POLITICS

"A crowd of thousands cheered Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson" at a protest of President Bush's appearance in town yesterday, the Salt Lake Tribune reports. Anderson called Bush a "dishonest, war-mongering, human-rights violating president."

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

LIBERAL BABY PROBLEM: CONSERVATIVES MORE FERTILE

ARTHUR C. BROOKS, OPINION JOURNAL - Simply put, liberals have a big baby
problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long
time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result.
According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated
politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had,
between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would
find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of
people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same
way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little
Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the
past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%--explaining, to a large
extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns
today.

Alarmingly for the Democrats, the gap is widening at a bit more than
half a percentage point per year, meaning that today's problem is
nothing compared to what the future will most likely hold. Consider
future presidential elections in a swing state (like Ohio), and assume
that the current patterns in fertility continue. A state that was split
50-50 between left and right in 2004 will tilt right by 2012, 54% to
46%. By 2020, it will be certifiably right-wing, 59% to 41%. A state
that is currently 55-45 in favor of liberals (like California) will be
54-46 in favor of conservatives by 2020--and all for no other reason
than babies.

The fertility gap doesn't budge when we correct for factors like age,
income, education, sex, race--or even religion. Indeed, if a
conservative and a liberal are identical in all these ways, the liberal
will still be 19 percentage points more likely to be childless than the
conservative.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008831

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

DON'T LISTEN TO POLITICIANS, WATCH THEIR HANDS

ELLI LEADBEATER, BBC - Body language can reveal a politician's true
feelings A politician can never fib flawlessly because their body
language will always give them away, psychologists say. No amount of
coaching or media training can co-ordinate the hand gestures and facial
expressions to fully cover up what a person knows not to be true.

The bite of the lip, a movement of the eyebrow or simply where they walk
on the ceremonial carpet can betray what a politician really thinks and
feels.

Researchers explained how to read the signs at a science meeting in
Norwich. . . Tony Blair unconsciously fiddles with his little finger
whenever an opponent makes him anxious. He also touches his stomach when
he feels under threat - a gesture that harks back to childhood, the
psychology panel at the BA asserted. George Bush, on the other hand,
bites the inside of his cheek at anxious moments. . .

By gazing away into the distance when another person is speaking, a
politician can indicate that they do not think the speaker is important
enough to deserve attention. . . Politicians also used intentional
movements to try to manipulate the audience's perception of their story,
the panel stated. . . For example, Bill Clinton tended to bite his lip
when he wanted to appear emotional. . . Clinton bit his lip 15 times in
two minutes during his apology to the American nation over his affair
with Monica Lewinsky. . .

George Bush walks like a body builder, hanging his palms to the rear as
though laden down by huge muscle, to imply that he's larger than he
actually is, says Dr Collett. Mr Blair raises his eyebrows when he wants
to appear non-threatening, a submissive gesture.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5316916.stm