High on voting

While crossing my fingers for gridlock in DC, the election issue I'll be watching most closely is Proposition 19 in California. As reasoners Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch discuss, this may be the most important aspect of the election for the country as a whole.

Several former drug czars summarize the case against legalization in the LA Times. I'll let it speak for itself, but the main conclusion I draw is that we should get rid of the drug czar position.

I recall a conversation with one of my economics colleagues at Michigan two years ago, when Michigan's state ballot featured a medical marijuana initiative. My colleague indicated that s/he was voting against it because it was a stalking horse for legalization. My thought: Exactly, and that is a big part of why I am voting for it!

The process of medical marijuana leading to legalization seems to be playing out in California. Let's hope it spreads elsewhere soon.

So you want to be a humanities professor

This is a companion piece to the one on political science. Also very funny.

Hat tip: Dann Millimet

Assorted links

1. The only true radical at the Stewart / Colbert rally?

2. Revenge of the chubby.

3. The front lines of the war on (certain) drugs (not manufactured by large corporations)

4. The changing roles of movies and television.

5. Science, politics and mammography.

Locker out for UW versus Oregon

I think this explains a lot about last Saturday as well. Sarkisian should be much more aggressive about pulling Locker out and Locker needs to worry more about the future and less about the present in making his decisions about misrepresenting his physical state to the coaches.

I haven't checked the line on the Oregon game but it must be something like 35 or 40. Yikes.

Hat tip: Ken Troske

Addendum: I am told the line is 29. That's probably too low.

The politics of Michigan faculty

Some figures on political donations by Michigan faculty from the Michigan Review.

A couple of thoughts: First, this is not very surprising. Second, Michigan has turned out to be less politically correct than I was expecting ex ante. Based on my own experience, it is less politically correct than Maryland, where I taught before coming here. Still, the figures are what they are for a reason. Third, my sense is that many of the democrats among academics are motivated more by a dislike for social conservatism and a desire to help the poor than by any particular affection for, say, warmed over central planning.

So you want to be a political scientist?

Much of this applies to economics, other than the part about not getting a job.

It can also be "read" as a critique of those who would make strength of identification the sole metric by which to judge empirical work.

Is Obama a Keynesian?

Reminds me of how I always used to wonder why any executive would agree to an interview with 60 Minutes. If they come by with a microphone and a camera, you should just run the other way.

Hat tip: Nat Wilcox