The voice of Susan Estrich, fingernails on the blackboard, empty milk cartons left in refrigerators, and myths. What do these four things have in common?
The answer: They are all things that annoy the heck out of me.
Myths prove that when a fib is repeated often enough, no matter how utterly false it is, people just accept it to be fact.
Like this one…
Myth #1 1 in 2 Marriages End in Divorce
This is the excuse that most people who have a fear of commitment use as an excuse not to get married. “I don’t want to become a statistic…”
In a given year, the number of divorces may well be half as large as the number of marriages that year, but this is comparing apples to oranges. The marriages counted are only those marriages taking place within the given year, while the divorces that year are from marriages that took place over a period of decades. To say that half of all marriages ends in divorce, based on such statistics, would be like saying that half the population died last year if deaths were half as large as births.
~ p59 of Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed
In his book Inside America in 1984, pollster Louis Harris said that only about 11 or 12 percent of people who had ever been married had ever been divorced. Researcher George Barna’s most recent survey of Americans in 2001 estimates that 34 percent of those who have ever been married have ever been divorced.
Even the liberal Gray Lady admits that the ever increasing divorce rate threatening America has been a complete myth:
The narrative of rising divorce is also completely at odds with counts of divorce certificates, which show the divorce rate as having peaked at 22.8 divorces per 1,000 married couples in 1979 and to have fallen by 2005 to 16.7.
In fact between marriage and cohabitation, the more risky proposition would appear to be cohabitation. The general data suggests that cohabiting couples are twice as likely to breakup as married couples!
So don’t be deterred by a false statistic and let those wedding bells ring!
Myth #2 The Best Way of Avoiding Injury During the Commission of an Assault or Robbery is to Give in to the Aggressor
How many times have you heard the police tell you, “If you’re being robbed or mugged, be compliant and just give them the money”?
Research shows that one was less likely to sustain injury if one had employed some sort of protection — any sort! With a gun, one would sustain the least amount of injury. Check out John Lott’s research.
Law enforcement is hugely important in deterring crime, but dialing 911 means you’re left waiting for help to arrive. All too often the crime is committed and the police will arrive afterward, to file a police report, but not necessarily to prevent the crime. The argument that many people have is that guns kill people, but what they neglect to mention is that they also prevent many from becoming victims.
Having a gun is by far the safest course of action for those left to confront a criminal alone.
If you’ve ever asked the question, how all those mass killings that occurred in places like Virginia Tech and Columbine could have been prevented, the answer is concealed legal handguns. If law-abiding civilians had been allowed concealed handguns, the number of people harmed by these horrific shootings would have been minimized.
A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and when someone with a gun is able to arrive on the scene.
Renowned criminologist, Gary Kleck surveyed 2000 households and these are a couple of his findings:
For every use of a gun to commit a crime, there are three-to-four cases of guns being used in self-defense of a crime.
A gun is used in self-defense to protect its owner from crime 2.5 million times per year, an average of once every 13 seconds.
Because the media almost exclusively highlight the tragedies and accidents, the public has an extremely biased perspective on guns. They have been programmed to be fearful of them, warning people to think that law-abiding citizens shouldn’t handle guns. They’re too dangerous for adults and far too dangerous around children. Another myth…
Separately, more children die in car accidents, drownings, fires, and bicycle accidents. But this is something that is hardly mentioned in the media. They’d much rather have you fear guns than have you toting them for self-defense.
Myth #3 Conservatives are Cold, Heartless, Mean-Spirited, Stingy People
Liberals say they care for the poor, the down-trodden, the oppressed, and castigate conservatives for their belief in a system where people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps instead of asking for a handout. Liberals believe they are generous while conservatives are less concerned for their neighbors.
In fact, it’s the opposite, conservatives are quite generous with their time, their money, and even their blood! This is irrespective of income. Syracuse University professor, Arthur C. Brooks tells us his findings in his book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. Conservatives give 30% more to charities than liberals even though conservatives earn less than liberals. As to blood, Conservatives are 17% more likely to donate blood than their liberal counterparts.
The book’s basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families, and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure. Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone’s tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don’t provide them with enough money.
~ The Christian Index
Liberals are generally more generous with other people’s money then their own, and work hard to appear more compassionate than they actually are. Remember truth is defined by actions, not words.
Myth #4 President Clinton’s Surplus
On September 27, 2000, CNN headline reads, “President Clinton announces another record budget surplus.”
Another fallacy that liberals like to toss out on a regular basis when we’re talking about who to blame for the astronomical deficit.
Get this: According to the Congressional Budget Office, Bill Clinton ran surpluses from 1998 through 2001, the first surpluses in twenty-eight years! In 2000, President Clinton stated that the recent surplus “represented the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States…the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years — $223 billion this year alone.”
CNN stated “The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.”
But, in fact, the national debt rose every single year that Clinton was in office. In 2009 dollars, it was $6.2 trillion in 1992 and was $7 trillion eight years later.
There are many ways to report data in more or less favorable ways, but if there is a real cash surplus, the national debt would, of necessity, be reduced.
So, it seems, not only did President Clinton run a surplus, but he reduced the national debt!
Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
2000 5,628,700 (table 7.1) in millions of dollars
Table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.
That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton. And no wars or military build up to blame it on!
Myth #5 The Great Success of the Head Start Program
On Feb 21, 2011, the following was a headline on moveon.org’s website:
“Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP’s War on Women”
Because the GOP as we all know is the party of women haters. So it would come as no surprise that they would want to hurt women by cutting the federal program Head Start.
#7 And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.
Why do the Republicans want to cut funding to Head Start? Why?
Because it doesn’t work. It’s a waste of taxpayer money!
And $167 billion of tax payer’s money has been spent since it’s inception in 1965 with nothing to show for it.
An impact study was mandated by Congress in 1998 and was finally released by the Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families in January of 2010. Why it took them over 10 years to release the study shows how reluctant the government was in letting the truth come out.
For example, the report concluded that access to Head Start did have ‘positive impacts on several aspects of children’s school readiness’ during their time in the program—among them, ‘impacts on vocabulary (PPVT), letter-word identification, spelling . . . [and] letter-naming.’
‘However,’ the report concluded, ‘the advantages children gained during their Head Start and age 4 years yielded only a few statistically significant differences in outcomes at the end of the first grade for the sample as a whole.’ (“Head Start Impact Study, Final Report,” January 2010, Executive Summary, p. iv.)
Basically, any academic and/or behavioral gains made by those students in Head Start were lost in a couple of years. They call this a fade-out effect in social science. Head Start is a $167 billion failure!
Al Gore crowed:
Quality preschool can lead to higher IQs, higher reading and achievement levels, higher graduation rates and greater success in the workplace.
Wondering if Al Gore is still clinging to the notion that early academic achievements improves performance in schools in the later years.
It appears Al Gore’s expertise in global warming and preschool education were both myths.