The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 131

Nephythys · 10-12-2006, 12:52 PM

But Google is the company that refused to give info to the US Gov't but allowed China to filter and control access.

Alex · 10-12-2006, 01:23 PM

And that has what to do with this?

In both cases, Google was complying with local law (censorship is legal in many countries and Google complies with those laws as well). Can you find a history of Google censoring political views in the United States that it doesn't like? Has Google prevented the ability to find all the conservatives bitching online about YouTube shutting down Malkin?

Nephythys · 10-13-2006, 06:27 AM

Survey Says-

Nephythys · 10-13-2006, 06:51 AM

Here are some random thoughts-

Quote:

365 days a year x 2 years = 365 x 2 = 730

so we get :

655000 divided by 730 days = 897.26 deaths PER DAY in Iraq to get this figure that the Lancet decided on.

For Gods sake the morgues would be full to overflowing, the hospitals would be crammed full..and no one even reported this????

That all the media that has been so busy trashing every minute detail in Iraq MISSED a bodycount that resembles the Black Plague???

Wait..the last report had 100,000 dead in what..2004?? Now the figure has jumped to FIVE TIMES THAT NUMBER and not ONE person has reported this???

And people are FALLING for this???

Quote:

No, it wasn't true at all. Even assuming that all of the accounts were accurate, the "researchers" didn't attempt to actually count bodies, they did a statistical analysis. And by doing so, they came up with a mean estimate for deaths of 98,000... with a 95% confidence interval of 0.92. Yes, that means that the margin of error was NINETY-TWO FRICKIN' PERCENT. 92%! How could any supposedly reputable researcher even release a study with such a ludicrous margin of error? How could a supposedly reputable academic journal (The Lancet) have published it?

Quote:

That number is bull shyt and much too high .The American Civil War in four years on both sides produced six hundred eighteen thousand dead (618,000)and that was the bloodiest American war to date.

Hmmm......yeah.

innerSpaceman · 10-13-2006, 08:10 AM

Actually, it wasn't the margin of error that was 92%; that was the number of households that ... at the conclusion of the interview ... produced a death certificate to back up their claims of who had died.

Hmmm, let's see, this was published in that hack rag The Lancet. And the methodology of the polling and accuracy of the results confirmed by that rookie John Zagby. And they had the audacity to use the same methodology that's been standard for death rate determination in war time by the U.N. and the U.S. government.

Yeah, the results must be bogus.

(oh, and I love how General Casey dismisses the study while admitting he has not seen it.)

wendybeth · 10-13-2006, 08:40 AM

We may have troops there until 2010, but Britain wants out now.

And in other news: Rep Ney pleads guilty . Of course, he is seeking treatment for alcoholism, which no doubt lead him down this ethically challenged path.*

*Not to make light of alcoholism, but it sure is taking the blame for a lot of bad behavior lately!

Not Afraid · 10-13-2006, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

And in other news: Rep Ney pleads guilty . Of course, he is seeking treatment for alcoholism, which no doubt lead him down this ethically challenged path.*

*Not to make light of alcoholism, but it sure is taking the blame for a lot of bad behavior lately!

Alcoholism causes all sorts of bad bahaviour, but the alocoholic still has to own the bahaviour not use alcoholism as the "excuse".

Alex · 10-13-2006, 08:50 AM

If someone issued a study saying that the sun is green, it would be possible to dismiss it without having seen it. I'm sure General Casey has a metric assload of statistics about what is going on in Iraq and if everything he has contradicts this study as ridiculously high I'm sure he is confident in rejecting its results. Doesn't mean he is right.

I find the claim that there are death certificates for almost all of these 600,000 excess violent deaths to be hard to swallow. If they existed then the passive surveillance methods should not be missing approximately 6 out of every 7 of them because they'd be moving through regulatory channels. Maybe not in the outlying provinces (which are also the more settled provinces) but in Bagdhad where a quarter of the popluation is and is the center of violence.

I haven't read the details yet. But I know that there were significant methodological problems with the first report they did (primarily in skewed sampling) and wonder if they were addressed in this second round. Also, I wonder if they address the fact that either the last two years have seen a massive upswing or the first study was way off (implying methodolical problems that, unless corrected for, could still be in the place).

I also tend to be wary of research that has a political goal in mind at the beginning rather than the end. Doesn't mean it is wrong and the technical points need to be addressed rather than the motivations, but it raises concerns.

Alex · 10-13-2006, 10:31 AM

Here is the Fred Kaplan article* from 2004 about the first study that lays out a lot of the problems in the first study and are many of the factors I'm wondering if they were corrected for this time around.

The one that I wonder most about is the argument that the 2004 study used a pre-war mortality rate for Iraq that was 33% too low which would massively inflate the number of "extraneous" deaths.

And the 95% confidence interval for the 2004 study was 92%. That is, they said the number was 98,000 but that they were 95% confident it was between 8,000 and 194,000. A range so as to make the result almost meaningless.

I'm reading the full article now to see if these were addressed (though I early on I see that they are still using what is likely a low pre-war mortality rate).

*And just for anybody not familiar with the source Kaplan is solidly anti-Bush and pretty negative on the war.

Gemini Cricket · 10-13-2006, 10:41 AM

Ney pleads guilty... Wow, what a mess.

10-12-2006, 12:52 PM	#1
Nephythys Yeah, that's about it- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In a state of constant crap to get done Posts: 2,688	But Google is the company that refused to give info to the US Gov't but allowed China to filter and control access.
	Submit to Quotes

10-12-2006, 01:23 PM	#2
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	And that has what to do with this? In both cases, Google was complying with local law (censorship is legal in many countries and Google complies with those laws as well). Can you find a history of Google censoring political views in the United States that it doesn't like? Has Google prevented the ability to find all the conservatives bitching online about YouTube shutting down Malkin?
	Submit to Quotes

10-13-2006, 06:27 AM	#3
Nephythys Yeah, that's about it- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In a state of constant crap to get done Posts: 2,688	Survey Says-
	Submit to Quotes

10-13-2006, 08:10 AM	#5
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Actually, it wasn't the margin of error that was 92%; that was the number of households that ... at the conclusion of the interview ... produced a death certificate to back up their claims of who had died. Hmmm, let's see, this was published in that hack rag The Lancet. And the methodology of the polling and accuracy of the results confirmed by that rookie John Zagby. And they had the audacity to use the same methodology that's been standard for death rate determination in war time by the U.N. and the U.S. government. Yeah, the results must be bogus. (oh, and I love how General Casey dismisses the study while admitting he has not seen it.)
	Submit to Quotes

10-13-2006, 08:40 AM	#6
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	We may have troops there until 2010, but Britain wants out now. And in other news: Rep Ney pleads guilty . Of course, he is seeking treatment for alcoholism, which no doubt lead him down this ethically challenged path.* *Not to make light of alcoholism, but it sure is taking the blame for a lot of bad behavior lately! __________________
	Submit to Quotes

10-13-2006, 08:50 AM	#8
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	If someone issued a study saying that the sun is green, it would be possible to dismiss it without having seen it. I'm sure General Casey has a metric assload of statistics about what is going on in Iraq and if everything he has contradicts this study as ridiculously high I'm sure he is confident in rejecting its results. Doesn't mean he is right. I find the claim that there are death certificates for almost all of these 600,000 excess violent deaths to be hard to swallow. If they existed then the passive surveillance methods should not be missing approximately 6 out of every 7 of them because they'd be moving through regulatory channels. Maybe not in the outlying provinces (which are also the more settled provinces) but in Bagdhad where a quarter of the popluation is and is the center of violence. I haven't read the details yet. But I know that there were significant methodological problems with the first report they did (primarily in skewed sampling) and wonder if they were addressed in this second round. Also, I wonder if they address the fact that either the last two years have seen a massive upswing or the first study was way off (implying methodolical problems that, unless corrected for, could still be in the place). I also tend to be wary of research that has a political goal in mind at the beginning rather than the end. Doesn't mean it is wrong and the technical points need to be addressed rather than the motivations, but it raises concerns.
	Submit to Quotes

10-13-2006, 10:31 AM	#9
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Here is the Fred Kaplan article* from 2004 about the first study that lays out a lot of the problems in the first study and are many of the factors I'm wondering if they were corrected for this time around. The one that I wonder most about is the argument that the 2004 study used a pre-war mortality rate for Iraq that was 33% too low which would massively inflate the number of "extraneous" deaths. And the 95% confidence interval for the 2004 study was 92%. That is, they said the number was 98,000 but that they were 95% confident it was between 8,000 and 194,000. A range so as to make the result almost meaningless. I'm reading the full article now to see if these were addressed (though I early on I see that they are still using what is likely a low pre-war mortality rate). *And just for anybody not familiar with the source Kaplan is solidly anti-Bush and pretty negative on the war.
	Submit to Quotes

10-13-2006, 10:41 AM	#10
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	Ney pleads guilty... Wow, what a mess.
	Submit to Quotes