October 1 has come and gone, which means the application deadlines for about half a dozen jobs I’ve applied for have now passed, with quite a few more coming in the next month. There isn’t too much to report thus far. It’s been strongly intimated in the past week that I will have an on-campus interview at an institution in the Midwest, not too terribly far from Messrs. Noggle and Fox. We shall see if this pans out, and whether others will take a similar shining to me.

I think I speak for all Americans when I say, “Who?” In other words, I’m not “less than thrilled”, I’m just very, very confused.

Then again, if the point of the exercise was to downgrade the Supreme Court (or at least its image) from an assembly of legal minds reviewing the most important legal cases of the day to a nine-member superlegislature, appointed for life, that arbitrarily and capriciously overrules the decisions of elected officials on a regular basis, I can sort of see the point.

Ok, so there’s this movie out. I think you’ve heard of it. You should go see it.

Then (and only then) should you read Julian Sanchez’s review and Amber Taylor’s spoilers. They’ll still be there when you get back from the theater.

Oh, one more thing: Firefly Kaylee > Serenity Kaylee.

EDSBS notes that the Millsaps Majors are using a 48-year-old player this season; more on the story here from The Sporting News.

I guess there’s a “casual Fridays” rule in the blogosphere too (not one I respected today in class, mind you); to that end, my (short) list of albums I enjoy listening to all the way through:

• Common Thread: The Songs of the Eagles
• Michelle Branch, The Spirit Room
• Evanescence, Fallen
• Jimmy Eat World, Bleed American (none of this PC renaming crap here)
• Jimmy Eat World, Futures
• Avril Lavigne, Let Go
• Sarah McLachlan, Fumbling Towards Ecstasy

I have deliberately excluded albums that I skip more than one song on.

After watching the World Series of Poker coverage last night on ESPN, I have to say that I’m incredibly impressed that Jennifer Tilly somehow managed to find an equally ditzy boyfriend in fellow poker player Phil “The Unabomber” Laak. Surely a match made in heaven.

Previous discussion of Leak and Tilly here.

Tom DeLay just got his ass indicted, and while that’s a far cry from him getting convicted (the old phrase about most prosecutors being able to get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich springs to mind), it’s still not promising for his future political prospects. Otherwise, what I said nearly nine months ago still applies, so I’m not going to belabor those points again.

þ: PoliBlog and Scipio; James Joyner has a roundup from around the ‘sphere.

Hei Lun of Begging to Differ was equally unimpressed with the hidden quid pro quo connected to the free passes to see Serenity. Quoth Hei Lun:

I’m not saying that I’m highly principled and not-for-sale at any price, but it’d sure take more than $9.75 for someone to tell me what to write on this blog.

It’s not quite $9.75 in this neck of the woods (Southpoint, which I assume is the most expensive place in Durham, is $8.25 after 6 p.m., and $6.25 before 6), but, yeah, my price is a bit higher than that too. Plus I really didn’t want to drive to Raleigh during rush hour tomorrow afternoon…

Stephen Karlson has some thoughts on the viability of intercity rail travel in response to Jeff Harrell’s skepticism over further Amtrak funding. My two cents:

Outside the Northeast Corridor and a few regional operations, Amtrak is a classic example of GNDN. I know exactly one person who has ever ridden the City of New Orleans, despite having lived in two cities that are served by the route. The only advantage of Amtrak over auto travel is that you don’t have to drive… and that one is largely negated if there’s hassle at either endpoint, such as inconvenient modal transfers, long layovers, etc. The only advantages over Amtrak over flying is that (a) you don’t have to deal with getting from the airport to the central business district (assuming the CBD is your destination) and (b) the security hassles are significantly reduced (but by no means nonexistent). And, the only advantages of Amtrak over riding Greyhound are (a) reduced travel times and (b) marginally better comfort.

It seems to me, then, that viable passenger rail needs to be designed to complement other modes of transportation. That means, for starters, more intermodal connections like at BWI and MKE airports, and direct connections to local mass transit (that means, when I get off the train in Chicago, I shouldn’t have to walk several blocks to get on the L). That also means making it easy for people to rent cars at train stations… many general aviation airports (in addition to every commercial airport in the country) have car rental counters, but good luck trying to find one at most Amtrak stations. While you’re at it, include safe, secure, long-term parking lots.

Amtrak probably hasn’t helped its case in “flyover country”—particularly with Republican politicians—by only operating its flagship Acela Express service in the Northeast Corridor. If other parts of the rail system had been upgraded to a similarly high standard (notwithstanding the problems Acela has had), the political case for continued Amtrak subsidies would probably be much better, even if the economic case for building high-speed rail in other areas is weak-to-nonexistent—the existence of Southwest Airlines, for example, makes a Houston–Dallas rail link a sure money-loser, even though tens of thousands of people make that trip daily. Ironically, because of Amtrak’s brief flirtation with economic rationality, Amtrak has virtually no constituency other than its employees outside the NEC states.

At the other place: I consider the difference in student attire between Duke and Millsaps, and the nature of the causal mechanism involved.

Nope, it’s not another weekly blog roundup… instead, it’s Matthew Stinson’s moniker for this weekend’s anti-war festivities, organized by the neo-Stalinists at International ANSWER and the anti-Jewish bigots at the Nation of Islam, and headlined by Mama Sheehan; the local branch office here at Duke decided to join in the festivities by making a 15-foot “missile” and sticking it in the middle of the West Quad on the pedastal where James Duke’s statue normally stands.

Matt proposes a drinking game for the C-SPAN coverage… which would be a nice idea, but I can’t afford that much liquor. Meanwhile, Glenn Reynolds thinks the press ought to stop whitewashing the anti-war movement; while I do actually believe there is a “authentic antiwar movement” in America (unlike, apparently, Glenn), and there are serious people I respect who disagree with me about the merits of the war in Iraq (Hi Scott! Hi Dad!), I’m not at all convinced that the “authentic” elements of the antiwar movement are doing themselves any favors by associating themselves with left-wing hate groups like the NoI and ANSWER.

More to the point, if (say) anti-immigration or anti-busing protests were being organized by the Klan or its front organizations, and “mainstream” folks were at risk of lending their support to those protests, I strongly suspect the media coverage would be deafening compared to the distinct lack of outrage that genuine public concern about Iraq has become a free recruiting tool for bigots and radical anti-capitalists. The sad thing is that a lot of Americans probably will join these protests because they don’t really know who’s behind them—and the press is doing these people a disservice.

My first real publication (broadly defined) in political science is now officially “forthcoming”; while it’s only a short piece in The Political Methodologist, the biannual newsletter of the Society for Political Methodology, I figure you have to start somewhere. It’s a brief overview of Quantian, a “Live Linux” DVD that’s geared toward use by social, behavioral, and natural scientists.

My co-author and Quantian’s developer, Dirk Eddelbuettel, has the current version of the piece up at his website, for the morbidly curious. The article probably will appear in the Fall 2005 issue, whenever that emerges.

The fine folks at Universal Studios are giving out free passes to preview screenings of Serenity to bloggers. Pretty sweet, if you ask me.

þ: Glenn Reynolds and Dan Drezner.

I have to say, this is pretty funny, although the logic of establishing a rivalry with a school that isn’t even in the same time zone is lost on me. Rivalries generally thrive on casual interaction; a rivalry that involves setting out on a cross-country trek doesn’t seem likely to succeed in the long run.

In other words, maybe Emory should have gone for something easier… like battling Furman.

þ: Jeff Harrell, who has more.

The German elections have come and gone, and the results are Inconclusive; as expected, nobody got an outright majority, but less expected was the inability of the “natural” CDU–FDP coalition to gain a majority, thus leaving Germans with a series of rather unappetizing coalition possibilities:

• The rather-unlikely “red-red-green” coalition, combining the SPD (Gerhard Schröder’s Social Democrats) with his current coalition partners, the Greens, and the whole lot making nice with the Left Party splinter group (itself a motley collection of ex-Communists and malcontent Social Democrats, including Schröder’s main rival on the left, Oskar Lafontaine).
• The “traffic light” coalition including the SPD, FDP, and the Greens; also unlikely, as the FDP‘s leader has rejected it according to The Economist.
• The “Jamaica” coalition of the CDU (the Christian Democrats, led by Angela Merkel, along with their Bavarian sister party, the CSU), the FDP (the Free Democrats, “liberals” in the European sense of the term), and the Greens. Somewhat plausible, if the Greens are willing to put aside their materialist values in favor of the postmaterialist ones they share with the Free Democrats.
• A “grand coalition” of the SPD and CDU, with either Schröder or Merkel as chancellor. As Pieter Dorsman and Matthew Shugart point out, this is probably the worst of all possible worlds, albeit the most likely outcome.

And, to top things off, things aren’t really settled yet since a neo-Nazi candidate in Dresden died, requiring a postponement of the vote in that constituency; under Germany’s version of the additional member system, this will probably affect the final seat tally for both the CDU and the SPD, even if neither wins the seat.

Where to next? Pieter Dorsman thinks holding another vote may be the most sensible course of action, although I’m not really sure it would change much. My guess is that Germany will try to muddle through, with the CDU and SPD advancing some rather half-assed reforms that please no one… which, more likely than not, will bring us back to this point with another inconclusive election sooner, rather than later.

The comparative angle is advanced by Stephen Karlson, who notes that America’s coalition building is rather less explicit than that of Germany—of course, the muddled result in Germany, I’d argue, is largely because the SPD has failed to maintain its internal coalition. All effective governing parties are coalitions of interests—even in Israel, with easy entry into parliament for any disgruntled splinter group, both major parties (and many of the smaller ones) represent a range of opinion, not a single point in policy space. Here, I think Betsy’s Page gets the causality backwards:

Can you imagine some situation in America when we would have to have a coalition government of Republicans and Democrats running the government together. I’m not talking about divided government between Congress and the president. I’m talking about running the executive branch together. It is just unimaginable. The reason we have two parties is because they disagree fundamentally on how the government should run. And thinking of some coalition between a major and minor party would just move that party more to the extremes. [emphasis mine]

Leaving aside whether Democrats and Republicans “disagree fundamentally” about the operation of government (they don’t… try distinguishing the last four years of Republican rule from the Great Society, and you’ll find remarkable overlap), the two parties don’t exist because of this disagreement—at best, voters disagree, and the two parties try to maximize their number of votes by appealing to likely winning coalitions of voters.

More formally, the U.S. has two parties because of two major factors: our plurality (first-past-the-post) electoral system, and the loose federalism of the party system. Plurality elections do not inevitably lead to two-party systems (ask Canada or the U.K.); however, the added factors of having a relatively nationalized, largely unidimensional policy space (the key issues in America don’t radically differ between New York City and Philadelphia, Mississippi, even if the political position of the median voter in those places does, and people tend to dispute politics on a “left-right” dimension that is just similar enough to that of continental Europe to confuse observers on both sides of the Atlantic) and substantial local and state party autonomy (allowing the NYC and Neshboa County GOP establishment to largely define “Republican” for themselves), effectively ensure a two-party system—even where the barriers to ballot entry are low for new parties.

If the incentives for a two party system melted away, more likely than not our existing Republican and Democratic parties would melt away with them (or at least be transformed beyond recognition). And if you think our parties are bad now, wait until you see the parties led by Maxine Waters and Pat Robertson (or their acolytes) and comprised solely of their true believers. You’ll be begging for a grand coalition then…

Vance of Begging to Differ thinks airline bankruptcy reform is needed to fix the problem of legacy carriers hanging around on life support (and dragging the other legacy carriers along with them); The Economist suggests that pending bankruptcy law changes may do the trick, even if short-term that means more legacy carriers filing to beat the deadline.

Go read Pieter Dorsman and Matthew Shugart.

This clipping from an ad for the Horseshoe in the Commercial Appeal a couple of weeks ago is priceless:

I guess I now know who plays $100 slots. (þ: Mom, for sending it in the mail to me.)

If I were (a) stupid enough to bet on sports and (b) stupid enough to bet on any game the Rebels were involved with, I’d take Ole Miss (+3) over Vandy and the under (44). Reasons:

• Ole Miss can defend the pass. The pass is, well, Vandy’s entire offense (except that whole option thing).
• Vandy isn’t as good as Memphis. Ole Miss, er, beat Memphis. Ergo, Ole Miss should beat Vandy.
• Vandy’s home field advantage is nonexistent.
• Vandy loses to Ole Miss, even in years the Rebels suck (see: 2001, 2002, 2004). So, even if Ole Miss does suck this year (something yet to be determined—we’ll see in mid-October), they should still beat Vandy.
• Intangible 1: I’m quite certain that Vandy being 3–0 is a sign of the apocalypse. I don’t think universal armageddon is quite here yet.
• Intangible 2: Coach O will probably call the entire team a “bunch of pussies” if they lose to Vandy. The team doesn’t want a tanned shirtless guy calling them pussies. So they will win. And not wear any earrings.

Disclaimer: taking my betting advice is probably a bad idea under any and all circumstances. I am not responsible for any monetary losses incurred as a result of this pick.

Ars Technica takes note of a new deal between Coinstar and Amazon.com that will let you exchange your pesky coins for Amazon.com gift certificates at face value. Where was this service last month, before I lugged all my change from Jackson to Durham in Ziploc bags?

For those following the SPSA saga who are not on the association’s mailing list: an update has been posted, indicating that the conference will meet in January in Atlanta at the Hotel Intercontinental in Buckhead.

I now have the smiling faces of all 68 of my students (34 in each class) in my grubby little hands. At this rate, I might be able to put names with the faces by the end of the semester…

I had seven groups in class today do the following: come up with a way to test whether peoples’ blaming of the government for an inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina was affected by media coverage.

I think I had about ten answers. Which is as it should be, letting many flowers bloom and all that, and which goes to show that a seemingly simple question can be answered by social science in lots of different ways—sometimes with different answers. One strongly suspects the group that would have exposed different experimental groups to Shep and Anderson Cooper would have found a bit different results than the group that measured self-reported media attentiveness in a sample survey.

Your SPSA non-update update of the day. Quoth the SPSA website, as of this posting:

On Monday, we expect to announce the signing of a contract with the new host of our January 2006 conference.

Perhaps SPSA is using a different value of “Monday” than the rest of us. I thought it was over nearly 17 hours ago, myself…

New to “Chris’s blogroll” (distinguished from the “Active blogroll” on a basis I’m not entirely sure of, and probably a vestige of SN’s brief life as a group blog): Charles Franklin’s Political Arithmetik and the Harvard Institute for Quantitative Social Science’s blog, both of which I first became aware of via Paul Brewer.

Can a blogospheric Perestroika movement be far behind?

Incidentally, I’ve had the distinction of having been taught by Prof. Franklin (albeit for only four days, during the Advanced Maximum Likelihood Estimation course at ICPSR in 2001), at a time when he was sporting a beard and looked like the spitting image of my father.