Determining who the asshole is, and visualizing impersonal statistics

[pmb]

In any given situation, the person who is claiming that something is the end of the world is almost certainly an asshole. This is a handy rule of thumb, and applies pretty well across the board, with the possible exception of people talking about global thermonuclear war or other extinction-level threats (large asteroids, etc).

Also, the recent news that nobody seems to be talking about is that according to every peer-reviewed independent study, we have now killed more than 1,000,000 people in Iraq, either directly or indirectly, since 2003 as a result of this war. That is a lot of people - one six-thousandth of the world population, and 4% of the population of Iraq. Visualizing this from an Iraqi point of view resulted in this map. But honestly, this sort of number is way past "visualization" territory. Our government has, in the past 6 years, spent more than $500,000,000,000 on a stupid war, and this war has caused more than 1,000,000 people to die.

One million people. Dead. For what?

Comments

[bagoffarts.livejournal.com]

500k/person, that's an expensive hitman. ;)

[pmb.livejournal.com]

Alternatively, I think that we could have given each of them $250,000 (assuming 50% distribution costs) not to attack us ever and the result would have been a lot better.

[djsendai.livejournal.com]

cue patrissimo to explain why a private, non-government solution would've been cheaper & more efficient ;)

[patrissimo.livejournal.com]

That one is kinda tough to enforce, actually. Maybe buy them infrastructure? Set up free hospitals instead of embargoing medical supplies?

Not like it really matters, since there were no significant threats coming from Iraq (as opposed to Saudi Arabia or whatever).

[djsendai.livejournal.com]

oh i was thinking that the free-enterprise solution could've found a hitman-solution at cheaper than 500K/head ;)

but i think the "pay them off to leave us alone" would've been much cheaper in the long run, and improved our standing.

What we're doing here, uhm, I can't see that we're getting any long-term benefit anywhere.

[clipdude.livejournal.com]

That map is striking. I don’t think most Americans have really come to terms with the cost of the war.

Part of the reason is that it is depressing. Every time I think about the amount of people we have killed in Iraq, the amount of money we have borrowed and spent, how difficult it will be to repay all that money, I get feelings of fury and hopelessness.

Even if began a withdrawal of all troops tomorrow, it would not un-kill those people or un-spend that money.

Indeed, that the war has been a humongous waste of blood and treasure does not necessarily mean we should withdraw. Proponents of “staying the course” might argue that given the harm we’ve inflicted on the Iraqi people, we have an obligation to remain and stabilize the country. (I don't agree with this; my personal opinion is that our continued presence will never help the Iraqis resolve their political problems and likely exacerbates them. We do have a moral obligation to stabilize Iraq, but sadly fulfilling that obligation is probably possible.)

[pmb.livejournal.com]

Assuming you meant We do have a moral obligation to stabilize Iraq, but sadly fulfilling that obligation is probably IMpossible, I totally agree. Which pisses me off a lot.

[pmb.livejournal.com]

(not that agreeing with you makes me angry, the fact that we've been made morally culpable for something that we cannot atone for is what makes me angry)

[clipdude.livejournal.com]

If we can’t fix what we’ve already screwed up, we can at least try not to screw up this badly again. I think Americans should make a commitment to be much more skeptical of their leaders when military action is discussed in the future. It distresses me how easily many of my fellow citizens accepted administration promises that the war would be short, involve few casualties, and not cost much money.

[clipdude.livejournal.com]

Oops. Yep, “impossible” is what I meant to write.

[amperlj.livejournal.com]

I heard that. I also hear the miserable futility about not being able to un-kill everyone who's died there, no matter what we do in the future. It's a no-win situation...there may be a solution that sucks slightly less, but pretty much everything we do there is going to suck to some degree.

[nuclear-eggset.livejournal.com]

"For what?"
I'm pretty sure the answer is power and ego. Which is both so sad and laughable as to be depressing as hell.

[cabanasloth.livejournal.com]

Addressing your non-Iraq point: how often do people claim something other than an extinction-level threat to be the end of the world? I mean, if you say something is the end of the world, it's pretty much by definition an extinction level threat, right?

(Or do lots of people say this metaphorically and I've just happily missed it?)

[pmb.livejournal.com]

Lots of political "debates" portray the other side as causing the end of the world or the end of civilization as we know it. Apocaphilia seems to be on the rise, and every time I hear an argument involving it I need to leave the room. Environmentalists bandy end-of-the-world arguments pretty frequently, and so do a lot of people on the right in various "clash of civilization" guises. Even when I agree with a person's point, invoking the apocalypse makes me want to support the other side.

[esmesquall.livejournal.com]

Amen, brother.

[cabanasloth.livejournal.com]

Really? The only "end of the world" thing I've heard lately is the whole global warming thing... I agree with you that I get a little suspicious when hearing that runaway CO2 emissions (or whatever) could end civilization as we know it, but, hell, it might well be true, I'm hardly qualified to judge. I honestly can't think of any other apocalyptic arguments I've heard recently... all that energy that went into Y2K millenarianism now seems to be focused on global warming, as far as I can tell...

[esmesquall.livejournal.com]

Two words: peak oil.

[cabanasloth.livejournal.com]

Wow, yeah, people really do say that peak oil is the end of the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

What a bunch of assholes.

Not to laugh at a serious matter, but...

[triath.livejournal.com]

*phew*, at least Washington was untouched in the invasion of the US.

Seriously though, I couldn't agree more. But then again, I think you're preaching to the choir.

[akjdg.livejournal.com]

1. Like the rest of the mainstream media, the Atlantic Free Press has apparently accepted by aclamation and therefore glosses over the fact that the agressor has managed to annex 1/6th the land mass of the U.S. (not including the territory where U.S. citizens have been killed or displaced en masse), consisting of 4% of the U.S. states. Sadly, not a single member of the public noticed this glaring omission. :)

2. (This one's less ":)") I find it a stretch to state that the U.S. has killed 1,000,000 Iraqis. We have inspired/enabled/motivated/released (I don't know the right word here) Iraqis and others to kill Iraqis, and as a complicated set of interactions and actions ultimately stemming from our invasion, 1,000,000 have certainly died, but I disagree with the statement that the U.S. ("we") killed these people. We no doubt have huge responsibilities for what happened there, but I think the clerics that motivate their armies to kill and the individuals who fire upon the innocent are beyond doubt culpable to some degree.

Afterall, it's a big mess, and there's mud aplenty to splatter upon everyone's face. No need to hog it all to ourselves.

Lest there be doubt, I think the Iraq Debacle started before 9/11 and snowballed ever step of the way into the laugh-and-cry embarassment-and-horror that we now own. But I see no need to assume ownership of mass murder committed by others on top of responsibilitie for our own actions.

[pmb.livejournal.com]

While there's blame on both sides, it was a "war of choice", and the choice was ours. That makes it more our fault than just "they killed those, and we killed these". Would those people have died if we hadn't invaded? Would those people have died no matter how we invaded? Since we threw the first punch, those seem to be the crucial questions.

[akjdg.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree, my agreement just falls short of feeling that 'we' killed those people. *consults with wife* I think the best way to articulate my feelings on the matter is that we are perhaps guilty of manslaughter on many of the 1,000,000 dead, but not 1st degree murder.

[bettsbaby.livejournal.com]

So what shall we do about it?

I write to my representatives weekly. We use as little oil as we can (both directly and indirectly). We read and educate ourselves on as much as we can about what is really happening. I send messages to friends reminding them to do so. I make art to raise awareness. I even made a bunch of Tshirts:
http://www.cafepress.com/peacepossible

And so on...

We can't change the numbers of what has happened, but can of what is to come.

So what shall we do? I'm ready.

[pmb.livejournal.com]

So what shall we do?

I, for one, am whining on the internet! Oh. Wait. Crap.

More seriously, I've got nothing here. My point of view of "leave now and feel bad about it" is a tough sell. It's like running on a campaign of "take your damn medicine". I can only think of one viable presidential candidate who says that - Obama - although several people who won't get their party's nomination hold that belief - Gravel, Kucinich, Paul.

More worryingly, I don't have a good understanding of how to affect the leaving timeline. It seems like everyone already has their minds made up. My senators both claim to support "eventually" leaving, but vote for staying, and my congressman votes for leaving to no effect. My president, of course, insists that we should stay the course.

[djsendai.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'm a visualization geek

[amoken.livejournal.com]

While I think the purpose is laudable, lying with geographical visualizations is among my pet peeves. The 4% population figure is represented as almost a quarter of the total area. Because of the way they did this, the 15% is not much larger, and it appears the total 19% covers over half the area. It's a great idea, and it does mean something, but they're intentionally misleading the vast majority of people who don't tend to pay attention to details like population density. Many people will walk away thinking (maybe "feeling" is a better word) an equivalent of a quarter of the US population has been killed in Iraq.

That said, I know it's not meant to represent the data honestly. It's meant to shock people and stir them up. Mark Twain would be impressed.

Re: Yes, I'm a visualization geek

[akjdg.livejournal.com]

Yeah, and they started with a template that omits 1/6th the land mass of the U.S.

Sorry, as a citizen of one of the two colony-states, (an Alaskan), I feel obligated to shout 'notice me! notice me!' every now and then.

Re: Yes, I'm a visualization geek

[amoken.livejournal.com]

Good point! If they'd included your state, they could have made it look even more impressive! There are like five people who live there, right? ;)

(Two of my good friends are Alaskans, so I feel obligated to tease.)

Re: Yes, I'm a visualization geek

[akjdg.livejournal.com]

Hey now, we counted just last week, and thanks to Zed's six fingered foot, we were able to count, uh, 6 of us.

And we cancelled one of the two bridges to nowhere, so please stop laughing at us.

Only 1/12th* of our last legislative body and 2/3rds of our congressional delegation are currently under FBI investigation, so, hmm. Proceed to mock us again, I think.

* Actually, one has already been convicted, so I suppose he doesn't count as being under investigation.