It's the ACCELERATION, stupid!

Once again, MSM misses the underlying truth

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - A Coast Guard reconnaissance team is heading to
the far north this week to scope out a new frontier that the warming Arctic
climate is opening to ship traffic.
The Coast Guard could set up an
operations base in Barrow as early as next spring to monitor waters that are now
free of ice for longer periods of the year. Weather permitting, a scouting crew
will fly 1,183 miles Thursday from Barrow, the northernmost U.S. town, to the
North Pole.
"This is a new area for us to do surveillance," said Rear Adm.
Arthur E. Brooks, commander of the Coast Guard's Alaska district. "We're going
primarily to see what's there, what ships, if any, are up there."
Thinning
ice has made travel along the northern coast increasingly attractive, said
Brooks, who plans to accompany the crew in the C-130 flight. Tankers and even
cruise ships are beginning to venture into the domain once traveled only by
indigenous hunters and research vessels, such as the Coast Guard ice-cutter
Healy.
The ice cap is believed to be warming faster than the rest of the
world, and recent studies suggest shipping routes could open in the Arctic in as
little as a decade. Just a few years ago, scientists predicted it would
take a century for the ice to melt.

... see, again the Big Deal here is not that warming is happening, it's that it continues to accelerate, thereby reaching predicted levels much faster than our predictions.

Gore's epitaph will be "He was an optimist."

Wait, here's another...

Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere Increasing
Oct 22, 9:39 PM
(ET)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Just days after the Nobel prize was awarded
for global warming work, an alarming new study finds that carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is increasing faster than expected.
Carbon dioxide emissions were
35 percent higher in 2006 than in 1990, a much faster growth rate than
anticipated, researchers led by Josep G. Canadell, of Australia's Commonwealth
Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, report in Tuesday's edition of
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Increased industrial use of
fossil fuels coupled with a decline in the gas absorbed by the oceans and land
were listed as causes of the increase.
"In addition to the growth of global
population and wealth, we now know that significant contributions to the growth
of atmospheric CO2 arise from the slowdown" of nature's ability to take the
chemical out of the air, said Canadell, director of the Global Carbon Project at
the research organization.
The changes "characterize a carbon cycle that is generating stronger-than-expected and sooner-than-expected climate forcing," the researchers report.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20071023/D8SEL2M80.html

... The headline says "increasing" but it's the ACCELERATION, stupid!
And the acceleration was not only unexpected, accelerating phenomena are by nature virtually impossible to forecast accurately.



.... and another:

SYDNEY, Australia (AP) - Worldwide economic growth has accelerated the level of
greenhouse gas emissions to a dangerous threshold scientists had not expected
for another decade, according to a leading Australian climate change
expert.
Tim Flannery told Australian Broadcasting Corp. that an upcoming
report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will contain new
data showing that the level of climate-changing gases in the atmosphere has
already reached critical levels.
...
"What the report establishes is that
the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is already above the threshold
that can potentially cause dangerous climate change," Flannery told the
broadcaster late Monday. "We are already at great risk of dangerous climate
change, that's what these figures say. It's not next year or next decade, it's
now."

.... more:



2007-09-17 10:18:

36
(AP) - Arctic ice has shrunk to the lowest level on record, new satellite
images show, raising the possibility that the Northwest Passage that eluded
famous explorers will become an open shipping lane.
The European Space Agency
said nearly 200 satellite photos this month taken together showed an ice-free
passage along northern Canada, Alaska and Greenland, and ice retreating to its
lowest level since such images were first taken in 1978.
The waters are
exposing unexplored resources, and vessels could trim thousands of miles from
Europe to Asia by bypassing the Panama Canal. The seasonal ebb and flow of ice
levels has already opened up a slim summer window for ships.
Leif Toudal
Pedersen, of the Danish National Space Center, said that Arctic ice has shrunk
to some 1 million square miles. The previous low was 1.5 million square miles,
in 2005.
"The strong reduction in just one year certainly raises flags that
the ice (in summer) may disappear much sooner than expected," Pedersen said in
an ESA statement posted on its Web site Friday.
Pedersen said the extreme
retreat this year suggested the passage could fully open sooner than expected -
but ESA did not say when that might be. "
... ESA didn't say because they
COULDN'T say -- it's not just the continuing decline, it's the accelerating rate
of decline that should have you worried.

...STILL more:

2007-08-17 13:10:41
WASHINGTON (AP) - There was less sea ice in the
Arctic on Friday than ever before on record, and the melting is continuing, the
National Snow and Ice Data Center reported.
"Today is a historic day," said Mark Serreze, a senior research scientist at the center. "This is the least sea ice we've ever seen in the satellite record and we have another month left to go in the melt season this year."

Analysis of NOAA CO2 concentration measurements since '59: From 1960 to 1997, the net acceleration was a total of .25 ppm/yr^2. Since '97 it has more than doubled:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

I infer that not only is the warming rate accelerating, the ACCELERATION rate is itself ACCELERATING. I won't bother adding exclamation points -- either you get the implication or you don't.
If we're past recovery, then it's time to put some focus on amelioration of the consequences of the train wreck, even if you still try to slow the train.

... Nature says "don't start something I'm going to have to finish":

"Up to now it has been generally assumed that global warming will be a linear
process. However evidence from the geological past linked with climate modelling
that takes into account the global warming that is already locked into the
system indicates that there may not be a linear response to rising CO2 levels.
There is a danger that at some point we will cross a threshhold when global
warming accelerates. By continuing to increase the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere we are getting closer to that point.

From the analysis of the
bubbles of air trapped in ice cores taken from the Greenland icecap that are up
to 500,000 years old it has been shown that the temperature of the Earth's
atmosphere and the CO2 content has followed a regular 100,000 year cycle of
change with the CO2 content and temperature closely linked and following the
same graph line. Within this regular cycle there are some recently discovered
very short periods of approximately only a few hundred years duration when
temperatures rise dramatically by 8 degrees centigrade above the slower rises of
up to 7 degrees centigrade. This gives a total range of 15 degrees centigrade
[27°F]
...only now are models being constructed that incorporate a feed-back
into the model of the effects of changes in world climate due to the changes in
temperature that are predicted by the model as the model programme runs. One of
the most important effects of climate change is the release of carbon dioxide
from natural processes as atmospheric temperature rises... The climate change
models show that rising sea temperatures in the Pacific Ocean result in less
rainfall and a longer dry season in the Amazon Basin...If the Amazon rainforest
burns and releases billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in a short period
then this will be a further boost to global warming that will result in
significantly higher end of century temperatures.

The climate change model with climate change induced feedbacks indicates that on present trends the date for the change from CO2 sink to source for the Amazon rainforest is about 2050.

http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/1_global_warming.htm

...
Here's another "based on projected climate change" study...
ROME (AP) - Climate change could drive many wild

relatives of plants such as the potato and the peanut into extinction,
threatening a valuable source of genes necessary to help these food crops fight
pests and drought, an international research group reported.
During the next
50 years, more than 60 percent of 51 wild peanut species analyzed and 12 percent
of 108 wild potato species analyzed could become extinct because of climate
change, according to a study released Tuesday by the Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research.
Surviving species would be confined to
much smaller areas, further eroding their capacity to survive, the report
said.
The study looked at the distribution of various species and predicted
their ability to survive based on current and projected climate data for 2055."

... Estimating is easy. ACCURATE estimating is the challenge. And when all the models are based on straight line extrapolation and the real world is showing rapid ACCELERATION, the only thing for sure is WE DON'T KNOW HOW BAD it's gonna get or HOW FAST.

Chickens come home to roost

The bigger the chicken, the longer it takes ...

"Not very many people are talking about what do we do to live with the consequences of what's happening," said James Brock, a longtime industry consultant in the Beijing office of Cambridge Energy Research Associates. "The polar bears are doomed - they're going to museums. At the end of this century the Arctic ice cap will be gone. That means a lot of water rising, not by inches but meters."

---
Burned since ancient times, coal dramatically increased in use during the Industrial Revolution, when it became fuel for the new steam engines, gas lamps and electrical generators. Worldwide demand for coal dipped at the end of the 20th century, but is now back up and projected to rise 60 percent by 2030 to 6.9 billion tons a year, according to the International Energy Agency.


In America, about 150 new coal-fired electrical plants are proposed over the next decade. In China, there are plans for a coal-fired power plant to go on line nearly every week. Emissions from these plants alone could nullify the cuts made by Europe, Japan and other rich nations under the Kyoto Protocol "



GW & wildfires, part II

More things I bet you didn't know ...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/18/60minutes/printable3380176.shtml

... like "The fire season in the last 15 years or so has increased more than two months over the whole Western U.S. So actually 78 days of average longer fire season in the last 15 years compared to the previous 15 or 20 years"

... and: "in 2006, the feds spent $2 billion on fire fighting, seven times more than just ten years ago. "

Seems that Nature is just throwing bigger and bigger tantrums at us.


"Perfect storm overwhelms well prepared CA" said the headline...

LOS ANGELES, Oct 25 (Reuters) - California's fire-fighting strategy has made big
strides since deadly infernos in 2003 but little could have prepared it for the
perfect storm of drought, high winds and triple-digit temperatures behind
massive blazes this week, officials said on Thursday.

... but it wasn't a perfect storm. We'd had a very dry year in SoCal so there was actually much less build up of fuel to dry out than in a wet year. On the other hand it's the lengthening of the fire season by 78 days over the last decade that really makes more of these inevitable.


... How's that working for ya?

... How's that working for ya?

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/index_np.html?source=whitelist Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq. By Sidney Blumenthal (Clockwise from top left) Naji Sabri, George W. Bush, Colin Powell and George Tenet. On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again. Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD. On April 23, 2006, CBS's "60 Minutes" interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller. "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy." http://forums.craigslist.org/?ID=71636196

Gonzo Avoids Implicating Bush (Barely)

Comey’s Evidence of a Crime Returns
On May 18th, “Scoop” reported that the testimony of James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General under John Ashcroft, provided evidence of a crime in which Bush, Gonzales, and Card” were clearly implicated. It was apparent that Bush had ordered his then counsel Alberto Gonzales and adviser, Andrew Card, to the sick bed of an ailing and sedated John Ashcroft. Their mission was to obtain Ashcroft’s signature authorizing warrant-less surveillance of Americans.
Ashcroft had stepped down temporarily due to his pending hospital stay. His deputy, James Comey, became acting Attorney General. Comey had refused to sign the authorization since he, Ashcroft and senior Justice Department lawyers found it highly objectionable. Over the objection of Ashcroft’s wife, the two entered the hospital room and made their case. Ashcroft rose from his sick bed to refuse. Gonzales and card failed in their mission.
Today’s testimony by still U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary provides a major clue as to the direction future impeachment charges might take, should they be brought.
First a brief recap of the May 18th article.
Tuesday was a remarkable day at the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. The exchange between Sen. Charles Schumer, R, NY and former Deputy Attorney General James Comey provides clear evidence pointing to criminal activity by the president, U.S Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former presidential advisor, Andrew Card. If Comey’s testimony is supported by other reliable witnesses, the Bush, Gonzales, and Card crew have some serious questions to answer.The article went on to describe questions that might be very troubling.
There are at least two major problems facing the participants in this affair.First, the White House attempted to obtain approval for a program that they knew the acting Attorney General would not approve. Second, they sought this approval from someone without authority, Ashcroft. He stepped down due to his illness and passed authority to Comey. Of great significance, however, is the fact that the program was implemented. It doesn’t matter if it was for an hour, a day or a week. Comey tells us warrantless surveillance on U.S. citizens was implemented without the required DOJ approval due to Comey’s unwillingness to attest “as to its legality.”Seeking approval from someone without authority while that someone, John Ashcroft, was heavily sedated is certainly a crime. Having that enterprise end in failure and then implementing the program anyway is further evidence of a crime.
The program was implemented without authorization as indicated by this exchange between Comey and Schumer:
Schumer: Right. And you stated that the next day, Thursday, was the deadline for reauthorization of the program, is that right?
Comey: Yes, sir.
Schumer: OK. Can you tell us what happened the next day?
Comey: The program was reauthorized without us and without a signature from the Department of Justice attesting as to its legality. And I prepared a letter of resignation, intending to resign the next day, Friday, March the 12th
*********
Both Sides Tip Their Hands: Look at Today’s Testimony in Light of the Above
Transcript compiled from recording: Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) questions U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at the Justice Department Over site Hearings, Senate Committee on the Judiciary. July 24, 2007.
*********

Schumer: Let me ask you this. Who sent you to the hospital?
Gonzales: Senator what I can say is we had a very important meeting at the White House over one of the most important…
Schumer: I didn’t ask you that.
Gonzales: I’m answering your question senator if I could?
Schumer: Who sent you? Did anyone tell you to go?
Gonzales: It was one of the most important programs for the United States. It had been authorized by the president. I’ll just say that the chief of staff to the President of the United States, the counsel for the President of the United States went to the hospital on behalf of the President of the United States.
Schumer: Did the president ask you to go?
This is the key question. Sen. Schumer’s sole purpose is to get Gonzales to admit, to confirm what everyone knows. Bush told Gonzales and Card to go to Ashcroft’s hospital bed and get his signature.
Gonzales: We were there in behalf of the President of the United States.
The colloquy begins. Gonzales is not going to say that the president asked him to go. He begins his first of several uses of on “behalf of the president” as a diversion. “Behalf” leaves open the possibility that Card and Gonzales went just because they thought it was a good idea (“Let’s surprise the boss and get Ashcroft to sign this thing.”) This leaves the opening that Bush didn’t order the trip with its clear criminal implications (See Comey article, 18 May 2007)
Schumer: I didn’t ask you that. Did the president ask you to go?
Gonzales: Senator we were there on behalf of the President of the United States
Schumer: Why can’t you answer that question?
Schumer knows what is going on with “behalf” and he won’t tolerate it. He makes clear that Gonzales is not answering.
Gonzales: That’s the answer I can give you Senator
“…the answer I can give you…” Why is this all he “can” give. Because Gonzales was counsel to the president at this time, the president’s lawyer. Obviously Gonzales does not have his former client’s permission to answer this question. Privilege applies and this is the answer he gives as the former lawyer for the president.
Schumer: Well can you explain to me why you can’t answer it directly?
Gonzales: Senator, again we were there on an important program for this president on behalf of the President of the United States.
This “important program” is said to be the NSA civilian phone monitoring program; the one that Comey and Ashcroft wouldn’t approve in the form it was presented. The form of the program was so offensive, there was a mass resignation about to occur at the Department of Justice..
Schumer: Did you talk to the president about it beforehand?
Schumer broadens the time frame for a presidential request for the visit.
Gonzales: Senator, obviously there were a lot of discussions that happened during that period of time. This involved one of the president’s premier programs.
It seems as thought Gonzales is saying that there was a request or order by the president prior to the meeting but this is not specific.
Schumer: But sir you’re before this committee. You are before this committee. You are supposed to answer questions. You’ve not claimed any privilege. I don’t think there is any here, and I asked you to answer and you refuse to answer it. Why?.
Gonzales: Senator … if I can answer the question I will answer the question.
Schumer: But could you tell me why can’t you answer that question?
Gonzales: Senator because again this relates to activities that existed when I was with in White House and because of that, with respect to your specific question, I will go back, I will go back and see whether or not I can answer the question.
This is more on Gonzales excuse for not answering the question – attorney-client privilege. In his view, privilege applies unless his client at that time, the President of the United States, waives privilege.
Schumer: Did the Vice President send you?
For the record, Sen. Schumer takes one last shot..
Gonzales: Senator, we were there on behalf of the president
Schumer: Did you talk to the Vice President about it?
Gonzales: We were there on behalf of the president.
Schumer: You will not answer that question as well. Is that correct?
Gonzales: We were there on behalf …if I can … I’d be would be happy to take back your question if we can respond to it we well.
Clearly, Gonzales will not answer any question that implicates Bush as ordering the visit, thus participating in a conspiracy to commit illegal acts, as outlined in Comey’s May 18, 2007 testimony before Sen. Schumer.
*********
Sen. Schumer On Point
Senator Schumer was amazingly on point during this line of questioning; even more so than when his questioning of Comey established the probability of crimes committed by Bush, Card, and Gonzales. When Schumer clearly became aware that he would get no answer, he only gave Gonzales one chance to bring up attorney-client privilege. Schumer asked, “Well can you explain to me why you can’t answer it directly?”
Schumer also stayed tightly focused, to his great advantage, when Gonzales tried on several occasions to bring national security into the testimony as an excuse for the act he won’t acknowledge Bush committing (ordering the visit). At the very beginning, Gonzales tries to divert the discussion to national security by referring to a “very important meeting …one of the most important…” Schumer responded quickly with “I didn’t ask you that” to put Gonzales back on task, Schumer’s task. A bit later, Gonzales refers to one of the “premier programs” and “an important program.” Had Schumer taken the bait, Gonzales would have raised the terrorist threat that was the excuse for the domestic surveillance program they were trying to legitimize (after the fact, perhaps). Schumer stayed on task, focused on who ordered the visit.
Gonzales was damned if he answered and damned if he didn’t. Had he said “Well attorney client privilege applies,” Schumer might have responded: “So the president told you not to answer any questions about his ordering you and Card to the hospital to Ashcroft’s sick bet in order to obtain a signature from a highly sedated man who was not in a position to sign legally in the first place.”
By not explicating the attorney-client privilege excuse, Gonzales looks like a fool to the public. “Why won’t he answer those questions,” the typical viewer asks. At this point, Americans are well beyond a willingness to decipher the hidden meanings between the lines. It simply looks like Gonzales is a slippery character, one they don’t particularly trust in the first place.

Here’s Why Gonzales Won’t Answer
Obviously Bush ordered the visit to get the signature. Card and Gonzales would have broken the first rule of the Bush White House, disloyalty to the boss. Is there anyone in America who has been awake for any of the past seven years who thinks that they would free lance, cross the boss?
Since Bush did order the visit, he’s part of a group action, also known as a conspiracy, to commit illegal acts. Those are outlined above and in the May 18th article. Participation in such an activity is clearly defined in federal code:
Section 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. 18USC371 U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Senator Charles Schumer’s questioning of Gonzales lays the groundwork for impeachment of the president based on the most odious crime imaginable, trying to take advantage of a sick man, a man recovering from surgery, a man whose wife has insisted that there be no visitors. It’s not only a “high crime,” it’s a heinous one as well.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0707/S00356.htm

... But this is the Anything Goes administration. Didn't you get that memo?

The Man Who Would Be King

Nov 2005, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act. Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal. GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face!” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

... Of course the real issue here is NOT that Dubya was so scornful of the document he'd sworn (on a BIBLE no less!) to protect, it's that his supporters don't give a tinker's dam WHAT the Cretin in Chief says, ANYTHING goes!

... How's that working for ya?

The Ideological Animal
We think our political stance is the product of reason, but we're easily manipulated and surprisingly malleable. Our essential political self is more a stew of childhood temperament, education, and fear of death. Call it the 9/11 effect.

By:Jay Dixit

...

We tend to believe our political views have evolved by a process of rational thought, as we consider arguments, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions. But the truth is more complicated. Our political preferences are equally the result of factors we're not aware of—such as how educated we are, how scary the world seems at a given moment, and personality traits that are first apparent in early childhood. Among the most potent motivators, it turns out, is fear. How the United States should confront the threat of terrorism remains a subject of endless political debate. But Americans' response to threats of attack is now more clear-cut than ever. The fear of death alone is surprisingly effective in shaping our political decisions—more powerful, often, than thought itself.

Abstract Art vs. Talk Radio: The Political Personality Standoff

Most people are surprised to learn that there are real, stable differences in personality between conservatives and liberals—not just different views or values, but underlying differences in temperament.

Psychologists John Jost of New York University, Dana Carney of Harvard, and Sam Gosling of the University of Texas have demonstrated that conservatives and liberals boast markedly different home and office decor. Liberals are messier than conservatives, their rooms have more clutter and more color, and they tend to have more travel documents, maps of other countries, and flags from around the world. Conservatives are neater, and their rooms are cleaner, better organized, more brightly lit, and more conventional. Liberals have more books, and their books cover a greater variety of topics. And that's just a start. Multiple studies find that liberals are more optimistic. Conservatives are more likely to be religious. Liberals are more likely to like classical music and jazz, conservatives, country music. Liberals are more likely to enjoy abstract art. Conservative men are more likely than liberal men to prefer conventional forms of entertainment like TV and talk radio. Liberal men like romantic comedies more than conservative men. Liberal women are more likely than conservative women to enjoy books, poetry, writing in a diary, acting, and playing musical instruments.

"All people are born alike—except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

The most comprehensive review of personality and political orientation to date is a 2003 meta-analysis of 88 prior studies involving 22,000 participants. The researchers—John Jost of NYU, Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland, and Jack Glaser and Frank Sulloway of Berkeley—found that conservatives have a greater desire to reach a decision quickly and stick to it, and are higher on conscientiousness, which includes neatness, orderliness, duty, and rule-following. Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature.

The study's authors also concluded that conservatives have less tolerance for ambiguity, a trait they say is exemplified when George Bush says things like, "Look, my job isn't to try to nuance. My job is to tell people what I think," and "I'm the decider." Those who think the world is highly dangerous and those with the greatest fear of death are the most likely to be conservative.

Liberals, on the other hand, are "more likely to see gray areas and reconcile seemingly conflicting information," says Jost. As a result, liberals like John Kerry, who see many sides to every issue, are portrayed as flip-floppers. "Whatever the cause, Bush and Kerry exemplify the cognitive styles we see in the research," says Jack Glaser, one of the study's authors, "Bush in appearing more rigid in his thinking and intolerant of uncertainty and ambiguity, and Kerry in appearing more open to ambiguity and to considering alternative positions."

Jost's meta-analysis sparked furious controversy. The House Republican Study Committee complained that the study's authors had received federal funds. George Will satirized it in his Washington Post column, and The National Review called it the "Conservatives Are Crazy" study. Jost and his colleagues point to the study's rigorous methodology. The study used political orientation as a dependent variable, meaning that where subjects fall on the political scale is computed from their own answers about whether they're liberal or conservative. Psychologists then compare factors such as fear of death and openness to new experiences, and seek statistically significant correlations. The findings are quintessentially empirical and difficult to dismiss as false.

Yet critics retort that the research draws negative conclusions about conservatives while the researchers themselves are liberal. And it's true that over the decades, a disproportionate amount of the research has focused on figuring out what's behind conservative behavior. Right shift is likewise more studied than left shift, largely because most of that research has been since 9/11, and aimed at trying to explain the conservative conversions of people like Cinnamon Stillwell.

Even with impeccable methodology, bias may creep into the choice of which phenomena to study. "There is a bias among social scientists," admits Glaser. "They look for the variables that are unflattering. There probably are other nice personality traits associated with conservatism, but they haven't shown up in the research because it's not as well studied."

"There are differences between liberals and conservatives, and people can value them however they like," Jost points out. "There is nothing inherently good or bad about being high or low on the need for closure or structure. Some may see religiosity as a positive, whereas others may see it more neutrally, and so on."

Red Shift

By 2004, as the presidential election drew near, researchers saw a chance to study the Jost results against the backdrop of unfolding events. Psychologists Mark Landau of the University of Arizona and Sheldon Solomon of Skidmore sought to explain how President Bush's approval rating went from around 51 percent before 9/11 to 90 percent immediately afterward. In one study, they exposed some participants to the letters WTC or the numbers 9/11 in an image flashed too quickly to register at the conscious level. They exposed other participants to familiar but random combinations of letters and numbers, such as area codes. Then they gave them words like coff__, sk_ll, and gr_ve, and asked them to fill in the blanks. People who'd seen random combinations were more likely to fill in coffee, skill, and grove. But people exposed to subliminal terrorism primes more often filled in coffin, skull, and grave. "The mere mention of September 11 or WTC is the same as reminding Americans of death," explains Solomon.

As a follow-up, Solomon primed one group of subjects to think about death, a state of mind called "mortality salience." A second group was primed to think about 9/11. And a third was induced to think about pain—something unpleasant but non-deadly. When people were in a benign state of mind, they tended to oppose Bush and his policies in Iraq. But after thinking about either death or 9/11, they tended to favor him. Such findings were further corroborated by Cornell sociologist Robert Willer, who found that whenever the color-coded terror alert level was raised, support for Bush increased significantly, not only on domestic security but also in unrelated domains, such as the economy.

University of Arizona psychologist Jeff Greenberg argues that some ideological shifts can be explained by terror management theory (TMT), which holds that heightened fear of death motivates people to defend their world views. TMT predicts that images like the destruction of the World Trade Center should make liberals more liberal and conservatives more conservative. "In the United States, political conservatism does seem to be the preferred ideology when people are feeling insecure," concedes Greenberg. "But in China or another communist country, reminding people of their own mortality would lead them to cling more tightly to communism."

Jost believes it's more complex. After all, Cinnamon Stillwell and others in the 911 Neocons didn't become more liberal. Like so many other Democrats after 9/11, they made a hard right turn. The reason thoughts of death make people more conservative, Jost says, is that they awaken a deep desire to see the world as fair and just, to believe that people get what they deserve, and to accept the existing social order as valid, rather than in need of change. When these natural desires are primed by thoughts of death and a barrage of mortal fear, people gravitate toward conservatism because it's more certain about the answers it provides—right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, us vs. them—and because conservative leaders are more likely to advocate a return to traditional values, allowing people to stick with what's familiar and known. "Conservatism is a more black and white ideology than liberalism," explains Jost. "It emphasizes tradition and authority, which are reassuring during periods of threat."

To test the theory, Jost prompted people to think about either pain—by looking at things like an ambulance, a dentist's chair, and a bee sting—or death, by looking at things like a funeral hearse, the grim reaper, and a dead-end sign. Across the political spectrum, people who had been primed to think about death were more conservative on issues like immigration, affirmative action, and same-sex marriage than those who had merely thought about pain, although the effect size was relatively small. The implication is clear: For liberals, conservatives, and independents alike, thinking about death actually makes people more conservative—at least temporarily.

Fear and Voting In America

Campaign strategists in both parties have never hesitated to use scare tactics. In 1964, a Lyndon Johnson commercial called "Daisy" juxtaposed footage of a little girl plucking a flower with footage of an atomic blast. In 1984, Ronald Reagan ran a spot that played on Cold War panic, in which the Soviet threat was symbolized by a grizzly lumbering across a stark landscape as a human heart pounds faster and faster and an off-screen voice warns, "There is a bear in the woods!" In 2004, Bush sparked furor for running a fear-mongering ad that used wolves gathering in the woods as symbols for terrorists plotting against America. And last fall, Congressional Republicans drew fire with an ad that featured bin Laden and other terrorists threatening Americans; over the sound of a ticking clock, a voice warned, "These are the stakes."

"At least some of the President's support is the result of constant and relentless reminders of death, some of which is just what's happening in the world, but much of which is carefully cultivated and calculated as an electoral strategy," says Solomon. "In politics these days, there's a dose of reason, and there's a dose of irrationality driven by psychological terror that may very well be swinging elections."

Solomon demonstrated that thinking about 9/11 made people go from preferring Kerry to preferring Bush. "Very subtle manipulations of psychological conditions profoundly affect political preferences," Solomon concludes. "In difficult moments, people don't want complex, nuanced, John Kerry-like waffling or sophisticated cogitation. They want somebody charismatic to step up and say, 'I know where our problem is and God has given me the clout to kick those people's asses.'"

Into The Blue

Studies show that people who study abroad become more liberal than those who stay home.

People who venture from the strictures of their limited social class are less likely to stereotype and more likely to embrace other cultures. Education goes hand-in-hand with tolerance, and often, the more the better:

Professors at major universities are more liberal than their counterparts at less acclaimed institutions. What travel and education have in common is that they make the differences between people seem less threatening. "You become less bothered by the idea that there is uncertainty in the world," explains Jost.

That's why the more educated people are, the more liberal they become—but only to a point. Once people begin pursuing certain types of graduate degrees, the curve flattens. Business students, for instance, become more conservative in their views toward minorities. As they become more established, doctors and lawyers tend to protect their economic interests by moving to the right. The findings demonstrate that conservative conversions are fueled not only by fear, but by other factors as well. And if the November election was any indicator, the pendulum that swung so forcefully to the right after 9/11 may be swinging back.

Tipping The Balance

Political conversions that are emotionally induced can be very subtle: A shift in support for a given issue or politician is not the same as a radical conversion or deep philosophical change. While views may be manipulated, the impact may or may not translate in the voting booth. Following 9/11, most lifelong liberals did not go through outright conversion or shift their preferred candidate. Yet many liberals who didn't become all-out conservatives found themselves nonetheless sympathizing more with conservative positions, craving the comfort of a strong leader, or feeling the need to punish or avenge. Many in the political center moved to the right, too. In aggregate, over an electorate of millions—a large proportion of whom were swing voters waiting to be swayed one way or the other—even a subtle shift was enough to tip the balance of the Presidential election, and the direction the country took for years. "Without 9/11 we would have a different president," says Solomon. "I would even say that the Osama bin Laden tape that was released the Thursday before the election was sufficient to swing the election. It was basically a giant mortality salience induction."

If we are so suggestible that thoughts of death make us uncomfortable defaming the American flag and cause us to sit farther away from foreigners, is there any way we can overcome our easily manipulated fears and become the informed and rational thinkers democracy demands?

To test this, Solomon and his colleagues prompted two groups to think about death and then give opinions about a pro-American author and an anti-American one. As expected, the group that thought about death was more pro-American than the other. But the second time, one group was asked to make gut-level decisions about the two authors, while the other group was asked to consider carefully and be as rational as possible. The results were astonishing. In the rational group, the effects of mortality salience were entirely eliminated. Asking people to be rational was enough to neutralize the effects of reminders of death. Preliminary research shows that reminding people that as human beings, the things we have in common eclipse our differences—what psychologists call a "common humanity prime"—has the same effect.

"People have two modes of thought," concludes Solomon. "There's the intuitive gut-level mode, which is what most of us are in most of the time. And then there's a rational analytic mode, which takes effort and attention."

The solution, then, is remarkably simple. The effects of psychological terror on political decision making can be eliminated just by asking people to think rationally. Simply reminding us to use our heads, it turns out, can be enough to make us do it.

This content is Copyright Sussex Publishers, LLC. 2006. This content is intended for personal use and may not be distributed or reproduced without the consent of Sussex Publishers, LLC. Please contact http://us.f606.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=licensing@psychologytoday.com for more information.

Publication: Psychology Today Magazine
Publication Date: Jan/Feb 2007

... How's that working for ya?

politically charged Injustice Dept

Officials describe politically charged Justice Dept.

Why am I not a bit surprised?

(05-12) 04:00 PDT Washington -- Two years ago, Robin Ashton, a seasoned criminal prosecutor at the Department of Justice, learned from her boss that a promised promotion was no longer hers.
"You have a Monica problem," Ashton was told, according to several Justice Department officials. Referring to Monica Goodling, a 31-year-old, relatively inexperienced lawyer who had only recently arrived in the office, the boss added, "She believes you're a Democrat and doesn't feel you can be trusted."
Ashton's ouster -- she left the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys for another Justice Department post two weeks later -- was a critical early step in a plan that would later culminate in the ouster of nine U.S. attorneys last year.
Goodling would soon be quizzing applicants for civil service jobs at Justice Department headquarters with questions that several U.S. attorneys said were inappropriate, such as who was their favorite president and Supreme Court justice. One department official said an applicant was even asked, "Have you ever cheated on your wife?"
Goodling also moved to block the hiring of prosecutors with resumes that suggested they might be Democrats, even though they were seeking posts that were supposed to be nonpartisan, according to two Justice officials.
And she helped maintain lists of all the U.S. attorneys that graded their loyalty to the Bush administration, including work on prior political campaigns, and noted if they were members of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.
By the time Goodling resigned in April -- after her role in the firing of the federal prosecutors became public and she had been promoted to the role of White House liaison -- she and other senior Justice officials had revamped personnel practices affecting employees from the top of the agency to the bottom.
The people who spoke about Goodling's role at the department, including eight current Justice Department lawyers and staff members, did so only on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. Several of them added that they found her activities objectionable and damaging to the integrity of the department.
Goodling, who is under investigation by the agency's inspector general and ethics office, as well as by Congress, has declined to testify before a House panel, citing her Fifth Amendment privilege to avoid making self-incriminating statements. Her lawyer, John Dowd, declined on Friday to comment.
But a judge in U.S. District Court in Washington signed an order Friday to grant her limited immunity, which will allow House investigators to compel her to answer questions.
Justice Department officials declined to respond to questions about Goodling's actions and refused to allow some agency employees to speak with a reporter about them.
"Whether or not Ms. Goodling engaged in prohibited personnel practices is the subject of an ongoing investigation," a written statement said. "Given the ongoing nature of the investigation, we are unable to comment on the allegations."
Goodling, now 33, arrived at the agency at the start of the Bush administration after working as an opposition researcher for the Republican National Committee during the 2000 presidential campaign.
Her legal experience was limited; she had graduated in 1999 from Regent University School of Law, which was founded by the religious broadcaster Pat Robertson.
Deeply religious and politically conservative, Goodling seemed to believe that part of her job was to bring people with similar values into the Justice Department, several former colleagues said.
Goodling first worked in the Justice Department's press office and then for less than a year in the executive office, which oversees budgets, management and performance evaluations of U.S. attorneys. She then moved to the Attorney General's Office, where she became the White House liaison and collected a $133,000 annual salary, according to federal records.
Goodling's mandate over hiring expanded significantly in March 2006, when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales signed a confidential memorandum delegating to her and Kyle Sampson, his former chief of staff, the power to appoint or fire all department political appointees other than the U.S. attorneys. That included interim U.S. attorneys and heads of the divisions that handle civil rights, public corruption, environmental crimes and other matters.
At the same time, Goodling, Sampson and John Nowacki, another Regent University graduate, were helping prepare the final list of U.S. attorneys to be dismissed, according to e-mail messages released to congressional investigators. Goodling was also calling around the country trying to identify up-and-coming lawyers -- and good Republicans -- who could replace them, said one Justice Department official who received such a call.

Eric Lipton, New York TimesSaturday, May 12, 2007

7 French Lessons

Seven reasons to pay attention to the French election.
1. A woman running for president. Socialist standard-bearer Sigolene Royal made a plea to women voters to support her out of gender solidarity. They didn't. 52 percent of female voters cast their ballots for Mr. Sarkozy, compared with 48 percent for Ms. Royal. Hillary, are you paying attention?
2. The husband issue. Royal's long-time life-partner and father of her four children is the head of the French Socialist party. He's a hugely powerful politician. During the campaign, the couple publicly clashed on a number of important issues, undercutting her persona of being independent and self-directed. Bill, are you listening?
3. The return of the moderates. In the first round of elections, self-described centralist candidate Francois Bayrou came out of nowhere, almost winning a spot in the final round of voting. His hugely popular political campaign advocated a new era of politics based on unity and the middle-way: not too conservative, and not too socialist. In short, the politics of political consensus. Do American voters desire the same? John Edwards and Mike Huckabee are betting they do.
4. Wedge politics. After taking a thumping in the first round of elections, far-right ideologue Jean-Marie Le Pen called for his supporters to boycott the second round. The result? Voter turnout in the all-important second round was over 84%, the highest in decades. Does this signify an end to wedge politics? If so, goodbye Newt.
5. Immigration. This is a hot-button issue in France, maybe even bigger than it is in our country. Yet the most outspoken advocate of clamping down on immigration, Jean-Marie Le Pen, pulled down less than 10% of first round votes. Nicholas Sarkozy, an advocate of 'tough but fair' immigration reform, is now the elected president. Come 2008, where will the American people stand on this issue? Exile 12 million people or figure out a way to allow a reasonable level of immigration?
6. Social programs. The French have hugely generous and comprehensive social programs. They have a liberal welfare system, a compassionate retirement program and a fantastic socialized medical system. It's all very amazing. In fact, it's too good to be true. The costs of maintaining these programs is generating massive national debt. The French seem to be turning slightly away from Socialist-flavored, collectivist solutions and considering the benefits of more Anglo-Saxon type economic liberalism. In what direction will we choose to turn in 2008?
7. Foreign affairs. Immediately after winning the election, Nicholas Sarkozy had a special message for France's American friends. "I want to tell them that France will always be by their side when they need her, but that friendship is also accepting the fact that friends can think differently."
Does this mean we expect an earthshaking change in French-American relations? Sarkozy went on to criticize the United States for obstructing the fight against global warming which he said would be a high priority for his new government. That's not likely to play well in the Bush White House. And Sarkozy's position on Iraq? Don't bother to ask. Le plus ca change le plus ca le meme chose.

... How's that working for ya?

Useful Idiot

Like Powell & Gonzo...

(CNN) -- In a letter written Saturday to former CIA Director George Tenet, six former CIA officers described their former boss as "the Alberto Gonzales of the intelligence community," and called his book "an admission of failed leadership."

The writers said Tenet has "a moral obligation" to return the Medal of Freedom he received from President Bush.

They also called on him to give more than half the royalties he gets from book, "At the Center of the Storm," to U.S. soldiers wounded in Iraq and families of the dead. (Watch Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice talk about Tenet's book)

The letter, signed by Phil Giraldi, Ray McGovern, Larry Johnson, Jim Marcinkowski, Vince Cannistraro and David MacMichael, said Tenet should have resigned in protest rather than take part in the administration's buildup to the war. (Read the full letter)

Johnson is a former CIA intelligence official and registered Republican who voted for Bush in 2000. McGovern is a former CIA analyst.

Cannistraro is former head of the CIA's counterterrorism division and was head of intelligence for the National Security Council in the late 1980s.

The writers said they agree that Bush administration officials took the nation to war "for flimsy reasons," and that it has proved "ill-advised and wrong-headed."

But, they added, "your lament that you are a victim in a process you helped direct is self-serving, misleading and, as head of the intelligence community, an admission of failed leadership.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/29/tenet.letter/index.html
... How's that working for ya?

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070426/D8OOC9OO0.html

[lax] Politics - World (context) Of course we're making a difference, but listen 2007-04-26 14:28:18 to the troop's commander: WASHINGTON (AP) - Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said, "there is vastly more work to be done across the board. ... We are just getting started with the new effort." ... Asked how many troops he thought would have to remain in Iraq - and for how long - to finish the job, Petraeus said, "I wouldn't try to truly anticipate what level might be some years down the road." However, he noted historical precedents to long U.S. peacekeeping missions. "It is an endeavor that clearly is going to require enormous commitment and commitment over time, but beyond that time I don't want to get into try to postulate how many brigades or when we would start to do something," he said. "It is not a government of national unity. Rather, it is one comprised of political leaders from different parties that often default to narrow agendas and a zero-sum approach to legislation," the general said. ... Don't say you weren't warned.

[nyc] Politics - World (context) I love sentences that start with everyone should 2007-04-26 14:22:14 Remember: You can fool some of the people all of the time; You can fool all of the people some of the time; But you can't fool all the people all of the time. However, with sufficient help from the power elites, you CAN fool enough of the people enough of the time.

[sfo] Politics - World (context) Note the "we're just getting started" part 2007-04-26 12:54:17 after half a trillion dollars and 4 years of "mission accomplished", at last we're getting started. Finally! Whew! I thought this day would NEVER come!

[sfo] Politics - World (context) We might just win this war yet 2007-04-26 12:50:55 but God knows at what cost... WASHINGTON (AP) - Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday that conditions in Iraq may get harder before they get easier and will require "an enormous commitment" over time by the United States. Speaking as the Senate debated veto-threatened legislation to start bringing home U.S. forces in October, Petraeus called the war there "the most complex and challenging I have ever seen." The four-star general, named by President Bush to oversee the recent buildup of American forces, cited some progress in the two months since the troop increase began. Still, he said, "there is vastly more work to be done across the board. ... We are just getting started with the new effort." ...his comments made it clear that his war plan did not include a significant reduction of U.S. forces anytime soon. "This effort may get harder before it gets easier," Petraeus told reporters at a Pentagon briefing, depicting the situation as "exceedingly complex and very tough." ... Asked how many troops he thought would have to remain in Iraq - and for how long - to finish the job, Petraeus said, "I wouldn't try to truly anticipate what level might be some years down the road." However, he noted historical precedents to long U.S. peacekeeping missions. "It is an endeavor that clearly is going to require enormous commitment and commitment over time, but beyond that time I don't want to get into try to postulate how many brigades or when we would start to do something," he said. Petraeus said matters were made worse by "exceedingly unhelpful activities by Iran and Syria, especially those by Iran." Petraeus also said that, while the fledgling Iraqi government is often billed as a unity government among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, it actually is not. "It is not a government of national unity. Rather, it is one comprised of political leaders from different parties that often default to narrow agendas and a zero-sum approach to legislation," the general said.

... How's that Stay & Pray strategy working for ya?

As Ohio goes, so goes the nation

The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections (BOE) third-ranking employee and an assistant manager were each convicted of a felony count of negligent misconduct and a misdemeanor count of failing to perform their duties during the 2004 recount. The convictions stemmed from the secret pre-counting of precincts prior to the lawfully required open recount. The convicted election workers only allowed the pre-counted precincts that matched the official results to be used in the recount. This caused the special prosecutor to tell the jury that the election recount was "rigged" in Cuyahoga.


Throughout the rest of the state, under the direction of Republican Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, mandatory random sampling was not done, as prescribed by law. Instead, poll workers illegally chose sample precincts for recounting where they knew there would be no problems, and then routinely recounted the rest of the ballots by machine, rendering the recount meaningless.

. ... and that's how the whole shebang came to such a sad end, chillun. Now off to bed!

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2007/2379
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2007/2462

Debt-market bomb : tick, tick, tick, baby.

Debt-market bomb could hurt us all

The greatest economic threat today isn't deflation in the housing market. A bigger worry is that a meltdown in the debt markets could force the global economy into a credit squeeze and recession.

By Jim Jubak

File this under strange but true: Insurance encourages risk-taking behavior, and ultimately, it increases the size of a disaster when it finally strikes.

That is bad news, really bad news, for the debt markets. So bad, in fact, that if you're worried about a financial-market meltdown, you should be watching the debt markets and not the stock market.

The problem is what I call the insurance effect. Make it possible for homeowners to get flood insurance, and more people will build in flood-prone areas. Sell hurricane insurance, and more people build in areas at risk of getting hit by a hurricane.

The result is logical, if perverse. The insurance policies haven't reduced the risk of floods or hurricanes, but they have shifted part of the risk from the homeowner to the insurance company. The homeowner with insurance, as a result, has less financial motivation to avoid the risk of floods or hurricanes.

Increasingly risky business

Investors aren't any different. For example, look at the buyers of mortgages, securities based on pools of mortgages, corporate loans, and corporate and government bonds. If you offer them insurance against the risk that a borrower will default on paying what's owed, those investors will be more comfortable buying riskier debt from borrowers more likely to default. Why not? Part of the risk has been passed along to those who sell the insurance. In the debt market that insurance goes by names such as "credit default swaps" and "collateralized debt obligation."

When the inevitable flood or storm or debt-market meltdown does finally take place, of course, since there are more homes in the flood plain, more buildings in the hurricane zone, more shaky credits in portfolios, the size and cost of the disaster is much larger. In fact, if the flood, hurricane or market meltdown is big enough, the costs of the disaster can overwhelm the ability of insurance providers to pay. The availability of insurance has created a feeling of safety that has encouraged so much risk-taking behavior that the insurance safety net itself can fail, leaving homeowners or investors fully exposed to the risks of their behavior.

I think that's where we are in the debt markets right now. The financial engineers of Wall Street have promised that the sophisticated financial instruments they've invented make it safe to buy riskier types of debt. The result has been a predictably large increase in risk-taking behavior.

Certainty and vulnerability

All this has left the debt markets vulnerable to a storm -- an economic slowdown -- big enough to test Wall Street's promise. I think it's almost certain that these insurance instruments will fail the test. The biggest risk in the financial markets today isn't that a deflating housing market will trigger a stock-market bust but that the huge expansion of risk-taking -- of which the problems in the market for the riskiest of home mortgages is just one part -- will overwhelm the debt markets, creating a quick reduction in the amount of money available to borrow and forcing the global economy into a credit squeeze and recession.

You can better grasp how the financial markets have gotten themselves -- and us -- into this fix by understanding exactly why investors in the various shapes and sizes of debt were so eager to believe Wall Street's promises. Interest rates around the globe are low, extremely low, in historical terms. That's great for borrowers and has fueled economic booms that stretch from Beijing to New York City to Bangalore to Ho Chi Minh City. But it's not so great for investors in debt. When 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds are yielding just 4.7% -- that's about 2% to 2.5% after inflation -- investors are constantly scouring the globe for better returns.

Piling on the risk

Traditional wisdom says that there's no free lunch, however. To get higher yields, you have to take on more risk. For example:

• Buying bundles of mortgages held by homeowners with shaky credit ratings will net you an extra 2 to 3 percentage points over the yield of mortgages for the most creditworthy homebuyers.

• Buying the newly issued bonds of financially challenged telecom Level 3 Communications (LVLT, news, msgs) yield 8.75% versus the yield of 5.57% you'll get by buying the AAA-rated bonds of the GE Capital, the financial arm of General Electric (GE, news, msgs).

• Buying 10-year Peruvian government bonds, yielding 5.88%, will give you a small edge over 10-year German bonds yielding 4.07%.
  

Each of these attempts to get a higher yield or to leverage the return on your investment carries enough risk to make a debt investor hesitate before pulling the trigger. About 10% of subprime mortgages are now delinquent by 90 days, according to investment bank Friedman, Billings, Ramsey (FBR, news, msgs).

That's above the peak in the 2000-01 economic downturn. Level 3 has narrowly skirted bankruptcy in the past. And Peru, well, it's not exactly a model of economic stability.

Packaging to appeal to investors

This is where Wall Street steps in to whisper, "Have I got a deal for you." By bundling risky credits together, Wall Street can create a pool of debt that is more diversified and therefore less likely to go into default than the debt of any single issuer. Then, by slicing that bundle into different pieces, called tranches, Wall Street can spread the risk around, so that investors less inclined to take on risk can get still receive a higher yield but without taking on the full risk of the total bundle of debt.

According to Satyajit Das' book "Traders, Guns & Money," it might work like this: A bank makes $1 billion in loans and then sells the risk -- but not the loans -- in the form of a derivative, a synthetic asset derived from the original loans, to what's called a "special-purpose vehicle," a kind of minibank. That minibank, in return for a fee, guarantees to insure the bank from any losses on those loans. The special-purpose vehicle then sells senior bonds, mezzanine bonds and stock -- backed by the synthetic asset purchased from the bank -- to investors who receive both interest and risk.

In the original pool of loans, risk and reward were spread evenly throughout the pool, but the derivative slices and dices risk and reward. Senior bond investors get paid first, for example, while the stock investors take the first losses, and mezzanine investors get hit if the losses exceed the investment by stock investors. Returns are allocated in proportion to risk with stock investors getting a higher return for their higher exposure and senior bondholders getting a lower return because they own a safer "investment."

Investors flock to the market

This structure allows Wall Street to manufacture a steady supply of AAA-rated credits at a time when few countries or companies earn this top rating for safety. Because the senior bonds have been shielded from risk by the equity and mezzanine tranches, these bonds have a good chance of earning the AAA rating -- the highest ranking -- even if the original loans were to much less creditworthy individuals, companies or countries.

Yield-hungry but risk-averse investors have flocked to the market encouraged by financial engineering like this. Total issuance of collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, a major type of derivative used in the kind of risk reduction that I've described above, came to $503 billion globally in 2006, up $64 billion in 2005, according to JPMorgan Chase. Add in private CDO deals and CDOs based on one index or another, and the figure climbs to $2.8 trillion in 2006, estimates the Financial Times, three times the issuance in 2005.

Fallout in debt markets

Two peculiar things have happened to the debt markets as the amount of money flowing into risk-controlled synthetic debt has zoomed.

First, the credit rating on actual debt has continued to decline. Almost 16% of the junk bonds on the U.S. market were rated CCC -- that's the grade reserved for bonds with the highest risk of default -- at the end of 2006, up from 13.5% at the end of 2005, according to Merrill Lynch. But, of course, since you can manufacture an AAA rating out of a CCC by pooling and then slicing the risk, it really doesn't matter right?

Second, the premium for taking on more risk has shrunk. Consider this telling example: Level 3 Communications, which still has a junk-bond rating, was able to raise money recently at 8.75% to refinance its previous generation of junk bonds, which had paid a coupon yield of 11% to 12.875%.

Much of the decline in risk premium is a result of confidence that this new generation of synthetic debt instruments has reduced risk in the debt markets, especially for the riskiest credits. There is good reason to believe that confidence is misplaced.

Setting up for a major bust

We've been here before. Every time the economy has turned in a long run of good times, defaults on mortgages and loans drop to exceedingly low levels. Lenders almost always become convinced that this isn't a result of the business and credit cycle -- good times -- but of some improvement in the way that lenders manage risk. The belief that it's different this time always leads to an expansion of lending and a relaxation of lending standards that sets up the debt markets for a major bust when the economy turns. As it always does.

For example, when the economy went into a slump in 2000-01, the CDO market hit the wall, generating huge losses. Defaults wiped out equity and mezzanine tranches, and then, because the senior bonds were now exposed to losses, they received credit-rating downgrades that sent the price of these bonds tumbling.

Worse shape this time around

But because of the insurance effect -- remember, an ability to buy insurance, even if it's ineffective, increases risking-taking behavior -- we're in much worse shape this time. Going into the 1990 recession, most-likely-to-fail CCC-rated companies made up just 2% of the junk-bond market, says Martin Fridson, the publisher of Leverage World and formerly Merrill Lynch's junk-bond guru. In February 2007, the figure is 17%.

On these numbers, the debt markets are just one recession away from disaster. So much, it seems, hinges on the Federal Reserve's ability to get the economy just right.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/DebtMarketBombCouldHurtUsAll.aspx

... How's that working for ya?

"Only you, Mr. President"

Bush's legacy: The president who cried wolf
Olbermann: Bush's strategy fails because it depends on his credibility
SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
Updated: 7:05 p.m. PT Jan 11, 2007

Only this president, only in this time, only with this dangerous, even messianic certitude, could answer a country demanding an exit strategy from Iraq, by offering an entrance strategy for Iran.

Only this president could look out over a vista of 3,008 dead and 22,834 wounded in Iraq, and finally say, “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me” — only to follow that by proposing to repeat the identical mistake ... in Iran.

Only this president could extol the “thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group,” and then take its most far-sighted recommendation — “engage Syria and Iran” — and transform it into “threaten Syria and Iran” — when al-Qaida would like nothing better than for us to threaten Syria, and when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would like nothing better than to be threatened by us.

This is diplomacy by skimming; it is internationalism by drawing pictures of Superman in the margins of the text books; it is a presidency of Cliff Notes.

And to Iran and Syria — and, yes, also to the insurgents in Iraq — we must look like a country run by the equivalent of the drunken pest who gets battered to the floor of the saloon by one punch, then staggers to his feet, and shouts at the other guy’s friends, “Ok, which one of you is next?”


Mr. Bush, the question is no longer “what are you thinking?,” but rather “are you thinking at all?”

“I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended,” you said last night.

And yet — without any authorization from the public, which spoke so loudly and clearly to you in November’s elections — without any consultation with a Congress (in which key members of your own party, including Sens. Sam Brownback, Norm Coleman and Chuck Hagel, are fleeing for higher ground) — without any awareness that you are doing exactly the opposite of what Baker-Hamilton urged you to do — you seem to be ready to make an open-ended commitment (on America’s behalf) to do whatever you want, in Iran.

Our military, Mr. Bush, is already stretched so thin by this bogus adventure in Iraq that even a majority of serving personnel are willing to tell pollsters that they are dissatisfied with your prosecution of the war.

It is so weary that many of the troops you have just consigned to Iraq will be on their second tours or their third tours or their fourth tours — and now you’re going to make them take on Iran and Syria as well?



Who is left to go and fight, sir?

Who are you going to send to “interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria”?

Laura and Barney?

The line is from the movie “Chinatown” and I quote it often: “Middle of a drought,” the mortician chuckles, “and the water commissioner drowns. Only in L.A.!”

Middle of a debate over the lives and deaths of another 21,500 of our citizens in Iraq, and the president wants to saddle up against Iran and Syria.

Maybe that’s the point — to shift the attention away from just how absurd and childish this latest war strategy is, (strategy, that is, for the war already under way, and not the one on deck).

We are going to put 17,500 more troops into Baghdad and 4,000 more into Anbar Province to give the Iraqi government “breathing space.”

In and of itself that is an awful and insulting term.

The lives of 21,500 more Americans endangered, to give “breathing space” to a government that just turned the first and perhaps the most sober act of any democracy — the capital punishment of an ousted dictator — into a vengeance lynching so barbaric and so lacking in the solemnities necessary for credible authority, that it might have offended the Ku Klux Klan of the 19th century.

And what will our men and women in Iraq do?

The ones who will truly live — and die — during what Mr. Bush said last night will be a “year ahead” that “will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve”?

They will try to seal Sadr City and other parts of Baghdad where the civil war is worst.

Mr. Bush did not mention that while our people are trying to do that, the factions in the civil war will no longer have to focus on killing each other, but rather they can focus anew on killing our people.

Because last night the president foolishly all but announced that we will be sending these 21,500 poor souls, but no more after that, and if the whole thing fizzles out, we’re going home.


The plan fails militarily.

The plan fails symbolically.

The plan fails politically.

Most importantly, perhaps, Mr. Bush, the plan fails because it still depends on your credibility.

You speak of mistakes and of the responsibility “resting” with you.

But you do not admit to making those mistakes.

And you offer us nothing to justify this clenched fist toward Iran and Syria.

In fact, when you briefed news correspondents off-the-record before the speech, they were told, once again, “if you knew what we knew … if you saw what we saw … ”

“If you knew what we knew” was how we got into this morass in Iraq in the first place.

The problem arose when it turned out that the question wasn’t whether we knew what you knew, but whether you knew what you knew.

You, sir, have become the president who cried wolf.

All that you say about Iraq now could be gospel.

All that you say about Iran and Syria now could be prescient and essential.

We no longer have a clue, sir.

We have heard too many stories.

Many of us are as inclined to believe you just shuffled the director of national intelligence over to the State Department because he thought you were wrong about Iran.

Many of us are as inclined to believe you just put a pilot in charge of ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because he would be truly useful in an air war next door in Iran.

Your assurances, sir, and your demands that we trust you, have lost all shape and texture.

They are now merely fertilizer for conspiracy theories.

They are now fertilizer, indeed.

The pile has been built slowly and with seeming care.

I read this list last night, before the president’s speech, and it bears repeating because its shape and texture are perceptible only in such a context.

Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said nation-building was wrong for America.

Now he says it is vital.

He said he would never put U.S. troops under foreign control.

Last night he promised to embed them in Iraqi units.

He told us about WMD.

Mobile labs.

Secret sources.

Aluminum tubes.

Yellow-cake.


He has told us the war is necessary:

Because Saddam was a material threat.

Because of 9/11.

Because of Osama Bin Laden. Al-Qaida. Terrorism in general.

To liberate Iraq. To spread freedom. To spread Democracy. To prevent terrorism by gas price increases.

Because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.

Because — 439 words in to the speech last night — he trotted out 9/11 again.

In advocating and prosecuting this war he passed on a chance to get Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.

To get Muqtada Al-Sadr. To get Bin Laden.

He sent in fewer troops than the generals told him to. He ordered the Iraqi army disbanded and the Iraqi government “de-Baathified.”

He short-changed Iraqi training. He neglected to plan for widespread looting. He did not anticipate sectarian violence.

He sent in troops without life-saving equipment. He gave jobs to foreign contractors, and not Iraqis. He staffed U.S. positions there, based on partisanship, not professionalism.

He and his government told us: America had prevailed, mission accomplished, the resistance was in its last throes.

He has insisted more troops were not necessary. He has now insisted more troops are necessary.

He has insisted it’s up to the generals, and then removed some of the generals who said more troops would not be necessary.

He has trumpeted the turning points:

The fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam. A provisional government, a charter, a constitution, the trial of Saddam. Elections, purple fingers, another government, the death of Saddam.

He has assured us: We would be greeted as liberators — with flowers;

As they stood up, we would stand down. We would stay the course; we were never about “stay the course.”

We would never have to go door-to-door in Baghdad. And, last night, that to gain Iraqis’ trust, we would go door-to-door in Baghdad.

He told us the enemy was al-Qaida, foreign fighters, terrorists, Baathists, and now Iran and Syria.

He told us the war would pay for itself. It would cost $1.7 billion. $100 billion. $400 billion. Half a trillion. Last night’s speech alone cost another $6 billion.

And after all of that, now it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Democrats, Republicans, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November and the majority of the American people.

Oh, and one more to add, tonight: Oceania has always been at war with East Asia.

Mr. Bush, this is madness.

You have lost the military. You have lost the Congress to the Democrats. You have lost most of the Iraqis. You have lost many of the Republicans. You have lost our allies.

You are losing the credibility, not just of your presidency, but more importantly of the office itself.

And most imperatively, you are guaranteeing that more American troops will be losing their lives, and more families their loved ones. You are guaranteeing it!

This becomes your legacy, sir: How many of those you addressed last night as your “fellow citizens” you just sent to their deaths.

And for what, Mr. Bush?

So the next president has to pull the survivors out of Iraq instead of you?

© 2007 MSNBC Interactive
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16583889/



... How's that working for ya?

Islamophobia isn't pretty

WASHINGTON - A Muslim group is asking Virginia Republican Rep. Virgil Goode Jr. to apologize after he told hundreds of his constituents that more Muslims will follow Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, D-Minn., to Congress if strict immigration laws aren't passed.

"The Muslim representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran," Goode wrote.

The letter was written to constituents who contacted Goode after Ellison said he planned to bring his Quran, the Muslim holy book, with him when he takes the oath of office on Jan. 4.

In his letter, Goode said: "When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way."

Goode, an attorney and former state senator who was first elected to Congress in 1996, said he wants to "stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country."

"I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped," Goode wrote.

Newsweek-WorldTop100Univ-2006

We evaluated schools on some of the measures used in well-known rankings published by Shanghai Jiaotong University and the Times of London Higher Education Survey. Fifty percent of the score came from equal parts of three measures used by Shanghai Jiatong: the number of highly-cited researchers in various academic fields, the number of articles published in Nature and Science, and the number of articles listed in the ISI Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities indices. Another 40 percent of the score came from equal parts of four measures used by the Times: the percentage of international faculty, the percentage of international students, citations per faculty member (using ISI data), and the ratio of faculty to students. The final 10 percent came from library holdings (number of volumes).

Here is our ranking:

1. Harvard University
2. Stanford University
3. Yale University
4. California Institute of Technology
5. University of California at Berkeley
6. University of Cambridge
7. Massachusetts Institute Technology
8. Oxford University
9. University of California at San Francisco
10. Columbia University
11. University of Michigan at Ann Arbor
12. University of California at Los Angeles
13. University of Pennsylvania
14. Duke University
15. Princeton Universitty
16. Tokyo University
17. Imperial College London
18. University of Toronto
19. Cornell University
20. University of Chicago
21. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich
22. University of Washington at Seattle
23. University of California at San Diego
24. Johns Hopkins University
25. University College London
26. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne
27. University Texas at Austin
28. University of Wisconsin at Madison
29. Kyoto University
30. University of Minnesota Twin Cities
31. University of British Columbia
32. University of Geneva
33. Washington University in St. Louis
34. London School of Economics
35. Northwestern University
36. National University of Singapore
37. University of Pittsburgh
38. Australian National University
39. New York University
40. Pennsylvania State University
41. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
42. McGill University
43. Ecole Polytechnique
44. University of Basel
45. University of Maryland
46. University of Zurich
47. University of Edinburgh
48. University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
49. University of Bristol
50. University of Sydney
51. University of Colorado at Boulder
52. Utrecht University
53. University of Melbourne
54. University of Southern California
55. University of Alberta
56. Brown University
57. Osaka University
58. University of Manchester
59. University of California at Santa Barbara
60. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
61. Wageningen University
62. Michigan State University
63. University of Munich
64. University of New South Wales
65. Boston University
66. Vanderbilt University
67. University of Rochester
68. Tohoku University
69. University of Hong Kong
70. University of Sheffield
71. Nanyang Technological University
72. University of Vienna
73. Monash University
74. University of Nottingham
75. Carnegie Mellon University
76. Lund University
77. Texas A&M University
78. University of Western Australia
79. Ecole Normale Super Paris
80. University of Virginia
81. Technical University of Munich
82. Hebrew University of Jerusalem
83. Leiden University
84. University of Waterloo
85. King's College London
86. Purdue University
87. University of Birmingham
88. Uppsala University
89. University of Amsterdam
90. University of Heidelberg
91. University of Queensland
92. University of Leuven
93. Emory University
94. Nagoya University
95. Case Western Reserve University
96. Chinese University of Hong Kong
97. University of Newcastle
98. Innsbruck University
99. University of Massachusetts at Amherst
100. Sussex University


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14321230/site/newsweek/

Liberal Pledge

To:  Conservatives and Republicans

I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:



1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never,
ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact,
we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.



2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider
your behavior to be "different" or "immoral." Who you marry is none of our
business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.



3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to
enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for
you.



4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring
your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise
never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.



5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health
coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we
promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your
ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures
for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those
advances are available to you and your family, too.



6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up
our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe
the cleaner air and drink the purer water.



7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote
every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice.
Immediately. We will protect you.



8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do
there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your
age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.



9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon
or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a
hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our
streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect
your children just as we would protect ours.



10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees --
that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay
conservative women that wage, too.



11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those
beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most
radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the poor," "Blessed are the
peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is easier for a camel to go through
the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," and
"Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did
for me."). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just
bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance
and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a
good example for the rest of the world.



12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and
paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or
herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt
politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us
on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our
heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this
important duty as the loyal opposition.



I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are
every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or
swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for
giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our
300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.