WE'RE NUMBER ..... 36! The best and worst countries to be a kid by 1kiki

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

WE'RE NUMBER ..... 36! The best and worst countries to be a kid

POSTED BY: 1KIKI
UPDATED: Thursday, July 27, 2017 15:12
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4104
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, June 17, 2017 7:25 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/15/health/best-worst-places-to-be-a-kid
/index.html

The End of Childhood Report ranked 172 countries from best to worst in an effort to explore the main reasons why childhood comes to an early end in certain places.

The rankings were determined by measuring the average level of performance across eight topics: under-5 mortality, malnutrition that stunts growth, out-of-school children, child labor, early marriage, adolescent births, displacement by conflict and child homicide.

Half of all adolescent births occur in just seven countries: Bangladesh, Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria and the United States. A recent study estimated the lifetime economic costs of new cases of child abuse in the United States at $124 billion. The calculation included lifetime costs of $210,012 per abuse victim who survived and $1.3 million per victim who died.

The United States at 36 ranked behind Lithuania, Croatia, Estonia, Poland, New Zealand, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Belarus, Singapore, Qatar, and Bosnia & Herzegovina.

The best and worst countries to be a kid

1 Norway
1 Slovenia
3 Finland
4 Netherlands
4 Sweden
6 Portugal
7 Ireland
8 Iceland
8 Italy
10 Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, South Korea (tie)

Worst countries to be a kid
1. Niger
2. Angola
3. Mali
4. Central African Republic
5. Somalia
6. Chad
7. South Sudan
8. Burkina Faso
9. Sierra Leone, Guinea (tie)

(broken to display) http://www.savethechildren.org/ atf/cf/%7B9def2ebe-10ae-432c-9bd0- df91d2eba74a%7D/SAVETHECHILDREN_ENDOFCHILDHOOD_INDEX_2017_ EASTAFRICA%20EDITION_LOWRES.PDF

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 17, 2017 8:20 PM

6STRINGJOKER

I've been seeing stuff like this all of my life from education to obesity stats and what not. It's all probably true. I tie our low scoring on these benchmarks to 2 things.

1. Complacency and lethargy that stems from hubris and over-abundance.

2. Our government spending so much time, money and effort ever since WWII being the world police as well as the welfare benefit payer to the rest of the world instead of taking care of our own house first.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 17, 2017 10:02 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

And yet, politicians still talk about US exceptionalism ... and people still believe it. Worse, you can't even point out the facts about the US without being called a Putin-lover by propagandists.

Why the frantic, endless obsession with pretending the US is perfect?

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 17, 2017 10:23 PM

6STRINGJOKER

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
And yet, politicians still talk about US exceptionalism ... and people still believe it. Worse, you can't even point out the facts about the US without being called a Putin-lover by propagandists.

Why the frantic, endless obsession with pretending the US is perfect?

Pretending that we are perfect is the problem. I remember the Double Think they taught us as kids in school. We constantly were told that America was the best, but then we'd read our "Weekly Reader" that had stats like this showing us how low we were scoring in a lot of different areas. Pretty confusing, don'tcha think?

The U.S. is Exceptional though. Maybe it's lost some of it's luster in the last 50 or so years, but for most of us it was kind of like winning the lotto when we were born here, whether we want to admit it or not.

There are two major things that are never taken into consideration when those types of studies are discussed.

1. A major reason many of the countries that score above us are in any position to do so is because America exists. Even the rabid Putin haters here can agree with that. Without America, the world would largely be controlled by Russia and/or China and the world would be quite a different place.

2. Those studies are based off of a median of over 320 million people in America compared to much smaller populations in other countries. If you were to cut out say the lower 20% of the ones dragging the stats down in this country, we would score much, much higher on the list. I think in these smaller countries that are able to exist as they do because America is a thing, the quality of life overall for their citizens is much more even than in America. There is a HUGE difference between the top and bottom in this country that most other countries do not have.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 17, 2017 10:50 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

1. A major reason many of the countries that score above us are in any position to do so is because America exists. Even the rabid Putin haters here can agree with that. Without America, the world would largely be controlled by Russia and/or China and the world would be quite a different place.

Well, first of all, the US didn't 'win' WWII for the world.

And second the US has a long and sordid history of getting rid of even moderately socialist freely-elected governments, and propping up dictators. Or, more recently, toppling governments and leaving smoking ruins and nests of ISIS in place.

Would YOU say the countries I listed are better off because of US 'help'? (I culled out the unsuccessful attempts.)

https://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governm
ents-the-master-list
Overthrowing other people’s governments: The Master List

By William Blum – Published February 2013

Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)

Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Bolivia 1971 *
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Libya 2011 *
Ukraine 2014 *

Quote:
2. Those studies are based off of a median of over 320 million people in America compared to much smaller populations in other countries. If you were to cut out say the lower 20% of the ones dragging the stats down in this country, we would score much, much higher on the list. I think in these smaller countries that are able to exist as they do because America is a thing, the quality of life overall for their citizens is much more even than in America. There is a HUGE difference between the top and bottom in this country that most other countries do not have.

The statisticians were better than that. They used percentages, not absolute numbers. So the size of the country is immaterial.
THE DIFFERENCE
If I had a country with one child and that one child was abysmally poor, that country would fare very well by absolute standards - only 1 child in poverty! - but very poorly by percentages - 100% of children in poverty.

And the question is, WHY does the US have such a chasm between rich and poor? Size doesn't explain it.

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 17, 2017 11:29 PM

6STRINGJOKER

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Well, first of all, the US didn't 'win' WWII for the world.

Don't recall saying that it did.

Quote:
And second the US has a long and sordid history of getting rid of even moderately socialist freely-elected governments, and propping up dictators. Or, more recently, toppling governments and leaving smoking ruins and nests of ISIS in place.

I can't argue with that.

Quote:
Would YOU say the countries I listed are better off because of US 'help'? (I culled out the unsuccessful attempts.)

Nope. I'd imagine that the stats from these studies would say that I was right about that too.

That right there is like a Billboard list of the countries that have been exploited one way or another by the US/UK spooks.

Quote:
The statisticians were better than that. They used percentages, not absolute numbers. So the size of the country is immaterial.

I don't agree with that assessment. I believe, at least in this case, size does matter. It's not everything for sure, but it does play a part and cannot be dismissed as immaterial.

Quote:
And the question is, WHY does the US have such a chasm between rich and poor? Size doesn't explain it.

Size alone would not explain it. I can't even tell you why size would be a factor, but without any way of proving that it doesn't matter it can't be tossed aside as irrelevant.

That is a good question though.

Why is there such a chasm between the rich and the poor?

I noticed that in the study in your OP that the UK isn't on the top 10 list either. I don't think that's co-incidence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 17, 2017 11:48 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
1. A major reason many of the countries that score above us are in any position to do so is because America exists. Even the rabid Putin haters here can agree with that. Without America, the world would largely be controlled by Russia and/or China and the world would be quite a different place.

What DO you mean?

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 17, 2017 11:54 PM

6STRINGJOKER

Sure, you can throw out that list of countries that have been exploited by the powers that be, but many of the countries at the top of that list are able to flourish in a world where the US is a superpower. As much meddling as we do with countries we don't really give a shit about besides their resources, Russia and China know better than to start moving west and attacking Italy or Norway.

One huge benefit they have because of the US and the UK is they have almost Zero military spending. I'd imagine that things like Universal Healthcare are a lot more affordable when 55% of your country's yearly budget isn't going to military spending.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 3:03 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Russia and China know better than to start moving west and attacking Italy or Norway.

What indication do you have that Russia or China would have attacked? After all, neither Russia nor China have the size of the military that we do, and never have. Nor do they have extra-territorial bases - and never have.

And to better make the point - here's the entire list of every country that looks after its children better than the US.

Norway
Slovenia
Finland
Netherlands
Sweden
Portugal
Ireland
Iceland
Italy
Belgium
Cyprus
Germany
Republic of Korea
France
Spain
Japan
Switzerland
Australia
Greece
Luxembourg
Denmark
Israel
United Kingdom
Lithuania
Croatia
Estonia
Poland
New Zealand
Hungary
Latvia
Malta
Belarus
Singapore
Qatar
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Were all 38 of them under what you seem to think of as the beneficent US umbrella? Was Slovenia? Sweden, Ireland, Cyprus, Switzerland, Australia, Greece, Israel, Lithuania, Croatia, Estonia, Poland, New Zealand, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Belarus, Singapore, Qatar or Bosnia & Herzegovina? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO#Founding_and_chang
es_in_membership

THE ANSWER IS NO. THEY WEREN'T. So, how did THEY manage?

Quote:
One huge benefit they have because of the US and the UK is THEY have almost Zero military spending. I'd imagine that things like Universal Healthcare are a lot more affordable when 55% of your country's yearly budget isn't going to military spending.

Which 'THEY' are you talking about? The entire globe?

And on the flip side, you seem to think the US was spending all of its money defending poor, helpless countries against an imaginary Russian and Chinese threat. But WWII was the most expensive war in US history, while the Iraq plus Afghanistan Wars were the second most expensive - and not a Russian or Chinese threat in sight. http://247wallst.com/special-report/2015/05/21/the-most-expensive-wars
-in-u-s-history/4/

And what ARE we doing with ALL THOSE BASES around the globe?

Quote:
The United States Probably Has More Foreign Military Bases Than Any Other People, Nation, or Empire in History
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-united-states-probably-has-more-
foreign-military-bases-than-any-other-people-nation-or-empire-in-history/

The US has a bloated, crippling military bill for sure, but our military isn't deployed to protect poor little old 'them' against big bad Russia and China.

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 3:39 AM

6STRINGJOKER

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
The US has a bloated, crippling military bill for sure, but our military isn't deployed to protect poor little old 'them' against big bad Russia and China.

Nope. That's just a happy little byproduct of it. It helps keep the narrative up that we are the world police.

Whether or not China or Russia would conquer and expand is moot. Because of the military might of America that will be a question that never sees an answer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 5:07 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
One huge benefit they have because of the US and the UK is they have almost Zero military spending.

So, to get back to this point - there are many countries that DON'T have this 'benefit' and still seem to do OK with both their military and their child welfare, and 2) the US's outrageous military spending isn't due to our supposed protection of other countries from Russia and China.

And ... what excuse does the US have again, for picking the priorities it picks?

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 7:46 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
One huge benefit they have because of the US and the UK is they have almost Zero military spending.
So, to get back to this point - there are many countries that DON'T have this 'benefit' and still seem to do OK with both their military and their child welfare, and 2) the US's outrageous military spending isn't due to our supposed protection of other countries from Russia and China.

And ... what excuse does the US have again, for picking the priorities it picks?

How about that US governments (federal, state, local) cater to the preferences of the top 20%? (Why is obvious: the 20% run the country in everything that is not government.) Maybe the 20% in your state are different from Texas, but my 20% thinks that the Pentagon is not sufficiently violent and that the children of the poor are too heavy burden for the wealthy. All the major political parties (including Libertarians) reflect the preferences of the top 20%, although some parties less than others.

www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-hoarding-of-the-american-dream/ar-
BBCKMQq?li=AA4Zjn&ocid=spartanntp

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 8:39 AM

6STRINGJOKER

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
One huge benefit they have because of the US and the UK is they have almost Zero military spending.
So, to get back to this point - there are many countries that DON'T have this 'benefit' and still seem to do OK with both their military and their child welfare, and 2) the US's outrageous military spending isn't due to our supposed protection of other countries from Russia and China.

1) Which countries don't have this "benefit" that still seem to do OK with both their military and their child welfare? You will have to be more specific.

The list you first gave were countries I agree have been interfered with and exploited by the US and others and do demonstrably poor on tests like these.

2) It may not be due to our protection of other countries from invasion by Russia or China, but as I stated one is a happy byproduct of the other, and you did not refute that point.

Quote:
And ... what excuse does the US have again, for picking the priorities it picks?

I couldn't tell you. I'm not a mind reader, and I'm just about as purposefully far away from power and money as you can possibly get in this country without being homeless. They don't tell me their secrets or their motives, and I don't defend or make excuses for their actions.

All I can give are my speculations, of which I already have given some.

Second's explanation for it is as good as any that I could come up with in a moment's notice if I were pressed on it, although I think it's an oversimplified explanation of it. My main reason for thinking that his thoughts on the matter here can be applied is because he's accepting that ALL political parties and their elites are in on it, and he's not just pointing fingers at one side or another.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 10:00 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

Quote:
And ... what excuse does the US have again, for picking the priorities it picks?

I couldn't tell you. I'm not a mind reader, and I'm just about as purposefully far away from power and money as you can possibly get in this country without being homeless. They don't tell me their secrets or their motives, and I don't defend or make excuses for their actions.

All I can give are my speculations, of which I already have given some.

Second's explanation for it is as good as any that I could come up with in a moment's notice if I were pressed on it, although I think it's an oversimplified explanation of it. My main reason for thinking that his thoughts on the matter here can be applied is because he's accepting that ALL political parties and their elites are in on it, and he's not just pointing fingers at one side or another.

You don't like simple? I'll give a more complicated, yet quick, explanation of why America’s elite are selfish and indifferent to those beneath them.
http://goo.gl/CQB5Ut

A meritocracy has no more use for chivalry and valor than a hereditary aristocracy has for brains. Although hereditary advantages play an important part in the attainment of professional or managerial status, the new class has to maintain the fiction that its power rests on intelligence alone. Hence it has little sense of ancestral gratitude or of an obligation to live up to responsibilities inherited from the past. It thinks of itself as a self-made elite owing its privileges exclusively to its own efforts. . . . Meritocratic elites find it difficult to imagine a community, even a community of the intellect, that reaches into both the past and the future and is constituted by an awareness of intergenerational obligation.

Critics described mass culture as a combination of “radical ingratitude” with an unquestioned belief in limitless possibility. The mass man, according to Ortega, took for granted the benefits conferred by civilization and demanded them “peremptorily, as if they were natural rights.” Heir of all the ages, he was blissfully unconscious of his debt to the past. Though he enjoyed advantages brought about by the general “rise in the historic level,” he felt no obligation either to his progenitors or to his progeny. He recognized no authority outside himself, conducting himself as if he were “lord of his own existence.” His “incredible ignorance of history” made it possible for him to think of the present moment as far superior to the civilizations of the past and to forget, moreover, that contemporary civilization was itself the product of centuries of historical development, not the unique achievement of an age that had discovered the secret of progress by turning its back on the past.

Meritocracy is a parody of democracy. It offers opportunities for advancement, in theory at least, to anyone with the talent to seize them, but “opportunities to rise,” as R. H. Tawney points out in Equality, “are no substitute for a general diffusion of the means of civilization,” of the “dignity and culture” that are needed by all “whether they rise or not.” Social mobility does not undermine the influence of elites; if anything, it helps to solidify their influence by supporting the illusion that it rests solely on merit. It merely strengthens the likelihood that elites will exercise power irresponsibly, precisely because they recognize so few obligations to their predecessors or to the communities they profess to lead. Their lack of gratitude disqualifies meritocratic elites from the burden of leadership, and in any case, they are less interested in leadership than in escaping from the common lot—the very definition of meritocratic success.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 11:31 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
1) Which countries don't have this "benefit" that still seem to do OK with both their military and their child welfare? You will have to be more specific.

The list you first gave were countries I agree have been interfered with and exploited by the US and others and do demonstrably poor on tests like these.

Quote:
And to better make the point - here's the entire list of every country that looks after its children better than the US.

Norway
Slovenia
Finland
Netherlands
Sweden
Portugal
Ireland
Iceland
Italy
Belgium
Cyprus
Germany
Republic of Korea
France
Spain
Japan
Switzerland
Australia
Greece
Luxembourg
Denmark
Israel
United Kingdom
Lithuania
Croatia
Estonia
Poland
New Zealand
Hungary
Latvia
Malta
Belarus
Singapore
Qatar
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Were all 38 of them under what you seem to think of as the beneficent US umbrella? Was Slovenia? Sweden, Ireland, Cyprus, Switzerland, Australia, Greece, Israel, Lithuania, Croatia, Estonia, Poland, New Zealand, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Belarus, Singapore, Qatar or Bosnia & Herzegovina? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO#Founding_and_chang
es_in_membership

THE ANSWER IS NO. THEY WEREN'T. So, how did THEY manage?

Quote:
2) It may not be due to our protection of other countries from invasion by Russia or China, but as I stated one is a happy byproduct of the other, and you did not refute that point.

Dood - I did. See 1).

Quote:
I couldn't tell you. (what excuse the US has, for picking the priorities it picks) I'm not a mind reader, and I'm just about as purposefully far away from power and money as you can possibly get in this country without being homeless. They don't tell me their secrets or their motives, and I don't defend or make excuses for their actions.

All I can give are my speculations, of which I already have given some.

Fair enough.

Quote:
Second's explanation for it is as good as any that I could come up with in a moment's notice if I were pressed on it, although I think it's an oversimplified explanation of it. My main reason for thinking that his thoughts on the matter here can be applied is because he's accepting that ALL political parties and their elites are in on it, and he's not just pointing fingers at one side or another.

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 12:23 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

The other thing I wanted to point out, Jack, is how NATO is funded. It's very Communistic - from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

The total tab is calculated according to 'how much do these troops, these facilities, these actions cost'. The bill is then split according to relative GDP. In terms of economic impact, each country is experiencing the exact same drain relative to its total economy.

You might be thinking of Germany and Japan. The popular misconception is that they don't have armies. They both DO have armies. Germany's is not allowed to operate outside of NATO's jurisdiction, while Japan's army is constitutionally forbidden to engage in offensive operations.

The end result is that while the US DOES have a bloated and crippling military budget, it's not because it's generously sacrificing itself to lift the burden of maintaining a military from all those countries who are doing so well ... since the US doesn't have mutual defense agreements with about half of them. Nor are mutual defense agreements like NATO excessively burdensome on the US economy, since countries pay per GDP ratio - the countries' budgets are equally burdened. Nor are Germany and Japan specifically exempt from maintaining a military. And the vast majority of US installations around the globe have nothing to do with either Russian or Chinese territorial expansion.

The US has such a yuge military footprint and budget, but not for any of those 'reasons'.

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 2:21 PM

6STRINGJOKER

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
And to better make the point - here's the entire list of every country that looks after its children better than the US.

Norway
Slovenia
Finland
Netherlands
Sweden
Portugal
Ireland
Iceland
Italy
Belgium
Cyprus
Germany
Republic of Korea
France
Spain
Japan
Switzerland
Australia
Greece
Luxembourg
Denmark
Israel
United Kingdom
Lithuania
Croatia
Estonia
Poland
New Zealand
Hungary
Latvia
Malta
Belarus
Singapore
Qatar
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Dood - I did. See 1).

I don't know what you're talking about then. That list reads like a Billboard list of the top countries that benefit from a strong Military in America.

You've got almost the entirety of Western Europe and a few countries from Eastern Europe. I don't know the deal with Qatar, now or currently, but I know they gave Bill Clinton 1 million dollars for his birthday, so I can only assume they're part of the bubble. My brother almost was killed under cover in Bosnia in the military back around 2002-2003.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
The other thing I wanted to point out, Jack, is how NATO is funded. It's very Communistic - from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

The total tab is calculated according to 'how much do these troops, these facilities, these actions cost'. The bill is then split according to relative GDP. In terms of economic impact, each country is experiencing the exact same drain relative to its total economy.

You might be thinking of Germany and Japan. The popular misconception is that they don't have armies. They both DO have armies. Germany's is not allowed to operate outside of NATO's jurisdiction, while Japan's army is constitutionally forbidden to engage in offensive operations.

The end result is that while the US DOES have a bloated and crippling military budget, it's not because it's generously sacrificing itself to lift the burden of maintaining a military from all those countries who are doing so well ... since the US doesn't have mutual defense agreements with about half of them. Nor are mutual defense agreements like NATO excessively burdensome on the US economy, since countries pay per GDP ratio - the countries' budgets are equally burdened. Nor are Germany and Japan specifically exempt from maintaining a military. And the vast majority of US installations around the globe have nothing to do with either Russian or Chinese territorial expansion.

The US has such a yuge military footprint and budget, but not for any of those 'reasons'.

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Any of these countries that actually bother to maintain any type of military these days have jokes for a military.

I already said I agree that we don't maintain the superior military force out of the kindness of our hearts. That is a byproduct of it though.

Our specific installations around the globe might have little to do with Russia or Chinese expansion attempts, but I already told you that we'll never know if they were going to try to expand without us because we're already everywhere. We have the superior force and could center our attention anywhere almost immediately.

I don't agree at all with our huge military spending and our constant meddling with other people's affairs. If that's what you're thinking I'm saying here, I want to correct the record on that.

I honestly don't know why we do most of the stuff "we" do. Nobody really does but them and anybody telling you that they know is either lying or is unwittingly full of shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 2:30 PM

6STRINGJOKER

@Second

Sounds to me you prefer communism or at least socialism.

Maybe Capitalism and a Meritocracy cannot work either. We'd never know because we don't have a Capitalistic or a Meritocratic society, even though TPTB tell us that we do.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 3:04 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 3:09 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

I don't know what you're talking about then. That list reads like a Billboard list of the top countries that benefit from a strong Military in America.

OK - FOR THE THIRD TIME:

Were all 38 of them under what you seem to think of as the beneficent US umbrella? Was Slovenia? Sweden, Ireland, Cyprus, Switzerland, Australia, Greece, Israel, Lithuania, Croatia, Estonia, Poland, New Zealand, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Belarus, Singapore, Qatar or Bosnia & Herzegovina? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO#Founding_and_chang
es_in_membership

THE ANSWER IS NO. THEY WEREN'T. So, how did THEY manage?

Quote:
My brother almost was killed under cover in Bosnia in the military back around 2002-2003.

Bosnia was NOT a NATO member. And it was NOT being threatened by Russia. Though Bill Clinton thought fit to involve NATO in its internal affairs.

But even if it HAD been a NATO member being threatened by Russia, Jack - ALL NATO COUNTRIES CONTRIBUTE PROPORTIONALLY WITH THEIR GDP. THE US DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE A DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT.

Quote:
I already said I agree that we don't maintain the superior military force out of the kindness of our hearts. That is a byproduct of it though.

You keep claiming that but you never offer any facts or rational to justify your claims.

Quote:
Our specific installations around the globe might have little to do with Russia or Chinese expansion attempts, but I already told you that we'll never know if they were going to try to expand without us because we're already everywhere. We have the superior force and could center our attention anywhere almost immediately.

HOW can Russia or China expand their footprints, Jack? Through meddling in foreign countries far away from their borders? And how does that hurt the US, Jack?

You base your entire rationale for the US maintaining a gargantuan army ALL ACROSS THE GLOBE on the theoretical basis that Russia and China MIGHT HAVE HAD some idea they were going to influence foreign, distant (not geographically contiguous) countries - despite the fact that NEITHER Russia NOR China maintains military bases in foreign countries.

HOW, exactly were Russia and China a threat to the US, or indeed to any other country, Jack?

And you make your claim DESPITE the fact that the US has historically, in fact, used those foreign bases NOT FOR DEFENSE AGAINST A NON-EXISTENT THREAT FROM EITHER RUSSIA OR CHINA, BUT TO SUBJUGATE OR OVERTHROW FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS. In short, the US has used those bases to 'project power'' and victimize foreign peoples.

Quote:
I don't agree at all with our huge military spending and our constant meddling with other people's affairs. If that's what you're thinking I'm saying here, I want to correct the record on that.

But what you're saying is that it did them good. When it didn't, Jack.

Jack, either you're being deliberately obtuse, or you've joined the ranks of people whose minds are so made up, they don't want to be confused by facts.

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 3:31 PM

6STRINGJOKER

I don't know why you keep bringing up NATO. NATO is like flies on a cow's ass compared to the US Military. I don't care what other countries are putting into it because it's a drop in the bucket, and any money we spend on it I just consider more money that we're putting into our own War Machine.

We don't have to talk about Russia or China anymore. That's only a theoretical anyhow.

My only point is that all of these small countries on your list would be spending a lot more of their resources on WAR if they did not have the US to rely on, whether or not we are directly or indirectly benefiting them. The reason doesn't matter why, so I won't bring up Russia or China again since that seems to be a real sticking point for you.

You seem to be extremely argumentative today. I'm not really getting where you're coming from.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 3:46 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
I don't know why you keep bringing up NATO. NATO is like flies on a cow's ass compared to the US Military.

But the US military does other countries absolutely NO GOOD if the US has no commitment to defend them. Not only that, but countries think of the US military presence as a threat to their well being. They DON'T want tensions escalating between the US and Russia because they - rightfully - understand that if war breaks out, over a cause that's not theirs, it won't be fought on Russia's or the US's soil, but on theirs. They see the US military presence not as protection, but as something that paints a target on their backs. IN SHORT - THEY DON'T FEAR RUSSIA because they have no reason to. But the DO fear an unnecessary and provocative US military presence.

Quote:
We don't have to talk about Russia or China anymore. That's only a theoretical anyhow.

Then why did you bring it up, Jack? YOU claimed the US military was protection against China and Russia.

Quote:
1. A major reason many of the countries that score above us are in any position to do so is because America exists. Even the rabid Putin haters here can agree with that. Without America, the world would largely be controlled by Russia and/or China and the world would be quite a different place.

Quote:
My only point is that all of these small countries on your list would be spending a lot more of their resources on WAR if they did not have the US to rely on, whether or not we are directly or indirectly benefiting them.

But they wouldn't, Jack. In fact, I've quoted articles from those countries about how LITTLE they fear Russia. But not because of the US military. In fact, the US military and US bellicose policy towards Russia makes them nervous. They want the US to go away, and take its army, ABM sites and nuclear weapons, on the way out.

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 6:30 PM

6STRINGJOKER

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
But the US military does other countries absolutely NO GOOD if the US has no commitment to defend them. Not only that, but countries think of the US military presence as a threat to their well being. They DON'T want tensions escalating between the US and Russia because they - rightfully - understand that if war breaks out, over a cause that's not theirs, it won't be fought on Russia's or the US's soil, but on theirs. They see the US military presence not as protection, but as something that paints a target on their backs. IN SHORT - THEY DON'T FEAR RUSSIA because they have no reason to. But the DO fear an unnecessary and provocative US military presence.

This is a very complicated issue and I fear that maybe we're both over simplifying it and that's why we can't come to an agreement.

One of the major reasons that they don't fear Russia is likely because we're over here with our ridiculously large Military. And whether or not we have anybodies interests at heart, we have made a rather large show several times in the past and put the smack down on countries that got out of line and invaded other countries. I don't want to be the guy to say Nazi, but yanno...

I don't like being put in any position where I'm actually the one defending our Military since I don't agree that we should be spending so much on it or meddling in anybody else's affairs. You are being naive when you think that if the US Military as it is now didn't exist that there wouldn't be a whole lot of war and invasions going on. Apparently you've forgotten the lessons that the history of Mankind has taught us.

Quote:
Then why did you bring it up, Jack? YOU claimed the US military was protection against China and Russia.

I brought it up because it is a theoretical and an extremely valid one at that. The burden isn't on me to prove that this wouldn't be an issue if the US Military didn't exist. History already proves me right.

Quote:
But they wouldn't, Jack. In fact, I've quoted articles from those countries about how LITTLE they fear Russia. But not because of the US military. In fact, the US military and US bellicose policy towards Russia makes them nervous. They want the US to go away, and take its army, ABM sites and nuclear weapons, on the way out.

Yes they would. They do not fear Russia or China or each other because they've been conditioned by the mighty stick of the US military for the last Century.

It's easy for them to bitch about the presence of the US military now since there likely is no chance we're going anywhere, and it's been 70 years since most countries in Europe, especially in the West, have had any notable wars.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 7:35 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
They do not fear Russia or China or each other because they've been conditioned by the mighty stick of the US military for the last Century.

How would you know, Jack? Have you read any of their newspapers? Or even one? Or even one single article? Have you studied their close historical, cultural, linguistic, economic - even familial - ties with Russia? Have you looked at numbers of border crossings? Government statements and policies?

No, of course you haven't.

Instead, you're regurgitating the propaganda you've been fed your entire life. You're mistaking it for fact, and 'think' you 'know' something about the subject.

I'm done with you.

Your mind is just as closed as SECOND's. You won't even entertain the possibility that there's information out there you don't already know, despite the fact that your shifting explanations don't add up to a rational picture, and that there's evidence of a vast unknown territory of information in front of you that you haven't explored.

BTW Jack - I remember coming to the same impasse with you about gold. Having worked near the financialism industry, and becoming properly horrified at the sham of fiat money, your mind glued itself to gold as the one thing of true 'intrinsic' value. And despite years of historical data, evidence of people abandoning gold in their trek to find food and water, daily evidence of the gold market and the 'value' of gold being manipulated by the powers that be - you were obdurate that gold, and only gold, in and of itself, had true 'intrinsic' value. You completely failed to recognize that 'value' is a human judgment, which shifts with the shifting circumstances of humans.

So I know that when you have an idea, no matter how wrong, you will go down with it rather than examine it more impartially.

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 8:02 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

This is how much Germany fears the Russian bear. I see Germany just shaking in its boots. (not):

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-sanctions-germany-idUSKB
N197156
Germany threatens retaliation if U.S. sanctions harm its firms

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/germany-austria-slam-us-
sanctions-russia-48054975
Germany, Austria slam US sanctions against Russia

https://www.ft.com/content/6fbafa0c-528e-11e7-bfb8-997009366969
Merkel sharpens attack on US sanctions against Russia

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 8:21 PM

6STRINGJOKER

I was just about to say that I'm done with you too. This conversation bores me.

You know nothing about history or human nature.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 8:29 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Said the twit who posted no facts.

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 8:31 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-vine/us-military-bases-abroad_b_81
31402.html

How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Undermine National Security and Harm Us All

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 8:57 PM

6STRINGJOKER

LOL HuffPo

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 9:18 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 9:22 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I picked it out of several because it's heavily linked to information sources. Not that you care for linking your own crap you poop out of your ass, and not that you care to look up any - actual, yanno - FACTS.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
LOL HuffPo

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 9:23 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

To get back to the topic -

It's pretty obvious the US is failing its children. When even Slovenia with a score of 985, Cyprus at 978, Lithuania at 971, Croatia, Estonia, Poland, Belarus, Qatar and Bosnia & Herzegovina do better than the US at 941, I think people need to take stock.

There were five factors evaluated: under-5 mortality, malnutrition that stunts growth, out-of-school children, child labor, early marriage, adolescent births, displacement by conflict and child homicide.

The US fails - and fails HUGELY - with teen births - followed by infant mortality, kids out of school, and lives cut short due to violence.

Half of all adolescent births occur in just seven countries: Bangladesh, Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria and the United States. The US is in stellar company.
Looking at he charts, the US has a similar teen pregnancy rate to Bhutan and Djibouti, while Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia have a teen birth rate about half of ours, and Tunisia's is less than a third.
A related factor where the US fails miserably is 'child in a union' - married or cohabiting with a sex partner, ages 15-18.
And those are very poor countries. What's our excuse?
Could it be simply cultural and not economic? After all, the US purveys highly sexualized people in the media, disdains sex education in the schools, restricts contraception, and provides no role models for girls that don't involve 'hot babe'.
Are we screwed up, or what?

The next largest factor in the US's shockingly low ranking is infant mortality. Despite having 'the best medical system in the world', infant mortality has been, and still is far higher than any industrialized nation, and higher than many developing nations. Slovenia's infant mortality is less than half that of the US's, for example. We expect that other first world countries might do better because ... whatever ... but not that Bosnia and Herzegovina would be on par, or that Chile's would be less than a quarter of ours.

The next factor is 'children out of school'. For some reason, the US has a disproportionate percentage of children not at school.

And finally, the US has more than double the developed world average of death due to violence - abuse, gang violence, or other,

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 9:39 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Anybody want to do the work to compare Massachusetts to Mississippi? Or West Virginia to Virginia? I bet the differences between states are bigger than the differences between the best countries in world versus the average for the whole USA. I could be wrong, but only if every state does poorly compared to the best countries in the world.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:

To get back to the topic -

It's pretty obvious the US is failing its children. When even Slovenia with a score of 985, Cyprus at 978, Lithuania at 971, Croatia, Estonia, Poland, Belarus, Qatar and Bosnia & Herzegovina do better than the US at 941, I think people need to take stock.

There were five factors evaluated: under-5 mortality, malnutrition that stunts growth, out-of-school children, child labor, early marriage, adolescent births, displacement by conflict and child homicide.

The US fails - and fails HUGELY - with teen births - followed by infant mortality, kids out of school, and lives cut short due to violence.

Half of all adolescent births occur in just seven countries: Bangladesh, Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria and the United States. The US is in stellar company.
Looking at he charts, the US has a similar teen pregnancy rate to Bhutan and Djibouti, while Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia have a teen birth rate about half of ours, and Tunisia's is less than a third.
And those are very poor countries. What's our excuse?
Could it be simply cultural and not economic? After all, the US purveys highly sexualized people in the media, disdains sex education in the schools, restricts contraception, and provides no role models for girls that don't involve 'hot babe'.
Are we screwed up, or what?

The next largest factor in the US's shockingly low ranking is infant mortality. Despite having 'the best medical system in the world', infant mortality has been, and still is far higher than any industrialized nation, and higher than many developing nations. Slovenia's infant mortality is less than half that of the US's, for example. We expect that other first world countries might do better because ... whatever ... but not that Bosnia and Herzegovina would be on par, or that Chile's would be less than a quarter of ours.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 18, 2017 11:36 PM

6STRINGJOKER

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I picked it out of several because it's heavily linked to information sources. Not that you care for linking your own crap you poop out of your ass, and not that you care to look up any - actual, yanno - FACTS.
Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
LOL HuffPo

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Anything that HuffPo feels is worth making a link to is not a valuable source of information.

Stop reading bullshit online and read a book.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 19, 2017 8:43 AM

6STRINGJOKER

Oh yeah G. You mean like Obama's Hope and Change, right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 19, 2017 6:01 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
So what's your point or do you have a solution or just venting on the US?

'Venting'? Is every single criticism of the US 'venting'? I gotta say - you gotta stop projecting your own motives onto others.

Call it constructive criticism.

The US per capita GDP is 11th in the world. But the US ranks 36 on the childhood quality index, with a score of 941.

1 Qatar 127,660 (947)
2 Luxembourg 104,003 (973)
— Macau 95,151 (not ranked - not a country)
3 Singapore 87,855 (949)
4 Brunei 76,884 (896)
5 Kuwait 71,887 (938)
6 Norway 69,249 (985)
7 Ireland 69,231 (980)
8 United Arab Emirates 67,871 (---)
9 Switzerland 59,561 (974)
10 San Marino 59,058 (---)
— Hong Kong 58,322 (not ranked - not a country)
11 United States 57,436 (941)

But wealth alone doesn't determine childhood quality. Only 6 of the 35 countries that rank higher than than US are wealthier. The other 29 are poorer, some very much poorer. Slovenia has a per capita PPP GDP of 32,085, but is second on the childhood quality index. Portugal's GDP is 28,500 and is sixth, and Cyprus's GDP is 34,970 and is ranked tenth. Rounding out tenth place, Belgium's GDP is 45,047, Germany's is 48,111, and South Korea's is 37,740.

Obviously those countries that rank higher are doing something different from what we're doing. But wealth alone isn't a determinant. So the answer isn't necessarily ' have more money'. It might be a good idea to focus on where the US falls down, and compare what we do to countries that are doing it better.

I already ranked the factors, in order of magnitude, that drag our ranking down, and three I believe are inter-related: teen births (15-18yrs), teens living with or married to sex partners, and children out of school.

Trying to figure out the factors that got us where we are would take far more time than I have. But teen birth I believe is largely cultural. We're just a really fucked up society when it comes to sex.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WomensHealth/story?id=7575268&page=1
Kids Born to Unwed Moms Hit Record High
Worldwide, of the 14 developed countries studied, the highest unwed birth rates were among the Scandinavian nations.

In Iceland, for example, 66 percent of births were to unmarried women, as were 55 percent in Sweden, 54 percent in Norway and 46 percent in Denmark. The United States unwed rate of 40 percent fell in about the middle of this group of countries, about equal to that of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

https://spacedoutscientist.com/2015/04/11/single-parents-worldwide-sta
tistics-and-trends/

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 19, 2017 7:06 PM

6STRINGJOKER

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Oh yeah G. You mean like Obama's Hope and Change, right?

HOLY OMG WOW! You recognized another political slogan! No sh*t buddy. Now see if you can find two birds that are alike!

==============================

If you already know this, than don't say partisan bullshit if you don't like it when you're called out on it, dipshit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 19, 2017 7:16 PM

6STRINGJOKER

On the topic of why kids are fucked in this country, you got any stats of how many children in America are raised without a dad in the picture? Whether their dad was wrongfully imprisoned by our drug laws (largely disproportionate in the black community since Bill Clinton), or because the courts just give the kid to the mothers who are twice as likely to beat their kids than fathers?

Here's some articles to consider:

Stark challenges for kids raised in single parent homes: http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2012/11/25/statisti
cs-reveal-stark-challenges-for-children-raised-/28936631/

71% of children killed by one parent are killed by mothers: http://www.breakingthescience.org/SimplifiedDataFromDHHS.php

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 19, 2017 7:48 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
On the topic of why kids are fucked in this country, you got any stats of how many children in America are raised without a dad in the picture?

Since we're making international comparisons, the Scandinavian countries lead the world in unwed motherhood, yet outscore the US in childhood quality (including teen births). And IRELAND has as many single mothers as the US, but ranks 7th on childhood quality.

That's why I posted those stats and charts in my previous post.

I know you have a personal animus against women who work, and women who aren't married, stay-at-home mothers. But far more goes into how well a society looks after its children than your narrow biases about females and motherhood account for.

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 19, 2017 8:12 PM

6STRINGJOKER

Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I know you have a personal animus against women who work, and women who aren't married, stay-at-home mothers. But far more goes into how well a society looks after its children than your narrow biases about females and motherhood account for.

You don't know anything. My beef is with split housholds or households where both parents work all day. I have nothing wrong with stay at home mothers or fathers, and I have no problem with women working. My brother is a great stay at home dad and his wife makes 3-4 times as much money in her field than he could ever make with his education.

My problem is with single parents raising kids, and how 95% of the time they're given to the mothers without any questions asked.

And I don't give a shit about marriage at all. That's just a piece of paper in my eyes. Some of the best parents I know have never gotten married.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 19, 2017 8:20 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
You don't know anything.

Quote:
My beef is with split housholds or households where both parents work all day.

If both parents work because of low wages - how do families in other countries manage to do so well when wages are far lower than ours?

Quote:
I have nothing wrong with stay at home mothers or fathers, and I have no problem with women working. My brother is a great stay at home dad and his wife makes 3-4 times as much money in her field than he could ever make with his education.

Quote:
My problem is with single parents raising kids,

but if it works out in other countries, why not here?

Quote:
and how 95% of the time they're given to the mothers without any questions asked.

I think most people would have a problem with routine state-sponsored kidnapping.

Quote:
And I don't give a shit about marriage at all. That's just a piece of paper in my eyes. Some of the best parents I know have never gotten married.

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 19, 2017 8:35 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I think there are too many factors for us to casually tease out here. And I think a lot of statistics would be hard to come by on a quick and dirty google search. Looking at Slovenia for example - one of their stellar scores is infant mortality, despite poverty. It helped vault them way ahead of the US.

What goes into that score? Age of the mother at birth? Too young and too old boost infant mortality. Good overall prenatal care? Perhaps good diet, low stress, and family support. Good preventative medical care? IE socialized medicine easily available. Unless we can start looking at numbers in detail, I don't think we'll be able to conclude much.

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 19, 2017 8:48 PM

6STRINGJOKER

There's probably a thousand different things that go into this. We haven't even brought up education, and the educational system in the US today is completely fucked.

This girl I used to work with at the Mart had a 8 year old son who could barely read. By his age I was already reading sci-fi and Steven King short stories my dad would bring home from the library.

I think in that case it's not only the failing school system, but it's their personal situation and a generational thing as well. She lived with her grandmother and some idiot working at mcdonalds who was the father of her 2 year old who would surprise me a great deal if he knew how to read any better himself.

My parents were still married and only my Dad worked in my formative years. I learned a lot before my first day of school and had a big head start because of that. It was only later when they split that everything went to shit. Public schools in my area back then weren't excellent, but at least they taught kids stuff and were more than just babysitting services for kids back then.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 20, 2017 12:02 AM

6STRINGJOKER

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Quote:
So what's your point or do you have a solution or just venting on the US?
'Venting'? Is every single criticism of the US 'venting'? I gotta say - you gotta stop projecting your own motives onto others.

Call it constructive criticism.

Constructive criticism would be for people who can make a difference. I don't see any here, so venting.

==============================

Pretty much.

I hope that's not an insult, because there's not a single thing you have ever talked about here that you can make a difference about either.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 27, 2017 2:00 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

We're number one in.... OBESITY!

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imagero
ot/2017/07/26/2017.07.26%20-%20Obese%201_0.JPG

Quote:
When President Trump promised last fall that under a Trump administration America would "would win so much you'll get tired of winning," we suspect this is not what he had in mind. According to the latest international obesity study from the Organization For Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), America is by far the fattest nation in the world with just over 38% of the adult population considered 'obese.'

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-26/winning-us-crushes-all-other-
countries-latest-obesity-study

Yanno, there is something truly fucked up with a nation where people are so overwhelmingly obese.

There are a few other things we're number one in ...

Military spending.
Religiosity (in the developed world)
Incarceration rates

I can't help but think of us as animals in some sort of production battery - confined to our (mental) cages, tasered into obedience, with no apparent agency in our lives, and sedated with food. That's what animals do, when confined to unremitting stress over which they have no control and can't escape: Among other things, they sedate themselves with any sort of stress-reliever they can find.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 27, 2017 3:12 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Too funny!!!
Thanks G!
You saved me from my next planned self-sedation with that bit of humor!

Quote:
I bet you're a lot of fun on a long trip.- G

Oh, totally. Especially air travel. I start gnawing my hands off in an effort to escape.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE