The president wants to reform social security. Social security needs to be reformed or the system will collapse when the baby boomers retire. That is what I hear being debated in the congress. And that seems to make sense. What is not always explained is that how big the crisis is, or if there is a crisis at all, depends on the productivity of U.S. workers. Recently the productivity per work has been growing. When this happens it pushes off the social security doomsday. With sufficient growth in the U.S. GNP it could push off that date indefinitely. But will it?

What I also don’t hear in the debate is the risk associated with giving me the option of investing some of the money that I now put in social security. Do I think I would be better off if i had that freedom? Yes. Do I think i would have more money for retirement? Sure. But what about the people who are still sending checks to people who send them emails from Nigeria? Giving people the freedom to invest their own money also gives them the freedom to lose their own money. My fear is that the people most in need of social security are also those most at risk.

As a belated item for President’s Day I have created this mousepadwith Lincoln’s picture and a quote from his second inaugural address. Although something with words like “with malice toward none, with charity for all” hardly seems like it should be posted in the Politics category.

Ex-presidents Clinton and Bush have become friends according to the New York Times . It gives me some hope that we can find our way to a place where we realize we don’t always have to agree with each other to be friends.

I had another democratic friend who referred to to the study that said that Red states were not as smart as Blue stats and made what seems like a logical assumption that Republicans are dumber than Democrats. I read another article yesterday that said that Democrats make less money and are more likely to be urban and poorer. Those facts seemed like an odd combination to me so I did a little more research. The facts, as usual, are more complicated. I refer you to this web sitefor an in depth analysis. The most interesting statistics I found were these (originally from UPI) about voting patterns from the 2002 mid-term election. They show a trend that is reported to be true also for the presidential elections. Basically the Democratic party does better with both ends of the educational spectrum and the Republicans with the center.

 2002 House Elections      Education  Level    %  of total GOP Share  White     No HS               3%          53%     HS Grad             22%         56%     Some College        30%         61%     College Grad        26%         63%     Some Postgrad       20%         54%  Black     No HS               7%          2%     HS Grad             25%         4%     Some College        38%         10%     College Grad        22%         16%     Some Postgrad       8%          19%  Hispanic     No HS               14%         27%     HS Grad             22%         31%     Some College        35%         35%     College Grad        18%         55%     Some Postgrad       11%         40% 

Bush has not even taken his second oath of office and The Moderate Voice points out an interesting ABC article on a possible run by Senator John McCain in 4 years.

The country’s most politically unpredictable politoco is sparking speculation that he has already launched an unofficial 2008 Presidential bid. And if you look at several strands and piece them together, it seems logical.

CNN reports that Ohio finally made it official that the 2004 election is over. Much of the delay comes from the provisional ballots that were allowed this time around. I still have to wonder about provisional ballots. It seems that delays are pretty inevitable. Was it so terrible to require people be registered in advance?

It is interesting to me to look at the map of the results of the last election when it is broken down by county instead of by state. Whatever the Democratic message was. It did not play well in rural America.

Wired carried this story about scientists Drs. Joshua Freedman and Marco Iacoboni of the University of California at Los Angeles who scanned the brains of 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. Each viewed images of President Bush, John Kerry and Ralph Nader.

When viewing their favorite candidate, all showed increased activity in the region implicated in empathy. And when viewing the opposition, all had increased blood flow in the region where humans consciously assert control over emotions ? suggesting the volunteers were actively attempting to dislike the opposition.

Nonetheless, some differences appeared between the brain activity of Democrats and Republicans. Take empathy: One Democrat’s brain lit up at an image of Kerry “with a profound sense of connection, like a beautiful sunset,” Freedman said. Brain activity in a Republican shown an image of Bush was “more interpersonal, such as if you smiled at someone and they smiled back.”

And when voters were shown a Bush ad that included images of the Sept. 11 attacks, the amygdala region of the brain ? which lights up for most of us when we see snakes ? illuminated more for Democrats than Republicans. The researchers’ conclusion: At a subconscious level, Republicans were apparently not as bothered by what Democrats found alarming.

One last comment about the 2004 presidential campaign. There was a picture in our paper last week that showed Keary with a number of supporters. One was a woman holding a sign “Keary Will Work for Women”. Both my wife and I found that humurous. I know what “will work for food” means on a sign. So that would mean…

Wo, I think I just had a Clinton flashback.

While Americans are still deciding Kerry vs Bush, this story from The Guardian says that according to a survey, voters in eight out of the 10 countries, including Britain, want to see the Democratic challenger, John Kerry, defeat President Bush in next month’s U.S. presidential election.