Daily Kos

Visual source: Newseum

Gail Collins is one of the few pundits who still deigns to notice that there's a presidential primary underway.

Do you think that after all is said and done, Newt Gingrich will just go down in history as the politician who conclusively proved that voters don’t care about a candidate’s sexual misbehavior?

...

Probably not exactly what Newt has in mind.

Perhaps things will go differently. Maybe, despite his blah debate performances in Florida, Newt will do well in this week’s primary, and go on to win the nomination, become president and build lots of moon colonies while saving America from Shariah law and the corrosive effects of the writing of Saul Alinsky.

But if not, he’ll still be the guy who managed to become a credible presidential candidate despite the three wives, the serial adultery, etc. etc. etc. He had a lot of help from the voters. In South Carolina, only 31 percent of the people interviewed by Public Policy Polling said they believed the second Mrs. Gingrich when she told ABC that her husband had asked her to share his sexual favors with his longtime mistress, who is now the third Mrs. G.

Actually, no. I don't think Gingrich will go down as the candidate who proves Americans are willing to accept any kind of personal behavior from their politicians. I think he'll go down as roughly the two bazillionth candidate who proves that GOP voters are willing to accept any kind of nonsense, personal or otherwise, so long as a candidate adds enough Obama-hate to the mix.

Everyone else seems to have gotten bored with the GOP candidates somewhere around debate 37,410. It's kind of hard to blame them.

Richard Schiffman argues that one way to fight the declining wages for American workers is... work less.

Americans already work hundreds of hours a year more than their counterparts in other developed countries, including workaholic Japan. They also have fewer days off than Europeans, who typically take four to six weeks of paid vacation a year.

Companies argue that grueling work schedules are necessary to boost productivity. But consider that, despite the recession, the productivity of U.S. workers has increased fourfold since the 1950s. Put another way, as of 2000, employees work one hour to produce what it took four hours to create a half-century ago. Meanwhile, the buying power of wages has remained stagnant and in recent years has even begun to decline. Someone is getting rich off the exponential rise in productivity, but it is not the American worker.

...

Given the recent troubles in the U.S. economy, this may seem an odd moment to reconsider the value of working less. But this crisis is not due to poor productivity; U.S. workers’ productivity is at an all-time high. Neither is it a crisis in corporate profitability, which continues to soar despite tough economic times for ordinary Americans. It is arguably a crisis in corporate greed, one created by financial entities pushing for ever higher growth rates and levels of profitability regardless of the cost to the long-term health of the economy or for those whose hard work made that economy flourish over the past century.

Cutting the work week could help the economy, worker health, and even the planet... though it's a tough sell when corporate shills (read as "all Republicans and way too many Democrats") already buy into the idea that workers just haven't given up enough to make the corporations love us.

Alan Sroufe says that the widespread use of drugs to address AD-HD in children may be more of a problem than a cure.

Attention-deficit drugs increase concentration in the short term, which is why they work so well for college students cramming for exams. But when given to children over long periods of time, they neither improve school achievement nor reduce behavior problems. The drugs can also have serious side effects, including stunting growth.

Sadly, few physicians and parents seem to be aware of what we have been learning about the lack of effectiveness of these drugs.

...

To date, no study has found any long-term benefit of attention-deficit medication on academic performance, peer relationships or behavior problems, the very things we would most want to improve.

Having just spent a couple of days working with a room full of middle schoolers, I say hold the stimulants for the kids, give them to the adults. Sorry, I don't mean to trivialize the problem, but man I am ragged from chasing around after these guys for just 48 hours. Hard to believe my wife does this ten months a year.

Maureen Dowd once again looks for reasons to criticize President Obama that have all the substantive weight of stale marshmallows. Seriously, Maureen, this is two weeks in a row of really searching for something to be mad about. Did Obama kick your dog, or are you thinking of making a run as the next anti-Mitt?

Christina Hoff Sommers continues her AEI sponsored campaign to declare that rape is a myth, this time attacking a CDC report on sexual violence. Apparently, it's be kind to sexual violence day at the Washington Post, as Kathleen Parker also chimes in.

David Ignatius wonders if a rising tide of corporate globalism really raises all boats or just adds new members to the yacht club.

As the “best and brightest” from the developing world plug into the global grid, they inevitably unplug from their local political, business and cultural networks. It’s a subtler version of what used to be called the “brain drain.” The entrepreneurs keep their businesses at home, where they are making their money, but they and their children join the global elite in a web of Four Seasons hotels and Ivy League tuition bills.

Ignatius suggests that there's some hope in the turnover of those pulling up to the pier. Maybe.

Maxwell Boykoff asks if Obama needs a change in how he talks about climate.

The Earth is still getting hotter, but those terms have nearly disappeared from political vocabulary. Instead, they have been replaced by less charged and more consumer-friendly expressions for the warming planet.

President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday was a prime example of this shift. The president said “climate change” just once — compared with zero mentions in the 2011 address and two in 2010. When he did utter the phrase, it was merely to acknowledge the polarized atmosphere in Washington...

By contrast, Obama used the terms “energy” and “clean energy” nearly two dozen times.

That tally reflects a broader change in how the president talks about the planet. A recent Brown University study looked specifically at the Obama administration’s language and found that mentions of “climate change” have been replaced by calls for “clean energy” and “energy independence.” Graciela Kincaid, a co-author of the study, wrote: “The phrases ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ have become all but taboo on Capitol Hill. These terms are stunningly absent from the political arena.”

Clean energy is a terrific goal, but shying away from discussions of global warming means not fully addressing causes and failing to prepare for the effects.

 If people are really not that partisan why do the divisions seem to grow constantly wider?

The researchers looked at people's views on 10 divisive topics, including government provision of health insurance and spending on defence. They also looked at the same people's estimates of typical Democrats' and Republicans' views on the same issues. The actual degree of polarisation according to party affiliation was fairly modest, but people thought it was much wider – especially those who described themselves as "strong" Republicans or Democrats. These patterns have been consistent since 1970.

"Polarisation is not as great as we think it is," says Chambers. "And it hasn't changed."

...

"People are acting on false assumptions," says Van Boven. "When people feel threatened, they become very defensive." ...  This suggests that close electoral races are often decided by voters who are driven by false fears about others' views – and may mean that the party which most effectively stokes these fears among its supporters is likely to carry the day.

The only thing we have to fear is that Republicans are very good at spreading fear. And I fear that's true.