Sadly, No!

The last time we commented on Trying to Grok’s statistical analysis, the results weren’t pretty. We thought there might be hope however when we found out that TTG’s management was enrolled in a stats class. We were wrong:

I feel like I should say something about the 1000 servicemembers who have died in Iraq […] Should I point out that, statistically speaking, one is more likely to die in a car accident — as my boss’ son unfortunately did over the weekend — than in Iraq?

Gentlemen (and ladies) — start your calculators!

Let’s start by looking at casualties resulting from transport accidents in 2001. There were 47,288 such deaths, approximately 129/day.

Since the start of Operation Chalabi Freedom, 1,002 US soldiers have died, a rate of 1.86/day (or 678/year.)

Let’s say that, to get numbers we can compare, we divide the respective population for both groups by the number of annual casualties.

The US population totaled 285,093,813 in 2001, which gives us a chance of dying from a transport accident for that year of 1 in 6,029. (See also here.)

US forces in Iraq have fluctuated, but let’s take 150,000 as our estimate. This would give us a chance of dying in Iraq for a year of 1 in 221. [If there were as many victims of transport accidents in the United States as US casualties in Iraq, (relative to population size of course,) 1,290,017 Americans would die every year on the roads.]

We’ll grant you that we too have struggled with our stats classes, but we’re pretty confident that 1 in 221 is not better than 1 in 6,029. Given our choice of odds of dying, put us down for 1 in 6,029.

In the comments over at TTG, Mike offers his support:

All you need to do is add up all the highway deaths in the US, and divide that by the population. Then compare it to 1000/200,000 (or the total of all who have served in Iraq).

So let’s see: Highway deaths (2003🙂 43,000. US population: 285,000,000. Rate: 0.00015.

US casualties in Iraq: 1,000. US troops in Iraq (per Mike:) 200,000. Rate: 0.005.

Which is the bigger number? And why are we comparing something other than yearly figures? (It really should be 0.00015 v. 0.0034 using Mike’s 200,000 for US troops.) TTG adds her efforts:

Mike, I was getting ready to do all the math, but you beat me to it and I’m way too grumpy after a long day of work to do more probabilities. […] The actual figures are hard to find, both for car accidents and for troops downrange.

Yeah, those car accident figures are very hard to find. Very.

We should also add this: if you can’t find the numbers, then why the fuck are you opining on which probability is higher?

As Terry said back in October: Get thee to a thesaurus!:

On the other hand, it [kerfuffle] seems to be the way that the kids over at the Wall Street Journal’s OpinionJournal say “Quit looking at that!” or “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”:

Today’s Wall Street Journal:

How to make the 2000 Florida brouhaha look like a kerfuffle.

Anything else? More bullshit perhaps? Ah yes:

Mr. Clinton’s 370-168 electoral victory over George H.W. Bush in 1992 put to rest any doubt about the new President’s legitimacy.

Are you fucking kidding us WSJ? Seriously you guys. The electoral college put to rest any doubt? Sadly, No!

Snow’s program had a triumphant air this week as he shot the breeze with Bob Dole, Trent Lott, Phil Gramm, Rep. Bob Dornan (who called Clinton an “illegitimate president”) and Snow’s former boss, George Bush. –Washington Post, January 5, 1995.)

Bob drops another one:

…Rep. Bob Dornan, R-Calif., who bellows his venom at Clinton: “This illegitimate president . . . a serial adulterer . . . a triple draft-dodger.” (Buffalo News, February 22, 1995.)

Richard Cohen in The Washington Post, April 15, 1997:

The loony right’s hate for Bill Clinton is well-nigh inexplicable. Its feelings transcend politics in the usual sense and Clinton is treated not as someone with a different, if daffy, ideology, but as an illegitimate president foisted on the country by the dark and powerful forces of immorality — in other words, misguided voters. He is loathed with a passion once reserved for schismatics and apostates.

The Guardian, September 21, 1998:

This hinges, in its political dimension, on the fact that in the hearts of many Republicans, Bill Clinton remains an illegitimate president.

Robert G. Kaiser in The Washington Post, December 20, 1998:

But it worked in a different way for Americans who didn’t buy what the Clintons were offering that night: They concluded that Clinton was an illegitimate president who did not deserve to sit in the White House.

Because of the low turnouts in primary elections, a handful of well-organised and amply funded right-wingers can oust a candidate who would capture the public vote, but who cannot survive the primary.

This constituency has, throughout Bill Clinton’s presidency, believed him to be an illegitimate President and sought his downfall above all else. (The Observer, January 31, 1999.)

The Right attacks the Government, essentially on grounds of illegitimacy, just as Clinton was assailed as “an illegitimate President” as early as 1993. (Philip Gould in The Times (London, )September 25, 1999.

Furthermore, when the usual suspects weren’t complaining about Clinton’s legitimacy, they argued he didn’t have a mandate to do anything. Wall Street Journal, November 20, 2002:

Article by Isabel V Sawhill, economist at the Urban Institute in Washington DC, calls on President-elect Clinton to help make government more effective and more consistent with the public’s values; argues that the election provided no mandate for old-fashioned tax-and-spend liberalism.

WSJ, November 16, 1992:

Article by Gary Langer, a senior policy analyst for ABC News, contends that President-elect Clinton’s victory at the polls was not a mandate for Democratic-style ‘tax and spend’ programs; notes that candidate Clinton promised a presidency that looked less to government largess for solutions.

WSJ, November 5, 1992:

Editorial considers President-elect Bill Clinton’s mandate on tax policy; points out that the recent election saw a huge victory rate for tax-control ballot measures.

Bob Dole, November 30, 1992 (quoted in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution:)

“There isn’t any Clinton mandate,” said Mr. Dole. “Fifty-seven percent didn’t vote for him. I’ll represent the 57 percent.”

Wisconsin Gov. Tommy G. Thompson, November 17, 1992 (quoted in The Washington Post:)

On the one hand, Thompson said, “we ran a poor campaign,” but on the other, “only 43 percent of the people voted for Bill Clinton — that is not much of a mandate. . . . Republicans won nine legislative houses across the country. . . . Republicans have just as much of a mandate as the Democrats.”

Read the rest of this entry »

If you emailed us after our recent offer of gmail invites and you never heard from us, please contact us again: gmail @ sadlyno.com. If you responded to our request that you email us in the comments to that post, your internet connection will soon be terminated by the Department of Homeland Security.

Thank you.

According to NewsMax, there’s a new documentary in town:

A new documentary will soon be released that may do more damage to John Kerry than even the devastating Swift Boat Veterans’ ad. […]

In a description of the new film, the producers explain that “when John Kerry appeared before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the spring of 1971, his testimony sent shock waves throughout America and the world. … Lt. Kerry’s widely televised statements were dramatic and persuasive, made all the more credible by the fact he had been there, said he had witnessed many of these same atrocities.”

He did? Sadly, No!

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

… that Pensky is interested in me, I’m sorry I gave you the wrong impression. What is was going to say was, now you are aware that our Board of Directors has been indicted, myself included, and we’re prohibited from doing business until the investigation is completed.

Or something like that:

The Bush administration illegally withheld data from Congress on the cost of the new Medicare law, and as a penalty, the former head of the Medicare agency, Thomas A. Scully, must repay seven months of his salary to the government, federal investigators said today.

The investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said that Mr. Scully had threatened to fire the chief Medicare actuary in violation of an explicit provision of federal appropriations law.

Another serving of honor and dignity for all the kids out there. (Thanks to Frederick.)

President Bush explains why the job market isn’t everything he said it would be:

Bush, linking Kerry policies to campaign donations from trial attorneys, said “junk lawsuits” hinder job creation and cost the economy more than $230 billion a year.

Does anyone know where George got his $230 billion figure?

Added: According to the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, the entire US tort system cost US$179 billion in 2000.

Added II: Here we go — we now call this $230 billion figure 100% bullshit:

The facts: The $200 billion [September 2003] “lawsuit burden” figure has been repudiated by the Congressional Budget Office. The number was reached by adding up the total cost of liability insurance purchased in the United States, including administrative costs. But these costs would not disappear if there were no tort system. [PDF link.]

Whack-a-Bush?

This number [$200 billion,] notes Doroshow, was compiled by the insurance-consulting firm Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, which simply totaled all liability insurance premiums, not just those caused by “frivolous” lawsuits?auto insurance alone, according to an Americans for Insurance Reform study, accounts for $82 billion of the Tillinghast figure.

How much does restoring honor and dignity to the Oval Office run these days anyway?

If his picture is any indication, Zeav Ott is this week’s hottest new conservative writer on the web. There are some people that have a way with words, and some who don’t. Fortunately, Zeav… has way:

The goal of the modern-aged conventions is to gain more votes for that party. In other words, when everyone exits the convention on the last day, everyone feels pretty good about their political party because the convention has served its purpose: It has gained more votes.

That theory, just to make sure there’s no confusion, is Zeav’s. That is the theory that he has and which is his and what it is, too.

I am getting absolutely sick and tired of what the Democrats are trying to do to win the mid-term [sic] Election. First they spend 60 million dollars on anti-Bush ads, the Republicans don?t retaliate. Now, they are going to give it all that they’ve got to ruin the Republican Convention. How is that exactly fair? The Republicans left them alone in Boston, why can’t they do the same?

But mom, it’s not fair!

I simply cannot understand why it is that Democrats always have to be the crooks and the ones that don’t play the game fairly. Somehow, they always get away with it too. When will be the day that Democrats will find some respect? [Emphasis added]

Yeah, why is that? Don’t you realize how hard it is for the Republicans to be the only party that cares about having law abiding citizens as members?

Zeav Ott has been labeled as Internet radio’s “tough love” personality. He has a political radio show on the Internet where he discusses many of the current events issues that occur throughout the week.

ok — we don’t mean to be rude, but: logging onto AIM and chatting with some friends does not, not, a radio show make. Not even after you’ve repeatedly typed STFU Dems, CTN b/c POS / “9” and YTB GOP.

Much to our regret, it appears that Adam has shelved his previous plans for a super-duper alliance and replaced it with a boring substitute:

I’ve called for it for sometime, but I think that recent days have made the case all the clearer: there should be a formal alliance between Russia and the United States. Both nations are facing the same enemy: a horde of murderous barbarians determined to assault civilization itself. Both nations shame a common interest: the total annihilation of said enemy. It seems only logical to me that both should come together to achieve that end.

It seems only logical to me = I’m done masturbating to that video of Paris Hilton I downloaded from the internet

US and Russian Intelligence can jointly work against the scourge of weapons of mass destruction, especially the various nuclear materials scattered across the former Soviet Union. Where necessary, US and Russian units could go into battle together.

ok, but only, only, if they call themselves The Ambiguously Gay Duo. And let Adam be called the most fucked up bad ass motherfucker on earth:

How is Russia to do this? Certainly, it will not be easy. I can think of only a single plausible strategy at this point which does not involve the deliberate physical extermination of the entire population of the region. [Emphasis added, lunacy in original.]

Turn all of Chechnya into one giant internment camp.

This is where the American alliance becomes critical. First: the United States can do a great deal to shield Russia from international reproach that goes beyond words. Second, the United States can claim the moral high ground by becoming the foremost provider of aid to the Chechen people.

Adam, we think you may be mentally ill. No, seriously.

It is time to shake off old suspicions. The United States and Russia are natural allies: two great nations, standing side by side, to fight the forces of Hell.

“ADAM YOSHIDA is a Harvard blogger with some interesting observations on the war.” –Instapundit, November 20, 2003.

What Bush means to African-Americans

The GOP’s convention shows that the Republican party is finally willing to admit that blacks just aren’t as talented or competent as whites.

Added: Shorter concept inspired by busy, busy, busy from an idea by D-Squared.

An amusing video from The Daily Show: Zell on Earth.

(It can also be downloaded from here.)

Second link from Frederick’s Beat Bush Blog.