|
Lawry, You can apologize after I’ve finished. Meantime, thank you for
comment about my insights. Here are some. However, answer them with facts that
disprove my assertions. Saying I’m ignorant doesn’t help. You
should prove me ignorant – which you have done on occasion. I suppose the “epithets” refer to “bleeding heart
liberals and treehuggers”. I don’t think I’ve ever used those terms seriously in my
life. I could have said the IBC people were anti-war Liberals and possibly
pacifists. Instead I joked – thereby confirming their credentials. But,
the joke was against the phrase. It is a meaningless cliché. Maybe Futurists
are so busy viewing doom-filled futures that they have no time for laughter. If it really bothered you, let me immediately apologize. It
wasn’t a great quip and it meant little to me, even though I have
been a liberal for maybe 57 years. Unfortunately, modern “liberals” have shied away from
Liberal principles - replacing individual freedom with collective security and
raising charity above justice. You said: “You are so dismissive of materials
that contradict your world view, Harry. To call the JHU study
‘political” is beyond silly; it is flat out ignorant. And as long
as you maintain this stance, you will not be able to understand how the world
works, or why it reacts the way it does.” First, the overview: The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health was the lead backer of the program. They provided the
funding along with the Center for
International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies. Although
the Center is listed separately, it is actually another bit of JHU and part of
Bloomberg. The Center deals with Emergencies and Disasters – not war
(maybe the war is considered a disaster). Why listed separately? Perhaps they
wanted to give an impression of several different funding sources. Third source of funds was the Small
Arms Survey in I have no idea why the Small Arms Survey is part of this. Its job is to
survey small arms. That’s all. The main backer of the Project is the Bloomberg. This seems to be
concerned with such urgent matters as: ‘Infection in PA Hospitals’ ‘Baby Diseases’ ‘Cot Deaths’ ‘Bird Flu’ and ‘Soda Pop Warnings’ Oh, and ‘Estimating Civilian Casualties in Actually, I couldn’t find anything about the Casualty Project on
their website – but I probably missed it. My hypothesis was that the Project was rushed through in order to
publish it before the election thereby condemning Bush and the Clever and sophisticated mathematics cannot make wrong things right. As
Ayn Rand would say “Examine your premises.” I think the GIGO looms somewhere in the background. The John Hopkins/Lancet report said: “Many roads were not under control of the Government of Iraq
or coalition forces” . Also local “police checkpoints” were perceived as
“target identification screens for rebel groups”. The interviewers
were engaged in a risky process and deserve their accolades. In fact, Falluja
was so dangerous that only one interviewer accompanied Roberts on the project. Their actual visits were to 872 households of which 64 were not at
home. The whole thing was carried out in 12 days although “four
weeks” is mentioned as the time period for the project. During that 12 days, two interview teams went the length of Does this sound a little hurried? Perhaps not, for according to the
report ------------------------------------------------------------------- Households were informed about the purpose of the survey, were assured that their name would not be recorded, and told that there would be no benefits or penalties for refusing or agreeing
to participate. We defined households as a group of people living together and
sleeping under the same roof(s). If multiple families were living in
the same building, they were regarded as one household unless they had separate entrances onto the street. If the household agreed to be
interviewed, the interviewees were asked for the age and sex
of every current household member. Respondents were also
asked to describe the composition of their household on Jan 1, 2002, and
asked about any births, deaths, or visitors who stayed in the household for more
than 2 months. Periods of visitation, and individual periods of
residence since a birth or before a death, were recorded to the
nearest month. Interviewers asked about any discrepancies between the 2002
and 2004 household compositions not accounted for
by reported births and deaths. When deaths occurred, the date, cause, and
circumstances of violent deaths were recorded. When violent deaths were attributed to a faction in the conflict or to
criminal forces, no further investigation into the death was made to respect the
privacy of the family and for the safety of the interviewers. The deceased had
to be living in the household at the time of death and
for more than 2 months before to be considered a household death. ----------------------------------------------------------------- They introduced themselves, were accepted, and after I suppose the
usual pleasantries got through all the procedures above. It seems a lot of time
consuming work. To complete the job in twelve days meant about 34 interviews a day for
each of two teams (the report said a team was composed of “at least a
team leader and one male and one female interviewer”). There
were seven interviewers, six of whom were fluent in English and Arabic. There
could have been three teams of two with the seventh as team leader, though the
report doesn’t indicate that. There was little or no corroboration of the answers given though the
interviewers, who were able as well as courageous, and must have used
cross-checking which also takes time. Only 61 death certificates were offered
from the 808 households. Then, of course, the teams had to move across Anyway the interviews were done by September 20th on which
day the intrepid Dr. Roberts and only one interviewer plied the dangerous
streets of Fallujah. The Lancet said the material arrived at their offices at the beginning
of October and it had then been "extensively peer-reviewed,
revised and edited". It had been “fast-tracked”
to publication "because of its importance to the evolving security
situation in It appeared in the press October 29th - the Friday
before the Tuesday election. Understandably, urgent medical findings are occasionally fast tracked,
but is the given reason credible? From this sequence of events, I deduced that the John Hopkins/Lancet
projection of Iraqi civilian casualties was politically inspired (which
doesn’t necessarily mean they were wrong, but does cast doubt on their
motives. You may regard it as ignorant, but my hypothesis was confirmed just the
other day with this news item. “The study's lead American author
Johns Hopkins Professor of Public Health Les Roberts may have shot himself in
the foot by rushing the study out in the midst of 24/7 election coverage in the
U.S. He admitted to Lila Guterman of The Chronicle of Higher Education that he was anti-Bush and hoped to swing
votes away from the President.” Quod Erat Demonstrandum, Harry ******************************* of 818 352-4141 ******************************* From: Lawrence
deBivort [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Harry, you said: “Really, their
methodology is designed to get a confirmed count – not a propaganda
projection for political purposes, which is what the JHU study was.” You are so dismissive of materials that
contradict your world view, Harry. To call the JHU study
‘political” is beyond silly; it is flat out ignorant. And as long
as you maintain this stance, you will not be able to understand how the world
works, or why it reacts the way it does. If it pleases you to ‘kid’ and
dismiss other ways of thinking than yours by epithets, please feel free to
continue to do so. My only reason to chide you about it was to help you
find ways to be more effective in your discourse here. I do believe that
you have insights to offer us here; I would only wish that you did so more
effectively. Harry, I send this in friendship and with
abiding hope. Cheers, Lawry |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
