To me this is poor journalism on the part of Open Source.

Debate, argue show why the war is wrong, But dont give me a biased inaccurate report from a group that has an axe to grind, as the centerpiece of a disscusion.

This only takes away from those who are serious about the subject. It also gives me more reason to be sceptical of the media.

So even from this purely scientific perspective truth is indispensible. And you just cannot say “this amount of truth is enough”

The flaw in the above is to compare physiology, which is a real science, to the social “sciences” which are not.

In the context of the physical and biological sciences precise measurements allow us to improve theoretical frameworks, or propose new ones where none existed before. This has been the whole process of the advance of science

throughout history. Today a physicist, chemist, astronomer, neurophysiologist, etc, can legitimately claim far better understanding of her domain than her counterpart centuries ago. This better understanding is not just theoretical – she can make better practical decisions and more accurate predictions.

It is NOT obvious that any of this is true in the social “sciences”. There is no rigorous theoretical framework to plug precise numbers into. Nor is it clear whether more precise numbers enhance decision-making ability. It is far from clear that a wise political or military leader of 500 years ago couldn’t do JUST as good a job making good decisions as one today.

One could argue that the difference between 1000 dead and 500,000 dead might matter from a policy standpoint. But THAT big a difference would be apparant to even a casual observer centuries ago – it would not have required rigorous counting. It is NOT clear that smaller differences, such as 250,000 -vs- 400,00 matter from a policy perspective. Certainly no one here has provided a rigorous reason to think so.

Good questions, I mean, good spin. I just wonder, how is it that discussions of american policy are always about future actions, but never about responsibility for the actions in the past?

“Responsibility” is an abstract philosophical concept. Since we have no rigorous science of human behavior it is scientifically impossible to assign a clear chain of cause-and-effect in many cases. American invades Iraq, topples their leadership , and later one Iraqi blows up another Iraqi’s mosque. Are the Americans “responsble” for that act? Or are the Iraqi’s? Or is the irrationality of religion “responsible”. Granted the Americans failed to maintain odrder, but in a civilized country if someone goes off their nut and shoots up a schoolhouse, are the police “responsible”?

What matters at this point is what we do NEXT. Personally I advocate we just LEAVE as quickly as possible.

Also, there _is_ a huge difference, just imagine Bush, etc. in 2003 saying in plain English, to borrow your own words, that the price of invasion of Iraq would be more then 3000 US troops dead and 660,000 Iraqis dead. Would’ve _that_ changed policy? I bet it would’ve.

Read more carefully.

I asked whether the difference between 250,000 and 400,000 would make any difference.

And that’s why it’s important. You just can’t go on saying, sorry, I screwed up, let’s forget about it and plan for the future.

What is your evidence that you “can’t”? I say that it’s done all the time, as has been throughout history.

As I’ve said many times before on ROS, there IS no science of human behavior. Unlike the physical sciences where precise, objective measurements can be used to create or improve a theoretical framework, there is no equivalent to this in history, sociology, or political “science”. A physicist in 2006 can legitimately claim to understand his domain far better than a physicist of 1906 or a “natural philosopher” of 1506. Not so in matters of human affairs. It’s not at all clear that there is a systematic progression of knowledge in political “science” that allows a political leader today to understand or predict the outcome of political decisions any better than leaders of centuries ago.

That the war in Iraq was a disaster for the US would have been obvious to any king in 1500. But kings in 1500 also made similar disasterous decisions. Likewise, while my gut instincts motivated me to oppose the war from the beginning, I could not PROVE scientifically that it was a stupid idea. It is not obvious that the kind of numerical hair-splitting exercises being advocated here demonstrably lend any greater “understanding” to the situation.

So even from this purely scientific perspective truth is indispensible. And you just cannot say “this amount of truth is enough” or “that’s too much truth”, can you? It surely sounds silly (or outright cynical).

Good questions, I mean, good spin. I just wonder, how is it that discussions of american policy are always about future actions, but never about responsibility for the actions in the past?

Also, there _is_ a huge difference, just imagine Bush, etc. in 2003 saying in plain English, to borrow your own words, that the price of invasion of Iraq would be more then 3000 US troops dead and 660,000 Iraqis dead. Would’ve _that_ changed policy? I bet it would’ve. And that’s why it’s important. You just can’t go on saying, sorry, I screwed up, let’s forget about it and plan for the future.

Merry Christmas Call Campaign

I’m trying to get into the spirit but this choral music is only annoying me knowing that three more families are going to have a real shitty Christmas. Air America reports 3 American dead in Iraq yesterday. I’m sitting in the Harvard Coop and the singers are really good, but I’m sorely tempted to start shouting “Jesus wants us to bomb Iran!” at the top of my lungs and scream at all these people Christmas shopping to wake the fuck up. Then I sink a little thinking that it’s not their fault. In these parts nearly everyone hates George Bush. I’d be preaching to the choir and some little old lady would pipe up and start going off on him even louder than me. It’s happened. Something about the Shrub sets people off on tantrums either way. For or against. The Uniter not Divider.

The Defeat-o-crats are letting themselves be set up to be blamed. These guys are professional punching bags. The Bush surge strategy is nothing more than a closing gambit to keep Iraq together just long enough to get out of office and make sure someone else is in office when it falls apart. Then they write history that the Democrats lost Iraq. That’s the whole plan, and it’s going to cost how many guys their lives?

Those families of the ones killed today will be getting the news right about now that they are going to be having a real shitty Christmas too. And there’s still six days to go until Christmas.

Harry Reid just announced that he’s not going to walk and chew gum at the same time, that the number one issue in the new term is ethics. Nothing about Iraq. Nothing about the Military Commissions Act, or Jose Padilla, which amounts to an override of the Bill of Rights. Nothing to start blunting the set-up to be the Defeat-o-crats, such as redrawing the War Resolution to get out of Iraq, surround the Pakistani tribal areas where the Pakistani government is having a love-fest with the Taliban, and going on the political offensive to “stop making terrorists faster than we can kill them,” in the words of a Delta Forces soldier quoted by Air America’s Laura Flanders. Those Delta Force liberals.

The problem is that our own safety depends on throwing George Bush on the tender mercies of all the people he hurt. Nothing less than charges as a war criminal may be able to bring outraged Muslims back to the fold of moderation. And now what does he want to do? He wants to bomb Iran. Yesterday’s Air America interview of Scott Ritter is a must-listen, on how the Iranian people actually still LIKE Americans, after all we have done to them, even if they don’t like George Bush. That could change real fast with fresh footage flooding Al Jazeera of Iranian women and children with their faces blown off. I’ll post the MP3 of the interview as soon as AAR archives it.

The phone numbers (free calls) to your congressmen are still on the front page of the main website. Make your Christmas present to the troops a couple of phone calls to your congress-people telling them to cut the shit and get them the hell out of there. As many calls as we can manage between now and Christmas.

from May8th

100,000? 200,000? 600,000?

Tell us, in plain English, exactly what difference in your proposed policy, about what we should do now, would it make if the number were 250,000 instead of 400,000, or vice versa?

We may not know the exact number, but we do know that the place is an anarchic mess, that the Iraqis (or rather, “Iraqi’s” because I still regard “Iraq” to be a figure-of-speech rather than a real nation) are engaged in a bizarre frenzy of mass violence, and that no one has a plausible plan for how to fix it.

I do not understand how any individual could think that the numbers are any less then 600,000. It is insane to me that anyone would argue with these numbers.

Howard Zinn in a recent speech discussed the lack of historical understanding among the public, journalists and leaders and he talked about the deceitful nature of governments and a limp and acquiescent press. I quote:

When you know history, you know that governments lie, as I.F. Stone said. Governments lie all the time. Well, not just the American government. It’s just in the nature of governments. Well, they have to lie. I mean, governments in general do not represent the people of the societies that they govern. And since they don’t represent the people and since they act against the interest of the people, the only way they can hold power is if they lie to the people. If they told people the truth, they wouldn’t last very long. So history can help in understanding deception and being skeptical and not rushing to embrace whatever the government tells you.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15739.htm