links for 2007-06-07

• A byline I thought I would never see again: Elizabeth McCaughey
• Elizabeth McCaughey: No Exit
• F*** The Politico
• Brink Lindsey: Has Bush Discredited Big-Government Conservatism?
• Bruce Bartlett: Bush's Fair Weather Fans
• Bruce Bartlett: Bush and Loyalty
• Tyler Cowen: Feminist economics
• Duncan Black: Not a single "Free Scooter!" column/editorial on the WaPo today.
• Michael Froomkin: I Predicted This Years Ago: As the number of cash-free bridge commuters rises, so do the ranks of divorce lawyers and other civil attorneys who have subpoenaed, and received, personal driving records from the agency that oversees the reg
• James Fallows: What is Rudy Giuliani talking about?????
• Henry Farrell on Linda Hirshman: f I’d ever misused data that badly, and been caught at it, I think I’d have wanted to disappear into a hole for a year or two.
• William Arkin: Only Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the "Dennis the Menace" of his party, said he opposed a nuclear strike on moral grounds and because he believed Iran "has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security."
• James Hagerty: Rise in Home Inventory Continues to Hurt Prices
• Jon Carroll: Jay Rosen on the "master narratives" of journalism
• Jim Hamilton: Post Mortem on the Cambridge Energy Research Associates Forecasts
• Gideon Rachman: President Bush made a really good speech in Prague yesterday. Unfortunately, his credibility is so shot that hardly anybody paid attention.
• Rick Perlstein: lot of this character-witness stuff seems to concern free or reduced-cost legal services Libby rendered to these people. What's that about?
• Dan Froomkin: Will Bush say that he doesn't believe Libby should be punished since all he did was fall on a dagger aimed at the vice president? That's possibly the most honest approach -- though also the least likely.
• Duncan Black: The ghost of Joseph Heller is channeled by Bernstein and O'Reilly to reflect 15 years of reporting on the Clintons.
• Megan Stack: In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil
• Steven Gilliard Jr., 42, Dies; Founder of Liberal Political Blog
• Bitch Ph.D.: What struck me at the time... was... that most of the follow-up discussion was about the anxieties of blogging
• Per Kurowski, formerly Venezuelan Executive Director of the World Bank, has tea with the FT
• Jeffrey Goldberg: Letter from Washington: Party Unfaithful:The Republican implosion
• Ken Auletta: Annals of Communications: Family Business: Dow Jones is not like other companies. How long can that go on?
• Scooter Libby Love Letters: Leon Wieseltier
• Wingnuts of the WSJ: An Independent Newspaper
• Steve Stecklow, Aaron Patrick, Martin Peers, and Andrew Higgins: In Murdoch's Career, A Hand on the News - WSJ.com
• Norman Ornstein Hearts Nancy Pelosi

Comments

[Linda Hirshman]

Perhaps you would be interested enough in academic research to publish the full exchange that Henry of Crooked Timber describes in what I can only describe as a bizarre series of choleric attacks [look at the title you link to, and compare it to the tone of your other links], which even commenters totally unknown to me are wondering about.
I wrote an article in the Washington Post referring to the political science literature that shows women are, on the whole, much less knowledgeable about politics than men are.
Mark Schmitt criticized my article, in relevant part, because two scholars, Mondak and Anderson, had found that women say "Don't Know" more than men do, and the surveys categorize DK as wrong. Maybe it's just diffidence, Mondak speculated.
I responded to Schmitt that Luskin and Bullock had studied Mondak's contentions and found that when they analyze the DK's with ordinary statistical methods, they find that people who say DK really don't know, indeed are more ignorant even than people who answer wrongly! It's not diffidence.They said.
Schmitt responded that the Luskin study doesn't mention gender, which obviously makes no difference in its role in the discussion of Don't Know, and I thought we had troubled the comment readers at the Prospect quite long enough.
This is what Henry would put me in a hole for. When other readers of his intemperate attack went to the Luskin (the papers are online) they saw that the Luskin said exactly what I said it said and started drifting into CT asking what exactly it was that I had done wrong, much less years-in-a-hole wrong.
I don't think linking to this Henry's posts about me advances dialogue on the web very well. I may be wrong about the Luskin, but, if I am, it is a subtle and elusive mistake, which no one has articulated, and one which I will be glad to admit. I have my own opinions as you know but I am not foolish enough to think I would last long in the opinion game if I don't have defensible facts. But there's something the matter with Henry. As we have never even met, I have no idea what it is, and a respectable website like this one should not be advancing that level of discourse. As you yourself say, you are attempting a seminar, not a food fight.