Jarrett's so adorable when he's being gullible as hell:
Kate got to it first...
...but I'll repost it here, from Drudge:
Iraqis think life is getting better. Not only that, but
# They say life is better than under Saddam Hussein
# This, in spite of the fact that one in four has lost someone to the violence. Think about that.
# A two-thirds majority disagrees with the notion that Iraq is in a civil war
# Most of the violence is still concentrated in Baghdad and Sunni-held areas, so there's even more progress being made in the south.
Wow. Things are getting better in Iraq -- a poll says so. Yee ha. Hang on, though. What's this that Jarrett is claiming? "They say life is better than under Saddam Hussein."
"They?" Who is this "they?" The Iraqis? All of them? Every single one? Why, no:
But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.
Ah, so it's not "they," it's just "most." Yeah, Jarrett, there's a wee bit of difference between the claims of that poll and your glib and misleading summary of it. For your sake, I hope you're not taking statistical analysis there at UVic. That's the sort of thing they generally frown on in the halls of academia.
Just a friendly heads up, 'cuz that's the kind of guy I am.
8 comments:
Ooooooooh, good catch, man. Way to make the big distinction.
Canadian Cynic: Winning the war...one picayune moronic issue at a time.
So the best thing that wankers like Anonymous can say is that life in Iraq now is better than life in a dictator-run police state?
Well, sure. I can see that. But by what objective standard could life in Iraq today be considered good? Or acceptable?
Hey! Only one in four people has had a family member murdered! Mission accomplished! (By the way, they must have mighty big families if the civilian death toll remains at 50,000... that's the last number I remembering Bush using...)
Is it "Good News From Iraq" time again? I haven't seen the righty squawking points for next week yet, so I'm not sure.
I've actually been at UVic, in stats (graduate level), and saying "they" isn't at all out of line here, if the poll is accurate. That's how these things are sumamrized. When 60% of a group say something, "they" applies. If 60% of Americans say they believe in something (not voting, perhaps?), in general teerms, you could say "they". Not in an actual statistical report mind you, but at the media level, I don't see the problem. Of course, you have no reason to believe I'm actually qualified in this area (but since I don't generally make a nuisance of myself here, and don't plan to), but that's my professional opinion.
Now, is the poll being reported accurately? The source Fox News (red flag, but I'll carry on) pointed me to was
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece
So let's see...49% think life is better than when under Saddam. So "most" doesn't even apply there. It was the most popular answer (it's worse, no difference), but that's not a "most" or a "they". I'd let anything over 50% slide on a technicality, but 49% != most. In true wanker fashion, this just isn't a trick of semantics they're using, it's an outright lie. Remember, wankers, "life is no worse" CANNOT be counted as "life is better".
Also, I'm not clear how an opinion survey tells you where most of the violence is happening. A hugely important thing here is that the surveyors miss two vitally importnat groups, unless they literally put there lives on the line in the service of Statistics. First group : those that live in horribly violent areas the surveyors can't reach. Second group : those that left the counrty already fleeing the horrific violence. I'm not sure the first group adds up to a huge %, but from what I've read, the second one sure does. May want to ask them if they thought things were better.
For a further view, another survey was released today, I find it at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-03-18-iraq-poll_N.htm?POE=NEWISVA
Not as cheery a survey, but it does appear to be a different one (sample sizes way different)
I'd also like to point out that it is possible that things will get (or even are already getting) better in Iraq, but it will be despite the current US/British policies, not because of them. And at this point, I don't care. If 100's of people a day can stop blowing themselves to shit somewhere, I'm happy no matter who takes the credit.
Funny how a statistical study in The Lancet can be dismissed out of hand, but some FOXNews poll gets trotted out as the definitive word on conditions in Iraq.
They have zero credibility and some of 'em are starting to pick up on that.
As Aweb says, the wankers (or as I call them, inveterate liars) like, above all, Kate McMillan are far more interested in supporting an agenda that has very little to do with their welfare than analysing a population survey carefully to understand what it really means for the people whose welfare is at stake.
Bottom line...Kate McMillan does not give a rat's ass about the people in Iraq. I'd have long ago forgiven Kate on the basis that she's simply uneducated and not very bright, but that's clearly not the case. She's a liar (probably paid).
Jarrett should be ashamed for linking to her.
No, foot-soldiers like KKKate aren't paid.
They come by their racism, gullibility, self-delusion, naturally, ... and lying to (attempt to) cover it up becomes second nature.
They might imagine that their loyalty will take them places, but they really are that clueless.
Well why hasn't she had a psychotic break yet? Surely, that kind of untreated psychopathy can't continue for that long.
Of course, I have no proof, but I really do suspect there must be some material reason for her to be cutting and pasting Republican/Pajamas Media propaganda on her site and hosting that troll-fest/virtual pogrom day in and day out.
Post a Comment