'Murica

WildCat · Post by **WildCat** » Sun Dec 27, 2015 4:06 pm

No one is ever going to mess with these girls!

[ytube][/ytube]

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Sat Mar 12, 2016 7:30 am

Pro-gun Florida mom is accidentally shot by her four-year-old son while driving after the boy found her pistol in back seat - just a day after she bragged about his shooting skills (The Daily Fail)

Could have gone in the Florida thread, but this one needed a bump.

According to the comments some sort of liberal plot to take our guns.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Sat Mar 12, 2016 8:29 pm

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Sat Mar 12, 2016 9:05 pm

Anax posts a wonderful "Live Up to Your Negative Stereotype" upon which I started to pontificate; however, I think her hubritic ["Hubritic?"--Ed.]--perfectly cromulent--ignorance speaks for itself.

"Kid banged his mom."

I am a bad man.

--J.D.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Tue Mar 15, 2016 5:45 pm

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Thu Mar 31, 2016 10:00 pm

hammegk · Post by **hammegk** » Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:14 am

Witness wrote:

Almost but not quite in New Mexico.

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:21 am

--J.D.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:39 am

Bruce · Post by **Bruce** » Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:01 pm

Anaxagoras wrote:According to the comments some sort of liberal plot to take our guns.

According the Florida Times Union, the responding deputy noticed the boy was not strapped to the booster seat in the car when he arrived at the scene.
Wells said: 'We’re satisfied that this is not a criminal shooting.'

In Texas, they wouldn't have been so quick to jump to conclusions.

4-years old are lying little bastards.

Probably was disgruntled after mom told him he wasn't old enough be in a car without a booster seat.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:20 am

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Mon Apr 04, 2016 1:00 am

Look at all the thin people. . . .

--J.D.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Sun Apr 17, 2016 4:30 am

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Fri Apr 22, 2016 2:07 am

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Sun Apr 24, 2016 10:09 pm

gnome · Post by **gnome** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 11:36 am

The blue zone is lying.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:40 am

gnome wrote:The blue zone is lying.

What?!?

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Tue May 10, 2016 8:19 pm

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Tue May 10, 2016 9:42 pm

They make silicon in 'Murica?

What?

--J.D.

WildCat · Post by **WildCat** » Tue May 17, 2016 2:03 am

[ytube][/ytube]

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:58 am

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:49 am

Time wrote:Americans Weigh 15 Lb. More Than They Used To

In the report, published Wednesday by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics, researchers looked at data from 2011 to 2014. They found that the average man, who’s about 5 ft. 9 in., weighs 195.7 lb., and the average woman, almost 5 ft. 4 lb., weighs 168.5 lb. For men, that’s about 15 lb. more than average in 1988–94; women are now more than 16 lb. heavier. Men and women’s heights were about the same two decades ago.

Kids are similarly heavier today than they were in the past. On average, an 11-year-old boy weighs about 13 lb. more now than in 1988–94, and a girl of the same age weighs about 7 lb. more. Boys are about an inch taller on average, and girls this age are the same height.

http://time.com/4435152/obesity-overwei ... americans/ (with links)

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:16 am

All them freedoms is heavy.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:48 am

Grammatron wrote:All them freedoms is heavy.

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Thu Aug 11, 2016 4:02 am

'Murica has better marbling.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:58 pm

[youtube][/youtube]

Found this interesting (and it's a vid with some rhythm to it). Is the US part reasonably well discussed?

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Wed Aug 17, 2016 7:07 pm

I saw it on reddit. In the comments it was mentioned that it only applies to passenger trains, the freight train system in the US is world class.

Personally, the few times I've tried trains in the US it's been a horrible and slow experience. Cars and/or planes are just far quicker and more convenient.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:25 am

Grammatron wrote:I saw it on reddit. In the comments it was mentioned that it only applies to passenger trains, the freight train system in the US is world class.

Personally, the few times I've tried trains in the US it's been a horrible and slow experience. Cars and/or planes are just far quicker and more convenient.

Yes, the vid also stressed the difference in scale & population density between Europe and the US of A. (A fact that we often tend to forget here.) Freight trains are in no hurry, like ships.

Yet I had very entertaining experiences with slow trains, e. g. in Poland or Ireland.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:30 am

The Guardian wrote:Texas has highest maternal mortality rate in developed world, study finds

As the Republican-led state legislature has slashed funding to reproductive healthcare clinics, the maternal mortality rate doubled over just a two-year period
[…]
The finding comes from a report, appearing in the September issue of the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, that the maternal mortality rate in the United States increased between 2000 and 2014, even while the rest of the world succeeded in reducing its rate. Excluding California, where maternal mortality declined, and Texas, where it surged, the estimated number of maternal deaths per 100,000 births rose to 23.8 in 2014 from 18.8 in 2000 – or about 27%.

But the report singled out Texas for special concern, saying the doubling of mortality rates in a two-year period was hard to explain “in the absence of war, natural disaster, or severe economic upheaval”.

From 2000 to the end of 2010, Texas’s estimated maternal mortality rate hovered between 17.7 and 18.6 per 100,000 births. But after 2010, that rate had leaped to 33 deaths per 100,000, and in 2014 it was 35.8. Between 2010 and 2014, more than 600 women died for reasons related to their pregnancies.
[…]
In 2011, just as the spike began, the Texas state legislature cut $73.6m from the state’s family planning budget of $111.5m. The two-thirds cut forced more than 80 family planning clinics to shut down across the state. The remaining clinics managed to provide services – such as low-cost or free birth control, cancer screenings and well-woman exams – to only half as many women as before.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... cs-funding

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:37 am

If true, that is huge. In 2014 there were 3,988,076 births in the US. Let's just call that 4 million. That's an increase of 5 per 100,000. So that would be about 200 more maternal deaths in 2014 than if the rate had stayed the same.

Could there be another explanation?

One possibility is that the mortality risk increases with age (by a lot over age 35):

And indeed, women are having babies at older ages than they used to:

Average Age Of First-Time Moms Keeps Climbing In The U.S.

Fifteen years ago, the mean age of a woman when she first gave birth was 24.9 years old. In 2014, that age had risen to 26.3.

I don't think that accounts for all of it though.

ETA: Here's one more trend that may be playing a small role here:
More Women Are Choosing to Give Birth Outside of Hospitals

A new study of U.S. births in 47 states, from 2004 to 2014, indicates a small but growing trend: More women are foregoing hospitals in favor of birthing their babies at home or in natural birth centers.

The study finds that, overall, the percentage of out-of-hospital births rose from less than 1 to 1.5 percent overall in that 10-year period.

Apparently no studies (that I could find) have compared the risk of maternal mortality between out-of-hospital and in-hospital births, but the risk of infant mortality is about double.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:48 am

Anaxagoras wrote:Apparently no studies (that I could find) have compared the risk of maternal mortality between out-of-hospital and in-hospital births, but the risk of infant mortality is about double.

Wikipedia wrote:A 2014 US survey of medical studies found that perinatal mortality rates were triple that of hospital births, and a US nationwide study over 13 million births on a 3-year span (2007-2010) found that births at home were roughly 10 times as likely to be stillborn (14 times in first-born babies) and almost four times as likely to have neonatal seizures or serious neurological dysfunction when compared to babies born in hospitals, while a 2007 UK survey found that perinatal mortality rates were only slightly higher in that country than planned hospital births for low-risk pregnancies. Both baby's and mother's higher mortalities are associated with the inability to timely assist mothers with emergency procedures in case of complications during labour, as well as with widely varying licensing and training standards for birth attendants between different states and countries.

(my emphasis)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_birth (with slightly NSFW picture)

From what I read (in French, so I don't link), it is still widespread in the Netherlands: good counseling, good teams to assist the mothers at home, and hospitals at ~ 10 min drive in case of complications, even if the percentages declined from 29,4 % in 2005 down to 15,9 % in 2013.
But some hospitals have also made an effort to make things look less "technical", hiding the gear, &c.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:12 am

Witness wrote:Why trains suck in America

Because government ruined the industry.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:17 am

Anaxagoras wrote: Could there be another explanation?

People illegally crossing the border into Texas with an advanced pregnancy, coming now because of the fear mongering about Trump closing the crossings?

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:19 am

JEROME DA GNOME wrote:
Anaxagoras wrote: Could there be another explanation?
People illegally crossing the border into Texas with an advanced pregnancy, coming now because of the fear mongering about Trump closing the crossings?

No, this is years ago. Trump has nothing to do with it.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:24 am

Anaxagoras wrote: One possibility is that the mortality risk increases with age (by a lot over age 35):

Right, its been increasing nationwide.

Liberals sold women the lie that they could start a career and then try to have kids in their 30's, and its not working out.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:26 am

Anaxagoras wrote: No, this is years ago. Trump has nothing to do with it.

You don't think people that were thinking about jumping the border are not taking the opportunity to jump now before the possibility of a Trump shutdown of crossings?

That is denying basic human behavior.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:46 am

Before 2015, nobody seriously thought Trump might be president, so no.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:55 am

Ohh, I see your point.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:56 am

Liberalism is killing women by promoting late in life childbirth.

gnome · Post by **gnome** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 9:08 pm

How dare those liberals, telling women they can have a career. Line em up!

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:34 pm

gnome wrote:How dare those liberals, telling women they can have a career. Line em up!

No, the lie was you can have both.

ed · Post by ed » Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:12 pm

gnome wrote:How dare those liberals, telling women they can have a career. Line em up!

Thats an interesting question. I've met not a few women who had their careers and either didn't have kids or had them late. They have a rather jaundiced view of the rosy "have it all" philosophy.

As an employer I'd be very careful about hiring a young married woman into a position where I really really depended on her being there. As an entrepreneur it would be irresponsible.

Grammatron · Post by **Grammatron** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:23 pm

ed wrote:As an employer I'd be very careful about hiring a young married woman into a position where I really really depended on her being there. As an entrepreneur it would be irresponsible.

Is it based on evidence or do you just assume someone having a child is incapable of being a productive employee?

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:31 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:No. The lie is that most working class women would even have the choice.

Worked out for the tax man, now it takes two people to provide the same as only one before.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:35 pm

Grammatron wrote:Is it based on evidence or do you just assume someone having a child is incapable of being a productive employee?

I don't think that's it at all. Gender doesn't matter here. The point is its very difficult to do a good job raising a family and good a good job with a career if you are doing both.

eta: any single parent is at a disadvantage

gnome · Post by **gnome** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:35 pm

JEROME DA GNOME wrote:
gnome wrote:How dare those liberals, telling women they can have a career. Line em up!
No, the lie was you can have both.

Don't give me that, we obviously should not have let them out of the kitchen.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:38 pm

gnome wrote:Don't give me that, we obviously should not have let them out of the kitchen.

Let who out of the Kitchen? My best friend in elementary school had a working mother and a stay at home father.

Sorry that you got suckered into advocating double taxation on the working class because you were taught to salivate when the bell rings.

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:42 pm

Gnome, you're being a fag. Just so you know.

gnome · Post by **gnome** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:43 pm

I'm playing strawman ping pong. He throws em, I throw them

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:56 pm

No strawmen.

Has not the economy progressively required two income households to pay for what a one income household could pay for 50 years ago?