Something something Cultural Appropriation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-wEAeNcA_A

Women are going on strike tomorrow in the USofA for a "day without women". In addition to blessed silence, here are some tips for men to enjoy the day off.

Anyway, rather than let it bum you out that women have decided to avoid work and shopping, think of all the perks a man can get on this female-absent holiday. If women don't come to work, the men in the office can relax a bit and not worry that this will be the day a sexual harassment suit will be filed against them. With no women in the office, it will be less likely that a man will be a target. And without women around, maybe the men can get some work done.

If women are wearing red in solidarity with the strike, men will know which ones to avoid and that makes it easy to know which ones will make you a scapegoat at work or miserable in your dating life.

https://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2017/03/05/a-mans-guide-to-a-day-without-women/

Oh, sorry, the "day without women" is on Wednesday. Trying to give away a day to get closer to the weekend...

Do you think saying something like Good! I can finally lower the thermostat below 80 degrees on Wednesday! could land you in trouble with HR?

Seven murders solved with the arrest of 13 gang members.

CNN waits until the last paragraph to tell us that only three of them are here legally.

Nah. There's no media narrative. Honest!

Never exploding batteries? what fun is that?

94 year-old John Goodenough, one of the co-inventors of the lithium-ion battery that now powers everything from phones to Teslas, has developed a new solid-state battery formula that promises to hold three times more energy than li-on. Goodenough and his team also say the new battery, which replaces a liquid electrolyte with glass, would charge quickly, never explode, and perform well at low temperatures that cripple today’s batteries.

http://fortune.com/2017/03/05/lithium-ion-battery-goodenough/

Sixclaws, if you say it on Wednesday, you probably won't get in trouble with HR, since they'll be honoring the strike and not in the office...

Today is National Oreo Cookie Day. Although the trademark was first applied for on March 14, 1912, the filing notes that the National Biscuit Company (now known as Nabisco) first started calling their creation the "Oreo" on March 6 of that year.

And no one knows where the name "Oreo" comes from.

Boy, can this pick 'em or what?

http://www.returnofkings.com/116161/3-feminists-who-caused-the-most-harm-to-the-world

Unsettling science.

To evaluate the risk of extreme climate change, researchers from the Environnements et Paléoenvironnements Océaniques et Continentaux laboratory (CNRS/University of Bordeaux, France), and the University of Southampton developed an algorithm to analyse the 40 climate models considered by the Fifth Assessment Report.

The findings by the British and French team, published in the Nature Communications journal, in sharp contrast to the IPCC, put the probability of rapid North Atlantic cooling during this century at almost an even chance – nearly 50%.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/24/drastic-cooling-north-atlantic-beyond-worst-fears-scientists-warn

A mini raptor in action:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ItsScaryNaturee/status/836988324828995585

Wait till you encounter a rooster with sizable spurs. Best have boots on, or you could get nicked up.

Meanwhile, IMDb adds F, FF and FFF ratings. I call that a win-win.

The Internet Movie Database (IMDb), which sees more than 250 million visitors per month, has adopted the ‘F-rating’ system to signpost films that were directed by women, written by women and/or pass the Bechdel test.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/imdb-adds-f-rating-to-feminist-films-a7613181.html

This is what passes for higher education?

https://twitter.com/NameIsJosephine/status/838785189513998336

By Nicholas Kristof:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/opinion/sunday/shes-17-and-needs-birth-control-do-we-turn-our-backs.html?_r=0

Excerpts:

...Let’s be clear: This isn’t about the government paying for abortions. That’s already mostly banned. This is about paying for birth control and cancer screenings when the provider has some connection, even a remote one, to abortions.

This clinic in Lewiston is threatened because it is operated by Maine Family Planning, a nonprofit that provides some abortions. Health experts expect a G.O.P. push to defund such women’s health clinics, by barring Medicaid reimbursements or other federal funds from going to them, and by cutting or redirecting the Title X family planning program.

“We’re afraid we’re going to lose a critical part of the public health infrastructure,” says George Hill, the president of Maine Family Planning.

Patients are anxious. Clinic staff members say that some women have asked to get their IUDs replaced early, so that they don’t expire a couple of years from now when there might be less coverage...

...Pence and his Republican colleagues in Congress are, I think, well-intentioned politicians driven by a revulsion for abortion. But the truth is that these clinics do more to reduce abortion rates than any army of anti-abortion demonstrators.

Later in the afternoon back in Lewiston, Hayes coaxes a 19-year-old named Destiny Burnell, who had already had one baby after an unplanned pregnancy, to consider long-acting contraception. After discussing several options, Destiny makes an appointment for an implant in her arm.

To those who think we can’t afford family planning services, remember: An IUD or implant like Destiny’s costs about $1,000, while a single Medicaid birth costs the public about $13,000. Each dollar invested in family planning yields $7 in savings for the public later on.

There are 2.8 million unintended pregnancies a year in the U.S.; among people living in poverty, 60 percent of pregnancies are unplanned. One study found that when Texas cut funding for Planned Parenthood and similar clinics, Medicaid births rose by 27 percent in one group of affected women.

The Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights, estimates that without Title X funding for family planning clinics, there would be, in a year, an additional 900,000 unplanned pregnancies — and 325,000 more abortions...

(end of excerpts)
______________________________________

Not to mention that poverty and lack of adequate health care lead to higher infant death rates (especially with teen mothers), and the United States had little to brag about when it comes to preventing infant mortality, even BEFORE the Zika virus came here. According to the WHO, there are over 40 nations who are ahead of the US. (Yes, some of those nations are tiny, but the superiors include Cuba, Greece, Ireland, and Spain. Plus a lot of better-off European countries - and Canada and Australia.)

Is a better infant survival rate really too much to ask for?

And, from the Centers for Disease Control (link provided by one of the top commentators at the column):

"In 2014, a total of 249,078 babies were born to women aged 15–19 years, for a birth rate of 24.2 per 1,000 women in this age group. This is another historic low for U.S. teens and a drop of 9% from 2013. Birth rates fell 11% for women aged 15–17 years and 7% for women aged 18–19 years. Although reasons for the declines are not clear, more teens may be delaying or reducing sexual activity, and more of the teens who are sexually active may be using birth control than in previous years."

(And the chart below that shows that in 1991, the birth rate for the same group was just over 60 per 1,000. A pretty dramatic drop, since then. Given all the nasty diseases that just might be scaring teens more than before, I suspect that last sentence above is correct.)

The latest from Pelosi:

Hillary lost because media.

"Not to mention that poverty and lack of adequate health care lead to higher infant death rates (especially with teen mothers), and the United States had little to brag about when it comes to preventing infant mortality, even BEFORE the Zika virus came here. According to the WHO, there are over 40 nations..."

Two things:

1) How much of another person's income should you have handed to you for "health care" (in quotes because nobody seems to know what it is)?

2) Why do you NOT cite the reporting differences between nations?

Robotic watchmen. Now, if they package with Peter Weller's Robocop catch phrases, that would be totally awesome, as well as totally frightening.

Dead or alive, you're coming with me.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/industrial-robots/cobalt-robotics-introduces-mobile-security-robot

I want to believe the science...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4287026/Want-promotion-daily-orgasms.html

Rad:

1. I'm not a legal expert - I just couldn't help noticing that what you might call "the lesser evil" is a helluvalot cheaper than the "greater evil."

2. How DOES one go about finding the reporting differences between nations? I'm not a scientist either; I just thought the World Health Organization was a pretty reliable source. Are you saying it isn't?

Here's the CIA list, if you like (from 2016):

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

And - surprise! - that list has 56 nations that do better than the U.S. at keeping babies from dying before the one-year mark. Such countries, it seems, include Bosnia and Hungary.

lenona, You (should) know that this debate is skewed by how countries define "baby" and at how they handle neonatal care.

This is like the climate "change" debate in that "words" only mean what you want them to mean because no one levels the playing field by making clear what the meaning of "is" is.

If you have a point to make, make it plain and simple. No one listens anymore to these "bait and switch" topics because by ten comments down everyone is confused and screaming.

lenona, You (should) know that this debate is skewed by how countries define "baby" and at how they handle neonatal care.
__________________________________________

Source, please? Somehow I doubt that just because the Japanese, for one, USED to count a 3-month old infant as a one-year-old means that they still do. It would be like their insisting on not using the Gregorian calendar for international purposes when they started using it in 1873.

If you don't trust the CIA to be smart enough to figure out things like that in advance, why not? Do you believe we're somewhere in the best ten nations, in that respect? Source on that?

My point is that even though the US is the richest nation, we're not exactly Number One in some pretty darn important areas, and there's plenty to suggest, at least, that we could be doing a lot better to save the lives of babies who didn't ask to be born. Including neonatal care, of course. Katha Pollitt recently pointed out that you don't see anti-abortionists pushing for men to support pregnant girlfriends, even in the last trimester, if they don't want to marry them, even though THAT would easily make a big difference.

"This is like the climate "change" debate in that "words" only mean what you want them to mean because no one levels the playing field by making clear what the meaning of "is" is."

LOL whut?

Sorry Dudett and Dude, my comments were based on multiple comments on several medical/climate sites which I did not bookmark.

They were detailed enough for me to understand that the "details" may not be as straight forward as "headlines" and "speaking points" indicate.

IOW, like in many social sciences "facts" can paint whatever picture you want. (Unlike true science which IMO is supposed to be based on repeatable results building a base which is agreed upon and then branching out into different experiments to explain what is unexplainable.)

Lenona,

This is an old and well established issue in reporting. The US does not use the same standard for child in reporting live child births or for one year survival statistics. Do your own googling. This is not a new issue. It's been this way for well over two decades.

As for your point that the US isn't number one. Yeah, so what? That also is nothing new.

Ben, in other words, you want me to google because you don't really quite know where to search yourself for a reliable source.

And why would the CIA want to make America look like #56 when it could easily work out any differences and NOT mislead people? 56 is pretty embarrassing on a list like that.

And why would the CIA want to make America look like #56 when it could easily work out any differences and NOT mislead people? 56 is pretty embarrassing on a list like that.

lenona at March 7, 2017 6:54 AM

It is impossible to *work out the differences* as,you call it, when,you dont have access to reliable data.

This is why self reporting isnt a good methodology for studying anything.

It is well known than many countries dont include premature births or still births in their motality figures. The US does.
But unskewing the data isnt as easy as just applying a few corrective factors.

"Ben, in other words, you want me to google because you don't really quite know where to search yourself for a reliable source."

No. Because this is such common knowledge and is covered in almost every college statistics course I think you should do some basic effort to educate yourself instead of lazily spouting gibberish as usual. Essentially I don't think you are worth the effort.

Which of the 56 "better" nations do you recommend for your family to go to? (Crickets)

"... we could be doing a lot better to save the lives of babies who didn't ask to be born."

My personal experience is a baby boy that in a 20 minute period was saved by his Mother, again by a nurse in the building, again by the rescue squad, and still did not make it to the hospital alive.

(Comment deleted.) If you have a point make it plain and simple. Using statements like the above do not even contribute to the debate or its solution.

A waste of time because it's only an opinion/belief not based on any actual knowledge. Kinda like "fake news" in being so obviously biased.

It is impossible to *work out the differences* as,you call it, when,you don't have access to reliable data.
_______________________________________

I'm supposed to believe the CIA can't GET access? Or that they can't do anything that's difficult? Hardly.

If they can't, why have such a list at their site at all, since they would know it's likely inaccurate? Something doesn't make sense.

To Ben: The least you could have done is tell me what keywords to search on so I don't waste an hour or two looking at the wrong sites. Yes, I know statistics can be manipulated, which is why I picked what I thought were reliable sources. How are they not?

To Bob: My main point is that family planning services are worthwhile, as is comprehensive sex ed (see Colorado's stunning success in lowering the teen pregnancy rate by 40%, from 2009 to 2013, as well as lowering the abortion rate by 35%) and I have yet to hear any convincing claim that family services, as a rule, are not cost effective.

And if there are any well-off European countries that are, overall, worse than the U.S. to live in, I have also yet to hear which ones they would be.

As I said I'm not going to do your research for you Lenona. Try any college level introductory statistics text book. They all cover the differences between US infant mortality reporting and international norms. Just like any text book on engineering design covers the poor design of refrigerator controls. The topic has been covered to death and using standard reporting the US is right around most European nations if I recall correctly.

If you want something to honestly complain about the US education system is an embarrassment. We actually do a bit worse than Mexico. And we seem to be getting even worse every year.

Ben, in other words, you want me to google because you don't really quite know where to search yourself for a reliable source

No, he wants you to pull your own weight because every time we provide you with links you ignore them

Case in point, infant mortality rates, years ago I posted links detail RU countries not reporting live premie births as live unless they survived past their projected gestation date while the US counts still births as live if the medical team attempts a resuscitation.

Obviously us providing links did jack shit as you are still spouting this bullshit

but here you go, feel free to ignore it once more
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/276952/infant-mortality-deceptive-statistic-scott-w-atlas

Thanks lujlp. I bookmarked this one.

Tired of this "fake" topic which never the point of the comments. (America is not as "good" as you think is the typical point. As if anyone really goes around saying that anymore than citizens of other countries do.)

fyi
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/232-million-people-left-their-countries-for-new-ones-where-did-they-go/279741/

Never heard of Americans yelling "we're number 1" without referring to anything in particular?

In the meantime, I'd still like to know why the CIA, in particular, makes us look even WORSE than other sites do, on something as important as infant mortality, when they could simply not post the list at all if it's inaccurate.

And, not being in the top ten on that particular list may not be anything "new" for us, but it's hardly something to say "so what" about.

And yes, I'm not surprised about our education rating. According to one source, we're #45 when it comes to functional literacy. At the same time, though, it said that 99% of Americans meet that standard, so one could argue that at that level, 1% more or less isn't that impressive.

luj, maybe Dr. Atlas is correct, but if an M.D. from the Stanford University Medical Center can't get an article like that published somewhere less conservative than the National Review, I'm suspicious.

(It's not as if that magazine would look favorably on the Colorado program I mentioned, even though the program lowered BOTH teen pregnancy and abortions, an outcome that most people would agree is helpful to create a healthier Colorado population.)

More on the CO program, if anyone wants:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/colorados-push-against-teenage-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html?_r=0

In the meantime, I'd still like to know why the CIA, in particular, makes us look even WORSE than other sites do,

Heres a thought lenona, maybe the CIA is too damn busy dealing with threats to vet the manner in which other countries report their infant mortality rates when the WHO and the UN and even the social scientists who study this subset of data and get paid for it have never managed to find the time to do it?

You keep asking all theses questions to AVOID reading the goddamn material you were too fucking lazy to google yourself

YOU WERE WRONG,
you were wrong years ago,
you will BE wrong every time you bring this up in the future

deal with it

Get the fuck over it an move on with your life already