DISMANTLING The Left Claim That More Kids Have Died In Ice Custody? Ice VS Massachusetts Medical Society.

Twenty-four immigrants have died in ICE custody during the Trump administration, according to an NBC News  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/22-immigrants-died-ice-detention-centers-during-past-2-years- n954781

The Major Causes of Death in Children and Adolescents in the United States

List of authors. Rebecca M. Cunningham, M.D., Maureen A. Walton, M.P.H., Ph.D., and Patrick M. Carter, M.D.

2016, children and adolescents (1 to 19 years of age) represented a quarter of the total estimated U.S. population1; reflecting relatively good health, they accounted for less than 2% of all U.S. deaths.2 By 2016, death among children and adolescents had become a rare event. Declines in deaths from infectious disease or cancer, which had resulted from early diagnosis, vaccinations, antibiotics, and medical and surgical treatment, had given way to increases in deaths from injury-related causes, including motor vehicle crashes, firearm injuries, and the emerging problem of opioid overdoses. Although injury deaths have traditionally been viewed as “accidents,” injury-prevention science that evolved during the latter half of the 20th century increasingly shows that such deaths are preventable with evidence-based approaches.

In this report, we summarize the leading causes of death in children and adolescents (1 to 19 years of age) in the United States. Unless otherwise indicated, data on deaths were obtained from the Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) system of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), known as CDC WONDER,2 in which data are derived from U.S. death certificates compiled from 57 vital-statistics jurisdictions.2 Data are presented for 2016, the most recent year with national data available.2 Where appropriate, rates are expressed per 100,000 children and adolescents and include the 95% confidence interval.

Leading Causes of Child and Adolescent Death

BURDEN OF DISEASE

Table 1.

The 10 Leading Causes of Child and Adolescent Death in the United States in 2016, in Order of Frequency.

In 2016, there were 20,360 deaths among children and adolescents in the United States. More than 60% resulted from injury-related causes, which included 6 of the 10 leading causes of death (Table 1, and Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org). Injuries were classified according to underlying mechanism (e.g., motor vehicle crash or firearm-related injury) and intent (e.g., suicide, homicide, unintentional, or undetermined), both of which are critical to understanding risk and protective factors and to developing effective prevention strategies. When we examined all deaths among children and adolescents according to intent, unintentional injuries were the most common cause of injury-related death (57%; 7047 of 12,336 deaths), and among intentional injuries, suicide was slightly more common (21%; 2560 of 12,336) than homicide (20%; 2469 of 12,336).

Motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of death for children and adolescents, representing 20% of all deaths; firearm-related injuries were the second leading cause of death, responsible for 15% of deaths. Among firearm deaths, 59% were homicides, 35% were suicides, and 4% were unintentional injuries (e.g., accidental discharge). (The intent was undetermined in 2% of firearm deaths.) In contrast, among U.S. adults (≥20 years of age), 62% of firearm deaths were from suicide and 37% were from homicide. Furthermore, although unintentional firearm deaths were responsible for less than 2% of all U.S. firearm deaths, 26% occurred among children and adolescents.

Despite improvements in pediatric cancer care, malignant neoplasms were the third leading cause of death, representing 9% of overall deaths among children and adolescents. The fourth leading cause of death was suffocation, responsible for 7% of all deaths. Suffocation (e.g., due to bed linens, plastic bags, obstruction of the airway, hanging, or strangulation) varies with respect to intent (e.g., homicide, suicide, or unintentional). The remaining six leading causes of death represented less than 25% of the overall contribution to deaths in children and adolescents in 2016.

The leading causes of death varied between younger and older children. Among children 1 to 4 years of age, drowning was the most common cause of death, followed by congenital abnormalities and motor vehicle crashes. Children most commonly drown in swimming pools (1 to 4 years of age) and in pools, rivers, and lakes4 (≥5 years of age). Among older, school-aged children (5 to 9 years of age), death was relatively rare, representing only 12% of all deaths in children and adolescents. In this age group, malignant neoplasm was the leading cause of death, followed by motor vehicle crashes and congenital abnormalities. Unlike in children 1 to 4 years of age, drowning was only the fourth most common cause of death among those 5 to 9 years of age, which potentially reflects widespread swim training among school-aged children.5

The majority (68%) of youth who died did so during adolescence. Among these adolescent youth (10 to 19 years of age), injury deaths from motor vehicle crashes, firearms, and suffocation were the three leading causes of death; these findings reflect social and developmental factors that are associated with adolescence, including increased risk-taking behavior, differential peer and parental influence, and initiation of substance use.6

There were also differences in intent for injury-related causes of death between children and adolescents. Although unintentional injuries were the most common intent underlying injury deaths among children, intentional causes (i.e., homicide and suicide) were increasingly common with injury deaths during adolescence. For example, although unintentional causes comprised 26% of all firearm deaths among children (1 to 9 years of age), they represented 3% of firearm deaths among adolescents (10 to 19 years of age). Similarly, unintentional causes comprised 78% of all suffocation deaths among children, whereas they comprised 7% of suffocation deaths among adolescents.

Finally, although intentional causes of death were an increasingly important factor during adolescence, the underlying intent varied according to mechanism. For example, among adolescents, 61% of intentional firearm deaths (1733 of 2835) resulted from homicide and 98% of intentional suffocation deaths (1103 of 1128) resulted from suicide. Such variations highlight the need to implement public health strategies that are tailored according to age, underlying developmental factors, and injury-related intent.

TIME TRENDS

In 1900, the leading causes of death for the entire U.S. population were pneumonia, tuberculosis, and diarrhea or enteritis, with 40% of these deaths occurring among children younger than 5 years of age.7 In 2016, none of these diseases were among the 10 leading causes of child and adolescent death, with declines in mortality from infectious disease continuing to occur.Figure 1.

Mortality Rates (Deaths per 100,000 Children and Adolescents) for the 10 Leading Causes of Death in the United States from 1999 to 2016.

The rate of deaths from motor vehicle crashes among children and adolescents showed the most notable change over time (Figure 1), with a relative decrease of 38% between 2007 and 2016. This has been attributed to the widespread adoption of seat belts and appropriate child safety seats, the production of cars with improved safety standards, better constructed roads, graduated driver-licensing programs,8,9 and a focus on reducing teen drinking and driving. Such reductions in mortality occurred despite increases in the overall number of U.S. vehicles and annual vehicle-miles traveled.10 Unfortunately, there was a reversal of this trend in mortality, with the rate increasing annually between 2013 and 2016. Although the cause of this reversal is not yet clear, it probably is multifactorial and includes such factors as an increase in distracted driving by teenagers11 (e.g., because of peer passengers or cell-phone use). Finally, although the effect of the changing landscape of marijuana legalization on adolescent crash risk is to date unknown, decreased risk perceptions among adolescents12 arouse concern about potential drugged driving and motor vehicle crashes, with future data needed.

Although firearm-related mortality among children and adolescents was lower in 2016 than the most recent peak mortality observed in 1993 (8.12 per 100,000; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.91 to 8.23), rates remained stable between 2007 and 2016 without improvement, with an overall rate of 3.54 per 100,000 (95% CI, 3.50 to 3.58). Between 2013 and 2016, there was a 28% relative increase in the rate of firearm deaths. This upward trend in firearm mortality reflected increases in rates of firearm homicide (by 32%) and firearm suicide (by 26%), whereas rates of unintentional firearm deaths remained relatively stable. The nonfirearm suicide rate increased 15% while the nonfirearm homicide rate decreased 4% between 2013 and 2016. Although firearm violence in school settings makes up less than 1% of all suicides and homicides among school-aged children and adolescents,13 a recent review noted increasing trends in school shooting incidents, with 154 between 2013 and 2015 (35, 55, and 64, respectively, per year).14

The rate of death from malignant neoplasm, the sole non–injury-related cause among the five leading causes of death, decreased 32% between 1990 and 2016, which reflects scientific advancements in cancer prevention, detection, and treatment.15 Drowning deaths declined by 46% during that time period because of public health efforts, including mandatory fencing around pools and a greater focus on pool safety (e.g., lifeguards, use of life jackets, and swimming lessons).16 Deaths due to residential fires fell nearly 73% between 1990 and 2016, in part owing to decreasing rates of smoking,17increased installation of smoke detectors, and improved building fire codes.18,19

In contrast, drug overdoses or poisonings rose to the sixth leading cause of death among children and adolescents in 2016. This increase was largely due to an increase in opioid overdoses,20 which account for well over half of all drug overdoses among adolescents.

GLOBAL COMPARISONS

Figure 2.

Global Comparison of Mortality for the Two Leading Causes of Child and Adolescent Death in the United States in 2016.

Figure 2 shows the rates of the two leading causes of child and adolescent death in the United States, as compared with rates in other high-income countries and in low-to-middle-income countries with available World Health Organization (WHO) data for 2016 (see Fig. S1 in the Supplementary Appendix for data on all countries with WHO data for 2016).21 The rate of death from motor vehicle crashes among U.S. children and adolescents was the highest observed among high-income countries; the U.S. rate was more than triple the overall rate observed in 12 other developed countries (5.21 per 100,000 [95% CI, 5.06 to 5.38] vs. 1.63 per 100,000 [95% CI, 1.49 to 1.77]). Although the U.S. rate of death from motor vehicle crashes was higher than the rates in other, similar English-speaking countries, such as Australia (2.94 per 100,000; 95% CI, 2.52 to 3.43) and England and Wales (1.04 per 100,000; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.23), the disproportionate rate among U.S. children and adolescents was most pronounced relative to the rate in Sweden (0.91 per 100,000; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.45), where government investment in road-traffic safety through a Vision Zero policy22 probably contributed to a rate that was approximately one sixth that in the United States.

In contrast, rates of death from motor vehicle crashes among children and adolescents in low-to-middle-income countries were more variable, probably owing to differential levels of economic development.23 Rates of death from motor vehicle crashes are rising in developing countries despite global initiatives such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals,24 owing in large part to underinvestment in road infrastructure, underdeveloped public health infrastructure, limited access to emergency health care services, and a lack of widespread safety measures.25 Thus, although the rate of death from motor vehicle crashes among children and adolescents was lower in the United States than in some low-to-middle-income countries, there remains room for improvement in comparison with similar high-income countries.26

The rate of firearm deaths among children and adolescents was higher in the United States than in all other high-income countries and low-to-middle-income countries with available 2016 data. The rate in the United States was 36.5 times as high as the overall rate observed in 12 other high-income countries (4.02 per 100,000 [95% CI, 3.88 to 4.16] vs. 0.11 per 100,000 [95% CI, 0.08 to 0.15]). Only 3 high-income countries (Croatia, Lithuania, and Sweden) had rates exceeding 0.20 per 100,000. Similarly, the U.S. rate was 5 times as high as the overall rate in 7 low-to-middle-income countries (0.80 per 100,000; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.92). Although these comparisons use only 2016 data, the findings are similar to those of previous analyses that used multiple years of data.27,28

One in three U.S. homes with youth under 18 years of age has a firearm, with 43% of homes reporting that the firearm is kept unlocked and loaded, which increases the risk of firearm injuries.29 In addition to differences in availability between the United States and other countries, there is wide variability across countries in laws relating to the purchase of firearms, access to them, and safe storage.30

In contrast with rates of death from motor vehicle crashes or firearms, the rate of death from malignant neoplasm among children and adolescents in the United States (2.37 per 100,000; 95% CI, 2.27 to 2.48) was similar to the overall rate in other high-income countries (2.32 per 100,000; 95% CI, 2.16 to 2.49) (see Fig. S1 in the Supplementary Appendix for information on all countries with available 2016 data). The U.S. rate was 36% lower than the combined rate in low-to-middle-income countries (3.64 per 100,000; 95% CI, 3.41 to 3.89), which probably reflects differential environmental and genetic exposures combined with early detection and treatment from advanced diagnostics and a more developed health infrastructure in the United States.31

HEALTH DISPARITIES — RURALITY, RACE, ETHNIC GROUP, POVERTY, AND SEX

Figure 3.

Mortality for the Five Leading Causes of Child and Adolescent Death in 2016, According to Rurality.

There were disparities in patterns of mortality according to rurality, race or ethnic group, and sex. Rural children and adolescents had higher mortality (33.4 per 100,000; 95% CI, 32.4 to 34.5) than those living in either suburban settings (27.5 per 100,000; 95% CI, 26.8 to 28.0) or urban settings (23.5 per 100,000; 95% CI, 23.0 to 23.9). These differences were primarily due to higher injury-related mortality in rural settings (Figure 3, and Fig. S2 in the Supplementary Appendix), particularly with respect to motor vehicle crashes (the rate in rural settings was 2.7 times the rate in urban settings), fire or burn injuries (3.3 times), drowning (1.8 times), and suffocation (1.3 times).

Several factors contribute to this disparity. First, sparsely populated rural settings are associated with longer emergency medical service response times, which can delay available trauma services.32,33 Second, the markedly higher rates of death from motor vehicle crashes in rural settings persist after adjustment for the differences in vehicle-miles traveled. These higher rates of death are probably due to environmental factors (e.g., long stretches of uninterrupted roads, which may lead to higher speeds, and a lack of divided roads),32,34,35 behavioral factors (e.g., less use of seat belts and child safety seats and more alcohol-impaired driving), and policy factors (e.g., lower enforcement of traffic laws).32

Deaths from residential fires were more common in rural settings than in nonrural settings, owing to older homes, the use of more dangerous heating sources, and lower rates of smoke-detector and fire-alarm availability.32,36-38 Children and adolescents died from firearm injuries at a similar rate in urban settings (4.05 per 100,000) and rural settings (3.84 per 100,000); however, the firearm homicide rate was 2.3 times as high among urban youth as among rural youth, and the firearm suicide rate was 2.1 times as high among rural youth as among urban youth. Finally, the rate of overdose death was slightly higher (1.4 times as high) among urban youth than among rural youth. This probably reflects the mixed nature of the opioid epidemic, with a greater availability of heroin in urban settings39 and the disproportionate effect of prescription opioids in rural settings.40,41

For all leading causes of death, male children and adolescents died at higher rates than their female counterparts, with the disparity widening from a ratio of 1.2 times as high among children 1 year of age to 2.8 times as high by 19 years of age. This higher rate among male children and adolescents was most pronounced for firearm deaths (5.1 times the rate among female children and adolescents), drowning deaths (2.5 times), and suffocation deaths (1.8 times). Although less pronounced, disparities between boys and girls in injury-related mortality persisted even among children 1 to 4 years of age. Such disparities probably reflect differential socialization and normative constraints that lead to higher levels of risk-taking behavior among boys.42

With regard to race or ethnic group, mortality was higher among blacks (38.2 per 100,000; 95% CI, 37.1 to 39.3) and American Indians or Alaska Natives (28.0 per 100,000; 95% CI, 25.4 to 30.9) than among whites (24.2 per 100,000; 95% CI, 23.8 to 24.6) and Asians or Pacific Islanders (15.9 per 100,000; 95% CI, 14.8 to 17.0). Disparities for black youth resulted from higher mortality for both injury-related causes (i.e., firearms, drowning, and fire or burns) and medical causes (i.e., heart disease and respiratory disease). The disparities were most pronounced for deaths related to firearms, which were the leading cause of death among black youth and occurred at a rate 3.7 times as high as the rate among white youth. Black youth also had higher rates of drowning deaths (1.6 times as high) and fire-related deaths (2.3 times as high) than white youth. For medical illnesses, blacks had rates of death from heart disease and chronic lower respiratory diseases (e.g., asthma) that were 2.1 and 6.3 times as high, respectively, as the rates among white youth. Such disparities probably reflect underlying socioeconomic issues, including poverty, environmental exposures, and differential access to health care services.43-45

American Indian and Alaska Native youth had the highest rates of death from motor vehicle crashes or suffocation in comparison with other races or ethnic groups; this group also had a higher rate of firearm deaths than white youth. These disparities probably reflect both the rural nature of many reservation communities and higher rates of risky driving behaviors, including drunk driving and nonuse of seat belts.46Disproportionate rates of suicide (by suffocation and firearm) may reflect risk factors such as alcohol misuse and untreated mental health issues, in concert with poor access to medical and mental health care.46 In contrast, white youth had a rate of death due to drug overdose or poisoning that was nearly twice as high as the rates observed in other races or ethnic groups, a finding that mirrors the overdose trends among adults, which may reflect factors related to setting (e.g., a high proportion of whites in rural settings) as well as differential prescribing practices according to race.40,47

Non-Hispanic children had higher mortality across all 10 leading causes of death than Hispanic children, with the exception of malignant neoplasm, for which the rates were similar. However, CDC WONDER data may underestimate rates of death among Hispanics.2

Finally, one limitation of CDC WONDER data is the lack of inclusion of poverty variables. However, a broad literature indicates that poverty is an important risk factor for injury across ages,48 including contributing to increased risks of motor vehicle crashes49 and firearm injuries.50

Reducing Deaths in Childhood and Adolescence

Childhood and adolescent mortality remains overwhelmingly related to preventable injury-related causes of death. Progress toward further reducing deaths among children and adolescents will require a shift in public perceptions so that injury deaths are viewed not as “accidents,” but rather as social ecologic phenomena that are amenable to prevention. The sound application of rigorous scientific public health methods has resulted in considerable success in some areas of injury, notably childhood deaths due to motor vehicle crashes, drowning, and residential fires. Expanding public health approaches to encompass all the leading causes of death could substantially reduce childhood and adolescent mortality, as well as the disparities observed.

Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.

We thank Dr. Jason Goldstick for his assistance with World Health Organization and Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System data abstraction related to this manuscript, and Jessica Roche and Wendi Mohl for their assistance in the preparation of an earlier version of the manuscript.

Author Affiliations

From the University of Michigan Injury Prevention Center (R.M.C., M.A.W., P.M.C.), the Firearm Safety among Children and Teens Consortium (R.M.C., M.A.W., P.M.C.), the Department of Emergency Medicine (R.M.C., P.M.C.), and the Addiction Center, Department of Psychiatry (M.A.W.), University of Michigan School of Medicine, and the Youth Violence Prevention Center (R.M.C., P.M.C.) and Department of Health Behavior and Health Education (R.M.C.), University of Michigan School of Public Health — both in Ann Arbor.

Address reprint requests to Dr. Cunningham at the Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, 2800 Plymouth Rd., NCRC 10-G080, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, or at stroh@med.umich.edu.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary AppendixPDF292KB
Disclosure FormsPDF103KB

References (50)

  1. 1.. opens in new tab
    • 2.. opens in new tab
      • 3.. opens in new tab
        • 4.
        • 5.
        • 6.
        • 7.
        • 8.
        • 9.
        • 10.. opens in new tab
          • 11.. opens in new tab
            • 12.
              • 13.
                • 14.
                • 15.
                • 16.
                  • 17.
                  • 18.
                    • 19.
                      • 20.. opens in new tab
                        • 21.. opens in new tab
                          • 22.
                          • 23.
                          • 24.. opens in new tab
                            • 25.
                            • 26.
                            • 27.
                            • 28.
                            • 29.
                            • 30.. opens in new tab
                              • 31.
                              • 32.
                              • 33.
                              • 34.
                              • 35.
                              • 36.. opens in new tab
                                • 37.
                                • 38.
                                • 39.
                                  • 40.
                                  • 41.
                                  • 42.
                                  • 43.
                                  • 44.
                                  • 45.
                                  • 46.
                                  • 47.
                                  • 48.
                                  • 49.
                                  • 50.

                                  Citing Articles (37)

                                  https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsr1804754?fbclid=IwAR3yP1H3SooseJczg1NKHlkIyopaqgEXFQuIrIFUd1COeoroQE8oxA5E7MY

                                  Dismantling Gender Identity: Most Common Lies Women Tell in Relationships: Proving One More Time That A Man Can Ever Be Women:

                                  Whether it’s an effort to spare another person’s feelings or protect themselves, lying from time to time is something everyone does. But what about when that dishonesty comes from your partner? All lies, from little white untruths to serious deceit, can potentially be detrimental to a relationship. And while both men and women are capable of being untruthful to their significant other, they may not always do it for the same reasons.

                                  Here are 10 lies women, in particular, tell.

                                  1. How many people she’s slept with

                                  Man and woman lay cuddling on the bed

                                  Women may not be so truthful about this number. | iStock/Getty Images

                                  Unless you got married right out of college, it’s likely both you and your significant other have had more than one sexual partner. Although you know this to be true, it doesn’t mean you won’t cringe at the mention of their number. Which is why a woman might lie when questioned about her sexual history. Of course, both partners need to accept each other for who they are, and if someone’s judgmental based on the number, it’s probably time to move on.

                                  2. Her life on social media

                                  Young woman is taking a selfie

                                  A woman’s online life may not match up with her real life. | iStock.com/jakubzak

                                  Does your News Feed mostly consist of perfect couples, idyllic weddings, and dream vacations? If so, you’re not alone. In a world overrun with play-by-play updates and cyber-gloating gone mad, it’s no wonder your measly accomplishments pale in comparison. After all, your job promotion has nothing on that photo of a giggling toddler covered in spaghetti.

                                  Daily Mail Australia reports one survey from The Works found 64% of Australian women made embellished or deceitful statements on social media, whereas only 36% of men were found to have done the same.

                                  3. Saying she’s fine when she’s not

                                  Sad young woman on couch

                                  Not all women are truthful about this. | Tommaso79/iStock/Getty Images Plus

                                  In the same survey, researchers found the No. 1 lie women tell is, “Nothing’s wrong, I’m fine.” Anyone who’s heard these words before probably doesn’t consider it much of a punishable crime, but it is a lie, nonetheless. While it’s more acceptable in platonic relationships, such as with a co-worker, there’s no place for this little white lie in a romantic one. A woman telling her partner she’s fine when something’s weighing on her mind could end up making her feel isolated or resentful.

                                  4. How much something cost

                                  beautiful woman holding open wallet with pensive expression

                                  Lying about the cost of something is common. | iStock.com/fizkes

                                  Money will always be a topic of conversation, regardless of who makes more of it. So, it’s quite possible a woman may be tempted to fudge the truth as to how much that new outfit really cost. Dating coach DeAnne Lorraine told Men’s Health, “We think a man will judge us for our spending habits, and that he’ll think we’re silly or frivolous.” When it comes to money, though, it’s always best to be honest.

                                  5. Telling her partner they’re the best she’s ever had

                                  Lesbian couple touching noses

                                  This is a lie that’s probably OK to tell. | iStock.com/monkeybusinessimages

                                  Wanting to please your partner in bed is only natural, and vice versa. Maybe you’re with the person you’re meant to be with for the rest of your life, and that’s great. But the truth is, this doesn’t always mean you’ll both be the best the other’s had. One woman told CafeMom she lied to her husband about him being the best sex she’s ever had. But honestly, will telling the truth in this situation really make anything better? Probably not. In this case, fibbing may be just fine.

                                  6. Fantasizing about someone else

                                  couple in bed

                                  It’s human nature to let your mind wander. | iStock.com

                                  Similar to the point above, is there really anything to gain by sharing fantasies (that don’t involve each other) in the middle of sexy time? Women’s Health points out it’s very possible ladies fantasize about another person while doing the deed.

                                  Before you go getting your undies in a twist, though, remember you can’t control your thoughts, and neither can your partner.

                                  7. Having an orgasm

                                  Beautiful blonde woman hiding face under cover

                                  Faking an orgasm isn’t uncommon. | iStock.com/megaflopp

                                  It’s not an urban legend by any means; some women have faked an orgasm at one time or another. Regardless of the reasoning behind it, it’s still a lie. Maybe she wanted it to be over. Or, perhaps she just knew it wasn’t going to happen this time. Whatever the case, it’s possible. In fact, according to Men’s Health, 48% of women have faked the big O.

                                  8. Never having fooled around with her friends

                                  Friends Wearing Pajamas Taking Selfie

                                  Flings with friends happen — and sometimes, women lie about them. | iStock.com/monkeybusinessimages

                                  Most people have good friends, both men and women, who’ve been through a lot with them. So, it’s not totally out of the question a woman will have dated one of her good friends. But before jealousy has a chance to rear its ugly head, she lies about it. If that friendship is important to her, though, Thought Catalog says there’s a good chance she’ll keep those dirty details of the past all to herself.

                                  9. She wasn’t that into her ex

                                  young man carrying his girlfriend on his back at the beach

                                  Women often keep this secret to themselves. | Jacoblund/iStock/Getty Images

                                  Anyone who’s devoted a significant amount of time to someone else surely had feelings for them, even if they no longer do. Susan Shapiro Barash, author of Little White Lies, Deep Dark Secrets, tells Men’s Fitness, a woman may lie about how she felt about an ex for a few different reasons. She might do it to come across as a good girl, to make it seem like she wasn’t endlessly searching for the right person, or just to protect her partner’s feelings.

                                  10. Being on birth control

                                  worried young man sits on the edge of a bed

                                  This is not OK to lie about — we recommend against it. | iStock.com

                                  One survey asked 2,000 people about lies they’ve told or heard, and “I’m on birth control” made the list, ranking as the most severe fib. Being honest about all things related to sex is always important, no matter what. And taking chances when it comes to risking a pregnancy? Definitely not cool.

                                  Neighborhood Scout’s Most Dangerous Cities – 2019

                                  I. live here in calf , so i listed The Calf City First:

                                  21. San Bernardino, CA

                                  • San Bernardino Violent Crime Rate: 15.7
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 64

                                  24. Stockton, CA

                                  • Stockton Violent Crime Rate: 14.3
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 70

                                  30. Oakland, CA

                                  • Oakland Violent Crime Rate: 13.2
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 76

                                  42 Compton, CA

                                  • Compton Violent Crime Rate: 12.0
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 84

                                  73. Desert Hot Springs, CA

                                  • Desert Hot Springs Violent Crime Rate: 10.2
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 98

                                  79. Modesto, CA

                                  • Modesto Violent Crime Rate: 9.7
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 103

                                  91. Richmond, CA

                                  • Richmond Violent Crime Rate: 9.3
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 108

                                  Our research reveals the 100 most dangerous cities in America with 25,000 or more people, based on the number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents. Violent crimes include murder, rape, armed robbery, and aggravated assault. Data used for this research are 1) the number of violent crimes reported to have occurred in each city, and 2) the population of each city.

                                  This year’s most dangerous city is in Alabama. Last year’s most dangerous city, Monroe, LA, makes the list again this year for the sixth time in the last seven years, coming in as America’s 3rd most dangerous city. Chelsea, Massachusetts, after being on the NeighborhoodScout most dangerous cities list for years, has fallen off the list. High real estate prices in neighboring Boston are partly to blame, driving prices up in Chelsea, and crime down. The community has been revitalizing rapidly.

                                  Newark, NJ is also getting safer. Like Chelsea is close to Boston, Newark is close to New York City. Newark has gone from 30th most dangerous city in the U.S. in 2015, to 51st in 2016, 55th in 2017, 85th in 2018, to 96th this year. If this trend continues, Newark could be off the list completely by next year.

                                  See the complete dangerous U.S. cities list below. Click on any city name for a complete crime report and neighborhood crime map.

                                  For more information, see our FAQ on how we rank the most dangerous cities in America

                                  1. Bessemer, AL

                                  • Bessemer Violent Crime Rate: 29.8
                                  • Your chance of being a victim: 1 in 34

                                  2. East St. Louis, IL

                                  • East St. Louis Violent Crime Rate: 27.8
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 36

                                  3. Monroe, LA

                                  • Monroe Violent Crime Rate: 22.8
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 44

                                  4. St. Louis, MO

                                  • St. Louis Violent Crime Rate: 20.9
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 48

                                  5. Detroit, MI

                                  • Detroit Violent Crime Rate: 20.6
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 49

                                  6. Baltimore, MD

                                  • Baltimore Violent Crime Rate: 20.4
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 49

                                  7. Memphis, TN

                                  • Memphis Violent Crime Rate: 20.1
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 50

                                  8. Camden, NJ

                                  • Camden Violent Crime Rate: 19.7
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 51

                                  9. Flint, MI

                                  • Flint Violent Crime Rate: 19.7
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 51

                                  10. Pine Bluff, AR

                                  • Pine Bluff Violent Crime Rate: 18.6
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 54

                                  11. Danville, IL

                                  • Danville Violent Crime Rate: 17.4
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 58

                                  12. Gadsden, AL

                                  • Gadsden Violent Crime Rate: 17.3
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 58

                                  13. Kansas City, MO

                                  • Kansas City Violent Crime Rate: 17.1
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 58

                                  14. Wilmington, DE

                                  • Wilmington Violent Crime Rate: 17.0
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 59

                                  15. Little Rock, AR

                                  • Little Rock Violent Crime Rate: 16.5
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 61

                                  16. Rockford, IL

                                  • Rockford Violent Crime Rate: 16.2
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 62

                                  17. Saginaw, MI

                                  • Saginaw Violent Crime Rate: 16.2
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 62

                                  18. Chester, PA

                                  • Chester Violent Crime Rate: 16.1
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 62

                                  19. Milwaukee, WI

                                  • Milwaukee Violent Crime Rate: 16.1
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 62

                                  20. Myrtle Beach, SC

                                  • Myrtle Beach Violent Crime Rate: 16.0
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63

                                  21. San Bernardino, CA

                                  • San Bernardino Violent Crime Rate: 15.7
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 64

                                  22. Cleveland, OH

                                  • Cleveland Violent Crime Rate: 15.6
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 64

                                  23. Alexandria, LA

                                  • Alexandria Violent Crime Rate: 14.6
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 69

                                  24. Stockton, CA

                                  • Stockton Violent Crime Rate: 14.3
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 70

                                  25. Albuquerque, NM

                                  • Albuquerque Violent Crime Rate: 13.9
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 72

                                  26. Riviera Beach, FL

                                  • Riviera Beach Violent Crime Rate: 13.7
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 73

                                  27. Indianapolis, IN

                                  • Indianapolis Violent Crime Rate: 13.5
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 74

                                  28. Springfield, MO

                                  • Springfield Violent Crime Rate: 13.5
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 74

                                  29. East Point, GA

                                  • East Point Violent Crime Rate: 13.5
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 74

                                  30. Oakland, CA

                                  • Oakland Violent Crime Rate: 13.2
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 76

                                  31. Lake Worth, FL

                                  • Lake Worth Violent Crime Rate: 13.0
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 77

                                  32. Florence, SC

                                  • Florence Violent Crime Rate: 12.9
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 77

                                  33. Trenton, NJ

                                  • Trenton Violent Crime Rate: 12.8
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 78

                                  34. Texarkana, TX

                                  • Texarkana Violent Crime Rate: 12.8
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 78

                                  35. Shawnee, OK

                                  • Shawnee Violent Crime Rate: 12.7
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 79

                                  36. Newburgh, NY

                                  • Newburgh Violent Crime Rate: 12.7
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 79

                                  37. Muskogee, OK

                                  • Muskogee Violent Crime Rate: 12.5
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 80

                                  38. Wheeling, WV

                                  • Wheeling Violent Crime Rate: 12.3
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 81

                                  39. Charleston, WV

                                  • Charleston Violent Crime Rate: 12.3
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 81

                                  40. Kalamazoo, MI

                                  • Kalamazoo Violent Crime Rate: 12.3
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 81

                                  41. Anchorage, AK

                                  • Anchorage Violent Crime Rate: 12.1
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 82

                                  42. Compton, CA

                                  • Compton Violent Crime Rate: 12.0
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 84

                                  43. Jackson, MI

                                  • Jackson Violent Crime Rate: 11.8
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 85

                                  44. Canton, OH

                                  • Canton Violent Crime Rate: 11.8
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 85

                                  45. Nashville, TN

                                  • Nashville Violent Crime Rate: 11.7
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 86

                                  46. Clinton, IA

                                  • Clinton Violent Crime Rate: 11.6
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 86

                                  47. Harrisburg, PA

                                  • Harrisburg Violent Crime Rate: 11.5
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 87

                                  48. Albany, GA

                                  • Albany Violent Crime Rate: 11.5
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 87

                                  49. Niagara Falls, NY

                                  • Niagara Falls Violent Crime Rate: 11.4
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 87

                                  50. Farmington, NM

                                  • Farmington Violent Crime Rate: 11.4
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 88

                                  51. Lansing, MI

                                  • Lansing Violent Crime Rate: 11.4
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 88

                                  52. New Orleans, LA

                                  • New Orleans Violent Crime Rate: 11.4
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 88

                                  53. Houston, TX

                                  • Houston Violent Crime Rate: 11.2
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 89

                                  54. Atlantic City, NJ

                                  • Atlantic City Violent Crime Rate: 11.0
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 90

                                  55. Daytona Beach, FL

                                  • Daytona Beach Violent Crime Rate: 11.0
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 91

                                  56. Minneapolis, MN

                                  • Minneapolis Violent Crime Rate: 11.0
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 91

                                  57. Chicago, IL

                                  • Chicago Violent Crime Rate: 11.0
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 91

                                  58. Hartford, CT

                                  • Hartford Violent Crime Rate: 10.9
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 92

                                  59. Holyoke, MA

                                  • Holyoke Violent Crime Rate: 10.9
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 92

                                  60. Pontiac, MI

                                  • Pontiac Violent Crime Rate: 10.9
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 92

                                  61. Springfield, IL

                                  • Springfield Violent Crime Rate: 10.8
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 92

                                  62. York, PA

                                  • York Violent Crime Rate: 10.7
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 94

                                  63. Chattanooga, TN

                                  • Chattanooga Violent Crime Rate: 10.7
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 94

                                  64. Beaumont, TX

                                  • Beaumont Violent Crime Rate: 10.6
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 94

                                  65. Salisbury, MD

                                  • Salisbury Violent Crime Rate: 10.6
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 95

                                  66. Pueblo, CO

                                  • Pueblo Violent Crime Rate: 10.5
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 95

                                  67. Tulsa, OK

                                  • Tulsa Violent Crime Rate: 10.5
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 95

                                  68. Baton Rouge, LA

                                  • Baton Rouge Violent Crime Rate: 10.5
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 96

                                  69. South Bend, IN

                                  • South Bend Violent Crime Rate: 10.5
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 96

                                  70. Wichita, KS

                                  • Wichita Violent Crime Rate: 10.3
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 98

                                  71. North Las Vegas, NV

                                  • North Las Vegas Violent Crime Rate: 10.2
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 98

                                  72. Buffalo, NY

                                  • Buffalo Violent Crime Rate: 10.2
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 98

                                  73. Desert Hot Springs, CA

                                  • Desert Hot Springs Violent Crime Rate: 10.2
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 98

                                  74. Washington, DC

                                  • Washington, DC Violent Crime Rate: 10.1
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 100

                                  75. Battle Creek, MI

                                  • Battle Creek Violent Crime Rate: 10.0
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 100

                                  76. Jackson, TN

                                  • Jackson Violent Crime Rate: 9.9
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 101

                                  77. Fall River, MA

                                  • Fall River Violent Crime Rate: 9.9
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 102

                                  78. Huntington, WV

                                  • Huntington Violent Crime Rate: 9.8
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 102

                                  79. Modesto, CA

                                  • Modesto Violent Crime Rate: 9.7
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 103

                                  80. Atlanta, GA

                                  • Atlanta Violent Crime Rate: 9.7
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 103

                                  81. Shreveport, LA

                                  • Shreveport Violent Crime Rate: 9.7
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 104

                                  82. Homestead, FL

                                  • Homestead Violent Crime Rate: 9.6
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 104

                                  83. Miami Beach, FL

                                  • Miami Beach Violent Crime Rate: 9.6
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 104

                                  84. Brockton, MA

                                  • Brockton Violent Crime Rate: 9.6
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 104

                                  85. Cincinnati, OH

                                  • Cincinnati Violent Crime Rate: 9.5
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 105

                                  86. Fort Myers, FL

                                  • Fort Myers Violent Crime Rate: 9.5
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 105

                                  87. Chicago Heights, IL

                                  • Chicago Heights Violent Crime Rate: 9.5
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 106

                                  88. Philadelphia, PA

                                  • Philadelphia Violent Crime Rate: 9.5
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 106

                                  89. Juneau, AK

                                  • Juneau Violent Crime Rate: 9.4
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 106

                                  90. Burlington, IA

                                  • Burlington Violent Crime Rate: 9.4
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 107

                                  91. Richmond, CA

                                  • Richmond Violent Crime Rate: 9.3
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 108

                                  92. North Charleston, SC

                                  • North Charleston Violent Crime Rate: 9.3
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 108

                                  93. Lauderhill, FL

                                  • Lauderhill Violent Crime Rate: 9.3
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 108

                                  94. Port Huron, MI

                                  • Port Huron Violent Crime Rate: 9.2
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 108

                                  95. Jacksonville, AR

                                  • Jacksonville Violent Crime Rate: 9.2
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 109

                                  96. Newark, NJ

                                  • Newark Violent Crime Rate: 9.1
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 110

                                  97. Huntsville, AL

                                  • Huntsville Violent Crime Rate: 9.1
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 110

                                  98. Rochester, NY

                                  • Rochester Violent Crime Rate: 9.0
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 111

                                  99. Knoxville, TN

                                  • Knoxville Violent Crime Rate: 9.0
                                  • Chance of being a victim: 1 in 111

                                  100. Albany, NY

                                  New York is the Dirtiest City in America, New Report Finds

                                  Post Image
                                  (Image credit: Kristi Blokhin)

                                  In the latest data-analytics news from Captain Obvious, one new report has quantifiably named New York City the dirtiest city in America — by far. Leading the top 40 cities in the U.S. on combined filth factors as collected by the EPA, the U.S. Census, and the American Housing Survey, the Big Apple was considered especially rotten for its above-and-beyond litter and rodent issues.

                                  No doubt, in the most densely populated of places in the country — 11 million people crammed into a mere 300 square miles, as of 2016 — there would be a lot of ongoing refuse and related issues in Manhattan and the surrounding boroughs.

                                  But, according to a new report from cleaning and janitorial services company BusyBee, New York City absolutely blew away the cleanlier competition from other top metro areas by an astounding amount of litter, pests, and air pollution.

                                  Post Image
                                  Click to enlarge (Image credit: Busy Bee Cleaning Service)

                                  The infographic (above) compares and ranks the top 40 metro areas using an algorithm combining factors such as litter, pests (mice and cockroaches), population density, particulate matter air pollution, and nitrogen dioxide air pollution, from data collected by three major government agencies. The resulting rankings found that — in the #2 spot after NYC — Los Angeles and then other major American metros are only half as dirty as Manhattan, if even.

                                  The top five cities in the US by population density (in order) were New York City, San Francisco, Boston, Miami, and Chicago — but the dirtiest cities (in order) were:

                                  1. New York City
                                  2. Los Angeles
                                  3. TIE: Chicago (for litter), Houston (for pests)
                                  4. TIE: Philadelphia (for litter), Miami (for pests)
                                  5. TIE: San Francisco (for litter), Atlanta (for pests)

                                  As a native Bostonian, I’m calling a win on the #3 most densely populated city in the country only ranking in at #14 on the dirty-o-meter — especially compared to my (much smaller, more environmentally-conscious, and much more sprawling) newly adopted home of Austin, TX clocking in #16.

                                  If this news reads as depressing to you, consider this inspiring angle: not all that litter ends up in the landfill, thanks to trash pickers — the most expert of which are New York Sanitation Department workers themselves. At one of the city’s garages in East Harlem, garbage collectors have amassed an unbelievable Treasures in the Trash museum warehouse created entirely out of found objects from their routes.

                                  Elsewhere abroad, sanitation workers in Ankara, the capital of Turkey, have opened a public library comprised entirely of books found in the trash, according to CNN. https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/dirtiest-city-in-america-new-york-study-2018-256221

                                  75 Reasons Why California Sucks

                                  California’s got the beaches… but that’s about it. The days of ‘California Girls’ by the Beach Boys is long gone. Want attractive women? Go to Texas instead. Unless you have a thing for blue hair and the scent of rats, I guess. Let’s take a walk through the modern day reality of The California Socialist Republic and discover 50 reasons why California sucks!

                                  50 Reasons Why California Sucks

                                  If it isn’t enough to be surrounded by hostile politicians and communists, you also have the luxury of dealing with all of these issues discussed below.

                                  (*Side-note: I originally got the idea for this article from an TheEconomicCollapse article by Michael Snyder. That article was written in 2012, and many of the facts are no longer accurate [such as some unemployment metrics] – so I felt such a legendary article deserved an update. This is the modernized version for 2017. I have continually update this throughout 2018-2019 and will keep going so long as it stays popular!)

                                  50 Reasons Why California Sucks

                                  1. California ranked dead last in Chief Executive magazine’s annual Best and Worst States for Business survey in 2016. Oh, and it also was ranked dead last for every other year that the survey has been conducted.

                                  2. In 2015, the state of California ranked 50th out of all 50 states in new business creation.

                                  3. According to a recent study, California is the worst-governed state in the entire country for two years in a row!

                                  4. Even after Proposition 30, California still boasts the highest state income tax rate in the nation.

                                  5. Even though California continually (Prop 55) raises taxes dramatically on the wealthy, state revenues are falling like a rock and debt is still adding up.

                                  6. California has the highest sales tax rate in the United States.

                                  7. California has the 9th highest corporate income tax rate in the country.

                                  8. California has the highest “minimum corporate tax” in the country. It is the only state where a corporation must pay money to the state even if a corporation does not make a single dollar of profit.

                                  9. California has the 2nd highest gas tax in the country. And don’t worry – if you drive an electric car they’ll still charge you a $100 annual fee for “offsetting your gas taxes”.

                                  75 50 reasons California sucks 1

                                  10. California is the only state in America that taxes carbon emissions.

                                  11. The state of California issues some of the most expensive traffic tickets in the nation. It is actually the highest when you count in the insurance premium hit.

                                  12. California has historically had the third highest unemployment rate of any state, and has the highest under-employment rate.

                                  13. California scored 45th on “The Nation’s Report Card” for public school test scores, indicating significantly sub-par scores on Math and Reading and generally poorly educated students.

                                  14. The state of California requires licenses for 198 different occupations (the most in the nation). The national average is only 96.

                                  15. California teachers are the 5th highest paid in the nation, but California students rank 46th in math and 49th in reading.

                                  16. California accounts for 12.15% percent of the U.S. population, but a whopping 30% percent of Americans that receive TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) and MOE live there. This amounts to almost 7 billion dollars per year.

                                  17. California now has the lowest credit/bond rating in the entire country (Yes, it even surpassed Illinois).

                                  18. Including unfunded pension liabilities, the state of California has more than twice as much debt as any other state does. Their total state debt (w/o unfunded pension liabilities) is second only to New York.

                                  19. Average pay for California state workers has risen by 100 percent from 2005 to 2012, and 120 percent from 2012-2015. That is awesome news for those state employees, but it is terrible news for the taxpayers that have to pay their salaries and their pensions (Which we already have mentioned are currently unfunded).

                                  20. California has the worst healthcare system in the country. This occurred because of illegals using the healthcare and not paying for insurance or services, hospitals closing down, and increased costs on providers.

                                  21. Since 2007, the number of children living in poverty in the state of California has been steadily increasing.

                                  22. Sadly, an astounding 58.6 percent of all students attending California public schools now qualify for free or reduced-price school lunches. To qualify, the family income must fall below 185% of the poverty line.

                                  23. The American Tort Reform Association has ranked the state of California as the second worst “judicial hellhole” in America, and the worst state-wide “judicial hellhole”.

                                  24. Absurd regulations in California have been increasing in number and scope, while also becoming significantly more problematic for operating businesses within CA.

                                  25. According to the Milken Instituteoperating costs for California businesses are 23 percent higher than the national average.

                                  26. The state of California had the worst “small business failure rate” in America in 2010. It was 69 percent higher than the national average. They also have 4 out of the 5 cities in the category of “Top 5 Worst Places For Small Businesses“.

                                  27. California has the third highest homelessness rate (Number of people homeless: 367 per 100,000).

                                  28. Residential customers in California pay about 50 percent more for electricity than the national average.

                                  29. The State of California has the lowest number of emergency departments per capita of any state (6.7 per 1 million people). They scored an F on the “Access to Emergency Care” Report Card.

                                  30. Insane political correctness.

                                  31. One California town is actually considering making it illegal to smoke in your own backyard.

                                  32. The traffic around certain big cities in CA is ranked as the 1st and 3rd worst in the nation.

                                  50 reasons California sucks 2

                                  33. Los Angeles. (Do I really even need to explain?)

                                  34. San Francisco.

                                  35. Oakland.

                                  36. Frivolous spending on unnecessary government services.

                                  37. California’s sanctuary cities protect illegal immigrants that have seven felonies from being deported, to later acquit them of murder when they kill an innocent American [Kate Steinle].

                                  38. The rampant gang activity in the state gets even worse with each passing year. (Los Angeles is deemed “Gang Capital of America”).

                                  39. California’s violent crime rate is the 13th highest in the nation.

                                  40. Back in 2010, the city attorney of San Bernardino, California told citizens to “lock their doors and load their guns” because there is not enough money to pay for adequate police protection any longer.

                                  41. California is incredibly lawsuit happy, coming in as one of the Top 5 “Lawsuit Climate” states.

                                  42. They have three of the top 10 most violent cities in the US.

                                  43. In Stockton, the police budget cuts got so bad that the police union put up a billboard at one point with the following message: “Welcome to the 2nd most dangerous city in California. Stop laying off cops.”

                                  44. California doesn’t respect the rights of parents. (Sound like socialist utopia yet?).

                                  45. The absolutely insane California state legislature. Oh, and Jerry Brown.

                                  46. Wildfires, mudslides, and impending giant earthquake.

                                  47. 1.5 out of 10 drivers in the state do not have car insurance. California also has one of the lowest minimum coverage rates. This led California to being ranked #1 in the “Top 5 Riskiest States For Drivers.

                                  48. In the past decade, over 5 million people left California with only 3.9 million moving in. This has created a loss of over 1 million people, and a budget reduction of 26 billion in annual income.

                                  49. Illegals control the state. Double-digit billions of dollars go to illegal immigrant aid-related expenses (such as housing, K-12 schooling, English supplementation courses, free college for the “undocumented”, healthcare, etc). This is after accounting for tax revenue they contribute.

                                  50. California has the highest school system revenue of any state, but one of the Top 10 Lowest Per Pupil Spending.


                                  Bonus Reasons Why California Sucks:

                                  (Got more? Leave them in the comments!)
                                  more reasons california sucks

                                  51. Two fault lines in California have actually been discovered to be one mega fault line, that was labelled “locked, loaded, and ready to go“.

                                  52. BIG UPDATECalifornia has surpassed Mississippi in the Poverty Capital of the United States in early 2018. California now has the highest poverty rate in the entire nation. Great job, guys!

                                  53. Prop 47 has resulted in a virtual get out of jail free card. Police are forced to “catch and release” people that are caught with heroin, meth, crack, etc. This includes people with 13 + drug charges. This has dis-incentivized treatments, because it is a lot easier to just take a ticket than 18 months of rehab. Numerous drug treatment programs and courts have closed in high usage areas, and crimes have increased because criminals realize that they won’t actually face any punishment.

                                  54. California’s Police Use of Force Policy does not allow officers to use deadly force when the offender’s only weapon is a vehicle. So if someone is mowing down innocent people or trying to run over police, LEO’s are not authorized to shoot them.

                                  55. Even the criminals think the California laws are ridiculous. Because of (Again, Prop 47) California laws, any theft under $900 is also a required “catch and release”. There was a the known gang member near Palm Springs who had been caught with a stolen gun valued at $625 and then reacted incredulously when the arresting officer explained that he would not be taken to jail but instead written a citation. “But I had a gun. What is wrong with this country?” the offender said, according to the police report.

                                  56. They were rated as one of the “Top 5 Worst States For Gun Owners” for being exhaustively restrictive on 2nd amendment rights. (Yet still has the 13th highest gun murder rate per capita and the 9th lowest gun ownership as % of population).

                                  57. You have to pay to not license your vehicle(Courtesy of Guest Comment).

                                  58. All dog bite cases are to be reported by the hospital to Animal Control. And if your own dog bites you, you will be fined(Courtesy of Guest Comment).

                                  59. California has gone so overboard on global warming/climate change that they have regulated cow farts. No, seriously.

                                  60. California reduced KNOWINGLY transmitting HIV/AIDS to another person to just a “misdemeanor”. So be careful sleeping with anyone in Cali, they could give you AIDS and just get a slap on the wrist.

                                  61. Hollywood sexual victimization.

                                  62. The drug problem is so bad that state officials say things like this: “Many of the city’s intravenous drug users inject openly in public places such as parks and public transit stations, leaving dirty needles strewn about.” So what is their solution? To create “Safe Injection Sites” where drug users can go to shoot up, hang out, then leave. Maybe the drug problem wouldn’t be so bad without point #53, but Californian legislature is too stupid to figure that out.

                                  63. When looking at Americans burdened by housing costs – California has 7 of the top 20 ‘Cost Burdened %‘ metropolitan areas for renters, including #2 on the list – LA. It also has 9 out of 20 of the worst metro locations when looking at owners of houses.

                                  50 reasons California sucks 3

                                  64. California was ranked dead last (#50 out of 50 states) in “Quality of Life” by a U.S. News Study published this year.

                                  65. The state has handed out over a million drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. (Which is all you need to vote).

                                  66. Cali’s gun laws are constantly changing and are incredibly difficult to follow. And if you try in good faith to follow them, you may get raided by SWAT and hit with 12 felonies.

                                  67. Cali also has the 3rd lowest average IQ in the entire nation (ranked by McDaniel’s Estimated Average IQ Score on all 50 US states)

                                  68. Santa Barbara, CA recently imposed fines for establishments that provide plastic straws. Yes, seriously. And not a small fine, either. Offenses range from $1,000 to 6 months jail time for EACH plastic straw provided. Councilman Jason Dominguez had this to say about it: “we can’t always count on common sense,” and therefore, “we have to regulate every aspect of people’s lives”. The definition of totalitarianism: “Totalitarianism is a political concept where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to control every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible“. Dude literally just said the definition of totalitarianism is their policy.

                                  69. Three parts to this one (source for all 3):

                                  • California has 8 out of 10 of the most polluted cities by Ozone (even despite their insane regulations)
                                  • It also has 7 out of 10 of the most polluted cities by ‘Year Round Particle Pollution’
                                  • And it has 7 out of 10 of the most polluted cities by ‘By Short-Term Particle Pollution’

                                  70. California also holds the record for most wildfires by state since 2002 at a whooping 87,742, over 20,000 more than the next state in the list. This placed them at the top of the 2017 list for most wildfire prone states and ‘households at high or extreme risk of wildfire‘ (by households).

                                  71. Cali is ranked 48th in “Overall Freedom” by Cato in FI5 (2018) which analyzes states by the policies that shape personal and economic freedom. The Golden State received the lovely title of “most cronyist state in the union

                                  72. This lovely state is the first in trying to normalize pedophilia by encouraging child sex play and telling parents to let their kids watch porn.

                                  73. The State of California has now spent over $5 billion on its long-delayed high-speed rail project — roughly the same amount of money that Democrats are refusing to provide President Donald Trump for his border wall proposal. They killed 73% of the bullet train, but are keeping 100% of the taxes. Expense for this ‘train to nowhere’ has increased from $33 billion to $98.1 billion. Remember: this is for a train. That’s $189 MILLION per mile.

                                  74. Cali decided that it is offensive to have American flags on police cars. Yeah, they actually had complaints to the police department just because the cops wanted to put the flag of their country on the police cars.

                                  75. The Bubonic Plague itself is likely already in California. Why? Well, due to the mounds and mounds of trash and overabundance of rats, obviously. (Also, woohoo! We hit 75! Keep the recommendations coming folks!)

                                  76. Rats. In fact, LA is now known as the “City of Rats” as its nickname.

                                  77. San Francisco is ranked Number 1 in property crime in the entire United States.

                                  78. Skid Row

                                  79. The utility companies in California have to shutoff power to hundreds of thousands of people to stop wildfires because the states infrastructure is so horrible.

                                  That’s all for now! Don’t worry, I’m sure we’ll have more soon. California has been no stranger to keeping this list growing over the years. https://www.hiddendominion.com/50-reasons-why-california-sucks/

                                  ‘No discipline. No plan. No strategy.’: Kamala Harris campaign in meltdown

                                  Campaign manager Juan Rodriguez is taking the most heat for the failings, but his defenders point their finger at the candidate’s sister, Maya Harris.

                                  Kamala Harris

                                  People close to Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris‘ campaign say the effort has been hampered by a flat organizational structure at the top with no clear lines of authority. | John Locher/AP Photo

                                  By CHRISTOPHER CADELAGO

                                  11/15/2019 12:57 PM EST

                                  BALTIMORE — Kamala Harris’ campaign is careening toward a crackup.

                                  As the California senator crisscrosses the country trying to revive her sputtering presidential bid, aides at her fast-shrinking headquarters are deep into the finger-pointing stages. And much of the blame is being placed on campaign manager Juan Rodriguez.

                                  Story Continued Below

                                  After Rodriguez announced dozens of layoffs and re-deployments in late October to stem overspending, three more staffers at headquarters here were let go and another quit in recent days, aides told POLITICO. Officials said they’ve become increasingly frustrated at the campaign chief’s lack of clarity about what changes have been made to right the ship and his plans to turn the situation around. They hold Rodriguez responsible for questionable budget decisions, including continuing to bring on new hires shortly before the layoffs began.

                                  Story Continued Below

                                  Amid the turmoil, some aides have gone directly to campaign chair Maya Harris, the candidate’s sister, and argued that Rodriguez needs to be replaced if Harris has any hope of a turnaround, according to two officials.

                                  “It’s a campaign of id,” said one senior Harris official, laying much of the blame on Rodriguez, but also pointing to a leaderless structure at the top that’s been allowed to flail without accountability. “What feels right, what impulse you have right now, what emotion, what frustration,” the official added. The person described the current state of the campaign in blunt terms: “No discipline. No plan. No strategy.”

                                  This account is based on interviews with more than a dozen current and former staffers as well as others close to the campaign, including donors. The sources were granted anonymity to speak freely about the turmoil within the organization and protect them from repercussions.

                                  Kamala Harris’ focus on criminal justice reform could soften criticism of her record.
                                  See where she stands on all the issues »

                                  The internal strife is the latest discouraging development for Harris’ once-encouraging candidacy. She has slid into low single digits and is now banking on a top-tier performance in Iowa to pull her back into contention. Inside the campaign, which had already experienced staff shakeups before the layoffs, rank and file aides are fed up with the weak leadership and uncertainty around internal communication, planning and executing on a clear vision. They say the constant shifting has eroded trust in the upper ranks.

                                  Story Continued Below

                                  While staff ire centers on Rodriguez, his defenders argue he has stood loyally by the candidate despite being relegated to a role akin to deputy campaign manager to Maya Harris. They say he’s had to get Maya Harris’ buy-in even on routine decisions, which were often slow to materialize, further undermining staff’s confidence in him as a supervisor.

                                  “From the outset of this race, he has had all the responsibility with none of the authority. He’s been managing this race with at least one, if not two, hands tied behind his back,” a senior campaign official and longtime Harris hand said of the Rodriguez-Maya Harris dynamic. Rodriguez’s decision to keep mum amid criticism from staff is evidence of his devotion to the candidate, his defenders said.

                                  “He would never talk shit about [Maya]. He would never undermine her. He’s just not that guy,” the senior official said.

                                  Maya Harris
                                  Maya Harris during the first Democratic primary debate. | M. Scott Mahaskey/POLITICO

                                  Aides describe a bleak environment in which workers have started to openly question the judgment of managers after seeing colleagues marched out the door. During a recent meeting, aides pressed Rodriguez and Maya Harris for answers about campaign strategy. At one point during the more than two-hour discussion, Maya Harris herself turned to Rodriguez and challenged him in front of about 20 staffers, and several more listening in by phone. Rodriguez seemed unprepared for the exchange, according to people present. They walked out with little consensus about how to prioritize upcoming events and strategy around advertising.

                                  One recently departed aide tried to sum up the mess: At the staff level, the person said, “everybody has had to consolidate. Everybody has had to make cuts. And people are pissed. They see a void. They want to push someone out. And I understand that. But the root cause of all of this is that no one was empowered really to make the decisions and make them fast and make them decisively.”

                                  Story Continued Below

                                  Still, others point to Rodriguez’s constant yielding to Maya Harris as a reason he should be held accountable for the campaign’s failures. “It was his decision,” another aide said of the fraying pact, adding there were opportunities for him to take control. “He chose to defer to Maya.”

                                  The unorthodox composition of the campaign is further complicated by other factors. Rodriguez’s California business partners — Ace Smith, Sean Clegg and Laphonza Butler — are senior Harris advisers atop a flat leadership structure that includes just a few other outside voices, including ad maker Jim Margolis, pollster David Binder and Maya Harris. Critics of the arrangement say it has contributed to an insular culture and reinforced the business partners’ long-term obligations to one another.

                                  The leadership upheaval is the latest turn in a campaign that has endured multiple reorganizations and never gelled as a unit. In September, Rodriguez announced internally that he was putting Butler and Rohini Kosoglu, Harris’ former Senate chief of staff, in charge of most departments. The moves soon gave way to other changes.

                                  Under an updated iteration, Clegg formally assumed control of messaging while Butler took over the financial, digital and operations teams. Dave Huynh, the campaign’s delegate expert, was put in charge of the political department. Emmy Ruiz’s turf included states and the field organization. And Kosoglu oversaw scheduling, communications, advance and policy.

                                  Yet, even these seemingly clearer lines of authority are already being blurred.

                                  In late October, Rodriguez informed staff that he was redeploying aides to Iowa from other states and laying off dozens of others, including at the campaign’s headquarters. He said at the time that the moves were driven by the need to stash enough money for a seven-figure TV ad buy in the weeks before the Iowa caucuses. Now, it’s unclear whether Harris will have the money to do so.

                                  The former aide said people in the campaign began warning of declining revenues early, but that leadership dysfunction around Rodriguez, Maya Harris and others convinced the person that Harris wasn’t getting an unvarnished view of the picture. “I don’t think anybody wanted to tell her,” the former aide said, adding, “I still don’t think she knows the severity.”

                                  Other aides express fears that the candidate is not being advised of the gravity of the organizational troubles. And they question the wisdom of firing junior and midlevel staffers while the main people empowered to make decisions have all been spared.

                                  Harris’ history with Rodriguez began six years ago, when Rodriguez, who had been an aide to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, took a job in the California attorney general’s office as a conduit to the city of Los Angeles. Late in 2015, Rodriguez, then a senior adviser to Harris’ Senate campaign, came out of the bullpen to manage her race after she parted ways with her first manager. It wasn’t a competitive contest, but Rodriguez helped oversee spending cuts and staff and consultant layoffs as he worked to significantly slash Harris’ overhead.

                                   MOST READ

                                  1. Trump labels top Pence aide a ‘Never Trumper’
                                  2. California Dems question whether it’s time for Harris to drop out
                                  3. Majority of Americans support ousting Trump from office, new poll shows
                                  4. Trump’s new best friend in North Carolina
                                  5. Iran’s top leader warns ‘thugs’ as protests reach 100 cities

                                  Story Continued Below

                                  Maya Harris had helped bring in the first round of hires for that campaign, including several people who were eventually fired, before leaving to run policy for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

                                  When the Harris sisters were building the 2020 staff, they and others were in talks with at least one well-known Democratic strategist whose understanding of the proposed role at the time was to serve alongside Rodriguez given his lack of national campaign experience. The consultant passed, and no one else emerged in that capacity.

                                  Rodriguez confidants from the campaign said they urged him to quit long ago given the challenging nature of the family dynamic, but they don’t think he will. “It was like, ‘I need to be the captain of the Titanic and go down with this ship,’” one said after talking to him recently.

                                  In a statement to POLITICO, Rodriguez said, “Campaigns are long and arduous, but we are all united in our commitment to making sure Kamala is the nominee to take on Donald Trump and win.”

                                  “We have had to make tough decisions to compete in Iowa and ensure Kamala is in a position to be the Democratic nominee, but Maya, I, and the rest of the amazing team are pouring our heart and soul into winning this campaign.”

                                  Aides pointed to late efforts to save the organization. They were invited by management into a crowd-sourcing push for ideas they hope will be incorporated into the plan going forward.

                                  The organizational problems have been agonizing for rank-and-file workers who still believe in Harris’ chances and want to do right by her, another aide said. But the person noted that Harris’ well-received speech at a major Democratic event in Iowa a few weeks ago was eclipsed by news of layoffs across New Hampshire earlier that day. It was the latest reminder, the aide said, of her diminished standing in the race and the dysfunction in Baltimore.

                                  “The loyalty and love for Kamala Harris has never waned,” the person said. “People are still very much invested in her. It’s the directionlessness of the campaign that frustrates them.”

                                  There’s more than enough blame to go around at the top, the aide concluded.

                                  “The whole campaign has been a bunch of people sitting around a table giving opinions and then not backing them up when it comes down to it,” the person said.

                                  “The apparatus wasted her talent more than she blew it.” https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/15/kamala-harris-campaign-2020-071105

                                  Joy Reid Is Completely Confused About Why Kamala Harris ‘Is Not Resonating More’ With Dem?

                                  MSNBC host Joy Reid doesn’t understand why California Sen. Kamala Harris isn’t “resonating more with Democrats.” After all, Harris has multiple minority boxes the left can check off: she’s a woman. There’s one check. She’s African American. There’s a second check. She has one more checkmark than President Barack Obama did during the 2008 election yet people aren’t as drawn to her as they should be, at least on paper.

                                  “Kamala Harris, to me, she’s a candidate that seems to fill all those boxes. She would be fundamental change. She’s a woman of color. I cannot explain why she isn’t resonating more,” Reid told Jason Johnson, a politics and journalism professor at Morgan State University. “The fundamentals of her still seem really good to me if you want somebody who will change the perspective of what America looks like but not have as much change as maybe people think Warren is too much change.”

                                  Harris isn’t resonating with anyone, even Democrats, because they see through her hot air. She has continually labeled herself as this “tough-on-crime” prosecutor but even the mainstream leftist media have called her out for her record. 

                                  CNN slammed Harris because she supported a San Francisco policy that required law enforcement agencies to turn over illegal alien minors to federal officials if they were arrested and suspected of committing a felony. Once she was called out for her stance, her presidential campaign backtracked, saying, “Looking back, this policy could have been applied more fairly.”

                                  The New York Times chided Harris for her political pandering and trying “to be all things to all constituencies.” She doesn’t necessarily flip-flop. She tells various groups what she thinks they want to hear and supports policies she thinks they want her to support. 

                                  RecommendedDemocrat Congressman Claims Some In His Party Are Having Second Thoughts About ImpeachmentJulio Rosas

                                  Harris isn’t resonating with anyone because they realize she’ll go whichever way the wind blows. For Democrats, that’s a liability. They want a staunch progressive who is willing to undo President Trump’s policies, especially when it comes to economics (even though statistics prove what he’s done has worked for the majority of Americans and minorities in particular). Independents and Republicans are leaning towards or are voting for Trump because of the positive economic impact he’s had. Why would they take a chance on a hot air, flip-flopping senator when they can have a tried and tested president? https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/11/18/joy-reid-is-completely-confused-about-why-kamala-harris-is-not-resonating-more-with-democrats-n2556622

                                  Kevin McCarthy Sends Urgent Letter to ABC About MIA Epstein Story:

                                  Image result for kevin mccarthy bakersfield office

                                  GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy sent a letter to ABC News President James Goldston with a few questions about the network’s reported decision to spike a story about pedophile and alleged child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, who reportedly committed suicide in prison a few months ago. 

                                  Megyn Kelly obtained McCarthy’s letter exclusively and shared it on her Instagram account on Sunday.

                                  The GOP leader lists six specific questions for Goldston, taking an urgent tone because we are dealing with an alleged human trafficking operation:

                                  1. Will ABC News provide Congress the interview Ms. Robach conducted with the victim?
                                  2. What did ABC News learn about Jeffrey Epstein after Ms. Robach first presented her story to executives?
                                  3. Who was involved in deciding this story was not of public interest, and what were their reasons for deciding so?
                                  4. Can Ms. Robach expand on the “outside forces” she mentioned as potentially responsible for the story not running?
                                  5. Was ABC News ever presented with additional evidence on Mr. Epstein from the time Mr. Robach first brought her investigation to the network and when he was ultimately arrested?
                                  6. Were authorities alerted at any time after Ms. Robach presented ABC News executives with her reporting? If so, when and what was provided?

                                  In a series of Project Veritas videos released earlier this month, former ABC News reporter Amy Robach got candid about how the network refused to air her chilling report on Epstein a few years ago. She had firsthand information from one of Epstein’s accusers about how he had allegedly molested women and minors. He has been accused of pimping young girls and forcing them to have sex with hundreds of men.

                                  Robach was seeking justice and “ABC News chose to bury the truth,” McCarthy regretted.

                                  Kelly scored another exclusive a few weeks back in which she interviewed former ABC News producer Ashley Bianco, who was fired by CBS for reportedly leaking the video clip of Robach criticizing ABC News for nixing her Epstein story. Bianco told Kelly they got the wrong girl. She didn’t leak the video to Project Veritas. Which leaves us with another question: Did CBS fire the wrong person? The real leaker is still at ABC, according to Project Veritas’s James O’Keefe.

                                  ABC News has denied reports that they killed Robach’s story.

                                  https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2019/11/18/kevin-mccarthy-sends-letter-to-abc-about-mia-epstein-story-n2556634

                                  TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TACKLES CALIFORNIA AIR QUALITY, THREATENS STATE’S FEDERAL HIGHWAY FUND:

                                  The United States Environmental Protection Agency warned California’s agency charged with ensuring the state’s air quality warning the state could face federal sanctions if it did not rapidly submit complete required state air quality plans.

                                  Image result for Trump VS gavin newsom

                                  The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent a letter to California’s agency charged with ensuring the state’s air quality warning the state could face federal sanctions, including the withholding of federal highway funds, if it did not rapidly address its decades old failure to submit complete reports detailing its plans for how it would reduce air pollution to levels required in the 1970 Clean Air Act.

                                  In a September 24 letter to Mary Nichols, chair of the California Air Resources Board, Andrew Wheeler, administrator of the EPA, wrote California has the worst air quality in the United States and has failed to carry out its most basic tasks under the federal law, submitting state implementation plans for areas in the California with levels of regulated air pollutants exceeding federal standards.

                                  The Clean Air Act requires states to submit implementation plans to the EPA for approval outlining their efforts to cut emissions of six types of pollutants. When President Donald Trump entered office, the administration faced a backlog of over 700 incomplete or out of date reports, and EPA says approximately one-third of the areas still having incomplete or out of date plans, roughly 140, are in California.

                                  According to EPA’s data, California contains 82 areas, in which 34 million people reside, with pollution levels exceeding federal standards for one or more regulated pollutants.

                                  Comply or Face Consequences

                                  EPA gave California until October 10 to rescind their “incomplete” plans and resubmit new reports addressing the areas in non-compliance for air quality, waring inaction will result in “disapproval,” of their plans triggering sanctions clocks that could penalize the state with cuts to highway funding, and allow the federal government to impose an implementation plan of its own.

                                  At this writing, California has failed to comply with EPA’s demand for completed state implementation plans for its areas in non-compliance.

                                  Any penalty involving the loss of highway funds would be steep for California since it receives more highway funds than any other state in the country. The Federal Highway Administration estimates California will have received more than $19 billion from the Federal Highway Administration between fiscal years 2016 and 2020.

                                  “We certainly want to avoid these statutory triggers, but our foremost concern must ensuring clean air for all Americans,” said Wheeler’s letter. “That is our goal.”

                                  At present only about a dozen of California’s 58 counties meet the EPA’s standards for Ozone air quality. About half meet the standards for fine particulate matter in the air, such as dust, smoke or other inhalable particles. The counties meeting both standards are primarily rural and sparsely populated.