‘White People’ Blamed For Causing Cyclone Idai in Africa – ‘Even The White Man’s Own Science Corroborates, What We Blacks Know’

Image result for yawning
BLF president Andile Mngxitama declared that the cyclone that hit Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Malawi, was “not a natural disaster but a direct consequence of the white, Western system of ecological assault for profits.” This (cyclone) is mass murder which could be prevented if the West abandoned its ways,” Mngxitama stated. 
“It’s no longer speculation – even the white man’s own science corroborates what we blacks know: Africa is paying a heavy price for the actions of the white world,” he added with a reference to “climate change” science allegedly causing increase in extreme weather.
#
This is not the first time that “white people” were blamed for causing bad weather or changing the climate. See: ‘Blame White People, Science Says’ – Study: White people to blame for pollution – But blacks and Hispanics suffer the most – 2019
Climate Activists: ‘White America’ condemned to Hell!? — Warmist Bill McKibben laments ‘White America’ has failed: ‘White America has fallen short’ by voting for ‘climate deniers’
Flashback 1846: White Men Blamed For Destroying The Climate For Over 200 Years https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/03/26/claim-white-people-caused-cyclone-idai-in-africa-even-the-white-mans-own-science-corroborates-what-we-blacks-know/

How Rich: The O.K Sign Is Now Racist L.M.A.O , Disproving The Claim

The “OK” hand gesture is now a hate symbol, according to a new report by the Anti-Defamation League. https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/us/adl-new-hate-symbols/index.html

  1. Black man making OK sign
Black man making OK sign Stock Photo - 58674992

2. Other Black Man Making The O.K Sign

Image result for O K sign

3. Senior arabic man doing ok sign with fingers, excellent symbol

Image result for O K sign

4. Photo of optimistic people man and woman in basic clothing smiling and gesturing ok symbol at camera isolated over yellow background

Image result for O K sign

Group of cool people, woman and man doing ok sign with hand, approve gesture

Group Cool People Woman Man Doing Sign Hand Approve Gesture — Stock Photo

5. So Were All This Racism?

Horde of Thugs Beat Actress Bloody in New York City VS Violence Against Women Act!

In no way, will i downgrade that happen here, but i ask the question, how did the Violence Against Women Act stop this?

WHAT IS THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT?

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a landmark piece of legislation that sought to improve criminal justice and community-based responses to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking in the United States.

The passage of VAWA in 1994 and its reauthorization in 2000, 2005 and 2013, has changed the landscape for victims who once suffered in silence. Victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking have been able to access services, and a new generation of families and justice system professionals has come to understand that domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking are crimes that our society will not tolerate.

One actress has suffered a concussion, multiple cuts, and bruises, and might have to get multiple surgeries after a horrific attack outside of a New York City bar that may have racial elements. Jennifer Agostini and a friend were having a good time last weekend. But when they left around 3 A.M. on Sunday, a horde of 10-15 thugs brutally beat them. She took pictures of the aftermath and is just covered in blood. The assault was reportedly caused when one of their friends tried to re-enter the bar to get her credit card that was left behind (via NY Post):

Cameron Gray@Cameron_Gray

They got jumped and beaten to the ground by a group of 10 to 15 people who were yelling “white motherf—ers,” “dirty white b—-es” and “f—k those white b—-es and their money”

Raise your hand if this is also your first time hearing about this story https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1199466783834615810 …New York Post@nypostHoods attacked actress Jennifer Agostini, friends leaving Midtown bar: suit https://trib.al/QS504e0 18.4K3:45 PM – Nov 26, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy11K people are talking about this

Actress Jennifer Agostini, 43, and swimsuit model Prendinellys Garcia, 47, ran up a nearly $1,000 tab at Midtown lounge Sky Room for their friend’s birthday Saturday night before leaving around 3 a.m. Sunday, papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court sat.

But on their way out of the West 40th Street club, they got jumped and beaten to the ground by a group of 10 to 15 people who were yelling “white motherf—ers,” “dirty white b—-es” and “f—k those white b—-es and their money,” the court papers say.

“It was just this stampede as we were leaving. We just got rushed and assaulted by, I can’t tell you by how many people,” Agostini — who is set to begin filming the show “Brooklyn Ties” this spring — told The Post.

[…]

Agostini and the others — who are asking a judge to have the bar keep surveillance video and other records of the incident — say they don’t know exactly why the brawl erupted.

The incident touched off when one of their friends tried to go back into the bar for a forgotten credit card after their party had left, according to court papers.

The actress wants Sky Room to hold the surveillance footage of the attack. Now, it’s a local crime story for sure, but let’s not kid ourselves that if this was a non-white person, we would have a tad more coverage, along with endless thought pieces and commentaries about how Donald Trump is to blame for this. I hope Agostini finds justice after this horrendous assault. 

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

                                  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

                                  Global Warming, Mental Illness, And Greta Thunberg?

                                  After traveling across the United States and parts of Canada, Greta Thunberg, the sixteen-year-old Swedish climate activist, has set sail back to Europe.

                                  This time, she’s hitching a ride with an Australian couple sailing around the world in a 48-foot catamaran called La Vagabonde, chronicling their travels on YouTube.

                                  La Vagabonde will take roughly three weeks to reach Spain, where Thunberg hopes to arrive in time for the next round of United Nations–sponsored climate talks.

                                  Without a doubt, Thunberg’s travels across North America, which included angrily lecturing world leaders at the United Nations, have gained her fame and notoriety.  This is reminiscent of another child, anti-gun activist David Hogg, being elevated to celebrity status overnight.  Both Hogg and Thunberg have been honored not because either has any insights, but because they are fresh faces useful in advancing leftist causes.

                                  Thunberg’s case is the stranger of the two.  She is not only a child leading the man-made climate change parade, but a mentally ill one at that.  As Thunberg herself has repeatedly stated, she suffers from Asperger’s syndrome, classified as a mental disorder by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), along with several other mental conditions. 

                                  In Greta Thunberg’s eyes, her mental illness is not an impediment to her analyzing the hard science behind climate.  On the contrary, it’s actually an asset.  She cites one advantage of Asperger’s syndrome is that it provides “remarkable focus and persistence.”  Or in Greta’s case, could we perhaps say the “remarkable focus” is an obsession? 

                                  Thunberg is heralded as a visionary.  Her mother, Melania Ernman, a noted opera singer in Sweden, says Greta “is one of the few people who can see carbon dioxide with the naked eye.  She sees how greenhouse gases pour out of our chimneys and rise into the wind, where they turn the atmosphere into a gigantic invisible garbage dump.”  I would love to ask my old physics professor about that claim. 

                                  Thunberg’s fierce advocacy for worldwide action to assuage her global warming panic is a chicken-and-egg situation.  That is, has the propaganda on climate change driven young Greta cuckoo, or was she unbalanced to begin with, which then made her susceptible to believe an Al Gore–type global warming hysteria?  E. Michael Jones puts the blame on Thunberg’s mother and Sweden for so thoroughly abandoning the moral law.

                                  In Jones’s telling, while Ernman was trekking about the world to applause and acclaim on the opera stage, Greta was home without a mother in a morally bankrupt Sweden.  This unbalanced Greta.  In her memoir Scenes from the Heart, Ernman makes a self-serving claim that the issue of climate change made Greta mentally ill just as she was entering puberty.  Ernman traces the onset of Greta’s disorder back to a specific moment when “during one of her classes, Greta’s class viewed a film about ocean pollution.  In the South Pacific, there is a floating island made up of plastic that is larger than Mexico.  Greta bursts into tears during the film.  Her classmates are moved to tears, too.”

                                  Jones says climate change was an acceptable substitute for guilt on the part of the mother for not being there for Greta and hatred on Greta’s part for being abandoned.  Both are at peace now that they have man-made global warming into the boogeyman.  She writes that “it manifests itself in our neck of the woods [Sweden] in the form of stress illnesses, segregation, and ever longer lines in child and youth psychiatric clinics.”

                                  Again, and for Ernman’s edification, it is not global warming per see that is driving the kiddies mad, it’s a combination of the deliberate hype about its dangers coupled with living in a secular, God-free world. 

                                  Clearly, as the West abandons God and religion as outmoded concepts, many more people will become lost and adrift in the valueless societies.  Mental illness of one type or another has to follow, with current examples being gender confusion, Trump Derangement Syndrome, global warming, and the embrace of socialism.

                                  Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/global_warming_mental_illness_and_greta_thunberg.html#ixzz65x24iwQr
                                  Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

                                  How Dystopian Los Angeles Measures Up to Rwanda?

                                  My wife and I just returned from Rwanda, where we trekked to visit a family of mountain gorillas living in the rainforests of Volcanoes National Park on the slopes of Mount Bisoke.

                                  Rwanda is the most densely populated of all African nations.  Kigali, its capital, is a proud and bustling city on a hill whose citizens rely on hiring motorcycle and bicycle taxis for transportation as we hire Uber and Lyft autos.  Just 25 years on from the Rwandan Genocide, when radical Hutus slaughtered 800,000 Tutsis, the Twa (pygmies), and their moderate Hutu brothers and sisters, Rwandans have an established New Democratic government, enjoy a cautious détente, and possess a bold new eco-friendly vision for the future. 

                                  As we drove through Kigali in a green Toyota Land Cruiser we were stunned by how incredibly clean and well kept Kigali’s streets, sidewalks, and businesses were.  There was no litter, no graffiti, roadside vegetation was manicured, and there were no foul vagrants living along the sidewalks or in the parks.

                                  I asked our guide how the Rwandans manage to keep their city so clean.

                                  Umuganda!” he shouted.  “Before Umuganda, there were piles of garbage everywhere!  Look!  Now, no one is now allowed to even use a plastic bag, no one is allowed to buy water in a plastic bottle.  We are solar.  Rwanda is green!”  He explained that on the last Saturday of every month, all able-bodied Rwandans (18–65), including the president and his Cabinet members, are required by law to go out and clean the areas around their homes and businesses.  The police fine eligible citizens who fail to participate 5,000 Rwandan francs (about U.S. $5.00).  These fines and traffic tickets are sent via text to the violator’s mobile phone.  The fine is paid via the phone.  Mobile phone transactions have all but overtaken those involving currency in Rwanda.

                                  A4 is the two-lane highway between Kigali and the park.  Like all of Rwanda’s highways, it is kept impeccably clean by crews of maintenance workers who sweep up litter with wicker brooms and hand-snip the flora and fauna growing on its shoulders.  Small farms with modest cottages line the highway.  I was reminded of Switzerland — a far less wealthy Switzerland, but a nation of proud citizens.  The fascinating difference is that once outside Kigali, there are only a handful of buses and trucks.  There are virtually no automobiles except for the safari wagons carrying camera-toting tourists in khaki outfits. 

                                  Rwandans of all ages walk along A4.  Frail old men with walking sticks, whole families including grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, and cousins, an entire village walking to celebrate a wedding, the birth of a child, or the death of a neighbor.  There are schools of children in bright blue and yellow uniforms.  There are women in elegant mushananas, wrapped skirts tied over the shoulder and bunched at the hips in colors of the sky, the lakes, and flowers parading along the shoulder of the road carrying exotic handcrafted baskets to and from the market stalls in the villages.  There are porters carry lighter 50-pound bundles of bamboo and sugarcane and sacks of vegetables on their heads.  Larger loads such as multiple sacks of potatoes weighing up to 300 kilos (600-plus pounds) are strapped onto the racks of the bicycle taxis, whose Sisyphean drivers laboriously push them up each hill and struggle to hold them back from running away downhill.  Given the distances they walk, the hills they climb, and their mostly healthy vegetarian diets, there is no need for Weight Watchers in this African nation!

                                  We began comparing Rwanda’s A4 to our stretch of U.S. 101 that runs from the Cahuenga Pass near Universal Studios, past the Hollywood Bowl and the Hollywood sign, past the star-studded Walk of Fame, then down into the Los Angeles Civic Center, Staples Center, and the opulent Arts District.  This stretch of California 101 serves motorists in one of the world’s most vibrant and richest cities, yet little money is been spent maintaining it, never mind beautifying it.  It is a dull, dreary, and sad stretch of highway.  The freeway is bounded by ghostly trees and weed patches covered in layers of litter — empty beverage cans, soiled diapers, discarded cigarette packs, snack wrappers, and more.  Befouled homeless shanties dot 101’s shoulders, line its overpasses, and occupy its underbelly in tableaus similar to those found in Kibera, the grand slum of Nairobi; Dhavari in Mumbai; and the Rocinha in Rio de Janeiro.  U.S. 101 reflects our city’s, county’s, and state’s lack of leadership and vision. 

                                  There are too many areas in Los Angeles that are equally neglected. 

                                  California and Los Angeles promote our city to poor, uneducated Latino immigrants.  We wondered why our government could not declare Umuganda throughout Los Angeles, why it does offer the uneducated, the poor, and the able-bodied social services recipients minimum-wage jobs maintaining our roads.  We wonder whether Nuevo Los Angeles will be a proud, revitalized city under the sun or a jumble of tiny islands of wealth in a sea of slums.https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/how_dystopian_los_angeles_measures_up_to_rwanda.html

                                  Destroying The Liberal Claim ” Stop Breaking Up The Family” Feminism Has Destabilized The American Family, Proving The American Family IS all Ready Broken Up!

                                  Image result for stop breaking up the family

                                  In 1970, three furious feminist tracts dominated the bestseller lists: Kate Millett’s “Sexual Politics,” Germaine Greer’s “The Female Eunuch,” and Shulamith Firestone’s “The Dialectic of Sex.” They, and others who comprised what was then called the “women’s lib” movement, fulminated against male dominance, endorsed sexual liberation and demanded that the nuclear family be smashed.

                                  Their fame has faded, but their influence lives on. Lena Dunham, who has built a persona as a spokesman for women, wondered how any woman could reject the label feminist (a 2016 poll found that 68 percent of American women use the term to describe themselves). Her free-floating contempt for men was evident in a recent tweet: “I’d honestly rather fall into one million manholes than have one single dude tell me to watch my step.”

                                  Note the resentment, even when men are attempting to be kind. Dunham is voicing the 21st-century version of the 1970s slogan: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Without denying the beneficial effects of feminism, we are overdue for a reckoning about its missteps. One of those was stoking such bitterness between men and women.

                                  While there is near-universal agreement that women should be treated equally in the workplace and in the family, other aspects of the feminist agenda — such as devaluing marriage — have left women more, not less vulnerable than they were pre-revolution.

                                  In 2012, Katie Roiphe, feminist and mother of two children by different fathers, condemned concerns about single motherhood: “If there is anything that currently oppresses the children, it is the idea of the way families are ‘supposed to be.’ ” That’s the feminist mantra, but “alternative” families work only for a tiny minority. For most women, children and, as we’re coming to understand better with each passing year, men, the traditional family remains the gold standard.

                                  Forty percent of American children are now born to single mothers

                                  It should not be anti-feminist to recognize that men and women do need each other and that, contrary to feminist theories, marriage is a key pillar of stability for both sexes and especially for children. Feminists greeted unwed parenthood and easy divorce as steps on the ladder of liberation. For some it was and is. But the price has been steep. Women are commonly worse off financially after divorce than their ex-husbands. Those who worked before, during or after their marriages experienced a 20 percent decline in income after divorce, compared with men, whose incomes rose by 30 percent.

                                  Forty percent of American children are now born to single mothers. This rate of non-marital births, combined with the nation’s high divorce rate, means that around half of all American children will spend part of their childhood in a single-parent home. Social scientists across the political spectrum agree this family chaos is destructive. In 2017, the poverty rate for woman-headed families with children was 36.5 percent, compared with 22.1 percent for father-only families and 7.5 percent for families headed by a married couple. And abundant data show married adults are happier, healthier and wealthier than singles.

                                  The sexual revolution has scythed through the institution of marriage, leaving millions of women without the love and emotional and financial security that they and their children so need. It hasn’t been a picnic for men, either.

                                  Recent studies about the effects of fatherlessness have revealed that the rise of single-parent (which usually means mother-only) families has had even worse consequences for boys than for girls. Father absence in African-American homes leads to more mental-health and behavioral problems for boys, according to an MIT study by two economists looking at brothers and sisters born in Florida between 1992 and 2002. “Growing up in a single-parent home appears to significantly decrease the probability of college attendance for boys but has no similar effect for girls.” They found other worrisome effects, too. “Fatherless boys are less ambitious, less hopeful and more likely to get into trouble at school than fatherless girls.”

                                  Everything is connected. When more boys are growing up without fathers, there are fewer young men who become the kind of adults women want to marry — educated, employed, non-drug-abusing and not involved with the criminal-justice system. Without the grounding of marriage, men become disconnected from society. Some 22 percent of prime-age men (25 to 54) are not working or looking for work. Unmarried men are over-represented in this group. By contrast, married men with only high-school diplomas are much more likely to be employed than unmarried men with some college or an associate’s degree.

                                  Diseases of despair — alcoholism, overdoses, suicide — have been rising among white, working-class Americans, the very population that has witnessed a steep decline in family stability over the past several decades.

                                  Most women want and need upright, well-adjusted, dependable men to serve as co-anchors of healthy and happy families. The feminist movement was deeply misguided to take aim at marriage. Far from oppressing women, it offers a safe foundation for a full life. https://nypost.com/2018/07/07/feminism-has-destabilized-the-american-family/

                                  Mona Charen is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Her new book,“Sex Matters: How Modern Femin

                                  Two Truths and a Lie: Equal Rights Amendment?

                                  Everyone loves the party game/icebreaker “two truths and a lie.”

                                  The Equal Rights Amendment has been in the news recently, and recently failed to pass in Virginia. Can you identify which of the following is NOT true about the Equal Rights Amendment?

                                  A. Women’s natural rights and basic legal equality are already protected in the U.S.

                                  B. The ERA will not protect women against the predatory men being exposed by #MeToo or ensure that they are paid equally for the same work.

                                  C. The ERA needs just one more state to ratify before it is added as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

                                  Let’s take these statements one at a time:

                                  1. TRUTH!

                                  The Constitution protects women’s rights to free speech, religious liberty, jury trial, and many other crucial rights. The 19th Amendment ensured that all women of age would have the right to vote and the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment protects women from being treated differently under the law solely on the basis of sex. Discrimination against women based on sex is also barred by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and by other federal and state laws. 

                                  However, the Constitution as currently interpreted does allow for some common sense distinctions. For example, only men are required to sign up for draft, and government facilities such as public school restrooms and prisons are still allowed to be single-sex. These “discriminations” could be jeopardized by some readings of the ERA, which leaves extraordinarily broad language for judges to interpret instead of leaving these thorny social issues to the voters (the majority of whom are women).

                                  1. TRUTH!

                                  Proponents of the ERA say that it only enshrines the basic legal equality that well over 90 percent of both women and men say they support, and at the same time, that it will solve the societal problems exposed by #MeToo and erase the so-called pay gap between men and women. But the ERA will not affect criminal laws against harassment and assault, which are already in place in all 50 states. Similarly, sex discrimination in the workplace is already barred by federal law since 1963. Furthermore, there is ample evidence that the pay gap is not primarily the result of discrimination against women, but instead, the natural result of the different choices women make on average about balancing work and family.  

                                  1. LIE!

                                  35 of the state ERA ratifications took place in the 1970s before a long-passed deadline from Congress, while two (Nevada and Illinois) have taken place since 2016. There are serious legal issues involved in counting all of these ratifications together when they took place over such a long period. While the Supreme Court has left the exact parameters for ratification to Congress as a political question, it has also ruled that they need to be “reasonably contemporaneous” and part of a single act, in order to uphold the purpose of the amendment process in showing overwhelming popular support. Furthermore, four of the original states have rescinded their ratifications of the ERA, and one attached a sunset clause to its original ratification. Finally, Congress will need to remove the deadline it set in its passage of the ERA in the 1970s.

                                  These open legal questions are unlikely to be resolved immediately upon a 38th state’s ratification, should one occur. Instead, look for a drawn-out court battle over the amendment process.

                                  Read more about the ERA and its potential consequences here.

                                  A New Era for the ERA?, In A Moment Of Reckoning For Women’s Equality? Gender Debate Sparks Bitter Divide Among Trans And Feminist Group?

                                  Image result for the era

                                  In a moment of reckoning for women’s equality, lawmakers and investors are teaming up to push for change in corporate boardrooms, executive suites, and across the country — and that’s generating renewed interest in an Equal Rights Amendment.

                                  Propelled by the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements, women are flexing their power to confront everything from gender pay disparities and harassment to the lack of legal protections and corporate diversity.

                                  “The #MeToo movement really has given the women’s movement a lot of strength, but we now need to harness it into positive change,” including finally passing the Equal Rights Amendment, Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney said during an interview in her congressional office. https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/new-era-era

                                  The proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) has sparked a bitter divide between the trans community and groups of feminists across the country.

                                  At one protest in Newcastle, the frustration was palpable. Protesters, who chanted “transphobia has got to go”, were upset about a meeting of feminists taking place to discuss their concerns about the reforms to the law.Sponsored link

                                  A protester told Sky News: “No one has the right to tell you how to identify, that is up to you. These groups, they sit and perpetuate hateful rhetoric.”

                                  But feminist campaigner Dr Heather Brunskell-Evans, who was speaking at the event having written a book on transgender children, has found herself at the centre of this conflict and warned free speech was being shut down.

                                  “I’m absolutely shocked at the level of vitriol, the level of silencing. Even asking for a discussion is considered transphobic,” she said.

                                  Describing the aggression she had come up against from trans activists, she highlighted one meeting where she was blocked from entering.

                                  More from Lgbt https://news.sky.com/story/line-18-gender-debate-sparks-bitter-divide-among-trans-and-feminist-groups-11439676