Exra Klein is a genius but I have no idea where he got the idea that organic food is healthier than other food.
What's with this "organic" business ? Are you aware of any evidence that organic fruit is more healthy than other fruit ? The case looks pretty weak http://tinyurl.com/2v633h
To change the subject, are you about to tell me that we need to eliminate preservatives from our food and also that we can reduce cancer and heart disease with anti-oxidants ? The second claim is supported by some evidence. The problem is that the words "preservative" and "anti-oxidant" are synonyms.
When I took organic chemistry in 1979 the professor seemed to really enjoy himself when he noticed that organic chemicals were mostly introduced in the 60's and we know from the case of cigarettes that there is a 20 year lag from increased exposure to cancer and bwa ha ha ha (I think he was a sadist).
Didn't work out that way. Instead we had a mysterious decline in death rates. So is there any evidence that preservatives prevent heart attacks well uhm yes
I should stress that I am quite serious and believe that organically grown food is no healthier than otherwise identical non organically grown food. I also genuinely believe that antioxidants in general (including BHA and BHT added as preservatives) reduce the risk of cancer and coronary artery disease. This second belief is based on the guess that Vitamin E has these effects because it is an antioxidant and not because it is, specifically, vitamin E which guess is based on theory and not evidence.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Petreaus Power Point Perjury Part 4
I was scooped by Smintheus at unbossed on the false colors on the map thing.
Update: Here are two clear examples of Gen. Petraeus caught in outright lies today.
First, examine the third of the slides he presented to Congress (on page 4 of this PDF). It presents four maps of "ethno-sectarian violence" in the neighborhoods of Baghdad since December 2006. These maps pretend that the ethnic/sectarian mix of various neighborhoods has remained constant during this period. In fact, as I've commented here and elsewhere, the Sunnis have been driven headlong out of many neighborhoods since December 2006. Despite the map, there are no longer either majority Sunni or mixed Sunni-Shia neighborhoods east of the Tigris. And west of the Tigris, Sunni-dominated areas have shrunk considerably.
The maps falsify one of the most delicate of issues: The failure of the "surge" to stem ethnic/sectarian cleansing of Baghdad. If that information were brought to the fore, it would call into question the claims by Petraeus and other spokespeople for the Bush administration that the "surge" is responsible for an alleged drop in violence in Baghdad. If there is any such drop, it may be due in large part to the success of Shia attempts to drive Sunnis from their homes and into exile.
I was scooped by Smintheus at unbossed on the false colors on the map thing.
Update: Here are two clear examples of Gen. Petraeus caught in outright lies today.
First, examine the third of the slides he presented to Congress (on page 4 of this PDF). It presents four maps of "ethno-sectarian violence" in the neighborhoods of Baghdad since December 2006. These maps pretend that the ethnic/sectarian mix of various neighborhoods has remained constant during this period. In fact, as I've commented here and elsewhere, the Sunnis have been driven headlong out of many neighborhoods since December 2006. Despite the map, there are no longer either majority Sunni or mixed Sunni-Shia neighborhoods east of the Tigris. And west of the Tigris, Sunni-dominated areas have shrunk considerably.
The maps falsify one of the most delicate of issues: The failure of the "surge" to stem ethnic/sectarian cleansing of Baghdad. If that information were brought to the fore, it would call into question the claims by Petraeus and other spokespeople for the Bush administration that the "surge" is responsible for an alleged drop in violence in Baghdad. If there is any such drop, it may be due in large part to the success of Shia attempts to drive Sunnis from their homes and into exile.
Six or Seven Nato countries The Pleiades revisted
I think I may have solved a mystery. Spencer Ackerman wrote
This reminds me of a constellation the Pleiades or seven sisters which consists of 6 visible stars.
What gives ?
Now Josh Marshall knows more, but doesn't connect the non dots.
One way the president comes up with this number is to rope in something called the NATO Training Mission-Iraq (NTM-1).
I think the 7th sister is Spain. Note they are in NTM-I with exactly zero personel in Iraq. I think someone at State decided to include NTM-I as part of the expanded coalition of the willing related program activities, then discovered that saying Spain had troops in Iraq was misleading and technically false.
They didn't work on it enough, since the claim that Iceland has troops in Iraq is also false. Another day and they would have came up with the correct wording as Marshall did"boots on the ground" which is fine so long as the bold Icelander, son of the Vikings, isn't currently hopping around after stubbing his toe.
update: I was wrong wrong wrong. The 7th NATO country is Hungary (the land of my paternal ancestors).
I think I may have solved a mystery. Spencer Ackerman wrote
Seriously, the State Department report (pdf, page 31) lists the 25, and then ticks the number up to 33 by adding the U.S., Fiji, and "seven Nato countries" that aren't -- aren't -- a part of Multinational Forces-Iraq: Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Turkey and Slovenia. Yes, you read that right: State says seven but only lists six.
This reminds me of a constellation the Pleiades or seven sisters which consists of 6 visible stars.
What gives ?
Now Josh Marshall knows more, but doesn't connect the non dots.
One way the president comes up with this number is to rope in something called the NATO Training Mission-Iraq (NTM-1).
As Spencer Ackerman notes here, most of the countries involved in this initiative have agreed to let Iraqis come to their countries for training, not the other way around. So for instance, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report, Spain "plans to train groups of 25 Iraqis in mine clearance at a center outside Madrid."
And who has boots on the ground in country? One example from the president's list of 36 is Iceland which has sent a single public information officer to serve as in the NATO mission in Baghdad. More robustly, Italy has 8 officers on the NTM-I mission in Baghdad, Portugal is considering sending "up to 10."
I think the 7th sister is Spain. Note they are in NTM-I with exactly zero personel in Iraq. I think someone at State decided to include NTM-I as part of the expanded coalition of the willing related program activities, then discovered that saying Spain had troops in Iraq was misleading and technically false.
They didn't work on it enough, since the claim that Iceland has troops in Iraq is also false. Another day and they would have came up with the correct wording as Marshall did"boots on the ground" which is fine so long as the bold Icelander, son of the Vikings, isn't currently hopping around after stubbing his toe.
update: I was wrong wrong wrong. The 7th NATO country is Hungary (the land of my paternal ancestors).
Refuting ABC easy as 123
well yes they published corrections way back then, but now the stories are standing up to scrutiny.
ABC publicly announced ... to date, it was confident that all of Debat's reports for ABC had been vetted and multiply sourced and were standing up to scrutiny.
[snip]
Sources provided multiple examples of stories that Ross—often with Debat's contributions—reported, only to be forced to run a correction the next day.
well yes they published corrections way back then, but now the stories are standing up to scrutiny.
The stars may be aligning again but Starr is not
I am very unimpressed by his post here.
I comment
You contradict yourself repeatedly. You note that setting up the "task force" and "working groups" caused unnecessary controversy and delay, yet you deny that the health care plan "got bogged down and delivered too late." You present overwhelming evidence that the delay was politically disasterous and completely unnecessary as Bill Clinton had already made his basic decision and knew that the details would be negotiated in congress. You note that reform seemed inevitable on January 20 and very difficult when the plan was sent to congress. What could have been accomplished in the interim that was worth the delay ?
You note the costly consequences of compromising unilaterally.
The Clinton administration started with a plan designed to appeal to centrists and irritate progressives, then found that centrists like Breux and Kerrey were not interested in a compromise that they hadn't negotiated. Clinton decided to do their jobs for them. This is not the way to deal with Senators. Then you note that the Clintons had to tack left at a time when the right was attacking them. The lesson would seem to be that one should not waste time negotiating with oneself. This is, of course, exactly what Hillary Clinton is now doing with your enthusiastic support. She must know that anything she proposes will be considered dangerously left wing by swing state senators. It seems obvious that she must propose something then concede to their demands that it be watered down. This is more difficult if she proposes weak tea to begin with. Your analysis strongly supports the conclusion that Hillary Clinton is making the exact same mistake her husband made in 1992. Yet you forget the lessons you learned from the past when you discuss the present.
You neglect to mention any alternative proposal. In particular, you present the choice of an extremely regressive financing scheme as inevitable. The key conflict with the treasury was over financing with a poll tax (following the lead of the great progressive Margaret Thatcher) and firm wide cap and financing with a payroll tax. How about you try to convince Prospect readers that the treasury was wrong on that one. Oh and while your at it how about making firms buy annuities for their workers and eliminating this silly FICA tax where the amount firms and workers pay increases with workers' incomes (can't have that).
I have read the claim that large firms turned against the plan because human resources managers didn't like the idea that their efforts to provide lowest cost insurance were forbidden and they would have to turn their jobs over to the "alliances". I'd say that management consultant Magaziner was sticking to the usual strategy of telling people that he can do their job better than they can. Since he wasn't convincing the boss but rather a President who can do nothing without congress, we have all paid very much for his absurd arrogance.
Oh and by the way, can you find anyone anyone but Bill Clinton who is willing to defend Ira Magaziner. Maybe the widespread (to universal) view that he was an appallingly arrogant idiot way over his head is based on fact.
I don't know much of anything about health policy. I don't need to know anything to refute your conclusion, since your own arguments refute it in advance.
I am very unimpressed by his post here.
I comment
You contradict yourself repeatedly. You note that setting up the "task force" and "working groups" caused unnecessary controversy and delay, yet you deny that the health care plan "got bogged down and delivered too late." You present overwhelming evidence that the delay was politically disasterous and completely unnecessary as Bill Clinton had already made his basic decision and knew that the details would be negotiated in congress. You note that reform seemed inevitable on January 20 and very difficult when the plan was sent to congress. What could have been accomplished in the interim that was worth the delay ?
You note the costly consequences of compromising unilaterally.
The Clinton administration started with a plan designed to appeal to centrists and irritate progressives, then found that centrists like Breux and Kerrey were not interested in a compromise that they hadn't negotiated. Clinton decided to do their jobs for them. This is not the way to deal with Senators. Then you note that the Clintons had to tack left at a time when the right was attacking them. The lesson would seem to be that one should not waste time negotiating with oneself. This is, of course, exactly what Hillary Clinton is now doing with your enthusiastic support. She must know that anything she proposes will be considered dangerously left wing by swing state senators. It seems obvious that she must propose something then concede to their demands that it be watered down. This is more difficult if she proposes weak tea to begin with. Your analysis strongly supports the conclusion that Hillary Clinton is making the exact same mistake her husband made in 1992. Yet you forget the lessons you learned from the past when you discuss the present.
You neglect to mention any alternative proposal. In particular, you present the choice of an extremely regressive financing scheme as inevitable. The key conflict with the treasury was over financing with a poll tax (following the lead of the great progressive Margaret Thatcher) and firm wide cap and financing with a payroll tax. How about you try to convince Prospect readers that the treasury was wrong on that one. Oh and while your at it how about making firms buy annuities for their workers and eliminating this silly FICA tax where the amount firms and workers pay increases with workers' incomes (can't have that).
I have read the claim that large firms turned against the plan because human resources managers didn't like the idea that their efforts to provide lowest cost insurance were forbidden and they would have to turn their jobs over to the "alliances". I'd say that management consultant Magaziner was sticking to the usual strategy of telling people that he can do their job better than they can. Since he wasn't convincing the boss but rather a President who can do nothing without congress, we have all paid very much for his absurd arrogance.
Oh and by the way, can you find anyone anyone but Bill Clinton who is willing to defend Ira Magaziner. Maybe the widespread (to universal) view that he was an appallingly arrogant idiot way over his head is based on fact.
I don't know much of anything about health policy. I don't need to know anything to refute your conclusion, since your own arguments refute it in advance.
Obesity and Global warming catturando 2 piccioni con una fava
Italy gets some attention
I comment
Watch out for typos. Italians are angry about overpriced Orichieti, Orchieti would be small testicles whose price is not affected by biofuels.
Also why not buy high fructose corn syrup for biofuels (for one thing fructose can be turned into a fuel which doesn't evaporate as easily as ethanol http://tinyurl.com/yohhw3).
Now it is possible to make bacteria which split sucrose into fructose and glucose and turn the glucose into ethanol leaving fructose, ethanol water and a nasty smell. distill out the ethanol and crystalize out the fructose then call the chemists.
Drive up the price of corn syrup as a replacement for corn price supports. Sounds good to me.
Sad to say I am totally ignorant. Corn Syrup contains glucose not sucrose.
Glucose is converted to fructose enzymantically. So the story is convert glucose to fructose then call the chemists. Alternatively one could just make ethanol from corn syrup. The point is that ethanol subsidies should be used to drive up the price of unhealthy foods not healthy foods. So the subsidy should be to purchases of corn syrup for conversion to ethanol not on production of ethanol.
Also we should import ethanol of course.
The fructose derived fuel might be better than ethanol. I have no idea.
update: thanks Nancy
Italy gets some attention
NO PASTA FOR YOU! Italians are on spaghetti strike today, refusing to buy all pasta in protest of a 20 percent increase in consumer prices, caused in part by demand for wheat as a biofuel. The average Italian eats pasta once a day, or 61 pounds of the starchy goodness annually.
While Italians might be incensed over expensive orchiette, the biofuel bull market affects food supplies all over the world, and developing countries will be hit hardest. In Mexico, where many poor, rural people survive on a diet built around nutritious corn tortillas, the ethanol rush is responsible for tripling and quadrupling the price of food staples. And ethanol production has a dark side in the United States' food system as well; the more corn we grow, the more we subsidize growing corn, which has already led to the massive, obesity-causing overuse of corn syrup in our diet. It's all food for thought the next time you hear a presidential candidate wax eloquent on the wonders of ethanol.
I comment
Watch out for typos. Italians are angry about overpriced Orichieti, Orchieti would be small testicles whose price is not affected by biofuels.
Also why not buy high fructose corn syrup for biofuels (for one thing fructose can be turned into a fuel which doesn't evaporate as easily as ethanol http://tinyurl.com/yohhw3).
Now it is possible to make bacteria which split sucrose into fructose and glucose and turn the glucose into ethanol leaving fructose, ethanol water and a nasty smell. distill out the ethanol and crystalize out the fructose then call the chemists.
Drive up the price of corn syrup as a replacement for corn price supports. Sounds good to me.
Sad to say I am totally ignorant. Corn Syrup contains glucose not sucrose.
Glucose is converted to fructose enzymantically. So the story is convert glucose to fructose then call the chemists. Alternatively one could just make ethanol from corn syrup. The point is that ethanol subsidies should be used to drive up the price of unhealthy foods not healthy foods. So the subsidy should be to purchases of corn syrup for conversion to ethanol not on production of ethanol.
Also we should import ethanol of course.
The fructose derived fuel might be better than ethanol. I have no idea.
update: thanks Nancy
OK so why would any Democrat not listen to Edwards and Kleiman (see below) ?
I am reminded of Nixon's secret strategy to end the Vietnam war. His idea was that Communists thought he was insanely anti communist (pretending to be so was his successful secret strategy to become the youngest Vice President in US history). So they would be terrified and ready to accept a compromise. Nixon being secretly sane (at the time) would agree and there you have it. Didn't work but made some logical sense and would only work if kept secret.
Now we have Bush's not secret strategy to not end the war. He really is crazy. If forced to choose between no funding or a deadline, he will choose no funding and try to blame the Democrats. They know this. Basically there is an insane man who has 160,000 American hostages. He is perfectly capable of ordering them to stay in Iraq with no funding. He is much more capable of ordering people to spend money not appropriated by congress. The constitution is in grave danger. The hostage crisis will end on January 200 2009. A couple of hundred more deaths is really a small price to pay to not find out just how crazy President Bush is.
The logic is that it does not make sense to play chicken with a rabid bull on steroids.
I support the "no timeline. no funding. no excuses." approach with one month no timeline supplementals (the proposal of the moderate Markos Moulitsas who doesn't go as far as the radical Mark Kleiman. The aim is not to get out of Iraq before Janaury 20 2009, that is impossible, the aim is to force Republican senators in blue states to choose between utterly rejecting their party line and the Presidento and voting for the war and losing their seats. I think they will vote for the war and we will have a semi decent Senate and a sane president at the same time. Of course I'm dreaming.
I am reminded of Nixon's secret strategy to end the Vietnam war. His idea was that Communists thought he was insanely anti communist (pretending to be so was his successful secret strategy to become the youngest Vice President in US history). So they would be terrified and ready to accept a compromise. Nixon being secretly sane (at the time) would agree and there you have it. Didn't work but made some logical sense and would only work if kept secret.
Now we have Bush's not secret strategy to not end the war. He really is crazy. If forced to choose between no funding or a deadline, he will choose no funding and try to blame the Democrats. They know this. Basically there is an insane man who has 160,000 American hostages. He is perfectly capable of ordering them to stay in Iraq with no funding. He is much more capable of ordering people to spend money not appropriated by congress. The constitution is in grave danger. The hostage crisis will end on January 200 2009. A couple of hundred more deaths is really a small price to pay to not find out just how crazy President Bush is.
The logic is that it does not make sense to play chicken with a rabid bull on steroids.
I support the "no timeline. no funding. no excuses." approach with one month no timeline supplementals (the proposal of the moderate Markos Moulitsas who doesn't go as far as the radical Mark Kleiman. The aim is not to get out of Iraq before Janaury 20 2009, that is impossible, the aim is to force Republican senators in blue states to choose between utterly rejecting their party line and the Presidento and voting for the war and losing their seats. I think they will vote for the war and we will have a semi decent Senate and a sane president at the same time. Of course I'm dreaming.
Oh My
64% of registered voters polled by Fox news want all US troops out of Iraq within one year. Fox is, of course, Fox and phrased the question to minimize that number. They had no option for leaving some to say protect the embassy or to look for al Qaeda in Iraq. They gambled and lost.
"Based on General Petraeus's new report, do you think the United States should pull out all troops immediately, pull out all troops gradually over the next year, pull out after Iraqi troops are capable of taking over, or, send more troops?"
.
Pull Out Immediately 22%
Pull Out Gradually* 42%
After Iraqis Capable 24%
Send More Troops 2%
Unsure 10%
* notice that Fox is cheating with the header. They use the vague word "gradually" when the question was precise. "Pull out within one year" would have been an honest header. It would show that 64% of registered voters are way to the left of the Democrats in congress and all of the Democratic candidates except for maybe Kucinich.
The Republican hopefuls are fighting over the 26% who want to stay in Iraq.
64% of registered voters polled by Fox news want all US troops out of Iraq within one year. Fox is, of course, Fox and phrased the question to minimize that number. They had no option for leaving some to say protect the embassy or to look for al Qaeda in Iraq. They gambled and lost.
"Based on General Petraeus's new report, do you think the United States should pull out all troops immediately, pull out all troops gradually over the next year, pull out after Iraqi troops are capable of taking over, or, send more troops?"
.
Pull Out Immediately 22%
Pull Out Gradually* 42%
After Iraqis Capable 24%
Send More Troops 2%
Unsure 10%
* notice that Fox is cheating with the header. They use the vague word "gradually" when the question was precise. "Pull out within one year" would have been an honest header. It would show that 64% of registered voters are way to the left of the Democrats in congress and all of the Democratic candidates except for maybe Kucinich.
The Republican hopefuls are fighting over the 26% who want to stay in Iraq.
Lying and misleading while telling the truth
I have argued that general Petraeus made (and presented graphically) false statements to congress. Very clumsy since no one thinks he is dumb. I think that the problem must be poor communication during the rush to cook the books, since the false statements are false descriptions of a figure he presented.
In contrast, when he is winging it, Petreaus is very good. I'm sure he is a fine general attempting an impossible task, but he would have made an excellent lawyer.
Consider this as summarized by David Cloud in the New York Times
Now we know that the uniformed military decided not to present one proposal to Bush, presumably because the "discussions" have included uhm frank and useful exchanges. Basically it is clear that other top-ranking officers totally disagree with Petraeus (oh and they outrank him). However, Petreaus dodged the perjury trap. He presented no plan to congress for what to do after mid-July and only noted that Fallon agreed with him up till then (the vagueness of the withdrawal figure means it is consistent with both positions in the debate).
A team of officers was working on a competing proposal to present to the President. It takes time to plan a redeployment and they seem to have decided to take lots of time on a proposal they know the President will reject "Among Mr. Bush’s other senior military advisers, differences about how deep the cuts should go appeared to have been set aside with the decision to postpone further decisions until next spring". Thus no detailed proposal has been "laid out". Altogether an effort to mislead which was challenged by someone who knew about the controversy followed neither by retreat not perjury. No one doubts that the guy is smart.
His commander in chief, however, is not willing to compromise with reality. Glenn Kessler totally demolishes him. It is very good that the Washington Post is finally fact checking the President.
I have argued that general Petraeus made (and presented graphically) false statements to congress. Very clumsy since no one thinks he is dumb. I think that the problem must be poor communication during the rush to cook the books, since the false statements are false descriptions of a figure he presented.
In contrast, when he is winging it, Petreaus is very good. I'm sure he is a fine general attempting an impossible task, but he would have made an excellent lawyer.
Consider this as summarized by David Cloud in the New York Times
General Petraeus told lawmakers during two days of Congressional testimony this week that his plan for reducing the American presence in Iraq by five combat brigades through mid-July was “fully supported” by Adm. William J. Fallon, the chief of Central Command and the senior American commander in the Middle East, as well as by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The general said, “There has been no recommendation I am aware of that would have laid out by any of those individuals a more rapid withdrawal.”
He acknowledged though that he and other top-ranking officers had begun “discussions about the pace of the mission transition,”
Now we know that the uniformed military decided not to present one proposal to Bush, presumably because the "discussions" have included uhm frank and useful exchanges. Basically it is clear that other top-ranking officers totally disagree with Petraeus (oh and they outrank him). However, Petreaus dodged the perjury trap. He presented no plan to congress for what to do after mid-July and only noted that Fallon agreed with him up till then (the vagueness of the withdrawal figure means it is consistent with both positions in the debate).
A team of officers was working on a competing proposal to present to the President. It takes time to plan a redeployment and they seem to have decided to take lots of time on a proposal they know the President will reject "Among Mr. Bush’s other senior military advisers, differences about how deep the cuts should go appeared to have been set aside with the decision to postpone further decisions until next spring". Thus no detailed proposal has been "laid out". Altogether an effort to mislead which was challenged by someone who knew about the controversy followed neither by retreat not perjury. No one doubts that the guy is smart.
His commander in chief, however, is not willing to compromise with reality. Glenn Kessler totally demolishes him. It is very good that the Washington Post is finally fact checking the President.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Fascinating Fat Theory
Via the ringleader.
Hmm cool name indeed. French name I'd say. So he's got the time series, how about the cross section. In the USA gasoline is absurdly cheap and people are fat. OK
But the really interesting application is the mysterious fat states for Bush fact. Self reported obesity is significantly positively correlated with votes for Bush. Red states are more car friendly and would require pedestrians to walk a long long way. Hmmmmm. There have been huge changes in prices at the pump in non US developed countries due to excise tax increases. This is the way to test his model (the world price of oil is a world price and correlated with world trends in video game technology and high fructose corn syrup.
I know where the data are. Hmmmm. maybe ....
Via the ringleader.
Professor Charles Courtemanchey of Washington University in Saint Louis not only has a cool name, he's also got a fascinating research result (PDF):
A causal relationship between gasoline prices and obesity is possible through mechanisms of increased exercise and decreased eating in restaurants. I use a fixed effects model to explore whether this theory has empirical support, finding that an additional $1 in real gasoline prices would reduce obesity in the U.S. by 15% after five years, and that 13% of the rise in obesity between 1979 and 2004 can be attributed to falling real gas prices during this period. I also provide evidence that the effect occurs both by increasing exercise and by lowering the frequency with which people eat at restaurants.
Hmm cool name indeed. French name I'd say. So he's got the time series, how about the cross section. In the USA gasoline is absurdly cheap and people are fat. OK
But the really interesting application is the mysterious fat states for Bush fact. Self reported obesity is significantly positively correlated with votes for Bush. Red states are more car friendly and would require pedestrians to walk a long long way. Hmmmmm. There have been huge changes in prices at the pump in non US developed countries due to excise tax increases. This is the way to test his model (the world price of oil is a world price and correlated with world trends in video game technology and high fructose corn syrup.
I know where the data are. Hmmmm. maybe ....
The 10 year old Stumps me Again
She was reading a book (in Italian) and ran into a word which wasn't in her vocabulary. She asked me what "Nestoriano" means. I looked at the context. It concerned a chicken who was convinced that she believed in the Nestorian heresy.
I very much regret to report that I don't remember what the Nestorian heresy was (in my memory I did get it down to two possibilities "I think it was either that Christ had a normal human body with a divine soul or maybe that Christ was purely divine with no mortal flesh (4th century heresies came in pairs with catholic orthodoxy achieving compromise at the cost of logical contradiction)." one of which is correct but didn't want to risk misinforming her on this crucial bit of information)
DC elite ringleaders beware, she is even younger than you are.
She was reading a book (in Italian) and ran into a word which wasn't in her vocabulary. She asked me what "Nestoriano" means. I looked at the context. It concerned a chicken who was convinced that she believed in the Nestorian heresy.
I very much regret to report that I don't remember what the Nestorian heresy was (in my memory I did get it down to two possibilities "I think it was either that Christ had a normal human body with a divine soul or maybe that Christ was purely divine with no mortal flesh (4th century heresies came in pairs with catholic orthodoxy achieving compromise at the cost of logical contradiction)." one of which is correct but didn't want to risk misinforming her on this crucial bit of information)
DC elite ringleaders beware, she is even younger than you are.
Petraeus Perjury Proof Part III
I am consistently commenting on TPM Muckraker not even raking conventional media pre raked muck. MNF-I just definitely claimed that deaths from bombings are included in their figures for ethno-sectarian violence. Thus that which seemed to me to be a confession of perjury has been clarified or retracted.
However, no matter how firmly MNF-I claims that they count deaths from bombings, it is obvious to anyone who pays attention to the news and looks at their numbers that they don't. That would imply an implausible decline in ethno-sectarian killings outside of Baghdad in August excluding August 14 from roughly 600 in July to 30 in August.
This is clear because there were an estimated 572 clearly sectarian murders in Qahtaniya on August 14 2007.
Now it might be reasonable to estimate the August average excluding the 14th (or Qahtaniya) as an outlier. I believe that the horrible crime and catastrophe could have occurred in any month for years and is not connected to the surge. However, to throw out data without mentioning that one has done so when you describe one's calculation is to lie, and, in this case, to commit a felony.
update: welcome back Hans
I am consistently commenting on TPM Muckraker not even raking conventional media pre raked muck. MNF-I just definitely claimed that deaths from bombings are included in their figures for ethno-sectarian violence. Thus that which seemed to me to be a confession of perjury has been clarified or retracted.
However, no matter how firmly MNF-I claims that they count deaths from bombings, it is obvious to anyone who pays attention to the news and looks at their numbers that they don't. That would imply an implausible decline in ethno-sectarian killings outside of Baghdad in August excluding August 14 from roughly 600 in July to 30 in August.
This is clear because there were an estimated 572 clearly sectarian murders in Qahtaniya on August 14 2007.
Now it might be reasonable to estimate the August average excluding the 14th (or Qahtaniya) as an outlier. I believe that the horrible crime and catastrophe could have occurred in any month for years and is not connected to the surge. However, to throw out data without mentioning that one has done so when you describe one's calculation is to lie, and, in this case, to commit a felony.
update: welcome back Hans
I thought that this by Gavin M at Sadly No was a bit sophomoric (isn't that the point) and disrespectful of Matthew Yglesias and Ezra Klein who are older than I am (that is the sum of their ages is
greater than mine).
Then I read Ezra explaining that, when he admitted he was a member of the DC blogger elite he was being modest.
OK but take some advice from an old timer. The key, Ezra is to make sure you get a really strong running start and follow through with the kick.
greater than mine).
McArdle: I’m going to hold this football here, and you guys come kick it, okay?
Yglesias: Okay.
Klein: Watch out, ’cause I’m really going to kick that football this time.
Then I read Ezra explaining that, when he admitted he was a member of the DC blogger elite he was being modest.
Alright, so long as people are actually linking to the Wall Street Journal article on DC's new blogging elite, I should probably explain what I meant by the term. My point, which got a bit lost, is that it's a bad thing.
OK but take some advice from an old timer. The key, Ezra is to make sure you get a really strong running start and follow through with the kick.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Petraeus confesses to Perjury
Under oath Petraeus claimed that his figures for ethno-sectarian violence included killings by bomb "it's not that complicated": if "al-Qaeda bombs a Shiite area," it's sectarian violence." This was perjury.
At the National Press Club this morning, Gen. Petraeus for the first time peeled back the curtain behind his questioned methodology for tabulating ethno-sectarian violence. Calling his methodology "pretty logical and rational," the general said he has a "three-page document" -- he read from it at his Press Club podium [snip] So what is a sectarian murder?
"Civilians who show signs of being blindfolded, tortured or being shot anywhere, and so forth."
OK so how does al Qaeda blindfold, torture or shoot people with bombs ? One claim, made under oath, is that deaths from bombings are counted. The explanation shows that this is not true. It is obvious from the numbers that this is not true. That's perjury.
Under oath Petraeus claimed that his figures for ethno-sectarian violence included killings by bomb "it's not that complicated": if "al-Qaeda bombs a Shiite area," it's sectarian violence." This was perjury.
At the National Press Club this morning, Gen. Petraeus for the first time peeled back the curtain behind his questioned methodology for tabulating ethno-sectarian violence. Calling his methodology "pretty logical and rational," the general said he has a "three-page document" -- he read from it at his Press Club podium [snip] So what is a sectarian murder?
"Civilians who show signs of being blindfolded, tortured or being shot anywhere, and so forth."
OK so how does al Qaeda blindfold, torture or shoot people with bombs ? One claim, made under oath, is that deaths from bombings are counted. The explanation shows that this is not true. It is obvious from the numbers that this is not true. That's perjury.
Karl Rove Knows This
the fact that people remember the issue and forget if say the CDC says it was true or false means that it is always easy to confuse people with a controversy (say about John Kerry's military service). It makes it easy for someone who can get the right words into newspapers to change an issue from one where people disagree with you to one where they are confused.
I think the observation is not exactly new. IIRC it is actually one of the older results in psychology having been demonstrated by Edward Thorndike in an experiment in his lecture hall.
update: Thanks for links here and here.
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently issued a flier to combat myths about the flu vaccine. It recited various commonly held views and labeled them either "true" or "false." Among those identified as false were statements such as "The side effects are worse than the flu" and "Only older people need flu vaccine."
When University of Michigan social psychologist Norbert Schwarz had volunteers read the CDC flier, however, he found that within 30 minutes, older people misremembered 28 percent of the false statements as true. Three days later, they remembered 40 percent of the myths as factual.
Younger people did better at first, but three days later they made as many errors as older people did after 30 minutes. Most troubling was that people of all ages now felt that the source of their false beliefs was the respected CDC.
the fact that people remember the issue and forget if say the CDC says it was true or false means that it is always easy to confuse people with a controversy (say about John Kerry's military service). It makes it easy for someone who can get the right words into newspapers to change an issue from one where people disagree with you to one where they are confused.
I think the observation is not exactly new. IIRC it is actually one of the older results in psychology having been demonstrated by Edward Thorndike in an experiment in his lecture hall.
update: Thanks for links here and here.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Monday, September 10, 2007
Petraeus Lies
update: is a perjurer.
This slide from General Petraeus's presentation to congress contains falsehoods.
The clearest is the graph of "ethno sectarian deaths" which shows roughly 600 outside of Baghdad in August 2007. This is very odd since on August 14th truck bombs killed an estimated 572 people (don't trust the Wikipedia here's CNN). Petreaus appears to be claiming that there were only about 30 ethno sectarian killings in August on days other than the 14th. Most of those killed on August 14th were Yazidis members of a small sect with beliefs based partly on Islam and partly on Mazdeanism (the ancient religion of Cyrys, Darius, Xerxes et al).
They are considered devil worshippers by some Moslems and Christians. Clearly this was a massive sectarian killing. We know already that the MNF-I figures exclude deaths in bombings (and perhaps people shot in the front of the head). However, the title of the figure is a clear statement. This statement is clearly false, that is a lie, that is perjury. Fiddling with definitions and using undefined terms is one thing. In this setting, a clear false statement is a felony.
Also the figures of Baghdad present no change since December in areas which are predominately Shi'ite and predominantly Sunni. This is a false assertion.
Finally the figure (not the graph) has the legend "to include car bombs". Clearly this means "not including car bombs at the moment" and is a bit of truth for once.
update: Petreaus made one thing clear yesterday (9/10/07). He is a felon. He made a clear claim about what was counted as a sectarian killing which clearly does not correspond to the graph he displayed. TPMuckraker reports "Gen. Petraeus offered his definition of sectarian violence for his tabulations: "acts taken by individual by one ethno-sectarian grouping against another." He added that "it's not that complicated": if "al-Qaeda bombs a Shiite area," it's sectarian violence."
So blowing up Yazidis if you aren't a Yazidi is ethno-sectarian violence. This explanation makes the claim that there were roughly 600 ethnosectarian killings in Iraq outside of Baghdad clearly false, that is perjury, that is a felony.
Sad so say, it seems no one noticed. The worst act of terrorism since 9/11 seems to have been forgotten.
update: is a perjurer.
This slide from General Petraeus's presentation to congress contains falsehoods.
The clearest is the graph of "ethno sectarian deaths" which shows roughly 600 outside of Baghdad in August 2007. This is very odd since on August 14th truck bombs killed an estimated 572 people (don't trust the Wikipedia here's CNN). Petreaus appears to be claiming that there were only about 30 ethno sectarian killings in August on days other than the 14th. Most of those killed on August 14th were Yazidis members of a small sect with beliefs based partly on Islam and partly on Mazdeanism (the ancient religion of Cyrys, Darius, Xerxes et al).
They are considered devil worshippers by some Moslems and Christians. Clearly this was a massive sectarian killing. We know already that the MNF-I figures exclude deaths in bombings (and perhaps people shot in the front of the head). However, the title of the figure is a clear statement. This statement is clearly false, that is a lie, that is perjury. Fiddling with definitions and using undefined terms is one thing. In this setting, a clear false statement is a felony.
Also the figures of Baghdad present no change since December in areas which are predominately Shi'ite and predominantly Sunni. This is a false assertion.
Finally the figure (not the graph) has the legend "to include car bombs". Clearly this means "not including car bombs at the moment" and is a bit of truth for once.
update: Petreaus made one thing clear yesterday (9/10/07). He is a felon. He made a clear claim about what was counted as a sectarian killing which clearly does not correspond to the graph he displayed. TPMuckraker reports "Gen. Petraeus offered his definition of sectarian violence for his tabulations: "acts taken by individual by one ethno-sectarian grouping against another." He added that "it's not that complicated": if "al-Qaeda bombs a Shiite area," it's sectarian violence."
So blowing up Yazidis if you aren't a Yazidi is ethno-sectarian violence. This explanation makes the claim that there were roughly 600 ethnosectarian killings in Iraq outside of Baghdad clearly false, that is perjury, that is a felony.
Sad so say, it seems no one noticed. The worst act of terrorism since 9/11 seems to have been forgotten.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Follow the Sheep no wait the purple dinosaur
It seems that Robert Kuttner thinks that we owe post WWII prosperity to the bold leadership of Ferdinand Pecora. Odd name for a bold leader as Pecora means sheep in Italian (odd that an Italian was influential in the USA in the 30s too no?). Also Ferdinand was the bull who didn't want to fight.
Now the sheep role is to be filled by Barney Frank (not named after the smiling purple T- Rex with a tougher sounding voice).
Frank is tough enough, but more people will have to lose their houses before any regulation gets anywhere (and how about reversing the morally bankrupt bankruptcy reform ?).
It seems that Robert Kuttner thinks that we owe post WWII prosperity to the bold leadership of Ferdinand Pecora. Odd name for a bold leader as Pecora means sheep in Italian (odd that an Italian was influential in the USA in the 30s too no?). Also Ferdinand was the bull who didn't want to fight.
Now the sheep role is to be filled by Barney Frank (not named after the smiling purple T- Rex with a tougher sounding voice).
Frank is tough enough, but more people will have to lose their houses before any regulation gets anywhere (and how about reversing the morally bankrupt bankruptcy reform ?).
Friday, September 07, 2007
Josh Marshall asks I Obey
His bleg is my command.
Yes sir with google even
I get
The AP wire (AP)
Updated: 2006-12-31 09:02
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-12/31/content_772371.htm
December also appeared to be one of the worst months for Iraqi civilian deaths since the AP began keeping track in May 2005.
Odd URL but it seems straight from AP.
confirmation URL
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8MAV72O0&show_article=1
to add to the series from Talking Points Memo
update also
10/31/06
October death tolls climb in Iraq
High casualty numbers come as NSA advisor makes unexpected visit
By Steven R. Hurst (The Associated Press)
and
Date: July 3, 2006
Author: Bassem Mroue (Associated Press Writer)
Source: EarthLinkNews
http://edradil.blogspot.com/2006/07/al-zarqawis-death-fails-to-stop.html
Of the 1,006 Iraqis reported killed in political or sectarian violence last month, 885 were civilians,
update
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The death toll among Iraqi civilians in insurgency-related violence last year was more than twice as high as the country's soldiers and police combined, according to government figures obtained Thursday by the Associated Press.
The Iraqi civilian death toll for 2005 was 4,024, according to figures compiled by the Health Ministry. The toll for the first two months of this year already is 1,093.
so now:
All 2005 4,024
Jan 06: <1,093
Feb 06:
Mar 06: 1,038
Apr 06: <1,093
May 06: <1,093
Jun 06: 885
Jul 06: <1,093
Aug 06: <1,093
Sep 06: <1,093
Oct 06: 1,216
Nov 06: 2,184
Dec 06: > 2,186 (2,186 reported on Dec 31)
Jan 07: 1,604
Feb 07: 1,552
March 07: 1,572*
April 07:
May 07: 2155
June 07: 1640
July 07: 1760
August 07: 1809
His bleg is my command.
Here's where we need your help. There's a real needle in a haystack quality to finding these AP statistics. You can see the ones we have above. If you'd like to help, we're trying to track down the numbers for 2006. If you can find them, send us an email with the subject "Iraq Numbers". In the email include the month, the number, the citation of the article where you found the number and the sentence -- word for word -- in which the number appears. If you have a link to an article online, all the better. If it looks like we've got one of the numbers for 07 wrong, by all means let us know that too.
Yes sir with google even
I get
The AP wire (AP)
Updated: 2006-12-31 09:02
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-12/31/content_772371.htm
December also appeared to be one of the worst months for Iraqi civilian deaths since the AP began keeping track in May 2005.
Through Friday, at least 2,186 Iraqis have been killed in war-related or sectarian violence in December, an average rate of about 75 people a day, according to an AP count. That compares to at least 2,184 killed in November at an average of about 70 a day, the worst month for Iraqi civilians deaths since May 2005. In October, AP counted at least 1,216 civilians killed.
Odd URL but it seems straight from AP.
confirmation URL
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8MAV72O0&show_article=1
to add to the series from Talking Points Memo
The one set of numbers we've found that appears to go back some way (a couple years) and have a consistent methodology are those compiled by the Associated Press from police reports about deaths in Iraq. To further the confusion, though, the AP seems unwilling to assemble these numbers together in one place, so you need to go back and piece together the separate monthly numbers from individual stories.
So far, with some sleuthing yesterday by myself and Spencer Ackerman, we've got these numbers.
Jan 07: 1,604
Feb 07: 1,552
March 07: 1,572*
April 07:
May 07: 2155
June 07: 1640
July 07: 1760
August 07: 1809
update also
10/31/06
October death tolls climb in Iraq
High casualty numbers come as NSA advisor makes unexpected visit
By Steven R. Hurst (The Associated Press)
According to an Associated Press count, October has also recorded more Iraqi civilian deaths - 1,170 as of Monday - than any other month since the AP began keeping track in May 2005. The next-highest month was March 2006, when 1,038 Iraqi civilians were killed in the aftermath of the Feb. 22 bombing of an important Shiite shrine in Samarra.
and
Date: July 3, 2006
Author: Bassem Mroue (Associated Press Writer)
Source: EarthLinkNews
http://edradil.blogspot.com/2006/07/al-zarqawis-death-fails-to-stop.html
Of the 1,006 Iraqis reported killed in political or sectarian violence last month, 885 were civilians,
update
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The death toll among Iraqi civilians in insurgency-related violence last year was more than twice as high as the country's soldiers and police combined, according to government figures obtained Thursday by the Associated Press.
The Iraqi civilian death toll for 2005 was 4,024, according to figures compiled by the Health Ministry. The toll for the first two months of this year already is 1,093.
so now:
All 2005 4,024
Jan 06: <1,093
Feb 06:
Mar 06: 1,038
Apr 06: <1,093
May 06: <1,093
Jun 06: 885
Jul 06: <1,093
Aug 06: <1,093
Sep 06: <1,093
Oct 06: 1,216
Nov 06: 2,184
Dec 06: > 2,186 (2,186 reported on Dec 31)
Jan 07: 1,604
Feb 07: 1,552
March 07: 1,572*
April 07:
May 07: 2155
June 07: 1640
July 07: 1760
August 07: 1809
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)