'Nother Solent

Tim Worstall comments scornfully [ADDED 1 NOV: Tim Worstall has conceded that the statistical argument used in the article was wrong - scroll up three posts for more] on that article in the Lancet that alleged 100,000 excess deaths due to the Iraq war.

There is more unfavourable comment on the study from Fred Kaplan at Slate and "The Chef" at Ragout.

This is not the only recent example of a British medical publication allowing political warriors to launch attacks from a supposedly neutral ship. Blogger and medical man Anthony Cox recently wrote about an anti-Israel article in the British Medical Journal.

It's a clever strategy, actually. The general public doesn't ever read the original article, and wouldn't understand it if they did. All the public will remember is a one-line summary provided by the media along the lines of "'Iraq war killed 100,000', Doctors say." The authors of the study themselves were more forthright:

"I emailed it in on Sept. 30 under the condition that it came out before the election," Roberts told The Associated Press. "My motive in doing that was not to skew the election.

I do not believe you.

My motive was that if this came out during the campaign, both candidates would be forced to pledge to protect civilian lives in Iraq."

Protecting civilian lives in Iraq is a noble ideal. Personally, I think the US forces are motivated to do that anyway. But the incentives for them to do so are lessened, not increased, when they know that whatever they do they will have ever-more spectacular numbers of shrouds waved their way.

Some other thoughts:

-I expect this article to be withdrawn, corrected or in some other way apologised-for a few months down the line. Safely after the election.

-Sadly, many in the British medical profession will lap this up, revelling in the Lancet's (and, vicariously, their own) election-swaying moment of fame. Few of them will study the article that hard. This is because (a) busy professionals have trouble enough keeping up with the flood of literature on their own specialism, and (b) judging from the number of studies that have been revealed as fraudulent or wrong after decades of acceptance, an awful lot of studies are not, in fact, studied.
Spoon-benders and the like hate to perform their tricks in front of stage-magicians but are happy to do so for an audience of scientists. Expert opinion expects the world to be complex but does not expect it to be biased.

- When this strategy is used too often it stops working. No one pays attention to the political opinions expressed in teachers' or sociologists' professional journals since everyone knows what they are - a joke. It will be sad if we see the doctors go the same way.

The spirit of September 12.

Sorry for the lack of posts. I've been helping my sister move house. Deprived of my computer, I missed important developments like another column in the Times by Peter Briffa, blogger made good. Don't campaign, Briffa says to Michael Howard, and the people will love you for it. It's a thought. The US election campaign is in me like a virus, and it's not even our election. It was a minor torture to endure a whole 48 hours without a shot of Real Clear Politics.

When it comes to the timing of elections the British system is superior. The fact that no one, not even the Prime Minister, knows the exact date of the election very far in advance means that campaigns are shorter and cost less.

Don't mistake my dislike of long, intense campaigns for indifference as to the outcome. True, I am fairly indifferent to the outcome of the coming British election. On one side we have the Prime Minister. Useless on every issue bar one, splendid on that one. On the other we have Michael Howard. I originally wrote John Howard, and that says it all.

But, oh boy, I'm riveted by the US election. Consider me a September 12 gal.

On September 12 2001 there was no downside for those planning the next terrorist spectacular. You too can humble the Great Satan and win undying glory!

Now there is a downside.

And I thank God - literally thank God - that the guy in the White House who started work on making that downside on September 12 2001 was a sunny-tempered frat boy who is President, at least in part, because his Daddy was. Peter Briffa's column said that professional politicians irritate. That's only half the problem. The other half is that they are all a particular type of person. Bush is close enough to that type to function but doesn't really belong. I am aware that he can be a ruthless political operator. (He can pick 'em, too, a useful skill.) But in important respects his values are more normal than is normal in his milieu.

I will go further. I thank God that Bush is a believing Christian who takes seriously the obligation to love his enemies. He didn't limit himself to making a downside for terrorism, necessary though that was. (Not that most of his opponents would have done it.) Instead he did what idealists claim to want: he set out to tackle the injustice and oppression that are the root causes of terrorism.

Not just the BBC.

Scott Norvell of Fox News has an article about how the media in Britain hate Bush. He's not kidding. Yesterday's evening news on ITV had a report about ex-President Clinton's appearance at Kerry's side. The anchor didn't so much wax lyrical as goo bulimical. These are some of the phrases my hastily scribbling pen managed to get down: "... it reminded them how good America was when Clinton was in the White House ... the economy was much stronger ... and, of course, America was at peace."

UPDATE: In an earlier version of this post I referred to the "anti-American" media. That isn't quite fair. Most British journalists are willing to let them off if they promise to behave in future.

John Stuart Mill of his own free will / after half a pint of shandy was particularly ill

- but not before he said some good stuff, brought to my attention by the EU Serf.

This

Europe is in my judgement wholly indebted to this plurality of paths for its progressive and many sided development.

is only part of it.

By the way I could have sworn the song said brandy, not shandy. I don't get drunk that often.

Scott Burgess writes:

So I'm a salt monster now?

Perish the thought.

However, when one considers the reckless way that Mr Burgess posted on subjects that I was trying not to think about there is only one description that fits the case.

Scott Burgess is objectively pro-salt monster.