Gratuitous Common Sense

The truth is that my favorite movie, currently, is V for Vendetta. In the movie there is a quote that says, “Artists use lies to tell the truth, while politicians use them to cover the truth up.” And I’ve always thought that this is displayed no more prominently than on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show.

The show isn’t necessarily full of lies, per se, but it does use clever editing and trite sarcasm to get its point across. By its own admission the show is full of “fake” news. And yet, somehow, viewers are able to get a clearer picture of the truth than they do on some major cable news networks.

This was the subject of an interview that Bill Moyers did with Jon Stewart on his April 27, 2007 edition of Bill Moyers Journal.

The truth is that we need to stop treating this country like it’s merely a colorful top in a game of who can spin it the fastest. Jon Stewart does an excellent job of cutting through the spin and talking points with some of his answers during the interview.

On the Administration:

JON STEWART: …They would rather us believe them to be wildly incompetent and inarticulate than to let us know anything about how they operate. And so, they do Constitutionally-mandated things most of the time, but they don’t — they fulfill the letter of their obligation to checks and balances, but not the intent.

For instance, Alberto Gonzales, and you’ve been watching the hearings. He is either a perjurer, or a low-functioning pinhead. And he allowed himself to be portrayed in those hearings as a low-functioning pinhead, rather than give the Congressional Committee charged with oversight, any information as to his decision-making process at the Department of Justice.

And I used to think, “They’re doing this based on a certain arrogance.” And now, I realize that it’s because they believe there is one accountability moment for a President, and that is the four year election. And once you get that election, you’re done.

BILL MOYERS: They’re right, are they not?

JON STEWART: They’re completely not right. The election moment is merely the American public saying, “We’d rather you be President than that guy.” That’s it. The next four years, though, you still have to abide by the oversight process that is there to prevent this kind of bizarre sort of cult-like atmosphere that falls along. I mean, I accept that kind of veil of secrecy around Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, but I don’t accept that around our government.

More specifically on Alberto Gonzales and his hearings in the Senate:

JON STEWART: And by the way, that was all just — that was a game, and he knew it, and the guys on the committee knew it. And for the President to come out after that and say, “Everything I saw there gave me more confidence in him,” that solidified my notion that, “Oh, it’s because what he expected of Gonzalez was” it’s sort of like, do you remember in GOODFELLAS? When Henry Hill got arrested for the first time and Robert DeNiro met him at the courthouse and Henry Hill was really upset, ’cause he thought Robert DeNiro would be really mad at him. And DeNiro comes up to him and he gives him a $100 and he goes, “You got pinched. We all get pinched, but you did it right, you didn’t say nothing.”

BILL MOYERS: Gonzales said nothing.

JON STEWART: Right. And “you went up there and said nothing. You gave them no legal recourse against you, and you made yourself a smart man, a self-made man look like an utter pinhead on national television, and you did it for me.”

And I cannot, for the life of me, remember a more truthful statement from anyone on Iraq and the current Administration:

JON STEWART: You know, one of the things that I do think government counts on is that people are busy. And it’s very difficult to mobilize a busy and relatively affluent country, unless it’s over really crucial– you know, foundational issues. That come sort of to sort of a tipping point.

BILL MOYERS: War? War?

JON STEWART: But war that hasn’t affected us here, in the way that you would imagine a five-year war would affect a country. I think that’s why they’re so really — here’s the disconnect. It’s sort of this odd and I’ve always had this problem with the rationality of it. That the President says, “We are in the fight for a way of life. This is the greatest battle of our generation, and of the generations to come. “And, so what I’m going to do is you know, Iraq has to be won, or our way of life ends, and our children and our children’s children all suffer. So, what I’m gonna do is send 10,000 more troops to Baghdad.”

So, there’s a disconnect there between — you’re telling me this is fight of our generation, and you’re going to increase troops by 10 percent. And that’s gonna do it. I’m sure what he would like to do is send 400,000 more troops there, but he can’t, because he doesn’t have them. And the way to get that would be to institute a draft. And the minute you do that, suddenly the country’s not so damn busy anymore. And then they really fight back, and then the whole thing falls apart. So, they have a really delicate balance to walk between keeping us relatively fearful, but not so fearful that we stop what we’re doing and really examine how it is that they’ve been waging this.

There are also some very good moments that refer back to Stewart’s interview with Jon McCain the week before, where he challenged McCain to also address the conversation we should be having, instead of repeating talking points and avoiding the issue as he did.

The video is worth the watch.

Share This

This week I was confronted with a new situation - The Religious Office Card - and I wasn’t quite sure how to act. In our office (of 9 employees), we had a coworker, whose sister lost her husband the weekend before. Another person in the office thought it would be a nice gesture if we got a card to sign and send to the sister.

I’m not a particularly emotional person, so this seemed a little odd to me. Seeing as how nobody in the office was even so much as an acquaintance to the sister, it almost seemed a little patronizing.

When the card was first handed to me, I was debating whether or not to sign it at all, since I had never even heard of this person before her husband died. It just didn’t seem like I was in any position to be offering sincere sympathy to this woman. But then, I read the card. The text of the card read like this…

Outside:

God Grant You Peace

In This Time Of Sorrow

Inside:

May you find comfort in warm memories of the beautiful life that has passed. May you find peace in the assurance that an even more beautiful life has begun for your loved one.

With Deepest Sympathy

Well that complicated things a bit. Not only do I feel conflicted about writing in the card to this woman I’ve never met, regarding a subject so painful as the death of a spouse, but now I’m at odds with the message of the card, which is little more than utilitarian religious rhetoric.

Should I add my piece, which would be devoid of religious connotations? If so, what would I say? And how do I say it without coming across too strongly as against the idea of finding comfort in god/prayer/a more beautiful life after this one? Will saying something explicitly opposite of the card’s symbolism effectively out me to my coworkers? Is that a bad thing?

All these thoughts ran through my head in a matter of seconds. And to help answer some of my questions, I tried to get a feel for what my coworkers thought. Being the newest addition to this office, it’s possible that they knew more about her through our coworker than I did. So I read the messages they had written. These are the comments of the coworkers who had written in the card before it landed on my desk:

You are in my thoughts and prayers at this difficult time.

My prayer[s] are with you and your family.

May the Lord Bless and guide you though this difficult time. You are in our prayers.

I am so sorry for your loss. Please know that I am thinking of you & praying for you!

Oh great! Not a single one that doesn’t fall in lockstep with the card’s religious overtones.

I put the card aside and continued to work for a little bit while thinking about what I would say if I wrote anything. I had decided that if I couldn’t come up with anything good to say, then I would simply pass the card onto the next person.

I eventually arrived at the point where I wanted to write in the card… partly because, as an atheist, I felt challenged by those who had essentially called us out in the wake of the Virginia Tech terrorist massacre by saying atheism had nothing offer… and partly because, as a human being, I felt some level of empathy for this woman, and knew I had something to offer no matter how small or how devoid of religious expression. The difference a few words can make may be profound, no matter how insignificant they seem at the time they are written.

So I tried to think of something that would remind her of the influence of her husband’s life, and call on the strength that she had within herself without looking to someone else’s myth for comfort, while acknowledging the hole that his untimely death certainly left behind. After thinking on it for a few minutes, I began to write in the card. And this was my addition:

Samantha,

I cannot offer personal comfort or platitudes of prayer. As a stranger to you, I can only sincerely hope that your husband has left you with a positive indelible impression upon your life and who you are today, an impression for which you are eternally grateful, endowing you with the strength to go on through his life, and leaving you with little to regret through his death. My best regards!

I was left wishing that I could know her reaction, for I hope it was a positive one. I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge my own hope that my words, which required true thoughtfulness and originality, garnered a deeper and more sentient response than the expected and canned promises of prayers left by others.

What would you have done? Would you have written in the card? What would you have said?

Share This

I have refrained from weighing in on the Virginia Tech terrorist incident since everyone and their brother has been so busy blaming everyone else. And those that aren’t blaming are busy refuting the slanted and politically motivated (for shame) comments from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, various politicians, the Decider-in-Chief, and others.

A full list of who is to blame for the Virginia Tech terrorist shooting has been compiled at Cynical-C Blog. It’s updated as new people are faulted for Cho’s actions.

One of the most refuted idiots has been one Dinesh D’Souza, for his claim that Atheists are nowhere to be found in the wake of such a tragedy. Essentially Dinesh takes the opportunity - provided to him by the untimely deaths of 32 people in Virginia - to propose that Atheism isn’t right, doesn’t have anything to offer, and so on.

And the only reason I’m writing about it is because I came across a letter from a professor at Virginia Tech, who just so happens to be an Atheist. And I don’t think anyone has or could have said it more eloquently or correctly than it was said in this letter. So I have decided to reproduce it here, so anyone that might not come across it otherwise is aware of its existence.

The letter, an updated and final version, can be found here at Daily Kos. And so it goes…

I am an atheist and a professor at Virginia Tech. Dinesh D’Souza says that I don’t exist, that I have nothing to say, that I am nowhere to be found.

You see Mr D’Souza, I am an atheist professor at Virginia Tech and a man of great faith. Not faith in your god. Faith in my people.

Share This

Last week I was baking a cake. OK, not really. But it’s a metaphor, so I was. I was baking a cake. I had my recipe laid out in front of me, I had all my ingredients on the table ready to be mixed, and I had gotten permission to use the oven for the next few hours, as my wife doesn’t like me to commandeer the oven for so long without notifying her first. And this is a big important cake, so it takes quite a while to bake.

So I punch a few buttons on the oven to get it preheated to the right temperature. Then I proceed to mix everything together in a huge pan, like the recipe says, and I throw it in the oven. To keep track of how things are going, I watch it closely. But not too closely, because I know that the baking process can be long and arduous, and sometimes ugly. All the heat and the melting of ingredients, fusing together and rising from mere cake batter… it’s bound to get ugly. But I know that it will be nice and pretty when everything is said and done.

Oh, I’m so excited! It’s a blend of chocolate and vanilla, with a few nuts and an ice cream center. I know what you’re thinking, ‘you can’t put ice cream in an oven, it will never work’. But just you watch. It’ll be great.

My significant other, though, doesn’t seem to understand the process. While we’re watching the cake, she keeps pointing out that I must have done something wrong, because the cake batter is sporadically exploding and leaving remnants all over the oven. Sometimes the exploding batter hits the oven window, and obscures our view.

“Do you know what a mess this is going to be to clean up? I’m already having to wipe the batter off the window just so I can see,” she exclaims.

I try to calm her fears, “It’s a long and difficult process for this cake. But there is progress, look how the batter is still rising. This cake will be beautiful when it’s done.”

She keeps bringing it up, every time there is an explosion, no matter how big or small. It begins to get annoying, and I wish she would just leave me alone. Then, she tried to ask me when it was going to be done, but I don’t have time for such trivial matters.

“It’ll be done when it’s done,” I said.

And just as I had predicted, progress continued. The batter continued to rise and eventually plumped up nicely over the edge of the pan. Just enough to where you could tell it was going to be great! The batter had risen, and the doughy center was beginning to form a soft, spongy base. Sure the explosions were becoming more frequent, but I took it as a sign that the cake was succeeding. I mean, the two things were so perfectly correlated, how could anyone deny the connection?

I had the icing out, and I was ready to spread it across the monstrous cake in a celebration of monumental accomplishment.

Then disaster struck… in a manner that no one could have predicted. The center of the cake collapsed, and brought everything else down with it. The chocolate and vanilla separated and you could see the ice cream (now melted ) spreading across the bottom of the pan. I looked over at my significant other, and I could tell she was doing everything she could to refrain from saying ‘I told you so.’

I thought, for a moment, that maybe this was supposed to happen. Maybe it’s just part of the process. I looked at the recipe again. And lo and behold, the recipe didn’t say anything about it not happening, so we must keep going until the cake is finished. I’m an optimist, by nature. And I’m strong, and resolute. I don’t quit! My job is done when it’s done.

My significant other chimes in

“Uh, maybe we should think about other options or perhaps–”

“Stay the course!” I said.

I didn’t have time for her defeatist nonsense. Stupid quitter! Weak and pessimistic are not the qualities we need in our cooks right now. I have the qualities that are needed to see this cake through to the end and she was really starting to get on my nerves.
Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

“You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say we are the ones that need help?”

- Mark Twain

Share This

Current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales seems destined to follow in the footsteps of Donald Rumsfeld - another long time Bush friend who served “honorably” of course. I don’t have much to say on the subject, there’s no secret about the contradictory statements of Gonzales in March. None of the Senators seem impressed by his testimony. And it now seems that even one of the most loyal republicans, from my sometimes-great state of Oklahoma, has turned his back on Gonzales:

“The communication was atrocious. It was inconsistent — it’s generous to say that there was misstatements; it’s a generous statement. And I believe you ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered,” Coburn said, adding, “I believe the best way to put this behind us is your resignation.”

It’s surprising, to say the least. But what I found most interesting about the hearings, and the reaction of the Committee’s Senators, was the similarity - in tone and tenor - to an interview with a former Department of Justice Director conducted before the hearings began.

Daniel J. Metcalfe, former (retired in January) Director of the Office of Information and Privacy at the DOJ, had a few things to say about the tenure of Gonzales, and it’s striking contrast to previous leadership.

Q: You began in the Justice Department during the Watergate years. How would you rank Alberto Gonzales in terms of politicization of the department in comparison to the other AGs you have worked for?

A: Actually, I began earlier, in the first Nixon administration, as a college intern in 1971. But I was there again in the Watergate era, when I worked in part of the Attorney General’s Office during my first year of law school in 1973-1974, and then continuously as a trial attorney and office director for nearly 30 years. That adds up to more than a dozen attorneys general, including Ed Meese as well as John Mitchell, and I used to think that they had politicized the department more than anyone could or should. But nothing compares to the past two years under Alberto Gonzales.

To be sure, he continued a trend of career/noncareer separation that began under John Ashcroft, yet even Ashcroft brought in political aides who in large measure were experienced in government functioning. Ashcroft’s Justice Department appointees, with few exceptions, were not the type of people who caused you to wonder what they were doing there. They might not have been firm believers in the importance of government, but generally speaking, there was a very respectable level of competence (in some instances even exceptionally so) and a relatively strong dedication to quality government, as far as I could see.

Under Gonzales, though, almost immediately from the time of his arrival in February 2005, this changed quite noticeably. First, there was extraordinary turnover in the political ranks, including the majority of even Justice’s highest-level appointees. It was reminiscent of the turnover from the second Reagan administration to the first Bush administration in 1989, only more so. Second, the atmosphere was palpably different, in ways both large and small. One need not have had to be terribly sophisticated to notice that when Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey left the department in August 2005 his departure was quite abrupt, and that his large farewell party was attended by neither Gonzales nor (as best as could be seen) anyone else on the AG’s personal staff.

Third, and most significantly for present purposes, there was an almost immediate influx of young political aides beginning in the first half of 2005 (e.g., counsels to the AG, associate deputy attorneys general, deputy associate attorneys general, and deputy assistant attorneys general) whose inexperience in the processes of government was surpassed only by their evident disdain for it.

Having seen this firsthand in a range of different situations for nearly two years before I retired, I found it not at all surprising that the recent U.S. Attorney problems arose in the first place and then were so badly mishandled once they did.

That’s all well and good, not too much wrong with that. It can easily be argued (I suppose) that such change, while unusual, is certainly not unacceptable. But Metcalfe goes on to detail the differences, and point to examples of political and blatantly partisan behavior within the DOJ under Gonzales:

Q: Was the politicization a contributing factor to your decision to retire?

A: Yes it was, but probably not in the way you might think. It certainly is true that before Gonzales arrived I had never planned to retire as soon as I became eligible at age 55 (much to my wife’s dismay), but it also is true that I had relatively little difficulty with substantive matters in my areas of responsibility under either Ashcroft or Gonzales. In fact, there were only two such policy conflicts. One was entirely averted through my own type of political maneuvering (to the great dismay of the department’s acting assistant attorney general for legal counsel), and the other involved political appointees wanting to make greater disclosure, not less, which ultimately became the result.

But the process of agency functioning, however, became dramatically different almost immediately after Gonzales arrived. No longer was emphasis placed on accomplishing something with the highest-quality product in a timely fashion; rather, it became a matter of making sure that a “consensus” was achieved, regardless of how long that might take and with little or no concern that quality would suffer in such a “lowest common denominator” environment. And heaven help anyone, career or noncareer employee, if that “consensus” did not include whatever someone in the White House might think about something, be it large, small or medium-sized.

In short, the culture markedly shifted to one in which avoiding any possibility of disagreement anywhere was the overriding concern, as if “consensus” were an end unto itself. Undergirding this, what’s more, was the sad fact that so many political appointees in 2005 and 2006 were so obviously thinking not much further than their next (i.e., higher-level) position, in some place where they could “max out” by the end of Bush’s second term.

The day that I decided to retire, for example, was one on which I was asked to participate in a matter in which a significant part of the department’s position was aiming to be — there’s no other word for it — false. Briefly stated, someone in the White House had determined that it would be a good idea for an op-ed piece on the subject of government secrecy to be prepared, and although its subject matter extended beyond the Justice Department’s jurisdiction in multiple respects, it was decided that the Justice Department’s Office of Public Affairs would take on that task nevertheless. I was perfectly able to make several corrections and substantive improvements to a last-minute draft that I received but drew a line at even attempting to “improve” a Defense Department-related paragraph within it that was incorrect by a full 180 degrees.

Knowing what the facts of that matter actually were, I flatly refused to aid that part of the enterprise, pointedly observing that the Gonzales-era political appointee who was behind the draft did, in fact, to my own certain knowledge, know them as well. I suppose I can take some small satisfaction that the false part of that “final draft” was then entirely replaced with something that was at least arguably true, but that’s hardly the point. (That political appointee, by the way, did indeed receive his promotion, but is no longer in Washington.)

[Editor’s Note: The op-ed in question appeared in USA Today on March 13, 2006, and was titled “Committed to Being Open.”]

Yes, it became quite clear that under Gonzales, the department placed no more than secondary value on the standards that I and my office had valued so heavily for the preceding 25 years — accuracy, integrity, responsibility and quality of decision-making being chief among them. Had I stayed as director of OIP, I might have been working for a Monica Goodling protege by now.

And contradictory to what Gonzales thinks of himself and his current position in the eyes of the American people, he cannot be the person, whether he believes he is effectively capable or not, to restore the confidence in the Attorney General’s (independent) position and the Department of Justice. The Senators, aside from Orrin Hatch, seem to be echoing Metcalfe on this one:

Q: In your view, what needs to be done to repair the department?

A: Based upon my experience, it’s very hard to imagine how the department can viably move forward now without a Watergate-style repair. By that I mean the appointment of a new attorney general, one who by reputation, background and temperament is well-suited to at least begin the process of restoring the department’s previous reputation for political independence and the reliably even-handed administration of justice.

With that, and the necessary “woodshedding” of any future political aides who might be inclined to allow their inexperience to overcome their boss’ better judgment, the department’s external standing would rise, and in time, its internal morale problems would begin to solve themselves. At bottom, the Justice Department is a tremendously satisfying place to work, especially in a post-9/11 world. I’m optimistic that it will bounce back from this in time, just as it did in the mid-1970s. After all, if the past two years have shown anything, it’s that much can change in a surprisingly short period of time.

A short period of time, indeed.

Share This

This is absolutely unbelievable to me, but Paula Zahn has managed to do it again - allowing a gratuitously unchecked forum where Christians bash Atheists on CNN. The absolute unabashed bigotry is appalling. The hypocrisy seems to escape these folks.

Note: This video is from the January 31, 2007 edition of Paula Zahn Now, but I felt compelled, however belated, to comment on it anyway.

Notice how the video starts off? Paula Zahn says:

We’re talking about whether there is widespread discrimination against Atheists, folks who don’t believe in God.

She then proceeds to introduce her panel for this “discussion” which includes (wait for it…) three theists! Only one of whom, manages to mildly defend freedom of speech and civil liberties, but makes sure to profess his loyalty to his all-powerful authority figure before doing so.

Karen Hunter begins the discussion by questioning what more atheists could want:

Are we gonna take “In God We Trust” off of our dollars? Are we not gonna say “One nation under God”? When does it end? You know, We took prayer out of schools, what more do they want?

Now, normally, you would expect and unbiased journalist like Paula Zahn ( ) to correct her panel with the facts. She doesn’t have to present the Atheist point of view, only the facts. You know, like the fact that prayer has not been removed from schools, but forced state-sanctioned prayer has been declared unconstitutional. Karen seems to want to pose the question as if the apparent ridiculousness in her tone is enough to dismiss the entire subject. Not only that, but she acts like Christians did someone a favor by taking “prayer out of schools”. Nevermind the Constitution, the Atheists should be happy that we went along on that one.

Then Debbie Schlussel chimes in with her turn at the misinformation machine:

I think that, um, the real discrimination is Atheists against Americans who are religious. Listen, we are a Christian Nation.

Apparently this “attorney” is not familiar with Article 11 of the unanimously approved Treaty of Tripoli. Instead, she notes that she’s Jewish, as if to attempt to point out her objectivity on the subject, and goes on to posit that we are a Christian nation because there are a lot of Christians here.

She also manages to point out that:

Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion

Well, I’ll be. Perhaps if she weren’t adhering to a inadequate and incomplete conventional wisdom interpretation of the establishment clause in the Constitution she might understand why her comment is flat out wrong.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Notice that it doesn’t say “a religion”, it says “establishment of religion”. For it is inherent in the idea of freedom of religion that freedom from it must also be required. Otherwise you must choose which religion it’s going to be that gets to inhibit that freedom. Schlussel, obviously, thinks Christianity should be the religion that gets to restrict that freedom.

Moreover, forcing people to accept some particular idea or adhere to behavioral standards from someone else’s religion means that their religious freedom is being infringed upon. In other words, to put it so bluntly so someone as dim as Schlussel can understand it, freedom of religion, by definition, means freedom from Christianity. And the same goes for every single other religion present in the world. See? I’m not just picking on (or discriminating against) the Christians.

Stephen A. Smith, a sports analyst for ESPN (why is he there?), manages to interject a thin slice of rationality into the discussion, immediately after professing his love for his lord, by pointing out that you’re entitled to believe what you want as long as you’re not imposing those beliefs on other people.

But not to be outdone, Karen points out that the Atheists’ problem is marketing, and perhaps Atheists should adopt the Christian strategy of feeding off American consumerism to get their “message” out:
Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

This is the basic summation of some new findings from the Pew Research Center for People & The Press, which is, honestly, not all that surprising. Maybe it’s because we’ve heard of similar findings from other sources regarding Daily Show viewers in the past:

During the May 23 [2006] edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly asserted that “[m]any Americans ages 18 to 24 have no idea what’s going on,” stating that they “get their news from [Comedy Central host] Jon Stewart and their point of view from bomb-throwing entertainers.” In fact, studies have shown that viewers of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Jon Stewart are consistently better informed about current events than consumers of other media, and Daily Show viewers are considerably better educated than viewers of The O’Reilly Factor. Further, consumers of Fox News in general have been found to be significantly more misinformed about current events than consumers of other mainstream media.

“Daily Show” viewers are 78 percent more likely than the average adult to have four or more years of college education, while O’Reilly’s audience is only 24 percent more likely to have that much schooling.

I know, I know, statistics can be made out to say just about anything. But, if that’s really true, then someone has to ask where the surveys are that say the exact opposite. Where are the people fumbling with the numbers to make Fox “News” viewers seem intelligible and informed? I know we’ve heard Bill O’Reilly make up statements to that effect, but he didn’t really back it up with any survey results or anything. He was just being an ignorant blow-hard pontificating on his own intuitions, which turned out to be unequivocally false (go figure).

So, that being said, let’s heap another one onto the pile for good measure:

A new survey of 1,502 adults released Sunday by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that despite the mass appeal of the Internet and cable news since a previous poll in 1989, Americans’ knowledge of national affairs has slipped a little. For example, only 69% know that Dick Cheney is vice president, while 74% could identify Dan Quayle in that post in 1989.

Other details are equally eye-opening. Pew judged the levels of knowledgeability (correct answers) among those surveyed and found that those who scored the highest were regular watchers of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show and Colbert Report. They tied with regular readers of major newspapers in the top spot — with 54% of them getting 2 out of 3 questions correct. Watchers of the Lehrer News Hour on PBS followed just behind.

Virtually bringing up the rear were regular watchers of Fox News. Only 1 in 3 could answer 2 out of 3 questions correctly. Fox topped only network morning show viewers.

Told that Shia was one group of Muslims struggling in Iraq, only 32% of the total sample could name “Sunni” as the other key group.

The percentage of those who knew their state’s governor dropped to 2 in 3. Almost half know that Rep. Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House and 2 in 3 know that Condi Rice is secretary of state. But just 29% can identify Scooter Libby, 21% know Robert Gates and 15% can name Sen. Harry Reid.

But nearly 9 in 10 knew about President Bush’s troop escalation in Iraq.

Men scored higher than women, and older Americans did better than younger, on average. Democrats and Republicans were about equally represented in the most knowledgeable group but there were more Republicans in the least aware group.

- via Editor & Publisher

Share This

“Have you ever wondered why God waited thousands of years, from Adam to Jesus, to tell the world he had a son? He, who begins by loving Christianity more than truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all.”

- Samuel Taylor Coleridge; English poet, critic, journalist, philosopher

Share This

This is probably going around in an email chain, but I thought it funny enough to post. As we all know, Google Maps gives directions for getting from one place to another. And if you’re looking for directions from New York to London, you better be in damn good shape…

Notice Step #23, and make sure you don’t miss that slight right at E05. That would be disastrous!

Share This