Friday, July 27, 2007

Latest on the Lancet agitprop about Iraqi deaths

What fun! Courtesy of Michelle Malkin, there is a scholarly paper here by a statistical mathematician which finds that the "600,000 Iraqi deaths" paper published in 2004 in Lancet is internally inconsistent. Using the paper's own figures, the statistician shows that the authors cannot conclude anything from their "research".

The original paper was so out of line with normal survey methodology that those of us who are experienced in survey research pointed that out long ago but it is interesting to see the same point absolutely demonstrated. It is another example of Lancet prostituting their medical reputation to make political points. They obviously did not do a proper peer review on the paper before they accepted it and that may well be because they were so out of their field that they did not know how to do a proper review of a survey research paper. They should stick to medicine.

It may be noted that the authors of the paper refuse to release their raw data -- a most unusual thing for scientists to do. It suggests that the "research" was a fraud from beginning to end -- rather like the Mann "hockeystick" finding in climate science -- a finding that the IPCC no longer mentions!

Something Michelle seems to have overlooked, however, is that there seems to have been an attempt by Lancet to redact what they originally published. The paper Michelle cites is a version that says only 100,000 Iraqis died. Whereas the original paper said that 654,965 Iraqis died. Is this an admission? Does even Lancet now concede that they goofed? The plot thickens!



Hillary a self-declared Fascist? She denies she is a liberal and says she is a "progressive": "I prefer the word `progressive,' which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century". I believe her. But the early 20th century American progressives were Fascists. Don't believe it? All the details are here

But who do these guys speak for? "In a historic first, an Arab League delegation came to Jerusalem on Wednesday to promote a plan for peace with Israel, saying it offers the country "security, recognition and acceptance" by its Middle East neighbors. Such a visit - and offer - once would have been unimaginable, but was greeted now with little public fanfare, pushed well down on the evening TV news by a public sector strike and a row involving Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Led by the foreign ministers of Egypt and Jordan, the Arab delegation was taken deep into Israel's political heartland. The delegates saw the prime minister and the president and visited parliament, bringing a proposal for full recognition of Israel by the Arab and Islamic world in return for Israel's withdrawal from all lands captured in the 1967 Middle East war"

Elitist Democrat contempt for the little guy: ""Despite overwhelming support in and out of Congress, legal protection for airline passengers who report suspicious behavior is being blocked by Democratic leaders. Wasn't one 9/11 enough for them? Were it not for the courage and sacrifice of the passengers of United Flight 93 who forced their plane into a Pennsylvania field, many in Congress might not be here today, with a gaping hole where the U.S. Capitol still stands. We wonder if this fact is appreciated by those trying to block final passage of the so-called `John Doe' provision protecting from legal action those who report suspicious behavior on airplanes. Today's passengers have an advantage. They know what can happen. They know what to look for. They will not be taken by surprise, and they are willing to take action. But some in Congress would sacrifice their lives on the altar of political correctness. Last November, six Muslim imams leaving an Islamic conference were removed from U.S. Airways Flight 300 in Minneapolis when passengers reported that the imams had acted in suspicious ways. Both U.S. Airways and the passengers soon became targets of legal action charging discrimination and racial profiling... So [in] March, the House of Representatives passed by a 304-121 vote the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007, with language protecting from such lawsuits airline passengers who might report suspicious activity. All seemed well. But last week, as Republicans tried to have the `John Doe' protection included in final homeland security legislation crafted by a House-Senate conference committee to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, they found Democratic conferees blocking its inclusion."

Idiotic rural socialism: ""House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signed off Friday on a five-year farm bill that would keep multibillion-dollar subsidies flowing to cotton, corn and a handful of other crops, deeply disappointing Bay Area food and environmental activists who had hoped that Congress might shift federal farm policy this year to combat obesity, air and water pollution and industrial farming.... The bill comes during the most prosperous era American agriculture has seen in decades as crop prices and farm income approach or set record highs."

British navy not to be scrapped after all: "The go-ahead was given yesterday for the construction of two 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers as big as the QE2, but the Royal Navy will have to wait until 2014 for the first one - two years behind previous projections. Under government planning announced nearly ten years ago, the two new large aircraft carriers for the Navy were supposed to come into service in 2012 and 2015. The ageing and smaller carriers they are replacing, HMS Invincible, HMS Ark Royal, and HMS Illustrious, were to be taken out of service by 2013. However, senior defence officials said the new in-service date for the first of the large carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth, was now expected to be 2014, and the second ship, HMS Prince of Wales,in 2016. In the past the Government insisted that the 2012 date for the first carrier was "nonnegotiable". The delay means that the current carriers will stay in service for longer to prevent a huge gap in the Armed Forces' expeditionary capability."

Reactionary Leftists support an obsolete transport system yet again: "The House on Tuesday rejected moves by conservatives to cut taxpayer subsidies for Amtrak as backers of the money-losing passenger railroad cemented their position in the Democratic Congress. The move came as the House easily passed a $104 billion measure funding transportation and housing programs for the budget year beginning Oct. 1. That vote was 268-153, enough to sustain a promised veto by President Bush. The key Amtrak vote came as the House emphatically dismissed a move by Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., to eliminate Amtrak's nearly $500 million operating subsidy. The vote was 328-94. Flake argued that subsidies of more than $400 per passenger on the most inefficient money-losing routes demonstrate that cross-country train travel no longer makes economic sense. "There is not any passenger rail system anywhere in this world that operates without some operating subsidy," countered Rep. John Olver, D-Mass., who credited Amtrak with squeezing fat from its operations. Overall, the bill contains almost $1.5 billion for Amtrak, with $925 million for capital and debt service."


List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here


"Why should the German be interested in the liberation of the Jew, if the Jew is not interested in the liberation of the German?... We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time... In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.... Indeed, in North America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its unambiguous and normal expression that the preaching of the Gospel itself and the Christian ministry have become articles of trade... Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist". Who said that? Hitler? No. It was Karl Marx. See also here and here and here.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialistisch) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party".


No comments: