Well, I'm obviously a night owl (check the local time of this post), and I'm certainly liberal, but am I a statiscial outlier: a dumb liberal? I'll leave that to you, my esteemed readers, to decide. Regardless, science don't lie, so if you're a religious conservative, chances are, you're not quite as sharp. Sorry to break it to you this way. Here's some consolation though: you've still got Sarah Palin, Pat Robertson, and Glenn Beck to feel superior to... I hope.
Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds
February 24, 2010 | ScienceDaily
More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.
The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."
"Evolutionarily novel" preferences and values are those that humans are not biologically designed to have and our ancestors probably did not possess. In contrast, those that our ancestors had for millions of years are "evolutionarily familiar."
"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."
An earlier study by Kanazawa found that more intelligent individuals were more nocturnal, waking up and staying up later than less intelligent individuals. Because our ancestors lacked artificial light, they tended to wake up shortly before dawn and go to sleep shortly after dusk. Being nocturnal is evolutionarily novel.
In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
[Now I admit I would have identified myself as "very conservative" in my stupider adolescence, but you might say that my genes got the better of me, and my innate intelligence forced me to become a bleeding-heart, Marxist/socialist liberal in adulthood. - J]
Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."
Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.
In addition, humans have always been mildly polygynous in evolutionary history. Men in polygynous marriages were not expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate, whereas men in monogamous marriages were. In sharp contrast, whether they are in a monogamous or polygynous marriage, women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate. So being sexually exclusive is evolutionarily novel for men, but not for women. And the theory predicts that more intelligent men are more likely to value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent men, but general intelligence makes no difference for women's value on sexual exclusivity. Kanazawa's analysis of Add Health data supports these sex-specific predictions as well.
One intriguing but theoretically predicted finding of the study is that more intelligent people are no more or no less likely to value such evolutionarily familiar entities as marriage, family, children, and friends.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Obama break's W's record for awkward silence
Dude, like, um, be eloquent and stuff. Jeez, you're the best speaker we've had in the White House since at least Reagan and you only do Oprah-type "intimate" interviews with softball questions and Vaseline smeared all over the camera lens. What's the matter with you?
Like, for instance, you might say a peep or two about health care reform, and how you'd like to get it passed in your lifetime, and without the pages all stuck together from the pharma and insurance lobbyists who write the bills to enrich themselves.
Obama tops Bush at ducking reporters
No formal press conference in 215 days
By Joseph Curl
February 22, 2010 | Washington Times
URL: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/obama-tops-bushs-record-for-putting-reporters-on-h/
Like, for instance, you might say a peep or two about health care reform, and how you'd like to get it passed in your lifetime, and without the pages all stuck together from the pharma and insurance lobbyists who write the bills to enrich themselves.
Obama tops Bush at ducking reporters
No formal press conference in 215 days
By Joseph Curl
February 22, 2010 | Washington Times
URL: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/obama-tops-bushs-record-for-putting-reporters-on-h/
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
FOX, NYT, others fell for O'Keefe's ACORN 'pimp' scam
Oh, whither the lib'rul media? What have we come to when FOX leads The New York Times by the nose?
Giles Admits O'Keefe, Breitbart ACORN 'Pimp' Story was a Lie: 'That Was B-Roll, Purely B-Roll'
Woman who posed as prostitute confirms repeated misreporting by NYTimes, many others
Why does 'paper of record' still refuse to retract, apologize?
By Brad Friedman
February 19, 2010 The Brad Blog
URL: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7708
Giles Admits O'Keefe, Breitbart ACORN 'Pimp' Story was a Lie: 'That Was B-Roll, Purely B-Roll'
Woman who posed as prostitute confirms repeated misreporting by NYTimes, many others
Why does 'paper of record' still refuse to retract, apologize?
By Brad Friedman
February 19, 2010 The Brad Blog
URL: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7708
Friday, February 19, 2010
IRS: Richest 400 Americans pay 17% income tax
Gee, big surprise that Dubya would have hidden this annual IRS report from the public for the past 8 years. Good for Obama for publishing it once again.
You GOP/teabagger types accuse me of class envy or class warfare, but the numbers speak for themselves: our tax system has been distorted to favor the super rich. The top 400 richest Americans pay a lower effective tax rate than those making low 6 figures. How on God's green Earth is that equitable, fair, or rational? Especially since, with America's Third-World income distribution curve, the super rich are the only ones with any income (2007 average: $345 million)! The top 400 earn 1.59 cents of every dollar of U.S. income.
Those tax reforms that you brainwashed marks call "soaking the rich" would simply rationalize our tax system and return it to its progressive, post-WWII roots: you earn more, you pay more, both absolutely and relatively.
The top 400: Income way up and taxes way, way down
A new IRS report on the richest 400 taxpayers shows their income rose an average of $81 million -- in a single year
By Joe Conason
February 17, 2010 | Salon.com
Before angry voters restore Republicans to power -- in the name of "tea party populism" -- perhaps they should consider just how well right-wing rule worked out for them during the past decade. Last fall a Census Bureau study found that real median household income had declined from $52,500 in 2000, the last year that Bill Clinton was president, to $50,303 in 2008, George W. Bush's final year -- a period during which Republicans dominated Congress as well. Millions of those median households lost their health insurance (and, since the onset of the Great Recession, many of those same families have lost jobs as well).
So most of those middle-class Americans who flock to the tea party demonstrations were big losers during the Bush era. So who were the winners? According to David Cay Johnston, America's premier tax journalist, newly released IRS data shows that the country's very wealthiest citizens -- the top 400 -- marked enormous income gains while paying less and less in taxes. For purposes of comparison, Johnston notes that the bottom 90 percent of Americans saw their incomes rise by only 13 percent in 2009 dollars, compared with a 399 percent increase for the top 400.
In a single year, between 2006 and 2007, the income of those top 400 taxpayers rose by 31 percent -- from an average of $263.3 million to an average of $344.8 million per year. Meanwhile, Johnston writes, "Their effective income tax rate fell to 16.62 percent, down more than half a percentage point from 17.17 percent in 2006, the new data show. That rate is lower than the typical effective income tax rate paid by Americans with incomes in the low six figures, which is what each taxpayer in the top group earned in the first three hours of 2007." He also notes that the IRS data probably understates the income of the top 400, because of deferral rules enjoyed by hedge fund managers (at least three of whom earned $3 billion or more in 2007).
Johnston's data comes from the latest edition of an annual IRS study of the top 400 taxpayers, which was first made public during the Clinton presidency. When Bush became president, unsurprisingly, he curtailed public access to the top 400 report for eight years. The Obama administration has made the report available this year, but such embarrassing statistics will no doubt be buried again as soon as the Republicans return to power.
You GOP/teabagger types accuse me of class envy or class warfare, but the numbers speak for themselves: our tax system has been distorted to favor the super rich. The top 400 richest Americans pay a lower effective tax rate than those making low 6 figures. How on God's green Earth is that equitable, fair, or rational? Especially since, with America's Third-World income distribution curve, the super rich are the only ones with any income (2007 average: $345 million)! The top 400 earn 1.59 cents of every dollar of U.S. income.
Those tax reforms that you brainwashed marks call "soaking the rich" would simply rationalize our tax system and return it to its progressive, post-WWII roots: you earn more, you pay more, both absolutely and relatively.
The top 400: Income way up and taxes way, way down
A new IRS report on the richest 400 taxpayers shows their income rose an average of $81 million -- in a single year
By Joe Conason
February 17, 2010 | Salon.com
Before angry voters restore Republicans to power -- in the name of "tea party populism" -- perhaps they should consider just how well right-wing rule worked out for them during the past decade. Last fall a Census Bureau study found that real median household income had declined from $52,500 in 2000, the last year that Bill Clinton was president, to $50,303 in 2008, George W. Bush's final year -- a period during which Republicans dominated Congress as well. Millions of those median households lost their health insurance (and, since the onset of the Great Recession, many of those same families have lost jobs as well).
So most of those middle-class Americans who flock to the tea party demonstrations were big losers during the Bush era. So who were the winners? According to David Cay Johnston, America's premier tax journalist, newly released IRS data shows that the country's very wealthiest citizens -- the top 400 -- marked enormous income gains while paying less and less in taxes. For purposes of comparison, Johnston notes that the bottom 90 percent of Americans saw their incomes rise by only 13 percent in 2009 dollars, compared with a 399 percent increase for the top 400.
In a single year, between 2006 and 2007, the income of those top 400 taxpayers rose by 31 percent -- from an average of $263.3 million to an average of $344.8 million per year. Meanwhile, Johnston writes, "Their effective income tax rate fell to 16.62 percent, down more than half a percentage point from 17.17 percent in 2006, the new data show. That rate is lower than the typical effective income tax rate paid by Americans with incomes in the low six figures, which is what each taxpayer in the top group earned in the first three hours of 2007." He also notes that the IRS data probably understates the income of the top 400, because of deferral rules enjoyed by hedge fund managers (at least three of whom earned $3 billion or more in 2007).
Johnston's data comes from the latest edition of an annual IRS study of the top 400 taxpayers, which was first made public during the Clinton presidency. When Bush became president, unsurprisingly, he curtailed public access to the top 400 report for eight years. The Obama administration has made the report available this year, but such embarrassing statistics will no doubt be buried again as soon as the Republicans return to power.
MB360: U.S. middle class pays for all our sins
The Middle Class Two Income Trap – Two Breadwinners plus Extra Money to support the Banking Industry. How Middle Class Americans are losing Ground by Supporting the Financial Sector.
Posted by mybudget360
If it isn't enough that average Americans are contending with the rising cost of healthcare, education, and daily necessities like food now additional funds are going directly to the banking sector to keep them propped up like a money loving puppet. Since the Great Depression the rise of the middle class has been the envy of many people around the globe. The ability for hard working Americans to have access to an economy that supported them so long as they worked hard and followed an implicit guarantee with their nation. With this implicit guarantee it was assumed that the government would also protect people to a certain degree especially when it came to their financial well being. This did not assure a winning portfolio but it did mean we wouldn't turn our stock market into a giant game of casino where the connected had a loaded deck. Much of the strong regulatory arm that came from the Great Depression was because of the speculative gambling during the Roaring 1920s. Yet as time went on slowly Wall Street took these structures away and now we are finding ourselves once again with the middle class largely at risk in the United States. It isn't by accident we are in the situation we are in today.
The first important thing to understand is that yes, the income of middle class families has gone up since the 1950s but a large part of this was the rise of the two income households with women entering the workforce:
The above chart is disturbing in many ways because it bucks the nearly 50 year long-term trend of employment. Now, even with two income households many with rising job losses are finding they now have to make it with one income while inflation has eroded their buying power over the decades. In this recession 3 out of 4 job losses have been men. If you have any doubt regarding the insidious nature of inflation I put together a chart looking at various costs over the last few decades:
Part of this is due to the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury trashing the U.S. dollar over the decades. For example, in 1950 it took the median household income (which was largely a one income household) about 2 times the annual household income to purchase the median priced home. In 2008, it took the median household income (now largely a two income household) four times annual earnings to purchase the median priced home. In fact, the two income household has hidden a large part of how much the middle class has fallen behind in this country. Now with this recession, the deep cracks are now being exposed in the system.
Income inequality has also risen in this country and a large part of it is due to the financial sector. 1 percent of our population control 42 percent of all financial wealth. In fact, in the last decade the only segment of our population that has seen any sizeable gains in true wealth is the top 1 percent. Every other category has seen a loss of housing net worth, wage stagnation, and higher costs for daily items that consume a larger part of their budget. Just take a look at the chart below showing this change:
Source: CNN
The above is looking at a one income household in 1973 versus the two income household in the 2000s. It is interesting to note that in the 1970s Nixon took the dollar into a purely fiat system and since that time, the dollar has lost much of its actual value. This would be expected. The Federal Reserve with its banking lieutenants has been able to put our country so deep into debt that realistically we are in a position of never paying back all our outstanding obligations. The only way out is via inflation and with a fiat system that is the path we are heading down. This is important because when you look at the charts above prices rise for various reasons and inflation is a hidden tax. No need for higher taxes to bailout the banking sector when you can just destroy the purchasing power of middle class Americans by monetizing enormous amounts of debt as we have done.
That is why in the next decade, Americans are now working for someone else beyond their immediate household. A large chunk of their money is now going to the banking sector. This can be in absurd payments to credit card companies, loss of purchasing power because of the Fed, or other hidden methods of taxing the public. We are really at a crossroads for the middle class. If we dissect the data further we realize that even though things cost more, much of it has been financed through debt:
Ironically the family in the early 1970s had more discretionary income than the family in the early 2000s even with a dual income. Yet if you look around, it isn't immediately apparent because of the massive debt bubble financed by the banking sector. Sure people bought bigger homes and newer cars but all this was under a phony veneer of success and was financed with debt. All of it was built around a mountain of debt. Yet here is where the big divide hits. Middle class families are now losing their homes through foreclosure. Many are having their cars repossessed because they can't make their payments. Bankruptcy filings are soaring because people cannot service their debt. So middle class Americans are paying the price with the rules that are setup. Yet banks are not. They are sucking the American taxpayer for all their horrible bets and are not dealing with the ramifications of their actions. In other words, the bill is going to the middle class as the middle class is dealing with their own bad decisions. This is part of the system built around the corporatacracy model of government. Losses are socialized while gains are privatized.
And don't kid yourself, this entire game was financed on debt:
And the small group of banks at the top now control a large portion of all FDIC backed assets in our country:
Source: FDIC, Bank Financial Statements
Forget about the Republican or Democrat parties, we are being governed by the financial sector of this economy. It is amazing how hard it is to get sensible legislation even after this great calamity. To prove this point, in California an insurance company announced they are hiking healthcare premiums by 30 percent in the midst of this recession even though they pulled in billions in profits. The government will sit back and let the middle class get fleeced because they are part of the problem. They speak a good game but are bought by the industry. Prove us wrong if this isn't the case. Enough talk, time for action. From now on we need to focus on who is delivering results. If you can, take your money out of the big banks and put them in local regional banks. Let your local representatives know that their number one priority should be focusing on protecting our struggling middle class. Time to get some real reform or we really risk losing our middle class.
Posted by mybudget360
If it isn't enough that average Americans are contending with the rising cost of healthcare, education, and daily necessities like food now additional funds are going directly to the banking sector to keep them propped up like a money loving puppet. Since the Great Depression the rise of the middle class has been the envy of many people around the globe. The ability for hard working Americans to have access to an economy that supported them so long as they worked hard and followed an implicit guarantee with their nation. With this implicit guarantee it was assumed that the government would also protect people to a certain degree especially when it came to their financial well being. This did not assure a winning portfolio but it did mean we wouldn't turn our stock market into a giant game of casino where the connected had a loaded deck. Much of the strong regulatory arm that came from the Great Depression was because of the speculative gambling during the Roaring 1920s. Yet as time went on slowly Wall Street took these structures away and now we are finding ourselves once again with the middle class largely at risk in the United States. It isn't by accident we are in the situation we are in today.
The first important thing to understand is that yes, the income of middle class families has gone up since the 1950s but a large part of this was the rise of the two income households with women entering the workforce:
The above chart is disturbing in many ways because it bucks the nearly 50 year long-term trend of employment. Now, even with two income households many with rising job losses are finding they now have to make it with one income while inflation has eroded their buying power over the decades. In this recession 3 out of 4 job losses have been men. If you have any doubt regarding the insidious nature of inflation I put together a chart looking at various costs over the last few decades:
Part of this is due to the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury trashing the U.S. dollar over the decades. For example, in 1950 it took the median household income (which was largely a one income household) about 2 times the annual household income to purchase the median priced home. In 2008, it took the median household income (now largely a two income household) four times annual earnings to purchase the median priced home. In fact, the two income household has hidden a large part of how much the middle class has fallen behind in this country. Now with this recession, the deep cracks are now being exposed in the system.
Income inequality has also risen in this country and a large part of it is due to the financial sector. 1 percent of our population control 42 percent of all financial wealth. In fact, in the last decade the only segment of our population that has seen any sizeable gains in true wealth is the top 1 percent. Every other category has seen a loss of housing net worth, wage stagnation, and higher costs for daily items that consume a larger part of their budget. Just take a look at the chart below showing this change:
Source: CNN
The above is looking at a one income household in 1973 versus the two income household in the 2000s. It is interesting to note that in the 1970s Nixon took the dollar into a purely fiat system and since that time, the dollar has lost much of its actual value. This would be expected. The Federal Reserve with its banking lieutenants has been able to put our country so deep into debt that realistically we are in a position of never paying back all our outstanding obligations. The only way out is via inflation and with a fiat system that is the path we are heading down. This is important because when you look at the charts above prices rise for various reasons and inflation is a hidden tax. No need for higher taxes to bailout the banking sector when you can just destroy the purchasing power of middle class Americans by monetizing enormous amounts of debt as we have done.
That is why in the next decade, Americans are now working for someone else beyond their immediate household. A large chunk of their money is now going to the banking sector. This can be in absurd payments to credit card companies, loss of purchasing power because of the Fed, or other hidden methods of taxing the public. We are really at a crossroads for the middle class. If we dissect the data further we realize that even though things cost more, much of it has been financed through debt:
Ironically the family in the early 1970s had more discretionary income than the family in the early 2000s even with a dual income. Yet if you look around, it isn't immediately apparent because of the massive debt bubble financed by the banking sector. Sure people bought bigger homes and newer cars but all this was under a phony veneer of success and was financed with debt. All of it was built around a mountain of debt. Yet here is where the big divide hits. Middle class families are now losing their homes through foreclosure. Many are having their cars repossessed because they can't make their payments. Bankruptcy filings are soaring because people cannot service their debt. So middle class Americans are paying the price with the rules that are setup. Yet banks are not. They are sucking the American taxpayer for all their horrible bets and are not dealing with the ramifications of their actions. In other words, the bill is going to the middle class as the middle class is dealing with their own bad decisions. This is part of the system built around the corporatacracy model of government. Losses are socialized while gains are privatized.
And don't kid yourself, this entire game was financed on debt:
And the small group of banks at the top now control a large portion of all FDIC backed assets in our country:
Source: FDIC, Bank Financial Statements
Forget about the Republican or Democrat parties, we are being governed by the financial sector of this economy. It is amazing how hard it is to get sensible legislation even after this great calamity. To prove this point, in California an insurance company announced they are hiking healthcare premiums by 30 percent in the midst of this recession even though they pulled in billions in profits. The government will sit back and let the middle class get fleeced because they are part of the problem. They speak a good game but are bought by the industry. Prove us wrong if this isn't the case. Enough talk, time for action. From now on we need to focus on who is delivering results. If you can, take your money out of the big banks and put them in local regional banks. Let your local representatives know that their number one priority should be focusing on protecting our struggling middle class. Time to get some real reform or we really risk losing our middle class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)