Parody on Bush
 

:smile:
As I dont indulge in politics I present a humorous aside of a routine meeting between Bush and Codileeza Rice which is a parody on Bush.

George: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening?

Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China .

George: Great. Lay it on me.

Condi: Hu is the new leader of China .

George: That's what I want to know.

Condi: That's what I'm telling you.


George: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China ?

Condi: Yes.

George: I mean the fellow's name.

Condi: Hu.

George: The guy in China .

Condi: Hu.

George: The new leader of China .

Condi: Hu.

George: The main man in China !

Condi: Hu is leading China .

George: Now whaddya' asking me for?

Condi: I'm telling you, Hu is leading China .

George: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China ?

Condi: That's the man's name.

George: That's who's name?

Condi: Yes.

George: Will you, or will you not, tell me the name of the new leader of
China ?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China ? I thought he's dead in the
Middle East .

Condi: That's correct.

George: Then who is in China ?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir is in China ?

Condi: No, sir.

George: Then who is?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir?

Condi: No, sir.

George: Look Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China ...
Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.

Condi: Kofi?

George: No, thanks.

Condi: You want Kofi?

George: No.

Condi: You don't want Kofi.

George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And
then get me the U.N.

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N.

Condi: Kofi?

George: Milk! Will you please make the call?

Condi: And call who?

George: Who is the guy at the U.N?

Condi: Hu is the guy in China .

George: Will you stay out of China ?!

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: And stay out of the Middle East ! Just get me the guy at the U.N.
Condi: Kofi.

George: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone. :grin:

I hope you have enjoyed this and it is not relegated to Dumb jokes.

Mally :coffee:

[quote=Prime95;96416]From iraqbodycount.org, which I doubt is a mouthpiece for the conservative agenda, see [URL="http://iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php?PHPSESSID=3f544dca3a034b5b1e6b1d605302aa35"]http://iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14....6b1d605302aa35[/URL]
[/quote]... which contains allegations, but no comparable scientifically-obtained data to support their criticisms, and no comparison of data-gathering methods that would support a conclusion that their estimates are more accurate.

[quote]But, heh, what would that Clinton-hater I refer to over-and-over again do?[/quote]Perhaps, present criticism of a scientific study in a non-scientific way, with no comparison of data-gathering methods that would support a conclusion that their estimates are more accurate, among other possible actions.

[quote]Pick the worst possible estimate and spread it as gospel.[/quote]Folks,

Note that the hypothetical Clinton-hater in this example considers the only estimate made by scientific methods to be "the worst possible estimate", consistent with right-wing rejection of the scientific method as I've previously mentioned.

Also note that the hypothetical Clinton-hater in this example spreads it "as gospel", consistent with the Religious Right's worldvierw.

[quote]No self-respecting believer in the scientific method would do that.[/quote]Nope.

[quote]I think the evidence is growing and growing that some posters here are just like the Clinton-haters they despise so much.[/quote]Oh? Just what evidence is that? Please list specifics.

[quote=M29;96417]I think the Wikipedia article is neither fantasy nor spin.

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_survey_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq[/URL]
[/quote]At first glance, without detailed study, I'll agree that it has signs of a more balanced presentation than the Iraq Body Count press release. My comments will refer only to the non-neutrality-disputed sections, which occupy the top two-thirds of the page.

Unlike the press release to which Prime95 links, the Wikipedia article presents not only detailed criticisms based on scientific criteria, but also Roberts's responses to such criticism, defending his methodology.

[quote]I will also point out that the first [I]Lancet[/I] was published on 29 October 2004, and the second on 11 October 2006, both immediately before federal elections.[/quote]Whereas had they been delayed until after the elections, the lead suspicion (as noted in somewhere I read) would probably have been that the Bush administration influenced suppression of the bad news until after the elections.

Comments on timing of release alone have no bearing on the scientific merits or accuracy of the reports, of course. Timing may trigger suspicions, but if investigation by the suspicious do not turn up evidence of actual flaws, then ...

[quote]And I note that 3000 US soldiers have not been killed in Iraq due to hostile action. I'm sure the toll will rise to 3000. Meanwhile, to imply otherwise is, well, is spin.[/quote]I'm not quite sure what the "otherwise" implication is, to which you refer.

Regarding not all 3000 due to hostile action: Yes.

However, had the invasion not occurred, even the non-hostile-action US soldier deaths would not have occurred there. Of course, there would probably have been some more non-hostile-action deaths here in the U.S. among the military personnel who would have been here instead of Iraq -- aircraft and vehicle crashes and so on occur "routinely" here at home, too, though probably not at such a high rate in a friendly environment as in an unfriendly one. Such domestic military deaths are routinely reported with only slightly more notice than civilian transportation-related deaths. So IMHO there's partial, but not total, spinfree justification for linking non-hostile-action deaths occuring in Iraq to the invasion.

[quote=M29;96418]Bush is on record as saying that the matter should be up to the state and local school boards.[/quote]But the point is that he lends his presidential authority to the claim that Intelligent Design deserves equal consideration in science classes. That is an improper federal attempt to influence decisions by state and local school boards!

[quote]Now, if one thinks that the federal government should dictate what can and cannot be taught in schools, a lot of people will demand a louder voice in determining university curriculums.[/quote]Right.

So you join me in condemning Bush's improper elevation of ID to the status of science, right?

[quote=ewmayer;96487]One thing I've been wondering in the wake of the grim (whichever set of estimates you tend to believe) body counts, which is not intended to let Bush et al off the hook, but I think still worth examining:

To what extent was sectarian violence inevitable in the wake of the passing of Hussein and the Baathist regime, irrespective of how that change of regime came about?[/quote]Total. 100% extent.

I read multiple Middle East experts predicting post-Saddam sectarian violence in January 2003 and earlier, before the invasion. As was pointed out then and since, neither the Shiite leaders nor the Sunni leaders have historically or doctrinally shown any commitment to democracy, though they're all smart enough to pretend otherwise as long as the U.S. is around.

This is not to say that Iraq lacks genuine advocates for democracy, just that such advocates are outnumbered among the religious leaders.

[quote=Prime95;96416]From iraqbodycount.org, which I doubt is a mouthpiece for the conservative agenda, see [URL]http://iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php?PHPSESSID=3f544dca3a034b5b1e6b1d605302aa35[/URL]
[/quote]

I followed the link to their second random household survey and there is absolutely no mention on the number of deaths in the second survey. So I think that discredits the IBC criticism somewhat.

IBC has always said that their estimate is a lower-bound estimate and they rely on official data and press reports. Given that most journalists in Iraq do not venture out of the green zone it is obvious that press reports would underestimate the casualties.

Secondly, UN adds up the figures from the Baghdad morgue and the Iraq health ministry. This is the same ministry that under US direction stopped counting the number of Iraqi dead about two years ago. Moreover, it is in the Iraqi governments interests to give inaccurate low-ball figures in order to 1) not alarm their supporters outside Iraq and 2) to hide the extent of the deaths being caused by para-military death squads that are supported by the government.

So, I do not think that either IBC or the UN figures are at all scientific. IBC's criticism of the Lancet report seems to centre on the "shockingly large" casualty estimates which are much higher than other estimates. I do not think that is a scientifically valid criticism. Yes there may be methodological issues with the Lancet study and they may be wrong in their estimates. But it is the best study we have - that seems to be the consensus of most people who do this sort of job, i.e. statistical analysis of conflict regions.

Edit: Just read cheesehead's rebuttal and I agree with him. Also the wiki article on the Lancet studies is quite balanced but does not reject the estimates outright. If anything and I quote:

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Roberts_%28epidemiologist%29"]Roberts'[/URL] team was chosen for their experience in estimating total mortality in [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_zone"]war zones[/URL], for example his estimate of 1.7 million deaths due to the war in the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo"]Congo[/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_survey_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq#_note-3"][8][/URL] which not only met with widespread acceptance and no challenge when published in [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000"]2000[/URL],[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_survey_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq#_note-4"][9][/URL] but resulted and was cited in a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.N._Security_Council"]U.N. Security Council[/URL] resolution that all foreign armies must leave Congo, a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations"]United Nations[/URL] request for $140 million in aid, and the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_State_Department"]US State Department[/URL] pledging an additional $10 million in aid. Similar studies have been accepted uncritically as estimates of wartime mortality in [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur"]Darfur[/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_survey_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq#_note-5"][10][/URL] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina"]Bosnia[/URL].

(amendment to a previous posting)

Prime95,

Above, you've characterized Clinton-haters as misusing a scientific study, and spreading a conclusion "as gospel".

Okay. Both are consistent with characteristics of the right-wing.

But then you hint that I'm just like them, even though I do not misuse science, nor do I have a religious worldview. So your attempted linkage is not logical.

Earlier, you attempted to link me with Clinton-haters by using invalid logic ((A=>B)=>(B=>A)) instead of sound logic.

Why should any reader of this thread believe you when you attempt to parallel me with Clinton-haters by using such easily-refutable fallacies?

One little flaw in the IBC Press Release 14:

It says, "3. Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq", then later, "the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas".

This is a misuse of "decimation".

Decimation refers to an elimination of 90%, leaving only 10% remaining, not to a situation of 10% killed (and 90% remaining).

[QUOTE=cheesehead;96518]Above, you've characterized Clinton-haters as misusing a scientific study, and spreading a conclusion "as gospel".

But then you hint that I'm just like them, even though I do not misuse science[/quote]

Say a scientist is doing a study of some chemical process and 4 experiments come in with a result between 30000 and 90000 and one experiment comes in at 650000. A good scientist immediately approaches the 650000 number with great skepticism. He will rerun the experiment several times and look for reasons why this one experiment is such an outlier. He would search for an experiment using a different method that would independently verify the smaller or larger number.

Instead, you have simply embraced the outlier as the truth - because it suits your political agenda.

So, yes, you misuse science.

What's so sad (or weird) is that you can make your same political point with any of the smaller numbers. Instead you give your opposition an ultra-easy way to dispute your argument or dismiss you as an extremist rather than get to the core of the issue: "Was the Iraq war worth the enormous increase in civilian casualties"?

[quote]Why should any reader of this thread believe you when you attempt to parallel me with Clinton-haters by using such easily-refutable fallacies?[/QUOTE]

Bush-haters and Clinton-haters are so much alike that it amuses me. Here are some things I see that the two polar opposites have in common:

1) Given two conflicting pieces of evidence - the one that puts the target in the worst possible light is automatically the correct one. The other is to be ignored, downplayed, dismissed, or condemned.

2) Given two possible motives for a decision - always choose the one that showcases the victim in the worst possible light. Since underlying motives are not in any way provable, this is easy to get away with.

3) Given two possible ways to describe a victim's action pick the one that is most prejudicial.

4) An almost complete blindness to the fact that they do the above. Emotional hatred of the victim is so strong that it is rare that rational debate will let them see what they are doing or change their ways.

You have shown over and over again all four traits. Note that because of commonality #4 I can confidently predict you won't see the resemblance at all. Hey, pretty cool but unintentional debating trick, #4 means any attempt to refute my observations automatically proves my point!

This may just be human nature. Should Hillary become President I predict I will engage in all 4 of the actions above. I didn't respect Bill Clinton, but I didn't hate him. However, there's something about Hillary's motives that I just don't trust.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;96519]This is a misuse of "decimation".

Decimation refers to an elimination of 90%, leaving only 10% remaining, not to a situation of 10% killed (and 90% remaining).[/QUOTE]

No, one-tenth is in fact [url=http://m-w.com/dictionary/decimate]precisely correct,[/url] and also hews to the old Roman-legion usage of the term.

[quote=ewmayer;96529]No, one-tenth is in fact [URL="http://m-w.com/dictionary/decimate"]precisely correct,[/URL] and also hews to the old Roman-legion usage of the term.[/quote]Son-of-a-10%-gun! I've been backwards on that for years, and you're the first to correct me. Thanks.