UNRWA USA is pleased to present a series of Facebook Live events where we interview UNRWA leaders and experts about various aspects of UNRWA's work and give our supporters an opportunity to learn and ask questions.
In the eighth episode of Let's Talk UNRWA, host Abby Smardon (Executive Director, UNRWA USA) will interview Dr. Ghada Al-Jadba, the first female Chief of the UNRWA Health Department in Gaza. Live stream link coming soon.
Make sure to like and follow UNRWA USA so you receive notifications and updates about the Facebook live event on Monday, March 25. See you online!


A sunny yet windy summer day! The Strait of Juan de Fuca bumpy this afternoon, (when I was a child crossing the strait, I called it the 'strait of I wanna puka'!). A fairly strong flooding tide and wind stirred up choppy water. The passengers, a few seasick, a few wet from catching a rogue wave out on the bow, were great adventurers, rewarded seeing L-Podders west of Salmon Bank from about 3:20pm to 4pm. The Orcas were spread out in small groups, with a group of 3 most visible to us, seeming to mill about, many direction changes hunting for salmon in the rock and roll conditions. The 3 whales dove about 400 yards away from us, then several minutes later surfaced by our port side! L-53 Lulu, L-95 Nigel, and L-85 Mystery all swam under the boat! Interesting that all these orphans, (34, 16, and 20 years old), were traveling together.


"Hal Esterbrooke was a good man, a kind man a loving father and husband..."
He was? I shifted my backside on the hard surface of the pew and gaped at the young vicar with the curly blond hair who couldn't possibly be talking about the man I had once loved with youthful passion.
"Hal was a god-faring man who served the Lord humbly and with joy..."
Hal did? Was the vicar crazy? The Hal Esterbrooke I knew had never served anyone. Oh, he might have poured the odd drink or two for guests when he was playing host, but there had never been anything remotely humble about that. Hal didn't understand humble, considered it the last refuge of the weak and stupid.
"Those of us left to mourn him must take comfort from the knowledge that Hal, having left behind the sins of this mortal world, has gone on to a happier reward..."
The woman beside me sneezed. I felt like choking. Hal had been devoted to the sins of this mortal world. He wouldn't have considered heaven a reward unless it came stocked with his favorite Cuban cigars and a cupboard full of single malt whisky—not to mention a selection of willing women.
"Hal will be sorely missed by us all, and in particular by his loving wife and family..."
Well, yes. He probably would. After all, Bedelia Esterbrooke had succeeded where I hadn't. She had married Hal. But I had reason to know that marriage hadn't changed him much—especially since he'd entered into it under duress.
"And now let us join together in prayer for the soul of Hal Esterbrooke, a man we all knew and loved..."
Except that obviously somebody hadn't known him at all—and I didn't believe that somebody was me. Which meant that either I was at the wrong funeral or I was witnessing the biggest whitewash job since Adam had blamed Eve for offering him the apple. There was one other alternative, of course, but surely that wasn't possible.
It had been announced in the paper that the well-known columnist and critic had died suddenly near his country house in Dorset. The paper hadn't seemed sure how he'd died, but I'd assumed a heart attack—probably brought on by over-indulgence in those sins he was supposedly glad to have left behind.
I shifted my position again. Why were church pews always so damnably hard? Even the ones in nice little stone country churches like this one. The woman beside me was blowing her nose. I wondered vaguely why I didn't feel like crying. Hal and I had been together, off and on, for over two years. I ought to feel something, had felt something when I'd first learned of his death. Yet all I retained of that moment now was an inability to believe that the man the vicar was praising so effusively was Hal.
"Mrs. Esterbrooke has asked me to say that tea will be served in the garden at Averley House for any of Hal's friends who would like to join her and the children. And now let us pray..."
I bowed my head but I couldn't pray. Not for Hal who, as far as I knew, had never prayed for anyone in his life. Not even, to be fair, for himself.
Outside the church, the sober congregation hovered among the gravestones as they waited to offer sympathy to the bereaved.
"So sad... such a young man... poor Bedelia and the children...," the hushed voices murmured around me. I studied the faces beneath the conservative summer hats. All serious, not a glimmer of doubt or cynisism among the lot. They really had come to mourn the passing of one of the most self-centred, acid-tongued, sexiest men I had ever known—in the biblical as well as other senses.


text:
The Growing Solar Industry Lacks Diversity
By Cat Sandoval
Employing close to 3.4 million people worldwide, the solar energy industry is expanding — but its diversity is lacking.
The solar energy industry — or more specifically solar photovoltaic, or PV — is one of the fastest-growing sectors in renewable energy, employing close to 3.4 million people globally. Despite a slight dip in employment in the U.S. last year, the industry is growing worldwide. But something is missing: diversity.
In the U.S., women and minorities are largely underrepresented in the industry. Women, who make up about 50 percent of the population, make up about 27 percent of the solar workforce. Black people, who make up more than 13 percent of the population, only make up about 7 percent of the solar workforce.
Related Story California Is On Track To Require Solar Panels On New Homes
Although Asian-Americans and Latinos fare better in terms of representation, people of color are not necessarily represented as leaders in the solar industry. According to the NAACP, women and people of color are less likely to earn executive wages when compared to white men. Thirty-six percent of white men earn $75 or more an hour, compared to 28 percent for men of color, 20 percent for white women, and only 4 percent for women of color.
But it's not just the solar industry. There is a lack of diversity in various other energy sectors. The utility and oil- and gas-extraction industries are both about 85 percent white.
Charles Simpson, an African-American welder's helper for a pipeline company, tells Allegheny Front: "The racism in this job is unreal, is unchecked, and I believe is designed to scare individuals off."
Cecilia Tam, a female senior energy analyst, talks about the gender divide in the energy sector. She says it's hard to recruit and retain women in the energy sector because of "structural and cultural challenges and the lack of women in leadership positions."
Related Story Trump's Solar Panel Tariffs Probably Won't Stall The US Boom For Long
Studies show that diversity is good for business and the bottom line. According to a Northwestern University study, diverse groups outperform homogeneous groups in terms of performance. A McKinsey and Company study found companies in the top quartile for racial and ethnic diversity make 35 percent more on their financial returns, while companies in the top quartile for gender diversity make 15 percent more on their financial returns.
The NAACP is calling on the solar industry to help pave the way for diversity. This year, it launched a Solar Equity Initiative that focuses on environmental, economic, gender and racial advancement. Actress Rosario Dawson partnered with NAACP to help promote the new solar initiative.
Dawson said in a video, "By installing solar in low-income households and community centers while training 100 people with an emphasis on women, formerly incarcerated persons, and veterans, they will also work to strengthen solar policies around the country to shift political power."

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


photo: This horse clearly demonstrates all the hallmarks and pitfalls of a big trot. Although momentum plays some part in his extravagant movement, this degree of limb hyperextension requres a significantly higher degree of muscular effort than would a more modest stride. His scapular (the large bone of the shoulder) is forced through an excessive range of motion with the scapular cartilage (at the top of the shoulder blade) hitting the saddle with each stride. His hind legs are widely separated - one forward, one backward - placing excessive strain on the joints of the pelvis/sacrum and the lumbar region of the back. For these reasons, his neck is short, his back is hollow and his hindlegs show minimal joint flexion at hip, stifle and hock; instead they swing, pendulum-like, outside the path of the forelegs.
When your horse moves in hyperextension, that is lengthening more than provided for by momentum, excessive muscular effort is required: extended gaits are not energy efficient. The further forward the hoof lands relative to the body mass, the more braking action occurs. Generally, a hyperextended hoof also stays on the ground for a longer period of time; tempo decreases as stride length increases. Muscular effort is required to overcome both the increased braking action and the inertia of the grounded hoof. From an energetic point of view, for most horses, any work faster than 15km/hr (ca 9mph) should ideally be performed at the canter rather than trot.


text:
Ramona – miasto w Stanach Zjednoczonych, w stanie Oklahoma, w hrabstwie Washington.

Przypisy

Miasta w stanie Oklahoma

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


I really enjoyed working with this group of families yesterday!
The kids were so adorable - and most of them brought big smiles and lots of giggles!
Heather's family are a pleasure to work with and I swear her kids get cuter every time I see them!
Little C's big smile and sweet, cheeky little personality makes the sessions so much fun.
And I love how much little G likes playing peek-a-boo!!!
I always enjoy doing photos for Sahar's family and this set was no different!
I love seeing how they've grown between sessions.
Kamal is definitely one of those women who look fabulous during their pregnancy!
She really does have such a glow about her!!
I wish you all the best for your upcoming delivery!
This little cutie pie came to see me today for her cake smash!
She was so curious and definitely wanted to get her hands on my camera.
Her quick smile is so infectious and sweet!


text:
Q: CSS transition, through a negative top/left absolute position http://jsfiddle.net/KgcM9/1/
I'd like to mouse over the <header> and the image transitions out through the top of the screen, and then reappears from the left of the screen back to the original position.
The problems with above fiddle are that if the mouse exits the <header>, the transition halts and the image returns from the top of the screen.
Also the transition moves the image first to x: -300, y: 400, so that it isn't visible, then it moves it x: 700, y: -1700 which is a complete hack so that it appears to be entering in from the bottom left corner.. any better ways to do this with CSS?

A: Not sure if this could help: http://jsfiddle.net/JyPXR/2/ Add overflow hidden and play with left/top coordinates.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
L'Albatros G.I, designazione aziendale L 4, era un bombardiere quadrimotore biplano sviluppato dalla allora azienda tedesco imperiale Albatros Flugzeugwerke GmbH negli anni dieci del XX secolo e rimasto allo stadio di prototipo.

Destinato ad equipaggiare i reparti di bombardamento della Luftstreitkräfte, la componente aerea del Deutsches Heer (l'esercito imperiale tedesco), durante la prima guerra mondiale, fu il primo modello della serie G-Typ, designazione Idflieg dei bombardieri biplani, realizzato dall'azienda, ma risultò dotato di prestazioni al di sotto delle aspettative e la sua produzione in serie non venne mai avviata.

Storia del progetto
All'inizio del conflitto, nel 1914, l'Idflieg emise una specifica per la fornitura di una nuova categoria di velivoli da bombardamento, indicata come Typ III, caratterizzata dall'installazione di motori in grado di erogare una potenza complessiva di 200 PS (in lingua tedesca "Pferdestärke", "cavallo vapore") ed un'autonomia di volo di 6 h. In quel momento però la disponibilità di unità motrici di potenza adeguata in grado di equipaggiarli era limitata.

Per soddisfare l'esigenza nel corso del 1915 l'Albatros decise di avviare lo sviluppo di un progetto per un grande velivolo biplano quadrimotore riproponendo l'impostazione del russo imperiale Sikorsky Ilya Muromets. Il velivolo, identificato dall'azienda come L 4, era di costruzione classica per l'epoca, realizzato con struttura in legno ricoperta da tela trattata, caratterizzato dalla velatura biplana dalla grande apertura alare dove erano collocati i quattro motori, racchiusi in altrettante gondole appoggiate alla parte superiore dell'ala inferiore e montati in configurazione spingente. Il carrello d'atterraggio era un triciclo anteriore fisso realizzato in strutture tubolari dotate di ruote di grande diametro, una per l'elemento anteriore posta sotto il naso e con i due elementi posizionati sotto le ali dotati di due ruote unite da un assale rigido, integrato posteriormente da un pattino d'appoggio.

Il prototipo, equipaggiato con quattro Mercedes D.II venne portato in volo per la prima volta il 31 gennaio 1916 dal pilota collaudatore Alexander Hipleh il quale, benché avesse dichiarato che il comportamento in volo fosse soddisfacente, ritenne invece che le prestazioni generali risultassero insufficienti nell'impiego operativo. L'esperienza negativa indusse l'Albatros ad abbandonarne ogni ulteriore sviluppo ed avviare un nuovo progetto dei bimotori Albatros G.II e G.III.

Utilizzatori

Luftstreitkräfte (previsto)

Note

Bibliografia

Altri progetti

Collegamenti esterni

Aerei militari tedeschi
Aerei militari dalle origini al 1918
Aerei militari della prima guerra mondiale
Biplani


text:
package com.iancaffey.access.google;

import com.iancaffey.access.Context;
import com.iancaffey.access.Host;

/**
 * GoogleContext
 *
 * @author Ian Caffey
 * @since 1.0
 */
public class GoogleWorkContext extends Context {
    private final String client;
    private final String signature;

    public GoogleWorkContext(String client, String signature) {
        super(new Host(new GoogleWorkRouter(signature), new GoogleQueryTypeAdapter(), new GoogleAdapterRegistry()));
        if (client == null || signature == null)
            throw new IllegalArgumentException();
        this.client = client;
        this.signature = signature;
    }

    public String getClient() {
        return client;
    }

    public String getSignature() {
        return signature;
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Q: Webpack resolve images in certain directory I have my images in /assets/images, and my code in /src.
To reference the images from /src, I have to currently do this:
require("../assets/images/some-image.png");
Is there a way that I can simplify this so that I don't need to specify the image path? Potentially just requiring image!some-image.png?

A: I managed to achieve this by using resolve.alias:
resolve: {
    alias:{
        "~images": path.resolve("./assets/images")
    },
    extensions: [ '', '.js', '.jpg' ]
}

I can then use require("~images/test.jpg"); to get me ./assets/images/test.jpg.

A: You could set a variable with the path and reference that.
var imagePath = '../assets/images/';
require(imagePath + 'some-image.png');

or with ES6 template strings
const imagePath = '../assets/images/';
require(`#{imagePath}some-image.png`);


4 Games for $10 - Oh yeah!
Indie developer Twisted Pixel have released a bundle of all of their arcade games for one price. Right now, available on Xbox Live Arcade, you can get the Twisted Pixel Bundle which includes The Maw, Comic Jumper and co-op games `Splosion Man and Ms Splosion Man for just 800 .
That price won't last long though according to Twisted Pixel, so if you don't have any of these titles - first off - WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU? DON'T YOU FUN BRO? Second - this is a hell of a deal, go snag these and enjoy some great gaming.
Here is our review of `Splosion Man and our review of Ms Splosion Man if you need further convincing.


Ever since the inception of SoOPAK, we have been working for numerous clients in the beauty industry. With a wide range of beauty packaging boxes option available, you can choose the one that fits your product. Majority of the boxes are specifically designed for businesses engaged in cosmetic, fragrance, and personal care industry.
SoOPAK works closely with clients to fulfill their individual requirements. Our beauty packaging service focuses on manufacturing and delivering quality boxes such as mask box, personal care counter box, lipstick packaging, and more. The idea behind this service is to ensure safety and protection of your products. Apart from this, every business is looking to get the word out there about their existing or new products. With our beauty packaging service, you can personalize the packaging as per your business or brand.
In today's competitive market, it is essential to create and promote brand awareness. Whether you require a small or a large box, we have got you covered. No project is too big or small for us! SoOPAK guarantees to cover beauty packaging of any product you need. We prioritize our customers' requirements, and work accordingly.
Each and every box that we make for our customers go through a stringent quality check to test strength and reliability. It is important that your beauty packaging is durable and can be used over a longer period of time. At SoOPAK, we deliver nothing but the best!
Our beauty packaging gives you the freedom to choose any type of box you want for your product. No matter the shape and size, you can explore a wide variety of boxes available at SoOPAK for your convenience.
In case, you do not find the desired packaging for your product, you can contact us for a custom made beauty packaging box. One of our representatives will get in touch with you to get required details.


text:
Drugs, guns, and despair: How America is killing Americans
Posted in: Food, Free market economy, Gun control, Life expectancy, Opioids crisis, Sociology, Suicide, USA.	1 Comment
by Larry Beinhart
Dec13, 2019
The free market economy has pushed the American population to the brink.
A man found unconscious after overdosing on opioids puts his hands over his head in the back of an ambulance in the Boston suburb of Malden, Massachusetts, December 2, 2017 [Brian Snyder/Reuters]
American life expectancy has declined.
There's no foreign invasion. No war within its borders. No one to blame but ourselves. How then, is America killing Americans?
Most reports point to three things: drugs and alcohol, guns, and despair.
There is also fat. Statistically, it is more important, but oddly, it is not often included in discussions about the decline in life expectancy.
This last decline is from 78.7 years of life to 78.6. That does not sound terribly frightening. One-tenth of a year. One month and one week less to live. However, it has gone down for three years in a row, which has not happened in more than 100 years. The last time life expectancy went down was during World War I, when apart from deaths at the front, the US suffered an influenza epidemic that killed 675,000 people.
Is it just the US?
An article published on BMJ (previously the British Medical Journal) looked at 18 high-income countries: Japan, Switzerland, Spain, Australia, Italy, Norway, Sweden, France, Canada, Netherlands, Finland, Austria, Portugal, the UK, Belgium, Denmark, Germany and the US.
Over the last quarter of a century, the lifespans in all of those countries have gone up. People are living four to five years longer, except in the US, where it has only increased by 3.7 years. Actually, the US fell into last place in life expectancy in 2001 and the gap has been growing since. The Germans, the next lowest on the list, get to live almost two years longer than the Americans. The Japanese make it to 84 – or almost six more years.
Drug overdoses killed more than 70,000 Americans in 2017 – an increase of 95 percent over 10 years (up from 36,000 in 2007).
Guns killed nearly 40,000 Americans in 2017, according to official statistics, which only counts cases if guns were "the principal cause" of death but not if they only "contributed" to it; that is 4.43 deaths per 100,000. By contrast, the death rate from gun violence in Japan and the United Kingdom is 0.04 and 0.06 respectively.
About two-thirds of all gun deaths in the US are suicides. This tells us there is plenty of despair. It has gone up by 33 percent in the last two decades while the global suicide rate has declined by 30 percent in roughly the same period.
Then there is fat.
The US is one of the most obese nations in the world, second only to island nations and Kuwait. It is listed as having an obesity rate of 36.2 percent. Most of the Western European countries have a rate of 20 to 25 percent.
Obesity is a relatively new problem and studies of it are even newer. The statistics are rapidly changing and becoming more dire. It started with saying that only severe obesity mattered and that it could shorten a lifespan by about 10 years. Moderate obesity was supposed to be OK, probably, but newer studies have said that it can take up to three years on average from someone's life.
Do these four elements have anything in common?
Yes. Free market theology is at the root of it all.
America has a profit-driven health care system. Not only is it more expensive than any other system in the world, but it creates special inefficiencies and distortions. Its goal is always to sell an item, usually a drug or a service. How, then, can it address the obvious causes of the obesity epidemic – bad diet, lack of exercise, and a sedentary lifestyle? For the most part, it cannot and it does not.
The more insidious contributor to the American wideness and wallow is the food industry which uses excessive levels of sugar, fat and salt to ensure food is addictive.
The pharmaceutical industry also plays a major role in this. Its protected status allows it to spread addiction to various medications, causing more damage than the Mafia, the Colombian cartels and the Mexicans that Donald Trump accuses of bringing drugs over the border, combined.
Meanwhile, money from the gun industry and the NRA – a profit-seeking enterprise – keep Americans shooting themselves and each other.
Maps of suicide and addiction rates are maps of despair. They largely match the disappearance of American manufacturing. We can date that decline to President Ronald Reagan's economic policies of the 1980s. They gutted the industrial midlands, destroyed the unions, leaving the traditional working-class poor and powerless. A certain portion of them turned to alcoholism, addiction and suicide.
There are other things that the American health care system cannot address, and that free market theology considers non-existent: self-esteem, supportive communities, positive expectation for the future, especially for children, which clearly affect healthy lifestyles and life expectancy.
Free market theology insists that what we pay for things is the best and only true measure of their value. The higher inequality rises, the more we have the feeling that this must be true.
Teaching was once a highly regarded, even revered profession. Teachers were doing a public service. They had college and advanced degrees. But now their pay has become closer to the poverty line than to the middle class. How valuable can they be?
As the 1 percent continue to amass wealth, we are getting to the point where they are literally sucking the life out of the 99 percent.
That is how America kills Americans.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Larry Beinhart
Larry Beinhart is a novelist, best known for Wag the Dog.
@ LarryBeinhart
America Is Not Going To Be A Free And Open Society Any Longer
Posted in: Civilization, Criminology, Freedom, Gun control, Mass shootings, USA, Violence.	Leave a comment
"As gunfire ripped through America in an unprecedented 24 hours, a bleak milestone in a nation pocked by gun violence was marked: There have been 251 mass shootings in 2019, according to the Gun Violence Archive."
"According to WorldAtlas, the murder capital of the globe is Honduras — where there are 90.4 homicides per 100,000 people.
Baltimore, with 56 homicides per 100,000 people, edges out the number two spot ahead of Venezuela, where there are 53.7 homicides per 100,000 people."
theeconomiccollapseblog.com
Whenever a tragic act of violence makes national headlines, the calls to give up more of our freedoms and liberties in exchange for the promise of increased security become deafening. But if we take another step toward becoming an authoritarian society every time something horrible happens, eventually we won't have any of the basic liberties and freedoms that previous generations of Americans fought so hard to secure for us. Unfortunately, voices like mine are becoming increasingly rare, and the American people seem to want a society that will shelter them from anything that could possibly go wrong. Of course, there has never been such a society in all of human history, and we won't be able to create one either. No governmental system can eliminate the problem of evil, and bad things sometimes happen to good people. And without a doubt, the mass shootings that we witnessed over the weekend were absolutely horrific. In less than 24 hours, 29 American lives were lost between these two mass shootings, and this has greatly shaken the entire nation…
On Sunday, Americans woke up to news of a shooting rampage in an entertainment district in Dayton, Ohio, where a man wearing body armor shot and killed nine people, including his own sister. Hours earlier, a 21-year-old with a rifle entered a Walmart in El Paso and killed 20 people.
In a country that has become nearly numb to men with guns opening fire in schools, at concerts and in churches, the back-to-back bursts of gun violence in less than 24 hours were enough to leave the public stunned and shaken.
Sadly, these are not isolated incidents. As our society has become less moral, we have seen an escalation of violence all over the country.
According to USA Today, so far in 2019 there have been more mass shootings than days in the year…
A shooting spree early Sunday at an entertainment district in Dayton, Ohio – which left at least nine dead and more than two dozen injured – notched an even darker statistic: It occurred on the 216th day of the year, meaning there have been more mass shootings than days so far this year.
As I have been warning for years, the thin veneer of civilization that we all take for granted is steadily disappearing.
At one time, you could walk down the streets in most communities in America without worrying that someone would suddenly gun you down, but that is no longer a safe assumption.
And in some areas, things are getting really, really bad. Just check out what happened in Chicago over the weekend…
In Chicago at least three people have been killed and 37 more injured since Friday evening in shootings within city limits, including 22 people shot Sunday in less than four hours, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.
In particular, a mass shooting that took place near a children's playground was particularly tragic…
As The Epoch Times' Jack Phillips reports, at least seven people were shot and wounded on Aug. 4 as they gathered near a children's playground on Chicago's West Side. The people gathered at 1:20 a.m. as they stood in the park on the 2900 West Roosevelt Road when a person opened fire from a black Chevy Camaro, said Chicago Police.
So why didn't this mass shooting get the same kind of coverage that the other mass shootings received?
Could it be that it is because it didn't neatly fit the agenda that the mainstream media is trying to promote?
The city of Baltimore is another major American city where violence is completely and utterly out of control. In fact, there is only one nation on the entire planet that has a higher homicide rate than Baltimore…
Only one country in the world has a higher per capita homicide rate than the city of Baltimore.
As the violence across our country continues to escalate, the calls to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights are going to become overwhelming.
But taking away our 2nd Amendment rights is not going to solve the problem. Instead, it will just take the guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.
The truth is that the El Paso shooter picked a gun-free zone for a reason. When they know that their targets will be sitting ducks, that just makes things even easier for the mass shooters.
And the bad guys will always find ways to get guns. Just look at the city of Chicago – they have some of the harshest gun laws in the entire nation, but they also lead the country in gun deaths.
Unfortunately, logic doesn't tend to work with those that love authoritarianism. Whenever something happens, they want the government to do "something", and that "something" almost always involves eroding our most basic rights.
I wish that it wasn't true, but this is where our country is heading. Americans have been trained to believe that the government should take care of them from the cradle to the grave and should do all that it can to shield them from everything bad that can possibly happen in life.
Sadly, every time such a totalitarian "utopia" has been attempted throughout human history, it has always ended very badly, and that will be the case here as well.
About the author: Michael Snyderis a nationally-syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is the author of four books including Get Prepared Now, The Beginning Of The Endand Living A Life That Really Matters. His articles are originally published on The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News. From there, his articles are republished on dozens of other prominent websites. If you would like to republish his articles, please feel free to do so. The more people that see this information the better, and we need to wake more people up while there is still time.
The numbers do not lie, police in America have killed 12.8 times more citizens than mass shooters in just the last 4 years.
Posted in: Crime, Criminology, Gun control, Police.	Leave a comment
US Police Have Killed Over 1,200% More Citizens Than Mass Shooters Since 2015
thefreethoughtproject.com
Matt Agorist
Tragically, in America, mass shootings — in which murdering psychopaths go on rampages in public spaces — have claimed the lives of 339 people since 2015. While this number is certainly shocking and far too high, during this same time frame, police in America have claimed the lives of 4,355 citizens.
While some of these citizens were armed and dangerous, others were innocent, unarmed, and include small children. Daniel Shaver was one of these people whose life was brought to a screeching halt as he begged on his knees for police not to shoot him. Despite being innocent and unarmed, this father of three was murdered in cold blood by Philip Brailsford who was never held accountable and allowed to retire from the police force with his pension.
Jeremy Mardis was another one of these citizens who was gunned down in cold blood by two killer cops. Mardis was just 6-years-old when he was murdered by these killer cops — one of whom was released last month after serving less than two years for his role in this innocent child's death.
The list goes on. Yet despite its increasing length, most American citizens think that reining in America's deadly police problem is somehow "unpatriotic" or "un-American." Instead of the right realizing the threat to freedom caused by cops who can kill thousands with impunity, they blame the left. Instead of the left realizing the threat to freedom caused by cops who kill with impunity, most of them blame guns.
The result of this complacency and failure to address the problem has been less freedom and more gun grabs.
Sadly, most people who call for gun control fail to realize what that actually means—only the government has the guns. And, if the above numbers are any indicator of what that would mean, this would be a horrific scenario.
Every time a lunatic, who is usually on some form mind-altering pharmaceutical, goes on a shooting rampage, the do-gooders in Washington, with the aid of their citizen flocks, take to the TV and the internet to call for disarming the American people.
The citizens who call for themselves and their neighbors to be disarmed, likely think no deeper than the shallow speeches given by the political blowhards, designed to appeal to emotion only. They do not think of what happens during and after the government attempts to remove guns from society. They also completely ignore the fact that criminals do not obey laws and making guns illegal would have zero effect on criminals possessing guns.
In the perfect statist world in which only the government has guns, we're told that crime rates would plummet, people wouldn't be murdered, gun violence would be brought to its knees, and a disarmed heaven on Earth would ensue. But how effective would disarming the citizens actually be at preventing gun violence, while at the same time keeping guns in the hands of government?
One simple way to determine the outcome to look at the above numbers and compare mass shootings in America with those killed by police. It is entirely too easy to compare all senseless murders carried out by the state to those carried out by citizens, so we will zoom in with a microscope.
However, just as a point of reference, in the 20th Century alone, governments were responsible for 260,000,000 deaths worldwide. That number is greater than all deaths from illicit drug use, STD's, Homicides, and Traffic Accidents — combined.
Now, on to the micro-comparison.
According to a comprehensive database of all American mass shootings that have taken place since 2015, constructed by Mother Jones, there have been exactly 339 deaths attributed to mass shootings that have taken place on American soil.
As Mother Jones notes, in their database, they exclude shootings stemming from more conventional crimes such as armed robbery or gang violence. Other news outlets and researchers have published larger tallies that include a wide range of gun crimes in which four or more people have been either wounded or killed. While those larger datasets of multiple-victim shootings may be useful for studying the broader problem of gun violence, our investigation provides an in-depth look at the distinct phenomenon of mass shootings—from the firearms used to mental health factors and the growing copycat problem.
If we compare the 339 citizens killed in mass shootings to citizens killed by police in the same time frame, the comparison is off the charts. We are talking about a 1,280 percent difference.
Already, in 2019, American police have killed 488 people. This number is set to increase by one, on average, every 8 hours.
Since 2015, cops in America have killed 4,355 citizens. And most people are not saying anything about it.
As Truth Out recently reported:
The institutional racism rooted in American policing prevents the public from categorizing police shootings as gun violence, Natacia Knapper with Stop Police Terror Project DC explained to Truthout via email. "A large swath of people in our nation — white people in particular, but many others as well — don't want to reckon with the horrors police have caused in communities of color because to do this would call into question the entire way we have viewed these systems and their roles in our society." News media consumption, television shows and movies constantly reinforce the belief that policing is an irreplaceable institution keeping society safe and stable. Unlearning this "truth" is akin to unlearning that the Earth is round. Knapper continued, "For many Americans, I think it's easier to compartmentalize the type of gun violence that comes from the police as "other" and incidents that result in the brutalizing and death of American citizens — Black, Brown or otherwise — are treated as individual instances that are not connected to a larger, overarching problem." Police and the media exploit this divide when they describe the police violence victims' unrelated criminal history or the victims' possession of a gun or pocket knife, regardless of whether it was a factor during the killing. The underlying message is that the deceased deserved to die in order to keep everyone else safe.
As the blowhards spew their nonsense about grabbing guns from law-abiding citizens and those in government demand action, all of these people conveniently ignore the giant pink elephant in the living room — cops in America are killing citizens at an alarming rate.
Ironically enough, those calling for taking guns from citizens are oftentimes the ones most critical of police killings. How, exactly, they rationalize disarming the citizens and having only police, who kill far more people than mass shooters, be the sole possessors of guns, is a mystery.
Indeed, Radley Balko sums up the mental gymnastics of both parties perfectly in regard to the distorted realities held as "truth."
✔@radleybalko
Red: "We need guns to protect us from the government. Also, it is unpatriotic to second-guess when armed government employees kill people."
Blue: "The government has a history of racism and oppression. Guns are instruments of death. Only government employees should have guns."
10:56 AM – Nov 9, 2017
1,793 people are talking about this
In the United States, the overall homicide rate is 4.9 per 100,000 among the citizens.
Thanks to independent watchdog groups who have decided to document this number on their own, we have a total number of citizens killed by police. Given that America has roughly 765,000 sworn police officers, that means the police-against-citizen kill rate is more than 145 per 100,000.
The police kill rate is nearly 30 times that of the average citizen, yet somehow people still call for disarming citizens and say nothing about the police. And no, the citizens are not becoming more violent. In fact, humanity is at its safest time in history—ever—and, in spite of the lunatic terrorists shooting up public places, violent crimes as well as all crime continues to drop, significantly.
The next time your friends try to tell you that citizens should be disarmed, tell them what that really means; they only want government, who has a history of racism and violence, who kill indiscriminately, with zero accountability, and far more often, to be the ones with guns.
Americans Pay Price for Criminal Wars from Mass Shootings at Home
Posted by Lou on June 11, 2019
Posted in: Crime, Criminology, Gun control, Mainstream media, Mass shootings, USA, War.	Leave a comment
"Investigative journalist David Swanson has recently found that some 35 percent of mass shootings in the US have involved an ex-serviceman. Swanson studied a database sample of 97 recent deadly incidents, and found that, from publicly available information, more than a third of the perpetrators were listed at some time in the past as having served in the military."
"Indeed, it can be deduced, the dutiful, apathetic US corporate-controlled media are part of the mass-killing machine that is American imperial power."
http://www.strategic-culture.org
America's horrendous gun violence can be attributed to many factors, but there is one factor that is hardly talked about or explored in public discourse – the apparent link between mass shootings and the rampant culture of US militarism.
Mass shootings in the US – involving four or more persons – occur on an almost daily basis. The most recent major atrocity was in Virginia Beach last month in which 12 people were killed. The shooter was reportedly a military veteran.
Turns out that US military veterans are disproportionately responsible for violent gun deaths among American civilians. Investigative journalist David Swanson has recently found that some 35 percent of mass shootings in the US have involved an ex-serviceman. Swanson studied a database sample of 97 recent deadly incidents, and found that, from publicly available information, more than a third of the perpetrators were listed at some time in the past as having served in the military. The journalist cautions that the actual proportion could be much higher due to lack of publicly available information on the other shooters.
Swanson emphasizes an obvious point that the vast majority of US military veterans are not mass shooters. Nevertheless, the factor of having served in the armed forces and the frequency of mass shootings does appear to be a highly significant correlation. What's more, he says that it is strangely conspicuous how US corporate news media have not delved into what seems to be an urgent issue concerning gun violence in American society.
The reluctance by news media and politicians to acknowledge such a factor is no doubt because it would open up a Pandora's Box of self-indictment. It raises painful questions about a host of issues that Americans take for granted as normal: the militarization of US culture and society, where young children are compelled to salute the stars and stripes and sing paeans to American "greatness"; the obscene expenditure of over $700 billion a year on military instead of on public services and social development; the near-permanent deployment of US military forces all around the world in countless illegal wars; the blasé indifference to war crimes committed by US servicemen, whereby even President Donald Trump wants to grant amnesty to killers in uniforms.
On the latter issue, it should be deplored, but isn't, how a congressman and former veteran recently went on a mainstream news channel and appeared to brush off mass killings and other war crimes committed by US forces as being a routine occurrence, and therefore in his view no big deal. His chillingly nonchalant views were aired with barely a murmur of public reaction, never mind condemnation.
America's criminal overseas military rampaging over several decades is bound to take a grim toll on society at home. Veterans return home traumatized in body and mind from the horror of mass violence they have participated in or witnessed. The American public pays the price from ballooning budgets for veterans' medical care. They also pay a price from broken families and myriad pathological problems, ranging from drug abuse to suicides. It is reckoned that more US veterans have lost their lives by suicide than were killed in action during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. American ex-military personnel turning guns on themselves. Why is that?
Put starkly, it cannot be expected that US military forces inflict millions of casualties in foreign countries and for that slaughter not to be manifest at home in some pathological way or another.
Millions of young Americans, mostly from poor, deprived backgrounds, are trained to use lethal weaponry funded by billions of dollars at public expense. After they are sent to shoot up foreign countries while loaded up on paranoid propaganda that often dehumanizes, these professional killers are then unceremoniously dumped back in their home country, often without jobs or a future, and often with haunting memories of crimes conducted in the service of "American greatness" – whose "greatness" does not extend to treating them as human beings.
This brutalizing subject needs a lot more research. What is the definitive number of US military veterans involved in American society mass shootings? Swanson, the journalist, seems to have tapped a very significant causal factor. But a bigger database of mass shooting incidents should be studied and the military history of all the shooters disclosed. As Swanson surmises, the proportion of ex-servicemen involved in mass killings is likely to be a lot more than 35 percent.
It should also be studied how many of the veterans involved in mass shootings were deployed overseas.
Another interesting aspect is to track the incidents of gun violence in the US as a function of time, decade by decade, over the past century. We might expect that as the number of illegal American wars have multiplied in the past two decades, so too have the number of violent gun deaths at home.
Last week, US President Trump and other Western leaders paid tribute to the sacrifices of American veterans during the Second World War. That war is commonly thought of as a "good war", meaning that the soldiers went into battle motivated by a noble conviction to defeat Nazi tyranny.
In the seven decades after WWII, American forces have been deployed in dozens of wars overseas, from Korea (1950-53) to presently in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria among several other countries. Arguably, not one of those American wars since WWII was, or is, justified by any genuine noble cause, despite official Washington and US media propaganda claims. They were all waged by American rulers with imperialistic calculations for strategic objectives benefiting elite interests. In short, criminal wars systematically perpetrated and repeated non-stop with impunity, without ever there being a critical accounting or prosecution.
However, inevitably if there is such a thing as natural justice, the crimes that American rulers commit through illegal wars are eventually repatriated back to American society. The foreign bodies mutilated in foreign lands by US military eventually appear in the form of blood-splattered American civilians.
That's an excruciating heavy price which American citizens are not even permitted to learn or talk about by their corporate media. The acceptability of horrific violence abroad is supposed to be acceptable at home, according to the comfortably numb US mass media.
Indeed, it can be deduced, the dutiful, apathetic US corporate-controlled media are part of the mass-killing machine that is American imperial power. Cue "Russia-gate", celebrity gossip, political trivia, sports and weather news. Anything but the appalling, bloody reality of American state terrorism.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.
Prescription For Violence: The Corresponding Rise of Antidepressants, SSRIs and Mass Shootings
Posted by Lou on May 19, 2019
Posted in: Antidepressant drugs, Big pharma, Crime, Criminology, Depression, Gun control, Mass shootings, Mental health, Neurotransmitters, Pharmaceuticals, Violence.	Leave a comment
"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Surveillance for Violent Deaths, in 2013, 35.3 percent of those who committed suicide tested positive for antidepressants at the time of their death."
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a mass murder occurs when at least four people are murdered, not including the shooter, over a relatively short period of time during a single incident. Over the last 30 years, the United States has seen a significant increase in mass shootings, which are becoming more frequent and more deadly.
Seemingly every time a mass shooting occurs, whether it's at a synagogue in Pittsburgh or a nightclub in Orlando, the anti-gun media and politicians have a knee-jerk response – they blame the tragedy solely on the tool used, namely firearms, and focus all of their proposed "solutions" on more laws, ignoring that the murderer already broke numerous laws when they committed their atrocity.
Facts matter when addressing such an emotionally charged topic, and more gun control legislation has shown that law-abiding Americans who own guns are not the problem. Consider the following: The more gun control laws that are passed, the more mass murders have occurred.
Whether or not this is correlation or causation is debatable. What is not debatable is that this sick phenomenon of mass murderers targeting "gun-free zones," where they know civilian carry isn't available to law-abiding Americans, is happening. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, 97.8 percent of public shootings occur in "gun-free zones" – and "gun-free zones" are the epitome of the core philosophical tenant of gun control, that laws are all the defense one needs against violence.
Therefore, when the media and politicians focus their ire on guns, specifically what types of guns are used, such as AR-styles, carbines, semi-automatics, and "high capacity" handguns, in the wake of such tragedies the American public are being intentionally drawn into an emotionally charged debate about legal gun ownership (irrespective of whether the murderer's gun was legally or illegally obtained). This debate leads them away from the elephant in the room and one of the real issues behind mass shootings – mental health and prescription drugs.
Ignoring what's going on in the heads of these psychopaths not only allows mass shootings to continue, it leads to misguided gun control laws that violate the Second Amendment and negate the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens. As Jeff Snyder put it in The Washington Times:
"But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow."
Violence, especially random violence, is a complex manifestation of various thoughts, feelings, and external factors. When a multivariate analysis of these factors is conducted, it becomes apparent that it's not just mental health issues that are leading to such an increase. There may be an underlying substance which plays a role in a high percentage of these violent acts – the use of prescription antidepressants, specifically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs.
At first glance, it makes sense that those involved in mass shootings may be taking antidepressants, as they're clearly suffering from some sort of mental health issue. But the issue with SSRIs runs much deeper than just a random mental health break. These drugs are a prescription for violent crimes, and that's a story the anti-gun media and politicians don't want to talk about.
History of Antidepressant Use in the U.S.
Understanding Depression
The Rise of Antidepressants
SSRIs 101: What You Should Know
How do SSRIs work?
Too Much of a Good Thing: Serotonin Syndrome
The Connection Between SSRIs and Violence
SSRIs Can Increase the Risk of Suicide
SSRIs Can Increase the Risk of Violence Against Others
Connection Between SSRI and Murder
The Push for Stronger Mental Health Legislation
Gun Control, Mental Health, and SSRIs: What's the Solution?
The FDA-Big Pharma Connection
Political Influence of Big Pharma
The FDA Approval Process
To understand the rise in antidepressant use, one must first understand depression. Everyone, no matter how great their life, has periods of sadness, times when they feel down or low. This is especially true when faced with hardships or going through things like a divorce, the loss of a job, or the death of a parent.
This is not clinical depression. Clinical depression is a serious mental disorder that impacts how a person functions on a daily basis. Depression makes it hard to get out of bed. It makes it hard to go to work. It makes it hard to take a shower or answer the phone. It stops a person from functioning on the basic levels.
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, commonly referred to as the DSM-5, to be considered clinically depressed, a patient must experience five of the following symptoms most of the day, every day, for at least two weeks. What's more, these symptoms must be so severe, they interfere with normal functioning:
Feeling worthless
Feeling helpless
Irritable
Lack of energy
Loss of interest in hobbies
Slow talking and moving
Trouble concentrating
Abnormal sleep patterns, whether sleeping too much or not enough
Abnormal weight changes, either eating too much or having no appetite
Thoughts of death or suicide
Depression is a serious, and sometimes life-threatening, illness. But in the modern world, it's highly over-diagnosed. A study published in Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics looked at 5,639 patients in the U.S. who were diagnosed with depression by their clinician and compared their symptoms to the DSM criteria for clinical depression. Of these patients, only 38.4 percent met the criteria, even though the majority of the 5,639 patients were prescribed depression medication.
Today, with the way antidepressants are prescribed, nearly one in four Americans will meet the criteria to be diagnosed with depression within their lifetime, and will be prescribed medications that interfere with how their brain functions.
In the 1950s, the first generation of antidepressants hit the market. The introductory class of antidepressants to gain Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval were monoamine oxidase inhibitors, known as MAOIs. Although highly effective, MAOIs can cause extremely high blood pressure when paired with certain foods or medications, and therefore require diet restrictions. Because of these restrictions, they're rarely used today to treat depression except in cases where other treatments fail.
By the late 1950s, a new class of antidepressants became available – tricyclic antidepressants. Tricyclic antidepressants are also highly effective for treating depression, but are prone to side effects. Even so, this class of antidepressants remained the go-to depression treatment for years. Other drugs were tested for depression treatment, but they hadn't proved more effective than tricyclic and MAOI antidepressants, especially for severe depression.
Fast forward to the 1980s. America's tranquilizer dependence was becoming problematic. Quaaludes were heavily over-prescribed for anxiety, resulting in overdose deaths, as well as an increase in deaths from vehicle accidents. The Feds stepped in and in 1984, classified Quaaludes as a Schedule 1 drug, making them illegal to sell, buy, and use.
Valium, a benzodiazepine prescribed for anxiety, was also extremely popular, and was the most prescribed medication in the U.S. from 1969 through 1982. In 1978, the year the medication peaked, more than 2.3 billion pills were sold in the U.S. But Valium was highly addictive and it was believed that a serotonergic medication was a better option to fill the void that was left when Quaaludes were outlawed.
In 1987, Prozac, the first SSRI, was released for depression. Along with it came the idea that depression could be the underlying cause of anxiety. The idea took off, as did the sales of Prozac, and within a few years, it overtook the antidepressant market. Soon, other SSRIs followed.
Along with these SSRIs came direct-to-consumer advertising, which became legal in 1985. By the mid-1990s, the FDA regulations became looser and direct-to-consumer ads exploded into the market. Prozac and other medications showed Americans through glossy advertisements that unhappiness, stress, and anxiety could be treated with a pill.
Instead of doctors recommending a specific medication, patients started coming in, requesting a medication they saw in a magazine or on television.
SSRI sales skyrocketed.
By 2010, 11 percent of Americans over the age of 12 were prescribed an antidepressant, making it the third most prescribed medication, topped only by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) like ibuprofen and naproxen. When looked at over time, there has been a 400-percent increase in antidepressant use from 1988 through 2008.
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, a class of drugs commonly referred to as SSRIs, are the most prescribed antidepressant in the United States. These second-generation antidepressants are marketed to doctors and patients as safe and effective, with relatively minimal side effects. SSRIs are designated to treat mild to moderate depression, as well as anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, and bulimia nervosa.
SSRIs work to increase the amount of serotonin in the brain. A neurotransmitter that helps neurons communicate, serotonin is associated with many different body functions, but is best known for its influence on mood. Sometimes called "the happy chemical," serotonin plays a role in a person's happiness and general feelings of wellbeing.
Low levels of serotonin are linked to depression, although the relationship is not clear. Research has not determined if the low neurotransmitter level causes depression or if depression causes the level of serotonin to drop. It should also be noted that a large amount of serotonin, up to 90 percent, is produced in the gut and may be influenced by what a person eats and drinks.
SSRI medication does exactly what its name says. When two neurons communicate, one releases neurotransmitters, which causes the other neuron to react in a certain way. Because this is constantly going on, these chemicals are always present in the brain. To keep the brain's chemical balance correct, neurons regulate the amount of neurotransmitters released by a process called reuptake, which involves the reabsorption of the chemical by a neuron.
For instance, if there's a high level of serotonin, the neuron knows to release less through reuptake, keeping the level balanced. If levels of the neurotransmitter are low, reuptake tells the neurons to release more.
SSRIs inhibit the reuptake of serotonin, causing neurons to release more of the neurotransmitter, therefore increasing the amount of the chemical found in the brain.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a variety of SSRIs, including:
Paroxetine (Paxil and Pexeva)
Vilazodone (Viibryd)
When it comes to effectiveness, SSRIs don't appear to have an influence on those with moderate to severe depression, with virtually no improvement seen when comparing SSRI use to placebos. Instead of a popular drug with a high efficiency, modern SSRIs have become popular based on an effective marketing campaign and little more.
Sometimes serotonin levels become too high, causing Serotonin Syndrome. A potentially life-threatening disease, it occurs when serotonin levels in the brain increase to a toxic level, often caused by too much medication or taking two serotonin-increasing medications that use different mechanisms to increase the neurotransmitter.
Along with physical symptoms of excessive nerve activity, such as dilated pupils, elevated heart rate, and high blood pressure, those with the syndrome may also experience:
Regardless if depression is overdiagnosed and America has a habit of over-prescribing mind-altering medications, there's little doubt that SSRIs have a risk of increasing violence in patients, even in patients who have no previous history of violence or aggression before taking the medication.
This risk of violent behavior, both to the individual taking the medication and those around them, is so significant, it has led to the FDA mandating a black box warning on all SSRI medications. These black box warnings are designed to provide information and draw attention to the fact that the medication has serious and life-threatening risks.
As of 2004, all antidepressants in the U.S. are labeled:
"Anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia, hypomania, and mania have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric."
In one study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, patients suffering from depression, but free of serious suicidal ideation, were given fluoxetine. Within two to seven weeks of starting the medication, six patients developed an intense, preoccupation with violent suicide. Although all were immediately taken off the medication, this preoccupation persisted from three days to three months, depending on the case. In all six cases, the patient had never experienced such a severe level of depression or troubled state of mind before or with other psychotropic prescriptions.
The risk of SSRIs and suicide is most prevalent in patients under the age of 25. It's also more likely to occur shortly after starting the medication, after a dosage increase, or after a patient stops taking the medication.
Some of the side effects caused by SSRIs can increase the risk of violence against others. Perhaps the most risky, emotional blunting (or detachment) has been linked to SSRI use and many people who've taken the drugs report "not feeling" or "not caring" about anything. There's also been an established causal relationship between SSRI use and psychosis and hallucinations, both of which are known to increase the risk of violence in individuals.
According to a review of the FDA's database, 484 drugs were identified as triggers to serious adverse events significant enough to warrant a case study during the five-year period from 2004 through 2009. Of these 484 medications, 31 were identified to have a "disproportionate" association with violence. These 31 drugs make up 78.8 percent of all cases of violence toward others in the FDA's database and included multiple psychotropic medications:
11 antidepressants
6 hypnotic/sedatives
3 ADHD medications
1 smoking cessation drug
Researchers concluded that violence against others was a "genuine and serious adverse drug event" and that of the 484 medications, the drugs that were most consistently and strongly associated with violence were the smoking cessation medication, varenicline (Chantix), and SSRIs.
The list includes five SSRI antidepressants:
Fluoxetine: Prozac increased aggressive behavior 10.9 times
Paroxetine: Paxil increased violent behavior 10.3 times
Fluvoxamine: Luvox increased violent behavior 8.4 times
Venlafaxine: Effexor increased violent behavior 8.3 times
Desvenlafaxine: Pristiq increased violent behavior 7.9 times
While a surprise to the American public, this shouldn't have been a surprise to the drug companies. During the clinical trials for paroxetine, hostility, which was the term to include homicidal idealization and aggression, presented in 60 of the 9,219 participants (.65 percent). Hostile acts were documented both while taking the medication and after tapering off. Children with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) taking the medication were the most at risk for becoming hostile, with a 17-times higher probability than the rest of those in the clinical study.
In a Swedish study published in PLoS, researchers looked at information on over 850,000 patients prescribed SSRIs in the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register, which is a national database of all dispensed medications. They then compared the violent crimes committed during a three-year period and compared it to violent crimes committed by the same individuals when not taking the medications. When age was taken into effect, a significant association was apparent between violent crime convictions and SSRI use in patients between the ages of 15 and 24.
In one 2001 case, Cory Baadsgaard, a 16-year-old who attended Wahluke High School in Washington, was first prescribed Paxil, which caused hallucinations, and then was switched to Effexor. He started at a 40 mg dosage that, over the course of three weeks, increased to 300 mg. On the first day of that high dose, he woke with a headache and returned to bed. He then got up, took a rifle to his high school, and held 23 classmates hostage.
Baadsgaard's testimony claims he has no recollection of the event, or of his principal convincing him to put the gun down and release the hostages.
In 2002, the BBC aired the documentary Panorama, which focused on paroxetine. The producers received 1,374 emails from viewers, the majority of whom told stories of violence or self-harm while taking the medication, particularly when starting and when increasing the dosage.
What's more, in 2009, after investigating the connection between SSRIs and violence, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare revised the label warnings on these drugs to read: "There are cases where we cannot rule out a causal relationship [of hostility, anxiety, and sudden acts of violence] with the medication."
In most cases, the vast majority of people who suffer from mental illness are nonviolent. Even those who self-harm are highly unlikely to hurt others. In fact, these individuals are more likely to become victims of violent crimes than the general public.
Yet after each mass shooting tragedy, the media fills with psychiatrists who say that the individual didn't seek the help they needed and that with the proper treatment, the tragedy may have been prevented. But research doesn't support that philosophy.
In fact, depression in particular doesn't lead to violence, yet since the increase in SSRI antidepressants being widely prescribed, the rise in mass shootings has increased right along with it. And evidence shows that many mass shooters were either taking or had recently taken SSRIs.
Here are just some examples:
1989: Joseph T. Wesbecker walked into his former employer Standard Gravure Corp and shot 20 workers, killing nine. He had been taking Prozac for a month. This shooting led to a landmark case, where the survivors sued the makers of Prozac, Eli Lilly. Wesbecker used a semiautomatic Chinese AK-47-style firearm, a 9mm pistol, and a .38 Special snubnose revolver – all of which he purchased legally, passing his background check.
1995: Jarred Viktor was 15 when he was prescribed Paxil. Ten days after starting it, Viktor stabbed his grandmother 61 times.
1996: At 18, Kurt Danysh murdered his father just 17 days after being prescribed Prozac by his family doctor, who failed to do even one psychological test. During his police confession, Danysh told police the medication made him feel odd, "I just act differently. I don't have the energy or personality I used to. I spend half the time in a trance."
1997: Luke Woodham stabbed his mother, then traveled to Pearl High School, where he was enrolled, using a .30-30 to shoot two students and wound six others; he was stopped by his assistant principal (aka a good guy with a gun) who used his own .45 ACPhandgun to force Woodham's surrender.
1998: 15-year-old Kip Kinkel shot both of his parents, then carried a 9mm handgun, .22 rifle, and a .22 pistol to his Thurston High School, where he murdered two classmates and injured 22 more, all while taking Prozac.
1999: Eric Harris, 17, with Dylan Klebold, killed 12 students, one teacher, himself, and wounded 23 others during the Columbine school shooting; he had been prescribed Zoloft and then Luvox before he used a 12 gauge shotgun received through a straw purchaser and a 9mm TEC-DC9.
2001: Christopher Pittman, a 12-year-old, was prescribed Zoloft, which caused him to become agitated, jittery, and experience tactile hallucinations; Pittman told psychiatrist Dr. Lanette Atkins that he heard voices telling him, "Kill, kill, do it, do it." He took a .410 shotgun and shot his grandparents, then burned their house down.
2001: Andrea Yates drowned all five of her children. She was taking Effexor and was suffering from delusions about satanic possession. The murder of her children led Effexor to list homicidal thoughts in the medication's side effects. Although it's a rare side effect, manifesting in one in 1,000 patients, over 19 million prescriptions were written and filled in 2005. That's an estimated 19,000 people suffering from homicidal thoughts because of the medication.
2005: 16-year-old Jeff Weise was taking 60 mg/day of Prozac, the highest dosage for adults, when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather's girlfriend, murdered 10 students at Red Lake, Minnesota, and wounded 12 more, before shooting himself. He was armed with a .40 caliber pistol, .22 pistol, and a 12 gauge shotgun.
2008: Steven Kazmierczak was prescribed Prozac, Xanax, and Ambien, a sleeping medication, three weeks before walking into Northern Illinois University, killing six people and wounding 21, with three pistols (one chambered in 9mm and two in .380 ACP) and a shotgun. Kazmierczak had stopped taking the antidepressant "because it made him feel like a zombie."
2009: Two weeks after starting Lexapro, Robert Stewart walked into his estranged wife's work at Pinelake Health and Rehab, and opened fire. He killed eight elderly patients and wounded three others. He doesn't remember the incident.
2012: James Holmes, also known as the Batman Movie killer, was taking sertraline when he walked into the showing of The Dark Knight with two .40 caliber pistols, an AR-style .223 rifle, and a 12 gauge shotgun, killing 12 people and injuring 70 others. In his personal notebook, which he sent to his psychiatrist the same day as the shooting, shows that as the medication decreased his anxiety, he lost his fear of consequences. As the dosage became higher, his thoughts became more obsessive and psychotic.
2013: At the time of the Washington Navy Yard shooting, Aaron Alexis was a civilian contractor working at the yard and was prescribed trazodone, a serotonin antagonist and reuptake inhibitor (SARI) that works much like an SSRI to increase serotonin levels in the brain. He killed 12 people and injured eight others.
2014: Ivan Lopez was a 34-year-old U.S. soldier who shot 15 of his comrades, killing three of them, at his base in Fort Hood, Texas. He was undergoing mental health treatment through the Veterans' Administration, which is known for over-prescribing medication. The VA confirmed that Lopez was taking antidepressants (the VA only uses SSRI antidepressants) during the time of the shooting and his subsequent suicide.
2015: From the moment it occurred, the Charleston Church shooting has been deemed an act of white supremacy, a race crime against blacks. But two years after Dylann Roof shot and killed nine people and injured another, the court released documents that show it was more mental health than hatred that led to the murders. The documents confirmed he was taking antidepressants.
2016: Arcan Cetin, who was just 20 years old, walked into the Cascade Mall where he shot and killed four women, one just a teen, and shot one man, who later died at the hospital. Records show that Cetin was under the care of a psychiatrist and taking medication for depression and ADHD, including Prozac.
The list goes on and on. And with the implication of patient privacy laws, getting information on the medication and mental health diagnoses of people has become harder and harder, even with mounting evidence that there's a connection between SSRI use and violence.
In 1996, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act commonly referred to as HIPAA, was set in place. HIPAA represents the U.S.'s first attempt at national regulations for the use and disclosure of a person's personal health information, or PHI. HIPAA makes it more difficult for medical personnel to release information regarding a person's medical care, diagnosis, and prescription drugs, including those involved with mental health related crimes.
For example, in the 2008 Virginia Tech shooting, perpetrator Seung Hui Cho had multiple interactions with the mental health department on campus, some for suicidal ideation, but yet his parents nor authorities were never notified. University officials stated privacy laws restricted them from sharing the information.
Beyond the necessity for communication prior to these horrific shootings, after the incident, the person's records are often protected. Even in situations where the perpetrator dies during the shooting, HIPAA protects their records for 50 years.
Because of this, the American public doesn't know what kind of medications these people were taking and if it may have had an affect on their actions. Just looking at public shootings over the last five years, there's a huge list of murderers who were likely on SSRIs. Here are a few:
Zephen Xaver and the SunTrust Bank shooting
Ian David Long and the Thousand Oaks Nightclub shooting
Travis Reinking and the Waffle House shooting
Nikolas Cruz and the Parkland, Florida school shooting
Devin Patrick Kelley and the Texas church shooting
With the media's coverage of mass shootings, more and more legislation arises limiting the rights of those with mental health issues. While no one wants firearms in the hands of the mentally ill, the lack of clear language surrounding mental illness, and the limitations caused by government red tape, make knee-jerk mental health legislation dangerous and lay a path for more government control.
In general, people with mental illness are rarely violent to other people. Many mental health experts and advocates agree that policies that focus on the violence of mental illness make scapegoats of the individuals, who are likely to never act violently against another person.
What's more, according to the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study (MVRAS), substance abuse was significantly more responsible for violence committed by discharged psychiatric patients than their mental health. Those patients who didn't abuse drugs or alcohol showed no higher risk for violence than the others in their communities without mental health issues.
Laws are being created that don't focus on the research, but on the fear of guns, thinking that stricter gun laws will keep people safer.
Red flag laws are the newest gun legislation making their way through Congress. Considered a "protective order," red flag laws will allow a family member or law officer to petition a temporary seize on someone's firearms if they're deemed a threat. What a "threat" consists of isn't clearly defined.
There's also a push for universal background checks on all gun sales, even those sold between private individuals, and the FixNICScampaign. The philosophy behind FixNICS is that the background check system can only be as strong as the records it contains. And it's currently missing a lot, especially when it comes to mental health issues and domestic violence.
For instance, documentation of an individual diagnosed as "mental defective," having been involuntarily committed to a mental health setting, or having engaged in domestic abuse disqualifies that person from purchasing or owning a firearm. When this information is present in the NICS, it flags the background check and stops the sale of the firearm. But too many of these records are missing.
That was the case with the 2017 Sutherlands Springs church shooting. The gunman Devin Patrick Kelley was prohibited from purchasing firearms due to a 2012 court martial for two counts of domestic abuse. The U.S. Air Force failed to provide this information to the NICS, allowing Kelley to erroneously pass his background check and to purchase an AR-style 5.56 rifle – which he used to kill 26 people and injure 20 more. He was confronted and pursued by a neighbor, another good guy with a gun.
When it comes to mass shootings, there's no easy solution. Violence, especially random violence, is a complex manifestation of various thoughts, feelings, and external factors. While it may be impossible to fully stop mass murders, ignoring the fact that certain medications, including SSRIs, play a role in a high percentage of these violent acts, no justice is being served.
Gun control is obviously not the solution, as the rate of mass shootings has increased over the last 30 years, at a time when multiple gun control laws have been implemented. Taking firearms away from law abiding citizens has not and will not stop the problem.
Instead, doctors need to educate patients and make them aware of the risks, as well as take the time to explain warning signs to loved ones. If patients are taking medication for a mental health disorder, including depression, then they should see a mental health professional and be involved in mental health treatment. After all, medication – even mental health medication – does nothing to fix the problem, it only masks the symptoms.
Patients need to take some responsibility for their lives, improving their health before reaching for a mind-altering pill to make them feel good about themselves. A healthy diet, physical activity, and time spent in nature are ways to boost the mood that can help relieve the symptoms of mild depression.
Lastly, the government and big pharmaceutical companies need to be held accountable for not sharing what they know about the medications they create. A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) looked at drug company sponsored clinical trials on antidepressants.
Of the 74 FDA-registered trials the study looked at, 38 had positive outcomes, 36 had negative outcomes. Thirty-seven of the positive outcome trials were published, but of the 36 negative outcomes trials, 22 were not published and 11 were written in a way that initially presented the data to convey a misleading positive outcome. Only three were published with unbiased and accurate information about the drug.
With this type of misrepresentation of clinical trials on medications, particularly antidepressants, the medical community and the public can't trust medical literature for honest and reliable drug information, nor the government agency that's designed to monitor new pharmaceuticals for safety. When medical professionals can not rely on the FDA to provide unbiased and honest clinical trial information, a true risk-benefit ratio can't be determined and patients suffer the consequences.
The connection between the FDA and big pharma goes beyond clinical studies. Drug companies lure FDA employees to sit on their regulatory boards. They hire their spouses. These pharmaceutical giants utilize the field's leading experts, who happen to be the same experts who are invited by the FDA to sit on screening panels.
Big pharma's influence over the FDA goes even deeper. Drug companies spend billions of dollars on political lobbying and campaign contributions. Direct payments support the FDA budget. And in response, the FDA conceals risks and looks the other way when necessary.
The FDA also gives its own kickback to the drug companies. Only FDA-approved medications can be prescribed for government health insurance programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and through the VA. And to ensure Big Pharma continues to sell its drugs, the federal program only allows treatment claims on FDA-approved drugs.
The FDA approval process is a laborious and expensive endeavor, which typically takes more than a year and can cost up to a million dollars to complete. The process allows drug companies to patent their product. But when it comes to natural supplements, they can't be patented, and therefore don't go through the FDA approval process. Therefore supplements, which are often highly effective with little to no side effects, can not claim to "treat" a condition, even when there's research that supports that claim.
On the surface, this may not seem like too big of a deal, but let's circle back to Prozac, which hit the market in 1988. In the fall of 1989, the FDA recalled the supplement L-tryptophan, an amino acid that's a precursor for serotonin and highly effective in treating depression. The recall occurred after one supplement company had an additive that caused a flu-like reaction. On March 22, 1990, the FDA issued a complete ban of L-tryptophan for public sale. Four days later, on March 26, 1990, Prozac was featured on the cover of Newsweek, along with a lead article about its benefits.
In 2001, the ban on L-tryptophan was lifted and since, research has shown it has huge therapeutic potential in the treatment of pain, insomnia, depression, seasonal affective disorder (SAD), bulimia, premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), attention disorders, sleep disorders, and chronic fatigue.
A quick note about PMDD. Premenstrual dysphoric disorder is a severe form of premenstrual syndrome, otherwise known as PMS. It officially became a medical condition in 2013 with the newest addition of the DSM-V. Yet in July of 2000, the FDA approved a new medication from Eli Lilly, the same pharmaceutical company that created Prozac. The drug was Sarafem and it was marketed to treat PMDD, which technically wasn't even a fully recognized medical condition at the time.
Sarafem is, quite literally, the exact same medication as Prozac, only in a different color capsule. Why would Eli Lilly issue the exact same drug under a different name? It just so happens that the patent for Prozac expired in August of 2001, which allowed generic versions to be made. Eli Lilly changed the medication's name, indicated it for this "new" disease, and the company had a new patent for Sarafem that would last until 2007.
Situations like this demonstrate that the more aspects the government controls, the worse this corruption and mismanagement becomes. Federal agencies in the hands of big pharmaceutical companies, and politicians using gun control to give a false hope to the American people, distracts them from the real cause of the current state of the nation and the frequency of mass shootings.
It's time to personally explore the evidence surrounding the issues and come to your own conclusions.
Ammo.com's Resistance Library: Domestic Analysis
Right to Know: A Historical Guide to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Federal Gun Control in America: A Historic Guide to Major Federal Gun Control Laws and Acts
State Gun Control in America: A Historic Guide to Major State Gun Control Laws and Acts
The TSA and Security Theater: Understanding American Airport Security Following 9/11
The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment: Understanding the Court's Landmark Decisions
Negroes With Guns: The Untold History of Black NRA Gun Clubs and the Civil Rights Movement
American Gun Ownership: The Positive Impacts of Law-Abiding Citizens Owning Firearms
Handgun Wounding Factors: An Effectiveness Guide for Law Enforcement
3D-Printed Firearms and Defense Distributed: A Guide to Understanding "Ghost Guns"
Asymmetrical Warfare and 4GW: How Militia Groups are America's Domestic Viet Cong
Weapons of War On Our Streets: A Guide to the Militarization of America's Police
Policing For Profit: How Civil Asset Forfeiture Has Perverted American Law Enforcement
Locked Up: How the Modern Prison-Industrial Complex Puts So Many Americans in Jail
The 16th Amendment: How the U.S. Federal Income Tax Became D.C.'s Favorite Political Weapon
Commercial Ammo: The Untold History of Springfield Armory and America's Munitions Factories
Gun Background Checks: How the State Came To Decide Who Can and Cannot Buy a Firearm
The American Old West: How Hollywood Made It "Wild" to Make Money & Advance Gun Control
America's Sovereign States: The Obscure History of How 10 Independent States Joined the U.S.
Early American Militias: The Forgotten History of Freedmen Militias from 1776 until the Civil War
American Militias after the Civil War: From Black Codes to the Black Panthers and Beyond
Freedom vs. Liberty: How Subtle Differences Between These Two Big Ideas Changed Our World
Prescription For Violence: The Corresponding Rise of Antidepressants, SSRIs & Mass Shootings
US experienced 307 mass shootings in 311 days: Data
Posted in: Criminology, Gun control, USA.	Leave a comment
There have been 307 mass shootings in the US this year, new data shows.
Source: PressTV-US experienced 307 mass shootings in 311 days: Data
California massacre makes 307 mass shootings since beginning of 2018: Data
http://www.presstv.com
Sun Nov 11, 2018
People stand around candles in the grass next to a US flag during a vigil to pay tribute to the victims of a shooting in Thousand Oaks, California, on November 8, 2018. (Photo by AFP)
The recent killing spree at a restaurant in the US state of California, where a gunman shot dead 12 people and himself, marked the 307th mass shooting in the US since the beginning of 2018, underscoring the country's ongoing gun violence epidemic.
The massacre on Wednesday night at the Borderline Bar and Grill, became the nation's latest mass shooting, according to data from the Gun Violence Archive (GVA), a not-for-profit organization that provides online public access to information about gun-related violence.
In all, 328 people died in those incidents, and 1,251 were injured, according to the data. The numbers include incidents in which four or more people were shot or killed, not including the shooters, according to the archive.
The FBI defines mass murder as four or more killed rather than four or more shot.
The rampage also came during three weeks of hate and terror that have jolted the country, including a massacre at a synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, that left 11 elderly Jewish worshippers dead.
In September, Amnesty International warned that the gun violence situation in the US has grown into a full blown "human rights crisis" and the administration of President Donald Trump was doing little to solve it.
In a scathing report the UK-based group warned that "all aspects of American life have been compromised in some way by the unfettered access to guns, with no attempts at meaningful national regulation."
Loose laws that allow people to own handguns without a license or permit in 30 US states and the lack of preventive measures such as a national registration system for gun owners were among the factors that Amnesty said contributed to the situation.
According to the organization, an average of 106 individuals died a day from firearm-related incidents in 2016, totaling 38,658. Of that figure, nearly 23,000 were suicides and more than 14,400 were homicides, Amnesty said.
The report also said that more than 116,000 people suffered injuries from firearms in 2016.
The issue of gun violence has become all the more polarizing under Trump, a Republican whose presidential campaign was funded partially by the National Rifle Association (NRA).
The president has been reluctant to address the growing issue in his speeches and following several high-profile mass shootings in the country.
However, faced with mounting pressure, the president agreed earlier this year to sign a $1.3 trillion spending bill that included modest improvements to background checks for gun sales and grants to help schools prevent gun violence.
'Gun violence interlinked with global US militarism'
Posted by Lou on November 8, 2018
Posted in: Criminology, Gun control, Imperialism, Military, Podcast, Political science, USA.
Political commentator John Steppling believes gun violence in the US is interlinked with the country's global militarism.
Click here for 1 min podcast


text:
The Eternal Recurrence Of The "Bad Schools" Story
Back in the heyday of children's weekly comics it was said that the publishers recycled the stories every few years, confident that kids who read the first instantiation of a story would have grown up and stopped reading the comics by the time the second came round.
It sometimes seems that grown-up newspapers work on the same principle.
Here is an editorial from last Sunday's New York Post:
Good news: The number of city schools the state deems "persistently dangerous" fell from 39 last year to 27 this year.
Bad news: That's at least 27 schools where kids aren't safe — four of which were on last year's list.
We say "at least" because it's an open secret that school staff play even more games with safety stats than they do with grades, test scores and graduation "requirements."
Then New York City public-school kids are really in trouble. The fudging of public-school achievement results is a major municipal industry. The Post runs stories on it pretty much daily [Random sample: City 'fixes' grades for failing high school students by Susan Edelman; New York Post, June 28, 2015.]
By federal law, parents can transfer children out of any school on the danger list.
Funny: When the government finds a bridge is dangerous, it closes the thing down.
This is how low the nation's expectations for public schools have fallen—and how much failure America tolerates.
It's one thing to throw up your hands at academic failure. It's another to just shrug at danger in the halls.
Stopping kids from assaulting each other, after all, is only a matter of will.
The will to set a zero-tolerance school-discipline code, and enforce it. The will to insist that teachers play their part. The will to expel truly bad kids (which requires the will to admit that some kids are truly bad).
It's not so much a question of will, more a question of having the Justice Department come down on you like a ton of bricks for "discriminatory" disciplining.
The "persistently dangerous" problem hits home especially hard for four dozen Upper West Side families who've been told there's no room for their kids to start Kindergarten at PS 199, the local school.
Instead, as Sunday's Post reported, the city Department of Education told the parents their children would attend PS 191. That school's nearby — but it just made the "dangerous" list, after running up 97 "violent and disruptive" incidents in the last school year.
That includes four sex offenses, 12 assaults that caused physical injury (four with weapons) and 10 "bullying" cases — eight of which involved weapons. At a primary school.
To save you the trouble of looking them up, here are the percentages of Ice People (whites and Asians) and Sun People (blacks and Hispanics) at the two schools, from GreatSchools.net:
P.S.199: Ice 83, Sun 15;
P.S. 191: Ice 14, Sun 85.
In some ways, the "dangerous" label is a blessing, because the DOE must now offer those parents another choice. They were already up in arms because (around) 80 percent of kids at PS 199 pass Common Core exams; at PS 191, it's about 12 percent.
That low level of achievement is what you'd expect at a school where children and teachers spend the schoolday in fear.
Uh, actually that low level of achievement is what you'd expect at a school where … Aaah, never mind.
The real tragedy here is that hundreds of kids will still attend PS 191 next year. Some will be the kind of kids at the heart of the violence—but others will be children who could make something of their lives, if the system gave them a real chance.
If you really want to do something about the "two New Yorks," Mr. Mayor, wouldn't this be a good place to start? [Living with unsafe schools—New York's shame, and the nation's by the Editorial Board, New York Post, August 16, 2015.]
That's the editorial from last Sunday. When I read it, the names of the two public schools quoted rang a distant bell. Didn't I write about those same schools years ago in some context?
I sure did.
Ice People liberals are no more keen for their kids to attend majority-Sun People schools than are their conservative neighbors. There was a very neat illustration of this fact on the Upper West Side on Manhattan in November 2008.
The Upper West Side is a tony area, with condo apartments selling at around a million bucks each. The inhabitants are media, cultural, and academic types—high IQ, well-educated, and prosperous, liberal as all get out, New York Times readers to a man and a woman. Well, New York City's education department wanted to make some adjustments to school district boundaries in Manhattan. You see, a lot of these people bought those million dollar condos so that their kids could attend P.S. 199 on West 70th street. It's a really good elementary school with great test results. If the proposed rezoning were to go through, though, their kids would have had to attend P.S. 191 at West 61st and Amsterdam Avenue. That's a lousy school with dismal test results.
Naturally these liberal, progressive, Obama-voting parents were furious. But what exactly was it about P.S. 191 that made it compare so poorly with P.S. 199 in these parents' eyes? Why did they think it's a bad school? Why didn't they want their kids to go there? What, actually, is the definition of the term "bad school"? What makes a bad school bad? Not to keep you in suspense, gentle reader, but I looked up the student stats for the two schools on the GreatSchools.net website at the time. For P.S. 199, the good school those parents shelled out a million bucks for: Ice People 80 percent, Sun People 19 percent. For the school our progressive post-racial liberal citizens angrily did not want their kids to go to: Ice People 12 percent, Sun People 88 percent. [We Are Doomed (2009), Chapter 6.]
Comparing those 2008 stats with today's, I note that P.S. 199—that's the good school—had gotten somewhat Icier, while P.S. 191—the bad school—has gotten Sunnier. Signs of ongoing racial clustering?
Given that the major urban trend of our time is the ethnic cleansing of Sun People out of metropolitan cores into unlucky suburbs like Ferguson, Missouri, so that mostly-Ice People gentry can reclaim the cities, I would have expected less Sunniness all round.
New York City makes its own rules, though. Possibly there's something going on here I haven't allowed for.