Just getting the facts straight
 

I just can't let this go, as it is so wrong.

Hi from Detroit! (341 murdered through November, population under 1 million)

Carry on.

Just getting the facts straight
 

Congratulations - would you like to move to Falluja?

That's not what I got out of those articles at all. The siloviki did their level best to keep army and interior troops from imposing martial law and evicting protesters, but that's not a coup. [eta: stp]

The most affecting bit, I thought, was about the leading generals whose wives and daughters were protesting.

This is what a mandate looks like
 

http://home.ripway.com/2003-8/22463/approvalrating.jpg

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...os_bush_method

1. Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?

_Right direction, 44 percent (46)

_Wrong track, 51 percent (51)

_Not sure, 5 percent (3)
(Results from early December AP poll in parentheses)


2. Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

_Approve, 49 percent

_Disapprove, 49 percent

_Mixed feelings, 2 percent


3. And when it comes to handling the economy, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?

_Approve, 47 percent

_Disapprove, 51 percent

_Mixed feelings, 2 percent


4. And when it comes to domestic issues like health care, education and the environment, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?

_Approve, 43 percent

_Disapprove, 56 percent

_Mixed feelings, 1 percent

5a. When it comes to handling foreign policy issues and the war on terrorism, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?

_Approve, 50 percent

_Disapprove, 48 percent

_Mixed feelings, 2 percent

5b. When it comes to handling the situation in Iraq (news - web sites), do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?

_Approve, 44 percent

_Disapprove, 54 percent

_Mixed feelings, 2 percent

6. Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way Congress is handling its job?

_Approve, 41 percent

_Disapprove, 53 percent

_Mixed feelings, 4 percent

_Not sure, 2 percent

Its fun to make shit up
 

When I calculate my current speed, I don't factor in how fast I was going last July. I was (and the article, for which I've now begun to look for again, was) speaking of the current rate, in the last couple of months. I'm talking about a great drop-off in the killings recently. That's good news.

Its fun to make shit up
 

Contra, every daily newspaper in January.

Yeh, there was a lull during the period prior to the US elections. Hmmmm. Wonder why.

Cite, please.

Its fun to make shit up
 

Yeah, that's sorta my point. Ya' know?

(Still looking for the cite.)

This is what a mandate looks like
 

Weird poll. Same poll gave us this result:

"Ahead of Bush's inauguration on Thursday, six in 10 people said they feel hopeful about his second term and 47 percent said they were worried. Most said they were neither angry nor excited about his final four years in office.

. . . .

Public perceptions of the president's personal strengths are his biggest asset today.

Almost two-thirds of those polled described Bush as likable, strong and intelligent. A majority said he is dependable and honest."

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/10660888.htm

Its fun to make shit up
 

Do you mean this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Jan6.html

Its fun to make shit up
 

52. Not Guilty


A crate containing coconuts is wrapped in an old Honolulu newspaper that read that one of the Castaways are being sought in a murder investigation. The castaways become suspicious of each other and decide to recreate the events of the night before they sailed, in order to solve the Randolph Blake murder case.


b: 06-Jan-1966 w: Roland MacLane d: Stanley Z. Cherry


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its fun to make shit up
 

No, I read an analysis last night - somewhere - that compared deaths in Iraq attributed to the insurgency - on all sides - and compared the same time frame to Chicago murder deaths.

Its fun to make shit up
 

I'd be interested in the time frame, and knowing if the rate in Chicago at that time was representative of the rate in Chicago as a whole. If the time frame seems objectively reasonable as applied to Iraq (only counting deaths after some major event) then presumably it makes sense, but if there was a time period during which deaths were high in Chicago (e.g., a couple of weeks of gang clashes that resulted in an unusually high rate of deaths) then it'd be too easy to fuck with the time periods.

Again, though, there's a difference to me between deaths from regular criminal activity, and deaths intended to influence the social structure. Note that many gang-type deaths I would classify as the latter. Also, I'm not saying that I don't think Iraq is ready for elections. I just am sceptical of this comparison you speak of really being apples/apples, particularly since you are comparing an entire country to a major urban area. I would think the death rates in Baghdad/Falluja would be higher than in Iraq as a whole, just as Chicago's rates are higher than IL as a whole, or than the US as a whole.

This is what a mandate looks like
 

What percentage of these respondents stopped reading after "strong"?

Its fun to make shit up
 

All valid points (and I wish I could find the damn article now) - but the apples-to-oranges thing makes it all too complex - the only point I was going for was that the story of horrible continual killings that we seem to be getting is sort of belied by this comparison, bad period in Chicago or not.

Its fun to make shit up
 

I agree to the extent that killings in Iraq are presented as bad purely because people die, and not because they are being killed for political intimidation purposes.

Anyway, lies, damn lies, statistics; I think I'm going to go get a doughnut or dozen.

Its fun to make shit up
 

Let's compare it to murders last year in Skidmore, Missouri. The Murder rate there was approximately 3,000 in 100,000, which would result in 750,000 dead if Iraq had the same murder rate.

So, obviously, Iraq is safer than Skidmore, Missouri.

What may be more useful to note, since the Bush administration has a policy of not publishing any information on civilian deaths in Iraq, is that there was a lull in US activity prior to the US elections, and that certainly resulted in few deaths of US troops and appears to have resulted, in October and November, in fewer deaths among Iraqi civilians. The cost of that lull was leaving Falluja and other areas under the control of the insurgents. The surge in both US military and Iraqi civilian deaths that began with the US/Iraqi government offensive following the November election has continued during the current offensive being mounted by the insurgents, which should not surprise anyone.

Now, whether we can get these levels down after the election while keeping an elected government is control is the important question.

Ukraine
 

Because I got yelled at by a Ukrainian a few weeks ago: "Ukraine," not "the Ukraine."

The Soviets tacked "the" in front of Ukraine to linguisticly foster the notion that it was a mere territory or region of the soviet union. Ukraine is the name of the sovereign nation.

Ukraine
 

I got yelled at sort of similarly once (and obviously forgot about it) - and then someone (russian) came to my defense, and pointed out that "Ukraine" means "border", and is simply what the old russians started calling their out-in-the-boonies breadbasket area. So, it's all cute for the Uke's to be nationalistically prideful and all, but they're really only dropping one small part ("The") of the fairly demeaning overall name.

It's kind of like, "the rooskies always called us "The Boonies", but we control our OWN destiny now, and so we're changing our name to "Boonies"! Yay, us!"

Its fun to make shit up
 

Big difference. There are no WMD's in Skidmore.

Its fun to make shit up
 

And the majority of murder victims in Chicago are not politicians, clerics, and policemen.

Its fun to make shit up
 

I'll guess the overall ratio of good dead/bad dead is similar.

Ukraine
 

Once again you are playing fast and loose with the facts. The Medeval Russian word for border transliterates roughly as "krai", and while it is the etymological derivaiton for both the Crimea and the Ukraine, no one would translate Ukraine as "border".

I hate magnetic ribbons.
 

Heh.

Its fun to make shit up
 

This baffles me. Who are you trying to insult here - dead civilians in Iraq or dead anyone in Chicago?

I just want to know who it is in to hate these days.

Its fun to make shit up
 

Always start this list with "people who go far out of their way to find things by which to be offended." You can't go wrong that way.

(Next, I would add Baathist thugs, Islamicist jihadists, and gangbangers. And then, people who walk on crowded sidewalks with open umbrellas. Oh, and the guy who takes the last of the toilet paper and doesn't get out a new roll.)

ETA - And clowns. Can't forget clowns.

Ukraine
 

Sort of like the derivation of "France" is "Franks," which meant "Germans," but if you call them Germans they get sort of pissy?

Its fun to make shit up
 

National healthcare
 

Can someone explain to me why, in light of studies like this one, national healthcare is a bad thing?

Please take into account that between 1999 and 2003, the number of patients enrolled in the VHA system increased by 70 percent, yet funding (not adjusted for inflation) increased by only 41 percent.

Find me a private payor that has the same efficiency.

National healthcare
 

Anecdotally, I guess, I'd point to the widespread dissatisfaction that I see expressed with the Canadian and English systems. It hasn't been my impression that either one of them leads in any quality or access study. I suppose it can be done right - this study, if it says what the abstract implies, sounds good - but I've yet to see a large-scale system work well.

Ukraine
 

I've pondered your reply, and all I can add is that a russian told me this - I'll bow to your better knowledge, as I've never taken russian - but, if "krai" means "border", I'm not seeing what a huge leap it would be for someone to link "Ukraine" with "border".

National healthcare
 

It is a tiny percentage of what universal health care would be across the United States. Smaller is easier.

Perhaps the biggest thing for me is that any national healthcare program would require limits on what would be covered. I fear those limits would be stricter than I would for my healthcare.

Why Not Kinky?
 

Kinky's officially announcing his campaign for gov. next week. He is determined to fight the "wussification of Texas."

"I am determined to get back to a time when the cowboys all sang and their horses were smart," Friedman said.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/...eut/index.html

This should be fun.

Why Not Kinky?
 

did you catch every Bob Hope appearance on TV, right up to the end?

National healthcare
 

There are 24.6 million veterans in the US. There are 32,040,292 Canadians, and 59.2 million Brits. I don't think it's inappropriate to compare those systems.

It's a pretty large scale system, much larger than anything else in the US. Kaiser Permanente comes in second in terms of scope of services and payment, though BCBS leads the pack in total covered lives. It's not really a system, though, since it's pretty open.

National healthcare
 

Smaller isn't easier. Records get lost in small systems, because people keep on moving from doctor to doctor. Every single record in the VA system is electronic, and can be easily accessed from any VA hosptial if a patient moves or gets in an accident away from home. There's no continuity of care in smaller systems, because people's coverage changes from year to year as the plans drop some physicians and keep others. It's easier to find epidemeological trends in larger systems, with larger populations numbers to study for variances. It's easier to share information in a single large system than in several hundred smaller systems.

You can pull your kid out of public school and pay a little (or a lot) more for private education and get more for your buck. Why can't you do the same with your healthcare?

Why Not Kinky?
 

huh?

National healthcare
 

Well you can't anymore in Canada, not sure why. But the question is why should I have to?

National healthcare
 

Your current health plan no doubt has limits on what is covered. How is that any different?

National healthcare
 

Other than when I asked if I adopted SS, would they pay for sex reassignment surgery, cite me one thing they turned down.

edit: oh, and the penis extension I was going to get.

National healthcare
 

Well, what that you have wanted do you know would not be available to you in Canada or GB? If your health plan covered everything, they wouldn't have to have those pesky little booklets that set out what they do and don't cover, with long-ass definitions of weird things.

Silly boy.