The Austin American-Statesman continues to be the source for a remarkable study of how rural communities are paying a disproportionate price in the Iraq war. For several years, the paper has been tracking the story of how soldiers who are from smaller and poorer communities are dying at a much higher rate than those from cities and wealthier suburbs. The dead soldiers who do come from larger cities are disproportionately black and Hispanic. High-tech cities lose a much lower rate of lives in Iraq than "old economy" towns that struggle for jobs. The latest casualty figures are derived from data posted on the U.S. Department of Defense
Web site. I have reported on this ongoing study before, but now we have new statistics. Look, for example, at the chart below that shows MSA's (metro service areas) with fewer than 25,000 people have a soldier death rate more than twice that of big cities.
Retired University of Texas sociologist Robert Cushing and Bill Bishop, a reporter for The Austin American-Statesman, have been reporting this important story for several years. Here is a piece Bishop wrote in 2003.
The team just authored an op-ed piece on the latest findings. The piece says:
Altogether, a nearly equal percentage of Americans aged 18 to 54 live in counties with a million or more inhabitants as live in counties of 100,000 or fewer. And yet, of the soldiers who have died in Iraq, 342 came from densely populated counties while 536 came from smaller ones. Derived from Pentagon and census data, this chart shows the Iraqi war death rates for every 100,000 people ages 18 to 54 by the size of their county's population.
The difference is visible not just in the size of a soldier's county of origin, but also in its location. Counties disconnected from urban areas tend to have higher death rates, regardless of population size. Small rural counties have a death rate nearly twice that of counties that have the same population but happen to be part of metropolitan areas.
Why should this be? It's not that Iraqi insurgents are singling out rural soldiers, or that commanders are putting them at particular risk. Rather, the armed forces themselves must be disproportionately drawn from rural communities -- a fact not immediately discernible from recruitment data, which report the race, age and education of recruits, but not their home counties.
This is, above all, an economics story. Military studies consistently find that a poor economy is a boon to recruiting. The higher rate of deaths from rural counties likely reflects sparse opportunities for young people in those places.
When the Iraq war memorials go up in years to come, these monuments to heroism and sacrifice will be found less often in thriving urban centers than in lagging rural communities.
The Austin team also has this interesting finding: The highest ratio of deaths is among blacks from rural communities. It is even higher than that of rural whites.
Death Rates of U.S. Soldiers Killed in Iraq by Race and County Population Size
|
|
Death rate per 100,000 aged 18-54 |
|
County population |
White |
Black |
|
size |
|
|
|
1 million+ |
1.01 |
0.72 |
|
500,000 to 1 million |
0.92 |
0.82 |
|
250,000 to 500,000 |
1.17 |
1.28 |
|
100,000 to 250,000 |
1.39 |
0.87 |
|
50,000 to 100,000 |
1.45 |
1.85 |
|
25,000 to 50,000 |
1.42 |
1.00 |
|
< 25,000 |
1.81 |
1.93 |
The fact that whites from smaller areas are over-represented among the U.S. military personnel killed in Iraq has received much attention.
Race/Ethnic Status of US Soldiers Killed in Iraq
|
|
|
|
Death rate
100,000 |
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
|
AMERICAN INDIAN/ALASKA NATIVE |
15 |
0.9 |
|
|
|
ASIAN |
16 |
0.9 |
|
|
|
BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN |
183 |
10.7 |
|
1.00 |
|
HISPANIC |
181 |
10.6 |
|
0.93 |
|
MULT |
35 |
2.1 |
|
|
|
NATIVE HAWAIIAN, OTH PACIFIC IS’L |
11 |
0.6 |
|
|
|
WHITE |
1265 |
74.2 |
|
1.24 |
|
Total |
1706 |
100.0 |
|
|
In November 2003, Bill Bishop wrote this revealing section:
The pattern stands out even in one incident. Sixteen soldiers died when a Chinook helicopter was shot down on November 2, 2003. Two came from counties of a million or more: Texas's Harris County (Houston) and San Diego. Eight were from counties of fewer than 100,000, ranging from Orangeburg County in South Carolina (pop. 92,582) to diminutive York County, Neb. (pop. 14,598).
Military historians can't point to any similar study of the hometowns of soldiers during the Vietnam War, when there was a draft. The best evidence before Iraq comes from the University of Chicago's General Social Survey which, in surveys conducted from the 1970s through the mid-'90s, found no difference in the military enlistment rates of those from small towns or farms and those from cities with more than 250,000 people. The toll of rural dead in Iraq appears to be a new phenomenon.
Bishop h
as generously agreed to help Al's Morning Meeting readers who are journalists. If you have questions about the research, Bill h
as forwarded his contact information:
Bill Bishop
1415 Alameda Dr.
Austin, TX 78704
512-428-9067
mailto:bbish@austin.rr.com
National Public Radio's Howard Berkes, who alerted me to this latest round of data, has developed stories about this issue. You can hear his good work by clicking here.
Federal Shield Law Hearing
I am not sure this got much in-depth coverage, with cable channels going large on the Supreme Court talking-head blatherfest.
So, I wanted to bring you some details of the testimony from yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the federal shield law legislation.
Among those who testified yesterday:
Senator Richard Lugar said,
Unfortunately, the free flow of information to citizens of the United States is under threat. Over two dozen reporters were served or threatened with jail sentences last year in at least four different Federal jurisdictions for refusing to reveal confidential sources. Judith Miller sits in jail today because she refused to release the name of her source or sources for a story she did not write. Matt Cooper, who will share his story today, was likewise threatened with imprisonment but is not in jail because of a release from his obligation to his confidential source. It is important that we ensure reporters certain rights and abilities to seek sources and report appropriate information without fear of intimidation or imprisonment. Compelling reporters to testify and, in particular, forcing them to reveal the identity of their confidential sources without extraordinary circumstances, hurts the public interest. The result will be that many whistleblowers will refuse to come forward and reporters will be unable to provide our constituents with information they have a right to know.
The legislation that Senator Dodd and I have introduced is designed to provide the press with the ability to obtain and protect confidential sources. This bill would set national standards for subpoenas issued to reporters by an entity or employee of the federal government. I believe that it strikes a reasonable balance between the public's right to know and the fair administration of justice.
Matthew Cooper (
Time magazine) said, in part,
What we in the media are asking for is quite formidable, an exemption from some of the duties of citizenship. We're asking for a privilege that is not afforded farmers or manufacturers, bartenders or bus drivers. To be sure, forty-nine states, through court rulings and statutes, have decided to give journalists, and thus the public, some form of legal protection, but it is still much to ask Congress to grant us a degree of federal protection, and I think it behooves us to do so humbly.
But ask we do -- and with good reason. I don't have strong feelings about which statute makes the most sense and how the privilege should be defined. But I do want to talk about how the rules of the road are, to put it mildly, quite confusing for a working journalist such as myself in the absence of any clear federal standard. I might add this also applies to any public official from the school board to the senate or, for that matter, from the grocer to the captain of industry who chooses to talk with the media using some degree of confidentiality.
Right now, if I pick up the phone and call a Senator or a civil servant and they say, "Don't quote me on this but..." or "Don't identify me but..." I can't really know what I'm getting myself into assuming that what follows is important and controversial enough to rise to the level of litigation. (And, of course, no reporter knows whether what follows after ground rules are established will be useless drivel or important information that will benefit the public.) Will it end up in state court where I have protections? Or in federal court where I may have none? If it's a civil trial that stems from the conversation, I would seem to have more protection than if it leads to a subpoena before a criminal grand jury. The rules of the road as I try to do my job are chaotic at best. In the case of my imprisoned colleague Judith Miller of The New York Times several courts held that she had no right to defy a subpoena before a grand jury, but still another federal court upheld her right to refuse to turn over phone records. The Supreme Court has chosen not to clarify these rules, but you can.
Norman Pearlstine (Editor-in-Chief, Time Inc.) said, "The absence of federal legislation protecting sources h
as created extraordinary chaos, limiting the public's access to important information that is so necessary in a democratic society. The Supreme Court's sharply divided decision 33 years ago in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), h
as mystified courts, lawyers and journalists alike. As a result, the federal courts are in a state of utter disarray about whether a reporter's privilege protecting confidential sources exists. The conflicting legal standards throughout the federal courts defeat the nearly unanimous policies of the States in this area. This uncertainty chills essential newsgathering and reporting. It also leads to confusion by sources and reporters, and the threat of jail and other harsh penalties for reporters who do not know what promises they can make to their sources.
He added, "We know that when gathering and reporting news, journalists act as surrogates for the public. Protecting confidential sources is thus intended not to protect the rights of news organizations, individual reporters or sources, but to safeguard the public's rights."
William Safire (New York Times columnist) testified, "Not all sources are angels, and some of us grant anonymity too quickly; responsible editors are correcting that. But the essence of news gathering is this: if you don't have sources you trust and who trust you, then you don't have a solid story --- and the public suffers for it."
Floyd Abrams (attorney for Judith Miller) testified.
Lee Levine (attorney) points out that subpoenas have been flying recently, juicing up the urgency for action, "An unusually large number of subpoenas seeking the names of anonymous sources has been issued by federal courts in a remarkably short period of time to a variety of media organizations and the journalists they employ. Indeed, three federal proceedings in Washington, D.C., alone have generated subpoenas seeking confidential sources to roughly two dozen reporters and news organizations, seven of whom have been held in contempt in less than a year. By way of comparison, the last significant survey of news organizations conducted in 2001 by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press revealed only two subpoenas seeking confidential source identities issued from any judicial or administrative body that year, federal or state."
Professor Geoffrey Stone, who has been critical of the press in the Miller and Cooper cases, still says there is a need for a federal shield law. He testified, "The absence of a federal privilege creates an intolerable situation for both journalists and sources. Consider a reporter who works in New York whose source is willing to tell her about an unsafe product, but only if the reporter promises him confidentiality. New York has a shield law, but the federal government does not. If the disclosure results in litigation or prosecution in the state courts of New York, the reporter can protect the source, but if the litigation or prosecution is in federal court, the reporter cannot invoke the privilege. This generates uncertainty, and uncertainty breeds silence. The absence of a federal privilege directly undermines the policies of 49 states and the District of Columbia and wreaks havoc on the legitimate and good faith understandings and expectations of sources and reporters throughout the nation. This is an unnecessary, intolerable and, indeed, irresponsible state of affairs."
Senator Patrick Leahy testified, as did Sen. Christopher Dodd.
A Deputy Attorney General was scheduled to testify in the case but canceled.
The Washington Post reports the details of what he was scheduled to say in prepared remarks:
The Justice Department is opposing a bipartisan effort on Capitol Hill to protect journalists from having to reveal confidential sources, calling the legislation "bad public policy" that would impair the administration's ability "to effectively enforce the law and fight terrorism."
In testimony prepared for a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Deputy Attorney General James Comey Jr. says that "imposing inflexible, mandatory standards" would hurt the department on prosecutions involving public health, safety and national security.
The department's stance is a disappointment to legislators and news media advocates who have been negotiating with Justice officials and this week scaled back the bill to meet administration objections. Senate sponsors Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., altered the measure to allow prosecutors to compel journalists to testify about sources if that would prevent "imminent and actual harm to national security" and the potential harm outweighs the public interest in unfettered reporting.
CopyScape
This is pretty cool and useful tool. You can enter in a Web address and find out who else has scraped, lifted, honored, borrowed, adapted or stolen content from that site. Just try it, you'll understand once you use it. As usual, my friend Sree Sreenivasan is way ahead of me on this one. He wrote about it months ago.
Shutter Shortage
As we watch the last winds of yet another hurricane pass into the nation's midsection, The Associated Press says there is a national shortage of steel storm shutters. In fact, if you try to buy shutters now, you can expect to get them months from now, maybe next year.
Residents across the hurricane-prone Southeast have been told they may have to wait as long as next year to get shutters, the result of huge demand after last year's record season, difficulties in getting scarce raw materials and in some cases, unscrupulous contractors.
"When someone says I can give you shutters in two weeks, there's got to be a reason why they say that. And it's usually not good," said Bob Hoffman, president of Rolladen Inc., one of the nation's largest shutter makers.
Since March of last year, Florida's Attorney General's Office has received 133 complaints about hurricane shutter installations, including one case of a company that took payments from 91 elderly customers and never delivered.
Storm shutters have long been touted as one of the best ways to protect a home in a hurricane, since they can withstand winds up to 150 mph and provide protection against flying debris. And despite prices that can range from a few hundred to several thousand dollars for a typical home, many residents feel it is worth it, particularly in Florida, where one in five homes was damaged by storms last year and insured wind damage was estimated at $22 billion.
South Florida-based Rolladen is having one of the busiest periods since the company was founded in 1968 but the demand may be too great. Wait times to get shutters have stretched from the typical month to nearly four months, leaving customers out of luck for this year's hurricane season.
Some installers, such as home-improvement giant Home Depot, have warned customers they may not be able to deliver this season and some aren't promising shutters until at least January.
The Associated Press
said that in
New Orleans, buyers normally wait six weeks for delivery of steel shutters, but now they will have to wait at le
ast three months.
There are other options, of course, to keep your windows safe.
We are always looking for your great ideas. Send Al a few sentences and hot links.
Editor's Note: Al's Morning Meeting is a compendium of ideas, edited story excerpts and other materials from a variety of Web sites, as well as original concepts and analysis. When the information comes directly from another source, it will be attributed, and a link will be provided, whenever possible.
