American Hero: Army Ranger Edward Graham
Billy Graham’s grandson, Edward, has been injured in Iraq. Please pray for this American hero.
The Reverend Franklin Graham’s youngest son, an Army Ranger, has been injured in Iraq.
That comes from Franklin Graham, who recently told an audience in Toronto about Captain Edward Graham’s injuries.
A Graham spokesman tells The Charlotte Observer that the 27-year-old West Point graduate got shrapnel in his arms, legs, and back. The spokesman says the injuries were not life-threatening and that Edward Graham was recovering at a hospital.
Graham spokesman Jeremy Blume says the soldier will be fine.
Edward Graham is the grandson of the Reverend Billy Graham.
So much for the lie that well-off families don’t send their children to war. It is a volunteer Armed Forces, remember? Yet Edward chose to enlist. And he was honored even before he graduated from West Point.
God bless Edward Graham, American hero. Get well, and come home safe!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
60 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You have found one example of an upper-classer going off to war and you think it’s a statistical trend?
Where are all of your prayers for the working stiffs who have been murdered?
–Chet
Comment by Chet — March 12, 2007 @ 2:29 pm - March 12, 2007
I second those comments but if he does recover, I doubt he’ll be coming home any time soon .
Comment by Ian — March 12, 2007 @ 2:56 pm - March 12, 2007
I have to hand it to Ian for being so utterly predictable.
I have software that handles the RSS comments like email.. so I see the messgae from Ian come in without seeing the message text itself. I knew right away that somehow there would be some sort of negative comment from him.. and behold ! There is.
Ian: What is it like to go through life trying to looking for the negative aspects of everything?
Comment by Vince P — March 12, 2007 @ 3:13 pm - March 12, 2007
Unfortunately, Vince, Ian’s response is typical of most liberals. They are so consumed with self-loathing and negativity that they have to share it with everyone else.
Their modus operandi is “misery loves company.” (That, and “everyone is equal, but there are some who are more equal than others.” Hat tip – George Orwell)
Regards,
Peter H.
PS – Edward Graham is a stud! HOOAH!!
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 12, 2007 @ 3:25 pm - March 12, 2007
#2:
When it comes to the Iraq occupation, I don’t see a lot of positive aspects. And what was so positive about the original post? That the guy was “only” injured instead of killed? Or maybe it’s the attempt to show that the Republick elite is sacrificing its sons and daughters as much as the average American. I guess it’s the least they can do for all those tax breaks.
Comment by Ian — March 12, 2007 @ 4:11 pm - March 12, 2007
That’s life. What were the positives during the time of the Civil War? What were the positives during the time of WW-II?
Figures you find ways to weasal in your party politics once again.
Thats all you are.. Souless Political Nihilist.
Comment by Vince P — March 12, 2007 @ 4:19 pm - March 12, 2007
Whenever I see Leftists engaging in their illogical emotionalism. I’m going to respond with this:
Check out this speech.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev030507a.cfm
Evan Sayet has been a top Hollywood writer and producer for more than 20 years. His credits range from “The Arsenio Hall Show” to “Politically Incorrect.” After the Sept. 11 attacks, Sayet decided to step from behind the camera and speak out in his own voice – that of one of the nation’s top political satirists. At Heritage, his entertaining yet quite serious lecture will examine the modern liberal “mindset” and how it can lead to siding with evil over good and behaviors that produce failure rather than success
here is a summary about it:
Liberals Have the Mentality of Kindergarteners, Comedian Says
By Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
March 06, 2007
(CNSNews.com) – Liberals are wrong about everything and have the mentality of kindergarteners, in the view of conservative comedian and commentator Evan Sayet.
“The Democrats are wrong on quite literally every issue,” Sayet said at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., on Monday. “They are not just wrong. They are as wrong as wrong can be.
“It’s not just domestic policy. It’s foreign policy. It’s every policy,” he said, adding that liberals are “diametrically opposed to that which is good, right and successful.”
“The modern liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success,” Sayet said.
“How could you possibly live in the freest nation in the history of the world and only see oppression? How could you live in the least imperialist power in human history and see us as the ultimate in imperialism? How can you live in the least bigoted nation in human history … and see racism lurking in every dark shadow?” he asked.
The comedian attributed the trend to a “rejection of all fact, reason, evidence, logic, truth, morality, and decency.”
Sayet also argued that liberals “have the mentality of five-year-olds.”
He said the 1986 Robert Fulghum book, “All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten,” “reads like the bible of modern liberalism and the playbook of Democratic Party policy.”
“‘Don’t hit’ has just become ‘War is not the answer,’” Sayet said.
“If we’re going to save America, we must take back the schools, the universities, the media, [and] the entertainment industry,” he said.
Comment by Vince P — March 12, 2007 @ 4:22 pm - March 12, 2007
#6:
Well, by the time four years had elapsed in the Civil War, the North had won. In less than four years of US involvement in WWII the Allies had won. Four years in Iraq has given us what aside from getting rid of Saddam? An elected pro-Iranian government in Iraq? Better-trained and more effective terrorists? The US bogged down in an unpopular military quagmire, its government widely hated and looking inept?
Comment by Ian — March 12, 2007 @ 5:54 pm - March 12, 2007
#7:
You talking about Bushco now?
Comment by Ian — March 12, 2007 @ 5:55 pm - March 12, 2007
#8 And how long after the civil war did reconstruction continue? Same with WW2. How long did reconstruction take in Japan? How long until they were self governing? Same with anything… Korea?
Oh, how about WW1? That was a dandy, the reparations and reconstruction and long term punishment of the losers was a huge part of WW2. I suppose that you’d say WW1 was over quickly as well?
We’ve been trying to avoid that in Iraq and it was and is the right course to take. It took the US longer than four years to form our government after the Revolutionary war. Far longer. It’s completely unreasonable to claim that we should somehow have been able to be done by now in Iraq.
We *can* defeat Islamic terrorism by fighting against nations with a policy of destruction but it is not in our long term interests in doing so. The attempt at keeping our footprint small is worthwhile but it does make a whole heck of a lot of things harder, too.
Comment by Synova — March 12, 2007 @ 6:05 pm - March 12, 2007
#10:
None of those examples exhibited the full-blown civil war and violent insurgency during their “reconstruction” like we’re seeing in Iraq.
Comment by Ian — March 12, 2007 @ 6:43 pm - March 12, 2007
Ian: Seeing how there are more deaths in American cities than in Iraq I think you’re out of mind to say “full-blown civil war ”
You hve no justification for that statement. More emotionalism. You guys are retarded.
Comment by Vince P — March 12, 2007 @ 7:25 pm - March 12, 2007
It’s pretty spotty in Iraq and there are outside forces pushing for failure besides. Plus… how much did we simply not see after earlier wars? What wasn’t reported? (How long after Vietnam did violence end in SE asia?)
Even without overt strife and without the feeling that if the “insurgency” can just hold on a little longer we’ll give up, working out the kinks of a new form of government and new habits in areas like the courts and police, it would take longer than it has after a war to reach a state of normalcy.
After WW2 an end to fighting was not the end. And wasn’t the Berlin Airlift precisely *because* there was still violence and it was not possible to *drive* to Berlin?)
Four years is not a long time. It just isn’t.
Suppose you were the super magic king of the world and you had to do in Iraq what we are attempting to do. Suppose because you were magic you didn’t make any mistakes at all. How long would it take? Realistically. How long would it take with no mistakes whatsoever to get people used to the idea of equal protection and liberty, to representative government and new approaches to police investigation and justice?
Four years is not a long time. Claiming that four years is proof of failure doesn’t even make sense.
Comment by Synova — March 12, 2007 @ 7:34 pm - March 12, 2007
I have a close friend who is a career Marine officer, conservative, Republican and huge supporter of this war. He served in Iraq, and I’m very happy he came back unharmed. Frankly though, he wanted nothing more than to get out of there and he won’t go back if he can at all help it. I wonder exactly, where is the “stay until the job is done” attitude?
Why is it that these good looking, white guys get trotted out as an example? Pat Tillman (who was killed by friendly fire in 2003) was thrown up in the media for months. Every time his name was mentioned, quite a thing was made of the fact he gave up a multi-million dollar football contract to go do what was right. How many who serve there can say they gave up wealth and privilige to fight? Bet you don’t find many. As much as I know folks here will jump on it, I can’t help thinking of the 2 recruiters in ‘farhenheit 9/11′ who were pretty much stalking the patrons of a downscale shopping center trying to find recruits.
PS – I hope for his health’s sake he ain’t at Walter Reade.
Comment by Kevin — March 12, 2007 @ 7:35 pm - March 12, 2007
kevin: what you said has no bearing on the Jihad. Nice try.
Comment by Vince P — March 12, 2007 @ 7:39 pm - March 12, 2007
#8 Ian, I would point out that we (the Union) won the Civil War and we (Allies) won WW-II by bombing/razing/killing everything in site on the enemy’s side. Remember Dresden? Tokyo? Hiroshima? Atlanta?
I’m certain that we would have complete victory in Iraq is we killed a few million people. It that what you have in mind?
As far as our government being hated… if by France, Russia, Venezuala, Iran, North Korea et al… well, who gives a fig? I really don’t care what the moral paragons in the EU think. It was unilateral action by the US that took out Milosovic; the EU couldn’t be bothered.
Re: Edward Graham and all his comrades… it’s a damn good thing we have people willing to put it all on the line for our benefit – and the benefit of decent people around the world.
Comment by Robert — March 12, 2007 @ 7:46 pm - March 12, 2007
4144
Comment by Vince P — March 12, 2007 @ 7:49 pm - March 12, 2007
I dont know why people who like to parrot every non-lie Bush has told, seem to ignore things he says like this:
“This is the real challenge of the 21st century. I like to tell people we’re in an ideological struggle. And it’s a struggle between extremists and radicals and people of moderation who want to simply live a peaceful life.
And the calling of this country and in this century is whether or not we will help the forces of moderation prevail. That’s the fundamental question facing the United States of America — beyond my presidency. And you can tell I made my choice. And I made my choice because the most solemn duty of the American President and government is to protect this country from harm. ”
What choice have you America-Haters made? What do you stand for?
Comment by Vince P — March 12, 2007 @ 7:50 pm - March 12, 2007
#14 I think that the good looking white guys get trotted out because of the constant charge that the military preys on helpless minorities. If the military was portrayed as tending exclusive to white boys they’d be trotting out hunky men of color.
Comment by Synova — March 12, 2007 @ 7:56 pm - March 12, 2007
More by Evan Sayet:
In my series of lectures entitled “Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals ‘Think’”, I summarize the dominant force in today’s Democratic Party’s philosophy by saying that “in order to eliminate discrimination, the Modern Liberal has opted to become utterly indiscriminate.”
The Modern Liberal is convinced that rational and moral thought is so contaminated by one’s predispositions and prejudices that the only way to eliminate the evils of discrimination from society is to eliminate all thought. It’s why the “think” in the title of my talks is in quotation marks. The reality is that Modern Liberals not only do not think, they consider thought to be an act of evil.
It is for this reason, then, that we must pretend that we do not know who is the most likely next mass murderer as we indiscriminately search the 87-year-old Norwegian great-grandmother with the same vigor as we do the 27-year-old Moslem man, newly arrived from Syria by way of Iran.
This “indiscriminateness” — and the idea that rational and moral thought is a hate crime — was summed up perfectly by a leader of the Democrat State Legislature as he spoke on behalf of a new bill (passed overwhelmingly by the Democrats) that would promote all forms of sexual deviance including not just homosexuality, but bi-sexuality, transvestitism and even beastiality in textbooks for elementary school students throughout the state of California.
In championing this legislation Fabian Nunez, the Assembly Speaker said “The way that you correct a wrong is by outlawing. ‘Cause if you don’t outlaw it, then people’s biases tend to take over and dominate the perspective and the point of view.”
In other words, rational and moral thought must be outlawed — quite literally outlawed — , in favor of a policy that draws no distinctions between heterosexual sex inside of marriage and cross-species sex with a horse.
The problem goes even deeper because indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policy. Instead it sees the Modern Liberal invariably and inevitably side not only with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success, but guarantees that that which is most evil, most failed and/or most wrong is that which the Modern Liberal — the controlling power in today’s Democrat party — champions.
This is because whatever society has come to recognize as superior must be torn down and whatever society recognizes as inferior, wrong, failed or evil, must be elevated in order to reach the level of indiscriminateness. Thus the schools will work to undermine heterosexual marriage and work to bolster homosexuality, beastiality and even necrophelia since, well, how do we know the laws against necrophilia aren’t just a reflection of our bigotry?
It is not a surprise, in fact it could be no other way, then, that in San Francisco — the most Liberal city in America — thousands of people marched down the street recently in favor of Hezbollah, the vicious terrorist organization seeking not only the destruction of the democracy of Israel, but an oppressive Caliphate the world over.
Nor is it surprising to see these same folks championing Tookie Williams, the founder of America’s most vicious and murderous terror gang. Nor is it surprising that in France — the de facto capitol of today’s Democrat party — Jews are murdered on streets named after cop killers and terrorists.
In the schools, the Democrats’ policies seek to promote those students who are the most ignorant and failed (they call it a “social promotion”) while attempting to remove merit as a criterion for awarding the Merit Scholarship (after all, perhaps what we think is meritorious — such as good grades, hard work and being smart — are only thought so because of our bigotries.
It’s why the Democrats adore the United Nations, where there is utter indiscriminateness of thought, with no special rewards for good and free and democratic nations like, say, Australia, nor any special punishments for the most murderous of terror states like The Sudan. Here, too, indiscriminateness of thought does not bring about indiscriminateness of policy, but rather an incessant attack upon one of the great states of the world, Israel.
It is why the leftists push behaviors such as teenage promiscuity that lead to failure while viciously attacking such positive and constructive behaviors such as teenage abstinence. So that while the Democrats in California are promoting homosexuality and bi-sexuality and beastiality, one of the biggest Democratic Party contributors, the pro-abortion group NARAL, holds fundraisers they call “F-ck Abstinence.”
Why would anyone want to “f-ck abstinence?” Because Modern Liberalism is a sick and warped philosophy that leads its adherents — the controlling group in today’s Democrat party — to invariably and inevitably side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.
Comment by Vince P — March 12, 2007 @ 7:58 pm - March 12, 2007
#12:
There are about 50,000 violent deaths per year in the US or about 17 per 100,000 population. In Iraq, a study in The Lancet estimates about 600,000 excess violent deaths in four years or about 150,000 per year or more than 500 per 100,000. So it’s you who would appears to be “out of your mind.”
Comment by Ian — March 12, 2007 @ 8:05 pm - March 12, 2007
The Lacent study was proved to be a fraud. Try again.
Comment by Vince P — March 12, 2007 @ 8:12 pm - March 12, 2007
#20 The Lancet study has serious problems and even anti-war organizations counting deaths in Iraq denounce it. The numbers far far exceed any other numbers collected by those organizations. The listed margin of error is enormous and there is no reason at all to think a stab in the middle is accurate.
There are other anti-war groups keeping track of deaths. They’ve no reason to undercount and they don’t even come close to Lancet.
Comment by Synova — March 12, 2007 @ 8:12 pm - March 12, 2007
#16:
Absolutely not. Is that what you are saying it will take? I would also remind you that the US stayed out of WWII until we were attacked by Japan. Even then, it was uncertain that we would go to war against anyone but Japan. Fortunately, Hitler, by declaring war on us rendered that issue moot. Iraq had not attacked the US so for us so to kill a few million Iraqis would be a monstrous act of barbarism.
Comment by Ian — March 12, 2007 @ 8:13 pm - March 12, 2007
Thank you. We’ll be doing a post in the next few days.
Comment by Operation Yellow Elephant — March 12, 2007 @ 8:27 pm - March 12, 2007
Exactly, Ian.
Which is why we didn’t do that and shouldn’t have done that. Still, if we *had* fought this war the ways that others were fought the country would most certainly be pacified and the “war” part of it most certainly over.
Instead we did *this* which is a bit harder to quantify and a bit mushier in focus and ends up sort of strung out and ambiguous. Still, I think it’s probably better this way, don’t you?
Comment by Synova — March 12, 2007 @ 8:31 pm - March 12, 2007
#22:
Rubbish.
#23:
They may have no reason to undercount but they simply go by what they hear from the media and the government and at least one of those sources does have a reason to undercount. While The Lancet study has a large confidence interval, it still suggests that at a minimum we’re talking several hundred thousand excess deaths since the occupation began. BTW, even the Iraqi government late last year suddenly upped its estimate by a factor of five. Regardless, Vince’s original claim is demonstrably false.
Comment by Ian — March 12, 2007 @ 8:32 pm - March 12, 2007
Lancet scientific fraud exposed?
James Lewis
The Times of London yesterday presented a devastating critique of a scandalously sloppy and politicized article in the famous Lancet medical journal, one of the first medical journals ever printed. The topic? War casualties in Iraq. The Lancet might have done well to remember the old observation that “in war, truth is the first casualty.”
In the overcharged battleground of British politics today, with the Left leading the attack against Tony Blair for his alliance with the Bush Administration, Iraqi casualty estimates vary wildly according to the political biases of the source. Curiously, the editor of the Lancet does not claim to be unbiased — he is passionately anti-war. Nor did the authors of the fraudulent “study,” one of whom was running as a Democrat candidate for political office in the US. Predictably the “study” claimed 650,000 dead Iraqis as a result of the overthrow of Saddam — far and away above other estimates.
If the truth is tough to find in superheated and politicized Britain, it is even harder to find in Iraq itself. The Lancet study claimed to survey households in the middle of a murderous field of battle. Ordinary Iraqis were apparently expected to tell the truth to complete strangers who knocked on their doors, asking about dead and wounded in the household. But Iraqis have just come through thirty years of Saddam, whose minions would slice off the tongues of those they suspected of ratting out the regime. The Saddam thugs are still roaming around, along with al Qaeda types, Mahdists, Sadrists and even weirder sects within sects. The Saudis, the Syrians and Iranians are paying Iraqi gangs to engage in daily mayhem against civilians. The national police are known to be in the hands of the Sadr gang. Then there are just plain crooks roaming the streets, kidnapping people for ransom — and some honest Iraqi and Coalition personnel trying to keep order. Would you even open your door if a stranger knocked under those conditions?
According to Professor Michael Spagat, a statistician from Royal Holloway College, University of London:
“The (Lancet) authors ignore contrary evidence, cherry-pick and manipulate supporting evidence and evade inconvenient questions…
Iraqi households were supposedly selected randomly, but in fact were “randomly” chosen only in “representative” parts of the country. And you can bet that the surveyors stayed out of dangerous neighborhoods. Nobody apparently checked on what they actually did, and they were paid by the number of questionnaires filled out. No doubt they knew perfectly well what their American bosses wanted to hear. It was Baghdad Bob all over again, even with Saddam moldering in his grave.
The Lancet has shamefully fallen from its high standing — a fatal flaw in a journal that depends utterly on its credibility. Fraudulent medical science is almost the norm today in Britain, because socialized medicine inevitably becomes a political football. Medical doctors are employed by the National Health Service, except for those who are moonlighting. Like any other bureaucracy, the medics are always looking for more money, and scare stories are their foremost way to squeeze the taxpayer.
So we see a long series of medical media frauds, like the decade-long scare campaign about Mad Cow disease, which never showed more than a dozen proven deaths but did great damage to British agriculture. (The French, interestingly, had their own infected cattle, but merely covered up the facts and kept on merrily eating brain meat, which was supposed to be deadly.). Then there is the annual bird flu panic headline, and regular politicized articles in the British Medical Journal, which has lost even more credibility than the Lancet. In Britain, the land of Newton, Harvey and Darwin, science has become a politicized mess.
The biggest mistake the Lancet made was publishing anything at all. It is a cardinal rule in scientific journals to publish only rigorously tested evidence. If there is no sensible way to obtain such evidence, don’t publish anything at all. Instead, the editor decided that even a plainly fraudulent study would have to do. Chances are that the editor chose politically biased reviewers, to give their stamp of approval to a great deception. And it worked — if you see it as a piece of propaganda. As science, it was a sink-in-the-ground embarrassment.
The Lancet is now feeling the heat, and rightly so. It will never recover its credibility until it returns to decent science. It is far too easy to spot flagrant frauds.
Comment by Vince P — March 12, 2007 @ 8:41 pm - March 12, 2007
http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/10979-fraud-lancet-study.html
Professor Spagat says the Lancet paper contains misrepresentations of mortality figures suggested by other organisations, an inaccurate graph, the use of the word “casualties” to mean deaths rather than deaths plus injuries, and the perplexing finding that child deaths have fallen. Using the “three-to-one rule” – the idea that for every death, there are three injuries – there should should be close to two million Iraqis seeking hospital treatment, which does not tally with hospital reports…
Professor Gilbert Burnham, Dr Les Roberts and Dr Shannon Doocy at the Centre for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, decided to work through Iraqi doctors, who speak the language and know the territory…
Dr [Richard] Garfield also queries the high availability of death certificates. Why, he asks, did the team not simply approach whoever was issuing them to estimate mortality, instead of sending interviewers into a war zone?…
Another critic is Dr Madelyn Hsaio-Rei Hicks, of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, who specialises in surveying communities in conflict. In her letter to the Lancet, she pointed out that it was unfeasible for the Iraqi interviewing team to have covered 40 households in a day, as claimed. She wrote: “Assuming continuous interviewing for ten hours despite 55C heat, this allows 15 minutes per interview, including walking between households, obtaining informed consent and death certificates.”…
Professor Burnham says the doctors worked in pairs and that interviews “took about 20 minutes”. The journal Nature, however, alleged last week that one of the Iraqi interviewers contradicts this. Dr Hicks says: : “I have started to suspect that they [the American researchers] don’t actually know what the interviewing team did. The fact that they can’t rattle off basic information suggests they either don’t know or they don’t care.”
Comment by Vince P — March 12, 2007 @ 8:56 pm - March 12, 2007
There are two reasons to suspect that the sample was not random, and one of those reasons suggests that the sample was biased in a way that exaggerates the death toll.
First, the Lancet study, like all such studies, estimates not how many people have died, but rather the difference between how many people died in a comparable period before the invasion and how many people have died since the invasion. As the study puts it, 655,000 is roughly the number of deaths “above the number that would be expected in a non-conflict situation.”
In any such study, it’s crucial that the base-line number—deaths before the invasion—is correct. The Lancet study’s base-line number is dubious.
Based on the household surveys, the report estimates that, just before the war, Iraq’s mortality rate was 5.5 per 1,000. (That is, for every 1,000 people, 5.5 die each year.) The results also show that, in the three and a half years since the war began, this rate has shot up to 13.3 per 1,000. So, the “excess deaths” amount to 7.8 (13.3 minus 5.5) per 1,000. They extrapolate from this figure to reach their estimate of 655,000 deaths.
However, according to data from the United Nations, based on surveys taken at the time, Iraq’s preinvasion mortality rate was 10 per 1,000. The difference between 13.3 and 10.0 is only 3.3, less than half of 7.8.
Does that mean that the post-invasion death toll is less than half of 655,000? Not necessarily. You can’t just take the data from one survey and plug them into another survey. Maybe the Hopkins survey understated post-invasion deaths as much as it understated preinvasion deaths—in which case, the net effect is nil. Maybe not. Either way, it should have been clear to the data-crunchers that something was wrong with the numbers for preinvasion and post-invasion deaths, since they were derived from the same survey.
“When you get these large discrepancies between your own results and results that are already well-established, you recrunch your numbers or you send your survey team back into the field to widen your sample,” Beth Osborne Daponte, a demographer at Yale University who has worked on many studies of this sort, told me in a phone interview. “Obviously, they couldn’t do that here. It’s too dangerous. But that doesn’t change the point. You need to triangulate your data”—to make sure they match other data, or, if they don’t, to figure out why. “They didn’t do that.”
(If the Hopkins researchers want to claim that their estimate is more reliable than the United Nations’, they will have to prove the point. It is also noteworthy that, if Iraq’s preinvasion mortality rate really was 5.5 per 1,000, it was lower than that of almost every country in the Middle East, and many countries in Western Europe.)
This flaw—or discrepancy—doesn’t tell you whether 655,000 is too high, too low, or (serendipitously) just right. It just tells you that something about the number is almost certainly off.
However, the second flaw suggests that the number is almost certainly too high.
A joint research team led by physicists Sean Gourley and Neil Johnson of Oxford University and economist Michael Spagat at Royal Holloway University in London noticed the second flaw. In a statement released Thursday (and reported in today’s issue of the journal Science), they charged that the Lancet study is “fundamentally flawed”—and in a way that systematically overstates the death toll.
The Lancet study, in its section on methodology, notes that the teams picked the houses they would survey from a “random selection of main streets,” defined as “major commercial streets and avenues.” (Italics added.) They also chose from a “list of residential streets crossing” those main streets.
The Oxford-Holloway team calls this method “main street bias.” They add:
Main street bias inflates casualty rates since conflict events such as car bombs, drive-by shootings, artillery strikes on insurgent positions, and marketplace explosions gravitate toward the same neighborhood types that the [Lancet] researchers surveyed. …
In short, the closer you are to a main road, the more likely you are to die in violent activity. So if researchers only count people living close to a main road, then it comes as no surprise they will over-count the dead.
Whether or not the Hopkins researchers were aware of this flaw, or its importance, is unclear. An exchange of e-mails with Gilbert Burnham, the study’s chief researcher, raises some disturbing questions about this matter. (Click here for the details.)
Comment by Vince P — March 12, 2007 @ 9:04 pm - March 12, 2007
What makes the guy a hero? Being wounded? Sorry, not enough.
Comment by Willy — March 12, 2007 @ 9:49 pm - March 12, 2007
Wow, willy.. a classy person, not believing that another person is a hero, would normally just keep quiet about it.
Comment by Vince P — March 12, 2007 @ 9:52 pm - March 12, 2007
Willy confirms the opinion of the guy I cited above:
This is because whatever society has come to recognize as superior must be torn down and whatever society recognizes as inferior, wrong, failed or evil, must be elevated in order to reach the level of indiscriminateness
Comment by Vince P — March 12, 2007 @ 9:54 pm - March 12, 2007
#28-30: Good grief, you could have simply provided the appropriate link(s). Suffice it to say, none of the criticisms in any way suggest “fraud” by the researchers nor do they establish any significant flaw in how the research was done that would reduce the estimate in any gross way. Indeed, at best the criticisms are scattershot. For example:
If true, wouldn’t this suggest that the estimate was actually understated? In any event, the methodology used was sound and has been accepted and used in many other similar circumstances. Darfur is one example. You’ll have to do much better before your smear of “fraud” can be taken seriously.
Comment by Ian — March 12, 2007 @ 10:17 pm - March 12, 2007
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that he supports the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving in the military because homosexuality is “immoral” and on par with having an extramarital affair.
Addressing the controversial policy as part of a wide-ranging interview with the Tribune in Chicago, Pace said the military should not “condone” immoral behavior by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly. He said his views were based on his “upbringing,” in which certain types of conduct were thought to be immoral.
“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts…,” Pace said, while also calling it immoral for military members to commit adultery with another service member’s spouse. “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in anyway.
Comment by shock — March 12, 2007 @ 10:21 pm - March 12, 2007
Edward Graham, a great young America serving his country……
as to the war in Iraq, saddam is gone so are an estimated 70,000 terrorists and bad guys and the number continues to grow………….
iraq pulls the crazies in to the slaughter………..we need to eliminate them overthere so there will be fewer to deal with here……..
as to volunteering, after 9/11 I tried to volunteer but none of the armed services would not take me due to my age………….
chet and ian, yall do not have the right to bitch about our soldiers…..until you join…….then you will have the proper basis to espouse your beliefs…….
The Texican.
Comment by The Texican. — March 12, 2007 @ 10:57 pm - March 12, 2007
#26:
I would have preferred we not invade Iraq in the first place. But we are where we are and there aren’t any really good options left: basically stay or leave. You think it’s better to stay, I think it’s better to leave. Dozens of arguments pro and con. Under ordinary circumstances, it might be a 50:50 proposition as to which is better. But in light of the ineptitude this administration has displayed throughout this Iraq fiasco, I am confident that getting out of Iraq ASAP is the better strategy for the US. I mean they might even screw that up but oh well.
Now this is not directed at you but I do have to wonder who really has the confidence in their position: the ones who argue calmly and factually their side or those that label folks who don’t toe the party line as defeatist and traitors?
Comment by Ian — March 12, 2007 @ 11:05 pm - March 12, 2007
What will happen when we leave if we left today?
Comment by Vince P — March 12, 2007 @ 11:11 pm - March 12, 2007
And this sounds like better than 50/50 odds to me
Jihadist Meltdown
BY NIBRAS KAZIMI
March 12, 2007
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/50244
There is always a moment during a raging battle when one side realizes that the field has been won, and the other side collapses in retreat and confusion. The curious thing about the Iraqi insurgency is that this moment has arrived, yet both the victors, in this case the Americans and the Iraqi government, and the losers, Al Qaeda and the other jihadist groups, are reluctant to acknowledge it.
But make no mistake, the battle has been turned and we are witnessing the beginning of a jihadist meltdown.
Six months ago, many of the strategists behind the Sunni insurgency, faced with a more effective counterinsurgency effort, began to wonder just how long they could keep their momentum given their diminishing resources and talent. These strategists realized that their “resistance” would just peter out over time, as classical insurgencies tend to do. Some argued that, given one last push, the Americans would be sufficiently distressed to grab at cease-fire negotiations that would end with a hasty American withdrawal, leaving the insurgents to work things out with a much-weakened Iraqi government on more favorable terms.
Others, like Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the organization founded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, saw that there was no future for their vision of establishing a Taliban-like state should these negotiations with the Americans get underway, which would only serve to strengthen the hand of the rival insurgent factions that counsel this course.
This sense that they were running out of time compelled Al Qaeda to take a bold initiative of declaring the establishment of the Islamic State of Iraq four months back, appointing the hitherto unknown Abu Omar al-Baghdadi as its head. This was no propaganda stunt for Al Qaeda. This was the real thing: the nucleus state for the caliphate, with al-Baghdadi as the candidate caliph.
But this was a fatal strategic mistake for Al Qaeda, a mistake that threatens to pull down all the other jihadist insurgent groups along with it. Al Qaeda tried to leap over reality, but it was a leap into the abyss of uncertainty. Trying to pick a caliph is fraught with historical and judicial complications since there is no historical precedent — not even from the time of the Prophet Muhammad — that would serve for an uncontroversial transfer of power. It is one of the most delicate ideological matters among jihadists, a matter so sensitive that most of them have decided to leave it aside for the time being lest it result in splintering off dissenters.
[lot more snipped.. go to the page and read it]
http://talisman-gate.blogspot.com/2007/03/jihadist-meltdown.html
Comment by Vince P — March 12, 2007 @ 11:15 pm - March 12, 2007
#31 and #32, I appreciate the man’s service, but I think “hero” is a vastly overused word. Being wounded in combat is not, in and of itself, heroic. We give people Purple Heart medals for being wounded. Lots of Purple Hearts. When you call everyone a hero, you debase the currency.
Comment by Willy — March 13, 2007 @ 12:24 am - March 13, 2007
The US bogged down in an unpopular military quagmire, its government widely hated and looking inept?
So pull the funding. Libs need to whip their dicks out (if they have any), slap it on the table and cut the funding. They claim a mandate for pushing defeat after 2006. When are they going to follow through?
quite a thing was made of the fact he gave up a multi-million dollar football contract to go do what was right.
And the liberals trashed him incessantly for it.
PS – I hope for his health’s sake he ain’t at Walter Reade.
Sooo you have a problem with government run healthcare now?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 13, 2007 @ 1:40 am - March 13, 2007
As for popularity amongst our “allies”, does anybody really want a leader who will bend over and grab his ankles?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 13, 2007 @ 1:41 am - March 13, 2007
#38:
I don’t know and neither do you. I will say that an orderly redeployment of American forces now compared to a less than orderly evacuation later may not be as grim as we’ve been led to believe. The fact of the matter is that the US has never been willing to invest the treasure, time and lives to have a chance at establishing a stable western-style democracy in Iraq. The US is even less willing four years into the quagmire that the neocons expected to be another Granada. That’s a basic fact and piddly escalations don’t alter that. Especially if the “new” strategies are planned by the same incompetent leaders as before.
Comment by Ian — March 13, 2007 @ 10:13 am - March 13, 2007
Ian: you better adjust now to the fact that we’re going to be in Iraq for a very very long time.
We do know what will happen.. the same thing that happened when we toppled Saddam… yet a deep power vacuum, sucking in every force of evil and death.
Plus you will give Al Qadia the impression they beat the 2nd Power (the first being the Soviet Union), confirming Allah is on thier side. That will be our kiss of death.
Comment by Vince P — March 13, 2007 @ 12:00 pm - March 13, 2007
“The liberals” won’t be doing the redeploying. The military will do that on its own, because the surge is doomed to failure. Petraeus told Sen. Gordon Smith, R-OR, that it has a 25% chance of working, and that’s from the guy whose job it is to be optimistic. The current “success” in Baghdad is nothing more than the insurgents lying low while the tanks are in the streets. Take them away, and five minutes later the place will explode.
The military is already working on the fallback plan, which involves a modified “El Salvador strategy,” i.e., one in which the U.S. troops fall back out of harm’s way and protect their own enclaves and particular points like the oil fields.
As a Democrat, the only political thing that I worry about is that our side will get sucked into fund-cutoff mode and thereby be seen as the ones who caused the defeat. The thing to do is to make clear that Democrats disapprove, and then watch as events take their course.
There really isn’t anything more Democrats can do anyway, given that the commander in chief is a Republican who is determined not to listen to anyone else. There’s really no need to do a whole lot more than make constant noise on the opposing side, because events are going to drive this.
For the past five years, Bush has gotten everything he wanted. This is his war and his defeat. The Democrats have to be sure that, now Bush has made his bed, he lies in it. All alone, for all to see.
Comment by Willy — March 13, 2007 @ 7:22 pm - March 13, 2007
So pull the funding. Libs need to whip their dicks out (if they have any), slap it on the table and cut the funding.
+++++++++++
this would make for a very sickening sight and turn most of Congresses stomaches………th elibs could sell tickets and raise millions for the dems, though………
Comment by The Texican. — March 13, 2007 @ 11:02 pm - March 13, 2007
No need to cut the funding, Texican. Your president made his bed, now he can lie in it.
Comment by Willy — March 14, 2007 @ 3:02 am - March 14, 2007
And of course, Willy is wrong again (but what else is new).
It turns out that the Democrats’ 2008 budget basically keeps military funding intact, as well as the Bush tax cuts through 2010!
Yeah, these Dems sure know how to govern all right. Boy, they know how to stand up to this president, heheheh….
I bet the Kossacks and DummiesUnderground will really be hoppin mad. Feel free to tell us what they say, Willy, won’t you?
Be free. Free, Willy, free!
(Sorry, couldn’t resist. :-p)
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 14, 2007 @ 9:18 am - March 14, 2007
Peter, unlike you and the Cabins here, I’m not any sort of knee-jerk promoter of any party including my own. There are plenty of things about the Democratic Party to criticize. But I prefer to criticize what matters, and to look at things rationally.
The federal budget, for example, is a presidential concoction. Congress hasn’t written budgets for 100 years or so. Presidents, regardless of their party, get well over 95% of what they ask for when it comes to budgets. Congress only tinkers around the edges.
Sometimes it can be significant, such as when the Republicans cut one-third of the funding for the Securities & Exchange Commission’s enforcement activities during the 1990s, opening the way for the dot-com frauds, or when Congress loaded up the budget during the Bush years will an unusual level of so-called “earmarks.”
Nevertheless, budgets start and end with a president and his administration. Similarly, the president is the military’s commander-in-chief. Congress can’t run the wars. The most it can do, as a practical matter, is excerise oversight and advisory powers. Those who hold the Democrats to a standard equal to that of the president are engaging in political gamesmanship.
What Democrats need to do is make certain that the public understands this. The country is embroiled in Bush’s war. It will be until Bush leaves office. And afterwards, because the vast majority of Democrats realize that, regardless of who’s in power, you can’t yank the U.S. military out of there in one fell swoop. Unless, of course, things get so bad between now and Jan. 20, 2009 that U.S. helicopters are seen taking off from the roof of that new embassy in Baghdad.
I doubt it will happen and I hope it doesn’t, but it could.
Comment by Willy — March 14, 2007 @ 12:48 pm - March 14, 2007
“There are plenty of things about the Democratic Party to criticize. But I prefer to criticize what matters, and to look at things rationally.”
Translation – I can’t see the mess in my own backyard, so I’ll just criticize the neighbor who has been on the block the longest.
Willy, lay off those Oompa-Loompas and Scrumdillyumshus because I think all of those sweets are giving you a sugar rush. Which in turn leads to incorrect postings with wrong stats and figures.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 14, 2007 @ 3:54 pm - March 14, 2007
1. Was this guy fighting in Iraq for my rights to be treated equally at home or was he in Iraq so that people can deny me my basic freedom at home?
2. Was this guy fighting in Iraq so that Iraqis can live in freedom or was he there to spread the rubbish that is called the “Bibble” and made it difficult for Iraqi to workship their Gods?
Unless the answers are clear, those wishing him well are a bunch of fools. If he fought in Iraq so that my kind can be called evil, immoral at home and to make it easier for my kind to be denied the most basic human rights, then I’ll wish him pain and suffering… Otherwise, I’ll thank him and wish him well.
Judging from the way he was raised, I doubt the former of my 2 questions are true. If he doesn’t care enough to speak up for the plights of gays and lesbians, I don’t care enough to wish him anything!!!!
Comment by FullertonAsnGuy — March 16, 2007 @ 8:28 pm - March 16, 2007
What is the Bibble?
And the people of Iraq are Monotheist not Polytheist.
Do you know anything about Iraq or Islam?
Comment by Vince P — March 16, 2007 @ 8:45 pm - March 16, 2007
Wow… A typo comeback!!! Brilliant!!!
The Bibble is the twisted sadistic version of the Bible that have been used to shove up the a[edited]s of the people around the world by the likes of Faggard, Mohler, etc… The extra *b* stands for *bastardized*
And no, Islam is not the only religion of the Iraqis. There are many religions and many Gods there: Judaism, Christianity, Yazdanism, Zoroastrianism, Mandaeans (from wikipedia) to name a few.
Now that you have sufficiently demonstrated that you are clueless about what’s going on in Iraq, keep on drinking the koolaid and step aside so adults can discuss serious matters here.
Comment by FullertonAsnGuy — March 16, 2007 @ 9:30 pm - March 16, 2007
Fullerton: How is the Koran organized? Ill give you a few minutes.
Comment by Vince P — March 16, 2007 @ 9:44 pm - March 16, 2007
I didn’t think you knew the answer.
This is to all the Leftists out there who think name calling is a sufficient response to what I say…
Until you know even the basics of Islam none of you have justification to say that I dont know what I’m talking about. Not that truth ever mattered to you frauds.
Comment by Vince P — March 16, 2007 @ 9:51 pm - March 16, 2007
Um… Why does this guy keep on quizzing me about the Qur’an?
Where in my post did I say anything about the *Koran*? I’m sure it is as bloodthirsty and sadistic as the *Bibble* or any other Abrahamic faiths’ texts. My post is not about the Qur’an.
I simply ask people to stop drinking the koolaid, take a step back and find out what this toothy Edward Graham guy is all about before doling out kudos and wellwishes. Is he there sacrificing his life to protect the freedom of every body at home and to help Iraqis live in freedom. Or is he there to enforce his faith at home and to spread the cesspool of filth and degenerative moral values that is called Christianity abroad?
Like I said, if the former is right, I would thank him and wish him well. But judging from the way he was raised plus there is no mention of his works to bring freedom and human rights to gays and lesbians, I’m pretty sure the latter is right. Correct me please if I’m wrong about his contributions to ease the plights of gays and lesbians.
PS: I couldn’t resist this childish taunt. But What the f[edited] is the Koran? If you know anything about the *Koran*, you’ll know it’s not called *Koran*!!!!!
Comment by FullertonAsnGuy — March 17, 2007 @ 2:01 pm - March 17, 2007
You get quizzed about the Koran because obviously if you dont know what it says then you dont have all the information you need to make decisions. You certainly dont have a basis to compare it to other things either. You have to know things about it in order to compare it.
Since you dont know anything about it , nothing you say should be listened to because you pull it out of your ass and is not based on facts.
I spell it the way I do because of my preference. Its more imporant to know what it actually says. Which you dont. You protest on aesthetics just shows how bankrupt you are.
Comment by Vince P — March 17, 2007 @ 7:08 pm - March 17, 2007
Um… Dictator V. Pervert just passed a new law requiring people to master the Qur’an and didn’t tell any body about it? This is America, not Saudi. People don’t make decisions based on the Qur’an here.
Who told you I’m comparing the Qur’an with anything? Didn’t you know how to read?
The thing that came out of your ass is the idea of me talking anything about the Qur’an. Put on your glasses and read my posts again. I posted 2 questions about this *hero* Edward Graham guy. Answer them if you know anything about him. Otherwise, get to the koolaid table and let adults discuss serious matters here.
The reason you spelled the Qur’an *Koran* was because you’re a pretentious idiot who didn’t even have a clue how to write the name of this Islamic holy book let alone knowing anything about it.
Comment by FullertonAsnGuy — March 18, 2007 @ 2:27 am - March 18, 2007
Ah.. attack the person you disagree with , because you cant counter with facts.
You weren’t asked to make decisions. You were making comparasions.
You kept raising things like the Bible and Christianity. That is a comparasion.
I know plenty about it. which is why I quized you. If you knew the answer, you would immediately know why the question I asked was very pertitant. The answer to my question is not one that could be answered unless one has read it. You dont know anything about it. Perhaps other than your PC insistant on transliteration of the title.
I await your insults in reply.
Comment by Vince P — March 20, 2007 @ 1:53 pm - March 20, 2007
Another empty comeback. This braying know it all fraud loves to tell people he knows everything but yet clueless about the answers to these two simple questions
1. Was this Edward Graham fighting in Iraq for my rights to be treated equally at home or was he in Iraq so that people can deny me my basic freedom at home?
2. Was this guy there sacrificing his life to protect the freedom of every body at home and to help Iraqis live in freedom. Or is he there to enforce his faith at home and to spread the cesspool of filth and degenerative moral values that is called Christianity abroad?
And the fact that you don’t even know how to write the name of the Qur’an shows how much you know about the Qur’an. You can stop pretending now. Keep the Koolaid flowing!!
Comment by FullertonAsnGuy — April 21, 2007 @ 1:24 am - April 21, 2007