I can't be creative in response to the body count article. It's just another one of Megan's tours through why everyone else is fallible. It also features this
Witness the Johns Hopkins team’s critics, who triumphantly waved the WHO results at their opponents. But even if “only” 150,000 people have been killed by violence in Iraq, that’s a damn high price. Conversely, few of the study’s supporters expressed much pleasure at the news that an extra 450,000 people might be walking around in Iraq. After a year and a half of bitter argument, all that anyone seemed interested in was proving they had been right. In counting, we somehow lost track of the mountain of dead bodies piling up beneath our numbers."extra 450,000". Yeah, that's the right way to look at it, asshole.
Oh, and Megan? I remember this, as do all the rest of your readers. You're the kind of person who, back in high school and college, would get something wrong, then loudly question how anyone could make that mistake a year later.
Then there's this, which can be shortened to "Yeah, it was a shitty article, I know."
Megan has not had a good week.
Posts
1 comment:
What are the odds that the May Atlantic is going to have a clarification or "Editor's Note" trying to correct Megan's Iraq war death screed? My guess is 50/50. Who the hell would ever trust her to a) do research (something (which she never does), and b) honestly present it.
Megan's been blogging about how the Lancet study sucks since last year, when I started "reading" her. Her partisanship knows no bounds.
I'm confident that some of these epidemiologists who wrote the Lancet study aren't going take Megan's slander sitting down.
As I understand it these scientists went door to door in the Iraq war zone--risking their lives--to randomly interview Iraqis about how many of their family members got killed in the war.
I don't think these people are going to let Megan trash them in the Atlantic, a national publication, without a fight. I say, "Bring it on."
Post a Comment