Spotted on Memeorandum today (click image to enlarge):

CLick for Larger Image

The “pro” poll is by CNN/Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) and the “anti” poll is by Quinnipiac. Notice that mostly leftie bloggers link to the article suggesting favorable polling for OWS, and mostly rightie bloggers link to the article about the unfavorable poll.

I have no particular expertise at criticizing poll data, but note that the two polls did not ask exactly the same question. CNN/ORC tells us that Americans have a favorable view of OWS positions. Quinnipiac tells us that Americans have an unfavorable view of OWS.

Shakesis writes,

Nearly any protest movement that can just hang in there inevitably grains credibility among the general population, for the sheer appearance of having unwavering principles and not just being the dirty hippies/crackpots/fools/lowlifes/extremists/whatever that their opponents, with the help of the media, make them out to be.

Hmm, is that really true? In my experience, if the movement itself doesn’t take great care to not reinforce negative media stereotypes, those negative stereotypes stick and much reduce the effectiveness of the protest movement. I’ll throw that open for discussion. I say the Bigger Asshole rule is still in effect.

Update: This is what I’ve feared all along. [Update: If Salon is being balky, try the New York Times. If stuff like this continues, OWS is over. It would be better to withdraw from public places and re-organize as a more conventional movement.

Spotted at Forbes, in an endorsement for Rick Perry’s flat tax plan:

The plan’s central feature, as Perry explained in today’s Wall Street Journal, is an optional flat tax of 20 percent, in which those opting for the flat tax will be able to deduct $12,500 for each household member, along with mortgage interest, charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning less than $500,000 a year.

Some conservative policy bloggers are apoplectic about the optional nature of the Perry plan. But these critics appear to be entirely ignoring the central political flaw of a mandatory flat tax: that a mandatory flat tax necessarily raises taxes on lower- and middle-income earners. The only way to rebut this political criticism is to make the flat tax optional, so that the middle class doesn’t face higher taxes. This is especially important for those who depend on the employer tax exclusion for their health benefits.

See, the fact that lower- and middle-income earners would have to pay more to make up for the tax cuts of the rich is only a political flaw, which is solved by telling the peasants that they don’t have to pay the higher tax if they don’t want to. Now, what could possibly go wrong there?

This is my favorite part:

On the other side, some wonks are complaining that the Perry plan will reduce tax revenues, and thereby expand the deficit. But this, again, is asking too much of comprehensive tax reform. The only way to propose a deficit-neutral flat tax is to massively raise taxes on lower- and middle-class earners. As Voltaire once suggested, it’s unwise to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

In other words, it is asking too much of comprehensive tax reform to provide adequate revenue to keep the country going.

And now we come to it …

It’s worth mentioning that the plan also lowers the corporate tax rate to 20% and moves to a territorial tax system, provisions that will have a huge impact on the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, allowing biotech and pharmaceutical companies to repatriate their overseas profits without penalty, thereby increasing investment in domestic pharmaceutical R&D.

Of course.