Bragging rights

[kumquatq3]

I bet Afganistan and Iraq were numbers 11 and 12

 

 

On a sad note: Our fellow board member Phosphor was struck by an iceberg early this morning. He then crawled 4 miles in the snow, to come with in sight of the hospital, when a herd of man eating reindeer came apon him. Needless to say, the closed casket funeral will be held Monday and Canada has been moved from 4th on the list to 37th.

[taks]

LMAO wheres USA 8? LOL Don't tell that to a large majority livin here..

well, this list is a lot of things, but it is NOT a "best place to live" index.

 

not sure if anyone noticed, but the "ranking" is based on a rather oblique Human Development Index which is a combination of several factors including GDP, education, life expectancy, etc. ALL of the countries listed in the "high development" group are relatively good places to live considering these factors (the UK was 12th, btw). note, too, that all of the top countries have been increasing their HDI score since the evaluation started. the difference between the US and Sweden is 0.017 (1.7%) with the UK lagging an entire 0.003 behind the US. odd that all the GDP #s are in US$

 

taks

[Phosphor]

He then crawled 4 miles in the snow,

Ahem. That's 4 kilometers thank you very much.

 

Uphill.

[taks]

Not to mention we have more homicide/murder here then any civil country times 10. lol. I dunno maybe 8 is about right.

not true... the total crime list, btw, did not specifically mention homicide/murder but the US was pretty low compared to other countries...

 

apparently albania has a MAJOR bribery problem.

 

taks

[taks]

the #s for iraq and afghanistan are not calculated (the index is not). they do have some stats on them, however, and they aren't good. life expectancy in afghanistan was a crusty 43 and almost 61 for iraq. 70% of afghanis are undernourished (27% of iraqis).

 

taks

[Gromnir]

HAHA! LIVING in ICELAND is preferable to living in the US?!!!

 

what's iceland got that we haven't got?

Nordic babes? Reindeer?

Gromnir lived in Santa Barbara for a number o' years, so we knows what it is like to live someplace with lots o' beautiful women. nevertheless, in spite of fact that we ain't a fan o' blondes, we were very impressed with the women of iceland. was also much impressed with the women o

[taks]

not sure if you looked at the charts, gromnir, but the "index" rating is based on 1) life expectancy, 2) literacy rate + school enrollment, 3) GDP per capita. they come up with an index (probably as a percentage of the highest in each category) for each and then average the three together (unweighted from what i can tell).

 

so the "extremes" really don't play a part in the equation... as well, the term "best place to live" is absolutely incorrect as this is a measure of development only... not quality of life. there are actually 112 pages of related data and near the bottom of the list for all is Sierra Leone.

 

taks

[Gromnir]

sure they do taks. percentages can be very misleading when you is dealing with haves v. have nots. is always gonna be easier to fail than to succeed, and Gromnir would much rather see ceiling raised for 2 or 3 percent than for the basement to be raised for 10 to 15%.... if only 'cause we ain't in the bottom percentages... and regardless of fact that we started off in bottom 2%.

 

sure, the level o' illiteracy is disturbing... but truth is that u.s. also gots an incredibly high rate o' folks with post graduate degrees. does folks with post graduate degrees make the illiterates disappear in the percentages? nope.

 

our only concern is that kids o' the have nots is royally screwed in our system. gotta work twice as hard and is twice as tough. folks that wanna simply do away with welfare rarely take into consideration that the majority of folks benefiting from welfare is children.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Diogo Ribeiro]

HAHA! LIVING in ICELAND is preferable to living in the US?!!!

 

what's iceland got that we haven't got?

Bjork.

[Monte Carlo]

The UN index is based on pretty oblique data from a living point of view.

 

Hey, Iceland is freakin' beautiful! However, I'd rather hammer a nail through my big toe than live there. No offence...it's just too pedestrian for me.

 

Belgium is boring. The government is corrupt. They are obsessed with power through the EU because their own nation is so....insignificant. Again, I'm ahmmering a nail through my other big toe.

 

But of course it's subjective. A Belgian might find Britain crowded and dirty and expensive and abrupt and aggressive.....many of the reasons why I like it. But I'm a Londoner.

 

Conclusion? This survey is worth **** unless you are a UN flunky trying to bribe/ cajole/ blackmail dough from said nations to redistribute to third world warlords to spend on Russian army surplus.

 

FWIW, I've only been to a few places where I seriously thought "I could live here." For a variety of reasons they were Boston and San Francisco, both in the US of course.

 

Cheers

MC

[Archmonarch]

My uncle used to work on the NATO base in Iceland. I went to visit him there a few years ago. It really is beautiful. And they have magnificent ponies.

[Monte Carlo]

There r tons of beautiful women here tho. Not all Americans r fat. lol. Funny to see stereotypes thought about America. In fact IMO there r some of the most beautiful womenin the world here IMO because there is such a diversity in all types of human here on Earth in America. The great mixing pot. Esspecially the Pacific coast.

Intellectually lazy anti-Americanism is painfully fashionable in Europe at the moment, mainly with teenagers with little or no experience of travelling in North America.

 

Ignore them.

 

I rather like Americans. I've been visiting for fifteen years and my experiences have been, generally, very positive. Then again, I am English and most Americans seem well-desposed towards us.

 

My only disappointment is the difficulties overseas travellers now have in visiting the US; the oafish attitude of security people tarnishes the image of the country in my humble. You don't have to be rude to be effective. People I know in the US travel industry are simply horrified by what's going on; money is being lost hand over fist and even I took my holiday this year in Europe for the first time in those fifteen years.

 

Cheers

MC

[Mazzarin]

And intellectually lazy, "we are the best and can do what we like to whom we like" anti-everyone else (excpet Israel of course) is rather common in the US.

 

Id ignore them, but they happen to be the Government.

[Monte Carlo]

The problem is, some people seem to project their distaste for the Bush administration onto Mr & Mrs Joe Average American. Which is, I'm sure you would agree, unfair. It is also intellectually lazy.

[Mazzarin]

Well partly its to do with referring to America of France etc, when you mean a particular regime, though yeah some do have a go at all americans, but given what a large chunck of americans say/think/vote for its not totally absurd.....but again thats largely the fault of a corrupt system/media than americnas being uniquely `nasty`.

[Phosphor]

I've met just as many super-friendly and polite Americans as I have Canadians, and an equal amount of stupid and belligerent Americans as Canadians.

In the people themselves there's not a big difference, despite what either might like to believe.

Usually it's a combination of politics and national image/identity that is the cause of disdain for another country, more than the individual people themselves.

[Volourn]

"Well partly its to do with referring to America of France etc, when you mean a particular regime, though yeah some do have a go at all americans, but given what a large chunck of americans say/think/vote for its not totally absurd.....but again thats largely the fault of a corrupt system/media than americnas being uniquely `nasty`. "

 

Few countries, and few people elsewhere can claim they're any better and have me beleive them. Period.

[Product of the Cosmos]

Not to mention we have more homicide/murder here then any civil country times 10.

[Cantousent]

What is tragic about this particular index is that it doesn't even show half of the story: race. Sure, if you want to muddle through the report, it does take a swipe at it, but the index is ponderously large as is.

 

Americans in the middle classes and upwards are not more prone to violence. In fact, taking the broad statistics and applying them to the whole country doesn't do the trick at all. Murders, rapes, and robbery, the last time I looked (a few years ago) where a plague on minorities. White Americans were far less likely to suffer from crimes such as these. ...But does even that tell the whole story? After all, where do these crimes occur in the United States? What about the economic background of both the victim and the perpetrator? If an affluent, white American is victimized, it's on the news and we get to see the whole sordid affair. However, a few exceptions do not break the rule.

 

Now, for a real test, how do white, middle class Americans stack up against white, middle class Europeans? Where do these people live? What do they do for a living?

 

There is no way that the UN can give a reasonable answer to its own question. The study is weighted by the very choice of criteria, let alone the fact that there are so many variables embedded in the statistics that we might as well toss the statistics through the door before we even see them.

 

I'm not a socialist by any stretch of the imagination. Nor am I prone to bringing up race as an issue. I just can't help but wonder how all of these different variables, only a few of which we've identified in this thread, work into the mix. Hell, race is a major component of the report. I think it's sloppily done, but it's dominant. What about intangibles? What about the very issues Monte brings up in his posts?

 

The index is an interesting idea, but I just don't see it as particularly useful.

 

I'm curious, Gromnir. I believe you're at least part Native American?

 

EDIT: However, I don't begrudge you your bragging rights, mkreku. It's cool that your country made it to the top tier. Hopefully, you're enjoying the benefits that put it in the top row.

[Product of the Cosmos]

I think the problems creation and continuity in the USA is just as much on whites shoulders as blacks. I haven't seen a lot of the numbers but I lived in a rough area for a long time.. And black white brown asian russian whatever. A lot of people commited and were affected by crime in the area. And I have also lived in Suburbia. And the white kids in suburbia take 'wannabe Gangsta' to a whole new level. They r arguably more dangerous than REAL 'gangstas'. You may be correct in general for the USA eldar.. But from my experience its not that way you say.

[deganawida]

I'm curious, Gromnir. I believe you're at least part Native American?

Heh, I didn't know that. What nation?

 

Eldar, speaking of minorities, American Indians have it the worst. The Pine Ridge reservation for the Lakota Sioux in South Dakota had, in '99, a 73% unemployment rate. It includes the two poorest states in the US. In '99, a series of tornados ripped through the rez, destroying many homes. Former President Clinton became the first president since FDR to visit a rez when he offered federal disaster relief to the nation. Unfortunately, disaster relief funds have an expiration date, and many individuals, due to overwhelming poverty and no insurance, were unable to rebuild. The 1990 Census has American Indians as the most poverty-stricken minority group in the US, with more than half of all Indian households earning less than $20,000 a year. Indian children are 300% more likely to be poor than white children. Last year, Congress investigated Indian poverty, and introduced H.R. 2770, the American Indian Welfare Reform Act (for more info, go here). One interesting finding is that "Indians remain remarkably impoverished. According to the Bureau of the Census, 25.9 percent of American Indians live in poverty, more than twice the national poverty rate. The average household income for Indians in 2000 was only 75 percent of that of the rest of Americans."

 

Oops, didn't mean to ramble on. Sorry.

[Cantousent]

Well, deganawida, it's not like the rest of us don't write rambling posts.

 

Anyhow, it was an amazingly informative post. A little rambling can be forgiven.

 

The point is that American Indians bring down the stats for the country in terms of living conditions. It's a shame on both ends. Folks look at the country as a whole and say, "crime and poverty are terrible. What can we do to keep our neighborhood safe." The thing is, their neighborhood is probably safe already. The inner cities and the reservations don't have it so lucky.

 

As far as rich white punks being just as dangerous as poor latino punks, I couldn't agree more. The fact is, European punks are just as dangerous as American punks. ...And I don't think it's any less a responsibility for white Americans to work for the betterment of society as a whole than anyone else. My ideas of what needs to be done to better society are undoubtedly different from yours, Product, but we probably agree that it's a problem for everyone at some level and should be solved by everyone.

 

I'm not much for discussing politics on message boards, though. I'm merely discussing the issues in the context of the index.

[mkreku]

Uhm.. Maybe I need to clarify some things again. This list is a joke. So was this thread. I don't think anyone but the guys up in UN who made the list really pay any attention to it since it measures such objective things as people's well-being and tolerance against each other. I just thought the fact that they even tried to create such a list was funny and it's kind of flattering that we ended up so high. But I wouldn't choose my place of living based on it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I base such important decisions on blonde-girl-frequency: Sweden r00lz.

[Gromnir]

"The point is that American Indians bring down the stats for the country in terms of living conditions. "

 

depends on how tabulated. many native american tribes exist that is simply not recognized by the u.s. government. oh sure, you may be native american, and you may be able to prove that you is native american, but unless you happen to be one of the tribes that the fed has recognized, then you is only native american in your own mind. on the other hand, recognized tribes get the "domestic dependent nation" status... a fiction which were originally created by the supreme court so that they could screw the cherokee. nevertheless, it is a fiction that has been used on occasion to point out that recognized and treaty tribes is separate nations to some degree. often this fiction is used to essentially ignore native americans from various tabulations done by fed... 'cause those folks is separate nations after all.

 

keep in mind that based on way the u.s. tabulates median household income, native americans, from 2000 census, has a higher average income (just 'bout $32,000) than does african americans and pretty much the same as hispanics. notice how one might get the wrong impression from such a finding considering deg's posting that "Indians remain remarkably impoverished. According to the Bureau of the Census, 25.9 percent of American Indians live in poverty, more than twice the national poverty rate. The average household income for Indians in 2000 was only 75 percent of that of the rest of Americans."

 

numbers is funny things.

 

 

the median household income at pine ridge is $2,500. 69% of families is below poverty. most folks at pine ridge not have any kinda basic health care, and those that do may live too far away to make use of it anyway. is one of those things that not get tabulated... give a person health care w/o any way to access it is kinda pointless, no? oh, and one more thing of note we feel compelled to mention... the supreme court has ruled that the Black Hills were part of an illegal taking by the u.s. the Oglala (those folks with the $2,500 per year incomes,) as a matter of principle, refused to accept the tens of millions of dollars that is part of settlement.

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[deganawida]

oh, and one more thing of note we feel compelled to mention... the supreme court has ruled that the Black Hills were part of an illegal taking by the u.s. the Oglala (those folks with the $2,500 per year incomes,) as a matter of principle, refused to accept the tens of millions of dollars that is part of settlement.

Great post, Gromnir. I'd just like to add for those who are not aware of American Indian affairs that the situation with Oglala (for those who do not recognize the name, they are Lakota Sioux, specifically the nation that had such notorieties as Crazy Horse and Black Elk) is not uncommon among Native American tribes. The Hopi recently had to vote on an initiative to allow casinos on their reservation (BTW, Gromnir, do you know if it passed or failed?), and there was a desire on the part of many Hopi to not allow such a thing. In Hopi beliefs, gambling is exploiting others and taking what one has not earned, and thus is very immoral. Yet, because the mine on their land is being shut down, they have no other possibilty for employment for their people. So, they had to choose between starving or ensuring that they are punished by their gods the way they believe they were several times before (by having previous "worlds" destroyed). What do you choose in a situation like that?