SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (7903)2/28/2009 12:19:00 AM
From: pompsander  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 103300
 
Why Does A Person Become a Republican?
I went to CPAC today, and unfortunately the title of this post is a little more provocative than the substance -- I'm not going to try any comprehensive explanation for why people become Republicans. In some ways I am still adapting to the experience, struggling with a reaction the way Rachel Maddow was speechless after the Bobby Jindal response on Tuesday night.

Ordinarily I wouldn't waste your time with an anecdote, but since it happened immediately after leaving this massive gathering of suit-clad, mostly young Republicans while I was reflecting on the experience, tying the two together is a decent way to close out a Friday afternoon.

The Onmi Shoreham hotel, which hosts CPAC this week, is a block from the Woodley Park Metro station. I have one of the paper cards and not the new plastic card. (For those unfamiliar with the Metro, you insert your card into the turnstile slot, and provided you have money on it to pay the minimum fare, the gates open, your card pops back up, and you go down to your train. At entry, the card captures where you got on, and when you exit and repeat the turnstile slot process it deducts the fare with a newly printed remainder.)

Well, it wouldn't take the card, and I had $9.45 left on it. At the kiosk, the Metro employee told me that the card had become demagnetized and thus I had two choices. First, she could issue me a card to go to my next stop, the value of which was $1.65. That would be it. I'd lose $7.20, but be able to travel to my next stop. Second, I could go to a stop called Metro Center (not my stop, one stop away from mine), which was the only place they could issue me a new card so that I could retrieve the value I'd paid in advance.

Since Metro Center was close to my final destination, I took the second option. She tears a corner of my card, writes "-$1.65 = $7.75" in pen, and lets me go in through a side gate. At Metro Center, I wait in a predictably long 20 minute line. When I finally get to the front of the line, I request the $9.45 restored so that when I exit at my real stop, the $1.65 will come off and I'll be in exactly the position I should have been in, minus the loss of time.

Of course, the Metro employee cannot do this. He can only do what it says on the card. Keep in mind, that "$9.45" is plainly printed as the lowest number on the card, followed by the handwriting. Surely this situation happens routinely. He says he can only give me $7.75.

Except, not really. I have to either give him a quarter so that he can give me an $8 card, or I lose $0.75 and he gives me a $7 card. (I had no quarter on me, because I try and minimize the metal I carry through magnetometers). So, in essence, I am going to get $7 in fare refunded to me, which will then be deducted by another $1.65 when I exit my real exit one stop away. I either had to lose $7.20 (the whole card) or lose $2.45 and some time waiting in line.

I asked him, "Why can you not give me the value that I've paid for?" I explained that I didn't want "more" value, I just wanted to get the value that I'd pre-paid. I wanted the government to honor its small little contract with me. He replies, in that maddeningly passive-aggressive government employee way, "It says $7.75. I can only do what it says." (Unless of course I happened not to have a quarter on me, then I would be further penalized). I pointed out that surely he can see what happened, he can see the $9.45 and that another Metro agent has written this, he knows $1.65 is the cost of the fare to get to Metro Center to this infernal line and that when I exit whatever stop is next, I will have to pay $1.65 or more.

He hunkered down into numbed-over bureaucrat mode and would not budge. After about two minutes of back and forth I gave up, as he surely knew I would, and then he issued me two separate cards that totaled $7. The significance of this? When you get down to the end of a card's use, there is always some leftover change, and you have to exchange the old paper card for a new one and reload. The $3 card can't handle two $1.65 trips; the $4 card can, but would have $0.70 left on it. So two cards just takes more time to redeem the value that's on them than one card.

Now, I can put this all in perspective. The Metro is a great system. The number of positive interactions I've had with it overwhelm the negative ones. Hundreds and hundreds of CPAC attendees rode to the conference on the Metro (all around me) rather than use rugged individualism and walk.

Moreover, it's not just government that provides these moments in life. Anyone who's ever had to deal with Dell customer service knows that, indeed, there IS a company more desperately terrible than Comcast in this department. Conservatives would say that in theory the market would replace those horrorshow companies, but for anyone who lives in the real world and interacts with American customer service knows that the day when market forces push private sector companies asymptotically toward customer service quality is a future day well after every conservative who holds that belief will have been long dead.

Still, I walked away today, having just been in a sea of conservatives who left me speechless, and thought: this is one tiny example of a major reason people become Republicans. Disgust, anger, annoyance with government interaction (ever wait in line at the DMV?) is distorted within an emotional prism, and suddenly someone is receptive to an anti-government message. What just happened becomes explainable by a larger narrative, and now you have somewhere to channel that disgust. People don't like to have loose disgust. It has to be funneled into a rational and ready explanation, a larger story. It helps a person feel they're regaining control over their environment.

When CPAC attendees gather to glory in their hatred of government, the thing Grover Norquist wants to drown in a bathtub, they are insisting that government is the problem. That it cannot be efficient, and that the side effect is to steal from you (who are good and have earned it) to redistribute to others (who haven't).

That the tone coming out of CPAC is as hard-edged as it has been ("Al Franken and ACORN: How Liberals are Destroying the American Election System"; "Health Care: The Train Wreck Ahead"; "Bailing Out Big Business: Are We All Socialists Now?") reflects this core fear that Democratic control of government means more and more aspects of life will be filled with interactions like this one. A lot of the spinoff spew that takes shape in prejudice behaviors of intolerance derives, I believe, from fear that a force bigger than me is taking from me with no recourse. Prejudice is about looking for targets to blame for the powerlessness.

The way that my belief in the moral force of civil rights is the foundation for why I start as less a Democrat than as an anti-Republican, and much of the rest is built outward from there, many Republicans start with the kernel that government's inherent design is to be inefficient, and to take from your deserving pockets and put it in the pocket of passive-aggressive, government job-having bureaucrats. They, too, build outward from that core belief to the rest of the ideology. It's a zero-sum game where limited resources mean its you or the other guy who wins.

Is this way oversimplified? Of course, there are many paths to the Republican Party. Earth-shattering in insight? Not close, since it doesn't take a genius to point out that conservatives hate government. It's more an idle stream of thought on a Friday afternoon from a stunned-into-silence non-conservative leaving the ultra-conservative CPAC, trying to empathize with how that ideology starts.

I mean, there are a LOT of them at this thing.

fivethirtyeight.com



To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (7903)2/28/2009 12:21:39 AM
From: pompsander  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 103300
 
Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers
16:18 27 February 2009 by Ewen Callaway
Americans may paint themselves in increasingly bright shades of red and blue, but new research finds one thing that varies little across the nation: the liking for online pornography.

A new nationwide study (pdf) of anonymised credit-card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider finds little variation in consumption between states.

"When it comes to adult entertainment, it seems people are more the same than different," says Benjamin Edelman at Harvard Business School.

However, there are some trends to be seen in the data. Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds.

"Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by," Edelman says.

Political divide
Edelman spends part of his time helping companies such as Microsoft and AOL detect advertising fraud. Another consulting client runs dozens of adult websites, though he says he is not at liberty to identify the firm.

That company did, however, provide Edelman with roughly two years of credit card data from 2006 to 2008 that included a purchase date and each customer's postal code.

After controlling for differences in broadband internet access between states – online porn tends to be a bandwidth hog – and adjusting for population, he found a relatively small difference between states with the most adult purchases and those with the fewest.

The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users; Montana bought the least with 1.92 per 1000. "The differences here are not so stark," Edelman says.

Number 10 on the list was West Virginia at 2.94 subscriptions per 1000, while number 41, Michigan, averaged 2.32.

Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year's presidential election – Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama.


Old-fashioned values
Church-goers bought less online porn on Sundays – a 1% increase in a postal code's religious attendance was associated with a 0.1% drop in subscriptions that day. However, expenditures on other days of the week brought them in line with the rest of the country, Edelman finds.

Residents of 27 states that passed laws banning gay marriages boasted 11% more porn subscribers than states that don't explicitly restrict gay marriage.

To get a better handle on other associations between social attitudes and pornography consumption, Edelman melded his data with a previous study on public attitudes toward religion.

States where a majority of residents agreed with the statement "I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage," bought 3.6 more subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority disagreed. A similar difference emerged for the statement "AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behaviour."

"One natural hypothesis is something like repression: if you're told you can't have this, then you want it more," Edelman says.

Journal reference: Journal of Economic Perspectives vol 23, p 209 (pdf)

newscientist.com