[Prairiegreens-org] Re: [Peace-discuss] Inclusive Presidential Debates

[John W.]

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:58 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:

The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) conducts in-depth polls
> of this sort on the public opinion of international politics. They contrast
> quite sharply with the push-polls of which john has apparently been the
> unwitting victim.  PIPA is jointly run by the Center on Policy Attitudes and
> the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland at the School
> of Public Affairs, University of Maryland, College Park <
> http://www.pipa.org/>.
>
> They have investigated topics such as the public perceptions of United
> States international politics and of international organizations (NATO, the
> United Nations, and the International Monetary Fund). They maintain the
> Americans and the World website, described as a "source of comprehensive
> information on US public opinion on international issues". In January 2006,
> PIPA launched WorldPublicOpinion.org a comprehensive website devoted to
> public opinion on international policy and affairs, stating that while
> "Others report what the world does, we report what the world thinks."


I guess I'd like to know more about PIPA's methodology, Carl - how
specifically it samples public opinion in such a thorough and unbiased way
as to be different from all the other polls that Jenifer and I have
apparently been "unwittingly victimized by", and to truly and accurately
"report what the world thinks".   You seem to be quite familiar with the
organization; can I find out the specifics of their methodology easily from
their web site?

I'd also like to know who finances PIPA.  Is that information clearly
provided on their web site, Carl?  It's interesting to me that you don't
have much use for Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, but for some
reason you place great stock in this School of Public Affairs at the U. of
Maryland.



> And people are not in fact "frightfully easy to infantilize."  Just the
> opposite -- so much so that the US must spend a third of its vast GDP to
> accomplish the task as inadequately as it's done.  The one thing our rulers
> fear -- the danger they spend so much to deter -- is an informed public.
>  --CGE


Again, I'd like to know where this figure comes from, that we spend fully
one-third of our GDP on propaganda, in order to "manufacture consent".
Remember that the GDP reflects all private consumer spending, not just
government spending.  So the U.S. government wouldn't even have ACCESS to a
third of the GDP unless the average federal tax rate was 33% - which it is
not.

I agree that the rulers of most nations fear an informed public.  But I'm
still convinced that the  American public is easier than most to
infantilize.




> John W. wrote:


>
>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 1:33 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu<mailto:
>> galliher at uiuc.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>    The typical discussion in the midst of the 2004 election apparently
>>    went as follows:
>>
>>     POLLSTER: Have you heard anything about George Bush's position on
>>    the Kyoto Protocol?
>>     BUSH VOTER: No.
>>     POLLSTER: Do you think President Bush would support the Kyoto
>> Protocol?
>>     BUSH VOTER: What's the Kyoto Protocol?
>>     POLLSTER: It's an international agreement to reduce greenhouse
>>    gasses that seem to cause climate change.
>>     BUSH VOTER: Well, that sounds like a good idea, so I'm sure George
>>    Bush would support it.
>>     POLLSTER: Why are you sure?
>>     BUSH VOTER: Because Bush is a good man with good values, so he'd
>>    certainly do the right thing on a matter like that.
>>     POLLSTER: So you're sure he'd support the Kyoto Protocol?
>>     BUSH VOTER: Yes.
>>
>>    A *majority* of people who voted for Bush in 2004 answered like
>>    that.  (Some of them of course had heard of the Kyoto Protocol.)  --CGE
>>
>>
>> This gets more hilarious by the minute.  I've been the pollee in a fair
>> number of polls, both on the phone and in person, and there is NEVER a
>> conversation like this.  The pollster reads the question from an approved
>> questionnaire, and you answer yes or no.  Not only does the pollster not ASK
>> clarifying questions, but you can't even DRAW said pollster into any sort of
>> discussion of the real issues by saying such things as, "Hmmm....the way
>> this is phrased, I don't agree with ANY of the choices."  So Carl, where
>> exactly did this "apparent" conversation take place?  In your febrile mind?
>>
>> In an earlier post on this thread you refused as usual to admit that
>> Americans are stupid, but a sentence or two later you stated that they had
>> been "infantilized".  I'm afraid I don't understand the difference, or
>> rather feel that it's a distinction without much of a difference.  I prefer
>> Jenifer's term, "ignorant".  And the reason I (and apparently Jenifer) think
>> that most Americans are ignorant is because they're not INTERESTED in
>> politics or public affairs or history or even geography, failing most of the
>> time to understand what it has to do with their daily lives.  Why are
>> Americans so frightfully easy to infantilize, Carl?  Why is it so
>> frightfully easy for our government and media to "manufacture their
>> consent", essentially the SAME consent over and over and over again using
>> the SAME lies and propaganda?
>>
>> I see it in the Xanga blogosphere.  I see it on my high school reunion
>> forum.   I see it everywhere I go with the exception of small groups of
>> "progressives" in C-U who already agree with one another:  The "average"
>> American wants to believe vapid cliches about the goodness and specialness
>> of the U.S. of A.   And the more cliched the sentiment the more inclined
>> s/he is to embrace it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>>
>>    Right, no reason for those comfy/uncomfy, settled in or not,
>>    televiewing Americans to pay attention to world or national (or
>>    local) politics until something immediately affects THEM, and then
>>    they might take notice. Yes, Iraqis definitely have more to talk
>>    about in coffee houses (for those w/ money enuff living in areas
>>    safe enuff to frequent them). Then again, FOOTBALL doesn't actually
>>    affect Americans...
>>
>>        Again, I'd use the word ignorant, rather than stupid. Re the point
>>    y're trying to make, polls are a joke. Trust me, most non-voters --
>>    and many voters as well -- haven't the faintest idea where Kyoto is
>>    located, let alone what the Kyoto agreement(s) involved.
>>
>>     --Jenifer
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080710/fc0db393/attachment.htm