Comments Posted By Karl
Displaying 11 To 16 Of 16 Comments
salvage raises a more general question regarding the number of dead and US responsibility for the excess deaths. What the question ignores is that the nature of the violence now is largely sectarian violence -- revenge killing resulting from a largely Sunni slaughter of Shia and Kurds over decades.
This is not a new phenomenon. The expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe after WWII resulted in well over 10 million displaced persons, with estimates of those killed ranging from 500,000 to 3 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_number_of_deaths_in_connection_with_expulsion_of_Germans_after_WWII
Nevertheless, most people consider WWII to have been a success for the US and the world. And I have never seen anyone whip out a crying towel for the Germans on this point.
Similarly, the fact that the Shia -- and to a lesser extent, the Kurds -- are killing Sunnis is not a big surprise and something which history suggests was unavoidable -- unless you were prepared to enable the baathist regime indefinitely into the future.
Comment Posted By Karl On 11.10.2006 @ 12:56
I've yet to really dig into the methodology yet, so my comments will be limited.
I do note that Allahpundit -- whom I generally admire -- does not understand what cluster sampling is, based on his reference to the sample being "not taken in areas where violence was 'clustered'..." The study does use cluster sampling, and states it uses the same method as in 2004, though this time it does not appear at first blush that they re-clustered clusters as they did in 2004. Cluster sampling can be a valid method, but it has some very definite limitations, evidenced not least by the wide margin for error stated. Moreover, the baseline for the pre-invasion death rate is only 14 months, which nicely excludes any consideration of Saddam's repeatead war crimes, which inflicted more than a few "excess deaths" on the Shia and the Kurds.
But before getting into the minutia of applied stats, let's notice that one of the authors listed is Les Roberts. Roberts was also involved with the 2004 Lancet study. He presumably found the time to work on this one after withdrawing from the Democratic primary for the U.S. House of Representatives seat of the 24th Congressional District in Chenango County, NY, and before deciding whether to run for the state senate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Roberts_(epidemiologist)
And Ronald Waldman, the epidemiologist at Columbia University quoted by the WaPo and excerpted above? He's a thousand-dollar contributor to the Roberts campaign, according to OpenSecrets. Before that he donated to Kerry and the DNC.
I would think that if you were trying to present an objective and scientific study, especially a month before the election, you wouldn't have a failed Democratic candidate as one of the authors. But then again, the right wouldn't be able to count on the press not mentioning it.
Comment Posted By Karl On 11.10.2006 @ 12:43
DOES CONFRONTING TERRORISM MAKE IT WORSE?
Coincidentally, this had been swirling around in my head too. I approached it from a slightly different direction at Protein Wisdom:
http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/21096/
I suspect I will have more to say about the NYT story -- and related reprots -- there in the next couple of days.
Comment Posted By Karl On 23.09.2006 @ 21:54
HIZBULLAH'S "USEFUL IDIOTS" MUM ABOUT REUTERS SCAM
At the risk of giving TBogg more attention than is merited, it should be noted that the comparison he makes is between Reuters on one hand and politicians/activists on the other. So his premise appears to be that we should consider Reuters to be a political group with a particular agenda that it advances with questionable tactics. I'm pretty sure that's not the mesage he intended to send, but there will be many who will welcome his implicit concession regarding Reuters.
Comment Posted By Karl On 7.08.2006 @ 18:06
ABRAMOFF SINGING, HASTERT DANCING
Semantics aside? You may not like what you admit is probably a legal practice, but giving the false implication (as ABC did) that he is the subject or target of an investigation and ignoring the role of the other party is a bit more than mere semantics.
Comment Posted By Karl On 25.05.2006 @ 10:11
THE HYSTERICAL DRAMA QUEENS OF THE LEFT
Your description of CNN’s Jack Cafferty as "the star of this high school production of Little Women" is highly offensive. To Louisa May Alcott. And the acting abilities of high schoolers.
Comment Posted By Karl On 12.05.2006 @ 17:47
