Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Attack the study all you want. Where are the American figures on how many civilians have died since the occupation? If the administration has not produced any figures, why not?

Posted by Tim Barnes at October 14, 2006 04:20 PM

" If the administration has not produced any figures, why not?"

Proabally for the same reason we did not produce figures for Germany and Japan. You should get that knee looked at ASAP.

Posted by Mikr Puckett at October 14, 2006 04:41 PM

Rand

Why not take a flight over to Baghdad and
count the happy smiling Iraqi children yourself.

You could show how the Media isn't telling the
real story, and become famous amongst
your neocon friends.

Posted by anonymous at October 14, 2006 05:14 PM

Anonymous,

Why do you post? Just to confirm that you really are as retarded as the rest of us believe you are? Everything you post is some variant on the Chicken Hawk fallacy.

I can truly see no other purpose in your empty headed posturing because you certainly aren't winning any arguments with your early adoselecent grade musings here.

Still, you represent your side of the debate so poorly, it would be a genuine loss if you stopped.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 14, 2006 05:30 PM

"The Chicken Hawk Fallacy" Wow. Is this a another grand sounding pseudo-scientific sound bite that we should know about which would of course then explain it all? Elaborate will you, I'm really curious to understand your stupid thoughts better, Mr. Mike rhetorical Puckett.

Posted by Independent at October 14, 2006 06:08 PM

I'm interested in the oposing viewpoint on the point about the death certificates - if they say 80-90% of the people produced death certificates, and the government has released death certificate counts, why is their study not equal to the government numbers divided by 0.8?

Are we supposed to assume fraud/conspiracy on a collosal scale, in favor of in invading army?

Posted by David Summers at October 14, 2006 06:14 PM

BTW, the most plausible possiblity I've heard is that deaths are being double counted - basically, if an interviewer shows up and asks "how many family members died" you include your extended family. But when you get a count of the total family members in Iraq you only count nuclear families. In large, relatively inbred families this would skew the numbers by a large multiplier. Has this been refuted anywhere? The only other thing I can see (short of outright lying) is sampling error, but that would be hard pressed to skew numbers by a factor of 10.

Posted by David Summers at October 14, 2006 06:23 PM

""The Chicken Hawk Fallacy" Wow. Is this a another grand sounding pseudo-scientific sound bite that we should know about which would of course then explain it all? Elaborate will you, I'm really curious to understand your stupid thoughts better, Mr. Mike rhetorical Puckett.
"

Independent Asshole,

Why should I give someone such as yourself, with a hemmoroid for a thought organ, the time of day?

Still, it amuses me to apply some rhetorical preperaton H to your impacted running sore of a case:

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2005/08/the_chickenhawk.html

"August 27, 2005
The Chickenhawk Fallacy
Among the most juvenile — and most common — arguments advanced by left-wing trolls on this blog and others is the "chickenhawk" canard, whereby some sanctimonious fool proclaims that no one has a right to support the war in Iraq who hasn't served in the military. An argument this idiotic is hard to take seriously enough to refute, but apparently the job needs to be done, because moonbats — unable to come up with anything better — just keep trotting it out. There's no need for me to refute it myself. This has already been done quite thoroughly by others.

V the K and The Warden have pointed out in comments on this site that the chickenhawk arguments implies you have no right to expect the protection of the police and the fire department unless you are a cop and fireman yourself. V the K follows this logic further down the twisting lane of antiwar moonbat logic:

How many more cops have to die before the Bushco fascist regime realizes that law enforcement is a quagmire? Fighting crime only creates more criminals! Support the cops by closing all the prisons! The greatest crime in the history of America — the murder of Nicole Simpson — remains unsolved because the regime took their eye off the ball by pursuing other crimes. America isn't safe so long as the "real killers" remain at large.
Jonathan at Crush Liberalism references an excellent piece by Ben Shapiro, and raises some good points himself. For example, he notes that some leftists giggled like "teenage girls at a Justin Timberlake concert" at the idea of the draft-dodging Clinton being Commander-in Chief. He also wonders if he has to stop cheering for the Jacksonville Jaguars, since he's never played for the team.

Shapiro' two-part piece (Part I and Part II) drives home the point that by positing that only those who have served in the military are entitled to a point of view on foreign policy, the chickenhawk argument "explicitly rejects basic principles of representative democracy." He notes that leftists are among the last people who would want the military in control of foreign policy, especially since those in the military and their relatives vote overwhelmingly Republican — in 2004, Bush beat Kerry among them 69% to 24%. Democrats are of course aware that they have very little appeal for the military; otherwise the Gore campaign wouldn't have gone to such length to suppress military votes in Florida in 2000. Obviously leaving everything up to those who have served in the military and their relatives would do very little to advance the left-wing point of view.

Here's another of the many good points Shapiro makes:

If they [the American military] fight for the right of pacifist anti-military fifth columnists like Michael Moore to denigrate their honor, they certainly fight for the right of civilian hawks to speak up in favor of the highest level of moral and material support for their heroism.
Whatever might have remained of the asinine chickenhawk ploy was thoroughly obliterated yesterday by Rich Lowry on NRO. Here's a highlight:

By the same token, we could say to proponents of leaving Saddam Hussein in power: "That's an illegitimate position unless you yourself are willing to move to Tikrit to live for the duration of Saddam's regime." Or to supporters of "containing" Saddam: "You're a hypocrite until you go help patrol the no-fly zone." Or to advocates of inspections: "You can't support them unless you don a baby-blue cap and sniff around his suspected chemical-weapons sites yourself."
Why should this line of argument be limited to Iraq? "You think we should help fight AIDS in Africa? Well, go work in a clinic in Lavumisa, Swaziland." "You oppose land mines? Go clear them from the Korean DMZ." "You think there should be a new U.N. protocol in favor of [insert fashionable cause here]? Then spend interminable hours helping negotiate it yourself." "Support jobless benefits? Become a clerk at an unemployment office."
Alas, the argument only swings one way. A few radical antiwar groups, including Code Pink and Veterans for Peace, have released a statement supporting the Iraqi insurgency. But no one is badgering its members about whether they are going to go set off roadside bombs in Baquba. Jihad is so easy when it's someone else's son or daughter doing all the suicide bombing!
Shapiro sums it up as well as anyone:

The "chickenhawk" argument proves only one point: The left is incapable of discussing foreign policy in a rational manner.
"

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 14, 2006 06:38 PM

Rand likes to argue that the Media refuses to report
all the wonderful stories in Iraq. If it's his contention
the war is going well, he should go over and
take a few pictures, and show how wrong the media is.

Mike, you seem to think all those reporters who died in
Iraq are really just faking, so, nothing is stopping you
from going over to check out the scene.

Posted by anonymous at October 14, 2006 07:15 PM

Yeah Mike, go over man. You seem so full of lucidity and rhetoric, they couldn't possibly fail to see your brilliance could they? Fat assed chair pissers the lot of you...

Posted by Independent at October 14, 2006 07:22 PM

"Mike, you seem to think all those reporters who died in
Iraq are really just faking, so, nothing is stopping you
from going over to check out the scene."

When did this become about reporters? I guess the first sign someone is losing the debate is they start moving the goalposts.

"Yeah Mike, go over man. You seem so full of lucidity and rhetoric, they couldn't possibly fail to see your brilliance could they? Fat assed chair pissers the lot of you..."

I guess a hemmoroid such as yourself would have chair issues. Proabally came from all the years you have been riding the Short Bus. Both the rhetorical and actual ones.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 14, 2006 07:31 PM

My father, all of his 6 brothers and sisters plus his dozens of cousins lost another cousin (also named Cecil by the way) killed in World War II. Counting his death via this studies method would have resulted in it being reported as at least 40 deaths.

As Mark Twain (among others I believe) said "There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Posted by Cecil Trotter at October 14, 2006 08:56 PM

Cecil,

IIRC, Twain was referencing Benjamin Disraeli.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 14, 2006 09:13 PM

BTW, the most plausible possiblity I've heard is that deaths are being double counted - basically, if an interviewer shows up and asks "how many family members died" you include your extended family.

Well, that would account for some of the error, but not all.

I'd say what is happening is that the majority who haven't lost family members are telling the researchers to get lost, in much the same way that people who don't watch television dismiss the ACNielson ratings people.

Posted by Chris Mann at October 15, 2006 12:40 AM

The Lancet lies by adding up little lies. None of them is hugely significant by itself, but the ultimate result becomes absolutely false. The purpose is to make America look bad. The design reflects that intent.

It's important to insure that no trace of the source of the deaths "contaminates" the study.

It's equally important to keep the sample small. A small sample means big error bars.

First, you oversample violence-prone areas and undersample safe ones.

Then you require evidence. Sounds good, right? But the effect is to skew the count of previous deaths -- you don't suppose Saddam provided death certificates when he and his henchmen buried infants in the bodies of their parents, then filled in the ditch, do you?

Then you multicount, as noted above.

Then you manipulate the coefficients -- a matter of second and third decimal places -- so that the high probability rests at the high end of the error bar, and you report the high end of that.

Applying the same procedure to the United States would give roughly five million "excess deaths" six years after any recent checkpoint -- for instance, the beginning of the Clinton Administration.

It isn't statistics, as such. It's politics using statistical methods.

Regards,
Ric

Posted by Ric Locke at October 15, 2006 07:38 AM

"I guess a hemmoroid such as yourself"

You have no class.

Posted by Tim Barnes at October 15, 2006 07:43 AM

"You have no class."

.....and you are a hypocrite.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 15, 2006 09:51 AM

Mike, Tim, Independent, Anonymous: The name-calling doesn't convince anyone of your positions, particularly each other.

I would suggest that before commenting we all read the article by Jane Galt that Rand linked to, and then discuss whether her argument has merit.

Basically, she's saying that the methodology of the study is flawed, and garbage in = garbage out. If the study is in fact fatally flawed, then we really cannot draw any conclusions from the Lancet study. I tend to agree with her.

Posted by Ed Minchau at October 15, 2006 12:19 PM

Okay, I confess: I'm not going to bother reading the original Lancet article or Jane's comments.

But, I like Ric's comment. Does either article state whether the same set of techniques has been applied in a case where deaths are well documented? (Say, in the US, or, for higher rates, neighborhoods (or other countries) with high rates of gang violence?)

Posted by at October 15, 2006 06:05 PM

Mike, you can see that even after posting a very detailed debunking of the chickenhawk argument that they just came right back and continued to let the chickenhawk accusations fly. These people aren't here to listen to anyone or even bother to be right or wrong. They simply want to get under peoples skin and illicit a response of any kind to drag one into their childish little game. I would just consider these type of commenters to be the white noise of the internet and I generally tune them out.

I also agree with Jane's assessment of this report.

Posted by Josh Reiter at October 15, 2006 06:49 PM

Ya man, tune all sanity out. It's white noise. Put the blinders on, just like Cheney, Rummy and the dear leader. Just what you need - more tuning out of reality. Chair pissers.

Posted by Independent at October 15, 2006 07:47 PM

Ya man, tune all sanity out.

Under just what delusion(s) do you operate that you fantasize that your ignorant offerings here constitute "sanity"?

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 15, 2006 08:01 PM

Applying the same procedure to the United States would give roughly five million "excess deaths" six years after any recent checkpoint -- for instance, the beginning of the Clinton Administration.

Taking September 11th as an example, If you used the same sampling methods on the more affluent suburbs (most of the people in the towers were traders) in New York after the attacks you could find 'evidence' that America suffered a million casualties.

Posted by Chris Mann at October 16, 2006 04:02 AM

It's gilding the lily since InstaPundit already linked to it, but anyway, here's Iraq Body Count proving that you can oppose the war while blowing great big holes in the study.

Posted by Jay Manifold at October 16, 2006 04:46 PM

actually

All I said was Simberg could fly over to Iraq and count happy
smiling children.

It's puckett who freaks out,a nd starts ranting whenever
I suggest Simberg take a trip there.

Simberg has time to take a vacation in Hawaii, he could
instead take a working vacation to Tikrit, get his
picture taken with smiling children, teach a seminar
in one of the wonderful schools we've built and
help a sunni open yet another small business
selling watch parts.

Heck puckett, you could carry his golf clubs and
serve as his caddy as you play the wonderful
golf courses of arabia.

Posted by anonymous at October 16, 2006 06:27 PM

Or Independent could fly over your head Anonymous. You could pretend he is Rand and your kitty litter filled head is Iraq.

I figure a trip over a litter box would be cheaper and we could name the kitty dumplings after mountain ranges in the middle east.

PS Independent:

"Ya man, tune all sanity out. It's white noise. Put the blinders on, just like Cheney, Rummy and the dear leader. Just what you need - more tuning out of reality. Chair pissers."

Way to freak to the establishment there Man!

Speak some truithness to power, man! Help these squares open the Doors of Preception!

Drop your hackysack and start hummin' uptown girl!

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 16, 2006 07:49 PM

Does either article state whether the same set of techniques has been applied in a case where deaths are well documented?

According to responders to the blog, and some checking I've done, this is a pretty conventional statistical methodology for estimating deaths in this sort of situation.

The Lancet is a well respected peer reviewed medical journal.

Posted by Daveon at October 17, 2006 05:49 AM

"The Lancet is a well respected peer reviewed medical journal."

And therefore they should never ever be questioned! After all, everyone knows that the medical profession would never publish anything later revealed as flawed if not downright reprehensible.

Posted by Andrea Harris at October 17, 2006 06:59 AM

It's a peer reviewed journal and of course it should be questioned. However, it is still a respected, peer reviewed journal and the study used an accepted methodology for this type of purpose.

It's probably high, just as the method used for the UN survey is low. The actual number is probably between them, but its hard to say.

Are the people of Iraq better off now. Frankly, probably not. Certainly not the women.

Posted by Daveon at October 17, 2006 04:40 PM

Puckett

If you doubt the Lancet's Method's you and Simberg
can fly over to Iraq and count happy smiling children.

Baghdad is open for business, and you two claim
how safe the place is, so just go over.

If you want to denigrate Lancet, the best way is to get
your own data.

Posted by anonymous at October 17, 2006 05:56 PM

"Puckett

If you doubt the Lancet's Method's you and Simberg
can fly over to Iraq and count happy smiling children."

I prefer to examine their methodology than dealing in moronic nonsense. Do you realize how stupid you sound repeating the same stupid point over and over. Are you capable of any original thought?

"Baghdad is open for business, and you two claim
how safe the place is, so just go over."

Uhhh...no we did not. Why is the left incapible of putting forth an argument without making a strawman fallacy.

"If you want to denigrate Lancet, the best way is to get
your own data.

Posted by anonymous at October 17, 2006 05:56 PM"

Where did I denigrate Lancet? Please point it out.

I questioned the study. The best way is to examine their methodology. I suggest you refrain from posting further until you grasp the difference between methology and data. I will give you a hint: They are not the same and words means things. You sound like a 10th grader.

Posted by at October 17, 2006 07:11 PM

Puckett

Given how much you adore GWB a man incapable of
coherent speech, your criticism of my words rings hollow.

Posted by anonymous at October 18, 2006 08:41 AM

Anonymous, Iraq Body Count has provided the data. Or can't you read?

Posted by Jay Manifold at October 18, 2006 04:42 PM

Anonymous,

Where did I say I adored GWB? Why do you keep making strawman arguments of an incredibly juvenile nature? Are you really that intelectually bankrupt? A reasonable person can only conclude the answer is affirmative based of your poor performance.

It is as if someone took a big Elishitz in your cranium.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 18, 2006 05:44 PM

Puckett denies he adores Bush, next thing you know
Simberg will claim he's not a neocon

Posted by anonymous at October 19, 2006 06:08 PM

And then Anonymous will claim to agree with Iraq Body Count.

Posted by Jay Manifold at October 20, 2006 07:55 AM

"Puckett denies he adores Bush, next thing you know
Simberg will claim he's not a neocon"

....and Anonyomus will deny he isn't George Soros's personal fluffer and proclaim he really can score over 75 on a standard IQ test.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 20, 2006 01:59 PM

Post a comment