Going Green - But I Read it in the New York Times!

Another post recycled from 2008 - this one touched on two of my (many) pet peeves: Veterans, and society accepting that the news media reports logically rather than choosing how they report information in order to positively impact their ratings. 

We have access to so much information these days, yet so many of us believe everything we are told is the complete truth.

_______________________________________   

A few weeks ago, the New York Times published a lengthy, front page article that generally portrayed returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans as psychotic killers who should never be trusted with small children.

The story focused on "research" done by the newspaper that found 121 cases of returning veterans who had killed (murder, manslaughter and in some cases DUI).

The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and the stress of deployment — along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems — appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.

The article angered me. I wasn't surprised that military veterans commit murder, but that it NEVER crossed the "brilliant" literary minds of the New York Times to give statistical data to back up this "quiet phenomenon" as they describe it. You'll understand why in just a minute.

Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that these 121 killings came from a population of veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan of about 700,000. 121 acts of murder, out of 700,000 veterans spread over six years, yields a rate of 2.88 murders per 100,000 veterans, per year.

Interestingly enough, the Department of Justice publishes statistics on homicide offenders (general population). The US offender rate for homicide in the 18 - 24 year old range is 26.5/100,000. For 25 - 34 year olds, it is 13.5/100,000.

Do you see a problem here? Yes, that's right, your chances of being killed by a returning Iraq/Afghanistan war veteran are at least FOUR TIMES LOWER than your chances of being killed by someone who never served.

This story does nothing more than attempt to exploit the acts of troops who have committed crimes since they returned to the state and suggest that being a part of the military made these people do what they did. It is an insult to all the troops who serve honorably and act with honor and dignity when they return home - it is an insult to me.

They should stick to crossword puzzles.

Free Lunch?

There was a recent article in The New York Times titled, As Jobs Vanish and Prices Rise, Food Stamp Use Nears Record. Once again, the media is attempting to grab our attention with headlines that are only half-true.

Estimates are that 28 million Americans will use food stamps in 2008 - that is the highest number ever. However, that number is a poor measure; it doesn’t provide context.

What this article doesn't tell you is the percentage of the population that is on food stamps. Guess what? It's 9.2%. Something else? 1993, 1994 and 1995 were the years the with the highest percentage of the population on food stamps - 10.4% in 1993 and 1994, and 10% in 1995 (which for those of you paying attention was during the Clinton administration). Although the headline is accurate, it is misleading.

So why the sudden increase in the use of food stamps? I'd be a fool if I attempted to minimize our current economic issues. Yes, people are paying more for fuel and groceries, and I have no doubt there are those that need a little help.

Here's my question though - if the need is so great - if there are millions of Americans going without food, why did the USDA have to launch a $3 million advertising campaign this winter? Not only were there old-fashioned jingles blaring across radio stations, but several states launched TV commercials attempting to coax people to apply. Surprisingly (not), applications for food stamps went up after the advertising blitz. Were these really people who were in dire straights, or were they people who discovered there was such a thing as a free lunch and the Government was handing it out?

It used to be that being on food stamps was somewhat of an embarrassment. You actually had to pay with coupons that resembled something similar to a scarlet letter on your forehead. Was that such a bad thing? Is it possible that the "shame" of taking a handout motivated people to do more for themselves?

We've made it easy to depend on the Government for help. We spend millions of dollars advertising social programs on television and radio and we give food stamp recipients an Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card so that no one will be able to tell that they are on food stamps. What happened to shame? What happened to encouraging people to do for themselves rather than encouraging them to be dependent on the Government?

But I Read it in the New York Times!

A few weeks ago, the New York Times published a lengthy, front page article that generally portrayed returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans as psychotic killers who should never be trusted with small children.

The story focused on "research" done by the newspaper that found 121 cases of returning veterans who had killed (murder, manslaughter and in some cases DUI).

The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and the stress of deployment — along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems — appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.

The article angered me. I wasn't surprised that military veterans commit murder, but that it NEVER crossed the "brilliant" literary minds of the New York Times to give statistical data to back up this "quiet phenomenon" as they describe it. You'll understand why in just a minute.

Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that these 121 killings came from a population of veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan of about 700,000. 121 acts of murder, out of 700,000 veterans spread over six years, yields a rate of 2.88 murders per 100,000 veterans, per year.

Interestingly enough, the Department of Justice publishes statistics on homicide offenders (general population). The US offender rate for homicide in the 18 - 24 year old range is 26.5/100,000. For 25 - 34 year olds, it is 13.5/100,000.

Do you see a problem here? Yes, that's right, your chances of being killed by a returning Iraq/Afghanistan war veteran are at least FOUR TIMES LOWER than your chances of being killed by someone who never served.

This story does nothing more than attempt to exploit the acts of troops who have committed crimes since they returned to the state and suggest that being a part of the military made these people do what they did. It is an insult to all the troops who serve honorably and act with honor and dignity when they return home - it is an insult to me.

They should stick to crossword puzzles.