On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:39:13 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in


So you now say that Arafat and Rabin had no religious
insight whatsoever.

They were not negotiating based on religion, they were
negotiating on secular confrontation.

If that was solely the case, they would probably not
have signed the deal.

It is easy to sign a document when you have no plans
to implement it.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03
_Press.pd
f

"Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly
Related to Support for War"

"An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted
June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that
evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been
found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found
in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US
going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of
these three misperceptions.

That is both a silly and a biased "pole". That is obvious
from the fact that PIPA was involved.

That's a typical denialist response, Alan. Do you have
any examples that show how these polls are supposed
to be wrong?

If you do not believe that pollsters can manipulate the
outcome of a pole then you are a fool.

And goverments can not manipulate, in your view?

Not the US Government, there is far too much in the way
of "checks and balances"

Has any WMDs been found, like Bush said it would?

Actually he said that the best evidence available indicated
that WMDs existed in Iraq

You are quick to criticise a "useless" poll on the grounds
that it's biassed, but that the Bush administration is under
heavy scrutiny for alledged manipulation doesn't raise
a few critical questions in your mind?

The Administration is always under "heavy scrutiny", as
were all administrations before, and all Administrations
will be in the future. We call it a "free press".

I think anyone will agree that being deceptive is a game
the US goverment and military knows well, one just has to
look at their absolute control of the media during their
campaigns for that.

What "absolute control"?

In this case, the poll was conducted be a very "left wing"
University with an obvious bias.

But "right winged bias" is acceptable in your view?

No, it is unacceptable by either "side", but the
US Administration is under scrutiny, while the left
is unchecked.

The structure of the poll
was such that a "misconception" was anything that did
not agree with the views of said University.

I'd appreciate if you could give quick example of such.

Simply look at the document that you cited.


The "Program
for International Policy" is very strongly against anything
conservative. They are definitely NOT considered as
an unbiased observer.

Does the Whitehouse qualify for that in your view?

The White House is not a polling entity.

A gross simplification, and I suggest you read up on it.
Perhaps more than anything, the Scandinavian welfare model
promotes a humane philosophy of fair and equal treatment
for anyone, including those who are in a weak financial
position. It becomes part of the national soule to try to
treat all people with respect, even those who might not
deserve it at first glance, because we believe that every
person has something positive to bring into our society.

"Loss of freedom"?

I realise it's difficult for a foreigner to understand
the social constructs of small nations on the other
side of the pond.

Not at all, we simply do not see any advantage to them.

First of all, our use of the term "welfare" has little
in common with unemployed people raising a paycheck every
two weeks or "living off the system". The system or
society in general doesn't encourage that, people work
to fulfill their goals and dreams and maintain our high
standard of living. Emphasis is more on education to
"be something" rather than the size of your bankaccount.

If you "are something" then the free market will reward
you with a significant income.

"Welfare", in our terms, means a common pool of social
benefits for everyone, regardless of income. It means,
for instance: free education (right through university),
medicare, childrens allowance and social secuirity/national
insurance to more traditional forms of benefits like
unemployment allowence, invalidity benefits etc. which
stays the same no matter if I make $30,000 a year or
$100,000. It ensures that, basically, everyone is
treated equally.

An example of a benefit that the state provides a place
at day-care center for children, and in cases where this
is parcitally difficult the parents can choose to have

The US has an excellent network of PRIVATLELY owned
and operated day care centers. If you have children, you
pay the bill, if you do not have children you are not
required to pay for them.

Another example is maternity leave or fully paied leave
for care of children (can't think of a better phrase).
I think Iceland is currently the leaders in that field,
with a very flexible 9 months leave divided by the
parents.

Same as the US.

Of course no system is flawless, and the cost of having
such a welfare system is constantly debated. Ultimately
everything is built on economics, and maybe we can't
afford this luxury at some point in the future. I can
say, though, that we are very proud of the fact that we
can now.

That must be why people are constantly trying to
enter the US either legally or illegally. I do not
recall Scandinavia having such a problem.
People "vote with their feet".

Al Minyard