Jim Nichols

So says a recent study, Sarah Palin - Objectification - Reaction - Situation

Two researchers at the University of South Florida have developed a study that suggests . . . that a random group of Republicans and independents asked to focus on Palin’s attractiveness felt less likely to vote for the GOP ticket in last November’s elections.

“The idea is that when you focus on a woman’s appearance, this objectifies her, or turns her into an object in your eyes,” said Jamie L. Goldenberg, an associate professor of psychology at USF and co-author of the study, titled “Objectifying Sarah Palin: Evidence that Objectification Causes Women to be Perceived as Less Competent and Fully Human.” “What we found is these perceptions influenced people’s likelihood of voting.”

In their experiment, Goldenberg and graduate student Nathan A. Heflick assembled a group of 133 undergraduates at the school a month before the election. After noting their characteristics — 27 percent were male, 45 percent were Democrats, 24 percent were Republicans and the rest were independents — they were randomly separated into four groups.

Two groups were asked to write about Palin and two groups were asked to write about actor Angelina Jolie. Within each pair, one group was asked to write their thoughts and feelings about the subject’s appearance, and the other was asked to write about the person. They then asked respondents how they would vote in the coming election.

Goldenberg said that, after factoring out Democratic respondents (who solidly supported Obama), the Republicans and independents asked to write about Palin’s appearance said they were less likely to vote GOP than those who simply considered Palin as a person.

“There was an overall tendency to perceive Sarah Palin as less competent than Angelina Jolie,” said Goldenberg, noting their results fell in line with previous studies indicating that, in high status and political jobs, attractive women were perceived as less competent in ways attractive men and women in other jobs were not.

. . . .Goldenberg said the study, which is to be published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, may spark more questions than it answers.

Loading mentions Retweet

The Situation of Solitary Confinement

Atul Gawande has a remarkable and important article, titled “Hellhole” in the most recent issue of The New Yorker.  In it, he examines some of the consequences of U.S. policy to hold “tens of thousands of inmates in long-term solitary confinement” and it’s relationship with torture. 

* * *

Human beings are social creatures. We are social not just in the trivial sense that we like company, and not just in the obvious sense that we each depend on others. We are social in a more elemental way: simply to exist as a normal human being requires interaction with other people.

* * *

. . . . This presents us with an awkward question: If prolonged isolation is—as research and experience have confirmed for decades—so objectively horrifying, so intrinsically cruel, how did we end up with a prison system that may subject more of our own citizens to it than any other country in history has?

* * *

One of the paradoxes of solitary confinement is that, as starved as people become for companionship, the experience typically leaves them unfit for social interaction. . . .

Craig Haney, a psychology professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz, received rare permission to study a hundred randomly selected inmates at California’s Pelican Bay supermax, and noted a number of phenomena. First, after months or years of complete isolation, many prisoners “begin to lose the ability to initiate behavior of any kind—to organize their own lives around activity and purpose,” he writes. “Chronic apathy, lethargy, depression, and despair often result. . . . In extreme cases, prisoners may literally stop behaving,” becoming essentially catatonic.

Second, almost ninety per cent of these prisoners had difficulties with “irrational anger,” compared with just three per cent of prisoners in the general population. Haney attributed this to the extreme restriction, the totality of control, and the extended absence of any opportunity for happiness or joy. Many prisoners in solitary become consumed with revenge fantasies.

* * *

. . . . Everyone’s identity is socially created: it’s through your relationships that you understand yourself as a mother or a father, a teacher or an accountant, a hero or a villain. But, after years of isolation, many prisoners change in another way that Haney observed. They begin to see themselves primarily as combatants in the world, people whose identity is rooted in thwarting prison control.

. . . . As Haney observed in a review of research findings, prisoners in solitary confinement must be able to withstand the experience in order to be allowed to return to the highly social world of mainline prison or free society. Perversely, then, the prisoners who can’t handle profound isolation are the ones who are forced to remain in it. “And those who have adapted,” Haney writes, “are prime candidates for release to a social world to which they may be incapable of ever fully readjusting.”

* * *

[A]ll human beings experience isolation as torture.

* * *

Prison violence, it turns out, is not simply an issue of a few belligerents. In the past thirty years, the United States has quadrupled its incarceration rate but not its prison space. Work and education programs have been cancelled, out of a belief that the pursuit of rehabilitation is pointless. The result has been unprecedented overcrowding, along with unprecedented idleness—a nice formula for violence. Remove a few prisoners to solitary confinement, and the violence doesn’t change. So you remove some more, and still nothing happens. Before long, you find yourself in the position we are in today. The United States now has five per cent of the world’s population, twenty-five per cent of its prisoners, and probably the vast majority of prisoners who are in long-term solitary confinement.

Loading mentions Retweet

Krugman:

So the “tea parties” are to a large extent being run by Freedom Works, which is basically Dick Armey with a lot of Koch-Scaife-Bradley-Olin support.

Loading mentions Retweet

Green shoots and tea leaves

The crisis is over! Or so some are saying.

OK, a couple of things.

One is that even in the Great Depression, things didn’t head down all the time. The chart above, from Eichengreen and O’Rourke, shows world industrial production in months from the previous peak, in the Depression and in the current crisis. Notice that there were several upturns along the way; each of those could have been — and was! — heralded as the beginning of recovery.

Meanwhile, about those great numbers from Wells Fargo: remember, reported profits aren’t a hard number; they involve a lot of assumptions. And at least some analysts are saying that the Wells assumptions about loan losses look, um, odd. Maybe, maybe not; but you do have to say that it would be awfully convenient for banks to sound the all clear right now, just when the question of how tough the Obama administration will really get is hanging in the balance.

All that said, I would not be surprised if GDP growth is positive in the second half of this year, if only because of the inventory bounce. But I will be surprised if the unemployment rate actually turns down.

Loading mentions Retweet

WSJ:

Economists in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey expect the recession to end in September, though most say it won't be until the second half of 2010 that the economy recovers enough to bring down unemployment.

 Econbrowser notes:

The survey was conducted between April 3-6. Thus, they came before the trade release for February. Since the trade balance was above consensus, conditional nowcasts of GDP have probably risen [2].

On the other hand, the OECD forecast cited in this post implies continued decline throughout 2009. I'm not certain why the OECD is so gloomy (or alternatively, why the US-based forecasters are so optimistic). Using the OECD forecast and the CBO potential, the output gap will be 10.9% (log terms) by 2010q4. Perhaps this is in part due to a more pessimistic assessment of potential GDP (eyeballing the "Output Gap" table in Appendix 1.2 of the March OECD Economic Outlook, it seems that the OECD's estimate of potential is about 1.2% less CBO's).

Econbrowser also has some good graphs to go along with it...

Loading mentions Retweet

Left on Lanier:

[Atlanta Tea Party]…scheduled for April 15th (tax day) at the Capitol building. Hannity will be doing his show live as he protests the “wasteful spending” of the Obama administration.

What if Obama supporters threw a “Reconstruction” party? A protest of a different sort, this would point out Georgia’s failing transportation system, the lack of adequate health care and poor trauma care, and the upcoming hike on property taxes through the death of the Homeowners Relief grant.

Keep it local, specific to Georgia. Make it a celebration of Obama’s adminstration, as we cherish his help in providing much needed funds to alleviate our poor state representation. Point out that Rep. Broun and Rep. Deal refuse to ask for federal funds in their district. Illustrate the bone-headed decision to provide $1 billion dollars in tax cuts to Georgia corporations while we can’t even balance our own budget without federal help.

Rarely does it benefit a Georgia Democrat to tie themselves to the national party, but in this case, it would also be an indictment of the piss-poor GOP leadership that has driven our state into the ground on just about every measurable indicator. SAT scores? Among the lowest in the nation. Life expectancy? Median income? Take your pick, Georgia is near the bottom in everything meaningful to a middle class existence.

 A Reconstruction Party.

I'm still struck by the tea party meme...  that was about taxation without representation.  Aside from D.C. nobdy in the states can argue they have no representation.  They could argue for better represenation and I'd even show up (instant run-off voting!!!).  They could argue money in politics is drowning out the voice of human beings.  I'd show up for that too!  But tea party?

I couldn't believe I actually agreed with Ben Stein this morning:

These tea parties strike me as off-base, in some respects, though they evoke a certain principle that rings true, or at least possibly true.

First, I don’t quite get the taxation uproar. As far as I know, no new taxes of any size have been enacted. The only new tax I can spot immediately in front of us is the “cap and trade” levy on carbon emissions, which would be a tax on energy consumers. And even that, based on a questionable idea, doesn’t seem imminent.

When the recession ends, though, we will be facing very large budget deficits, even under the best projections. Unless the Federal Reserve is just going to print money — usually a dangerous road to inflation — how will we pay for government, except through taxes? And who has the money to pay, except the rich? So unless I am missing something, don’t we have to tax the rich, defined in some sensible way?

That’s just arithmetic. I wish that lowering spending were an option, but it’s not. Politicians talk about cutting spending and going through the budget, line by line, looking for waste. It never happens — except that sometimes, the military budget is cut, which is the last thing we should cut in a world as dangerous as ours. And right now, over all, the military budget isn’t being cut, although some programs are being reduced while others are expanding.

So, I don’t quite get the tea parties, although I do applaud citizen activism.

I'll be covering the Tea Party here in Henry.  Hopefully get some good photos, ideas, and a better understanding of the positions being articulated.  I enjoyed going with Deana and two of our friends who were Huckabee supporters down to Macon during the election, hopefullly this will be productive and useful for me as well. One thing i've learned is that actually observing and listening, helps a person better understand not just the surface issues, but what lies unobserved below the surface.  We can't have productive governance without better understanding.  So i'm giving them a post to make their point.  I might try to snag an interview or two. 

Loading mentions Retweet

If Government Never Created a Job ...

... then why are anti-stimulus Republicans suddenly clamoring about the stimulative effect of military spending?

Loading mentions Retweet

Brad Delong:

If a health care bill passes this year, it will be because Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins like it a lot.

First-dollar coverage for lumberjacking industries? Super-cobra for workers laid off from their seasonal jobs tapping maple trees?

The Washington Monthly: If Democrats are going to need some Republican votes to pass a major health care reform initiative, it looks like they should start with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R) of Maine. Snowe hosted a "listening session" on health care reform this week and made it clear that she wants to support significant changes to the status quo. (thanks to reader A.F. for the tip)

Speaking to the members of the group before taking their testimony, Snowe, a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, said the committee is determined to draft legislation by June and to have it ready for debate on the Senate floor by July. The last attempt to overhaul the nation's health care system was proposed in 1993 and dissolved in "polarization and partisanship," she noted. "I believe the climate in Washington is different now," Snowe said. Recognition is widespread that the nation's health care system is unsustainable, ineffective and inequitable, she said, and the current economic crisis is only making things worse. "This is precisely the right time" for national reform, Snowe said.

Snowe added that she expects to see a vote in the Senate before the end of this year.

"We have a totally dysfunctional system now," she said. While like most Republicans she would prefer to see the private sector collaborate on an effective change, a government-run health care system may be the only way to get the job done, she said. [emphasis added]

Now, that's obviously a paraphrase, not a direct quote. But if Snowe really said this -- the Bangor Daily News, which ran this report, has not run a correction -- it seems like a pretty encouraging development.

Loading mentions Retweet

McCain’s former economic adviser flips on Bush tax cuts.

Throughout the presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) top economic adviser and former CBO director, Douglas Holtz Eakin, argued passionately for McCain’s proposal to extend the Bush tax cuts (and cut some more taxes for the wealthy on top of it). Holtz-Eakin, however, has now come out against making the tax cuts permanent, acknowledging that it would explode the deficit:

Though economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin spent the 2008 presidential campaign advising Sen. John McCain to defend the Bush-era tax cuts, he now thinks they should be allowed to expire on Dec. 31, 2010 due to “the prospect of an Argentina-style fiscal meltdown.” Said Holtz-Eakin: “If you ask: ‘Who pays the taxes?’, it’s the first step toward not having the answer be: ‘Our kids.’”

Recall, McCain also flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts, but he opposed the cuts in 2001 and argued for them in 2008.

Loading mentions Retweet

I hurried up to Columbia University to inform my friends on the campus that I had located the Communist Party, had made contact with it, and was, in fact, a registered member. By chance, the first man I met as I crossed the campus was one of my literary friends. I told him the news. As usual, he squinted one eye and lifted the eyebrow of the other, so that he looked as if he were peering through a monocle. “Do you drill in a cellar with machine guns?” he asked airily.    --Whittaker Chambers

Loading mentions Retweet