No Comments »

23 Nation Poll: Who Will Lead the World?
In 20 Countries, Citizens Want Europe to Be More Influential Than US

Full Report
Questionnaire A public opinion poll across 23 countries finds that in 20, a majority (17) or a plurality (3) of citizens think it would be mainly positive for Europe to become more influential than the US in world affairs. Currently, Europe is seen as having a mainly positive influence in the world in 22 countries. Among specific major countries, the one most widely viewed as having a positive influence is France—viewed positively in 20 countries. The countries most widely viewed as
having a negative influence are the US (viewed negatively in 15 countries) and Russia (14 countries).

The poll of 23,518 people was conducted by the international polling firm GlobeScan together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. The 23-nation fieldwork was coordinated by GlobeScan and completed during December 2004 in most countries. The poll included some questions (previously reported) that were fielded for the BBC World Service.

On average, across all countries polled, 58 percent favor Europe becoming more influential than the US in world affairs. Excluding European countries, the average is 53 percent. The most enthusiasm for greater European influence (other than in Europe) is among US neighbors—Mexico (66%) and Canada (63%)—and China (66%), South Africa (63%), Australia (62%), and Russia (60%). The only countries where a majority sees this prospect as negative are the Philippines (54%), and the US. However, among Americans only 55 percent see it as negative while 34 percent say it would be positive, reflecting the deep political divide among Americans over US foreign policy. Indians are divided, with, 35 percent saying mostly positive, 38 percent mostly negative.

Asked to evaluate the current influence of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Europe as a whole, in 22 out of 23 countries a majority (20) or plurality (2) sees Europe as having a positive influence in the world. On average, 68% see Europe as having a positive influence and only 13% see it as negative—63% to 15% if European countries are excluded.

Europe is viewed especially positively in Canada (79%), China (77%), the Philippines (76%), and South Africa (76%). The only country not to view it positively is India, where views are evenly divided. Mexico is relatively lukewarm (42% positive, 16% negative) as is Japan (39% positive, 2% negative).

Views of France

The most highly regarded individual country is France, which is seen as having a positive influence in 21 countries—58 percent on average, with 20 percent seeing a mainly negative influence. [Note: In all cases the population of the country being evaluated was excluded from the totals.]

Only in the US does a majority (52%) say that France is having a negative influence in the world (positive 37%). Turkey is divided, with 34% positive and 37% negative. Interestingly, the country most positive toward France is its historical nemesis Germany, where 77% view France as positive, followed by Italy (73%). Close behind were China (72%), South Korea (72%), South Africa (69%), and Lebanon (69%).

Views of US

The US edges out Russia for the dubious distinction of having the largest number of countries rating it as having a negative influence in the world, with 15 countries saying it has a negative influence and just 6 countries viewing it as positive.

On average, a plurality of 47 percent view US influence in the world as mostly negative, while 38 percent view it as mostly positive and 15 percent did not answer either way. The countries most negative towards the US are Argentina (65%), Germany (64%), Russia (63%), Turkey (62%), Canada (60%) and Mexico (57%). Majorities see US influence as positive in the Philippines (88%), South Africa (56%), India (54%), Poland (52%), and South Korea (52%). A plurality of Italians (49%) are also positive. Interestingly the French were only moderately negative about US influence, with 54 percent viewing it negatively—mirroring the 52 percent of Americans who view France negatively.

Views of Russia

Russia has the fewest number of countries (5) viewing it as having a positive influence, with 14 viewing it negatively. On average, 35% view it positively and 40% negatively.

The most negative are Germany and France at 57%, followed by Brazil (52%), Poland (51%) and South Korea (50%). Americans only lean mildly negative (39% positive, 44% negative). The only two countries with a majority positive toward Russia were China, where 64 percent view it positively, and India (67%). However, pluralities are positive in the Philippines (49%), Chile (44%) and Lebanon (38%).

Views of Britain

Britain and China are in a middle tier and viewed primarily as positive. Eighteen countries view Britain as having a positive influence, led by the US (78%), South Korea (70%), South Africa and Canada (both 67%). On average, 50% view Britain positively and 29% negatively. Only one country has a majority with a negative view of Britain—Argentina with 53% (positive 18%)—perhaps a hangover from the Falklands War. Two countries have pluralities with negative views, Turkey (48% negative, 27% positive) and Mexico (41% negative, 17% positive). India is divided (39% positive, 35% negative).

Views of China

As was previously reported by the BBC World Service, fourteen countries view China as having a positive influence. On average, 48% view China as positive and just 30% as negative. The most positive are Lebanon (74%), the Philippines (70%), Indonesia (68%) and India (66%). In only three countries do a plurality view Chinese influence as negative—Germany (47%), the US (46%) and Poland (33%), and in no case does a majority have a negative view. In Japan, few say China is having a negative influence (22%), but also few say it is having a positive influence (25%), while 53% do not take a position one way or the other.

The BBC World Service Poll showed this positive view of China is closely related to its economic role in the world rather than its potential military power. While in sixteen countries most saw it as positive if China were to become “significantly more powerful economically,” in 17 countries more said that it would be negative if China becomes “significantly more powerful militarily.”

Comments

Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, “What is notable here is that Europe and China, which have engaged the world primarily through economic relations—or soft power—are widely seen as having a mostly positive influence, while the countries that have very large militaries and have recently used them in a prominent way–the US and Russia—are more often seen as having a negative influence. Some have argued US military power deserves appreciation for making the global economic order possible, but with the Cold War a fading memory, this perspective seems to be fading as well. While trade might buy you love, guns clearly do not.”

Doug Miller, President of GlobeScan concludes, “Our research shows that Europe’s star has risen as America’s reputation has declined under the Bush Administration. Americans really must worry when it is the wealthy of the world and the youth of the world that are the most upset with them.”

Demographic Variations

Looking at variations by age is especially significant, as the attitudes of young people compared to older people suggest possible future trends. Indeed, all the striking findings of the study appear to be more pronounced among young people. Young people (18-29) are more supportive of Europe becoming more influential than the US (60%) than those 60 or more (51%). Excluding Europeans, 56 percent of young people are supportive, as compared to 45% of older people. Larger percentages of young people than older people have a positive view of the influence of Europe (69% vs. 64%; excluding Europeans, 65% vs. 57%), of France (61% vs. 53%), of China (54% vs. 41%), and of Russia (39% vs. 32%). However, young people are more prone to view the US as having a negative influence (50% vs. 40%), as well as Britain (32% vs. 22%).

Education is also an important variable, as those who are educated are likely to be better informed. Here too, the striking findings of the study are more pronounced at higher educational levels. Those with relatively high levels of education are more likely to have a positive view of Europe becoming more influential than the US (63%) than are those with lower levels of education (53%). (Excluding Europeans: 57% and 45%.) Larger percentages of those with higher education have a positive view of the influence of Europe (72% vs. 64%; excluding Europeans, 67% vs. 55%), of France (63% vs. 52%), China (49% vs. 44%), Russia (38% vs. 31%) and Britain (53% vs. 44%). However, those who are more educated are more likely to have a negative view of US influence (50% vs. 44%).

Income followed a pattern quite similar to education. Those with higher levels of income were more likely to have a positive view of Europe becoming more influential than the US; to have a positive view of the influence of Europe, of France, Russia, and Britain; and to have a negative view of the influence of the US.

Polling was conducted by GlobeScan’s network of national Research Partners from Nov. 15, 2004 to Jan. 5, 2005 with a total of 23,518 people. In eight of the countries the sample was limited to major metropolitan areas. The margin of error per country ranged from +/-2.5-4%.

No Comments »

Dear Representative Shimkus:
Below, I have responded to your letter about net neutrality.  It is strewn with outright lies, and I very much hope that you will justify your decision to mislead your consituents.  I personally expect a response.  Your original comments are quoted, and my responses follow.

“The bill would allow a new entrant wishing to commence cable service in a local franchise area to file a certification with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which would take effect automatically 30 days after filing.”
-bullshit.  Currently, if I want to start a website, I can.  Then everyone in the world can see it.  The bill would alter that situation in that, if our site got hits, it would cost me more money.  Effectually, this means that big corporations could afford to have popular websites, but no one else.  And that’s NOT what the Internet is meant to be.

“Net neutrality is a complicated idea or series of ideas. As of now, there has yet to be a definition of net neutrality because no one can agree on what it actually is. In fact, in an Energy and Commerce
hearing, a panel of industry experts all gave a different account as to what they believe net neutrality to be.”
-This is a purposefully misleading statement.  Everyone who is not a telecom industry shill has utilized a similar definition, which can be found here:

http://savetheinternet.com/=faq

But you doesn’t want it to be that simple.  You WANT this to be complicated, to keep your constituents uninvolved.  You rely on the PR agents for AT&T to confuse you, so that they can get rich and you can get more money from them next election cycle.
In summation of this point, there is no widespread debate about what net neutrality is.  As a point in case, the Christian Coalition (biggest conservative coalition online) and Moveon.org (biggest liberal organization online) JOINED FORCES for this single issues.  It’s the people versus the politicians, and you need to represent me, sir.

“There has been a lot of misinformation recently going around as to what would happen if net neutrality provisions were not included in the COPE Act. Some have said that companies such as AT&T or Time Warner would own and run the Internet. This is simply not true.”
-This simply IS true.  The Internet works as a system of inter-connected hubs.  Currently, people who own these hubs cannot ALSO be internet providers.  This ensures that the hubs remain neutral – i.e., every site loads at the same rate, and everyone has equal access.  Telecom wants to change this so that people who can afford a “premium” internet will get faster load times.  The bandwidth will come from people like me who can’t afford to pay for the premium rates.
Even worse is the following scenario – Let’s say your provider, SBC yahoo!, decides to make a deal with yahoo.com (seems possible, eh?).  The contract states that people who use SBC yahoo will have preferential treatment to yahoo.com and, to sweeten the deal, SBC Yahoo! will also DEGRADE your connection to google.com, making it one of the slowest sites on the internet.
That’s not fair, but that’s what you want to do to us (I have a feeling I know which Internet you intend to use…)

“The FCC’s broadband policy is meant to protect the Internet. Under the policy, the Commission may engage in a legal proceeding to ensure compliance of the broadband policy. What this means is that, should an Internet provider violate a provision of the broadband policy statement, the FCC would have 90 days to resolve the dispute. If they find that the Internet provider violated policy, the FCC then may impose a penalty of up to $500,000 per violation.”
-Michael Powell is the chairman of the FCC.  In his time there, he has increased what is known as the “media cap” – the percentage of media outlets any one company can own.  In doing so, he decreased competition and encouraged the mega-monopolies we see in media today.  Is there any reason to think he wouldn’t strike similar deals with many of the same companies with regard to the Internet?  Don’t attempt to justify your way out of screwing me.

encouraging you to be a statesman, not a crony,
Jonthon Coulson

No Comments »

A Biological Explanation for Human Sexual Orientation by Dr. Cynthia L. Chappell, PhD

No Comments »

I received an email with the following text today:

This picture is not doctored. Most Syrians struggle to even read Arabic, much less have a clue about English.

So, how do a group of Syrian protest leaders create the most impact with their signs by having the standard “Death To Americans”(etc.) slogans printed in English?

Answer: They simply hire an English-speaking civilian to translate and write their statements into English. Unfortunately, in this case, they were unaware that the “civilian” insurance company employee hired for the job was a retired US Army sergeant!
Obviously, pictures of this protest rally never made their way through the Arab TV networks, but the results were “Priceless.”

click the thumbnail for a full scale picture.

So I decided to have a little fun, both to demonstrate the photo was shopped, and to depict a more realistic situation:

I wish I worked at some conservative think tank, and could get paid to sit around and deceive people…

No Comments »

For those who weren’t aware, I’ll be moving to New York City this Saturday to begin my two years of service in the Teach For America Corps.

I take this commitment seriously.  We all have this assumption that America is a meritocracy; that hard wrk is rewarded with good job and good pay.  But when you think about it, none of you are about to tell me that kids coming out of schools in the Bronx had the advantages you did.  Still, later in life, you will (hear others) point to some of these same nameless figures and say that they deserve the lifestyle they have because they are lazy, or stupid, or genetically inferior.

This is the new racism.  It’s called residential discrimination.  We turn a blind eye to the plight of our human brothers and sisters living only a zipcode away.  We justify our higher class in society by reassuring ourselves that we worked harder, that we are smarter by our own efforts.  Let’s pull that thread out of the myth of meritocracy, that simply doesn’t exist in America anymore.

So I’m heading to New York City, to put my time, money, and likely my tears where my mouth is.  I’ll be there, teaching English as a Second Language in the Bronx, for the next two years.  I will be bringing a fold-out couch – feel free to visit any time.

Buy less, be more,
Jonthon

No Comments »

I just had this convo with a friend:

hey
i was pulled over speeding
and holding about an 8th

and you defended your rights?!?

and the cop saw rolling papers in the glove and asked to search the car and i said…. “i do not consent to a warrentless search
so he took me to his car and told me he was going to call in a K9 unit and that he was going to find the pot regardless but i held steady and told him that he had no right to search my car and that i would wait around for the K9 unit

awesome!
and he was bluffing?

but the only dog was like 30 minutes away and the cop didnt want to wait around so i got off

awesome!

haha i know man
i heard the voice of god sounding a lot like you telling me what to do the whole time

well, I’m happy to hear I helped out, but you saved your own life.

No Comments »

Daily Kos: Liberal blogger blocked from Kentucky state-owned computers

This should be a big deal – a government entity transparently denying someone their freedom of speech.   It won’t be.  Where are we headed?

No Comments »

US MO: High Above The Law

I learned about MOian I don’t even know that are fighting the drug war with me.  Referenced otherwise, that I’ve already had the pleasure of meeting, are Dan Viets and George McMahon.

The article paints a depressing picture of marijuana activism which, paradoxically, is one of the most vocal coalitions on our campus.  Somehow, when we go out to the working world, many of us forget that we have democratic cuties as well…

No Comments »

ASA : TV host pushes N.J. on medical marijuana

Montel Williams has come out in favor of medical marijuana now.  He is a daily user, having been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and being recommended the drug by his doctor.

No Comments »