Police Killings Tied to Poor Mental Health in Blacks
"Black individuals in the United States are three times more likely than whites to be killed by police, but new research suggests it is the killing of unarmed blacks that adversely affects the mental health of this population.
"When we sum up to a population level, we find that these killings led to an additional 55 million days of poor mental health each year in the black American adult population," study investigator Atheendar S. Venkataramani, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.
* * *
The greatest effect on mental health was observed 1 to 2 months after exposure.
The killing of an unarmed black or white individual did not affect white respondents to the survey.
* * *
In addition, many scholars and policy makers have interpreted police killings of unarmed black Americans as a signature manifestation of structural racism. So, another reason to do the study was to try to understand how manifestations of structural racism influence health," he said."
In essence, progressives believe in the wishful thinking of institutional racism, which is just a buzzword for the idea, "We can't find any over racism but blacks are not outcome equal with whites so, there must be "institutional racism." Only in the social sciences can a lack of evidence prove a nonsensical proposition.
If these "researchers" opened their eyes, the truth would be obvious. After the police kill a person, one of two things happens.
If the dead are black, the race baiters show up and create a carnival atmosphere alleging anti-black racism (frequently against a majority black police force) was the cause and demanding all kinds of things from the police, the government, including changes which the black communities often do not want like reductions in police patrols in dangerous inner city black communities. Rallies and protests are held, and the community is whipped into a frenzy often with the race baiters implying the black community should be compensated in some way. This usually means the race baiter will be compensated. The police are bullied into public investigations frequently with multiple secondary "investigations," analysis, and conclusions from questionable sources.
There is no moving on from these situations and the relationship between the police and the community sours. The race baiters use this to force less policing of black communities which ensures more crime, which ensures more race baiting opportunities for the race baiters, which creates more opportunities for graft and corruption.
This is the real institutional racism which is occurring in minority communities.
If the dead are white usually nothing happens. Perhaps the police investigate the shooting quietly but there is seldom a carnival atmosphere or allegation of anti-white racism or the need for reparations from the police. No race baiting carnival barkers show up to demand money, the community simply reads in the paper that another criminal was shot and killed by police for some ascertainable reason. The people quickly determine that the problem was the criminal, not the police and move on.
Fake research like this is the problem along with the race baiters like Al Sharpton, not the police.
Police officers make mistakes, and we need to monitor the police and demand high-quality training of officers to make sure these mistakes are limited.
More importantly, we need to find ways to limit the race baiters and eliminate the rubbish social "science" which has infected our public sphere. Articles like this, research like this are a significant part of the problem.
Dreaming of a Fluoroquinolone? Think Again
...just like the Fluoroquinolone, I used to know.
Boy, can't you hear Bing? Can't you feel the snow, er, Fluoroquinolone falling on your tongue?
Me neither, which is probably why I decided not to go into medicine and I went into law instead.
Denmark in NATO: Paying for Protection, Bleeding for Prestige
The 2018 NATO summit in Brussels met the expectations of many observers who were concerned that President Donald Trump’s extemporaneous remarks and actions could weaken and confuse the alliance. The Trump administration worked diligently to frame the agenda around equitable burden-sharing in NATO, sending letters to many allied capitals exhorting them to increase defense spending. And while most concern has been expressed about Germany’s willingness to address its spending and readiness difficulties , it is Denmark that will be the true bellwether for the burden-sharing debate to come. If the Danes accept that “ Burden sharing … must include cash, in addition to capabilities and contributions” and increase defense spending above what is already planned, then the debate in NATO will move to a different plane.
Denmark has become the poster child for analysts arguing that America’s favored metric of spending 2 percent of GDP on defense is ill-considered, and what matters is contributing effectively to coalition operations when asked. The weekend prior to the NATO summit, the Danish Ministry of Defense released a video and a webpage in both Danish and English detailing what they “offer” NATO to sell that message. Copenhagen has dismissed the 2 percent goal as unrealistic. Denmark approved a six-year defense agreement this January that pledges to increase spending from 1.17 percent of GDP in 2017 to 1.3 percent by 2023 — and to do so slowly, with 60 percent of the increase coming in 2022 and 2023. The Danes are basically daring Trump to give them a pass on the goal of 2 percent by 2024 and aim to wait him out.
This strategy is sound, but Denmark will likely cave to the right sort of American pressure. The Danes will haggle for a “discount” given their performance on other metrics but can be convinced to revisit the levels of defense spending agreed upon in January if what they value most in this relationship is placed at risk: Denmark’s reputation for being a “good ally.” Successive Danish governments have built this reputation, and garnered plaudits and rewards, by being willing — even eager — to participate in U.S.-led expeditionary operations without complaint or caveats. However, during the recent NATO summit, Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen made it abundantly clear to Trump that Denmark has paid its dues in blood as a U.S. coalition partner in Afghanistan and Iraq with relative casualties comparable to those suffered by the United States. The Danish political elite is thus arguing for a NATO burden-sharing logic that balances blood and treasure, but is unwilling to budge on treasure as the fiscal weight of an extensive welfare state dominates domestic politics. Even then, if American officials make it clear that defense spending is the new coin of the realm, and that Denmark will lose its access in Washington unless they pay their membership fee, Denmark will grudgingly comply — as it has done in the past."
The Dane, and, frankly, pan European philosophy, is we only need to do a little. We could spend money, or send troops into harms way, or maybe something else and that would be enough. The Danes spend far less than we Americans in military budget, and have little interest in increasing those expenditures, but they join America in staffing the NATO and UN joint operations, and "pay" with casualties comparable to those we American suffer.
Apparently, meeting on criteria is sufficient in the New Math world of the Europeans to be good enough.
Americans need to meet all of the criteria, we need to expend copious amounts of money on our military, we need to be active in protecting Europe, keeping the sea lanes open, engage in and lead NATO and UN-authorized joint operations, and we need to withstand the highest levels of casualties. Why are we required to meet all of the criteria and more, while the Europeans, even the "good allies" like Denmark barely meet one or perhaps two? What reason do we have to want to continue this arrangement? Are the Europeans paying for some of our costs? No. Are they participating in US-based training missions in equivalent numbers to what the US is participating in Europe? No. Are they helping with open sea piracy prevention, or keeping the sea lanes open for trade in roughly equivalent terms with the US? No.
What we have in NATO is an American obligation to protect Europe which was supposed to be predicated on Europe providing half the total military might. Instead, we have European nations playing pretend military so the European politicians can dole out goodies and benefits while the US protects Europe, performs the lions share of all the heavy lifting necessary to keep the world order intact, to keep the sea lanes open, to fund and fight the NATO and UN-mandated military operations, and to actively fight problems like open sea piracy.
That ATM is closed. I don't much care if we protect Europe or stay in NATO. Europe has decided to let in over one million people a considerable number of whom are feral, violent, religious extremists intent on killing the Europeans and creating a new European Califate. Europe has decided it does not want to spend enough on defense to even minimally participate in maintaining the current world order or protecting Europe.
Sorry, Denmark, doing a little is not enough. You need to put on your big boy pants and join the US as a full partner not hope to do a little and get by.
Germany is another story. The Germans have decided that the frumpy East German Manchurian Candidate they have running the shop is good enough. Germany is wealthy. It needs to pay its reasonable share for the benefits it receives.
Obama allowed what was a travesty when he took office to become a disaster by the time he left. I expect Trump to turn this around or leave NATO altogether and begin realigning our alliances based on the willingness of our allies to take an active role in defense, and in the costs of keeping the world ordered and trade flowing.
The American taxpayer ATM is closed. Get used to it.
"American leaders routinely thanked Denmark for its stalwart participation in coalitions of the willing, with skilled personnel, interoperable equipment, and without caveats. Denmark’s willingness to engage in actual combat, and its leadership of a public that has demonstrated extreme tolerance of casualties and support for their forces in operations, have also been noted. Danish leaders met with their American counterparts far more often than they used to since these changes were implemented, including frequent bilateral meetings with the president and the secretaries of state and defense. “Denmark’s enhanced standing in Washington not only opened doors at the highest level: on several occasions Danish diplomats were invited to join special forums reserved for the United States’ closest allies,” noted Ringsmose and Anders Henriksen in a book chapter entitled “What did Denmark Gain? Iraq, Afghanistan and the Relationship with Washington.” American gratitude extended to promoting Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen to be NATO Secretary General from 2009 to 2014 and Chief of Defence Knud Bartels to be chairman of NATO’s Military Committee from 2012 to 2015, putting Danes in the highest NATO leadership positions for an overlapping 33 months. Danish leaders saw such rewards as tangible indicators of their status as well as of America’s guarantee of Danish security.
Butter Over Guns
Yet while Denmark’s operational tempo accelerated beyond anything imagined by previous generations and burnished their reputation within the alliance, Danish leaders bowed to domestic pressure to reduce defense spending. In 2007, only 5 percent of Danes supported increased defense spending while 66 percent preferred other priorities. Just last month Gallup reported only 4 percent of Danes saw defense as a priority — tying for 13th place out of 15 categories. Defense spending reflected these sentiments."
The problem is not so much the Danish political class as it is the Danish people. America protected Europe and was willing to allow it to free ride on the American defensive capability. Europeans now believe they are entitled to those protections. This was terrible policy from past administrations, but it is in need of correction now. Like all poor behavior, forcing change will be difficult and take a firm steady hand.
We will need lots of bright lines, and firm clear statements of what we expect and what will happen if expectations are not met. Then we need to act precisely as the bright lines dictate. Obama was incapable of this; he was a feckless, fickle man always running to the back seeking to "lead" from behind like all cowards. That will no longer work. We need real leadership if we are to salvage anything.
"In the age of never-ending wars and attempts to retain primacy, American patience with reluctant allies began to wear thin. While Donald Rumsfeld infamously divided NATO into “Old Europe” and “New Europe” over support for Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Obama administration expressed its frustration more diplomatically and systematically. In 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates expressed alarm at the “demilitarization of Europe” and in 2011 warned:
[T]he blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress — and in the American body politic writ large — to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.
After the Russian annexation of Crimea, frustration became policy. The Obama administration pushed successfully to formalize the understanding, reached at the 2006 Riga summit, that allies would “aim to move towards” 2 percent of GDP on defense by 2024. This promise was realized in the 2014 Wales Summit Declaration. Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work emphasized in meetings with allies that “our bedrock policy is that we would like every NATO member to spend 2 percent of their gross national product on national defense.” The U.S. ambassador and visiting American officials reinforced this message in Copenhagen. Most of Denmark’s neighbors heeded the call, with the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, former Warsaw Pact members Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria, Nordic neighbor Norway, and even non-NATO member Sweden each raising their defense budgets.
The Danish response to these efforts was four-fold. First, many took these efforts as simply another ritualized act in standard U.S.-European relations: “It’s a part of the game,” said Holger K. Nielsen, the respected defense spokesperson for the Socialist People’s Party. Within this context, Danish officials and analysts made the case that output measures should trump input measures such as percentage of GDP. Denmark offered itself as the exemplar of an efficient, effective ally and banked on their record and reputation to deflect criticism. Third, they argued they would soon meet the NATO target of spending 20 percent of their defense budget on equipment, particularly as payments for their acquisition of 27 F-35s started. Finally, they argued their forthcoming defense agreement would result in a “substantial lift” in spending that should allay concerns.
The agreement approved in January of this year does progressively increase spending from 1.17 percent of GDP in 2017 to 1.3 percent by 2023 — back to where it was in 2013. Despite arguing that reaching 2 percent was “unrealistic” and that Denmark’s defense structure could not absorb such an influx of funding even if approved, Danish leaders considered this to be a good faith effort to move towards 2 percent."
Which brings us to the real problem, Europes militaries are vestigial. The Continent no longer has any significant connection to military concepts and as such has no idea what to do with the 2% if it were budgeted. These nations can field small special forces units where are essentially trained by a small cadre of individuals and the US military but nothing more. Europeans have permanently become old children living in their American parent's basement.
So, what will Europeans do if pressured?
"The American president’s unorthodox diplomacy certainly upset many of these arguments. European leaders, Danes included, looked to more traditional U.S. officials, such as the vice president and the secretary of defense, for reassurance. They received it, particularly with regard to upholding American treaty commitments, but not in terms of burden-sharing.
Danish officials received this message personally. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis greeted his Danish counterpart in May by pointedly noting that “twelve nations have yet to submit the plans to make this modest commitment” to spend 2 percent. Left unsaid was that Denmark was among that group. Trump’s June 19 letter to the Danes noted that “ Burden sharing … must include cash, in addition to capabilities and contributions. Strong performance in one area does not absolve any Ally of responsibility for the others.”
With such a clear framing of the argument, and the well-prepared deflection articulated by Rasmussen, what are the likely implications for U.S.-Danish relations?
First, we can expect Denmark will continue to highlight metrics that show its value as an ally and downplay those that do not. Concerted efforts by the administration and others in NATO — such as Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg — to build a consistent message around the “quality and quantity” argument will, however, find a receptive ear in corners of the Danish policy community.
Second, it is likely that only states that approach the two percent threshold will be taken seriously by the United States when engaging in discussions of efficiency at the margins. Furthermore, allies requiring maximum effort to deploy small units for a limited period of time will receive a limited hearing in such discussions. Danish officials highlight the efficiency of their forces, which is admirable, but it has been purchased at the expense of size, sustainability, and comprehensiveness of all three services.
Third, and most important, it is likely that Denmark — and others with a similar policy — could be subjected to naming and shaming until they reconsider. Trump’s penchant for hectoring those who fail to live up to his expectations may be particularly effective against Denmark. If prestige, access, and influence in Washington is the coin Denmark has worked to earn with its defense policies for the past two decades, then withholding it could have significant coercive value. Danish officials may consider reopening the defense agreement if they are rhetorically included among the countries that have not yet proffered a credible plan to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense, relegated to the sidelines of allied councils until they do so, or their force contributions turned down when they are suboptimal — perhaps because they cannot be organically sustained. If President Trump brings his “singular obsession on this issue” to bear on Denmark, they may find eliminating the risk of losing the benefits of alliance worth the higher costs of membership — just as they did during the Cold War. By doing so, Denmark may do the alliance a substantial favor and enable serious discussion of more appropriate metrics of burden sharing than blood versus treasure."
The authors offers a play in three acts:
Denmark prestidigitates hoping that slight of hand will confuse we simple Americans that the "sophisticated" Europeans are meeting their "fair share" by not coming anywhere near meeting their fair share. Good luck with that.
The authors believe that it is likely that America will take serious nations more seriously than unserious nations. I cannot argue against that scintillating logic.
If the authors believe Trump will only name and shame he has not been paying attention to Trump's action. Trump uses big stick diplomacy, and he is willing to use the big stick. Trump has used both sanctions and secondary sanctions to put serious pressure on the NorKs, Russia, and he will not hesitate to use the big stick on allies if the issue is serious. FYI, Trump believes this is a serious issue.
Trump believes NATO is good for the Europeans and cannot understand why they are so pathetically unwilling to put up a measly 2% of their national budgets to achieve real security.
"If President Trump brings his “singular obsession on this issue” to bear on Denmark, they may find eliminating the risk of losing the benefits of alliance worth the higher costs of membership — just as they did during the Cold War. By doing so, Denmark may do the alliance a substantial favor and enable serious discussion of more appropriate metrics of burden sharing than blood versus treasure."
This seems an awful lot of work to get the ancient children in the basement to behave like young adults. Sheesh!
Trump's Actions with Russia 'Speak Stronger' Than His 'Occasional Gaffes'
Trump's actions speak loudly. He made some political gaffs over the past few days, and the anti-America media is in full swing trying to bring him down. If only they had any credibility that might have worked.
I've also seen Barak "Milquetoast" Obama sniveling about Trump. But Obama was a man of words. A man of inaction. A man always found leading from behind. Obama's foreign policy was the worst in American history; it began with a world in good shape, he left with the world aflame. The idea that this pathetic poser would criticize any other President is silly, Obama was, and will remain, the bottom of the barrel.
Trump needs to tighten the sanctions noose now that he has accepted that Russians were involved in the US 2016 election. Shut them down Mr. President. Time to become the Man of Action.
This tempest in a teapot will blow over once the progressive left remembers Kavanaugh.
Get your hearing checked gentlemen.
A similar video:
Stalker contacted ex-girlfriend 200 times per day: cops
"A Florida man threatened to kill his ex-girlfriend’s family and aggressively stalked her by contacting her at least 200 times a day, police said.
Michael Taylor Debaun, 25, of Riverview, was arrested Monday on a warrant for aggravated stalking after he allegedly managed to contact his ex-girlfriend of three years via phone, text message or Facebook despite her changing her number and blocking him on the social media platform, the Gainesville Sun reports.
Police in High Springs said the alleged harassment took place from August through September 2017. The messages took a sinister turn in September as Debaun shifted his anger from his former girlfriend to her relatives, threatening to kill her family beginning with her brother.
“You won’t have a home to go back to,” Debaun wrote in one text message, according to a sworn complaint affidavit.
In another message, Debaun promised to “ruin” the woman’s life.
“I’m going to ruin you forever,” the message read. “I hope you’re scared. You think I’m going to let you go, but I’m never gonna. Nothing is going to stop me. Sorry but you’re mine.'"
What was he thinking? There are millions of women if one says no, find another. What a prat.
The progressive left, however, is working diligently to knock Florida Man out of position in the full contact crazy race!
Watch this biker pull a dangerous stunt over the heads of Tour de France riders
... but this is a wicked stunt!!!
Hey, I have an idea! Wife says that's always a bad thing. How about we ask Kenny, Ricky, the US Airforce and Captain Slow to all photo bomb the Tour de France next year? Dude, that'd be totally wicked!
Totalitarianism In Durham
They should, rational; reasonable people are rising to be heard. The totalitarian, fascist progressives do not stand a chance if people like Dr. Peterson can be heard by the masses. He is too reasonable, too well informed, too articulate, and too convincing. The left has no other card to play but censorship. They need to stop individuals who love liberty from speaking, or they know they will lose their march to the fascist totalitarian progressivism they demand.
"Last week at least five Durham officials aligned themselves with Antifa as they signed a letter demanding the abolition of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
In April, Durham became the first American city to bar its police from training in Israel. “The Israeli Defense Forces and the Israel Police have a long history of violence and harm against Palestinian people and Jews of Color,” according to a resolution approved unanimously by the city council.
Last year the Durham City Council cheered on radical groups that unlawfully ripped down a Confederate war memorial at city hall. Prosecutions fizzled out before they even got started.
The toxic leftism of Durham officials has ruined lives.
No one will soon forget how an overzealous, racist prosecutor and scores of local academics tried to lynch three white members of the Duke University men’s lacrosse team after they were accused of the March 13, 2006 gang rape of black exotic dancer Crystal Gail Mangum that never happened. In the end, politically correct button-pusher Mike Nifong (D), the out-of-control district attorney in Durham, was disgraced, disbarred, and found guilty of contempt. Duke and Durham have never recovered from the disgraceful incident whose shadow still hangs over the community.
Clearly Durham has not learned its lesson."
These are the imprudent, totalitarians of Durham who wish to deplatform Dr. Peterson.
It is time to wheel the horses and ride the troglodytes to ground. Huzzah! Give no quarter, take no prisoners, this is an existential war for humanity.
Majorca and Menorca beaches hit by mini-tsunamis as dad is swept to his death by massive wave in front of his wife and kids
A sudden pressure change causes the weight of the air over a focal point on the ocean to increase depressing the ocean level in the focal are by a few inches, but if the winds associated with this event are in sync a tsunami of many meters height can appear. In this case, it killed one and caused substantial damage.
Best wishes to all involved.