Poll

To the question “who do you think is currently winning the war against terrorism- the U.S. and its allies, neither side, or the terrorists?” in 2001, 42% of the people asked, answered the U.S. and its allies, 11% the terrorists, and 44% neither side. However, in 2005, 37% answered the U.S., 20% the terrorists, and 42% neither side. In order to know if this survey is reliable or not, Dr. Sheldon Gawiser and G. Evans Witt, cofounders of the Associated Press/NBC News Poll, give us the formula to do so: 20 Questions which are going to determine if the survey is credible or not. The basic questions are about the making of the poll (who, when, why, what and how), the people who were asked and the way of how the poll was conducted. Regarding our poll, the methodology was conducted by Gallup Organization, which is a reliable source of information according to Fishkin in the following article (even though, he claims having a better one.) The findings of this survey aren’t so significant, besides that more people think that terrorists are winning. The fact of correlating those two polling (2001 –pre 9/11 and 2005- war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan) already makes us conclude that the terrorists are winning, and that U.S. is loosing. Or somebody could always argue that today people are more fearful of terrorists attack and because of that, would answer that they’re winning.

Orwell

“If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy.” This is how George Orwell’s reading assignment could be summarized. In a brilliant manner, Orwell explained the danger of the utilization of the English language, how the most horrible crime could be “translated” as the elimination of an enemy of the democracy. Words could be used and abused until that they lose their credibility. My question to him is that he’s complaining against his own world. He is an author, he is a writer, he makes up those rules that we, readers, have to follow. He is “one of them”! Why should we trust him now? Yes, he raises the problem, and he is in a good position to do so, but still. It is like Goebels warning us about the propaganda: he invented it, but I don’t think anyone will trust him.

Democracy Never?

I watched last night the edition of October 17, 2006 of Democracynow.org. It’s an hour long show and is categorized (or categorized itself) as an independent media, which means concretely that it doesn’t accept any subventions from the government, corporations, or any advertisers, but is “funded entirely through contributions from listeners, viewers, and foundations”.
The show started by the headline which consists of 9 different events which happened yesterday. The common point between them was that the intonation was very critical toward Bush’s administration, Blair’s government and the State of Israel. I didn’t read the “About Us” until after I finished watching the show but I had already more than an idea about what political affiliation Ami Goodman (the host) is.
To give you an idea of what made me conclude that they are real liberals, I am going to describe to you one part of the show. It is about Mohamed Munaf, a U.S. Citizen, who was arrested by the U.S. Army in Iraq for being involved in a kidnapping of three Rumanians journalists. Since then, he was sentenced to death and his American lawyer, Jonathan Hafetz, is trying to obtain his transfer to U.S. for a new trial. So far, it seems fair enough. Now, when Amy Goodman asked him what do the Romanians journalists say about him (apparently, if he was involved with their kidnapping, they should know something about it...), Hafetz’s answer is more then surprising: “Well, we haven’t spoken to them yet”. Munaf is being held for the past 16 months in Iraq, but his lawyer hasn’t spoke to the victims yet. Goodman accepted that answer as totally normal and insisted on the fact that apparently two American officers had a separate meeting with the judge in order to pressure him to sentence his client to death. His source is …. the Iraqi lawyer. Yes, he saw them, and he knows whatever they say to the judge in his office.
The other topics of the show were the sentence to 28 months to jail to Lynne Stewart, who is accused of transmitting messages from her client Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman to his followers in Egypt. I could watch Lynne Stewart during 5 min thanking all her supporters and complaining how ridiculous and stupid is the administration (I even watched her husband who didn’t really have much to say). Then, Los Angeles Times Baghdad Bureau Chief Borzou Daragahi, from Baghdad gave a report on the situation on Iraq. In conclusion there was a very interesting interview from Tariq Ali who just wrote a book called “Pirates of the Caribbean” where he defends the position of Hugo Chavez. He explains Chavez’s speech at the U.N. as historical but he thinks that “he went over the top a bit. I’m personally opposed to attacking Bush personally, in personal terms. Whether he’s an alcoholic or what is not significant.”
I finished watching the show and start thinking what ideas a show likes that leaves in the mind of the viewer. Well, not so positive in terms of Bush’s administration and it also gives the impression that we are facing an international conspiracy. Bush is controlling the justice here, in the U.S. and there in Iraq, and trying to influence Venezuela, and also the elections in South-America etc.