inahandbasket

seriously.
I work with the technologically impaired every day, but it's the common sense impaired who I really dispair for.

From:

You gots to ride the wave.

From:

let 'em all rot!

From:

What that says to me is that the survey was designed to make people look stupid.

A survey will pretty much always come up with the results that the creator wants it to. Then you can reinforce that by asking the right group of people.

From:

true, you can always tailor a survey to give you the answers you want.
However....
This was a study done by The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. These guys are good, and historically have been non-biased. I trust them to have done it fairly even-handedly. I'd be surprised if the 'true' number were that high, but I have do doubt that it's over 50%

From:

Could be.

Unless I see the questions and list of areas where people were asked questions though, I just don't put any stock in survey at all.

From:

Oh, and they nevereverever release the actual questions.

Well, at least not usually.

From:

The questions are rarely included by the press in their discussions of the results, but results published in professional journals and their ilk are always published with questions. Heck, the questions behind the Sports Illustrated "Gays in Sports" poll were available through a simple google search.

From:

Stupid liberal media trying to brainwash America!

From:

*rolls eyes*

From:

Well, OK. They might not be trying to brainwash America.

But they are mostly stupid and liberal!

Except Fox. They're stupid and conservative.

From:

I'm not sure I see the connection. :\

Fact is, questions are usually released, as well as a brief about the nature of the subject group. It's just a way to demonstrate good research.

From:

I like to yell about the liberal media.

From:

I like debunking stuff. ^_^

From:

Stuff like the lies told by the liberal media?

From:

I'm an equal opportunity debunker.

From:

That's reassuring.

I dislike people who only want to debunk the other side.

From:

There's a great deal of "information" floating around that amounts to little more than opinion with a spin. It's one of the unfortunate consequences of having as much media as we do available. Both sides play the game to effect.

I googled the Annenberg study. The full results are here. I have not had a chance to give them more than a cursory review.

From:

We can agree on that.

I've just had enough of the surveys that prove that [making numbers up, like 74.6% of all statistics] "42% of American high school students can't find England on a map". Everyone involved knows that this is untrue, but when they report it, they never mention that people might lie on the test just for fun or that other factors might be involved.

From:

My personal favorites were conducted in the 70's and the numbers are still being kicked around as "God's Honest Truth" despite more recent studies that utterly disprove them.

From:

Yes, I love statistics.

According to the Brady Foundation for Gun Control (or whatever they're called now), X number of children are killed by guns every year. This number includes anyone below 21 years old, and it doesn't matter whther it is suicide, negligent discharge, gang violence, or the justified shooting of a gang member/drug dealer by the police.

According to the NRA, X is a much, much lower number. They consider a child to be anyone under 14 years old (and I don't rememeber the other specifics of what they count, but it was different).

I do tend to side with the NRA's stance on this, but I think that they are also trying to trick you.

From:

komos meet axess_denyd, axess_denyd meet komos.

Komos, this man loves to foment on LJ, feel free to get riled up. He doesn't just play the devil's advocate, he is one.
but he's usually serious.
I think.

*runs away for fear of snakes*

From:

COBRAS!!!

From:

Mmmm, advocate.

Oh yes, I'm always serious, but oft exagerrated. No one will pay attention to any reasonably moderate opinions, will they?

From:

within the next ten years moderate opinions will seem sufficiently radical to gain the public's attention unless a concerted effort is made by either side to better court the middle (better in terms of quality, I mean, the Democrats tried poorly last election).

In the mean time there are fourteen senators who certainly made their moderate voice heard recently. It brings pangs of hope to a discerning independent voter like me, though I wait for them to be quashed.

From:

If the democrats had picked anyone besides Kerry (and if Kerry had picked anyone besides Edwards) there's a chance that Bush might have not been in office.

You don't try to court both sides with someone who is utterly hated by one side.

In the mean time there are fourteen senators who certainly made their moderate voice heard recently.

What's this referring to? I've been missing the news.

Of course, the biggest fear in the mind of many Americans right now is President Hillary Clinton. I'ma go puke now.

From:

The fourteen senators refers to the seven Republicans and seven Democrats who issued their agreement between themselves putting the kibosh on the neuclear option and rescinding a number of filibusters. The seven Republicans who refused to vote for the neuclear option took away the Republican simple majority. The seven Democrats who issued the agreement take away the filibustering option, unless it is decided amongst the fourteen (or, more accurately, the seven Democrats) that it is extraordinary circumstances. The agreement between them isn't law and only has weight amongst the fourteen of them, but effectively set policy in the Senate for the remainder of the session of congress.

As for Kerry, he came a lot closer than I expected, but, yes, there were many better choices.

-Dan

From:

I'm not really lear on why they call it the nuclear option.

I mean, a filibuster is the thing that shuts down the entire government.

Maybe we can elect people who aren't a bunch of idiotic children?

From:

The term stems from the 1980's when there was a Democratically controlled congress, created by a Repiblican (Thurmond, IIRC). Of course, now that the Repiblicans pull it out, they want to reframe it.

I think that it alludes to neuclear arms in the case of Dulles-style Brinkmanship. As in, it's pulled out as a possibility to force comprimise. Never used, always threatened.

As for electing non-children, I think the problem lies less in our elected representatives and more in the unelected party leadership. Let's have the representatives return to representing their constituency, not their party.

Wishful thinking, I know.

-Dan

From:

wow, I'm impressed that I was able to misspell Republican the same way twice in two consecutive sentences!

From:

people aren't stupid

well, okay, they are, but the advertising industry is very smart... or at least very smart at exploiting the way people are stupid.

The fact of the matter is, if any of the travel sites advertised that they had the lowest price fares, they would legally have to have the lowest price fares. They don't. They use neurtal adjectives like best. The best fare might not be the lowest, but to most people it would be. So people think they're saying lowest and know enough to feel like they're protected by the very law the ads are skirting.

The carny in me thinks this is great. You don't have to lie to get people thinking something that isn't true. In fact, truth is the huckster's best friend.

-Dan

From: