Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/27/07 05:54 PM, poxpower wrote: stuff

I wasn't trying to pile on you at all pox. I was intentionally upsetting this "lefties hate America" BS that comes up again and again. As if everyone who isn't a rabid conservative is simply motivated by the destruction of America. It's played out.

But one comment. As far as green technology.. One of the LARGEST uses of resources today is the construction and renovation of buildings. Green building techniques - in addition to what I said earlier re: manufacturing jobs in the US - are better for the environment AND better for inhabitants via lower VOC emissions AS WELL AS more cost effective in the long term. Green means building more efficient buildings that use less resources and are less damaging to the environment. And this stuff is here today. What's not to like? The argument that things "aren't economically feasible now, just wait" is self-defeating.

I liked the movie. I don't remember all the inbreeding. I just thought they were Canadian?

-> He's a fringe candidate with no chance of being elected.

-> They get our minds off of the lemming frontrunners and talking about issues that wouldn't be brought up otherwise.

What's not to like?

It's war of the worlds for the 21st century.

Reactions? Yeah, pandemonium.

At 11/27/07 04:11 PM, Euroc wrote: But there is a push to become more socialized... do you think this would cause more disenfranchisement among immigrants and set up problems like those in Europe?

I don't think there is a push for more socialization in Europe. Others can feel free to chime in. Eastern Europe has mostly gone radically laissez-faire after the iron curtain lifted. Some nations there have flat taxes, little welfare, etc. Libertarian wet dream.

France and Germany have aging populations, similar to the baby boomer phenom in the US. This puts more of a strain on the economy as more people retire. They're seriously reconsidering government - check Angela Merkel being elected prime minister of Germany. She's very conservative by German politician standards.

Well, there are definitely areas that can be compared and contrasted. I was comparing the idea that two sub-cultures want to set up a segregated society within a diversified Nation. From the statistics I am familiar with, I think Muslims account for about 25 percent.

As I said though, sub-cultures tend to segregate initially. Regardless of the group. Maybe a better comparison would be black nationalism movements in the US in the 50s-60s. There we have a disenfranchised (and not recently immigrated) minority group trying to break away. The comparison is still weak though.

Statistics about Muslims in Europe (and N. America) vary widely, but they aren't 25% anywhere. Here's a quick link I googled. As I said, estimates vary.
http://www.islamicpopulation.com/europe_
islam.html

"I'm told the Native People in the Arctic, in order to kill wolves take a sharp knife, melt the ice, and bury the handle in the ice and let it freeze over with the blade projecting up. They would cover the blade with blood. Wolves would smell the blade and come to try to eat. They would lick the blade. When they licked the blade they would cut their tongues and they would drink their own blood. They really were thinking that they had a lot to eat then, and of course they were drinking their own blood and killing themselves in the process.

That's what imperialism has done to our communities. It takes away the ability for you to live in a normal situation and then they bury a blade in the ice and put some blood on it. you come to lick the blade thinking that you're getting nourishment, and actually what you're doing is killing yourself in the process."

Excerpt from, "Resistance of African People, Crisis of Imperialism:Why We must Build the National People's Democratic Uhuru Movement", by Omali Yeshitela.

...
How apt is the wolf metaphor in the 1st <-> 3rd world globalization chasm, or alternatively the underground drug economy in the US?

Before I forget. "Americanized versions of Muslim culture." Middle Eastern food rawks.

.
From what I've read and heard and thought about, the difference (and problem) between Europe now and America then is the nature of the host nation. Europe today is much more socialized than America 100-200 years ago. America also is much more focused on the individual. "Pull yourself up by the boot strings and make yourself a life." It's the American dream. When you've grown up in the ghettos surrounding Paris, don't own your own house, have a shitty job, live with prejudice, and live and interact with people just like you, you can get pessimistic, blame the Others, and turn to alternatives (religion).

I didn't think the Aryan comparison was valid at all, but maybe. In both instances, some of the disaffected populace are blaming the Others for their woes. How widespread in Europe with Muslims?

At 11/19/07 04:24 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: I'd like to point out that lack of government isn't equal to anarchy; You could have a society with for example direct democracy and no government where there would still be laws, social security, and everything like that.

Remember that a communism, when in place, has no government, for example.

I have no idea why no one responded to you. This was the best post in the thread. Before organized government we still had societies with laws, social security, and defense. Read about hunter-gatherer societies. This was communism.

But then came specialization of labor. And specialization begets inequality. And inequality?

"But the reality is.. The police become necessary in human society only at that junction in human society where it is split between those who have and those who ain't got."
-- Omali Yeshitela

I believe inequality is inherent in a society with specialization of labor, therefor government to be necessary in this day and age.

At 11/27/07 01:28 PM, neon-dude wrote: To start it off, I think labour is the best, because they are for the average man whereas conservatives are for rich dudes. What you think?

"Even lovers of liberty often think of the rich as they might of prostitutes - sure, it's wrong to stop them, but they are an unsavory lot, aren't they?"
- Tibor Machan

Good, different topic.

At 11/27/07 02:59 PM, Euroc wrote: I have read that Muslims in European Nations are forming segregated sub-societies and are even trying to get protection to enact and enforce their own laws in sovereign nations.

Is there anyone who has any personal experience concerning this? I have even read that many of these Muslim societies are 'off limits' to outsiders. Is there anyone actually living in Europe who can confirm or deny this?

I believe the problem in Europe regarding Muslim (largely Arab) immigrants is not particularly special. Immigrant populations have always tended to self-segregate initially, before acclimating and becoming a part of the larger society. The issue here is that some countries are finding 2nd and 3rd generation Muslim immigrants still not latching onto the host country's society / norms.

This was what the riots in France two years ago were. They were Muslim "immigrants" who were born and raised in France. I read a good article giving an explanation, can't remember much of it.

On the face value, the French "immigrants" were rioting because of poor living conditions or lack of jobs, eh? The article I read went on to say the real prob was that they didn't have any stake in their new lives in France. They lived in public housing and relied on governmental programs. You know that quote from William Levitt (creator of modern-day suburbs)?

No man who owns his own house and lot can be a Communist. He has too much to do.

You get an economic and personal stake in a country you've moved into, and you'll tend to become planted much more quickly.

Germany had a huge influx of Turkish and Arabic immigrants in the '60s. From my experience, they're better socialized than the French who were rioting, but there is still an achievement gap - in income, education, language skills, and relations between them and the majority.

I don't think religion plays a very large role at all. Religion (speaking religious extremism here) comes into play when the situation seems hopeless - ie. all of these problems are already compounding. They are self-segregating and lagging in income / education already before latching onto religion.

Solutions? Why does it seem the immigrant populations aren't adapting as quickly as seen in the past? Or are they going at the same pace? Thinking America and Irish, Italian, Chinese immigrants. I don't know.

At 11/27/07 08:56 AM, poxpower wrote: One thing some people have started doing here is a "green roof" project, where they plant tons of vegetation on top of buildings, which cools the atmosphere around the city by trapping sun rays and by reducing Co2 and replacing it with oxygen.
I mean, why the hell not? That's the kind of thing we can do that doesn't help China or slow down our economy ( it takes extra work to both grow the plants in our own country and install them, so that's cool

This whole China bullshit is another red herring. The reason I don't constantly blow off about China is:
%u2022 China has 1.3 billion people vis-a-vis America's 300m.
%u2022 China is not a world leader in politics or environmental issues in any way. The US is and therefor can persuade the world community to follow its lead
%u2022 I can't affect the Chinese government or its populace.

I can make a difference in reducing the output of America by reducing my own consumption and getting others to do the same. I can lobby my own government. In this way I can have a disproportionate effect. Green roofs? The reason I quoted you pox? They've been done. For years. In America. City Hall in Chicago, projects in Washington DC, Atlanta, Portland.

All of the breakthroughs in green technology are occurring in N. America and Europe. And yes, it does employ a lot of people. Green technology is great in that it's the exact sort of highly exact, precision manufacturing that can't be outsourced. The conservative claim that going green and reducing emissions will destroy the economy is flat-out incorrect, based around a 100+-year-old assumption that emissions increase directly with the size of your economy. Jumping on green technology will be a huge boon for the economy as it provides jobs, money, and spurs technological innovation. As well as being less harmful on the environment.

Anyone have any specifics or are we just dealing in vague political snipes?

(Gunter, need a paper bag to hyperventilate into?)

At 11/27/07 09:42 AM, TheMason wrote: 2) Involves alot more than just access to healthcare, therefore the relationship may be spurious.
These statistics that you pointed to Skunk, do not address the issues of quality. :)

They're indicators. I've already asked for a single statistic or indicator which only, solely assesses the quality of a healthcare system. Is there one? Not that I can think of. Cancer mortality is not such an indicator, as social norms can often determine early detection and awareness, and economics and politics via where the cutting edge is first introduced, or where drug trials face the most relaxed atmosphere. For example. Any single indicator will have flaws preventing us from saying: "Ho, here is the defining statistic."

As far as paying for it, try Kucinich's proposed plans.

"To cope with the endless bureaucracy of private insurers, health care providers maintain huge administrative staffs. The administration of the health care system today consumes approximately 31% of the money spent for health care. The potential savings, as much as $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to every American without paying any more than we already do."

Myths as Barriers to Health Care Reform (don't know if the link will work, found via dis). Healthcare costs in the US are expected to hit $2.2 trillion by 2008. A single-payed universal healthcare system would likely be more efficient, ridding the middle man (the HMO). There would be a shift from private to public expenditures. Naturally. This is what most people actually balk at. But the likely result for the bulk of America would be a lower cost associated with healthcare. The virtually unacknowledged benefit would be to (particularly small) businesses who would not have to incur such a large debt to maintain healthy workers.

Glad to find some rational thought still occurring, just clearing up a few things before jumping ship.

I'm being neither hypocritical or disingenuous, cellar door. You're being disingenuous in blaming minorities for "underachieving" and therefor lowering American "averages." I'll wholeheartedly agree that the reason why (certain) minorities have higher infant mortality rates and poorer health is irrelevant. They are still a part of the nation and still covered and patients of a given nation's healthcare system.

The fact that you're seemingly relying entirely on a single indicator (cancer survivability rates) instead of a multitude (as the WHO does) suggests your ideology is getting in the way of a rational discussion. In one sentence you're saying life expectancy has no bearing; in the next you're hailing a single questionable study which removes a variety of factors that play into life expectancy to come to a single (predetermined) result. You keep saying that the WHO doesn't factor in so-called "direct" measures of a healthcare system, when they do in fact take into account mortality rates of cancer patients (as well as a variety of other killers).

Thanks, it's been fun.

Differences in infant mortality between racial lines revolve around income, not race. Your point actually illustrates a failure of the American system - inequality of care because of income (lack thereof). The WHO takes this into account.

And yes, life expectancy is dependent on a multitude of factors which don't play directly into a nation's healthcare system. Just like cancer survivability rates.

None of these factors in itself is a complete portrayal of a country's healthcare system. I've already pointed out that the WHO uses the same indicators that you keep pointing to. How can a report or group take into account the same factors you're using and still be completely baseless? Because they're more comprehensive?

Actually, I'm a whore. I'll take a quick snapshot. I try to keep tidier than this..

The cat is my neighbor's from where I lived last year. He was / is awesome.

By the by.. The "Core Health Indicators" link that I posted does take cancer mortality rates into consideration, as well as TB, communicable diseases, immunizations, HIV/AIDS, and a whole host of other things which, by your account, are better indicators than life expectancy.. Or cell phone use. (Which I assume rates fairly low for the WHO when determining indicators)

I bet you'll be happy to know that cancer mortality figures for the US are lower than for European nations. As you quoted.

At 11/25/07 12:32 AM, DariusR wrote: Look at what happened in Midevil Europe, where about half the worlds population existed in, famine struck towards the end of the era and people were dying from a lack of food. Eventually bubonic plague struck and killed half the population, decreasing the famine...

So you're saying famine and plague are the best way to deal with overpopulation should it exist?

I think we've advanced in the last 500 years enough to realize such a problem, and hopefully to nip it in the bud before the whole famine bit.

Life expectancy and infant mortality rates are gauges of a nation's healthcare system. So are cancer survival rates. Neither is the end-all, be-all. There is not a single statistic that can directly gauge a nation's healthcare system without other factors coming into play. Cancer survival rates are similarly indicators - "social, cultural, and racial issues, environment factors and lifestyle" come into play.

Tell me. Do you have a reason to fault the WHO's reports other than they don't conform to your politics?

At 11/25/07 12:17 AM, DariusR wrote: Overpopulation was proposed by a racist named Malthus, who said we should let people die because in the end everyone will die in a period where there's no resources left, also called the "crunch". Really, it's bullshit because there's historical proof that the population levels itself with resources...It just happens naturally.

That's true on a small scale, however what about the depletion of resources on a global scale? There is no historical example here, as far as I know.

At 11/25/07 12:13 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 11/25/07 12:11 AM, RedSkunk wrote: I would disagree. My reason - the WHO's constant ranking of England and France ahead of the US in holistic ranking of healthcare systems / general health of the nation.

Yeah, by listing arbitrary factors that have absolutely dick to do with the quality of treatment itself.

Please tell me what factors the WHO used which are arbitrary. I suggest restricting the discussion to the 2000 World Health Report, which dealt directly with healthcare systems.

I used the WHO website to collect this especially relevant statistics. Feel free to try your own hand at
http://www.who.int/whosis/database/core/
core_select_process.cfm

I choose the four countries tehmason brought up.

Cuba
Indicator Value (year)
Life expectancy at birth (years) males ? 75.0 (2005)
Life expectancy at birth (years) females ? 79.0 (2005)
Physicians (density per 1 000 population) ? 5.91 (2002)
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population) 49.0 (2005)
France
Indicator Value (year)
Life expectancy at birth (years) males ? 77.0 (2005)
Life expectancy at birth (years) females ? 84.0 (2005)
Physicians (density per 1 000 population) ? 3.37 (2004)
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population) 75.0 (2004)
United Kingdom
Indicator Value (year)
Life expectancy at birth (years) males ? 77.0 (2005)
Life expectancy at birth (years) females ? 81.0 (2005)
Physicians (density per 1 000 population) ? 2.30 (1997)
Health management and support workers (density per 1 000 population) ? 12.77 (1997)
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population) 39.0 (2004)
United States of America
Indicator Value (year)
Life expectancy at birth (years) males ? 75.0 (2005)
Life expectancy at birth (years) females ? 80.0 (2005)
Physicians (density per 1 000 population) ? 2.56 (2000)
Health management and support workers (density per 1 000 population) ? 24.76 (2000)
Hospital beds (per 10 000 population) 33.0 (2003)

There are ways to improve or continue a high standard of living while reducing our environmental footprint, agreed. But I think it's unrealistic to expect cutting-edge green technology in still developing nations / economies. Green technology plays a role in the developed world reducing our consumption, making temporary room for large footprints from, say, Africa & Asia, which can then be re-focused later. This could be speeded greatly by 1st world support for the 3rd with said technologies. China's becoming a huge coal consumer. Why? It's cheap and readily available. Open up a better alternative and they'll bite. So following through with the thought - we need to further research into better, renewable forms of energy and green technology related to food + water use + consumption. And then we need to share the technology.

K, there's a solution. Don't know how realistic it is to expect on a large scale.

At 11/25/07 12:01 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 11/24/07 11:47 PM, Altiair wrote: amarica has the worst health care ever it needs to be solised england france and cuba has better heath care. the heath care has rejected so may people in need and they have died.

Our coverage may have problems...BUT our healthcare is hands down better than all those countries you mentioned. Our only competition comes from India in terms of how good our healthcare is in terms of treatment.

I would disagree. My reason - the WHO's constant ranking of England and France ahead of the US in holistic ranking of healthcare systems / general health of the nation. The 2000 report focused on healthcare systems, but it seems to jibe with results before + after suggesting little change since then.

I feel as if global overpopulation is a problem, not because of space or food production, but because of the pace that we're consuming natural resources and emitting pollution. (Global warming aside. Irrigable land and drinkable water, for instance.)

I don't feel as if there is anything that can be done on a global scale. Each country has its own solutions. India with raising the standard of living (inc. female literacy = direct statistical link with dec. reproduction). China with two child limits. Long-term, India has it right. Improving the standard of living in the 3rd world will lower birth rates. The conundrum is that improved living standards require increased consumption, putting more strain on the environment. Solutions? Dunno.

I haven't heard anything to suggest the US is experiencing an overpopulation crises.

I say roll with the standards of the times. If african-american is inoffensive, why balk at its usage? Also, I don't know very many people that call all blacks "african-american." That would be pretty ignorant.

Thirdly, I often use the term black if and when there is no need to distinguish between nationality. I've never been ostracized for this......

At 11/24/07 07:21 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 11/23/07 11:10 AM, PhoenixTails wrote: Hi, I'm going to post that biased politcal compass that you've all seen millions of times before.

Ah geez, not this bullshit again.

Aw, you're so mean-spirited. It's k. Hug?

At 11/24/07 02:15 AM, Draconias wrote: Sorry, I forgot to deal with this in my original post. According to the philosophy of the United States, it is never ethically right to deny a group their humanity. Rather, the driving force of most American actions is to enforce those freedoms--even if it means invading a country and overthrowing the repressive government. It's a fairly direct issue.

We'd better lay down some things quickly. What does it mean to you to deny a group their humanity? Self-government or consent of rule is not included? "Freedoms" are subjective and relative to a society. The U.S. does not consider healthcare an essential freedom. Other countries do. Some do not consider direct elections an essential freedom. Who decides?

The argument that funding is political can be applied to virtually any instance where money exchanges hands. I'll concede it plays a role. I regret getting into such a fruitless argument. The question is how much is this influencing the research, ie. how cynical are we. I don't see much point in continuing since we've come to a fundamental difference in opinion.

I believe scientific research can be relied on. And the scientific consensus is that climate change is occurring and man has made an impact. Despite the fact that articles have been denied in one publication on a supposedly political basis, or that certain professors wrote op-eds, or that the DoD or NASA have funded research, or if Gore is hypocritical.

Good work taking the unarguable position.

lol windows.