An Open Letter to MarkT
A comment posted by MarkT yesterday was, I thought, amazing even for him. In it he called the US the “world champion terrorist” and the “most efficient killer on the planet,” comparing our nation’s activities since the Vietnam war to the Third Reich’s Holocaust.
I consider his comparisons at once ridiculous and abhorrent. Others here have debated their merits with him numerous times.
Instead, as I thought about it, a question arose: Why are you here? I ask that not in the knee jerk, patriotic sense of “love it or leave it,” or “if you don’t like it, just leave,” (although I think those are perfectly legitimate sentiments), but in a more measured sense.
I like to think that if I and my modern sensibilities were transplanted to Nazi Germany, the least I would have done was try to leave a country that was attempting to exterminate a large segment of its populace.
I cannot understand, then, if MarkT sincerely believes this place to be as vile and murderous as he writes, why he would stay here?
Why Mark? Why would you remain in a country that you characterize as “the most efficient killer on the planet,” all the while doing little more about the problem than posting comments on the internet? Why would you not leave to find what you consider to be a more morally acceptable nation? Where would that be?
What other country could he live in, spill his hatred for the country; while protected by the Constitution, and at the same time live of the governments dime. He is just another person who spills hate of the country while he stands in line for his subsidy check from the government.
Not to minimize your sentiments, Anon, but I am actually hoping for a more thoughtful response from MarkT. He’s not stupid, and I am very interested to hear his reasoning.
The specious numbers that Mark presents notwithstanding (like the bullshit accounting of civilian deaths estimated by The Lancet which Mark has previously cited) let me just insert a pedantic notion.
Efficiency is defined by the lowest marginal cost to produce the next unit. Given the costs of armaments paid for by the U.S. I doubt that we’re nearly as efficient as the 30 million that Stalin murdered or the 50 million that Mao either murdered or starved to death. Starvation being the most “efficient” form of killing with the benefit of plausible deniability as to terrorist intent.
Although I do not agree with the way MarkT phrases it, he does have a point about the proportionality of the wars in which we engage. I don’t think we sufficiently contemplate the effect on our agenda in Afghanistan and Iraq — “winning hearts and minds” in particular — of killing thousands if not hundreds of thousands of noncombatants. While I do think “intent” factors into one’s moral calculation — an earnest mistake that leads to bombing a wedding party is less reprehensible than the intentional killing of civilians — obviously it does not matter to the victims, who are no more or less dead.
All you’re seeing in Mark T. is a 16 year old boy with purple hair and two nose studs begging adults for attention.
Just ignore him. Eventually he’ll either grow up or be taken into custody.
When I was in high school I sneaked off with a date to watch the Exorcist, which of course is a movie about demonic possesion of a twelve year old girl.
Frankly, I never been scared of much, but this rattled my very soul.
I firmly believe that Mark suffers from the same affliction. Brought up in a Catholic family, with a brother as a priest, the devil wanted to even the score.
Gregg, what you’re asking would require him to actually think about he posts. Anyone who equates the history of killing by the United States to that of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union or the People’s Republic of China is an idiot.
I think that Mark is sincere in his beliefs even though they have been handed to him as an excuse to ignore reality. But this is not to say that they are correct. It seems to be very common among a certain class that if they are unable to achieve much, it is better to denigrate others who do achieve: The “pull down the achievers mentality.” It’s common in many inner city flawed schools, and it is easy to succumb to the temptation. It is also easy for many on the Left who deny American exceptionalism, except for being the supposedly “Worst country in the World” to borrow from Mr. Olbermann. (See, they can still say that America is #1)
The difference between Mark and I, is that I see a flawed, but wonderful country, trying more earnestly than any other to do the right thing. Were the Romans, the British during Queen Victoria, or for that matter, the members of the Soviet Politboro concerned with their world image? Heck no!
Did the Roman or any other empire suffer the loss of blood and treasure for the freedom of others? What other countries have poured as much into AIDS care and treatment in Africa? Have not the processes of American ingenuity and business done more to alleviate poverty than any other? Absolutely.
Mark and his ilk would probably tell you that they love America as well, but they see the flaws, and point them out to correct them. A worthwhile endeavor of the passive aggressive crowd if only they would acknowledge the achievements as well, which they can’t. If they did so, they wouldn’t be able to feel morally superior to all of the unwashed masses.
And that is what Mark is really about. It’s not about trying to fix anything, nor is it really about correcting past behavior. Instead, it’s about making his small world feel special at the expense of his country.
Luckily, it’s still a pretty damn good country and can tolerate his sort.
I feel sort of bad that we’re all psychoanalyzing the poor guy in his absence. I hope he shows up pretty soon and engages.
In my opinion, I don’t think it helpful or appropriate to make Mark a column topic.
Craig, it wasn’t my intention to make him a topic. I seriously want to engage him on this issue, and not in a ‘you’re nuts’ kind of way. I guess I am surprised he isn’t here and, if he doesn’t show up soon, I’ll probably pull it. I don’t want this to be an insult post.
The topic is fine but you are generally more skillful in presenting it an oblique way.
The topic being about beliefs.
I am quite surprised by this, and hope you all come back this evening or tomorrow for an answer. I am capable of a thoughtful answer, and I have encountered this sort of thing before. You might be surprised. People are people wherever you go.
One comment right now, Dave Budge’s remark on the “specious” Lancet study: I’m having a bit of a chuckle. So long as no one else is studying the matter, I have to go with the only people who actually tried to quantify the carnage over there. If you have a study by the Pentagon on their effectiveness over there, please put it forth.
But to say that we don’t count bodies, and then throw rocks at those who do is …. specious.
That’s crap, Mark. There are plenty of others that have looked at it in depth such as http://icasualties.org/, etc. The statistics used by the Lancet were pure empirical crap from a quantitative analysis basis.
I’m never said that we shouldn’t look at it any you should take your straw man and come up with a real argument.
“I am capable of a thoughtful answer”
I know. That’s why I posed the question, and tried to do it in a thoughtful way.
In an effort to deal with “the topic”, I would point a couple of things out.
Dave Budge, if you add the element of time value to your equation, the efficiency shifts dramatically. I’m not saying your analysis is wrong. I just think you’ve missed a pretty important factor.
I’ve met Mark T., and engaged him more thoroughly than anyone else here, with the possible but unlikely exception of Dave Budge. From that, I can gather at least one huge insight. J. Chung is absolutely incorrect, because J. Chung really is a troll.
Steve, you and I agree about this country probably more than you realize or are willing to admit. If there are differences in our view they are these. I don’t believe in “ilks”, except as a rhetorical device generally used when debating, especially on a website; yes, even by me. As a view of reality, however, I don’t think that faith in grouping serves one very well. If two people tell me that they agree, then they are of an ilk. Not by my say-so, mind you, but by theirs. Your view of ilks is far better shared by Mr. Tokarski than it is by me. And you are willing to assign a moral component to beliefs. I often hesitate to do that. I blame my Christian upbringing, but I find it difficult to judge a man if I haven’t walked a mile in his moccasins (just to mix up belief systems. It is funny though that almost every belief system I’ve encountered has their own version of the “Golden Rule”, including philosophy and logic.)
Gregg, it is entirely possible that Mark is silent because he’s out doing stuff. But trust me, threads like this here are candy to the man. He’ll get around to it, eventually, but you may have to leave it for a while. Hopefully a decent discussion will ensue in his absence.
Gregg, never mind my last paragraph. I type no so fastly …
Er, uh, Mr. Budge, you just gave me a web site that counts American casualties. We are alwasy meticulous about counting bodies when the people who died matter, as with 9/11.
I asked if anyone had counted Iraq dead. Surely not the Pentagon.
Reminds me of a raid executed to take down a terrorist/insurgent target in Afghanistan. As the soldiers entered the room to detain the man- they spotted the grenade the man was holding to detonate on the soldiers- so they immediately fired shots on the man- killing him before the grenade could go off. In the same room with the man was his mother and a child who he was perfectly willing to kill in the process. The American soldiers- despite having their own lives in jeopardy- shot and killed the grenade bearer and left the woman and child unharmed.
Contrast that with another incident in the same area: a terrorist straps a bomb and kills local Afghan civilians building a road into their own village.
Hey Travis, you did spend time in Africa.
“Contrast that with another incident in the same area: a terrorist straps a bomb and kills local Afghan civilians building a road into their own village.”
It’s a shame when those villagers will not stand up to those of their own that do this. Freedom doesn’t come free. What about that road that is used to market the poppy crop?
I have been challenged here to put up some defense of my words on an earlier thread regarding the number of deaths that the U.S. has caused around the world since the end of World War II, and my statement that the U.S. is “the most efficient killer on the planet.”
First, we are “the most efficient killer on the planet”. We spend more on the military than the rest of the planet combined. We have assembled more weaponry than any force in human history. Since no one threatens us, we are free to use it as we please, and do. No one else is doing now what we are doing, nor are they inclined to do so.
Someone mentioned, as they always do in these conversations, Joe Stalin and Mao Zedong. Yes, they killed more people than us by far. So far.
Mao did so with evil intent as he set in motion the terror known as the Cultural Revolution. Stalin said “no person, no problem”, and murdered his enemies.
Both Mao and Uncle Joe also caused many millions to die by means of starvation, though with Mao it was bureaucratic bumbling – the “Great Leap Forward”. He really didn’t set out to kill all those people – he merely thought he could revolutionize farming from on high. He was a terrible fool.
But here’s a curiosity: India suffered brutal famines under British rule, and millions upon millions died, but we don’t say that Disraeli was a brutal murderer, as we do of Mao and Joe, who also killed by means of starvation. Why do the Brits get off free of blame, while the others don’t?
India has not suffered famine since the British left. Does that mean they were “liberated”? And why do we not speak of British rule with the same contempt as we do Joe and Mao?
No matter – these guys, Joe and Mao, were bad dudes. But how on earth does anything they did justify anything we have done? Are you saying that just because of sheer numbers, Jeffrey Dahmer is justified, while Ted Bundy is not? Ted killed more people than Jeff, after all.
This world is not a peaceful place, however, so you might take comfort in knowing that the U.S. is not “evil”. You’ll find that the “U.S.”,a very large country with a very large government, also does much good in the world. I admire that about us … our religious organizations, or NGO’s, our individual charity is unsurpassed in human history.
But in matters of resource control or subjugation of colonies (we don’t call them that), the U.S. behaves as all imperial powers have behaved throughout history. And if you ask anyone who lived in The Soviet Union during its heyday, or imperial Britain or France or the the Dutch, they will tell you that they were different. They only acted with integrity, and always tried to avoid rampant killing for its own sake. We are just like all who came before us, except much stronger.
There is only one lesson to take from all of this: Uncontested power is a dangerous thing. If China or India rise to power and offsets us. it will be a safer world.
I stand by the numbers as presented with this caveat: We do not know how many people we have killed in Iraq. And we never will. We will never bother to count. Others have stepped in and done the counting for us, and for their efforts they are demonized. I feel safer standing by Lancet, who said 655,000 in 2006, than the Pentagon who says in 2009 “We don’t count bodies.”Your choice. 655,000 is far more accurate than “who cares?”
And the primary point that I made has blown right by you all: The dreaded Muslims have done very, very little to us, having dispatched fewer than 5,000 of us over a period of 39 years. They are fricking saints compared to us. And yet look at how you demonize them and fear them, as if their soldiers and tanks were in our backyard, as if they had starved our children.
Gregg’s point is that if I hate this country so much, why don’t I leave? Many Russians were asked the same question in the 1930’s, but surely you know that most people just cannot get up and go. And anyway, I don’t hate my country. For me, it’s been a blessing and a joy to live here. We were prosperous during most of my years. My mother and father, very ordinary people of average skill, lived very good and happy lives, and were especially blessed to have Medicare and Social Security in their later years.
Living here is a very good thing, but the cost to others for us having the good life here has been daunting. Our leaders have long known that the rest of the world cannot live like Americans, as there are not enough resources. So we beat them down whenever they threaten to develop. Iraq in 1990 was a strong and healthy country where obesity, of all things, was a huge health problem. We have beaten them down now. They are just another resource colony.
What you seem to be saying, Gregg, is that if I don’t turn a blind eye to all of this, that I hate my country? I grew up conservative. I talked the talk. I know where your heads are at. But then I found out the dark secrets. Now that I know the secrets, you’re telling me to shut up about it because … if people know about it, they might want it to stop? I don’t get you.
Anyway, and honestly, we have thought about Canada and Costa Rica. Each has things to offer, but we ruled Canada out, as its superior health care system is not so important to us now that we are both approaching Medicare eligibility. And Costa Rica has an excellent health care system, a proud environmental ethic, a low cost of living (and no military budget). It has great appeal. But we like it here. We’ll probably live out our days here in Boulder. Does that mean we have to shut up?
It would not hurt any of you to learn a little history. More than that, it would not hurt any of you to learn a little from history, as in this: We are far like everyone else than we care to admit. Even those awful Muslims.
Mark, I know that now. There used to be a site called “iraqWarDead” but it is now defunct. I thought it had been renamed and didn’t do my homework as I was in a hurry out the door to give a kid a ride. IraqWarDead counted civilians through hospital reports and burial sites. They were somewhere near the 100,000 mark during the surge. But I think that was low and as I recall, someone at antiwar.com called the number nore likely in the 500,000 range. But The Lancet study, which I looked at in depth at the time was 100% statically based and used assumptions made-up of whole cloth. It was junk science at its worst.
Now, I’m not claiming I know but I am claiming that you don’t. That, however, was completely besides the point. My point was that from a economics standpoint the U.S. is probably the least “efficient” killer. But you missed that defending some statistical crap that you didn’t ever question as to reliability.
You are talking, I think, about Iraq Body Count, which is still up and running, and puts deaths between 98,000 and 102,000. They do so based on published news reports. That’s not an accurate method and severely undercounts.
But assume, for the sake of argument, that they are the final authority. Where is the justification for only that number?
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
I’m not making a rationalization for anything. I never have.
Fine. But don’t be so sure that Lancet was wrong – they used accepted methodology, even if in trying circumstances.
I reject the Lancet study out of hand. I looked at their methodology at the time and found their inferences without quantitative basis and lacked any rigorous underpinning empirical basis. But as someone pretty deeply educated in quant theory I can’t say they were wrong but there is no basis to assume they were right.
But let’s put a “sniff test” on it (about as statistically relevant as The Lancet garbage.) Approximately 600,000 soldiers died in the U.S. Civil War or about 2% of the population at the time. 650,000 Iraqis represents about 3% of the total population of Iraq. Does that pass the sniff test?
Other problems with the Lancet study besides the improper sampling, include the data collector, who may have had an agenda and has refused to answer questions about the survey, and the financier, who may have been looking for a political advantage.
But the question for Mark would have to be, why rely on such questionable data, when there are better sources, who just don’t reach the same outrageous conclusions? Is it because the made up number is better for your argument?
“We have assembled more weaponry than any force in human history. ” What a stupid assertion, in that it is so obviously false. Why do you persist in making up information, and relying on discredited “studies?
But, you repeat yourself.
Mark T’s got some issues, but don’t we all? I just argued with him for two days about his nutty conspiracy theories…but I’m not sure that doesn’t say more about me than him!
And he’s moved to Boulder. So he has, in a way, moved to a different country than Montana.
ECW’s really stepped it up with the issues and coverage. Very enjoyable report on the Sheriff, btw.
That was kinda disappointing. I was hoping a psychiatrist would’ve commented.
But I liked the essay on Ilk by the stoned avatar.
I’m just a Catholic, Ken. Heard you on Aaron’s show btw…
Dave Budge dismisses Lancet out of hand, as their methodology is flawed. It is the same methodology used to ascertain the number of victims in earthquakes in Pakistan, Tsunami victims in Indonesia, etc. It is very difficult in a war-torn country. That is why the wide range of possibilities, with 655,000 merely being the midpoint.
Steve says that we should not rely on Lancet because there are better sources. That is frustrating in the extreme, in that the point that I made, at least twice now, is that while you all demonize Lancet, no one else has bothered to study the issue! Steve: I have several choices, one of which puts Iraqi deaths at 1.2 million in 2007, one of which puts them at 655,000 in 2006, one of which puts them at 100,000 as of now. Two use statistical sampling methods, one published newspaper reports.
Now, Steve, answer this question: Given these choices, why do you choose to instead put your head up your ass? At least Dave refused to rationalize and accepted the lower, unscientific number as credible. Even it is grotesque.
Gregg, I gave you what I consider a thoughtful answer. You’ve got your usual crew here casting stones, including Max Bucks now operating as Jerry Chung. goof houlihan,you are extremely disappointing, as from time to time you put up some really thoughtful stuff.
If any of you want to deal with what I wrote above in a thoughtful manner, have at me. Dave and Steve, thank you. And Steve, check out the link below. You will find that the U.S. spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm
You’re a nutcase imagining all these different people being after you. But most of all you’re a nutcase because you believe moral superiority can be proved with numbers.
What’s even crazier is you can get otherwise intelligent people to respond to your ridiculous moral posturing. Not me dude. You’re just another babbler that needs medication.
I pretty much agree with everything here that Mark T says ,except I would throw in our decimation of the Indian tribes by systimatic slaughter of a main food source (Bison) that migth in relative number terms get us close to stalins expansion mayhem .
I thought I would jump in to make it a fair fight but it looks like tying one of Marks hands behind his back would make it a better matchup.
An American idea is an idea that an American has .Thats what makes us a pretty good country.
Mark, for one who thinks that the rest of us are subjected to a coordinated effort to be propagandized you surely seem to lack the interrogative skills necessary to make sure you’re not the one who buys into garbage. You have to be careful with statistics because A) they are built on assumptions that are sometimes bad and B) any beginning statistician knows that correlation and causation are often unattached.
But if you’ve the chops here are problems with the Lancet garbage as analyzed by David Kane, Institute Fellow at the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2007/07/KaneLancet.pdf
If you spend any time with it you’ll see that the study way an outcome looking for a model – as opposed to the other way around as it should have been.
The study is junk simply in showing that the confidence interval goes from a minus 133K to a positive 650K. It just doesn’t pass the sniff test and Kane tells us why.
Hey Chung, Thats the same thing they said about Jesus ,before they hung him on the cross.
Hey, Thornton, who are “they”?
You sound like the other nutcase Mark T.. You’ve got a moral problem that’s twisting your brain into knots.
Dave – I accept what you say. I have no reason to doubt you. You are missing the point, I think: Did your Mr. Kane, after dismissing Lancet, do a quantitative study of civilian deaths Iraq.
No he did not. His only point was to deflect Lancet, and then drop the subject from public view.
We know that precisely 2,973 people, important people, died on 9/11. We know that Muslims have killed 4,947 people since 1970 in acts of terrorism.
We do not know how how many Iraqis have died, by our hand or due to the internal conflicts we unleashed. Nor will we ever know. They do not matter.
Mr. Kane is perfectly free to dismiss Lancet, but until he comes up with a quantitative study of his own, I will rely on Lancet, and dismiss him.
Am I clear?
I’m not missing the point at all. And Kane complained that The Lancet didn’t release source data otherwise he would have done his own analysis.
If you rely on The Lancet study you’re a fool. You’re going to accept a study that has been discredited on its merits but since it bolsters you point you’re going to use it? Don’t hurt your back blowing smoke up your own ass.
Mark- You miss the point. The only reason Iraq was on our radar screen was that they invaded their neighbor and our ally for money. You also seem to forget that Saddam’s war of choice with Iran killed more Iraqies than even the disputed numbers you blame on America. Iraq has not been the Switzerland of the middle east. So before you lecture others on historical perspective take a step back and heed your own advise.
Dave – why doesn’t anyone besides Lancet go out and get the numbers? The Pentagon is the most lushly funded organization on the face of the planet. But they are fresh out of resources when it comes time to measure the fruit of their labor.
This I know – it is not 1.2 million, nor is it 100,000. It some something more and something less. Talk about attacking the messenger – you are ferocious.
wolfpack – you are taking us back to value judgments of Dahmer versus Bundy. And do recall a scandal known as Iran/Contra, wherein we learned that the U.S. was funneling arms to both sides of that conflict. And do recall what the U.S. did after Saddam gassed his own people: Stepped up its aid to him.
At the end of that conflict, the U.S. came down hard on the side of Iraq, shooting down a civilian airliner to send Iran a message: Stand down.
I know my history. And this is all besides the point, which is this: Look in the goddammed mirror for once.
“goof houlihan,you are extremely disappointing, as from time to time you put up some really thoughtful stuff.”
Ah, see, that’s what I like about you, Mark. You won’t accept a free pass even when I make a point to give you one.
Many people would think you a traitor to your country. I think you’re just eccentric in an Uncle Martin kind of way.
You can call Mark a traitor or eccentric, but in the end he’s a harmless peacenik, and a reasonably intelligent one at that.
Cause ya know, Peace takes Brains.
http://www.weaselzippers.net/.a/6a00e008c6b4e58834012875a21c11970c-pi
Before I forget, Ken Thornton, thank you for your support. You said kind words about me, but that’s not the point – it’s just the idea that you know a thing or two and come out and take on the pack. Kudos.
Anon – I am not sure what you mean. Did you mean to post as goof? If so, I like this goof person as he is full of surprises. But not me being a “traitor”, unless I have committed thought crime.
And Swedey, I’m not a pacifist. I believe that just wars must be fought. For instance, when your country is invaded by a foreign army for no reason, any actions that you take to defend yourself are justified. Furthermore, the aggressor and occupying power is responsible for all that follows the invasion – every death, every bit of damage. The U.S. owes Iraq massive reparations. Talk about deficits.
Mark, your inconsistency is stunning. You’re one of the first to dismiss any “study” that counters your outlook where there is even a whiff of a political agenda. The Lancet study didn’t even attempt “count” anything nor did they bother to think that that their “scientific study” needed to have any sort of peer review and wouldn’t release either their source data, methodology or who funded the study. You go further to say that they use the same methodology used to estimate earthquake victims. You don’t know that. No one knows that because the actions of The Lancet prevent such knowledge.
You hold up the idea that you’re looking for the truth and question why others don’t (all the while not offering up you cash to pay for such initiatives) and in the same breath hold out completely discredited study to make a point that is wrong – the U.S. is the most “efficient” terrorist – and completely avoids intellectual honesty.
Yeah, I get your point: you think the U.S. doesn’t give a shit about collateral deaths. But saying that you’re going to take as faith something, a number of things in fact, that are erroneous only serves to weaken your case. You simply assume that the study that used news reporting was low. You don’t know that. But to admit your ignorance weakens your case. Hence, your case is weak in facts.
If your outrage is defined by an unacceptable moral behavior then make that case but don’t try to support it with garbage. And don’t go further to imply that anyone that is critical of such garbage is out to shoot the messenger. I’m certainly not and, in fact, think that The Lancet has done ground breaking research on alternative medicine where, BTW, they put all of their studies up for peer review.
I don’t object to your cause nor do I reject your point. I object the flaccid nature of your argument and call you out for embracing nonsense.
You’re doing what you do best, deflecting, trying to lead an argument down a more acceptable path. Out of everything that has been discussed here, you decided to attack based on Lancet, and that is all you want to talk about. Who can blame you.
The statistical method used in the Lancet study is called “cluster sampling”, and is widely used by governments and NGO’s in natural disasters. I know that.
Lancet has not been “completely discredited”. It is controversial. People have attacked it. People automatically fall back on Iraq Body Count because it gives lower numbers and say yeah, this must be right. That’s all you did. News collection is not reliable because (ta daaaa!) not all deaths are published. Especially in a war-torn country.
Lancet was peer reviewed. You pulled that one out of your ass.
Lancet has released its data for others to study. You’re using the same sourcing here.
Point to be made here: We killed an awful lot of people over there. Even if it is your acceptable number, 100,000, it was a massacre.
Am I outraged? You don’t read so well. I am not at all ‘outraged’. I said the U.S. behaves as all before us have behaved, and only asked the readers here to do one thing: read a little history. They are deeply indoctrinated and very ignorant. Powerful people always behave this way. Always, in Russia, China, Great Britain, Holland, Sudan …
I regard you as a serious man with a good mind, and take your criticism seriously. My only point about Lancet is this: It was attacked because of its content far more than its methodology. I am as troubled by its findings as anyone. I doubt they went there with an agenda. They surely made mistakes, and these have been pointed out by serious scholars who have questioned its credibility.
But something us up there … in Iraq, I mean. There’s some bad shit going down. That war has been hidden in plain sight now for six years. It’s amazing the power of the government to suppress information here in the land of the free.
Nonsense, you don’t read so well. I was making the point that the U.S. is not the most efficient terrorist as you claim – and you’re the one who made The Lancet study my issue. Not me. The data you site about your larger argument are still, nonetheless, specious.
I’ll own up to being wrong on the peer review. I was working on both dated and bad information. My mistake.
Here I’ve been out having a life, and find the discussion passed me by. But Mark, you are predictable in all of your arguments: First you use corrupt data, then you make up stuff, then you claim that someone is trying to steer the argument in another direction, all the while that is exactly what you are doing.
Another example: you originally said “We have assembled more weaponry than any force in human history. ” To which I said that you are wrong. Then what do you do? Why you change the subject to military spending, which is a complete different argument.
So you mean to say that the US has more soldiers than China or Russia? More tanks, APCs aircraft, artillery? Those are the weaponry that are measured, not dollars spent. Yes, we spend a lot on our military, approximately one third being pay and benefits. Should that be counted against the Chinese who don’t spend the same amount?
Your patterns repeat themselves in the same way every time, and I always fall for it, in the vain hope that you will actually come up with something intelligent.
Mark, is peered review your gold standard? IF so, you ain’t gunna like these 450 peer reviewed on a different subject: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Dave said Lancet was not peer reviewed. It was. But there is more to it than that. Critics have charged basic errors in data collection bias inherent in the study, for instance, respondents who are pissed about being invaded, and so make stuff up. (they asked for dear certificates to overcome this. ) but I could see that as a major problem that would be magnified many times over since it is sampling.
Another error might be understatement of death rates before the war. Since the study measures increased deaths from one time period to another, this would cause overstatement of deaths.
Before the war, Iraq suffered from sanctions, and so death rate was already high. I don’t know if that was factored in. I assume so.
Steve – you don’t bring a lot to the table. Your whole rant up above was “what if this what if that”. Here is the point again: the US spends more on military than anyone in history and has the laargest assembly of weaponry ever. It is simply true. Deal with it.
Interesting you bring up China. They have been non-expansionist historically. They mostly have all the resources they need, and so have not been aggressive. But they do have a large army. Consequently, we won’t be attacking them. But they present us with no military threat.
Anyway, we spend on theilitaey to dominate others and protect overseas investments. We are not threatened by anyone. Iran is nothing, but we would like to overthrow their government and install a US puppet, and so are exaggerating their danger. SOP.
Mark, the sampling error problems were the least of it. As Kane pointed out the results of the model couldn’t even disprove the null hypothesis – i.e. Was there an increase in civilian rates after the invasion by U.S. forces? The confidence interval +/- 3 std. devs was -133,000 to +650,000. In other words they could not predict, unsung their own math, that the actual marginal death rate was positive or negative (more deaths v less deaths.) That’s what Kane was saying is that the statistics were not wrong but the outcome of the model did not conclude – as The Lancet asserted – that death rates went up. And if we assume the sampling was, in fact, correct then the conclusion is still not warranted.
As I said earlier, it was junk science. The Lancets conclusion was not supported by their model.
“Steve – you don’t bring a lot to the table. Your whole rant up above was “what if this what if that”. Here is the point again: the US spends more on military than anyone in history and has the largest assembly of weaponry ever. It is simply true.”
No, No it’s not true that we have the largest assembly of weaponry ever. Again, you misstate a fact, then when it is pointed out to you, you change what you say and claim to be right all along. And yet, you aren’t.
I think the technical term for your style of argument is absurdium reducto absurdium. You can claim it as your own, since no one else is using it.
Dave – I went and looked up Kane’s paper was published on scienceblogs.com, and nowhere else, and is given little credibility outside those who rush to crush anyone who criticizes the emperor. I ask you, is it peer reviewed? I expected to find more there.
This, from Pardon my Paradox, where Kane was discussed in 2007 (it’s the closest I could get to understanding what you were getting at:
http://exmypar.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/david-kane-and-the-lancet/
Steve – we are at or near the top in every category of weaponry. Yes, China has a larger army. Yes, Russia has a few more deliverable nukes. But taken in total, we have more than anyone else. And it is more than any country has ever had in history.
Steve – you are talking about “Reductio ad absurdum? I usually leave that sort of thing to Wulfgar, as he read a book once … I haven’t the foggiest notion of what you mean, and frankly think you are embarrassing yourself.
Thankfully, we soon go off the page.
Mark, please see http://www.abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=6799754&page=1
===============
In a highly unusual rebuke, the American Association for Public Opinion Research today said the author of a widely debated survey on “excess deaths” in Iraq had violated its code of professional ethics by refusing to disclose details of his work. The author’s institution later disclosed to ABC News that it, too, is investigating the study.
AAPOR, in a statement, said that in an eight-month investigation, Gilbert Burnham, a faculty member at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, “repeatedly refused to make public essential facts about his research on civilian deaths in Iraq.”
Hours later, the school itself disclosed its own investigation of the Iraq casualties report “to determine if any violation of the school’s rules or guidelines for the conduct of research occurred.” It said the review “is nearing completion…”
In AAPOR’s statement, its president, Richard A. Kulka, said: “When researchers draw important conclusions and make public statements and arguments based on survey research, then subsequently refuse to answer even basic questions about how their research was conducted, this violates the fundamental standards of science, seriously undermines open public debate on critical issues, and undermines the credibility of all survey and public opinion research.”
=================
Seems fishy.
Mark, did you know Burnham has been suspended? http://www.anxietyculture.com/news.htm
===============
Lancet author suspended for ethics violations
Following an internal review of the Lancet 2006 study on Iraqi deaths, Gilbert Burnham (its lead author) has been suspended for violating ethics protocols by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. This follows a rebuke of Burnham by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) for repeatedly refusing to publicly disclose essential facts about the Lancet study’s methods. AAPOR’s president went as far as saying that Burnham’s conduct “violates the fundamental standards of science”. This is the first time in 12 years that AAPOR has brought a charge of ethics violation (the last time was against the rightwing pollster Frank Luntz).
http://tinyurl.com/c3hmm6
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2009/iraq_review.html
http://blogs.usatoday.com/sciencefair/2009/02/ethics-flap-for.html
http://www.aapor.org/aaporfindsgilbertburnhaminviolationofethicscode
http://dissident93.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/violating-fundamental-standards-of-science
http://personal.rhul.ac.uk/uhte/014/Ethics%20and%20Data%20Integrity_8_09_08.pdf
===============
Why do you go down with this ship??????
You’re pretty selective in your quoting here, Mark. In fact, Kane’s argument was simply and purely that the model was inconclusive and, contrary to the commentors at that blog, didn’t have an ax to grind on any ideological front. From a QA standpoint there is only one commenter that seems to have a clue as to the statistics who realizes that the model that includes the Falluja data allows for the possibility that death rates could have actually gone down. To be sure this is a statistical anomaly but The Lancet tucked it under the fold in their analysis because because it raised more questions than gave answers.
If you read Kane carefully – if you can understand the statisics – here is what he’s saying; the inclusion of the Falluja cluster puts the high point of the probability curve at about 100,000 deaths but the confidence interval is so broad – assuming a distribution of of +/- 3 standard deviations that it’s a bad model. But excluding the Falluja cluster, although narrowing the range is misleading because Falluja is a significant data point that should not be ignored because of sampling size. Roberts, BTW, in his alternative model that excludes Falluja, puts the peak of the distribution at 100,000 excess deaths. Kane concludes that the confidence interval is too broad and is better using 2 standard deviations – producing a 95% confidence interval rather than the Roberts works using 97.5% confidence interval. Roberts should have known this but the lower CI detracted from the conclusion he was looking for.
Kane further thinks that the statistical conclusion is that more than 100,000 excess deaths occurred – more in line with the Falluja excluded model of 268,000 but it has significantly less confidence.
But the thing that’s most striking after looking again at Roberts is that – even in his flawed analysis – that the most probable likelihood of excess deaths is somewhere between 100,000 and 268,000. The way the anti-war community grabbed the upper bounds number of 650,000 (at the upper limit of the 3rd st. dev.) shows either ignorance of statistics or the compulsive behavior of exaggerating data to support an argument. Of which I do accuse you.
Thanks for the lead, Craig. Here’s the outcome for the Burnham, Roberts’ co-author, caper:
Apparently Gregg contacted you outside of this thread. But I thank him too.
Here’s the point, Dave: Lancet/Hopkins/Roberts whatever excluded Falluja. That massacre is a story all of its own. Kane makes an issue of that for obscure, non-peer reviewed reasons.
Beyond that, his science is not widely accepted.
I am aware of what was done to Roberts, as I am Ward Churchill. I know what happens to people when they speak out from within the hallowed institutions – they expect to be treated as free men, but are quickly reminded that they serve power.
I know this: Far more people were killed in Iraq than your IBC allows, and you are curiously circumspect about that, allowing it to be so, and yet going off-rail about Lancet.
You confuse and have not in the least enlightened this discussion,
Mark, don’t make this about me. I said I don’t know the answer and I’m not circumspect about anything. I’m saying that you have touted The Lancet study to bolster your point and I have said that it’s statistical bullshit. You go further to say that you’re going with it because the IBC can’t be correct.
Like I said before, I hope you don’t hurt your back blowing smoke up your own ass. You certainly won’t win any argument with me by embracing crap.
Mark, how can you possibly go on about Lancet after the serious rebuke of Burnham????
http://personal.rhul.ac.uk/uhte/014/Ethics%20and%20Data%20Integrity_8_09_08.pdf
==================
Abstract
This paper considers the second Lancet survey of mortality in Iraq published in 2006. It presents evidence suggesting ethical violations to the survey’s respondents including endangerment, privacy breaches and in obtaining informed consent. Breaches of minimal disclosure standards examined include non-disclosure of the survey’s questionnaire, data-entry form, data matching anonymized interviewer IDs with households and sample design. The paper also presents evidence relating to data fabrication and falsification which falls into nine broad categories. This evidence suggests that this survey cannot be considered a reliable or valid contribution towards knowledge about the extent of mortality in Iraq since 2003.
===================
And, BTW, Gregg didn’t contact me about this. You’re demonstrating a creepy paranoia.
Wow, Craig. Spagat all but says Burnham and Roberts were just making stuff up. Great analysis.
I feel sorry for Mark because he bet the farm on this. Oh well.
My bet is that he’ll continue to use The Lancet in his arguments because the only reason he can figure that anyone would abject to it is to hide “the truth.”
After John Hopkins suspended Burnham over the ethical lapses, unscientific methodology, and hiding the ball from others to confirm his work, I would expect Lancet to issue a retraction since they put their name to to his propaganda.
Key words: “strong and somewhat evidence-resistant attitudinal biases.”
Sound familiar?
Mark, I am sorry I did not get back to this thread sooner, since I started it all. I want to respond to your initial substantive comment of 11/13 at 4:45, p.m.
I don’t know how to read that without thinking it’s tremendously hypocritical of you to talk about how you enjoy the blessings of this country and in the same breath imply that we have essentially taken those blessings from others wrongfully. That’s not an attack; I am wondering how you reconcile it in your head.
See, for me I don’t think that way. First, I think the USA has done many great things for the world, and I don’t think that gets discussed enough. Second, all nations are somewhat Darwinian; most nations act primarily in their self-interest first. Why are we wrong for doing that? Because we’ve got a structure that makes us better at it?
I am not telling you to shut up about it at all. You basically argue that we enjoy this wonderful lifestyle on the backs of the rest of the world, and according to you that is wrong. Yet you enjoy this wonderful lifestyle on the backs of the rest of the world. Assume you’re right, and we’re all misguided. Aren’t you the worse morally, since you know the ‘truth’ and we’re all at least deluded into thinking we do good?
How do you reconcile that?
Gregg-
I would only say that just because America consistently acts in its self-interest abroad does not necessarily mean that that is WHY we prosper here. Other countries prosper without spending $680 billion a year on their military. I don’t see how our three concurrent wars in the Middle East right now have anything to do with my prosperity. I imagine I’d be doing just as well without them.
See what I mean? It’s not only that some of us believe that America acts with impunity around the world – it’s that it doesn’t end up benefiting us one way or the other. It benefits chest-thumping politicians, the military-industrial complex, and right-wing radio hosts. But me? Not so much.