At the moment, SDA is recieving about 2,000 hits an hour – about 15 times
normal traffic for this time of day. But look at Captain Ed’s stats:
My logs show that the vast majority of my hits are from Canadian sources, including media and government servers (there are few on normal days). I suspect Ed’s site is showing similar demographics. That means that a lot of Canadians are becoming aware of the information.
That raises difficult poltiical optics for a government considering prosecution of bloggers or news aggregators. How does one prosecute individual citizens for sending readers to the same information that politicians and media have been recieving via blackberry (elitist hypocrisy) – information that is deeply damaging to the governing party – without the appearance of abuse of power to protect your own political interests?
The traffic is causing some loading problems here and at Captain Quarters, who is anticipating more information – and another traffic surge – later today. Our host (this blog is also hosted in the US) is “clearing the decks” to smooth server problems. I’ll second his recommendation of Hosting Matters as a blog host par excellence.
update – Welcome, MIchelle Malkin and Wizbang (as well as Instapundit readers who have been surfing in for the past couple of days).
As I wrote on Kevin’s site – this is Canada’s “Watergate”, writ large – but in this case the blogosphere is playing the role of both “Deep Throat” and the Washington Post, and in the case of Canadian sites – doing so with the threat of legal action over our heads. Kudos too, to CTV News for naming Captain’s Quarters on their broadcast last night. It is no small assist to have the nation’s leading news broadcaster pushing the envelope along side us – especially NealeNews.com, who is going to need all the backup we can give him.
update 2 Colby weighs in and suggests now is the time for American bloggers to pour on the heat. I’ll exerpt the juicy bit, but it’s a good idea to read the whole thing for context.
Under the metaconstitutional Oakes test, any infringement of individual Charter liberties, such as a publication ban, must have a “rational connection” to the intended benefit and must be the most minimally restrictive measure that can bring about the benefit. The argument here is that if a ban doesn’t work in practice–say, because American webloggers are all printing the mind-blowing stuff Canadian ones cannot–it can’t meet Oakes. With due respect to the ban, which I consider myself to have observed herein, it would actively help free the hands of Canadian webloggers and reporters if our foreign cousins were to be aggressive about “publishing” the substance of the Brault testimony outside the reach of Canadian law.
I’m sorry, Adam T, but there was an inquiry about Halliburton overcharging. It just didn’t come up with the answer you wanted. Halliburton, by the way, has been running about a 1% profit on its Iraqi operations, so it isn’t exactly raking in the huge, illegitimate war profiteering loot.
The “no bid contract” award has been used by Bush critics who can’t be bothered to focus on important criticisms to imply unfair dealing because Dick Cheney used to be the CEO there. But no-bid contracts are the rule in that sort of business. There are 3, maybe 4 firms in the world who can undertake the kind of work Halliburton is doing in Iraq. Halliburton is one. Bechtel and Fluor are two others. These firms actually do bid, in advance, for the right to provide “no-bid” work, on an exigent basis, when the need arises when there will be no time for the government bidding process, as it did in Iraq. It isn’t completely “no-bid.” Halliburton was awarded this no-bid status for Iraq by…the Clinton administration. Perhaps Michael Moore should investigate that one.
As for the silly Moore Bin Laden family fairy tale that still apparently captivates the imaginations of credulous Moore acolytes, it was Richard Clarke, noted critic of the Bush administration, who gave the order to allow the family members to leave the country, not Bush. Clarke himself has been very clear about that. And it is not true, as Moore alleged, that they were allowed to leave while U.S. airspace was closed to other aircraft. This has been well proven for over a year now. It’s a myth, like most of Moore’s work. Let it go and focus on real criticisms. On the other hand, maybe Clarke’s savage criticism of Bush was just a clever cover for the Bin Laden caper. Of course, Bush is too stupid to come up with such a plan, so it must have been that omnipotent evil genius, Karl Rove.
I can’t argue the CBC evenhandedness point, since I have seen little of its programs. From what I hear, it is about as evenhanded as BBC or our PBS, but that could be wrong. Then again, cpompared to Michael Moore, it probably seems quite evenhanded.
1.There has never been an investigation into Halliburton/Bechtel.
2.Documents were released a few days ago that show Michael Moore was correct that the Saudis did get out while the no fly order was still in operation.
Unlike you, posting B.S regarding Haliburton without backing it up, I provide a link:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&e=2&u=/afp/usattackssaudis
“The Saudis’ chartered flights — arranged in the days after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks when most aircraft were still grounded — long have been a topic of allegations related to close family ties and associates of US President George W. Bush (news – web sites) and the Saudi royal family. ”
By the way, as an accounant myself, I’m well aware of ways companies can shift expenses around. I’d want to look at the books myself before trusting Haliburton that they made only a 1% profit.
Regarding the no bid contracts, I’ve heard completely the opposite, that other companies were outraged with the no bid contracts awarded Haliburton. Maybe it was all for show on their part, I have no idea. But, I’ve never seen any investigation into any of this.
Accountant. I’m a Certified Management Accountant.
RE: “These firms actually do bid, in advance, for the right to provide “no-bid” work, on an exigent basis, when the need arises when there will be no time for the government bidding process, as it did in Iraq. It isn’t completely “no-bid.” Halliburton was awarded this no-bid status for Iraq by…the Clinton administration. Perhaps Michael Moore should investigate that one.”
Of course there was no war againt Iraq when Clinton was President, so whatever they were bidding on would have been entirely different than any post war Iraqi contracts.
Herb:
Aside from the extreme examples you gave above (Coulter, et al,) there are many “conservative” citizens of the U.S. who notice that the New York Times, AP, UPI, LA Times, Washington Post (though somewhat less so than the others), ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, Time, Newsweek, and on and on, have focused their Iraq coverage almost exclusively on facts and on opinions that make the Bush administration look bad. This is not news, it is opinion, and what is wrong with it is that it claims to be news. This is still the case, even though the “insurgency” has had its back broken and although none of the disasters predicted and “reported” by the biased media have come true. They won’t show a video of Al Zarqawi hacking the head off of Nick Berg, as he screams and gurgles his life away, because it might be too inflammatory. But they will show nothing but photos of Abu Ghraib prisoners with panties on their heads for weeks and months on end, knowing precisely how inflammatory that will be, as just one example. This is slanted presentation, and it is always slanted in one direction.
Although it is legally incorrect to call this “treason,” the purpose behind it is to deliberately harm the efforts of the U.S. by presenting a very one-sided view of what is happening. That is why people criticize it, and that is why some who are more angered by it use emotional terms like “treason.” But you will note it doesn’t stop any of these media entities from continuing to do what they have done all along. So the claim by you and others that decrying biased coverage is tantamount to censorship is not only technically incorrect (because censorship is committed by the government, not media critics,) it also is not supported by the most cursory empirical observation of what the left-wing press continues to do.
You may be perfectly right about your points about the Canadian government, the judge in this case, and the press coverage, but my quarrel with you was that you said us Yanks can’t criticize you Canadians because we don’t have a free press either. And your Exhibit “A” was that some people criticize our press here. That is not a valid argument.
Adam, you’re not paying attention. Richard Clarke, a noted critic of Bush and his post-9/11 policies — was the person who let the Saudis go. In fact, Moore happily cited Clarke as a critic of Bush but for some reason left out the part about Clarke’s role with the Saudis.
Case closed.
Herb, the public debate in the US is fierce, both in terms of the media and the public debate. In Canada? I saw what passed for public debate in Canada on Iraq, and surprise… it was all about ME. I am privileged to get the CBC in both broadcast and print through the net. It’s socialist hogwash. I used to participate on the CBC message board forum until the communists decided to shut it down. Take a look at the “Sound Offs” the minders at the NP decide to expose to public participation — rediculous stuff compared to the real news. Tell me the story about Power Corp oh pristine and brilliant one.
OK, Adam T., I give up. The war in Iraq was conceived in order to enrich Halliburton, steal the oil fields (although gas prices don’t seem to have played that one out, but never mind,) and the Bush family is in cahoots with the Bin Ladens. I stand corrected. It says the flights “were arranged” when other flights were grounded, not that they were made during the government enforced grounding, but never mind. We all know Bush and Osama were in cahoots so that Halliburton could be enriched in Iraq.
>Regarding the CBC, anybody who thinks it is a mouthpiece for the federal government should give it a listen sometime. It is an excellent independent news service.
The CBC isn’t a Liberal mouthpiece, but it only appears to be an excellent independent news service to those travelling in the Liberal’s frame of reference.
A.”This is still the case, even though the “insurgency” has had its back broken and although none of the disasters predicted and “reported” by the biased media have come true.”
1.The insurgency has slowed down since the election, but I’d hardly say it’s accurate to say it’s had ‘its back broken”
2.1,500 dead American soldiers, up to 20,000 injured and up to 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians isnt’ a disaster?
B.Congratulations, freetotem, you’ve just observed that the media tends to focus on negative news. Now, how you’ll prove that this is in some way a conspiracy by the media to make the war effort unpopular when they have been focusing on negative news ever since they ‘came into existance’ is beyond me.
I don’t disagree that the media focusing on the negative presents a distorted picture, however, that far from means that I support a media that cheerleads the war effort, as you would obviously like.
Beyond that, both the New York Times and the Washington Post did appologize for their cheerleading of war supporters prior to the war. That they refound their backbone to complain about the completely incompetent post war effort of the Bush maladministration is to their credit.
Wait a second. I believe no one ever said that the American media was free to criticize the American government without being immune to criticism itself. All that criticism comes from fellow citizens of the US.
You can say whatever you like about the government or the current policies, but if in their minds the public thinks you tiresome, your ratings will fall, circulation will drop, and you will be critized.
Free Speech is a double-edged sword.
Top Ten Categories: Media Bias.
A great list of media bias (via Ed Driscoll): 1. The Lie. 2. The memory hole. 3. Ventriloquist journalism. 4. Polls. 5. Buzzwords. 6. Coordination with the Democratic candidates. 7. The smear/personal attack/outrage. 8. Euphemisms. 9. False appearance …
“OK, Adam T., I give up. The war in Iraq was conceived in order to enrich Halliburton, steal the oil fields (although gas prices don’t seem to have played that one out, but never mind,) and the Bush family is in cahoots with the Bin Ladens. I stand corrected. It says the flights “were arranged” when other flights were grounded, not that they were made during the government enforced grounding, but never mind. We all know Bush and Osama were in cahoots so that Halliburton could be enriched in Iraq.”
Of course, I never said any such thing. Typical of most Conservatives that they can only think in terms of ‘you’re with me, or against me’.
So, according to Freetotem, either the war was conducted completely open and above board, or it was solely done for the benefit of major corporations. I don’t suppose you could open your mind a little to conclude that it might have actually been somewhere in between.
“steal the oil fields (although gas prices don’t seem to have played that one out, but never mind,)”
This is a good example of two things:
1.Lumping together every conspiracy theory. I.E, anybody who criticized the Bush admin must believe every conspiracy theory againt it. I have no doubt that part of the reason for the war was to secure oil supplies for the U.S, but I also never doubted for a second that they would also be placed back into the hands of the Iraqi people.
2.The false argument that just because something failed, it must mean that it was not attempted. That oil prices are as high as they are only proves that the attempt to ‘steal’ the Iraqi oil fields (which I’ve already said I don’t believe the U.S government attempted to do) was a failure, not that they didn’t try to do it. Given how incompetent we’ve seen the Bush admin is on most of its implementation of policy, it wouldn’t surprise me that if they did make an attempt to steal the oilfields, that they would fail to do it.
Tom, I enjoyed your points about the level of debate in the US media, but it’s difficult for me to take a post seriously when it devolves into ranting about socialists and communists. Gimme a break. That’s the kind of talk that makes people all around the world laugh at the American right. (But why did you leave out fellow travellers and fifth columnists?)
[They won’t show a video of Al Zarqawi hacking the head off of Nick Berg, as he screams and gurgles his life away, because it might be too inflammatory. But they will show nothing but photos of Abu Ghraib prisoners with panties on their heads for weeks and months on end, knowing precisely how inflammatory that will be…]
Al Zarqawi never pretended to be acting within the law, let alone within the bounds of what, to 99% of the world, might be considered “humane” treatment of prisoners.
Broadcasting Berg’s brutal murder to American’s is Al Zarqawi’s wildest wet dream, and it would only serve to disrespect Berg and his family. Besides, the only people interested in seeing it, are sado-masochists or screwed-up pimply-faced teenagers.
Showing Americans what their own soldiers (and by extension, their government) are doing to prisoners of war (who are protected by international laws that our ancestors died to create), and contrary to what their government told them was happening, is good investigative journalism. We needed to see this happening, because those who only watch FoxNews would prefer to keep their heads buried deep in the oil-soaked sands of the Iraq “our men” freed from the “terrorists”.
And they wonder why Americans are so universally hated.
“The CBC isn’t a Liberal mouthpiece, but it only appears to be an excellent independent news service to those travelling in the Liberal’s frame of reference.”
That could be true. Of course, on most issues up to 70% of Canadians take the big L Liberal position (note that I said ‘on most issues’), so a media that reflects prevailing Canadian thought isn’t much of a surprise..
“That oil prices are as high as they are only proves that the attempt to ‘steal’ the Iraqi oil fields (which I’ve already said I don’t believe the U.S government attempted to do) was a failure, not that they didn’t try to do it.”
Well I’m glad you don’t believe that little lie Adam, but man was that one hell of a logical fallacy you just employed…and in the defence of an ad hoc rationalization no less.
Anyway, this whole mess just illustrates the curse that anti-Americanism plays on societies that are addicted to it. Any failure or threat to national pride is automatically met with the sneering rationalization “yeah well in the US…”, thus allowing the failures to fester and remain repressed out of resentment. The fact that most of the “facts” given out about the US are false anyway just makes the problem worse.
Anyone who seriously holds the position that media outlets in the US cannot or will not criticize the government is a complete idiot and lives in a dream world of denial and resentment…two things that seem to be all the rage lately.
1.”Well I’m glad you don’t believe that little lie Adam, but man was that one hell of a logical fallacy you just employed…and in the defence of an ad hoc rationalization no less”
Actually it was logic 101.
2.”Anyway, this whole mess just illustrates the curse that anti-Americanism plays on societies that are addicted to it. Any failure or threat to national pride is automatically met with the sneering rationalization “yeah well in the US…”, ”
I can only comment on my own actions. I don’t think I’ve ever said “yeah, well in the U.S” in response to something that is a Canadian issue. It fit in this case because there were a bunch of ignorant, smug Americans at the top of this thread spouting off on the failures of the Canadian government and media.
In regards to the failures of the Canadian government, I think pointing out the incompetency and corruption of the Bush Admin is completely fair response.
In regards to the media, I didn’t comment on the U.S media at all, I merely pointed out the innacuracies in the facts of the posters regarding the nature of the publication ban.
Well that’s nice but I was only addressing you in the first paragraph. As for the “smug Americans”, I can’t speak for them, though I am well aware that any and every scandal in the US is reported by foreign journalists like missionaries spreading the good word.
Oh and this was lovely:
“I don’t think I’ve ever said “yeah, well in the U.S” in response to something that is a Canadian issue.”
“In regards to the failures of the Canadian government, I think pointing out the incompetency and corruption of the Bush Admin is completely fair response.”
“In regards to the failures of the Canadian government, I think pointing out the incompetency and corruption of the Bush Admin is completely fair response.”
Had I wanted to be redundent I would have written:
“In regards to the failures of the Canadian government poined out by abunch of ignorant, smug Americans at the top of this thread , I think pointing out the incompetency and corruption of the Bush Admin is completely fair response.”
That I was responding to the comments of those Americans was already mentioned in the above parapgraph.
Given that, pointing out that Americans have nothing to be smug about when it comes to government is a completely appropriate reply.
I think the “smugness”, or whatever it is, has little to do with the actual scandal and much to do with the anti-liberal supression of free speech that enshrouds it…goes rather well with the new Canadian heresy law making criticism of homosexuality a crime no?
In that regard Canada, or any other country, has nothing on which to lecture the United States about. The plain fact is that the US has the strongest free speech policy in the world and even the much ballyhooed “Patriot Act” is nothing when compared to anti-terrorism laws in other European countries.
Michelle Malken on “SOMETHING ROTTEN IN CANADA”
Imagine being susceptable to ending up in court for contempt just for linking or even passing out the address to Captain’s Quarters! There’s more wrong in Canada than just a corruption scandal.
1.The ‘supression of free speech’ has been discussed above.
As Conservative commentator Norman Spector said (paraphrasing) “if the judge didn’t want the media to report, he should have had the testimony delivered in private”.
Holding something in-camera is an effective way to keep the media out without raising the specter of “supression of free speech”.
2.”the new Canadian heresy law making criticism of homosexuality a crime”
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
Re: 100,000 dead…
Anyone who uses figures obtained through a phone/door survey (ie. the Lancet farce) to propogate their view of reality is an idiot.
There are at least two other credible outfits collecting REAL data on the number of dead in Iraq, and they would piss themselves laughing if they beleived they could get away with the asanine numbers Lancet threw out there. Iraq Body count uses – get this – ACTUAL reports of deaths. In fact they use, for the most part, the same methods that every other country uses.
Again, only an idiot would repeat that 100,000 have died because a survey stated that it might be possible that between 8 and 192 thousand have died, maybe.
Actually, only a LAZY idiot would be making those claims, because it doesn’t take much of an effort to read the study. And even less to figure out why credible news outlets won’t go anywhere near that number.
Idiot.
David,
I read the Lancet report. Like I said above, I’m an accountant and I know how to read numbers. I seriously doubt you read the report but instead you probably merely listened to the Rush Dimbaugh and Faux News stories of the reports and, like a good little dittohead, memorized what they had to say.
The report itself said that its methodology in tracking the numbers left a lot of ground for doubt as to the precise numbers. They also explained that the ‘actual reports of death’ grossly underestimated the likely real number. Hence, they chose a number inbetween the reported number and the highest estimate. 100,000 may be too high, but it likely isn’t wildly off, especially not to this date, given that the report is several months old.
I caught The National(newscast on CBC) tonight and the lead story was Paul Martin addressing Parliament and explaining that not all Liberals are bad…that was followed by video of a blogger that could not be identified.. and the statement that the information is out there but we can’t tell you. What? Damn good reporting! My arse!
That segued into a story about Willie Picton and the need to maintain media suppression to ensure a fair jury “even though that has not been proven” according to the reporter.
It all had the feeling of a parent talking to a child about Santa.
Actually, idiot, I don’t watch Limbaugh and do not subscribe to Fox.
Neither do I admit that the source I quote may leave “a lot of ground for doubt as to the precise numbers” and STILL shill for it. I also wouldn’t be caught dead uttering a blatantly illogical sentence such as – “They also explained that the ‘actual reports of death’ grossly underestimated the likely real number.”
( the ACTUALL number underestimates the LIKELY number?)
Idiot.
Adam, now I call you CMA bs. I work as a statistician and the methodology in that paper stinks to high heaven.
Fred Kaplan is no Fox Alumni (no matter how many hits of acid you take) and here is his take.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/
The only reason it got past peer review was for its innate political position. No serious scholar would seriously reference it.
So after that statement, I went back and see you actually believe Michael Moore.
Well, ok, sure, whatever you say (eyes raised and rolling)
You should put away that anti-american prism that you seem to view everything with. It does you no credit to shill for a half baked idealogy.
“I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.”
That’s probably because you spend your time revelling in American politics and railing against the “culture of fear” in the US rather than paying attention to any disturbing trends in your own country.
In case you missed the relevant quote from the lancet paper
“We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.”
As Fred says, “It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language�98,000�is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)
This isn’t an estimate. It’s a dart board.”
Adam,
The Lancet report was a piece of trash and you being an accountant should know it was a GUESS. It was used to beat down Bush just before the election. This link is the actual verified numbers from one of your left wing sites.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
No put your accountant brain on and do the calculations.
Oh, and Adam, the CBC is Librano sponsered piece of left wing trash as well. I should know, I live here…. nuff said..
So it’s settled. Round to Adam T.
The Lancet report is the best estimate given for the actual number of Iraqis that died as a result of the war. That it would range greatly is not a surprise given that we are talking about a war.
Fred Kaplan’s piece largely defended the methodology of the report.
Given that I’m allegedly a shill for Michael Moore, I find it funny that I’m being criticized by a number of brain dead dittoheads who don’t even seem to care that they are putting forward their own ridiculous conspiracy theory (that the Lancet report was published just to bash Bush) without one piece of evidence to back it up.
Rob, as was well explained in the Lancet report, the verified number of killed grossly underreports the real numbers of Iraqis who died as a result of the war. I can understand why you feel a need to do this. When you support a President who lied to start a war, and then pretends to support a ‘culture of life’, you need to make the number of deaths as small as possible so as not to make yourself uncomfortable.
David, I am aware you don’t watch Dimbaugh. Like the brain dead dittohead you are, you listen to him religiously.
Jason, I’m aware of what’s going on in Canada. The reason I have no idea what you are talking about is because there is no piece of legislation that exists that does what you say.
A CROSS-BORDER SCOOP
Unless you’ve been living on another planet I guess most of you are now up to speed with the publication ban in Canada on a number of testimonies before a public inquiry into the misappropriation of public funds (the “Gomery…
Jason, I should add to the above, I’m aware Faux News reported on something that claimed Canada had made it illegal to criticize homosexuals, or something to that effect. I forget the details, but I remember at the time, the report was riddled with innacuracies and maybe even the odd out and out lie.
You refuse to accept the numbers even when there put in front of your face?…hmmm …did you also ask yourself what percentage of those were civilians, being that there ARMY doesn’t have the GUTS to wear a uniform.
Your totally displaying the typical narrow mind of the Left wing and refuse to accept the facts.
The Lancet report doesn’t even rate to be used as toilet paper.
Glad you don’t do accounting for my business, I would be rich on paper and flat broke…
Rob, that is wrong on all accounts. I fully accept the numbers of those verified dead.
I also fully understand that those numbers do not take an awful lot of other people who died as a result of the war into account.
Again, I seriously doubt you would make such a pathetic attempt to attack the credibility of a piece of research out of some sort of academic pique. The only reason I can think of for your anger is the fact that the likely real estimates of death puts into disrepute the war effort.
John, by the way, I never actually did say that I believed Michael Moore. I merely made two points:
1.That he seems to have been proven correct on his assertion that the Saudis in the U.S were flown out before the no fly order was lifted.
2.That he is more honest than George W. Bush. That’s not a very high bar.
You would like the majority of the population to take the word of academics that are quite frankly stupid when it comes to real life, and fed the left wing trash at the universities by Ward Churchill and the likes. I don’t even want to get into the CDN ones, theres to many.
I think not, mainstream CDN’s are smarter then that, and by the sounds of your posts, were you’ve been spoon fed a wack of trash, you fall into the same catagory. A liberal attitude with tunnel vision.
So enjoy Lancet and Moore while you can, most people have already seen the lies and corruption generated from this academic attitude. Our own Government is probably the best example going.
Your use your piece of paper as an excuse not to face reality. What a typical waste…
Rob, Mainstream Canadians are certainly smarter than you, judging by the fact that upwards of 70% of them usually vote for left leaning parties.
Herb wrote:
Herb, the Canadian equivalent to the American charge of being “unpatriotic” is to charge someone with being “Americanized” or supporing “American-style” ideas. As a tactic for shutting down debate it’s easily the equal of the American tactic.
To show how smart the C.B.C.is on the 5am radio news on saturday the news broadcaster said there were 40 million Canadian Cathlics in Canada..I think a Liberal told him that. There may even be more than that. Not bad for our population of about 33Milion population…Joe
Adam
I don’t know what the hell Faux News is but I never watch TV. Several people have been prosecuted for making anti-homosexuality remarks under several different laws, the most sweeping of with was bill C-250.
“The Lancet report is the best estimate given for the actual number of Iraqis that died as a result of the war.”
Anybody who would start out a comment like that is obviously somebody not worth paying attention to.
BTW, check out the recent stats on CQ, four times Kate’s pic. Kind of sad in a way because it makes his earlier hits look so pathetic (on a relative basis).
Your right Jay, He is just spewing out randem statments picked up on MSM, specifically CBC if that tells you anything, and refuses to investigate the other side to get an informed opinion.
No further response required to a closed mind, when the facts were presented throughout the thread and not accepted.
I notice a lot of Fox bashing above. Apparently a lot of Canadians think most Americans sit slack-jawed before the tube soaking up right wing agit-prop delivered in the guise of the news. This is the sort of smugness that got Democrats chin-deep in manure and threatens to condemn them to permanent minority status. Fox developed in response to the almost total left wing bias found on the major networks, as it is on the CBC. A fine example, you might say, of the free market at work.
Gomery-Lanche
OTB contributor Kate McMillan is experiencing a huge surge in Traffic at her own site, small dead animals, for her coverage of the Gomery affair, which she has dubbed “Canada’s Watergate.” We’ve had some ancilliary increase in traffic here, too.
…
Adam T.
Oh really, where does Fred Kaplan’s statement of “The same is true of the Lancet article: It’s a useless study; something went terribly wrong with the sampling.”
and where he says, “The study, though, does have a fundamental flaw that has nothing to do with the limits imposed by wartime�and this flaw suggests that, within the study’s wide range of possible casualty estimates, the real number tends more toward the lower end of the scale.”
For those who did not get that last. The most reliable number is at the end of the scale and that scale has a confidence interval of (95% CI 8000-194,000). So basically the real number is around 8000 and NOT 100,000.
Adam, adam, adam, tsk tsk. You are an accountant. Please don’t do my taxes. I don’t want to share my ail cell with one of the libranos. 😉
He does not support the methodology at at all. So now, I am totally convinced that you are purposefully dishonest. You are certainly in good company with Moore.
For the rest of you, read http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/ where this “study” is taken completely apart.
So who should you trust for numbers? Fred points the way, “There is one group out there counting civilian casualties in a way that’s tangible, specific, and very useful�a team of mainly British researchers, led by Hamit Dardagan and John Sloboda, called Iraq Body Count. ” at http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Adam T., Since you are not interested in honesty there is no further purpose in debating you on this.
later unless it is to taunt you again. 😉
Gomery inquest
Due to a publication ban, the majority of Canadians are not allowed to hear Jean Brault’s testimony regarding Adscam, a political scandal that may doom the Liberal party’s chances in the next election. In 1994, the Liberal government created a…
Last time I was there, the careful analysis by Iraqibodycount (who is pretty much anti-Iraq war but at least they seem to be honest) was between 15000 and 18000.
That means with Saddam’s daily murder rate (most common number I’ve seen is 700) the Iraqis were ahead after only 4 weeks of the war.
American bombs and bullets are somehow more evil than Saddam’s woodchippers? Tell that to the Iraqis.