Jeb, I am starting think you are not even reading what I wrote. First you are wrong that you start with the number 349 because they said “about 3/4 of which are Iraq and Afghanistan war vets” The 349 number refers to homicides by ALL vets- the 121 number by the NYT own admission is the actual number of “killings” by Iraq and Afghanistan war vets (which also brings into question their use of the phrase “about 3/4″ it doesn’t really make sense)— which is after all the point of the article – to say that the Wars and alleged poor care after have led these vets to kill. You don’t even understand the basic numbers in the article !! Second, I realize that the DoJ stats are specific and the NYT ones not so — that’s why I made MASSIVE corrections in my calculations (actually using the number 242 for the killings instead of 121, assuming the lowest possible number of individual war vets, 500,000 although the real number is certainly 100′s of thousands larger, using the lowest averages of the DoJ statistics)…it is called estimation, and it is a very valid mathematical exercise, not poor methodology as you state. And what it shows is that the average male in the U.S between the age of 18-34 is far more likely to commit a murder than the average war vet. If I had made more precise calculations it would only have moved that number far more in favor of the vets. And once again, you are missing the point. Most people who object to this article like myself, wouldn’t object to the basic premise that veterans who have served in wars are more likely to have PTSD and also a bit more likely to commit violent acts. But the question is, how much? And is it really a huge problem? This article tries to say that it is a huge problem. The calculations I point to above say just the opposite. It is a credit to you and your friends that you didn’t come away from the article thinking vets would be more likely to be murderers, but it is not thanks to the Times that you did so, because, again, the Times intentionally omitted any data that would help the reader along to that conclusion. That shows an agenda. And, again, the reason this gets people like me upset is not because I am right-wing — it is because I am a vet and my husband who has served in Iraq will someday be a vet and I am tired of the NYT slandering vets. They participated in it after the Vietnam war, writing stories over-hyping the number of vets with mental problems. Earlier this year papers across the country carried stories about the numbers of homeless vets that again did not make proper statistical corrections to be accurate. They consistently ignore the fact that the veteran population is a much higher percentage of men than women (in the overall vet population the number is as high as 13:1) and since men commit more crimes by a large measure, men are more likely to be homeless by a large measure, those statistical corrections are necessary to really understand if the underlying assumptions of these articles are true. I am not sure if it is because these journalists are mathematically illiterate or on an agenda or both, but regardless, they are wrong. I majored in math and I can assure you that if a study on one of my pet subjects were done the way the NYT did this I would completely reject it. And even after you get statistics, there is also the question of how you portray those stats. One could, as I said in a comment above, look at the same stats the NYT comes up with and say — Wow — this is pretty amazing how many vets have served in the ultra-violent environment of Iraq and Afghanistan and yet very few have become violent at home. That, of course, is not he tack the NYT took. Have you read any front page NYT reports profiling the heroes in this war? The Medal of Honor winner? The other winners of high awards? Just the other day I read in the USAToday about an action where Al Qaeda were using an 11 year old boy to protect themselves and the Marines managed to get the Al Qaeda guys and save the boy — was that on the front page of the NYT? Unlikely. The Times carried the Abu Ghraib story on its front page for over 30 days in a row long after there was any real news to report on the subject. Please don’t try to tell vets that the NYT is neutral about the military — you are deluding yourself. There are a couple excellent reporters at the Times, but the editors who set the agenda of what to write, what stories to ignore, and where to put stories in the paper are so clearly biased against vets it is laughable. And maybe the reason the people you know don’t come away with the impression I stated is because they are not the ones being slandered. Finally, I have seen first hand the efforts the military is making to try to catch those with PTSD and get them treatment. It is a huge bureaucracy and it is not perfect – some people do slip through the cracks. But the military is making a herculean effort with screenings and debriefings etc. Of course there is nothing one can do if a returning vet lies on his screening so that he can get home sooner or because he is trying not to look weak to his comrades. There will always be cases of injustice – where someone with a mental illness is not taking seriously, etc. and the goal of the military is to reduce those cases to a minimum – but to imply that the military and the vet’s bureau is not making a huge effort in this regard would also be misleading.
I’m done discussing this with you – it’s not worth any more effort. I urge you to look at the NYT reporting on the war and vets with a much more skeptical eye. It is well justified.
