Dear Marilyn vos Savant:
You’re as smart as humans can be.
You respond to questions with logic and wit
Finding answers that others can’t see.
But you have no better answer than the rest of us folks,
To the most critical question I know:
Do we personally live on after bodily death,
Or is death the end of the show?
Or ... maybe you do and you just haven’t said.
Crank those brain cells for all that they’re worth!
What’s your best guess, the odds, if you will,
Of surviving our tenure on earth?
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Superstitious Spam
In primitive times, people lived in superstitious fear of malevolent spirits and followed strange rituals and shamanistic commands to keep evil events from befalling them and propitiated the gods in the hope of obtaining mysterious favors of good luck.
Today, people cringe when they open an email that commands them to forward it to several people within an hour to gain good luck and warns that horrible things will happen to them if they fail to do so.
Come on people!! Have we made no progress? No one has ever died or suffered bad fortune because they failed to forward an email. And no one has hit a jackpot or obtained unexpected awesome sex because they did.
When you receive an email such as this:
_____________
This email has been around the world 22 times.
Don’t break the chain or horrible events will befall you.
Take Katie Robinson She received this e-mail and being the believer that she was, she sent it to a few of her friends, but didn't have enough e-mail addresses to send out the full 10 that you must. Three days later, Katie went to a masquerade ball. Later that night when she left to get to her car, she was killed in that spot by a hit-and-run drunk driver.
You must send this on in 3 hours after reading the letter to 10 other people. If you do this, you will receive unbelievably good luck in love. The person that you are most attracted to will soon return your affection. If you do not, bad luck will rear its ugly head at you.
THIS IS NOT A JOKE! You have read the warnings, seen the cases, and the consequences. You MUST send this on or face dreadfully bad luck.
_____________
JUST SAY NO!! Be brave of heart! Do not cringe. Do not "hedge your bets". Do not fear that evil will befall you if you don’t forward it. Do not believe that wonderful things will happen to you if you do. Do not subject your friends to having to cringe in fear and forward it ever onward in a downward spiraling Ponzi scheme of superstitious spam. Take the pledge: "I will not forward any email that threatens bad luck if I don’t."
If the poem, story or anecdote contained in the email is good ... people will forward it without threats. If its not ... then it doesn’t deserve to be forwarded. If it really is worthwhile, and you really would like to forward it, but it contains threats ... CUT that part of the email before you forward it, so that the threats are gone and you don’t subject your friends to them.
Let’s try to act as though we who live in the internet age are a little more enlightened than a bunch of paleolithic cave dwellers sitting around a fire staring in fear at the messages the fire gods are conveying.
Today, people cringe when they open an email that commands them to forward it to several people within an hour to gain good luck and warns that horrible things will happen to them if they fail to do so.
Come on people!! Have we made no progress? No one has ever died or suffered bad fortune because they failed to forward an email. And no one has hit a jackpot or obtained unexpected awesome sex because they did.
When you receive an email such as this:
_____________
This email has been around the world 22 times.
Don’t break the chain or horrible events will befall you.
Take Katie Robinson She received this e-mail and being the believer that she was, she sent it to a few of her friends, but didn't have enough e-mail addresses to send out the full 10 that you must. Three days later, Katie went to a masquerade ball. Later that night when she left to get to her car, she was killed in that spot by a hit-and-run drunk driver.
You must send this on in 3 hours after reading the letter to 10 other people. If you do this, you will receive unbelievably good luck in love. The person that you are most attracted to will soon return your affection. If you do not, bad luck will rear its ugly head at you.
THIS IS NOT A JOKE! You have read the warnings, seen the cases, and the consequences. You MUST send this on or face dreadfully bad luck.
_____________
JUST SAY NO!! Be brave of heart! Do not cringe. Do not "hedge your bets". Do not fear that evil will befall you if you don’t forward it. Do not believe that wonderful things will happen to you if you do. Do not subject your friends to having to cringe in fear and forward it ever onward in a downward spiraling Ponzi scheme of superstitious spam. Take the pledge: "I will not forward any email that threatens bad luck if I don’t."
If the poem, story or anecdote contained in the email is good ... people will forward it without threats. If its not ... then it doesn’t deserve to be forwarded. If it really is worthwhile, and you really would like to forward it, but it contains threats ... CUT that part of the email before you forward it, so that the threats are gone and you don’t subject your friends to them.
Let’s try to act as though we who live in the internet age are a little more enlightened than a bunch of paleolithic cave dwellers sitting around a fire staring in fear at the messages the fire gods are conveying.
Friday, November 26, 2004
A Monograph on the Golden Rule
A Brief Inquiry into the Logical Implications of the Golden Rule
(Or: Do we really want people to do unto us as they would have us do unto them?)
The Golden Rule is one of the oldest and best known attempts to reduce all moral and ethical issues to a single, simple statement of moral imperative. As with many heuristic shorthands, it is surprisingly successful at resolving the majority of situations to which it is applied. However, it needs to be seen for the rough "rule of thumb" that it is, rather than accepting it as a moral law of universal applicability.
Although the Golden Rule "feels good", if it is to be used as a rule of action, it should be examined logically. In order to determine how any logical rule has been derived, one must observe the premises upon which it is based. As will be demonstrated by example, below, the Golden Rule is dependent on two premises in particular that are either far from universal, or are simply untrue:
1) that everyone wishes to be treated the same as everyone else; and
2) that everyone wishes to be treated identically by everyone else.
Neither are postulates which will withstand rigorous investigation.
As with most simplifications of extremely complex subjects, the Golden Rule works best when applied to simple situations. Do we want to be treated politely? Then we should, as the Golden Rule says, treat others politely. Do we wish that people would not steal from us? Then we should not steal from others.
However, morality and ethics are among the most complex fields of human behavior. Universal or dogmatic application of this simple "rule" to all human interactions is not an acceptable substitute for conscious inquiry as to the best moral course of action in any given situation. Such can be demonstrated by observing the application of the Golden Rule to situations where such application results in unacceptable ethical actions.
1) Don’t Do Unto Me what you want everyone to Do Unto You!
The most glib and glaring example of the failure of the Golden Rule is the case of masochists; which is also the obvious example of the failure of the postulate that everyone wishes to be treated the same as everyone else. Most people do not like being spanked; either physically or emotionally. However, some people do. If such people were to do unto others as they would have others do unto them, then there would be a whole lot of unwelcome spanking going on. This is hardly the result that a universal rule of moral behavior should mandate.
Masochism is an easy target. It may be argued that masochists are psychologically disturbed and that the Golden Rule wasn’t meant to apply to them. Such a limitation of its application, however, takes a bigger bite out of the Rule, and its simplicity, than may be apparent. Restated to account for this exception, the Rule would be "People who are not psychologically disturbed should do unto others as they would have others do unto them".
This formulation opens a Pandora’s Box: how do we define who is psychologically disturbed? And who makes the decision? I’m sure many masochists would not agree that they are; maintaining rather that masochism is a "lifestyle choice". And if we define "the psychologically disturbed" broadly enough to save the Rule we may end up with a moral rule that applies only to those who don’t need a rule to behave appropriately.
Nor is masochism the only challenge to the universality of the Rule or to the postulate that everyone wishes to be treated the same as everyone else.
Let’s look at a less sensational example: huggers. Some people, who are not generally considered to be psychologically disturbed, seem to love to hug and to be hugged. Others, who also are not generally considered to be psychologically disturbed, prefer more personal space and do not enjoy being squeezed, for instance, by a large woman reeking of perfume with whom they are barely acquainted. But if one applies the Golden Rule to a hugger at a social function ... since the hugger would very much like to have others, even near strangers, hug her ... the Rule directs her to embrace everyone in sight (and to invade the space of non-huggers and make them uncomfortable) ... whether they want it or not.
There are myriad other examples: naturists may wish others would display their bodies in the naturists’ presence ... so if they follow the Rule, it would be okay, indeed mandated, that the naturists wander around naked regardless of who they offend. Communalists may believe it perfectly fine for others to borrow their possessions without permission, thus giving them the right, even the duty, under the Rule to similarly borrow from others. Cigarette smokers may wish and prefer that others would smoke around them; ergo the Rule says they should light up in the presence of others – even those who do not want them to do so.
The point of the examples is to demonstrate the flaws in the inherent premise of the Rule that everyone wishes to be treated the same as everyone else; ie: that the "you" of the Rule and the "others" whom "you" do unto, each wish to have the same things done unto them. The premise must fail, and with it the universality of the Golden Rule.
2) Don’t Do Unto Me just because you would like me to Do Unto You!
The other primary premise failure of the Rule is that everyone wishes to be treated identically by everyone else. Indeed, this premise is almost universally false.
How we wish to be treated by a dear friend or lover is very different than how we may wish to be treated by a stranger or an enemy. Yet the Rule makes no allowance for any differences. So long as our lovers and enemies are clearly defined and each of us sees the other in the same perspective, the Rule may work well enough, and the failure of this premise is not obvious. For instance, we may want our lover to greet us with a kiss. Presumably, there would not usually be an obvious ethical glitch if we followed the Rule and therefore greeted our lover with a kiss. (Although depending on potentially differing attitudes towards public displays of affection, this could still run afoul of premise no. 1, above. See, eg: huggers.)
The more obvious failure of the premise, and the Rule, is when we do not share the same perspective on our relationship with the others we are to do unto. The following example will illustrate.
If Jim is very interested in and desirous of Mary, the Golden Rule may allow, even mandate, that he approach her, touch her and act in other ways towards her which she finds distasteful and disturbing; perhaps even repulsive. Yet Jim would be simply doing unto her what he would have her do unto him. Indeed, with the Rule as his guide, Jim may honestly take actions which would violate all accepted moral norms of behavior.
Mary may appreciate exactly those actions from Ben, whom she desires, even though those same acts from Jim repulse her.
Because we do not wish to be treated identically by everyone, and, indeed, want some "others" to do unto us as we very much would not want other "others" to do, the Rule’s universality fails.
Nor does the example need to be so dramatic. Most people have a large range of how they would like to be treated ... depending upon who is doing the treating. In order for the formulation of the Golden Rule to be sensible, each such desire would have to be identically reflected by each "other". In other words, it only works if the treatment that you wish to receive from each individual with whom you interact is exactly the same as the treatment that individual wishes to receive from you. And vice versa.
Since the odds of such perfect mirroring are zilch, the Rule fails in all but the most simplistic of circumstances.
Given the significant flaws in the two essential premises of the Rule which render it suspect at best as a guide for moral behavior, the question arises as to whether there is, perhaps, a "better" rule. Perhaps rather than an "activist" mandate that instructs us to do unto others, we would be better off morally and ethically with a rule that proscribed such doing.
I submit for consideration the following. Call it the Platinum Rule.
"Don’t do unto others unless you know that they want you to so do."
It might not make everyone actively polite. But it would keep people from stealing or being actively rude at least as well as the Golden Rule. And it would keep masochists or would-be lovers or huggers from doing unto us what we’d really rather not have done.
(Or: Do we really want people to do unto us as they would have us do unto them?)
The Golden Rule is one of the oldest and best known attempts to reduce all moral and ethical issues to a single, simple statement of moral imperative. As with many heuristic shorthands, it is surprisingly successful at resolving the majority of situations to which it is applied. However, it needs to be seen for the rough "rule of thumb" that it is, rather than accepting it as a moral law of universal applicability.
Although the Golden Rule "feels good", if it is to be used as a rule of action, it should be examined logically. In order to determine how any logical rule has been derived, one must observe the premises upon which it is based. As will be demonstrated by example, below, the Golden Rule is dependent on two premises in particular that are either far from universal, or are simply untrue:
1) that everyone wishes to be treated the same as everyone else; and
2) that everyone wishes to be treated identically by everyone else.
Neither are postulates which will withstand rigorous investigation.
As with most simplifications of extremely complex subjects, the Golden Rule works best when applied to simple situations. Do we want to be treated politely? Then we should, as the Golden Rule says, treat others politely. Do we wish that people would not steal from us? Then we should not steal from others.
However, morality and ethics are among the most complex fields of human behavior. Universal or dogmatic application of this simple "rule" to all human interactions is not an acceptable substitute for conscious inquiry as to the best moral course of action in any given situation. Such can be demonstrated by observing the application of the Golden Rule to situations where such application results in unacceptable ethical actions.
1) Don’t Do Unto Me what you want everyone to Do Unto You!
The most glib and glaring example of the failure of the Golden Rule is the case of masochists; which is also the obvious example of the failure of the postulate that everyone wishes to be treated the same as everyone else. Most people do not like being spanked; either physically or emotionally. However, some people do. If such people were to do unto others as they would have others do unto them, then there would be a whole lot of unwelcome spanking going on. This is hardly the result that a universal rule of moral behavior should mandate.
Masochism is an easy target. It may be argued that masochists are psychologically disturbed and that the Golden Rule wasn’t meant to apply to them. Such a limitation of its application, however, takes a bigger bite out of the Rule, and its simplicity, than may be apparent. Restated to account for this exception, the Rule would be "People who are not psychologically disturbed should do unto others as they would have others do unto them".
This formulation opens a Pandora’s Box: how do we define who is psychologically disturbed? And who makes the decision? I’m sure many masochists would not agree that they are; maintaining rather that masochism is a "lifestyle choice". And if we define "the psychologically disturbed" broadly enough to save the Rule we may end up with a moral rule that applies only to those who don’t need a rule to behave appropriately.
Nor is masochism the only challenge to the universality of the Rule or to the postulate that everyone wishes to be treated the same as everyone else.
Let’s look at a less sensational example: huggers. Some people, who are not generally considered to be psychologically disturbed, seem to love to hug and to be hugged. Others, who also are not generally considered to be psychologically disturbed, prefer more personal space and do not enjoy being squeezed, for instance, by a large woman reeking of perfume with whom they are barely acquainted. But if one applies the Golden Rule to a hugger at a social function ... since the hugger would very much like to have others, even near strangers, hug her ... the Rule directs her to embrace everyone in sight (and to invade the space of non-huggers and make them uncomfortable) ... whether they want it or not.
There are myriad other examples: naturists may wish others would display their bodies in the naturists’ presence ... so if they follow the Rule, it would be okay, indeed mandated, that the naturists wander around naked regardless of who they offend. Communalists may believe it perfectly fine for others to borrow their possessions without permission, thus giving them the right, even the duty, under the Rule to similarly borrow from others. Cigarette smokers may wish and prefer that others would smoke around them; ergo the Rule says they should light up in the presence of others – even those who do not want them to do so.
The point of the examples is to demonstrate the flaws in the inherent premise of the Rule that everyone wishes to be treated the same as everyone else; ie: that the "you" of the Rule and the "others" whom "you" do unto, each wish to have the same things done unto them. The premise must fail, and with it the universality of the Golden Rule.
2) Don’t Do Unto Me just because you would like me to Do Unto You!
The other primary premise failure of the Rule is that everyone wishes to be treated identically by everyone else. Indeed, this premise is almost universally false.
How we wish to be treated by a dear friend or lover is very different than how we may wish to be treated by a stranger or an enemy. Yet the Rule makes no allowance for any differences. So long as our lovers and enemies are clearly defined and each of us sees the other in the same perspective, the Rule may work well enough, and the failure of this premise is not obvious. For instance, we may want our lover to greet us with a kiss. Presumably, there would not usually be an obvious ethical glitch if we followed the Rule and therefore greeted our lover with a kiss. (Although depending on potentially differing attitudes towards public displays of affection, this could still run afoul of premise no. 1, above. See, eg: huggers.)
The more obvious failure of the premise, and the Rule, is when we do not share the same perspective on our relationship with the others we are to do unto. The following example will illustrate.
If Jim is very interested in and desirous of Mary, the Golden Rule may allow, even mandate, that he approach her, touch her and act in other ways towards her which she finds distasteful and disturbing; perhaps even repulsive. Yet Jim would be simply doing unto her what he would have her do unto him. Indeed, with the Rule as his guide, Jim may honestly take actions which would violate all accepted moral norms of behavior.
Mary may appreciate exactly those actions from Ben, whom she desires, even though those same acts from Jim repulse her.
Because we do not wish to be treated identically by everyone, and, indeed, want some "others" to do unto us as we very much would not want other "others" to do, the Rule’s universality fails.
Nor does the example need to be so dramatic. Most people have a large range of how they would like to be treated ... depending upon who is doing the treating. In order for the formulation of the Golden Rule to be sensible, each such desire would have to be identically reflected by each "other". In other words, it only works if the treatment that you wish to receive from each individual with whom you interact is exactly the same as the treatment that individual wishes to receive from you. And vice versa.
Since the odds of such perfect mirroring are zilch, the Rule fails in all but the most simplistic of circumstances.
Given the significant flaws in the two essential premises of the Rule which render it suspect at best as a guide for moral behavior, the question arises as to whether there is, perhaps, a "better" rule. Perhaps rather than an "activist" mandate that instructs us to do unto others, we would be better off morally and ethically with a rule that proscribed such doing.
I submit for consideration the following. Call it the Platinum Rule.
"Don’t do unto others unless you know that they want you to so do."
It might not make everyone actively polite. But it would keep people from stealing or being actively rude at least as well as the Golden Rule. And it would keep masochists or would-be lovers or huggers from doing unto us what we’d really rather not have done.
Saturday, November 13, 2004
Blogging in Obscurity
It is somewhat fascinating writing to no one.
I haven’t bothered with a hit counter ... but it seems unlikely that many people have stumbled on this blog. (Although someone wandering through did leave one comment!) But it’s not as though Google is going to run my posts at the top of its search engine. I don’t have any links. And I haven’t told anyone that I know that I even have a blog. I mentioned a post that I’d written in an email to famous personage, but I doubt that he bothered to stop by :-) Other than that ... I have essentially avoided any mention of this site.
Sounds of silence. If words appear on a blog, but no one reads them ... did they make any noise?
And yet ... this comforting cloak of invisibility is relaxing. But is there a point? Why not just keep a private journal rather than writing to a blog that no one reads? I don’t know. Kind of a strange psychology. Perhaps I’m just waiting to be discovered. Or not. But it is fun and oddly rewarding.
Mostly I think I need to get comfortable in the medium before I want a lot of people here anyway. And then, perhaps, I shall decide what to do with this blog.
I haven’t bothered with a hit counter ... but it seems unlikely that many people have stumbled on this blog. (Although someone wandering through did leave one comment!) But it’s not as though Google is going to run my posts at the top of its search engine. I don’t have any links. And I haven’t told anyone that I know that I even have a blog. I mentioned a post that I’d written in an email to famous personage, but I doubt that he bothered to stop by :-) Other than that ... I have essentially avoided any mention of this site.
Sounds of silence. If words appear on a blog, but no one reads them ... did they make any noise?
And yet ... this comforting cloak of invisibility is relaxing. But is there a point? Why not just keep a private journal rather than writing to a blog that no one reads? I don’t know. Kind of a strange psychology. Perhaps I’m just waiting to be discovered. Or not. But it is fun and oddly rewarding.
Mostly I think I need to get comfortable in the medium before I want a lot of people here anyway. And then, perhaps, I shall decide what to do with this blog.
Friday, November 12, 2004
Why Did the Chicken ... ?
Today is just for fun. I received a forward of spoof "famous people's answers" to the question of why the chicken crossed the road. I sent it on and a correspondent wrote back that they were funny, but that there weren't many women represented. So ... to remedy that ... I exercise my poetic license and submit the following:
Diane Feinstein:
Look, in California, especially San Francisco, we don't care which side of the road the chicken wants to walk on and people should just stop analyzing why the poor hen wants to cross over and just be accepting of it.
Hilary Clinton:
Bill promised me that he didn't cross the road with that chicken and I believed him. I am deeply hurt.
Margaret Thatcher:
Because the chicken has a will of iron and shall meet and cross any obstacle necessary for the good of its people ... or, uh, chickens.
Madonna:
Yum! I think it is great. I think all chickens ought to try crossing the road at least once. I've done it. Be like me and Britney!
Britney Spears:
What she says!
Janet Jackson:
It didn't mean to! It was an accident. There was a fencing malfunction and it just sort of popped out onto the road.
Diane Feinstein:
Look, in California, especially San Francisco, we don't care which side of the road the chicken wants to walk on and people should just stop analyzing why the poor hen wants to cross over and just be accepting of it.
Hilary Clinton:
Bill promised me that he didn't cross the road with that chicken and I believed him. I am deeply hurt.
Margaret Thatcher:
Because the chicken has a will of iron and shall meet and cross any obstacle necessary for the good of its people ... or, uh, chickens.
Madonna:
Yum! I think it is great. I think all chickens ought to try crossing the road at least once. I've done it. Be like me and Britney!
Britney Spears:
What she says!
Janet Jackson:
It didn't mean to! It was an accident. There was a fencing malfunction and it just sort of popped out onto the road.
Monday, November 08, 2004
Preemptive Killing
Now that the election is over and Bush claims a "mandate" for his actions ... we can assume that there will be no course reversals. This means that we are firmly charted on a misguided and immoral course.
Realize that I say this as a kid who campaigned for Goldwater and who believes that Reagan belongs on Mt. Rushmore.
The Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush doctrine of preemptive killing is simply wrong. It is wrong by any moral, ethical or civilized standard. Especially in this country we absolutely do not accept nor ever endorse any doctrine or practice of preemptive killing. There is nothing but the slipperiest of slopes between preemptively taking out Saddam and his family and loyalists (and inconveniently located innocent countrymen) and preemptively taking out a mafia or gang leader or other who "probably deserves it" or who was perhaps thinking about doing something bad.
I have no argument with our war with the Taliban or Osama. That was not preemptive. If we are attacked, we have every moral right to fight back. But as bad a man as Saddam may have been ... he did not attack the twin towers and he did not attack us. I fear the unavoidable escalation of our new involvement in the Middle East.
This will not sit well in history. This period may be known as the beginning of the Second Millennium Crusades. I hope our ancestors have the evolved morality to be disgusted with us for allowing it to happen.
Realize that I say this as a kid who campaigned for Goldwater and who believes that Reagan belongs on Mt. Rushmore.
The Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush doctrine of preemptive killing is simply wrong. It is wrong by any moral, ethical or civilized standard. Especially in this country we absolutely do not accept nor ever endorse any doctrine or practice of preemptive killing. There is nothing but the slipperiest of slopes between preemptively taking out Saddam and his family and loyalists (and inconveniently located innocent countrymen) and preemptively taking out a mafia or gang leader or other who "probably deserves it" or who was perhaps thinking about doing something bad.
I have no argument with our war with the Taliban or Osama. That was not preemptive. If we are attacked, we have every moral right to fight back. But as bad a man as Saddam may have been ... he did not attack the twin towers and he did not attack us. I fear the unavoidable escalation of our new involvement in the Middle East.
This will not sit well in history. This period may be known as the beginning of the Second Millennium Crusades. I hope our ancestors have the evolved morality to be disgusted with us for allowing it to happen.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
I Beat the Pollsters!
Well ... I nailed that one. Actually, there were simply no surprises for me this election. I am again bemused by all the sound and fury in the last few weeks by professionals, and others, who simply should have known better. The "experts" are all surprised? All they need to do is listen to me! :-) I’m not saying that I like being right on this ... just that with a little objectivity, the reality of the situation wasn’t hard to decipher.
On my October 22 post, "Pollsters Getting Kerry’d Away", below, I claimed that this election people were lying to pollsters and that once in the voting booth, a lot of people in the "Kerry column" according to the pollsters would grit their teeth and vote for Bush.
I said "If I’m right ... not only will the pre-election polls be wrong ... but the 'exit interview' polls will be as well". That prediction bore out as well. See for example, today’s Fox News article "Egg on Face of Exit Pollsters". A tidbit quote from the article: "'Either the exit polls are completely wrong or George Bush loses,' FOX News analyst Susan Estrich said."
If they had only read my blog, they would have known better! :-)
On my October 22 post, "Pollsters Getting Kerry’d Away", below, I claimed that this election people were lying to pollsters and that once in the voting booth, a lot of people in the "Kerry column" according to the pollsters would grit their teeth and vote for Bush.
I said "If I’m right ... not only will the pre-election polls be wrong ... but the 'exit interview' polls will be as well". That prediction bore out as well. See for example, today’s Fox News article "Egg on Face of Exit Pollsters". A tidbit quote from the article: "'Either the exit polls are completely wrong or George Bush loses,' FOX News analyst Susan Estrich said."
If they had only read my blog, they would have known better! :-)
Friday, October 22, 2004
Electronic Voting
It's a brave new world out there. To eliminate hanging chads and other issues, there are a lot of new electronic voting systems in the works. Computers do everything from receiving the initial input (the "vote") to transmitting it to the central hub to the tabulating. HAL rules. I offer the following for fun and thought:
Electronic elections
With software protections
Allow hacker "corrections"
Of voters' selections!
Have a great election everyone! :-)
Electronic elections
With software protections
Allow hacker "corrections"
Of voters' selections!
Have a great election everyone! :-)
Pollsters Getting Kerry'd Away
The pulse-takers have decided that Kerry would win the electoral vote if the election was held today. See eg: Slate. They might be right. But if they are, it is a matter of luck more than science. More than at any time in the past 50 years the surveys are all skewed in unknowable directions and their "samples" are no longer representative.
Pollsters never get a fair sample of the "likely to vote" 18 to 30 year olds because there is such a high percentage of them that have no phone except a cell phone. Indeed, the "cell phone only" crowd is completely absent from all telephone poll results. That age group is a lot more conservative than it used to be. But are they really most likely to be Bush voters or Kerry voters? No one knows and no one can tell you because no one can ask them.
Telephone pollsters usually don’t talk to people with unlisted numbers. Those folks are probably both more conservative and more likely to vote than the general population.
Telephone pollsters often don’t get to talk to people with caller ID because people often choose not to pick up if it is an unknown phone number or obviously a pollster. Same situation with people who screen calls with answering machines. Folks with caller ID or who use answering machines to screen calls are probably also more conservative and likely to vote.
The pollsters generally don’t successfully call people at work, so they only reach people who are either home during the day or who get home in good time in the evenings or are hanging around at home on the weekends. In other words, the unemployed or underemployed ... a group that tends to be more liberal.
And polls based on the general population skew left because a higher percentage of Republicans actually vote than do Democrats.
This isn’t earthshattering news. Not many people talk about it, but it is widely understood that polling is a lot less accurate than it used to be.
In this election, though, there is another reason for poll results to be suspect. I believe that more than in any election over the past many years ... a lot of people are lying about for whom they will cast their vote.
They lie to their friends, to their family and to pollsters. To a lesser degree, perhaps, but yet to some very real extent, I believe many people are still lying to themselves as well.
A lot of people simply can’t stomach the idea of re-electing Bush. There is a lot of fury at him out there. And people that are mad will tell pollsters or whoever else that will listen, that they are going to vote to fire him. Which means that they go down in the "Kerry" column in the polls. But once they are within the sanctity of the voting booth, I believe that a substantial percentage of these folks are going to grit their teeth and vote for Bush.
If I’m right ... not only will the pre-election polls be wrong ... but the "exit interview" polls will be as well. It could be interesting! :-)
Pollsters never get a fair sample of the "likely to vote" 18 to 30 year olds because there is such a high percentage of them that have no phone except a cell phone. Indeed, the "cell phone only" crowd is completely absent from all telephone poll results. That age group is a lot more conservative than it used to be. But are they really most likely to be Bush voters or Kerry voters? No one knows and no one can tell you because no one can ask them.
Telephone pollsters usually don’t talk to people with unlisted numbers. Those folks are probably both more conservative and more likely to vote than the general population.
Telephone pollsters often don’t get to talk to people with caller ID because people often choose not to pick up if it is an unknown phone number or obviously a pollster. Same situation with people who screen calls with answering machines. Folks with caller ID or who use answering machines to screen calls are probably also more conservative and likely to vote.
The pollsters generally don’t successfully call people at work, so they only reach people who are either home during the day or who get home in good time in the evenings or are hanging around at home on the weekends. In other words, the unemployed or underemployed ... a group that tends to be more liberal.
And polls based on the general population skew left because a higher percentage of Republicans actually vote than do Democrats.
This isn’t earthshattering news. Not many people talk about it, but it is widely understood that polling is a lot less accurate than it used to be.
In this election, though, there is another reason for poll results to be suspect. I believe that more than in any election over the past many years ... a lot of people are lying about for whom they will cast their vote.
They lie to their friends, to their family and to pollsters. To a lesser degree, perhaps, but yet to some very real extent, I believe many people are still lying to themselves as well.
A lot of people simply can’t stomach the idea of re-electing Bush. There is a lot of fury at him out there. And people that are mad will tell pollsters or whoever else that will listen, that they are going to vote to fire him. Which means that they go down in the "Kerry" column in the polls. But once they are within the sanctity of the voting booth, I believe that a substantial percentage of these folks are going to grit their teeth and vote for Bush.
If I’m right ... not only will the pre-election polls be wrong ... but the "exit interview" polls will be as well. It could be interesting! :-)
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Headlines: Al-Zarqawi Backs Bush!
It has got to be Bush’s greatest political coup. Al-Zarqawi, the best known terrorist in Iraq, has announced his allegiance to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.
This is the best possible political endorsement of Bush’s claim that the war in Iraq is part of the war against al-Qaida and Osama. Indeed, Bush has been attempting to connect these dots for many months, but most independent experts disagreed claiming that Al-Zarqawi and bin Laden were more rivals than allies.
At the debates, Kerry tried to convince the world that the war in Iraq was essentially a distraction from the war on terror and on al-Qaida. Bush insisted that it was, essentially, the same conflict. This may, indeed, be the issue upon which the presidential election is determined.
Now, two weeks before the election, Al-Zarqawi backs Bush’s claim. That’s political dynamite, roughly equivalent to suddenly discovering a huge hidden stash of WMD in downtown Baghdad. Al-Z may have just determined the election of a US President.
How did Bush do it? How did he get Al-Zarqawi’s endorsement? It is the great paranoid fantasy. What back-room deal did the Bush team manage to consummate the ultimate political campaign coup? These Bush operatives are good!
Only the truly paranoid would believe there is any substance to such malarkey of course. But about now I would expect that John Kerry is nearly ready to join the ranks of the truly paranoid.
This is the best possible political endorsement of Bush’s claim that the war in Iraq is part of the war against al-Qaida and Osama. Indeed, Bush has been attempting to connect these dots for many months, but most independent experts disagreed claiming that Al-Zarqawi and bin Laden were more rivals than allies.
At the debates, Kerry tried to convince the world that the war in Iraq was essentially a distraction from the war on terror and on al-Qaida. Bush insisted that it was, essentially, the same conflict. This may, indeed, be the issue upon which the presidential election is determined.
Now, two weeks before the election, Al-Zarqawi backs Bush’s claim. That’s political dynamite, roughly equivalent to suddenly discovering a huge hidden stash of WMD in downtown Baghdad. Al-Z may have just determined the election of a US President.
How did Bush do it? How did he get Al-Zarqawi’s endorsement? It is the great paranoid fantasy. What back-room deal did the Bush team manage to consummate the ultimate political campaign coup? These Bush operatives are good!
Only the truly paranoid would believe there is any substance to such malarkey of course. But about now I would expect that John Kerry is nearly ready to join the ranks of the truly paranoid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
