Nearly Half Of U.S. Citizens Are Creationists

(This picture, from the Washington Post, was taken in 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee -- the scene of the "Scopes monkey trial".)

It doesn't look like a lot has changed since the famous "Scopes monkey trial", where teacher John Scopes was arrested and tried for teaching evolution in a high school. There's still a significant portion of the United States population that believes in creationism and denies evolution -- and many of them would like to force their beliefs on the rest of us, by requiring schools to teach creationism instead of, or in addition to, real science like evolution.

A recently released Gallup Poll (taken of a nationwide sample of 1,012 people from May 19th through May 13th) shows that about 46% of the U.S. population believes in creationism (the belief that man was created by god in his present form and has not evolved). The margin of error for the poll is 4 points, but the results are in line with with polls taken on the subject since 1982. Since then, the poll results show belief in creationism has vacillated between 44% and 47%.

That means there is good news and bad news. The good news is that belief in creationism doesn't seem to be growing. The bad news is that belief in creationism doesn't seem to be shrinking either. Here is a graph of the poll's results since 1982:

A couple of unsurprising results are that more Republicans than Independents or Democrats believe in creationism, and that more educated people tend to believe less in creationism. Here are those numbers:

HUMANS CREATED BY GOD IN PRESENT FORM IN LAST 10,000 YEARS.
Republicans...............58%
Independents...............39%
Democrats...............41%
Post-graduate...............25%
College grad...............46%
Some college...............47%
High school or less...............52%

HUMANS EVOLVED IN A GOD-GUIDED PROCESS.
Republicans...............31%
Independents...............34%
Democrats...............32%
Post-graduate...............42%
College grad...............35%
Some college...............36%
High school or less...............25%

HUMANS EVOLVED WITH NO GOD INVOLVEMENT.
Republicans...............5%
Independents...............19%
Democrats...............19%
Post-graduate...............29%
College grad...............14%
Some college...............13%
High school or less...............11%

Those who attend church weekly (67%) are also much more likely to believe in creationism than those who seldom or never attend church (25%) -- which supports the idea that creationism is a religious belief rather than a scientific one.

-----------------------------------

In related news, some scientists believe they have found the "missing link". It is a 47 million year-old primate fossil, which has been officially named Darwinius masillae. The almost complete skeleton of the lemur-like creature had opposable thumbs and fingernails instead of claws. It's hind legs also showed evolutionary changes that scientists believe resulted in humans eventually walking upright. The fossil is pictured below:

Nanny State

Political Cartoon is by Nate Beeler in The Columbus Dispatch.

Unemployment Rate Rises Slightly In May

The Labor Department released the unemployment figures for May yesterday. According to those figures, the nation did add 69,000 jobs. But that number of new jobs is not even enough to take care of new workers entering the workforce (for that 150,000 jobs a month would be needed). So while the Labor Department said the unemployment rate was "essentially unchanged", the truth is that the rate did change -- it rose slightly to 8.2% (from April's figure of 8.1%).

The unemployment rate of 8.2% is still significantly better than it was a year ago. In May of 2011, it was around 9.1%. But it does show the economy is growing more stagnant and, if the government does nothing, job growth could easily become job loss -- throwing the nation into a deeper recession.

The Republicans will trumpet the new rate as proof that Obama's policy doesn't work and can't bring the country into a recovery. Of course, that is pure horse crap. They have blocked everything the president has tried to do to create jobs -- from rebuilding our infrastructure to cutting taxes for small businesses (real small businesses, not giant corporations).

The Republicans say the path to job creation is to take more money from the 99% and give it to the 1% -- by cutting all discretionary spending (except for the military) and giving huge new tax breaks to the rich. All we have to do is look at the example Europe is setting to know that this won't work. They tried the Republican plan (they call it "austerity"), and it has just sunk them deeper into recession. The truth is that the rich don't create jobs, no matter how much money they are given. Jobs are created by demand -- the rise in demand for goods and services. And the only way to create demand is to put more money in the pockets of the masses (the 99%).

But until the Congress breaks its deadlock and does something that puts money back back in the pockets of the mass of Americans, we are going to be stuck with the current feeble job growth (assuming there is any growth at all).

Here's the really bad news. According to the government, there are still 12.7 million people counted as unemployed. Of course, that doesn't include the 2.4 million people called "marginally attached" to the workforce because they didn't look for work in the last four weeks. And it also doesn't include the 8.1 million people who are working part-time because they can't find a full-time job. That means the full-time job shortage in the United States is really about 23.2 million. And until we put a significant amount of those people back to work, we can't say the country is recovering.

Here is the demographic breakdown of the unemployed (not counting the "marginally attached" or part-time workers looking for full-time jobs):
Adult men...............7.8%
Adult women...............7.4%
Teenagers...............24.6%
Whites...............7.4%
Blacks...............13.6%
Hispanics...............11.0%
Asians...............5.2%

Denying Reality

Political Cartoon is by Joel Pett in the Lexington Herald-Leader.

Are We Already At War With Iran ?

Some of you may be shocked at my title question. After all, hasn't the president done all that he can to avoid war with Iran? Hasn't he joined with the European countries to put economic pressure on Iran, in an effort to avoid attacking them? Well yes, he has done that -- but that may just be a cover for the much more aggressive actions this country has initiated.

We already know about the American rocket that killed civilians in Iran. According to the government, that rocket was meant to explode in Iraq and just went awry. And then there's the matter of the drones we have been sending over Iran. One of them was actually shot down by the Iranians, so we can't deny doing that anymore. Again, the official story is that they just got off course.

But there is another matter that is even more serious -- an intentional attack on Iranian property by the United States government. The attack tool is called "Stuxnet". It's a computer "worm" created by the United States (and Israel) to wreak havoc on the Iranian government's computers. It was first discovered when a screw-up in the program sent the worm around the world instead of just to Iran's computer system. And it's been going on for years now.

The cyber-attacks were started by the Bush administration, but President Obama made the decision to continue, and even increase, them after he took office. The attack was a unilateral one, and another example of the United State's policy of "preventative war" -- a Bush doctrine that seems to have been adopted by President Obama.

This brings up a valid question. Isn't an attack on another country's computer system an act of war? If another country were to attack our own government's computers, you can bet our government would consider it an act of war (just as surely as if they had attacked one of our ships or airplanes or military bases). And we would retaliate.

Ask yourself what the United States would do if Iran killed American citizens with a missile, sent drones over U.S. territory, or launched a cyber-attack on our nation's computer system? You know the answer. At the very least the U.S. would bomb the hell out of Iran, and it very well could lead to all-out war.

Too many Americans will deny it (because they believe the U.S. can do no wrong), but our government has already launched the first strikes against Iran. The only reason we are not already in a shooting war is that Iran is showing remarkable restraint (and good sense). Perhaps they know we are trying hard to prod them into responding, so we'll have an excuse to launch our bombers.

Wrong No Matter Who Does It

Political Cartoon is by Kevin Siers in The Charlotte Observer.

The Political Illiterate

Appeals Court Strikes A Blow For Equality

Several federal district courts have ruled the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional because it denies gays and lesbians the same rights that heterosexual couples have when they get married. But a federal appeals court had never ruled on DOMA. Now the United States 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has ruled the heart of DOMA to be unconstitutional.

DOMA was passed to prevent the states from making same-sex marriage legal (as several have now done). The Republicans, who claim to be for states' rights, tried to deny states the right to make this decision for themselves. Massachusetts was the state challenging DOMA, in a case called Massachusetts vs. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. Massachusetts is one of the states that has legalized same-sex marriage. In their decision, the court said:

If we are right in thinking that disparate impact on minority interests and federalism concerns both require somewhat more in this case than almost automatic deference to Congress' will, this statute fails that test.


Many Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where that is the law today/ One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage. Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest.

The best part is that two of the three justices that ruled against DOMA were appointed by Republican presidents. The three judge panel was made up of Michael Boudin (appointed by Bush I), Juan Torruella (appointed by Reagan), and Sandra Lynch (appointed by Clinton).

Earlier this month, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that California's proposition 8 (which denied the right of same-sex marriage in that state) was unconstitutional because it violated the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by causing "meaningful harm to gays and lesbians". It is likely that both court decisions will be appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has been putting off making any decision regarding same-sex marriage, but in light of these two decisions they will probably now have to take up the issue. They could combine the two suits and make a broad decision on same-sex marriage rights, but it is more likely they will just decide each separately and give the states the right to make their own decision (since heterosexual marraige rights are granted by each state, rather than the federal government). Either way, it will be interesting to see what happens.

Gay Marriage

Political Cartoon is by Mike Luckovich in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

GOP Tries Another Faux Issue & Fails

The issue that will probably determine the upcoming election will most likely be the economy (and jobs), but the Republicans can't compete on that. They still support the same old trickle-down economics that cost this nation millions of jobs, created a vast gap of wealth and income, and threw the country into recession. And they are far too invested in party ideology to alter those views.

That's why they are doing their best to change the electoral narrative to take the public's mind off of the economy and on to social issues, like same-sex marriage. Their latest effort has been to dredge up an old, but lasting issue -- abortion. They know they can't outright ban abortion (thanks to the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade), so they are once again trying to chip away at the edges of current abortion law.

This time it was a bill introduced by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Arizona), pictured above. Franks bill would have outlawed a woman having an abortion because of the sex of the fetus. The bill got 246 votes, but failed because it was brought to the House floor under an expedited process -- which limited debate on the issue, but required a two-thirds majority for passage.

I'm sure the Republicans will now try to sell the idea that Democrats are in favor of allowing abortions solely because of the sex of the fetus. Of course that is ridiculous. Most Democrats simply believe a woman should have control over her own body. It's a fake issue anyway, for a couple of reasons.

The idea was that women would abort a female fetus because boys are favored. That may be true in some other countries (like China, where there is a limit on the amount of children a woman can have), but there is no evidence of selective abortion in this country. In fact, the evidence shows just the opposite of that. Back in 1983 there were 1,053 boys born for every 1,000 girls. In 2009, that had shrunk to 1,048 boys for every 1,000 girls. The ratio of boys to girls has gone down instead of climbing (as it would have if selective abortion was a problem).

In addition, at least 92% of all abortions are performed before the sex of the fetus can even be determined.  Obviously this was a bill with little meaning or purpose, other than to try and change the electoral debate -- and increase the Republican's war on women.

It's About Control

Political Cartoon is by Mike Luckovich in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The Great Inter-Galactic Crash

The illustration above is of what the night sky will most likely look like far into the future -- as the Andromeda galaxy crashes into our own Milky Way galaxy. Scientists have long known that the two galaxies have a gravitational pull on each other, even though they are millions of light years apart. But they could not predict if or when the two galaxies might collide, because they could not measure the sideways motion of Andromeda.

But by using the Hubble Telescope, they have now been able to make those measurements. And they found the two galaxies will indeed crash together, and form one elongated giant galaxy (much like many other elongated galaxies seen throughout the universe).

There's no need to worry though. The two galaxies won't collide for another 4 billion years (and then take another two billion years to form the final elongated galaxy). That's plenty of time for the human race to finish destroying itself -- as it seems intent upon doing. It'll sure be a fine show for whatever species rules this Earth after we are gone though.

Verdict

Political Cartoon is by Daryl Cagle at caglecartoons.com.

Violating The Constitution

Isn't this a clear violation of Article VI, Section 3 of the United States Constitution?