posted January 15, 2009 03:08 AM              

quote:

---

MURDER SPREE BY PEOPLE WHO REFUSE TO ASK FOR DIRECTIONS
January 14, 2009

In a front-page article on Jan. 2 of this year, The New York Times took a brief respite from its ongoing canonization of Barack Obama and returned to its series on violent crimes committed by returning GIs, or as I call it: "U.S. Military, Psycho Killers."

The Treason Times' banner series about Iraq and Afghanistan veterans accused of murder began in January last year but was quickly discontinued as readers noticed that the Times doggedly refused to provide any statistics comparing veteran murders with murders in any other group.

So they waited a year, hoping readers wouldn't notice they were still including no relevant comparisons.

What, for example, is the percentage of murderers among veterans compared to the percentage of murderers in the population at large -- or, more germane, in the general population of young males, inasmuch as violent crime is committed almost exclusively by young men?

Any group composed primarily of young men will contain a seemingly mammoth number of murderers.

Consider the harmless fantasy game, Dungeons and Dragons -- which happens to be played almost exclusively by young males. When murders were committed in the '80s by (1) young men, who were (2) Dungeons and Dragons enthusiasts, some people concluded that factor (2), rather than factor (1), led to murderous tendencies.

Similarly, for its series about how America's bravest and finest young men are really a gang of psychopathic cutthroats, the Times triumphantly produced 121 homicides committed by veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in order to pin the blame for the murders on the U.S. military.

Perhaps the Times' next major expose could be on how a huge percentage of murderers are people who won't ask for directions or share the TV remote.

Let's compare murders by veterans to murders by other 18- to 35-year-olds in the U.S. population at large. From 1976 to 2005, 18- to 24-year-olds -- both male and more gentle females -- committed homicide at a rate of 29.9 per 100,000. Twenty-five- to 35-year-olds committed homicides at a rate of 15.8 per 100,000.

Since 9/11, about 1.6 million troops have served in either Iraq or Afghanistan. That makes the homicide rate among veterans of these wars 7.6 per 100,000 -- or about one-third the homicide rate for their age group (18 to 35) in the general population of both sexes.

But fewer than 200,000 of the 1.6 million troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan have been women, and the murder rate for the general population includes both males and females. Inasmuch as males commit nearly 90 percent of all murders, the rate for males in those age groups is probably nearly double the male/female combined rates, which translates to about 30 to 55 murderers per 100,000 males aged 18 to 35.

So comparing the veterans' rate of murder to only their male counterparts in the general population, we see that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are about 10 times less likely to commit a murder than non-veterans of those wars.

But as long as the Times has such a burning interest in the root causes of murder, how about considering the one factor more likely to create a murderer than any other? That is the topic we're not allowed to discuss: single motherhood.

As I describe in my new book, "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America," controlling for socioeconomic status, race and place of residence, the b]strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single parent.[/b] (The second strongest factor is owning a Dennis Kucinich bumper sticker.)

By 1996, 70 percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences were raised by single mothers. Seventy percent of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers. Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced.

A 1990 study by the left-wing Progressive Policy Institute showed that, after controlling for single motherhood, the difference in black and white crime disappeared.

Various studies come up with slightly different numbers, but all the figures are grim. A study cited in the far left-wing Village Voice found that children brought up in single-mother homes "are five times more likely to commit suicide, nine times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape (for the boys), 20 times more likely to end up in prison, and 32 times more likely to run away from home."

With new children being born, running away, dropping out of high school and committing murder every year, it's not a static problem to analyze. But however the numbers are run, single motherhood is a societal nuclear bomb.

Many of these studies, for example, are from the '90s, when the percentage of teenagers raised by single parents was lower than it is today. In 1990, 28 percent of children under 18 were being raised in one-parent homes -- mother or father, divorced or never-married. By 2005, more than one-third of all babies born in the U.S. were illegitimate.

That's a lot of social problems in the pipeline.

Think I'm being cruel? Imagine an America with 60 to 70 percent fewer juvenile delinquents, teenage births, teenage suicides and runaways, and you will appreciate what the sainted "single mothers" have accomplished.

Even in liberals' fevered nightmares, predatory mortgage dealers, oil speculators and Ken Lay could never do as much harm to their fellow human beings as single mothers do to their own children, to say nothing of society at large.

But the Times won't run that series because liberals adore single motherhood and the dissolution of traditional marriage in America. They detest the military, so they cite a few anecdotal examples of veterans who have committed murder and hope that no one asks for details

---

posted January 15, 2009 04:20 AM            

Then there was a drastic drop, and it stayed down. The only thing that seems to be found is that this was when the first babies that had been legally aborted would have become teens. This seems to justify legal abortion as a means of national security.

Ann Coulter would not be pleased.

More has also been said, supporting the ideas of welfare, intervention, and going after deadbeat dads (which Republicans also want to go after) because being a single mother is rough and children are at risk.

Besides that, ever read It Takes a Village, supposedly by Hillary Clinton (though actually a ghostwriter)? Made me think of a Sunday School teacher, especially like in parts where Hillary says she believes no one should have sex until after they're married. I don't recall her championing single mothers anywhere in it. If Clinton's name was taken off the book and Dr. Laura's stuck on it, I bet it would be praised by many conservatives (actually a few already have). It also praises capitalism rather than promoting socialism as many act like. The parts that could be called socialism has been also promoted by Bill O'Reilly on FOX, too (save maybe the book saying the government should go after "cartoon characters" selling cigarettes).

For an even more conservative book, check out Raising PG Kids in an X-Rated Society by Tipper Gore (an Al Gore helped in her campaign--though liberals that backed him on that seemed to hate Palin for taking on a much toned down campaign of her own against objectionable material).

posted January 15, 2009 04:53 AM            

quote:

---

• Women who have never married obtain two-thirds of all abortions.

---

Now, I'm not saying I can back up all her statements or that I agree, either. I know a number of single moms whose children are not criminals. But that's a personal anecdote and likely to be argued to fall in whatever percentage of non-criminal children of single mothers exist. And yes, I also know some single mothers whose children would have been better off, imo, as abortions.

I think a very important question not addressed by Coulter is whether or not those children had extended families. Ime, children who have access to an extended family, particularly those with strong male figures (and vice versa for single father homes), fare better than children who only have their mothers (or fathers) to depend on. Also important is economic status.

quote:

---

• The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women). This is partly because the rate of unintended pregnancies among poor women (below 100% of poverty) is nearly four times that of women above 200% of poverty* (112 vs. 29 per 1,000 women[3,1]

---

How this all fits in with liberalism is, imo, hard to say. I think it's unfair for anyone to think that all single mothers are failures and yet I also think it's unfair to not look at the children whose single parents have failed them, for whatever reasons.

There's also the fact that 30% of inmates in juvi are not from single parent families. So where is the research into precisely what causes young criminal behavior? Is it abuse? Neglect? Lack of family time? Some innate "evil" gene? Somehow or other, there must be factors that are aggravated and lead to criminal behavior. What is it about some single parent homes and some traditional family homes that sets these kids off? And where does the rest of the environment fit in ... and nature vs. nurture? I just want more documented facts.

posted January 15, 2009 11:58 PM            

Oh, I found it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR5hLJeGl3Y

No Rosie. Too bad, that had the potential to be epic. (I think one on one, Coulter would win because she has a quicker wit than Rosie and I also believe she's selling a gimmick that she only partially believes personally whereas Rosie is a true believer in her own outrageous statements, so finds it harder to detach herself enough to think of clear responses quickly. This assumes it didn't degrade into violence, in which case Rosie would probably put Coulter in the hospital even before Rosie was even done warming up. But with her backup there of others who are far more reasonable, and the token conservative a moderate, IIRC, I think Coulter would be dogpiled into submission.)