Slashdot Mirror

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your side of the debate, this is not the case.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx

while the title of the article focuses on Republicans, it goes on to discuss Americans in general. Fully 66% of the country holds to some form of a young creationist perspective for humanity (strangely combined with a more even distribution of views on evolution and an old planet/universe. If anything, by these numbers, which appear to hold up in other surveys, the evolutionary system appears to be the vocal minority's position. Within the survey, 38% held to a theistic evolution-esque model.

I'm continually surprised by what passes for argumentation among conservatives.

Likewise. Except I would not limit it to conservatives, I would say "humans." I've heard some pretty ridiculous arguments made by liberals, too... but we tend to be more forgiving towards those that agree ideologically with us. Or we just automatically fill in the gaps with what we know, etc.

it's no wonder that the majority of citizens find your positions puerile.

I don't think that is true... but it depends on what [conservative] positions you are referring to. However, your assertion (unless you're just joking?) that (1) most conservatives talk/think like another conservative that you have met and therefore (2) most Americans consider conservative positions to be silly ... is ... unfounded. In fact, while I realize it's a 2009 (but hey, that was post-Obama-election) poll, Gallup has reported that self-described conservatives are at ~40%, moderate at ~35-38%, and liberal at ~20%.

So either there are a bunch of self-described American moderates and conservatives that think their own positions are silly (or at least moderately silly), or I would contend that your assertion is false.

Actually a minority of people are liberal and as of 2009 40% stated they are conservative in the US.

Depends on what you mean by "conservative."

Conservatives are the guys who say, "Keep the government's hands off my Medicare."

If you were to look at the polls on the issues, you'd find that majorities of Americans consistently say that they want Medicare for all, for example.

I'm continually surprised by what passes for argumentation among conservatives. Petty snark, affronted whining, thoughtless jingoism, blatant fearmongering: it's no wonder that the majority of citizens find your positions puerile.

Actually a minority of people are liberal and as of 2009 40% stated they are conservative in the US. Facts are a neat thing. But saying what you want is ever so convenient.

To further drive my point home, check out this Gallup poll. Look at the first graph. Scroll down a bit and notice that even among Democrats, 22% consider themselves conservative. This explains Ben Nelson.

In other words, if the Democrats proposed truly liberal policy, they would only be supported by 20% of the population. This is not a percentage that you play towards if you want to get reelected.

In a democracy if you want to get your policies enacted, the best way is to convince the populace to support them strongly. That way, even if you don't hold office it doesn't matter, the people who do hold office will be forced to enact your policies. This is how Bush managed to force Hillary Clinton to vote in favor of the Iraq war (even if he had to lie to the public to convince them, he did a good job convincing). This is how William Jennings Bryan got most of his agenda enacted, even though he lost the presidential election.

In a democracy, the most powerful weapon is the voters. If you can manipulate them, you win.

I'd like to see the citations for your numbers.

I live in an area where gun collecting, clay shooting, sport course shooting, still target shooting, hunting, and just putting ammo into cans are common hobbies. I remember far more deadly beating around here than accidental gun deaths.

Accidental deaths tend to be in the form of cars, motorcycles, ATVs, boats, and farm machinery. Accidental gun deaths are caused when people with no respect for the power and utility of firearms pick them up at the corner shop without sufficient training.

About 30% of Americans polled by Gallup own firearms personally and 40% say they have a gun in their home. 47% of men in some demographic groups personally own at least one firearm.

In 2001, 800 to 900 gun deaths were accidental in the US. About 11,000 were homicides, and the biggest number -- about 58% of all gun-related deaths in 2001 -- were suicides. Other sources have higher numbers, but I didn't find anything higher than 1,500 annually in a quip that sounds extremely anti-firearm in a top-ten list of accidental deaths.

Now, since there are around 300 million people in the US and around 300 million firearms, I'd say less than 1000 accidental deaths is much better than the situation for accidental death for motorists and passengers in cars (33,040 of whom died in 2005) or bicyclists (of whom 784 died in 2005, but at 3 to 11 times as many deaths per mile as those in cars).

About 5,000 people die from food poisoning each year in the US, with about 1,800 of those dying from known pathogens. Seventy-five percent of those known pathogens are strains of just three pathogens: Salmonella, Listeria, and Toxoplasma.

Remember that top ten list I mentioned? Firearms accidents were listed at #7, although if using other sources for the number they would have fallen possibly at #8 or #9.

Death by gases (poisoning and asphyxiation) are in the same neighborhood as accidental gun deaths. Suffocation (choking blocking the respiratory tract or asphyxiation just due to lack of oxygen and not some other gas getting in its way) is double or more, as are fire-related deaths and drownings.

Roughly double the items in the previous paragraph to find 8,600 people per year lethally poisoned by solids or liquids including truly poisonous foods but not foods contaminated by infectious food-borne pathogens like salmonella.

Almost double that again to find that nearly 15,000 people plunge to untimely deaths each year.

Motor vehicle crashes (accounting for over 43,000 fatalities per year according to their unnamed sources) lead by a huge margin. That's more than suicides, homicides, and accidental deaths by gun put together.

I guess it's time to tell people about the dangers of letting their loved ones around ladders, stairs, food, and especially cars.

Do you have links to show these spiraling poll numbers?

Supermajority?

Man, you can disagree all you want. It's a free country, after all. But for chrissakes, do your own research. Glenn Beck is LYING to you, and Rasmussen has an agenda beyond selling graphs to USA Today.

Just because a few "atheist books" have been published is not indicative that the tide has turned.

A recent poll shows that over half the U.S. populace would not vote for a candidate if he or she did not believe in god.

This is a higher percentage than would refrain from voting for any of the other, conventionally unpalatable alternatives offered, including a homosexual candidate.

Except that your definition of "great portion" is skewed. Less than 50% of households had guns present as of 2005
http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

And only 2/3s of that less than 50% use it for home protection. So about 30% of homes in America have guns available for use in home defence. The numbers didn't change much in the previous five years to that, and considering that was the time right after 9/11, I don't think they've moved too much since then, either.

And barring all that, you missed his point about the "shooting someone just for trespassing." Castle Doctrine is much less common than people like to think it is, and it's much more restrictive than people pretend. Anyone who says "I'm gonna shoot you if you set foot on my property again" is breaking the law, and can and SHOULD be arrested for taking a shot at someone who hasn't proven to be an immediate threat to life and limb.

Just look at some of the underemployment data out there. It is not surprising that areas with popular universities have pockets of high skilled workers flipping burgers.

The google you could have done in a fraction of the time taken for all the insults was

survey of scientists on global warming 97%

Of that, I only had to type "survey of sc" before google finished the rest for me, except the "97%" that I remembered from the news. The first link that came up was CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

which would have told you the study was conducted by the University of Illinois, using names pulled from "The American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments".

Since your next six sentences all boil down to the same problem, that you don't see why an overwhelming majority is significant and that the smallest number of contrary opinions should be respected equally, I'll repeat my point very carefully a few times.

1) This does not endorse "burning Galileo"; it endorses the Vatican not taking what vast numbers of others say is a large risk, just because Galileo says so. I don't think Galileo would have minded that much.

2) I'm not trying to make a war with "numbers of scientists"; the "war" seems to be with those suing them and publicly defaming them.

3) I'm talking about "battalions of PhD's" to emphasize the sheer number, it gives a visual.

4) Actually, it makes a lot of sense to most people.

5) I'm glad you can point to PhD's that are skeptics. They should be. So are the ones on the other side; they're skeptics that became convinced by evidence. And, yet again, there are a lot more of them. Public policy (elections) and justice (juries) depend on numbers for confidence of correctness.

6) Again, my point is that my conclusion is not my own, it's the conclusion of many, many, many, and that in turn is what convinced me.

And lastly, my entire point is that people having a hard time absorbing this are not "stupid", they are human, and it is normal human behaviour to resist unwelcome news. "Chocolate is bad for you" is resisted, "Chocolate is good for you" is instantly believed.

The only problem I'm left with is wondering whether your post was serious, or fabricated to help me prove my point.

Thanks, though, for not doing that google and goading me to do it for you. The second link was from the Gallup organization:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx ...which was a group of survey results over time showing how public belief in AGW, and indeed the numbers of public that believe *scientists* generally support AGW, has been dropping recently, which was another of my points. I'll have to save the link.

Rankings of professions - who do you trust? http://www.gallup.com/poll/112264/Nurses-Shine-While-Bankers-Slump-Ethics-Ratings.aspx

Lawyers are always among the bottom-dwellers; even bankers and real estate agents rank higher. That's pretty bad.

Source required. Never mind, you're just trolling. Even us uneducated Canadians can figure that much out.

You know, you could Google it before you accuse someone of trolling. The true number is ~80%, and so the GP's point - that Tea Party supporters will mostly not be impacted by this law, because they are overwhelmingly white - is a reasonable one. Gallup poll here...

And the polls show that the Republicans will not pick up a majority next election.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127319/Republicans-Lead-Congressional-Ballot.aspx hence, you are uninformed. Considering that Republicans in an average election get 4-5% more vote than the polls show because their voters show up to vote more, and the fact that their base and independents (majority of whom are right leaning now) are particularly energized for the next election by Obama's policies, I think November is going to be a historic bloodbath for the Democrats. That will lead to Congress defunding Obama's health care bill until the next Republican president can repeal it. Don't worry though, it's good for the country.

The Republicans are a sad, tired regional party of deep south racists

Considering that a county breakdown map in a typical election in the USA looks something like this, I think it is fair to say that you are spectacularly wrong:

http://www.culture-war.info/voting2004map-g.jpg

Recent Gallup poll shows 49% saying the passing of the bill is broadly good vs. 40% saying bad. http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/slim-margin-americans-support-healthcare-bill-passage.aspx. Approval rating aside they won the election in a landslide - which is why they have so many seats, which is where their mandate comes from. This was brought up in the campaign so its not exactly a huge surprise for everyone.

In any case, government needs to have power to push through reform that is sometimes unpopular, even strongly so - otherwise serious problems will not get fixed. If all efforts need to be popular to pass then government will end up stagnating.

Significant number? I believe in the senate there was what 5 - 10 (democrats) who refused to vote for it?

Express wishes of their constituents? http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim-Margin-Americans-Support-Healthcare-Bill-Passage.aspx

Ohh and illegal immigrant vote? Umm Im pretty certain illegal immigrants CANT VOTE

Your full of shit, according to the news Ive read today 10 states are considering suing. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/health.care.lawsuit/index.html

Please take your blatant falsehoods and go away.

Though on other side, the question all Americans should be asking themselves is: do private insurers have better resume???

Considering 83% of people rate the current quality of their health care as either good or excellent, I'd say yes.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102934/majority-americans-satisfied-their-own-healthcare.aspx

(just a quick aside, you don't really think the money collected from the telephone excise tax is going to fund an ongoing Spanish-American war, do you?)

I am not saying that the issues you raised are mutually exclusive. What I am saying is that as they stand they are just a collection nits, not a cohesive argument.

If it's broken, why are most Americans happy with their health care?

Most Americans think they are of above-average intelligence. Most Americans thought the Iraq war was a good idea. Most Americans thought the economy was going gangbusters before 2007.

Most Americans don't believe in evolution.

Most Americans don't pay for their health insurance directly (though they certainly pay for it in reduced salary).

What do workers in the health-care industry think? Cause what I hear from friends and family is a universal "The system is broken".

there is NO way a Democratic executive with his party having supramajority in the Senate and a huge majority in the lower house would have trouble passing such "reform"

We have a huge and complex health insurance system in this country with countless interested parties. We have an issue that has been building for 20 years.

We have 40% of the US Congress just adamantly refusing to do anything in the hopes that it will improve their chances in November. Which means that in order to pass a law the other 60% have to be unanimous.

Requiring a unanimous vote on an incredibly complex issue, it seems reasonable that it would have some difficulty no matter what the situation.

and secondly, supramajority?

the people have no representation.

So put it to a vote. You think the majority of people in the US favor the legalization of marijuana? Gallup polls suggest otherwise, and politicians know it.

Ah, perhaps we shouldn't be talking about polls too much, since the last few trillion fucking dollars have had little to do with any sort of popular vote.

And remember that legalization of marijuana would be peanuts to the revenue and power shift that flat tax would bring. Yeah, bring THAT to a vote, and you'll quickly see that We (as in The People) really don't matter anymore. Hell they would rather legalize pot than let go of the IRS.

Ingenious of you to link to a 4+ year old poll that seems to back up your assertion more. The latest poll from 2009 shows 44% in favor, 54% against. While still not a majority it shows a quickly changing trend. Here is the latest poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/123728/U.S.-Support-Legalizing-Marijuana-Reaches-New-High.aspx You might as well have linked to a poll from 1970 when 84% were against.

You think the majority of people in the US favor the legalization of marijuana? Gallup polls suggest otherwise

The problem is that's a bit too much of a black-and-white view. I suspect you've got a lot of middle of the road voters who don't necessarily like marijuana and think it shouldn't be legal, but who aren't so strident in their view that they'd continue supporting it if the costs of enforcement (including incarceration) were included in the question. I think a poll along the lines of "Would you support legalizing marijuana if it meant lowering your taxes by $50 per year?" would get a much different result.

the people have no representation.

So put it to a vote. You think the majority of people in the US favor the legalization of marijuana? Gallup polls suggest otherwise, and politicians know it.

Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished.
My counter-proposition is that if religion is abolished, large tracts of population would disappear. Religion/dogma seems to be the only thing that keeps some people going.
Faced with an alternative of continuing living and committing suicide, what are the options ?
1) Realize that life is as likely to be good as bad, decide to die
2) Hope that life is on average good and continue living.
3) Believe that "god" or "gods" or whatever made will give you good times in future/heaven in return for bad things you suffer and then continue living.
*Buddhism might be an oddity- It seems to believe that life is on average sad, but a "middle path" can lead to happiness
Some preliminary evidence http://www.gallup.com/poll/108625/more-religious-countries-lower-suicide-rates.aspx http://www.springerlink.com/content/rg63kp2jfw8k7e5d/

Weird, I was pretty sure that dislike of the US health care system was pretty universal regardless of party affiliation or position on the political spectrum.

Weird, I was pretty sure that disinformation about dislike of the US health care system was pretty universal -- particuarly from the left.

Don't let little things like facts get in your way (most Americans satisfied with quality of their own medical care and health care costs)...

The majority of people don't pay for their own individual health insurance plan. I do, and it really sucks.

Note that while corporations pay for insurance pre-tax, individuals pay with post-tax dollars. Add to that the fact that it's more expensive to buy an individual plan in the first place, and it really really sucks to buy your own private health insurance.

Weird, I was pretty sure that dislike of the US health care system was pretty universal regardless of party affiliation or position on the political spectrum.

Weird, I was pretty sure that disinformation about dislike of the US health care system was pretty universal -- particuarly from the left.

Don't let little things like facts get in your way (most Americans satisfied with quality of their own medical care and health care costs)...

Granted, how to *fix* the system is a polarizing issue,

True! Do we rip apart a system completely that most americans are happy with? Or do we attempt to address the weaknesses in it? And do we do that at the federal level? Shouldn't that be done at the state level if the state's citizens what such a thing? These are good HONEST questions. Which should be debated in the open without name calling.

but whether or not the US system sucks balls doesn't seem to be up for debate these days

Only by those who either cant or wont read -- or are being selectivly blind.

You do realize that less than 40% of the US believes in evolution? If you turn textbooks into a popularity contest, I don't think you'll like the result.

You're holding up the US Senate and the House as examples of good government...when only 18% approve of its work...when for the majority of the past 40 years more Americans disapproved of Congress than approved?

There are at least as many self-identified liberals as there are conservatives.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx

In 2009, the percentage of respondents identifying themselves as Conservative was 40%. Liberal, 21%. My statement was accurate. Your claim is false.

There are way more self-identified conservatives who mindlessly vote Republican than there are those who vote on the issues.

From the same source,

28% identified themselves as Republican. Of these, also identifying themselves as Conservative: 73%, Moderate: 24%, Liberal: 3%.

36% identified themselves as Democrat. Of these, also identifying themselves as Conservative: 22%, Moderate: 40%, Liberal: 38%.

Do the math.

Of all respondents,
20.44% Conservative Republican (28% x 73%)
6.72% Moderate Republican (28% x 24%)
0.84% Liberal Republican (28% x 3%)
7.92% Conservative Democrat (36% x 22%)
14.4% Moderate Democrat (36% x 40%)
13.68% Liberal Democrat (36% x 38%)

And, of Conservatives,
51.1% are Republican (20.44% / 40%)
19.8% are Democrat (7.92% / 40%)
Of Liberals,
4% are Republican (0.84% / 21%)
65.1% are Democrat (13.68% / 21%)

Conservatives show significantly more party variation than Liberals. Liberals are markedly more polarized toward the Democrat party. My statement was accurate. Your claim is false.

I don't know where CNN gets its information. How about this March 2009 Gallop poll http://www.gallup.com/poll/117025/support-nuclear-energy-inches-new-high.aspx that indicates new high levels of U.S. public support for nuclear energy at 59%, with 27% indicating strong support?

Laws are not simple reflections of the feelings of the public majority. Drugs are not illegal because people want them to be, and changing the law is not as simple as getting majority public support.

Getting public support is 95% of the battle: politicians who go against the public will tend not to be in office very long.

Most people are against drug legalization, especially hard drugs. Here is a historical look at public opinion on marijuana, notice that among liberals, more people actually are in favor of marijuana legalization than oppose it. Thus if you mainly hang out with liberals, you might get the impression that most people favor legalization, which would be an example of a sampling bias.

As you can see from the graph, as time passes more and more people favor legalizing MJ, and there is some evidence that the majority now feels that way. If so, and if the trend continues, MJ may be legalized soon, although with such a small majority it can still take a long time for things to change. Based on past experience I would say if the trend continues we can look at MJ legalization within the next decade.

Great post, except the part where you ascribe untruths to the Democratic party. They (we) represent a majority of Americans right now, and are not "far left" and DEFINITELY don't "hate the military". In fact many leaders of the Democrats (including Murtha) are retired military. Heck even many leaders of the far left, including Kos of DailyKos, are retired military. We may disagree about what is best for the military and the country, but please don't assign motives where none exist.

"Untruths"????

Did you not watch the video or read the quotes? Are you denying what is right there for everyone to read? The fact that members of the Democrat Party have, in the past, served, DOES NOT invalidate or absolve them from actions they have taken and things they have said since then.

Stop trying to use "Military Service" as a shield for heinous actions and statements. It's a braindead, strawman argument.

Oh, and the Dems representing a "majority" of the people is BS, complete and total. I mean, how can you POSSIBLY square that circle when poll after poll shows that Americans, OVERWHELMINGLY don't agree with the direction the Democrats are taking the country in, and that they don't trust the Dems?

Yes, Political PARTY affiliation is slightly higher with the Dems than the GOP, Although that is shrinking.

However if you look at IDEOLOGY, Conservative vs Liberal vs Moderate, you will find that Conservatives FAR AND AWAY outnumber Liberals, and the "Moderate" group is shrinking, with more former moderates now identifying as Conservative. The Liberal group is also shrinking.

The nation is moving AWAY from far leftism as rapidly as it can, and Americans are becoming MORE conservative than ever before. So to say that the Far-Let Democrat party "repreresents a majority of Americans" is prevarication of the worst kind. To put it bluntly, you are full of shit and it is laughably easy to prove it.

Great post, except the part where you ascribe untruths to the Democratic party. They (we) represent a majority of Americans right now, and are not "far left" and DEFINITELY don't "hate the military". In fact many leaders of the Democrats (including Murtha) are retired military. Heck even many leaders of the far left, including Kos of DailyKos, are retired military. We may disagree about what is best for the military and the country, but please don't assign motives where none exist.

"Untruths"????

Did you not watch the video or read the quotes? Are you denying what is right there for everyone to read? The fact that members of the Democrat Party have, in the past, served, DOES NOT invalidate or absolve them from actions they have taken and things they have said since then.

Stop trying to use "Military Service" as a shield for heinous actions and statements. It's a braindead, strawman argument.

Oh, and the Dems representing a "majority" of the people is BS, complete and total. I mean, how can you POSSIBLY square that circle when poll after poll shows that Americans, OVERWHELMINGLY don't agree with the direction the Democrats are taking the country in, and that they don't trust the Dems?

Yes, Political PARTY affiliation is slightly higher with the Dems than the GOP, Although that is shrinking.

However if you look at IDEOLOGY, Conservative vs Liberal vs Moderate, you will find that Conservatives FAR AND AWAY outnumber Liberals, and the "Moderate" group is shrinking, with more former moderates now identifying as Conservative. The Liberal group is also shrinking.

The nation is moving AWAY from far leftism as rapidly as it can, and Americans are becoming MORE conservative than ever before. So to say that the Far-Let Democrat party "repreresents a majority of Americans" is prevarication of the worst kind. To put it bluntly, you are full of shit and it is laughably easy to prove it.

"I'll field that one: Unions are irrelevant."

Now, I was going to respond thusly -- If that's true, then:

(a) Why do about half of Americans approve of labor unions?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122744/Labor-Unions-Sharp-Slide-Public-Support.aspx#1

(b) Why is there a multi-billion dollar union-busting legal industry?
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3326/unionbusting_confidential/

But then I realized that the line "the union is irrelevant" is actually a quote from one of the union-busting lawyers in the article linked above. So I suspect that the parent post is actually just propaganda/astroturfing.

So, Republicans can only propose minor details, not large changes? If Republicans want, say, investigation into nuclear energy but Democrats don't, they aren't allowed to suggest it - it's too big of a change? Or too complex? Or whatever?

It seems that most of the current bills are very ideologically Democrat centered. Public healthcare and climate change stuff (but not nuclear, it seems). As I recall, House Republicans/conservatives submitted a lot of proposals from the so-called tort reform to abortion to making sure illegal immigrants don't get the public healthcare insurance option. None of them - and those are not "major" in comparison with the bill - were accepted.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have been folding on some of their core proposals in order to get things moving (a public healthcare option being the most glaring).

They folded on that? It's still in almost all of their bills, if not all of them, and it is one of the major things that many people don't want. As you mention, "60%" of the US population supports ... what? Supports healthcare reform or supports the current bills, as they are, in the House, including the public option? There's a huge difference there.

The Democrats have not folded on a public healthcare "option." Actually, I can't really find anything they have folded on, at the moment. Pelosi and Reid have repeatedly said they refuse to have a bill without a "public option" though.

The American public is a lot more split than you think on healthcare, according to Gallup.

Saying one party or the other, at the moment, is at fault and doing "pure, unadulterated political brinksmanship" appears to be dependent on who you read/listen to. I try to stay out of the finger pointing, and blameshifting, as that appears to get nowhere - and Republicans and Democrats are very at fault for doing that. Right now, it seems to me that we have some very libecal Senators/House Reps that are trying to push a certain ideology.

The election resulted in a sweeping victory for the Democratic Party which captured the House of Representatives, the Senate, and a majority of governorships and state legislatures from the Republican Party.

12 years of the "permanent Republican majority" was enough for people to finally vote the bums out, that election showed about the same dissatisfaction with incumbents as in 1994. Why is it that conservatives are the only ones in this country who can have a revolution? We certainly didn't see any less corruption, government waste, and general largess under conservatives as progressives. In fact, the last republican president to preside over a reduction in the gross national debt as percent of GDP was Gerald Ford.

you forgot to mention that liberals are more likely to believe in ghosts

http://www.gallup.com/poll/14107/Third-Americans-Say-Evidence-Has-Supported-Darwins-Evolution-Theory.aspx

The poll shows that almost half of the U.S. population believes that human beings did not evolve, but instead were created by God -- as stated in the Bible -- essentially in their current form about 10,000 years ago...

A segmentation of Americans based on their responses to the questions about creationism and biblical literacy finds that a quarter of Americans can be considered to be true literalists -- believing not only in the literal interpretation of the Bible, but also in the creationist view of the origin of humans.

Of course you don't believe there are many creationists out there, because you're not a creationist. I have trouble imagining how many people accept this ridiculous idea myself. But there the numbers are.

Were smoking a cause of mental issues(in any significant number of cases) we almost certainly would have noticed. Smoking rates, and amounts smoked per person, have plummeted since the 40's. We've been able to detect drops in other smoking related conditions; if psychiatric problems are smoking related, that should show up too.

According to an article in TechDirt, this intervention motion by Mr. Garcia represents a changed attitude on his part, and that his initial reaction to Mr. Fairey's painting was admiration

Despite the major news-papers' best efforts, the bottom has fallen off of whatever container was holding support for Obama. Perhaps, Mr. Garcia is one of the remorseful buyers of the "we are the ones we've been waiting for" snake oil, and, somewhat literally, wants his money back?

I'm talking about the 700 million (or whatever, some huge number, the numbers I am seeing are all over the place) rural Chinese. This poll indicates that less than 10% of them had access to a computer (in 2005), leaving more than 600 million people without:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/14776/Internet-Use-Behind-The-Great-Firewall-China.aspx

No doubt those numbers are changing rapidly, but the numbers involved mean than any change reflects an enormous effort and is only going to proceed so fast. These numbers corroborate the enormous wealth gap, and they didn't even bother to list rural computer ownership (but then, they are even older):

http://www.chinability.com/Durables.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx

Here are the URLs to Gallup and CBS.

creationism is very much a minority opinion amongst christians (in fact I've only ever met one who thought like that, and I've met a lot of christians over the years). The belief in a literal 7 days is something that historically would have been laughed at long before darwin. A few noisy fundies in the US don't get to choose what christianity is, no matter what you might want to think.

I'm sorry but what possible evidence other than the one anecdotal occurrence can you offer? I have statistics that show that creationism combined with 'god guiding evolution' is a shared belief by an overwhelming majority of Americans. Even if you remove 'god guiding evolution' from the equation the numbers believing in strict creationism are close to half of Americans believing in it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-07-evolution-debate_N.htm
Two-thirds in the poll said creationism, the idea that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years, is definitely or probably true.

http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=118
Surveys are also fairly consistent in their estimates of how many Americans believe in evolution or creationism. Approximately 40%-50% of the public accepts a biblical creationist account of the origins of life, while comparable numbers accept the idea that humans evolved over time. (But keep in mind that many people who believe in evolution in the U.S. think that god was making humans evolve).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspxGallupPollincreationismandevolutiontrendsfrom1982to2008.
Breakdown of creationism and evolution views between Bush and Kerry voters in 2008.

- Any public-school science teacher, atheist or not, who wants to tell his students that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old and that Jesus didn't ride dinosaurs can expect to be "inhibited or dissuaded" from doing so, if he's teaching in the wrong part of the country.

- Yes, Richard Dawkins

- All atheists were "demonized" by no less a figure than President G. H. W. Bush.

- 53% of the American public would refuse to vote for an atheist in a presidential election. That's not just "demonization," that's disenfranchisement. Unless you profess a belief in an invisible sky fairy, you have no representation in American government.

More examples here.

Any more questions?

From what you posted: Republicans and Democrats are equally likely to be represented in the high-knowledge group. But significantly fewer Republicans (26%) than Democrats (31%) fall into the third of the public that knows the least.

Side-stepping around the fact that people know far less if Fox News is their main source of information, versus NPR, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and the top informed audience, that of the two Daily Central Comedy shows. Which is what his post was about.

Also: Internet news sources, National Public Radio, news magazines, and Rush Limbaugh's radio show have the best educated audiences, with each of these having at least 36% of their regular readers and listeners having graduated from college.

And?

"Reality has a well known liberal bias" is a well known liberal delusion.

It's a joke. But not as funny as having only 28% of respondents self-identify as Republicans.

The immediate outlook for the Republican Party is certainly bleak, with the Democratic Party maintaining significant advantages over it by almost any measure, perhaps most importantly in national party identification. Americans clearly have not reacted in a negative way to Obama's approach to governing, as he enjoys approval ratings above 60% -- better than those of most recent presidents.

Awwwww.

Um, people in the US actually show a higher approval rating for their government than they have in years.

Eight years, specifically. The last time a US president's approval rating were as high as Obama's was 100 days into Bush's first term.

Considering how that presidency ended, I'm not sure I'd use that fact as the basis for any pro-Obama argument.

...just over 50% of Americans believe so-called global warming is a problem.

The 47% that got things right falls nicely with the 41% who have figured out that global warming is a scam.

Hopefully as Americans get more educated, they'll recognize another financial scam when they see one.

Kevin

So the obvious answer is take the money from all the people and use it to undermine what 86% of the people who contributed believe and 54% strongly believe, to appease the experts of a single field (albiet very important). Good luck with getting that through even in a dictatorship.

What would happen if the History teachers demanded that all students give up movies and instead read? Certainly the historical inaccuracies of film undermines the facts taught in history class, but most would see that as an absurd and out-of-line movement. And that example is just entertainment, you are talking about undermining core beliefs.

As important as Science is to you and me, it is one of many fields of studies to most people and holds no more sway than that. I'm not talking about compromising science but working individually with students that are snarled with a mental block so that they can come the closest to understanding that they can. Just like a teacher should be doing with any student that has any sort of trouble comprehending the material. Maybe some day they will thoroughly apply reason to their entire lives, or at least compartmentalize things enough to make significant contributions to science despite their partial lack of reason.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/Religion.aspx

And yet, American's happiness declined.

Your post does not prove anything. My post does not prove anything about video games taking away happiness. So why play the statistics game? It's meaningless to the discussion.

Beloit school district, Beloit WI. See http://www.sdb.k12.wi.us/employment/ for a link to the page saying that they use the test, and https://gx.gallup.com/teacherinsight.gx for more information on the test.

So no, I didn't invent it. I have no desire to denigrate the teaching profession, only the people who select poorly educated sycophants to join it.