USA Today's latest attempt at keeping US casualties in the news

First off the headline on the article got my dander up.

Dozens of cities spared war dead

Then I started reading the article. See if you can catch the recurring, fraudulent claim.

Analysts offer two explanations for why such cities could have avoided military losses:

And those two reasons are:

Cities tend to have more viable economies than those places."

Urban residents, accordingly, are less apt to need the economic opportunity offered by military service.

Economic opportunities in the military? I thought there were no economic advantages to joining the military? They are getting their narratives mixed up.

And the other reason?

• In a nation of 300 million, the U.S. military death toll in Iraq is small enough to make chance a factor in which cities lose a son or daughter.

"There's a big random element in this," says William O'Hare, a University of New Hampshire demographer who has studied U.S. deaths in Iraq. "Even in a city of 100,000, you're talking about a fairly small pool of recruit-age people."

You want my take on this? Most larger urban areas tend to also be more liberal. It is why Democrats count heavily on the large cities in states and ignore anybody outside of the big metropolitan area.

They can win a state merely by winning enough of the votes in the major city. Since metro areas are liberal they also tend to be more anti military. Fewer people join the military, per capita, from big cities because quite frankly they lack the intestinal fortitude and moral courage of their more rural brethren. That is a fancy way of saying they are sissies.

Throw your faux economic reasons out the window and that really intellectual argument based on dumb luck with it.

At least they admit the death toll has been small.