Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditEver since Minnesota Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's poisonous comments on Hardball ten days ago, it has looked increasingly possible that her deep red district might turn blue next week.
Her Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) party opponent, Elwyn Tinklenberg, a former mayor and state transportation commissioner, has raised more than $1.5 million since Bachmann channeled Joe McCarthy on MSNBC. The Washington Post reported today that Tinklenberg's fundraising "in a single week, is more than what any other Democratic challenger has raised in a fundraising quarter in the entire two-year election cycle."
Bachmann's constituents seem to be rejecting her politics of division, distraction and demonization as well. According to a new Minnesota Public Radio/University of Minnesota Humphrey Institute poll, Tinklenberg – previously considered a long-shot – now leads Bachmann 45 to 43 percent. Approximately 40 percent of the district's voters say that they have "re-evaluated [Bachmann] and are less likely to support her," and two-thirds disagree with her comments.
The more Bachmann talks, the deeper she seems to dig the proverbial hole. One day after she claimed that she hadn't questioned Barack Obama's patriotism, Bachmann said on the Mike Gallagher radio show, "What are Barack Obama's policies? Are they for America or will they be against traditional American ideals and values?.... The United States may be literally changed forever if Barack Obama becomes the next president."
In a new ad Bachmann attempts a pseudo mea culpa, "I may not always get my words right, but I know that my heart is right. Because my heart is for you, for your children and for the blessings of liberty to remain for our great country."
Really? And what are her notions of "the blessings of liberty" besides investigations and accusations regarding who is, and who is not, "pro-America"? In addition to Bachmann's waxing philosophical on Hardball she let rip with this doozy a few years back: "Not all cultures are equal. Not all values are equal…. We are seeing that those who are coming into France – which had a beautiful culture – the French culture is actually diminished. It's going away. And just with the population of France they are losing Western Europeans and it's being taken over by muh…by a Muslim ethic. Not that Muslims are bad. But they are not assimilating."
It's possible that Bachmann's politics have finally proven too toxic even for Republicans. As I reported last week, the National Republican Congressional Committee has pulled its resources from the district, and former Republican Governor Arne Carlson said Bachmann's comments were the deciding factor in his endorsement of Obama. Carlson also compared Bachmann to Joe McCarthy and said, "I don't want Minnesota to continue to be seen in the national picture as some sort of a land that has these rather strange views – we don't."
Hopefully, on November 4, the voters in Minnesota's 6th District will render their verdict that they have had enough of Bachmann's gutter politics in America, and they will send Elwyn Tinklenberg to Washington to replace her in the People's House.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Well, she'll probably still win....strong GOP district....
but it did put the skeer into it, didn't it? Sounding like Hannity or SAVAGE don't pay off if you're an actual politician running for office.
But the advice to the Dems, is the same for Bachmann as for Palin....
K.H.T.
Keep Her Talking!
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 4:41pm
bye bye bachman....
Posted by dexter666 at 10/27/2008 @ 4:43pm
Posted by RedRiver_. at 10/27/2008 @ 5:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Beyond rich--coming from the repulsicans, who's loony-toon VP candidate is too busy playing italian designer dress up and fleeing "every form of witchcraft" to answer ANY questions from the press!
Posted by rykart at 10/27/2008 @ 5:35pm
Thank you, Hugo. I needed a good laugh. Your post reminded me of 5th grade: "I'm rubber, you're glue. What you say bounces off of me and sticks to you! Nanananananananananana!" Good argument! That all you got?
Posted by mcasenl at 10/27/2008 @ 6:36pm
Very good one, mcasenl!!! What is wrong with these nuts in our country today? I hope that Bachmann loses so bad.....I can't stand watching her.....she has that crazed look about her eyes.
Posted by GGMMINKY at 10/27/2008 @ 7:14pm
When Bachmann referred to Obama's close association with the former Weathermen leader, William Ayers...
...she was lying. It is well documented that Obama did NOT have a close association with Ayers. They met in board meetings less than a dozen times. The McCain Campaign issued a press release that put the total meetings at 8.
Posted by Balrog at 10/27/2008 @ 7:20pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 10/27/2008 @ 6:18pm
Hey, Hugo...how did Katrina vanden Heuvel convince the folks in Minnesota to reject Bachmann?!??!?!?!?????
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 7:48pm
...besides which..the Weathermen were rigorously devoted to targeting property, not people. They never killed anyone.
You want to talk about 'paling around with terrorsts' try McCain's association with Henry Kissinger, a guy who directed the murder tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Of course, that would be redundant.
McCain is a terrorist, by any honest definition.
Posted by rykart at 10/27/2008 @ 7:58pm
In your heart you know she's reich.
Posted by cumchu at 10/27/2008 @ 8:02pm
Search your feelings ... you know she is a crazy bitch.
Posted by Darth_Vulgar at 10/27/2008 @ 8:16pm
Hugo
There is no close association demonstrated between Ayers and Obama, my guess is that you have been listening to people who say there is but the facts are otherwise. They served on a board of a project funded by the conservative Annenberg Foundation and Ayers hosted a fundraiser So it doesn't really matter how terrible a human you might think Ayers is. Basing fear for America on an acquaintanceship is irrational.
Bachmann is a danger to America because her opinions are ill-informed and inconsistent with the Constitution. The creators of the Constitution had every opportunity to decide that a theocracy would best serve the people. They didn't. They created a separation of Church and State because they believed that a republic was the better choice. Bachmann injects her religious beliefs into her policy decisions and has the audacity to suggest that she has the wisdom and judgement to decide what is truly American, thereby making second-class citizens of all who do not share her radical agenda for the country. Suggesting Congressional Hearings to verify the "Americanism" (according to her standard) of elected members of Congress is exactly McCarthyite. It's brazen of you to deny it.
If you are like most people you get a lot of information indirectly and with a good scoop of opinion. As an invitation, check out Obama's positions directly: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/27/campaign.wrap/index.html
Obama needs to be watched, like any politician, and you can bet he will be, but I don't find anything to fear in his plans. What the O'Reillys and Limbaughs and Norquists and Dobsons have to say about him isn't who he is, even if you believe them.
Posted by ohsotired at 10/27/2008 @ 8:18pm
Wouldn't it be great if Katrina vanden Heuvel could pick our representatives from now on?
What a great congress we would have.
Yummy
Posted by bleedingheart at 10/27/2008 @ 9:19pm
bye bye bachman....
Posted by dexter666 at 10/27/2008 @ 4:43pm
but the smile will shine on.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2008 @ 9:41pm
Posted by Balrog at 10/27/2008 @ 7:20pm
ooh, you've come back just in time.
let the SMITING begin!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2008 @ 9:43pm
Michele Bachmann is George W. Bush's soul-mate. She's told enough lies to sink the Titanic. Like Sarah Pallin, she's too ignorant to be aware of her own inadequacies. She's an attractive and superficially appealing, evangelical who got into office by seducing the dumb and impressionable religious goobers of her district. She spouts right-wing rhetoric like a pull-string doll. She has been a continual embarrassment to Minnesota. One can only hope that voters in her district take off the religious blinders and send her back to the church basement.
Posted by radarski at 10/27/2008 @ 9:50pm
ohsotired @ 8:18pm says,
<<< There is no close association demonstrated between Ayers and Obama . . . They served on a board of a project funded by the conservative Annenberg Foundation and Ayers hosted a fundraiser . . . Basing fear for America on an acquaintanceship is irrational. >>>
Lets see about this "acquaintanceship" and who is "irrational".
We are talking about William Ayers' project to support Chicago's school decentralization effort. In 1994 that project received a $50 million Annenberg challenge grant. Other foundations matched it with $110 million. Ayers then appointed a board to dispense those $160 million. Whom did he make chairman of that board? Barack Obama.
Suppose you had a $16,000 project to advance the well being of cats, and needed a collaborator, would you not, modest though the amount is, take some trouble to find a kindred spirit as a collaborator, someone who shared your outlook and concerns?
And with $160 million to distribute, do you doubt that Ayers did not make sure his board, at the very least, its head, was on his wave length?
Ayers was and remains, very political. His radical ideas have not changed. He told the NYTimes he only regrets not bombing more federal buildings. He clearly committed the dispersing of $160 million to someone he knew personally, with whom he had had intimate conversations, of whom he was sure politically, who shared his general outlook, whom he trusted as a kindred spirit.
If you think in the face of that, "There is no close association demonstrated between Ayers and Obama" you are crazy.
There is, incidentally, other evidence of their close association. For example they served for years together on the Woods Fund, they wrote flattering blurbs for one anothers books. When Obama announced his candidacy for the state legislature, it was from the living room of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, and in the presence of their friends.
Interstingly, all Obama could rembember about Ayers, when asked on TV about him a few months ago was, that "he was someone who lived in the neighborhood."
Which of us has swallowed misinformation about the Ayers/Obama relationship?
Possibly you know all this as well as I. But your lot is into distortions, lies and hypocrisy the way Wall Street is into derivatives and junk bonds and 30 x leverage.
Moreover, you haven't the mettle to respond to my point, that KVH, not Bachmann was using McCarthy's method.
Perhaps that is because you yourself are a practitioner of McCarthyism. Look at your post, in place of facts it flings wild and demagogic slander.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 10/27/2008 @ 10:49pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 10/27/2008 @ 10:49pm |
Boy, you guys are going to be fun for 4-8 years if Obama wins....aren't ya?
ROFL!
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 11:05pm
Ahh Hugo you remind me of Hannibal Lecter. Way more intelligent than the norm but a whack job just the same. Folks stop arguing with these people you'll only encourage them. Let's spend some time and brain power discussing how to make sure the Dems really do make changes that help us get not just jobs but jobs that pay a living wage. We need to start making things again not selling paper.Earned income should be taxed less than capitol gains. Any other ideas? Most of you seem to know a lot more than I do. How do we do this exactly? After I vote and put in however many hours I have to in get out the vote. What happens on Wednesday? Where do we start? Help me out here. This is the best chance we have had in a very long time. Clinton does not count. Can't let it slip away.
Posted by bascaville at 10/27/2008 @ 11:25pm
"Not all cultures are equal. Not all values are equal…. We are seeing that those who are coming into France – which had a beautiful culture – the French culture is actually diminished. It's going away. And just with the population of France they are losing Western Europeans and it's being taken over by muh…by a Muslim ethic. Not that Muslims are bad. But they are not assimilating."
The only "doozy" as KVH would call this statement, is that KVH thinks its a "doozy." This phenomenon has been written about many times over the last several years in different countries where large numbers of muslimsare immigrating...Scandinavian countries, Western Europe, etc. We even talk about it here with certain muslim populations and of course illegal immigrants...
Posted by usc1 at 10/27/2008 @ 11:37pm
So hugo..?? is it..?? can i call you tool..?? no.. ?? thats ok.. How many seedy relationships has " The Maverick" had in his tenure ..?? Can you awnser that ..?? CAN YOU..?? How bout the Balkan gangster money..??
Guilt by association..(classic Mccarthyism)... please....
The right-wing, trust us, we know whats best for the country (7+ years total mess) are done... Bill Ayers isnt working for you. Thank BABY JEBUS the country is finally pulling thier collective heads out of thier asses..
Newsflash... You delusional lemmings that would have the rest of us follow you off the cliff to endless war and unchecked corporate greed, ARE IN THE MINORITY...
Oh BTW.. KINDRED SPIRIT ..?? LOL ... HAVE YOU WRITTEN FOR THE J.PETERMAN CATALOG...
SAY IT with us... PRESIDENT OBAMA... Dosent that feel better ..??
Posted by Vvf1969 at 10/27/2008 @ 11:41pm
Hugo...get over it. Obama is going to be your President, no matter how you try to spin the tenuous Ayers connection. There is no "there" there.
Deal with it...or not. I don't really care.
Posted by Balrog at 10/27/2008 @ 11:41pm
When are people going to lay off Professor Ayers? Did he not go to court and answer for his crimes? Is he still active in a criminal organization? He sits on boring boards, talks pedantically and he is as boring as my deceased Grandmother. Forget McCarthy too; isn't he as dead as my boring Grandmother? Let's look at what laws that are currently being broken right under the public eye! We need to not take our eyes off the war crimes commited by this president and his VP, and the evidence that is stacking up against Palin and her abuse of power. Bachmann is another George Wallace, we need to be clearly alert to this type of sociopath. God bless Minnesota; someone wasn't paying attention when she was elected!
Posted by truthandjustice at 10/27/2008 @ 11:47pm
Hugo, if your panties are in a wad over Ayers, you must be going absolutley ape-shit over McCain's good friend G. Gordon Liddy.
Liddy concocted several plots, including firebombing the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., kidnapping anti-war protest organizers and transporting them to Mexico during the Republican National Convention (which at the time was planned for San Diego), and luring mid-level Democratic campaign officials to a house boat in Baltimore where they would be secretly photographed in compromising positions with call girls. Most of Liddy's ideas were rejected, but a few were given the go ahead by Nixon Administration officials, including the break-in at Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. At some point, Liddy was instructed to break into the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate Hotel.
Liddy on his radio show said: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches."
Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."
Posted by Balrog at 10/27/2008 @ 11:55pm
Thank you Balrog, for doing your homework.
Posted by truthandjustice at 10/28/2008 @ 12:00am
So we have Barack Obama, who repudiated a Bill Ayers who wasn't convicted of anything, and we have McCain being proud of a convicted felon, who, in addition to the above, states in his autobiograpy "Will" that he once made plans with Hunt to kill journalist Jack Anderson.
So, Hugo, where's your righteous indignation for John McCain's "palling around with terrorists"?
Posted by Balrog at 10/28/2008 @ 12:00am
The "connections to terrorism" thing in this election is kind of surreal. On the one hand, you have Ayers. If my memory is correct, he DIDN'T actually serve any kind of complete prison sentence, and certainly remains unrepentant. I've heard people say that the whole "living room" thing has been debunked, but never heard any evidence to back that up. If the debunking is adequate, can someone provide me a link?
As a sidenote, like I've said before, I do think people's inferences from the Ayers thing are getting scary, though it's worth noting that the recently-broken-up plot had nothing to do (according to evidence) with anything Palin said or people did at rallies.
On the other hand, we've got Liddy. Is HE actually sorry that he did what he did? I'm willing to say that it's hardly less malicious than Ayers, and there is certainly a connection between him and McCain that Obama doesn't share.
Here's why this is all so surreal. I understand people's concerns about guilt by association, but it seems problematic when you have an individual who has both been tied to terrorism and shows no repentence regarding that terrorism, and a candidate who at least somewhat closely affiliates themselves with that individual. This may sound extreme (and I hope it isn't taken the wrong way), but if Osama bin Laden decided to quit without ever feeling remorse, and associated closely with any presidential candidate in the future, we'd be concerned no matter how long that individual had gone without committing an act of terrorism. It seems like "respectful disagreement," though absolutely crucial, can only go so far.
Posted by Thrawn at 10/28/2008 @ 12:08am
Deal with it...or not. I don't really care.
Posted by Balrog at 10/27/2008 @ 11:41pm
i think mr. obama would disagree.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2008 @ 12:10am
i think mr. obama would disagree.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2008 @ 12:10am
???
Posted by Balrog at 10/28/2008 @ 12:12am
balrog,
america's quite tense.
what i like about mr. obama is that he is calm.
and he doesn't seem spiteful.
he seeks consensus.
guess i was thinkin' about united we stand kinda stuff. sounds kinda cheesy, but it's worth a try.
even with folks like hugo.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2008 @ 12:32am
I don't think Hugo is looking for consensus or unity. Hugo is looking for some tar to brush on Obama...and ended up splattering it all over McCain instead.
Posted by Balrog at 10/28/2008 @ 12:40am
So we have Barack Obama, who repudiated a Bill Ayers who wasn't convicted of anything, and we have McCain being proud of a convicted felon, who, in addition to the above, states in his autobiograpy "Will" that he once made plans with Hunt to kill journalist Jack Anderson.
So, Hugo, where's your righteous indignation for John McCain's "palling around with terrorists"?
Posted by Balrog at 10/28/2008 @ 12:00am
What a bunch of revisionist BS. Ayers admitted it and worse wishes he had done more...his words (that's how he got the descriptive "unrepentant.")
OTOH, what "terrorist acts" did Liddy actually COMMIT?
Posted by usc1 at 10/28/2008 @ 01:27am
Like my Grandmother's indigestion, all that this former terrorist debate does is divert our attention from the real elephant in the room. The Republican (we'll do anything to win) psychopathic ploys are going to blindside our free society, if we take our eyes off the war crimes, the Syrian invasion, and Ms Bachmann's need for censor.
Posted by truthandjustice at 10/28/2008 @ 02:03am
Posted by Balrog at 10/28/2008 @ 12:40am
it's not about what he's looking for but what you are looking for, grasshopper.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2008 @ 02:04am
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...
Posted by takemyveepplease at 10/28/2008 @ 03:02am
One week to go to the Republican party collapse... Be a witness to history. Then, let the infighting and finger-pointing begin...
Posted by xlator at 10/28/2008 @ 05:20am
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 10/27/2008 @ 6:18pm
ROVIAN REALITY-FLIP ALERT
Posted by drhammer at 10/28/2008 @ 08:32am
Posted by drhammer at 10/28/2008 @ 08:32am
Technically, I think it's more along the lines of the kid who hits another kid, and then when the second kid hits back, whines "Teacher, Bobby's hitting me!!!!"
Bachmann calls people "anti-American"...Ms vanden Heuvel calls her on it....and Hugo says "Katrina vanden Heuvel is attackng poor Michelle Bachmann, vanden Heuvel's anti-American!!!!!"
Apparently Hugo's "debate class experience" ended sometime in kindergarden!...LOL
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 10:00am
The larger question is: what's wrong with being anti-American?
Thank goodness there were anti-Italian Italians during fascism and anti-German Germans during National Socialism. Generally, these people are the best a given society has to offer.
Posted by rykart at 10/28/2008 @ 10:12am
Back on-topic, IF Bachmann loses...
Can't you guess the SIGNAL that would send to OTHER Republican politicians, in years to come, on firing off "Limbaugh'isms" on national TV to throw red meat to the base?????
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 12:05pm
Two words: Morocco. Algeria.
Posted by habiba at 10/28/2008 @ 12:25pm
The only "doozy" as KVH would call this statement, is that KVH thinks its a "doozy." This phenomenon has been written about many times over the last several years in different countries where large numbers of muslimsare immigrating...Scandinavian countries, Western Europe, etc. We even talk about it here with certain muslim populations and of course illegal immigrants...
-----------------------------------------
In Holland Theo Van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim over a movie he made, but this was one nut though, so it's kind of harsh to condemn an entire group over it. John Lennon, Kennedy and Martin Luther King were murdered by white men. Shall we start condeming all white people because of these men'scrimes?
In Denmark there were protests over a drawing in a news paper and muslims felt offended.
The case in France is entirely different. The riots in France were ignited by the police killing two youths in a housing project. And it wasn't only Muslims rioting so you know. There were youths of all nationalities involved. Obviously, in our current feo-political climate, it is easy to blame those radical muslims and shut your eyes to reality. The French treat their minorities the same way we treat our minorities. Shit and shit and shit on them all of the time. Tell me smart guy. Blacks in this country riot. Do you think they have a problem with assimilation or does unemployment and poor education have anything to do with that?
Posted by Gainsbourg69 at 10/28/2008 @ 1:18pm
I was up in Washington this weekend – Washington State, that is. It was a beautiful weekend. The weather was crisp, the leaves were changing, and it's harvest time. Every orchard had it's own little county fair going on – corn mazes; bands; booths with locally made crafts, cider, quilts, funnel cakes, and corn dogs; and the main draw: the pumpkin patches. Kids were everywhere, running around and having a good time eating caramel apples and kettle corn. And picking out their pumpkins.
This is a big event in Washington State. The roads were packed, the county sheriffs were out directing traffic, and the parking lots were jammed. People were patient, smiling, and courteous in their driving. A cop smiled at me. I waved and smiled back.
We were at one orchard and a little girl, Lily, asked if we could help her. Lily was lost. We picked her up, walked over to the band, and the bandleader announced that "Lily is looking for her parents and if they could come up to the bandstand, she would have an easier time of finding them."
Her parents came and gratefully took her from our arms, thanked us, and went back to enjoying their day. They didn't care if I didn't go to church; I didn't care if they were Republican. They didn't ask and neither did I. It didn't matter. It wasn't important.
As I stood looking out over the particular orchard I was at, and looked across the valley at another orchard that had a similar little fair going on, I felt…peace. I felt connected. I felt the inherent goodness of the people of this great country of ours, when they aren't whipped into a frenzy of hate and intolerance by preachers or politicians. When they aren't taking sides. When they are just being…people, out enjoying themselves and the bounty this country has to offer.
Posted by Balrog at 10/28/2008 @ 2:09pm
Ayers, McCain, etc
http://www.counterpunch.com/leupp10282008.html
Posted by rykart at 10/28/2008 @ 2:59pm
Looking at Bachmann's "apology" we see generous use of emotional phraseology: "my heart is for you," "for your children," "blessings of liberty," "our great country." Bachmann's phraseology reminds me of ee cumming's "next to of course god america I": such words don't really tell us much, and only work by riding on fear.
Having lived in Europe for several decades I am aware of cultural issues that Bachmann ("not all cultures are equal") addressed. Nobody can downplay Europe's difficulties in the area of cultural assimilation. Often, a main hurdle here is the lack of mastery of the host-country's language; that can be solved with time.
Another problem, however, can lie in the fact that people tend to fear things they don't understand. In this regard, maybe Bachmann is afraid that via cultural integration something of one's own culture is lost. Maybe. But then, often something can be gained.
One of the greatest strengths of America has been the diversity of its populace. Additionally, foreigners have often contributed to America's success. For example, and just addressing issues of war, immigrants fought in the American Civil War. Regarding race, American Blacks helped in America's fight against the Axis powers. Recently, and regarding religion, we have become aware of Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan who died in Iraq, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, as an American soldier--and Muslim.
Bachmann signals that she is afraid of what will happen to America and its values if Obama is elected as President. I'm not a political expert, but I can say this: Europeans are hoping that he will win the election; they believe that his becoming President will be good for Europe--and America. If elected, his becoming President should make all Americans proud--not afraid.
Posted by jbooth at 10/28/2008 @ 3:09pm
Posted by jbooth at 10/28/2008 @ 3:09pm
You also see the paradox, or more accurately HYPOCRISY of many of the Right in this country....to wit-
1. They support us staying in Iraq, say we needed to go there to rescue the Iraqi people, say the Iraqi people need us to stay and that to "abandon them" would be terrible, and that if we stay they (the Iraqis) will form a "peaceful, secure, anti-terrorist, pro-America democracy"....BUT...
2. These same right-wingers (due to xenophobia and Christian fundamentalism) say that "Muslims are all terrorists" "Their religion is a religion of hatred and oppression" and "They can't be trusted!"
Now...try to rectify # 1 and # 2 and realize that BOTH statements would come from the mouth of a Michele Bachmann!
Our local Religious Rightie, LVLIBERTY, tried reconcile the two once....his theory?
"The Iraqis may convert to Christianity!"
LOL
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 3:15pm
Balrog at 10/27/2008 @ 11:55pm wrote:
<<< Liddy concocted several plots, including firebombing the Brookings Institution in Washington >>>
G Gordon Liddy was convicted and jailed as a Watergate burglar. He was accused and tried for nothing else because for all his strutting and big talk, he did nothing else. Yes, he was in the dirty tricks office of the Nixon White House where he and his buddies discussed wild and illegal feats in the way sophomores late at night in fraternity houses adumbrate vainglorious scenarios. The point is, those schemes were never more than pipe dreams, they never happened.
We only know of them because Liddy described them in his books and built a a talk show career as a swash buckler. He has made a living titilating audiences with accounts of his crackbrained schemes.
His actual crime was a wiretap scheme to gain unfair advantage for one policital party in the 1972 election. You compare that to Ayers, a leader of the Weather Underground whose actually undertake to bring down the US govt by violent means, not with talk but deeds.
Furthermore, while there is ample evidence that Obama shares Ayers' radical mindset, none shows McCain sympathetic to election fraud and gaining unfair political advantage. He is the classic straight arrow, the sole of honor for whom doing right by the US is the highest duty. Rather than condone the Watergate buglers he would have turned them in.
Finally, Liddy and McCain were never associates. Liddy once held a McCain fund raiser, which McCain did not attend. That, and a visit to Liddy's radio show is the sum of their friendship.
In short, there is no Liddy/McCain to equate with Ayers/Obama .
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 10/28/2008 @ 3:41pm
Balrog at 10/28/2008 @ 12:40am wrote:
<<< I don't think Hugo is looking for consensus or unity. Hugo is looking for some tar to brush on Obama >>>
NOW HERE THIS: election campaigns in America are not about how the contestants agree but how they disagree. Each side explains its merits and shows the demerits of the other side, its dirty laundry. In countries with sham elections, the kind the People's Republics used to conduct, those "contests" were all about consensus and unity, but that ain't how it works in a real democracy, sweetheart.
Nor is it a question of tarring Obama. The country has never had a more problematic candidate. He is rooted in our country's most fetid leftist marshes. He needs no help stinking.
We will see how he governs. I think he will have to surprise me pleasantly and disappoint you fellows bitterly, if his administration is to be anything short of disastrous. It may in fact prove a positive administration if it serves as the inspiration to show Washington its limits.
But it is nice to see how you now think consensus and unity are desirable. The Bush administration has received an unprecedented hammering on every issue, every minute of its existence. Now, after your eight year war dance you think you have a right to expect consensus and unity.
You are either children or senile old geezers.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 10/28/2008 @ 3:59pm
Vvf1969 at 10/27/2008 @ 11:41pm asked:
<<< So hugo..?? is it..?? can i call you tool..?? no.. ?? thats ok.. How many seedy relationships has " The Maverick" had in his tenure ..?? Can you awnser that ..?? CAN YOU..?? >>>
Tell your family not to give up hope. A double labotomy may yet rescue you from your fate as a urine specimen.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 10/28/2008 @ 4:01pm
bascaville at 10/27/2008 @ 11:25pm says:
<<< Hugo you remind me of Hannibal Lecter. >>>
The papers claim there actually are people with a weird urge to be eaten.
If you have that disposition and are angling to supply my diet you are out of luck. I am pretty patient and seldom get pissed off, but I never eat shit.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 10/28/2008 @ 4:07pm
truthandjustice at 10/27/2008 @ 11:47pm wrote:
<<< Did he [Ayers] not go to court and answer for his crimes? Is he still active in a criminal organization? He sits on boring boards, talks pedantically and he is as boring as my deceased Grandmother. Forget McCarthy too; isn't he as dead as my boring Grandmother? . . . Bachmann is another George Wallace, we need to be clearly alert to this type of sociopath >>>
No, Bill Ayers did not answer for his crimes. His wife Bernadine Dohrn did, G. Gordon Liddy did, but Ayers got off on a technicality. In his words, "I was free as a bird and guilty as hell."
Moreover the issue is not Ayers but whether Obama is truthful in denying a close association with Ayers. It seems to me the fact that Ayers entrusted Obama with a $160 million is good evidence that they were very close and had plenty in common.
As to "Bachmann is another George Wallace", there you contribute you very own McCarthyist slanders. So much for your idea of truth and jusice. Incidentally, Jimmy Carter, in 1968 in a primary race for governor of Georgia ran on a George Wallace platform. His lieutenant governor, turned out to be Lestor (ax handle) Maddox.
It is interesting how a whole herd of you, annoyed and twitching your ears at the same flies, lift your tails to deliver the same smelly replies.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 10/28/2008 @ 4:16pm
soul not sole.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 10/28/2008 @ 4:23pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 10/28/2008 @ 3:41pm
Oh, that G. Gordon is just a harmless scamp!
He was just a'funnin' when he said he'd kill columnist Jack Anderson and was talking about taking head shots at the ATF!
You libs need to lighten up.
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 4:31pm
I have been a reader of The Nation for a long time and will continue to be, but what deeply disturbs me, is the meanspirited level of discourse among some of the comments. It strikes me as rather pathetic to be so utterly filled with hatred and venom towards those who disagree with one's point of view, be it from the left or the right. I will continue to read The Nation, but when I am in need of intelligent and rational discussion of the issues, I doubt if it is to be found on the web which appears to have attracted the lowest common denominator from both sides of the political spectrum.
Posted by maggie2 at 10/28/2008 @ 4:46pm
soul not sole Posted by Hugo Pirovano at 10/28/08
Jim Fixx died to save your sole.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/28/2008 @ 5:07pm
Questions for HUGO,
1. If the late America-hater Senator McCarthy were to be revivivified after drinking himself to death 50 years ago, would you be so eager to use the term "McCarthyite" as a criticism--or would you be a zombified dittohead follower of the tailgunning one? Or is r-e-a-l McCarthyism the province of Katrina VH while McCarthy and his apologists are IMMUNE to McCarthyism?
2. What do you think is that reason that self-hating young people like ASHLEY TODD and FRANCISCO CAVA are rapid rightwingers? What is it about today's Repulsive Party that attracts the self-haters, the self-mutilaters, the pathetic loser/liars? Whose example are they following in this (elder miserable, closeted self-haters like Mark Foley? Larry Craig? George W. Bush, so "lucky" to have survived years of bar-stool pratfalls?)??
3. What do you think are the, say, three greatest accomplishments of Bush's admins during the past 8 years? Where does the Attorney General having ignored the FBI's terror warnings while inaugerating a no-holds-barred campaign to put clothes on statues (residue of his freakazoid "religion") fit into the countless monuments of triumph that the likes of you percieve to have occurred in the glorious Bush epoch?
4. Have you thought about whacking yourself with a hammer in the head a couple of times..and then cleverly going to the police station to report that a black ski mask-clad Joe Biden was baby-momma-ing with Michelle Obama in her full afro when they (cue metal-rap) paused to visciously beat you up?
Don't worry about the blows to the head, by the way, since it's obvious you are using it for nothing else of importance. And all for a good cause...
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 10/28/2008 @ 5:52pm
"The United States may be literally changed forever if Barack Obama becomes the next president."
And this is a something I should be concerned about?
Posted by AmericanGay at 10/28/2008 @ 5:52pm
Bachmann is a puzzle to me. She made a complete fool of herself and has put her election in jeopardy by simply acting stupid. What did she hope to accomplish by calling for an inquisition to establish who is pro America and who is anti America. I believe that her speech does not resonate except with extremists such as skin heads or the white aryan brotherhood who have a very poor understanding of genetics and the origin of the species. How can someone so stupid get elected to Congress? Was everyone asleep in her district?
Posted by lopezmarin at 10/28/2008 @ 9:19pm
I happened to be watching that Chris Matthews Show, LIVE, when Ms. Bachmann said what can best be called a large McCarthyesque pile of compost. I am old enough to remember my Mother telling we kids that all of us needed to watch the Army-McCarthy Hearings, because she hoped if enough people watched it, this evil would hopefully never happen again. I was very young (age 9), but I can tell you I will never ever forget it. So when this woman said those remarks, it literally made my blood run cold. I immediately did some research, found out who was running against her, and sent him a contribution, even though I do not live anywhere near the 6th District of Minnesota!
Posted by Barbara1945 at 10/28/2008 @ 9:35pm
As despicable as McCarthy was, at least there were hearings during his witch-hunt. Bachmann was actually calling for the media to investigate and smear Democratic members of Congress.
She has a Nurse Ratchet type quality. How she says awful things with that creepy smile on her face.
Posted by koroviev at 10/28/2008 @ 10:51pm
Posted by Gainsbourg69 at 10/28/2008 @ 1:18pm
You need to read a little bit more. We are not talking about a few isolated, extreme examples. As I said there are many articles written discussing this very subject...droves of Muslims immigrating to other countries and continuing to live by their "sharia laws" and not those of their adopted homeland...refusing to assimilate and then affecting the local "culture." The journals I've read dealt with the irony of it...socially liberal countries accepting large numbers of muslims who then affect local political climate with their "sharia" influence.
And so you know...the two youths weren't electrocuted by police...they got electrocuted when they fled FROM police and hid in a power station.
"Blacks in this country riot. Do you think they have a problem with assimilation or does unemployment and poor education have anything to do with that?"
As far as this question...you'll have to ask a black person why they riot. I wouldn't blame unemployment or poor education though. I think it's much deeper than that. Too many people that don't even speak the language have come here and succeeded. The black community has to figure that one out for itself (it's really not that hard...just ask Bill Cosby).
Posted by usc1 at 10/28/2008 @ 11:35pm
Posted by usc1 at 10/28/2008 @ 11:35pm
So obvious, usc, you DON'T believe we can bring democracy to Iraq, right?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 03:22am
One doesn't necessarily have to do with the other...it's a bit ofa leap to make that assumption, even for you.
Posted by usc1 at 10/29/2008 @ 08:53am
Posted by usc1 at 10/29/2008 @ 08:53am
Okay, then answer the question?
CAN we bring a peaceful, open, non-oppressive, US-friendly democracy to a country that is 95% Muslim?
If so, how? Given your statements about Muslim immigrants and "sharia" above?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 09:36am
idiothugo
Terrorism is commonly defined as killing civilians to extend a political agenda.
John McCain is a terrorist.
Bill Ayers is NOT a terrorist, no matter how many times the garbage-eating myna birds of the republican party say it.
Here's some good info on Ayers, should you care to educate yourself:
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp10282008.html
As to democracy in Iraq, that is precisely what America has been desperately fighting against. US aims and a democratic state are at complete cross purposes, just as a democratic Iran had to be destroyed by the US through a coup, so our unimpeded access to their natural resources could be assured.
Wake up, dope.
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 10:24am
Under the Georgia constitution of 1945, Maddox was prohibited from running for a second consecutive term, necessitating a 1970 run for Lieutenant Governor of Georgia. Although Maddox was elected as a Democratic candidate at the same time as Jimmy Carter's election as Governor as a Democratic candidate, the two were not running mates; in Georgia, particularly in that era of Democratic dominance, the winners of the primary elections went on to easy victories in the general elections without campaigning together as an official ticket or as running mates. Carter and Maddox found little common ground during their four years of service, often publicly feuding with each other.
When Carter ran for President in 1976, Maddox ran against him as the nominee of the American Independent Party, saying that his former rival was "the most dishonest man I ever met."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Maddox
Obviously, Maddox never met Hugo!
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 10:33am
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 09:36am
Myabe, but the two aren't mutually exclusive...you can still be democratic and vote for candidates that vow to govern by sharia law.
Posted by usc1 at 10/29/2008 @ 10:39am
Posted by usc1 at 10/29/2008 @ 10:39am |
Democracy wasn't the full extent of my question, usc.
The Bush/neo-con standard is a "democratic, stable, FREE, anti-terrorist and pro-America" Iraq.
Do you believe that is possible from a country that is 95% Muslim (again, reference your post on Muslims in Europe)?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 12:39pm
Democracy wasn't the full extent of my question, usc.
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 12:39pm
I must have been confused by this initial question that you posed...
So obvious, usc, you DON'T believe we can bring democracy to Iraq, right?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 03:22am
I've answered that one already.
------------------------------------------
CAN we bring a peaceful, open, non-oppressive, US-friendly democracy to a country that is 95% Muslim?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 09:36am
You're not suggesting that Muslims are inherently violent and oppressive, are you Mask? Liberals want us to believe that they are completely peaceful. (don't bother answering...I'm just having a little fun with you.)
As for the question itself...yes.
Posted by usc1 at 10/29/2008 @ 4:16pm
As for the question itself...yes. Posted by usc1 at 10/29/2008 @ 4:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
That's right. And the way to do it is to make them fall in love with us by illegally invading and occupying their country, smashing it to pieces, leaving 1.2 million dead and 4.5 million homeless, dragging them off to torture chambers, standing by as their cultural heritage is burned to the ground while America's crew cut thugs guard the oil ministry.
Excellent plan.
Can't imagine why it hasn't worked but these things take time, I suppose.
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 6:07pm
I just love how conservatives try to pretend that any objection by liberals to somethings someone says is hypocritical. How stupid and childish.
Should I respect someone who says that the earth is 6,000 years old? Or that the world is flat? Should I respect someone who uses talk such as "un-American" to describe someone that differs with that person in political philosophy?
She isn't smart enough to debate based upon logic and reason... her understanding of issues and her solutions. No, she has to resort to childish and divisive garbage. Should a "Liberal" accept any garbage that is spewed?
I am an "intellectual elite" which means that I an intelligent, thoughtful and capable of rationally examining an issue. I don't have to rely on denigrating my opponent because I can give objective, logical reasons behind my opinions.
Please do not believe all the generalizations that the right-win tries to paint us "Liberals" with.
I believe that white supremacists and anti-Semites have the right to, in my opinion (yes, I can make value judgments), just don't expect me to support their view, or even to let them go unanswered.
Bachmann is simply paying the adult price for saying what she believes. I don't know of anyone saying she "can't" say something stupid. Just that there are consequences if a lot of people don't agree with her.
Simple, isn't it?
Posted by Darren7160 at 10/29/2008 @ 6:27pm
Posted by usc1 at 10/29/2008 @ 4:16pm
No, usc....your fellow PARADOXICAL Islamophobes who are also neo-conservatives do that.
Again, how is it possible for people you say "immigrate to other countries and continue to live by their sharia law"...
will become an open, free society as Bush promises?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 8:04pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 8:04pm
I don't recall saying that ALL (or even 95%) Muslims lived according to that code or would want to...only that I have read different articles and heard different news reports stating that many Muslims live according to "sharia" laws in their "adopted" homelands. What laws Muslims remaining in Iraq would choose to live by is entirely up to them particularly if they establish democracy...but even if they chose to live by "sharia" through elections, that's their choice...it's not our place to say that it's oppressive.
Posted by usc1 at 10/29/2008 @ 9:03pm
Nor is our place to go against democratic public opinion that wants the invading US vermin out of their country.
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 9:05pm
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 6:07pm
That's funny...for a second there I thought you were talking about the Taliban and/or Saddam Hussein...silly me.
BTW, I think it's hilarious that liberals like you want to blame the 1.2 million dead (a number as ridiculous and arbitrary as it is ever-increasing) on the US...when most of them are a result of the terrorists...oops, I mean "freedom fighters." Huh, I just realized how appropriate that name really is.
Posted by usc1 at 10/29/2008 @ 9:11pm
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 9:05pm
Actually, I agree iwth you on that one.
Posted by usc1 at 10/29/2008 @ 9:12pm
usc
The Lancet reported that most of the civilian fatalities were the result of US air strikes. I know..I know..they're only professional epidemiologists, not witch-chasing exorcists like Gov Palin favors, but still, you might give their assessment some credence. (It goes without saying that the conditions leading to the massive death toll were 100% the result of the US invasion and destruction of the country. ) More died in 18 months than under 2o years of Saddam Hussein. Good job.
You could also answer whether a forced military occupation by Nazi-inspired invaders from the United States satisfies your definition of a thriving Iraqi democracy.
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 9:50pm
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 9:50pm
Take a closer look. Both of the studies printed in the Lancet that dealt with the topic have been widely discredited based on the faulty methodology. Furthermore, in the initial study the estimates ranged from 6,000 to 195,000 dead so the author split the difference and called it ~100,000 (or thereabouts). Later reports put the death toll at ~45,000. In addition, the primary author of the studies was clearly biased to the point of stating that he released the results of the 2003 study prior to the 2004 election in an attempt to influence the outcome. Biased author = invalid study...so no sale there. And these examples are just the tip of the iceberg.
You said: More died in 18 months than under 2o years of Saddam Hussein.
I said: Surely you don't believe this leftist propaganda, do you? I didn't realize Hussein kept accurate records of the people he tortured and murdered...I hope you can back up this claim with facts.
You said: You could also answer whether a forced military occupation by Nazi-inspired invaders from the United States satisfies your definition of a thriving Iraqi democracy.
I said: I didn't realize the Nazis invaded all of Europe with the intention of allowing them to hold free and open democratic elections.
Stop drinking the Kool-Aid (and I have never said that to anyone on this website before...or anyone ever. Congratulations. You earned it.)
Posted by usc1 at 10/29/2008 @ 11:46pm
Discredited? Yes..it was thoroughly discredited when Bush the drunk stated that he didn't believe the numbers.
Your utter ignorance of the way statistical studies are carried out is an embarrassment to you, your family and your entire community. The Lancet study has been widely praised for it's methodology. You're totally full of crap.
Again..the death toll brought on by the US invasion well outpaces the highest estimates of civilians killed by Saddam. The fact you don't like those numbers remains--like every phoneme of the vomit you write--irrelevant.
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 11:53pm
You said: Discredited? Yes..it was thoroughly discredited when Bush the drunk stated that he didn't believe the numbers.
I said: No...it was discredited when statisticians reviewed it and saw that the methodology was flawed...Bush was correct in his statement, drunk or not.
You said: Your utter ignorance of the way statistical studies are carried out is an embarrassment to you, your family and your entire community. The Lancet study has been widely praised for it's methodology. You're totally full of crap.
I said: I cited two specific examples which supported the fact that the study was flawed...and you backed your claim with an insult and reiteration of an already disproven statement...it's not exactly a convincing combination. (FYI, statistics is part of what I do for a living...just a helpful warning)
You said: the death toll brought on by the US invasion well outpaces the highest estimates of civilians killed by Saddam. The fact you don't like those numbers remains--like every phoneme of the vomit you write--irrelevant.
I said: What numbers exactly? I ask you to back up your claim with facts and you respond by rewording your original statement with another insult thrown in for good measure? Apparently, you're from the school of debate that teaches that repetition = truth...unfortunately for you that's just not the case. Until you can give some proof, you're just flailing...and I'm going to bed.
Posted by usc1 at 10/30/2008 @ 12:38am
An Oct. 11, 2006 Washington Post article[4] reports: Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, called the survey method "tried and true," and added that "this is the best estimate of mortality we have." In a letter to The Age, published Oct. 21, 2006, 27 epidemiologists and health professionals defended the methods of the study, writing that the study's "methodology is sound and its conclusions should be taken seriously." A Reuters article reports on other researchers, epidemiologists, professors, and physicians who have defended the study. For example; this quote from the article; "Over the last 25 years, this sort of methodology has been used more and more often, especially by relief agencies in times of emergency," said Dr. David Rush, a professor and epidemiologist at Tufts University in Boston. Sir Richard Peto, Professor of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology in the University of Oxford, described the 2006 report as "statistically valid" in an interview on BBC television. Dr. Ben Coghlan, an epidemiologist in Melbourne Australia, writes: "The US Congress should agree: in June this year [2006] they unanimously passed a bill outlining financial and political measures to promote relief, security and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The bill was based in part on the veracity of a survey conducted by the Burnet Institute (Melbourne) and the International Rescue Committee (New York) that found 3.9 million Congolese had perished because of the conflict. This survey used the same methodology as Burnham and his associates. It also passed the scrutiny of a UK parliamentary delegation and the European Union." Burnham is one of the authors of both of the Lancet studies.
Posted by rykart at 10/30/2008 @ 12:50am
October 19, 2006 Washington Post article[31] reports: "The numbers do add up," said Daniel Davies, a stockbroker and blogger for the Guardian. He argued that the sample of 1,849 households interviewed by Iraqi doctors working for the JHU research team was as large as that used by political pollsters. An October 16, 2006 MediaLens article quotes many health experts, epidemiologists, biostatistics experts, polling experts, etc. who approve of the Lancet study and methodology.[69] For example: John Zogby, whose New York-based polling agency, Zogby International, has done several surveys in Iraq since the war began, said: "The sampling is solid. The methodology is as good as it gets. It is what people in the statistics business do." ... Professor Sheila Bird of the Biostatistics Unit at the Medical Research Council said: "They have enhanced the precision this time around and it is the only scientifically based estimate that we have got where proper sampling has been done and where we get a proper measure of certainty about these results." In an October 31, 2006 MediaLens article, Lancet study co-author Les Roberts responded to several questions on the report, concluding that: "Of any high profile scientific report in recent history, ours might be the easiest to verify. If we are correct, in the morgues and graveyards of Iraq, most deaths during the occupation would have been due to violence. If Mr. Bush's '30,000 more or less' figure from last December is correct, less than 1 in 10 deaths has been from violence. Let us address the discomfort of Mr. Moore and millions of other Americans, not by uninformed speculation about epidemiological techniques, but by having the press travel the country and tell us how people are dying in Iraq.
Yeah you're right. Bush knows better!
Posted by rykart at 10/30/2008 @ 12:52am
Human Rights Watch has estimated Saddam Hussein's regime killed 250,000 to 290,000 people over 20 years.
Posted by rykart at 10/30/2008 @ 12:54am
The Iraq Body Count project (IBC), who compiles a database of reported civilian deaths, has criticised the Lancet's estimate of 601,000 violent deaths[27] out of the Lancet estimate of 654,965 total excess deaths related to the war. The IBC argues that the Lancet estimate is suspect "because of a very different conclusion reached by another random household survey, the Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004 (ILCS), using a comparable method but a considerably better-distributed and much larger sample." IBC also enumerates several "shocking implications" which would be true if the Lancet report were accurate, e.g. "Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued" and claims that these "extreme and improbable implications" and "utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas" are some of several reasons why they doubt the study's estimates. IBC states that these consequences would constitute "extreme notions".[28]
On October 11, 2006 Middle East Professor Juan Cole noted:
"But last May [2006], the government authorities in Basra came out and admitted that security had collapsed in the city and that for the previous month, one person had been assassinated every hour. Now, that is 24 dead a day, just from political assassination. Apparently these persons were being killed in faction fighting among Shiite militias and Marsh Arab tribes. We never saw any of those 24 deaths a day reported in the Western press. And we never see any deaths from Basra reported in the wire services on a daily basis even now. Has security improved since May? No one seems even to be reporting on it, yes or no."[29]
Posted by usc1 at 10/30/2008 @ 01:24am
Jon Pedersen of the Fafo Institute[30] and research director for the ILCS survey, which estimated approximately 24,000 (95% CI 18,000-29,000) war-related deaths in Iraq up to April 2004, expressed reservations about the low pre-war mortality rate used in the Lancet study and about the ability of its authors to oversee the interviews properly as they were conducted throughout Iraq. Petersen has been quoted saying he thinks the Lancet numbers are "high, and probably way too high. I would accept something in the vicinity of 100,000 but 600,000 is too much."[31]
Debarati Guha-Sapir, director of the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters in Brussels, was quoted in an interview for Nature.com saying that Burnham's team have published "inflated" numbers that "discredit" the process of estimating death counts. "Why are they doing this?" she asks. "It's because of the elections."[32]. However, another interviewer a week later paints a more measured picture of her criticisms: "She has some methodological concerns about the paper, including the use of local people -- who might have opposed the occupation -- as interviewers. She also points out that the result does not fit with any she has recorded in 15 years of studying conflict zones. Even in Darfur, where armed groups have wiped out whole villages, she says that researchers have not recorded the 500 predominately violent deaths per day that the Johns Hopkins team estimates are occurring in Iraq. But overall Guha-Sapir says the paper contains the best data yet on the mortality rate in Iraq."[33]
Fred Kaplan of Slate criticized the first Lancet study and has again raised concerns about the second.[34][35] Kaplan argues that the second study has made some improvements over the first, such as "a larger sample, mor
Posted by usc1 at 10/30/2008 @ 01:27am
A study which found that more than 650,000 Iraqi people have died since the US-led invasion was attacked yesterday by scientists in the UK, who claimed that the households interviewed tended to be located in violence-hit streets.
Sean Gourley and Professor Neil Johnson of the physics department at Oxford University and Professor Michael Spagat of the economics department of Royal Holloway, University of London, claimed the methodology of the study was fundamentally flawed by what they term "main street bias".
Prof Spagat and colleagues levelled their criticism in email exchanges with Prof Burnham and colleagues which were mediated by Science magazine. They claimed the sampling methods used "will result in an over-estimation of the death toll in Iraq".
The Lancet researchers interviewed 40 households in 47 clusters randomly chosen across Iraq to reflect the spread of the population. The starting point for each cluster was the main street. Residential streets were then chosen which crossed the main street.
The critics argued that the Lancet paper does not indicate that the researchers moved far enough away from the main street. "The further away you get, the further you are from the convoys that roll down the streets and the car bombs and the general violence," said Sean Gourley. "By sampling only cross streets which are more accessible, you get an over-estimation of deaths."
Posted by usc1 at 10/30/2008 @ 01:29am
And now, most damning, is a study about to be�formally presented on Monday�by David Kane,�Institute Fellow at the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University...
Much of the math here is mind-numbingly complicated, but Kane�s bottom line is simple: the Lancet authors �cannot reject the null hypothesis that mortality in Iraq is unchanged.��� Translation: according to Kane, the confidence interval for the Lancet authors� main finding is wrong. Had the authors calculated the confidence interval correctly, Kane asserts that they would have failed to identify a statistically significant increase in risk of death in Iraq, let alone the widely-reported 98,000 excess civilian deaths.
An interesting side note: as Kane observes in his paper, the Lancet authors �refuse to provide anyone with the underlying data (or even a precise description of the actual methodology).� The researchers did release some high-level summary data in highly aggregated form (see here), but they released neither the detailed interviewee-level data nor the programming code that would be necessary to replicate their results.
Posted by usc1 at 10/30/2008 @ 01:31am
This is a little long-winded, but details the flaws nicely.
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm
Posted by usc1 at 10/30/2008 @ 01:42am
You cite Juan Cole who SUPPORTS the lancet's findings.
All the criticisms have been addressed in detail. The death toll has been staggering and all of the increased deaths following the invasion are plainly the fault of the US, irrespective of who did the most killing.
The country is destroyed. 4.5 million of Iraq's best and brightest (architects, city planners, economists, doctors, painters, poets, human rights workers, etc) have fled their homes and will in all probability, never return.
Mission accomplished.
Keep defending this ghastly bloodbath and while your at it, spare a few encouraging words about Auschwitz and the Rwandan genocide.
Posted by rykart at 10/30/2008 @ 11:48am
Neil Monroe!!
That's a GOOD ONE!!!
A very SERIOUS source.!
But why didn't you just send the cliff notes version---you know, the one he delivered on his favorite, VERY serious TV show with his VERY serious host.
GLEN BECK!!!!
Posted by rykart at 10/30/2008 @ 11:55am
Well, that's rich. You want to discredit a reporter who simply details the flaws of the study...BUT you want to ignore the fact that the study itself was authored AND FUNDED in part by people who have vested interests in the outcome...even by their own admission (Roberts and Soros, respectively).
The flaws, while you try to brush them off as "beiing addressed"...have not been RESOLVED. That is why the study is repeatedly questioned by statisticians WRT the accuracy and validity of the results.
And BTW, I noticed you try to discredit Munro...but ignore that the IBC, which is against the war, criticized the results also.
Either way, it's obvious that the Kool-Aid is too deeply absorbed and no amount of facts and logic will penetrate shroud of denial...consider this my last post to you.
Posted by usc1 at 10/30/2008 @ 1:10pm
Thank God.
Posted by rykart at 10/30/2008 @ 1:17pm
...his is a little long-winded, but details the flaws nicely. http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm Posted by usc1 at 10/30/2008 @ 01:42am | ignore this person | warn this person
David Kane!
I'm S P E L L B O U N D !!!
Unfortunately, David Kane supplied his "breakthrough" debunking of the Lancet study to only ONE serious source, hoping to enlist statistical authorities at ScienceBlog to his patently fraudulent meditations.
His conclusions were unanimously torn to pieces :
http://tiny.cc/PjFXa
What would a serious scientist do in his situation? Press his case in the scientific community, redoubling his efforts to support his statistical findings?
Not quite.
David Kane's next appearance was in a forum so degraded and preposterous as to make Glen Beck appear a sober practitioner of the statistical method, namely, the delightfully goofy and absurd MICHELE MALKIN!!!!
With "scientists" like these, who needs Sarah Palin??
Posted by rykart at 10/30/2008 @ 4:37pm
katrina im looking at your picture you look tired it must be all that PCing you do stop blogging go to sleep you can wake up when america is save from marxist nighty night
Posted by heyyou at 10/31/2008 @ 01:39am
If I disagree with Bachman, I guess I am against America. Her words are hurtful and wrong.
As far as the Ayers stuff... not to justify violence, I don't, violence in speech and action is wrong... but it is very "American" to pledge your own life and liberty to stand against tyranny.
Though the means do not justify the means... does anyone here remember the Viet Nam War? Judgment without context distorts history.
A vast portion of the youth of this country- stoned or not- believed that they could change the world through action and inaction [Yoko & John stayed in bed for peace...]- Stoned or not-
The war and the unaccountability of the Government - read Nixon, Kissinger, war in Cambodia and Laos and even into China?- created a breaking of the faith of the young citizenry. It was a war here too- Chicago 1968, Kent State... When the government forsakes the lives of the citizenry, the citizens may sometimes act out in unacceptable ways, that should be prosecuted for the sake of civilization.
You know, the notion of non-violent protest was a new thing, used by Ghandi in India and then by Martin Luther King... ironically, both dying by violenc- then too RFK...
I venture to say, that Ayers of the eighties and the now, is not as Radical as Obama's opponents want all to believe. And it is probably true, Ayers should have done more- in a peaceful way- to end the war in Viet Nam... over 54,000 US citizens, average age 19 yo lost , and MIAs... still see that flag.
Remember Viet Nam?
Posted by darbrownlee at 10/31/2008 @ 3:17pm