[J m HofMarN]

http://www.pww.org/a...iew/4801/1/144/

I have a subscription to this magazine that comes with my party membership, but I still find it to be fairly good reporting and certainly interesting. Thos of you who are bias hounds might want to just take note that this is an article from People's Weekly World.

Long story short, by nearly 1 child per 1000, Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the US, and the US also got bad marks in general child well being, being ranked last in a survey of wealthy countries along with drinkin-n-fightin buddy Britain:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17155848/

I think it's pretty safe to say that the US puts more emphasis on killing kids in other countries than they do on keeping kids here alive and healthy.

[Deepsycher]

Some places are so rigid that they are fixed for the majority who are then over stretched. Any disadvantaged people are left behind. Any money spent is an illusion and there to prove a point followed by excuses.

When you reach wonderland and now here's a bunch of pile of excuses.
Some places water down the system for value for money whilst some people who get bored and frustrated drop out. Then they pass the blame and turn them into a laughing stock.

Then you get know it all authorities who do stupid tests on people and get credit for taking away and adopting their babies with the excuses of being too slow when they failed in their part to find many child abusers before that.

Africa - Like the pigs in Animal farm the Government in some part hired private water companies to install pre-paid water meters in. A year ago ministers wanted to make a trip to a part that rejected metering to launch a big celebration to entice the people into it. The point to that is the people in pre paid water metered parts ended up drinking dirty water and contracted diseases because they couldn't afford the cost.

Most of all I am surrounded by working class behaviour outside from people who can't even spell and the survey is not surprising.

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 14 February 2007 - 11:50 PM

[Spoon Poetic]

I think that's pretty stupid to say that just because there's a higher mortality rate, that the US actually emphasizes killing kids.

[Otal Nimrodi]

I agree with Spoon, here. Although the mortality rate statistic is interesting... It doesn't mean the US WANTS dead kids.

[Despondent]

I agree with Spoon, here. Although the mortality rate statistic is interesting... It doesn't mean the US WANTS dead kids.

Agreed. But you can NEVER discount those who WANT the implication to be the US WANTS dead kids.

Unless socialists are in the white house.

[Slade]

Please don't slander non-rabid socialists.

JM wants to say that the US is more concerned about starting wars than... providing good family and economic support for children's wellbeing at home, I guess? He's not quite saying that the US raises babies as consumption for senators. The second article points blame at large income gaps and "poor levels of public support for families".

The methods used to determine which countries are better also seem slightly dubious at times.

[Spoon Poetic]

Am I supposed to take your word on what someone else entirely says, Slade?

[J m HofMarN]

You could take Slade's word for it or you could re-read my post:

"US puts more emphasis on killing kids in other countries"'

Notice the last two words: other countries. I wasn't claiming that senator asshat is turning down funds for child care so that he can eat roast of dead baby for supper. I was pointing out the very real fact that the US' military budget outstrips so many of our necessary social programs at home. We rank poorly in maternity leave, subsidized child care, family leave, medical care and infant mortality rates. I think that could be because of our preoccupation with war.

Leftist groups can't lobby for the reforms that we should have because they're too busy with what is honestly the more important (ethically at least) job of keeping Bush from going to war with Iran. The ruling class is busy trying to figure out how to (depending on party affiliation) win or get out of this war without looking too silly. And the public is busy watching it like it's the gladiatorial games.

[Spoon Poetic]

Sorry, I was in a bad mood, and I much prefer people to do their own arguing rather than someone to interpret other people's statements and argue for them. I didn't mean to be sharp about it.

Anyway, I still don't think it's fair for your statement to read like the U.S. specifically targets children, in any country.

And I would agree with your argument if that weren't the case.

[TheOrator]

As much as I hate journalism, I take issue with this article more than others.

It has now officially passed the United States of America, the richest country in the world, on one key measure of national well-being, namely, the infant mortality rate.

In reality, the richest country in the world is Luxembourg.

Number Two is Norway.

Number Three is the United States of America.

Norway and Luxembourg have infant mortality rates of 3.67 and 4.74, respectively.

Luxembourg is not socialist, but Norway is.

They attribute it to the high level of education of the Cuban population, the supportive social networks that are encouraged by the Cuban socialist government, the investment of Cuba in public health and health care, and the low AIDS and drug addiction rates in Cuba. These things are made possible by Cuban socialism.

I'm sorry, but what does education have to do with infant mortality?

And what does socialism have to do with AIDS or drugs?


Not to mention this article is at this point out of date.

In mid-February, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta revealed that the U.S. infant mortality rate now stands at 7 as of 2002, backsliding from 6.8 in 2001.

In early January, the Cuban Ministry of Health announced an infant mortality rate of 6.3, more than a half-point lower than the U.S.

The US's current IMR is 6.43, down the supposedly large half-point of before.

Cuba's is 6.22, also down, but only by .08.

The lowest IMR in the world is Singapore's, which is not socialist in any respect.

Singapore is the 22nd richest country in the world.


Clearly, the two factors (those of IMR and economic structures) are about as related as the title of the film 'Naked Lunch' and the film itself.



I move for a vote of no confidence in any reporter in the world.

And, as The Phantom Menace proved, now all reporters will be replaced.

[Spoon Poetic]

Wow, good post, Orator. Goes to show that you can't trust the media. (Not trying to step on any toes, not saying one media bias is worse or better than another media bias. I don't like the media, period. Or politicians. Or people, really.)

[Deepsycher]

Reporters are good at manipulating figures and making it appear as another thing and even politicians. Same as water metering. For example they take an average of adminstration costs, service costs, filtering and piping, then they take an average of how much water is used by the nation, then they compare the costs to the average water used to make people believe that they are paying for like 100,000 gallons of water to which they don't need to entice them onto a meter.

Earlier I have wrote this but didn't have time to post and what I have to point out is China?
What is the mortality rate there?
Or is that a secret too.

Last I heard babies were being stolen for organs and stem cell research but that seems to be going on all over as the trade is getting bigger.

Look what I found. Take a read of this:

There is huge demand and a market for body parts especially eyes, hearts and kidneys belonging to children. Estimates indicate that at least one million children have been kidnapped and killed in the past 20 years for organs. A kidney or eyes can fetch up to US $10,000 and a heart could cost US $50,000 or more. Estimates further indicate that money laundering in this deadly trade accounts for up to 10% of the world's GDP, or as much US $5 trillion. As a result, the black market for children's organs is expanding and more and more children are kidnapped and killed.

Those who take part in this trade make false promises about employment opportunities for the children and give money to the parents. Children are also stolen from orphanages, or handed over through a fake adoption process and killed for their organs. The intermediary may earn between US $50 and US $20, 000 per child according to the source countries. In many cases, impoverished parents are sometimes persuaded to sell their children's organs for as little as US $50

In Russia in late 2000, a grandmother was arrested for trying to sell her five-year-old grandson Andrei. With the help of the boy's uncle, the child was handed over to a man in exchange for US $90,000 who would then take him to "the West," where his kidneys and other organs would be removed and sold.

A research team led by Nancy Scheper-Hughes, Professor of Anthropology at Berkeley and one of the founding members of Organ Watch, has conducted comprehensive field research into the global trafficking of human organs and documented the practices of organ harvesting in many parts of the world, notably Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Israel, Turkey, South Africa, the United States, the United Kingdom and Asia. This research shows that abuses range from the harvesting of organs from executed prisoners in China to the removal of organs from live and dead bodies in Argentina and South Africa without the permission and knowledge of the families of the deceased.

An American lawyer was arrested in Peru in 2004, after having exported a total of three thousand children in thirty months to the United States and Italy for organ transplants.

Latin America, Mexico and Brazil where human organ trafficking has been practiced for decades have the worst proven record of abuses against children for organ transplants.

The first official exposure was in 1986 in the Altiplano and Tamaulipas areas and the suburbs of San Luis in Latin America when children began disappearing rapidly and then returned to their families several weeks later with one kidney missing. The probe disclosed that the children had been taken to clinics near the U.S border.

A few years later, the police discovered several clandestine "nurseries" known as "casas de engorde" in Honduras. The children from here were illegally exported out of the country "for adoption." Investigations made a dramatic disclosure that the children were bought or stolen from poor families, and were sold for a minimum of US $10,000 each to organizations in the United States to be used as organ donors.

An adoption scandal also broke out in Italy in 1999 when 4000 Brazilian children arrived in Italy for adoption in four years. One thousand of them were located, however the other three thousand had disappeared without a trace. Two Italian judges, Angelo Gargani and Cesar Martinello went to Salvador de Bahia in Brazil. Upon their return, they warned the government that the Mafia was taking part in "human organ trafficking." These children were sent to clandestine clinics in Mexico and Thailand, as well as in Europe where they were dissected for their organs.

The trade continues to flourish even today. During the Dirty War in Argentina in the late 1970s and early 1980s, children were stolen and killed as physicians often collaborated with the military state. Anthropologist Marcelo Suarez Orozco (1987) described in lurid detail the abuse of children during the Dirty War. Babies and small children were kidnapped and then returned to their families with organs missing. In another case, in Ukraine, babies were stolen at birth and used for stem cell research. In 2005, media reports said that babies were taken from the mothers after delivery and parents were told that the babies had died after birth.

The trade, outlawed in all but a handful of countries, is legal and booming in Pakistan. According to a recent Pakistan Tribune report, frustrated by lengthy waiting lists at home and fearful of premature death, "transplant tourists," from Europe, the US and the Middle East are flocking to private Pakistani hospitals for operations which can be arranged in a matter days at a fraction of the cost in their native countries.


http://aawsat.com/en...ction=3&id=7723

What do you think? As this goes on all over the world can it be included in mortality rates?

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 15 February 2007 - 07:46 PM

[Deepsycher]

Should be Earlier I have written.
Oh no my grammar there is worrying and I ran out of time to edit. When this happens I feel ashamed of myself. Better check next time incase.

[TheOrator]

Wow, good post, Orator.

Thanks.

Goes to show that you can't trust the media. (Not trying to step on any toes, not saying one media bias is worse or better than another media bias. I don't like the media, period. Or politicians. Or people, really.)

I was worried about giving of that same impression myself, and I tried hard to balance out my roast. Unfortunately, the guy never once out right slandered the US, so I could do nothing but correct his pro-socialism lies. (Not that anything pro-socialism is a lie, just most of this stuff) Really, I'd correct anyone of they were wrong about anything.

Better luck next time.

And I don't really like people much either.



I have a theory, that will really only apply to us here in the US. (Sorry Internationalites!)

We all know CNN has a huge Liberal bias.

And FoxNews has a huge Conservative bias.

So if we took all the reporters from CNN and all of the reporters from FoxNews and ran them together at high speeds...

We'd have a good deal less reporters, and be better off because of it.

EDIT: Added a P to apply.

And DS, don't feel bad about that grammar thing. It happens to the best of us.

EDIT2: Just read the second article. I will have to rail on that one tomorrow, I'm too tired right now.

This post has been edited by TheOrator: 15 February 2007 - 11:40 PM

[civilian_number_two]

Good stuff there, Orator. Were this not an Internet forum I'd say that you should cite your sources.

DS, while you're busy correcting yourself, it actually should have been "Earlier I wrote." "Earlier" implies a unique while unspecified time, and so the simple past is appropriate. The tense you used is called the "present perfect," to indicate an action that has taken place in the past and which continues now, eg "I have written about this." The way you used it, you could say "I have written about this in the past," to indicate writing that covered a period of time before, but the implication in any case would be that you continue to write about it (and in fact you do), or at least that you are discussing a current topic. "I have written about this very thing [that you are writing about now]"

This isn't really my area (were Laura here, she could school you), but you shouldn't worry about grammar anyway. Not here.