2005: law is passed giving a tax credit for bio-diesel mixes. But this eliminates all B-100 biodesiel because it's not a mix. Tax rebates are not made available to the consumer.
So run B99. Hell, run B99.99. No worries, mate.
2006: law goes into effect which raises the bar on small diesel engine emissions (commercial vehicles excluded) making it impossible to sell a new diesel car in the United States because the fuel used in the Unites States is too dirty to pass the emissions test. It is not the engine, it is the fuel that fails the test. There are no American automotive manufacturers selling a diesel engine in the United States.
It turns out that diesel engines crank out far more soot (and NOX) than gasoline engines, and this is a major problem for California which has to put up with smog due to geographic and human conditions, and the Northeast which has poor air quality due to high population density and Ohio/Pennsylvania/Kentucky coal burning power plants. California + New York + New England == almost 24% of tUSA's population. Of course, as air quality goes down, asthma, heart disease, cancer, and other ailments go up. Which is why...
2007: law is supposed to go into effect to introduce low sulphur dino-diesel which should permit diesel sales to go into effect. I'm a little suspicious that this law isn't currently under assault. But we won't know for another year.
a cleaner fuel would help, and why the US Gov't is pushing for a cleaner fuel. It's true that businesses won't move in the direction of "better for the Earth" without a legislative push. Even Toyota knew that the public would call out for legislation encouraging hybrids, and those tax rebates have been essential in the Prius et al gaining popularity.
At the end of the day, the B100 is a non-issue, and the particulate emmission problem is being worked on as we speak. Any more complaints?
Frankly, the cost of gas just isn't that high. Look at the overall budget for a school, and then look at how much of it is fuel costs. It's just not very much money.
In the mean time, just don't pick up kids who live within 1 mile of school. They can walk.
How do you account for using solar or wind or biomass generated electricity? If the power from the wall required no fossil fuels, then your pollution argument goes to pot.
You're jumbling up miles per unit energy (btu, whatever) and miles per gallon of gasoline. Since his goal is the latter, it very much makes sense to "run the numbers" as he has. He is getting 80 miles per gallon of gasoline, with the help of some other non-gasoline energy.
Additionally, even if it "only" moves the source of pollution to the power plant, it is (a) reducing oil consumption unless the power plant is in NJ, CT, MA, RI, or FL (about the only states that still burn oil for electricity), and since he's in CA, he's not even using coal-fired power, but rather almost certainly natural gas. Central point polluters tend to pollute a lower quantity than distributed polluters, albeit in a very concentrated (and hence possibly more dangerous to the local environment) manner.
The U.S. has an abundance of energy resources, including wind, solar, biomass, coal, and natural gas. What we do not have (relative to our demand) is an abundance of oil. Anything to shift energy sources away from oil is sound foreign policy, and often sound environmental policy as well.
Bah. That's like arguing for all regulations being the same, since it would simplify things.
Every landline telephone has an area code. AFAIK, not a single area code crosses a state boundary. Therefore, it's trivial to know in exactly which state the phone you are calling shall ring.
You do business in a state, you ought to know their rules. This is straightforward, and every business, regardless of their specifics, has to deal with it -- including telemarketers.
So remind me again why they shouldn't have to deal when every other business crossing a state line does?
Try paying a hooker on your property. Try selling booze to a minor (with a consenting adult). Try building something requiring a permit. Try requesting that a law enforcement personel follow your rules or leave. Try kicking your dog. Try lighting your own house on fire. Try firing an employee because of gender, age, race, religion, etc. on your property. Try paying your employee below minimum wage, violating any other labor law, or OSHA law for that matter.
There are many laws that govern what you can do on your property. You may not like all of them, but they exist, in part because democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch, and in part because your actions have an impact on the greater community, and the negative results (or risk thereof) may outweigh your personal gain.
Ownership doesn't give you the right to make up any rules you like, even on your property.
So, the people at the banks will face charges, as will the Lembo, the "mastermind".
But, what about the 40 collection agencies and law firms? Will they face civil charges? Criminal charges? Both? Surely they knew they were up to no good, and they were the ones funding the information theft in the first place -- all so that they could illegally harass debtors.
My first thought of application was in automobiles, not in portable computers.
I have no idea how much juice these puppies can continusly pump out, or how high that limit might increase. But, imagine a hybrid that also has a couple 10-year batteries in it, supplementing your electric engine with power...
Backyard is relative. There are quite a few people who live within eyesight of a windmill atop a ridge (were a windmill there), considering that there is a mountain* range along the entire Eastern seaboard.
So, in this case, on the order of millions of Americans, should every wind-productive ridge be considered. That doesn't even count the many millions who visit National Parks near the ridges in question.
Wind power turbines tend to be placed on monopoles taller than cell phone towers. Furthermore, the "best wind" is often near mountain ridges. The result is that the wind towers that would produce the most electricity tend to be the worst aesthetically.
The cell phone tower v. skyline blight wars will pave the way for (or bottle up) the deployment of wind farms on ridges across the United States. Standard NIMBYism continues with cell towers, and more NIMBYism will come down the pike with wind power.
Heating/AC and lighting are both a function of when people are awake. The latter is obvious: if people are awake during more hours of sunshine, they use fewer lights inside. The former: many people adjust their thermostats based on waking (or working) hours. The timeshift also results in a temperature shift.
One counterargument: kids waiting for the schoolbus. It's not so bad for high schoolers, but parents aren't keen on their 10 year old walking to the bus stop and waiting around in the dark.
It's a big time safety issue for kids. Should that be enough to sway the argument? Who knows. You can bet that soccer moms would be against making DST year-round though.
I particularly like that they paid some outrageous amount (millions and millions, 48?) for a lot for material disposal, never used it, (here's the kicker) gave it back to the previous owner for free!
No, that's not what happened. At least, not quite. They siezed a parking lot from Frank McCourt (IIRC) using eminent domain, paying him the value of the lot, according to whatever court determines such things. Supposedly they did not end up using it for materials staging (not disposal), and then sold the lot back to McCourt. They sold it back to him for less than they paid for it, 'tis true. McCourt is now looking to sell the lot himself at a large profit.
So, to clarify: 1. The Big Dig paid for the lot from McCourt after using eminent domain to force the sale. 2. It was to be used for staging. 3. The Big Dig sold it back to him, at a loss.
Mismanagement? To be sure. The worst part of the Big Dig? Nope, not by a long shot, in terms of cost, timeliness, risk exposure, nuisance for the city, etc.
Then again, I don't think that the Big Dig is as big a screw-up as everyone makes it out to be. It was an incredibly difficult engineering problem, full of suprises and risk. Furthermore, since Massachusetts pay $1.21 to the USA in income taxes for every $1 the USA spends in Massachusetts, I feel as if the other 49 states "owed" us the Big Dig.
But, it's tight. My wife and I live in a 400 sq ft apartment, with gas appliances and heat. Our electric bill is rarely more than 100 kwh/month, and that's in the summer with two fans running. In the winter it's regularly around 80 to 85 kwh/month. I expect that if my wife read more and watched less television, it'd drop 5 kwh/month. Throw in a new (and equally small) fridge to replace the old one, and we could easily get by on 69 kwh/month. I pay about twice as much in "customer fee" than I do in electricity generation and delivery.
I'm not suggesting that everybody could do it -- but it's not outside the realm of possibility for couples (no kids) to do it in a city.
Is a felon that has served its sentence entitled to the same rights as others?
Something else to consider: the probability of blacks -- most especifically black males -- to be convicted felons is far higher than the national average. Also, consider that blacks vote about 9:1 for Democrats (when the do actually vote).
So, regardless of fairness on a philosophical level, if you wanted Dems to win more seats, you'd want now-freed felons to be able to vote, since for every 10 black voters the Dem will gain 8 votes. Conversely, if you wanted to see GOP control increase, you'd want felons to be prohibited from voting.
It shouldn't suprise you that there's a corelation (no, not 100%, but positive) between the ability of felons to vote and the liberalness of the state.
One would hope that this would be determined on a basic fairness level, not a partisan, vote-gaining level... but just ask Washington DC's citizens (which number more than Wyoming) to call their senators and congressmen on the issue.*
* For non-'muricans, the 600,000ish people living in Washington DC don't have voting senators or members of the house, because the District of Columbia isn't a state. However, they do get 3 electoral votes for the presidential election, proportional to the amount they'd have were the District a state.
The best way to reduce emmissions from energy usage is to use less energy. So, awesome for that.
Another thing you can do is make sure that "your" electricity is green. Sure, you can't control the electrons flowing to your outlet, but you can spend a trivial amount of money to increase the amount of green energy produced by the amount you consume. Some utilities offer this right with the bill. For most of us, however, we have to buy green credits. I buy mine from Community Energy because they use 100% wind, are on the East Coast of the USA*, and have prices cheaper than many other green-e companies.
Currently, green-e costs more to generate than coal-e or gas-e. They need subsidies to operate. So, subsidize!
* Near where I live, and near where a tremendous amount of coal-fired plants are in operation
Head to We've got Howard's Back and donate some money. Some folks are of the opinion that if enough money is donated right from the get-go, it will remind the Democratic National Committee to listen to the people and not the consultants all the time.
After all, the sun does set in most places, at least half of the time.
I agree that discussions of cost weren't mentioned, and that the big advantage is in its five-fold efficiency gains. If it is less than 5 times as expensive per watt capability, it'll be a tremendous boon for massive solar power generation.
Solar can only be a part of the green-e solution, due to the pesky Earth rotating in between the sun and the solar cells and mankind's desire to use electricity when the sun is down or behind a cloud. However, since solar production occurs during the day -- when we use the most power -- solar electrical generation does a great job of reducing the peak demand, which is a huge boon.
Gregoire has already forced the state to pay upwards of $1 million already.
Pudge, I have to disagree with you here.
The State of Washington chose to spend the million bucks. How so? Well, it wrote a law that allowed the loser to request a recount if the race was tight enough. Of course, the race was indeed tight enough.
Gregoire hasn't forced anything. The state offered and Gregoire accepted.
P.S. In general, I think it's bad ju-ju for editors to post comments on articles they posted, except to correct errors or otherwise point to general information. I urge you to at least consider such a tact, since it helps remove the perception of excessive bias.
Your point about the value of time (and implicitly, not dealing with Christmas shoppers up close and personal) is great.
But in fairness, AAA's cost estimation used annual depreciation and insurance rates -- two things that aren't really "marginal" in cost.
If you own a car, whether or not you take that one trip to the local strip mall, your depreciation and insurance costs won't change. Therefore, the marginal cost isn't 56 cents a mile, it's far lower. Petrol, actual wear and tear, oil and air filters, fluids, etc must be accounted for. Even the probability of an accident and it's accompanying costs should be considered.
Depreciation? No way. Insurance? Nope. You were going to pay those costs if you bought that TV at Fry's or at priceline.com .
Same day registration is important. The right to vote should not be predicated on the actions of dealing with a government agency prior to election day.
Some states have same day registration, but it opens the state up to more voter fraud. So: use indelible ink. Nations with low person-specific government recognition including Afghanistan and India use it. Simply, it is ink that can't be rubbed off for at least 24 hours.
You vote. You get your thumb inked. You don't need an "I voted" sticker. Since you can cast a spoiled vote, even those who would prefer not to vote can get the ink on their thumbs. If you've got ink on your thumb, you can't reregister or revote at a different precinct/ward.
Easier to vote + fewer instances of fraud = better democracy.
I couldn't find info on which polls they used. Of course, some pollsters do a better job than others, and some even engage in push polling?*
So, it seems to me that feeding a different subset of polls will garner different results, and that the equilibruim is very stable -- change the Ohio or Florida poll by two percentage points toward Kerry and I'd bet the odds go from 3:1 to 1:1 pretty damned quickly. Likewise, fudge the CO, NH, and MN results toward Bush 2 points, and it might go from 3:1 to 5:1.
Surely they could do a better job about releasing their data and their polling selection methodology...
* baiting an answer. For example: Would you vote for George Bush even though he lied about WMDs and his wife once killed a man? Clearly not a good idea if one seeks accurate polling, but it's done all the time nevertheless. Just ask wiki about Sen. McCain's black baby born out of wedlock.
Slashdot Mirror
2005: law is passed giving a tax credit for bio-diesel mixes. But this eliminates all B-100 biodesiel because it's not a mix. Tax rebates are not made available to the consumer.
So run B99. Hell, run B99.99. No worries, mate.
2006: law goes into effect which raises the bar on small diesel engine emissions (commercial vehicles excluded) making it impossible to sell a new diesel car in the United States because the fuel used in the Unites States is too dirty to pass the emissions test. It is not the engine, it is the fuel that fails the test. There are no American automotive manufacturers selling a diesel engine in the United States.
It turns out that diesel engines crank out far more soot (and NOX) than gasoline engines, and this is a major problem for California which has to put up with smog due to geographic and human conditions, and the Northeast which has poor air quality due to high population density and Ohio/Pennsylvania/Kentucky coal burning power plants. California + New York + New England == almost 24% of tUSA's population. Of course, as air quality goes down, asthma, heart disease, cancer, and other ailments go up. Which is why...
2007: law is supposed to go into effect to introduce low sulphur dino-diesel which should permit diesel sales to go into effect. I'm a little suspicious that this law isn't currently under assault. But we won't know for another year.
a cleaner fuel would help, and why the US Gov't is pushing for a cleaner fuel. It's true that businesses won't move in the direction of "better for the Earth" without a legislative push. Even Toyota knew that the public would call out for legislation encouraging hybrids, and those tax rebates have been essential in the Prius et al gaining popularity.
At the end of the day, the B100 is a non-issue, and the particulate emmission problem is being worked on as we speak. Any more complaints?
Frankly, the cost of gas just isn't that high. Look at the overall budget for a school, and then look at how much of it is fuel costs. It's just not very much money.
In the mean time, just don't pick up kids who live within 1 mile of school. They can walk.
How do you account for using solar or wind or biomass generated electricity? If the power from the wall required no fossil fuels, then your pollution argument goes to pot.
You're jumbling up miles per unit energy (btu, whatever) and miles per gallon of gasoline. Since his goal is the latter, it very much makes sense to "run the numbers" as he has. He is getting 80 miles per gallon of gasoline, with the help of some other non-gasoline energy.
Additionally, even if it "only" moves the source of pollution to the power plant, it is (a) reducing oil consumption unless the power plant is in NJ, CT, MA, RI, or FL (about the only states that still burn oil for electricity), and since he's in CA, he's not even using coal-fired power, but rather almost certainly natural gas. Central point polluters tend to pollute a lower quantity than distributed polluters, albeit in a very concentrated (and hence possibly more dangerous to the local environment) manner.
The U.S. has an abundance of energy resources, including wind, solar, biomass, coal, and natural gas. What we do not have (relative to our demand) is an abundance of oil. Anything to shift energy sources away from oil is sound foreign policy, and often sound environmental policy as well.
So quit peeing in the gastank.
Bah. That's like arguing for all regulations being the same, since it would simplify things.
Every landline telephone has an area code. AFAIK, not a single area code crosses a state boundary. Therefore, it's trivial to know in exactly which state the phone you are calling shall ring.
You do business in a state, you ought to know their rules. This is straightforward, and every business, regardless of their specifics, has to deal with it -- including telemarketers.
So remind me again why they shouldn't have to deal when every other business crossing a state line does?
Perhaps, but I do have the right to tell you to get the fuck off my property if you won't obey my rules.
You can say what you like, but you still don't have that right in all circumstances. Consider:
* warrant
* emergency services
* police chase
etc.
So yeah, you're wrong. You don't get to make the rules on your property with impunity, and you can't keep everyone off of your property with impunity.
Thanks for playing.
No, that's not how it works on your property.
Try paying a hooker on your property.
Try selling booze to a minor (with a consenting adult).
Try building something requiring a permit.
Try requesting that a law enforcement personel follow your rules or leave.
Try kicking your dog.
Try lighting your own house on fire.
Try firing an employee because of gender, age, race, religion, etc. on your property.
Try paying your employee below minimum wage, violating any other labor law, or OSHA law for that matter.
There are many laws that govern what you can do on your property. You may not like all of them, but they exist, in part because democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch, and in part because your actions have an impact on the greater community, and the negative results (or risk thereof) may outweigh your personal gain.
Ownership doesn't give you the right to make up any rules you like, even on your property.
So, the people at the banks will face charges, as will the Lembo, the "mastermind".
But, what about the 40 collection agencies and law firms? Will they face civil charges? Criminal charges? Both? Surely they knew they were up to no good, and they were the ones funding the information theft in the first place -- all so that they could illegally harass debtors.
Will the Feds follow the money?
My first thought of application was in automobiles, not in portable computers.
I have no idea how much juice these puppies can continusly pump out, or how high that limit might increase. But, imagine a hybrid that also has a couple 10-year batteries in it, supplementing your electric engine with power...
For the record, it wasn't an apple. It was merely fruit from The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Methinks Disney has more to do with pop culture believing it was an apple than any other person*.
Nonetheless, it wasn't an apple, as it didn't come from an apple tree.
* A silly joke about corporate personhood.
Backyard is relative. There are quite a few people who live within eyesight of a windmill atop a ridge (were a windmill there), considering that there is a mountain* range along the entire Eastern seaboard.
So, in this case, on the order of millions of Americans, should every wind-productive ridge be considered. That doesn't even count the many millions who visit National Parks near the ridges in question.
* hill, if you live near the Rockies
Wind power turbines tend to be placed on monopoles taller than cell phone towers. Furthermore, the "best wind" is often near mountain ridges. The result is that the wind towers that would produce the most electricity tend to be the worst aesthetically.
The cell phone tower v. skyline blight wars will pave the way for (or bottle up) the deployment of wind farms on ridges across the United States. Standard NIMBYism continues with cell towers, and more NIMBYism will come down the pike with wind power.
Heating/AC and lighting are both a function of when people are awake. The latter is obvious: if people are awake during more hours of sunshine, they use fewer lights inside. The former: many people adjust their thermostats based on waking (or working) hours. The timeshift also results in a temperature shift.
One counterargument: kids waiting for the schoolbus. It's not so bad for high schoolers, but parents aren't keen on their 10 year old walking to the bus stop and waiting around in the dark.
It's a big time safety issue for kids. Should that be enough to sway the argument? Who knows. You can bet that soccer moms would be against making DST year-round though.
I particularly like that they paid some outrageous amount (millions and millions, 48?) for a lot for material disposal, never used it, (here's the kicker) gave it back to the previous owner for free!
No, that's not what happened. At least, not quite. They siezed a parking lot from Frank McCourt (IIRC) using eminent domain, paying him the value of the lot, according to whatever court determines such things. Supposedly they did not end up using it for materials staging (not disposal), and then sold the lot back to McCourt. They sold it back to him for less than they paid for it, 'tis true. McCourt is now looking to sell the lot himself at a large profit.
So, to clarify:
1. The Big Dig paid for the lot from McCourt after using eminent domain to force the sale.
2. It was to be used for staging.
3. The Big Dig sold it back to him, at a loss.
Mismanagement? To be sure. The worst part of the Big Dig? Nope, not by a long shot, in terms of cost, timeliness, risk exposure, nuisance for the city, etc.
Then again, I don't think that the Big Dig is as big a screw-up as everyone makes it out to be. It was an incredibly difficult engineering problem, full of suprises and risk. Furthermore, since Massachusetts pay $1.21 to the USA in income taxes for every $1 the USA spends in Massachusetts, I feel as if the other 49 states "owed" us the Big Dig.
But, it's tight. My wife and I live in a 400 sq ft apartment, with gas appliances and heat. Our electric bill is rarely more than 100 kwh/month, and that's in the summer with two fans running. In the winter it's regularly around 80 to 85 kwh/month. I expect that if my wife read more and watched less television, it'd drop 5 kwh/month. Throw in a new (and equally small) fridge to replace the old one, and we could easily get by on 69 kwh/month. I pay about twice as much in "customer fee" than I do in electricity generation and delivery.
I'm not suggesting that everybody could do it -- but it's not outside the realm of possibility for couples (no kids) to do it in a city.
Is a felon that has served its sentence entitled to the same rights as others?
Something else to consider: the probability of blacks -- most especifically black males -- to be convicted felons is far higher than the national average. Also, consider that blacks vote about 9:1 for Democrats (when the do actually vote).
So, regardless of fairness on a philosophical level, if you wanted Dems to win more seats, you'd want now-freed felons to be able to vote, since for every 10 black voters the Dem will gain 8 votes. Conversely, if you wanted to see GOP control increase, you'd want felons to be prohibited from voting.
It shouldn't suprise you that there's a corelation (no, not 100%, but positive) between the ability of felons to vote and the liberalness of the state.
One would hope that this would be determined on a basic fairness level, not a partisan, vote-gaining level... but just ask Washington DC's citizens (which number more than Wyoming) to call their senators and congressmen on the issue.*
* For non-'muricans, the 600,000ish people living in Washington DC don't have voting senators or members of the house, because the District of Columbia isn't a state. However, they do get 3 electoral votes for the presidential election, proportional to the amount they'd have were the District a state.
The best way to reduce emmissions from energy usage is to use less energy. So, awesome for that.
Another thing you can do is make sure that "your" electricity is green. Sure, you can't control the electrons flowing to your outlet, but you can spend a trivial amount of money to increase the amount of green energy produced by the amount you consume. Some utilities offer this right with the bill. For most of us, however, we have to buy green credits. I buy mine from Community Energy because they use 100% wind, are on the East Coast of the USA*, and have prices cheaper than many other green-e companies.
Currently, green-e costs more to generate than coal-e or gas-e. They need subsidies to operate. So, subsidize!
* Near where I live, and near where a tremendous amount of coal-fired plants are in operation
as the new Chairman?
Head to We've got Howard's Back and donate some money. Some folks are of the opinion that if enough money is donated right from the get-go, it will remind the Democratic National Committee to listen to the people and not the consultants all the time.
Cunninger than the United Nations Bureau of Cunning.
I hear they have really top notch linguists.
... when it figures out where I live. Mapquest knows. map24 knows. Google doesn't... and so it doesn't (yet) pass the simplest smell test for my nose.
I look forward to it getting better.
After all, the sun does set in most places, at least half of the time.
I agree that discussions of cost weren't mentioned, and that the big advantage is in its five-fold efficiency gains. If it is less than 5 times as expensive per watt capability, it'll be a tremendous boon for massive solar power generation.
Solar can only be a part of the green-e solution, due to the pesky Earth rotating in between the sun and the solar cells and mankind's desire to use electricity when the sun is down or behind a cloud. However, since solar production occurs during the day -- when we use the most power -- solar electrical generation does a great job of reducing the peak demand, which is a huge boon.
Pudge, I have to disagree with you here.
The State of Washington chose to spend the million bucks. How so? Well, it wrote a law that allowed the loser to request a recount if the race was tight enough. Of course, the race was indeed tight enough.
Gregoire hasn't forced anything. The state offered and Gregoire accepted.
P.S. In general, I think it's bad ju-ju for editors to post comments on articles they posted, except to correct errors or otherwise point to general information. I urge you to at least consider such a tact, since it helps remove the perception of excessive bias.
Your point about the value of time (and implicitly, not dealing with Christmas shoppers up close and personal) is great.
But in fairness, AAA's cost estimation used annual depreciation and insurance rates -- two things that aren't really "marginal" in cost.
If you own a car, whether or not you take that one trip to the local strip mall, your depreciation and insurance costs won't change. Therefore, the marginal cost isn't 56 cents a mile, it's far lower. Petrol, actual wear and tear, oil and air filters, fluids, etc must be accounted for. Even the probability of an accident and it's accompanying costs should be considered.
Depreciation? No way. Insurance? Nope. You were going to pay those costs if you bought that TV at Fry's or at priceline.com .
(In addition to the electronic voting stuff)
Same day registration is important. The right to vote should not be predicated on the actions of dealing with a government agency prior to election day.
Some states have same day registration, but it opens the state up to more voter fraud. So: use indelible ink. Nations with low person-specific government recognition including Afghanistan and India use it. Simply, it is ink that can't be rubbed off for at least 24 hours.
You vote. You get your thumb inked. You don't need an "I voted" sticker. Since you can cast a spoiled vote, even those who would prefer not to vote can get the ink on their thumbs. If you've got ink on your thumb, you can't reregister or revote at a different precinct/ward.
Easier to vote + fewer instances of fraud = better democracy.
I couldn't find info on which polls they used. Of course, some pollsters do a better job than others, and some even engage in push polling?*
So, it seems to me that feeding a different subset of polls will garner different results, and that the equilibruim is very stable -- change the Ohio or Florida poll by two percentage points toward Kerry and I'd bet the odds go from 3:1 to 1:1 pretty damned quickly. Likewise, fudge the CO, NH, and MN results toward Bush 2 points, and it might go from 3:1 to 5:1.
Surely they could do a better job about releasing their data and their polling selection methodology...
* baiting an answer. For example: Would you vote for George Bush even though he lied about WMDs and his wife once killed a man? Clearly not a good idea if one seeks accurate polling, but it's done all the time nevertheless. Just ask wiki about Sen. McCain's black baby born out of wedlock.