Britons and Information Obtained by Torture

The polling organization YouGov has released the results of a UK survey which asked the following question:

Do you think there are ever circumstances where it is justified for the British security services to use information that other countries may have obtained through torture?

46% agreed that yes, there might be circumstances justifying the use of such information. 19% were unsure. And just over a third, 34%, said there were no circumstances that would justify its use.

From these results I conclude that 34% of Britons A) have no imagination, B) are complete and utter morons, or C) both. Regardless of what you think about the use of torture, consider the following hypothetical.

An Al Qaeda terrorist falls into the hands of Afghan security forces who torture him. During his torture-filled interrogation he gives up a large amount of information which may or may not be accurate. He states that Al Qaeda is planning an attack in Britain, and provides the names and approximate locations of two associates who he claims are already in the U.K. The Afghans pass this information to the U.S., which then informs the British. Would these 34% really oppose any investigation by British security forces? After all, they'd be acting on information obtained through torture. I guess they should just turn a blind eye and hope for the best.

Gallup Poll Puts U.S. Atheists at 7% or Less

A recent Gallup Poll asked directly, "Do you believe in God?" 92% said yes, 7% said no, and 1% had no opinion. If the poll is an accurate representation, as many as 7% of Americans may be atheists. I say "as many as," because it is possible people who believe in multiple gods, or consider the question to be specific to the Christian god might also answer no. The poll also has an interesting breakdown and asked other variations on the question.

Greatest U.S. Military Victory?

National Review had a poll up yesterday asking readers to vote for the greatest U.S. military victory. I found that interesting, but I have problems with some of the selections and the results. I can't link the poll directly, but this was the list with percentage of votes:

• Trenton 8%
• Yorktown 12%
• Mexico City 1%
• Vicksburg 1%
• Gettysburg 9%
• Manila Bay 0%
• Belleau Wood 1%
• Midway 23%
• D-Day 34%
• The Bulge 5%
• Iwo Jima 5%
• Desert Storm 1%

Given those options, I voted for Yorktown. In my opinion it's difficult to argue with the victory that forced an end to Britain's reconquest attempt, and signaled that the U.S. would be established as an independent country. But looking at the two choices from the Revolutionary War reveals a glaring omission. Where's Saratoga? It was far more significant than Trenton and led to direct French involvement as an American ally, a development that was critical to U.S. success and crucial in the culminating victory at Yorktown.

Then there is the Civil War. I wouldn't nominate any battle of Americans fighting Americans as one of our greatest victories. That being said, 1% for Vicksburg vs. 9% for Gettysburg is ridiculous. In my opinion that just demonstrates that most people don't know much about military history. Gettysburg was a big important battle that turned back a heavy Confederate raid into Union territory. Arguably it crushed any chance for foreign intervention. But Vicksburg was not only a military masterpiece, it effectively severed the Confederacy into two pieces. At the very least it should be given equal weight.

I have no comment on the Spanish-American War or the WW1 selection, but then we come to WW2 and the biggest vote-getters. D-day? With the exception of Desert Storm -- which shouldn't have been included at all, given that it was a victory over a third-rate power that was completely outclassed -- all the other poll options are battles. Do they mean the entire Normandy Campaign, or just the landings? It is also worth pointing out that the Normandy campaign involved a massive British effort, and support from other allies including the Canadians, Free French, Poles and others. I wouldn't claim it as the greatest U.S. victory.

How about the Pacific? At sea, where is Leyte Gulf, the greatest naval battle of all time? If you have Iwo, why not Okinawa or Saipan? And where is Guadalcanal? Unlike Iwo, which for all the savage fighting was a foregone U.S. victory, Guadalcanal was in doubt for a long time and was fought on much more equal terms, on land, sea and air. In my opinion it was our greatest island victory in the Pacific. At sea I would vote for Midway, for similar reasons. The U.S. was actually at a force disparity yet inflicted a crushing defeat on the Imperial Japanese Navy.

Right Wing News' "Ultimate Like/Dislike Poll" for People on the Right

I always find these sorts of polls interesting. Here's the description:

Right Wing News emailed more than 260 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to rate 55 prominent people and organizations on the Right as either strongly liked, liked, disliked, or strongly disliked.

I thought I'd answer the poll questions since I'm too minor of a blogger to be asked directly. It is difficult to answer like or dislike for some of these people. Although I'm extremely opinionated, I'd answer many of the questions with a shrug and say that person was "ok." But since that's not an option, I'll give it my best shot.

What do you think about Allah/Ed Morrissey (Hot Air)?
I like Hot Air a lot, so I'd go with strongly like.

What do you think about Michelle Bachmann?
Kind of split on her. There's things I like and things I don't. No answer.

What do you think about Glenn Beck?
Strongly dislike.

What do you think about John Boehner?
He's ok. I guess I'd have to say like.

What do you think about Andrew Breitbart?
Like.

What do you think about David Brooks?
Not a fan of Brooks. Dislike.

What do you think about Pat Buchanan?
Dislike.

What do you think about George W. Bush?
Another split for me. I dislike his performance as president, but like him as an individual. But since his performance as president was more important, I'll go with dislike.

What do you think about Dick Cheney?
Sometimes I dislike him and other times I like him. Overall like outweighs dislike.

What do you think about Chris Christie?
Like.

What do you think about Ann Coulter?
Dislike.

What do you think about Mitch Daniels?
Like.

What do you think about Jim DeMint?
Like.

What do you think about Erick Erickson?
Not a fan of Red State but don't really dislike it either. Don't know enough about Erickson himself. Can't answer this one.

What do you think about Pamela Geller?
Dislike, based on the contents of her blog, not her personally.

What do you think about Newt Gingrich?
Dislike

What do you think about David Frum?
Strongly like. Unlike many on the right, I think Frum is one of the best political analysts around -- even if I sometimes disagree with him.

What do you think about Sean Hannity?
Strongly dislike.

What do you think about Jim Hoft/Gateway Pundit?
Not a blog I follow. Don't know.

What do you think about Mike Huckabee?
Dislike

What do you think about The Koch Brothers?
Strongly like, from what little I know of them.

What do you think about Charles Krauthammer?
Strongly like

What do you think about Mark Levin?
Dislike. Levin is good at times, but I don't like his attitude and approach.

What do you think about David Limbaugh?
Like

What do you think about Rush Limbaugh?
Dislike

What do you think about GOProud?
Like

What do you think about Michelle Malkin?
She's does some good work. But I disagree with her on a number of issues and I'm not crazy about her overall approach. I'd have to say dislike outweighs like.

What do you think about Meghan McCain?
Dislike but don't really care.

What do you think about Mitch McConnell?
Dislike. Typical politician.

What do you think about Dick Morris?
Dislike.

What do you think about Christine O'Donnell?
Strongly dislike.

What do you think about Kathleen Parker?
Dislike

What do you think about Bill O'Reilly?
Dislike

What do you think about National Review?
Strongly like

What do you think about the NRA?
Strongly like

What do you think about Sarah Palin?
I like certain things about her, but overall I'd have to go with dislike because I don't think her presidential aspirations match her qualifications. As someone just generating support for GOP candidates and firing up the base I like her.

What do you think about Ron Paul?
Dislike

What do you think about Rand Paul?
Like better than Ron, but I'm not sure overall.

What do you think about Glenn Reynolds/Instapundit?
Like

What do you think about Dan Riehl?
Dislike. I've read his blog, and often agree with him. But the guy comes off as a jerk to me from what I've seen.

What do you think about John Roberts?
Strongly like

What do you think about Mitt Romney?
Like

What do you think about Karl Rove?
Like

What do you think about Marco Rubio?
Like

What do you think about Paul Ryan?
Like

What do you think about Michael Savage?
Strongly dislike

What do you think about Joe Scarborough?
Like

What do you think about Thomas Sowell?
Strongly like

What do you think about Fred Thompson?
Like

What do you think about Scott Walker?
Like from what I've seen so far.

What do you think about The Tea Party?
Like. I'm not a tea party type, but I think overall it benefits the GOP, so I'll put it in the like column.

What do you think about Allen West?
Like

What do you think about George Will?
Like

What do you think about WorldNetDaily?
Strongly dislike.

Majority of Americans Favor Prosecution of Wikileaks

A new poll indicates that 70% of Americans recognize that Wikileaks is harming the U.S.

Americans overwhelmingly think that WikiLeaks is doing more harm than good by releasing classified U.S. diplomatic cables, and they want to see the people behind it prosecuted, according to a new McClatchy-Marist Poll.

A large majority of Republicans, 81%, see Wikileaks as harmful, and even 58% of liberals agree that it is doing more harm than good. 59% of Americans overall support prosecution of Wikileaks members. Only a delusional 22% see the leaks as positive. It would be interesting to find out how many support violent covert action against Wikileaks, as I and others on the right have advocated.

Popular Pundits with Republican Activists

A site called Conservative Home did a survey that got some attention. They asked 1,152 Republican activists to "name their top three commentators," and then released the results as a top ten list. Here's the breakdown of the top ten: 

Rush Limbaugh: 41%
Glenn Beck: 33%
Charles Krauthammer: 29%
Bill O'Reilly: 24%
Sean Hannity: 21%
Newt Gingrich: 16%
Michelle Malkin: 16%
Mike Huckabee: 13%
Ann Coulter: 13%
George Will: 13%

When I saw this list I immediately thought that this is another example of how out of step I am with the Republican base. Krauthammer is a pretty solid opinion journalist and he's the only one on that list I might even think about naming. I also wonder about the question itself. Although I don't watch political tv shows anymore, I'm probably in at least the top 1% of the population in terms of reading a massive amount of political coverage. But I'd be hard-pressed to name my three favorite commentators. I wonder if these results were skewed by people just coming up with the most visible names

Thank Catholics for the Huge GOP Victory?

I'm always highly skeptical of election exit poll analysis, since analysts usually overstate the effects of whatever results they choose to highlight. [For example, I could just as easily have made this post about gay voters.] But having said that, I came across an interesting article on the role played by religious voters in this election. The breakdown was similar to the 2008 vote, although Republicans gained overall as you might expect. But there was one glaring difference.

Catholic voters, who had favored Democratic over Republican candidates by double-digit margins in the last two congressional elections, swung to the GOP in 2010.

It's interesting that Catholics would shift more dramatically, and actually switch from majority Democrat to majority Republican support. I'm not sure why Catholics in particular would abandon the Democrats. But whatever the reasons, let's hope that trend continues.

Suspicious Sex Survey Results

A huge new sex study is out: the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (NSSHB). These things are always interesting, but one thing leaped out at me when I clicked the chart for the sexual behavior graph. This lists the percentages of males and females in each age group who say they've engaged in the listed sexual practices over the past year. Check out the top line, which reports solo masturbation. According to the study for males,  19% of 18-19 year-olds, 25% of 16-17 year-olds, and an amazing 38% of 14-15 year-olds did not masturbate over the past year! Yeah, right. Those numbers might be right for the past 24 hours -- maybe. If I were conducting this study I'd be embarrassed to even put up those numbers without some sort of qualifying explanation. Either they got a freakish group of teenage males, or the honesty of their survey participants is highly questionable. With those numbers in the top line, you have to wonder about the accuracy of the survey as a whole.

Laughing at the New America Foundation

The liberal New America Foundation just released a new poll taken in Pakistan's tribal areas. The foundation uses this poll to draw the sweeping conclusion that the U.S. drone assassination campaign is "self-defeating." Why? Because locals don't like it. Seriously.

What our poll suggests is that if the premise of the American counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan is winning the support of the population, the United States is in danger of losing that support in the Taliban's rear bases inside Pakistan.

Except that the drone campaign and our counterinsurgency strategy inside Afghanistan are two different things. I'm not sure if the New America Foundation is too clueless to recognize the difference, or just being intellectually dishonest. The drone campaign is not intended to win hearts and minds, pacify & secure territory, protect civilians, or do any of the other things that make up our counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. It is intended to kill people that we have no other reasonable means to get at.

Is it even the slightest bit surprising that people living in the area don't like the drone campaign? What people would appreciate having a superpower sending killer robot aircraft over its villages to rain death on unsuspecting targets? Since the wrong targets are sometimes (often) attacked, and anyone who happens to be nearby can be wounded or killed, who in their right mind living in the Pakistani tribal areas would be supportive of this strategy?

So we can pretty much laugh at the main results of the poll as completely obvious and virtually meaningless. And then there is this gem of analysis.

The antagonism to U.S. policies in the region does not spring from general anti-American feelings. Almost three-quarters of the people in the tribal area said that their opinion of the United States would improve -- most by a great deal -- if the United States increased humanitarian aid and visas to work or study in the States.

Really? If we gave them a ton of money, let them into the U.S., and gave them jobs they'd like the U.S. better? So let me see if I've got this straight. According to the New America Foundation, Pakistanis who don't like U.S. policies would like us better if we changed our policies, gave them more money and did all sorts of other things they'd like. That's some genius analysis right there. Obviously it must mean they aren't motivated by anti-American feelings. I guess there's no point in mentioning that we already give a ridiculous amount of aid to Pakistan, and led the international relief effort after the latest flooding.

The poll also finds that the same Pakistanis would supposedly support action by the Pakistani military against the targets the U.S. is attacking. Too bad the Pakistani military is both unwilling & incapable of dealing with the situation. They are too prone to see the Afghan Taliban as a strategic asset, and can't control the tribal areas in any case.

The drone campaign has nothing to do with making Pakistani tribesmen happy or sad, it's about killing enemies of the U.S.

The 25 Percenters

The latest Rasmussen poll finds that only 25% of Americans support the so-called Ground Zero mosque project.

62% oppose the building of a mosque near where the World Trade Center stood in Lower Manhattan, compared to 54% in the previous survey. Twenty-five percent (25%) favor allowing the mosque to go ahead, and 13% more are not sure.

So to sum up, three quarters of Americans either oppose the mosque or are unsure about it, with only a quarter supporting it. That's a pretty strong negative majority.

I happened to stumble onto another poll, this one by the Pew Forum from last year, on American beliefs. Interestingly enough, 25% happens to be the same number of Americans who believe in astrology. But I'd be willing to bet that many of that 25% probably keep their mouths shut about that belief, except in the company of other true believers. Not so the 25% pro-mosque believers. Instead, they've adopted a smug, self-righteous attitude. They're the true defenders of American religious freedom and the Constitution, against the benighted, bigoted hordes of Islamophobes. They are so convinced of their own righteousness, that they are willing to smear anyone who disagrees with them on this issue as a bigot. And most of them are every bit as illogical and weak on reasoning power as those who believe in astrology. They simply can't grasp the idea that reasons for offense, or for considering something to be in poor taste, differ from person to person. The can't understand -- or pretend not to -- that symbols matter, and that people also view symbols in different ways.

It's no accident that the left forms the majority of the 25 percenters. Most are badly out of touch with the American mainstream on many issues. Accusations of racism directed toward political opponents is almost a reflex action on the left. It's not much of a stretch to start screaming bigotry about an issue involving the left's favorite religion.

As others are pointing out, this poll also illustrates the massive gap between the opinion of ordinary Americans, and the so-called "political class."

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of the Political Class, however, favor building the mosque near Ground Zero. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Mainstream voters are opposed.

You can't get much more disconnected. Is there any wonder that people don't trust the government, and believe our leaders are out of touch?

64% Oppose Ground Zero Mosque in UK Poll

Admittedly it's an unscientific opt-in online newspaper poll. But I was surprised to see that level of opposition at the Guardian of all places, a newspaper that is well on the political left. It seems that even many people in the UK recognize that the project is in poor taste. As of now the poll is running 35.4% approve, and 64.6% disapprove. 

68% of America Comprised of Ignorant Islamophobes

That's if you believe those who are perfectly fine with having an Islamic center two blocks from Ground Zero, and think anyone who dares raise an objection is just an ignorant bigot who hates Muslims. A new CNN poll finds that 68% oppose the so-called Ground Zero Mosque. I'd be willing to bet the opposition is actually higher, with some who recognize the project as a bad idea refusing to say so for fear of being smeared as bigots.

It's somewhat bizarre that a massive left-wing smear campaign -- usually employed against actual political opponents -- is in full swing against an overwhelming majority of the country. It's also interesting that many of the individuals leading it are suddenly just so passionate about a supposed religious freedom issue. If the Catholic Church wanted to construct a major center in an area where it was guaranteed to provoke offense & controversy, how many of the same people hysterically smearing mosque opponents as bigots would have the same attitude? I suspect very few, particularly on the left.

A Useless Gallup Poll

I noticed a news story regarding a Gallup poll on patriotism. Although patriotism is a good Fourth of July topic, the poll itself is almost totally useless. It measures vague levels of self-described patriotism, and arrives at the unsurprising conclusion that "Republicans, conservatives, and seniors" are the most likely to call themselves "extremely patriotic." Given that a minority of the left is actively anti-American, and even many mainstream liberals are embarrassed by open displays of patriotism, associating it with jingoistic nationalism, it's pretty easy to predict what categories of people might identify as extremely patriotic. Gallup tries valiantly to pretend that its survey results have any actual meaning, but fails miserably.

Gallup asked respondents to identify their personal level of patriotism. The choices were: "extremely patriotic," "very patriotic," "somewhat patriotic," and "not especially patriotic." What's the difference between extremely & very? Gallup doesn't know.

The difference between "extremely" and "very" patriotic is left to respondents to interpret.

It's always a sign of quality polling when your questions are so vague that respondents have to figure out what they mean for themselves -- a lazy, meaningless poll by Gallup.

Continued Strong Support for Offshore Drilling

Good news on the energy front. Despite the big BP accident, and some polls showing a drop in approval for offshore oil drilling, the latest Research 2000/Daily Kos poll shows that support is still strong.

Do you favor or oppose increasing offshore drilling for oil and gas in U.S. coastal areas?
Favor 60
Oppose 32
Not Sure 8

QUESTION: Does the recent Deep Horizon oil spill make you more or less likely to favor increasing offshore drilling for oil and gas in U.S. coastal areas, or does it have no real effect on your point of view?
More likely 32
Less likely 13
No Effect 55

It appears most people understand that just because you have a big accident, you don't scrap vital efforts to obtain more domestic oil. Expect support for drilling to climb further if/when gas prices continue to rise into the summer.

The BBC World Poll

According to a new poll by the BBC, world opinion of the U.S. has improved since Barack Obama became president.

For the first time since the annual poll began in 2005, America's influence in the world is now seen as more positive than negative.

This warms the hearts of liberals, who think that international affairs is a popularity contest, and that the opinion of foreigners is more important than an aggressive pursuit of U.S. national interests. The poll also notes that there are two countries where views of the U.S. turned negative. Unfortunately, both are important to American interests.

The only countries where perceptions of the United States became more negative overall were Turkey (where the proportion with positive perceptions of the United States fell from 21 per cent to 13 per cent and negative perceptions increased from 63 to 70 per cent), and in India (where positive perceptions dipped from 43 per cent to 39 per cent and negative views increased from 20 to 28 per cent).

I don't think the president has much to do with the shift in Turkey, where the rise of Islamist sentiment has turned it from a strong ally to a nominal one, but apparently India, a much more important ally, has not been too impressed with the U.S. under Obama. Overall though, I'd be wary of reading too much into this poll. It's not surprising that weak leadership and failure to advance U.S. interests leads some to view the U.S. more favorably. But if you look at the details of the poll, which considered 27 different countries, you find of those surveyed only 19% had a favorable view of Israel's influence, with a full 50% seeing it as a negative influence on the world. In comparison, Russia received a 30% favorable rating, with only 37% percent seeing it as a negative influence. North Korea is a 17% favorable, only 2% below Israel, and only 48% see it negatively.

When world opinion sees North Korea and Israel in the same light, and has much more positive impressions of Russia and China, world opinion is pretty worthless.

The Daily Kos/Research 2000 Poll on Republican Views

Left-winger Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos, commissioned a poll by Research 2000 to survey Republican views. Apparently he's writing a book, and wanted to get ammunition for his preexisting belief that Republicans are evil monsters.

I'm putting the finishing touches on my new book, American Taliban, which catalogues the ways in which modern-day conservatives share the same agenda as radical Jihadists in the Islamic world. But I found myself making certain claims about Republicans that I didn't know if they could be backed up. So I thought, "why don't we ask them directly?"

I know it's hard to take a Republican-hating extremist & propagandist like Moulitsas seriously, but the poll is actually pretty interesting. He comments on each poll question, so I thought I'd do the same. 

Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?

Yes 39 
No 32 
Not Sure 29

Pretty meaningless question. You'd likely get a similar result among Democrats if we had a Republican president anywhere near as polarizing as Obama. 

Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?

Yes 63 
No 21 
Not Sure 16

There's nothing surprising or strange about this response, other than that it wasn't over 75%. Obama may not identify as a socialist, but he's as much of a socialist as you can be and still be elected president. Is there any doubt that Obama would nationalize healthcare completely if he could get away with it? Or that he would drastically raise taxes on the rich, or pursue any number of other socialist policies? "Socialist" is a a pretty loose term to most people. Just because Barack Obama isn't an actual member of a socialist workers party doesn't mean that Republicans who view him as socialistic are wackos.

Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?

Yes 42 
No 36 
Not Sure 22

Unfortunately there are many birthers.

Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?

Yes 24 
No 43 
Not Sure 33

The 24% are blinded by hatred of Obama, and the 33% "not sures" are unwilling to give him credit for anything, even being against terrorism. This is evidence of an Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Do you believe ACORN stole the 2008 election?

Yes 21 
No 24 
Not Sure 55

21% isn't a big deal. Conspiracy theories are popular in both parties, no matter how ridiculous. The "not sures" probably have a reasonable response in this case. They are unclear on exactly how much ACORN affected anything.

Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?

Yes 53 
No 14 
Not Sure 33

Given Obama's miserable performance so far, there's nothing unreasonable about thinking Palin might do a better job. A random person off the street might do a better job.

Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?

Yes 31 
No 36 
Not Sure 33

I wouldn't read too much into this one. I think some are judging based on his former church & Rev. Wright.

Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?

Yes 23 
No 58 
Not Sure 19

Moulitsas launches into lunatic accusations of treason, and a bizarre accusation of cowardice -- based on a speculative poll question. This demonstrates yet again that leftist Democrats are ever willing to call Republicans traitors, un-American or unpatriotic over the most trivial things, yet become outraged at the slightest hint of criticism that might imply they are acting in an unpatriotic fashion -- even when they obviously are.

Should Congress make it easier for workers to form and join labor unions?

Yes 7
No 68
Not Sure 25

Republicans are not pro-union, and for good reasons.

Would you favor or oppose giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and learn English?

Favor 26 
Oppose 59 
Not Sure 15

I'm in the 26% here.

Do you support the death penalty?

Yes 91 
No 4 
Not Sure 5

Another reason to vote Republican.

Should openly gay men and women be allowed to serve in the military?

Yes 26 
No 55 
Not Sure 19

Only 55% opposition I see as a positive sign that times are definitely moving in favor of gay rights.

Should same sex couples be allowed to marry?

Yes 7 
No 77 
Not Sure 16

Unfortunately not surprising. This is a hot-button issue for many.

Should gay couples receive any state or federal benefits?

Yes 11 
No 68 
Not Sure 21

Bad question. It's way too vague. Define benefits. I'm extremely pro-gay rights and I'd probably answer "not sure."

Should openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools?

Yes 8 
No 73 
Not Sure 19

This is pretty bad and seems to reflect a visceral homophobia. Too many people seem to equate homosexuals to pedophiles, even though abuse by heterosexuals is far more common.

Should sex education be taught in the public schools?

Yes 42 
No 51 
Not Sure 7

I have no problem with sex ed, but there's a reasonable argument to be made that it shouldn't be the responsibility of schools.

Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?

Yes 77 
No 15 
Not Sure 8

At first glance this is disturbing, but upon a second look the question is too vague. It is unclear whether the question means that the Biblical account should be covered in school at all, or taught in science class as a replacement for science. There is no problem, in my opinion, with teaching the Genesis account in a class about religion, history, or literature. Teaching it as something that is true, rather than from a neutral perspective, is a different matter.

Are marriages equal partnerships, or are men the leaders of their households?

Men 13 
Equal 76 
Not Sure 11

Useless and uninteresting question.

Should women work outside the home?

Yes 86 
No 4 
Not Sure 10

Same as previous.

Should contraceptive use be outlawed?

Yes 31 
No 56 
Not Sure 13

This one is bizarre. I'm not sure what percentage of Catholics were included in the survey. I have never been aware of any significant number of Republicans railing against contraception. 

Do you believe the birth control pill is abortion?

Yes 34 
No 48 
Not Sure 18

Another "so what" question. I guess an argument could be made for a yes answer. It's not like the question of when life begins is somehow settled.

Do you consider abortion to be murder?

Yes 76 
No 8 
Not Sure 16

Republicans are mostly anti-abortion. Big surprise.

Do you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is though Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith?

Christ 67 
Other 15 
Not Sure 18

67% of Republicans are apparently Christians who believe one of the most basic teachings of Christianity. Again, no surprise.

This Is Why

There's been some bleating from the usual suspects about a recent poll showing that Americans have a much more negative view of Islam than other religions. I've seen a number of articles implying or stating outright that these poll results show that Americans are ignorant of Islam, unfairly associate mainstream Islam with terrorism, or are outright bigoted. But it's difficult for any rational person to observe what goes on in the name of Islam, and not have a negative opinion of the religion. All you have to do is look at almost any majority Islamic state. Hardly a day goes by when there isn't some sort of incident that illustrates why there is nothing surprising about American dislike of Islam. There's the glaringly obvious example of Iran, the one state in the world actually ruled by Muslim clergy. There's Saudi Arabia, with its oppressive misogyny justified by its interpretation of Islamic theology. There's Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan, and so on. And then there are Muslim countries you don't even hear much about, such as Bangladesh. 

"Rape victim receives 101 lashes for becoming pregnant." That's a story from Bangladesh in today's Telegraph.

Her rape emerged after her pregnancy test and Muslim elders in the village issued a fatwa insisting that the girl be kept in isolation until her family agreed to corporal punishment.

Her rapist was pardoned by the elders.

The scum who did this aren't terrorists. They aren't fringe extremists. They are Muslim elders, acting on how Islam is practiced in large portions of countries such as Bangladesh. If you want to understand why many people seem to have a visceral dislike of Islam, whether they are ignorant of the details of the religion or not, look no further than incidents such as this. This type of disgusting treatment of women, and other barbarism is not exactly a rarity. And it is tied directly to how Islam is practiced in certain countries. 

There are plenty of current examples of evil perpetrated in the name of religion, whether Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or other. If this were say the sixteenth century, a case could be made for Christianity as the most odious religion. But at the moment, the misdeeds done in the name of Islam are far and away the most prevalent and egregious. Suspicion and dislike of Islam doesn't have to be based on bigotry, it can be based on reason and observation.

Grade Obama at CBS News

CBS News has an online poll up where you can grade Obama's first year from A to F in major policy areas, and then give an overall grade. Here are the current overall grade results:

A: 11.54%
 
B: 12.00%
 
C:  7.71%

D: 25.45%
 
F: 43.31%

I gave him a D overall. As bad  as he is, I think he could be even worse. Thus the D.
 

Majority Rejects Terrorist Rights

That's according to the latest Rasmussen poll. A solid majority of 58% support the use of "waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques" to get information out of the underwear bomber. Only 30% oppose. And a full 71% oppose treating the terrorist bombing attempt as a normal civilian crime, as the Obama administration is doing.

It's funny, when you hear the self-righteous moralizing of terrorist rights supporters, and their contemptuous disgust of those who don't share their fanatical belief that U.S. constitutional rights apply even to alien terrorists. You might think think they were in the majority, condemning some fringe extremists -- barbarians who support the use of torture. Whereas in fact, they are actually a minority. Whenever terrorist threats gain the attention of the public, minority support for terrorist rights drops even further. That's what happens when foolish utopian ideas run up against harsh reality. Pretending that foreign terrorists are just common criminals who should have rights and normal access to the legal system is fine with many, as long as they aren't paying too much attention to terrorism, and the threat seems pretty abstract and remote. 

Are the supposed "rights" of a known foreign terrorist more important than gaining information that might prevent future acts of terrorism? When that question is framed against the backdrop of a real terrorist threat, most people will rightly reject terrorist rights.

A Good Point From the Left

Like many on both left & right, Chris Bowers at Open Left took note of the recent Public Policy Polling survey that found only a minority of Republicans sure that President Obama was born in the U.S., and 25% of Democrats who think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place. Eight percent overall actually think Bush is the antichrist, and ten percent think it's Obama. (I guess Bush retired from the job). 

Bowers points out that birtherism & trutherism aren't analogus and suggests that another question should have been asked of Democrats.

they missed a chance to poll the actual Democratic equivalent of the "birther" conspiracy theories: that Bush stole the 2004 election. Those two conspiracies are equivalent because they deny the legitimacy of the President. Thinking that Bush was involved in 9/11 is more like thinking that Obama has a secret plan to indoctrinate American children with Islamo-socialism.

According to Bowers, and I think he's correct,

belief in the stolen 2004 elections is more widespread among Democrats than Bush having foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. It certainly seems extremely widespread within the comment sections of the progressive blogosphere.

I applaud Bowers' intellectual honesty in pointing out that there is even more conspiracy theory nuttery on his side than the PPP poll indicates. Unfortunately conspiracy theory thinking is quite prevalent on both sides of the aisle.