Iraq by the numbers.

Here are a few links which track the civilian and military death-toll, and the financial cost of the Iraq war. As of today, there have been ~850 coalition military deaths (maybe closer to 1000). There have been over 10,000 civilian deaths. The cost is approaching $120bn.

• U.S. Military Deaths in the Conquest of Iraq - interesting chart with links.
• CostOfWar.com - compares scale of the war cost to public education, health insurance, college scholarships, etc. The war cost could have paid a year's salary for 2.3mn public school teachers, or provided health insurance to 51mn children.
• IraqBodyCount.net - a running estimate of civilian Iraqi casualties.

Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore.

Writing for Slate, Christopher Hitchens provides an excellent case-study on the typically pathological writing style of conservative authors. I went searching for rebuttals to Michael Moore's "Farhenheit 911," and this is what I found. As usual, I have almost no inkling what this guy is getting at, and I don't have the time to try and mine the substance out of his overloaded language:

Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore. By Christopher Hitchens: One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? [snip] Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins.

I often try to find serious criticism of Moore's films, and this is the kind of nonsensical garbage that I consistently get. What the hell is this guy talking about, and why do I even care? I don't care. I only care about this statement: "The Lies of Michael Moore." Does no one in this post-9-11 world care about brief, clear statements? Does this author get paid by the word or something? I don't have the patience to wade through this whole piece of crap article. If somebody else has time, would you please condense the article for me and provide clear, concise answers to the following question:

What are the factual claims made in the film, by Michael Moore, which are false? In what way are they false, and what corrections would be appropriate?

Please help me, I just hate long-winded trash. I also hate the human-thesaurus routine. I scored almost perfect on my verbal GRE, but you don't see me shoving my much-learned academy-cock in the reader's face. In the analysis of Fahrenheit 911, I dont want to see any of the following:

• Generalizations about "liberals."
• Critiques of the motives of Michael Moore.
• Critiques of statements made by Moore, other than those made in the film.
• Speculation about what Moore/liberals "would have said" about Bush/whomever, if they had done XYZ differently.
• Any statements about Bill Clinton

Just the facts, please. And one last remark: there may in fact be some facts which could alter interpretations of the events in the film. We can all come up with facts that, according to us, should have been included. But omission of such information from a two-hour film does not amount to a "lie." A lie is a statement which is false.

Quite warm

Speaking of "What conceivable reason does anyone have left to defend or support Bush?", I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last night. Just as you might have suspected, the evidence is insurmountable: Ray Bradbury was personally responsible for the September 11th terrorist atrocities. It made an estimated $8.2 million for a single day. Bowling for Columbine bagged $21.5 million over its entire run.

Scientific opinion now requires approval by the Bush administration.

The WHO is no longer allowed to talk directly to US scientific advisors. They must instead filter their request through a new office of the Bush administration, which ensures that they receive an "appropriate choice" for consultation. Scientific advisors are required to promote the administration's political agenda.

MSNBC - New limits placed on government scientists: Government scientists must now be cleared by a Bush political appointee before they can lend their expertise to the World Health Organization, a change that a Democratic lawmaker said fits a pattern of politicizing science. ...Steiger’s Office of Global Health Affairs now will choose “an appropriate expert who can best serve both of our organizations,” he said. HHS experts made available also must advocate U.S. government policies, Steiger said.

What conceivable reason does anyone have left to defend or support Bush? He is going to reduce the US to a third-world country if he keeps getting his way.

BYU graduate promotes torture

Jay S. Bybee, a graduate of BYU and the BYU law school, authored the infamous justice department memo which claims broad methods (including torture) are justified in interrogations of terrorism suspects. Naturally, Orrin Hatch supports Bybee's arguments. The new President of the University of Utah (also a BYU grad) has also spoken in support of Bybee. Bybee was appointed by Bush last year to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. From the Salt Lake Tribune (today):

As the assistant U.S. Attorney General over the Office of Legal Counsel, Bybee signed an August 2002 memo advising President Bush he could order just about any means of interrogation necessary to get captured suspects in the war on terror to talk, and the commander-in-chief would be immune from legal prosecution or congressional repercussions. Now widely known as the 'Bybee memo,' the advice is being blamed for fostering a belief among soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq that torture was not only legally justified, it was encouraged from the uppermost levels of U.S. command. The White House has consistently denied Bush ever endorsed torture, and this week took the highly unusual step of publicly disavowing the legal advice given by its own Justice Department, calling it 'abstract academic theory.' [snip] A day after the White House denunciation, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch took to the Senate floor to declare the legal arguments outlined in the Bybee memo "do make sense" and were "well-reasoned opinions." "For somebody to say carte blanche that the Geneva Conventions apply and should apply to everything, that flies in the face of not only international law, it flies in the face of what is happening in this situation," said the Utah Republican, who added he didn't necessarily agree with all the arguments in the memo.

Gmail baby

Michael in New Zealand, whom I don't think I've ever met (which is a shame, since we both seem to be film geeks), mentioned something about Google's Gmail in a comment. I think it's worth talking about. I don't happen to be the sort of person who NEEDS 1 gig of web-based email storage, even though I am the sort of person who allows his inbox to back up quite a bit. I suppose, were I to start swapping illegal barnyard porn, I might need that gig. But not now. That being said, it behooves us all to browse Gmail-is-too-creepy.com. (I think I must have seen the link through MetaFilter). It's from the people who assembled Namebase.org, and it has some fun stuff on it, like the photo of Sergey Brin in drag. The logical conclusion is that Gmail is actually a tool of the malicious one-worlder Illuminati in our Federal Government. Once they release the Yog Sothoth, Gmail users are the first to be physically devoured. And the manufactured buzz of the Invite thing, though effective, is kind of silly. Sounds like some PR rep wants another CV entry. It worked, because the curiosity of the regular user has definitely been piqued. Google itself is curious. It's the default search engine for an extremely large percentage of Internet users, yet it retains this 'secret weapon' air for so many people. In addition to upping their users' storage capacity to compete with the as-yet-unavailable Gmail, both Yahoo! and Microsoft will be releasing new search engines to compete with Google. Even though Merrill Lynch recently dropped out of underwriting the Google IPO (they're too big, there are plenty of underwriting partners, and it's not worth their trouble, the conventional wisdom goes), it's still shaping up to be the biggest Internet IPO in history. However, they also amended their IPO here and stuck in some concerns about the concerns about Gmail and privacy. The contrarian in me demands to know: what are the real secret weapon search engines out there? What's better than Google?

Bush Ratings Show Unprecedented Polarization

Bush Ratings Show Historical Levels of Polarization: "An analysis of Gallup Poll data reveals extreme and unprecedented levels of polarization in George W. Bush’s job approval ratings. Currently, Democrats and Republicans’ evaluations are radically different, with Republicans overwhelmingly positive and Democrats decidedly negative. Also, views among both groups are quite strong, which means they are probably unlikely to change much between now and the election. Never before has Gallup data shown such a high proportion of partisans with such strongly opposing views of a president."

Fuck Cheney

Here's the story: Democrats oppose right-wing hardline judicial nominees. Republicans cynically play the "religious discrimination" card and call Democrats "anti-Catholic." Patrick Leahy objects to this accusation. Cheney to Leahy in the Senate chambers: "go fuck yourself."

Reuters | Latest Financial News / Full News Coverage: U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has blurted out the 'F word' at Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont during a heated exchange on the Senate floor, according to congressional aides. The incident occurred on Tuesday in a terse discussion between the two that touched on politics, religion and money, with Cheney finally telling Leahy to 'f--- off' or 'go f--- yourself,' the aides said on Thursday. 'I think he was just having a bad day,' Leahy was quoted as saying on CNN, which first reported the incident. 'I was kind of shocked to hear that kind of language on the floor.' [snip] During their exchange, Leahy noted that Republicans had accused Democrats of being anti-Catholic because they are opposed to some of President George W. Bush's anti-abortion judges, the aides said. That's when Cheney unloaded with the "F-bomb," aides said. According to Senate rules, profanity is not permitted in the chamber. But when the exchange occurred between Leahy and Cheney, the Senate was not in session so there was technically no foul.