Happy Birthday to Colm Meaney, 59.
Right to the good stuff:
1. "Why is opinion writing still mostly male?" An excellent contribution on an important topic, from CJR's Erika Fry. I'll add that it frustrates me quite a bit that so few women who study American politics have taken up blogging about it (and if you are and I'm not linking to you, let me know!).
2. Greg Koger's first post at Mischiefs of Faction is about parties in Congress, and it's really, really good.
3. Jared Bernstein continues to litigate last week's argument about Obama era spending. Guessing the WaPo fact-checker won't reconsider, but they should.
4. And an argument for Mars, from Tim Fernholz. I'm not really convinced, although I'd like to be.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Why is diversity of authorial identity in opinion pieces a worthy goal? The only discussion about this is tucked right away at the end, and the author is basically told that it's irrelevant, but she ignores this.
ReplyDeleteI want to read interesting opinion pieces, not ones that happen to be written by people who share my ethnicity or gender. I don't think I'm alone in this.
Jared Bernstein says "That's austerity, folks, imposed by conservatives' refusal to adopt measures like the American Jobs Act." He's correct, but the austerity is due to Republicans winning the House in 2010 and refusing to pass the spending programs Obama wants, not by Obama being in any sense a fiscal conservative. Similarly, spending increases under Clinton shrank when Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in the 1994 election, and held onto Congress for the last 6 years of Clinton's term in office. So much political writing about federal spending levels concerns itself mostly about who was President, while clearly the partisan breakdown in Congress has a sizable impact on spending levels. A Democratic President and Republican control of at least one house of Congress seems to be a good combination for holding down spending, so why don't these articles emphasize that? I understand why partisans want their parties in total control and so do not to admit that Democratic President + Republican Congress = lower federal spending, but why don't political scientists talk about this more often?
ReplyDeleteThams Mann and Norman Ornstein the other day said that the balanced budget of the late 1990s was a consequence of the 1990 budget deal (for which Bush Sr. suffered so) and the 1993 budget, for which not one Republican voted. There was the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, but they said the only aspect of it that actually reduced deficits was the so-called doc fix, which has never been implemented.
DeleteJonathan, you write, "I'll add that it frustrates me quite a bit that so few women who study American politics have taken up blogging about it (and if you are and I'm not linking to you, let me know!)." Thanks for the prompt! I'd like to take this opportunity as a woman PhD candidate studying American politics at the University of Virginia and blogging to draw attention to the Miller Center of Public Affairs blog, Riding the Tiger (millercenter.org/ridingthetiger). The blog is one of the newest in a growing pool of those committed to placing politics in scholarly and historical perspective. We have terrific (if I might say so) contributions from leading historical and political scholars in the field, as well as from the next generation of scholars. I'd also like to assert that while there may be a gender gap (both in blogosphere and the political science field), a broader point is that blogging is a useful tool that scholars (no matter the gender or generation) should be utilizing more to make our work relevant and shed insights on current debates.
ReplyDelete1) The premise at the link is: there are too many white men (relative to population) and not enough POCs and women. I did my own byline count once and it was 40% Jewish to 60% gentile, which is approximately 4% to 96% population. If the under-representation of women is so frustrating, then why is the under-representation of gentiles so ho hum? Can anyone help me out?
ReplyDeleteExample of NYT Op-Ed columnists:
DeleteCharles M. Blow, David Brooks, Frank Bruni, Roger Cohen, Gail Collins, Ross Douthat, Maureen Dowd, Thomas L. Friedman, Bill Keller, Nicholas D. Kristof, Paul Krugman, Joe Nocera
Why are no liberal academics talking about this important topic?
Who.
DeleteWhom.
That is all.
If it's who? whom? then it means that liberal social scientists aren't willing to follow where the science leads. That is unpossible, as Chris Mooney has said that liberals are inherently mere scientific than conservatives... and he's a SKEPTIC.
Delete"If it's who? whom? then it means that liberal social scientists aren't willing to follow where the science leads."
DeleteI'm shocked at your insinuation that cultural anthropology and related fields are not proper sciences, and just welfare for leftist pseudo-intellectuals.
Shocked I tell you.
@backyard, a ghetto of 60% gentiles is not much of a ghetto. Do you really want an investigation of this non-representational percentage, or perhaps you have a different agenda? I'm guessing the latter, but correct me if I'm wrong.
DeleteCompanies are regularly investigated for having the "wrong" employee make-up. Too many men or too many whites or too many people who are not from Spanish speaking (Hispanic) countries are usually the inducement. I think the policy should be changed. End it.
DeleteSo whenever a Progressive complains that some demographic disparate impact needs to be addressed, I ask "Why are you deciding for everyone what disparate impact is important and then pointing guns at people? And if equalizing outcomes between races and ethnicities is a good idea, have you noticed this?"
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/05/its-not-about-reelection-bill-clintons-80-million-payday.html
And I know that Bernstein is not talking about using guns to fix this problem, but considering the current state, it wouldn't surprise me if he did.
ModeratePoli,
DeleteWrong link
http://blogs.jta.org/philanthropy/article/2009/10/05/1008323/at-least-139-of-the-forbes-400-are-jewish
"And I know that Bernstein is not talking about using guns to fix this problem, but considering the current state, it wouldn't surprise me if he did."
DeleteReally? Bernstein with guns ablazing? Come on.
Now, to something that isn't laughable: Do you support investigation of overrepresentation of Jews in journalism? If so, why? Quit wiggling out of the question.
Tim Fernholz's arguments about Tang are pure Broken Window Fallacy; because he (and space boosters like Pournelle) can SEE the stuff attributed to NASA's exploration. then without NASA there would have been less consumer innovation.
ReplyDelete