Sunday, March 02, 2014
Growth Of The Non-Religious In The United States
Since 1972, the Social Science Research Center at the University of Chicago (with from the National Science Foundation) has been taking a General Social Survey -- and one of the things they have been keeping tabs on is religion in the United States. The charts above show the results of that research by decade.
Note that this survey (as many others have also) shows there has been an explosion of growth in the United States of people who define themselves as non-religious. Those defining themselves as non-religious have grown from 6.8% of the population in the 1970's to about 19.7% of the population in 2012 -- a staggering growth, and there is no reason to believe this segment won't continue to grow in the future.
The second chart shows an interesting thing -- that this growth of the non-religious hasn't come from all religions equally. Note that the Catholics have dropped only a minuscule 2.2% over those four decades, while the percentage believing in non-christian religions has actually grown by 8.2%. It is the protestants who have lost the biggest percentage, about 19% (from 63.3% in the 1970's to about 44.3% in 2012).
I could be wrong, but I believe this is a reaction to the hatred and bigotry being preached by the fundamentalist protestants. This hatred and bigotry is far removed from what their own "savior" (Jesus) preached, and I think it is turning many young and educated people off to organized religion(and religion in general).
Here is a demographic breakdown of the non-religious community:
Early Voting Up In Amarillo - Down In 15 Biggest Counties
Amarillo is different than most fairly large cities in that it rests in two different counties. The southern half of the city is in Randall County, and the northern half is in Potter County. I'm not sure why, but both of these counties are bucking the trend in voting set by the 15 largest Texas counties.
According to records from the Texas Secretary of State, the 15 largest Texas counties are showing a drop in early voting this year. While more mail-in ballots have been cast, the cumulative total is down. It's no surprise that the early vocal totals would be less than in 2012, since off-year elections usually produce fewer voters -- but the 2014 totals are even below the totals recorded in 2010. Here are the early voting totals for the 15 largest Texas counties for the last three primaries:
2010
mail-in total...............42,627
cumulative total...............491,116
2012
mail-in total...............63,981
cumulative total...............565,538
2014
mail-in total...............77,586
cumulative total...............470,723
The 2014 total is only through the 27th and early voting goes to through the 28th, so one more day needs to be added. It is possible that the 2014 totals could equal those of 2010. Even so, that is a disappointment -- because the governor's race is wide open this year (without an incumbent running), and I would have thought that would encourage more voters to cast a ballot. That doesn't seem to be happening though.
But things are different here in Amarillo -- both in Potter and Randall counties. Both of these counties are showing a big increase in early voting -- and I'm talking about a big increase over 2012 numbers (not the off-year 2010 numbers). With one day left to report in the 2014 totals, the numbers look like this:
2012
Potter County total...............2,006
Randall County total...............5,136
2014
Potter County total...............4,098
Randall County total...............7,846
That's a 104.3% increase in early voting for Potter County, and a 52.8% increase in Randall County -- with one day left in early voting. Potter County has received 1,032 mail-in ballots (about 25.2% of the total early votes), and Randall County has received 1,398 mail-in ballots (about 17.8% of the total early votes).
According to records from the Texas Secretary of State, the 15 largest Texas counties are showing a drop in early voting this year. While more mail-in ballots have been cast, the cumulative total is down. It's no surprise that the early vocal totals would be less than in 2012, since off-year elections usually produce fewer voters -- but the 2014 totals are even below the totals recorded in 2010. Here are the early voting totals for the 15 largest Texas counties for the last three primaries:
2010
mail-in total...............42,627
cumulative total...............491,116
2012
mail-in total...............63,981
cumulative total...............565,538
2014
mail-in total...............77,586
cumulative total...............470,723
The 2014 total is only through the 27th and early voting goes to through the 28th, so one more day needs to be added. It is possible that the 2014 totals could equal those of 2010. Even so, that is a disappointment -- because the governor's race is wide open this year (without an incumbent running), and I would have thought that would encourage more voters to cast a ballot. That doesn't seem to be happening though.
But things are different here in Amarillo -- both in Potter and Randall counties. Both of these counties are showing a big increase in early voting -- and I'm talking about a big increase over 2012 numbers (not the off-year 2010 numbers). With one day left to report in the 2014 totals, the numbers look like this:
2012
Potter County total...............2,006
Randall County total...............5,136
2014
Potter County total...............4,098
Randall County total...............7,846
That's a 104.3% increase in early voting for Potter County, and a 52.8% increase in Randall County -- with one day left in early voting. Potter County has received 1,032 mail-in ballots (about 25.2% of the total early votes), and Randall County has received 1,398 mail-in ballots (about 17.8% of the total early votes).
Saturday, March 01, 2014
GOP Refuses To Allow A Vote On Veterans Benefits Bill
(This cartoon image is by Steve Sack in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.)
The Republican Party, especially those on the far right, like to make a public display of "supporting the troops". They'll wave flags, wear lapel pins, and put magnetic yellow ribbons on their cars, but that's about as far as that support goes. Once those soldiers leave the military, the Republicans are done with them (and don't expect them to actually spend any money to help the veterans, since that might require their rich buddies to pay a little more in taxes).
A prime example of this happened just this week. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) has a bill pending in the Senate -- a bill that would help veterans get an education, find employment, and make their access to health care easier. But when Sanders tried to bring his bill to the floor for a vote, he found he was blocked by Senate Republicans. Those Republicans are filibustering the bill because they couldn't get an amendment attached to it to increase sanctions on Iran (an increase in sanctions that could derail the current talks with Iran for a peaceful solution).
When Majority Leader Reid tried to invoke cloture (stop the filibuster), 41 Republicans voted no, thus denying the 60 votes needed to stop the filibuster and bring the bill up for a vote. In other words, the Senate Republicans refused to support giving needed benefits to American veterans, unless they could get a vote that would send us further down the road to a new war -- which would create more veterans they could deny benefits to.
This is ridiculous. Republicans had no problem spending more than a trillion dollars on two wars that accomplished nothing (except to create new enemies and kill thousands of people) -- and then want to pick a new war with another country. But they can't find a few billion to help the veterans of the wars they are so eager to create.
This is shameful. You don't honor veterans by displaying Chinese-made pins and ribbons -- you do it by helping them get medical care, an education, and a decent job.
The Republican Party, especially those on the far right, like to make a public display of "supporting the troops". They'll wave flags, wear lapel pins, and put magnetic yellow ribbons on their cars, but that's about as far as that support goes. Once those soldiers leave the military, the Republicans are done with them (and don't expect them to actually spend any money to help the veterans, since that might require their rich buddies to pay a little more in taxes).
A prime example of this happened just this week. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) has a bill pending in the Senate -- a bill that would help veterans get an education, find employment, and make their access to health care easier. But when Sanders tried to bring his bill to the floor for a vote, he found he was blocked by Senate Republicans. Those Republicans are filibustering the bill because they couldn't get an amendment attached to it to increase sanctions on Iran (an increase in sanctions that could derail the current talks with Iran for a peaceful solution).
When Majority Leader Reid tried to invoke cloture (stop the filibuster), 41 Republicans voted no, thus denying the 60 votes needed to stop the filibuster and bring the bill up for a vote. In other words, the Senate Republicans refused to support giving needed benefits to American veterans, unless they could get a vote that would send us further down the road to a new war -- which would create more veterans they could deny benefits to.
This is ridiculous. Republicans had no problem spending more than a trillion dollars on two wars that accomplished nothing (except to create new enemies and kill thousands of people) -- and then want to pick a new war with another country. But they can't find a few billion to help the veterans of the wars they are so eager to create.
This is shameful. You don't honor veterans by displaying Chinese-made pins and ribbons -- you do it by helping them get medical care, an education, and a decent job.
The Internet Turns 25 Years Old Amid Huge Success
In less than two weeks, the internet will turn 25 years old -- to say say it has been a success would be an understatement. It is now used by a huge majority of Americans (and in other countries as well). Here's how the Pew Research Center recounts the birth of the internet:
Sir Tim Berners-Lee wrote a paper on March 12, 1989 proposing an “information management” system that became the conceptual and architectural structure for the Web. He eventually released the code for his system—for free—to the world on Christmas Day in 1990. It became a milestone in easing the way for ordinary people to access documents and interact over a network of computers called the internet—a system that linked computers and that had been around for years. The Web became especially appealing after Web browsers were perfected in the early 1990s to facilitate graphical displays of pages on those linked computers.
In 1995, only about 14% of the population in the United States were users of the internet. Today internet usage has exploded to include 87% of the population -- a phenomenal growth. And as the chart below shows, there is no group in our society that does not have a majority using the internet in 2014.
It is interesting that some demographic differences have a fairly wide gap in internet use, while others don't. It turns out that where a person lives (urban, suburban, rural) doesn't affect internet usage, and neither does race or ethnicity and sex. But other factors do matter. Those making over $75,000 a year have a much larger internet usage than those making under $30,000 a year (a difference of about 22 points). College graduates also have a significantly higher internet usage than those with a high school diploma or less (a 21 point difference).
But the biggest difference comes in the different age groups. Those 65 and over, a group that grew up before the internet was invented, has significantly less internet usage than the between 18 and 29 years old group (the first group to grow up with the internet being a reality). There is a 40 point difference between these two groups.
This Pew Research Center survey was done between January 9th and 12th of this year of 1,006 nationwide adults, and has a margin of error of about 3.5 points.
Sir Tim Berners-Lee wrote a paper on March 12, 1989 proposing an “information management” system that became the conceptual and architectural structure for the Web. He eventually released the code for his system—for free—to the world on Christmas Day in 1990. It became a milestone in easing the way for ordinary people to access documents and interact over a network of computers called the internet—a system that linked computers and that had been around for years. The Web became especially appealing after Web browsers were perfected in the early 1990s to facilitate graphical displays of pages on those linked computers.
In 1995, only about 14% of the population in the United States were users of the internet. Today internet usage has exploded to include 87% of the population -- a phenomenal growth. And as the chart below shows, there is no group in our society that does not have a majority using the internet in 2014.
It is interesting that some demographic differences have a fairly wide gap in internet use, while others don't. It turns out that where a person lives (urban, suburban, rural) doesn't affect internet usage, and neither does race or ethnicity and sex. But other factors do matter. Those making over $75,000 a year have a much larger internet usage than those making under $30,000 a year (a difference of about 22 points). College graduates also have a significantly higher internet usage than those with a high school diploma or less (a 21 point difference).
But the biggest difference comes in the different age groups. Those 65 and over, a group that grew up before the internet was invented, has significantly less internet usage than the between 18 and 29 years old group (the first group to grow up with the internet being a reality). There is a 40 point difference between these two groups.
This Pew Research Center survey was done between January 9th and 12th of this year of 1,006 nationwide adults, and has a margin of error of about 3.5 points.
POEM
Time and Tide
Time waits upon no one
in its passing we find little
to be permanent
for with time also comes
the tide
high and low
offering an ever changing shoreline
as waves crash upon our beaches
During the low we find many
who write in the sand
others who build their castles
knowing full well
that the tide will change
It matters not
that the writings contain words
of pain or of love
the tide will carry them out to sea
It matters not
if the castle is built
large or small
in the end the sea dismantles them
Whether roses or rubbish
the changing tides
alter the face of our beaches
it is the nature of the sea
Though time and tide
wait for no man
they are ever changing
Time
heals all wounds
it also brings sorrow
Tide
ravishing or lives
yet able to wash away our pain
Lives that are filled with pleasure
others that are filled with pain
all become subject to them
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)















