Stuff I Read Today

This may be a bit much.

“In part, ideologues are the most likely to fall into information feedback loops, making it easier for them to believe that everyone out there is like them. It’s a rare ideological extremist who realizes that not everyone shares his or her issue positions; what he or she believes all seems so obviously true.”

“The goal in the end is not to win elections, but to change society.”

    • Makes sense to me. Winning elections is the means to the ends.
    • Also a bit about unions, and how they keep wages relatively higher. But lots of people don’t like unions. I wonder why that is?
  • A look at the economic end of football. I’ve read before (on SmartFootball most likely) about football dying in a similar fashion. Kids/their Parents don’t let them play football anymore due to increasing awareness about concussions/CTE. The sport dies from the bottom, as there are fewer and fewer football players for the NFL and college teams to draw from.

“…if in ten years it can be demonstrated that four years of high school football significantly increases the risk of brain injuries and long-term disorders, then football really will have no future.”

  • The Times joins beer commercials as things that think Americans are stupid.
  • Vladimir Putin and Mitt Romney are facing similar problems (maybe):
    • Ok, it goes like this (excerpts from article to explain it to myself): This is how “patronal regimes” work:

      “When faced with such a point of anticipated power transfer, the elites want most of all to wind up on the side of the person who wins the ensuing presidential elections and succeeds the president… (p.140, emphasis added)”

    • Make the following three assumptions about party primaries:

      First, big donors for presidential candidate in the primary for Party A are in part big donors because they want access to candidates once they win the election. Second, all (most?) big donors to Party A prefer that Party A defeat Party B.
      Third, if a candidate from Party A is elected president, then the candidate is likely to give the most access to the big donors who supported him/her originally in primary.

    • Both Romney and Putin are struggling (or appear to be struggling) with consolidating the support of the elites (Putin) / big donors (Romney):

      Then, for Putin – the leader in the quintessential patronal regime Hale is attempting to characterize in his article – the lessons are obvious: he needs elites to continue to believe that he will stay in power.
      Still, it is clearly not the signal Romney wanted: put it the other way, winning all three contests [Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri] would likely have continued to secure his fundraising advantage from this perspective.