It is also a great tool for geographers!

The only thing I don’t like is that sometimes there is information missing from the factbook (like per capita income for Israel) that means you have to bust out the calculator and figure it out on your own

Estavisti: Notoriously unreliable? Perhaps you’d like to list some specific examples of the notoriety you speak of to convince us, instead of stating a conclusion and expecting readers to believe you.

Alec: It’s listed in the current version—GDP per capita (PPP): $24,600 (2005 est.)

Hear hear to Curzon! I too am curious as to how “notoriously unreliable” it is. If some good evidence is provided I will have to pass it on to the hundreds of academics in my field that reference it…

As far as inaccuracies go, may I draw your attention to the 3.7% unemployment rate listed for South Korea. For most to get a ‘job’ these days, you must be a graduate of a top University in Seoul. While many of the older generations will deny it (they all have jobs already, and thus don’t care) but any recent graduate will testify to rampant unemployment. My wife, despite a degree from a university in the top 15 of South Korea, spent a year looking for a job, and finally had to settle on one that paid a pittance.

Is this really the CIAs fault? The South Korean Government itself uses such a riddiculously low number (I’m not sure if it is the same one).

The next question is, does the CIA just compile numbers reported by others countries? or does it research each country on its own and compile the statistics?

The resources required for the latter would be ridiculous, amounting to replicating all the worlds nations census collecting and calculating entities. Can the CIA Word Factbook really be blamed for inaccurate numbers, when the inaccuracies lie within the governments that reported them incorrectly because of either lazyness, self interest or pride even?

In reallity its a combination of both. For some countries the official number is used, but for countries of particular interest/importance, or in cases where the official number is absurd, they study it deeper or provide a an estimate next to the official one.

I challenge Estavisti to prove he can do a better job, name someone who can/will (and provide it free-of-charge to the world), or STFU.

While kb is provocative, and sometimes not much of a diplomat, the “leftist algae in my pool” comment is uncalled for. I am not a moderator here, but I will plea for keeping civil tongues in our heads.

My favorite feature of the Factbook has always been that you can display by field as well as by country. Awesome when you want worldwide data on a certain topic, or just want to see a list of every legal system in the world.

Arcane said:

“No, that’s not what I said. How cute of you to twist my words around, just like how the NSArchive twists the words around to support their positions”¦”

What positions? What twisting? Examples please. You mean, that folks should be aware of what their tax dollars pay for? Don’t know what you’re referring to. Bt the comment regarding “denegrating the U.S.” is laughable. Since when is telling the truth and reporting facts denegrating? I mean, in psychology we call it denial when one doesn’t wish to look at their own problems, shortcomings, etc…and then try and help the patient look at them. True, they often don’t like to look at it, sometimes they even get angry at the therapist for gettingthem to look at them, but it’s the only way anything is going to get better. You deal with the problems, NOT keep piling more and more denials on top hoping they’ll eventually go away.kb

“The NSArchive does not “examine”Â? the documents they collect.”

Really? Where is your evidence? Show me the evidence you have which has led you to the notion that they don’t examine the documents. kb

“They collect tens of thousands of pages, and selectively release a few dozen out of that many”

Yes, and these show what was actually happening and which was not known before, or at least by many folks who were only fed the propaganda versions and sought nothing more. You know, like the folks who think that Kissinger wasn’t a war criminal, or that Reagan wasn’t charged with international terrorism. You know, those folks. I think most folks, at least the ones who study the topics, are ware of most of the other parts, aren’t they. Anyway, the documents are there, and to my knowledge there has been little to no challenge to any of them other than by those who don’t like what they’re reading and then make the charges like you have here based on nothing but opinion. It’s common.kb

“highlighting phrases that supports their position and denigrates the U.S.”

Why on earth would they want to “denigrate the U.S.”? They have no commitment to dinegrating the U.S. Showing what crap the U.S. has participated in is NOT denigration, it’s truth. This demonstrates their concern for their country. Ignoring these things, which you seem tothink might be good, demonstrates the exact opposite. Sorry, I know this concept must be a big blow to some who likes the kinder and gentler histories from which these uncomfortable facts have been sifted out, but, hey, they’re there. You guys on the right really have difficulty with the concept that looking at weakness, commenting on them, offering suggestions, etc…does not in any way, shape, or form denigrate the U.S. Once again, let’s give an elementary example: You’re a piano teacher. Your student is really good, but they have a few weak points. Now, do you ignore the weaknesses and keep cheerleading how great the things are which they are already good at, or do you focus on the weak points, all the while being aware that if you could only rid them the weaknesses that the overall performance could be much better? And if you choose to focus on the weaknesses and point them out to the student does it mean that you’re “anti-student” or something? Does the student go home whining to their mother that the teacher hates them because they pointed out their mistakes and the other things they sucked at? It’s absurd.kb

“while ignoring any evidence counter to that in the other documents.”

Okay, well, then be a good boy and show us which documents you are referring to, and the evidence for showing that they’ve been taken out of context.kb

“Not only that, from speaking with some friends of mine who have attempted to obtain copies of material from the Archive, they are not very open with their records and regularly ignore requests.”

Still hearsay. No evidence. I suggest putting together a nice little package of evidence for the assertions you’ve made so that we gullible people can be enlightened. I’m always open for the disclosure of more evidence. I have no agenda other than wanting to know what happened. That’s not too radical, is it? Well, in the current climate perhaps it is….kb

“What they publish is select documents that give a small snapshot of an overall picture, and then fill in the rest with their interpretation and ignore everything else.”

Yes, you’ve said this before without giving any evidence. I’d be interested in you filling out the parts they leave out with your sources. I’m sure as hell not just going to take your word. Sorry.kb

“They intentionally distort the picture for their own ideological purposes.”

Evidence. I’m waiting. Don’t do what many, or perhaps most, right wingers do and confuse opinion with evidence. I don’t really care if you believe them to be foaming at the mouth raving Stalinists, or Hitler’s Youth revived, I want to see what you “think” you’ve seen, yourself, NOT from secondhand sources, which have led you to this perception.kb

“That’s propaganda, my friend.”

Perhaps, but you haven’t demonstrated that this has happened. You’ve only said it has. This is not quite the same. I’d say that the effects of propaganda could better be seen in your comments here now. The Archives has what they have out there for all to read. They make some comments on it, none of which I’ve seen challenged with anything more than the empty charges you’ve made here. You have shown nothing at all. And I’d assume that your perceptions which have led you to interpreting your reading of the Archives the way you have, though I’d bet a hundred dollars you’ve probably never read more than a sentence or two from there, have themselves been jaded by propaganda. We’ll see in the coming days.kb

“And again, the NSArchive has nothing to do with this thread or with the Factbook. Why you brought it up is obviously for simple advertisement purposes.”

You’re the one talking about it. I simply said that I liked it better than the fact book. (Curzon, are you watching? You made a similar mis-prepresentation he other day when you accused me of talking about Chomsky all the time, when, as I demonstrated, it wasn’t me at all, but two other clowns who went on a rampage demonstrating their lack of knowldge of the subject. See any similarity here? I do. Wonder what this is all about? Actually, I have an idea, but I’ll save it for later, and when the time is right) But were it for “advertizing purposes” why would you care, as you obviously know nothing about what they offer? Not all advertizing is bad, you know? Especially, when it’s trying to get out real information instead of disinformation. I’d like to think that the documents in question are about as close to real information of what folks were up to as we can get.kb

“I’m sick of the leftist algae residing in my pool”¦ where’s the chlorine?”

What leftists? Don’t know who or what you’re referring to. Didn’t know it was your pool either. Had I know this I would have left a prize in it. Oh, it must be the you’re either a right wing neo-conartist, or your “leftist algae communist scum, huh? Yeah, well, it’s quite obvious now that you’re exactly the right person to be talking to us about propaganda. Sorry, but propaganda most often works best on those with black and white ideologies like those you’ve displayed.kb

Curzon said:

“VKT: Pretty amusing that you’re calling for civility from Arcane when it’s KB who has spent the last week calling regular CA commenters dumbasses and much more that I won’t repeat here.”

I called a commenter here a dumbass? Would you please remind me where that was? A copy and paste would be fine.kb

“KB has yet to lay down an argument that would sway anyone not already of his opinion”

What opinion? And I wasn’t under the impression that I was trying to sway anyone with anything I’ve said. Can you give an example. Trying to sway those who are already indoctrinated beyond all hope and rationality is probably a fultile exercise. That’s not why I’m here at all.kb

“has yet to express any sentiment but outrage”

Really? What “outrage”? Once again I don’t know what you’re referring to. Are you still hurt because of the other thread where, along with the help of another bloak who was familiar with Chomsky’s work, we made your comments look pretty silly? Get over it, will ya? I mean, when you start trying to argue without knowing the topic at all, and then basing what little info you do have on someone like the clown Paul B., you DO sort of ask for it.kb

“and thrown around all sorts of insults and accusations.”

I don’t throw around all sorts. But if I have they were well deserved. I’ll give you the opportunity though to copy and paste several examples, IN context, which demonstrate this. I’m waiting.kb

“Arcane stated specific problems with the NSA, the difficulty of getting access to classified information, KB’s motives for posting it, and topped it off with the “algae”Â? barb.”

Arcane gave an opinion baswed on nothing that I’ve read above. Once again, you’ve confused opinion with some sort of evidence. And you actually think that he knows my “motive for posting it”? Have you guys been calling the Neo-con psychic hotline or something? He has shown nothing at all. What he has done, however, is to demonstrate exactly how proapaganda works, as I have deomstrated with evidence. Orwell, are you watching this?! And are you inferring that the “topped it off part with the algae” was good just after you whined about my being a meany? You folks from the right never cease to amaze me with your hypocrisy.

“If KB could come close to those standards, I’d be impressed.”

Why on earth would I want to go regress? Once you’ve learned that 2+2=4 it’s pretty difficult to go back to thinking it’s 11teen. True, it would be easier to simply give empty opinions with no evidence, babble on and on about what I think everyones agenda is except for mine, and top it off with a comment about the other person being algae, but I my standards are a little higher than this. What’s really funny though is your own perception of what you think you’ve just seen take place in the above dialogue. Talk about a blatent example of seeing the fallout of indoctrination and propaganda. Arcane offered nothing and Curzon saw it too. That’s great! I’ll be waiting.kb

Wow, kb certainly can type… funny how in all of those he not once addressed a single one of my criticisms and, in fact, supported my position by defending the NSArchive’s selectivity by saying that “yes,” that is what they do.

My specific example is the fact that the NSArchive claims to have obtained 16,000 documents pertaining to the CIA’s operations in Chile in the run-up to the anti-Communist coup that took place, yet they only publish a few dozen on their website and published a book with about a hundred of them. Where’s the other 15,500 documents?

LG said:

“kb needs to get a life. Too much damn typing. Keep it pithy.”

You worry about you, I’ll worry about me. If you prefer empty soundbites, then read them. It’s quite easy to scroll down. Well, it is on my computer anyway.kb

“As to being a moderator, my rule of thumb is that a comment must be (1) intelligent, (2) civil, (3) on point, and (4) add something of value or interest to the discussion.”

Yes, well, no problems thus far, or you haven’t shown there to be anyway.kb

“That is a floor.”

That is a ceiling.kb

“If for any other reason, or no articulable reason, I find the comment to be a net negative, I get rid of it.”

(translation) Banning the ideas of others is good, especially when they are uncomfortable facts that you don’t like to have to deal with. Small soundbites like “I agree” and “I disagree” are what’s good.kb

“Ruthless deletion of the odd comment that fails to meet this minimal standard is what I have done to maintain public order on my posts.”

Whatever. Anyway, rather than whining about “style”, why not respond to something? I’ve only left enough to choke a sperm whale. Naw! Let’s talk etiquette!kb

“I think, were it my post, kb would be pushing it.”

I think this says a lot about you. I’m not awfully concerned though. I am going to say what I want, how I want, when I want, etc…So you either get used to it, or flutter away. I’d prefer that rather than waste space commenting on my comment style, that you make some sort of argument about something. You have given no evidence for any of the assertions you’ve made either, by the way. Do you folks from the right study this, or does it just come natural? There are several choices of how to respond. One is to discuss the topic and say what you have to say within two or three longer comments, the better way, or give small fractions of the same material using 200 smaller comments, which is much more difficylt to go back and find materials when wanting to quote someone. It’s understandable why some would prefer the less concise method. Anyway, you don’t wish to read and comment on anything I offer, skip it. It’s still a free country, thanks to the left. Oh, and by the way, the internet is a public service, developed and paid for by the public via taxes and the Pentagon. Remember? I can go anywhere I damn well please. (There! I kept it short for you. And there’s almost no content related to any subject on this sit either. Are you happy now?)kb

Arc said:

“Wow, kb certainly can type”¦ funny how in all of those he not once addressed a single one of my criticisms”

Wait, let me get this straight. You made the assertion/opinion that the Archives were leftist, had agendas, etc….Then I asked for evidence for this, you offer none at all, and it’s I who am not doing my job? Geez! You’re logic really needs a little tune-up.kb

“and, in fact, supported my position by defending the NSArchive’s selectivity by saying that “yes,”Â? that is what they do.”

Where? Where have I supported your position? You have given no evidence for anything yet. And I said, yes, they DO put out thousands of pages of documents, and make slight comments on them. So? Still no evidence for anything you’ve asserted. Zero. Nothing.kb

“My specific example is the fact that the NSArchive claims to have obtained 16,000 documents pertaining to the CIA’s operations in Chile in the run-up to the anti-Communist coup that took place”

Yes, they do. And?kb

“yet they only publish a few dozen on their website and published a book with about a hundred of them. Where’s the other 15,500 documents?”

Well, what more evidence could one ask for that they’re selective? You can look at any of them you wish. Just go there and ask. Or perhaps they should just scan all of them on the web. I’d be for that. So,l ask them why they don’t instead of assuming, and that’s all it is, that they’re hiding something.kb