Sadly, I think that's an attitude that occurs all too often. Data require analysis and understanding and effort. Answers are just handed to you. I spent years on a very complex data gathering tool; but what I learned was that users just wanted an answer tool, and were most likely to pay for it if the answer it gave was always the answer they wanted (whether that answer was correct or not).
It's remarkable what a different picture you get when you look at objective data instead of the headlines. But almost no one wants to look at objective data.
Did you read the PDF reports before you wrote that?
Perhaps you see the glass half full, while I see it as half empty. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, smashes the glass with a baseball bat, points at the water on the floor, and says, see, the glass was really overflowing.
Perhaps you see the glass half full, while I see it as half empty. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, smashes the glass with a baseball bat, points at the water on the floor, and says, see, the glass was really overflowing.
Of course I did, Mike. But I've been reading reports like these for years now.
It's pretty clear who's doing the glass-smashing here, and it ain't Cheney.
Sane historical perspective will probably not return to a lot of people until Bush leaves office. I'm more or less resigned to this as a reality. Thank God Bush was re-elected is all I can say.
Perhaps you see the glass half full, while I see it as half empty.
Let's review. During the Iraqi Campaign, the United States:
1) Destroyed the Iraqi Army, the Iraqi Republican Guard, and the Fedeyeen.
2) Occupied the country.
3) Overran the capital.
4) Deposed the Baathist Iraqi government.
5) Killed or captured and tried Saddam Hussein, his sons, and (what?) 49 of the 55 top Baathist leaders (the deck of cards).
Since then the Iraqis have:
1) Held local elections in nearly every city, town, and village in Iraq.
2) Held provincial elections in all 18 provinces.
3) Taken over the national government from the United States, thus ending the occupation (2-1/2 years ago!).
4) Written their own constitution guaranteeing, among other things, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to petition the government to redress their grievances, and the right of nearly everyone -- including women -- to vote and hold elective office.
5) Approved said constitution in a nationwide referendum.
6) Held national elections.
and 7) formed a coalition government, chosen a prime minister, and taken over constitutional control of their own country.
Given all this, the argument isn't whether the glass is half full or half empty. It's clear the glass is 9x% full, and we're merely arguing over the value of x.
Oh stop it Mike, you're just in denial of how America has brought all its woes upon itself due to its aggressive imperialist tendencies. And maybe your insane worship of the current temporary occupants of the White House.
Wake up you fool! You've been fooled by "truthiness!!!!"
"But almost no one wants to look at objective data."
This is exactly right. Most people look at data through the prism of what they hope the eventual interpretation will be.
One way to guard against this is to declare one's bias at the outset, and then try to find the best data to refute your own preconceived notion.
For example -- My bias is that I thought the Iraqi invasion was not urgent or necessary. I would have preferred endless shenanigans at the UN, rather than our invasion.
However, post invasion, the best data and opinions I have seen supporting the war efforts are some of the milblogs and, frankly, this fine blog.
Michael Totten's reporting is simply spectatular. The comments are generally excellent too. Dean has been vigilant as well.
Bottom line: Not only do I enjoy hearing the other side of the story, I actively seek it out.
Oh stop it Mike, you're just in denial of how America has brought all its woes upon itself due to its aggressive imperialist tendencies.
Oh that is such bullshit. We are so NOT imperialist. In fact "nation building" has not been our strong suit. How many nations have we freed from opression AND THEN LEFT? Phillipinies, Panama, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Mexico. In fact, you can include most of north Africa and Eastern Europe.
And maybe your insane worship of the current temporary occupants of the White House.
I don't think that what mike said was out of line. We have decisively won EVERY major battle with insurgents. There has been much progress and some major mistkes too. Many Soldiers and leaders feel they are not being "allowed" to do what is necessary to win. If they oppose the war, this is usually why. ("Why am I here if we can't do what we need to do?") The only thing holding us back is our lack of will to win and our lack of patience.
Perhaps you see the glass half full, while I see it as half empty. (Mikeca)
Mikeca, you base this on what? Your vast experience in Iraq that you have gained from watching CNN or MSNBC? Maybe you gained this insight from the AP, Reuters, Cindy Sheehan or Al Qaida videos (there isn't much difference these days).
It is amazing that anyone can read Yon, Totten, Roggio, or Ardolino and have the pessimistic views you do. Based on my two tours, they are pretty much spot on about the good and the bad... You're just following typical far-left politics at it's worst. Mikeca, I'd respect you more if you were a peacenik, appeasement at all costs type because at least you'd be working on personal convictions. Instead your only principal is that Bush/Cheney/Rove are bad and must be opposed at all cost... even to the detriment of our troops and our national interests. I don't question your patriotism... I question your judgement and your loyalty to party over loyalty to country.
This reminds me very much of all the idiotic Islamophobic morons who sit around spouting crap about how there are no Muslims speaking out against terrorism, there are no Muslims defending America or American values, etc. then never expend so much as five seconds of effort to look up and talk to some Muslim bloggers.
Despicable little cowards and intellectual lightweights that they are.
This goes doubly so for all the idiots running around saying that you can only defend the liberations of Iraq and/or Afghanistan if you sit in your basement hiding from reality--when with a modicum of effort they could look up very real, very human, very accessible military and journalist bloggers who've served over there and just ask them some fucking questions. Because there are a TON of them, and they aren't hard to find.
It's really hard for me not to express my utter contempt for such stupidity.
But, I do advise next time trying to make sure you understand where the blog who hosts your comment really stands. I've only been blogging for five years, I only helped found two movements to help support our troops and their mission in Iraq, and my dad only did two tours over there training Iraqi security forces. And I've been regularly supporting that noble cause, that noble mission, since almost a year before the first boot hit the ground.
I understand sarcasm can be misunderstood, but you know, if you're going to walk into someone's house or place of business and start lecturing them about their shortcomings, you ought to do a little basic research on them first, eh?
Well, Dean, you have to admit: your sarcastic comments were pretty hard to distinguish from real anti-war comments. In fact, you were far more reserved than some of them are. It's hard to do parody of something that's completely over the top to begin with.
If you had posted the same comments under the name of some of the commenters here -- maybe even one or two of the contributors -- I could've believed they were serious comments.
I thought they did not sound like your posts at all... but I am long past letting comments like that slide. On the bright side, if this blogging thing doesn't work out you can always get a job on the moonbat tour with cindy sheehan. I hear venezuela and cuba are nice this time of year.
That's the funny thing about satire. If you do it well enough, people can hardly tell.
What amuses me is that when I go into moonbat parody mode, I get people who say I'm being snotty and sarcastic and nobody REALLY talks or thinks that way.
Just about the same as when I go into Islamophobe mode...
What amuses me is that when I go into moonbat parody mode, I get people who say I'm being snotty and sarcastic and nobody REALLY talks or thinks that way.
Well, you could hardly call what they're doing "thinking"...
But almost no one wants to look at objective data.
Sure, because to them it is the equivalent of trivia. The curse of the information age is that there is too much information.
That's what "experts" mostly do: put the data in context, and then make claims about that data implies. Whether they claim to be objective, or profess to holding a particular POV.
It is not allowing other folks to "do my thinking for me" if I try to extract the implications and arguments about a particlular data set. If I have to spend all my time trying to become an expert in every field (an impossible task), I will not have the time to consider the more practical implications of the data we currently have.
That's what I would consider sad.
2.3.2007 5:17am
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
Sadly, I think that's an attitude that occurs all too often. Data require analysis and understanding and effort. Answers are just handed to you. I spent years on a very complex data gathering tool; but what I learned was that users just wanted an answer tool, and were most likely to pay for it if the answer it gave was always the answer they wanted (whether that answer was correct or not).
Did you read the PDF reports before you wrote that?
Perhaps you see the glass half full, while I see it as half empty. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, smashes the glass with a baseball bat, points at the water on the floor, and says, see, the glass was really overflowing.
:)
I like his style...
It's pretty clear who's doing the glass-smashing here, and it ain't Cheney.
Sane historical perspective will probably not return to a lot of people until Bush leaves office. I'm more or less resigned to this as a reality. Thank God Bush was re-elected is all I can say.
Let's review. During the Iraqi Campaign, the United States:
1) Destroyed the Iraqi Army, the Iraqi Republican Guard, and the Fedeyeen.
2) Occupied the country.
3) Overran the capital.
4) Deposed the Baathist Iraqi government.
5) Killed or captured and tried Saddam Hussein, his sons, and (what?) 49 of the 55 top Baathist leaders (the deck of cards).
Since then the Iraqis have:
1) Held local elections in nearly every city, town, and village in Iraq.
2) Held provincial elections in all 18 provinces.
3) Taken over the national government from the United States, thus ending the occupation (2-1/2 years ago!).
4) Written their own constitution guaranteeing, among other things, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to petition the government to redress their grievances, and the right of nearly everyone -- including women -- to vote and hold elective office.
5) Approved said constitution in a nationwide referendum.
6) Held national elections.
and 7) formed a coalition government, chosen a prime minister, and taken over constitutional control of their own country.
Given all this, the argument isn't whether the glass is half full or half empty. It's clear the glass is 9x% full, and we're merely arguing over the value of x.
Mike
Wake up you fool! You've been fooled by "truthiness!!!!"
This is exactly right. Most people look at data through the prism of what they hope the eventual interpretation will be.
One way to guard against this is to declare one's bias at the outset, and then try to find the best data to refute your own preconceived notion.
For example -- My bias is that I thought the Iraqi invasion was not urgent or necessary. I would have preferred endless shenanigans at the UN, rather than our invasion.
However, post invasion, the best data and opinions I have seen supporting the war efforts are some of the milblogs and, frankly, this fine blog.
Michael Totten's reporting is simply spectatular. The comments are generally excellent too. Dean has been vigilant as well.
Bottom line: Not only do I enjoy hearing the other side of the story, I actively seek it out.
Barnes
Oh that is such bullshit. We are so NOT imperialist. In fact "nation building" has not been our strong suit. How many nations have we freed from opression AND THEN LEFT? Phillipinies, Panama, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Mexico. In fact, you can include most of north Africa and Eastern Europe.
I don't think that what mike said was out of line. We have decisively won EVERY major battle with insurgents. There has been much progress and some major mistkes too. Many Soldiers and leaders feel they are not being "allowed" to do what is necessary to win. If they oppose the war, this is usually why. ("Why am I here if we can't do what we need to do?") The only thing holding us back is our lack of will to win and our lack of patience.
Mikeca, you base this on what? Your vast experience in Iraq that you have gained from watching CNN or MSNBC? Maybe you gained this insight from the AP, Reuters, Cindy Sheehan or Al Qaida videos (there isn't much difference these days).
It is amazing that anyone can read Yon, Totten, Roggio, or Ardolino and have the pessimistic views you do. Based on my two tours, they are pretty much spot on about the good and the bad... You're just following typical far-left politics at it's worst. Mikeca, I'd respect you more if you were a peacenik, appeasement at all costs type because at least you'd be working on personal convictions. Instead your only principal is that Bush/Cheney/Rove are bad and must be opposed at all cost... even to the detriment of our troops and our national interests. I don't question your patriotism... I question your judgement and your loyalty to party over loyalty to country.
Here... is where we are falling short, but I don't see pelosi or reid talking to these guys... it doesn't fit their agenda.
Despicable little cowards and intellectual lightweights that they are.
This goes doubly so for all the idiots running around saying that you can only defend the liberations of Iraq and/or Afghanistan if you sit in your basement hiding from reality--when with a modicum of effort they could look up very real, very human, very accessible military and journalist bloggers who've served over there and just ask them some fucking questions. Because there are a TON of them, and they aren't hard to find.
It's really hard for me not to express my utter contempt for such stupidity.
Apology accepted.
But, I do advise next time trying to make sure you understand where the blog who hosts your comment really stands. I've only been blogging for five years, I only helped found two movements to help support our troops and their mission in Iraq, and my dad only did two tours over there training Iraqi security forces. And I've been regularly supporting that noble cause, that noble mission, since almost a year before the first boot hit the ground.
I understand sarcasm can be misunderstood, but you know, if you're going to walk into someone's house or place of business and start lecturing them about their shortcomings, you ought to do a little basic research on them first, eh?
If you had posted the same comments under the name of some of the commenters here -- maybe even one or two of the contributors -- I could've believed they were serious comments.
What amuses me is that when I go into moonbat parody mode, I get people who say I'm being snotty and sarcastic and nobody REALLY talks or thinks that way.
Just about the same as when I go into Islamophobe mode...
Well, you could hardly call what they're doing "thinking"...
Sure, because to them it is the equivalent of trivia. The curse of the information age is that there is too much information.
That's what "experts" mostly do: put the data in context, and then make claims about that data implies. Whether they claim to be objective, or profess to holding a particular POV.
It is not allowing other folks to "do my thinking for me" if I try to extract the implications and arguments about a particlular data set. If I have to spend all my time trying to become an expert in every field (an impossible task), I will not have the time to consider the more practical implications of the data we currently have.
That's what I would consider sad.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.