Speaking of misinformation - the corporate mouthpiece

"John A." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:13:09 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"John A." wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:04:21 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"David Ruether" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...
"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...

[...]
How does *any* of that explain the poor infant mortality rate in the
USA?

I have no idea. What exactly did they die of? I believe infants like
grown people die from specific causes.

In some of our cities, young unwed minority mothers have been known
to
have babies in public rest rooms and leave them there, or throw them
away
in dumpsters. These babies often die from exposure. I assume that
when
pregnant, the same sorts of young women on crack may have higher
infant
mortality rates as well. I would be VERY surprised if ordinary
middle-class families experience "poor infant mortality rates" -- on
the
contrary, I would suppose ours to be among the best in the world.

YOW! This sure looks like an "Us versus Them" attitude of (to be
charitable)
a "classist pig" - but more likely a "racist pig", unfortunately.

When citing the rather obvious facts that everyone knows but some
pretend
not to see for the sake of political correctness gets one called a
"classist" or "racist," you know you've put your finger on a large part
of
the problem.

Stereotypes are not facts.

Stereotypes are nearly all fact-based. That's how they became stereotypes
in
the first place.

Oh dear.

Care to name a few?

Pick a stereotype.

Blacks are disproportionately welfare recipients. You like that one?

Blacks are disproportionately drug addicts. How about that one?

Blacks are disproportionately violent criminals. How's that one?

Or: Unwed teen-age mothers leaving their newborn babies in dumpsters or rest
rooms are most likely to be black.

Pick one.

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
wrote in message
...

Ever consider these people whose babies die are unable to get health
insurance or proper care? I highly doubt our mortality rates are brought
down from the cases you site, BUT both those cases still reflect a lack
of
health care.

Actually, even in THOSE cases the newborn baby has often been saved by the
arrival of paramedics whose concern for the infant was far greater than
its
mother's.

And there is the rightard's "solution" - rather than provide
preventative health care it's better to spend a fortune on
emergency care that might not even work.

What "preventative health care" exactly would prevent a teen-age unwed
mother from dumping her unwanted newborn baby in a dumpster?

You think a health-care worker should be assigned to every pregnant
teen-ager in the inner city 24 hours a day, to follow her around and make
sure she doesn't have the baby and put it promptly in the garbage? She
DOESN'T WANT THE THING, get it? To her it is just garbage.

wrote in message ...
David J. Littleboy wrote:

The best part of that attitude, though, is how suicidal it is. The vast majority of the "I don't want my tax dollars spent on
them" folks are exactly the ones who would be better off under single-payer health insurance. Unless Mr. H. is making well over
US$200,000, he should be jumping for joy at the thought of affordable health care with none of the abuse the US insurance
industry inflicts on its customers.

What's Sad is the republicans have convinced these people that ANYONE who makes over $25,000 a year, their ideals will help, that
they are "One of the rich guys like us". When the fact is: their programs and ideals are aimed at the upper 5% of the population.
Like you said, the left side of the isle does more for Neil (unless he is pulling in $500K+ a year) than ANY republican ever
thought about doing, yet he lashes out at the people who make his life better.

Stephanie

It is the "great mythology" of the Right, as I have pointed out, that the
interests of the rich are identical to "my" interests, since, well, someday
I may also be rich...;-) Or, there was also Reagan's "give to the rich"
trickle-down approach to economics (if the rich get richer, then they
will spend more money, and we all do better - but the trouble with that
was that individuals can spend only so much, then the rest just gets
invested to make even more money for them). I would have to say that
those on the Right, in general, are the least bright, thoughtful, critical in
their thinking, empathetic toward others, or able to look objectively
either at "the big picture" or the "long view". But they sure can holler!
--DR

"John A." wrote in message ...
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:13:09 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:
"John A." wrote in message
. ..

When citing the rather obvious facts that everyone knows but some pretend
not to see for the sake of political correctness gets one called a
"classist" or "racist," you know you've put your finger on a large part of
the problem.

Stereotypes are not facts.

Stereotypes are nearly all fact-based. That's how they became stereotypes in
the first place.

Oh dear.

Care to name a few?

8^)
But - I think he already has...;-)
--DR

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message news
"John A." wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:13:09 -0400, "Neil Harrington":

Stereotypes are nearly all fact-based. That's how they became stereotypes in
the first place.

Oh dear.

Care to name a few?

Right wingers are racist bigots with read-only minds? --
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

8^)
Hey, I think you have come up with one that actually is absolutely true! 8^)
--DR

wrote in message ...
Neil Harrington wrote:

I have no idea.

But you're sure willing to point a finger none the less.

What exactly did they die of? I believe infants like grown people die from specific causes.

In some of our cities, young unwed minority mothers have been known to have babies in public rest rooms and leave them there, or
throw them away in dumpsters. These babies often die from exposure. I assume that when pregnant, the same sorts of young women on
crack may have higher infant mortality rates as well. I would be VERY surprised if ordinary middle-class families experience
"poor infant mortality rates" -- on the contrary, I would suppose ours to be among the best in the world.

No statistics are noted - is this one case every other year in the US,
or an average of 10 a day in each of our major cities...? The above
also implies that minority babies are "throwaway", and not as much
loved as those of any other group. And, who hasn't heard of the
occasional "nice" young white girl from a "good" family giving birth in
a john and leaving the baby behind? I do not approve of your obvious
racial and class prejudices here, and elsewhere regarding immigrants.

OK here is a concept maybe you can fathom.. Ever consider these people whose babies die are unable to get health insurance or
proper care? I highly doubt our mortality rates are brought down from the cases you site, BUT both those cases still reflect a
lack of health care.

Stephanie

Indeed. Surprise...
--DR

Neil Harrington wrote:
wrote in message ...
Neil Harrington wrote:

I have no idea.

But you're sure willing to point a finger none the less.

What exactly did they die of? I believe infants like grown people die
from specific causes.

In some of our cities, young unwed minority mothers have been known to
have babies in public rest rooms and leave them there, or throw them away
in dumpsters. These babies often die from exposure. I assume that when
pregnant, the same sorts of young women on crack may have higher infant
mortality rates as well. I would be VERY surprised if ordinary
middle-class families experience "poor infant mortality rates" -- on the
contrary, I would suppose ours to be among the best in the world.


OK here is a concept maybe you can fathom..

guffaw!

Yes, any "concept" you can put into words, I think I can fathom.

Ever consider these people whose babies die are unable to get health
insurance or proper care? I highly doubt our mortality rates are brought
down from the cases you site, BUT both those cases still reflect a lack of
health care.

Actually, even in THOSE cases the newborn baby has often been saved by the
arrival of paramedics whose concern for the infant was far greater than its
mother's.

Welfare moms get free medical care and I think in most (maybe not all)
cities it's pretty good care. But good care can only accomplish so much.


http://www.vachss.com/help_text/archive/babys_body.html Doesn't sound
like a welfare mom here. There are plenty of cases of "upscale" mom's
tossing babies too. In any event, these are a very small % of "infant
mortality".


Nearly half the cases of infant mortality among non-Hispanic black women
were due to preterm causes.

Got something to back up ANY of these claims?


Crack babies I'm sure stand less of a chance of
survival, for example. There isn't much "health insurance or proper care"
can do for a crack-addicted unwed mother who has no real motivation to cure
her addiction.

Hmm well maybe NO WAY to receive treatment might factor in somewhat.

Neil Harrington wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
wrote in message
...
Ever consider these people whose babies die are unable to get health
insurance or proper care? I highly doubt our mortality rates are brought
down from the cases you site, BUT both those cases still reflect a lack
of
health care.
Actually, even in THOSE cases the newborn baby has often been saved by the
arrival of paramedics whose concern for the infant was far greater than
its
mother's.
And there is the rightard's "solution" - rather than provide
preventative health care it's better to spend a fortune on
emergency care that might not even work.

What "preventative health care" exactly would prevent a teen-age unwed
mother from dumping her unwanted newborn baby in a dumpster?

Obviously they need psychiatric care, something the insurance companies
deny payment for on a regular basis. And yes I know this is a FACT
because my brother is a psychologist.



You think a health-care worker should be assigned to every pregnant
teen-ager in the inner city 24 hours a day, to follow her around and make
sure she doesn't have the baby and put it promptly in the garbage? She
DOESN'T WANT THE THING, get it? To her it is just garbage.


Have you ever heard of postpartum_psychosis? And due to the massive
hormone changes that occur, there are many other problems that can
develop post childbirth. I know it's easier to use racial or class bias
to blame all these events on but given these events span class and race,
it can't be simply blamed on "inner city teenagers". If they didn't want
the thing, they could have had an abortion.

http://www.pregnancy-info.net/postpartum_psychosis.html

Neil Harrington wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
Neil Harrington wrote:

Ever consider these people whose babies die are unable to get health
insurance or proper care? I highly doubt our mortality rates are brought
down from the cases you site, BUT both those cases still reflect a lack
of
health care.

Actually, even in THOSE cases the newborn baby has often been saved by the
arrival of paramedics whose concern for the infant was far greater than
its
mother's.

And there is the rightard's "solution" - rather than provide
preventative health care it's better to spend a fortune on
emergency care that might not even work.

What "preventative health care" exactly would prevent a teen-age unwed
mother from dumping her unwanted newborn baby in a dumpster?

And another fine example of rightard "logic": When faced with an
indefensible positon CHANGE THE SUBJECT! Throw in some gratuitous
slander.

You think a

You're a liar. You are so corrupt and hateful that you would
rather see people dead than see your cult lose on this issue. As a
result you keep posting the same lies and propaganda that has been
debunked again and again and again.

--
Ray Fischer

David Ruether wrote:
wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:

I have no idea.

But you're sure willing to point a finger none the less.

What exactly did they die of? I believe infants like grown people
die from specific causes.

In some of our cities, young unwed minority mothers have been known
to have babies in public rest rooms and leave them there, or throw
them away in dumpsters. These babies often die from exposure. I
assume that when pregnant, the same sorts of young women on crack
may have higher infant mortality rates as well. I would be VERY
surprised if ordinary middle-class families experience "poor infant
mortality rates" -- on the contrary, I would suppose ours to be
among the best in the world.

No statistics are noted - is this one case every other year in the US,
or an average of 10 a day in each of our major cities...? The above
also implies that minority babies are "throwaway", and not as much
loved as those of any other group. And, who hasn't heard of the
occasional "nice" young white girl from a "good" family giving birth
in
a john and leaving the baby behind? I do not approve of your obvious
racial and class prejudices here, and elsewhere regarding immigrants.

There is an issue of how a particular nation reports infant mortality. Now,
some loon is going to quote a UN definition, without demonstrating that all
nations scrupulously comply with the UN's definition when it is different
from the one that they use for their internal purposes. In some societies
it's not "infant mortality" unless the kid lived more than an hour after
birth, in the US it's "infant mortality" if the kid died during delivery.

This is something that one should _always_ consider--is the difference one
is seeing _real_ or is it an artifact of the statistical method.

OK here is a concept maybe you can fathom.. Ever consider these
people whose babies die are unable to get health insurance or proper
care? I highly doubt our mortality rates are brought down from the
cases you site, BUT both those cases still reflect a lack of health
care.

Stephanie

Indeed. Surprise...
--DR