• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show
•
"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket
•
"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming
November 16, 2006
Thursdays Declared "No Math" Day At Washington Post
This is from a Washington Post story published today:
Between 2 percent and 5 percent of Iraq's 27 million people have been killed, wounded or uprooted since the Americans invaded in 2003, calculates Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for International and Strategic Studies.
Then, five sentences later:
Since the war began, 1.6 million Iraqis have sought refuge in neighboring countries; at least 231,530 people have been displaced inside Iraq since February, when Shiite-Sunni violence exploded with the bombing of a Shiite shrine in the northern city of Samarra, according to figures from the United Nations and the U.N.-affiliated International Organization for Migration.
2-5% of 27 million is 540,000-1,350,000. 1.6 million plus 231,530 is 1,831,530.
Thus, Anthony Cordesman calculates the number of Iraqis killed, wounded or uprooted is 540,000-1,350,000. Meanwhile, the U.N. says the number of refugees alone is at least 1.83 million.
There would be nothing wrong with writing a story that contrasts these numbers. However, the Washington Post presents them as if they don't contradict each other. I think it was the whole "percent" thing that confused them, since percentages are studied around sixth grade, and Post reporters usually drop out of school by age ten.
AND: The reason I noticed this is because Anthony Cordesman is one of the best think tank denizens in Washington, yet when it comes to this subject he seemingly just makes things up. When the most recent Johns Hopkins study came out, he opined, "They're almost certainly way too high...this is not analysis, this is politics." To understand his reasoning, I read a paper (pdf) he'd just written. According to Cordesman, one reason the Johns Hopkins study can't be correct is that it would mean "every reporter actually in Iraq is radically wrong."
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess Cordesman didn't question "every reporter actually in Iraq." In fact, I suspect the total number of reporters he asked is three or under, and the number of Arabic-speaking non-Americans among them is zero.
I can only assume the same amount of analytical rigor went into the number he "calculates" here for the Post.
Posted at November 16, 2006 03:02 AM | TrackBackif by analytical rigor you mean bottles of moonshine.
Posted by: almostinfamous at November 16, 2006 07:30 AMThese are Schrodinger Iraqis they're counting, Jonathan!
Iraqis are wonders of quantum mechanics: they can be killed, wounded, uprooted, dead-ended, birth-panged, cakewalked, shock-and-awed, and neoconned ALL AT ONCE!
Hence the fuzzy math.
When a country is "liberated" by invasion, the only "metric" that, er, counts is the number of that country's population that has been killed, wounded and displaced. If "9-11" changed everything for the U.S., imagine the impact of these numbers on Iraq. The only thing that is "political" is the failure to count Iraqi casualties. That the Lancet/Johns Hopkins study can be so easily discounted by erroneous reference to, say, "Iraqi Body Count" or "reporting" is mind-numbingly shocking.
Then again, I often see Vietnam referred to as an "American" tragedy...
Posted by: The Reality Kid at November 16, 2006 12:58 PMJonathon: "The reason I noticed this is because Anthony Cordesman is one of the best think tank denizens in Washington, yet when it comes to this subject he seemingly just makes things up. "
How do you know that he's 'one of the best think tank denizens in Washington', especially since he 'seemingly just makes things up'.
Methinks that you know him personally, and can't emotionally accept the idea that he's evil.
Posted by: Barry at November 16, 2006 01:51 PMJonathan, I wish you were 20 feet tall with big teeth.
Posted by: at November 16, 2006 05:36 PMRobert Fisk has been in Iraq quite a bit and he finds the 600,000 figure plausible. Nir Rosen has an article in the November/Dec issue of the Boston Review, and he thinks the violent death toll is in the hundreds of thousands, probably exceeding Saddam's total.
So apparently Anthony didn't question every journalist who's been to Iraq.
Posted by: Donald Johnson at November 16, 2006 10:15 PMThanks for the Adnan Khan link, buermann. Apparently at least some reporters and Iraqis find it plausible that the true death toll is many times higher than IBC's.
Posted by: Donald Johnson at November 17, 2006 11:35 AMLast week Ha'aretz ran an article which said Israeli-made cluster bomblets fail to explode 1% to 2% of the time. The article then explained that this means 1 of every 500 fail to explode.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/787777.html
It's nice to see they have no-math days in Israel, too. Wouldn't want the WaPo to have an unfair monopoly.
Posted by: Winter Patriot at November 20, 2006 01:01 PM