And let’s not forget the wounded. Or all those dead Iraqis…

A better comparison would be between American civilian casualties of terrorist attacks in the United States in the last four years to the number dead in car accidents.

Might be interesting to compare terror victims to deaths due to pollution, or lack of health care, or malnutrition or any of the other problems overshadowed by the BUsh administration’s “be afraid of terrorists” mantra. Begs the question of whether we are putting our resources in the right places…

The answer is obvious.

The empirical facts hate America.

Perhaps you could take the rhetorical angle and ask whether she’d want that poorly written paragraph used as boilerplate when notifying the families of dead soldiers?

In any event, she’s still probably smarter than Doug Feith.

Sadly, N0WNZ0R3D

I suppose you could argue that only hours spent driving should be compared to hours spent in Iraq. Then the death rates would be on the same order of magnitude. What percent of time is the average American on the road?

This is beside the point though. For one thing, we DO have too many people dying on the road. For another, driving sometimes serves a useful purpose.

My nephew just returned to Iraq last week. People who belittle his courage and service piss me the hell off!

Interesting question there at the end. My hypothesis: she’s a frigging moron.

I suppose you could argue that only hours spent driving should be compared to hours spent in Iraq. Then the death rates would be on the same order of magnitude.

But then we’d have to cut the hours spent in Iraq by the amount of time that the soldiers spend doing things like sleeping, and eating, and otherwise doing things that are relatively non-dangerous.

We should also add this: if you can’t find the numbers, then why the fuck are you opining on which probability is higher?

For the same reason other people use laxitives.

Most people flush the results. Wingnuts publish them.

If the frequency of the offense is a good gauge of its seriousness, why is it that people like TTG are also often supporters of a Constitutional amendment banning flag-burning?

We should also add this: if you can’t find the numbers, then why the fuck are you opining on which probability is higher?

Why should wingnut opinions be constrained by mere ‘facts’?

Hmm, I wonder if recruiters (like those shown in “Fahrenheit 9/11”) use TTG’s “logic” in trying to sucker people into joining the military (“sure, it’s kinda dangerous in Iraq, but it’s more dangerous on the mean streets of the USA”)? What a moron.

Smack. Down.

Or to put it in California Lottery terms what are the relative chances of your number coming up?

American soldier in Iraq – Match 2 of any 5
American motorist in US – Match 4 of any 5

Sarah’s defenders are claiming that her critics are overly obsessed with Sarah’s statistical analysis.

That’s pretty rich, when the post we critics are commenting on is a dismissal of the significance of deaths in Iraq,based on statistics !

I laughed out loud when I read that TTG entry, so it’s great to see you out it. How many times will the moronic “safer than driving” argument be trotted out? Kurt Vonnegut wrote that people were saying it during the Vietnam War, that more Americans are killed on the US freeway than in Vietnam so go protest freeways.

Sarah is in the Hall of Infamy at http://warcheerleaders.tripod.com

Kurt Vonnegut wrote that people were saying it during the Vietnam War, that more Americans are killed on the US freeway than in Vietnam so go protest freeways.

Yup, I heard that one back in high school. It’s definitely a golden oldie.

And then as now, the morons who say it never have any problem about automobile use, yet somehow never volunteer to go fight overseas.

Actually, I’ve been half-seriously advocating an invasion of Detroit, for that reason.

It’s the combined destructive capacity of the SUVs, the fact that they push them like crazy, on the grounds that they’re safer to be in, when they know damn well that they’re not in multiple ways, and have snowed the safety inspectors for years. Add that to the fact that they’re more dangerous for other people on the road, and that they’ve also jiggered their way around fuel economy by invoking the ‘farm trucks’ loophole for them, and I say we reclassify SUVs as WMDs and take out the evil regime in Michigan. We can go for the corrupt House of Vos while we’re at it, and liberate the people of Michigan from all their gluttoneous, tyrannical overlords.

Actually, I’ve been half-seriously advocating an invasion of Detroit, for that reason.

Okay, but statistics show you’re more likely to die in a Detroit homicide than in Iraq.

When bad stats attack!

Sadly, No!’s got exhibit A. Ruy Teixeira’s got exhibit B. This is where I’d normally go off on a rant about how those right wing so-and-so’s like to bitch about how we’re teaching multi-cultural moral relativism in our schools instead…

What do you expect from someone citing LGF as one of the blogs that inspired her?

If you use combat deaths/people deployed why don’t you compare to traffic fatalities/people who use automobiles. Minor detail, but you want to do this right.

Here’s a question: If you are a young poor male living in, say, New Orleans, is it safer to sign up for military duty in Iraq or stay home?

answer- it’s safest to be in the national guard on stateside duty.

Wu

That’s some impressive math you did there…wow. How did you remember all that stuff from stats class. I may not know stats but even I saw the dumbness.

Not to mention that this is the most horrific analysis. So if someone gets murdered do we say: But you know, their chances of being murdered were so, so low compared to their chances of getting cancer?
?????

Oh, OK. Do we say: Hey, they would have died anyway?

I assume that we do not say this. I assume we should not be so horrendously callous even when a person in fact dies in a car accident. Not to mention when they have died fighting in a war they did not choose and would, nearly without exception, be alive today had this war not been declared?

Hmm. Let’s not neglect to do this equation: About 3,000 people died on 9-11, out of a population of roughly 185,000,000. Clearly, auto safety and accidents in the home are far more crucial issues for America than the rare event with a hijacked airliner.

Make that 285,000,000.
Not that facts or numbers matter. Let’s all just try to ‘grok’ from now on.

doghouse riley – but the *real* problem is would a military invasion of Detroit be more or less dangerous than a) Baghdad b) peacetime Detroit? Would the everyday violence combine with the military risks, or would the latter just override the former? How do we graph the correlation of all that? (ObRef: Rick Blaine warning Major Strasser that there are some sections of NYC he advises against invading.)

mcnett – there was a long discussion of this on Rivka’s blog, Respectful of Otters a while back, the problem of actual vs perceived risks. It comes up because for one thing, you have people living in dread and then acting in dread, and for another thing, you have people making money decisions. So you have the govt handing out money to people to study and prepare against possible unknown biotoxin weapons – when how many people died from the anthrax attacks? and how many people die from flu, and are likely to, particularly when it mutates or another disease does (eg SARS) let alone malaria and typhoid and mad cow and all. If they were serious about health (rather than using fear as a pretext to shovel money to croneys) they’d focus on the latter sorts of problems.

Or another one, this is one where I’ve used the automobile stats to no avail, because people believe what they want and they’d rather be afraid of unrealistic disasters than think about the realistic ones, like army ants and volcanoes when you’re a kid, rather than your parents getting divorced. This one is rather personal – the use of the fear of rapists and serial killers to keep women docile and immobile.

After one too many rounds of office clucking over foolish me, willing to travel and go places alone, even at night (!) I dug up the statistics on it all, and pointed out that a) they were more at risk than me, because they all had SOs, and a woman is far and away more likely to be injured/killed by her boyfriend/husband than a stranger; b) simply getting in the car and driving on the freeway was many times more dangerous than being *at* the movie theatre, by myself or not.

Were they relieved? Happy at newfound freedom in the daylight outside the Cave?

Nuh uh. Hands over ears, humming; a couple of them admitted that they didn’t want to think about those statistics because they couldn’t do anything about them, but they had the illusion of control over not being murdered or raped, since they *could* stay at home or only go out in gaggles with other women or a male protector…

Out of curiosity, how many of you who are posting messages on here and sharing your infinite wisdom, are actually in Iraq? How many of you know firsthand what it’s like to meet people who are experiencing freedom for the first time? Freedom to be a woman and not get beaten or killed for it. Freedom to see the internet for the first time. Freedom to buy a satellite dish and not spend 4 months in prison getting tortured. Freedom to purchase a car newer than 1991 as an ordinary citizen now. The list goes on and on. Anyone out there? And for those of you who think troops don’t support our commander or the fight against Islamonazis, ask the men in my platoon why they re-enlisted for four or more years.

IMAGINE IF MIKE MOORE SAID WHAT MADAM GROK SAID?

HEADLINE: Iraq Comments Provoke Conservative Outrage
Sept. 10, 2004

Conservatives across America today expressed outrage today at comments made by [Mike Moore/John Kerry/Hillary Clinton/some other prominent liberal] as the 1000th US fatality looms in Iraq.

“Statistically speaking, one is more likely to die in a car accident than in Iraq”, the [liberal scumbag] is reported to told a rally of supporters, “In fact, 1000 war deaths are a blessing.”

[The White House/the rest of the usual suspects]described these remarks as “grossly insensitive and an outrageous insult not only to the decent American men and women serving in Iraq, but also to the science of statistics.”

[Mike Moore/whoever] claims his quote about 1000 deaths being “a blessing” have been taken out of context. “I was saying *historically speaking*, a 1000 deaths are blessing, though this qualification seems to have been left out of some news reports”. [Guess which ones?]

Even so, a number of conservative commentators have mocked his claim that driving on the road in the US is more dangerous than Iraq. [Take your pick] was quick to point out if you add up all the highway deaths in the US, and divide that by the population…etc etc

“Out of curiosity, how many of you who are posting messages on here and sharing your infinite wisdom, are actually in Iraq?…”

Well, I’m not. Would you like me to stop experiencing freedom until I have actually been there? If that’s not what you meant, what *do* you mean?

I have a buddy in the NG in Iraq. He wrote recently of his truck breaking down on the highway, which ended uneventfully. In the course of the story, however, he said that the miltary tells soldiers that statistically, your chances of not being attacked are quite good if you can get moving again in 15 minutes. After 15 minutes, your odds go to something like 1 in 3. After 30 minutes, you are looking at a 75 percent chance of being attacked.

Funny, I don’t find myself thinking anything like that when I go for a drive in my car, do you?

“Funny, I don’t find myself thinking anything like that when I go for a drive in my car, do you?”

TK, what do you mean?

Sure, I feel a bit vulnerable if my car breaks down and I risk being hit by a passing motorist or victimized by an opportunistic predator. But I know it’s not even remotely like the danger your buddy faces. *I KNOW this.* And I am profoundly grateful that my risk is remote. I’m also grateful that in November, when I vote, I’ll be 99% sure that no one will be shooting at me.

I honestly wish that everyone in the world could be faced with the same threat level I face. I know this.

What I don’t know is what the hell you mean by your post and your question. Please tell me.