B Roll,

Just for fun:

http://www.last.fm/search?m=all&q=Eric+Serra

DDay

re: your musings about… whatever it was you were musing about!!!

The study you mentioned in which children showed different reactions to a jack-in-the –box is interesting. Let me summarize that study for those who didn’t read your post.

Some decades ago, some infants were individually put in a space with a closed jack-in-the-box toy. After the children got use to the environment, the toy was triggered and the jack popped up. There were three different responses displayed by the children. Some reacted with curiosity, some were indifferent and some were fearful. A follow-up study was done when the children in the study were adults and it was found that the children who had reacted to the jack-in-the-box with fear are now more likely to describe themselves as conservatives/Republicans.

That coincides with a more recent study I heard about (this or last year) in which conservative adults showed a greater fear reaction when shown a picture of a spider. I assume they were shown a series of photos that included one or more pictures of spiders, while their physical reaction was being monitored.

Another study I heard about indicated that conservatives tend to keep their homes very neat and formally orderly while the homes of liberals tend to be a less formally arranged. I believe that there’s been research indicating that liberals are more open to new kinds of experiences and interacting with people who are different from themselves.

It’s easy to accept results of this kind of research when they support what we want to believe and interpret the results to bolster our beliefs. Sometimes we’re right and sometimes we’re wrong. I tend to think that our perceptions and our ability to retain information are heavily influenced by what we already believe to be true.

Quark and I discussed this several months ago and I gave an example of a study I read about many years ago. A group of college students were given material to read. The subject of the reading material was the existence of UFOs. Half the material confirmed their existence and the other half disconfirmed their existence. Half the students expressed a belief in the existence of UFOs before reading the materials and half didn’t. The interesting result was a follow-up test given after some time (probably measured in weeks) had passed. While the UFO doubters remembered the pro and con information the believers had forgotten most of the disconfirming information. In other words, their minds had filtered out the information that didn’t support their beliefs.

The question is why the believers forgot the information that didn’t support their view while the skeptics remembered both sides of the argument. My feeling is that it’s much more important to believers that their view be true than it is to skeptics. So their brains filter out the disconfirming information.

Drew Weston of Emory University has talked about research with fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) that shows that when we’re exposed to positive information about our political candidate the thinking parts of our brains light up but when we’re exposed to negative information about our candidate, the emotional (fight or flight) areas light up.

http://www.salon.com/env/mind_reader/2008/09/22/voter_choice/print.html

But getting back to your original “musing”, there does seem to be basic psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. The question is how much is inborn and how much is cultural in each person and in groups.

Here’s one last interesting point. Religious conservatives tend to favor strict upbringing of children, including corporal punishment. I heard a long interview with Max Blumenthal the other day about his book “Republican Gomorrah”. He said that there is a recent study that showed that children who are regularly spanked when they’re young grow up to score 5 points lower on IQ tests.

Life imitates art -

Does anyone remember a Woody Allen flick named "Take the Money and Run?"

Woody attempted to rob a bank and was foiled when the teller couldn't read his note -
"What's this say? I have a gub? What's a gub?"

:D

Yes -- the lie will no longer stand up to the light. The light is getting stronger inside each one of us. It is our responsibility to all grow that light and shine it like Thom, Like Grayson -- like all lights that lifted up the afflicted throughout our long Story. Each one of us must do this to complete the circle of mirrors that will reflect the Truth and shatter the web of lies....
Re: the 45,000 dead from lack of access to care ---
From the Huffington Post today:
“…according to the Institute of Medicine, 98,000 people die annually from preventable medical errors. To put this into perspective, 98,000 deaths is like two 737s crashing every day for a whole year. “
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-tarricone/tort-reform-a-bad-bargai...
Add this number to the number of people that die from getting no treatment at all to get the true size of the catastrophe. Add in the number of homeless from foreclosure and we almost have to stop counting…. In addition, a drug and machine driven medical approach can’t ever begin to measure the number of new cancers from overuse of MRIs and X-rays, etc. The number of immune system failures from overuse of antibiotics, and the rash of secondary “diseases” that are actually side-effects of drugs that are essentially poisons. I personally have cared for two persons dying not from their original illnesses but from the side-effects of the drugs.
There is no profit in health – except for the healthy. The poison and cut and hammer and weld system of health care itself is a failure. We need access to health and that includes responsible counseling and guidance toward real food, real natural medicines, clean air and water, contact with nature, and less stressful corporate-controlled workplaces.
PS: the Bee is a drone. Bee careful.

B Roll,

No, no, no, no, no. ' Sorry --- that's not what I meant. I meant that the Repugs' arguments should apply to THEM. Maybe then they would see how ridiculous they are (however, I don't believe they should apply to ANYBODY.)

BTW,

I sent Rep. Grayson a small donation and positive comments:

http://www.graysonforcongress.com/default.asp

THOM,

Joe McCarthy was from WISCONSIN!

Thom,

Here's the link to "the missing link" story:

"Fossil Skeleton From Africa Predates Lucy"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/science/02fossil.html?ref=science

mstaggerlee

I thought the "m" in your name stands for Marc, but maybe it stands for Marshal. :)
(I wonder if my smiley will work)

But you raise a great point about the economics of The Olympics. Progressive sports writer Dave Zirin says that it would have been an economic disaster for the people of Chicago, especially poorer people.

I'm glad you didn't go with the knee-jerk response.

You can watch/hear/read an interview with Zirin on Democracy Now

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/2/sportswriter_dave_zirin_on_obamas_...

and or read his article "Obama's Olympic Error" on Huffington Post at

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-zirin/obamas-olympic-error_b_302025.html

As for Brazil being worthy of the honor, like other countries it's a mixed bag. There's a tremendous racial stratification in the country, there were reports some years ago that police were killing children forced to live on the streets and I recently heard that around 40,000 people work in slavery (actual slavery) raising soy for export markets.

Question re: the Olympics, to the smartest radio listeners in the world (cuz I'm too busy/lazy to look it up for myself) -

Has ANY city that has hosted the Olympic games over the last 30 years or so made a nickel on their investments? I kinda doubt it.

The games may be neat from a prestige point of view, but financially, I'm fairly sure it's a losing proposition. Can Chicago, or the USA, afford that now?

Quark

Wow.. u came out like a bottle of beer that someone shook and opened.

As for your take on my comment about my point that people who work for the government aren't getting "socialize health care" they're getting employer provided health insurance, I can't agree with your idea that we should go along with the "right wing" crazies as you call them. I don't look to them for political leadership.

I, as I'm sure you do, want everyone in the world to get health coverage. And don't you want Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich Barbara Lee, Russ Feingold and others to get quality health care?

But my point wasn't that they should or shouldn't get health their health insurance paid for by the government. My point was that the obvious answer to the charge that politicians that oppose so called "socialized health care" for others don't mind getting it themselves is that the their health insurance is provided by their employer. That's a fact and it just happens to be that their employer is the government.

There could be an argument made that they shouldn't provide health care for themselves if they don't make sure we all have it, but my point wasn't about that. I was pointing out that there is a reasonable counter to the point that Thom and some others on the "left" make.

The Marsh Problem

The caller named Marsha wants Thom and Bernie to come out in strong opposition to the Jewish/Communist meme and anti-Jewish propaganda.

I'll bet you Thom's houseboat that Marsha is Jewish. Has she called in (or written) when she heard racist callers blame blacks or Latinos? Did she object when when anti-gay callers made outrageous comments?

Aren't we all Marshas? Don't we all tend to be motivated most by issues we have a personal interest in and less motivated, if motivated at all, by the concerns of others.

Obviously no person can respond to all of our social, economic and political problems, but I find it disappointing how narrowly focused and insular so many of us on the left tend to be.

Aren't we all Marshas?

You are Marsh! You are Marsha! You are Marsha! Everybody is Marsha!

JUST GREAT (NOT):

"G.E. Expects India to Help U.S. Cut Health Care Costs"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/business/global/03immelt.html?ref=busi...

HOW CAN WE HAVE A RAINBOW IF IT WON’T STOP RAINING?

Part 2:

"Mission Not Accomplished"

PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: October 2, 2009

Stocks are up. Ben Bernanke says that the recession is over. And I sense a growing willingness among movers and shakers to declare “Mission Accomplished” when it comes to fighting the slump. It’s time, I keep hearing, to shift our focus from economic stimulus to the budget deficit.

No, it isn’t. And the complacency now setting in over the state of the economy is both foolish and dangerous.

Yes, the Federal Reserve and the Obama administration have pulled us “back from the brink” — the title of a new paper by Christina Romer, who leads the Council of Economic Advisers. She argues convincingly that expansionary policy saved us from a possible replay of the Great Depression.

But while not having another depression is a good thing, all indications are that unless the government does much more than is currently planned to help the economy recover, the job market — a market in which there are currently six times as many people seeking work as there are jobs on offer — will remain terrible for years to come.

Indeed, the administration’s own economic projection — a projection that takes into account the extra jobs the administration says its policies will create — is that the unemployment rate, which was below 5 percent just two years ago, will average 9.8 percent in 2010, 8.6 percent in 2011, and 7.7 percent in 2012.

This should not be considered an acceptable outlook. For one thing, it implies an enormous amount of suffering over the next few years. Moreover, unemployment that remains that high, that long, will cast long shadows over America’s future.

Anyone who thinks that we’re doing enough to create jobs should read a new report from John Irons of the Economic Policy Institute, which describes the “scarring” that’s likely to result from sustained high unemployment. Among other things, Mr. Irons points out that sustained unemployment on the scale now being predicted would lead to a huge rise in child poverty — and that there’s overwhelming evidence that children who grow up in poverty are alarmingly likely to lead blighted lives.

These human costs should be our main concern, but the dollars and cents implications are also dire. Projections by the Congressional Budget Office, for example, imply that over the period from 2010 to 2013 — that is, not counting the losses we’ve already suffered — the “output gap,” the difference between the amount the economy could have produced and the amount it actually produces, will be more than $2 trillion. That’s trillions of dollars of productive potential going to waste.

Wait. It gets worse. A new report from the International Monetary Fund shows that the kind of recession we’ve had, a recession caused by a financial crisis, often leads to long-term damage to a country’s growth prospects. “The path of output tends to be depressed substantially and persistently following banking crises.”

The same report, however, suggests that this isn’t inevitable: “We find that a stronger short-term fiscal policy response” — by which they mean a temporary increase in government spending — “is significantly associated with smaller medium-term output losses.”

So we should be doing much more than we are to promote economic recovery, not just because it would reduce our current pain, but also because it would improve our long-run prospects.

But can we afford to do more — to provide more aid to beleaguered state governments and the unemployed, to spend more on infrastructure, to provide tax credits to employers who create jobs? Yes, we can.

The conventional wisdom is that trying to help the economy now produces short-term gain at the expense of long-term pain. But as I’ve just pointed out, from the point of view of the nation as a whole that’s not at all how it works. The slump is doing long-term damage to our economy and society, and mitigating that slump will lead to a better future.

What is true is that spending more on recovery and reconstruction would worsen the government’s own fiscal position. But even there, conventional wisdom greatly overstates the case. The true fiscal costs of supporting the economy are surprisingly small.

You see, spending money now means a stronger economy, both in the short run and in the long run. And a stronger economy means more revenues, which offset a large fraction of the upfront cost. Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that the offset falls short of 100 percent, so that fiscal stimulus isn’t a complete free lunch. But it costs far less than you’d think from listening to what passes for informed discussion.

Look, I know more stimulus is a hard sell politically. But it’s urgently needed. The question shouldn’t be whether we can afford to do more to promote recovery. It should be whether we can afford not to. And the answer is no.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/opinion/02krugman.html