Slashdot Mirror

Oh you want precise data? Like large support across muslim countries, where terrorism is supported. 20% of muslims support the 7/7 bombings 1:4 muslims in the UK say the bombings were justified 31% of muslims in turkey support suicide bombings against westerners 32% of palestinians support the murder of jews, including children. 55% of muslims support hezbollah 26% of young muslims in america believe suicide attacks are justified 26% of egyptian muslims believe that suicide attacks are justified

You're now enlightened to this "tiny minority." Which is roughly 25% having extremist views, out of 1.6 billion that would be a "mere" 400,000,000 individuals. You know, I could keep going and posting, so again--there is something fundamentally broken with islam and muslims. And I haven't even gotten to the stuff on specific groups, which vary between 6% as a low to 51% support across muslims. Or the 50-75% that believing that killing apostates is a good idea. I guess none of that is large swaths.

False. The majority of gun deaths in the US are suicide. Didn't you know that? Seriously?

And Pew Research is typically full of bullshit.

You didn't know that? Seriously?

Even the "categories" it divides people into are weird, seemingly arbitrary groups, and it even does that based on a bizarre, non-scientific "survey" full of highly loaded questions.

I used to have some respect for Pew, until I looked a bit more into their methodologies.

Where is money actually the problem in the system? The problem, as I see it, is that the governed no longer CARE enough to do anything unless stirred to a frenzy. When you have a turnout of just over half of the eligible voters, a nearly even split between the two major parties, a system that doesn't allow for a viable third party candidate, and a plethora of people who just vote party lines (including the representatives sent to DC) instead of doing research, I can very easily see how we wound up with what we have.

The money isn't the biggest problem. It's a symptom: The voters don't care enough to keep tabs on their elected representatives to make it excessively painful when they take cash from $INFLUENCE_OF_THE_WEEK. Education, information dissemination, and a general lack of belief that "voting matters" is the problem, from where I sit. How we fix these things is where the focus should be. Make the people care about who they send to DC, their state capitol, and their county seat, and what those people are doing, saying, and voting.

How this happens, I have not sorted out. I hope someone smarter than me can get it solved, before some elected official gets killed and then they get completely isolated from the governed in "the interest of national security". Some say this has already happened.

Especially if what you believe is gleaned from your nightly newscast [ceasespin.org]. Far more people believe the TV than the Internet. The far-right has figured this out and is capitalizing on it at the polls.

If you bother to examine the table, "Education, Age, Knowledge" from this Pew Research Center poll, you will see some data you probably won't expect.

Column 1: High knowledge %
Column 2: readers / viewers / listeners

43% Hardball
36% Rush Limbaugh
34% BBC
34% Colbert Report
33% News Hour
30% Daily Show
25% MSNBC
21% Community newspaper
21% NBC News
19% CNN
19% Fox News
19% ABC News
17% CNBC
17% Local TV news
17% Network news
10% CBS News

The trend is moving in that direction due to the drop off in crime: http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/01/1-6-12-1.png . Mainly though the "civilized world" is just a euphemism for Europe. China is certainly civilized. Europe and the USA doesn't agree with Europe about lots of internal policy.

Yes, like sailors on shore leave, unlike the preceding administration's fiscal responsibility with things like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the "Bush tax cuts", Medicare Part D, which make the current "spending spree" seem like austerity.

Expenses that are all already gone. The current budget no longer has a significant Iraq/Afghan expense. The Bush temporary tax cuts have expired. So no, I'm afraid you're incorrect. The current administration's permanent tax cuts plus permanent Obamacare/entitlement expansion are way more damaging to our budget, and have contributed far more to the deficit to date. And I never recall supporting the previous administration either. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Much like Democrats have been asking for single payer healthcare, a significant reduction in military spending, and a repeal of the second amendment

The Dems couldn't even get their own party behind single payer, so you lose there.

Military spending has already seen a significant reduction. The wars have been wound down, the sequester has hit them hard, and projected growth is flat. On top of that, defense spending is at an all time low: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Defense_Spending_-_percent_to_Outlays.png
You guys really need to learn to get your news from someone other than Stewart/Colbert.

Regarding the repeal of the 2nd amendment, please -- like that's in any way comparable to requests for entitlement reform?

I got news for you: it's not happening, and simply asking for the same thing over and over again isn't going to make it any more palatable to the voting public.

Incorrect, the voting public wants entitlement reform: http://www.people-press.org/2011/07/07/public-wants-changes-in-entitlements-not-change-in-benefits/

Between people who want "major change" in the program or a "complete rebuild", a plurality of the nation wants substantial change to those programs Once again, get out of your echo chamber. The only people it isn't palatable to are liberals afraid of losing votes.

The House is gerrymandered. It does not accurately represent the will of the people, but rather represents the cumulative will of the parties in control of the states.

You act like there's some huge discrepancy, when in actuality the gerrymandering effect is far smaller (namely that it becomes the "will of the people" plus or minus a small number). At any rate, in 2010, the House took not only 63 House seats, but also 6 Senate seats (which are immune from the effects of gerrymandering). SO whereas you might be able to write off a 9% swing in the House, you can't write off a 5% swing in the Senate.

so clearly this can't be the will of the people, if half of them have no idea what the law is or will do.

Yet a majority of the populace disapproves of the bill, and polling shows it is MAJORLY partisan w/ 10% Republican support and 75% Democrat support: http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/16/as-health-care-law-proceeds-opposition-and-uncertainty-persist/

That's voter support, not politician. Compare that to a topic that actually was bipartisan, like background checks for guns (which carried strong support from both sides of the aisle): http://www.people-press.org/2013/05/23/broad-support-for-renewed-background-checks-bill-skepticism-about-its-chances/

The Democrats didn't give a flying fuck about the "will of the people" when they passed that bill. A plurality of people didn't want it and they passed it anyways.

I'm not sure how this could conceivably be seen as anything other than the political obsession of a minority of congress

Is that also how you viewed Obama's posturing on tax increases at the 250k+ line when we almost careened off the fiscal cliff in December? (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/15/report-boehner-offers-millionaire-tax-hike-obama-stands-firm-at-250k/). Because I certainly don't see the difference. And that demand had even less support than Obamacare in its current form: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/11/tax-cuts-and-americans-its-complicated/ (that's 43% in favor of Obama, 49% in favor of other alternatives). Support for Obamacare as is or Obamacare++ is at 38% whereas support for altering or eliminating Obamacare is at 62%: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/30/new-poll-only-one-third-of-americans-support-repealing-defunding-or-delaying-obamacare/

The House is gerrymandered. It does not accurately represent the will of the people, but rather represents the cumulative will of the parties in control of the states.

You act like there's some huge discrepancy, when in actuality the gerrymandering effect is far smaller (namely that it becomes the "will of the people" plus or minus a small number). At any rate, in 2010, the House took not only 63 House seats, but also 6 Senate seats (which are immune from the effects of gerrymandering). SO whereas you might be able to write off a 9% swing in the House, you can't write off a 5% swing in the Senate.

so clearly this can't be the will of the people, if half of them have no idea what the law is or will do.

Yet a majority of the populace disapproves of the bill, and polling shows it is MAJORLY partisan w/ 10% Republican support and 75% Democrat support: http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/16/as-health-care-law-proceeds-opposition-and-uncertainty-persist/

That's voter support, not politician. Compare that to a topic that actually was bipartisan, like background checks for guns (which carried strong support from both sides of the aisle): http://www.people-press.org/2013/05/23/broad-support-for-renewed-background-checks-bill-skepticism-about-its-chances/

The Democrats didn't give a flying fuck about the "will of the people" when they passed that bill. A plurality of people didn't want it and they passed it anyways.

I'm not sure how this could conceivably be seen as anything other than the political obsession of a minority of congress

Is that also how you viewed Obama's posturing on tax increases at the 250k+ line when we almost careened off the fiscal cliff in December? (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/15/report-boehner-offers-millionaire-tax-hike-obama-stands-firm-at-250k/). Because I certainly don't see the difference. And that demand had even less support than Obamacare in its current form: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/11/tax-cuts-and-americans-its-complicated/ (that's 43% in favor of Obama, 49% in favor of other alternatives). Support for Obamacare as is or Obamacare++ is at 38% whereas support for altering or eliminating Obamacare is at 62%: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/30/new-poll-only-one-third-of-americans-support-repealing-defunding-or-delaying-obamacare/

Our government is out of control and it won't be easy to stop now that things are so far in motion.

I think we've actually had a velvet coup by the Executive branch. For example, waging war with Libya without Congressional authorization was an usurpation of the power to make war. It looks like Syria isn't going to happen, but a few days ago after Putin suggested negotiating and the Obama admin said that it would talk, it also said that military strikes are still on the table (1). WTF? The Executive branch does not have the power to engage in such strikes without Congressional authority unless it faces an actual imminent threat to America, and it's stretching credulity beyond breaking to suggest Syria is a threat such that it represents "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces" (2).

Then we throw in all the ways Federal Agencies like the NSA and FBI are ignoring the constitution, and a reasonable conclusion you can draw is that there has been a coup by the Executive branch. It has come on by increments and was enabled by the courts and Congress, but the Constitutional separation of powers has become so weak, and Constitutional protections so riddled with exceptions (thanks to the War on Some Drugs and more recently, PATRIOT Act), that the time is ripe for the Executive to usurp power. And people don't even know or care that it's illegal -- I saw a poll where something like 30% of Americans thought the president should attack Syria without Congressional authorization (3).

We are sliding into a democratic-authoritarian government, one where we elect a new dictator every eight years from a slate of handpicked individuals trained in the art by the GOP or DNC.

(1) http://www.timesofisrael.com/leaving-strike-on-table-kerry-says-syrian-words-on-arms-deal-not-enough/
(2) War Powers Act: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1541 ; Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause
(3) http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/09/opposition-to-syrian-airstrikes-surges/ see section "Majority Says Congress Has Final Authority on Airstrikes"

People who vote for either of the two main parties are incredibly idiotic, so this isn't much of a surprise.

I agree, and I want to add that among those voters, the worst (in my opinion) are those who're able to abandon their own principles on a critical non-partisan issue based upon whether there's a Demoblican or a Republocrat in office. I can't wrap my head around it, but I find it appalling — they've got zero fucking integrity* and have no business in a voting booth.

* Just like the D/R candidates.

For those interested, here are the full results from Pew Research's domestic surveillance poll, showing additional demographic breakdowns.

YOU say that, but the majority of the US, who these officials represent, serve, and are employed by, disagree with you. You can't really expect the government to stop doing these things when so many people support it.

See: http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/

The internet can be like an echo chamber, especially in places like Slashdot where a lot of like-minded people come together. With all the outrage that you see, it's easy to be blind to the reality of the situation.

You need to work on changing the minds of the public, then maybe you'll see changes in the government.

How was that poll conducted, as in what question was actually asked?

There's a huge difference between:

"Do you think the NSA should secretly monitor phones to catch terrorists?"

To which most people would say "Yes, monitor their (the terrorist's) phones."

And:

"Do you think the NSA should secretly monitor everyone's phone and permanently store the data in case it's needed to catch terrorists?"

To which most people would say "Hell no, get a warrant!"

As far as the claims and promises being made as reported in TFS/TFA, too late. Too many officials have obviously lied over and over. NSA, FBI, Benghazi, IRS, F&F, etc. There is no trust, nor any logical reason for trust, given their track record on honesty and truthfulness. If they said "water is wet" I'd have to see the results of multiple scientific studies by multiple independent and prestigious international sources. And I'd still have doubts given who we're talking about.

Strat

YOU say that, but the majority of the US, who these officials represent, serve, and are employed by, disagree with you. You can't really expect the government to stop doing these things when so many people support it.

See: http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/

The internet can be like an echo chamber, especially in places like Slashdot where a lot of like-minded people come together. With all the outrage that you see, it's easy to be blind to the reality of the situation.

You need to work on changing the minds of the public, then maybe you'll see changes in the government.

According to that PewResearch article, 56% are in favor ofr un-Constitutional, unwarranted and illegal spying, and 41% against*.

That initially sounds pretty damning, but in triuth it is a pretty slim majority, considering how these polls are typically rigged. It's a useful number that politicians can point to, but I'd wager that it doesn't accurately reflect what most people feel about the situation. Those polls have leading questions that almost force you to agree with whatever the pollsters (or their employers) are supporting, and leave no room for dissenting opinions (for example, sure somebody might support telephone monitoring if it were used to stop a terrorist attack, but do the pollsters ask if the querents mind if that information is used for /anything else/?)

If there were a single-question poll made of the US public ("Are you in favor of the US government monitoring every communication you and every other American makes?") I think the results would be quite different.

* presumably the remaining 3% want monitoring for some, miniature American flags for others).

http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/ Better article on the study. The polls were taken earlier this month (Jun 6-9). So, the study was started right before the major leaks came out.

Oh, it's true, Majority Views NSA Phone Tracking as Acceptable Anti-terror Tactic.

Perhaps you were referring to this study.

I hate to say that. Ed Snowden just threw his life for nothing becauze most Americans don't mind being spied by their government. In this circumstances your fucked up, murderous government is just what you deserve. It makes me so sad ... and I wonder what would it take american people to stop being sheeple let alone become vigilant in defending their constitutional rights. You need thousands of Ed Snowdens ! You need people being more persistent than (most of) folks from Occupy Movement. You see, it took decades for Poles to fight off communism. And it happened almost a decade after anti-communist opposition took the biggest blow. Be prepared for MUCH harder fight because your corporate and bankster overlords have so much more to lose than those pesky polish communists (they've just stopped accepting orders from Moscow and started accepting orders from Washington and actually improved their standards of life). You HAVE to become active and you have to fight off this disease! If you don't do that, your fucked up government and your fucked up corporate mafia will lead you (and the rest of the world) the way Hitler led his III Reich - way of deception, violence and death.

Regards from Poland,
boorack

You'll be able to study as much as you want for whatever topic you want and for as long as you want.

It's called a library dude. Freely available knowledge and information hasn't been the issue for a LONG time. Ease of access was pretty much solved by the Internet. Everyone could see that coming back in the 90's.

Now we've got all of humanities knowledge at the fingertips of children and they can summon information, tutorials, how-to's, explanations, technical papers, research papers, the dummies guide to the research papers, and everything they need to learn EVERYTHING they would have been taught in K-12, and damn near everything they could wish to learn outside of K-12.

And that was totally amazing back around the turn of the millennium. It's been a decade. Kids are still dumb shits.

But you were talking more along the lines of college courses and whatnot. Only "most" of a college education can be had online. There's a lot of nuance missing at the higher levels. But the idea still stands. And look at how smart the average shmuck is. Oh wait. We've still got evolution deniers, philosophy and english majors who are shocked they can't find work, and just look at the average score of this test. Those are REALLY easy questions.

Sigh... this didn't start out as a cynical rant, I swear. But we've been a society with easy access to knowledge for a while now and it doesn't seem to be having that big of an effect. For as much as I love wikipedia, moving that median value of 7 billion people is DAMN hard.

I would agree those were cherry picked so how about we look at a few of the major trends:

Trust of politicians and government in general: http://www.people-press.org/2010/04/18/public-trust-in-government-1958-2010/

Income disparity (who is getting all the new wealth): http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3629

I don't have a particular link to environmtal damage but if you can't see that in just about every news source (even the terrible US ones) then you are working hard not to see it.

I will say that not everything is gloom and doom butpeople commenting on corruption, corporate greed and increase in power seems to me just being perceptive not overly negative. Most statistics I've seen and real world experience for the average person seem to support this. I would also point out there is strong evidence that government control is increasing and "rule of law" is decreasing. Again I don't have specific metrics for these but I certainly can point to several pieces of legislation as well as personal experience dealing with governmental institutions (border crossings, airports, traffic stops, tax assessment, building departments). Apparently you do not see this trend but the large number of comments about this just might be from people who see these trends or have experienced them first hand.

Finally, the impetus behind pointing this out just might be a desire to fix some of these issues. The first step in fixing a problem is to identify the problem. Refusing to acknowledge real problems does no service to people facing them or to resolving the problem itself. Just a few things you might want to consider. Hope this helps,

It is well known that the audiences of the Daily Show and Colbert Report entertainment shows on the Comedy channel do very well on polls of public knowledge. What is less appreciated is that those two shows have some unexpected competition.

Pew Research Center - Key News Audiences Now Blend Online and Traditional Sources
Data from table: Education, Age, and Knowledge (Near bottom of page.)

High
Knowledge / Source

44% - NPR
43% - Hardball
42% - Hannity & Colmes
36% - Rush Limbaugh
34% - BBC
34% - Colbert Report
33% - NewsHour
30% - Daily Show
22% - Daily newspaper
21% - NBC News
19% - CNN
19% - ABC news
19% - Fox News
18% - National Average
17% - Local TV news
10% - CBS News

I have to admit to a bit of surprise that the Colbert Report audience outscored the Daily Show audience, but there it is.

(Queue down mods by the "open minded" for this bit of sacrilege.)

Sorry Mr. Slippery, but Fox News is indeed a news channel that also provides commentary.

Fox News viewers overall are about equally informed as other networks, and viewers of particular shows are better informed.

Data from table: Education, Age, and Knowledge

High
Knowledge / Source

44% - NPR
43% - Hardball
42% - Hannity & Colmes
36% - Rush Limbaugh
34% - BBC
34% - Colbert Report
33% - NewsHour
30% - Daily Show
22% - Daily newspaper
21% - NBC News
19% - CNN
19% - ABC news
19% - Fox News
18% - National Average
17% - Local TV news
10% - CBS News

Why does this sort of disparity in outcomes exist?
Jon Stewart Slams Fox Viewers as Most Misinformed, But He's the Ignorant One
The Truth-O-Meter Says:

Perhaps someday we will live in a world where Daily Show and Colbert Report viewers are as well informed as Rush Limbaugh listeners, but not today.

Believing that Fox News makes you stupid or misinformed is a comforting lie backed by cooked polls that people tell themselves to reassure themselves of their superiority. It may in some fashion be comforting, but it isn't true.

You're wrong, just like a Republican bigot. Poor Black people tend to live in cities; trailer parks have more poor White people. In 2012, in reality (not in the Republican fantasy bubble), Democrats had only a two point advantage among Whites making 17 points (ie. R:58% / D:41%).

It's thinking like yours that doomed Republicans to win a landslide only in your imaginations.

So, this is the poll you're referring to: http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-alienation-or-support-for-extremism/

The actual wording in the poll is (in English, who knows what the poll said in Arabic, etc): "Suicide bombing/other violence against civilians is justified to defend Islam from its enemies..." (and then select one of Often, Sometimes, Rarely, Never, Don't know)

It's fairly bizarre to conflate suicide bombing specifically with an abstract range of things, violence against civilians. Violence against civilians could mean all kinds of things to different people, it's quite vague. The wording implies that only suicide attacks against civilians are relevant, not (military) suicide attacks against non-civilian targets, another thing to misunderstand.

Civilians itself is the key word, I guess, our assumption would be that violence against civilians is not permitted almost per definition, civilians being exactly those people who are not to be targeted. But clearly, Western armed forces have had a pretty tough time figuring out who is a civilian and who isn't in recent conflicts -- usually erring on the side of calling somebody an armed insurgent. We just define our problem away.

Next, the question whether an attack is justified. Under Protocol I of the Geneva Convention (caveat IANAL!), killing civilians can be legal in certain circumstances, you just have to try to avoid it, or not know about it (despite due diligence), etc etc. Calling that a justification of an attack on civilians is a bit twisted, but it's a legal framework. And of course it happens all the time, legally, and without any serious repercussions. The US hasn't ratified Protocol I, BTW. To be fair, the wording of "against" civilians sort of implies an attack where the civilian casualties are the objective, and not just involved. But that's a fairly fine point to make, people are being asked to answer a poll, not write a paper.

Defend is another fun word to toss in there, as I assume many subjects wouldn't consider your average terror attack an example of "defense". Or maybe they do, whatever, we don't know, it's pointless to argue about it.

Defending Islam strikes us as odd, because that ain't a country, but first of all the question/sentence was written by Pew, subjects were not given a choice of slightly rephrasing it (I guess their best option to deal with a false premise is DK or possibly no answer); second of all defending Islam isn't any stranger than defending freedom or the free trade and if anything it's less strange than fighting a war on terror or on drugs.

The final "its enemies" ties the whole thing up neatly, going back both to the point about who's a civilian and who's not and to the point about defense.

There'd be more to say, but I am all out of words.

Now we are on step two: admit it is real but that it is too expensive for us to fight it.

See http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-102/

It's utterly depressing, because it suggests that a lot of the political divide in this country is insurmountable

Except that the public opinion IS changing.

http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-101/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-104/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-105/

Also, the price of solar power is falling fast, and wind price is going down too. It is predicted that half the world will reach residential solar grid parity as early as *2015*; wind will reach grid parity by 2025. And there are even other options such as next-generation nuclear.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity

So even though AGW is probably real, rest assured that free market is moving in the right direction. Also, public opinion is becoming ever more willing to have the government interfere and accelerate the process.

It's utterly depressing, because it suggests that a lot of the political divide in this country is insurmountable

Except that the public opinion IS changing.

http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-101/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-104/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-105/

Also, the price of solar power is falling fast, and wind price is going down too. It is predicted that half the world will reach residential solar grid parity as early as *2015*; wind will reach grid parity by 2025. And there are even other options such as next-generation nuclear.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity

So even though AGW is probably real, rest assured that free market is moving in the right direction. Also, public opinion is becoming ever more willing to have the government interfere and accelerate the process.

It's utterly depressing, because it suggests that a lot of the political divide in this country is insurmountable

Except that the public opinion IS changing.

http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-101/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-104/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-105/

Also, the price of solar power is falling fast, and wind price is going down too. It is predicted that half the world will reach residential solar grid parity as early as *2015*; wind will reach grid parity by 2025. And there are even other options such as next-generation nuclear.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity

So even though AGW is probably real, rest assured that free market is moving in the right direction. Also, public opinion is becoming ever more willing to have the government interfere and accelerate the process.

Unlike many issues, it's meaningless whether we find a compromise that meets everyone's political preferences. We need a solution that meets the hard requirements of nature. Climate change won't negotiate with us.

But if you make loony predictions (such as "the end of civilization as we know it") and loony proposals (such as forcing twenty years of zero economic growth in "rich countries"), then nobody will listen to you.

On the other hand, if you make sound predictions and moderate proposals, then people can actually believe you.

Also, don't worry; see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3004663&cid=40771921.

Also, see:
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-101/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-104/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-105/

So even though AGW is probably real, rest assured that free market is moving in the right direction. Also, public opinion is becoming ever more willing to have the government interfere and accelerate the process.

In short: the end is not nigh.

Unlike many issues, it's meaningless whether we find a compromise that meets everyone's political preferences. We need a solution that meets the hard requirements of nature. Climate change won't negotiate with us.

But if you make loony predictions (such as "the end of civilization as we know it") and loony proposals (such as forcing twenty years of zero economic growth in "rich countries"), then nobody will listen to you.

On the other hand, if you make sound predictions and moderate proposals, then people can actually believe you.

Also, don't worry; see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3004663&cid=40771921.

Also, see:
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-101/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-104/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-105/

So even though AGW is probably real, rest assured that free market is moving in the right direction. Also, public opinion is becoming ever more willing to have the government interfere and accelerate the process.

In short: the end is not nigh.

Unlike many issues, it's meaningless whether we find a compromise that meets everyone's political preferences. We need a solution that meets the hard requirements of nature. Climate change won't negotiate with us.

But if you make loony predictions (such as "the end of civilization as we know it") and loony proposals (such as forcing twenty years of zero economic growth in "rich countries"), then nobody will listen to you.

On the other hand, if you make sound predictions and moderate proposals, then people can actually believe you.

Also, don't worry; see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3004663&cid=40771921.

Also, see:
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-101/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-104/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-105/

So even though AGW is probably real, rest assured that free market is moving in the right direction. Also, public opinion is becoming ever more willing to have the government interfere and accelerate the process.

In short: the end is not nigh.

See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3004663&cid=40771921.

Also, see:
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-101/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-104/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-105/

So even though AGW is probably real, rest assured that free market is moving in the right direction. Also, public opinion is becoming ever more willing to have the government interfere and accelerate the process.

In short: the end is not nigh.

See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3004663&cid=40771921.

Also, see:
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-101/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-104/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-105/

So even though AGW is probably real, rest assured that free market is moving in the right direction. Also, public opinion is becoming ever more willing to have the government interfere and accelerate the process.

In short: the end is not nigh.

See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3004663&cid=40771921.

Also, see:
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-101/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-104/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-105/

So even though AGW is probably real, rest assured that free market is moving in the right direction. Also, public opinion is becoming ever more willing to have the government interfere and accelerate the process.

In short: the end is not nigh.

just like the others who were advocating for marijuana legalization.

Controlled marijuana legalization, i.e. that it becomes an FDA approved drug for cancer and glaucoma is polling over 70%. That isn't a fringe. http://www.people-press.org/2010/04/01/public-support-for-legalizing-medical-marijuana/ And from the same article in terms of recreational it is up to 41%. Again not a fringe position.

I agree that the Savage Internet campaign may help rather than hurt Santorum win the nomination. GOP primary voters oppose gay marriage by 70%. http://www.people-press.org/2012/02/07/growing-public-support-for-same-sex-marriage/

It's hard to say, however, what effect it may have in the general election, which will include Democrats and Independents. Among all voters, opinion about gay marriage is evenly divided.

But I don't think a majority of all voters agree with Santorum that homosexuality is the same thing as the sexual abuse of dogs. Santorum's anti-gay pronouncements go far beyond the issue of gay marriage. To the extent that Savage's site exposes Santorum's extremism, it will help Obama, but I'm not convinced that most people will make the leap from anal froth to anti-gay bigotry.

Just because the morons who pushed it claimed to be "conservative" and/or are generally viewed as being "right wing" doesn't mean that it's true.

No actually it does make it true. There is a thing called the conservative movement there are politicians who run as conservatives and there is a generally agreed upon definition of conservative. I understand you want to argue that conservatives should believe what you believe, but they don't.

In 2006 when the Patriot act came up for renewal 65% of Republican voters supported it, while 25% of dems and 33% of independents did. ( http://www.people-press.org/2011/02/15/public-remains-divided-over-the-patriot-act/ ). This is not corrupt politicians, this is politicians accurately reflecting the fascist tendencies of their voters.

Here's one good link about American Muslims, but you can find similar elsewhere: Pew Research polling on American Muslims

I get the distinct impression you're hearing about Rauf from a less-than-objective source. Rauf believes in American freedom of speech and is patriotic, I don't know where you thought otherwise. If you're ever in New York City, I can take you to his mosque downtown at Masjid Farah. His congregation is sufi; very wonderful and loving people.

I've heard of churches using space inside a mosque, both 1400 years ago and more recently when a church burned down in the South. Clearly the Pope doesn't agree with the church letting Muslims use the space, but heck.

There is a fanatically liberal, pro-western slant to topics and opinions

Scientists are overwhelmingly liberal. 52% identify as liberal vs only 9% as conservative. That has also been my personal experience. I'm not sure what constitutes "fanatically liberal" in your opinion, but I run into far more commenters with conservative views here on slashdot that I do in the scientific community. If slashdot is "fanatically liberal" then information coming from scientists would have to be even more so.

Oh for fucks sake. Quit feeling persecuted. To be an American president you at least have to pay lip service to Jesus.

Indeed! We've actually reached the point where the American population is more willing to vote for an openly homosexual President than they are to vote for an openly atheist President. This is progress, of a sort, but still - 61% of respondents said that they are less likely to vote for an atheist, compared to 33% saying that they are less likely to vote for a homosexual.

Statistics don't support you....in fact, most Christians in the US are democrats.

Show me these statistics that support this claim. A quick Googling reveals this link from a source I've never heard of before with a chart about 1/3 of the way down the page showing that Republicans hold 33% of Protestants and 30% of Catholics while Democrats hold 32% of Protestants and 30% of democrats.

This is admittedly a non-authoritative source and not a large difference, but when you go and call someone out because "Statistics don't support you." and the first thing that I can find is that they (admittedly by a very narrow margin and by an non-authoritative source) do support his claim, you need to be able to prove it yourself.

What nutty group on the left is controlling the conversation? Seriously. Who?

Have not noticed how far to the kooky right the "center" of contemporary political discourse has come? Even a recent Pew Research poll (click: "politics and elections," then "support for compromise") showed that 70% of "solid liberals" (supposedly the leftmost group) wanted to compromise with those they disagreed with, while 79% of "staunch conservatives" (the rightmost group) wanted to "stick to their positions." You can see the political ratchet right there.

Conservatives compromising with liberals means giving them everything they demand, and in return they promise not to call you a racist/sexist/bigot//homophobe. Liberals compromising with conservatives means they only get 75% of their demands. Just look at the budget debate. Conservatives' compromise is to return to 2008 spending levels, for which the liberals scream they want to murder the poor. The liberal's "compromise" is to only increase spending by $25 trillion over the next 10 years, instead of $27 trillion.

Oh, and to answer your question, that would be Media Matters, the self-proclaimed media watch dog funded by George Soros.

What nutty group on the left is controlling the conversation? Seriously. Who?

Have not noticed how far to the kooky right the "center" of contemporary political discourse has come? Even a recent Pew Research poll (click: "politics and elections," then "support for compromise") showed that 70% of "solid liberals" (supposedly the leftmost group) wanted to compromise with those they disagreed with, while 79% of "staunch conservatives" (the rightmost group) wanted to "stick to their positions." You can see the political ratchet right there.

I think it's those who buy into the left-right duopoly who are more easily manipulated than the independents, certainly the actual political beliefs of most people today mostly do not fit in the left-right boxes.

The latest Pew poll summary says"The Pew Research Center’s new Political Typology finds that the public is more doctrinaire at each end of the ideological spectrum, yet more diverse in the middle than it has been in the past."
(Full report at: http://people-press.org/2011/05/04/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology/ )

Republicans: 20% (Staunch (reactionaries) 9%, "Main street" ("moderate") 11%),
Independents 33% (Libertarian 9%, Disaffected 11%, Social-liberal "moderates" (anti-safety net, anti-affirmative action, pro homosexual: 13%),
Democrats 37%, ("New Coalition"(mostly non-white) 10%, "Hard-pressed" (financially/ ideologically) 13%, "Solid Liberals" (D.party partisans)
Bystanders 10%.

Disaffected + Bystanders > Republicans;
Libertarian + Social-liberals > Republicans;
Democrats > Republicans (37% to 20%);
Democrats + " Social-liberals" > Republicans + Libertarians (50% to 29%)
Democrats, Republicans, Independents or any coalition of any sub-groups > "Moderates"

About 61% of the public, and about 65% of "main-street Republicans" do NOT agree that: "Most corporations make a fair and reasonable profit"; the same is true of only 24% of "staunch Conservatives" and 17% of Libertarians. On the other hand 53% of New Coalition Democrats say that businesses DO make a fair and reasonable profit.

55% of the public agrees that "government is almost always wasteful and inefficient"; most of these are not Republicans.
Only 29% agrees that the Federal government should usually be trusted, but only 14% is angry with the government, while 59% are frustrated. 69% say the government doesn't care what people like them think. (Over 58% in all groups.)

Only 31% of the public agrees "the best way to peace is military strength" (and only 39% of "main-street Republicans").

57% disapprove of Congress, 34% approve. No group gives over a 42% favorable rating. New Coalition Dems. have the least unfavorable rating at 44%, followed by the "Moderates" at 55%.

Only 8% believe that there are countries better than the US, 38% believe the US "stands above all others", 53% say it is one of the greatest.

31% believe peace is best achieved through military strength, vs. 58% through diplomacy. Most groups agree except for Staunch Conservatives (76%/14%), though Main street Republicans and Libertarians are ambivalent (MSR 39%/48%; L 48%/33%)

Only 33% believe the US should be active in world affairs, vs. 58% who say the US should concentrate on problems at home. All groups agree, except the Solid Liberals who are split 47%/47%.

And damn what the people think (most are against the war).

Saying things don't make them true: Poll for Libya Airstrikes. A plurality (47%) think the airstrikes were the right decision while only 36% disagree with them. Your falling into the same trap as the Caesars of old you're railing against, because you don't support something you automatically assume the people don't either.

http://people-press.org/report/283/pragmatic-americans-liberal-and-conservative-on-social-issues

Conservatism also varies by education. College graduates are much less conservative than those with lower levels of education on these social issues.

The tragedy isn't that people believe that the Daily Show is a legitimate source of news, it is that statistics show that its viewers actually are more informed than those that watch "news" networks. Apparently being a comedy show with no claim to journalistic integrity is less harmful than being a pro wrestling show that claims it is a news source. Citation: http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions

A more recent survey, released by the Pew Research Center on April 15, 2007, indicates that regular viewers of The Daily Show tend to be more knowledgeable about news than audiences of other news sources. Approximately 54% of The Daily Show viewers scored in the high knowledge range, followed by Jim Lehrer's program at 53% and Bill O'Reilly's program at 51%, significantly higher than the 34% of network morning show viewers. The survey shows that changing news formats have not made much difference on how much the public knows about national and international affairs, but adds that there is no clear connection between news formats and what audiences know.source The Project for Excellence in Journalism released a content analysis report suggesting that The Daily Show comes close to providing the complete daily news.source

While not quite the damning of Fox News, it does indeed seem to be Stewart at the top of everybody else

How about this study?

...fully 51% of CNN's regular viewers are Democrats while only 18% are Republicans. MSNBC's audience makeup is similar - 45% of regular viewers of MSNBC are Democrats, 18% are Republicans.

....Currently, 39% of regular Fox News viewers are Republicans while 33% are Democrats; in 2006, the margin was 38% to 31%.

Basically, in 2008 the Fox News viewership was much more balanced than either CNN or MSNBC.

The "faux news" meme was certainly alive and kicking then, but there you have it. Fox appeals to a balanced audience while the others heavily favor liberal viewership.

It seems to me that it is much more likely that those who say that Fox News is heavily biased are themselves at least as heavily biased in the other direction, and that while Fox News leans to the Right that it is more much centrist than these liberals think.

Hell, even with MSNBC's highly Democrat viewership, they still had to demote both Olbermann and Matthews. Thats how biased their lineup is. These guys are even too liberal for most democrats when it comes to reporting on things like presidential campaigns.

I occasionally watch Stewart and Colbert, but mostly Stewart because I find him a little less predictable. Colbert's routine is starting to wear a bit thin. I am not a big Bill O'reilly fan but basing your whole existence on lampooning Bill O'Reilly is getting stale. I do wonder how much acclaim and praise these two would get if they were constantly poking fun at the other side. Instead of spending an hour joking about Sarah Palin and Rand Paul. How about Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi or Obama? Do you think there might be some rich material there?

Honestly, how hard would be for anyone to run a video clip of a public figure (either side) followed by a long pause with a straight face and make fun of them. My point is, the audiences of these shows are mostly young liberal and uninformed. Their audience aren't concerned about things like big government because most of them pay no taxes. Try audience replacing his studio audience with middle aged tax payers or people working two jobs to pay their mortgage and see how funny they are!

Yeah, you're just plain wrong. Daily Show viewers lead Fox viewers in both education and income, so if anything, they probably pay more taxes.

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-09-28/entertainment/comedy.politics_1_viewers-o-reilly-quiz?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ

http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions

I would have to see the questions...

Take a look: http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/319.pdf

The questionnaire is starts on page 21 of the PDF. They all seem to be uncontrovertibly facts. I don't see that who the governor of California, or what the new minimum wage is can be "interpreted" to change the results of the study.

http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions