Jeb, First -talk radio is not the same as the NYT news pages which claim to be impartial and are taken as gospel truth all around the world. If you are now claiming that the NYT should be held to the same standard as talk radio, then I agree with you, because that is about the level of integrity and impartiality they are demonstrating in this article. Second, the point about looking at the general populace statistics is this: The NYT article says that military murders have gone up over 80% comparing six years before and six years after the start of wars in Afghan/Iraq. This is a shocking statistic designed to raise concerns/fears in the reader. The implication in the article is not just that there has been an increase but that scores of veterans are returning from these wars on some sort of mental edge that will lead them to murder. It is useful and illustrative then, to look at the percentage of such vets (assuming the NYT initial assertion is true, which I do not believe) that commit murders post 2001 and how it compares to the general population — should you be any more worried about the Iraq war vet who moves in next door than ordinary Joe who moves in? This article implies heavily – Yes – but a cursory look at the general population statistics says – No WAY, not even close! You should feel far SAFER if the military vet moves in than ordinary Joe because the fact is that the war vet is, by an order of 10 at least, LESS likely to commit murder. To say that this is irrelevant to the story they are trying to tell is to bury your head in the sand. Finally, once again, — YES we SHOULD ignore anecdotal evidence because it is, well, ANECDOTAL. By its very nature it tells us NOTHING — we can draw no conclusions from it. If someone named Jeb moves in next to me and turns out to be a serial rapist should I conclude that the reason he was a rapist is that his name is Jeb and that other people named Jeb will likely also be serial rapists??? There is no real evidence to support the NYT conclusions, and the outrage from people like me, a veteran whose husband is active duty is appropriate because we are the people being slandered. If you don’t care about evidence, than your opinions are being ruled by feelings and supposition. My guess is that there has been a slight increase in violent crime by vets who have been to war and those who haven’t, and I fully support every effort we can make to upgrade veteran’s outreach, screening procedures etc to try to catch and help those vets who have been mentally effected by some of the death and brutality they have witnessed. But, by far the real story is that, despite having been to war and seeing that brutality, an astonishing number of vets not only are not violent, but also are some of the most productive and positive members of American society. THAT is the conclusion the NYT should have drawn — I’ll be waiting for that article.
