Thankfully, the FDA has something called a “jelly bean rule” that prohibits companies from labeling sugary products as “healthy.”   The Center for Society in the Public Interest won a motion to dismiss a suit in federal court against VitaminWater, owned by Coke.  Coke argued that by including the sugar content in each bottle (33 grams if you’re interested), it was ensuring that consumers wouldn’t be deceived.  But any of us that has reached for a drink of this sort knows that we’re not perfect information seekers.  This is a classic case of satisficing – or seeking the “good enough” outcome rather than the “optimal” outcome.  For satisficing to be effective, we need to trust the veracity of the choice.  So if Coke labels a product as “healthy,” we probably should have some guaranteee that a vetting process has taken place so that ingestion of the product isn’t actualy the opposite of healthy.   That’s where the jelly bean rule comes in.

Government is good 🙂

via Utne Reader.

Buried in an article about a recent AP-Univision poll that focuses on dwindling Hispanic support for President Obama is this splash of cold water for the GOP:

With the first midterm congressional elections of Obama’s presidency in three months, the poll shows a whopping 50 percent of Hispanics citizens call themselves Democrats, while just 15 percent say they are Republicans.

By 2050, Latinos are supposed to represent 30% of the US electorate.  Republicans want to tread lightly on the immigration question.  We’ve got long memories!  Just look at the GOP in California.  They’re just getting up off the mat after their campaign in support of proposition 187 in the mid 1990’s:

“Latino” as an ethnic identity is not a monolith.  It’s possible that many of those who identify as “Latino” will not have children who do so.   But if I were a Democratic strategist, I might push harder for immigration reform.  Just a thought.

Via: Mark Halperin

Yes! Magazine has an interesting blog series tby the Interfaith Amigos, an interfaith trio of spiritual leaders. One post in particular by Rabbai Ted Falcon poses some interesting question about how you seek common ground with those who have seemingly intractable or irrational positions.   To wit:

I am reminded, too, of a parent-teacher-administrator meeting at a school where a friend used to teach. The topic under (sometimes heated) discussion related to a proposed expansion of foreign language offerings at the school. One woman, clearly upset, rose with a challenge.

“If English was good enough for Jesus,” she said, “why isn’t it good enough for us?”

Rabbai Falcon’s prescription is to move away from arguing the legitimacy of specific statements towards seeking to understand the context in which the statement is being made.

In the school meeting I mentioned, it is likely that the woman and I shared a common denominator of interest in education that best prepares students for college admission and for living in the world.

I appreciate the wisdom and grace of the Rabbai’s efforts…I really do.  But as a practicing political scientist, I’m often confronted with views and discourses that seem to rely primarily on the denigration of a chosen other.  I’m sure many will disagree, but the callous way that some people speak about undocumented immigrants reflects not to a willingness to find a common ground solution, but a need to position oneself vis-a-vis a “other” who purportedly have no claims to an equal humanity.  

Simply calling a human being an “illegal” speaks to a desire to invalidate the depth and complexity of 10 million people living in the United States without documentation.  Martha Nussbaum observes that every society creates objects worthy of disgust.   Some days it seems that no amount of back-story will affect the views of people who see themselves aggrieved by “illegals,”  when their real beef should be with large, impersonal, structural forces that has exacerbated the free flow of labor across borders.  But you can’t exactly be “disgusted” by trans-national capital.  You can however, be disgusted by its by-product.  Particularly if it speaks a different language, looks different and has different norms and customs.

My pessimistic thought for the day. Enjoy 🙂

Greetings from Kingston, Ontario. Happy Civic Holiday/Provincial Day weekend to many Canadian readers.

José’s post on the Democrats and the Voting Income Gap got me thinking about historical unemployment, which was 9.6% in June of 2010. One of the things to recall is that recessions and episodes of nationwide high unemployment tend to be short. Mobilizing lower income voters and increasing numbers of the middle class should be easier for the Democrats over time, if The Big Recession persists. Moreover, it’s not clear that the Republicans are offering platforms that are resonating outside of their base.

Looking at the Canadian unemployment rates, there are lingering eras with years of rates being over 8%. Generally speaking, these eras of high unemployment correspond with the rise of the fortunes of the New Democrats, a left-centre pro-labour party.

The NDP saw surges in Parliamentary seats in the elections of 1984 and 1997, in the midst of eras of high unemployment. Currently, the NDP is polling relatively strongly, although so are the Greens, which may fragment the vote on the left. Stephen Harper’s minority Conservative government is hanging on because the Liberal Party is in disarray, with both of the major parties {Liberals & Conservatives} being relatively unpopular.

Lessons for the US?

It’s the economy, stupid. The Big Recession is hitting the middle class and rhetoric is only going to go so far. A big question is whether Democrats are willing move beyond centrist policies and if {a big if} they go towards Keynesianism, how will that be implemented?

Song:: Heaven 17-‘This Is Mine’

Twitterversion:: [blog] The politics of unemployment. Looking at economic eras in Canada & the US #ThickCulture @Prof_K

Ever wondered what would happen if poor people voted at the same rate as the non-poor?  Dylan Matthews did a quick and dirty merging of CNN exit polls and Census data and found that Obama’s vote margin would have been significantly larger than McCain’s in the 2008 election.

I found that, with even turnout across income levels, Obama would have received 55.2 percent of the vote and McCain 42.7 percent. The actual results (PDF) were 52.9 percent for Obama and 45.7 percent for McCain. Obama would gain 2.3 points, and McCain would lose 3, with other candidates picking up the rest.

Matthews doesn’t think this is a particularly big shift, but it’s seismic if you compare it to past presidential elections. It highlights both the challenges and opportunities Democrats face in upcoming elections. Voters that make over $50,000 are over represented in the electorate and more disposed to vote Republican than those making less than $50,000. Historically this is a more politically active group. Evidence of this is the recent survey data that shows that tea party members are more affluent than the rest of the public.

We can look at this two ways. Republicans have done a better job in the last few years convincing those making over $50,000 that they are the party best able to serve their interests. Of course, income is not the sole determinant of vote preference, but it’s a biggie. However, this also means there is a big opportunity for Democrats to capture the “slack” in the portion of the electorate that makes under $50,000. This is where innovative strategies for increasing turnout among working class voters could benefits Democrats greatly.

The problem, however is that this is a hard population to turn out. A weakened associational life in the US means that there are no labor unions or civic organizations to drive turnout. Advocacy groups fight the good fight, but they lack the resources and the people power to engage in the mass scale mobilization necessary to close the income voting gap. I had high hopes for the Obama netroots strategy serving as a new mobilization paradigm, but the enthusiasm of grassroots web activists seems to have waned. If the Democrats have any chance in 2010, they need to somehow get working class voters engaged in the face of difficult economic circumstances. Good luck!

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 🙂

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