Stolen election?

manifesto

Our good friend and inspiration Monocle over at In One Eye points us to a post by HBO boxing analyst Jim Lampley.

Many of the participants in this blog have graduate school educations. It is damned near impossible to go to graduate school in any but the most artistic disciplines without having to learn about the basics of social research and its uncanny accuracy and validity. We know that professionally conceived samples simply do not yield results which vary six, eight, ten points from eventual data returns, thaty's why there are identifiable margins for error. We know that margins for error are valid, and that results have fallen within the error range for every Presidential election for the past fifty years prior to last fall. NEVER have exit polls varied by beyond-error margins in a single state, not since 1948 when this kind of polling began. In this past election it happened in ten states, all of them swing states, all of them in Bush's favor. Coincidence? Of course not.

If you think it is ridiculous that Jim Lampley is posting about politics, I invite you to go to Pat Sajak's opinion page. (I always knew I didn't like Wheel of Fortune for a reason.) Anyway, each of these men have opinions. Let's not debate whether they are valid or not because of their professions, but instead debate the internal logic of each author. I'm tired of listening to people be dismissive of an opinion because it comes from "an actor" or "an athlete." Listen, if a monkey somehow developed the skills to make a coherent and logical argument supported by facts and reason, I would be a fool for ignoring it simply because it is coming from "a monkey." Read opinions, investigate the facts, draw your own conclusions.