Pride In Being An American Is At A 21st Century Low

 

The chart above is from the Gallup Poll -- done between June 1st and 15th of a nationwide sample of 1,001 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

50% Say U.S. Citizens Should Be Allowed To Fight In Ukraine

This chart is from the YouGov Poll -- done on March 10th and 11th of a nationally representative sample of 5,898 adults. The margin of error would not be higher than 2 points.

Both Russian & Ukrainian Americans Oppose Putin's War

The charts on this page are from a new USA Today / Suffolk University Poll -- done between March 5th and 10th of 500 Ukrainian-Americans and 500 Russian-Americans, each with a margin of error of about 4.4 points. 

The chart above reflects to answers of Ukrainian-Americans, and the chart below reflects the answers of Russian-Americans. Note that both groups oppose the war, want to see Ukraine win the war, think Putin has committed war crimes, and don't believe NATO is a threat to Russia.

Trump Is A Sociopath - With No Regard For Human Life

We know that Donald Trump is dishonest, corrupt, incompetent, and narcissistic. But there is something else about him that is even worse -- he simply doesn't care about the lives of American citizens (or anyone else).

There is only one person he cares about -- himself, and he will happily throw anyone under the bus if he thinks it will benefit him.

Here's part of how Jonathan Chait puts it in New York Magazine:

A procession of former Trump administration officials, speaking both on and off the record, have depicted the president as fundamentally unfit for office. Yesterday, the latest addition to their ranks, former Mike Pence aide Olivia Troye, put an especially fine point on the indictment. President Trump displayed “flat-out disregard for human life.”

Even by the hyperinflated standards of the Trump era, disregard for human life is an extraordinarily serious charge. The most basic trait any president must have, below even simple competence and honesty, is a desire to safeguard the well-being of the public. Almost anybody would agree that a president who simply does not care if Americans die is morally disqualified from office. Nut there is plenty of available evidence to support it.

We should be precise about what exactly it means to say Trump has disregard for human life. Every president takes actions that put lives at risk (most obviously by using military force.) Many policies unavoidably involve trade-offs with that risk. Management of a pandemic is also going to involve decisions that, in one form or another, will entail some kind of trade-off.

To say Trump has disregard for human life is not to say he is willing to make cold decisions for the sake of a greater good, though. Troye is saying the president literally does not care about American deaths except insofar as it affects his own political standing. "The truth is he doesn't actually care about anyone else other than himself," she says. . . .

There’s a term for a person who views other humans purely as instruments for his own advancement, and is unable to conceive of the idea of caring about them independent of his own self-interest: “sociopath.” The United States has had some terrible presidents before, but probably never a sociopathic one. When his own aides warn the public that he does not care if the people he is tasked with helping live or die, we should take their warnings with the utmost seriousness.

The "Pain And Suffering Index" Is High For Many In U.S.

(The photo of Dan Rather is from his Facebook page.)

Donald Trump likes to brag about how well the Sack Market is doing. That is good for the rich, but has little to do with the lives of most Americans. Dan Rather thinks we should be considering something different -- the Pain And Suffering Index of ordinary Americans. He writes:

President Trump and his allies like to crow about the record highs in the stock market. But what if there was a different kind of index with which we could take stock of the health of our republic? Let's call it a pain and suffering index. How would that be doing today?

Is it a bull market or a bear market for the anxiety of the hundreds of thousands of "dreamers" who fear for their future as Washington plays political games? What is the value of the stock of hardship for the hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans who are still living without electricity - or those others still suffering in the wake of natural disasters in the US Virgin Islands, Texas, Florida, and the wildfire (and now mudslide) regions out West? What would we see if we could measure the stock of the millions of Americans of the Muslim faith who wonder if this nation still believes in religious freedom, or those immigrants from countries who the President disparaged with profanity? What about the millions of Americans who worry about losing their newfound health insurance? Or the vast majority in this country who understand that the future of this planet is at risk with climate change?I think it's fair to say that the stocks in safety and security plummeted recently in Hawaii when it seemed that a nuclear weaponized missile was hurtling their way. 

The list could go on and on. I personally feel it every day. And I know that I am much more fortunate in my circumstances than most of my fellow citizens. Even though I am a newsman I wake up each morning with a certain dread at what new crisis or catastrophe broke overnight. I know that when someone asks me, "have you heard the latest?" my heart skips a couple beats. Each buzz of the phone leads to a brief gasp of "oh no." 

There is an onslaught of negativity, norm breaking, and recklessness. I think even some of Mr. Trump's most ardent supporters feel the shattering of a sense of peace. Judging from the campaign rallies, that's what they seemed to be voting for. Well here we have it.

All I can hope and believe is that, as with business cycles, this cycle of pain will pass. Sadly, for some, they will lose their life savings of peace of mind in the process. It will be up to the rest of us to rebuild an economy of trust, empathy, and healing. 

I have found myself trying to take many more walks lately - even in the cold of a New York City winter. I breath in and deeply. And the stock ticker of anxiety fades for a while. I can remember a time when we had a president who didn't seem to cast a shadow over almost every recess of our minds - and I can picture a future where the stocks of sanity and equilibrium are once again in ascendence.

Fear Trumps The Constitution For Many Americans

All of these charts were made from a new YouGov Poll -- done on December 9th and 10th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, with a margin of error of 4.1 points.

I find the results of this new survey both a bit frightening and a bit confusing. The frightening part is that a plurality of Americans (45% to 41%) would support Donald Trump's plan to ban all muslims from entering the United States -- and 6 out of 9 demographic groups agree with that. Only three groups (18 to 29 year olds, Blacks, and Hispanics) have more people opposing that supporting Trump's plan.

The confusing part is that less than a third of Americans (31% to 45%) think that banning muslims from entering the country would be constitutional -- and all 9 demographic groups agree that it would be unconstitutional. This makes me wonder -- why would people support a plan they believe is unconstitutional (and many in this poll are clearly doing that). Are they letting their fear trump their regard for and belief in the Constitution? Why would any American do that?

The only saving grace in this survey comes with the chart below. It seems that while many Americans are willing to go along with Trump's proposal (even believing it is unconstitutional), they do not really like Donald Trump. Only 34% of Americans have a favorable view of Donald Trump, while 55% (a clear majority) have an unfavorable opinion of him -- and this unfavorable opinion is agreed to by all 9 of the demographic groups.

Many Of The Rich Are Meaner Than Other Americans

Most polls don't really question the really rich, or if they do, they don't contain enough of them to get a valid result. The Russell Sage Foundation decided to fix that. They did a poll of what they called the "elites" -- those very near or in the top 1% of Americans, who made a minimum of $1,000,000 a year. The Foundation then compared those results to the results of other polls showing what most Americans think.

And it turns out that most of the rich think very differently than the majority of other Americans. For instance, only 40% of the rich want the minimum wage to be raised, while 78% of other Americans want that. And 33% of them wants cuts in Social Security, while only 10% of other Americans want to see that. About 17% think taxes on the rich should be slightly higher, while 52% of others want that to make income and wealth distribution more fair. About 58% of the rich want to see substantial cuts in Medicare, education, and transportation, while only 27% of other Americans want that.

And it goes on and on. The rich think differently, and many of them have a more mean-spirited attitude toward their fellow Americans. Just look at the chart for some of the other opinions, with rather shocking differences from most Americans.

It's easy to see why the rich, and especially the ultra-rich, are donating so much money to right-wing candidates -- candidates that agree with policies the rich want to see. The rich know they can't outvote other Americans, so they try to buy the politicians they want (and hopefully for them, the election). And sadly, the Citizens United Supreme Court decision is letting them do that.

Most Americans Ignorant Of Their First Amendment Rights

The First Amendment Center does a survey every year for a report on the First Amendment -- and this year's survey shows most Americans are embarrassingly ignorant of what rights are contained in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This should bother anyone who values our democracy, because the First Amendment contains the five basic rights that are necessary for the survival of our democracy -- freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to petition our government, and the right to peacefully assemble.

The First Amendment Center just asked an open-ended question -- Can you name the specific rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution? A majority of Americans could name only one of those rights -- the right to freedom of speech. And even that was known by only 68%, a pitifully low percentage. None of the other four rights was able to garner even 30%, and about 29% of the respondents could not name even one right guaranteed by the First Amendment. How can it be that 3 out of 10 Americans can't name even one right?

This is nothing new though. That 68% who know that freedom of speech is a First Amendment right is the highest percentage in the 15 years of this century. And at no time in that 15 years has any of the other rights garnered as much as 30% knowledge. The really crazy part is that a lot of these ignorant people loudly proclaim their "constitutional rights" (even though they don't know those rights) and vote (many times for a candidate in favor of restricting those rights).

I guess this could explain the 113th Congress though. Ignorant people will vote for ignorant officials.

The First Amendment Center survey was done in May 2014 of a random national sample of 1,006 adults, and has a margin of error of 3.2 points.

The Green Party Stand On NSA Spying

It has been a few days now since the vast extent of the government's spying on U.S. citizens has been revealed. And several polls have now shown that Americans are divided over whether it is a good thing (that protects this country) or a bad thing (that invades the constitutional rights of American citizens). And the same goes for the two major political parties.

There are members of both political parties in Congress that are outraged by the extent of the spying (in spite of the fact that most of them voted to let it happen), and there are members of both parties that think the spying on American citizens is necessary to protect the country from terrorism. And this extends to the rank-and-file members of those parties. In fact, it gets even weirder when it comes to the views of those base voters -- with a majority of Republicans thinking it was Ok as long as Bush was president, and a majority of Democrats thinking it is Ok now that Obama is president.

It is obvious that neither of the two major political parties has a unified and coherent position on the NSA's spying on American citizens. But that lack of coherence and unification does not extend to the Green Party of the United States -- and they have released their party's position to the public. Here is that position, as enunciated by Shahid Buttar (Green Party Shadow Cabinet Director of Civil Rights Enforcement):

The (UK) Guardian's recent publication of a previously secret court order authorizing dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans without any pretense of justification has confirmed concerns raised by civil libertarians for years.

Since first taking office in 2009, the Obama administration has repeatedly extended the USA PATRIOT Act, including the overbroad section 215 cited as the basis for the FBI surveillance approved by the secret order disclosed by the Guardian. In light of Congress’ recent decision to extend the law permitting even worse abuses by the NSA for another five years, and the Supreme Court’s outrageous decision in Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l turning a blind eye to dragnet domestic surveillance, the document is also a clarion call for both mass outrage and immediate congressional action for long overdue sunlight at the National Security Agency.

The document is disturbing because, in a single swoop, it authorizes not just the wiretapping of a single individual, or a single organization, but all of the customers of a single telecommunications company. The order reinforces its own secrecy, immune from public or congressional oversight, violating core tenets of both Due Process and the Fourth Amendment at once.

Surveillance run amok

The first thing to take away from this disclosure is this sheer scale and scope of FBI and NSA spying on Americans. Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rand Paul (R-KY), like the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and various allied organizations, have been raising alarm since even before the 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”).

Along with Senator Mark Udall (D-CO), Sen.  Wyden has suggested in his capacity as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee that Americans would be outraged if we knew about secret government interpretations of the PATRIOT Act’s controversial Section 215 authority. The law is bad enough without being contorted to allow surveillance even beyond its meager limits, but that’s exactly what the document leaked to the Guardian demonstrates: a single wiretap order allowing the FBI to spy on millions of law-abiding Americans at once, without even a pretense of the individualized suspicion long required by the Constitution.

Wyden has also sought information about how many Americans have been impacted by NSA spying overseen by the same FISA court that approved the FBI surveillance revealed by the Guardian. The answers would be laughable if they weren’t so disturbing: the NSA claimed it couldn’t answer a quantitative question because it would somehow violate the privacy of individuals under surveillance, and also that figuring out the answer to Wyden’s inquiries would simply be impracticable.

The NSA’s spin moves before Sen. Wyden’s attempts at oversight insinuated what the Guardian’s disclosure confirms: that our government’s most secret agency is run amok, squandering billions of dollars while assaulting America from our own shores, using our own money.

While outrage is appropriately escalating at the scale of FBI and NSA abuses, three angles to this controversy have remained muted in most of today’s commentary.

Whistleblowers and transparency

First, what little we do know about the NSA’s program is mostly gleaned from government whistleblowers, courageous individuals who have risked their careers to inform the public about secret abuses of our rights.

Many of them have faced prosecution, at unprecedented levels under the Obama administration, making even the Nixon administration look transparent by comparison. But the crackdown on whistleblowers is what enables abuses like the NSA’s to happen in the first place.

At this point, we must keep our eyes open for whatever investigation the Justice Department will launch into this leak, compounding its assault on the Associated Press with a witch hunt to uncover the source of the leak to the Guardian.

Judicial independence

Second, the leaked court order reveals the illegitimacy of jurisprudence that sticks its head in the sand rather than confronting vital social issues.

The constitutional standing doctrine articulated by the Supreme Court in Clapper vs. Amnesty International eviscerates judicial review, and enshrined the principle that the executive branch can commit any abuse under the sun, yet evade judicial review, as long as it does so in secret. The decision creates perverse incentives and could serve as a cornerstone in the further entrenchment of executive power going forward.

Similarly, the sheer breadth of the leaked order authorizing FBI surveillance confirms the inadequacy of secret courts. Courts exist to enforce our rights in the face of government abuses. That’s one of the central geniuses of the founding fathers and the system of checks and balances they constructed.

But when the decisions are secret, they stop being judicial in character. Law is built on mutual references among courts. When the law can’t reference itself, it stops being law, and emerges as something very different: in this case, a rubber stamp allowing any manner of dragnet violations impacting law-abiding Americans and our fundamental rights.

All Lives Are Precious

This seems to be the attitude of too many Americans. It is certainly the attitude of our government and the giant corporations who run it. When did the majority in this country lose its compassion? How can we possibly justify the belief that some lives (ours) are worth more than others (those living outside our own borders)? Why is it so hard to believe the evil that belief represents? Aren't the lives of ALL people equally precious?

U.S. Catholic Leaders And Laity Disagree

(The picture above is of Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone.)

It has long been known that catholic leaders in the United States (and Rome) are struggling to keep their flock in line. This started with the general acceptance of contraception as an alternative, regardless of what the church's teaching was on the matter (as more than 96% of all American women who are sexually active have used some form of contraception -- including most catholic women). This disagreement over "required" church beliefs has now spread to other areas.

But in an amazing display of not caring what catholics (and Americans in general) want, several high-ranking U.S. catholic leaders have come out against the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). They are Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone (San Francisco), Archbishop William Lori (Baltimore), Archbishop Jose Gomez (Los Angeles), Bishop Kevin Rhoades (Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana), and Bishop Stephen Blaire (Stockton, California).

While an overwhelming portion of the American public (and U.S. catholics) support VAWA, these catholic leaders have decided to oppose it. They think the inclusion of the LGBT community into the protections of VAWA will somehow change gender and sexual identities and make same-sex marriage easier to become accepted. In other words, they are willing to allow the domestic abuse of women so they can protect their own particular brand of bigotry. What makes this particularly ridiculous is the fact that a clear majority of American catholics already support same-sex marriage.

That was shown by a recent survey done by the Quinnipiac University Poll (done between February 27th and March 4th of about 500 catholic adults in the United States -- with a margin of error of about 4.4 points). That poll showed that 54% of U.S. catholics support same-sex marriage, while only 38% now oppose it (clearly exceeding the margin of error of the poll). Like contraception and VAWA, most of the catholic laity is in opposition to the teachings of catholic leadership.

And those aren't the only areas. That same survey shows a difference between the people and their church leaders on several topics. Here are some other questions asked by the poll and their results:

ARE CHURCH LEADERS IN TOUCH OR OUT OF TOUCH WITH U.S. CATHOLICS?
In touch...............40%
Out of touch...............52%
Don't know...............9%

DO YOU THINK THE NEW POPE SHOULD MOVE THE CHURCH IN NEW DIRECTIONS OR MAINTAIN TRADITIONAL CHURCH POSITIONS?
New directions...............55%
Maintain traditions...............38%
Don't know...............7%

SHOULD THE NEW POPE SUPPORT OR OPPOSE ALLOWING PRIESTS TO MARRY?
Support...............62%
Oppose...............30%
Don't know...............8%

SHOULD THE NEW POPE SUPPORT OR OPPOSE ALLOWING WOMEN TO BECOME PRIESTS?
Support...............62%
Oppose...............27%
Don't know...............11%

SHOULD THE NEW POPE ALLOW THE CATHOLIC CLERGY TO RUN FOR AND SERVE IN PUBLIC OFFICE?
Yes...............35%
No...............59%
Don't know...............6%

SHOULD THE NEW POPE RELAX THE CHURCH BAN ON CONTRACEPTION?
Yes...............64%
No...............28%
Don't know...............8%

SHOULD THE NEW POPE DO MORE TO COMBAT SEXUAL ABUSE OF YOUTH BY PRIESTS, OR IS ENOUGH ALREADY BEING DONE?
Should do more...............81%
Doing enough now...............13%
Don't know...............6%

DO YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE REQUIRING INSURANCE COMPANIES TO PAY FOR CONTRACEPTION SERVICES, EVEN WHEN OPPOSED BY CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES AND HOSPITALS?
Support...............51%
Oppose...............41%
Don't know...............8%

As you can see, there is a significant difference between what catholic leaders support and what the American catholic laity supports. And it is unlikely that either of those groups will change anytime soon. In fact, I expect the number of catholic laity disagreeing with the teachings of church will only grow in the future (since they are having to choose between the equality guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the bigotry of archaic catholic doctrines).

The real question is how long this disconnect between clergy and laity can continue before it tears the church apart, or renders it superfluous in the developed world (with an ever decreasing membership)? Is it even possible for the catholic church to bring its teachings and doctrine to be more in line with 21st century thought, or is this the beginning of the end for the church?

Overweight America

Turkey day is over, and most of us ate far too much of everything yesterday. So I thought this would be a good time to show these charts. They are from the Gallup Poll, and show that Americans are convinced that they weigh more than they should (and they are probably right). Note that, as the top chart shows, only 46% of Americans said they were overweight, while 48% said they were about the right weight. That has changed radically in the last 20 years. Now 60% of the population says they are overweight, while only 34% say they are about the right weight.

But the second chart is even more interesting (and somewhat amusing as well). As the average weight of Americans has climbed since 1991, so has the weight they claim would be ideal. In 1991, the average American weighed 161 pounds, and they reported that the ideal weight would be 149 pounds (a difference of 12 pounds). By 2011, the average reported weight had climbed to 176 pounds, and the ideal weight reported by people had climbed also -- to 162 pounds (a difference of 14 pounds), very similar to the difference between average and ideal weight in 1991.

And this similar gain of both the average weight and ideal weight doesn't seem to be confined to just one sex. The same phenomenon is observed with both men and women. Is this a vanity thing? Are people willing to admit they are overweight, but not much over what they consider their ideal weight? Why otherwise would the ideal weight have climbed a similar amount as the average weight (in general terms)?

Worldwide Investors Prefer Obama

The folks over at Bloomberg News (a business-oriented news-site) wanted to know what investors thought about the coming American election. They had asked investors the same question back in January, and at that time the candidates were equal in the eyes of the investors (a mixture of both American and foreign investors). Things have changed since then.

The newest survey of 1,253 Bloomberg customers (who are investors, analysts, or traders) showed that President Obama now has an 11 point lead. About 49% of them favor President Obama, while about 38% of them favor Willard Mitt Romney. That's a significant move in opinion.

There is a big difference between American investors and foreign investors. The May 8th poll shows that American investors supported Romney by a 2 to 1 majority, while those investors outside of the United States supported Obama by a 3 to 1 margin. The poll also showed that President Obama is viewed favorably by 56% (31% in the U.S. and 70% outside the U.S.) and unfavorably by 40%. Romney was viewed favorably by 40% and unfavorably by 46%.

Why the big difference between American and foreign investors? I think American investors view Romney as one of them (and therefore would do what they want, especially in cutting their taxes). Foreign investors on the other hand, are much more concerned about the health of the American economy (and how it would affect their situation). They don't like Romney's support of Republican positions in Congress (like refusing to raise the debt ceiling, which they view as playing Russian roulette with American economy and the world economy).

Afghan War Grows Even More Unpopular

President Obama is now saying that we'll be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014 -- sort of. He's signed an agreement with the government there that will allow some soldiers to stay -- to train the Afghan army and help them with controlling "insurgents". Republican candidate Mitt Romney won't even go that far, preferring an open-ended commitment to the war (which has already lasted more than 10 years). Both men are out-of-synch with what the American people want.

The American people are sick of this war. It has lasted too long, too many people (both soldiers and innocent civilians) have been killed, and nothing has really been accomplished. We have replaced a bad Taliban government with an equally misogynistic and much more corrupt government of our own choosing, but we would be deluding ourselves to think anything has been solved there -- and there is no end in sight to the killing.

And the longer it goes on, the more unpopular the war becomes. A new AP-Gfk Poll  now shows that two-thirds of Americans now oppose the war. Here are the numbers:

DO YOU FAVOR OR OPPOSE THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN?

strongly favor...............8%
somewhat favor...............20%
TOTAL FAVOR...............28%

strongly oppose...............40%
somewhat oppose...............26%
TOTAL OPPOSE...............66%

DON'T KNOW...............6%

It is time to withdraw ALL of our troops from Afghanistan -- not in 2014 (or later), but immediately.

Anti-War Sentiment Is Growing In The U.S.

We have known for a while now that the American people are getting tired of the war in Afghanistan. For several months polls have shown that the people want an end to the war that has gone on for more than ten years -- and recent polls have shown they want that withdrawal now, not in the future. And that anti-war sentiment just keeps growing in the face of recent events in Afghanistan -- none of which have been good.

A recent poll by CNN/ORC International (taken on March 24th and 25th with a 3 point margin of error) verifies this. Look at these results of the poll:

DO YOU FAVOR OR OPPOSE THE AFGHAN WAR?
Favor...............25%
Oppose...............72%
Don't know...............3%

WHEN SHOULD THE U.S. WITHDRAW ALL TROOPS?
Earlier than 2014...............55%
Remove all in 2014...............22%
Beyond 2014...............22%
Don't know...............1%

IS THE UNITED STATES WINNING THE AFGHAN WAR?
Winning...............34%
Not winning...............61%
Don't know...............5%

This ridiculous and un-winnable war no longer has the support of most Americans. It is time to withdraw ALL of our troops.

Most Americans In Poor Financial Condition

There was a time when Americans were pretty well-off. Most had decent jobs, credit, and money in the bank. Those times are fast disappearing. Since the Republican recession that fully began in 2008, things have really gotten much worse. There has been a wage stagnation for most Americans for years now (with current salaries having less buying power than salaries in the 1970's) thanks to attacks on unions and the off-shoring of good American jobs (both of which are still happening). The recession's elimination of up to 12 million jobs just accelerated the process that has been going on since the Reagan administration.

The upshot of all this is that far too many Americans are now living paycheck-to-paycheck (if they are still lucky enough to have a paycheck). The National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC) recently did an interesting survey. They asked over 2,700 Americans how they would cover a $1000 unplanned emergency expense. At today's prices that's not really a huge unplanned expense -- a car transmission can cost triple that, and a hospital stay, even with insurance, can top $1000 easily.

But what the NFCC found was kind of scary. The huge majority of Americans don't have enough money in the bank to cover a $1000 unplanned expense. In fact, only 36% said they had enough in a checking or savings account to cover a $1000 expense. That means 64% of Americans do not have the $1000. They are virtually living on the edge of financial disaster.

How would these people cover a $1000 unplanned expense? Here's what they said they'd do (or try to do):
17% would borrow from friends or family
17% would disregard other monthly expenses
12% would sell or pawn their possessions
9% would take out a loan
9% would use a credit card cash advance

None of those are really good options for a family living so close to their income level that they have been unable to save a thousand dollars. It would just create more financial pressure.

And still, the Republicans are ignoring the plight of ordinary Americans in their headlong rush to give even more money to the rich and the corporations. Isn't it time to vote them out of office? Isn't it time to return to a sane economic policy?

Americans Still Love Their Gas-Powered Autos

There's no doubt that Americans love their automobiles, and they have ever since it was first mass-produced. There have been efforts to get people in this country to use mass transportation more and leave the cars at home (or do without them completely), but these efforts have been largely unsuccessful. While many might use airplanes or trains to travel long distances, just as many (or more) will just load up the car and drive.

And outside of New York City, it's a very small percentage of the population that doesn't take their car even on very short trips -- like going to work or to shop. This brings up an interesting question. In light of the rising gas prices (and environmental damage), is it possible to get Americans away from their cars -- especially the gasoline-powered cars?

The Gallup Poll recently examined that question in a nationwide survey taken May 12th through May 15th of 1,024 adults. The most interesting question they asked was would you be willing to do the following if the price of gasoline rose above $10 a gallon? The only option that people really had any interest in was buying a car that used less gas (but not an electric car). Here are the percentages who would NOT be willing to do the following:

Replace your car with one that gets better mileage...............38%
Use mass transit as your main source of transportation...............52%
Buy an electric car that could only go limited miles at a time...............57%
Move closer to the places you drive to most often...............69%
Change jobs or quit working...............72%

Looking at these numbers it's easy to see why mass transit and electric cars (at least the current versions) have not been able to gain much traction in most of the country. Americans live driving their gasoline-powered cars, and majorities will continue to do that if gas rises to above $10 a gallon. The most a majority would be willing to do is get a more efficient car.

This is a good argument for the current government position of putting most of their conservation efforts into making gas-powered cars more efficient. It's also a good argument for making the auto industry step up that efficiency far more than they have currently been required to do.

I am one of those who would like to see more available mass transportation -- especially things like bullet trains. But while mass transportation has been successful in other countries, a poll like this makes me wonder if people in the United States want or would use such transportation in the numbers required to make it worthwhile.

Americans Say Taxes Are NOT Too High

The Republican mantra for years now has been that taxes, especially income taxes, are too high in the United States and must be cut. Even though taxes are at the lowest rates since World War II (as is the income the government gets from taxes), there seems to be no end to their demand for further tax cuts. Of course, when they talk about tax cuts they are mainly talking about further cuts for the richest Americans. Like the last tax cut they initiated (the Bush tax cuts), working Americans had their taxes cut by a pittance while the rich received huge tax cuts.

But it looks like a majority of Americans aren't buying into the Republican lies about taxes anymore. Two new polls, released just before the tax filing date, shows that a majority of Americans believe that the amount they pay in taxes is fair. The first poll is the GfK/Roper/Associated Press survey done from March 24th through March 28th of 1,001 Americans. Here is what they said:

DO YOU THINK THE AMOUNT OF TAXES YOU PAY IS FAIR OR UNFAIR?
Fair...............54%
Unfair...............46%

And a second poll found very similar results. Amazingly, this second poll was done for the bastion of Republican propaganda -- Fox News. This poll, conducted April 3rd through April 5th of 914 registered voters, showed:

DO YOU FELL YOU PAY MORE, LESS, OR YOUR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES?
More than is fair...............43%
Less than is fair...............3%
My fair share...............52%
Don't know...............2%

Other polls have recently shown that even larger majorities think the taxes on the wealthiest Americans should be raised to help balance the federal budget. The Republicans may have been successful in convincing Americans that the deficit is out of control (and it is very high), but their constant insistence that taxes are too high and must be lowered further is starting to lose its appeal -- especially in light of Republican proposals to abolish Medicare and make huge cuts to social programs.

Four Out Of Ten Americans Are Anti-Science

I personally believe the last election turned out the way it did because a lot of Americans just stayed home instead of voting.   But a case could be made that it happened because a lot of people in this country just aren't very bright.   Look at the results of this latest Gallup Poll (which might make any thinking person wonder if there's any hope at all for the United States).

The poll was conducted December 10th thru 12th with a random sample of 1,019 adult Americans (and has a margin of error of 4%).   But even if you figure in the full 4% margin of error, the results of the poll are (or should be) embarrassing.   It seems that nearly four oout of every ten Americans don't think much of science -- they believe that god created man as he currently is less than 10,000 years ago (which would mean they believe several scientific disciplines are just wrong and science has not advanced for the last 3,000 years).

It seems that about 38% of the population believe that god created man less than 10,000 years ago.   This is the same percentage that believed this in 1982 (when Gallup first starting polling on this question).   Another 40% believed that man evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life with the guidance of god (a drop of 4% since 1982).   At least this group doesn't deny the reality or advancement of science.

Another 16% of the population believe that man evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life without the help or guidance of any god.   The good news is that this is the one segment of the population that is growing (it was only 9% in 1982, and as recently as 2000).

Among those "young-earth creationists" are 22% of those with a postgraduate degree, 37% of all college graduates, 44% of those who have had some college, and 47% of those with a high school diploma or less.   This makes some sense, since it should be expected that those with more education would be less likely to accept creationist ideas.   Still, I think the numbers are too high in all education levels.

It comes as no surprise that the political subdivision with the highest percentage of creationists are the Republicans.   Here's how the numbers break down by party affiliation:

REPUBLICANS
Creationists...............52%
God-driven evolution...............36%
Secular evolution...............8%

INDEPENDENTS
Creationists...............34%
God-driven evolution...............39%
Secular evolution...............21%

DEMOCRATS
Creationists...............34%
God-driven evolution...............40%
Secular evolution...............20%

Teabaggers Not Like Other Americans

We all know that Fox News would like for people to believe the teabaggers are just ordinary Americans -- representative of the vast majority of Americans.   Sadly, they are not the only media trying to pass this myth off as truth.   Too many members of the mainstream media have tried to tell us that this last election is indicative of the power of teabaggers in America.

It's just not true.   The teabaggers, as I have said in the past, are just the angry right-wing fringe of the Republican Party.   The voters in the last election were registering their displeasure with government at not doing more to pull this country out of the recession (via job creation).   It had nothing to do with teabagger beliefs.

The teabaggers are not at all close to mainstream thinking in this country.   While they may be in agreement with most Americans in being unhappy with the government right now, that is as far as it goes.   The huge majority of Americans think very differently from the teabaggers.   Consider the following:

* About 84% of teabaggers are unhappy with how President Obama is doing his job, while only 35% of other Americans feel that way.

* Four times as many teabaggers want to repeal the new health care law than other Americans.

* Twice as many teabaggers want to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy as other Americans.

* About 86% of teabaggers want less government in people's lives and business, while only 35% of other Americans feel the same way.

* Teabaggers are five times as likely to blame President Obama for the economy as other Americans.

* Teabaggers are three times as likely to believe President Obama's policies will hurt the country as other Americans.

* Teabaggers are twice as likely as other Americans to say the country is on the wrong track.

Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator for the umbrella group Tea Party Patriots, says,   "We are ordinary Americans."   I disagree.   The teabaggers are a far-right fringe group, while most Americans are centrist.   They are not ordinary Americans, and are not representative of the vast majority of Americans.