Other - Politics & Government - September 2006

1- Is it because Bush asked the giant oil companies to reduce prices prior to the elections?

2- Is it because China is not demanding as mush oil as it did a few months ago?

3- Is it because the world has oil surplus suddenly?

4- Is it that oil export from Iraq, Nigeria or Latin America has increased?

I really wonder why oil prices are coming down, considering that our consumption or dependency on oil did not change! Where does the basic "Supply and Demand" economic Theory fit in this concept?

2006-09-04 16:08:59 · 14 answers · asked by Mr. J 4

2006-09-04 16:01:27 · 12 answers · asked by Dionsays 2

Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

Fear and aggression

Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity

Uncertainty avoidance

Need for cognitive closure

Terror management
"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.

Assistant Professor Jack Glaser of the University of California, Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy and Visiting Professor Frank Sulloway of UC Berkeley joined lead author, Associate Professor John Jost of Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, and Professor Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland at College Park, to analyze the literature on conservatism.

The psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books and conference papers. The material originating from 12 countries included speeches and interviews given by politicians, opinions and verdicts rendered by judges, as well as experimental, field and survey studies.

Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material - which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups - yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said.

The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought - the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said.

The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views, they wrote.

Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of conservatism - an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.).

Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way, the authors commented in a published reply to the article.

This research marks the first synthesis of a vast amount of information about conservatism, and the result is an "elegant and unifying explanation" for political conservatism under the rubric of motivated social cognition, said Sulloway. That entails the tendency of people's attitudinal preferences on policy matters to be explained by individual needs based on personality, social interests or existential needs.

The researchers' analytical methods allowed them to determine the effects for each class of factors and revealed "more pluralistic and nuanced understanding of the source of conservatism," Sulloway said.

While most people resist change, Glaser said, liberals appear to have a higher tolerance for change than conservatives do.

As for conservatives' penchant for accepting inequality, he said, one contemporary example is liberals' general endorsement of extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged minorities such as gays and lesbians, compared to conservatives' opposing position.

The researchers said that conservative ideologies, like virtually all belief systems, develop in part because they satisfy some psychological needs, but that "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled."

They also stressed that their findings are not judgmental.

"In many cases, including mass politics, 'liberal' traits may be liabilities, and being intolerant of ambiguity, high on the need for closure, or low in cognitive complexity might be associated with such generally valued characteristics as personal commitment and unwavering loyalty," the researchers wrote.

This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes, the researchers advised.

The latest debate about the possibility that the Bush administration ignored intelligence information that discounted reports of Iraq buying nuclear material from Africa may be linked to the conservative intolerance for ambiguity and or need for closure, said Glaser.

"For a variety of psychological reasons, then, right-wing populism may have more consistent appeal than left-wing populism, especially in times of potential crisis and instability," he said.

Glaser acknowledged that the team's exclusive assessment of the psychological motivations of political conservatism might be viewed as a partisan exercise. However, he said, there is a host of information available about conservatism, but not about liberalism.

The researchers conceded cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly resisted change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism.

Yet, they noted that some of these figures might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system.

Although they concluded that conservatives are less "integratively complex" than others are, Glaser said, "it doesn't mean that they're simple-minded."

Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. "They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser said.

He pointed as an example to a 2001 trip to Italy, where President George W. Bush was asked to explain himself. The Republican president told assembled world leaders, "I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right." And in 2002, Bush told a British reporter, "Look, my job isn't to nuance."

2006-09-04 15:48:40 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

Where in the Constitution of the U.S. does it say to not murder? Like what amendment or section or article?

2006-09-04 15:38:13 · 12 answers · asked by Eric Knows Best 2

No, it wasn't. It was founded on defiance, and freedom of religion. Even though the Constitution explicitly says the U.S. shouldn't have an official religion, it's basically had one, Christianity. However, change is a-coming, and it's not going to stay Christian forever.

2006-09-04 15:35:45 · 15 answers · asked by Edna "Dirrty" Bambrick 1

Sickos, I was reading something on the net about it earlier.

2006-09-04 15:24:22 · 21 answers · asked by barbaradjt 5

Also, do you think it is a valid and worthwhile form of government (or lack thereof)?

2006-09-04 15:21:50 · 17 answers · asked by NoViolenceKnowPeace 1

Many will recall that on July 8, 1947, witnesses claim an
unidentified object with five aliens aboard crashed on a sheep and
cattle ranch just outside Roswell, New Mexico. This is a well known incident
that many say has long been covered up by the US Air Force and the federal
government.
However, you may well NOT know that in the month of March 1948,
exactly nine months after that historic day, Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.; Hillary
Rodham; John F. Kerry; William Jefferson Clinton; Howard Dean; Nancy
Pelosi; Dianne Feinstein; Charles E. Schumer; and Barbara Boxer were
born.
That piece of information has now cleared up a lot of things.

Are they really aliens?
LOL

2006-09-04 15:19:14 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

I mean I know why Im fascinated with her but Im just wondering.

2006-09-04 15:15:30 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-09-04 15:05:02 · 12 answers · asked by intheskeye 2

I wanted to know WHAT is a NAZI i hpoe i get a lot of answers please!

2006-09-04 14:51:27 · 12 answers · asked by Juan J. J. S 2

we have destroyed so much and given very little back.

2006-09-04 14:45:22 · 11 answers · asked by aotea s 5

2006-09-04 14:34:36 · 37 answers · asked by scousecat 2

i need to know for yet another project that i have due. are they the same thing?

2006-09-04 14:08:42 · 11 answers · asked by krunkmunkey 2

2006-09-04 14:02:11 · 11 answers · asked by JistheRealDeal 5

Did someone you know, i.e., family, close friends, lose their life on 9/11? If so, what is your position on the Iraq war. (Please, I'm only interested in hearing from people who've lost loved ones on 9/11......no one else's opinions, Please.)

2006-09-04 13:42:02 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

Stop trying to pretend it never happened and how can someone say slavery shud still b around today?

2006-09-04 13:34:17 · 15 answers · asked by Jamaican Princess 2

"Since Hitler was photographed warmly shaking Neville Chamberlain’s hand at Munich in 1938, the only image that comes close to matching it in epochal obsequiousness is the December 1983 photograph of Mr. Rumsfeld himself in Baghdad, warmly shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein in full fascist regalia. Is the defense secretary so self-deluded that he thought no one would remember a picture so easily Googled on the Web?"

Will Rummy point at his pic with Saddam & say...
There are known knowns.
These are things we know that we know.
There are known unkowns.
That is to say, there are things we know we don't know.
But, there are also unknown unknowns.
These are things we don't know we don't know.

DAM* IT I JUST DON'T KNOW
SCREAMS RUMMY!

2006-09-04 13:33:50 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

Bush's Legacy in Afghanistan is More Heroin on the Streets of America: Opium Production at All Time High in the Land Bush "Conquered." Afghan crops total 92 percent of world’s supply,
exceed global consumption.

2006-09-04 13:22:13 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

2006-09-04 13:21:50 · 8 answers · asked by Magdalena 2

Bush "conquers" Afghanistan & it shoots up to become the all-time leader in producing opium, as in more heroin on our streets.

Bush "invades" Iraq & precipitates a civil war & creates a magnet for terrorists, where none had the ability to function before.

Bush cuts taxes for the wealthy & spends on the military-industrial complex like a drunken sailor, proceeding on a course to bankrupt America.

Bush allows the rapid outsourcing of American jobs to nations like China, our real future adversary as a world power.

Bush dismantles the Constitution, what he claims the terrorists are attempting to do, but he does it for them.

What more evidence is that we have a Manchurian candidate in the White House?

Could the terrorists do any more harm to America than Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are doing?

The terrorists don't have to lift a finger. Bush is doing their work for them.

They can just sit back, take a nap or two, & dream of the virgins in their heaven.

They've found their stooge -- and he's our president.

2006-09-04 13:20:31 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

They have done nothing to help the middle class , in the last 5 yrs , with keeping their jobs here in America and a raise in wages . Even with both people in the family working most can't keep up with the bills . With the higher cost of gas, food , rent , health care , insurence , on and on . They drop farther behind as the rich get farther ahead . Who and what will it take to put this country back on track . The Middle Class is the backbone of the USA .
,

2006-09-04 13:17:46 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

Why doesn't anyone get mad at the U.K?

2006-09-04 13:16:55 · 7 answers · asked by FemiKuti 2

us constitution
thomas jefferson
strict constructionism
bought a colony

2006-09-04 13:08:51 · 3 answers · asked by Vanessa S 1

2006-09-04 13:07:15 · 18 answers · asked by Walli 2

We don't hear from Israel fighting with Irakistan anymore on CNN. Does this mean World War 3 has come to an end?

2006-09-04 13:06:35 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

I heard before he became a dictator that hated the jewish people that he did good things.

2006-09-04 13:04:03 · 37 answers · asked by Walli 2

2006-09-04 13:02:18 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

But if the land taken is sold to a private company for construction of a pricate facility then wouldn't this be a breach of eminent domain ?

2006-09-04 13:00:48 · 6 answers · asked by IRunWithScissors 3

Only the top 5% have benifited in the USA, the standard of living keeps falling. Economist report this fact but it doesn't seem to get out in the news.Poverty is up and the average person is going down down down, check the facts. and please no squirrels getting on here and saying its not true with no research in hand.

2006-09-04 12:57:59 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous