Thoughts in Words

Barbaric Times September 11, 2010

Posted by shattered pieces of mind in Society and Politcs.
add a comment

“To this date, not a single victim of the Bush administration’s torture program has had his day in court,” … “If this decision stands, the United States will have closed its courts to torture victims while providing complete immunity to their torturers.” – NYT

Goldman Sachs and Friends October 17, 2009

Posted by shattered pieces of mind in Society and Politcs.
add a comment

here are three videos, which point out the huge influence a company like goldman sachs has over u.s. government decisions, and the consequences for them and the rest of us.
obviously they are the number one player here, but I added “and Friends” to the title as a reminder to the fact, that they are not alone. this is simply how our “democracy” works.
.
.
After some annoying foreplay this video shows a quite simple and easy to understand explaination of why Goldman Sachs is not affected by the crisis.

.
.
.
This guy is somewhat unstable, but the information he is presenting is worth enduring him.

.
.
.
another report pointing out how goldman sachs has itself covered by having former employees in key government positions.
do you watch the tv-series “Lie to Me”? if you do, you will recognize the guy beeing interviewed is lying, when he says “yea I really do” at the end of the clip and when suggesting it is “smart play” earlier. amazing, dont you agree?

top 10 ignored things about Iran October 8, 2009

Posted by shattered pieces of mind in Society and Politcs.
add a comment

While I should be writing about the economy, I end up writing about Iran again. It’s just so much easier, because others do, and that saves me a lot of time. It always felt a bit off-topic somehow, I don’t even know why. Anyways … Juan Cole wrote this great list “The top ten things you didn’t know about Iran“. You can either go there and read it, or check out the rest of this post, where I will basically just making a short summary of his work, to create a better overview over those ten things, totally ignored by the public.

.

..
…
..

.

1) Irans leaders follow a doctrine of -no first strike- and the country has not launched an aggressive war in modern history.

2) Irans military budged is the 2nd smallest per capita in the persian gulf, and its total is smaller than that of sweden or the city(!)-state singapore.

3) If Iranian leaders were truly madmen, as some want us to think, they would have invaded their neighbors already. [claiming someone is irrational, crazy, mad, "a kook" and things like that, is an old propaganda trick.]

4) There was no threat of aggression against Israel, and the Iranian president explicitly said Iran would not be a threat to it.
[Cole mentions the famous ahmadinejad quote, and explains its meaning to be "this Occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". I agree with him, that this translation is more a critique of the israeli regime, than a threat of aggression. Cole points out a comparison with the collapse of soviet union - its regime has also vanished. And I may add, that from an international point of view (East)Jerusalem is truly beeing occupied by Israel. Thus the quote doesn't even relate to Israel as a whole, but only to its annexation of of East-Jerusalem.]

5) Holocaust denial cannot be equalized with a threat of aggression against Israel either. [if you ask me, Israel is utilizing/abusing the holocaust to silence their critics, and hold any international action against them at bay. thus I can understand ahmadinejad wishing to take this power away from them. I think it is the only thing preventing a switch from "evil Iran" to "evil Israel" in the international community.]

6) IAEA, CIA and DIA have repeatedly assessed with fair confidence, that Iran has no nuclear weapons research program.

7) The new nuclear enrichment facility is still under construction, and will be inspected by the IAEA. [This means, that there was never some kind of secret facility producing weaponized materials.]

8) As long as the IAEA is inspecting the enrichment facilities, Iran cannot produce material for a bomb, and building a nuclear facility in secret would be extremely difficult [especially when everyone is watching you].

9) Sanctions against Iran primarily affect the people, not the regime. [thus they are pretty counterproductive, making people hate those who imposed the sanctions - not the regime.]

(10) I am pretty sure Cole split one point into two, because 10 is a better number for lists than 9. I can’t argue with that, hence my title also claims it to be ten … sorry :)

the people of Iran have spoken … September 20, 2009

Posted by shattered pieces of mind in Society and Politcs.
add a comment

a new poll by worldpublicopinion.org is out (pdf here). It contains valuable information about the elections 09 in Iran, and views towards the USA.

First I’m going to extract and repeat the results here, because embedding results in sentences (like worldpublicopinion.org does) skews the impression of the reader. especially when the writer seems to be slightly biased. the graphics on the website are ok though, so be sure to check out the original source too (as you always should be doing anyway!). Then I will be guiding you through a few of the results and giving my interpretation of the findings.

Before we start, let me point out a few things to catch your interest even more. The WPO report is not that bad in general, but doesn’t sound too impartial either.

What especially caught my eye, was the frequent use of words like “though”, “but”, “however”, etc. It is absolutely not necessary to use these words, and they do influence the perception of the information that follows. the most serious case was: “only 27 percent are opposed”. putting it that way, is a grave misrepresentation of reality. using the word “only” suggests 27% would be a small part, while it is more than 1/4 (!) of the population.

there are also a few omissions in the data. they either didn’t mention values at all, or combined two values into one, which may (or may not) mask interesting details.

lastly and somewhat most importantly, the report emphasizes the data about voting behavior not beeing “a solid basis to estimate the actual vote”. which is not a completely false statement by itself, but (!) I do consider the arguments used misleading. I will go into detail about this later on, there is a bit of context to explain concerning this.
Just let me quickly point out one phrase immediately: they used “extremely high number” to describe 26% of people, who refused to answer the question. remember the -only 27%- ? so 27% is -only- .. but less than that, 26% is -extremely high-? .. funny, isn’t it.

• .
• .
• .

THE NUMBERS

“WorldPublicOpinion.org (WPO) conducted the poll of 1,003 Iranians across Iran between Aug. 27 and Sept. 10, 2009. Interviewing was conducted by a professional survey organization located outside Iran which used native Farsi speakers who telephoned into Iran (8 in 10 Iranian households have a telephone line). The margin of error is 3.1 percent. WPO, a collaborative project involving research centers from around the world, is managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.”

Ahmadinejad Irans legitimate president

• yes: 81%
• dont know: 8%
• no: 10%

(8 in 10 see him as legitimate president)

confidence in election results

• a lot: 62%
• some: 21%
• not much OR no confidence: 13%

(totals: 83% confident – 13% not ; 8 in 10 have confidence in the election results [rounded down] )

elections free and fair

• agree completely: 66%
• agree somewhat: 17%
• disagree: information missing

(totals: 83% agree – ? disagree ; 8 in 10 think elections were free and fair [rounded down] )

election analysis
87% of the respondents voted in the ’09 elections. of those:

• 55% say they voted for Ahmadinejad
• 14% say they voted for Mousavi
• 26% refused to answer

if elections were held again:

• 49% say they would vote for Ahmadinejad
• 8% say they would vote for Mousavi
• 13% say they would not vote
• 26% refused to answer

Ahmadinejad honest

• very honest: 48%
• honest: 33% [gained through substraction of former from the total]
• not very honest OR not honest at all: 11%

(totals: 81% pro – 11% contra ; 8 in 10 say he is honest)

restoring diplomatic relations with the USA

• favor strongly: 18%
• favor somewhat: 45%
• oppose somewhat: 9%
• oppose strongly: 18%

(totals: 63% pro – 27% contra ; 6 in 10 favor restoring relations)

confidence in Barack Obama to do the right thing in world affairs

• a lot: 2%
• some: 14%
• not much: 14%
• none at all: 57%

(totals: 16% pro – 71% contra ; 7 in 10 have no confidence in him)

Other
81% (8 in 10) say the United States seeks to weaken and divide the Muslim world, 12% don’t think so.

77% (rounded up: 8 in 10, rounded down: 3 in 4) say the United States has the goal of imposing American culture on Muslim society, 16% don’t think so.

favorable feelings towards american people: 51% (13% very favorable)

• .
• .
• .

THE INTERPRETATION

first things first: as long as we dont assume the vast majority of these people were lying (which would be paranoid and delusional), we have to conclude Ahmadinejad won the election, and our newspapers and television reporters were misleading us about the situation in iran!! this is of extreme importance, let that sink in for a while.
If you took a look at the WPO pdf, you saw the other results too. they all fit in with the results I picked. the majority of Iranians is pretty much ok with their government and political system, especially with their president.

to point out a general tendency/observation in the numbers I posted: just by looking at those numbers, it seems there is a part of the population which is positive towards anything USA and negative towards anything Iran, mostly under 15%. Obviously it would be false to conclude that percentage is always made up from the same people (without having the raw data), but I guess we will agree, with so much consistency it at least seems likely.

The way I see it, about 50% of Iranians represent the core supporters of the government, and about 10% represent the core of those opposing them. The remaining 40% could be called undecided, but most of them (close to all of them) have a favorable view of the president, the elections etc. and a negative view about the USA.

What I find most intriguing is the part about 51% having favorable feelings towards american people. Why did WPO omit the rest of the information concerning this? Is it too negative, or the contrary? If you consider up to 81% percieve the actions of the USA in a negative way, but 51% have favorable feelings towards the people of the US, it means more than 30% of Iranians make a distinction between the US government (bad) and US citizens (good). I think that’s a very important piece of information. It points towards the fact of US policy creating negative reactions in the world. making friends or enemies, depends on your own actions!

Also, the majority of Iranians support diplomatic relations with the US. To me the data looks like this: 18% are all in, talking is always good. 45% seem skeptical, but talking can’t hurt. 9% are too skeptical already, and 18% oppose diplomatic relations for whatever reason. Because some US politicians like to paint everything black and white, I think I need to point out, that opposing diplomatic relations may range from “dont talk to evil” to a simple “I dont see a point, it is just a waste of time”. Given the experience Iranians have had with the USA, the latter would not be surprising. So all in all, I think this poll just shows, that even though most Iranians have a negative view on the USA (policies), it is mostly a reflection of a lack of trust and disapproval of actions – not an indication of hostility, which by contrast western countries seem to foster increasingly against Iran. I think this is a quite intriguing thought, considering those people voted for the “evil” Ahmadinejad.

Now let us look at a few facts about peoples opinions and answers in general, which means: all over the world. First to adress at this point, is my criticism of WPOs remarks about estimating the actual votes. Let’s take a look at what they wrote:

“The extremely high number of people refusing to answer questions about their voting preference–something not found in response to any other questions–suggests that people have some discomfort with this topic,” says WPO’s Kull. “Thus these findings on voting preference are not a solid basis for estimating the actual vote.”

1. it is always hard to estimate actual votes, or have we forgotten how those glorious polls sometimes turn out to be wrong on election night?
2. WPOs Kull should not be acting like a “discomfort with this topic” is something specific to Iran. some people (in any country) simply dont share their choice with others, it is not surprising to have a decent of amount of people refusing to answer the question. we don’t cast votes publicly, do we? there is a quite elaborate background for making it a choice, if someone wants to share, who he voted for, or not.
3. further, WPOs Kull should not be saying “people” but “these people”. by using “people”, he is insinuating, that all people in the poll felt discomfort with the topic. he has nothing to proof such a bold statement.
4. As I said earlier, 26% is not an “extremely high” number. 80% would be, but 26% is not. 26% is about 1/4 of the population, 1 out of 4 people, 2.5 out of 10. not more, not less.
5. If 26% would be a high number of people compared to other countries, the argument would obviously be a good one. But what WPOs Kull does, is comparing a question about actual voting behavior to the other questions of the same poll. He acts like those questions could be treated equally, which they cannot.

Alright, so either this is a misunderstanding – a bad choice of words, and WPO is omitting information, like the usual % of people in other countries, who refuse to answer the question. Or this is clearly a manipulation of opinion on part of WPO. They inserted two statements: The one just debated, and one putting in question 55% really voted for Ahmadinejad, because some people may claim to vote for the winner afterwards, even though they didn’t vote for him (this is a known finding in the field of psychology). Why only those two statements? Why use “extremely”, “people” and a useless comparison? Every study has so many issues/restrictions to be considered! By inserting exactly these statements, only these statements and framing one of them incorrectly, the impression of the reader is skewed.

If they would have framed those informations differently (correct), there may have been nothing to complain about. but in the context of the protests after the election, which are also mentioned in the article(!), one is basically guided by WPO to conclude: the poll might be wrong – it is not certain Ahmadinejad got those votes, people might be hiding their true actions, his opponent might have won. They basically do what the media did during the protests, paint a biased picture.

What WPO did here, is strange at the least. It doesn’t affect the impression of someone like me, who looks at the whole picture. But very disturbing to me, is the fact, that newspapers, radio and television often only report on selected results. So even though the poll as a whole speaks a quite clear language in support of the government and the president, newspapers, radio and television might still choose to report on the alleged “extremely high” numbers of people refusing to answer the question etc., while ignoring the results of the poll as a whole.

-

Let’s get back to some general information about how to look at the results.

WPO is putting a slight emphasis on the totals. later adding depth as they choose, by giving details. I prefer the opposite approach, because I am convinced it leads to a skewed picture of the data, by priming the reader with the totals. 60% positive response are very different, if its 5% “strong” and 55% “some”, opposed to 55% “strong” and 5% “some”. It is also always the whole continuum, which should be considered. 50/50 offers a lot less information than 20-30-45-5 for example. By presenting the total first, the reader may gain an impression which will keep him from seeing important details, if he doesnt bother to study the data in detail (which most people don’t!)
Further, people tend to give less extreme answers in general, which makes answers at the end of a scale very informative. Thus information about the amount of answers at the end of a scale may be even more important than the totals. Especially because some people may have difficulties to decide which answer of the two options in the middle to choose. Their decision is of importance of course, but you still have to consider, that at least some of them may change their answer to the other side the next time you ask them!
Consider this when looking at the numbers.

Also try to consider, that every society is diverse. You will always find a group of people for any opinion. Don’t bother too much with 5% here and 5% there when trying to see “what those numbers mean”. Not to imply that 5% of the population are insignificant, certainly not. But for a “bigger picture” – “the democratic result” a small group at the end of a scale, or a small difference between two totals, is not enough to pass judgement. Something like 53% vs. 47% is no “decisive” win for one side, as journalists like to tell us. Even with a difference of 6% it is basically still 50/50.

a self-made saying July 9, 2009

Posted by shattered pieces of mind in Society and Politcs.
add a comment

“The difference between good and bad (or evil) lies in the reasons, which are necessary in order to explain why it is the former.”