply because they are only able to understand the "us vs. them" mentality that FOX shovels 24/7.  It's all about outrage and it sells (big time!) to that particular demographic.

Imagine, if you will, what would happen if a reasonable percentage of these viewers were converted to the Olbermann form of outrage.  These people probably wouldn't be any better informed (because in the end, they don't want to be) but they could get their outrage "fix" and would end up actually voting in a way that might do them some good in the long run.  As much as the idea turns my stomach, MSNBC or some other entity needs to step up and become a real anti-FOX outlet with many more Olbermann like commentators.  They need to tell the truth but do it using small words in an outraged tone without the current angle of trying to educate that MSNBC seems to have taken.  It would totally be a case of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" but we're not going to educate our way out of the current lopsided lean to the right for this demographic because THEY DON'T WANT TO BE educated and the only way to persuade them is via outraged commentary.

Why this reader imagines that Fox News viewers would be converted to MSNBC if they hired more Keith Olbermanns is puzzling to me. I'd imagine that the partisan cable news show audience is particularly unpersuadable.  And let's be clear on the size of the Fox News audience. In 2008, 59,934,814 Americans voted for John McCain. During election week, Fox News as a network averaged 3.54 million viewers. (Perhaps liberals would have more success trying to persuade the other 56,394,814 Republican voters.) That same year, Oprah Winfrey's show – just the one show – averaged 7.3 million voters (reported here as a ratings slump). Yes, among a certain demographic, Fox News is a huge ratings success. So is Rush Limbaugh. But where is the evidence that this rating success has translated into electoral victories or a friendlier policy environment for conservatives? There is none.

Think back to the primaries in 2008 – the contest where the conservative base had the most clout relative to other electoral contests.  Do you remember who won? John McCain. The scourge of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. The GOP Senator who has been the subject of more vitriolic talk radio rants than any other.

There is a pervasive belief that entertainment ratings are the same as political influence.

Usually that isn't true.

The Officer’s Club

by Patrick Appel

Ellis Goldberg, who Marc Lynch calls "a real Egypt expert," has a post on the protests:

Where things go next is hard to tell. Unlike Tunis, the army is probably quite willing to use force to back up the police. The army does benefit from the current institutional arrangement. Nothing says this to me quite as much as the immense growth over the last 30 years of the Officer’s Club in Zamalek, a very affluent section of Cairo, which now has a luxury hotel, an outdoor restaurant, and (at least as nearly as one can judge from peeking through gaps in the very high and solid wall) an extremely relaxing oasis of a club in this island in the middle of the Nile.

Quote For The Day

by Zoe Pollock

"It would be easy to pay the $2500 bill and be swiftly done with this diseased chapter of my life, where I sinfully deceived and tolerated self-hatred under Don't Ask Don't Tell. Many thousands have wrestled with their responsibilities and expedient solutions when confronted with issues of this magnitude. I understand you also wrestle with issues of our equality. But I choose to cease wrestling, to cease the excuses, to cease the philosophical grandstanding and ethical gymnastics of political expediency in the face of moral duty. My obligations to take a stand, knowing all the continued consequences of my violations, are clear. I refuse to pay your claim." – Dan Choi in a letter to President Obama, refusing to pay the $2500 the Army claims he owes after his early discharge under DADT.