OT Is anyone really surprised?

In article ,
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:35:07 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

1. The Burnham study in question had been commissioned in the Fall of
2005 by MIT, using MIT's own internal funding. Soros gave money to MIT
in the Spring of 2006 -- after the study had already been commissioned
and was underway -- for public education purposes, not for the study.
Burnham was not told that Soros had donated funds to MIT for the
purposes of public education.

2. The FoxNews story is incorrect about the estimate itself. The WHO/
MoH study did not estimate that 151,000 people had died since the
invasion in 2003; it estimated that 151,000 people had died of violent
causes since the invasion in 2003. The overall all-cause estimate of
"excess" mortality from the WHO study was 400,000, which was within
the error margin of Burnham's estimate of 650,000.

3. The 2006 Burnham study was an update of a 2004 study whose lead
author was Roberts, that had produced an estimate of all-cause excess
deaths from the invasion in March 2003 to September 2004 of 98,000.
The WHO/MoH study produces an estimate of excess deaths for that same
period of (drumroll) 100,000.


Who is funding you to post all this?

Greg and Tom.

--
tanx,
Howard

Now it's raining pitchforks and women,
But I've already got a pitchfork...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

wrote:
On Jan 13, 4:25 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

The Liberals here would gladly blindly follow Joseph Stalin if he claimed to
be anti-Bush. Soros is a Jew and yet has supported the Islamic terrorists
almost from the start. The really weird thing is that Soros whose real name
is Schwartz isn't a communist but quite a strong open society democrat
(small d).

"Soros whose real name is Schwartz"
Do you have a problem with that? It seems like you
think both his Jewishness and his Schwartzishness
are worth mentioning.

Wikipedia says:
"The family [in Hungary] changed its name in 1936 from
Schwartz to Soros, in response to the Fascist threat to Jews."

George was, at the time, six years old. Is Schwartz
still his real name? My grandfather was from Russia
and the name got changed when he emigrated. Is my
real name in Cyrillic? That would explain a few things.


Some of the Soviet Jews who came over in the '70s and '80s had their
names significantly "Russified" compared to the old-timers. For
instance, I knew someone who spelled his name "Veynshteyn". Of course,
I also knew a professor at my dental school who spelled his name "Alain
Roizen" (a-'LAN roy-'ZAN)--tres continental. Transliterations can be funny.

Steve

BTW, radio personality Michael Savage's real name is
Michael Weiner (no relation). Do you suppose he changed
it because of the Fascist threat? (Maybe the Liberal-Fascist
threat?) Or because his target audience thinks that's
a funny commie name?

Ben
p.s. So if 150,000 people died in Iraq instead of 600,000,
that makes it a success, right?


--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Tom Kunich wrote:


Tom, I'm going to restrict my comments not to the substance, but to the
tone of your postings to Robert. This is afterall, RBR.
Besides being offensive to me, I see no way that your discursive style
is likely to convince anyone that you have something to say.
IMO if you have a shred of judgment you'll think a bit before you hit send.

Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

On Jan 14, 5:03 am, Howard Kveck wrote:

Who is funding you to post all this?

Greg and Tom.

Please don't step on the punchlines.

On Jan 14, 3:17 am, Bill C wrote:
On Jan 13, 11:39 pm, wrote:

On Jan 13, 5:01 pm, Bill C wrote:

Hey Mike
I think the point is that this study was trotted out as THE study.
They attacked everyone else who had come to different figures
brutally, claimed they were all biased due to who was doing/
commissioning them, and they claimed to be pure as driven snow.

I do not think you know anything about the technical or methodological
issues surrounding this issue.

We beat this to death. So I know mostly what you told me.

If so, then you haven't been a very good student.

On Jan 14, 10:21*am, wrote:
On Jan 14, 3:17 am, Bill C wrote:

On Jan 13, 11:39 pm, wrote:

On Jan 13, 5:01 pm, Bill C wrote:

Hey Mike
*I think the point is that this study was trotted out as THE study..
They attacked everyone else who had come to different figures
brutally, claimed they were all biased due to who was doing/
commissioning them, and they claimed to be pure as driven snow.

I do not think you know anything about the technical or methodological
issues surrounding this issue.

We beat this to death. So I know mostly what you told me.

If so, then you haven't been a very good student.

No we still disagree. I think all the points you made about the
difficulty of doing an accurate study of the Vietnam aftermath, are as
valid in Iraq, and it's a more complicated situation on top of it with
multiple groups having tons of reason to lie to anyone conducting a
survey and very little way to verify their statements. Just because a
village leader with an axe to grind claims 100 people were killed,
gets the village to confirm it mostly, the hospital goes along because
they don't want to be tortured and killed, they point to 100 graves.
That doesn't mean anyone is in them, or doesn't mean there aren't 1000
in them.
Several of the international news outlets admit that they don't run
stories, or ask questions that might get their people killed. What
about the survey folks, are they braver? More accurate?
I don't think we've got any clue how many people have been killed,
and by whom. The most accurate statement I think we can make is "Lots,
and by a bunch of different people." .
Anything else is a guess IMO, and it's unstable, and unverifiable
enough to come up with a study to support any position your paid to,
equally as validly. The Lancet study fits your politics, so you find
ways to justify it, others find the others more valid and find their
justifications. You can't build a temple on top of quicksand.
Bill C

On Jan 14, 4:29 am, Bill C wrote:
On Jan 14, 5:06 am, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:



On Jan 13, 3:25 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html

"A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a
result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by
the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

snip

Dumbass -

The Iraq Study Group's data supported that figure.

The problem with the methodology adopted by the US military was it
only counted Iraqi casualties when they also involved US troops. If US
troops weren't involved, the incident was ignored. Therefore,
sectarian violence was included in US military figures.

The problem with that is: the US invasion enabled the sectarian
violence. Under Saddam, the Mukhbarat (secret police) kept that sort
of thing under control.

The Iraq Study Group found that only 1 in 12 deadly incidents involved
US soldiers. US figures for Iraqi casualties at that time was in the
upper 50 thousands. Multiply that by twelve and you get a similar
figure to the Lancet Study.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

And when we pull everyone, for all practical purposes, out like we did
in SE Asia who's gonna put a damper on the sectarian war we allowed to
get started, and enabled?
That is the plan of Obama and the far left from everything I've seen.
There is NO sign of a plan to help stabilise Iraq. I don't consider
leaving 30,000 troops scattered in desert outposts a useful plan.
The Liberal view will be the same as for SE Asia, I'm sure. "Millions
died", but hey we got our troops out of their so it's not our fault.
Then when pressed blame the prior administrations which is accurate,
but is accurate like the kid who threw buckets of gas on the burning
house saying I didn't start the fire.

I kind of agree with this. Most proposals for withdrawal being spewed
on the campaign trail lack a sense of reality or responsibility, imo.
But the US could not sustain its presence in Iraq even if it wanted
to. Unless -- how do you feel about the Draft?

In large measure Iraq will descend into sectarian violence with or
without US troops present. The current lull is not due to increased US
troop presence as many seem to think, but due to alignment of Sunni
insurgents against Islamist factions like al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and
due to orders from Sadr for his Mahdi Army to stand down. This is all
temporary. There will continue a large civil war unless the Kurds,
Shiites, Sunnis can achieve through some other process what each
thinks they can achieve through violence. They are not going to just
get along with all that oil at stake. And that's to say nothing of the
Islamists, who may prove to be as resilient in Iraq as they have been
in other places.

I see the right-wing talk radio crowd is gearing up to blame the
unfolding disaster on the Democrats, just as they have convinced a
large portion of their drooling followers that we would have won in
Viet-Nam if only the damn liberals didn't get in the way. I would say
to people to believe this, stop being so retarded.

On Jan 14, 8:50 am, Bill C wrote:

We beat this to death. So I know mostly what you told me.

If so, then you haven't been a very good student.

No we still disagree. I think all the points you made about the
difficulty of doing an accurate study of the Vietnam aftermath, are as
valid in Iraq, and it's a more complicated situation on top of it with
multiple groups having tons of reason to lie to anyone conducting a
survey and very little way to verify their statements. Just because a
village leader with an axe to grind claims 100 people were killed,
gets the village to confirm it mostly, the hospital goes along because
they don't want to be tortured and killed, they point to 100 graves.
That doesn't mean anyone is in them, or doesn't mean there aren't 1000
in them.
Several of the international news outlets admit that they don't run
stories, or ask questions that might get their people killed. What
about the survey folks, are they braver? More accurate?
I don't think we've got any clue how many people have been killed,
and by whom. The most accurate statement I think we can make is "Lots,
and by a bunch of different people." .
Anything else is a guess IMO, and it's unstable, and unverifiable
enough to come up with a study to support any position your paid to,
equally as validly. The Lancet study fits your politics, so you find
ways to justify it, others find the others more valid and find their
justifications. You can't build a temple on top of quicksand.
Bill C

Well, evidently we do disagree, but the reason is because I actually
know what I'm talking about. Let's summarize:

1. There isn't one "Lancet study." There have been several studies,
two of which were published by The Lancet.
2. Soros didn't fund the Burnham study, although Fox News erroneously
claimed he did.
3. Fox News claimed the new WHO study estimated 151,000 deaths, when
it didn't.
4. Fox News claimed the new WHO study contradicts "the Lancet study"
when it actually affirms the original estimate from the Roberts study,
is consistent with the total overall excess mortality from the Burnham
study, and differs only with the Burnham study in the totals by causes
of death. Betcha you didn't get that info from your news sources.
5. Your little example about village leaders? Wrong, of course. None
of the studies surveyed village leaders to get their estimates, and
two of the studies verified the reported deaths with death
certificates.

But the fact that you are so ill-informed but so willing to say "a pox
on all their houses" is a success for the people who are trying to
obfuscate the issue. Congratulations to them. You've been had.

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

We need to be saved from the people who are saving us.
Bill C

I agree. And I agree with just about everything else you brought up. I
just
don't think *any* survey or scientific study should be taken seriously
without looking at who's behind it. And invariably you will find opposing
views looking to design a survey that supports their views. But not in
ALL
cases. That's not what I meant. Just that it shouldn't be in the least
bit
surprising to find biased methodologies coming from both sides of an
issue,
not just liberal, not just conservative. And that somehow the rest of us
need to look at the surveys & studies to try and figure out what's behind
them.

Perhaps we should examine most critically the studies
that support our point of view.

--
Michael Press

Absolutely!!! Self-doubt is not always a bad thing. And always, always,
ALWAYS, it's those times I think I'm most-right about something that I'm
likely to be wrong. Because what's make me feel most-right about something
may very well be that I've squeezed those dissenting viewpoints out of my
mind, thinking they're not worthy of consideration.

I've recommended this before, I'll recommend it again. If you haven't see
it, rent "The Fog of War" about Robert McNamara's personal reflections on
what he/they did wrong in Vietnam. There are lessons for us all in that
movie. You'd never think a subject like that could be so riveting, but it
is.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

rechungREMOVETHIS wrote:
1. There isn't one "Lancet study." There have been several studies, two of
which were published by The Lancet. 2. Soros didn't fund the Burnham
study, although Fox News erroneously claimed he did.
3. Fox News claimed the new WHO study estimated 151,000 deaths, when it
didn't.
4. Fox News claimed the new WHO study contradicts "the Lancet study" when
it actually affirms the original estimate from the Roberts study, is
consistent with the total overall excess mortality from the Burnham study,
and differs only with the Burnham study in the totals by causes of death.

Life would be so much simpler if we all implicitely believed
everything Fox News says. Why, we could all be Kunich-Klones(tm).