Monday Morning Reads
Posted: February 6, 2012 Filed under: morning reads | Tags: Behavioral Economics vs the Spockos of Chicago, Egypt after the Fall, Komen for the Greed, Ron Paul Wrong on Everything 42 Comments
Good Morning!
There’s been so many outrageous things in the news recently that I hardly know where to begin. We talked a lot about the next two subjects but I think there’s some follow-up analysis worth reviewing. First, Ron Paul’s assertions about “honest” rapes and his implication that third trimester “abortions” are every day happenstance is beyond reality and the pale. Here’s some analysis on “The 2 Most Dangerous Things Ron Paul Gets Wrong about Honest Rape”.
1. Women do get raped by their husbands and partners. That’s not some out-there hypothetical. Intimate partner rape is a major problem — and yes, it happens to well-to-do women like Ron Paul’s daughters too.
2. Although Paul keeps going back to women seeking abortions late in their pregnancies, the reality is that 90 percent of abortions occur in the first trimester. So his focus on late-term abortions is disproportionate to the number of women actually seeking late-term abortions.
Paul seems to think married women are still property. I think his exposure to the press this particular election cycle has shown him for the neoconfederate he truly is. Hopefully, he’ll go crawl back under his rock in Texas and leave us in peace soon.
The more we find out about Komen for the Cure, the more appalled we become. It’s apparent that Brinker sees the Foundation as her personal ATM and influence pet and continues to stack the board with Republican Droogies. Brinker’s husband is a huge GOP donor. Surrender the Pink!
A review of the board of directors of Komen by BuzzFlash at Truthout reveals that Brinker has the likely votes to control board decisions at any given time, and that those votes are either Republican stalwarts or individuals personally loyal to her. For instance, one of the members of the relatively small nine-person board – given its nearly half-billion dollars in annual revenue – is Brinker’s son, Eric Brinker. Another is Brinker herself, although, to be fair, many non-profit boards have the CEO as a member.
Linda Law, an apparently extremely accomplished real estate developer and consultant, includes in her Komen board biography that she is an “RNC regent.” This means she is a top bundler and fundraiser for the Republican National Committee, an odd detail to be included in a non-profit board bio. Komen board member Linda Custard, a Dallas social insider, and her husband, William, are listed on opensecrets.org as giving more than 95% in significant contributions to Republicans.
Connie O’Neill is a Dallas socialite, who headed the Junior League there and numerous charity balls, has been on the board and working with Brinker on developing Komen over many years. Although there is no opensecrets.org record of her political giving, unless something has changed she appears to be a Brinker friend and insider.
That’s not to impugn the integrity of Komen board members, despite Brinker’s apparent de facto control of the board and the partisan leanings of some key board members. Indeed, there are some members, such as the chair, Dr. LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., who is a nationally distinguished oncologist — also a medical professor at Howard University — who appear non-partisan in terms of their roles on the board. So to for Brenda Lauderback, a cancer survivor, and Elyse Gellerman (also a breast cancer survivor), who represents the Komen affiliates.
Komen board member John D. Raffaelli, though, is a lobbyist who swings both sides of the aisle –although he started as a Democrat and has given donations to Dems — is now a full-fledged K Street operative. Raffaelli showed his K Street colors when he told the New York Times (NYT) that “Komen was bitterly disappointed that Planned Parenthood was using Komen’s decision to raise money.” In another NYT article he played the self-pity card: “”Why are they [Planned Parenthood] going nuts?” Mr. Raffaelli asked rhetorically. “And the answer is that they want to raise money, and they’re doing it at the expense of a humanitarian organization that shares their goals and has given them millions of dollars over the years.” Whether or not Raffaelli’s lobbying firm also has contracts with Komen could not be ascertained from the IRS filings online.
From some other of Raffaelli’s statements, it appears entirely possible that along with Karen Handel, he played a key role in coming up with the “congressional investigation” excuse for cutting off Planned Parenthood in the future (before the so called “mea culpa”).
Here’s a headline that’s worth a chuckle or two from Politico: “Trump endorsement a net negative for Romney”. Really? Ya Think? This is some weird polling methodology but I think it probably reflects a degree of reality.
Donald Trump’s endorsement of Mitt Romney may have consumed the news cycle on Thursday, but Nevada Facebook users see the endorsement as a net negative for Romney, according to a Facebook/POLITICO poll.
Forty-one percent of those surveyed said Trump’s endorsement gave them a more negative view of Romney, compared with just 10 percent who said they now view him more positively. Forty-nine percent said the endorsement had no effect.
The results only represent the sentiments of Nevada users on Facebook, not registered voters or likely GOP caucus voters that tend to be more reliable barometers of caucus elections. The Facebook poll, for instance, doesn’t exclude Democrats or independents.
Daniel Kahneman—who recently won the Noble Prize in Economics–is the subject of an interesting interview up at The Economist on the relationship between economic decision-making and psychology. It’s all about trusting instincts.
If you assume that economic agents are completely rational, two immediate conclusions follow. One is people don’t need to be protected against their own choices—and that has been very explicitly the line of the Chicago economists, as illustrated by their opposition to social security. I think the evidence against perfect rationality is overwhelming. A large proportion of the population wants to save more than they do and they have firm intentions to start saving next year. Helping them do this will actually help them make the decision they wish they would make.
Another pernicious implication of the assumption of consumer rationality is that individuals need little protection from the firms with which they interact. For example, the law requires truthful disclosure, but there are no regulations about the clarity of the disclosure or about the size of the print. The assumption is that rational agents will make the effort to read the small print where it matters but, in fact, most of us don’t. Nobody reads the disclosures that roll down your computer screen. You click ‘I agree’ but you don’t know what you’re agreeing to. In the United States, especially under the influence of Cass Sunstein, the White House regulatory chief, firms are required to produce information for their clients in a form the clients can understand. I don’t see that this has any drawbacks, except for the corporations. Those changes in, for example, mortgage and credit card regulations have been fought by the industry, which means the industry thinks it is to its advantage to keep customers poorly informed.
I have a real uphill battle in my field because I don’t buy rational or efficient markets hypotheses. There are just too many frictions and too many examples of behavioral paradoxes. I’ve noticed that the few women in the financial economics field tend to be more behavioralists than not. Perhaps if we ever get to actually dominate the field, we can get rid of that Chicago School nonsense started by the likes of Fama and perpetrated by his son-in-law Cochrane who are buddies of Paul Ryan and other Republican acolytes.
It’s been a year since the Egyptian uprising. This Der Spiegal article asks of Egypt will be able to make democracy work in light of the outcomes of recent elections and violence.
One year after the revolution, Egypt has a new parliament, one that was elected more freely and fairly than ever before. More than two-thirds of its members are Islamists, who now hold as many seats as the former state party, the NDP, once held. There are eight women in this parliament, 13 former NDP members and only a handful of young revolutionaries. Together, they are charged with drafting a constitution, and at the end of June, when the president has been elected, the military council is slated to transfer power to a civilian government. That, at least, is the plan.
It is a double experiment, and the outcome will have an impact throughout the entire Arab world. Can a country, and an Islamic one at that, find its way to democracy through free elections alone? Or does it need a second revolution to sweep aside all corrupt institutions, including the police, state-run television and government agencies that still operate according to the old rules?
If the members of parliament join forces, and if, with the support of the people, they exert pressure on the military council, the generals will hardly be able to resist. But if they prefer to push their own agendas and reach an accommodation with the military to that end, the parliament could remain what it always was: a place where representatives of the people have met for 146 years without ever actually representing the people.
The revolution is now in the hands of the delegates. El-Eleimy, a social democrat, is one of them, a man who is conscious of his own power and filled with the desire to bring about change. But there are also men like Khaled Hanafi, 50, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood who has waited almost 20 years for a seat in parliament. And then there is the Salafist Ahmed Khalil, 33, who was not allowed to teach at his own private school because of his beard.
They have nothing in common, except for the fact that all three demonstrated on Tahrir Square, and yet they must now define important issues together: What kind of a country do we want? And what do we understand as democracy?
So, that’s just a few stories that I dug out. Hard to find much these days because there appears to be so few things that attract the press outside of football and the Newt/Willard battle. Oh well, hopefully you can add some more. What’s on your reading and blogging list this morning?
peej
Carissa
ecocatwoman
mablue2
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
What surprises me is the support given Ron Paul by so many under the age of 30. This includes many females.
Though he has always been a “crackpot” of sorts, his recent views on race and women’s rights says a lot about his supporters. Bad enough he believes that it’s your fault if you get sick and without healthcare insurance, his views are even more radical than Rick Santorum if that is possible. Yet he continues to rack up votes in the primaries even though he has a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding.
I have yet to hear one GOP spokesperson stand up and deride these vicious attacks made against the poor, the sick, the elderly, or women. Not one.
And they hope to ride into the general election on these views? Unbelievable!
As an aside: Ezra Klein just mentioned on Morning Joe that the Nevada caucus brought out only 35,000 voters on Saturday. A smidgeon of the population if anyone cares to count. Not a huge mandate going forward for Mittens if turnout was that low.
Not exactly a “landslide” regardless of who “won”.
35,000? That is pretty sad.
I can’t understand the youth Ron Paul movement either Pat. It really bothers me too.
I got a link for you all this morning: Fox’s Dave Briggs: “If You Want To Yap” During The Super Bowl, Do It “With The Ladies In The Kitchen” | Media Matters for America
I know some young people who are Paul supporters. Thing is, every time I discuss him with them none of them know or realize just exactly what this guy is about. I think they are getting caught up with the anti-war rhetoric and legalizing drugs.
That’s the impression I’ve gotten from the students in my classes that seem like Paul stalwarts. They love the anti-war and legal pot stand. They also, for the most part, seem like a bunch of very shallow selfish dudes that think they’ll get rich some day and want it all to themselves.
I’ve talked to some of them. Basically they hear anti-war, legal pot and stop there. You’ll notice it’s not just the very young but some of the “progressive” dudes as well. Ignorance is bliss when you’re looking for a hero.
I think he’s the hero of white dudes that feel put upon because they might loose their privileges.
My brother has fallen for Paul – he’s 57 going on 15. {sigh} Him and my Fox-news hound Mother – oy.
Anyway my brother is convinced the Federal Reserve is evil and needs to be abolished, and I think that is another Ron Paul platform item.
That position on the Federal Reserve is one of the most stupid things Ron Paul pushes. The Fed does nothing weird at all. If there wasn’t a FED, the economy collapse. It’s an important part of the payment systems. It manages transfers of cash, etc. between banks. The silliest thing is if there was some idiot that managed to get us back on the Gold standard, we’d need the FED even more. I have no idea why people buy into that accept they have no knowledge of banking, financial markets, and economics in general. It’s idiotic and just a conspiracy theory more than anything else. I can’t even believe it seeps into the popular press it’s such an outrageous belief.
It’s actually another artifact from the confederacy and the mistrust of northern bankers. When the Fed was put together in 1911 it was supposed to just be the bank of banks and then do the work of the Treasury. There’s nothing sinister about it at all. IN my years of working at the FED, it was the slowest, most staunchly conservative organization that I’ve ever seen.
P.S. – My brother is not consciously bigoted or anti-woman. I don’t think he perceives the underlying bigotry of Pauls’ positions. It is definitnely the war issue and the Fed thing for him. He doesn’t smoke pot and could care less about that.
Gee, I could have sworn we had a very similar situation just recently. Who were they all having mass hysteria over that time? Can’t seem to remember. Let me see … name maybe began with an “O”?
Wow. 35,000 was all? I just popped up the census data. Nevada’s population is 2.7+ million.
Get the feeling people are giving up on elections?
If I was expected to get out of bed on a Saturday morning to cast a vote for a robot, a crackpot, a blustering fool, or a religious fanatic, I would have stayed where I was too.
Imagine all the millions of dollars spent in that one state alone that produced a paltry 35,000 people who even bothered to show up.
Talk about money that went down the drain.
Especially poor showing when you realize that in ’08 the gop brought out 44,000 voters and the Dems brought out 116,000.
Keep in mind, the 116,000 Dems who showed up at the ’08 caucuses were not all from Nevada!
I don’t believe that. I know it was probably true in Iowa but see nothing that says the same about Nevada. After all, Hillary won there.
Well, I wasn’t there personally, but when I went to the prep meeting prior to the Washington State caucuses, people who were at the Nevada caucuses said that the Obama supporters who were at the Nevada caucuses were pushy and nasty and people from Nevada seemed to think they weren’t from around there. They were warning us to expect it in WA and it damned sure happened there, but it was much worse than we were prepared for.
I know of people who went to Nevada caucus in 2008 to vote Hillary, and ended up voting Obama. That really pissed me off.
first it was for Republicans only.and a lot of people got shut out and didn’t get to vote.
how shocking! 🙄
The only GOP primary or caucus this year where turnout was as good as ’08 was in South Carolina. That may say something about their turnout in November.
Neat poster supporting Planned Parenthood, via commenter at First Draft.
I have no idea whether it can be posted as an image, but if someone can do it, it’s point on.
Link is good: Ooops, bit here it it.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2012/02/something-something-ron-paul.html
Melissa on Ron Paul’s twisted views of abortion and rape:
Thinking about his daughters, or grandaughters going to 76 year old father or grandfather for help if they have been raped is not likely to happen. Most women have a difficult time going to husbands, fathers, grandsfathers, brothers for help in the case of rape. They have a hard time just going to the police to report sexual assault.
Just because Ron Paul was Ob-gyn doctor doesn’t mean his daughters/granddaughters will automatically go to him for help. How long has it been since he’s delivered a child, did he deliver his daughters children…..that’s another sujbect in comparison to sexual violence.
Komen for the Cure is a One Percenter foundation run for and by One Percenters.
The vast majority of One Percenters see Republicans as the most dependable protectors of their tax status and wealth, ergo they work for Republican pols.
We 99 Percenters are…there to be fleeced as necessary, otherwise ignored or patronized.
TIme to write off Komen and give money to places working for prevention of breast cancer — and might as well include other cancers in the mix, not just one.
There are cancers which get little attention and few research dollars, and I don’t begrudge someone like Jimmie Carter working for an orgnaization which seeks cures and preventions for the deadly cancer which killed his sister. More power to him. I’ll bet a larger percentage of his org’s dollars go to actual medical work than Komen’s do, but I haven’t reasearched that.
Komen and Brinker have brought the organization’s board members’ political leanings and actual machinations into the light of day. Let’s hope sunshine can sterilize this petrie dish of rightwing ideology. Small hope for that however. Maybe better to ignore Komen going forward.
There’s a weekly column by Steven Benen at Maddow Blog that tracks all of Romeny’s lies. It’s a HUGE long, list.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/03/10311610-chronicling-mitts-mendacity
I love that column!
Heh, heh
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mitt-romney-we-are-the-only-people-who-put-their
Ron Paul’s supporters believe that women all over the country are yelling rape to get an abortion, and that is what he meant when he said “honest rape”………….
I think he clearly said he has never met a vagina he could really trust.
One of our idiot congressmen from LA fell for the Onion “abortion complex” story … he thought it was real… talk about stupid
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/02/congressman-falls-months-old-onion-story-about-planned-parenthood-abortionplex/48344/
There’s the mentality. Next Mitt will be repeating it on the campaign trail, my friend.
Obama No Longer Doomed, According to Fresh Poll
Elspeth Reeve has one the more entertaining poll stories I’ve read lately.
Interesting how women’s health is the focus or rather the DEMONIZATION of women in this election, with no woman candidates. How did we get here? I recall Obama signing The Presidential Stupak Executive Order taking reproductive care from women away…then claiming to be a hero trying to give back what he took.
Do we really have a choice this election? Why are women once again at the chopping block? The worst part is the part of women helping to harm women in accessing health care.
Until we have a woman candidate, and women representation in congress we will continually be fighting just to get mammograms and pap smears and family planning care. They make it sound as if anyone that sets foot in Planned Parenthood is there for an abortion…not the case, they provide basic care for women, women that need access to care.
I hope to one day cast my vote for Elizabeth Warren.
Word.
Dakinikat,
I’m rooting for you and your fellow female economists to take over the field.
Yes please and quickly!
AMEN!!!1 🙂
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-31/men-in-finance-have-reprehensible-dominance.html
Finance is the most lopsided industry in the MSCI World Index when it comes to appointing women as directors and promoting them to management positions, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
I have no doubt that its problems have something to do with this.
Churches — Government — and colleges — also mostly dominated by males.
That glass ceiling seems to be everywhere. Learned behavior — women are also women’s worst enemies. (See MS Mag. calling 0bama a feminist — which is a flat out lie.)
Finance — the cult of the penis worshipers.
The End of Wall Street As They Knew It
If this piece in NY Mag is even close to true, it’s the feel good story of the past few years for me.
Why Democrats Fracking Suck