Rodger Payne directs us to this article by Jeff Gill and Christopher Zorn:
Most important, and consistent with our expectations, we find that self-identified Democratic Party members are more likely to support the DH rule than are either independents or Republicans; the odds ratio of 1.90 suggests that, on average, Democrats are 90 percent more likely to support the rule than are independents. This implies (we think) that the values that draw the respondents to the Democrats are linked to those associated with supporting the rule. At the same time, the reverse is not true: Republicans are no more or less likely to support the DH rule than are political independents.
As Zorn and Gill explain, the DH is arguably the greatest rules change in the history of baseball — and Democrats are more accepting of “socio-political” changes. Younger fans like the DH a bit more — each year of age decreases support for the DH by 1.3%. They also find a gender gap. Women are three times as likely to support the DH as men. All respondents were self-identified baseball fans, included in a larger CBS News survey taken in 1997.
Interleague play did not engender the same sort of socio-political division.
Fascinating. I’m kind of surprised at the size of the gap, although it does make some sense that traditionalist baseball antiquarians would identify with the political party that pushes a more or less similar identity. For a very few, I suppose the fact that the union likes the DH could be a key factor…
This is quite remarkably disgusting. I’m glad that his celebrity didn’t prevent him from being indicted for torturing animals for profit.
While checking the stats on his Ameritrade account, Larry Kudlow experiences a sudden rush of blood to the groin:
And what’s more, this global stock market boom signifies a major defeat for al Qaeda and all the terrorist jihadists who seek to destroy capitalism and our way of life. The spread of prosperity across the globe cannot tell a lie: The terrorists are on the wrong side, they are on the losing side, and their side will be defeated. Freedom and capitalism is moving full steam ahead. It will ultimately crush the evil, totalitarian jihadists.
Well, goddamn. I know we’re only six years into the Global War Against People Who Resemble in Some Vague Way the People Who Carried Out the 9-11 Attacks, but is it too much to ask that the lords of wingnuttia begin their exaltations with marginally plausible assumptions about the motives of our putative enemies? I suppose if you’re especially prone to re-telling cold war narratives, with “jihadists” or “Islamofacsists” substituting for “the Rooskies,” then I guess it makes complete sense to insist that the PWRSVWPWCO9-11A are aiming to “destroy capitalism and our way of life.” Otherwise, I can’t imagine how you’d arrive at that sort of evidence-free assertion. Then again, it takes a unique species of hack to argue that rising stock prices are a better measure of the war’s success than, say, the hundreds of thousands of corpses it’s so far produced, or the fact that nearly everyone else on the planet sees it for the goat fuck it truly is.
So, I’ve decided that Jason Isbell’s Sirens of the Ditch sort of rocks. Adjust your buying habits accordingly.
Hilzoy has more on Anne Applebaum’s crazy strawman-building tactics. Personally, perhaps because I’m more cynical, I didn’t check the empirical claim because I wouldn’t have been shocked had no Democratic politician had been fully candid; it wouldn’t be unusual for politicians not to point out the potential downsides when choosing among a bunch of bad policy options created by someone else’s catastrophic blunder. (People not running for office can, and should, be criticized for not being honest about the downsides.) And yet, at least 3 Democratic candidates including Barak Obama did to this, making Appelbaum’s silly point also factually false. It seems pretty clear that this was bullshit in the classic Frankurt sense; Applebaum seems to have been indifferent about her claims were true or not, but just needed some assertions to fit her evasive high-Broderite framework.
As a follow-up to Bean’s post below, I will once again note that, as long as the 14th Amendment remains unamended, the necessary consequence of fetal personhood is that anyone obtaining or performing an abortion is guilty of first degree murder, anyone who knows about it an accessory to murder, etc. etc. At the absolute core of the equal protection clause is that no class of persons can be excluded from the protection of general laws providing for basic personal security. A federal “life amendment” would not merely permit but require every state to treat abortion as murder.
Fortunately, this lunatic position is confined to such fringe organizations as the party of the incumbent president.
In the Gonzales v. Carhart opinion, certain Supreme Court justices seemed to be confusing their JD’s with MD’s. That move seems to have set a trend.
From the Colorado Springs (home of Focus on the Family) Gazzette:
A newly formed El Paso County political committee has submitted a ballot initiative that would outlaw abortion in Colorado by changing the state constitution to define life as beginning at conception.
The measure goes Wednesday before a title-setting board of the Secretary of State, which must determine whether its title is a single subject and in proper form. If that board gives its OK, Colorado for Equal Rights has six months to collect roughly 76,000 signatures to get the amendment on the November 2008 ballot.
The group seeks to add a clause to state law that the term “person” shall include “any human being from the moment of fertilization.” Similar efforts are under way in other states, including Mississippi and Georgia, said Mark Meuser, organizer for the Peytonbased committee.
Doctors, on the other hand, don’t even define pregnancy as beginning at fertilization.
That, and the fact that about 1/2 of all eggs fertilized do not go on to implant in the uterus and become pregnancies. So are women murderers simply for failing to actually get pregnant? The mind pretzels just thinking about it.
Justice Kennedy, can you clarify?
Noted paragon of civility Robert Novak expresses a need for a fainting couch — apparently some ladies are being insufficiently dainty.
Henley and Yglesias say most of what needs to be said about today’s bite of banality. As the former points out, the actual effect of this pox-on-all-their-houses-but-not-my-house High Broderism is to implicitly advocate the status quo without having to bother to make an argument in its favor. The only thing I’ll add is that the fact that withdrawal could have disastrous consequences, while certainly a convincing argument against starting the predictably disastrous war in the first place, is only a good argument against leaving if the occupation was actually improving the security situation. What’s actually happening, however, is that we’re getting further from the plausible emergence of a stable Iraqi state, and even Applebaum isn’t willing to claim otherwise. So the potential for bad things to happen after the troops leave — which I’ve heard few opponents of the war deny — is neither here nor there given the obvious inability of the American military to create a strong Iraqi state ex nihilo. The point of the argument, rather, is simply part of the broader war apologist long-term exit strategy: i.e. to shift the blame for the catastrophe from the people who are actually responsible for it to people who tried to stop it.
I have to admit that I think Henley is probably right here:
I confess a suspicion that the Dem leadership is counting on not getting an up-and-down vote. There’s a decent chance that some of the Senators happy to vote for a cloture motion they know is doomed to lose will be unwilling to vote for a troop drawdown they know could win. And then what will we tell the netroots? Thirty hours of theater that ends in another unsuccessful cloture vote is the safe-sex version of defunding the war.
I don’t really think that this is Reid’s fault, per se; this kabuki is probably the best way of communicating opposition to the war given that he doesn’t have the votes to stop. But it remains depressing.
Some applications of the econometric innovations of Dow 36,000 co-hack Kevin Haslett.
There’s news about the scheduled execution of Troy Davis (Also written about here, here, here).
The Georgia Board of Pardons today granted a 90-day stay of execution so that they could consider the new evidence in his case. The stay gets the defense closer to what they want — an opportunity to present the evidence about the witness recantations.
TalkLeft has more.