And now for something completely different.
We need some levity around here after the, er, spirited
discussions this week, and something light to act as a kind of mental sorbet before heading into a real Battle next week (someone has Challenged
, n'est ce pas
?). Or, given this crowd, this could be the most bitterest Blitz Battle of all.
So, put it on the line, bloggerinos and bloggerinas: What is your operating system of choice? Or of your dreams? Windows XP? Mac OS X? Linux? Something goofy that I've never heard of? Or are you simply nostalgiac for that old Commodore 64? Whatever your gooey GUI may be, make sure you lay out your case IB-style. Feel free to pre-emptively point out the flaws of the other side, too. Bonus points awarded for a spirited defense of your favorite web browser!
Jay Bullock, Iron Blogger Democrat
okay, straightforward topic here people:
Given that every nation on Earth acts in it's own self-interest, is the US just in doing the same? Given that the US is the dominant Military, Economic and Cultural power in the current world today, are we charged with the task of being the "active steward" of humanity? Or are we just in acting solely in our own interests as the other nations do? Are we just in "going it alone?" Is Russia
If if you believe that the US in unjust in acting unilaterally in its' dealings with foreign issues, what makes us different than Israel (note Osirik reactor bombing, Lebanon, Syria), the UK (note Falklands), the Soviet Union (note Afghanistan), and China (note Taiwan, DPRK)? Why should we or shouldn't we be able to act in our own interests without outside approval or assistance?
what say you? I'm asking ALL
of you, not just Ralph and Folkbum
. If you read IB and don't comment, NOW'S THE TIME TO DO BATTLE. Easy topic, easy answers, I challenge you, the readers of IB to battle with this forum as your battleground.
I'm waiting- Bring. it. on.
If memory serves, I first became concerned about polling earlier this year as I watched the Democratic battle for the presidential nomination. There were so many polls in the field all the time, I figured it would be hard to live in, say, New Hampshire, and not
get polled once or twice a day.
And, with the two parties' conventions over, it's getting worse. Time was, Gallup would do a poll, and that was about it. But now you have a new poll (or two or three) released every day, and with sometimes-conflicting results.
Just this past week we've seen polls on this presidential race that show everything from an eleven-point Bush lead
to a one-point Bush lead
in between. Couple that with confusing and conflicting internals (sometimes the pollsters push leaners, sometimes they don't; Gallup has an unbelievable difference between registered voters and likely voters
). Sprinkle in some sampling error--like how pollsters miss cell phone users
and people who screen with caller ID. Toss in focus groups
and you have a morass of data that, in the end, may be useless.
Why is that? These are all national
polls, and, as much as we may hate it
, elections are decided on a state-by-state basis. Plus these national polls usually don't include Michael Badnarik
and David Cobb
, even though they will be on far more state ballots than Ralph Nader
, who is
included in the polls.
So, what say you? Would it be better to leave the polling to just once--election day--and just one method--the ballot box? Or do you like being buried under this mountain of data that may or may not accurately reflect the state of the race? What is this polling good for, anyway? Allez debate, mes amis.
Jay Bullock, Iron Blogger Democrat