ThickCulture

Lisa Wade at Sociological Images posted a fascinating chart on the level of patriotism citizens of different countries exhibit – details here.  Predictably, the USA ranks #1 in thinking they are #1 (although not by much).  But what was more interesting was a passage Wade quoted from Claude Fischer:

We believe that we are #1 almost across the board, when in fact we are far below number one in many arenas – in health, K-12 education, working conditions, to mention just a few. Does our #1 pride then blind us to the possibility that we could learn a thing or two from other countries?

When does national pride become an unproductive hubris?  This isn’t a new question, but the data makes concrete a key paradox in American culture.  How can a country be both innovative, dynamic and multicultural while at the same time exhibiting a reluctance to embrace ideas from other countries?  Is it just sunny optimism to believe erroneously that your culture is better than others, or is it a lack of national and personal  maturity to cling to a myth of national superiority?  I prefer to live in a country with a relentless optimism and even maybe arrogance to a measured realism, even if a bit misguided.  There’s a certain charm in thrusting oneself headlong into an uncertain future.  However I do wonder at what point does national conceit turn into a farce?  As the US loses its share of global output and productivity, does a maturing of national character need to take place to keep us from becoming a caricature of our current selves?

Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber say reasoning “does not mean what we think it means”:

Reasoning is generally seen as a mean to improve knowledge and make better decisions. Much evidence, however, shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests rethinking the function of reasoning. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given human exceptional dependence on communication and vulnerability to misinformation. A wide range of evidence in the psychology or reasoning and decision making can be reinterpreted and better explained in the light of this hypothesis.

I like a conceptual take-down of rational choice theory as much as the next guy, but I wonder why it has to be either-or.  Personally, I think reasoning is context dependent.  There are times where I reason to win an argument and there are times when I reason to show how smart I am and cover up any  baseline insecurities I might have   It would be great if scholarship started moving beyond hot vs. cold cognition to looking at when cognition is hot and when it is cold.

HT: Henry Farrell (Monkey Cage)

For anyone who has ever tried to make full sense of Rousseau but couldn’t (like me), Matthew Mendham nicely summarizes the central tensions in Rousseau’s thought:

Rousseau seems to argue, on one hand, that moderns are luxurious, lazy, weak, and soft, in opposition to primitive hardiness, vigor, ferocity, and rustic virtue. On the other hand, he depicts modern life as cruel, frenzied, competitive, and harsh, in opposition to primitive gentleness, idleness, abundance, and spontaneity.

Here is his recent article (behind a paywall) in the American Journal of Political Science where he tries to help wayward Rousseau souls

Google Map street view capturing Border Patrol van in San Luis, AZ

Arizona’s controversial immigration bill, SB 1070 {along with provisions from HB 2162} [pdf of 1070], is days from going into effect and a maelstrom of lawsuits are heating up. Those who haven’t lived in a state bordering with México might not be familiar with how heated of a topic immigration can be, although various polls state that many Americans, not just Arizonans, support the bill.

The bill, which became law as the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act that Governor Brewer signed in April has been in the cards for a while. This article from the Arizona Republic shows how this “local” issue stemmed from frustration about Federal immigration policy and enforcement in Arizona, as well as noting how nobody expected a firestorm in the national spotlight::

“‘I have never felt the racism that you are feeling in Arizona today because of this bill,’ said Mary Rose Wilcox, a Democratic Maricopa County supervisor who is hoping U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton will block SB 1070 from going into effect.

The furious, and fearful, reaction to Brewer’s decision to sign the bill caught both backers and opponents of the legislation off guard.

‘The majority of us who voted yes on that bill, myself included, did not expect or encourage an outcry from the public,’ said state Rep. Michele Reagan, R-Scottsdale. ‘The majority of us just voted for it because we thought we could try to fix the problem. Nobody envisioned boycotts. Nobody anticipated the emotion, the prayer vigils. The attitude was: These are the laws, let’s start following them.’”

On the legal front, there is the Constitutionality aspect, with complaints being filed and the DoJ getting into the mix {both links to the Constitutional Law Prof Blog}, along with how supremacy and preemption factor into the legality. While legal types argue issues of whether Arizona state law with the Act conflicts with or embodies “concurrent enforcement” of federal immigration and naturalization laws. The Act is in a grey area of state criminal law and federal immigration law and policy.

Politically, the dividing line is roughly along party affiliation with Republicans supporting it and Democrats opposing it. Given the rough shape of the economy and joblessness, getting tough on immigration is an easy issue to get support for. Republican Governor Jan Brewer got a boost in the polls after signing the bill and is ahead of her Democratic challenger. Nevertheless, not all Republicans support the law, including Jeb Bush and Karl Rove. It’s a tricky issue for the Republicans, who want to court Latino voters and many of whom aren’t on board with this type of law and may be another issue that can divide, not unite the Republican party. The NY Times stated that immigration is also a touchy issue for the Democrats, but to a lesser degree, and that states are rushing to craft their own legislation, which may lead to a patchwork of laws, rather than a comprehensive national approach.

The problem I see with the law is that it really fails to acknowledge the social reality of what’s going on and is likely to have bad unintended consequences. Some in law enforcement {there’s no consensus on this} are concerned that undocumented immigrants will fear them, making their jobs more difficult. I’ve worked on projects for the James Irvine Foundation earlier this decade and one of the issues that cropped up was the institutional barriers that prevented undocumented immigrants from engaging in society. This manifested in a fear of law enforcement and a reluctance to engage in health and social services, which is borne out by statistics. Some may see this as a good thing, as in lower costs, but I see it as increasing costs particularly when it comes to health care, due to less preventative medicine, increased risk for the spreading of infectious diseases, and greater utilization of emergent care facilities for primary care. Additionally, in Arizona, while causality cannot be determined, there are reports that Latinos may be leaving the state and those who are eligible to vote are…registering as Democrats.

What’s needed is for the federal government to step up to the plate and make the tough choices on immigration. I’m not holding my breath that the Obama administration or Congress will do anything before the November elections.

{In the future, I’ll blog about the economics of immigration and this one misguided project I worked on {but wasn’t the principal investigator on} that had a strange take on the industrial organization of agriculture.}

Song:: MIA-”Pull Up the People”

Twitterversion:: [blog] The sturm & drang of Arizona’s immigration bill. Will Obama or Congress step up to the plate—in an election year? @Prof_K

There are a few creative types on ThickCulture so I’m hoping they chime in on this one. I just saw this on Facebook {via Jennifer Lovegrove via Zoe Whittall} this rekindled my thinking about screenplays. The video explains the Bechdel Test or the Mo Movie Measure to assess female presence in films. The test is not part of a feminist manifesto or a normative stance on what makes a “good” or “correct” film, but poses the question that much of filmmaking caters to men or male-centric narratives. Here’s a list of films and how they fare on bechdeltest.com. I think I know why this is the case. It’s about formula and pigeonholing. So, if we take the parameters of the test::

1. Are there 2 or more women who have names?
2. Do they talk to each other?
3. Do they talk about something other than men?

one realizes that few films would pass this test, but those that do would often get stereotyped in the calculus of Hollywood decision-making that relies on formula and appealing to certain demographics in an attempt to mitigate risk. Too much female presence on screen is often deemed unchartered territory when it ventures outside of the established realm of the “chick flick”. This has gotten me thinking about my screenplays and a TV treatment I’m developing and how, with good writing, there could be much more of a female presence that doesn’t take anything away from the story. Interestingly, my TV treatment has much more of a female presence, but it mirrors a real world context and I’m more cognizant of gender in my writing of late. In any case, I find writing in more female presence, in a smart way I might add, to be an interesting creative challenge that can help freshen the story. I’m not sure I would say the same thing in 2002 when I started writing screenplays, as I think writing stories and dialogue for women back then would be much more difficult. Eight years ago, I think I’d think it’s a great idea but beyond me. Nevertheless, I think pushing the envelope here has the potential for writers to craft better stories.

While I don’t believe that only women can write screenplays that pass the Bechdel test, I think it’s illuminating how relatively few female writers there are. According to a Writers’ Guild of America 2009 report, the number of female screenwriters has languished under 20% for the past few years::

Song:: No Doubt-’Just a Girl’

Twitterversion:: [blog + video] The Bechdel Test/Mo Movie Measure examines female presence in film. Thoughts on the Hollywood & the creative process. @Prof_K

Last summer, the Obama Administration got embroiled in controversy with the Henry Louis Gates, Jr. arrest and Barack’s comments about the Cambridge police. This summer, Andrew Brietbart set off a chain reaction with clips of a video at a NAACP meeting that he felt showed how a black USDA official, Shirley Sherrod, was expressing racist views. Here’s Brietbart explaining his position on Sherrod’s talk and his allegations that the NAACP audience was “applauding her overt racism”, although he also acknowledges how she draws distinctions between the “haves” and “have nots” in the context of the story::

Subsequently, the Obama administration pressured her to resign.

Well, as it turns out, the clip wasn’t the whole story. Sherrod’s talk in its entirety is about bridging the race gap and how she had to come to terms with her own feelings. In the aftermath, the wife of the white farmer that Shirley referred to in the video and helped, Elouise Spooner, came forward and said that she did right by them::

When the story broke, I saw it in Toronto on CNN, which was only showing clips which were damning and those outraged at Sherrod’s “racism” at a NAACP meeting. It was a jaw-dropping story, how it was framed, but I wasn’t all that surprised when I saw how the story was more complicated and not at all surprised to hear that the Obama administration is backpedaling after figuring out the rest of the story. Apparently, CNN jumped on the bandwagon, throwing caution and good journalism to the winds::

“CNN’s Rick Sanchez said producers there were intrigued by Biggovernment.com’s posting and immediately started reporting on it. But with all the questions involved — Was this a fair characterization of Sherrod’s full speech? Can she be reached to give her side of the story? — they wouldn’t be ready to discuss it on his afternoon show until Tuesday, he said.

By then, the story rushed by.

“As journalists, we have to protect ourselves the best we can,” Sanchez said. “It’s easy for it to happen to anybody, by the way — jump to a conclusion, get excited, look at the coverage. It’s kind of like creating a bandwagon effect. Once you get on the bandwagon, you can’t hit the brakes. According to the SF Chron::

“CNN’s Rick Sanchez said producers there were intrigued by Biggovernment.com’s [Brietbart's] posting and immediately started reporting on it. But with all the questions involved — Was this a fair characterization of Sherrod’s full speech? Can she be reached to give her side of the story? — they wouldn’t be ready to discuss it on his afternoon show until Tuesday, he said.

By then, the story rushed by.

‘As journalists, we have to protect ourselves the best we can,’ Sanchez said. ‘It’s easy for it to happen to anybody, by the way — jump to a conclusion, get excited, look at the coverage. It’s kind of like creating a bandwagon effect. Once you get on the bandwagon, you can’t hit the brakes.’”

So, while CNN and Fox were both focusing on the reverse racism angle of this story, Fox’s O’Reilly kicks it up a notch. He cites several stories that the mainstream media didn’t cover as a journalism fail and evidence of a left-leaning bias. Bill practically accuses other networks of embracing a leftist agenda over giving the audience what they want::

All of this frenzy even duped the NAACP, which initially denounced Sherrod. While the media, politicians, and organizations are quick to jump the gun on incendiary bombs like this, what gets lost are the issues at hand on race and the Tea party movement. It gets convoluted, as even ousted Tea Party Federation activist Mark Williams defended Sherrod, as the controversy swirled. At around 7:30 EDT, there were two “highest rated” comments on the full video {link to all comments}, which shows that views are being expressed that show that people aren’t willing to follow a us-them mentality with respect to the Tea party movement and the NAACP::

“I am a white, Christian, Tea Party conservative from Texas….and I must say that while I appreciate much of Mr. Breitbart’s work, he really blew this one with his selective editing. I appreciated much of what Ms. Sherrod said about racial perspectives from all fronts. She sounded like she was sharing honest feelings based on her background, and how she came to terms with that. She should get her job back! Most of the Tea Party folks that I’m around would feel the same way.”—spastikmunkey

“I’m an Old (57) White Male. After watching this, I believe it is wrong for Mrs. Sherrod to lose her job. Yes, she had – and has – some racial issues – especially understandable given what happened to her father – but her heart is good and she has worked to overcome them and do the right thing. I’m all about grace and allowing people to grow. I only hope that blacks will give whites the same room and understanding. It’s the only way we’ll ever achieve racial reconciliation of any depth.”—lostcause53

The actions of CNN and {allegedly} the Obama administration, given USDA deputy undersecretary Cheryl Cook who phoned Shirley and told her the White House wanted her to resign since her comments were causing a controversy, show how the media and politicians are preoccupied with hype and spin, as opposed to getting the facts straight.

I think it’s easy to characterize any social movement in a stereotypical fashion, but I wonder how this plays out in an era of network politics. Where is the agency and what is the exact configuration of the Tea party movement when it comes to positions on race? Clearly, not everyone in the Tea party movement is on board with race as a wedge issue, but can any leader realistically speak for what is a confederation of localized grassroots activity?

Song:: The Style Council-’Long Hot Summer’

Twitterversion:: [blog] Sherrod debacle highlights media & political #fail, but implications for social movements in networked politics?  http://url.ie/6unp @Prof_K

While Sarah Palin’s recent use of “refudiate” twice would be a double facepalm moment for most politicians, perhaps she gets a bye because of her folksy patois. I do think she’s self-conscious of appearing none-too-smart and rather than just shrugging these things off, she gives them too much play, which is more fodder for the press and pundits. Of course, this keeps her in the limelight even more. While I think that might be shrewd for being a political celebrity of sorts, I think all of this self-consciousness undermines her credibility as a potential political candidate to an important demographic—educated suburban/urban moderates and independents.

This reminds me of the old Fox show In Living Color and Damon Wayans’ character, Oswald Bates, full of his own unique patois::

Just in case anyone cares, if you type in “refudiate” in Twitter…

there is a spellcheck that lets you know you’re in neologism territory…or are just misspelling words.

Song:: The Stills-’Lola Stars & Stripes’ {lyrics}

Twitterversion:: [blog] Sarah Palin’s “Shakespearean” neologism of “refudiate” reminds me of an old Damon Wayans character. #ThickCulture @Prof_K

Screencap from Sharron Angle's website

Embattled Senate Democrat and majority leader Harry Reid seems to be on a rebound after crashing and burning in the polls earlier in the year. Republican challenger Sharron Angle with endorsements from the Tea Party movement and social conservatives won the primary and it looked like Reid was in for an autumn drubbing. She was riding high in the polls after her primary win, with a comfortable 50-39% margin. She’s slipped ever since and the latest Rasmussen poll has her in a statistical tie with Reid, with 11% supporting another candidate or not sure. Reid’s campaign has tried to characterize Angle as too extreme with her views with the help of Obama, which could sway moderate independents and Republicans.

Her latest spot is focusing on unemployment which is a concern of residents, as the rate shot up to 14%::

I’m not sure how effective this ad is. It’s light on content and doesn’t really hit Reid that hard, other than saying that Nevada is worse off jobwise on his watch.

Both candidates have problems with unfavourable perceptions, which is unlikely to motivate voters to head to the polls. Democrats are supporting Reid at 82%, while Angle is getting 75% from Republicans. The independents have favoured Angle with a 52% to 29% margin. Democrats outnumber Republicans, with independents making up a little over 15% of the registered voters.

Immigration is an issue Angle might get traction with, as the Rasmussen poll finds 65% support for a law like Arizona’s controversial immigration law in Nevada. I’m not sure moving far to the right makes the most sense, particularly in an “unpopularity” contest, i.e., a battle to be the least unpopular. Being “extreme” or out there doesn’t garner acceptance, which I think is the key to this race…get the voters to come out and vote for you, even if they’re holding their nose.

So, what’s the latest? What does she do? She states that her campaign to defeat Reid is God’s calling::

“When God calls you he also equips you and He doesn’t just say, ‘Well today you’re going to run against Harry Reid,’ the tea party favorite said.

In the Bible ‘Moses has his preparatory time. Paul had his preparatory time. Even Jesus had his preparatory time,’ the former legislator said, citing her years in public office as her preparation for the race.

‘God knew all of this in advance,’ Angle added. ‘I don’t know what’s coming up tomorrow but I do know that He is there. He saw it and that He has provided a way of escape and a way for me to endure.’”

Well, this is one way to go. We’ll see how it works out.

Song:: OMD-’Joan of Arc {Maid of Orléans}’

Twitterversion:: [blog] Harry Reid battling to keep his seat in Nevada. Polls show a tight race & opponent states campaign is God’s calling.@Prof_K

Robert Gibbs says the House is up for grabs in 2010.   My political analysis — duh!!!  A dismally weak economy coupled with the typical coattail effect for Obama in the 2008 election that brought in a whole set of members that had no business winning their races (Democrats representing both of the Dakotas?) is a recipe for big losses.  Jonathan Chait has a nice summation of the effect of midterms on the party in power.  He links to this chart from Seth Masket that highlights the relationship (albeit weak) between economic strength and midterm losses for the president’s party.

/p>

It makes sense.  Republicans are all ginned up = Obama’s a Nazi or a Socialist.  Democrats are dispirited = No we cant?!?  Turnout will drive the election and based on my empirical analysis of catching Fox News on the TV screen at my gym, Republican leaning voters will be primed.  In my 30 minute treadmill run, I learned that “Moslims” are taking over the World Trade Center site, “Felons” stole the Minnesota Senate election for Al Franken and Iranian nuclear engineers are milling around Washington, DC.  It all makes me want to run to the next Tea Party meeting!

So what’s the right midterm strategy for the Democrats?  I wonder why the Democrats haven’t decided to push back in terms of turnout.  Why not recognize you’re going to get shellacked in 2010 and lay the groundwork for future elections.  One key way to do this would be to push hard for immigration reform.  Put it on the agenda.  Force the Republicans to take positions that will be hard to explain to their Latino constituents.  Instead of taking the centrist high ground, why not “go Rove” and work to build a progressive base.  It seems that the Democrats in power are too busy pursuing centrists who are largely disengaged and are not planning to turn out for this election.  You be better served by growing a progressive base that might help buffer against big midterm losses in future elections, even if it costs you a few seats this time around.

My 2 cents