Slashdot Mirror

And when such private automobiles are no longer sold for any amount you can afford?

Sounds like a good opportunity for an enterprising individual to open up a shop that sells cars that you can own and drive. In a Harris Poll 1/3 of applicants said they would NEVER buy an autonomous car. That may not sound like a huge percentage, but 17% said they weren't sure when they would buy one, and the other people had various qualifications of when they would buy one. I would fall in the "never" category.

According to this poll http://www.harrisinteractive.c..., about 57% of frequent flyers believe the current TSA procedures are making it safer to fly. The other 43% recognize them for the theatrics that they are.

Sure, they find their fair share of fake novelty hand grenades and medieval weaponry in checked baggage. They even once saved a plane from the pudding cup my daughter left in her backpack (which naturally earned her a pat-down). But what the TSA was really doing was keeping a major mode of transportation operational for a brief time of uncertainty. As with all things government, the project's scope began to creep and pockets got lined while we stood in a line to have our pockets felt by a creep.

57% think the TSA is money well spent. That is the metric by which the TSA measures itself.

From what I can find, the Post Office doesn't even rank in the top 15. Medicare is first, law enforcement second, and Social Security third.

Next is Defense and then National Parks. But this is a Harris survey and I have doubts about them.

http://www.harrisinteractive.c...

But it sure measures the amount of faith people want to put into "a wizard did it" as a valid explanation of something.

No it doesn't. If you want to measure something like that, you take a poll on something like that. Here are some recent figures:

74% of Americans say they believe in God, 72% believe in miracles, 68% believe in heaven and angels, 65% believe in the resurrection of Jesus, 58% believe in the devil, 57% believe in the Virgin birth, etc.

Meanwhile, the same poll found only 29% say they "don't believe in" evolution, and 25% "aren't sure." If you combine those responses, you still only get to 54%, which is less than all of the findings above. Specifically, it is MUCH less than the 72% who believe in miracles, which is, I assume, what you were getting at.

So -- if you want to find out about whether people accept non-scientific explanations for things, it would be more accurate to do a poll actually asking that -- since it's clear that the evolution question doesn't adequately assess that.

In other words: the evolution question is neither a good measure of science literacy overall, nor a good measure of whether people accept religious or other alternative explanations.

(For the record, the poll also asked how many people believed in witches, and only 24% said yes -- so that's perhaps a more valid measurement of your specific question of specifically how many people might believe in "a wizard did it" as an explanation.)

The part that is more frightening is how small groups (almost always religious and conservative) seem to have disproportionate sway over how those companies behave.

About 75% of Americans identify as some sort of Christian. 1/3 of those are self-identified Catholic, and the other 2/3 are some other denomination. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a congregation that would speak out against this kind of censorship. Even individuals that may be personally interested in such content would not admit to that in front of their church-going peers (which is 3/4 of the entire nation before you include Jews & Muslims); especially if that meant admitting they were ok with children having access to it. Recent court rulings concerning violent video game bans have also mentioned American's historical opposition to smut to explain why banning smut is Constitutional while banning violent content may not be.

Even this survey, which seems to show an overwhelming opposition to any censorship, I don't think supports your argument of disproportionate influence. 62% believe the Bible should definitely be available in school libraries, but only 31% believe the Koran should definitely be available. Likewise, 62% believe that books with "explicit language" should not be available. Yes this is school libraries as opposed to "In a major store accessible by children without age verification"; but the jump in #s I think clearly shows the willingness of average Americans to at least passively support through lack of opposition smut bans in ebook stores.

I'd guess the nerds here probably do agree (I do) that banning books like this is silly... Especially considering some of the cinematic smut they still offer: from Hollywood quality flicks like Bound to the Skinemax-direct garbage you have to watch when your internet connection is down. But nationwide, I think we're in the minority still.

Don't confuse your little corner of the internet with the real world. In the real world, you're a tempest in a teacup, son.

Right [1], back [2], at ya [3], son.

[1] The 2012 Harris Poll Annual Public Summary Report (PDF)
[2] Banking Stinks Like Cigarettes and Politics: Survey Shows Contempt for Industry
[3] Banking Sector Is Slowly Replacing Big Oil As The Most Hated Industry

...

The Harris poll asks consumers for their opinions on six key attributes of the 60 ‘most visible’ corporations in the United States. Rating companies’ social responsibility, emotional appeal, products and services, workplace environment, financial performance and vision and leadership, the Harris RQ survey seeks to get a snapshot of corporate America’s reputation among consumers.... Banking and financial services scored terribly.

...

But the banking sector has screamed up the charts, and not counting the always-hated federal government, it was No. 2 with a bullet as of Gallup's most recent poll, taken way back in August 2012. Fifty-three percent of Americans surveyed had a negative view of banks in that poll, up from just 18 percent in 2007, before the crisis. The percentage of people with a positive view of banking has plunged to 25 percent from 50 percent in 2007.

Not blatantly misleading, but there is the distinct odor of bias in these questions, especially when asked one after the other.

I agree with the 1st reply-poster above: WaPo is a rag, and these polls hold little merit.

I imagine the award winning "rag" Washington Post will continue to be a "rag" until its polls find more support for Wikileaks. Well, that's bad news for the BBC, since they will apparently be next on the pile. The BBC World News America/Harris Poll also finds that Americans oppose the release of classified documents from the American government by Wikileaks.

BBC World News America/Harris Poll

Most People Think Releases by WikiLeaks Should be Illegal

New York, N.Y. - January 4, 2011 - A new BBC World News America/Harris Poll finds that Americans are divided, with no consensus, as to how much freedom the media should have to publish confidential government documents. However, a sizable 69% to 18% of all adults agree that "publishing these documents could pose a security threat to the United States and therefore should be illegal."

Then why do only 3% of Americans own guns?

Once again, the moderators are on crack -- giving +1 to something that can be proved wrong with a simple Google search:

Two in Five Americans Live in Gun-Owning Households

Fine, I'll help out here. Here's a links to the Harris poll and the Research2000 poll. I believe those are the ones being referred to here.

If I were to start anywhere, it would be at the elementary education level. Early on the child is a natural "scientist". Inquisitive, fascinated with why and how thing work. Somehow by the time they reach middle school, we've lost a large number of the kids. I am not blaming the teachers but more likely the means we teach science, but if you simply take a step back and look at the level of interest in "science" through the grade school years to the middle school years, I believe you would find an continual slide in interest.

The 2005 Harris poll reports that less than half of the US population does not believe in evolution. Now though this is significantly based upon religious belief, if the individual did not feel themselves alienated from science, I would doubt that we would see these types of numbers.

The one aspect of the situation I have not seen researched is if we are suffering a collective "Future Shock", quite simply too much information, often conflicting on the major situations affecting the world where it is simply more comforting to a lot of people to try to maintain the world in traditional, and simple compartments. .

Greg

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/pubs/Harris_Poll_2009_06_18.pdf

Seem like a reasonable study, and the results may seem shocking to some people here, they really aren't.

"2½ hours later"

Hmm very depressing ... So many religious followers and others who care little for backing a Atheist point of view. So much for scientific thinking. But then Slashdot is largely US centric and "Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God." ... Plus how many others, have some thoughts about a god (or gods, depending upon which religion, they choose to believe, is telling them the truth, or so they think).
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581

So much for Censorship by Glut, at times its more like Censorship by closed off thinking backing existing paradigms and failing to see (or even wanting to see) anything beyond what they already think they know.

I find it facinating how totally religious believers follow their beliefs, in their chosen religion, yet as each religion teaches something different. Therefore all religions cannot all be correct. But what is even more interesting, is how each follower fail to see this is true. They each selectively believe only the bits of the other persons religion, which matches their own, and dismisses the parts they don't like, as being misguided and wrong. Plus so often driven by fear of it being seen as wrong, if they change their beliefs. Sadly I suspect superstitious thinking, backed by fear, is as common today, as it has always been.

First let me state that I know full well that my restricting the discussion to the US narrows it by quite a bit... since we were discussing the US election I thought it was reasonable to restrict the discussion. While race is not a problem unique to the US, the US problem does have some unique aspects to it.

You mention that you are white, but there are so many different perspectives within this group that it would be meaningless for me to make any sort of comment about what white people think on a subject.

Whites are not so easily lumped together - I mean obviously at least 43% of the US white population is comfortable enough with a black man to elect him as president. And obviously there will be many, many overlapping opinions between blacks and whites... but the fact is that blacks 40 years ago did not have full civil rights. That scars one's psychology. And it's not as if the racism vaporized, so the scarring continues to this day. As a white man, racism rarely affects me. I encounter it quite often, but since only about 14% of people are black, the loss of opportunity there doesn't really affect me. As a result, I grew up not particularly sensitive to racism. Had I been black, my opportunities might have been far more restricted and my opinions would be far more shaped by racism.

This is something that _most_ blacks in the US have in common and _most_ whites in the US have in common, and it is constantly reflected in polls when they ask questions like "are racial conditions improving in the US". It's improving, but this is the current situation.

Can you think of any but the most contrived examples of something you could say that was representative of a white point of view?

Trust of police. White people generally trust police and see them as a good presence. Blacks tend to be more wary of police. Please note that I'm not saying that all blacks fear the police... it's just a tendency that correlates with race. There are many of these tendencies that together make up what I'm calling a "black point of view".

Another example would be slurs. You can drop the word "nigger" and it will almost universally cause a very unpleasant response among black people. Many (most?) whites won't like it, either - but it will really stir up some deep feelings among blacks. Compare this to whites... can you think of a single word that would get whites almost universally riled up? This is something that is shared by other minority groups which have been traditionally oppressed.

Another example is when some big heinous crime is reported, one of the first things through many (most?) black folks' minds is, "Oh, please don't be black." This simply doesn't happen in the white "community" - probably because we don't view ourselves as a community and from our perspective the actions of one of us do not reflect on the rest of us. However, what we don't consider is that this is not true from the perspective of other people/groups.

I'm saying that there is no supportable reason why someone must belong to the same ethnic group as someone else to share their perspective (and interests).

Oh, I would never claim that. I'm claiming to have an "in" on the black perspective and I'm white. I have this perspective because I'm married to a black woman and we had many, many really tough fights that were rooted in not understanding one another's perspective. Without months of really deep, contentious discussions with someone who I cared for deeply, I seriously doubt that I would have come to understand.

Election night was a different experience for me than for most white people. My wife first of all did not believe that a black man could win in the US. Even as they were calling states for Obama, she remained skeptical and kept asking me procedural ques

Might wanna see this link:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=436

I would disagree. The 16% who think Obama's a Muslim aren't some independent voting block who will be swayed from voting for him by the idea. They're die hard Repubs, who will vote Repub no matter what.

A better example of disinformation was the constant linking of Iraq to 9/11. 64% of Americans still believe (as of 2005) that Iraq had strong ties to Al Quaeda. It's shocking that anyone who can read could believe that Muslim extremists devoted to building a world based on fundamentalist Islam would have strong ties to a primarily secular dictator who happily executed fundamentalists, but there it is.

Science already has a vice grip on humanity, it's not like we're moving into an era dominated by superstition.

In an Associated Press-AOL News poll taken at the end of 2006, 1 in 4 Americans expected the second coming of Jesus Christ to occur in 2007.

A 2005 poll by Harris Interactive found that 73 percent of American adults believe in miracles.

oops you forgot one: probably somewhat true.

How do I figure, I figure because it was on the news, being reported by mainstream media, talked about by candidates and so on.

The media has presented polls. ABC, CBS, USA Today, and others show consistent support for stem cell research.

The reason for denying embryonic stem cell research funding is the same as right to life anti abortion arguments, it kills life.

As before: not all embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of embryos. And, in the case where embryos are destroyed anyway (such as in vitro fertilization), why not put them to use? For this reason, many against abortion are in favor of stem cell research, including Orrin Hatch and prominent catholics.

Aren't we at war? Doest that involve plenty of killing and plenty of tax dollars?

And you point is what exactly? People rationalize things however they want. Someone saying they don't want to murder or kill innocent life might not see war as innocent. But it doesn't matter to me. I never said I was prowar and anti stem cell.

Right. What you said was that the voting U.S. public was somehow "against killing" and that stem cell funding policy matched this. But that argument doesn't hold water from polling or from inconsistent policy.

I personally object to it because of how close it is to raising people just to haves parts form them in the name of helping others. It would suck 200 years from now to find out that your new born baby is going to be harvested in order to provide a healthy heart for your 140 year old grandpa and no body thinks twice about it.

It sounds as if we both hope that neither one of us will be around in 200 years to find out. I never liked this "slippery slope" argument & can't understand how you live your life that way. One can contrive to make any situation seem to lead to Utopia or to Hell.

There was funding of science well before the government got involved with it.

Government has been funding science for a very long time. Ancient science was driven by agricultural and accounting needs of the state. Pre-enlightenment patronage often came from political and religious leaders. Yes, science has also had a history of self-funding. But I think that commercial funding comes later than either of these other sources (I can't think of anything significant before the industrial revolution).

A good majority of the science that made the world as we know it today was funded by sources other then the government.

If you mean that it came from both the government & other sources of funding, I might agree. If you would contend that most advances had no governmental funding, I'd definitely disagree. A lot of progress is made from militaristic funding. Cryptography and other mathematics; thermodynamics (from cannons); nuclear and other energy research; computing and networking...

Science needs to be communicated to the public so that other researchers can test it and build on it. In commercially-funded research, this rarely happens--everything becomes a trade secret. The vast number of papers in science journals are government funded. Just look at the authors and the acknowledgements to see this. I think many scientists would agree with you that these journals can afford to be more open in-general, but all national labs and funding agencies have a system for internal reports that (assuming that nothing needs to be classified) the public has access to. Preprint and self-archiving is fairly

In case you've forgotten, we invaded this country first, because they were supposedly harboring Osama bin Laden. Remember him? He had something to do with 9/11, if my memory serves me. He was the guy who HATED Saddam Hussein and actually OFFERED HIS SOLDIERS TO HELP SAUDI ARABIA FIGHT IRAQ. The royal family of Saudi Arabia laughed at him, preferring instead to rely on American troops. He got pissed, and has been an anti-American nutjob ever since.

Oh, but I'm sorry... I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new. After all, everyone in America knows that Osama hated Saddam and that the latter had nothing to do with 9/11! Everyone knows that al-Qaeda was originally led by Osama to be an anti-Iraq and anti-Saddam milita!

...sorry, but I don't think I can keep up the Colbert-esque routine any longer:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=544 quote: [in 2005] 64 percent believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda (up slightly from 62% in November).

How is it FUCKING possible that this has happened? Osama is the one responsible for 9/11, and yet trillions spent on Iraq, a country that Osama was actively trying to fight. But, you know, despite the fact that Iraq has been an unending clusterfuck, I at least assumed that things in Afghanistan--the only that actually openly supported Osama--were going semi-decently. Ok yeah, so opium production has been on the rise since we invaded--shit happens, shit happens, plus I'm not exactly a huge fan of the war on drugs anyway so it's no biggie.

But this... What the FUCK. We destroy the Taliban, and then install THIS sharia-based bullshit? Or, at the very least, we allowed this government to take power after the Taliban fell? We're busy JAMMING democracy and freedom down the throat of Iraq, but we're allowing Afghanistan to descend into the dark ages again? We're allowing them to become a breeding ground for the successor to Osama bin Laden?

I don't know what to say. Sounds like the beginning of a Lewis Black routine, but for the life of me I think of a punch line.

I don't understand. Being mindlessly pro-war is one thing. Being mindlessly pro-war vs. a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, while allowing the country that harbored and nurtured the mastermind behind 9/11 to DESCEND INTO A FUCKING TOTALITARIANISM AGAIN is just... just...

What is WRONG with you people--you jingoists, you untiring flag-wavers, you twin-tower-tattooing rednecks, you support-the-war-or-you-aren't-a-patriot fucks? Why aren't you screaming at our president for allowing Osama to get away with it? Why aren't you screaming at him to bring 'freedom' to Afghanistan, a country we originally invaded six and a half years ago, a country that was and apparently still is much more oppressive and totalitarian than Iraq ever was?

I don't understand.

Whilst I have no particular opinion on the issue of Intel's guilt or otherwise, I have to laugh at:

the only court I am interested in is the court of public opinion. In that court Intel is Guilty PERIOD.

In that court, half the US public subscribe to creationism. 73% believe in miracles, 61% in the devil, and 34% believe that the Earth is being visited by alien spaceships. According to Time, 36% of Americans think that the government were complicit or actively involved in 9/11. Almost a third of Americans believe that electronic devices like cell phones cause cancer, and the vast majority believe that the risk of dying of cancer is increasing.

So what? Only this: the court of popular opinion and reality (or justice) have very little in common. That does not negate the importance of said institution. The mere fact that we are in the words of Douglas Adams a lot of useless bloody loonies doesn't negate the fact that these are the nation's voters and consumers. But it does mean that pointing at 'the court of popular opinion' to justify your language is scraping the bottom of the barrel. OLPC are publicly held to be darling happy fluffy bunny types who can do no wrong... and?

See the recent Harris Poll for an explanation. About the same amount believe in evolution as believe in ghosts.

It's an excellent example, because, it's bveen disproved over and over. Yet Bush has managed to implant the idea in many people's minds, by association, without actually stating it (maybe we should credit Karl Rove). Anyway, see The Harris Poll:

WHAT PUBLIC BELIEVES TO BE TRUE
Saddam Hussein had strong links with Al Qaeda.: 64%
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded.: 50%

That very large majorities of the American public, and almost all (but not all) Christians believe in God, the survival of the soul after death, miracles, heaven, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the Virgin birth will come as no great surprise. What may be more surprising is that half of all adults believe in ghosts, almost a third believe in astrology, and more than a quarter believe in reincarnation - that they were themselves reincarnated from other people. Majorities of about two-thirds of all adults believe in hell and the devil, but hardly anybody expects that they will go to hell themselves.(emphasis mine)

From "The Harris Poll® #11, February 26, 2003 - The Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans 2003"

Somehow does not fit very well with the picture of the "cutting edge US" that mainstream media deploys in Europe.

CC.

The numbers roughly track with this Harris poll. The link gives a good description of the methodology.

In it, 54% said that humans are not the product of evolution and 45% rejected evolution for any living thing. 64% said that humans were created directly by God. Clearly, the exact question matters a lot, but you can use this poll to get an overview of public opinion.

It gives 12% as the number who believe God was uninvolved, the proxy for the "atheism" question, as you point out. That's within the margin of error to the 14% in their poll.

Though I agree with much of what you say, you do propagate the lie that 96% of Americans believe in God. The percentage is lower than this according to exactly how the question is phrased; see http://www.religioustolerance.org/godpoll.htm for a survey of some surveys. Also, a fairly recent Harris survey http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index .asp?PID=408 indicates why people might, in fact, say they believe in God when they have doubts. A more recent Harris survey supports the encouraging notion that un-belief may be on the rise: http://www.dentalplans.com/articles/5938/.

These, ahem, "discrepancies" about belief in God may in fact be for the same reasons that more people say they attend church once a month (about 45%, when asked) than actually do (about 30%, based on church attendance).

Though, if you look at the survey by Baylor, the largest Baptist University in the US, this supports your number: http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060911-10333 8-8995r.htm. Wonder why that could be? I don't suppose religious people would lie, would they?

As a non-believer, I also take a little comfort in the statistic that, among the US prison population, un-belief is much lower than in the general population (though I can't find a reference for this one at the moment.)

Fair Enough.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index .asp?PID=434

...though well above astrology

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index .asp?PID=359

Of course, if you made it through college (I know you're out there), it puts it between the virgin birth and the resurrection.

super

73% of Christians polled by the Harris Group in a large, well-designed study (95% CI) favored it. (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/inde x.asp?PID=488)

I'm sorry if a small minority of fundamentalists you see on the local news make us look bad, but why don't you try reading the viewpoint of the mainline, majority body of Christians, like the ELCA? http://www.elca.org/faithandscience/discussion/

Most Christians are not what you think, and the facts and data support this. It's simply that extremists always make the best news stories.

I think there is a prevalent belief that it is impossible not to be negatively affected by looking at pornography...

According to Harris Poll: "No Consensus Among American Public on the Effects of Pornography on Adults or Children or What Government Should Do About It" http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index .asp?PID=606

There was a study done at the University of Hawai`i concerning the effects of pornography: http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornograp hy/prngrphy_ovrvw.html

There was another study done at the University of Pennsylvania concerning the effects of pornography: http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/chunter/porn_effects. html

Never mess with groupthink, man. Groupthink still holds to the belief that conservatives believe Sadam Hussein bombed the WTC. You go and confront groupthink with actual facts and you'll get it all grumpy and everything...

Facts are funny things.

It may not be the majority anymore, but it's still almost half of Americans (could that be the *conservative* half?), and considering that George W. Bush himself promoted the idea that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, it's no wonder the rest of the country considers conservatives a bit... dim.

From all evidence, it seems conservatives are the fucking *worst* at groupthink. "What's that? Evidence that Iraq is *no threat whatsoever*? Evidence that President Bush fucking *lied* to us? Well, support the troops! And, ah, if you think bad of the President, you're a traitor! And a bed-wetter!"

To paraphrase "Get Fuzzy," do you want to be Pot, or Kettle for Hallowe'en?

You folks live in an echo chamber, thinking you are representative of the world because you can only hear your own voice. It isn't so.

"Stem cells come from embryos left over from invitro fertilization, which are not used and normally destroyed. Many medical researchers want to use them to develop treatments, or to prevent diseases, such as diabetes, Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease. On balance, do you think this research should or should not be allowed?"

the American people are by and large more liberal than the members of Congress

Which decade are you talking about? It can't be the current one. More Americans have identified themselves as conservatives than Liberals for a very long time.

A quick Google search turns up the Harris Poll that been taken from 1968 to the present.

The most recent poll from this year shows "that conservatives continue to outnumber liberals by 36 to 18 percent but that the largest number of people think of themselves as moderates (41%)."

Now compare that to the self-identification of the media and of whom they voted for. It's instantly clear that the media in general is much more liberal than the people in the country.

About the only place that the New York Times possibly reflects the public's beliefs is in NY City itself and maybe SF, DC or LA.

• UFOs (34%)
• ghosts (also 34%)
• astrology (29%)
• reincarnation (25%)
• witches (24%)
• miracles (82%)
• heaven (85%) and
• god (92%) (Fox News poll, June 2004)

• 44% believe civil liberties should be restricted for Muslims; and
• 27% favor requiring Muslim Americans to register with the federal government.(Cornell Universdity poll, December 2004)

• 55% (and 67% of Bush voters) beleive God created humans as we currently exist, without any need for evolution; and only
• only 13% do not beleive God was somehow involved in human evolution. (CBS News poll, November 2004)

• 88 percent of U.S. adults believe that Saddam Hussein would have made weapons of mass destruction if he could have (down slightly from 90% in November).
• 76 percent believe that the Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein (same as November).
• 64 percent believe that history will give the U.S. credit for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq (up slightly from 63% in November).
• 64 percent believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda (up slightly from 62% in November).
• 61 percent believe that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was a serious threat to U.S. security (down slightly from 63% in November).
  

More surprising perhaps are the large numbers (albeit not majorities) who believe the following claims not made by the president and which virtually no experts believe to be true:

• 47 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001 (up six percentage points from November).
• 44 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis (up significantly from 37% in November).
• 36 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded (down slightly from 38% in November).

I'm blessed & fortunate to be part of the vocal minority who believe in God

I don't know where you're posting from, but here in America, that is certainly not the case.

Just because you're mad about the election is no reason to bust out idiocy like "evil neocon overlord." I hate Bush too, but please, reign in your rhetoric.

You also happen to be wrong. A fair portion of the US population did and more disturbingly STILL DOES believe Iraq was linked to 9/11.

Examples: "41 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001."

"37 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis."

(Source: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index .asp?PID=50.)

They are not majorities, but they are highly significant numbers. And a majority (62%) of Americans continue to beleive Hussein was strongly linked to Al Qaida. This was as of October 21, 2004.

That's odd, how do you explain this Harris Poll that shows the exact opposite? The more education you had, the more likely you were to vote for Kerry. If any moron can get a post-grad degree, then any moron can also get a high school or college degree.

Note in the linked poll that Nader did better among the high school or less crowd than among the "more educated".

I also note that the wank you link to is a hypocrite of the first order. First, "IQ is totally discredited", even though he goes on to say "IQ scores remain fairly constant through life" (linking to a study comparing IQ to longevity), and HE's the doof that brought up the issue in the first place, yet criticizes Kerry for "rationalizing" why he may have done relatively poorly on his entrance score (which were NOT normed with the same populations as the Bush test being compared to, thus any comparison is pretty much worthless without further study). Ever notice that "rationalizing" is usually an answer that is inconvenient to your point of view?

kaladorn, you address some really good points. I'm sure you have a lot of insight into the world at large, so I'm certain you'll recall the fact that the US used nuclear bombs on civilians in Japan, not only once, but twice - a practice that is, was, and forever will be thought of as an abhorrible crime against man.

As to the vitriolic rhetoric of the left and right in this country, I would offer these words of caution:
There is a misconception, perpetuated by the media, that there are only two viewpoints on any issue. That is blatantly not the case in America. I identify with neither party, as is the case with 24 percent of us.

That taken care of, the topic of preemptive or supposedly corrective warfare is an interesting one. The concept wouldn't be that bad, excepting for the moral questions involved. Questions like "who decides who is evil?" and "what type of government is correct?".

These questions will always lead to debate and different conclusions. Mine is that the moral high ground required to decide others destiny is inherently immoral itself.

Another question for those who support the role of world cop - how many successful examples are there of countries rising from this practice? Excluding the two WWII examples (and one could argue that they are special examples outside of the question at hand), I can think of none.

What I do know is that Iraq, however bad it was before we invaded the last time, was a secular state with a regionally unparalleled equality for women. Today Iraq is threateningly close to being an oppressive theocracy, much like it's neighbor Iran. Women have lost their social status and now wear facial coverings in public out of fear.

Unfortunately, I am afraid that the only way viable self-rule can happen is through popular support and revolution against oppressors. Forcing others to reform their governments is undemocratic.

Here and here are a couple of polls with well-documented methodology. Neither covers the "face on Mars" or alien abductions, unfortunately, but they do discuss plenty of equally silly beliefs. Skeptical Inquirer reports on these beliefs fairly often, and discusses the methodology of the polls as well as their results.

'Almost everyone'? What *are* you talking about? You must be an American. From a recent online Harris poll, most Americans think at least half the world speaks English. This is just plain wrong. The truth of the matter is that it's more like 20%. That's it. Most people on the NET might speak English, but most people in the world? Hardly.

a) don't wear seatbelts while driving
b) smoke
c) eat fast food
or
d) think with their mouths open.

Unfortunately, the world is run by idiots. Look at George W Bush, Jerry Falwell, Jesse Helms, the number of spelling / grammar mistakes on /., or even Stan Jones.

Is it any surprise that people get bilked so easily? P.T. Barnum had it right, "There's a sucker born every minute." I'm not usually so negative (oh, wait, I am...), but this sort of thing is no surprise to me at all.

In addition, people are innately greedy. Check out the CEO scandals, the number of people who drive SUVs needlessly, the people who beg online for donations to relieve their credit card debt, pork-barrel politics, or people at a buffet. Greediness, combined with the stupidity of the general public makes for a bad combination. I'm not one of those nuts who thinks that everything should be regulated into some hippy-like hell, but people need to think before they act.

ObArticleRelatedComment: I wish I could get my company to switch to AbiWord; it's pretty cool.

Todd

You think Harrison Ford is old. Well how about Pierce Brosnan. He is 50 years old and has plans to do at least one more James Bond movie. Maybe even 2 or 3. After that there are two other Bond movies in the works that he might star in. I even heard that Brosnan was too old to star in Goldeneye.

Haven't you ever noticed most movie stars in Hollywood are in their 50's? Clint Eastwood, Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Robert DeNiro, and Sean Connery just to name a few.

Look here

Harrison Ford was picked as the most popular movie star the last couple years. All of these actors are probably working on new movies so it's nothing out of the ordinary for someone this old to be in a film.

The original (and understandably biased) Harris Interactive press release which can be found at http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/index.asp?Ne wsID=127&HI_election=HarrisInterac tive says:

The current Harris Interactive situation is a perfect example of why the government, and not self-appointed private groups, must create the rules which govern Internet communications. Essentially, Mail Abuse Prevention System, LLC (MAPS), and other like groups, are permitted, without any due process of law or even a fair process, to restrict companies' rights to conduct legitimate business over the Internet. These restrictions are based on complaints that may be economically motivated by our competitors.

Personally I think it's a perfect example of why the government should not create rules which govern Internet communications.

If it did we'd have technicalities causing the government to force us to pay for and eat spam day and night because some idiot corporation wants us to read it. MAPS on the other hand is a good example of the general population deciding whether they want to respect a certain organisation's judgement or not.

MAPS definitely has it's down side. If all the companies known to not use double opt-in were listed, nobody would use it. But that's also the strongest thing about it. If MAPS gets indiscriminite and lazy about listing organisations as spammers, nobody would use it.

"Nearly half of the Harris Poll participants are registered when they sign up for Hotmail, for instance. They have to opt out in order to be removed from its e-mail lists.

The Mail Abuse Prevention System, known as MAPS, has done a good job keeping trollish garbage like this off of mail servers, and they should consinue without altering their practices. Harris has a home page that claims they are the leader in "internet market research". If it looks like Spam, and it walks like Spam, it's Spam.

On the other hand, Opensurvey.org has already gotten in bed with Harris.