A Survey about Surveys

I usually take the results of polls and surveys with grain of salt, and now there's good reason that you should too.

A study published by the Pew Research Center indicates that only 9% of households sampled respond to surveys. This is down from 36% in 1997. However, the study concludes that even with this abysmal response rate surveys still adequately represent the population at large.

I am doubtful. The population that responds to surveys is completely self-selected, and certainly has behavioral and preferential differences from the overwhelming majority of the population that doesn't respond to surveys.

The question is, does it matter? The study found that people who respond to surveys are more engaged in civic activity. Which probably means that people who actually go out and vote are more likely to respond to polls, which could mean that polls may still be somewhat accurate gauges of electoral outcomes, even if they don't represent the general sentiment of the population.

But that isn't a given, and it's basically impossible to determine the accuracy of that hypothesis because the tool you need to measure it with doesn't work.

So, exactly why are more people refusing to respond to surveys?

1. They don't want to waste the time.
2. They figure it's a gimmick or someone is just trying to collect demographic data in order to sell them something.
3. They don't think their opinion is anyone's business.
4. They really don't have an opinion or don't vote or buy a product so they would just be wasting everyone's time.
5. They don't want to burn cellphone minutes (polling now tries to balance cellphone and land-line respondents).
6. They are tired of being constantly interrupted.
7. They believe that poll and survey questions are intentionally slanted to achieve a desired result and are therefore not accurate gauges of their opinion in the first place.

I've declined to respond to surveys for most of these reasons at one time or another, but I'm particularly bothered by "push polls," which have become de rigueur. The the integrity of many polling firms has come into question because of the obvious political slant of their questions and outcomes that tilt consistently in one direction year in and year out.

It's interesting that in the age of Facebook, where everyone is constantly baring their innermost secrets for all the world to see, the number of people who are willing to respond to questions from someone who actually wants their opinion has shrunk dramatically.

I'd ask everyone to respond to the question above, but I know only 9% of you would do it, and the results would be worthless.

A Reset of the Table?

Interesting news on the health care front. 

In 2009 and 2010, total nationwide health care spending grew less than 4 percent per year, the slowest annual pace in more than five decades, according to the latest numbers from the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services. 

VERY interesting. But why? 

Much of the slowdown is because of the recession, and thus not unexpected, health experts say. But some of it seems to be attributable to changing behavior by consumers and providers of health care — meaning that the lower rates of growth might persist even as the economy picks up.

Because Medicare and Medicaid are two of the largest contributors to the country’s long-term debts, slower growth in health costs could reduce the pressure for enormous spending cuts or tax increases.

I'd say that's pretty good news. Even more interesting...

Still, the slowdown was sharper than health economists expected, and a broad, bipartisan range of academics, hospital administrators and policy experts has started to wonder if what had seemed impossible might be happening — if doctors and patients have begun to change their behavior in ways that bend the so-called cost curve. 

If the growth in Medicare were to come down to a rate of only 1 percentage point a year faster than the economy’s growth, the projected long-term deficit would fall by more than one-third. 

If this continues to be the case, all of the arguments we have heard about health care may be going out the window. Wow. 

Automotive Virtue

Last week George Will wrote about Paul Ingrassia's book on cars and the American dream. In America cars have long been considered symbols of their repressed sexual urges, or expressions of angst by middle-aged men who are suddenly cognizant of their own mortality, or expensive fashion accessories required to keep up with the Joneses.

Right out of the gate Will derided Prius owners as people who preen before the  benighted drivers of Ford F-150 pickup trucks. This reminded me of a conversation a few months ago with a conservative Republican at a dinner party at his house. My wife and I had arrived in her Honda hybrid, and almost immediately he asked me about "my Prius."

It's not mine, it's my wife's, I explained, and it's not a Prius, it's a Civic. As I described the technical differences between the Prius and the Civic he seemed to lose interest, perhaps because it was soon obvious that her choice of vehicle is purely practical rather than ideological. He had a big honking four-wheel drive pickup truck, which was parked in the driveway in front of the garage, alongside a big SUV (they have two kids). He was a nice enough guy, but when we left for the evening he had to make one last snarky comment about our car.

I've encountered people before who seem insulted because I drive fuel-efficient cars (mine is a 12-year-old two-door manual transmission Civic with standard gas engine that gets 35-40 mpg; yet it's miraculously twice the size of the so-called Smart car that gets the same mileage). They seem to think that I'm somehow attacking them by choosing not to waste money on an excessively large, ostentatious and wasteful vehicle.

I learned to drive during the oil crisis in the Seventies. My dad had a big battleship of a pimp-mobile that guzzled gas. The deal was that I could drive it as long as I put gas in it, so I learned early on to prefer efficient cars. Plus, I was always bad at parallel parking, which is so much easier in a small car.

I don't have a problem with people who actually need a pickup to regularly haul stuff for work—it makes no sense to have two cars when one will do. Or people who have six kids and have to get an SUV or minivan to fit everyone in. Or people who live in the boondocks at the end of a muddy, rutted driveway. Or even people who own fishing boats and need a vehicle with a big engine to haul the boat around.

But I just don't get people who commute to work in shiny four-wheel-drive pickup trucks or Hummers that they never use for anything resembling real work. In 33 years we've almost always bought small cars, often hatchbacks, and it's amazing how much stuff you can put in them (we once brought a dishwasher home in the back of a Chevette). When we needed to haul a lot of stuff, we rented a moving van. When we buy furniture or appliances we have the store deliver it (which is also a great way to avoid putting your back out).

People who commute in pickups could save a couple thousand bucks a year in gas money if they drove a regular car and rented a truck from Home Depot for the one time a year they need to haul plywood.

Like George Will, a lot of these people expect me to be smug and superior about the car I drive. I'm not. It's just a conveyance to get me from point A to point B. Perhaps I'm just immune to the automobile industry's cynical marketing ploys, in which they implore you to consider how good you'll look in their car or reduce the whole thing to a ridiculous mathematical equation: Drive = Love.

But let's say that there are Prius owners out there who are smug and proud of their purchase. Just like there are conservatives who are smug and proud about being American and Christian. Why is it wrong for Prius owners to be proud that they made a conscious decision to save money, generate less pollution and use less gas? And why is it right for American Christians to be proud of something that they lucked into, simply by being born here, completely beyond their control?

It's often said that when a middle-aged man buys a red Ferrari it represents his lost youth. If a conservative buys an F-150 to commute in does it represent his independence and toughness, or his vanity, selfishness and wastefulness? If a liberal buys a Prius it represents what? Efficiency? Moderation? Thrift? Economy? Frugality? Abstemiousness? Self-sacrifice? Aren't these all positive conservative virtues? Conservatives are ever more frequently compelling others by force of law to follow the virtues they hold dear with marriage and abortion. Why is it wrong for liberals to encourage others to pursue similarly positive virtues of efficiency and thrift that will produce cheaper gas and cleaner air for all? Why is it acceptable to curtail marital and reproductive freedom, and unacceptable to mandate greater fuel efficiency standards?

For their own completely selfish reasons conservatives should be encouraging others to drive efficient cars, take the bus, and build light rail systems: if more people did the price of gas would go down. The Iranians and the Saudis and the Venezuelans and the Russians and the Iraqis—the foreign powers that conservatives always fret about—would get less of our money. Fewer people would suffer from emphysema and asthma and health care costs would go down.

From any practical perspective, it makes no sense for conservatives to denigrate efficient cars and those who prefer them. Yet they seem insecure unless others validate their purchasing decisions by emulating them. If they think hybrids are an insult to them, perhaps it's their guilt talking.

Many people justify buying big cars by saying that they need more power. Or that SUVs have better traction. Or that small cars are dangerous, or they're uncomfortable, or they don't have the features, etc. I have a friend who's 6'5" and 350 lbs who drives a Volkswagen beetle. Big people can fit into small cars just fine. Hybrids have all the modern technological and safety features.

Passengers in SUVs are much more likely to die in single-vehicle rollovers than in regular cars. SUVs are also more likely to cause deaths in other vehicles. If you buy an SUV to be safer because your car is bigger, it's only true if you hit a smaller car, which means you're much more likely to kill someone else. Isn't thinking your life is more important than someone else's a selfish, sinful pride? There could be little children in that Prius you cream, or a pregnant woman whose fetus might be killed! And if you hit another SUV the advantage disappears. Arms races typically result in mutually assured destruction.

And if safety is the real concern, reducing the speed limit from 70 mph to 55 mph would reduce the force of automobile collisions by more than 60%. That's because the kinetic energy of a collision is proportional to mass times velocity squared. That would save thousands of lives every year, as well as reduce gas consumption significantly. And there's a precedent: Dick Cheney's conservative hero Richard M. Nixon pegged the speed limit to 55 during the Arab oil embargo in 1973.

Here in Minnesota many people insist that they need a big four-wheel drive car because of the snow in the winter. I've lived here all my life, and front-wheel drive is all you need in the city or the suburbs. But a lot of people just don't understand physics: they think that four-wheel drive will let them start and stop on a dime. It just ain't so.

About a dozen years ago I was driving across town in a terrible snowstorm. I saw a state patrol car stopped on the freeway, lights flashing, warning off other drivers from a small pileup in the left lane just after my exit. I moved to the right and slowed down. While I watched, a big four-wheel-drive pickup truck came up from behind, sped past me and ran smack into the rear end of the cop car.

That happened partly because of the false sense of confidence drivers get from the feeling of control they think they have in four-wheel drive vehicles. They might be able to get you going, but with all that mass they can't stop on slick roads any faster than regular cars. As my dad always says (and I roll my eyes when he says it), the most important part of the car is the nut behind the wheel.

Metaphorically speaking, this country is obliviously tooling along in the left lane, about to smack into the rear end of climate change and $5 a gallon gas. The people buying fuel-efficient cars are just getting into the right lane and slowing down to avoid the massive pileup. Don't hate on them: the lives and money they save may be yours.

Fun Math Facts

Since 1932, Democratic Presidents have created 73.4 million new jobs, Republicans have created only 34.8 million. That's an average of 1.7 million jobs a year for Democrats and 967,000 jobs for Republicans.

In case your having trouble with the math that's 38.6 more jobs under Democrats since FDR which is more jobs than the Republicans have created all together during that time.

And that's a Fun Math Fact!

The President of RandLand

The New York Times' recent piece on Paul Ryan confirms that he is the best candidate for my new country of RandLand.

His prescriptions in the Republican budget plan he devised have become his party’s marching orders: cut income tax rates and simplify the code, privatize Medicare, shrink the food-stamp and Medicaid programs and turn almost all control over to the states, and reduce domestic federal spending to its smallest share of the economy since World War II.

I can feel the erections sprouting up around the right wing blogsphere.

What do you say, folks? Let's get RandLand formed and put this man in charge!

Sunday Funny

Fun Math Facts

Since this is an election year and I'm continually reminded that I'm not a logical or mathematical thinker, I thought it would be entirely appropriate to start an ongoing feature here at Markadelphia: Fun Math Facts.

The first one comes from Bloomberg News.

The BGOV Barometer shows that since Democrat John F. Kennedy took office in January 1961, non-government payrolls in the U.S. swelled by almost 42 million jobs under Democrats, compared with 24 million for Republican presidents, according to Labor Department figures.

For those of you logical mathematical minded folks, that's a difference of 18 million. Wow!

And that is a Fun Math Fact!!!

Help Me To Understand

OK, help me out here folks. Yesterday, Neal Bootz wrote

Obama really has nothing at all to campaign on. He has NO record of success on the one issue that in poll after poll turns up on the top of the list of voter’s concerns; the economy. Obama has the worst economic record of any president since World War II, and he knows it. It’s a record he knows he cannot run on.

Now, obviously there are many more than Neal that share this sentiment. Last in lines chides me constantly in the same manner even though he can easily click on "Obama's policies" in the tag below and see a veritable plethora of posts.

So what goes through Neal's brain (and others like him) when they see this.

And this...

The second picture I pulled from here....the president's own web site!

Help me out, folks. Is this like a nervous tick or something? "No record of success" the economy? "Worst economic record of any president?" "A record he knows he can't run on" even though it's right there on his web site and he mentions private sector job growth almost as much as Rudy Giuliani mentioned 9-11?

Seriously, WTF???!!!??

Bachmann A Go Go

Nikto has covered the Michele Bachmann "I'm Swiss-I'm not Swiss" story quite well but I wanted to throw an extra thought into the mix.

Her hurried and nervous retraction is further evidence of how powerful the right wing media industrial complex is in those circles. In short, she knows who her sugar daddy is...:

Here's Wonkette's take on the whole thing which is a fucking riot!

Bachmann Is Really a Double Agent!

After claiming Swiss citizenship in March of this year, Michele Bachmann has defected back to the United States and renounced her Swiss citizenship.

In her inimitable style, Bachmann again blamed it all on someone else:

In her statement, Bachmann said that "my dual Swiss citizenship ... was conferred upon me by operation of Swiss law" when she married her husband, Marcus, in 1978. 

and

Bachmann spokesman Becky Rogness said confusion arose over Bachmann's citizenship because the couple "recently updated their documents." She declined to elaborate.

Yes, I update my documents with the Swiss embassy at least twice a year. I completely understand.

This was a total airhead moment on Bachmann's part. One in a very long series of total airhead moments. For it she has received an endless series of derisive attacks. But many of those attacks came from the right, with some conservatives demanding her immediate resignation.

This isn't the first time I've confronted the issue of dual citizenship, so my incredulity at the depth of Bachmann's foolishness is genuine. Almost 20 years ago a former boss of mine found out that he could claim Irish citizenship because his grandfather was born in Ireland. He was considering going to Europe for work, and an Irish passport would allow him to work anywhere in the EU without work visas. I was shocked that a friend would abandon his own country this way. I would never consider such a thing.

It still escapes me how the United States allows people with dual citizenship and obviously divided loyalties to vote or contribute to political campaigns, like Sheldon Adelson's wife's Israeli-American daughters who contributed millions to Gingrich's campaign. People who apply for dual citizenship are essentially foreign agents, and in Bachmann/Palin-speak are not "real Americans."

However, I emphatically consider people who go through the process of naturalization and take the oath of citizenship to be completely American—that's really the whole point of this country: people who choose to come here and become citizens want to be American. They often have a better understanding of what America really is than people who were born here and smugly take everything for granted, ignorantly insisting everything about the United States has to be better than every other country.

Bachmann's stance on immigration has been rather strident, so you would think that she would be particularly sensitive to this issue. My guess is that she did this because one of her kids thought it would be cool to get Swiss citizenship. In a moment of doting parental idiocy she forgot how the Republican gotcha game works and foolishly thought she could do something nice for her kids.

This whole episode exposes the truth behind the Republican notion of American nationalism and exceptionalism: it's all just a charade and a tactic. No one really believes any of it. Questions of immigration and patriotism and flag pins and the president's birth certificate are just hammers to use on enemies for political advantage.

What's truly incredible is that for a time there were people who thought Bachmann was fit to be president. I just hope that the voters of  Minnesota's sixth district—where Bachmann no longer lives after redistricting—have had their fill of her antics and decide that she's not fit to serve in Congress.

'Tis A Wonder

It is absolutely uncanny the ability the right has to take a simple fact in reality and completely turn it around so it's all the government's fault.

Take Kevin Baker's recent post about 401Ks. 

The naivete here is so monumental that someone seriously needs to commission a study on how one falls for a colossal amount of bullshit. He's actually doing the Rove on himself! Let me see if I can cut through it.

Kevin, the government doesn't want to take your retirement money. In fact, the reverse is true. The private financial institutions of this country want to take PUBLIC money (that's the money you have been paying into Social Security, Medicare etc) and play casino with it. These same private financial institutions want you to believe..well...what you erroneously believe in your (ahem) paranoia.

Let's review the six steps, shall we?

1. Go directly after the other side’s strengths.

2. Do not accept the truth or the obvious.

3. Instead, make claims that cloud the issue.

4. Some will believe you.

5. Others will be confused.

6. Your opponent’s strong point will be neutralized.

Integrity, Not

In a not all surprising move, the House GOP just voted to back out of the budget deal that would've cut defense spending. Instead, there will now be cuts to poverty programs. Awesome!

I find the whole thing to be quite illustrative as to the integrity of the Republican party. Perhaps John Boehner's recent admission might need to be revised. 

It's About Time

The media has been making a big deal about the president's recent announcement of his support for gay marriage.  I think it's a little late in coming but welcome nonetheless.

I realize it was largely a political decision to hold off on saying anything but this was one of a few areas in which I found fault with the president. In other areas where it wasn't really politically convenient (the PPACA, increased military attacks on Al Qaeda) he showed the courage to do what was best not what was politically beneficial. So why wait so long here?

I predict that this will all be quickly gone (even though the Republicans have promised to run on it) and we will be back to economic matters in short order. Most Americans really don't give a shit about this issue anymore.

Was This Senate Candidate A Regular Commenter On The Smallest Minority?

Inflict his Vill? (oops, I mean opinion:))

So, basically, what you are telling us, Dick, is that if you don't win the argument, you are going to be juvenile and take your ball and go home. Hmmm...

Clearly, we have some serious political porn here for the chest-thumpers to holler "YEAH" at the top of their lungs. "Take that, you Kenyan socialist commie pinkos!"

And the denizens of Kevin Baker's site, upon seeing this candidate, began to use their left hand to gently cup their balls whilst wanking with their right...

Images Explain So Much

The Physics of Names

One of the changes in foreign policy that President Obama made was to stop using the phrase "war on terror." He cast Al Qaeda as an aberration not truly representative of Islam. Instead of attacking all Muslims, as too many Republicans have been wont to in their quest to score domestic political points, the president has been attacking the people who are actually responsible for murdering innocents, going after them with drones in Yemen and Pakistan.

Obama's strategy greatly confounded Osama bin Laden. In letters captured in Abbottabad and recently released, bin Laden lamented the fact that the name of Al Qaeda didn't include a reference to Islam, which allowed Obama to differentiate Al Qaeda from Islam. Obama's strategy greatly frustrated bin Laden and has made the job of taking down Al Qaeda easier.

Recent news of the latest underwear bomb plot further underscores this. The would-be bomber was actually a CIA double agent. I imagine it's a whole lot easier for the CIA to recruit Muslims to help us beat Al Qaeda when we aren't constantly trashing Muslims.

Which brings us to the real point: to win a war in a foreign country you need local allies. Many Republicans have been relentlessly attacking Muslims abroad but also Muslims in the United States. Remember the Ground Zero Mosque flap? (Which was neither a mosque nor at Ground Zero.)

This is not the way to win hearts and minds. When the president stopped using "war on terror" and denigrated Republican tropes like "islamo-fascists" the Republicans accused him of being soft and politically correct.

But they know all too well how effective these words are: they use them intentionally to whip up sentiment in their base. What they don't seem to understand is the Newtonian physics of name-calling: such words work up an equal and opposite sentiment in the people they are insulting,

When Republicans are constantly on the offensive against Islam even innocent accidents like the  burning of Korans in Afghanistan blow up into major international incidents in which dozens of people are killed and serious damage is done to the NATO mission against the Taliban.

Effective problem solving requires focusing on the actual source of the problem, rather than getting distracted by broader issues and causing other problems in the process. The problem is Al Qaeda terrorists. Not Islam. Not terror. But specifically Al Qaeda terrorists. Republican Muslim-baiting serves only to rekindle memories of the Crusades and tear open centuries-old wounds.

Republican broadsides against Islam also make the millions of Muslims who live in the United States wary. Republican insistence that America is a Christian country makes them wonder whether the Constitution that is supposed to guarantee freedom of religion will really protect them.

If we want American Muslims to have our back, we have to have theirs. And we can't insult them at every turn. It's simple physics.