Half of marriages do NOT end in divorce!!

After hearing this ridiculous claim again tossed out on a news report the other day, I felt compelled to set the record straight, for the edification of the vast galaxy of Writeminded visitors, anyway.

This false statistic is thrown around so casually, it seems that many people citing it are almost promoting the demise of marriage as an institution. Viewing marriage as if it were some kind of archaic holdover from puritanical days of old, they eagerly repeat (without the slightest thought to it's glaring illegitimacy) the notion that half of all the married couples we know will see their promises of lifelong committment deteriorate into bitter, painful divorces.



I've heard Michael Medved address this statistical screwup at least a couple times on his radio show, in which he's pointed out that some really sloppy analysis (so easily corrected) of the stats simply compared the number of marriages to divorces in a given year, as if those marriages were also the ones dissolving that same year!
For example, the National Center for Health Statistics reported 2.4 million marriages in 1981, and 1.2 million divorces.

Now, a moron not prone to giving anything more than a nanosecond of reflection might compute that into a 50% failure rate. But the average 3rd grader would probably be wise enough to immediately comprehend that the many millions of marriages from previous years, going back several decades even, would comprise the pool from which those 1.2 million divorces came.



Here, for those caring enough to inform themselves, is a state-by-state table of the marriage rates, per 1000 people, for eight different years.
Here is a similar table for the divorces in those same years.

In my Minnesota, for example, the marriage-to-divorce rate ratio in 1990 was 7.7 to 3.5, per 1000 people. (Happily, the divorce rate dropped thru most of the proceeding years to 2.8 divorces per 1000 people in 2004.)

But it should be obvious to everyone that the couples calling it quits in any given year were not half of the same couples that just said their "I do"s.

That this common error hasn't been put to rest by the media reporting it, doesn't speak well for their attention to detail and fact-checking. And, the fact that the obviousness of the assumption didn't jump out at those reporters (and everyone else citing it) in the first place, leads one to think that they may have a vested interest in heralding the demise of the institution that is the cornerstone of civilized society.

Obama's dilemma.....

....is an opportunity for America to once again discuss RACE.






Before Barack Obama even addressed the controversy over his pastor and the racist and anti-American portions of some of his sermons that have been publicized recently, Shelby Steele wrote, in the Wall Street Journal, an insightful, thought-provoking, excellent essay on his candidacy and the influence of race as an ingredient in modern American politics.

The piece has so many truly compelling paragraphs, that I hesitate to excerpt any here, lest you skip reading it entirely, which you should, but these are particularly enlightening:


"How to turn one's blackness to advantage?
The answer is that one "bargains." Bargaining is a mask that blacks can wear in the American mainstream, one that enables them to put whites at their ease. This mask diffuses the anxiety that goes along with being white in a multiracial society. Bargainers make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him. And whites love this bargain -- and feel affection for the bargainer -- because it gives them racial innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity for whites to experience racial innocence.

This is how Mr. Obama has turned his blackness into his great political advantage, and also into a kind of personal charisma. Bargainers are conduits of white innocence, and they are as popular as the need for white innocence is strong. Mr. Obama's extraordinary dash to the forefront of American politics is less a measure of the man than of the hunger in white America for racial innocence."


(I would interject the clarification that I am not in need of having this innocence conferred upon me, but rather, having it recognized as something I already possess, by virtue of the fact that I am not racist, and am innocent of racial discrimination or prejudice.)


"But bargainers have an Achilles heel. They succeed as conduits of white innocence only as long as they are largely invisible as complex human beings. They hope to become icons that can be identified with rather than seen, and their individual complexity gets in the way of this. So bargainers are always laboring to stay invisible. Mr. Obama has said of himself, "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views . . ." And so, human visibility is Mr. Obama's Achilles heel. If we see the real man, his contradictions and bents of character, he will be ruined as an icon, as a "blank screen."


Echoing a common criticism of many opponents, notably Hillary Clinton, the "blank screen" that is Barack Obama may now be more believably understood to be a result of intent, rather than an inability of Obama's to specify how he would accomplish so many of the progressive goals he's idealized about. Setting aside the race issue for a moment, once we get past his charismatic rhetorical skills we see that Obama is just another big government liberal who wants federal bureaucracies to manage health care and education, redistribute wealth, and who doesn't understand the importance of our success in fighting radical Islamists in Iraq.


Before I return to the race issue, let me just say that Obama, if he's nominated, needs to be defeated simply because he'd promote socialistic policies that would bankrupt this country.

He wants to give everyone who wants to go to college $4000 per year for four years! Not loans, not limited grants that you'd need to compete for, but free money for everybody that wants it. (Then to "repay" America with community service.)

His loudest promise is to provide a health care plan for every American by the end of his 1st term, and one that "cuts costs for the typical family by up to $2,500 a year". How's the math on that going to work out? Insure everyone (providing medical care for everyone, whatever care anyone needs), including the 48 million that he claims are uninsured now, and still somehow manage to reduce the costs for everyone? Impossible. (Here's a quote from his speech in Spartanburg, SC last November: "...I'll pass a universal health care bill that allows every American to get the same kind of health care that members of Congress get for themselves and cuts every family's premiums by up to $2500. And mark my words - I will sign this bill by the end of my first term as President.")

In his "A More Perfect Union" speech several days ago, Obama said: "...we all want to move in the same direction". That's not true. His progressiveness isn't progress. It's socialism. I don't believe most Americans really want that and, for sure, not everyone does.



Now back to the race issue and Obama's speech.

I give Obama credit for indicting Rev. Jeremiah Wright's lack of historical context, saying that "...he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country...is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past."

I give Obama credit for condemning Rev. Wright for seeing "...the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."

I also give Obama credit for acknowledging that Rev. Wright "...expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country...", but then the first example he gave was inaccurate: "...that sees white racism as endemic..." I'm certain that Rev. Wright doesn't think white racism is endemic (restricted to a particular place). He believes it's pandemic (widespread), epidemic (affecting many persons at one time), and chronic (long duration or frequent recurrence). And he's wrong.

Obama also appeared to be aware of something that most of us were not (because we don't travel to many different types of churches), even though Martin Luther King Jr. chastised us for it out over 40 years ago, when he said: "It is appalling that the most segregated hour of Christian America is eleven o'clock on Sunday morning." A completely different meaning of that observation- a malignant manifestation of King's sincere concern for unity in the Church- has become painfully clear to many in America just in the last couple of days. Along with Wright's racist rants being broadcast widely and repeatedly, other black preacher's sermons have found their way into the limelight of modern media, and.....they're nothing like what most of us have ever experienced in our churches, to be sure.

It's become evident that it's common, in some predominantly black churches, to hear a great deal of victim-based, racially divisive "black liberation theology" that still blames "rich, white" America for oppressing African-Americans economically, judicially, and socially, as if this was 1963.

Donna Brazile, Al Gore's past campaign manager, recently said that "Jeremiah Wright is actually one of the more moderate black preachers- just go to a church down the street from my house...", when on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos". While she's not responsible for being an expert on the preaching styles of various pastors across the country, we can assume that, in her long career of traveling around the U.S. for Democratic candidates, she's visited many churches and listened to many different preachers.

In conclusion, if these are the statements of a "moderate" black preacher... :

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law, and then wants us to sing "God Bless America"?! No, no, no, not "God Bless America"- God damn America! That's in the Bible! For killing innocent people! God damn America for treating us citizens as less than human!"

"They will not only attack you if you try to point out wuss goin on in White America, US of KKKA..."

"Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich, white people!"

"Bill did us just like he did Monica Lewinsky- (with the pastor visually simulating sex) -he was riding dirty!"

"We (the United States) believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."

"We started the AIDS virus..." (to kill blacks). "We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty."

...then we may be farther from racial reconciliation than ever.

Five years in Iraq

And what have we accomplished?


We've liberated 25 million people from a murderous, tyrannical dictator.

We saved the country from another generation of even worse tyranny, as Saddam's sons were more depraved than their father.

We've shut down the rape rooms and torture chambers.

We closed the heinous children's prison and freed it's innocent captives.

We delivered their tormentor to the victims of Hussein's bloody reign, so they could deliver justice to him.

We've planted the first seeds of democracy in the deserts of modern Babylon.

We've given the Iraqi people their first taste of self governance, with free elections and drafting a constitution.

We've reminded the world, with the sacrifice of so many of our own citizens, what it means to be the leader of the free world, and have used our superpower gifts of might, wealth, and liberty for the betterment of others.

Obama's hateful conspiracy nut pastor

It is simply not believable that Barack Obama could attend Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church for twenty years and not be aware of, as Obama has claimed, Wright's many racist and conspiratorial rants that have forced Obama, now that it's getting wider exposure, to remove his old pastor from his campaign. It's just not credulous that he wouldn't have heard, over the course of a 1000+ potential Sunday sermons, similar sentiments from his pastor. It isn't plausible that Obama didn't know- hadn't even heard thru the grapevine- that his pastor said this just after Sept. 11, 2001: "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color."

Though he's distancing himself from the pastor now, and condemning each of the specific statements when they get reported, Obama cannot expect reasonable people to believe that he sat in the pews of Trinity UCC for twenty years, listening to Rev. Wright's racist religious beliefs without being aware of them.

If Barack Obama wants us to evaluate him on the basis of his judgement, as he constantly requests of us, then he may end up being rejected for exhibiting the questionable judgement of remaining a close friend and disciple of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Find the "PRESSURE"

A common response to deflect criticism about misleading headlines in the newspaper business is to say that the reporters don't write the headlines, as if the only party that critics are willing to blame is the reporter. Or, because an article's author and the headline writers are different people, the separation is intrinsically entitled to produce discrepancies. It's a weak argument at best, because the news organization is still responsible for every word it prints or posts.

The subtle (but effective) misrepresentations that most liberal media outlets employ are barely even recognized by the majority of people who tend to skim over many articles, reading only the headlines and the first few paragraphs. After all, who's got the time, or the inclination, to read an entire article with a critical eye, looking for inconsistencies in the reporting, except for news nerds like me.

This article on CNN Politics site is a prime example of the media not merely informing (especially since it's misinforming) but influencing it's readers. The headline reads: "Bush ups pressure on House to pass intelligence bill". Leaving aside the poor grammar of using the slang term ups instead of increases, the message of the headline is that President Bush somehow increased the amount of pressure that he and other parties have thus far exerted on the members of the House of Representatives to make the Protect America Act permanent.
However, the article includes no description or examples of any kind of "pressure" tactics that the president is employing to influence house members to vote one way or another.

It doesn't cite, for example, any warnings the president may have given that he'll veto other bills that the House and Senate have passed, if they don't pass this one. It doesn't describe, in any manner, exactly what use of his authority the president has exercised, is exercising, or may exercise to induce action by the House. No committee assignments have been threatened. Nancy Pelosi's office hasn't been moved to the basement of the Rayburn House Office Building. No-one's spouses or children have been intimidated. No cars have even been egged or homes T.P'd in connection with this bill.

I suspect that CNN merely wants to plant another impression in the reader that President Bush is pushy and demanding. They want to influence (not inform) the reader towards viewing our president as a manipulative controller who abuses the power of his position to get his way, especially when it involves warrantless wire taps and internet traffic surveillance.

"Change" is one thing...

...but a guy to the left of Ted Kennedy?






I'm fairly confident that my fellow Americans will not knowingly choose a committed socialist as our president. However, as six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America, Norman Thomas, threatened, “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

"Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings."

In the midst of Obamamania that's sweeping the country, it is encouraging to remember that we have actually elected several Republican presidents throughout the last few generations of progressive promise-makers that the Democrats and other leftist parties have fielded. Despite the sincere and passionate efforts of some of the most oratorically gifted snakeoil salesmen to take the national stage, the American people have had the sense, often enough, to recognize the emptiness of their populist pap.

Unfortunately, every four years, certainly eight, there's a new crop of young skulls-full-of-mush to be tempted, cajoled, bribed, and bamboozled with the lofty rhetoric of economic equality.

And then there's always the older adults that might be experiencing a season of testing, trying hard to get ahead, or just keep up, and the struggle just..seems...so....haarrrd at times, that...you just want to give up and give in. Give in to socialism's siren song of orchestrated equality, promising you an easier lot in life. Less toiling, burdens lifted, and finally, finally, somebody who cares about you and your plight.

People feeling that way are the prime targets of liberal politicians like Obama and Hillary Clinton, who get their power from pandering to those who feel powerless. (...or just challenged.) They pit themselves against the strawman that is somehow responsible for whatever difficulties and obstacles their target audience may feel are hindering their pursuit of happiness. If the populist pol can convince them that he empathizes with their struggle and will do battle for them against those conservative culprits conspired to confound their efforts to live their lives the way they want, and to get what is rightfully theirs, then he's got a constituent.

Populist liberalism always creates convenient villians of the wealthy and the powerful, as if their wealth came at your expense, and their power is unearned, unethical, and oppressive.

Obama constructs the false struggle he hopes his followers will swallow and even adopt as their own: “We spend our whole lives caught up in being told what we can’t do. (By whom?!) And what’s not possible, and that children have to be poor (what?) and race always is going to matter in this country ( the mantra of black "leaders") and there’s always going to be injustice and the economy can never work for anybody (the opposite of conservatism!). We’re fed that stuff all the time (by the DNC and NAACP). Mostly by folks who are in power and take advantage of the status quo.” Bullshit, Barack! It's the liberal leaders of your own Democratic Party that say those things, as a pretense to their own power grabs.

Oh, that one- just one- mainstream media reporter or debate moderator would have the curiousity and journalistic integrity to press Obama for an identification of specifically whom he believes has been communicating such negative messages to him his whole life! **3/22 update: Now we know who-- his own pastor, Rev Jeremiah Wright!**

On January 20th, Obama proclaimed at a church in Atlanta, "Unfortunately, all too often when we talk about unity in this country, we've come to believe...that racial reconciliation can come easily - that it's just a matter of a few ignorant people trapped in the prejudices of the past, and that if the demagogues and those who exploit our racial divisions will simply go away, then all our problems would be solved. All too often, we seek to ignore the profound institutional barriers that stand in the way of ensuring opportunity for all children, or decent jobs for all people, or health care for those who are sick." Which institutions? Colleges, banks, churches? The Boys Scouts/Girls Scouts, 4-H, Knights of Colombus, Jaycees? Elected offices at local, state, or national levels? The NAACP, Ku Klux Klan, the National Urban League, or the National Vanguard? Well, yes, at least two of those institutions DO seek to exploit racial divisions in this country. But they wield power over ANYbody's lives only if you give them that power to do so. In fact, if we enlightened people simply ignore or ostracize (like in "Twelve Angry Men") those "ignorant people trapped in the prejudices of the past", we could so marginalize them and emasculate their dwindling influence in society that, along with interracial marriage, race will finally become an insignificant non-factor in our country.

Speaking to the Nat'l Conference of Black Mayors last May, Obama claimed "...millions of children are not given an equal chance to realize their own potential. And for too long, our kids -- not "those kids," but our kids -- have been asked to settle for mediocrity simply because of their zip code, the color of their skin, and how much their parents earn." Mr Obama, WHO has asked them to settle for mediocrity? Especially because of skin color? This country doesn't expect anyone to settle for mediocrity. This country offers more opportunity for acheiving excellence than any in the history of man.

A year ago in Selma, Alabama, Obama illogically generalized: "...we've got what's known as a health care disparity in this nation because many of the uninsured are African American or Latino. Life expectancy is lower. Almost every disease is higher within minority communities. The health care gap." "...beacuse many of the uninsured are African American..." Well, many of them are white, also. All ethnicities, in fact are included. Republicans, democrats, and third party people are among the uninsured, as well. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Scientologists, athiests, and even some Hindus are uninsured, I'm sure. So are right handed people, left handed people, and the ambidextrous. You get the point. The uninsured are uninsured by no design; no conspiracy, no orchestrated plan to discriminate, no hidden agenda at play to oppress any particular people group. And the inclusion of any particular demographic is no more disconcerting than another demographic. Except, of course, for children.

The bottom line is this: liberals only win when they can convince enough people that their problems are somebody else's fault or are too big to be handled personally, and that the government is the only solution to those problems.