Pangloss

It's a stupid statement (on Reid's part) because a lot more than 24 Iraqis (like several orders of magnitude more) have been killed by American soldiers. The difference being that most of those were accidental, caused by proximiting bombing or stray fire, but in this particular case it looks more like a deliberate act. But he can't SAY that about Haditha yet because it hasn't been tested in court, so the best he can do is allude to it in a false and idiotic manner. He's just being a petty demogogue here. But that's typical for Washington, and the statement in general doesn't bother me more than most of the garbage that seeps out of the beltway these days. Regarding the subject of the Haditha incident itself, I find myself in rare agreement with the left. The incident (if it's true) should not have happened, the fact that it did strongly indicates a larger problem with troop training and morale, and the obvious cover-up is beyond inexcusible.

But the degree of accuracy was stated at +/- 1%, and the relationship between the sample and the general population was 1/100th of a percent. I don't think that's right, I think the margin of error must be for the polled sample, not for the theoretical sample it's polling against. You DON'T know what every point in the sample is -- people make mistakes. The data *cannot* be perfect -- it has to have some degree of accuracy measured by a statistic. So really if what you say is true then we should have TWO accuracy statistics -- one for the accuracy of the polled data, and one for the accuracy against the general population. (Are you saying they're just leaving out the first statistic because they feel it's too small? If that's true then I need to see some sort of indication of that -- a quote or something.) I've always assumed this is how polls work -- that the accuracy percentage given is for the accuracy of the polled sample. I've heard statements to that effect from talking heads on TV (granted with no more knowledge of how to tie their shoelaces than an understanding of statistics). (grin) If you find anything more definitive on this please pass it on.

And apparently he's not the only one...........................................................

Also, the accuracy rating of an exit poll doesn't indicate its degree of accuracy with respect to the voting population. It indicates a degree of accuracy with respect to the people who were polled. So the poll could be completely different from what the voters actually did, and still be exactly as accurate as it claims to be.

BTW, there's also an aspect of the politics here that is about mobilizing the conservative base to vote in November. The motivation being that they should get out there and vote Republican in order to stop gay marriage. Interestingly, some of the response from the right today was negative, in the sense of being a little rebellious about being treated in such an obvious manner.

You should probably start a separate thread on Haditha under a more appropriate subject line. I'd hate to see this one get derailed. You have an interesting point about the timing of the gay marriage amendment. I'm sure that it is part of the ongoing push to recapture the base and bring up those approval ratings so he can get a last shot at passing some legislation. Unfortunately I don't think it's going to work, and in fact I think it's going to backfire. The additional attention to this issue is going to lead to public opinion turning AWAY from the "traditional/conservative" side on this issue. But hey, I've been wrong before.

By the way, Russia is a developing nation, and it would benefit tremendously by gaining access to the WTO. That is, of course, why they want it so badly. Imagine that.

That's an ironic post for someone who just accused Al Gore of using "alarmist, claptrap rhetoric". (And that'd better be freely distributable, or you and I are going to have a very different kind of conversation.)

I wasn't trying to characterize it at all' date=' I'm doing the opposite -- pointing out that we (or at least I) don't have enough information TO characterize it. Okay, you don't want to talk about pollsters making mistakes or deliberately skewing numbers. How about the simple fact that [i']they only asked a little over twelve THOUSAND people?[/i] That's a statistical sample of 0.01%! You don't think that getting hung up on a margin of error of 4 percentile over a spread in which each individual respondant counts for an absolutely VAST number of voters is a bad idea? Do you understand that that means that only ~600 respondants have to be in error in order to reach that margin? I don't disagree with the particulars here. I'm just making the point that there's a reason why the old saying goes "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

No, they aren't. And don't twist a simple joke into an opportunity to slide in a highly subjective comment that you know full well can't be debated without a subject change. You know how to start a new thread. Well that was only one of my points that you ignored, and not even a central one. But this is moot, we're clearly not even in the same ballpark here -- you're looking for rice-and-bean handouts (well okay, discounts on AIDS medication -- same thing) and I'm talking about opportunities for competition and development. I understand the criticism of the WTO and I've not claimed that they're a perfect organization. What I don't see is a reason to decry that effort an overall failure, or an example of "capitalism at its worst". But I think we have some common ground here. I agree that the WTO has been favoring "rich" nations and multinationals, perhaps to the detriment of third world nations. The intellectual property issue is certainly a challenging one. What I would just ask you to consider is that there ought to be a way to provide development opportunities to these countries under discounted LICENSE instead of outright THEFT.

No, not quite yet it doesn't. There's a key piece missing before a conclusion of "fishy smell" can be reached. First of all, this is interesting, but I don't think it warrants grandiose descriptions like "six times the normal size", etc. It could easily be a very small problem in their polling methods that caused the discrepency. I guess I'm still not seeing a reason to think that their exit polling system is more accurate that the voting system. You're still, in the end, talking about human beings asking other human beings for information and then jotting that information down on a piece of paper. The opportunities for human "skew" in that kind of a system are legion. The voting system, on the other hand, is, assuming it hasn't been tampered with, not subject to ANY kind of skew at the individual level. For example, a small number of poll workers who really wanted to see Kerry win could easily have come up with that degree of skew. They know full well that a certain percentage (far in excess of the margin of victory) of west coast voting is influenced by east coast poll numbers, and IIRC the data was widely dissiminated all that afternoon. (I know you aren't claiming to have answered this question and I appreciate your efforts. This is interesting stuff.)

I'm not quite following something.... how big was this margin of error? With an election this close, wouldn't the margin of error be way outside of the margin of the election itself?

(wave wave) It was an interesting post, though, GutZ. I also thought Severian's point about training was interesting. (Edit: Cross-posted with Gutz, but this was a reply to Ecoli just above.)

Wow, that's almost as informative as Al Gore's new movie. Seriously, how would you go about actually DOING something like that? You seem to have ignored many of my keys points. Concession?

Sure sounds like the definition of "a step in the right direction" to me....

Interesting. The slightly-right-of-center Pangloss thinks South Park is slightly right of center, and the "liberaltarian" Bascule thinks the show is "liberaltarian". Guess we shoulda seen that one comin', huh?

--------------------------------------------- ^-- The above line indicates the end of the personal slurs, and the point after which warnings will be issued if they continue.

Okay, I'll take the counterpoint on that. So what's the alternative? Surely you realize that it was worse for developing nations when there was no WTO. It's leveling the playing field FOR them, giving them a chance to compete and stop the multinationals from running off to big governments and demanding handouts. It helps them a lot more than it hurts them. I agree it's problematic and far from a success at this stage, but how would you propose to replace the benefits of the WTO approach with a better system? What would you do? By the way, do you really think the AllofMP3.com owners, and similar pirates, discriminate between artists with a thousand lawyers at their beck and call, and artists who are just barely making next month's rent? I hope you're not one of these dupes that still actually believes that the global marketplace hasn't arrived yet, and can be stopped.

ROFL! Two replies, two opinions. I'll add my third: That they're slightly to the right of center, trending along a conservative-libertarian bent. You need to watch more episodes, Bascule -- Meathead would never go along with most of Kyle's "wisdom" either. And so much for Nevermore's suggestion that South Park not only has moved into a specific area of the "political spectrum", but that it's so obvious to any and all that it doesn't need to be specified. ;->

Interesting story in today's New York Times about how the failure of Russian authorities to shut down a popular and long-running MP3 site may stop Russian entry into the World Trade Organization. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/world/europe/01cnd-mp3.html?ex=1306814400&en=4c9bcba30952e86b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss It's surprising that we're talking about an MP3 download site in the same context as the fight between airplane manufacturing giants Boeing and Airbus. But while I'm no fan of the American recording industry and it's army of lawyers, it does make sense because this is exactly what the WTO is about -- a venue for leveling the playing field. It certainly qualifies as an unfair trade practice! I imagine the libertarians and anti-corporation crowd are going to have a huge dilemma over this. It puts them at direct odds with other left-leaning groups that wanted the WTO to do exactly this sort of thing because it gives countries non-confrontational recourse (i.e. peace instead of war).

What position in the political spectrum do you perceive South Park to be in?

Sorry, not a mind reader.

Wow, I have to say this thread is kinda opening my eyes a bit about how American politics and laws are perceived in the UK. Not just in terms of whether they're thought of as good or bad, but how accurately they're understood. I've always thought it a bit odd how much attention US domestic issues garner in overseas news, but what I hadn't realized is what a poor level of understanding that reporting generates. I don't mind so much that they're paying attention to what we're doing internally, but it would be nice if they understood it instead of misinterpreting it. I'm sure that's not a universal problem, of course, but I can't help but think that it might be a prevailing one. I'll have to ponder that while I'm out on the range on horseback this afternoon, rounding up illegal Haitians for deportation and shooting up the teepees of the local indian tribe. Yeehah! ;-)