Those "public" numbers look like they came from early 2005.

"No", and "no". The experts are always more likely to say we can be doing a better job, by adopting whatever strategies the experts are pushing these days.

It doesn't mean anything because neither the experts nor the public have much influence on our current foreign policy and security strategy.

"experts" being who - Paul Krugman and Markos Moulitsas?

Is the gap between the public and the experts surprising?

Of course not, given the likely sources of information routinely accessed by the "public."

Predictable?

Yup.

And does it mean anything?

It means that the "public" evaluates our successes in securing the nation from terrorist attacks by watching '24' and Fox News.

The Iran numbers appear to be from the LA Times June 24-27, 2006 poll.

The "winning the war on terror" numbers appear to be from a November 1-4, 2006 Pew Research Center poll.

The "clear plan" numbers appear to be from the CBS News/New York Times Sept. 15-19, 2006 poll.

Just for clarification purposes.

I'm not sure about "clear plan." Yes, the government has a clear plan. (See PNAC strategy document, author Dick Cheney et al)

No, they don't have a good plan...

Unlike 'experts', the public have to rely on mass media for their information. Experts are supposed to be better informed.

unsurprising, very predictable and it show that good PR beats good policy.

well, untill you're reelected at least. At which both no longer matter anyway.

Fucking know nothing elitist latte drinking volvo driving terrorist sympathizing experts!

If they were true Americans they would be watching American Idol and Fear Factor and 24 and wouldn't have time to be "experts!"

Note to Kevin: the experts lost in 2000, get over it.

/sarcasm
//sad but true
///is this fark?

The role of "True American" in the above was played by Ann Althouse.

"experts" being who - Paul Krugman and Markos Moulitsas?

Actually, Foreign Policy is an emphatically neoconservative journal. It very definitely includes under the rubric of "liberal" neoconservatives who are pro-choice and pro-social security. Generally speaking, if one wishes to establish credentials as a "conservative" foreign policy "expert," the only qualification that seems to be consistently applied is that one be astonishingly far to the right and hawkish.

If you assume no expert counts himself/herself as a Republican anymore -- and that would be a pretty fair assumption nowadays -- then the numbers actually probably start to line up pretty nicely.

Just to my elaborate my point: it looks like the views of experts and that of self-identified Democrats are pretty well aligned, insofar as I can tell.

Beware the fallacy of the perpetual trend.

Public opinion changes over time, largely due to the influence of opinion leaders like the cited experts.

All the numbers you see for "public" are fluid, and likely will move in the direction of the opinion leaders.

Not surprising or predictable; experts, first, look to a wider variety of sources for their information, and second, spend more time pondering the topic. The public reads the newspaper or watches TV or checks out CNN.com or whatever and forms an opinion from the low-hanging info fruit.

What it means is that either the info in the big media outlets doesn't line up with what the experts are seeing, or that the public has a harder time picking good info out from the broader message flood (including entertainment). Neither of which is surprising either.

No "expert" ever got headlines by saying everything was just fine.

Experts and the typical American may have differing views of what, for example, "winning the war on terrorism" means. It is entirely possible that some Americans view winning as prevention of acts of terrorism on American soil, while an expert might take a broader view.

It's a question of blissful ignorance driving reality of perception. I believe we are entering "the final days of the republic" and "the beginning of bread and circuses" era.

In order to be informed, really informed, one must read books (One percent Doctrine, Fiasco, ect.). But instead of pursuing the truth with all it's attendant nasties we turn to "24", and will the fiction to life. I just wonder what will be our fictionalized answer to global warming?

Question: Is the gap between the public and the experts surprising? Predictable? And does it mean anything?

Sure. It means that George W. Bush is still a "popular president," and the kinda guy normal Americans would like to invite to a backyard barbecue.

At least, that's what I heard on Hardball.

Not surprising - but not a bad thing, either.

"Is that bridge safe?"

An expert knows what to look for, understands nuance and differentiation, etc. etc. etc. The general public will always be behind the curve on that. So as long as we're busily attacking 'them', well, that's definitely a plan, right?

Of course with the caveat that expert opinion does not drive the news cycle. (Except weather, which for some reason seems vested in actually getting it right, and is willing to pay for people that understand it. Go figure.)

...I just wonder what will be our fictionalized answer to global warming?
Posted by: Citizen80203 on February 13, 2007 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

Ever see a movie called Soylent Green?

The majority of the "American Public" are DUMB AS A POST....they have loved the "macho boy" and they got what they ask for. Forget about the word "expert"..the fact that the public hasn't had enough yet just shows as long as the public can go to the Super Bowl, the Mall and attend NASCAR events...they do NOT care what the leaders do. The so-called "leaders" know that. Why do you think that Satanic leader of this country told everyone to "go shopping" after 9/11? Don't worry folks the Bush/Cheney crowd set this all up and unless they need another faux attack to convince Americans they need to attack Iran, we have nothing to worry about. If it looks like there will be too many objections, look out..they will cook up another one so we can run scared and "go shopping".....Americans fall for his set-ups every time...oh yes, don't forget pulling out the "bin Laden tapes"....everytime they need a vote.

If these numbers are in fact correct, this is an sad but all-too-predictable collective profile of a people who can tell you who won on American Idol, but can't readily identify their own elected officials.

In her great book, The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arndt has a very long section on mobs and how they are used by political strategists to disrupt discourse and reframe issues. Do not confuse a mob for the masses.

I aways thought I was a member of the general public, but looking at these numbers I guess I am going to have to add foreign policy expert to my CV.

If the sources cited above are correct, the analysis is hopelessly outdated. I suspect the public's numbers have changed.

and the kinda guy normal Americans would like to invite to a backyard barbecue. Posted by: Quaker in a Basement on February 13, 2007 at 2:05 PM

Sure, I would invite him. The tines on my rotisserie are just long enough....

No. Yes. I don't know

To many folks are watching "Survivor" or "24" or "My Name is Earl" or some other mindless TV. I am surprised at the large number of 'experts' who said yes. But then again some work for BushCo.

King Georgie is definately not welcome at my bar-b-que.

Regarding protecting the U.S., the Bush administration clearly has plans and guidelines. Those are to look like they're doing something, while not doing the things that would be bad for business.

Thankfully, the Democrats have picked up the slack. I'm sure everyone's heard Democrats verbally indict Bush for allowing HezbollahTerrorists to infiltrate the U.S.

And, of course, I'm sure you all remember how John Kerry excoriated Bush for his HomelandSecurity failures. That alone resulted in Kerry winning the 2004 presidential election.

Wait a minute. My Name Is Earl? Is that back on, and I'm missing it?

The results aren't surprising, given the number of febrile Al-bots and Egfarts out there—and those are the "informed" ones!

For those who chose not to read the actual report: The surveys were independently conducted, meaning other survey results were not used. The poll is very recent, having a 2007 copyright date. So much for old data & other polls.

The good news from these polls is, the policy experts & the public are waking up. It is no surprise the public lags behind the experts, but even their perceptions are moving in the expert's direction, while the experts seem to be more in agreement as time goes on.

A side note: Many former Bush administration officials are also saying the same things as the experts. Dare we believe the fog created by the Bushies is finally clearing? I hope it is not too late

From the Department of Simple Explanations:

the experts don't take their information from the USer SCUM (SoCalledUnbiasedMedia)

d'uh...
/

Why should it matter whether the experts are 'conservative' or 'liberal?' Isn't the concession to this dichotomy an automatic appeal to 'the mob?'

The Bush administration is out of touch with 'the experts' because the administration's goals are very different than those of 'the experts.' The administration wants to maximize chaos. The experts want to minimize chaos. The mob thinks that there are disagreements based on politics, either internal or partisan, so they have a view closer to 50/50. The mob hasn't yet figured out that the Bush administration doesn't care about safety or security, but only about gaming the system.

Funny thing; when I saw "The Mob" in the headline, I assumed it referred to our Administration.

Love,
Fredo

The poll is very recent, having a 2007 copyright date. So much for old data & other polls.

Looking at the report, all I see is data and dates for the
"experts." Do they show the poll results and dates for the "public" somewhere?

Quiz to those who deride experts as "Volvo-driving, latte-sipping liberals":

Who would you rather did a heart transplant on you--a heart surgeon or "the man on the street"?

The laudation of the "common man" is a technique by too many Americans to justify not learning anything.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Mind+the+gap-a0158093515

Perhaps a disconnect of some kind? Dan Dresner addresses the issue from a foreign policy perspective, in a very interesting and well-written article above.

What it means, of course, is that the American people have de-educated themselves to the point where the nation cannot survive as an open society and possibly not even as an autonomous entity.

Sure the "experts" with their degrees, knowledge, and experience skew one way, but I'm sure our trusted pundits with their cocktail weenies skew the other way.

There seems to be a disconnect on this board. The bulk of the comments seem to agree with the experts that we are not winning the war on terror. Yet, few of the commenters suggest that we take more aggressive steps to win that war. E.g., few if any would agree if someone suggested:
-- attacking Iran
-- attacking NK
-- using more torture to get better inteligence from captives
-- using more powerful weapons in Iraq
-- adding 100,000 troops in Iraq, or anywhere else
-- Using more intrusive spying methodology

Why would one think we're losing the WoT, yet not want to take concrete steps to reverse that loss? Does losing the WoT not matter? Are things seen as hopeless? Has Bush-hatred pushed all other thoughts out of the mind?

It's a puzzlement.

Duh. It means the administration's lies are working.

The general public depends on the mainstream right-wing corporate industrial media complex for its opinions on issues. Experts seek out the facts and perform some critical thinking before forming an opinion.

Experts are the kinds of people George W. Bush purges from his executive (and now the legislative) branch.

Ex-liberal;
maybe it's because all those things you mention are red herrings. Notably absent from your list is:

- concentrate on focusing on Afghanistan, specifically Taliban and Al-Qaeda the people that actually attacked us, you effing moron! instead of reducing troop presence there in 2003 to have more troops available for Dick and George's Excellent Adventure.

I don't know what to make of ex-liberal's remark. It is obviously possible to believe that Bush is going in entirely the wrong direction to win the so-called "war on terror" without then believing that what we need is MORE of the same. From the beginning I saw the most likely direction of this adminsitration -- having lived through the past struggles in the country over Viet Nam, the Cold War, what to believe about and how to deal with the Soviet Union, etc. I thought that direction would be wrong, and that it would make things worse. Everything I predicted has come about, and it has been disastrous. In these circumstances it seem imminently logical to distrust, fear and loathe Bush & his administration.

In this context, I believe that we are loosing, and that we DO need to take steps to win. But they are not the steps ex-liberal suggests; I think we need to go in an entirely different direction. Having been right for the past six years, I still trust my judgment; but the question is, why do those who have been wrong for six years trust theirs? Why does anyone trust theirs?

excuse me. i usually try to be polite.

Considering the fact that we have not been hit with a terrorist attack since 9/11, I'm not surprised that 46% of Americans think we're doing ok in the war on terror. It all depends on how you measure it. Experts have all kinds of details metrics they use. The public's understanding is more basic: are we being hit or not?

As for Iran...well...I'm not sure how much the public opinion matters at this stage. If and when the Bush Administration bombs Iran, the public opinion will be overwhelmingly negative. Only an idiot would read this polling data and imagine that the American people would support a war with Iran. The fact that most Americans are clueless about how the Bush Administration is handling relations with Iran has very little to do with the electoral fury that would rain down upon Republicans if Bush widened the war to Iran.

It seems they got the numbers switched in their tables.

Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, former CIA procurment director, and Brent Wilkes, Southern California defense contractor, are indicted by a federal grand jury investigating the Duke Cunningham corruption scandal.

Brief responses to ex-liberal's suggestions:

-- attacking Iran (Have not attacked us. Why attack them? With what troops?)
-- attacking NK (Do they sponsor terrorists?)
-- using more torture to get better inteligence from captives (Would not produce better intelligence. Is as antithetical to American ideals as genocide, despite what "24" says.)
-- using more powerful weapons in Iraq (Why? To get them to stop fighting their civil war? Would have no effect on the political situation.)
-- adding 100,000 troops in Iraq, or anywhere else (Moving 100,000 troops from Iraq to Afganistan warrants some consideration. Nice work!)
-- Using more intrusive spying methodology (All for it, so long as it is consistent with existing law and the constitution.)

"puzzlement"? What is the urge to nominalize a noun? Did you go to school with W?

Dear little "ex-liberal" writes: "There seems to be a disconnect on this board."

No, actually, there isn't, as you well know. You are, as usual, playing silly little games rather than engaging in any substantive discussion.

"The bulk of the comments seem to agree with the experts that we are not winning the war on terror."

Probably because we are not, in fact, "winning" the "war on terror," even if there were actually such a thing (as compared to, say, a rhetorical construct that has little meaning in real life).

"Yet, few of the commenters suggest that we take more aggressive steps to win that war."

That's because your idea of "aggressive steps" are not only fundamentally idiotic, they are what got us into this pickle in the first place.

"-- attacking Iran"

Because it's a monumentally stupid idea, practically guaranteed to make an already bad situation that much worse, and wholly unwarranted based on the credible information we have to date.

"-- attacking NK"

Because it's an even more monumentally stupid idea, practically guaranteed to make an already bad situation that much worse.

"- using more torture to get better inteligence from captives"

Because it's a monumentally stupid tactic that does not yield reliable intelligence and is practically guaranteed to make an already bad situation that much worse.

"-- using more powerful weapons in Iraq"

Because it's a monumentally stupid tactic that will kill far more innocent civilians and is practically guaranteed to make an already bad situation that much worse.

"-- adding 100,000 troops in Iraq, or anywhere else"

Because we do not have those additional 100,000 troops, nor is it clear that even if we did that placing them "anywhere else" would have any impact on, well, anything.

"-- Using more intrusive spying methodology"

Because we are already using "more intrusive spying methodology" where it is appropriate to do so. Where it is inappropriate to do so, e.g., spying on U.S. citizens, the tactic thus far has done more harm than good, according to the FBI, which has wasted countless man-hours on wild goose chases caused by inappropriate "intrusive spying methodology."

"Why would one think we're losing the WoT, yet not want to take concrete steps to reverse that loss?"

Because your "concrete steps" are monumentally stupid ideas practically guaranteed to make things worse.

"Does losing the WoT not matter?"

Given that there really is no such thing as a "war on terror," I would say, no, it really does not matter. It's a moot point, anyway, since your "concrete steps" are monumentally stupid ideas practically guaranteed to make things worse.

"Are things seen as hopeless?"

With the current administration in charge? Yes.

"Has Bush-hatred pushed all other thoughts out of the mind?"

ROFL... Given the complete disconnect from reality in your posts, forgive us if we don't take comments like this seriously.

"It's a puzzlement."

Actually, it's not. You're a mindless partisan troll and posts like this are not only not puzzling, they are precisely what we expect from you.

Yet, few of the commenters suggest that we take more aggressive steps to win that war.

First, let's just say that attacking North Korea would be psychotic, not to mention that we have no available ground forces capable of doing so and that NORTH KOREA IS NOT A TERRORIST NATION -- YOU DIMWIT!!!

Secondly, we HAVE been using torture at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and in secret CIA prisons and it hasn't rendered better intelligence, because torture is rarely if ever effective in that way.

Thirdly, we have no 100,000 troops to add to Iraq.

Fourthly, regarding using more powerful weapons in Iraq; WTF are you talking about??? 500-lb bombs aren't powerful enough? Air strikes aren't? And further, we are engaged in urban warfare there. More powerful weapons will only kill more innocents and radicalize the rest. It's nice to know that you have no conscience in addition to being a braindead idiot.

As for intrusive spying methodology, we are already using everything we possess. Do you think we have our reverse-engineered alien tech sitting in a drawer someplace?

Finally, there is no war on terror; that is a catchphrase used to dupe people and win elections. Terrorism is a means that people who feel powerless use to try and gain political power. It has always existed and always will.

The steps you mentioned inevitably INCREASE terrorism, as the Iraq war and the execution of the so-called war on terror to date has conclusively shown. Terrorism has increased by thousands of percent since we started "fighting" it.

There is no simple way to reduce terrorism as each situation has to be judged independently, but generally speaking the primary approach to reducing terrorism is to address its causes: poverty, lack of education, parochial thinking, and lack of political representation.

Of course, if you paid attention to what people write her every day you'd already have the answer to the question you posed.

thersites wrote: "excuse me. i usually try to be polite."

Why? "ex-liberal" is not manifestly not an "ex-liberal" and he, she, or it, clearly is a mindless partisan troll. Such people have no reasonable expectation of courtesy, particularly in light of their offensive comments and falsehoods.

For fuck's sake, Frequency Kenneth, can't you do ANYTHING right?
X is the unknown quantity, Spurt(Pert? WTF?) is a drip under pressure.
As in, "Once cornered behind his desk in the Oval Office by Helen Thomas, Walter Pincus and Stephen Colbert, George Bush became an expert."

- thersites - What the fuck for?

Maybe what we have here is a example of the wisdom of crowds.

thersites: concentrate on focusing on Afghanistan, specifically Taliban and Al-Qaeda

So, what do you think we should do in Afghanistan that we're not doing now? Would you suggest that we
-- attack nearby Pakistan (which is being used as a staging area by our enemy) even though the Pakistan government has not given permission to do so?
-- use more torture to get better inteligence from captives?
-- use more powerful weapons in Afghanistan?
-- add 100,000 troops in Afghanistan?
-- Use more intrusive spying methodology in Afghanistan?

The reason I ask is that some who say "concentrate on Afghanistan" mean only that want us to withdraw from Iraq.

Don't you just love "ex-liberal's" complete disconnection from reality? Poor guy ... he's really lost his touch ... practically phoning it in these days.

Of course, given the material he has to work with, one can hardly blame him.

Yes, ex-liberal, some do.
It would be a good start, if one wants to "Win the War on Terror".

Why the disconnect between experts and the public?
We bloggers keep up on it daily and still major political news gets passed us.
Look at the administration's infamous Friday night news dump--hoping to miss the busy crowd.
And many people are too economically strapped, too entwined with their inevitable routines--and don't have the leisure time it takes to be online, and searching for what is really happening politically, or spending hours watching Cspan.
The daily paper doesn't tell the average American much of anything; tv news has its bias and limitations. Picture the average newspaper or local news station in a red state. Picture the folks thinking Fox is fair and balanced.
And who is home during the day getting all these pollster's calls? They call on landline phones.

I especially like how "use more torture" keeps coming into play. Animals like ex-lib will use any excuse to put the hurting on some ragheads.

Definition of Expert - "An 'ex' is a has-been, and a 'pert' is a drip under pressure."

FK, you can't even get a joke right.

Its, "An 'ex' is a has-been, and a 'spurt' is a drip under pressure."

(Of course, it works better orally than in writing.)

Bush's CIA in trouble--

Federal prosecutors in San Diego are expected today to announce indictments in a case that involves the former No. 3 official at the CIA, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, officials tell ABC News.

Foggo, who served as the CIA's executive director, was accused last year by fellow CIA employees of steering contracts for the CIA station in Iraq to longtime friend Brent Wilkes, a defense contractor whose activities also led to the indictment of former Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham.

The Bush Administration: All corruption and lawbreaking, All the time.

The yes group mirrors Rush Limbaugh listeners.

These numbers are better:
63% want a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq
45% want funds blocked for new troops

63% are bothered by failure of debate about the Iraq war

51% blame republicans for the failure of debate. less than 20% blamed democrats.

Then there are the end-timers waiting for the rapture to figure in the other percentage, and those indifferent, and those with war-mongering traits...I know people who support everything Bush does because they resent abortion so much. They don't mind adults being killed in an unjust war, but, boy, save those fetuses. They probably figure in the stats too.

Shorter "ex-liberal": MORE WAR, DAMMIT!

Right enough, PaulB...this pathetic performance truly seemed phoned in. The same tired old collection of bullshit arguments and straw men.

What's amusing is how, the obvious nature of "ex-liberal"'s bullshit helpts to discredit the very neocon agenda he/she/it steadfastly carries water for.

As if the manifest incompetence of the neocons and the dismal failures of their agenda hasn't been obvious enough.

Sigh...poor "ex-liberal." He/she/it is clearly coming unhinged at the realization that this time the neocons won't fool the American people into expending their blood and treasure for an agenda that promotes Israel's interests at the expense of America's.

Even ex-lib and his like deserve courtesy, even if he's not really an ex-liberal or an ex-spurt. It's that twisted liberal "Golden Rule" thing that our good Christian President and his toadies seem to have forgotten.

Having said that, clearly he/she/it is either feeble minded or just trying to raise our collective blood pressure. "use more torture" indeed.

We'll have to disagree on this one, thersites. An obvious troll, one whose primary purpose is to disrupt and derail discussion, deserves neither respect nor courtesy. Since "ex-liberal" clearly falls into that category, I have no compunction about being quite rude to him or her.

In an ideal world, trolls like "ex-liberal," American Hawk, and their ilk would be ignored, which would cause them to dry up and disappear. Alas, this is not an ideal world and I'm just as guilty as any of giving them the response they crave. In my own defense, though, I have to say that I never make the mistake of assuming that they are here for an honest discussion nor that they will pay attention to anything I say. My primary purpose in responding is to highlight and mock their utter stupidity and their complete disconnection from reality.

PaulB:We'll have to disagree on this one, thersites.

YOU MORON! HOW DARE YOU???

Seriously, point taken; ignoring them is the best response (and not discourteous, either.)

"experts" being who - Paul Krugman and Markos Moulitsas?

Posted by: Jack on February 13, 2007 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

I suppose Jack's preferred panel of "experts" would be Michelle Malkin, William "wrong about absolutely fucking everything so far" Kristol and Jonah Goldberg?

OT: Mods, in case you're not watching, there is a spammer in the Donohue thread who appears to be engaging a Thomas-style debate shut-down.

The implication is that our so-called experts are doing an excellent job of lying a lot to get paychecks.

What do the experts know?
They only get their "expertise" from so called "research".
And "research" comes from so-called "facts", and these "facts" have a well known liberal bias.

Of course they think things are going badly as we all know they are trying to undermine our troops.

>Is the gap between the public and the experts surprising? Predictable? And does it mean anything?

Um, not if you control for the Conservative Political Affliation.
On the question of "Do you agree with the following statement?: 'The United States is winning the War on Terror' ", 43% of the Conservative experts said "Yes", 5% of the Moderates said "Yes", and 5% of the Liberals said "Yes"; 50% of the Conservatives said "No", 81% of the Moderates, and 93% of the Liberals.

The question should be which of these three sets of experts are on television and WaPo op-ed pages?

Entirely consistent. Consider this poll, for instance . . .

CBS Evolution Poll:
Do you believe humans evolved?
American public: 13%

By the way, according to the same CBS poll, only 21% of Democrats believe in evolution (compared to only 6% of Republicans).

I guess that means that just about everyone hear agrees that Bush is winning the war on terrorism, right? After all, only the "experts" would be stupid enough to believe in something as ridiculous as evolution or the fallibility of George Bush.

Good lord is that depressing.

I wonder what the response would be if you asked:
"Do you favor spreading the war in Iraq to neighboring Iran."

I suspect the numbers would be a bit different. It's a question Congressional Republicans ought to consider before throwing their support by Dubbya's next war...

Kevin, it's telling that you refer to the American People as "the mob", and elitist liberal academics as "the experts".

We live in a republic, which is based on the recognition of the wisdom of the people, and gives the power of government to the people.

And the inconvenient truth, for you, is that the people have more faith in our President than you and your elitist friends.

the people have more faith in our President than you and your elitist friends.

As last Nov illustrated.

These polls don't mean much. They are misleading because they give the impression that that the "experts" in this poll all agree with each other. This is almost certainly not the case.

For example, it's likely the "conservative" experts want a more agressive, hardline military approach to Iran where the "liberal" experts want toned-down rhetoric and diplomacy. That they all disapprove of the current policy only proves that they believe there is a better way (of course they do, they're experts)

I'l just say that I'll go with the experts and say, as ever, the US public is immeasurably illinformed. Remember how many continued to believe that Saddam was part of 11th September?

So who's to blame?

The press. The media. Fox. Blogs.

If you do not base your report on the facts and allow people to know these, makes the rest of you writing irrelevant.

Hence Fox, Weekly Report, et al., that lie through their teeth, mislead the populace.

You can't blame the ignorant masses for not cross-checking congenital liars. They just fall for the fake.

Uh, what percentage of the American public actually understands what Bush's policy towards Iran even is?

First let them answer that question. If they can't give a rough estimation of what they're talking about (what the policy actually is) then they have no business answering the question to begin with. You can't "like" (or "dislike") something if you don't even know what it is.

Oh, sorry, is that "elitist" of me?

What it means is the experts are living in the past and the public is as dumb as ever.

Fishy numbers
Check out, by contrast terrorism polling at the great site pollingreport.com. One of many polls:
Q: Who is winning the war on terrorism?"
US and allies: 28%
Neither side: 54%
Terrorists: 17%

If they can't give a rough estimation of what they're talking about (what the policy actually is) then they have no business answering the question to begin with.

Uh, yeah, but... that would be like s-o-o-o-o un-American.

Knowledgeble individuals always are out front of those less knowledgeable. Over time, the less knowledgeable can be expected to catch up if they are so inclined.

The problem is when the less knowledgeable are in charge. Or when the knowledgeable are asleep at the switch.

Take the Kansas evolution controversy. Here the less knowledgeable scored first because the knowledgeable were asleep at the switch. But when the knowledgeable awoke, the situation was reversed.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

But if you have to be eternally vigilant, that's not very free, is it?

A conundrum. Enjoy your freedom too much and you lose it.

It's easy to get people to fight or follow leaders who rail against foreigners. One of Hermann Goering's last interviews in 1946 was with psychologist Gustave Gilbert. Here is an interesting segment:
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good in theory, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Ex-liberal can't or won't read. From the study, here are the answers to his suggestions:

-- attacking Iran
61% of the experts oppose attacking Iran, even if it continues to develop nuclear weapons.
choose the country most likely to become the next al Qaeda stronghold, Pakistan came in second, just behind Somalia.

-- attacking NK
80% of the experts think that our North Korea policy is having a negative effect on our security.

-- using more torture to get better inteligence from captives
81% believe that our treatment of captives is having a detrimental effect in advancing US national security goals.

-- using more powerful weapons in Iraq
Fully 88 percent of the experts believe the war in Iraq is undermining U.S. national security.

-- adding 100,000 troops in Iraq, or anywhere else
only about one third of index respondents recommended increasing the number of American forces in Iraq, while 66 percent opposed an increase there.

-- Using more intrusive spying methodology
59% believe that our spying is bad for national defense

The difference? The public includes that 30% or so of hardcore Republican cult members who robotically follow their Dear Leader irrespective of how shitty a job he does or what lies he tells. Most of the "experts" probably had their heads up their asses in 2002/3 but are at least somewhat responsive to the facts and evidence.

What we are seeing in this difference is the result of the death of the Fairness Doctrine and the castration of the FCC which has resulted in the mainstream media being turned into a propaganda bullhorn for wealthy Republicans. Only pure dictatorships have a more partisan media.

NO, it doesn't mean anything at all.

It just shows who's being fooled more by various media campaigns--at other times "experts" are clearly more fooled than the public.

So, second, I don't believe the numbers. At all.

There is seldom a connection between expert opinion and public opinion on issues that require knowing something somewhat specialized. Government propaganda will always have a minimum of a third of the American people on their side despite reality. Take away that third and you have your expert numbers. That authoritarian third of the people that wants strong leaders to follow always skews numbers. Not that its "wrong" for them to be that way (in the broader scheme there have to be those that will always follow), just that it is a fact.

"Q: Who is winning the war on terrorism?"

A: The WOT is a mass delusion, an unhinged and deceptive metaphor, and the chief foolishness of this era.

The question is a red herring because the War On Terrorism is a red herring.

"But there are people out there who want to kill us!"

Waaa! Buncha babies.

owens: Considering the fact that we have not been hit with a terrorist attack since 9/11, I'm not surprised that 46% of Americans think we're doing ok in the war on terror.

Except, of course, the anthrax attacks. Does anyone else remember those? Five people died? Capitol evacuated?

Considering the fact that we have not been hit with a terrorist attack since 9/11

Excluding the LAX El-Al ticket counter attack, and the anthrax attacks. Usually, instead of "since 9/11", wingers making this claim use "after 2001", and ignore the LAX attack (though, of course, the same wingers were the one magnifying its significance when it occurred, back when it fed into their propaganda aim to make sure everyone was sufficiently scared of terrorists; they now ignore it, since their propaganda aim is to pretend Bush has a perfect anti-terrorism record, just as they claim that Americans are fighting against "terrorists" in Iraq and elsewhere, but won't acknowledge that if that is accepted, significantly more Americans have been killed by terrorists as a direct result of Bush's policies since 9/11 then were killed in the 9/11 attacks.)

cmdicely: Excluding the LAX El-Al ticket counter attack, and the anthrax attacks. Usually, instead of "since 9/11", wingers making this claim use "after 2001", and ignore the LAX attack (though, of course, the same wingers were the one magnifying its significance when it occurred,

Right-wingers don't control the media. On the contrary, the media tilts left. So, if either side should be blamed for improper focus, it's the left wing.

Also, nobody ever magnified the significance of the LA counter attack. The media downplayed the fact that it was a Muslim attacking a Jewish airline. A few conservative voices did tie it to Islamic terror, but they were not mainstream.

For that matter, it was the media and the liberals (among others) who blamed Steven Hatfill for the anthrax attack, although it was always likely that it was done by some Islamic group.

ex-liberal:
All you have to do is watch Cspan and you know we do not enjoy a liberal media.
Very little gets reported in its veracity by televised news. They light onto subjects like a bug on a plant. Newspapers are worse.

ex-liberal: you're totally wrong. The media tilts to the right. Remember Clinton? Gore? Kerry? The way the media allowed Bush to bamboozle everyone about WMDs and Hussein's alleged al-Qaeda connection?

The media tilts WAY to the benefit of the right, my friend. Get real.

Right-wingers don't control the media.

Irrelevant, no one ever claimed they did.

On the contrary, the media tilts left.

Er, wrong. Media employees tilt left, by most surveys. There is no evidence that this is systematically the case for media owners. As—like most businesses—media corporations are run by the golden rule of capitalism (&ldquote;him what has the gold, makes the rules&rdquote;), the political tendencies of the employees is of, at best, minimal importance as to the actual slant of the news; those that want to keep their jobs will please their masters.

Also, nobody ever magnified the significance of the LA counter attack. The media downplayed the fact that it was a Muslim attacking a Jewish airline.

Actually, the media I was paying attention to at the time (CNN, among others) played up the fact that it was someone the US government said had links to an al-Qaeda affiliate attacking an Israeli airline, but the idea that "nobody" ever played it up is even more boldly underlined as false by:

A few conservative voices did tie it to Islamic terror, but they were not mainstream.

You mean, they weren't mainstream, but instead fringe "wingers", the same as I characterized the people pushing the "no terrorist attacks since 9/11" lie, and who I said were the same wingers as played up the LAX attack at the time?

Did you mean to agree with me, or were you just not paying attention?

For that matter, it was the media and the liberals (among others) who blamed Steven Hatfill for the anthrax attack

I love that "among other"; "others", here, including the Bush Justice Department.

although it was always likely that it was done by some Islamic group.

Whether it was done by an Islamic group or not, it was clearly terrorism, and it was clearly after 9/11, and it was certainly seized on by conservatives seeking to get people in line behind the rush to draconian government powers in response to the threat of terrorism at the time, and just as certainly now dismissed by conservatives seeking to pimp Bush's supposedly-stellar post-9/11 security record.

Right-wingers don't control the media.... ex-lax at 2:44 PM

prescription pharmacy online prescription pharmacy online

Online Pharmacy cheap online pharmacy store