Matt Welch | July 5, 2005
The Palm Beach Post has created a nifty death-map of the United States, showing the hometowns of servicemen and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Scroll and zoom for more detail. Another reminder (to me, at least) that the next time some never-served tenured ponce writes a drum-rattling screed about the "decadent coastal enclaves," he should be sent on the next plane to a military funeral in Southern California. (Link via Drudge.)
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
the next time some never-served tenured ponce writes a
drum-rattling screed about the "decadent coastal
enclaves,"
To be entirely fair to the ponce, many coastal enclaves seem
under-represented proportional to their population on this map,
while the Ohio Valley seems over-represented. Still, without some
kind of correction for total population, its hard to say.
Clarification: I get what a 'decadent coastal enclave' is, I don't know who said it or when
blg -- I've read variations on that theme (the unmartial wussiness of the coast-dwellers) by dozens of hawkish war-supporters over the last four years, including many professors. If you do Google searches on "decadent coastal," or "coastal elite," you'll probably turn up a few.
Well said, RDean. I'm really surprised, Matt, that you would be taken in by the visual. Notable is New York City, one of the huge red spots, which reports 29 deaths. Remember that NYC has a population of roughly 8 million...far more than most entire states. Not that it deserves to be called a "decadent coastal enclave," mind you: I rather like my home town.
blg: Try here. Fifth
paragraph from the end.
NB: He's far from perfect, but I do read Sullivan daily.
Looks to me like a pretty accurate map of the population distribution of the United States, i.e. there are more deaths in the bigger population centers than elsewhere. I don't get the "Coastal Elite" slam either.
I'd like to see nifty map showing towns in Iraq where U.S. soldiers have killed Iraqis.
Call me irritable, but my only point is that my part of the country, which is routinely slandered for being some kind of pansy factory, certainly offers its fair share of Service. Maps like this don't show that we're special, but simply that we're *not*. That's all. Now, go play with the map, which was the only point of bringing this up.
certainly offers its fair share of Service.
Call me pedantic, but my only point was that the map shows no such
thing, as it does not correct for total population.
It sure looks to me like the coasts come in a little light, and
what used to be called the heartland but is now more fashionably
referred to as "flyover country" comes in a little heavy, but we
can't tell from this map.
Fair point. The "Left Coast" is certainly not left out when it
comes to lives given.
On the other point, I should note that "decadent" is a word dull
people use to describe interesting people. Therefore, I really take
it as a compliment.
Nah, looks like all those racist bastards in fly over country are both sucking us dry of government pork as well as letting the smart city folks in the US do all the dying for them.
I was going to offer a snarky defense of the heartland, but I
remembered that I live next door to Kansas, the apotheosis of every
negative red-state stereotype out there.
BTW-When I was on active duty, Pennsylvanians made up the largest
geographical group, followed by New Yorkers. Next was the Southern
boys, and finally the Midwesterners. Since we were on the East
Coast, there weren't many Californians around.
I'm with Dean, it's hard to interpret. My town of Phoenix at 3.5
million looks like it's contributed as much as LA. Meanwhile
compare SF and Seattle. And Texas weighs in heavy.
I'm not sure this map shows what you think it shows Matt, but of
course calling SoCal a pansy factory (nice phrase though) would be
pretty silly in any case.
Here's a map of the 2000 census, and it looks, to my eye, like deaths are evenly distributed relative to population, just as Matt suggested.
Anyone care to take the time to figure the deaths by state, expressed as a percentage of total state population? There do appear to be some distortions here. E.G., Los Angeles: 20 deaths out of, what, 3.5 million (?) people vs. New York City: 29 deaths out of 8 million.
I wrote about it here:
http://crookedtimber.org/2005/07/01/not-so-different/
In short, I found no significant relationship between a state's
Bush vote and its casualties in Iraq per capita. The state with the
most casualties per capita was actually Vermont.
Wow, 3 guys from my hometown of Anaheim. Granted, it's got a
pretty hefty population, but still sad to read.
[sarcasm]At least I have that to throw in the faces of people when
they call Southern Californians soft and self
absorbed[/sarcasm].
Question on methodology: What is considered someone's "hometown"?
Is mine Cairo (where I was born), Garden Grove (where I lived
through 5th grade), Anaheim (where I lived after GG through the end
of high school) or LA (where I live now)? People usually say their
hometown is the city they lived in when they were 13 (forgot who
said that), so I wonder what they picked for that.
I hate to bring up all of the obvious problems with trying to
attach anything approaching significance to this but I feel
compelled to point out a few...
1. With a population of roughly 293,000,000 people (Time Almanac
for 2005), the distribution of some 1600 people is about 1 half of
1 millionth of a percent.
Unlike an opinion poll, distribution of dead people from a larger
population of say, all servicepersons serving in Iraq is
statistically meaningless as it fails to acknowledge the larger set
(of servicepersons) or any other factors.
i.e.,
a) is the larger set of servicepersons serving in Iraq distributed
in a similar pattern.
b) does the current distribution corelate to hazardous jobs taken
by those people.
c) does anything indicate educational, cultural or intelligence
factors?
d) is training a factor?
If it says anything at all, it says exactly what it should
say...that the cost of this war is spread out across this country -
by a lot of different types of folks.
And if you're the type of person to worry that your region is more
patriotic (or other's less patriotic) because more folks from your
area are dead, well, you've got a pretty sad view of things from
this Florida redneck's perspective.
This isn't a football game. There's a tragic irony here, when the
United States trades the "United" part for a sick sort of regional
one-upmanship.
Just for fun, I did Wyoming and Nebraska to compare with my
beloved decadent enclaves of NYC & LA. Assuming I didn't count
dots wrong...
Wyoming: 7 deaths @ .5 mln pop = 14 dead/mln
Nebraska: 17 @ 1.7 mln pop = 10 dead/mln
Los Angeles: 20 @ 3.5 mln pop = 5.7 dead/mln
New York City: 29 @ 8 mln pop = 3.6 dead/mln
Also assuming my math & pop figures are right!
Some of you make it sound like visual representations of data
are inherently deceptive. ...As if most of us don't already have a
pretty clear picture of how our population is distributed.
...If Matt's point was that deaths appear to be distributed
relative to population rather than geography, well, I think he made
that point with the first map. ...Now that I think of it, I wish I
hadn't linked to that Census Bureau map--it's superfluous.
Don't believe the hype. Most Californians aren't anything like the
stereotypes--that's just political propaganda. ...So tonight, when
you're 'possum eatin', baby-makin' or ridin' around drunk in a
pick-up truck, instead of hatin' on lattes, think about that.
This isn't a football game. There's a tragic irony here, when
the United States trades the "United" part for a sick sort of
regional one-upmanship.
Well said, madpad! The key word in my last post is "dead." Taking
into account your criticisms, and great closing observation, one
wonders why the author of this graphic created it, unless fostering
regional one-upmanship was his goal all along.
Most Californians aren't anything like the
stereotypes--that's just political propaganda
Ken,
From my experience, the people that act the most like stereotypical
Californians are the transplants (note: I am not hating on all
transplants, but this is an observation). My current working theory
is that assholes in other parts of the country have a idea of what
a Californian is like and they think, "Hey, I can go out there, be
a superficial asshole and I'll fit right in," or "I'm exceedingly
wierd and freakish, I'll go to California with my fellow freaks,"
or (my favorite) "I won my county beauty pagaent and was in the
school play, now I can be the next Katie Holmes (and ends up
waiting tables, tending bar or stripping)." Most of us locals are
perfectly normal Americans.
[irony]Damn immigrants, ruining it for all the rest of
us[/irony]
Take a look at Tracy, California (I used to live there). There
have been 4 deaths in Iraq, from a town of 70,000. To use JMoore's
metric, that's 57 deaths per million, or about 10 times as many as
L.A.
What does it all mean? I have no idea. But it's interesting.
Thanx for the support, JMoore.
As for the goal of the map in the first place, I don't know.
I can think of plenty of reasons for this info if for no other
purpose than to illuminate the cost of the war. The editors did a
good job of making those little dots very human by including a lot
of little things. Taken at face value, the map is probably a useful
- if not noble - thing.
Info is simply info and since the Editor's note gives no indication
of the motive, I don't want to assume anything.
But it is perhaps inevitable that someone will use the
info to try to draw some crass (but utterly meaningless) point one
way or another.
And THAT'S the guy we should all pounce on.
There are probably a couple of things at work here.
For one, it's the old, "The Asian population of Lost Holler, West
Virginia was up 300% last year!" phenomenon. ...which means that
the divorced Asian in Lost Holler reunited with his wife and two
kids.
...If two fewer people in Wyoming had died, the death rate there
would have dropped a whopping 40%!
The second factor may be that people in Los Angeles, when they hit
the typical recruitment age, tend to find that they have more and
better opportunities than people in Wyoming and Nebraska.
Does any of this change the fact that the map Matt pointed us to
shows that the number of dead has been a function of population
more so than geography?
...No, it doesn't.
You're absolutely dead on Mo.
The AYSO started in LA's South Bay, and I suspect its strongest
cells are still located here. That's right, it's Soccer/Security
Mom Central.
If we compared the results of a political survey of AYSO active
parents in Los Angeles to the results of the same questionnaire
given to people in the Bible Belt, I'd be they'd be virtually
indistinguishable.
Question on methodology: What is considered someone's
"hometown"?
I assume (yeah, yeah, I know), due to my service, that they used
the servicemembers' "home of record" which they are required to put
down on entry into the Armed Forces. It can be changed mind you,
and I have known some servicemembers to do so for various reasons,
but most use the town they left to join the service.
As for the rest of it, I agree with Matt's larger point, that CA
& NY aren't pansy mills, as I agree that AL & TN don't have
lots of sibling weddings either (although it's always good for a
joke).
One additional thing noticable on the map - some of the towns with higher numbers are close or on top of Army Bases (Colorado Springs, CO, El Paso, TX) possibly attributed to soliders changing "home of record."
Matt et. al.: Thanks for the clarification ... that
helped.
In terms of statistics, I've heard other numbers-based discussions
regarding the war with Iraq. I won't call them justifications, but,
maybe, pacifications ... or marginalizations. My most (i.e. least)
favorite runs something like this: 'I don't know why people are so
wound up about the 1700 soldiers that have died in Iraq. Heck, more
people than that die in Detroit in the same amount of time.' To
this argument, I can only respond 'huh?'. I suppose the gist of
this is that the American deaths caused by our war are 'in the
noise', as they say. Not to mention the number of widows, widowers,
orphans and grieving parents left behind, because, heck, I can find
number even more disgusting than the war death figures (and only
the AMERICAN dead figures, thank you, because everyone else,
including dead the Iraqi civilians, apparently just don't
count).
In the end, all I can say is that this war is not about numbers or
figures or percentages or ratios or any other method of reducing
raw unadulterated human absolutes down to dehumanized relatives.
It's about people getting dead (lots and lots of people) for a
cause that you either stand up for or do not stand up for. I for
one (you may be able to tell this) do not stand up for this cause
because I can find no reason TO stand up for it. No security
reason, no ethical reason, no moral reason, and certainly no
constitutional reason, and no amount of data manipulation is going
to change that. As for me, I say 1 part in 6 billion is too
many.
This site has far more information on this subject and is update
quickly:
http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx
I'm with madpad. 1600 deaths over 50 states is too small a
sample to draw meaningful conclusions about, well, anything
regarding those states.
Let's hope that the number of deaths doesn't reach the point where
we might actually be able to draw statistically significant
conclusions. Because if the body count does reach that point, well,
let's be honest: One-upmanship will be the least of our worries.
There will be enough tragedy to go around. Hell, there already
is.
(And that isn't a comment on the merits of the war, just a comment
on the sad loss of life.)
Oh, as long as we're talking about regional comparisons:
Having arrived in MD a few days ago, I find myself saying "This
isn't like Santa Barbara. That isn't like Santa Barbara." It used
to be "This isn't like Milwaukee. That isn't like Milwaukee."
One thing I notice is that customer service isn't as good out here.
I wouldn't say it's bad, but there is a noticeable difference.
Whether you think that reflects negatively on the service here or
positively on the service in CA, there is most definitely a
difference. Even Enterprise Rent A Car is less friendly out here,
and I thought their whole schtick was their service.
Also, you'll be relieved to know that, to protect our national
security, my Leatherman Tool was kept in a guard's custody while I
obtained my NIH ID badge. Once I left the administrative building I
was allowed to take my weapon with me, to do whatever I might wish
in the research laboratories.
Great scientists here, but the administrative system is what you'd
expect, more or less.
And they assure me that my badge should work in the electronic
reader that admits me into the building in, oh, a week or so.
thoreau,
I grew up just outside of Laurel, and I went to grade school in
Beltsville.
...My folks moved to San Diego while I was in boarding school, and
when I followed them out after graduation, I couldn't believe how
rude people were, relatively speaking. People don't expect a
culture shock moving from California to the Mid-Atlantic (You'll be
callin' it the South soon enough.) or vice versa, but it's
huge!
Of course, I'm probably comparing the service to what I get in LA,
where I am now--where they put up bullet proof glass ostensibly to
protect the people that work there but really to protect the
customers from the staff. I'm sure things were better in Santa
Barbara.
You'll love it in Maryland and D.C. ...eventually. It's supposed to
take about a year.
P.S. ...And I thought NIH was supposed to be the best run agency of
the federal government! I suppose the security department in any
building, public or private, only gets so efficient. I wouldn't
expect much more out of some of the guys in some of the buildings
I've worked in.
Thoreau, you should come down to Richmond, we've got alot of history, and the crack, oh the crack. Best on the east coast.
Thoreau, you need to spend your free time on the other side of
the river, over here in Northern Virginia. It's like a blue-state
oasis in an otherwise red state in terms of culture, but it's also
not burdened by as many nanny-stateisms as Maryland. (Not only can
you carry concealed in Va., you can carry open.)
You'll never, never, never get used to the traffic, though. I've
been down here 5 years now (from Cleveland), and I still curse it
with every breath. Thursday night, we went to see the Indians play
Baltimore. We left NoVa to make the 40-mile trip at 4:15, and just
made first pitch at 7:05. Insane.
some of the towns with higher numbers are close or on top of
Army Bases (Colorado Springs, CO, El Paso, TX) possibly attributed
to soliders changing "home of record."
Thanks SixSigma. That was actually why I was wondering what the
home of record was based off of. That the hometown isn't something
like high school, but rather last or base address makes this less
meaningful. Not that it matters because madpad is right, on all
counts.
Mo,
You are so right about the transplants. I've lived in California my
entire life, and I'm pleading with the rest of America: Keep your
assholes at home! I prefer the Mexican immigrants to the
transplants by far. I so hate the "Oh, I hated Ohio, so I came to
San Francisco" types. They often have a fake California accent and
are so freaking lame. (Of course, I know some good transplants, but
they've been here so long that they've become real
Californians.)
I swear 3/4 of the Air Force is from Ohio and
Pennsylvania.
And the entire DC Metro Area can collapse into a sinkhole to be
forgotten, as far as I'm concerned. Southeastern Virginia's the
only area worth living in.
Also, your home of record is based off the town you left prior to
joining the service. I don't know whether this map uses that data
or the person's legal residence. Most people don't bother changing
their home of record unless they're getting out and want their
stuff shipped for free to a different address. If you retire, you
get a free shipment to any place of your choosing. Most people are
more concerned with changing their State residency to a State with
no (or low) income taxes.
For each and every "decadent coastal enclaves" comment I ever read, I always seemed to hear the opposite "US Soldiers are nothing but a buncha gun-nut, HS-dropout, hicks anyways". Guess this puts a damper on both sides.
http://www.legacy.com/palmbeachpost/Soldiers.asp
is a nice tribute site where you can remember those soldiers who
have fallen.
How about doing Ted Barlow's comparison again, but by county,
instead of state?
Illinois is a Blue state, but looking at the lists of deaths, it
looks like the deaths in Iraq have hit the (mostly-Republican)
suburbs harder than the city.
I was surprised to see that Naperville, a farily well-off area, has
has almost as many people killed as Chicago.
The map is pretty worthless because it doesn't reflect the populations of the states versus numbers of casualties. I would guess that there are more people in the tri-state area of NY, NJ and Conn, than in all of the Rocky Mountain states combined. Just because a thinly populated state like Nevada or Utah has fewer deaths doesn't mean that the people there are not voulunteering in higher proportions than New Yorkers.
Really, Ironchef? That's terrible.
Matt Welch, and others, have provided numerous examples of people
referring to "decadent coastal enclaves" in some fairly well
respected conservative outlets.
No doubt, you will provide us with similar examples of liberal
media describing American troops in the terms you describe.
Or maybe the handful of idiots you "hear" saying such things aren't
actually the equivalent of well known writers and editors
publishing them in the national media.
RE: California transplants - the real downside is that while SoCal is boot camp for californicated assholes, they get deployed to Arizona.
Did we really need a fuckin' "nifty map" to tell us that, yes,
people on the coasts fight and die right along side with everyone
else? Seriously, what kind of mental midget actually needs this
sort of quasi-evidence?
Goddamn, but sometimes a few of you people can be some of the most
pedantic, ridiculous, obnoxiously holier-than-thou
painsintheass.
Perhaps I'm getting way too emotional here (I suspect there's an
excellent chance of that, BTW), but ... fuck it.
I have a hard time understanding the sense of tragedy in the death of American soldiers. What do you expect when you invade and occupy a country? They're killers, pure and simple. Killers often get killed.
Jeremy --
Someday you're going to die.
This will be neither unusual nor unexpected. But it will probably
make someone sad anyway. Probably.
My understanding is that improved field medicine has heavily
altered the ratio of dead to wounded. To see actual casualties
(what about the soldiers who are now crippled for life?)
represented on a map might be more informative, providing a more
statistically useful sample, if we're really talking about this
war's true cost in American blood.
Iraqi blood's cheaper, of course.
They often have a fake California accent and are so freaking
lame.
What does a fake (or real, for that matter) California accent sound
like?
I wonder how the map corresponds to average wealth of a
place.
Do proportionally fewer soldiers die from wealthier areas? Perhaps
death distribution is more correlated with money than with redness
or blueness of a region.
I'm not buying it. I don't think the map does anything to
disprove the obvious fact that the coasts are decadent enclaves.
Just like it doesn't disprove the fact that more siblings in
Alabama marry than in California. Of course, that just might be
because a higher percentage of people born in decadent California
are bastards, so the birth cirtificates don't identify them as
half-siblings when the marry.
Hard to tell.
*joking all you uptight Californians trying to prove you have some
morals and a few patriots -- always about self image with you isn't
it*
"Did we really need a fuckin' "nifty map" to tell us that, yes,
people on the coasts fight and die right along side with everyone
else?"
Sadly, yes. Real red state Americans like, um, Jonah Goldbern and
Rich Lowry have spent the years since September 11 accusing people
from states that vote for Democrats of being cowardly, unpatriotic,
and letting their "flyover country" countrymen do their working,
fighting, and dying for them.
It's not normal for me, but I'm really OK with the deaths of Iraqi's like Uday and Qusay Hussein. Not depressing at all.
Something that struck me as odd - the green 1-person dots in my area are mostly pegged to affluent suburbs (with only the very large cities having more than 1 death). Some of the less-affluent towns of comparable size to the wealthier suburbs surrounding the major cities are not on the map at all. This is pretty much the opposite of what I would have expected - does this hold true for anybody else's metro area? BTW, I'm in the DFW Texas area.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245