
Suicide has surpassed war as the leading cause of US military deaths - remotorboater
http://www.usatoday.com/story/nation/2014/10/31/suicide-deaths-us-military-war-study/18261185/
======
daveloyall
When I joined the military in 2004, it was because I was near suicidal and
felt that I needed to change something or I might die. ...I was young and
stupid. I'm probably still stupid. :)

See, I was poor. I had done very well on standardized tests and received a
full-ride scholarship with a stipend, but then I failed out of college,
probably _due_ to depression... So there I was without a lot of prospects in
front of me, and I chose that moment to start drinking, for the first time.
2003 went by in a blur.

I woke up one day and realized that here I was in a small town in Arkansas,
working in some approximation of a box factory which paid just enough for rent
and nothing more, never anything more. I knew that I must alter my path
dramatically.

So, I walked in to the only place in the world where I knew I'd get hired on
the spot.

To their credit, they did make a man of me. That was what I wanted. To be
changed. You know, discipline and all that.

(It wore off after a little while, and I can't say honestly that I don't miss
it.)

Back to my point: young white American men that enlist in the military aren't
a random selection of young white American men.

A strong majority of the members of that demographic in my Flight who I spoke
with about why they joined had similar stories: the military is widely known
as an option, and for many, it's the second to last option.

~~~
abandonliberty
Thanks for sharing. It inspired me to read more into the article. All we
really get from it is that there has been a drop in combat deaths. I'm not a
fan of the military but this article is just white noise.

There's no denominator or basis for understanding what the numbers mean.

If we're looking to investigate suicides in the military then we need to
compare it against appropriate baselines, accounting for the types of issues
daveloyall raises, and even the economy.

Here's wikipedia's suicide rates for comparison:

US Men: 19.2

US Women: 5.5

Military: 17.1

What surprises me is that the military suicide rate in combat zones (17.3) is
lower than military in the US (19.2)

~~~
qbrass
>What surprises me is that the military suicide rate in combat zones (17.3) is
lower than military in the US (19.2)

Doing something suicidal that gets yourself killed in combat doesn't count as
suicide.

------
onethrowaway
I made a throwaway to comment on this...

I think the biggest reason why soldiers are killing themselves is that the
Army throws drugs at the problem and then doesn't monitor the soldiers.
Everyone I know in the Army was on "psycho" drugs at one time or another.

While serving in the Army, I found myself having symptoms of PTSD. Before
this, I thought PTSD was for Vietnam or WWII vets. Anyway, the docs gave me
handfuls of various meds (lithium, Haldol, Prozac, Risperdol, Seroquel,
Clonopin, etc.) and did minimal monitoring. I would fall asleep in the parking
lot of Landstuhl and barely remember what I was doing there. I became violent
and beat my wife. I would become another person while I was on the meds. I was
arrested for domestic violence and ordered to go to anger mngt, which was a
joke. Everybody in my platoon was already there so it was just a way to get
out of work and screw around. I trusted the docs to know what they were doing
until I was at the edge of suicide/murder. Eventually, I stopped the meds
(really tough aftereffect) and started dealing with the wreck my life had
become. Most soldiers don't need meds, they need sleep and some one to talk
to. The Army needs less psychiatrists and more psychologists.

~~~
Xeoncross
It's hard and takes time to fix root emotional problems. Attempting to
suppress your mind with drugs is easier and cheaper.

Consequently, when someone is found to be on (illegal) drugs, locking them up
in prison for a few decades is also easier than fixing the problem.

In fact, according to the prisons themselves, banning books is thought to help
apparently.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8704401](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8704401)

~~~
andy_ppp
Er... not sure that locking people up is cheaper. What it is is more
profitable for lobbyists and prison companies, to the tune of $37 billion +
per year!

Nice one lobbyists!

~~~
mlrtime
He said easier, not cheaper.

~~~
andy_ppp
Read the parent comment again...

> Attempting to suppress your mind with drugs is easier and cheaper

------
richardwigley
A major problem for the military is the availability of guns (and people who
are effective at firing them). In the UK we used to kill ourselves with gas
from the stove (it had carbon monoxide in it) - when gas stopped having carbon
monoxide people thought - 'well people will find another way of killing
themselves' but they didn't - availability of way of killing yourself was a
factor in suicide. There's no obvious solution for the military, since they
need guns. However, we can say that as a group they are more likely to kill
themselves as they have an effective means to commit suicide when they are
depressed. In the way an office worker does not.

Wikipedia article on this subject:

\------------------------------------------------

Lethal means reduction [edit] Means reduction, reducing the odds that a
suicide attempter will use highly lethal means, is an important component of
suicide prevention.[17]

For years, researchers and health policy planners have theorized and
demonstrated that restricting lethal means can help reduce suicide rates, as
delaying action until depression passes.[18] There is strong evidence that
restricted access at so-called suicide hotspots, such as bridges and cliffs,
reduces suicides, whereas other interventions such as placing signs or
increasing surveillance at these sites appears less effective.[19] One of the
most famous historical examples, of means reduction, is that of coal gas in
the United Kingdom. Until the 1950s, the most common means of suicide in the
UK was poisoning by gas inhalation. In 1958, natural gas (virtually free of
carbon monoxide) was introduced, and over the next decade, comprised over 50%
of gas used. As carbon monoxide in gas decreased, suicides also decreased. The
decrease was driven entirely by dramatic decreases in the number of suicides
by carbon monoxide poisoning.[20][21]

A photo illustration produced by the Defense Media Agency on suicide
prevention In the United States, numerous studies have concluded that firearm
access is associated with increased suicide completion.[22] "About 85% of
attempts with a firearm are fatal: that’s a much higher case fatality rate
than for nearly every other method. Many of the most widely used suicide
attempt methods have case fatality rates below 5%.".[23][24]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_prevention](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_prevention)

~~~
commandar
>A major problem for the military is the availability of guns (and people who
are effective at firing them).

I think this is a bit misplaced in the context of the US military.

Firearms are very tightly controlled on bases. The only people with guns at
any given time are people that have an active reason for having them, e.g.,
guard duty, MP, training, etc. It's not like there are M16s just piled up in
the barracks. It's one of the reasons the shootings at Ft. Hood were so
deadly; despite taking place in the middle of a major military base, there
wasn't anyone nearby with a firearm to respond like many people imagine to be
the case.

You are correct about availability of firearms in general being associated
with suicide rates, but I'm just pointing out that, in the US, military
doesn't equate to easier access than the general population.

~~~
Retra
You do have easier access in the sense that you have _regular_ access to
weapons and ammunition. You don't have _on demand_ access, so you can't often
make impulsive decisions with firearms. You can, however, make planned
decisions fairly easily.

~~~
commandar
For that to follow, you'd have to show that a significant proportion of the
suicides by firearm by stateside service members involved government firearms.
I sincerely doubt that's the case.

~~~
Retra
For what to follow?

~~~
commandar
The premise that access to duty firearms is a driving factor being logically
followed by higher suicide rates among service members.

If the suicides aren't being committed with duty weapons, then there isn't
really a logical link there.

------
ryanmarsh
Allow me to paint a picture for you purely from my experience in the Army.

It appears from the article that these were active duty deaths. Alcoholism is
rampant in the Army. Alcohol is a downer. PTSD is rampant in the Army which
means you're surrounded by people who might have anger issues or might be
emotionally withdrawn (hah! understatement). Those same people might be your
superiors. So you have a sadistic emotionally detached superior who controls
your life. Maybe not, maybe you have great leaders, maybe you're the person
struggling with alcoholism, depression, survivor guilt, nightmares, hyper
awareness. Also, the Army's answer to psychological issues is pills, some of
which can make things worse. There is a stigma associated with needing a hug.
Also, "kids these days" (see the other comment about millennials, it is a
thing). There was a book I read (forgot the title) that was veteran studies
published after WWII. One of the ones that stood out to me the most showed
that vets who came from stable homes faired better (emotionally) after war. If
you are in the Army you didn't likely grow up in a stable emotional
environment.

Every system is perfectly designed to produce the results that it produces. By
system I mean all the inputs. I don't know, when you look at this picture,
what would you expect to happen? Also, there's no easy fix.

------
gadders
Given previous discussions on Hacker News, isn't suicide one of the leading
causes of deaths for young men anyway?

What would be significant is if the proportion of soldier suicides is greater
than that of the similar group of age and sex in the general population.

~~~
toolz
Not only are suicides more likely to happen with military and veterans, but it
is only recently that suicides in the military went from below general
population, to higher than general population.

That suggests to me that the structure of the military would generally have
significant effects of reducing depression, or maybe just the type of person
joining the military is/was less likely to be depressed, but now it seems
reasonable that maybe the nature of our military services today causes
potentially more stable men and women to be more likely than ordinary to
commit suicide.

[http://www.nih.gov/news/health/mar2014/nimh-03.htm](http://www.nih.gov/news/health/mar2014/nimh-03.htm)

"Although historically, the suicide death rates in the U.S. Army have been
below the civilian rate, the suicide rate in the U.S. Army began climbing in
the early 2000s, and by 2008, it exceeded the demographically matched civilian
rate (20.2 suicide deaths per 100,000 vs. 19.2). Concerns about this increase
led to a partnership between the Army and the NIMH to identify risks."

~~~
gadders
I'm no maths whizz, but is 20.2/100,000 vs 19.2/100,000 statistically
significant?

~~~
nerfhammer
If these were sample statistics, no, but these are population numbers. They
aren't sampling 100K people and seeing how many commit suicide, they know how
many suicides are reported in the entire population.

------
JeffDClark
I just finished the book Acid Test ([http://www.amazon.com/Acid-Test-Ecstasy-
Power-Heal/dp/039916...](http://www.amazon.com/Acid-Test-Ecstasy-Power-
Heal/dp/0399162798)). The stories about the progress that the lucky
individuals, who have been part of MDMA therapy studies for PTSD, have made;
combined with government's refusal to fund research as well as their
stonewalling during permitting (DEA primarily) is heartbreaking and
infuriating.

The author quotes some numbers about how much the US Dept of Defense and
Veterans Affairs Administration spend (and are projected to spend) "treating"
PTSD in veterans over the coming decades. They are shockingly large and
unfortunately the US keeps sending more meat into the grinder.

------
petercooper
I'm currently listening to an audiobook about the Falklands War. 649
Argentinians died in a horrific but short (2 months) conflict, but they claim
since then more than 649 of the surviving soldiers have committed suicide, and
PTSD remains a huge issue with both Argentine and British veterans.

~~~
cmdkeen
I've listened to presentations by Combat Stress, a UK charity that works with
veterans with mental health issues. Surprisingly it is veterans of Northern
Ireland that have the greatest number of mental health issues, not those
involved in what we might think of as more active wars.

I can see parallels with what many Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are
suffering, the constant threat of attack and a local populace you are supposed
to be protecting. Yet in NI the populace was British, the cognitive disconnect
must have been tremendous.

~~~
dmix
And the Irish were losing friends, family, and people they knew from the
neighbourhood growing up. Whereas in the military it was guys you went to
basic with. Which is similar to family but not as deep rooted.

------
jmnicolas
Meaningless statistics : are there more suicides or are combat deaths
declining ?

~~~
teraflop
It's meaningful regardless of whether one number is increasing or the other is
decreasing.

If, as I suspect, the military spends vastly more time and money trying to
prevent combat deaths than trying to help suicidal soldiers and veterans, then
this statistic suggests that their priorities are out of whack.

~~~
pmalynin
How is it out-of-whack? For the sake of the argument if they have $1 billion
to spend and if spending it on combat deaths prevention saves say 1000 people,
while spending it on suicide reduction gets you 10 then it seems very
reasonable to spend money on decreasing combat deaths.

------
yequalsx
More than anything this statistic speaks to the overwhelming military
superiority of the U.S. military. The number of deaths for the U.S. military
is quite small in relation to the numbers involved and the length of time of
the occupation.

A very large majority of deaths have been the native populace. Such a
disparity of casualties leads to a situation where war does not seem as bad as
it really is by the American public. We're supposed to be aghast that suicide
is a greater cause of death than the 'enemy'.

------
sdf09jk2df
Nobody wants to admit the leading cause of suicide in the military, probably
in society in general, because it is politically sensitive. There is fear that
announcing the leading demographic outright might make matters worse before it
gets better. I have been a soldier in the US Army for 17 years, and the FBI
has likely identified the cause of this trend using statistics.

The leading cause for suicide in the US military is that society is generally
becoming increasingly incompatible with military service. The demographic
least likely to commit suicide of any age range are black females. The
demographic most likely to commit suicide are white males under the age of 25.
It should be known that suicides occur among all races, genders, and ages. The
problem, however, is not that suicide occurs but the quantity and trends with
which it occurs.

The cultural generation born between the mid 1990-2005 are referred to as
Millennials. This group is the first born into a world where the internet has
always existed and divorce among their parents stands at record highs. This
group is less willing to make social commitments, expects constant social
feedback, and delays making life changing decisions longer than previous
generations. Of particular concern is that this group tends to be nurtured
more directly and longer than previous generations even while relationships of
their elders disintegrate more rapidly.

In previous generations people learn some hard life lessons early in life. Not
everybody gets to be a winner. Time is short. If you screw-up there is a
punishment. Quitting is not acceptable when people depend upon you. Life isn't
fair. Many Millennials are shielded from these harsh lessons by over
protective guardians.

This profound change in social development has numerous consequences.
Withdrawal from society and intimacy are perhaps the most common consequence
for society generally. In the military you cannot hide from society, so simply
withdrawing is not an option.

The military is also a highly confrontational environment. Positive
confrontations are often regarded as a necessary quality in successful
corporate environments, but not everybody is well prepared for communication
that is so direct. Typically the confrontations in the corporate world are
soft or rare for entry level positions, where the opposite is true in the
military.

Historically military training has attempted to prepare people for this. Basic
training is extremely confrontational and not in a positive way, but basic
training is also a safe environment. In earlier times basic training was less
safe thereby increasing stress for attendees. If a person is not sufficiently
stressed during their entry level training they are ill-prepared to manage
such stresses when their career becomes at risk.

Related: [http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/12/04/The-
Sex...](http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/12/04/The-Sexodus-
Part-1-The-Men-Giving-Up-On-Women-And-Checking-Out-Of-Society)

~~~
vezzy-fnord
_divorce among their parents stands at record highs_

The fact that you think this is inherently bad is odd.

It happens largely because: a) The nuclear family is mostly sustainable in
times of economic prosperity, b) Divorce used to entail far larger social
consequences in the past. Women were generally more dependent, as well.
Staying with someone you don't like out of some perverse ideological duty like
yours is far worse than divorcing them.

 _This group is less willing to make social commitments_

Social commitment as to what?

 _delays making life changing decisions longer than previous generations_

This is a _bad_ thing, again?

 _Not everybody gets to be a winner._

Did you listen to some rant about participation trophies in school and you're
now extending it to some insidious, omnipresent cultural idea that children
are being taught everyone's a winner?

 _Time is short._

Hasn't changed.

 _If you screw-up there is a punishment._

Hasn't changed.

 _Quitting is not acceptable when people depend upon you._

I keep observing this form of values dissonance amongst reactionaries like
you. On one hand, they value nothing more than the spirit of individualism and
free trade. On the other, they hold these vague ideals (which have never been
widespread) that sound oddly collectivist in nature.

 _Life isn 't fair._

Hasn't changed.

 _Withdrawal from society and intimacy_

I don't recall previous generations being particularly positive with regards
to sexuality (this hasn't changed: many are still puritanical, but from
leftist perspectives).

Finally, here's a little thought. If all of this is true and Millennials are
the end of the moral zenith as we know it, who do you think is responsible for
raising them to be this way?

~~~
pluma
I'd actually like to point out that staying together with someone you don't
like because you are obligated to (due to social norms or religious reasons or
whatever) is not only bad for you, it's also bad for your children.

Parental divorce, especially if it happened in mutual agreement, is far better
than a having parents constantly fight and being raised in an environment full
of micro-aggressions and hostility.

Blaming failed marriages on divorce is blaming the symptoms for the disease.
Social acceptance of divorce isn't making married couples fall out, failed
relationships are. Pretending everything is fine won't make it so.

(insert obligatory comparison to drug decriminalization here)

------
Zigurd
Not all problems have solutions. The military has been applied to an
unreasonable and impossible task. They may be no way to "get better" at doing
that.

------
jfmercer
I have seen many tragic headlines of late, and, for me, this is one of the
most tragic.

~~~
Arnt
You might want to read Better Angels by Steven Pinker, which argues quite
convincingly that things are getting better overall. "The news you recently
read sticks in the mind, the worse news from long ago doesn't" etc. You may or
may not be persuaded about all he says, but the book definitely helps build
resistance to tragic headlines.

------
jpmcglone
There's no denying that death is a common consequence of war.

------
danohuiginn
I can't find a decent link ATM, but I've also seen smoking claimed as a major
cause of death among the military.

Soldiers and veterans tend to smoke much more than civilians, which doesn't do
wonders for their life expectancy.

------
pinaceae
a bit hard to understand the figures in the real paper.

while the numbers have crossed, what about the absolutes? there are less
deaths in combat now due to massive improvements in field treatment and armor.
the total number of suicides in the armed forces is now higher than combat
deaths and in civilian life, but it still could be lower overall than 20 years
ago.

armchair analysis would be still, that if more service members survive
injuries that would otherwise killed them before, there are more survivors now
that try to live with massive traumas, amputations, mental disorders. if you
come back from stan with no legs, massive PTSD and a missing jaw, well, you
kill yourself afterwards. young people joining in frontline roles tend to be
more athletic, more body conscious. your high school sweetheart will still
marry you out of peer pressure, but 2 years in she won't like changing your
diapers anymore.

~~~
logfromblammo
(I am not a veteran. I merely know a few. All of the following is based on
anecdotes.)

There is a small, but not insignificant, number of people who aggressively
pursue naive young people in the military for monetary advantage. These range
from predatory lenders to semi-professional spouses. The military employee
becomes their golden ticket to enjoying the benefits of the military without
taking on any of the risks.

If you can stay married for 20 years to a military person on active duty, you
can retain a lot of the MWR and federal benefits that you were able to enjoy
during that entire 20 years, even if you get divorced. If the military person
dies, you and your children get survivor benefits. You might also be able to
use their GI bill benefit while they are busy working.

So some people will marry someone in the military, then cheat on that person
at every available opportunity, and spend as much of their reliable paycheck
as possible, while enjoying military family benefits. For that sort of person,
a war-zone deployment is like a vacation, with the added possibility of
winning the widow(er) lottery.

If their young sucker of a spouse returns with PTSD or a brain injury, that
has the potential to screw up their lifestyle, particularly if a discharge
seems likely. The best play would likely be emotional abuse to encourage
suicide. I have known enough people with military backgrounds to know that
many of them had unfaithful or benefits-mercenary spouses. One even remarried
to a non-American and intentionally kept her away from the on-base culture,
because he could no longer trust anyone who was too familiar with the system.
More than one explicitly mentioned that they intentionally avoided marriage
for at least the first five years of their service, to weed out anyone trying
to become a 20/20/20 spouse.

So even if that high school sweetheart doesn't last, at least they might have
loved their partner for a while before they came home changed and wore down
their endurance. A benefits-mercenary spouse may actually be _angry_ that
their partner survived their injuries.

I am not certain exactly how prevalent this behavior is, as there may be some
selection bias in play. Maybe ex-military folks just particularly like to
brood over their failed marriages, calculate illusory motives, and then
complain about their evil exes to anyone who will listen.

~~~
philwelch
I'm not sure why you were downvoted, but this is one of the life dangers that
servicemen face. Worse yet, the military unwittingly subsidizes this kind of
thing--lots of servicemen will marry just about anyone to get out of the
barracks and to collect the extra housing allowance.

~~~
logfromblammo
Speaking from personal experience, people aged 18-25 don't always make the
wisest decisions, with due consideration for the potential consequences. The
military may actually be doing it wittingly. A spouse that only receives
continuing benefits if their partner remains in the service will probably be
in the military's corner whenever re-enlistment comes up.

Interestingly enough, despite the topic of ex-spouses lagging slightly behind
football, barracks stories, barbecue-related food, and generalized complaining
about the government among the vets that I have known, not a single one of
them has ever been in a position to do anything about it, regardless of their
rank or tenure. It seems to be an unintended consequence of a much larger
problem, one that is politically untouchable.

I think it is entirely unsolvable as long as any cultural continuity exists
within the institution, much like the problem of corruption in some law
enforcement units. Too many people have too much at stake in the status quo.

Another unintended consequence that may lead to suicide is that the provision
of veterans' medical benefits has become much more expensive, particularly
with respect to head injuries. So injured veterans that should be receiving
medical discharges for service-related injuries (along with those promised
lifetime treatment benefits) are being discharged for other reasons, and their
service records falsified. PTSD patients may be denied benefits under the
rationale that their PTSD symptoms are actually from a previously concealed
psychological condition. If the vet has a brain injury, but no pieces
obviously missing, they may be informally classified as malingerers, to be
treated accordingly.

It is often left to the person with a severe concussion to navigate a tangled
web of bureaucracy on their own, to prove that they are not faking their
injury--a task that could probably only be successfully negotiated by someone
who was actually faking it. That's somewhat of a catch-22.

So when the organization that formerly saw to your every need suddenly decides
to turn on you in your moment of weakness, I can see how that might generate a
few bad thoughts--perhaps even suicidal impulses.

------
bob917
Congress needs to act NOW to save lives by passing a law that makes suicide
illegal.

------
AnkhMorporkian
Despite how bad this seems, it's a good thing that barely anyone is dying from
war. Even adding up the highest possible estimates, we're doing a hell of a
lot better than the 20th century was.

~~~
philwelch
The 20th century didn't even start racking up real casualties until...right
about now, actually.

~~~
DanBC
There were 36 wars in the 20th century that started and ended before 1914.

Those wars had about 500,000 deaths.

[http://www.war-memorial.net/wars_all.asp](http://www.war-
memorial.net/wars_all.asp)

    
    
        Chinese Govt vs Bai Lang (White Wolf) Rebels	1914 - 1914	 5,000	
        2nd Balkan War	1913 - 1913	 60,500	
        Kuomintang vs Chinese Army	1913 - 1913	 5,000	
        Moro Rebellion	1913 - 1913	 15,050	
        1st Balkan War	1912 - 1913	 82,000	[1]
        Paraguay Coups	1911 - 1912	 5,000	
        Italo-Turkish War	1911 - 1912	 20,000	
        First Sino-Tibetan War	1911 - 1912	 2,000	
        Cuba vs Partido Independiente de Color	1911 - 1911	 1,050	
        Chinese Revolution	1911 - 1911	 1,000	[2]
        Asir-Yemen Revolt	1910 - 1911	 9,000	
        French Conquest of Wadai Sultanate	1909 - 1911	 12,000	
        The second Rif War	1909 - 1910	 10,000	
        Portugese war against Dembos	1907 - 1910	 5,100	
        Ma al-’Aynayn’s Anti-Colonial Insurgency	1907 - 1910	 3,150	
        Korean guerilla war against Japanese occupation	1907 - 1910	 17,736	
        Iranian Constitution War	1908 - 1909	 1,100	
        Morocco unrest	1907 - 1908	 1,400	
        Romanian Peasant Revolt	1907 - 1907	 2,000	
        4th Central American war	1907 - 1907	 1,000	
        Dutch-Achinese War	1904 - 1907	 24,200	
        Sokoto and UK vs Mahdist Revolt	1906 - 1906	 2,080	
        Zulu Rebellion	1906 - 1906	 2,356	
        Third Central American war	1906 - 1906	 1,000	
        Russian Revolution 1905	1905 - 1906	 1,500	
        Maji Maji revolt	1905 - 1906	 8,840	
        Russo-Japanese war	1904 - 1905	 151,831	[1]
        Southwest African Revolt	1904 - 1905	 12,800	[1]
        Uruguay Civil War	1904 - 1904	 1,000	
        Second Yemen Rebellion	1904 - 1904	 30,000	
        Uprisings in Colonial Angola	1902 - 1904	 2,000	
        Ilinden Uprising	1903 - 1903	 6,330	
        The War of a Thousand Days	1899 - 1903	 100,000	
        Philippine insurrection	1899 - 1902	 20,500	
        Second Boer war	1899 - 1902	 30,800	
        The Boxer Rebellion	1900 - 1900	 3,003	
        Sino-Russian War	1900 - 1900	 4,000
    

EDIT: I'm on mobile. Sorry for the awful formating.

~~~
bnegreve
Well, let's look at this data on a plot

[http://imgur.com/EuHcSzT](http://imgur.com/EuHcSzT)

Conclusion: philwelch is not completely off.

(edit: make the graph less ugly)

~~~
AnkhMorporkian
Thank you for proving my point. Apparently pointing out that this century is
going way better than the 1900s is a sin.

You should post this as an individual submission. That's a really nice graph.

