I went out to dinner last night and Oda Mae outted me: now everyone knows I'm a blogger. I had my own version of this conversation, and we all had an interesting discussion about current events and the news.

I came home after 2300 and hit the button on the answering machine: "Hi. I know you're at dinner, but I was just upset. Those son of a bitches just beheaded that Paul Johnson who was in Saudi Arabia." Even though I was tired enough to fall asleep in the hallway, I got on the computer. I looked at the pictures. And I started thinking before I went to bed.

Besides studying the French Revolution, I had never really given beheading much thought. And now in the past month I've learned of three beheadings. Nick Berg. Sieng Padkaew. Paul Johnson. I never in my life thought I'd see someone's head being held up for the camera, or someone's head sitting in the small of his back. That's footage for Kill Bill, not reality.

But that's really happening in the world. I think we do need to face the music. We need to be honest with ourselves about how our enemy plans to win this war, and we need to start telling it like it is.

Seppo wrote Thursday about war propaganda (Thanks, Bunker) and its role. By ignoring the growing threat that these Islamists pose, by turning a blind eye to the videos and photos they themselves take of their murders, I too fear we might ultimately lose the War on Terror. Or not have the fortitude to see it through. As Seppo said: "What is it that the networks believe we've lost in 60 years? What values and strengths held by my grandfather do I not have? And who in the hell gave them the right to make that judgement for me?"

I read Nick Schultz' article on Saddam's torture tapes this morning. I have a stomach of steel for these things, but I gasped out in fright as I read the descriptions of torture. I covered my eyes and cringed, and that was just reading the description. Then came the ending that made me take notice:

I must confess that in recent weeks I had begun to harbor some doubts about a war I had supported. And I was not the only war supporter to begin second-guessing recently. We doubting Thomases had been perhaps most perplexed at President Bush, steadfast in the wake of mounting Coalition deaths, the Abu Ghraib scandal, and other bad news. Did this man not see what we were seeing?

There is no doubt that he had. But President Bush — along with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has also remained resolute despite withering and unfair criticism at home — had also seen things that we had not. Seeing this footage helps one better understand the mindset of President Bush and of his stalwart British ally and explains their resolve in the face of tremendous difficulties and setbacks. Seeing these films and ones like them out there, will, I believe, make any fence sitter shed his doubts about the appropriateness of destroying Saddam's regime. If anything, they make one wonder, almost shamefully, how and why it took the civilized world — or at least part of that world — as long as it did to rise up against it.

The enemy makes videos of beheadings to rally terrorists and feed their bloodlust. I think we need to see these images -- face this reality -- so that we don't lose sight of how our enemies plan to win.

And then we need to make damn sure they don't succeed.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:45 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 617 words, total size 4 kb.

An interesting letter from a Major in the Marine Corps Reserve:

The analogy is simple. For years, you have watched the same large, violent man come home every night, and you have listened to his yelling and the crying and the screams of children and the noise of breaking glass, and you have always known that he was beating his wife and his children. Everyone on the block has known it. You ask, cajole, threaten and beg him to stop, on behalf of the rest of the neighborhood. Nothing works. After listening to it for 13 years, you finally gather up the biggest, meanest guys you can find, you go over to his house, and you kick the door down. You punch him in the face and drag him away. The house is a mess, the family poor and abused — but now there is hope. You did the right thing.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:34 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

I just got to instant messenger with the husband's best friend! It's so good to hear from him. He thanked me for being his "surrogate wife"; I told him it's twice as fun to have two soldiers to take care of (I send him two letters per week and I'm constantly running errands for him around here). I really miss him too; he was a regular fixture at 1830 when The Simpsons comes on. I can't wait to have both of my boys back in the house, drinking Newcastle and laughing like they haven't seen each episode a hundred times.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:39 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

As I drove home tonight, this song's lyrics hit me

Pride can stand a thousand trials
The strong will never fall
But watching stars without you
My soul cries

Today my husband said that he worries about me. I find that ironic, considering his situation is so much more worrisome than mine. He said he worries I'm bored and lonely without him; I told him I manage to keep quite busy but that I can't wait for him to come home so I can take care of him again. I'm watching stars without him, and my soul does cry at times, even though I wish it wouldn't.

I'm so thankful that blogging has brought me comfort. I have no children or pets, so the house can seem awful big for just me and that houseplant (which I did cut, by the way, and it looks great). But I haven't felt too lonely thus far because I can always run to the computer and visit all of my new friends. I'm grateful for each and every one of you. She who sends me postcards. He who made me a CD. She who wants to be a Marine. He who offered to tape the new episodes of Family Guy for my husband. She who makes commenting blunders. He whose family calls me his "girlfriend". She who thought she wasn't allowed to read my blog without my permission. He who's happy his children want to move to the US. She who IMs with me each morning. He who said I look cute in the tank. And all the rest who simply email and comment to express their support. I'm so grateful to have each and every one of you standing beside me through this deployment.

It makes watching stars without him a little more bearable.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:09 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Proud to be one of them!

Posted by: Mike at June 17, 2004 09:37 PM (+K53a)

2 I see that I am not the only one who thinks you're cute in the tank picture. It's one of the highlights of my day. I'm glad to be one of your supporters, as well. Just wish there was more I could do for you.

Posted by: NightHawk at June 17, 2004 10:10 PM (4JAaH)

3 Sarah, this entry and the one above hit me hard. Graduation was 3 weeks ago, so all my friends but one are gone. I'm going to be moving out of this apartment soon, so I've started packing up Sgt. A's stuff, washing old uniforms, going through photos...having his stuff around at once comforts and magnifies the absence. But luckily, there are people in the blogosphere who are going through the same thing. Thanks again. PS--I've always loved that Des'ree song.

Posted by: Carla at June 17, 2004 11:38 PM (r5M6F)

4 Yeah, Nerdstar worries about me, too. She hates that I worry about her, but I told her it's my job to worry, it's her job to stay safe! I usually have my yahoo IM running waiting to see if Nerdstar gets computer access, IM me sometime - bethlyn327

Posted by: Beth at June 18, 2004 01:25 PM (9gagj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Journalists consider themselves impartial. I saw that in Under Orders, Under Fire when prompted to watch it by this Den Beste post. Deskmerc wonders just how far their impartiality extends, but I'm honestly starting to wonder just how they can consider themselves impartial when they only seem to be reporting on the bad news...

Some who stayed wished they hadn't. They told of savage scenes of decapitation, fingers chopped off one by one, tongues hacked out with a razor blade — all while victims shriek in pain and the thugs chant Saddam's praises.

Saddam's henchmen took the videos as newsreels to document their deeds in honor of their leader.

...

Saddam's torture videos may be too awful to show, but it's hard to explain the low media interest in the story of seven Iraqi men who had their right hands chopped off by Saddam's thugs — and then got new prosthetic arms and new hope in America.

They're eloquent, they're available, they're grateful for the U.S. liberation of Iraq. No one can better talk about Saddam's tortures — and no one is more eager to do so. Yet, as of yesterday, the New York Times had written 177 stories on Abu Ghraib — with over 40 on the front page. The self-proclaimed "paper of record" hadn't written a single story about those seven Iraqi men.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:07 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.

We four families in our townhouse paid a neighborhood kid to mow our yard last night. I realized later that he makes more money than I do. One of my students told me that the baggers at the commissary make more as well. Dang.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:52 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

I've received input from several people lately about the War in Iraq vs. the War on Terror. The common sentiment was that the War on Terror is good and necessary but that Iraq didn't figure into it. They said that we should have focused on areas of terrorism other than Iraq, such as Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or Iran. They believe that taking the war to Iraq was a waste of time and energy and had no real connection to the War on Terror.

I was reminded of their common idea when I read this post today, where David quotes Nelson Ascher:

There were many reasons to invade Iraq, from the WMDs that are being slowly found to SaddamÂ’s links to Al Qaeda, links about which what we know is already enough to be considered a casus belli. Obviously, with time weÂ’ll know more about both things. But the geo-strategic reasons were even more important: after all Iraq has borders with Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran, none of which could have been invaded as easily, quickly and legitimately. Besides, Iraq was a good place from were to scare other governments in the region, that is, the pour encourager les autres factor.

Yes, Iraq is strategic. It gets us a lot closer to other terror-supporting states, and a democracy in the middle of these other states will make a big difference. But there are many reasons for extending the War on Terror to Iraq. Let's not ever forget that part of the reason for invading Iraq was because Hussein had not done what he was supposed to do after the Gulf War, as QandO has laid out in detail in Justification: A Post-War Review. The fact that large quantities of WMDs have not been found (nevermind that we found sarin-filled IEDs or that the UN admits Hussein shipped weapons out on the eve of war) cannot possibly rewrite history enough to hide the fact that everyone thought Iraq had WMDs. Iraq seemed to be a bigger threat than perhaps she turned out to be, but that's hindsight we didn't have before.

Yes, I do think we need to continue to focus on Afghanistan, and we are: many of my students are already slated to head to Afghanistan at the end of the year. I do think that Iran and Syria are in the plans for the future, that is if President Bush is re-elected and continues to take the War on Terror seriously. Their uppance will come. As Instapundit said, "this is a marathon, not a sprint, and pacing is required."

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we went to war against Germany. They seem unrelated when you put it that way, right? Was WWII Also Unjustified? Military strategy is a complicated process, and this War on Terror will take years. Many people seem to think that they could do a better job of leading the troops and our government, but I am not one of those people. For all the mocking he endures, the President is not stupid. In no way do I think I'm smarter than he, or Rice or Rumsfeld; they know far more about the intricacies of the War on Terror than I ever will. I think it's a tad arrogant of these people who have voiced their opinions to me lately to think that they know better than our leaders which countries warrant our attention over others. Just because we read a few articles doesn't mean we are privy to everything our leaders know.

I have faith that our leaders have spent far more hours than I have studying our options, and I trust that this War will be fought on several fronts for years to come. Pacing is required.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:34 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 625 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Sarah, just a quick reminder, when Dec 7 happened and Roosevelt declared war on Japan on Dec 8, Germany by way of a pact with Japan DECLARED WAR ON THE U.S.!!!! Otherwise we would have had a damned hard time justifying interceding in the european theater. As for your comment that you don't think you're smarter than the president, I bet you got something better than the 1.67 GPA I have seen mentioned he had @ Yale. (I have only seen this once, and have not been able to find it again, so the veracity is in doubt) I would like to re-iterate a few facts for your readership, of the 19 hi-jackers involved in Sept 11, 15 were Saudi nationals, absolutely NONE were Iraqi. So we divert attention from Afghanistan to invade a soveriegn nation?? A nation I would remind you that had nothing to do with the attacks of Sept 11. I think large scale military action is nearly useless in fighting terror, we need better intelligence, closer work with the leaders of the nations that have these terror cells in them, and to use the military might in small scale elite force actions. (Think the Israeli's @ Entebbe Airport) You may disagree, but that is my take on how we should be prosecuting this "war" from my experience in the Air Force.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at June 17, 2004 03:44 AM (4pVZJ)

2 P.S. You still have faith in our leaders? I sure don't anymore as that little matter called Watergate is still a vivid memory, you know that "scandal" where Milhous (whom I admired for his intellect) tried like hell to subvert the constitution on the U.S.?

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at June 17, 2004 03:54 AM (4pVZJ)

3 In my opinion, GPA is not an indicator of intelligence; it's more an indicator of "being good at school". I graduated with a 3.93, and I don't consider myself to be all that smart.

Posted by: Sarah at June 17, 2004 03:57 AM (4xLPl)

4 And, for the record, I trusted President Clinton when he said he hadn't had sex with that woman. He broke my heart when he lied.

Posted by: Sarah at June 17, 2004 04:04 AM (4xLPl)

5 So the war in Iraq is justified because it's "close" to countries responsible for 9/11.... Well, I'm from Canada, so I hope the newly born terrorists in Iraq don't have that same mentality if they ever try to retaliate against the U.S. Also, I think that until we start thinking of terrorists as actual people with motives and reasons, and until we actually address those motives and reasons, terror and the War on Terror (as it now seems to be capitalized) will go on indefinately, no matter how many different countries are bombed to pieces.

Posted by: J at June 17, 2004 04:24 AM (5gN2v)

6 So, since Germany declared war on the US, thats why the first troops we used were in Africa and Italy, and not Germany. Shouldn't we have just parachuted directly into Berlin to be justified, and left all other countries out of the conflict? This constant theme that this war is only about getting someone back for 9/11 is idiotic and blatantly false. The war is about ending the production of terrorists and the use of those tactics to push a political agenda by eliminating the corrupt regimes that produce them. Iraq was just another strategic battle. It is not the end, nor it should not be. If Iraq is the end of the war, then we have lost. It is indisputable that Iraq fostered terrorists across the board. Whether or not he signed the checks that bought plane tickets for 9/11 is irrellevant. Saudi's were used by Bin Laden because he wants to bring down the Saudi regime as well, and what better way than to focus the blame where he wants it focused? Seems alot of people have bought that bit of strategic thinking. Wasn't there another president in recent history who was supposed to have been dumb as a post for his eight years in office, but history has shown how great his impact was on the whole world? Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer, yet his was one of the most disastrous presidencies last century. Degrees and GPA's do not translate into automatic success. Strength and willingness to lead, even when the decision is unpopular, have a greater impact than what grades one got in school 30 years ago. Asking the governments of countries who have terrorists camps in their midst to combat them is nice. But what do you do when they say they are doing so on one hand, while on the other they are providing support to the very same groups? You cannot just use commando tactics for assassinating certain people. Both large and small scale tactics are needed. Including removing the offending government. And yes, better intelligence is the key, but how to get that intelligence when we can't even use a minor thing like humiliation of terrorists to elicit information?

Posted by: John at June 17, 2004 04:43 AM (crTpS)

7 OMFG..... "Also, I think that until we start thinking of terrorists as actual people with motives and reasons, and until we actually address those motives and reasons, terror and the War on Terror (as it now seems to be capitalized) will go on indefinately, no matter how many different countries are bombed to pieces." Of course they are people. They are people who want to kill you, your neighbor, your unborn grandchildren. Why? It isn't because the US uses alot of oil, it is because they are islamists who are trying to dominate the entire world because their religion tells them that it is what their god demands. How do you reason with a religious fanatic who has as his ultimate goal your death, as well as everyone who isn't a muslim. Why don't you just become a muslim and that way you won't be killed. Just like all the muslims in Saudi, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, the Palestinian territories, Spain, Indonesia... etc... who haven't been killed by terrorist bombs. "So the war in Iraq is justified because it's "close" to countries responsible for 9/11.... " See my prior comments strategry...... And by all means, keep your head in the sand. You might not hear the AK-47 aimed at you when they come to shoot you too.

Posted by: John at June 17, 2004 04:54 AM (crTpS)

8 Duh.... "See my prior comments on strategery...." is what I meant to say. Being a Canadian will not shield you. If the US withdraws every soldier and citizen from all parts of the world, stops using oil, gives away all its money, and provides free medical care to the world, do you really think that peace will suddenly envelope the globe? They hate the 'West'. Which to them means any and all liberal democratic societies. That is what they want to destroy, read what they say. It isn't like it is hidden, or secret.

Posted by: John at June 17, 2004 05:01 AM (crTpS)

9 bah, this stupidity about strategery is pissing me off. First of all, the rationale for war was non-compliance with resolution 1441. Since this non-compliance was supposed to be judged by the UNSC, but wasn't, this was an illegal war, as was also stated by Richard Perle, Hans Blix and a host of UN lawyers. (Yeah, yeah, screw the UN, I know). 2. "WMD's that are slowly being found" is a load of crap. The sarin-grenades were leftovers from the Iran-Iraq war and not part of an ongoing WMD-program. No one that was part of the hunt for WMD (David Kay, UNMOVIC) believes they'll find anything anymore. By the way, the World Tribune article is a gross misrepresentation of what UNMOVIC said about the Iraqi materials found overseas. Please stop swallowing crap supplied by oncorrigable war-hawks and do some of your own reasearch. 3. "Iraq-Al Quaida links" are close to non-existent (don't you people read the news?), which is in stark contrast to links between Al Qaida and many other countries, including US allies (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia). 4. Drawing WOII parallels is just so incredibly ignorant I don't even know where to start. Parachuting into Berlin? There was this little thing about a Third Reich, you know. 5. Which brings me to the final point. Invading a secular state, which was at best minor player in anti-US/Israel terrorism led to pissing off generations of Arabs, greatly increasing Al-Qaida recruitment and leaving the US army incapable to strike a real threat effectively. 6. The WoT is not a war between countries, it's a war between the forces of moderacy and the forces of extremism. Waging a dumb war like in Iraq only increases extremism and is therefore by far the dumbest strategery I've seen in my life. --- That's also why I find Sarah's naiveté dangerous. Despite all the facts contary to this administration's assertions, she continues to trust their insight, because she believes they're smarter than she is. But smart men make mistakes, smart men deceive, smart men lie. A docile populace is all that it takes for such men to thoroughly screw their country. [/end rant]

Posted by: Sander at June 17, 2004 10:06 AM (9v8mw)

10 Do you think people have the right to fight against an oppressive regime? If so do the Saudi people have the right to fight against the regime that is oppressing them?

Posted by: s at June 17, 2004 10:07 AM (AmfhK)

11 The invasion of Iraq is a continuation of the Gulf War. It is something that should have been done much earlier, preferably in 1991. Unfortunately, Bush 41 agreed to do what the UN wanted and stopped. In retrospect, that was a huge mistake. Yet some still want Bush 43 to "go to the UN", even though they chastise his father for doing just that. Doesn't make sense to me. Clinton had several opportunities, but politics intervened. Iraq is the ideal spot to hit first. We could not hit Saudi Arabia first because of logistics. And if you are concerned about gas prices now, imagine what they would be if we had hit the Saudis intitially. They are on the military hit list, I can assure you. But the State Department is full of people hoping to retire on Saudi money, and who want diplomacy (with all its abuses and failures) to succeed. Strategically, Iraq is ideal. A representative government in the middle of the mess that is the Middle East puts pressure on Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, not to mention Jordan and the Palestinians. Make no mistake about it. They understand, and will do everything they can to destabilize the country. Syria, in particular, has a stake in Iraq. There has already been at least one strike planned against Syria, but not carried out. There will be more, and Assad knows this. Iraq can be the ideal base for quick strikes anywhere necessary in the area. And the withdrawl of forces from Saudi Arabia now gives us more freedom to operate, including in Saudi Arabia. First of all, the rationale for war was non-compliance with resolution 1441. Since this non-compliance was supposed to be judged by the UNSC, but wasn't, this was an illegal war, as was also stated by Richard Perle, Hans Blix and a host of UN lawyers. (Yeah, yeah, screw the UN, I know). 1441 does, in fact, say there will be "dire consequences" for failure to comply. Actually, it was unnecessary because the original cease-fire agreement gave authority to any nation to take action if Saddam didn't comply.

Posted by: Mike at June 17, 2004 11:46 AM (cFRpq)

12 Wow, two links to me in a single post? I'm deeply honored.

Posted by: CavalierX at June 17, 2004 01:11 PM (R9DSb)

13 Mike, do you believe that a pro-American democratically chosen government will be installed in the next few years and do you believe the positive effect of this outweighs that of the increased recruitment of terrorists in the same period (plus that of last year). If you reject either of these premises, strategery has failed. 1441 does, in fact, say there will be "dire consequences" for failure to comply. Actually, it was unnecessary because the original cease-fire agreement gave authority to any nation to take action if Saddam didn't comply.Please cite a lawyer of an international body who claims this. Since resolution 687 has no enforcement mechanism, violation of this resolution is not a legal pretext for war. If it did, then as you say, Iraq was fair game for any country, which of course be unacceptable for the UNSC.

Posted by: Sander at June 17, 2004 01:17 PM (9v8mw)

14 And lawyers are now relevant in international relations because...? 1441 says: "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area. "Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of estoring international peace and security in the area," I guess a lawyer could parse that however he liked.

Posted by: Mike at June 17, 2004 02:43 PM (YyIUS)

15 There's been a substantial body of expert opinion diametrically opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Interestingly, many of these same experts were also opposed to the previous administration's botching of both domestic terrorism and international terrorism policy. It's not black and white, nor are the professionals in terrorism studies political partisans. And a useful point to bear in mind is that Saddam had (past tense) chemical weapons capability. He never had biological or nuclear capability. But Iraq was disarmed by the combined actions of the UN, the Clinton administration and the Brits. Operation Desert Fox was the end of it. But it was not the end of the uncertainty. Those aren't the same things. So, credit where credit is due: Clinton, not Bush, disarmed Saddam.

Posted by: Warbaby at June 17, 2004 03:46 PM (IyXOG)

16 "So, since Germany declared war on the US, thats why the first troops we used were in Africa and Italy, and not Germany. Shouldn't we have just parachuted directly into Berlin to be justified, and left all other countries out of the conflict?" First off, I have to agree with the poster who said WW2 parallels are ignorant... I'd go on to call them wishful thinking for those who need to believe that what's going on now means something. BUT, in response to the above quote, the reason Northern Africa and Italy were attacked first was because they were controlled by Germany, and the only route to Berlin before D-Day. The same cannot be said for Iraq. The bordered land known as 'Iraq' doesn't control people we consider terrorists, and is therefore not a route to ending terrorism. (If anything, the recent actions there only look like they've stirred up more anti-American resentment. Something the world really doesn't need more of.) This isn't a war that can be one by taking over lands - that's as silly as fighting a War on Poverty by bombing ghettos. "How do you reason with a religious fanatic who has as his ultimate goal your death, as well as everyone who isn't a muslim." Change that last word to Christian and that's who most Iraqis probably feel about Bush right now. It's all a little game that isn't going to end until minds and hearts are changed, on both sides.

Posted by: J at June 17, 2004 04:30 PM (5gN2v)

17 >The bordered land known as 'Iraq' doesn't >control people we consider terrorists I'm just going to go out on a limb here and assume that you're trying to say that Iraq had no ties to terrorists. In that case, I invite you to read Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror for enlightenment on that point.

Posted by: CavalierX at June 17, 2004 11:54 PM (sA6XT)

18 >Change that last word to Christian and that's >who most Iraqis probably feel about Bush right >now. It's the "probably" that gives away the fact that this is how YOU feel about the President. Don't project your personal hatreds and prejudices onto the Iraqi people, if you don't mind.

Posted by: CavalierX at June 17, 2004 11:56 PM (sA6XT)

19 I'm not real keen on the World Tribune. Yes, there's always the possibility that they have a scoop, but their track record isn't particularly good. For a good deconstruction of the World Trib article, look at Jim Henley's Unqualified Offerings. (Jim's not exactly a standard-bearer for the media elite.) http://www.highclearing.com/archivesuo/week_2004_06_13.html#005423

Posted by: Darkwater at June 19, 2004 11:44 PM (rKvtT)

20 Just for the record J, it was sarcasm about parachuting into Germany. And, didn't you just do what you excoriated? Defining the current war under WWII terms? As you say, and I was illustrating, they are not the same. However, all wars involve different circumstances and not just one battle. Iraq is a battle in a war, not a war unto itself. The difference between Christians and Muslims here is that Christians aren't using suicide bombs strapped to humans and in cars to blow up civilians at random. Unless you have a few incidents to cite......

Posted by: John at June 20, 2004 10:13 PM (crTpS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I now introduce a new segment here at trying to grok that I like to call

Make-Up and Houseplants

My younger cousin was Junior Miss Oklahoma. She's got the pageant thing down cold, and when I told her I don't really do such a good job with make-up, so agreed to give me a hand. I told her I can't wear eye make-up because it looks funny, so she grabbed her supplies and went to town. Five minutes later she was staring at me with a that's-not-right look on her face and said, "Well, maybe you're right." Even Junior Miss Oklahoma can't fix me up!

And I have this houseplant I bought last summer. Actually, I hung it outside until my neighbor kindly told me it would die in direct sunlight. How are we supposed to know these things? I brought it inside and hung it from the ceiling, and it's almost touching the floor. I babysat the wrinkly puppy on Sunday, and he kept biting the vines and tugging on them. I don't know what to do with it.

(Psssst. Are the mean ones gone yet?)

Posted by: Sarah at 03:24 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I've seen some droppings here and there, I think most of them are gone, but there are still a few stragglers. I should come up with a troll repellent spray or something.

Posted by: John at June 16, 2004 03:52 AM (crTpS)

2 Sarah, Junior Miss Oklahoma can't fix you up because there's nothing to fix. You don't need makeup. Beauty is already in your DNA. At least you haven't killed your plant yet. I may have done that. I'd rather think the plant died on me, but that could just be denial on my part. John, Put Spectra Troll-Away Spray on the market and become a millionnaire.

Posted by: Amritas at June 16, 2004 05:38 AM (qu1yZ)

3 I think makeup is overused by almost every woman who wears it. Most don't need it, but have been conditioned to put it on anyway. Stick to what works for you, and don't be intimidated by anyone who says you're lazy because you don't spend hours primping. That's why I wear a short flattop...a washcloth combs it for the day!

Posted by: Mike at June 16, 2004 07:36 AM (cFRpq)

4 You don't need the makeup, pure and simple.

Posted by: Tammi at June 16, 2004 08:06 AM (rCTjQ)

5 Cut the vines! It's that easy, really. From trial and error I found that plants can be cut shorter and live to tell about it.

Posted by: Machelle at June 16, 2004 10:22 AM (ZAyoW)

6 The only makeup I can wear is mascara, and I don't even need to cause my lashes are already long. When I have put makeup on (maybe 3 times in as many years), my kid doesn't like it. He says I don't look like Mom. Lipstick freaks him out, and I hate that goop anyway! Beauty comes from inside anyway! P.S. I was busy and didn't catch the flamefest til it was over. In the great words of RWR, "Don't let the turkeys get you down."

Posted by: MargeinMI at June 16, 2004 10:41 AM (tlRrY)

7 Hi Sarah, You can definitely trim the plant, as Machelle says. You can take off half the length or more; if you keep it trimmed, you'll see that it gets bushier at the top, rather than having long spindly things. Or, if it's already bushy, then a little trimming won't hurt at all--it sounds plenty healthy.

Posted by: Carla at June 16, 2004 11:58 AM (r5M6F)

8 Somoe American guys like makeup. Most - no. My husband? NO!! I took him home to Georgia for my sister's wedding and he looked at all her American bridesmaids and said "ooh, they look like kabuki dolls!" Totally true and right on the money. Needless to say, I don't worry about the blush to foundation ratio.

Posted by: Oda Mae at June 16, 2004 04:46 PM (sFThJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Imagine my surprise when I saw this story via Tim:
Two Army wives put careers on hold to aid injured soldiers at Landstuhl
I know Heather Twist; her husband was in OBC with mine. She's even commented a couple of times here on my blog. I'm particularly amazed that she has done this wonderful deed without "bragging"; I didn't even know about it until I read the article. Heather, I'm so proud to know you.

So how can I help?

Posted by: Sarah at 05:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

Carla wanted me to talk about my wedding. It was really pretty standard, I would say. We got married outside in my parents' backyard in Illinois. It was raining that morning, which made us all quite nervous, but by the afternoon it was perfect weather. We wanted the wedding to be more like a cook-out than a formal event, and I think it turned out pretty perfect.

The honeymoon was what was a real hoot, though. Because of scheduling problems that came up after 9/11, my husband was told a few weeks before graduation that he couldn't start active duty right away. We started our marriage with four months where neither of us was getting a paycheck. We paid for our plane tickets and hotel for a week in Washington D.C., and after that we were a little strapped for cash. I was actually just laughing about this the other day because as I was looking back through my planner, I saw all the notes in the calendar for the week of our honeymoon: I had kept track of every dollar we spent. There are notations like "$2 = bomb pops" and "$5 = lunch, hot dogs" that crack me up. We kept track of every cent we spent because we really started out with nothing. We've done well for ourselves, considering, and we don't ever plan to budget bomb pops again.

Those little notations are one of the best memories I have of getting married.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:06 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 1 kb.

1 How pretty! You both look so happy. Congratulations on your anniversary. :-)

Posted by: Princess Jami at June 15, 2004 05:30 PM (0gPLe)

2 Aw, I wasn't sure if you were actually going to do it. And a photo, too! The notations sound like a great scrapbook, of sorts. Congratulations again.

Posted by: Carla at June 15, 2004 10:00 PM (r5M6F)

3 I think a little 'hardship' at first is healthy - bonds you as a team to face it. I remember when we were first married we calculated how many peanut butter and jelly sandwiches we could get from a jar of peanut butter and a jar of jelly. And splurging at McDonald's when they had a promotion after xx years in business, with prices rolled back to what they were on opening day. As you say, fond memories.

Posted by: Glenmore at June 15, 2004 11:25 PM (NXHEP)

4 My Bride and I were married the weekend before we started our 3rd semester of our senior year at Tech. We spent our honeymoon driving from Dallas to Lubbock in "our" formerly her Yugo (the absolute pinnacle of Serbo-Croation technology) with most all of our possessions straing its three mighty cylinders. Both of us were in school and unemployed. We had nothing (suprisingly, I don't recall us having need of anything either) and mooched off of student aid until I took my commission at the end of the term. It was the richest, most prosperous time we could ever have imagined.

Posted by: Ed at June 16, 2004 11:00 AM (buCH+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I read Sanders' comment here and then sat down to write and saw that Lyana had beat me to my point. But I'll say it anyway. I appreciate Sanders' point, but I think it's sad:

Nah, you worry too much. What's more, you take things said on the internet personal, which is kind of cute in a very naive sort of way.

Internet is just not comparable to everyday life, it's more anonymous, sharper and sometimes uglier. No one in the comments would ever call you clueless fucktard dumb to your face, even more so if they have any personal knowledge of you, but on the internet discussion often end with rude ad hominems. On the other hand, by dispensing with courteousness the arguments are more direct and perhaps more honest.

It may be scary at first, but you get used to it, after realizing they're not talking to you personally, but some anonymous schmoe saying silly things. Live and learn.

If the attacks are not meant to be personal, then what are they? They're not constructive. They're not educational. They're just insults, and insults are personal. Yes, I do take these things personally because I believe in decency and manners. I'm absolutely appalled that those 90 people don't.

I have never called anyone a name in a comments section. Only very rarely have I argued back with someone, and it's only ever been with another commenter and never with the blog host. I have never linked to what someone else has written and made fun of them or pointed out how wrong I think they are, even though the blogger who started this atrios-lanche has done this to me repeatedly. Once I wrote about some silly posts I read elsewhere, but I didn't provide a link to the site because I didn't want to send hateful comments his way. I don't think that's right. I can discuss the other person's ideas without linking because it's the ideas that need discussing, not whether the person is dumb as a hammer.

Yes, the internet allows us to be more open. I talk about things here on my blog that I can't talk about with many of my peers because they either vehemently disagree with me or they don't read the news very often. I'm very grateful that the internet has given me that opportunity, but it's come at a price. If we're losing all sense of courtesy and respect for other people's views and "space" (as in it's my blog and you've come to my space to call me names), then I think that's sad.

Many of those commenters from the weekend probably have kids. What if I printed out their comments and showed them to their kids. Look, Timmy, your daddy called me clueless fucktard dumb. And then I explained to little Timmy that his daddy called me that simply because he disagreed with what I had to say. That's a bad lesson to teach your kids.

My mother reads my blog. So does my first grade teacher. I try to conduct myself in a way that would make both of them proud because they taught me that showing others respect is important. It's a shame others weren't taught the same.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:28 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 543 words, total size 3 kb.

I was so busy with that damn poll stuff yesterday that I missed the Army's birthday. You can't imagine how horrible that makes me feel.

Happy Birthday to the greatest institution I've ever had the privilege of being a part of.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

So here's what I think about the new BDUs:

1. The boots are a great idea. No polishing. That means no more shoe polish on my bedspread, kitchen floors, recliner, and anywhere else my husband polishes. More comfortable boots is a definite improvement.

2. One uniform for both woodland and desert is also a good idea. We've spent quite a bit of money making sure he has enough of each, with everything sewn on all of them. Genius development.

3. Only summer weight -- good. Friendly fire refector -- good. Maximum comfort under the IBA -- excellent. Zippers instead of buttons -- smart. Pen and paper pocket -- cool.

4. Velcro-on name tapes and rank. Hallelujah, hallelujah. (See sewing disaster from 13 February.)

5. I see the soft cap. Are we getting rid of the goofy beret?

6. Centered rank. Gonna have to get used to that...took me a while to train myself to go to the right lapel instead of looking someone in the eye when we passed.

7. Getting rid of the branch insignia? I don't really like that one because I like to see where everyone's coming from. I'm nosy that way. But maybe my husband will get to wear the diamond for a little while before the uniforms change over.

Overall, as someone who will never actually wear the darn thing but who will spend a lot of time gazing lovingly at one who does, I approve.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:54 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

Amritas writes briefly about what's been going on in my comments section. He writes about how trolling is wrong, no matter if it's from the Left or Right. His last line hit me like a ton of bricks:

If we can't get along, let's just avoid each other.

I've worried in the past about the growing divide between Left and Right. I'm sure it's always been that way, but before the internet, the only people you could talk to about politics were people you actually knew. The internet has allowed us to meet scores of people who think like we do...but has also brought us in contact with scores of people on the opposite side. Before the internet, calling someone who disagreed with you a clueless fucktard was probably a bad idea, because you'd most likely have to keep working with that person or attending social events together. But on the internet, whoo boy. Fake email address, fake name, and the insults just flow. Why not, it's not like you ever have to see this person.

I keep coming back to February. And I can't get that graph of book purchases out of my head. We obviously can't get along anymore (as the wave of insults in my comments show), so we will only get better at avoiding each other.

We're a country with two political parties, but we may as well be from different planets.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:27 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

You know my interest in all things Swedish, so I found this comment on LGF very interesting. I'd be interesting in hearing Anders' view. Is Swedish "multi-culturalism" actually this rampant and extreme?

Posted by: Sarah at 03:09 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

My husband has been gone for four months as of yesterday, and today is our wedding anniversary. I made him a special gift that he certainly doesn't need when the temperatures are pushing 130:

He wrote me a funny email this morning:

I don't have much else to say except I love you and I'm very thankful that
you're my wife. I'm also thankful that an AC-130 didn't bomb our wedding two
years ago. Cause that happens, ya know. I should be able to call today, inshah
Allah.

Happy Anniversary, Blue 6. I sure do miss you.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:11 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Well congrats on the anniversary, bummer you aren't able to spend it together. I wonder now that I am happily ensconced in middleage, and married, just what I would do without my wife? I get serious agita thinking of it. Well again best wishes to you and your husband.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at June 15, 2004 02:26 AM (4pVZJ)

2 Sarah - congratulations on two years. Perhaps it helps that you are surrounded by those who know first hand what deployed anniversaries are all about. My best to you and your husband! Tim

Posted by: Tim at June 15, 2004 04:38 AM (asDJU)

3 Happy Anniversary, from a British reservist in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

Posted by: Flarkey at June 15, 2004 05:42 AM (K4HSE)

4 happy anniversary you two love birds....i feel that the two of you will be together for #3... my son, michael has missed so many events over the past 13 months also....on mother's day last year when he left friedberg germany with the 1AD, he left behind his wife of one year and 4 months and their 9 day old son...there will be a lot of time to make up between michael and his son.... have a great day sarah and do something special that would reflect on your's and your husband's love for each other....have the radio station play "your" song or see a movie that the two of you enjoyed together...invite friends over and have an anniversary party but by all means celebrate the day....this day will not come again.... hugs, teresa proud army mom of michael/camp victory

Posted by: teresa at June 15, 2004 07:59 AM (uyPup)

5 Happy Anniversary to you and your husband! Maybe this will be the one you and your husband will talk about when you are celebrating your 50th Anniversary. Best to you and Chin Up. Toni

Posted by: Toni at June 15, 2004 08:23 AM (SCyTi)

6 Sarah, Happy anniversary!! Dana Marietta, GA

Posted by: Dana at June 15, 2004 09:32 AM (ah3a+)

7 Sarah, HAPPY ANNIVERSARY!!! I wish you both many more wonderful years together! Kelly

Posted by: Kelly at June 15, 2004 10:46 AM (5UIQo)

8 Happy Anniversary, Sarah! June 15...what a lovely date for a wedding. I hope you do get to talk to Blue 6 (Lt. Grok?) today. And even though he doesn't need that handsome sweater now, he sure will when he returns to Germany...especially since I hear that most of the men and women out there are becoming somewhat accustomed to the heat. It's going to take a long time to adjust back. Hey, tell us about your wedding!

Posted by: Carla at June 15, 2004 11:12 AM (r5M6F)

9 Happy Anniversary!! Another special day that will be much, much better next year!

Posted by: Beth at June 15, 2004 01:16 PM (Y/dYM)

10 Happy Anniversary!! While I have never been in the military, have experienced the hardship of being separated (I was based in Singapore, wife was in the US). Our longest stretch apart was 10 months. Not fun. God Bless you and your husband for your sacrifice and may every day when he returns be another excuse to celebrate being together.

Posted by: Andrew at June 15, 2004 05:15 PM (6KBPZ)

11 Happy Anniversary, Sarah, aka Bundy kid #3 (?) I love you and would never call one of my favorite cousins a bad word

Posted by: Peg Bundy at June 15, 2004 05:33 PM (L2+yu)

12 Happy Anniversary! My husband and I still laugh at our honeymoon too - we celebrated our anniversary last month although he celebrated a day early due to Iraq's time difference . At the time we married, he was a Drill Sergeant and could only get one day off for us to get married (and not the day we planned ha!). Our honeymoon was going to O'Charlie's for dinner lol. The best part was getting to marry my best friend and spend the rest of my life with him. Our marriage has turned out to be the real honeymoon . Wishing you and your husband many years of happiness - and may this be the only anniversary you must celebrate apart.

Posted by: Shannon at June 15, 2004 06:29 PM (wIkna)

13 What is it that you see funny about weddings being attacked by US gunships? Like your husband said "that happens, you know". Since it was not your wedding where the guests were slaughtered by US warplanes I guess in your eyes it is funny when it happens to someone else. You people are really sick.

Posted by: dc at June 15, 2004 11:11 PM (s6c4t)

14 Oh yeah

Posted by: you bloggers suck at July 14, 2005 01:07 PM (XR3qn)

15 soma

Posted by: soma at July 18, 2005 01:49 AM (XR3qn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Happy Flag Day, everyone.

UPDATE:

Crap, I really am as dumb as hammers.
Happy Birthday.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:17 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Happy Flag Day to you Sarah. Don't let the turkeys get you down!

Posted by: annika! at June 14, 2004 12:47 PM (zAOEU)

2 annika! (did you legally add the "!"? ) Turkeys? Don't insult animals. I was dreading some cheap shot at the flag. Maybe that'll be the next comment ... shudder ...

Posted by: Amritas at June 14, 2004 02:34 PM (tiFfS)

3 Sarah, Your post on polls wasn't ignorant as much as it was intellectually dishonest. Rather than seeking to support your beliefs with evidence, you should first seek to refute them. I think you may have a few beliefs which are refutable. I'll leave it to you to discover them. Too many people in this country (and throughout the world, for that matter) go from birth to death without ever once questioning the precepts handed to them by their parents and peer group. Don't be one of them.

Posted by: Paul Stone at June 14, 2004 03:41 PM (pvoJ9)

4 Too many people in this country (and throughout the world, for that matter) go from birth to death without ever once questioning the precepts handed to them by their parents and peer group. Don't be one of them. Hahahahahaha. I started this blog because none of my peers held the same values as I did. I started it to break away from the unquestioning idiotarianism of my "peer group". I have written about this many times before. Please, Paul, you're talking out of your ass here.

Posted by: Sarah at June 14, 2004 03:57 PM (0cJ5p)

5 I think you are intellectually honest...but maybe I'm biased because I happen to agree with lots of your thoughts/posts/opinions. Happy Flag Day, any way.

Posted by: Princess Jami at June 14, 2004 04:50 PM (0gPLe)

6 Congratulations on making Cruel Site of the Day! "On Friday, a teacher was outraged to discover that presidential polls don't actually contact all 293 million Americans, relying instead on something called statistics. Then the beatings started." Hey, at least your traffic's up.

Posted by: sevenless at June 14, 2004 05:29 PM (TdcqV)

7 Wait... That's not my flag! I'm positive it's not the Australian flag ...yet. But give Sarah and her husband time and i'm sure it will be. Or maybe Sarah will be kind enough to design a new Australian flag once her husband "liberates" us.

Posted by: Pastormaker at June 14, 2004 08:11 PM (sKaC/)

8 Lo! the banner of our empire raised high on the wind!

Posted by: scarabic at June 14, 2004 09:46 PM (5cokL)

9 Hey Sarah, did you see this: http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/012868.html

Posted by: annika at June 15, 2004 06:17 PM (zAOEU)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Charles Johnson made an LGF drinking game the other day; I think I could make a pretty good one out of the comments section here.

1. Any time someone calls me a rude name, drink.

2. Any time someone calls me unfit to teach, drink.

3. Any time someone gives me a stats lesson, drink.

4. Any time someone mistakenly calls me "he", drink.

5. Any time someone tells me to go back to school, drink.

6. Any time someone writes nearly the exact same thing someone else said previously, drink.

We'll all be trashed before the end of the post.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:08 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

I wrote several blog posts yesterday that aren't going to get posted. I wrote one about people with bad manners and a lack of common decency. I wrote another about my growing frustration with the divide between Right and Left and how I was starting to feel sympathetic towards the Left until they started calling me names. I also wrote one about how I do indeed understand basic statistics but that I hadn't planned on 2000 people descending on me like vultures so I perhaps didn't word my post in a way that everyone could understand. And I wrote about how chilling I think it is that every one of the commenters wrongly assumed that I bring my politics into the classroom and force it on my students.

In the end, none of these topics matter. Those who came over from Atrios will have forgotten about me by now, save the occasional one who will pat himself on the back for calling me "intellectually bankrupt" and "a gathering threat to democracy". All that really matters are my regular readers, the faithful who understand what I was trying to say even if I didn't phrase it as well as I could have.

I got lots of instruction on statistics in the comment section. No, I am not a statistician or a math teacher. I could learn more on the topic, and I would like to. However, I do have a decent understanding of p-values and sampling and the way that polls can be manipulated. Many people focused on my mention of the 615 people and completely ignored the other things I had to say. Yes, 615 is 50% of the poll size and a "statistically sound" sample size to make the claims that the LA Times makes. I am not arguing that the statistics are bad; I'm arguing that opinion polling is imprecise and not worth betting the farm on.

Gemini was one of the only commenters that I appreciated hearing from. I would like to address what he/she had to say.

I was trained as a statistician (bachelor's and master's degrees). You are making common mistakes that many people make about polls.

Polls are neither Godlike in their accuracy nor total b.s., like the person in your followup article tries to assert. They tend to be as good as the objectivity of the person or organization conducting them.

That's an interesting point, because I no longer trust the organizations who do the polling. None of them. If I have learned anything in the past two years, it's that all sources are biased, even the ones with the best intentions. I don't put much faith at all in the objectivity of any person or organization. In contrast, it seems that lots of people do blindly assume that these polls are conducted by robots who have no political agenda. That's why in my class we discuss how every single media source has bias of some sort, from Fox to the BBC. Every single one. We discuss how it's impossible to avoid but as long as we're aware of it we're ahead of the game. (I don't tell my students which sources I think are more biased than others; that's what bad teachers do.)

One should always read polls with a careful eye. Here are some things to look for:

Read the questions carefully. Are they worded objectively? People with agendas can word the questions in such a way as to get the results they want.

I stated already that I don't think that all the questions were worded objectively. Some of them were decent straight-forward questions, but some were not. I mentioned Q48, but I also think that we might have seen different results for several questions if the words George Bush had been substituted with United States (as in Q16: Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?). The mere mention of our President's name can send some people into a frenzy, regardless of what the question is asking. These questions with President Bush's name in them were split pretty hard down the party lines; I imagine that the answers might have been slightly different if his name had been left out. It's subtle things like that which will affect the outcome of the already-too-close-to-call results.

Was the sample a random sample? Deliberately not taking a random sample is one way to skew results. It's also why all self-selecting polls (like internet polls) are unreliable - the respondents have not been selected randomly.

What universe was the sample taken from? Likely voters? Registered voters? All citizens? Results are likely to vary for different universes and are generalizable only to the universe they came from. For example, you can't take a sample of "likely" voters and then say that all Americans have the opinions found in the sample - only "likely" voters do.

The sample was not purely random, since the LA Times states that "the entire sample of adults was weighted slightly to conform with census figures for sex, race, age and education." I'm no expert, and I've wasted enough time on this topic already, but I'd guess that voting patterns do not correlate perfectly with census data. My guess is that things like age and education are indicators of who votes, so making the poll fit census data instead of voter demographics is less realistic. But whatever, I can let that one slide.

What I cannot let slide is that, while the LA Times felt it necessary to weight the sample based on demographics, they did not feel it was important to weight it based on party affiliation. According to Mickey Kaus, "the party breakdown in the LAT poll was 38% Democratic, 25% Republican, 24% Independent." (Thanks, Tanker.) Don't you think that might have an effect on the poll results as well? The LA Times spent time and energy tweaking for race and sex; why couldn't they poll an equal number of people based on party affiliation? That seems to me to be a much bigger indicator of political opinion than race or sex, so the LA Times should have tried to minimize that effect.

[snip] Sampling is not a perfect science, but the results from reputable organizations are usually accurate, as long as one understands just what they represent.

That's just my point; for all the hatred I incited, few people actually discussed the poll itself. I'm not sure any of them understood what it represents. No one at all commented about the missing 55% in the original AP report. That's the type of bias I was pointing out in the first place. Why comment on what <20 + 25% of people think we should do, without mentioning the rest, unless you've got a point to make? Why not report that 73% said that there should be no specific date for withdrawal, unless that's not considered newsworthy? I don't think any of these results actually mean anything (the only thing that matters is the actual vote in November), but if they must report on it, they could do a better job.

What I was trying to originally point out is that many people are headline readers; they see the headline Poll: Voters Say Iraq Didn't Merit War, and they don't actually read the article or think about how the questions were worded or how the poll was conducted. They place great faith in the polling process because it's "up to statistical standards", without thinking much about the fact that opinions and feelings are not easy to scientifically measure. A sample size of 1230 for coin flips or jellybean colors or dice rolls is absolutely acceptable, but public opinion is a much trickier thing to measure.

All I tried to say is that polls don't really matter, especially close ones. If a poll of 1230 people showed that 80% of people thought Iraq didn't merit war, then perhaps there would be something substantial to worry about. But polls about presidential popularity and opinions on war where the percentages hover around 50% are worth a grain of salt, in my opinion. A slight change in wording could tip opinion the other way. I'm amazed that Atrios' readers spent their time calling me names rather than entertaining the possibility that I could have an honest point here.

Incidentally, one of the things I teach my students when doing research is an attention to detail. If you're writing a paper on marriage and you use Britney Spears as an example, then you'd better spell her name right. I repeatedly tell them that when they ignore the easily-checked details, it really weakens their argument; how can we trust that your argument is sound when we can't even trust you to check spelling and details? I found the same thing going on in the comments; why should I take advice on paying attention to details from people who didn't bother to notice that 1) I am a female 2) I don't teach at a DoD's school or 3) that I'm not a Christian evangelical?

Come to think of it, why should I take advice from people who call me "clueless fucktard dumb" or say that I write "incredible dumbfuckery", that I "have no business teaching anyone anything", that I am "a gathering threat to democracy", that I should "shut the fuck up", and that I probably "don't even have a high school diploma, let alone a college degree"?

UPDATE:

Darkwater wrote me a huge email and included a lengthy comment here. I have read both, and I'd like to point out something that I think is apples and oranges.

I *strongly* take exception to your point that "polls don't matter, especially close ones." In my years of dealing with statistics, some of the most illuminating results have been the ones where the p-value is on the hairy edge of the rejection regime. Some of the most interesting tests I've been involved in are the ones where there is no clear answer to the question of whether "system A" is better than "system B". Such tests force the decision-makers to readdress what information they wanted to get out of the test, and reassess their appetite for risk before going ahead with a test.

Darkwater does military testing for the Department of Defense. For him, I assume close calls are controlled experiments measuring, as he said, whether 'system A' is better than 'system B'." That's science. Opinion polling is not science. There are way too many variables that can't be controlled for. A large part of our population relies on caller ID and answering machines to screen their calls; those people will not be participating in the polls. Neither will people whose primary phone number is a cell phone, where they'd be paying for the call. But let's say the poller does get through to someone who agrees to do the poll, and three questions into the call that person realizes he's not informed enough to accurately answer the questions. He can either 1) stop the poller and excuse himself, 2) answer "no opinion" on everything, or 3) guess at what he thinks the "right" answer is. Based on what's been going on in the media, do you think someone will guess that President Bush is doing a good or bad job with Abu Ghraib? People who don't pay that close of attention might not know that the investigation into Abu Ghraib was nearly complete and court martials were already beginning before CBS ever got ahold of the story. But the way the story splashed across the front pages, someone who is not as informed might assume that it's being handled poorly and that "bad job" is the answer the poller is looking for (the poller works for the media, the media says it's a bad job...). That's just one example. There are many people out there who don't read blogs and don't stay up-to-date on politics, yet they might still give the poll a stab. And they might try to guess what the "educated" and "right" answer to each question would be. That's not scientific. Opinions are not hard facts. Using the scientific method to check System A against System B is science (the implementation of either system might then have to mingle with politics, as Darkwater implies, but the actual research is scientific.) Calling a bunch of people and asking them questions is deeply flawed. Though the statistical analysis of the data might be sound, any experiment where someone can try to guess the "right" answer is not hard science.

That's all; I'm done discussing this poll.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:06 AM | Comments (47) | Add Comment
Post contains 2019 words, total size 12 kb.

1 As always, you said it perfectly. If I were ever able to go to college, I'd feel extremely honored to take one of your classes.

Posted by: Shannon at June 14, 2004 04:42 AM (bqG6g)

2 I've read over the 'controversial' posts in question and find nothing objectionable in what you say, either in terms of methodology or plain candor. My experience with weblogs, and the state of public rhetoric in general, is in line with what you print: comments like clueless fucktard dumb are cute and clever and signify only someone's passion, not their intellectual acuity. Graduate school taught me that methodology is at best a set of rules and cautions that may guide the social scientist towards 'truth' but can't guarantee one's arrival at the goal. But in the webworld, truth isn't so relevant as agreement or disagreement, and we are too often stuck reading what is usually entertaining and only occasionally enlightening or informative. Your columns--at least the ones I've read so far--seem to be a serious attempt to discuss some aspects of public discourse and communication that get scant attention in the mainstream press as well as the web. But I've found that anybody caught actually trying to practice something akin to 'objectivity' will be pilloried and skewered by the web's resident wits without mercy. Your offense seems to have been to question the methodology of a poll conducted on behalf of John Kerry, the anti-Bush. (Disclosure: I dislike Bush intensely, but will vote for Kerry only because it seems the best way to end the stench of corruption and arrogance of power emanating from our capital.) My favorite rhetorical resources include Ockham's Razor and the Falsifiability Principle of Karl Popper (or whatever it's called these days). I have found that usually Popper and always Ockham are reliable companions when navigating the thicket of excited rhetoric found on the web. I like reading Atrios, and Billmon, and Talking Points, and Daily Howler, and the websites, materials, and resources they link to. I found your website via link from Atrios, and found your posts interesting and a welcome change from the usual team-oriented name-calling, although I wouldn't call any of the above bloggers careless or irresponsible writers. I'm am puzzled by the link from Atrios: I can't figure out if you are being slagged or not. Maybe that makes me a 'clueless fucktard' but I'm willing to live with that. Keep your head high and say what you believe. That's all anybody should be doing out here in the wild and wooly web, the only place where democracy is practiced with any passion and vigor in the poor old US of A.

Posted by: Jon Koppenhoefer at June 14, 2004 05:01 AM (A094q)

3 Lady, you're dumb as a hammer, for gods sake shut up or put this stuff in a private diary! Ever So Sincerely, Mike

Posted by: Mike Adams at June 14, 2004 06:16 AM (ZgqPR)

4 It is interesting to me that about twenty people reading comments on that post made it over to see what Bunker had to say. None left a comment there.

Posted by: Mike at June 14, 2004 07:53 AM (cFRpq)

5 I understood what you were saying in the first few lines of your original post. It was obvious that you were taking apart the newspaper article, and the way the poll was reported, not the poll itself. As I read through the comments, I just had to smile at the rank hypocrisy evident in so many of them, starting with the wrong assumptions about you, and ending up with the claims that you never read or consider anything outside of your preconceived opinions.

Posted by: NightHawk at June 14, 2004 09:17 AM (5GWma)

6 You're correct, those of us that read your postings regularly got it. Promise. I know I say this too often, but I don't get people that only read or listen to find something negative to say. We think you're wonderful!!!

Posted by: Tammi at June 14, 2004 10:14 AM (GqPls)

7 So, Sarah.... You were swinging towards the Left politically, but are now swinging towards the Right because some people whom you regard as being left-wing called you names? Forgive me, but that's got to be the most idiotic reason to change one's political colors I've ever encountered. To call you 'dumb as a post' would be an insult to the many fine timber posts I've seen over the years.

Posted by: Pastormaker at June 14, 2004 10:33 AM (SC/gu)

8 Perhaps, if you consider the fact that what you wrote yesterday was: "The U.S. population is estimated at close to 300 million right now, and we're supposed to get worked up over what 1,230 people who are registered voters have to say? Hell, I only just registered yesterday, so I would've been ineligible. And if the margin of error is plus or minus 3%, and 53% of these 1,230 people thought war was not necessary, then perhaps only 615 people in the whole USA said this. 615 people. How on earth is this supposed to be representative of the voice of America?" and it makes no sense at all, other than to assert an equation between rightwingnuttery and ignorance? This might explain why folks outside your immediate jolly little ex-pat circle were irritated by the presentation. Incidentally, it -still- makes no sense. Saying that you really truly do understand statistics doesn't help. Good luck in your studies.

Posted by: GWPDA at June 14, 2004 10:55 AM (kpVNh)

9 You talk too much. Try to shorten it, and have a point.

Posted by: dan at June 14, 2004 11:39 AM (ZSyWW)

10 "I wrote another about my growing frustration with the divide between Right and Left and how I was starting to feel sympathetic towards the Left until they started calling me names." Deep stuff! Just thank your lucky stars that Ben. Franklin, Thos. Jefferson, &c. were'nt quite so F-ing thin-skinned.

Posted by: Buck at June 14, 2004 11:42 AM (0K5pN)

11 NightHawk, It's difficult not to make unkind assumptions about someone's intellect when presented with something like this: "The U.S. population is estimated at close to 300 million right now, and we're supposed to get worked up over what 1,230 people who are registered voters have to say? Hell, I only just registered yesterday, so I would've been ineligible. And if the margin of error is plus or minus 3%, and 53% of these 1,230 people thought war was not necessary, then perhaps only 615 people in the whole USA said this. 615 people. How on earth is this supposed to be representative of the voice of America?" This is putting aside logical thinking to accommodate ideological blinkers to an extreme. Sarah was in blatant denial about the fact that people are capable, in large numbers, to see the world differently from the way she perceives it. In her updates and subsequent post, she is once more in denial, this time of the fact that she could have said something so completely undeserving of an intelligent person. The points she has retreated to - that the media have their biases and that polls can be manipulated by leading questions - are obvious and unremarkable. To a blogger, finding examples of them is usually easy fodder. What Sarah said in the post that sparked this, though, went way beyond that. Some of those that have commented on this may have been too rude in their responses, but they were fundamentally correct: unless meant as obvious satire, this is simply not worthy of an educator, and it deserves to be ridiculed. Sarah presented these offerings with not a hint of irony or sarcasm, but at least she has seen fit to acknowledge her misjudgement.

Posted by: MaitreDee at June 14, 2004 12:07 PM (AKgpm)

12 These comments have made me so sad . Most have come here only to toss out insults, not have an interesting discussion where we could possibly come away with anything other than new curse words. I understood Sarah's statement concerning the left. She did NOT say she was swinging toward the left. I find it to be extremely telling that those throwing the worst insults cannot even comprehend what they read. She stated she was "starting to feel sympathetic towards the Left." Reading comprehension - it must be a thing of the past. And now, something I've noticed over and over when the left is involved has happened here: Have no real discussion (just as we saw during the democrats' primary), just throw out rhetoric and insults. The anger and hate from the left for any and all who do not tow the party line is quite frightening. Middle America sees this and they are slowly migrating ever so slightly to the right of center. It's example after example of those on the left being so hateful that most Americans think Michael Moore is the idea of what the left is, not Joe Lieberman. When that special day in November arrives, I think America will unite and say we do not want this type of mentality running our country. And as an Army wife myself, the distasteful comments concerning her registering to vote just shows that you have never served your country or even had a family member who has. Military spouses are not like service members when they move. We do not have the ability to keep our home of residence. We must establish residency each and every move - which includes having to register to vote AGAIN. My husband has served this country for 21 years and I can promise you that when I have registered to vote at EACH NEW place we've called home, it was not the first time and was not indicative of my never having voted. Just another example of the hateful and downright mean things I've read here. Jon Koppenhoefer, thank you for your thoughts. I enjoyed reading something from someone who could share his thoughts without having the need to belittle someone to make themselves feel superior. It was a most welcomed change.

Posted by: Shannon at June 14, 2004 12:12 PM (O2yvW)

13 Your new post is much better than the previous post. I still disagree with some things, such as the suggestion that "George Bush" could be substituted with "United States" without changing the inherent meaning of the question. But overall the post comes off much better. You are correct that bias is something to consider in any presentation of fact or opinion. One thing I would add is that the reader should also consider his/her own biases in formulating responses to these presentations. I admit that my biases significantly colored my view of your previous post, though my biases also made me ashamed of many of the comments made against you. I still think your view of statistics is somewhat naive, but I acknowledge that that view could be colored by my biases.

Posted by: Scott Spiegelberg at June 14, 2004 12:34 PM (Z4IrA)

14 I'm sure you already realize this, but most of the people spewing this bullshit are intellectual flunkies that picked up on a single atom of your original post and extrapolated it to encompass the entire message. While your original essay was good, that part probably could have been written better, or at least less idiot-incendiary. Yes, we all understand that 1300 people is a statistically relevant sampling rate, but these 600-some people are now suddenly the VOICE OF AMERICA. We all read the paper and suddenly you say "Oh! The rest of my country believes we are caught in a quagmire which cannot be won". See that often enough and it becomes true. Remember kids, just because you think you have a firm grasp of statistics, doesn't make you an Internet supergenius-- it just means you're a average person who understands basic statistics.

Posted by: Matt at June 14, 2004 01:42 PM (x42+z)

15 You state that you don't bring your politics into the classroom. But you and your students "study media bias". Now, you are admitidly biased to the right of center yourself. You said everyone that conducts polls has a bias, because all of us have biases. Is is not safe to say, then, that everyone that "teaches media bias" brings their own biased politics into it. I think if you have such biased leanings, you should lay off the media bias studies in your classroom. I don't see how you can avoid bringing your own politics into the classroom.

Posted by: Far North at June 14, 2004 01:49 PM (CTbF3)

16 Matt: "Yes, we all understand that 1300 people is a statistically relevant sampling rate, but these 600-some people are now suddenly the VOICE OF AMERICA." Since it is a statistically relevant sample, those 600 people do happen to represent roughly half the American public. They also represent a majority, which is what the article called it. "We all read the paper and suddenly you say "Oh! The rest of my country believes we are caught in a quagmire which cannot be won"." Not the rest of the country (which would be about 99.9999%), but more than half. Why do some people bother even defending this ridiculous argument, just because she is on the same side as they are politically? She basically pretended that statistics is such a grossly misguided field that it has a margin of error of 99.9% - that a poll indicating that 53% of the people believe one thing with a margin of error of 3% can mean as little as only those people actually polled holding that opinion. Does anyone here, including Sarah, seriously want to defend that assertion? Those that you call the idiots who were incensed by this... do you think they're wrong in pointing out that what Sarah said was, well, less than an intelligent thing to say? Of course such a misguided quote is going to obscure what you perceive as her larger point - not that that was a particularly original point, because it is so obvious.

Posted by: MaitreDee at June 14, 2004 02:06 PM (AKgpm)

17 I would fight to the death defending your right to express your opinion. However, sadly, you're one of the people that make me question that stance rather than proud of it. May I suggest some critical thinking resources? You might find that critical examination of ideas tends to yield reliable facts, as opposed to unsupportable assertions or outright falsehoods (preferable though these may be). Good luck, R.

Posted by: Rob at June 14, 2004 02:31 PM (2Hrux)

18 i think i'm pretty, but my parents are so mean. what should i do? thanks, pjl

Posted by: philip at June 14, 2004 03:26 PM (h+561)

19 I'd like to see it acknowledged (so I guess I'll do so) that any time an essay with a political bias has the misfortune of being exposed on a high-profile venue on the internet, a significant degree of empty and hateful response will result. The direction of the original bias is insignificant. I have seen every puerile statement you cite said verbatim by people representing themselves as conservatives. My own opinion is that a relatively small number of individuals and organizations effectively wield a vastly inordinate degree of power in this nation by manioulating the political system and that one of the key aspects of this manipulation is the dominance of the two-party system. When we succumb to the artificial division of our opinions into two camps and have at each other like unruly children on a particularly nasty playground, we perpetuate this system we laughably call democracy.

Posted by: nanojath at June 14, 2004 04:49 PM (9Y3U3)

20 I would think it heartening that a student didn't know how to spell Britney Spears, as long as they still knew how to spell more worthy names relating to marriage like, oh I don't know, Massachusettes residences Stan Chagnon and Joe McCoy, or Tanya McCloskey and Marcia Kadish....

Posted by: J at June 14, 2004 04:57 PM (5gN2v)

21 I'm one of those Atrios readers that followed the link posted on his site. I'd like to add my voice to those few who have apologized for the insults directed your way. I'm proud to be a liberal, but disgusted with the way my peers have treated you. More and more, I'm beginning to worry about the future of our country. The partisansip that I continue to see from both sides of the aisle seems to only be intensifying. If something doesn't change, I'm worried that we'll come to blows (literally) within our own country. In my own family, we've stopped talking about politics because it has become so personal for all of us. I miss the discussions we had because I like respectful debate. I like being around people who see things differently than I do. I don't know how to change it but I just wanted to let you know that, even if we're not of the same political bent, you come across as a thoughtful and good person.

Posted by: Chad at June 14, 2004 05:57 PM (1OeHR)

22 Well, so here's a question. If you're convinced that all polls are biased, and that we shouldn't trust any single poll, then why not chalk this up to a simple outlier of a poll? Besides, if every poll has some bias inherent to it (which is a possibility), wouldn't it make much more sense to consider a single "ur-poll," which conflates the results of all of the polls? If you had the same question on enough polls, you could probably whittle away at both the accuracy and precision of the polls. [No, they're not the same thing.] Finally, if you insist that polls be corrected for party affiliation, how do you do so? I don't think you can use any specific criterion for establishing a true party affiliation, and I think that it's such a fluid label that it makes no sense to even attempt to correct a poll based on that characteristic. For example, in MA, in 2000, I registered as a Republican--only so I could vote for McCain in the primary. Does that make me a Republican? Hardly. It was a purely political move, that has no reflection on my actual voting preferences. But, according to your suggestions, affiliating as a Republican would effectively bias the poll. So, don't sweat a single poll. Sweat the fact that all the polls are starting to turn up results you don't seem to like too much.

Posted by: Can't win at June 14, 2004 06:07 PM (aQOKC)

23 One more point. Why should there be equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans? Are we, in fact, split 50-50? In some states, maybe, but in other states, the split is 60-40 one way or the other. And, nationwide, I don't think there's an equal split--in general, Democrats outnumber Republicans (but Republicans tend to outnumber Democrats at the voting booth). So, it doesn't seem to make sense to "correct" results based on an assumption that may not even be valid.

Posted by: Can't win at June 14, 2004 06:09 PM (aQOKC)

24 J: "I would think it heartening that a student didn't know how to spell Britney Spears, as long as they still knew how to spell more worthy names [...]" The fact that you then go on to misspell both 'Massachusetts' and 'residents' is pretty darn funny in and of itself...

Posted by: MaitreDee at June 14, 2004 06:17 PM (AKgpm)

25 I took an intro stats course in college, so that’s the extent of my formal stats education. But it seems to me that using a small random sample and extrapolating to a much larger population makes sense when you’re measuring objective facts—how many children are in the average American family, for example, or the average level of education of retirees, etc. But, opinion polling must be inherently inaccurate, because pretty much each adult has his own individual thoughts, which—because he has a separate brain--must differ at least slightly from the next person’s. Of course, two people could give exactly the same answers on the same poll, but that doesn’t mean that they have exactly the same opinions—especially if the poll contains leading questions, confusing answer possibilities, or limits a respondent’s ability to answer "don’t know" or "no opinion." The real problem with what happened in yesterday’s comments was not at all that people disagreed with Sarah, but that there was an obvious and intentional flood of obvious trolls: in a period of approx. 5 hours, a blog that previously had received a maximum of—what? 35 comments? —on any single post was deluged with 88 more, a great number of which only expressed their appraisal of Sarah’s intelligence, with no reference to what they thought she was mistaken about. Furthermore, I counted about 20 email addresses that were obviously false (there might have been more), implying that those posters knew that what they were doing was insulting and indefensible.

Posted by: Carla at June 14, 2004 06:59 PM (r5M6F)

26 In response to some of the comments in this thread— From "Mike Adams": "Lady, you're dumb as a hammer, for gods sake shut up or put this stuff in a private diary! Ever So Sincerely, Mike" Um, Mr. Adams? There are plenty of websites/blogs available where I’m sure you’ll find more of your own kind. When I don’t think a blog is worth anything, I—gasp!—just stop reading it! Try that strategy sometime—isn’t it nice how one is able to move freely about the Internet? From MaitreDee at June 14, 2004 07:06 PM: "Those that you call the idiots who were incensed by this... do you think they're wrong in pointing out that what Sarah said was, well, less than an intelligent thing to say?" It’s fine to point out that you disagree with someone or even that you think they are factually wrong. It’s another thing entirely to leave comment after comment with obscenities directed toward someone who did not insult you and whom you clearly did not take any time to understand. Almost every blog I’ve ever looked at required some background to understand who the blogger is and where she’s coming from; it’s obvious that the trolls from that spree did not do any of that kind of work before shooting off their mouths (e.g., referring to Sarah as "he," etc.).

Posted by: Carla at June 14, 2004 07:01 PM (r5M6F)

27 hmmm... let's see... 53% said blah. Now, ignoring the sample size for a moment, err.. ummm.... bear with me, I'm not a statistician. errr... 3% possibilitiy of error makes it.. ummm... Right. I think I got it. Somewhere around 50 percent of a polled sample, maybe a hair above, maybe a hair below, but somewhere damned close to that line responded a certain way. How the hell dare anyone consider something so inconclusive to be representative of the VOICE OF AMERICA!!?? Mind you, I ask myself this self-same question just about every day when I think about the 2000 presidential elections.

Posted by: foog at June 14, 2004 07:03 PM (5GN6y)

28 Foog: I fear you're making the same ignorant mistakes as Sarah. Yes, a 3% MOE might mean those polled are equally divided. It also might mean 56%, vice 53%, said "blah." You see, the MOE is distributed around the 53%. Again, if you believe this poll--and others like it--are "irrelevant" as Sarah believes--I can assure you the current occupants at 1600 Pennsylvania are digesting them with mega-doses of antacid.

Posted by: Jadegold at June 14, 2004 08:55 PM (M9P7+)

29 "My own opinion is that a relatively small number of individuals and organizations effectively wield a vastly inordinate degree of power in this nation by manioulating the political system and that one of the key aspects of this manipulation is the dominance of the two-party system. When we succumb to the artificial division of our opinions into two camps and have at each other like unruly children on a particularly nasty playground, we perpetuate this system we laughably call democracy." Here here! Buy this man a drink! Excellent comment.

Posted by: Bolo at June 14, 2004 09:09 PM (Tgr46)

30 Polls are always biased to some extent, even when the questions are made as neutral as possible and a large, hopefully representative sampling of people is used. However, that bias pales in comparison to what can be achieved if you're actually trying to manipulate the polls, as in the examples given by Sarah, and I found her article and the attached links quite interesting. How do you explain changes in wording from one poll to the next? How do you explain the leaving out of certain questions in the published results? The only possible answer is media bias, and if you guys would stop spewing flames and propaganda long enough to have your heads examined, you'd see it too. Sarah: I highly doubt the people posting here are a statistically valid sampling of the US population, so ignore them. They're all idiots.

Posted by: Theodore Pride at June 14, 2004 09:22 PM (fOVHf)

31 How different would this whole conversation be if the insults were replaced by constructive criticism? Can someone explain how the article was not biased, rather than your opinion on Sarah's intelligence?

Posted by: Amy at June 14, 2004 10:45 PM (aJ30v)

32 Wow. There is nothing but rank humour rolling off the walls when the majority of critics of a blog which extols the value of critical thinking can do nothing more than blab dogma and insults. I'm amazed that so many "smart" people can miss the whole point about bias.....maybe you need to dummy your writing down to the grade two level? Or better yet, have some fun with stats! Why not count the negative comments in this post and extrapolate how many assholes there are in America! Keep up the good work!!

Posted by: Jimmi Jazz at June 14, 2004 11:33 PM (fd5Gy)

33 I see that you've left the comments on for this post (thank you!) and I hope you've had time to read my previous e-mail to you. Your post today makes much more sense than your previous one; still, the proposition that you have a thorough understanding of statistics strikes me as dubious. If, indeed, you have an understanding of p-values, sampling, and the requirement that one's sample be IID before you perform inferential statistics, why didn't you approach the LA Times article in that manner? If you're tossing around the term "p-value", you're in the position to write a post that would educate your usual readership about some of these issues. Why not take the time to do so? The LA Times article and the AP wire it was based on do leave out the level of confidence (as do most print reports on polls) and that in itself is worth a post. (And you could just as easily roll in on TV -- this weekend I was watching Fox News and saw them flash up poll results between programming and commercials which, I think, paraphrased the question asked, didn't list the number of respondants, didn't list the margin of error, and didn't list the level of confidence, and didn't attempt to put the poll into context with other polls or other questions asked in the same poll.) And, the fact that you got the sample size wrong led many people to believe, regardless of their personal opinions of you, that you didn't closely read the article you commented on, let alone have a working knowledge of statistics. But, if, as you and some of your commenters have written, your post was more on the write up of the LA Times article and not the AP-commissioned poll, why not register for the LA Times and actually *read* the article you critique? (C'mon, Sarah, don't tell me that you needed Groucho's comment in the other thread to goad you into reading the actual article.... I can't seriously believe that you instruct your students that when examining the media for bias they need not read the articles they examine?) Still, I'll argue the merits of the argument you advance in this post. I *strongly* take exception to your point that "polls don't matter, especially close ones." In my years of dealing with statistics, some of the most illuminating results have been the ones where the p-value is on the hairy edge of the rejection regime. Some of the most interesting tests I've been involved in are the ones where there is no clear answer to the question of whether "system A" is better than "system B". Such tests force the decision-makers to readdress what information they wanted to get out of the test, and reassess their appetite for risk before going ahead with a test. As unfortunate as it is for me as a tester involved with the DoD (and as frightening as it may be for the spouse of a military member) often decision-makers don't think about these sorts of things until the data forces them to. Still, I've been generally impressed by their ability to come to a decision (particularly if it allows me to do more testing) based on the data, and not politics. And when we report test results, we typically report the point estimate and the lower/upper confidence bound. In the case of the question you write about with a 3% margin of error (roughly similar to confidence bounds), we would be quite justified to say that with 95%/90%/80% confidence, there is a difference between the numbers of people agreeing and disagreeing with the question, and that the point estimate is 53 yes/43 no. (This may not be exact - opinion polls are statistically messy because of the existence of those who answer don't know/no opinion/no response and the fact that you're tracking two reponse variables - yes and no - instead of the single one in traditional statistics, however, the point is that with the margin of error and the given spread between yes and no, we can solidly say that a majority agreed with the question.) Let me close with my comments on an argument you make both in this post and in your original one. I don't think that the Den Beste article you linked to makes the point that all polls are "irrelevant." Rather, the point at the end of his post is that those polls are eventually proved OBE - by actual election results. Now, that point by itself is too cute by half - what about the enormous resources that political campaigns put into polls and focus groups in order to determine what the campaign should do - but Den Beste also links it only to polls dealing with voters preferences on political canidates - not to the sorts of poll (and specifically the question) that you spend much of your post on - polls that deal with levels of agreement with specific talking points or policies. Since I'll never enter a polling booth (or, more acurately, write in an absentee ballot) that will ask me if I agree with Sen Kerry's assessment of Iraq, I don't believe this poll is addressed by Den Beste's argument.

Posted by: Darkwater at June 14, 2004 11:40 PM (fiEVU)

34 Well, with a few exceptions, the liberals have shown their colors here.

Posted by: Parkway Rest Stop at June 14, 2004 11:45 PM (BjDAE)

35 Well I see Carla has detected "fake" e-mail addresses, hey Carla ever think there are those of us that are smart enough to know how to wander around the "net" and not leave a "footprint". Being the centerist/libertarian I am I do not wish my e-mail posted all over the net. So I use a "fake" e-mail. A fake e-mail does not necessarily invalidate the opinion offered by the individual. Now moving on to Sarah herself I did not gather you were living in Germany until after I made what I thought was a calm and rational post(well at least compared to others). I think a good point for everyone to remember is something Chris Rock says in his latest HBO special, I paraphrase here: "No one is ALL one thing (liberal/conservative) we ALL have issues we are liberal on, and issues we are conservative on...Anyone that is not willing to look at the facts before forming an opinion is a fucking fool". Chris in that second clause is absolutely correct. Sarah as I mentioned in yesterdays post I did my service, and I sympathize with your situation. I was single for the entire time of my military days, so while I do not have first hand experience at the seperation problems the military forces on married couples, I did have many good friends that were married, and I saw how hard they had to work to maintain the relationship. I would ask that you note that while I questioned your teaching ability, I was one of very few to avoid resorting to the ad-hominem attacks . I came here today out of curiosity, and obviously of my own volition, since there was no link to your site today. Please remember that although I might disagree with our being in Iraq, I wish a safe return to all our warriors there. Sarah you hang in there, this situation in Iraq will not go on forever,and though I wish I could express the same sentiment about the conflict with terrorists, I am realist enough to know that the terror front will be a long and sometimes hard slog.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at June 15, 2004 01:22 AM (4pVZJ)

36 Sarah, You have my sympathies for your misfortune of attracting an Atrios link. You're still one of my daily blogs.

Posted by: John at June 15, 2004 03:19 AM (crTpS)

37 "I was starting to feel sympathetic towards the Left until they started calling me names." Wow! This is some great political commentary here. You really thought long and hard about your political leanings didn't you? As someone who holds an MA in Political Science, I would laugh like hell if one of my colleagues expressed the above quotation (and or expressed an utter confusion over simple statistics). And if a professor conveyed the idiocy that you have the past few days I most certainly would drop that professor's courses.

Posted by: Tom at June 15, 2004 04:03 AM (ZKWf0)

38 These comments disturb me. In dozens of replies, I found a handful of items that could be construed as constructive analysis of the content of the original post -- most of these criticisms targeted at the poster's mistaken assumption that 53% positive responses with a 1230 sample and a +/-3% moe could yield 615. Yes, indicative of room to learn, but by no means an invalidation of the meat of the post which conerned itself with poll construct, sampling methodology, and result presentation, and how these are used and abused to advance the agendas of the poll's funders. In my opinion, this community (in the interest of productive discourse rather than emotionally-based war -- this is our goal, right?) would be much better served if responses were limited to those that logically and specifically challenge the ideas put forth by the poster, rather than opinions regarding the poster him/herself.

Posted by: cerkit at June 15, 2004 07:51 AM (fQ5dB)

39 I wrote one about people with bad manners and a lack of common decency. Did you include yourself in this group, considering you called commenters to your blog "assholes?"

Posted by: YatPundit at June 15, 2004 09:25 AM (yv+zz)

40 I found your rants interesting and enjoyed them. That fact that a techer is even thinking about these things is even better! I hope you DO take them into the classroom!

Posted by: OffDWall at June 15, 2004 10:38 AM (rZk1W)

41 Bubba Bo Bob Brain: "Well I see Carla has detected "fake" e-mail addresses, hey Carla ever think there are those of us that are smart enough to know how to wander around the 'net' and not leave a 'footprint'. Being the centerist/libertarian I am I do not wish my e-mail posted all over the net. So I use a 'fake' e-mail. A fake e-mail does not necessarily invalidate the opinion offered by the individual." My point was simply that fake email addresses + obscenities + blatant disregard of readily available information (e.g., Sarah as "he") [multiplied by] many more comments than this blog usually gets = troll swarm. Trolling is pretty disgraceful in and of itself; ignorantly echoing 40 other trolls' comments (or one person using multiple names to troll the same thread) is even worse. (Note: I'm not saying this is what you were doing, I'm just commenting on the phenomenon of the troll swarm.) I use a hotmail account for posting to the 'net. It is not my primary address, but it does provide the blogger about whom I'm commenting the opportunity to get in touch with me if they wish. I think it's handy.

Posted by: Carla at June 15, 2004 11:04 AM (r5M6F)

42 Sarah, your comment: "It's no lie that everywhere in the world that there's conflict, Muslims are somehow involved." is demonstrably wrong and ill-informed. Nobody denies that the middle east is a basket case, but Muslims have no monopoly on conflict. (Northern Ireland, North Korea, Vietnam, Colombia, Angola, Tibet/China, etc). Remember WW2? I don't recall the Muslims starting it. Nope - it was a bunch of evil white guys, if memory serves. Never post when you're drunk or angry.

Posted by: yet another lefty at June 15, 2004 04:48 PM (sj6jn)

43 Sarah, thank you for responding to my comments. I'm afraid that I didn't make myself completely clear, though, as you state: I assume close calls are controlled experiments measuring, as he said, whether 'system A' is better than 'system B'." That's science. Opinion polling is not science. On the contrary, some of the instances I was thinking of when I wrote those sentences dealt with human factors questionnaires (system usability, quality of training) which are nothing more than opinion surveys. Quite often, there is no substitute for the qualitative information from surveys. Lots of human factors engineers have spent lots of time and money to quantitatively measure usability of GUIs (eye dwell time, eye refocus time), for instance, with very few practical results. But, when faced with loads of qualitative data, we can still analyze that data quantitatively, and come out with numeric results with levels of confidence and margins of error. Qualitative data is not inherently fuzzy. (Of course, it can be.) More importantly, qualitative data is not necessarily fuzzier than quantitative data. That's another issue lurking in the blog host's (I like that term!) assumption about my work; I'm afraid that she has fallen (granted, unintentionally) into one of the misconceptions of testing and hypothesis testing in particular that I hear all the time. Most of the tests I'm involved in aren't the highly controlled "experimental"-type breadboard/brassboard test setups that I think she is talking about. (Believe me, as an engineer, I'd kill to be in an environment where I had that level of control over... well, the environment.) I'm used to dealing with very gross measures of performance and getting that data from large, complex, messy environments. When you're relying on a test event involving tens, hundreds, even thousands of people, even limited data is still incredibly expensive to generate. Very often the only way to get human factors information is to ask the system operators their opinions after operations, in essence, calling people and asking them questions. Now, the amount of human factors data that can be reliably collected is limited; for instance, questionnaires lengthen the workday of the operator, usually right before they leave work, so a lengthy questionnaire can lead to a grumpy respondent. But it is possible to write questionnaires that aren't biased, give the respondent a wide and all-encompassing set of responses to choose from, and can generate data ripe for analysis. And when we finally get to analysis, the great thing about most statistical processes (particularly hypothesis testing) is that they take the variability and sample size of the data into account. Each time people like me report on whether missile miss distance meets specifications, what the mean time to repair a system is, or on user preference of GUI A or GUI B, (or user preference of Policy A or Policy B), we are performing a hypothesis test, whether the raw data was quantitative or qualitative. I would say that my experience has shown me that you don't need perfectly controlled conditions and 'perfect' data in order to do analysis, and calling a bunch of people and asking them questions need not be deeply flawed. You can certainly run into problems - but that's true of just about any procedure, or indeed, any thought process. I encourage everyone, whoever they may be, whatever education level they have, whatever they do, to approach how they live and how they think in a critical manner and be aware of those pitfalls - we can't just smugly pile them up on the doorsteps of the Gallups of the world.

Posted by: Darkwater at June 16, 2004 12:40 AM (XYkvR)

44 You still don't get statistics, or survey methods. Sorry.

Posted by: a statistician at June 16, 2004 11:56 PM (TTMxF)

45 Sarah, When you called the commenters "assholes" you lost any chance of the high ground. Easy to lose your temper, perhaps, but that's the result. The "only 615 people" comment is the striking one. You spell out above that you have the educational background to know what a fallacy this is, so maybe you could have addressed that more. At least you could balance the comment by saying that maybe only 492 people in the USA think that war was justified (by using the same reasoning). Then it wouldn't have seemed such a biased, agenda-driven comment. For a study of bias in the LAT, you could also look at the 20,000-person anti-war demonstration in LA that they didn't cover. The documentary film "We Interrupt This Empire" would be a suitable starting point for a class on it (Google for it). You say you don't care what other countries think. That was Saddam Hussein's attitude, wasn't it?

Posted by: Martin Poulter at June 17, 2004 08:41 AM (Qk9Ls)

46 "You still don't get statistics, or survey methods. Sorry. Posted by a statistician at June 17, 2004 04:56 AM" Only the Internet can facilitate these wonderful gems of prose. "Did you include yourself in this group, considering you called commenters to your blog "assholes?"" You can't teach! You're an idiot! You can't teach! You're an idiot! You can't teach! You're an idiot! You're an asshole. GHASP!

Posted by: hao2lian at June 18, 2004 11:38 AM (x0PqM)

47 Sarah, though I disagree with your politics, I salute you for making this blog and its comments available. My respect for conservatives has increased ten-fold. ruben

Posted by: ruben at June 20, 2004 02:28 AM (sTqLM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

When my students and I study media bias, this might be a perfect article to discuss:

A majority of American registered voters now say conditions in Iraq did not merit war, but most are reluctant to abandon efforts there, according to a new Los Angeles Times poll.

A majority? How big of a majority?

Voters are increasingly concerned that Iraq is a quagmire America cannot escape, and they are doubtful that a democratic government will be established there, according to the poll published in Friday editions of the Times.

No scare quotes in there? Did the questions in the poll include these words "Is Iraq a quagmire America cannot escape?" or are they the biased drivel straight out of L.A.?

Fifty-three percent of respondents said the situation in Iraq did not merit war, while 43 percent said war was justified. When the same question was asked for Times polls in March and November, the numbers were precisely reversed.

But less than 20 percent said America should withdraw its troops within weeks, and 25 percent said the U.S. should set a deadline for pulling out.

Less than 20 + 25 = max 45%. What did the remaining 55% have to say? Obviously nothing that the LA Times thought was newsworthy. And what was the margin of error, by the way?

The poll, which was conducted from Saturday to Tuesday, surveyed 1,230 registered voters nationwide. It had a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

The U.S. population is estimated at close to 300 million right now, and we're supposed to get worked up over what 1,230 people who are registered voters have to say? Hell, I only just registered yesterday, so I would've been ineligible. And if the margin of error is plus or minus 3%, and 53% of these 1,230 people thought war was not necessary, then perhaps only 615 people in the whole USA said this.

615 people. How on earth is this supposed to be representative of the voice of America?

A majority of voters said presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry has done little to help: The poll found that 34 percent said Kerry has not offered a clear plan to handle the war, while 15 percent said he has. The other voters said they didn't know.

Ha ha ha. That last line is a hoot.

MORE:

Since I certainly wouldn't want Groucho to think I was lazy or stupid, I went and registered for the LA Times so I could read the poll. Turns out it was AP who came up with the quagmire quote all on their own; LA Times chose the expression "bogged down". AP also left out many positive findings in the poll: 52% said the US is winning, 73% said there should be no specific date for withdrawal of troops, etc. At the end of the LA poll we see this disclaimer:

Poll results may also be affected by factors such as question wording and the order in which questions are presented.

At least they're aware of it; I think it's highly biased to ask whether Americans support President Bush by framing the question like this:

Q48. As you may know, John Kerry has said that President Bush has lost credibility around the world and that only a new president can rally the support of US allies to help stabilize Iraq. Do you agree or disagree with this assessment by Kerry?

That's a loaded question, since in order to answer it you have to accept the fact that 1) we care what other countries think and 2) we actually need to rally certain former-allies; I don't accept either of those premises. How would I answer that with a yes/no? It's not possible.

So I hope Groucho is happy that I took the time to read the original. I still think that all polls of this nature are worthless, but now I know for sure that the AP was hilariously biased in their reporting and that the original poll contained loaded questions.

I guess I've learned something today. I learned that people who tick me off can incite me to do more research and strengthen my opinion with even more facts than I had before.

UPDATE:

More on why all polls -- not just this one -- are irrelevant.

MORE:

Well, it's time for bed on my side of the world, so I think 90 comments are plenty for one day. Thanks for participating...

Posted by: Sarah at 05:36 PM | Comments (89) | Add Comment
Post contains 745 words, total size 5 kb.

1 You leaned well from "How to Lie With Statistics"! Nobody will be able to convince you of anything with a poll again!

Posted by: Mike at June 11, 2004 07:15 PM (+K53a)

2 Did the questions in the poll include these words "Is Iraq a quagmire America cannot escape?" or are they the biased drivel straight out of L.A.? Is it laziness or stupidity that keeps you from going to the LAT web site to find out?

Posted by: Groucho at June 12, 2004 12:12 PM (jQg9l)

3 The better question would be, "Did the author of the article know the specifics of the poll before writing it? If so, why did he/she not report on the conditions?" The answer is probably, based on my study of many opinion polls, that the author liked the results, and cared little about the conditions. Isn't trolling fun? It is a real opportunity to learn.

Posted by: Mike at June 12, 2004 01:34 PM (+K53a)

4 You are truly stupid. No poll in America ever used more than one or two thousand people. See that "plus or minus 3%" thing? that means that it is representative of the entire US and it is accurate within 3 percentage points. there is not a single poll thatr doesnt operate this way. so, yes, it is representative of america. your lack of any form of rational logic is truly stunning.

Posted by: Gillon at June 12, 2004 09:23 PM (01Q+A)

5 Dang, who invited all the assholes?

Posted by: Sarah at June 13, 2004 02:58 AM (v9lAE)

6 You teach? I'm amazed. This is one of the most clueless posts I have ever read on a blog. And that is saying something. More evidence that any idiot can set up a web log--and more than a few idiots have.

Posted by: raj at June 13, 2004 11:23 AM (WWS77)

7 Not very popular is this blog. 5 posts in just under 10 hours. Give it a rest.

Posted by: Cloned Poster at June 13, 2004 11:27 AM (17uvR)

8 what incredible dumbfuckery. you teach? well why the hell should we care what you have to say, anyway? It's a nation of nearly 300 million and you're just one person.

Posted by: renato at June 13, 2004 11:30 AM (fbmaS)

9 you have failed to grok the most simple points of (1) reading a fucking article, (2) statistical sampling, and (3) media bias. Congratulations, you're a moron. Don't forget to take a breath. NOW!

Posted by: loser at June 13, 2004 11:36 AM (HPF5E)

10 Your opinion was "strengthened" by that additional information? Whatever helps you sleep better at night, I guess. Did it ever occur to you that the "John Kerry has said that President Bush has lost credibility" question might have come off as just as loaded the other way? As in, there are people who believe that the US has lost credibility but still don't like John Kerry, and would respond negatively to the sentiment that is the subject of the question simply because Kerry's name was connected with it? Please let us know which school you teach at, won't you, so that I can make sure I never send my children there.

Posted by: Doug Gillett at June 13, 2004 11:38 AM (iF7Un)

11 Are you serious when you say you just registered to vote yesterday? Seriously, you just need to STFU if that's the case.

Posted by: Greg in MS at June 13, 2004 11:39 AM (AQ8ky)

12 The amazing thing about the truely stupid is their inability to gauge their own performance. Think of all the "D" students who angrily insist they "deserved" an "A". The lack of a corrective feedback mechanism means once stupid, perpetually stupid. Now this is opposed to ignorant, which simply means lacking in knowledge or information. Ignorance is repairable. Stupidity is willful ignorance. Self-inflicted and permanent. Check out the arcane science of "sampling theory". Then maybe you'll understand how polls work. Or not. Maybe you should just be pissed off at everybody who doesn't see things your way.

Posted by: Warbaby at June 13, 2004 11:40 AM (LLuT6)

13 Since people who tick you off "incite" you to do more research, perhaps you should include a semester or two of introductory statistics in your research. Because anyone who has taken stats knows full well that if the poll was done correctly, ie, consisted of a random sample, then 1230 registered voters can, in fact, represent the opinion of ALL registered voters within a stated margin of error. (And chances are that this poll was done correctly, simply because people who, unlike you, really know what they're talking about when it comes to statistics would be all over them in a moment.) Furthermore, you should NEVER do research to "strengthen" your opinion because that's not genuine research, merely building your self-esteem. Research should only be done to learn the truth about an issue, which may or may not jibe with your opinion. And when you learn that you are wrong and/or ignorant, you need to admit it clearly. Otherwise, you have no business teaching anyone anything.

Posted by: tristero at June 13, 2004 11:57 AM (eCSS7)

14 Truly the dumbest and most un-educated post I have ever seen. My question to you is had the result been, say, 65% of Americans think Bush is doing great in Iraq, would you have put up the same post "criticizing" the methodology? . . . I didn't think so. You're a moron, please turn in your teaching credential or resign and burn you voter registration card you are a gathering threat to democracy.

Posted by: willy at June 13, 2004 11:59 AM (yMTCb)

15 "and if the margin of error is plus or minus 3%, and 53% of these 1,230 people thought war was not necessary, then perhaps only 615 people in the whole USA said this" Is this a serious post? This is grade school stuff, no pun intended.

Posted by: wil at June 13, 2004 12:01 PM (px7lb)

16 You are a teacher? No wonder our education system is so fucked up. Dude, go have a talk with one of the math teachers at the local high school so they can explain the concept of random sampling to you. And here's some advice: if you don't have any idea what you're talking about, then shut the fuck up so you don't make a complete idiot out of yourself, like you did.

Posted by: The Fool at June 13, 2004 12:03 PM (eCiHu)

17 hohoho "we're supposed to get worked up over what 1,230 people" Silly liberals That high-falutin LA times didn't fool you, huh Sarah? It's a good thing you read the fine print. Think of how long this scam has been going on. Look! More media bias! From Fox News even. "The sample is 900 registered voters." Is nothing sacred?

Posted by: Ned at June 13, 2004 12:03 PM (ea1sl)

18 I see you're a Carl Sagan fan. How can you bee after he disrespected Reagan so? "President Ronald Reagan, who spent World War II in Hollywood, vividly described his own role in liberating Nazi concentration camp victims. Living in the film world, he apparently confused a movie he had seen with a reality he had not. On many occasions in his Presidential campaigns, Mr. Reagan told an epic story of World War II courage and sacrifice, an inspiration for all of us. Only it never happened; it was the plot of the movie A Wing and a Prayer- that made quite an impression on me, too, when I saw it at age 9. Many other instances of this sort can be found in Reagan's public statements. It is not hard to imagine serious public dangers emerging out of instances in which political, military, scientific or religious leaders are unable to distinguish fact from vivid fiction." Carl Sagan – The Demon-Haunted World -1996 p. 140

Posted by: Jodi Foster's Ghost at June 13, 2004 12:08 PM (VRE88)

19 I learned that people who tick me off can incite me to do more research and strengthen my opinion with even more facts than I had before. Facts are stupid things. Not as stupid as the people who can't figure out what they're saying, however... or who refuse to.

Posted by: dave at June 13, 2004 12:10 PM (di6wP)

20 Or as my daddy used to say, "figures don't lie, but liars figure!"

Posted by: dave at June 13, 2004 12:11 PM (di6wP)

21 If you were an intelligent conservative you'd be richer.

Posted by: Alex at June 13, 2004 12:15 PM (SvvYR)

22 You have students? Poor kids.

Posted by: Repack Rider at June 13, 2004 12:15 PM (MRm0u)

23 Honey, you are not qualified to teach. I'll bet you don't even have a high school diploma, let alone a college degree, which in most places in America is a prerequisite for a teaching credential. Here's hoping that you are also too lazy and ignorant to find out where your *new* polling place is located, because you aren't qualified to cast an informed vote.

Posted by: Phredd at June 13, 2004 12:15 PM (I5rZE)

24 Conservatives have demonstrated that any idiot can make it in this country: a C student can become preznit and a CFD blogger can become a teacher. God Bless America.

Posted by: NTodd at June 13, 2004 12:25 PM (lKUxU)

25 This is a rare slice of stupidity. I don't know where to start... When polls were taken before the war, showing basic support for the president's policies, they also would have tapped a similar number of respondents and used a similiar ideology. Why don't we go back a year and pick one of those polls apart with your keen eye and see what comes up?

Posted by: JoeB at June 13, 2004 12:28 PM (05GsI)

26 I have never read anything that was so patently stupid as your post. I cannot believe that anyone would pay you a dime to teach anything having to do with statistical research. It is posts like yours that make liberals believe that babbling conservatives are so unretrievably dumb. So do your party a favor and stop posting.

Posted by: kimmer at June 13, 2004 12:28 PM (yRxYD)

27 Wow, you teach. That's amazing. If I were a "pollster" that used "intellectual methods" of ascertaining "preferences" in the "United States", and you were my sole sample, I would be completely within my rights to declare that the whole of the American teaching establishment is criminally insane. If your expertise lies anywhere above the kindergarten level, I'm going to deport myself.

Posted by: Neil at June 13, 2004 12:34 PM (q/4gY)

28 Hay, you loozers leeve Sarah alone. Shes my tetcher and I think shes doeing a grate job at lernin me stuff.

Posted by: Thumb at June 13, 2004 12:38 PM (uMHiC)

29 Sarah, go read a book on statistics, then go sit in the corner. Thanks. And as for this: It was never about oil for the USA. If I hear that again I'm gonna slug someone. Guess what? Iraq's value is its oil reserves. Not the net amount it's currently pumping out, but its potential. That's why they're called "reserves", Sarah. With control of the reserves, you can then swing prices in your favor. Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia. As for why we invaded a nation which had nothing to do with 9/11: Check this out.

Posted by: Keynesian at June 13, 2004 12:39 PM (AaBEz)

30 Trying to grok? How about try to read something about statistics. And while you are indoctrinating your students about media bias, perhaps you should teach them about the difference between indoctrination and instruction.

Posted by: billyblazer at June 13, 2004 12:41 PM (9IgmZ)

31 You are a teacher who just registered to vote YESTERDAY? Have you ever even voted before. Way to set an example for your students re: civic duty. It's also so, so sad that we have teachers who make statements along the lines of: "caring what other countries think is a premise I don't accept." Great. I'm glad you have no desire to see the rest of the world, but don't foster that idea to your students. Come on, don't you have any intellectual curiosity? Probably not. You are a "Murcan." Good for you. Murca's the best. Who cares about Yurop. Remember, like Bush said at his last press conference, "oceans can't protect us anymore."

Posted by: willful ignorance at June 13, 2004 12:41 PM (b7/R1)

32 She's probably a home school teacher!

Posted by: Tommy at June 13, 2004 12:42 PM (FretM)

33 Sarah, who gave all 615 people a link to your site!?

Posted by: tenmilekyle at June 13, 2004 12:43 PM (3UjtD)

34 Sarah, who gave all 615 people a link to your site!? LOL!

Posted by: NTodd at June 13, 2004 12:45 PM (lKUxU)

35 hey sarah, Sadly, No! and Atrios "invited all the assholes." unfortunately for you they're dead right.

Posted by: dan at June 13, 2004 12:48 PM (sm3/q)

36 The “teacher” is highly prejudiced if he thinks that his referenced question # 48 is “highly biased.” He says it’s not possible to answer yes or no. Well for starters, it’s not a yes or no question. It asks if you agree or disagree with Kerry’s assessment of international relations. Apparently, this is beyond the teacher’s mental capabilities. My guess is that he got so flustered at the Kerry statement that prefaced the question that his synapses simply shut down. Since the teacher is incapable of answering the question, I’ll give him the key: Since you don’t accept either of the premises given, you DISAGREE with Kerry’s position. Sheesh! What does this guy teach? Remedial stupidity? Danka to http://atrios.blogspot.com/ who occasionally links to back-woods bloggers like this one.

Posted by: BUSHLLIT at June 13, 2004 12:50 PM (/b36s)

37 Looks like the Atrios trolls have arrived. Notice they only have only insults and no insight. Ignore them. They are mindless sheep being led by a paid shill. If you want something poll, poll the IRS to see if Atrios declared the $2,000+ notebook he got through begging on his blog as income.

Posted by: w at June 13, 2004 12:51 PM (9chvI)

38 Many of the comments here have been quite harsh. I see you as not stupid, but frightened by the facts you're being forced to confront. The clearest example of this for me is your response to the question about whether you agree or disagree with Kerry's assessment. What you have chosen to do rather than respond to the question is plead the 5th amendment, which makes it evident to me that you feel you belief system has been put on trial. The Kerry question is NOT predicated on the beliefs you claim. It asks you if you agree that we have lost international credibility due to Bush's actions, not your subjective opinion about whether or not such a loss matters or needs to be rectified. If you pass the fear your post indicates on to your students you will be abusing your obligation to prepare them to meet the challenges and opportunities of life. People who are afraid can't think clearly. Please don't do this to the pupils entrusted to your care.

Posted by: cs at June 13, 2004 12:56 PM (SC/PQ)

39 Gee, w, way to go! Your (in)effective use of ad hominems is likely to keep those bad ol' Atrios posters away from poor Sarah. No matter that Sarah doesn't understand how polls are constructed, or the concept of "margin of error" or a whole lot of things, it seems. You have to bash Atrios, rather than either (a) taking the time to explain to Sarah why her new commentors are right or (b) explaining patiently to Sarah how polls work. Great job, w!

Posted by: Deana Holmes at June 13, 2004 12:58 PM (K0TK+)

40 When I discuss rationalization with my students I think I will include this blog post as an example of strategic blindness. The style of this blog tries to mimic that of left wing blogs but like most right wing puffery it completely fails. Take the opening salvo, "A majority? How big of a majority?". If you read the AP article you will find that the question is answered in paragraph three, 53% to 43% (implying 4% undecided/no answer). The piece continues in the same style, but why is the author incapable of reading the third paragraph? The answer appears to be that the facts conflict with a core belief and so they are rejected. I don't know what the author does for a living but I suspect it is not teaching. Unless he teaches exclusively to classes of right wingers with the same opinions as his own, or the teaching style is exclusively one way it is pretty difficult to maintain such a gross rationalization. Also it seems unlikely that a real teacher of media studies would be so ignorant of basic statistcs. A 1250 person random sample is representative of an infinite population, the chance of the error being more than 3% out due to sampling is about 1 in 20. It is much more likely that there are systematic biases. So what we appear to have is an ignorant bigott trying to pass herself of as some sort of teacher to make her post look more important. If she is a teacher I am really sorry for the pupils at her high school.

Posted by: Phill at June 13, 2004 01:01 PM (YJhy6)

41 Sarah, I suspect you're not ignorant or stupid. You are probably blinded by your ideology. The scare tactics of the GOP and the Right have made it so you have an emotional wall that prevents you from trying to understand any information that refutes your ideological bias. When was the last time you changed your mind about a politicial issue? Are conservative Republicans wrong about anything? If you don't change your mind and conservative Republicans are always right, you aren't really thinking through the issues, are you? You merely regurgitate the emotional response you have been programmed to have.

Posted by: Carl Nyberg at June 13, 2004 01:02 PM (AFJH4)

42 heh, no insight? Maybe because this post had nothing reasonable to respond to. There is a whole misreading of the entire idea of polling. There is a bit of idiocy about a specific poll question. Not much else. But very briefly, go read a basic text on statistics. It will tell you that every poll with a random sample has a certain chance of having a certain amount of error. In this case, probably a 98% chance of coming within the stated 3%. As for question 48, well, Kerry has two points. 1) The US lost credibility. 2) We want that back so our allies will help in Iraq. If you disagree with both of them, the answer to the question "Do you agree with Kerry?" is NO. But then again, all this has already been stated, so I'm really just wasting my time explaining it again.

Posted by: Dan at June 13, 2004 01:02 PM (0TVmM)

43 First he says this: "Looks like the Atrios trolls have arrived. Notice they only have only insults and no insight." Next sentence: "Ignore them. They are mindless sheep being led by a paid shill." Good stuff, that.

Posted by: f at June 13, 2004 01:05 PM (Rli+B)

44 In case you're wondering, she teaches English 101 at a miltary base. Her husband is in Iraq. This is truly amazing. You would think that such a person would write and care more about how the Bush administration is denying our soldiers the things they need to stay alive. It has been well documented that our soldiers are not getting enough bullets, enough body armor, enough armored humvees. The food Brown & Root serves is often spoiled. When they return, they'll find their veteran's benefits cut. You would think that this would be what a military wife would write about. Instead, she is concerned the L. A. Times doesn't support the war appropriately. Can the times send bullets or armor? Bush, a man who has never been to war, treats our soldiers as cannon fodder. I say support the troops - remove their commander.

Posted by: ArjunasBow at June 13, 2004 01:18 PM (eC5OB)

45 Sarah: As one of the Artios "trolls" present here, I must say I am a little embarrassed at all the insults being hurled at you. I for one am glad you just registered to vote and I want to remind you to be sure to exercise that vote on November 3, 2004. MC

Posted by: MC at June 13, 2004 01:22 PM (2EQxt)

46 "I guess I've learned something today. I learned that people who tick me off can incite me to do more research and strengthen my opinion with even more facts than I had before." That's really all it is about for you, isn't it? Not approaching any issue with an open mind, but just trying to "strengthen" your preexisting opinion. And this from a self-proclaimed teacher! Sad, really sad. But the latest post is not as scary as the one before, the one where you wrote "It's no lie that everywhere in the world that there's conflict, Muslims are somehow involved." Just substitute a couple of words and it is identical to Mein Kampf.

Posted by: Kevin at June 13, 2004 01:31 PM (AaBEz)

47 Since when is using a SYNONYM exageration or distortion? Dictionary.com shows: quagmire \Quag"mire`\, n. [Quake + mire.] Soft, wet, miry land, which shakes or yields under the feet. ``A spot surrounded by quagmires, which rendered it difficult of access.'' --Palfrey. Syn: Morass; marsh; bog; swamp; fen; slough. and bog n.An area having a wet, spongy, acidic substrate composed chiefly of sphagnum moss and peat in which characteristic shrubs and herbs and sometimes trees usually grow. Any of certain other wetland areas, such as a fen, having a peat substrate. Also called peat bog. An area of soft, naturally waterlogged ground.

Posted by: Phil Wolff at June 13, 2004 01:38 PM (bTtvy)

48 I realize this post is pretty stupid, but how did so many commenters miss the fact that this was written by a woman? Her name's right there on the bottom. I'm just noticing a lot of references to "he" who wrote it. Completely seriously, did you think pollsters usually called every single person in the country? Is this the first polling result you've ever read? I agree with most of what's been said. The Kerry question isn't predicated on those assumptions. Agreeing with Kerry is. If you don't believe them, you disagree with him. Nothing loaded about it. And the article is very clear, starting with the first paragraph, that the majority of Americans don't want the US to withdraw. The "But less" phrase introducing the results indicates that it is contradictory to the finding that most people think the war was wrong. It's inaccurate to suggest the article overlooked that. The article rightly explains that order of questions and phrasing can affect results. There's simply no bias here. Is that enough insight, w?

Posted by: gordon at June 13, 2004 01:39 PM (spDd1)

49 I love it when fascists resort to equating others to Hitler. I would recommend they read Shirer's classic, but I doubt most could handle it without a dictionary. And it would really piss them off to see how much they have in common with the National Socialist Party. I doubt they'd believe Shirer's text because it is contrary to their perceptions.

Posted by: Mike at June 13, 2004 01:41 PM (+K53a)

50 She is just one of the frightened sheep, a minor member who is currently struggling, trying to find some intellectual basis for ignoring those obviously biased facts. What Atrios has steered us to is the output of Sarah in the middle of her crisis of faith. While all of the criticisms are perfectly valid, I might suggest that it better serves the purposes of those of us who prefer the United States to the GOP to allow her to continue her journey of discovery. If she is honest, she will eventually recognize the weakness of her position of rationalization. If not, there is nothing to save her from herself. In any case, she is a minor player presenting no threat. The cause of driving the snakes from our government is probably better served by simply pointing out the errors in her logic without the right wing style smears and attacks. The shooting of fish in barrels is, while undeniably entertaining, in the end neither admirable nor moral.

Posted by: Shrek at June 13, 2004 01:45 PM (44btU)

51 Sarah, I don't think you'd be getting so many comments from the Atrios crowd if we didn't know you were a teacher. That you are a teacher and passing on this crap to your students is scary but it also can be corrected. Take the advice of the many: get an introductory to stats book and read the chapter on polling. And no need to get defensive. Hell, Ted Koppel made a similar mistake on Nightline. If you don't do anything about this, if you just write off the critiques as liberal rant, well, God help your students because their teacher certainly won't.

Posted by: cc at June 13, 2004 01:52 PM (+1UQR)

52 Uh, take the advice OF many, remove 'the'...

Posted by: cc at June 13, 2004 01:53 PM (+1UQR)

53 It's all good fun to give Sarah a richly deserved thrashing for her amply demonstrated ignorance. What isn't funny is the fact she's passing her ignorance and racism on to the dependents of US military personnel, masked as 'education.' It's a form of child abuse.

Posted by: Jadegold at June 13, 2004 01:53 PM (hDe/Q)

54 This blog is proof that while the democratization that the net offers is good at distributing information and opinion it in no way intrinsically disciminates the good from the bad. Garbage in, garbage out. Lot's o'trash here going out. Seriously, you're a "teacher"? Passed a competency test lately? Trolls or otherwise, this blog reads like an Onion parody.

Posted by: ice weasel at June 13, 2004 01:54 PM (PK/H3)

55 hahaha, you're as dumb as a bucket of hair. there ought to be a test & a license to use the internet.

Posted by: hohohoho at June 13, 2004 02:01 PM (xBrlw)

56 Q 48 loaded? What a cutie you are teach! First we have to assume we care what other countries think. That's the open-mindedness I expect from teachers - out of 6 billion humans on the planet we only care what 45% of 300 million think. The rest of the world can go to blazes. Good thinking teach - if we ignore our allies maybe they'll just go away and keep their nasty opinions to themselves - We don't need anybody's help or trade or commerce or culture - especially their damned cultures! - talking their pluralism and multi-national alliances and sharing of common goals and... Do you realize that if the Chimp in Chief had gone into Iraq with his allies and a sense of real legitimacy that it would have saved American lives, and billions of dollars, and America's international standing (I'll infer you don't care about the loss of stature throughout the world). I guess you also don't care that the fallout from this wrong-headed war will last beyond your lifetime - that GWB has created more terrorists than he's killed. Go research the word fucktard, who invented it etc. - it describes you to a tee - I sure hope your students see this stuff - and drop the Heinlen handle too - it belongs to someone with an open mind - not a regressive fool like yourself - only 615 people in the whole USA? How long were you up inventing that bit of fucktardery?

Posted by: dividedandconquered at June 13, 2004 02:06 PM (/mDhl)

57 AP also left out many positive findings in the poll: 52% said the US is winning, 73% said there should be no specific date for withdrawal of troops, etc. ...is followed by: More on why all polls -- not just this one -- are irrelevant.

Posted by: Sadly, No! at June 13, 2004 02:48 PM (XQOGN)

58 I have given Sarah's position some more thought and regret the personal attacks even though I still think she isn't intellectually qualified to teach. Knowing that she teaches on a base and her spouse is in Iraq puts in relief the contours of her ideology. Her way of thinking is what Karl Rove depends on. It is what allows 'Mercuns to give the thumbs up as they stack naked Iraqis in a pyramid. To a great extent the military, the South, and swaths of the Midwest are echo chambers steeped in fear and ignorance of progressive thought and individualized opinions. She couldn't teach that the Iraq war was a fabricated conflict if she wanted to. She is the Red States personified. As we wrestle with the Andrew Sullivans of the world, the Sarah's quietly go about their day with no need to doubt their own ways or spin. Without Sarah Bush would never have a chance of being elected come November.

Posted by: willy at June 13, 2004 02:49 PM (yMTCb)

59 Were you one of those teachers Jay Leno talked to? You know, the ones who didn't know which century the pilgrims got here, what the ship was called they sailed on, all that stuff? Are you sure you're for Bush? Because he's requiring teachers to take competancy exams. If you are just looking for ammunition, you won't learn, truly. You need to look for information, and see if it fits your preconcieved set of facts.

Posted by: Margot at June 13, 2004 02:50 PM (lfER5)

60 My goodness, what a load you've got here in the comments, Sarah. I hope you're ignoring it. Or, if you feel like taking action, go ahead--delete these ridiculous trolls' comments. This blog is your property, not a free-for-all, and these disrespectful idiots--who add no valid insight whatsoever--are trespassers. I have to suspect that they're all the same two or three people--note the common (mistaken) themes. In any case, those of us who respect you and the blogging you do (even if we disagree with you from time to time) will certainly not think less of you for taking out the trash.

Posted by: Carla at June 13, 2004 02:56 PM (/wZmO)

61 Failing to Grok- Hey, people PAY for the drivel that comes out of L.A. - so in a purely free market/darwinian sense, we win! (Thank GOD for socialism, huh?) - Atrios Troll

Posted by: David in Burbank at June 13, 2004 03:11 PM (W/Ow+)

62 The author of this post needs some help with statistics. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0534372813/104-8318151-5360728?v=glance That should help clear a few things up.

Posted by: Bolo at June 13, 2004 03:17 PM (Tgr46)

63 Ah, yes, Carla, that's so much easier than actually questioning your belief system considering that what all those people have to say just might be true. How typically conservative.

Posted by: delafresh at June 13, 2004 03:18 PM (2zdPT)

64 This post is _profoundly_ stupid. Not just ignorant, but stupid. Is the poster serious when s/he says this: "And if the margin of error is plus or minus 3%, and 53% of these 1,230 people thought war was not necessary, then perhaps only 615 people in the whole USA said this." And this person teaches? You purport to study media bias and don't the first thing about how polls are conducted? It's one thing to embarrass yourself by posting this nonsense. It's quite a different thing to inflict your ignorance and stupidity on your students.

Posted by: O Knussen at June 13, 2004 03:22 PM (1Au4O)

65 "these disrespectful idiots--who add no valid insight whatsoever--are trespassers." Sorry about the behavior of the above commenters, but its very aggravating to have to read posts like this. I don't have any idea what Sarah stands for, etc., but I am very disturbed by the following paragraph in her post: "The U.S. population is estimated at close to 300 million right now, and we're supposed to get worked up over what 1,230 people who are registered voters have to say? Hell, I only just registered yesterday, so I would've been ineligible. And if the margin of error is plus or minus 3%, and 53% of these 1,230 people thought war was not necessary, then perhaps only 615 people in the whole USA said this. 615 people. How on earth is this supposed to be representative of the voice of America?" Now, preceding paragraphs show that she is taking issue with the details of what was asked in the poll (something which could have been found online anyway). However, in this paragraph she appears to be claiming that most of the field of statistics is bunk. For me (and apparently most of the rest of the posters here), that is on par with saying the world is flat. And I think what set a lot of people off, combined with what I just mentioned, was the following line: "When my students and I study media bias..." After that paragraph about "only 615 people," reading this scares me. Is she teaching her students the same logic? Yes, the hostility above is unwarranted, but most of the people who have come here are very fed up with seeing things like this... tolerance levels are way down, so a certain degree of hostility shows up. Sarah, please don't take all these attacks personally. But also, please study and get to know statistics a little better.

Posted by: Bolo at June 13, 2004 03:29 PM (Tgr46)

66 And if the margin of error is 3%, and 53% of these 1230 people thought the war was not necessary, then perhaps only 615 people in the whole USA said this. Actually 53% of 1230, using standard rounding methods, is 652. Out of this group of 1230 people exactly 652 thought the war was not necessary. Were you, Sarah, just trying to take advantage of those of us who are easily confused? Statistics gives you, Sarah, some basis to expect a different random group of 1230 people will include as few as 615 people who think the war was unnecessary. However, two things are for sure; 1)this poll found 652 people in the USA who do not think the war was necessary and 2) if the poll was properly conducted most likely at least 50% of all those not polled, but qualified to be part of the sample, feel the same way.

Posted by: CMike at June 13, 2004 03:36 PM (s6c4t)

67 and these disrespectful idiots--who add no valid insight whatsoever You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

Posted by: Thumb at June 13, 2004 03:41 PM (uMHiC)

68 Is Carla saying that any critic has no valid insight whatsoever, or that Sarah ought to reject those critiques with no valid insight. Can Carla tell the difference. I suspect that Carla is in that same echo chamber where she fantasizes that only 615 people disagree with what Lord George says and does.

Posted by: willy at June 13, 2004 03:53 PM (yMTCb)

69 Hey guys. Sarah's conclusions seem methodologically sound to me.

Posted by: Charles Murray at June 13, 2004 03:55 PM (+moyW)

70 Hey, Carla? Sarah obviously thought some of our insight was valid, otherwise she wouldn't have edited her original post. So go play somewhere else while the adults keep the discussion going, mmmkay? That's a good girl. While we're on the subject, Sarah, I really hope you read every comment in this thread. Think about what we're saying, and then ask yourself if we might not just have a point. You don't necessarily have to agree with us, but at least give it a moment's thought. If, on the other hand, you decide we're all trolls and just delete everything, you're taking the coward's way out and basically admitting that you're hopelessly partisan and intellectually bankrupt. For your sake and the sake of your students, I hope you make the right choice.

Posted by: Jack Flagg at June 13, 2004 03:58 PM (PcgQk)

71 More on why all polls -- not just this one -- are irrelevant. The following points apply to the "update" above: -- The linked article points out not that polls are irrelevent, but that we should be sceptical of them. -- You've neglected to say why and in what way the linked article renders "all polls ... irrelevant". What aspects of the poll apply in this case exactly? -- The linked article states that election results, not pre-election polls, are the only accurate gauge of opinion. But none of the poll's questions are any that will appear on any ballot. So just exactly how does this view apply when this isn't a pre-election poll? -- It doesn't answer or refute any of the comments made about your original conclusions.

Posted by: Spinning Tops at June 13, 2004 04:01 PM (8rWYi)

72 This is not about ideology, except as it relates to selective rejection of reason, mathematics, and scientific method as a political and rhetorical strategy. One cannot successfully build bridges, pilot battleships, or interpret statistical demographic data by abandoning logic and operating from a predetermined set of conclusions. That Sarah is a teacher only underscores her special responsibility to get things right in this area. That's what all of us "Atrios trolls" are harping on, and ignoring us or deleting our posts (as some have suggested) will not invalidate our arguments.

Posted by: turbonium at June 13, 2004 04:08 PM (5qdNU)

73 43% of Americans don't believe polls. 63% of polls are just made up.

Posted by: chsa at June 13, 2004 04:18 PM (Qqmxl)

74 Polls give the media something to say and can be used to manipulate public opinion. We have all been brainwashed into thinking that polls matter by their ubiquity. Even presidents kowtow to them. I guess this is furthur proof that the 'Big Lie' theory isnt one.

Posted by: Michael at June 13, 2004 04:40 PM (JPXoo)

75 Sarah's statistical analysis reminds me of the guy who told me his odds of winning the lottery were great. " Somebody's going to win, and I'm somebody. Unless nobody wins this week, and then I'll double up next week because the jackpot's bigger."

Posted by: Aeolus at June 13, 2004 04:53 PM (qP/XL)

76 As a fellow Atrios "troll", I'd say we _really_ need to step away from the name-calling. Sarah made a fundamental (though regrettably common) mistake about the role played by sampling in the construction of a poll. This makes her unqualified to teach statistics, and wrong about her particular claims, but DOES NOT make her the fair target of humiliation and cruelty. All we are doing when we bludgeon conservatives like Sarah is letting Fox News set the tone. A polarized country is exactly what Bush wants! If we (and here I mean supporters of JK) are to win in November, we'd be wise to reach out to as broad a group as possible. For those we can't reach, we gain nothing by attempting to humiliate them. Sarah, you were wrong about the stats. But we were wrong about the insults.

Posted by: RT at June 13, 2004 05:02 PM (z8M5+)

77 I'm actually HOPING for home schooling on this one.

Posted by: Alsatian at June 13, 2004 05:02 PM (SwTw6)

78 This person is what I spent six years of my life, (1977-1983) in the US Air Force, being willing to lay my life on the line to defend? I have a very good friend who is superintendent of his school district here in NJ, Sarah I think, is the type of teacher, he would have up for termination hearings with the union reps. Sarah for a teacher of any level to not understand basic statistics is very near (in my mind at least) a criminal offense. I will give you all the respect in the world for being here in the states while your husband is 10,000 miles away; however please show me the ability to consider the arguments of those of us that would vastly prefer your husband not being at risk in Iraq, but rather in Afghanistan which harbored the murderous scum. Even the president has been forced to admit on national television that Iraq had NOTHING to do with September 11, 2001. I'll sign off before I go completely postal and, give those of us in the "liberal" east any more of a bad name than the more strident already have.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at June 13, 2004 05:13 PM (4pVZJ)

79 Wow, that is one of the stupidist post I have ever seen on a blog. And you teach? Take a statistics class. Look at the LA times website. You may learn something about polls. Or, maybe just talk to some people about the war in Iraq. You may find there are others who are registered, like me, who were not polled by the LA times, and who feel this war makes our country less safe and needlessly puts our armed forces in danger and threatens their future viability. So I guess according to you, that makes 616 of us.

Posted by: tomboy at June 13, 2004 05:23 PM (iJd4p)

80 Sarah, Please forward your resume. Sincerely, TechCentral Station

Posted by: TechCentralStation at June 13, 2004 05:24 PM (hsIb+)

81 Wow, this is one entertaining thread. Sarah, you were kidding, weren't you. You're post was just tongue-in-cheek, right? Please tell me it was. Because if a teacher of our children has thoughts like this........

Posted by: Far North at June 13, 2004 05:29 PM (Ob4UD)

82 Sarah, It really, really easy for education professionals like you to sort out this polling models stuff. First of all, you could actually go to the LA Times site, and hunt down the poll methodology, which explain to you how random phone numbers are generated. Elsewhere on the web, you could learn about error rates, and how they are extrapolated. But before you do that, WHY DON'T YOU GO TO COLLEGE and get a degree before your destroy the lives of other people's children by your appalling ignorance of something as basic as simple statistical modeling.

Posted by: Nancy Richardson at June 13, 2004 05:30 PM (Or052)

83 My goodness, what a load you've got here in the comments, Sarah. I hope you're ignoring it. Or, if you feel like taking action, go ahead--delete these ridiculous trolls' comments. This blog is your property, not a free-for-all, and these disrespectful idiots--who add no valid insight whatsoever--are trespassers.... Carla Carla, you are not helping Sarah. If she wishes to teach properly, she needs to read these comments and then use the criticism to improve herself. The biggest portion of these comments include information that she should consider. They give ideas on what she should focus on if she intends to be a "good" teacher. If you have an opinion, but you recieve other material that shows you might be wrong, don't you owe it to YOURSELF to educate yourself, as well as others, thoroughly? Do you think it is intelligent to just mouth what others (holding your own ideals) say? Good luck with the education, Sarah. I wish you well. Carla, you might also look into the "validity" of the posted comments. You might do a little research, yourself. It might help you in the future. Have a thoughtful day.

Posted by: oldwhitelady at June 13, 2004 05:44 PM (IyjDO)

84 Carla, You are not doing your friend any favors by encouraging her woeful ignorance regarding statistical analysis. It is not okay to call yourself a teacher and then go about showing how wrong headed you are about something which one would expect a graduate of high school might have an elementary knowledge of. It just isn't okay, And oh, by the way, the Times Poll results have been repeated by two other polls, so it is pretty to assume that finally most Americans have wised up about an expensive cockup Iraq is turning out to be.

Posted by: Nancy Richardson at June 13, 2004 05:50 PM (Or052)

85 Sarah, I was trained as a statistician (bachelor's and master's degrees). You are making common mistakes that many people make about polls. Polls are neither Godlike in their accuracy nor total b.s., like the person in your followup article tries to assert. They tend to be as good as the objectivity of the person or organization conducting them. One should always read polls with a careful eye. Here are some things to look for: Read the questions carefully. Are they worded objectively? People with agendas can word the questions in such a way as to get the results they want. Was the sample a random sample? Deliberately not taking a random sample is one way to skew results. It's also why all self-selecting polls (like internet polls) are unreliable - the respondents have not been selected randomly. What universe was the sample taken from? Likely voters? Registered voters? All citizens? Results are likely to vary for different universes and are generalizable only to the universe they came from. For example, you can't take a sample of "likely" voters and then say that all Americans have the opinions found in the sample - only "likely" voters do. Even with the best practices, something called non-response bias can creep into the results. What this means is that it's possible that the folks selected for the poll who did not respond for one reason or another might have a different pattern of response from those who did respond. A good pollster usually tries to test for this by taking extra pains to collect an additional sample from the initial non-respondents and comparing the results to those of the overall sample. If they're close, then non-response bias is unlikely to be an issue. Sampling is not a perfect science, but the results from reputable organizations are usually accurate, as long as one understands just what they represent.

Posted by: gemini at June 13, 2004 06:07 PM (Ppd3O)

86 sarah, just ignore those condescending name-callers. they're not interested in any valid debate or information. i haven't ever seen such idiotic comments anywhere.

Posted by: chris at June 13, 2004 06:12 PM (pDL6x)

87 Christ. It goes from bad to worse. Sarah--obviously feeling a little besieged--cites Steven Den Beste in an attempt to say that all polls are 'irrelevant.' Well, Den Beste may be qualified to pick out 12 of his favorite donuts at Dunkin Donuts--but not much else. Polling is used not just by political campaigns (imagine Sarah's dismay to learn the Bush/Cheney campaign spends millions on what Sarah deems 'irrelevant') but by businesses and virtually every organization which has a stake in public attitudes. Moreover, forms of polling (statistcal inference) are used as quality assurance for just about every manufacturing, engineering, and technical company. But Sarah and the ever-unemployed Den Beste know it's all a waste and irrelevant.

Posted by: Jadegold at June 13, 2004 06:14 PM (hDe/Q)

88 Idiotic, Chris? Did you read her original post?

Posted by: tomboy at June 13, 2004 06:15 PM (iJd4p)

89 You are a teacher??? Kindergarten maybe. If you have convinced yourself that the poll is innaccurate based on your "logic" above I suggest you go back to school and take some refresher courses on statistics. You are woefully ignorant and self delusional in any case. One thing I got from your post however is how interesting it is to see how the other side rationalizes in order to feel better about this mess.

Posted by: Bruce H Lee at June 13, 2004 06:20 PM (coAmw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment