Poll confirms idiocy abounds in American electorate

Unbelievable... the "American people", as all those elected elite and media talking heads like to term the 1000 or so poll responders, demonstrate an amazing amount of smugness in their current events knowledge.

Case in point... there's a poll that says our elected officials should listen to the polls.... HUH? This from an article by Claude Salhani, UPI.

This is, of course, a poll in response to Dick Cheney's ABC interview March 19th where Martha Raddatz suggested his indifference to 2/3rds of American's being against the war in the latest polls was rather shocking. Cheney clarified: (on pg 3 of interview transcript):

No, I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls. Think about what would have happened if Abraham Lincoln had paid attention to polls, if they had had polls during the Civil War. He never would have succeeded if he hadn't had a clear objective, a vision for where he wanted to go, and he was willing to withstand the slings and arrows of the political wars in order to get there. And this President has been very courageous, very consistent, very determined to continue down the course we were on and to achieve our objective. And that's victory in Iraq, that's the establishment of a democracy where there's never been a democracy, it's the establishment of a regime that respects the rights and liberties of their people, as an ally for the United States in the war against terror, and as a positive force for change in the Middle East. That's a huge accomplishment.

Cheney's point is quite valid. While our officials are certainly aware of poll results (being as they are in our news face daily...) you cannot expect an electorate, educated by agenda driven media and not privvy to intelligence and military briefings, to form qualified opinions on America's policy.

And to demonstrate that "agenda driven media" point home a bit further, lets look at the quote provided below in the ABC accompanying story to the interview, as compared to the actual interview text provided above.

"You don't care what the American people think?" Raddatz asked the vice president.

"You can't be blown off course by polls," said Cheney, who is currently on a tour of the Middle East. "This president is very courageous and determined to go the course. There has been a huge fundamental change and transformation for the better. That's a huge accomplishment."

Yo? What happened to all that middle stuff analogy about if Lincoln used polls to determine the fate of the Civil War? Or did that make too much sense to include? Here lies the dangers of allowing media educated poll responders to dictate America's policy. They merely respond indignantly to what the media decides to share of the Cheney interview (casting a negative light), instead of reading the interview to see what Cheney really said.

Polls are nothing more than a reflection of the latest media headlines. And I don't need Americans, too lazy to read the source material, speaking for me. Let's face it. The majority of American's DON'T read the source material. If they did, all these "polls" we hear about would have seriously different results.

That "too much sense" bit (on what Cheney said) is what brings me back to the original point... the absurdity of a poll that says elected officials should listen to polls.

This latest poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org is part of a larger international research project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. The study was conducted Jan. 18-27 on a total of 975 Americans by Knowledge Networks. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.2 percentage points. Here's what they found:

When it comes to making an important decision, 81 percent say government leaders "should pay attention to public opinion polls because this will help them get a sense of the public's views." But that is assuming government leaders really care what the public thinks, especially when they are not up for re-election.

Only 18 percent of respondents said "they should not pay attention to public opinion polls because this will distract them from deciding what they think is right."

Sounds impressive, eh? 81% say.... Folks, they asked 975 people. And based on what these 975 people say, government policies and direction should be tempered and guided by polls?? Why not go take a poll of the neighborhood and find out what you should make for dinner, even tho they are unaware there is a diabetic in the family... yeeassh.

This is so unbelievably stupid that I hardly know where to begin. If you genuinely believed that the American voice should be heard prior to major decisions, then the only way to get a true measure is to have a national poll, and require every body present in this country to express their opinion.

Yet even that does not negate the same problem - misinformation fed to us daily by media, and the refusal of the majority to research the source material for higher education.

But there is no doubt - 1000 people or so just doesn't cut the mustard as a viable slice of America. In fact, the only purpose of this poll might be for the DNC as proof positive that the average voter doesn't have the intelligence to make wise decisions for his/her own future.

Or at least 780 (the 81%) of them don't.

"Withdrawal" promises fuel Iraq violence Harvard study: The Emboldenment Effect

Researchers at Harvard say that public debates about the rights and wrongs of the U.S. occupation of Iraq have a measurable "emboldenment effect" on insurgents there, and periods when there is a lot of media coverage about the issue are followed by small rises in the number of attacks.

The researchers, a political scientist and a health economist, studied data about insurgent attacks and U.S. media coverage up to November 2007, tracking what they called "anti-resolve statements," either by U.S. politicians or in the form of reports about American public opinion on the issue.

The study, published this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research, uses quantitative analysis, a statistical tool employed by economists, to empirically test for the first time the widely held nostrum that public criticism of U.S. policy in Iraq encourages insurgents there.

"We find that in periods immediately after a spike in anti-resolve statements, the level of insurgent attacks increases," the study says. In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent.

Gee, ya think? Should be obvious, but it takes Harvard researchers, Radha Iyengar, Jonathan Monten, to confirm the obvious to the oblivious - noted in Shaun Waterman's UPI article, "Analysis: Debate on Iraq fuels insurgency".

Anti-resolve... meaning the commitment to bear the cost to succeed. Or, to clarify with their own words, I'll quote from the introduction to the report itself, "Is There an "Emboldenment Effect? Evidence from the Insurgency in Iraq"

A rational terrorist model suggests that insurgent actors should increase attacks on an occupying country when that country is closer to the margin of withdrawal.1 Researchers have identified the general importance of credible commitments in the initiation and termination of conventional and civil wars and parallels have been made to the case of counterinsurgency campaigns.2 In the context of insurgency, this “resolve” refers to the perceived commitment of the counterinsurgent to bearing the costs of defeating insurgency.

An excerpt from the report gives clue to how the insurgents may use US withdrawal rhetoric in their strategy.

How might the perceived level of US resolve influence an insurgent organization’s choice of violence?

First, declining resolve might directly raise the level of anti-government violence initiated by the insurgents as insurgents respond to information that increasing the costs of engagement will force the US to withdraw.8

Second, declining resolve might reduce support among the wider population for the incumbent government increasing the number of individuals willing to participate in the insurgency. These “fence-sitters” are the critical population for victory.9

The key point of contention is security - creating the belief among the population that pro-government forces can offer better protection than anti-government forces.10The perception of declining resolve can reduce support for the government among the population if it places the commitment to population protection in doubt. Fence-sitters no longer feel safe remaining loyal to the government and are less likely to collaborate with the government if the counterinsurgent forces cannot credibly protect them from future reprisals from insurgents.

In short, the global Islamic jihad movements not only use violence to keep the American citizens and media in a chasm over costs of the war** (and the doubt of success), but to force the Iraqis into a state of constant distrust. A distrust in the continued US assistance, plus instilling doubt about their own government's ability to provide security.

**Consider the references to the war's cost vs commitment, on the heels of the Ben Feller AP story today, "Bush defiantly defends war in Iraq", ... an article where Bush states the complaints now turn to economic cost. Since news from Iraq is no longer filled with daily escalating violence, a new excuse is needed to keep the anti-war movement motivated. Whether the argument is the justification for OIF, deaths of US soldiers or Iraqi citizenry, labels of "civil war", slow progress by the Iraq Assembly, or the costs of the war, the end result is the same. A changing goal post of reasons for withdrawal.

And if this report holds true to form, the increasing new "withdrawal" cry for reasons of US dollars should lead to yet another increase in Iraq violence in it's wake.

Since choosing particular coverage and labeling it inflammatory came down to a subjective judgment, the researchers used two kinds of news stories for their foundation.

In addition to "the release of major polls regarding American attitudes towards the war in Iraq," their index includes mentions by senior Bush administration officials of "statements or actions by other U.S. political figures that might encourage violent extremist groups in Iraq."

But hold on... the Harvard researchers aren't so all fired anxious see the aftermath of it's release, fearing the supporters for the Iraq cause will seize on it, and try to silence war critics.

"We are a little bit worried about that," Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government told United Press International in an interview. "Our data suggests that there is a small, but measurable cost" to "anything that provides information about attitudes towards the war."

But he added the cost was outweighed by the benefits of vigorous debate about military undertakings.

"There's a body of research, which we cite … that suggests that public debate about strategy helps the military to fight wars more effectively," he said.

Allow me point out something to those brilliant minds at Harvard. It is *not* the anti-war crowd that is being silenced. It is the voices of those who support success for Iraq. The media, dictating public opinion and hanging on Pelosi and Murtha's every anti-war utterance, are overwhelmingly negative in balance. So who is silencing whom?

Needless to say, this study should be an interesting foray into the headlines... assuming the MSM picks it up at all.

Mind you, I am not advocating a restriction on freedom of speech and dissent. It is the very heart of our country. However I am saying that, considering the effects of the vile and venomous remarks of our Congress and media, the rhetoric should be toned down to civil discourse, and the media coverage far more balanced. After years of accusations that our mere US presence is the cause of the Iraq increased violence, it appears some responsibility for that violence can be laid directly at the feet of the Congress, pollsters and the media, who insist upon fueling the terrorists with promises of withdrawal.

________________________________

UPDATE March 22, 2008. This Jan 2008 article from Arthur Chenkoff, appearing in Pajamas Media, shows a study by Sacred Heart University echos the Harvard study.

Nearly three-quarters of all Americans surveyed, 70.7%, indicated they strongly or somewhat agreed that negative media reporting damages troop morale. Over half of all survey respondents, 59.8%, agreed (strongly or somewhat) that negative media coverage damages prospects for success in Iraq because it encourages terrorists, and about half, 49.1%, agreed (strongly or somewhat) that things are likely going better for the U.S. than the U.S. media portrays.

Manufacturing dissent? Can the anti-war base be revived?

There's no doubt that a quick review of any cable news prime time reveals that Iraq news is nigh non-existent anymore. Joanne Ostrow, The Denver Post's TV critic, notes it as well in her column "War in Iraq falls off media radar"...

Sit through a random newscast or a half-hour of cable TV news, or listen to your favorite radio talker. In other words, take the temperature of America via the media and identify what's missing.

Is America at war with immigrants? Is the mortgage crisis the hottest topic in America? Is the public transfixed by the latest candidates' debate?

snip

The war in Iraq is the biggest nonstory of the moment, an overarching situation that is largely missing in action from the daily media rundown

snip

In the first quarter of 2007, coverage of Iraq made up 22 percent of all news, according to Mark Jurkowitz of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. In the second quarter of 2007, that number fell to 16 percent.

Jurkowitz, a former media writer at the Boston Globe, said that if you take the week after Petraeus' visit to Congress, through last Friday, "the Iraq policy debate is down to 3 percent" of the total news hole.

snip

Coverage of campaign '08, by contrast, started big and has stayed big, continuing with a staggering intensity. (The Democrats have gotten more coverage than the Republicans by a significant margin, and Hillary Clinton is the most covered candidate of all.)

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press similarly found the percentage of respondents who said they follow news about Iraq very closely dropped from about 40 percent in late 2006-early 2007 to about 30 percent in the second half of 2007. Pew reported in November that, "News about the Iraq war does not dominate the public's consciousness nearly as much as it did last winter. Currently, just 16 percent of Americans name the Iraq war as the news story that first comes to mind when asked what has been in the news lately." More generally, Pew found, public interest in news about the situation in Iraq is now less than it was earlier this year or in 2006.

It may not be an overstatement to say that Iraq war coverage is declining so fast that some viewers may forget we're at war by the end of the year. According to the Tyndall Report, for the first 37 weeks of 2007 (January-September) when Gen. Petraeus concluded his testimony on Capitol Hill, the total number of minutes the three network nightly newscasts devoted to Iraq was 1,659.

This is obviously not good news for Democrat candidates, who've staked out their political futures on how they'd handle Iraq and other similar situations with "diplomacy" and "international support". It's even worse news for the party who claims they won the midterm elections by a landslide (instead of the realistic hair's breadth with moderate Democrat candidates) based on the mandate to get us out of Iraq.

How can this happen? "The people" want us out of Iraq, Pelosi still parrots every moment of face time she gets.

With the good news that escapes broadcast, seeping out in sporadic articles in print and web media, a complacent nation again turns it's attentions back to their favorite subject... themselves and their own living conditions. And lost is a powerful liberal tool for campaigning.

Or is it? As one of my faves, Ray Robison, points out in his American Thinker article today, "Manufacturing Dissent: An Odd Poll Raises Questions", there's something fishy about the poll responders that are presented as exclusively military families or relatives. Said poll proclaims that the CIC has lost the support of military families for his Iraq policy. I guess if the "American people" they so love to talk about doesn't care anymore, they'll seek to highlight the military antiwar. Only one problem... just who were they asking?

Robison counters the poll results with some comments from Military.com, a website devoted to military families.... and ponders just how - with nary a whit of dissent on that or other webpages by military families - can this poll be an accurate measurement of military family support?

To be sure, self-selection by respondents yields unscientific results, Still, it's a little odd that a website that has a predominately military readership would have results that are completely opposite the LA Times/Bloomberg poll results for the question of whether or not the war was worth it when put to military members and families.

snip

This poll which is being billed as a rebuke to the president by military families includes only 10% of respondents who actually claim to have a family member who is serving or has served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Therefore, the number of respondents who had family involved in Iraq specifically is even less than 10%. So the people who are supporting family members in Iraq actually had very little to do with these conclusions as a whole.

But look again at the claims from Bloomberg and the LA Times. They claim the respondents were critical over Iraq, not Afghanistan. Let's be generous and guess that two-thirds or 100 of these respondents claimed to have a family member who served in Iraq. According to a recent USA Today article, over 1.5 million troops have served in Iraq. To try to take a poll with 100 or so respondents out of a pool of over 1.5 million is absurd.

There is no statistical validity and no way to assign any confidence to the conclusion that military family members of those who have fought in Iraq are turning against the President because of Iraq. The methodology statement notes that the margin of error for this subgroup is 8%. I would suggest it is quite a bit larger when you consider other factors.

Indeed, such a poll with possible "plants" and misrepresented participants might be construed as an attempt to manufacture dissent. But since the nation's narcissistic population doesn't give a whit about Iraq anymore, what good would it do?

It just may be that it is a massive effort to revive that dissent in order to make a current and important non-issue, again, an issue for the 2008 election. But I suspect before that happens, the US, Iraq and coalition will have to start losing ground overseas.

Certainly Pelosi is still trying to keep the anti-war base alive.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lashed out at Republicans on Thursday, saying they want the Iraq war to drag on and are ignoring the public's priorities.
"They like this war. They want this war to continue," Pelosi, D- Calif., told reporters. She expressed frustration over Republicans' ability to force majority Democrats to yield ground on taxes, spending, energy, war spending and other matters.

"We thought that they shared the view of so many people in our country that we needed a new direction in Iraq," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference in the Capitol. "But the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush's war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress."

A Republican war? This attitude towards the conflict in the heart of the Middle East is a dangerous one for America. Jihad does not single out it's victims via party affiliation. They will brutally murder not only Dems and GOP alike, but their own Muslim community for any alliance with the west.

Even now, al Qaeda plots to assassinate Musharraf in order to prevent him for assuming control and responsibility over Pakistan's nukes. Will the aspiring Dem candidates see this as a self-righteous power grab by a despot? Or as the much needed security for Pakistan's nuke arsenal, keeping it out of the hands of an enemy the liberal candidates do not wish to engage on any soil - nay, even acknowledge as enemies?

The Iraq conflict, and it's context in the broader war against the Global Islamic Jihad Movement, suffers from clear understanding because the American public, under the media's non-stop misinterpretation, still sees war only as against nation states, and not the stateless enemy who came to our shores on 911. The average American sees Afghanistan as a just conflict, and Iraq as a destructive error. They see no ties between the two as part of a larger strategy by the enemy.

And so, as the al Qaeda presence in Irag diminishes, so does the venom of the anti-war sheeple. And as memories and venom fade, so does the luster on the Democrat candidate stars... much to their chagrin. Thus, the desperate efforts to rekindle the antiwar fire in the headline news blurbs.

Yet the enemy knows no single nation to call home. The stronghold in Afghanistan under the Taliban's protection was broken, and they fled to join existing contacts in Iraq - operating there for years under the protection of Saddam's IIS and Ba'athists. Now they leave Iraq and re converge in Afghanistan/Pakistan and North Africa.

Barring major setbacks in Iraq, it will prove difficult for the liberal progressives to revive the heat of the antiwar issue for campaign purposes. They can publish all the polls in the world in the attempt to inspire the public to rage against military success.

But as the global jihad movement relocates its headquarters, and continues on with their agenda of death and their Islamic Caliphate, Americans will have to wake up to the real, stateless threat that will continue to wage war... no matter who sits in the Oval Office. Under these very real threats, manifesting themselves on a different Middle East sand dune, it may be very hard to manufacture dissent and antiwar at all.

___________________________

UPDATE 12/14/07 Evening

"Congress authorizes war funds and sends bill to Bush"... sans withdrawal deadlines. All I can say is it's 'bout bloody time!

This doesn't, of course, preclude the liberal anti-Iraq Dems from displaying their idiocies...

"The effort (to change course in Iraq) is not over," Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said after the vote. But he did not know what the next step in that struggle would be.

Change the course from succeeding to? Uh... that would be NOT succeeding, yes?

More media reporting/AP-Ipso poll BS

Alan Fram at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (perhaps they should rename that "pre-intelligencer"... ) gives his slanted summary of the latest AP-Ipso poll. To read and decide for yourself, here's the link to the poll & questions.

First, about the responders per Fram.... of the 1005 people polled, 48.6% (489) of them were Democrats. 36.4% (366) of them were Republicans. And 14.9% (150) of them were independents. Not leaning to one side by much, eh?

Altho that portrayal is not quite right, per the poll itself. In fact, the poll data at the end becomes quite confusing. Perhaps indicating that those asked for their initial party affiliation couldn't maintain that thought to the next questions!

The poll section labeled "Initial Party Identification" identifies responders as this: 23% Republican, 31% Democrats. 27% Independents, and 19% declined to plead guilty by association to anyone.

The next question wants to know are they "sorta" Dem/Rep, or middle of the road. And that's where Fram pulls his numbers.

More "grim" news for the GOP, sez Fram...

In a gauge of the public's grim mood, just 26 percent said they think the country is heading in the right direction, about where it has been stuck since late last year. Only 43 percent of Republicans, and less than 20 percent of Democrats and independents, said they think things are going well.

Ominously for Republicans, just 25 percent of moderates and 38 percent of conservatives are satisfied with the country's direction.

"Ominously", it appears an overwhelming amount of those calling themselves Republicans appear to be happier humans than their Democrat counterparts. No surprise there.

But this "going in the right direction" question plays both ways. *I* think we're going in the wrong direction... what with nanny state promises of socialized medicine, troop pull outs, lack of concern with terrorism and self defense, and unprofessional ism and corruption in Congress. So virtually everyone thinks, to some extent, that our Congress and govt is truly screwed up.

But notice polls don't ask anyone WHY they believe the country's going in the wrong direction. So what the heck does the question mean in the scheme of things??

Bush is apparently holding approval rates near where he's been for years.. in the low 30s. Considering how media battered he's been for 3-4 years, I think that's amazing. But it's notable that Fram seems to think that the 69% of Republicans polled that approved of the CIC's job is an "anemic" showing. Okay....

So let's go to Congress. 22% approval rating, and another new low. How about that 48% of Dems participating in the poll? Only 25% of them gave a thumbs up to their own party elitists in Congress. Now THAT's anemic, Alan. Where's the adjectives for them?

But Alan didn't want the Dim (not a typo...) Congress to feel too too bad. He offered up an excuse for their low approval.

Congress' lowest approval reading in the poll had been 24 percent, most recently in July. Its popularity often lags behind the president's because of public distaste toward the institution itself, and people often have far more positive feelings about their own representatives and senators.

"Often lags behind...". Okay.

How else did Bush fare?

"A record low 34 percent" on the economy. Of course, because it's Bush's fault on the subprime mess, eh? Add to that 31% of the responders are not vested in the stocks, bonds or mutual funds. So a stable and happy stock market plays not into their opinions.

31 percent on domestic issues such as health care, just below June's 32 percent.

29 percent approved of how Bush is handling Iraq

On foreign affairs and terrorism, 36 percent approved. Interesting... so much approval on terrorism and foreign affairs. Uh, isn't Iraq a part of that? Goes to show most responders can't hold a thought in their heads from question to question.

Additional factors here... there was 8-12% more Democrats weighing in. Also consider that 21% of those polled are not registered to vote (and therefore probably not paying much attention... like why should they?). And 15% are unemployed... uh that's why they're answering pollster phone calls. Does this mean there are more unemployed Democrats than Republicans??? :0)

Now... how about a reality check? This oh so "divided" nation doesn't seem so divided after all. The 30 percentile approval for such hotly contested issues as Iraq, and the ongoing hate Bush mania, doesn't look so bad when you consider Clinton was elected to the WH with 49.1% and 43.3% - not even a popular majority - in his two elections. It should be noted that even in the last election, Bush had over 50% of the votes

Last ditty... and relating to Clinton's non-majority win in his WH bids. London's Guardian touts a headline that says the Dems are rallying to "defend" the Electoral College election system. A more indepth article, dealing with California pondering whether or not to award electoral votes in the huge state via percentages of popular vote, appears here.

Really? "Defend"??? Well that's a kick in the pants considering recent history. Anyone remember the 2005 House Resolution proposed, sponsored by Jesse Jackson Jr (D-IL) and Frank (D-MA) to completely abolish the Electoral College?

Or how about SB46 in 2007, where they wanted to merge the states' intent together to reflect the popular vote? Why have an Electoral College at all if it just mirrors the popular vote, eh? That was sponsored by Senator Gordon (D-CO).

The above attempts were by a disgruntled losing party in the past two elections. They want the urbanites in big cities to reign supreme in power over the rest of us in the country. Now, with risking the loss of a traditionally Democratic California looming, the Guardian labels them as guardians of this system?? Chutzpah.

And what a difference a day makes to a so-called, history/research challenged journalist....

More poll BSThe media with the most agenda driven headlines wins...

Another major analysis poll for global warming by man theorists... and another poll of the mostly uninformed.

BBC proudly touts the headline:

Man causing climate change - poll

Climate change is causing erratic weather around the world Large majorities in many countries now believe human activity is causing global warming,

a BBC World Service poll suggests.

Ask 22,000 people in 21 countries, and what do you get?

An average of 79% of respondents to the BBC survey agreed that "human activity, including industry and transportation, is a significant cause of climate change".

Nine out of 10 people said action was necessary, with two-thirds of people going further, saying "it is necessary to take major steps starting very soon".

In none of the countries did a majority say no action was necessary to combat climate change.

And just who were these 79% of people who pronounce man as the cause of climate change? And how closely are they paying attention? Again, the all country averages clarified by going to the *real* poll document...

Asked how much they have heard about climate change or global warming, seven in ten overall say that they have heard a great deal (35%) or some (35%).

A majority in 16 countries – including many developing countries – say that they have heard at least something about the issue.

In only a few countries do large numbers say that they have heard little or nothing, including Indonesia (65%), Kenya (53%), Nigeria (48%), and Russia (64%).

Again we start with a flawed database... a bunch of self-admitted "I dunnos". And this is an issue that few are equipped to deal with, as it's technical, scientific, historic and research detailed in it's foundation. Hang... even the great climatologist minds can't agree.

But there's a big difference between hearing "a great deal" and "some". That, however did not stop the BBC article and the poll summary from conveniently lumping the 1/3rd media informed and 1/3rd almost media informed into one big number to look like an impressive, knowledgeable majority.

Once more, only 6 out of the 21 countries had over 50% hearing "a great deal". Again, only about a 1/3. The two highest "in the know" individual countries were France and Great Britain. Even they were at only 62 and 61% respectively.

Starting on pg 8 of the poll PDF are the color coded country-by-country results. To give you a frightening example, only 32% of the Spaniards heard "a great deal", but that didn't stop a whopping 93% of them blaming man as the significant cause. And 91% of those well informed geniuses said that *major* steps were necessary.

Again... deep shit, folks.... sigh

The US citizens had 59% saying they heard a "great deal" about global warming - hard to believe, eh? With all the news stations and whatnow around, only 59%?? I guess they're too busy with those reality shows, eh? But let's go on. 71% believe it warming is caused by humans, but only 59% felt major steps should be taken. Oh yes... and 75% don't think less wealthy countries should get a pass on limiting emissions.

Hummm... Al Gore's work here is obviously not done... LOL

Canada had even less "great deal" responders than the US. Only 56%. But even more of them (77%) said man was at fault.

The poll questionnaire itself is also interesting reading. At least the first question was if they knew whit about the issue. But answering "no" didn't get you off the hook. Second question...

Do you believe that human activity, including industry and transportation, is or is not a significant cause of climate change?

Yo... how about the alternative being asked? ala...Do you believe the warming is part of Earth's historic cycle? But we'll never know the answer to that one. That one questions could have changed the whole poll results, and not proven very agenda beneficial.

The next question just assumed a yes confirmation of question #2:

As you may know there is some discussion these days about whether it is necessary to take steps to reduce the impact of human activities that are thought to cause global warming or climate change. Would you say that you believe that:

READ IN ORDER. CHOOSE ONE.
01 - It is not necessary to take any steps
02 - It is necessary to take modest steps over the coming years
03 - It is necessary to take major steps starting very soon

Well now, if the other alternative was a natural cycle on Earth, and that option wasn't offered up, then you were forced to pick one of the multiple choice answers. And since you only had a yes or no choice on #2, where else is there to go??

Oh yes, it should be noted that EVERY country believed that the wealthy nations (read the US, of course) should provide the $s and technology to the less wealthy nations for those *major* steps.

Naturally, the poll points out that those who have heard more about global warming favor major steps, and those who have heard nothing do not. Ya think? Duh wuh...

So it stands to reason that the truth of polls is what it has always been...

1: that the media with the most headlines supporting their "man causes global warming" agenda wins "the truth" game...

2: that headlines truly drive the opinions reflected in the polls.

3: and that we're lucky if even a 1/3 of poll responders pay any amount of significant attention to the issue, or even to the agenda driven media headlines.


As for me, what I derive after seeing poll after poll is the citizens of the world are in serious need of diverse education on the issues. And they aren't getting that from the media and their polls.

Poll and pol truths.....

I'm not sure what is more ridiculous... USA Today's story by Susan Page that proclaims "Poll: Public not swayed by Petraeus". Or that fact that poll opinions on Iraqi progress and the Petraeus Report were solicited from 1010 self-admitted "I dunno" types.

Asked about mid way thru the questionaire "How closely are you following the news about Congressional testimony on the situation in Iraq by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker?".... 46% of the respondents were either "not at all" or "not too closely" following the Petraeus Report and Congressional political circus of questioning.

Add to that 46% of self-admitted uninformed, the largest percentage answered a whopping 40% of "somewhat closely".

In short, only 14%, or approximately 141 people, were even educationally qualified to have an opinion. That would be those who answered "very closely".

Lordy... the whole poll questionaire was all about the latest progress in Iraq. What does anyone expect when you ask the uninformed for an opinion? You get a reflection of a lot of uninformed people who don't care enough to even pay attention. Ho hum.... Read the actual poll results...

Unfortunately, a good percentage of these uninformed people tend to vote. And they vote for whomever got the most favorable media coverage in the run up to ballot time. sigh...

We are in deep shit here, folks.

But the facts aren't about to stop the agenda driven pols or their "scientist" supporters from flapping the gums, taking advantage of a very "cherry picked" headline. No doubt this poll's results will be quoted by many a partisan Congress person somehwere in the next week on various talking head shows as "proof positive" for something. It should be pointed as as proof positive of people are idiots. But noooo...

One "political scientist" quote included in the Page article:

"In terms of public opinion, it seems like Petraeus didn't really change anyone's mind," says Christian Grose, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University who studies the impact of the war on voting behavior. "He may have bought the president some time in Washington … but not in the public's eyes."

Uh... hard to change the public's minds if they don't watch or listen to the testimony, don't you think? And this an indication of Mr. Grose's "political scientific" analysis abilities? Woe....

And how about those poll telemarketers? They continue with questions, undaunted that the respondents admit they are clueless... huh?

"As you may know, George W. Bush is adopting General Petraeus’ recommendations for future troop levels in Iraq. Based on what you have heard or read about this plan, do you think General Petraeus’ plan calls for too few U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq, the right amount, or too many U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq?

Too few troops to be withdrawn 36%
Right amount 43%
Too many troops to be withdrawn 9%
No opinion 13%


9. Still thinking about this plan, do you think General Petraeus’ plan calls for U.S. troops to be withdrawn too slowly from Iraq, withdrawals to occur at the right pace, or U.S. troops to be withdrawn too quickly from Iraq?

Troops to be withdrawn too slowly 33%
To occur at the right pace 42%
Troops to be withdrawn too quickly 12%
No opinion 13%

One would think the *first* question that should have been asked is "are you paying attention". If they answer no, then hang up and find somebody who has a clue, fer heavens sake! sigh..

I repeat.. we are in deep shit here, folks....

Then again, the anti-war pols aren't in much better shape here. When this brilliant group of informed citizens were asked who they trust more to deal with Iraq

Bush 27%
Democrats in Congress (yes... DEMOCRATS in Congress, not both parties Huh?) 35%
Neither 28%
Both 9%

Democrats in Congress don't have much to crow about - considering it's a 4+ or - error rate in a poll amongst those admittedly uneducated in the subject matter. Those who diplomatically chose "both", or those who figured they were all bozos, beat out the two choices... Bush or Democrats.

Then, of course, the piece de resistance... the 411+ comments to the USA Today article who knowledgeably weigh in post article... basing all their cyber comments on Susan Page's incomplete and biased summary of the poll. Reading most over it's obvious that the "somewhat paying attention" or "not paying attention" syndrome in America is widespread. Few bothered to read the actual poll and learn that most everyone involved was dumber than dirt on the issue.

I suppose "headline and sound byte educated" is better than not paying attention. Uhhh.. maybe not. They vote too.

Can you say "deep shit" one more time?