James Harris was joking, Harry Reid was not.

Colby Hall strikes again. Bleh.

Ms. Lee is correct and so is Senator Reid, albeit in an unartful manner. His choice of words were a little off, but what he was describing has been well documented.

As reported by Womensenews via a report by the National Institute of Justice, “when a woman’s male partner is employed, the rate of violence is 4.7 percent. It’s 7.5 percent when the male experiences one period of unemployment. It’s 12.3 percent when the male experiences two or more periods of unemployment. A female victim’s lack of money, meanwhile, is a common reason why she may refuse to leave an abusive partner, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.”

Unfortunately, male-on-female domestic abuse does increase with unemployment. There could be many causes, such as increased frustration and irritability on part of the unemployed male partner.

This was an inappropriate swipe at the President. Unless there is verifiable evidence that the two times Obama has mentioned the concept of Vegas (not the real city, he used the name as a well-known reference to gambling) has caused people to lose jobs on a scale to cause such an increase, Mr. Harris’ statement is intellectually dishonest at the least.

Here’s the link to the news report: http://www.womensenews.org/story/081015/dear-guys-tough-times-call-more-safety-help

Here’s the link to the actual National Institute of Justice study: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/208346.pdf

“Harry Reid was not.”

Progressives have made it a mission to see how many people they can insult.

Who did Harry Reid insult? It is not an insult to state truths, even if those truths are unfortunate. Turning a blind eye to the economic meltdown and the ripple effects it causes is not something I would hope liberals or conservatives do. If we want to talk about family values, curbing domestic violence IS a family value. I find it very disturbing that everything someone says on here is turned into left versus right.

Thank you, Marcus. No, Christine, Sen. Reid wasn’t joking. Although his statement could have been worded better, this is a serious issue and he was stating a documented fact.

It’s all slight of hand. Everyone is talking about what Harry said and no one is talking about the
stimulus… sorry ‘Jobs’ bill that passed with 13 republican votes.

Yep, now we need to pass a jobs bill so men stop beating their wives. No shame. Wife beaters beat their wives with or without a job. There will always be a stress to use as an excuse. Reid is an exploitative doofus. But maybe it worked, the bill passed, that’s all that matters in the end. At least we’re still allowed to bash men.

Colby Hall….”a strong opinion that appeared to blame Obama for the rise in domestic violence.”

I think you totally misreported this. I believe what he said was virtually this:

IF (emphasis added) unemployment is responsible for domestic violence THEN (emphasis added) it lays at the feet of BHO” He then went on to expand the theory that BHO’s apparent role in Las Vegas’ sudden plummet in jobs caused by his rhetoric made that link.

The if, then sentence structure is not a simple statement of fact.

Christine says:
“Wife beaters beat their wives with or without a job. ”

True, but there is significant increase in families struck by unemployment. A comment that I made earlier (that’s still in moderation for some reason) contained the link to a National Institute of Justice study that indicated that men who have faced two periods of unemployment or more are 3 times more likely to be abusive (4.7% if male partner is employed, 7.5% if the male partner is unemployed, 12.3% if he has had two or more periods of unemployment).

He may be being exploitive. I cannot say for certain what his real motives are. However, whether or not he was exploiting the issue, it is still a very real and very serious issue.

@Grammie: He did not misreport this. I find it to be accurate.

Actually I went and typed up a correct transcript.

Start: 2:46

Listen, If, if, if–This is all about jobs. We have this massive job loss and people are–we have domestic violence problems in Nevada and what we need to do is lay this right at the feet of Obama who over the last year twice slammed Nevada, slammed Las Vegas. So we can say the domestic violence is partly Obama’s fault for causing so [3:07 crosstalk] much job loss in Nevada.

End 3:08

Grammie says:

“The if, then sentence structure is not a simple statement of fact.”

Mr. Hall did not refer to it as a factual statement. If you look at the sentence you quoted, you can clearly see he used the word “appeared”, meaning the statement is speculative.

When I wrote a similar question about why suddenly one of my comments was held up for the same reason Writer told me that it is standard practive for any comment with more than one linl.

Sure enough, my comment had two links.

If that’s the case try one link at a time.

Stephen, I suggest you start your transcript at 2:45 immediately following Gretchen’s comment that “that was a cynical chuckle”. Not only does he start the response with “if”, he says it three times in reference to whether unemployment actually directly impact domestic violence.

Sorry, I didn’t read your transcript properly. I think I started on the second line.

Make a note b/c Grampie is probably crying in heaven with joy that I finally did it and grief that he never got me to do it.

I was mistaken!

Nice obfuscation by you, Oma. Not so sensitive about slights as long as they involve our President, I see.

@Christine

Sorry to flood the board, but domestic abuse is an issue that I really care about. Given the aforementioned percentage rates, if this bill creates jobs, then domestic abuse rates would fall. If that is indeed the case, exploitive or not, Reid and every other senator that voted for this bill have taken a step to reduce the current soaring rates of domestic violence.

“If that’s the case try one link at a time.”

Thanks for that bit of info, Grammie!

Here’s the link I was talking about: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/208346.pdf

Hey now, I wrote up that transcript not Stephen =p Give credit where its due heh.

Stephen, I hate to bring this up so soon but the operative words are “if,then”.

My best and longest, over 60 years, was married twice and then had a long term relationship and all three of the creeps abused her. She is a wonderful loving girl, great mother and daughter and also wife. It sickens me and I can’t comprehend it but I know that certain types of men don’t need excuses b/c it is what they are and what they like.

The point I’m trying to make is that such an assumption is not, to my mind, the way to make decisions such as this.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on the mechanics while agreeing on the underlying need and principle.

Thanks for the transcript, Marcus.

Stephen, thanks for the link. I bookmarked it to read when I’m not tired. It looks interesting and also fairly complex.

Grammie: I don’t think Stephen is intending to say this will end domestic violence. As you stated, Domestic Violence will always exist. However, the economic conditions that we are living in has increased domestic violence. Women and men who otherwise would have divorced are staying in relationships that aren’t healthy…They just can’t afford separations and two mortgages. This is just one example of how economic conditions “cause” increase in domestic violence.

Didn’t the National Organization of Nazis, sorry, Women, blame the Super Bowl for violence against women?

Marcus, I think you misunderstood me a bit.

I meant that I am not convinced thar the 15 billion one more jobs bill will do what it is intended to do any better than the last one. That is what I meant when I said that is why I don’t think Reid’s bringing domestic violence into the debate, as in this bill will also lower domestic violence, is proper.

The proper debate is what affect will the bill have on unemployment. I have read some articles that a similar bill under J carter actually had a negative affect on employment b/c the reward mechanism was flawed.

If higher employment lowers domestic violence our goal should be to coldly and factually find methods to increase employment. The other benefit will naturally follow.

Actually, Azarkhan, I think it was some phony group organized solely (great sounding name and organization on paper only) for the purpose to issue that phony press release.

It succeeded beyond their wildest dreams when every left leaning entity took the ball and ran hell bent for leather over a phony story with absolutely no basis in fact.

This is not the same but it is reminiscent, to me.

Ah, I did misunderstand you then. Thanks for clarification. I’m not willing to get into the efficacy of the Bill, as this post was about Domestic Violence.

Azarkhan says:
February 24, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Didn’t the National Organization of Nazis, sorry, Women, blame the Super Bowl for violence against women?

This has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Your statement is a red herring and you know it. The Superbowl-Domestic violence connection has largely been debunked. See here: http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/superbowl.asp

The Male Partner Unemployment-Domestic violence connection, however, is recognized as real and can be observed empirically. See the link from the National Institute of Justice that I posted earlier.

@Grammie: “If higher employment lowers domestic violence our goal should be to coldly and factually find methods to increase employment. The other benefit will naturally follow.”

I understand your concern here, however if lower domestic abuse rates are a possible benefit of increased employment, should we not tout it when we are discussing potential job creation?

Someone ought to watch Harry Reid very carefully when he loses his job in November. The phrase, ‘It takes one to know one’ has resonance here.

“I understand your concern here, however if lower domestic abuse rates are a possible benefit of increased employment, should we not tout it when we are discussing potential job creation?”

Stephen, it is obvious to me that our only difference is with the process, not the objective.

I think this distracts, with the natural emotional overtones, from the vehicle. We want as full employment as possible for a multitude of reasons of which this domestic violence link is only one.

It is, however, a highly charged one and we don’t know exactly how much one to one relationship it has.

Not only that, note that our long conversation has distracted us from what is the core of the debate, WHAT CAN OUR GOVERNMENT DO TO INCREASE SUSTAINABLE EMPLOYMENT?

I think Reid erred, probably for purely political reasons, by bringing this up as he did on the floor of the Senate as the Leader of the Senate.

As I said earlier, “I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on the mechanics while agreeing on the underlying need and principle.”

I work as a Victim’s Advocate for women/men that are victims of domestic violence at a local non-profit. Granted it is a small town but believe me we have many women that come to us for help. I haven’t seen an increase of numbers because of the unemployment. I have women where their men/women work and women where their women/men don’t work. I haven’t seen any change. And yes there are actually men who are victims of domestic violence. Not as many because like women for so many years they are ashamed to look for help. I believe that the increase in numbers is because it is so much more out in the open these days and women know where to go for help and believe me the word get around after we have help people and others come for help. Yes, you all can blame this on Obama because we actually got a little extra in our grant this year. But I can tell you that what we get is and will never be enough.

I didn’t like what Reid said because it isn’t actually true as far as I can see. However, he has started a conversation about domestic violence and that is not a bad thing to do. Some women that come to us don’t even understand what they are going through is domestic violence. This is another social issue that has been swept under the rug for so many years. Anyone who brings up the subject and starts a conversation is a good thing.