(Source: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research)

As you can see, Roosevelt's lowest approval rating during World War II was 66%. Moreover, before the war his approval rating was generally lower than that, ranging from 55-65%.

The interesting thing is, I doubt Rumsfeld was simply lying. FDR was deeply hated-by people like Donald Rumsfeld. CEO types were constantly fulminating about FDR's traitorous ways, and in fact some of them attempted to stage a coup to overthrow him in 1934.

Thus, Rumsfeld probably has spent his entire life around people who loathed FDR, and so assumes normal people did too. Since this belief fits in nicely with a self-justifying story line, he'll never bother to find out whether it's true.

The funny thing is, I think Rumsfeld's right that people should study more history. Where Don and I part ways is that I think we should study history that actually happened.

UPDATE: The Rumsfeld interview has disappeared from the Defense Department website. It's no longer listed as a recent transcript, and while there's still an html page at the original link, it's completely blank.

I guess that, while it's a good thing for people to learn history, there's no reason to make it easy for them.

Gallup summarized it this way: "Surveys repeatedly show that a substantial portion of Americans do not believe that the theory of evolution best explains where life came from." They are "not so quick to agree with the preponderance of scientific evidence."

The report was written by the director of the The Gallup Poll, Frank Newport.

Breaking down the numbers, Gallup finds that Republican backing for what it calls "God created human beings in present form" stands at 57% with Democrats at 44%.

Support for this Bible view rises steadily with age: from 43% for those 18 to 29, to 59% for those 65 and older. It declines steadily with education, dropping from 58% for those with high school degrees to a still-substantial 25% with postgraduate degrees.

Newport wraps it up: "Several characteristics correlate with belief in the biblical explanation for the origin of humans. Those with lower levels of education, those who attend church regularly, those who are 65 and older, and those who identify with the Republican Party are more likely to believe that God created humans 'as is,' than are those who do not share these characteristics."

Gallup has asked this question, in different forms, going back to 1982, but has consistently shown support at 45% or higher for the notion that "God created man in present form."

The most recent poll, last September, posed the question this way: "Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings." This produced the 53% who chose "God created man exactly how Bible describes it," the 31% who said man did evolve but "God guided," and the 12% who backed evolution with God playing "no part."

In one case, the FBI obtained the contents of 181 telephone calls rather than just the billing records to which it was entitled.

In another, a communication was monitored for more than a year after eavesdropping should have ended -- although investigators blamed a third-party provider for the mix-up.

The findings were part of a semiannual report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine on problems related to the USA Patriot Act, the broad anti-terrorism law that is scheduled to be renewed today with President Bush's signature.

The report confirmed that Fine's office is investigating a broad range of issues related to the government's anti-terrorism efforts.

They include investigations of the FBI's role at military prisons in Iraq, in Cuba and elsewhere; the bureau's use of National Security Letters; and its treatment of anti-war protesters.

Fine also reported that the Office of Professional Responsibility is investigating the Justice Department's use of material-witness warrants to detain suspects after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The same office is examining the role of Justice Department lawyers in reviewing the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance.

Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said Fine's report "is yet another vindication for those of us who have raised concerns about the administration's policies in the war on terror.

"Despite the Bush administration's attempt to demonize critics of its anti-terrorism policies as advancing phantom or trivial concerns, the report demonstrates that the independent Office of Inspector General has found that many of these policies indeed warrant full investigations."

But Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the department is "pleased that the inspector general once again confirmed that there have been no substantiated civil liberties violations from the Patriot Act."

Echoing previous reviews, Fine said that most of the hundreds of Patriot Act-related complaints received in the last six months of 2005 did not warrant further investigation and that only four full investigations were opened during that time.

Two of the investigations were pending, and two others were referred to the Bureau of Prisons for further investigation, the report said.

In the cases of intelligence violations at the FBI, the report said the bureau had forwarded 108 possible errors in 2004-2005 to the Intelligence Oversight Board, a secret panel at the White House that reviews such intelligence reports.

The FBI said in a statement that no willful misconduct was found and that "when possible violations are discovered, the FBI acts quickly to correct the error."

Wednesday's report also provided new details about disciplinary action taken against guards accused of mistreating post-Sept. 11 detainees at a federal prison in Brooklyn, N.Y.

The U.S. Bureau of Prisons has fired two officers, suspended six and demoted three, the report said.

Most people first learned about data mining in November 2002, when news broke about a massive government data mining program called Total Information Awareness. The basic idea was as audacious as it was repellent: suck up as much data as possible about everyone, sift through it with massive computers, and investigate patterns that might indicate terrorist plots.

Americans across the political spectrum denounced the program, and in September 2003, Congress eliminated its funding and closed its offices.

But TIA didn't die. According to The National Journal, it just changed its name and moved inside the Defense Department.

This shouldn't be a surprise. In May 2004, the General Accounting Office published a report (.pdf) listing 122 different federal government data-mining programs that used people's personal information. This list didn't include classified programs, like the NSA's eavesdropping effort or state-run programs like MATRIX.

The promise of data mining is compelling, and convinces many. But it's wrong. We're not going to find terrorist plots through systems like this, and we're going to waste valuable resources chasing down false alarms. To understand why, we have to look at the economics of the system.

Security is always a trade-off, and for a system to be worthwhile, the advantages have to be greater than the disadvantages. A national security data-mining program is going to find some percentage of real attacks and some percentage of false alarms. If the benefits of finding and stopping those attacks outweigh the cost -- in money, liberties, etc. -- then the system is a good one. If not, you'd be better off spending that capital elsewhere.

Data mining works best when you're searching for a well-defined profile, a reasonable number of attacks per year and a low cost of false alarms. Credit-card fraud is one of data mining's success stories: all credit-card companies mine their transaction databases for data for spending patterns that indicate a stolen card.

Many credit-card thieves share a pattern -- purchase expensive luxury goods, purchase things that can be easily fenced, etc. -- and data mining systems can minimize the losses in many cases by shutting down the card. In addition, the cost of false alarms is only a phone call to the cardholder asking him to verify a couple of purchases. The cardholders don't even resent these phone calls -- as long as they're infrequent -- so the cost is just a few minutes of operator time.

Terrorist plots are different. There is no well-defined profile and attacks are very rare. Taken together, these facts mean that data-mining systems won't uncover any terrorist plots until they are very accurate, and that even very accurate systems will be so flooded with false alarms that they will be useless.

"We don't expect bloggers to check with a federal agency before they go online," said House Administration Committee Chairman Vernon Ehlers, a Michigan Republican, referring to the Federal Election Commission. "They shouldn't have to read FEC advisory opinions (or have) to worry about running afoul of federal election laws."

The FEC is under court order to finalize rules to extend a controversial 2002 campaign finance law to the Internet. Unless Congress acts, the final regulations could cover everything from regulating hyperlinks to politicians' Web sites to forcing disclosure of affiliations with campaigns.

Opponents of Internet reform have warned that the measure would invite "corrupt" activities to take place online, such as cozy relationships between bloggers and political candidates that were not disclosed. The New York Times wrote in an editorial in November that "the Internet would become a free-fire zone without any limits on spending."

"Bloggers should be treated no different from talk radio," said Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald, a California Democrat. "Talk radio hosts have protections under the First Amendment. While I may disagree with their positions on the issues of the day, I will nonetheless fight for their right to speak their mind."

Millender-McDonald said she never intended for her vote in favor of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, better known as the McCain-Feingold law, to "squeeze out the voices of people expressing themselves on blogs on the Internet." Because the FEC's Democratic commissioners would not appeal a court order, that 2002 law is forcing the agency to act.

November's floor vote on the same bill, which more than three-quarters of congressional Democrats opposed at the time, took place during a special, accelerated procedure that required a two-thirds majority for approval. Under normal procedures, which are happening now, only a majority is required.

The House reform proposal, only one sentence long, simply says that the portion of federal election law that deals with publications aimed at the general public "shall not include communications over the Internet."

The Center for Democracy and Technology has offered an alternative proposal (click here for PDF) that was not considered on Thursday. In some ways, it would be more censorial than the House bill because it would immunize a self-published political Web site only if the cost remained under $5,000.

But CDT's proposal appears to be less restrictive in other ways. Unlike the House bill, according to an analysis the group prepared, three friends who produce a video for $3,000 attacking a political candidate would not be required to register as a political action committee.

The state Supreme Court has ruled that the Tennessee Constitution grants women a greater right to abortion than the U.S. Constitution.

Abortion rights supporters are attacking the measure as a stepping stone to prohibiting all abortions in Tennessee if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the landmark abortion decision in Roe v. Wade.

"The resolution is an all-out attack on the women of Tennessee and seeks to rob women of their right to make choices about their own health, safety and personal welfare," said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee.

Sen. David Fowler, a Republican sponsor of the bill, proposed a similar resolution last year that cleared the Senate but stalled in a House committee.

"I regret this will cast me as being hardhearted, unsympathetic and unkind but that's not who I am," Fowler said.

Tennessee has a long process for amending its constitution, requiring approval by both chambers in session of the General Assembly, two-thirds approval by both chambers in the next session, and then approval by voters.

Several states are considering restrictions on abortion that eventually could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. South Dakota's governor signed a law Monday that would prohibit all abortions except those necessary to save a mother's life.

Some opponents of abortion rights hope the additions of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito will make the court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade, although a majority of the court still appears to support the 1973 ruling.

Comment: Don't be fooled. It's just a smokescreen to give the illusion of democracy. If Bush really wanted to sell the ports to Dubai, he would and every member of Congress would vote in favor of it. After all, Bush wasn't doing all that illegal spying for the past couple of years for nothing!

In a statement, first read on the floor of the U.S. Senate by Virginia Republican John Warner, DP World said the decision was made to "preserve the strong relationship between the U.S. and the U.A.E." But in fact, it sounded suspiciously like a device carefully crafted by DP World's huge team of lobbyists and lawyers to salvage the deal in some fashion.

The new entity is supposed to have an American board and American managers, but the ownership was still questionable. Or, as New York's Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer observed, "the devil is in the details." If DP World is in fact merely planning to put its U.S. assets under a U.S.-managed subsidiary with oversight from a U.S.-staffed board, it would be following in a long line of foreign suppliers of defense technology to the U.S.

"This looks like a variant of that," says Clyde Prestowitz of the Economic Strategy Group in Washington.

But many experts argue that DP World doesn't threaten national security and that requiring the company to jump through so many hoops sends a bad message.

"I think it's a very negative signal we're sending to the world," says Nouriel Roubini of Roubini Global Economics Monitor. The U.S. needs roughly $900 billion in investment this year to fund its gaping current-account deficit. And investors are increasingly interested in owning real assets rather than stocks and bonds, according to Roubini. "We don't have the luxury to snub the world," he says.

There is the further risk that the compromise setup may not be enough to cool the fury over the deal on Capitol Hill. After all, House lawmakers wanted to torpedo it without even waiting for the results of a 45-day investigation that DP World had accepted. Congress is well within its power to go ahead and force DP World to divest its U.S. assets, according to Barry Carter, an international law expert at Georgetown Law Center. If it is framed correctly, "that law will be upheld," he says.

Still, there were reports that several major private-equity firms were sniffing around the unit, which had been part of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation, which DP World officially acquired earlier this week for $6.8 billion after a London court cleared the way for the takeover.

Indeed, the decision to proceed with the larger P&O takeover, which gives DP World a broad spectrum of ports outside the U.S., left in limbo the question of who is now operating the U.S. port facilities and to whom they are answerable.

The statement by Warner, followed minutes later by an official confirmation from DP World, seemed designed to defuse an explosive confrontation between the White House and the Republican-controlled Senate and House.

On Wednesday night, a House Committee voted 62-2 to block the transfer of the U.S. ports' operations to DP World. President George W. Bush was reportedly told this morning that there were enough votes in both the House and Senate for a measure to block the deal--a law that the president had threatened to veto.

The decision by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al- Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai, is likely to avert the political backlash that hit Washington last month and may prevent any further damage to diplomatic and security relations between the countries. But it underscored that Mr Bush, who still has nearly three years to go in his second term, has become perilously weak.

Dennis Hastert, the Republican speaker of the House and one of Mr Bush's most loyal backers in Congress, emerged from a White House meeting on Thursday morning and signalled that he could not hold back the opposition to the deal. "We want to protect the American people and we will continue to do that," he said.

"There's a Republican initiative right now that says, 'Get us the hell out of here'," said Frank Lautenberg, a Republican senator from the port state of New Jersey.

The acquisition of five US port terminals by an Arab company became an unlikely target for an outpouring of American anger and fear. While administration officials and port security experts insisted there were no security concerns raised by the transfer of port facilities from a British company to a Dubai company, members of Congress said they were flooded with calls and letters from ordinary Americans angered by the deal.

The White House promise to reopen a national security investigation into the deal, together with a concerted public relations effort by DP World, seemed only to deepen the anger.

More than four years after the September 11 attacks, it brought together a toxic combination of anxieties over America's place in the world. Traditional protectionists, worried by foreign acquisitions of US assets and the outsourcing of jobs to distant and little-understood countries, lined up alongside security hawks who warned that even a close Arab ally such as the UAE was vulnerable to terrorist infiltration.

North Korea's testing of two short-range missiles on Wednesday came during a stalemate in six-country talks aimed at ending its nuclear weapons programs.

Pyongyang says it has nuclear weapons but proliferation experts have questioned its ability to mount them on missiles.

"(They) are, in fact, a quantum leap forward from the kind of missiles that they have produced in the past," Bell told the hearing, referring to the short-range missiles tested this week.

The missiles were boosted by solid fuel, rather than liquid fuel, providing greater reliability, mobility and precision, he said.

"They are routinely testing these," Bell told the hearing, according to an audio recording made available on Friday on the U.S. House committee's Web site.

North Korea test-fired a similar missile in May last year. A senior Bush administration official said the missiles tested this week did not leave North Korean territory.

South Korean daily JoongAng Ilbo said North Korea fired the two missiles from its east coast and they probably dropped into the sea about 100 km (60 miles) away, citing a government source.

Initial reports said the tests were over a shorter distance elsewhere and just on land.

U.S. officials said the missile test proved the North's nuclear programs posed a threat to the region, but neighbors China and South Korea were muted in their reactions.

This week's test was more about checking performance than rattling sabers as regional powers work to resume the stalled nuclear talks, analysts said.

Bell said the North was developing longer-range missiles with ranges "far beyond any requirement that they have for defense".

Pyongyang is ready and willing to sell the technology, posing a great concern about proliferation, Bell said.

"North Korea is a significant threat that still must be deterred," Bell told the committee.

South and North Korea remain technically at war because the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a truce and not a peace treaty.

The six-nation talks on the North's nuclear ambitions began in 2003, but have yet to achieve much progress.

The short-range tests were originally reported in Asian media but later confirmed by the US State Department.

Some reports suggested the missiles were fired off accidentally during a military drill, while others say they were test-fired toward the Sea of Japan.

"We have consistently pointed out that North Korea's missile programme is a concern that poses a threat to the region and the larger international community," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

No progress

Correspondents say that while much of the world's attention has been focused on Iran's nuclear activities, progress over containing North Korea's nuclear ambitions has stalled.

Last September, North Korea agreed to give up its nuclear goals and return to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

But demands that it be given a civilian nuclear reactor - and a row over financial sanctions imposed by Washington due to alleged money-laundering and counterfeiting - have brought talks to a standstill with no date set for the next round of negotiations.