Favorite Factoid No. 22

In the late 50s and early 60s, the Cold War reached its operatic zenith as the whole world hung in the balance of an irreconcilable dispute between a society based on go-it-alone free markets and one based on state-run industry. We all could be dead or never have existed to begin with because of the actions of people advocating or defending one of these sides.

With that as the backdrop, it is amazing to read that a panel study conducted around three elections from 1956-60 showed that Americans' attitudes on a set of social and political questions were nowhere less defined than on the subject of "the relation of government to free enterprise." In an essay from 1971 called "Attitudes and Non-Attitudes," Philip Converse writes,

The item described above concerning the relative roles of government and private business matched these specifications in excellent fashion. It was not entirely coincidental that this was the item on which the largest proportion of respondents had indicated that they had no opinion, and the item which had shown the highest response instability of any in the battery among those who did claim opinions.

It's amazing to think about maximal confusion occurring on the question that brought the world to the brink of annihilation, especially considering that, in contrast to the benighted citizens of the Soviet Union, the United States was supposed to be a beacon of freedom to the world with citizens as informed as anyone anywhere.

The article is really fascinating, explaining a statistical estimate of proportions of a sample that report attitudes to surveyors but don't really believe what they're saying or have just arrived at the opinion on the spot and will soon forget it; the article is also the sort of thing that to some will seem like so much turgid, quantitative crap that makes them want to barf.

[Fuller cite ...for dorks: Converse, P. "Attitudes and Non-Attitudes: Continuation of a Dialogue." In Tuft, E. (Ed.) The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems.]

The "Post-Civil Rights Era"??

Sure looks like it in judicial terms. Check this from a recent Times "editorial observer" column:

"The civil rights era judges were on solid ground in saying that the 14th Amendment, which was adopted after the Civil War to bring former slaves into society, supported integration. Today’s conservative majority makes the much less obvious argument that the 14th Amendment protects society from integration."

Man! On top of all this other shit, is part of Bush's legacy going to be ushering us into whatever happens after the Civil Rights Era? What happens after Bush's cut-and-run on this domestic front?

Favorite Factoids No. 1

"A couple of weeks ago, Warren Buffett pointed out that he pays an average federal income tax rate of 17.7 percent, while his receptionist pays about 30 percent."

- from a recent Paul Krugman column

Do the Badgers need to know who will be "first and second scorers"?

No. A team-oriented approach such as Ryan's Badgers could reach a funky crest as a many-headed beast, a true kangaroo that always leaves you guessing where the offense is coming from but leaves no question on D because everybody knows that D is the name of the game. Personally, I would love to see the Badgers make a run for the Big Ten title without falling into this potentially self-defeating mindset of 'Who's the next Kammron Taylor, who's the new Tucker?'

There is no new Tucker, obviously, but there is the potential to get this group of players headed into the next season with a full head of steam yet with rarely a thought about who's the go-to guy. Sure, set Bohannon up for the three, perhaps especially late in the game, but you're dead in the water if you don't look to post Butch or find him drifting from his guy by the line, post Landry, set up Steimsma at the foul line, let Flowers or Hughes drive to the hole and find a way to create, or let Bohannon do that, and for Pete's sake feed off Joe Krabbbenjoft's energy and inventiveness, whatever! Just get them all to buy into a deep team concept and this can be an unusually selfless team for the amount of talent they have. They're all quality players and there's nobody with a jump-out-of-the-gym / go-lights-out bullseye on their jersey a la Tucker, which can be challenging to his team as well as the other one, for quirky team-chemistry reasons.

Seriously, maybe it is in poor taste to even debate who's going to score for the Badgers next year. (As for me, I bet people are looking for Bohannon, but I have this hope that Hughes is going to break out too. But hold I gun to my head? "Okay, okay, Butch will lead the team in points! A-and rebounds too!")

A Supremely Evil Court indeed...

After only one season, the strategy of the new Roberts court is clear.They will issue decisions so shocking in their inhumanity that one of those poor old lefties on the court just up and keels over right there on the publiic stage as an opinion is read aloud, their heart stopping at the impact of the edict, which death of course gives another appointment to George "Butterfly" Bush.