A_Gluestick said:
Its one thing to sit back on your ass and cry about bush and his bad policies its another thing to get off that same ass and go and run for office and get all your friends to vote for you.
Yes, the former actually has an extremely remote chance of making a difference in the issues you care about, whereas the latter is completely unrelated to the topic at hand.
Seriously, that's like saying, "If you're upset about the drunk driving problem in America, you should become a mechanic." Mechanics do not influence drunk driving. School board members do not influence national policy.
Nevetextor said:
Actually, this study is really easy to discount.
The actual study says that there were 98,000 deaths, with a 95% confidence interfal of 8,000-196,000.
Basically, what that means is not "There are 98,000 deaths" but rather "We're 95% certain that there are between 8,000 and 196,000 deaths."
That's an extremely, extremely dodgy statistic, and it's really irresponsible to report it as any kind of meaningful commentary beyond "Actually, we've got no clue how many people died."
Can you link to the study? I went to the online version of the most recent edition of Lancet and went through the articles but couldn't find it. I'd like to read it in its entirety as well.
Nevetextor said:
Two pages at the end of an article saying "Umm, actually our study kinda sucked" does not make up for going out into the media and providing the great sound bite about 100,000 being a conservative estimate. Yes. Conservative. Unless it falls into the MASSIVE CONFIDENCE INTERVAL whereby it could be exeedingly liberal.
Did you read the article? The last two pages were very far from stating "Umm, actually our study kinda sucked."
The estimate is actually below the middle of the casualty range. It also excludes the Fallujah outlier data. What about that is particularly liberal?
I mean, yes, I know why the study was flawed and why it generated such little information. And I'm sure it was the bst study that could be conducted in the circumstances. I'm just saying, in that case, what we learned from the study was not that there were 100,000 deaths. It's that we don't have any good way of telling.
What we learned from the study is that the data collected so far suggests three things: first, that based on the cluster studies, the conservative estimate is 100,000 deaths; second, that the study needs to be confirmed by independent groups; and third, that the ability of a limited team to do this study with minimal financing and a short time frame means that it is possible to do a more comprehensive study, especially with governmental/military resources.
Can you link to the study? I went to the online version of the most recent edition of Lancet and went through the articles but couldn't find it. I'd like to read it in its entirety as well.
It's in the PDF that's linked on The Lancet's summary page. (direct link)
They are leaving out parts from the full script, like the minor detail that a foreign-run insurgency is curtailing the confidence needed to restore full institutions. For hundreds of years war has been called a necessary evil that brings a "more perfect peace", thus eliminating the uncertainty that bleeds away our energy and enthusiasm. And to expect it done NOW like a fucking credit card purchase is sheer stupidity. It would be ignorance, but these yammerers should know better.
What sucks is that I'm surrounded by about 50 million bleeding heart Jesus Christs who believe their freedom and security is just handed to them. Fortunately the rest have a clue; they just babble less.
Southuhn
San Diego, CA
February 2004
OCT 31, 2004 11:33 AM