The Rover has landed; images are available at the JPL/NASA site:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-231
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html
Find Live Events in Your Town
Event Map
NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory mission has delivered the nearly 2,000-pound (1-ton), car-size robotic roving laboratory to the surface of Mars on Aug. 5th. Curiosity’s landing marks the start of a two-year prime mission to investigate whether one of the most intriguing places on Mars ever has offered an environment favorable for microbial life.
The seven minutes of terrors explained in a YouTube video by team members of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory share the challenges of the Curiosity Mars rover’s final minutes to landing on the surface of Mars.
The JPL NASA site has a fun feature for kids … 0-13, 14 and older, including an Application for Martian Citizenship: http://beamartian.jpl.nasa.gov/account/register
Additional activities include more games: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/participate/
Curiosity’s Journey
Free Drive
Gale Crater
Learn About the Rover
This 3D interactive experience uses the Unity game engine. It enables delivery of a 3D terrain map of Gale Crater, where Curiosity will land, as well as a 3D model of the rover so you can follow along as if you were there.
Try your own skills in facing the extreme challenges of landing a rover on Mars! This experience uses the Kinect motion sensor on the Xbox 360, Microsoft’s home entertainment console. Mars Rover Landing is freely available in the Xbox Live Marketplace and Kinect Central.
National Archives Nationwide Network and Attachments: Faces and Stories from America’s Gates
What is the National Archives? The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is the nation’s record keeper. Of all documents and materials created in the course of business conducted by the United States Federal government, only 1% – 3% are so important for legal or historical reasons that they are kept by us forever.
Those valuable records are preserved and are available to you, whether you want to see if they contain clues about your family’s history, need to prove a veteran’s military service, or are researching an historical topic that interests you including Genealogy Workshop Events.
A new National Archives exhibition in Washington, DC, Attachments: Faces and
Stories from America’s Gates, draws from the millions of immigration case files in the
Archives to tell a few of these stories from the 1880s through World War II. It also ex
plores the attachment of immigrants to family and community and the attachment of
government organizations to immigration laws that relected certain beliefs about im
migrants and citizenship. These are dramatic tales of joy and disappointment, opportunity and discrimination, deceit and honesty.
Attachments is free and open to the public, and runs through September 4, 2012.
The exhibition explores both physical and emotional attachments — the attachment of immigrants to family and community, and the attachment of Americans to their beliefs about immigrants and citizenship. Attachments is divided into three sections: Entering, Leaving and Staying.
Entering examines the exciting, strange, and frightening experience of entering a new country. For most immigrants to the United States, the actual entry processes at immigration arrival points lasted only a few hours or days. Still, the stakes were high. For those escaping religious or political persecution, the outcome of their immigration application could mean life or death. Some individuals took desperate measures including forging visas; others created false families or crossed borders illegally. Many appealed detention or fought deportation in the courts.
Leaving shares the stories of immigrants who — willingly and unwillingly — left the United States. While some immigrants came for only a short time and left by choice; others wanted to enter, but were turned away. For some immigrants who successfully entered, the ultimate punishment for a criminal past — which may have included financial trouble, a disability, or moral turpitude — was deportation.
The final section, Staying, examines what it meant to leave behind the familiar and stay in America. While not all immigrants chose to stay, for those who did, making a life in a new land presented both opportunities and challenges. Feelings of loss and nostalgia over ‘the old country’ balanced the thrill of greater freedom and the chance to begin again. American ideals of inclusion, democracy, and individual rights faced off against the reality of prejudice, discrimination, and stereotyping. For many, these struggles were resolved, in part, by taking the steps to become a US citizen. For others, it was enough to live as an alien in America for the rest of their lives.
In Attachments, visitors will discover dramatic tales of joy and disappointment, opportunity and discrimination, deceit and honesty. They will learn about these stories through original documents and images, and will have the opportunity to look into the eyes of the immigrants through large photomural portraits. Entering the gallery, they will pass by a large (8 x 26 feet) panoramic photograph of Angel Island, the immigration station in San Francisco Bay which was sometimes called ‘The Ellis Island of the West.’
People you will meet in Attachments include:
Those Revealing Social Security Cards: Protecting You From Identity Theft
CMS Needs an Approach and a Reliable Cost Estimate for Removing Social Security Numbers from Medicare Cards
*GAO-12-831, Aug 1, 2012
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) 2011 report to Congress proposed three options for removing Social Security numbers (SSN) from Medicare cards. One option would truncate the SSN displayed on the card, but beneficiaries and providers would continue to rely on the SSN. The other two options would replace the SSN with a new identifier that would be displayed on the card and either be used only by beneficiaries, or by both beneficiaries and those who provide Medicare services. CMS, however, has not selected or committed to implementing any of these options. The Departments of Defense (DOD) and Veterans Affairs (VA), and private insurers have already removed or taken steps to remove SSNs from display on their identification or health insurance cards.
CMS’s option to replace the SSN with a new identifier for use by both beneficiaries and providers offers the greatest protection against identity theft. Beneficiaries’ vulnerability to identity theft would be reduced because the card would no longer display the SSN and providers would not need the SSN to provide services or submit claims (negating the need for providers to store the SSN). This option would also pose fewer burdens than the other two options because beneficiaries would not have to remember an SSN to receive services or to interact with CMS. Providers also would not need to conduct additional activities, such as querying a CMS database, to obtain the SSN. The burdens for CMS would generally be similar across all the options, but CMS reported that this option would require more information technology (IT) system modifications.
CMS reported that each of the three options would cost over $800 million to implement, and that the option to replace the SSN with a new identifier for use by both beneficiaries and providers would be somewhat more expensive, largely because of the IT modifications. However, the methodology and assumptions CMS used to develop its estimates raise questions about their reliability. For example, CMS did not use appropriate guidance, such as GAO’s cost-estimating guidance, when preparing the estimates to ensure their reliability. Additionally, CMS could provide only limited documentation related to how it developed the estimates for the two largest cost areas, both of which involve modifications to IT systems.
Why GAO Did This Study
More than 48 million Medicare cards display the SSN, which increases Medicare beneficiaries’ vulnerability to identity theft. GAO was asked to review the options and associated costs for removing SSNs from the Medicare card. This report (1) describes the various options for removing the SSN from Medicare cards; (2) examines the potential benefits and burdens associated with different options; and (3) examines CMS’s cost estimates for removing SSNs from Medicare cards.
To do this work, GAO reviewed CMS’s report, cost estimates, and relevant supporting documentation. GAO also interviewed officials from CMS and other agencies that perform Medicare related activities (the Social Security Administration and Railroad Retirement Board), as well as officials from DOD and VA, which have undertaken SSN removal efforts. GAO also interviewed private health insurance companies and relevant stakeholder groups.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that CMS (1) select an approach for removing SSNs from Medicare cards that best protects beneficiaries from identity theft and minimizes burdens for providers, beneficiaries, and CMS and (2) develop an accurate, well-documented cost estimate for such an option. CMS concurred with our recommendations. VA, DOD, and RRB had no substantive comments. SSA had a technical comment.
For more information, contact Kathleen King at (202) 512-7114 or kingk@gao.gov, or Daniel Bertoni at (202) 512-7215 or bertonid@gao.gov.
*The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. Often called the “congressional watchdog,” GAO investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars. The head of GAO, the Comptroller General of the United States, is appointed to a 15-year term by the President from a slate of candidates Congress proposes.
Even with Dyed Hair, “Grey Power” Has Taken Root
“Old” is not just an age anymore. It’s a demographic that is steadily increasing. And during an election year, a larger percentage of voters in that category show up at the polls — or, more likely, send in an absentee ballot — than any other age group.
Still, there’s a lot more buzz generated at election time to influence younger voters and/or appeal to specific middle-aged demographics like “soccer moms “ than there is for courting the elderly. The term “grey power” may not be used anymore, but even with dyed hair, its roots are firmly implanted in the political process. We know, for example, that proposed laws affecting social entitlements are of great importance to seniors. Nevertheless, when one thinks of “energizing” voters, the verb is rarely applied to those in their declining years.
The failure of political parties to more aggressively woo older people (say, ages 66 to 83 who represent 17% of voters) may be influenced by certain misconceptions. Seniors are often regarded as “selfish” or “single issue” voters, concerned primarily with the continuation of their own Medicare and Social Security. A distinctive thrust of this administration’s Affordable Care Act was that it would be to younger Americans what Medicare is to older ones. It would level the playing field of the ailing.
The so-called “class warfare” between rich and poor in America has been paralleled, to some extent, by another battle between old and young, with a subtle underpinning of envy. Younger voters sometimes perceive seniors as being accorded preferential, hence unfair, treatment by the government in the matter of health care costs. Many Americans mistakenly assume, for example, that such coverage is entirely “free.”
Aside from that — if there is an aside — the elderly are generally considered a “conservative” element, by and large resisting change, even if at one time in their bygone lives they may have embraced it to the extreme. In the eyes of many younger people, seniors cling to their prejudices the way they hold on to their old, chipped china. Some also think of seniors regardless of their political persuasion and despite their reliable voting record, as largely disinterested in — maybe even weary of — politics, thus not a formidable factor in shaping election outcomes. I have a friend who has worked in campaigns for a lifetime. Now she finds herself marginalized by younger volunteers with far more computer savvy. She has a wealth of experience that they rarely tap. Still, she hangs in, while they hang out.
Simply Being a Woman is No Longer a Preexisting Condition: August 1st, 2012, Essential Preventive Health Care Services
— For the first time ever, women will have access to even more life-saving preventive care free of charge.
According to a new HHS report also released today, approximately 47 million women are in health plans that must cover these new preventive services at no charge. Women, not insurance companies, can now make health decisions that will keep them healthy, catch potentially serious conditions at an earlier state, and protect them and their families from crushing medical bills.
“President Obama is moving our country forward by giving women control over their health care,” Secretary Sebelius said. “This law puts women and their doctors, not insurance companies or the government, in charge of health care decisions.”
The eight new prevention-related services are:
- Well-woman visits.
- Gestational diabetes screening that helps protect pregnant women from one of the most serious pregnancy-related diseases.
- Domestic and interpersonal violence screening and counseling.
- FDA-approved contraceptive methods, and contraceptive education and counseling.
- Breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling.
- HPV DNA testing, for women 30 or older.
- Sexually transmitted infections counseling for sexually-active women.
- HIV screening and counseling for sexually-active women.
The health care law has already helped women in private plans and Medicare for the first time gain access to potentially life-saving tests and services, such as mammograms, cholesterol screenings, and flu shots without coinsurance or deductibles. Today’s announcement builds on these benefits, generally requiring insurance companies to offer, with no copay, additional vital screenings and tests to help keep women healthy throughout their lives.
These services are based on recommendations from the Institute of Medicine, which relied on independent physicians, nurses, scientists, and other experts as well as evidence-based research to develop its recommendations. These preventive services will be offered without cost sharing beginning today in all new health plans.
Group health plans and issuers that have maintained grandfathered status are not required to cover these services. In addition, certain nonprofit religious organizations, such as churches and schools, are not required to cover these services. The Obama administration will continue to work with all employers to give them the flexibility and resources they need to implement the health care law in a way that protects women’s health while making common-sense accommodations for values like religious liberty.
Every man for himself: Gender, Norms and Survival in Maritime Disasters
by Mikael Elinder and Oscar Erixson*
Editor’s Note: The following paragraphs are taken from the Working Paper. We have eliminated specific scholarly references. Papers in the Working Paper Series are published on internet in PDF formats. http://www.nek.uu.se/Pdf/wp20128.pdf
Abstract
Since the sinking of the Titanic, there has been a widespread belief that the social norm of ‘women and children first’ gives women a survival advantage over men in maritime disasters, and that captains and crew give priority to passengers. We analyze a database of 18 maritime disasters spanning three centuries, covering the fate of over 15,000 individuals of more than 30 nationalities. Our results provide a new picture of maritime disasters. Women have a distinct survival disadvantage compared to men. Captains and crew survive at a significantly higher rate than passengers. We also find that the captain has the power to enforce normative behavior, that the gender gap in survival rates has declined, that women have a larger disadvantage in British shipwrecks, and that there seems to be no association between duration of a disaster and the impact of social norms.
Taken together, our findings show that behavior in life-and-death situation is best captured by the expression ‘Every man for himself.’
Discussion
Our results provide new insights about human behavior in life-and-death situations.
By investigating a new and much larger sample of maritime disasters than has previously
been done, we show that women have a substantially lower survival rate than men. That
women fare worse than men has been documented also for natural disasters. We also find that crew members have a higher survival rate than passengers and that only 7 out of 16 captains went down with their ship. Children appear to have the lowest survival rate.
Moreover, we shed light on some common perceptions of how situational and cultural conditions affect the survival of women. Most notably, we find that it seems as if it is the policy of the captain, rather than the moral sentiments of men, that determines if women are given preferential treatment in shipwrecks. This suggests an important role for leaders in disasters. Preferences of leaders seem to have affected survival patterns also in the evacuations of civilians during the Balkan Wars.
Moreover, we find that the gender gap in survival rates has decreased since WWI. This
supports previous findings that higher status of women in society improves their relative
survival rates in disasters. We also show that women fare worse, rather than better, in maritime disasters involving British ships. This contrasts with the notion of British men being more gallant than men of other nationalities. Finally, in contrast to previous studies, we find no association between duration of the disaster and the influence of social norms.
Based on our analysis, it becomes evident that the sinking of the Titanic was exceptional in many ways and that what happened on the Titanic seems to have spurred misconceptions about human behavior in disasters.
Download the entire report from http://www.nek.uu.se or from S-WoPEC http://swopec.hhs.se/uunewp/
Both authors are associated with the Uppsala Center for Fiscal Studies, Department of Economics, Uppsala, Sweden. Elinder is also associated with the Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN), Stockholm University
First, Do No Harm: A Hearing About Enhancing Women’s Retirement Security
Senate Committee Holds Women’s Retirement Hearing*
On July 25, the Senate Special Committee on Aging held a hearing, “Enhancing Women’s Retirement Security.” The hearing addressed suggestions for improving Social Security benefits for women.
Chair Herb Kohl (D-WI) opened the hearing with an explanation of the unique challenges facing women:
“In 2010, women over 65 were nearly twice as likely to live in poverty as men. The reasons for this are many: on average, women live longer than men. They make less money than men. And they are more likely to move in and out of the workforce to care for family members, which reduces their opportunities to contribute to a pension plan or Social Security.”
He continued by arguing for an enhanced special minimum benefit, a higher benefit for low-earning workers, which could be “done at a reasonable cost, and it would help ensure that career low-wage workers, who have little opportunity to save on their own, can avoid being stuck in poverty throughout their retirements.” He concluded by further identifying the root of the issue, saying, “SSA [Social Security Administration] has a responsibility to educate people about their benefits, and it needs to make sure people understand just how much money they are losing when they take their benefits sooner rather than later.”
Ranking Member Bob Corker (R-TN) echoed Sen. Kohl’s support for reform of the special minimum benefit, saying, “I think there is bipartisan support for something like that. And I appreciate you bringing it up. I hope as part of any fiscal reform package that we deal with over the course of the next six months, year and a half — I hope it’s on the front end of that. I do think Social Security reform should be a part of that, and hopefully will be part of that, and my sense is the special minimum benefit that you’re talking about very much should be a part of that also.” He also advocated for increasing awareness about delaying benefits: “One of the most responsible things that we could do here is … actually to do those things to make Social Security solvent for the long haul. But I think making people aware of the options that exist and certainly the ones you pointed out about deferral until a later age.”
LaTina Burse Green, assistant deputy commissioner for Retirement and Disability Policy at the Social Security Administration, explained the importance of Social Security for women:
“Although the Social Security program is gender neutral — individuals with identical earnings receive the same benefits — some elements of the program are particularly helpful for women for several reasons. First, women tend to live longer; second, women generally have lower lifetime earnings than men; and third, women often retire with smaller pensions and other assets than men.”
She went on to describe the specific impact of the spousal benefits: “In addition to potential eligibility for benefits as a retired or disabled worker, women may be eligible for benefits as a spouse, divorced spouse, or widow. These benefits are especially important to women because they are more likely to receive spouse’s or widow’s benefits due to their lower lifetime earnings, and many times women are eligible for spouse’s or widow’s benefits in addition to benefits they receive based on their own earnings. In other words, women may be entitled to benefits based not only on their own work and earnings, but on the work and earnings of a spouse.”
She also explained the importance for women of choosing when to start claiming benefits, saying that if a woman “chooses to start receiving benefits at age 62, her monthly benefit would be reduced to $750 to account for the longer period of time she will receive benefits. In general, the decision to receive benefits before the full retirement age permanently reduces her monthly benefit. If she chooses to wait to receive benefits until age 70, she would permanently increase her monthly benefit amount to $1,320.”
Illustration from Wikipedia
State Efforts to Reject Contraceptive Coverage Laws on Religious Grounds; A Proposed House Bill Banning Funds to Planned Parenthood
By Jessica Arons, Elizabeth Rich, Center for American Progress
On August 1, 2012, a provision of President Barack Obama’s health care law, the Affordable Care Act, will go into effect — one that guarantees coverage in new health plans of a range of preventive services for women, including contraception, with no co-pays or other cost-sharing. Because some religions object to contraception, the Obama administration created an exemption for houses of worship that do not want to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees. The administration also created an accommodation for religiously affiliated hospitals, universities, and charities that gives them a one-year waiver until August 1, 2013, and then requires the insurer to provide contraceptive coverage directly to the employees.
Despite all of these steps to ensure the religious beliefs of those opposed to contraception are protected under the law, some politicians claim that the provision violates religious liberty and have acted to block it. In the nation’s capital the US Senate in March rejected an amendment, introduced by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), which would have allowed employers to deny to their employees coverage for contraception or any other health service to which they had a religious or moral objection. In the US House of Representatives, an appropriations measure is pending that could defund efforts to enforce the contraceptive coverage regulation, but Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) has signaled that no independent legislation akin to the Blunt amendment would be taken up by the House of Representatives.
Conservative efforts to undermine the Obamacare provision to guarantee no-cost contraception also have been happening at the state level. Nine states have considered legislation or ballot measures that would either reject the federal regulation or undermine contraceptive coverage in state law. This fact sheet provides an update on those state-level efforts. We detail the measures in these nine states below, but briefly here is a synopsis of recent developments:
- 4 states (Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, and New Hampshire) considered legislation amending state statutes that required insurance coverage for contraception, expanding employers’ refusal rights.
- 3 states (Colorado, Idaho, and Michigan) considered symbolic measures that explicitly rejected the federal contraceptive coverage guarantee.
- Voters in one state (North Dakota) considered a ballot initiative that would have allowed people to break the law in the name of religious liberty, while an effort in another state (Colorado) to propose a similar ballot measure was withdrawn before it could face a vote.
- One state without its own contraceptive coverage law (Oklahoma) considered legislation that would have allowed employers and employees to opt out of coverage that includes contraception or abortion services.
Below we look in detail at what’s happened in these nine states.
Arizona
The state legislature passed and Gov. Janice K. Brewer (R) signed into law in May a bill that permits a “religiously affiliated employer” to offer health plans that do not cover contraceptives based on the employer’s or beneficiary’s religious objections, changing existing Arizona statutes. In the bill, a religiously affiliated employer is defined as an organization whose incorporation documents make it clear that religious beliefs are central to its operating principles.
Under the new law an employee can “receive reimbursement for contraceptives prescribed for non-contraceptive medical purposes.” But the law removes protections for employees who independently obtain contraception prescriptions or insurance coverage from another source, leaving open the opportunity for religious employers to discriminate against employees who hold different views. The Arizona law is in direct conflict with the federal contraceptive coverage guarantee.
Where Nature Can Flourish; Habitat-Friendly Backyards, Tribal and Private Lands, Schools
by Ferida Wolff
The National Wildlife Federation has an interesting program to help our spaces become places in which nature can flourish. They have certified over 150,000 Wildlife Habitat sites across the country. A wildlife habitat can be in a backyard, on a roof, in a park — wherever we can put together what is needed to make a nature-friendly environment.
What does it take to make a site Habitat friendly? NWF says four things: Food — Water — Cover — Places for wildlife to raise their young.
Every creature needs food. Native plants help the locals thrive. Water is necessary for drinking, bathing, and often for reproduction. Vegetation provides safety from predators and places to raise offspring.
My backyard has bird feeders, a birdbath, bushes for butterflies, shade and sun, a variety of plants and trees. We did it for our own pleasure; now I see it is more than that. It is not officially certified but it does provide much of what is needed. And even though the rabbits drive me crazy sometimes, I am glad we are providing an area where they can live and be well. Don’t we all deserve that?
If you are interested in learning about creating a Certified Wildlife Habitat, you can get started here:
http://www.nwf.org/Get-Outside/Outdoor-Activities/Garden-for-Wildlife.aspx
Schools can become part of the green movement, too, by becoming an Eco-School. In my own state of New Jersey there are 36 Eco-Schools, including my township high school.
Editor’s Note: Some states have a program encouraging homeowners by incentives to create a more elaborate habitat such as the program we found in the state of Minnesota. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 reauthorized WHIP as a voluntary approach to improving wildlife habitat in our Nation.
The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) is a voluntary program for people who want to develop or improve wildlife habitat on tribal and private lands. It provides both technical assistance and cost sharing to help establish and improve fish and wildlife habitat.
How WHIP Works: Landowners agree to prepare and implement a wildlife habitat development plan. The US Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides technical and financial assistance for the establishment of fish and wildlife habitat development practices. Payments are to cost-share practice establishment only; WHIP does not provide rental income or easement purchase payments.
The Plan: Participants work with NRCS and other conservation partners to prepare a wildlife habitat development plan. The plan describes the landowner’s goals for improving wildlife habitat, includes a list of practices and a schedule for installing them, and details the steps necessary to maintain the habitat for the life of the agreement. Cost-Share Assistance NRCS provides the technical assistance with cost-share payments used to establish, maintain, or replace wildlife habitat practices. Federal cost-sharing will reimburse up to 75% of costs. State wildlife agencies or private organizations may provide additional funding or expertise to help complete the project. Generally the total cost share cannot exceed $10,000 per contract.
©2012 Ferida Wolff and Tam Gray for SeniorWomen.com
Photograph above: Paul Fusco photographs Black-eyed Susan flowers in an early successional habitat restoration project in Hartford County, 2001.
Pew Polls: Little Voter Discomfort with Romney’s Mormon Religion
Only About Half Identify Obama as Christian
Pew Religion&Politics 2012 Overview
Most voters continue to say it is important for a president to have strong religious beliefs. But voters have limited awareness of the religious faiths of both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. And there is little evidence to suggest that concerns about the candidates’ respective faiths will have a meaningful impact in the fall elections.
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted June 28-July 9, 2012, among 2,973 adults, including 2,373 registered voters, finds that 60% of voters are aware that Romney is Mormon, virtually unchanged from four months ago, during the GOP primaries.
The vast majority of those who are aware of Romney’s faith say it doesn’t concern them. Fully eight-in-ten voters who know Romney is Mormon say they are either comfortable with his faith (60%) or that it doesn’t matter to them (21%).
Along religious lines, white evangelical Protestants and black Protestants, on the one hand, and atheists and agnostics on the other, are the most likely to say they are uncomfortable with Romney’s faith. Yet unease with Romney’s religion has little impact on voting preferences. Republicans and white evangelicals overwhelmingly back Romney irrespective of their views of his faith, and Democrats and seculars overwhelmingly oppose him regardless of their impression.
Comfort with Romney’s faith, however, is related to the enthusiasm of Republican support for his candidacy. Among Republican and Republican-leaning voters who say they are comfortable with Romney being Mormon, 44% back him strongly. Among those who are uncomfortable with it, just 21% say they back him strongly.
A separate Pew Research survey, released July 24, found that voters have little interest in learning more about Romney’s religious beliefs. Just 16% said they wanted to hear more about Romney’s religious beliefs. Far more wanted to hear more about Romney’s record as governor (41%), his federal income tax returns (36%) and his record as chief executive of Bain Capital (35%). (For more see “Most Say They Already Know Enough about the Candidates”, July 24, 2012.)
The new survey on religion and politics finds that nearly four years into his presidency the view that Barack Obama is Muslim persists. Currently, 17% of registered voters say that Obama is Muslim; 49% say he is Christian, while 31% say they do not know Obama’s religion.