Some American Stereotypes Debunked

The world has some set images of America and Americans - stereotypes that just don't go away, even though many of them are either false or badly out-of-date. Let's look at three of them. (1). President Obama often cites the collapsing American infrastructure as a reason to support his tax-and-spend budget ideas. But, surprise : a study by the Reason Foundation reveals that US roads and bridges have improved significantly over a 20-year period. The President has proposed spending $40 billion on “urgent upgrades” to the nation’s infrastructure, saying that “crumbling” roads, bridges, airports and rail lines are hindering US economic growth. “There are still plenty of problems to fix, but our roads and bridges aren’t crumbling,” said David Hartgen, lead author of the report and emeritus professor of transportation at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. “The overall condition of the state-controlled road system is getting better and you can actually make the case that it has never been in better shape. The key going forward is to target spending where it will do the most good.” The Reason Foundation study measured the condition of US roads and bridges from 1989 to 2008, based on seven criteria; highway fatalities; miles of urban interstate highways in poor condition; miles of rural interstates in poor condition; congestion on urban interstates; deficient bridges; rural primary roads in poor condition; and the number of rural primary roads flagged as too narrow. The findings? Eleven states made progress in all seven categories, and 37 states improved in at least five of the seven. Only one state, California, showed improvement in just two. The US fatality rate lessened from 2.16 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles in 1989 to 1.25 fatalities in 2008, a decrease of about 42%. The fatality rate improved in all 50 states over the period. The percentage of deficient bridges fell from 37.8% in 1989 to 23.7% in 2008. The percentage of urban interstates in poor condition decreased from 6.6% to 5.4%. In Missouri, urban interstate mileage in poor condition plunged from 47% to just 1.3% over the period studied. The percentage of rural interstates in poor condition was reduced by two-thirds, from 6.6% in1989 to 1.93% in 2008. And 29 states showed reduced urban congestion between 1989 and 2008, with six states reporting improvements of greater than 20%. The nation also saw improvements in the condition of rural primary roads and in the number of primary roads considered too narrow. “It will take resolve, good policy and effective management to continue these trends.” (2). Despite all we hear on TV about the "abnormal and unacceptable" US level of gun ownership, America actually has a low gun murder rate. Several reports on gun ownership around the world clearly refute the assertion that the abundance of guns in the United States leads to a high rate of firearm homicides. Americans are the biggest gun owners by far, with an estimated 270 million civilian firearms, in addition to law enforcement and military firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey of 178 nations conducted by the Switzerland-based Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. In sheer numbers of civilian firearms, the No. 2 nation, surprisingly, is India with 46 million, followed by China (40 million), Germany (25 million), Pakistan (18 million), and Mexico (15 million). The United States also leads in gun ownership rate, with about 88 firearms per 100 people, according to the most recent Small Arms Survey compiled in 2007, far ahead of No. 2 Yemen, which has 55 firearms per 100 people. Switzerland is third with 46 per 100 people, followed by Finland (45), Serbia (38), Cyprus (36), Saudi Arabia (35), and Iraq (34). But when it comes to the firearm homicide rate, the US doesn’t even make the top 25. According to figures collected by the United Nations’ Office on Drugs and Crime through its annual crime survey, 9,146 Americans were victims of a firearm homicide in the most recent year. That translates to a rate of 2.97 firearm homicides per 100,000 population, only the 27th highest rate in the world. The highest rate by far is in Honduras, 68 homicides per 100,000, followed by El Salvador (40), Jamaica (39), Venezuela (38.9), Guatemala (34), and Colombia (27). For America’s neighbors, the rate in Mexico is 9.9 per 100,000, and in Canada, 0.5 per 100,000. It is interesting to note that not only does the US have a relatively low homicide rate compared to its gun ownership rate, but Switzerland, which ranks third in the civilian gun ownership rate, has only the 46th highest homicide rate, and Finland, with the fourth highest ownership rate, is 63rd on the list. “The most obnoxious liberal talking points on guns involve the idea that guns, in and of themselves, cause gun violence,” writes news commentator Stephen Gutowski. But in light of the ownership and homicide figures, he observes: “More guns do not, in fact, mean more gun violence. Guns can be, and commonly are, used in a responsible manner, especially here in the United States.” (3). Many Europeans like to believe that they have more modern views than Americans about homosexuals. But, the US has one distinction that citizens of other countries might find amusing, given the rather Puritan image America has in Europe. The American military, beginning on 1 October 2013, will provide some benefits to unwed couples BUT only if they’re gay. Before resigning, former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta issued a directive stating that certain military benefits formerly reserved for married couples will now be extended to unmarried partners - but only if they’re same-sex partners. Heterosexual unmarried partners do not qualify for the benefits. Panetta issued his directive in a memorandum citing the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law : “Discrimination based on sexual orientation no longer has a place in the military.” The memorandum continues: “At the direction of the President, the Department has conducted a careful and deliberative review of the benefits currently provided to the families of Service members. We have now identified additional family member and dependent benefits that we can lawfully provide to same-sex domestic partners of Military Service members and their children through changes in Department of Defense policies and regulations. These benefits shall be extended to the same-sex domestic partners and, where applicable, children of same-sex domestic partners, once the Service member and their same-sex domestic partner have signed a declaration attesting to the existence of their committed relationship.” The declaration defines a “domestic partner” as a “person in a domestic partnership with a Service member of the same sex,” and a “domestic partnership” as a “committed relationship between two adults, of the same sex, that meets all of the requirements below.” Among those requirements, neither of the partners can be “married, joined in a civil union with, or domestic partners with anyone else,” and the partners intend to remain in a committed relationship “indefinitely.” Among the benefits the Pentagon will now give to same-sex domestic partners but not to heterosexual unwed couples are disability and death compensation, legal assistance, some travel on Department of Defense aircraft, commissary privileges, welfare and recreation programs, emergency leave, and access to a “sexual assault counseling program.” Panetta’s memorandum also states that because of the Defense of Marriage Act, the Defense Department cannot extend all of the benefits given to married couples to unmarried same-sex domestic partners, including healthcare and housing allowances. But it adds: “In the event that the Defense of Marriage Act is no longer applicable to the Department of Defense, it will be the policy of the Department to construe the words ‘spouse’ and ‘marriage’ without regard to sexual orientation, and married couples, irrespective of sexual orientation, will be granted full military benefits." ~~~~~ There you have it, dear readers, some facts that may change ypur opinions about America - for the better? That's for you to decide.