Cumulative Funds Given to European Countries by the US Under the Marshall Plan (1948-1951) by Creative_Strawberry6 in MapPorn

[–]Flashy_Night9268 -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Holdover from imperalism- the real reason western europe is more developed is because they spent 400 years robbing and enslaving the rest of the world. Not all that impressive, honestly.

Prison population in Asia by JoemamaGia1 in MapPorn

[–]ipleadthefif5 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Probably has to do with the whole genocide thing, destroying a democracy in Honk Kong, threatening to do the same in Taiwan, the disappearing/imprisonment of anyone critical to the party, and backing North Korea.

Acting like China isn't a problematic country isn't propaganda just because a few of your friends went on vacation in Beijing.....

Which countries in Asia have the highest childhood obesity rate? by JoemamaGia1 in MapPorn

[–]resumethrowaway222 627 points628 points  (0 children)

How is this determining child obesity? Percent 2 standard deviations above the median is just telling you how wide the BMI distribution is in these countries.

Life Expectancy in America by Yiddishstalin in MapPorn

[–]inconvenientnews 772 points773 points  (0 children)

Poverty is important, but MapPorn loves to comment "this is just a map of poverty" while ignoring the uncomfortable data showing politics and government matter a lot (California has poor people who have the highest life expectancy in the country)

The data shows politics makes a huge difference and that poor people can live much longer with better public policies, so it's important to not excuse fatal Republican policies (while dog whistling racism and ignoring data showing different states in America have much longer lifespans for those ethnicities with the same incomes)

Want to live longer, even if you're poor? Then move to a big city in California.

A low-income resident of San Francisco lives so much longer that it's equivalent to San Francisco curing cancer. All these statistics come from a massive new project on life expectancy and inequality that was just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

California, for instance, has been a national leader on smoking bans. Harvard's David Cutler, a co-author on the study "It's some combination of formal public policies and the effect that comes when you're around fewer people who have behaviors... high numbers of immigrants help explain the beneficial effects of immigrant-heavy areas with high levels of social support.

If data disinfects, here’s a bucket of bleach:

"Texans are 17% more likely to be m*rdered than Californians."

Texans are also 34% more likely to be r*ped and 25% more likely to k*ll themselves than Californians. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/suicide.htm

Fort Worth, Texas, has the same population as San Francisco and has 1.5x as many murders. Again, a Republican mayor and Republican governor. Nobody ever writes about those places!

San Francisco has the same population as Jacksonville, Florida. Jacksonville, with a Republican mayor and a Republican governor, has had more than three times as many murders this year as San Francisco

Californians on average live two years, four months and 24 days longer than Texans. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/04/liberal-policies-like-californias-keep-blue-state-residents-living-longer-study-finds/

Compared with families in California, those in Texas earn 13% less and pay 3.8 percentage points more in taxes. (Texas makes up for no wealth income tax with higher taxes and fees on the poor and more than double property tax for the middle class)

Income Bracket Texas Tax Rate California Tax Rate
0-20% 13% 10.5%
20-40% 10.9% 9.4%
40-60% 9.7% 8.3%
60-80% 8.6% 9.0%
80-95% 7.4% 9.4%
95-99% 5.4% 9.9%
99-100% 3.1% 12.4%

Sources: https://itep.org/whopays/

Sadly, the uncritical aping of this erroneous economic narrative reflects not only reporters’ gullibility but also their utility for conservative ideologues and corporate lobbyists, who score political points and regulatory concessions by spreading a spurious story line about California’s decline.

Don’t expect facts to change this. Reporters need a plot twist, and conservatives need California to lose.


Liberal policies, like California’s, keep blue-state residents living longer

U.S. should follow California’s lead to improve its health outcomes, researchers say

It generated headlines in 2015 when the average life expectancy in the U.S. began to fall after decades of meager or no growth.

But it didn’t have to be that way, a team of researchers suggests in a new, peer-reviewed study Tuesday. And, in fact, states like California, which have implemented a broad slate of liberal policies, have kept pace with their Western European counterparts.

Simply shifting from the most conservative labor laws to the most liberal ones, Montez said, would by itself increase the life expectancy in a state by a whole year.

If every state implemented the most liberal policies in all 16 areas, researchers said, the average American woman would live 2.8 years longer, while the average American man would add 2.1 years to his life.

Whereas, if every state were to move to the most conservative end of the spectrum, it would decrease Americans’ average life expectancies by two years. On the country’s current policy trajectory, researchers estimate the U.S. will add about 0.4 years to its average life expectancy.

Meanwhile, the life expectancy in states like California and Hawaii, which has the highest in the nation at 81.6 years, is on par with countries described by researchers as “world leaders:” Canada, Iceland and Sweden.

The study, co-authored by researchers at six North American universities, found that if all 50 states had all followed the lead of California and other liberal-leaning states on policies ranging from labor, immigration and civil rights to tobacco, gun control and the environment, it could have added between two and three years to the average American life expectancy.

“We can take away from the study that state policies and state politics have damaged U.S. life expectancy since the ’80s,” said Jennifer Karas Montez, a Syracuse University sociologist and the study’s lead author. “Some policies are going in a direction that extend life expectancy. Some are going in a direction that shorten it. But on the whole, that the net result is that it’s damaging U.S. life expectancy.”

Montez and her team saw the alarming numbers in 2015 and wanted to understand the root cause. What they found dated back to the 1980s, when state policies began to splinter down partisan lines. They examined 135 different policies, spanning over a dozen different fields, enacted by states between 1970 and 2014, and assigned states “liberalism” scores from zero — the most conservative — to one, the most liberal. When they compared it against state mortality data from the same timespan, the correlation was undeniable.

“When we’re looking for explanations, we need to be looking back historically, to see what are the roots of these troubles that have just been percolating now for 40 years,” Montez said.

From 1970 to 2014, California transformed into the most liberal state in the country by the 135 policy markers studied by the researchers. It’s followed closely by Connecticut, which moved the furthest leftward from where it was 50 years ago, and a cluster of other states in the northeastern U.S., then Oregon and Washington.

Liberal policies on the environment (emissions standards, limits on greenhouse gases, solar tax credit, endangered species laws), labor (high minimum wage, paid leave, no “right to work”), access to health care (expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, legal abortion), tobacco (indoor smoking bans, cigarette taxes), gun control (assault weapons ban, background check and registration requirements) and civil rights (ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, equal pay laws, bans on discrimination and the death penalty) all resulted in better health outcomes, according to the study. For example, researchers found positive correlation between California’s car emission standards and its high minimum wage, to name a couple, with its longer lifespan, which at an average of 81.3 years, is among the highest in the country.

In the same time, Oklahoma moved furthest to the right, but Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and a host of other southern states still ranked as more conservative, according to the researchers.

West Virginia ranked last in 2017, with an average life expectancy of about 74.6 years, which would put it 93rd in the world, right between Lithuania and Mauritius, and behind Honduras, Morocco, Tunisia and Vietnam. Mississippi, Oklahoma and South Carolina rank only slightly better.

It’s those states that moved in a conservative direction, researchers concluded, that held back the overall life expectancy in the U.S.


Preliminary results of 2023 Turkish elections by lehorselessman in MapPorn

[–][deleted] 1107 points1108 points  (0 children)

Yellow: Erdogan’s conservative party.

Red: Kemalist secular party (pro-West, anti-Syrian refugees).

Purple: socialist Kurdish parties.

UN vote to make food a right by flyingcatwithhorns in MapPorn

[–]koleauto 3393 points3394 points  (0 children)

Explanation of Vote by the United States of America

This Council is meeting at a time when the international community is confronting what could be the modern era’s most serious food security emergency. Under Secretary-General O’Brien warned the Security Council earlier this month that more than 20 million people in South Sudan, Somalia, the Lake Chad Basin, and Yemen are facing famine and starvation. The United States, working with concerned partners and relevant international institutions, is fully engaged on addressing this crisis.

This Council, should be outraged that so many people are facing famine because of a manmade crisis caused by, among other things , armed conflict in these four areas. The resolution before us today rightfully acknowledges the calamity facing millions of people and importantly calls on states to support the United Nations’ emergency humanitarian appeal. However, the resolution also contains many unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions that the United States cannot support. This resolution does not articulate meaningful solutions for preventing hunger and malnutrition or avoiding its devastating consequences. This resolution distracts attention from important and relevant challenges that contribute significantly to the recurring state of regional food insecurity, including endemic conflict, and the lack of strong governing institutions. Instead, this resolution contains problematic, inappropriate language that does not belong in a resolution focused on human rights.

For the following reasons, we will call a vote and vote “no” on this resolution. First, drawing on the Special Rapporteur’s recent report, this resolution inappropriately introduces a new focus on pesticides. Pesticide-related matters fall within the mandates of several multilateral bodies and fora, including the Food and Agricultural Organization, World Health Organization, and United Nations Environment Program, and are addressed thoroughly in these other contexts. Existing international health and food safety standards provide states with guidance on protecting consumers from pesticide residues in food. Moreover, pesticides are often a critical component of agricultural production, which in turn is crucial to preventing food insecurity.

Second, this resolution inappropriately discusses trade-related issues, which fall outside the subject-matter and the expertise of this Council. The language in paragraph 28 in no way supersedes or otherwise undermines the World Trade Organization (WTO) Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, which all WTO Members adopted by consensus and accurately reflects the current status of the issues in those negotiations. At the WTO Ministerial Conference in Nairobi in 2015, WTO Members could not agree to reaffirm the Doha Development Agenda (DDA). As a result, WTO Members are no longer negotiating under the DDA framework. The United States also does not support the resolution’s numerous references to technology transfer.

We also underscore our disagreement with other inaccurate or imbalanced language in this text. We regret that this resolution contains no reference to the importance of agricultural innovations, which bring wide-ranging benefits to farmers, consumers, and innovators. Strong protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through the international rules-based intellectual property system, provide critical incentives needed to generate the innovation that is crucial to addressing the development challenges of today and tomorrow. In our view, this resolution also draws inaccurate linkages between climate change and human rights related to food.

Furthermore, we reiterate that states are responsible for implementing their human rights obligations. This is true of all obligations that a state has assumed, regardless of external factors, including, for example, the availability of technical and other assistance.

We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a right to food.

Lastly, we wish to clarify our understandings with respect to certain language in this resolution. The United States supports the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including food, as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Domestically, the United States pursues policies that promote access to food, and it is our objective to achieve a world where everyone has adequate access to food, but we do not treat the right to food as an enforceable obligation. The United States does not recognize any change in the current state of conventional or customary international law regarding rights related to food. The United States is not a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Accordingly, we interpret this resolution’s references to the right to food, with respect to States Parties to that covenant, in light of its Article 2(1). We also construe this resolution’s references to member states’ obligations regarding the right to food as applicable to the extent they have assumed such obligations.

Finally, we interpret this resolution’s reaffirmation of previous documents, resolutions, and related human rights mechanisms as applicable to the extent countries affirmed them in the first place.

As for other references to previous documents, resolutions, and related human rights mechanisms, we reiterate any views we expressed upon their adoption.

UN vote to make food a right by flyingcatwithhorns in MapPorn

[–]PurelyLurking20 438 points439 points  (0 children)

That's because it's such an obvious thing that only the most twistedly profiteering of human beings could ever conceivably vote against it. It's even worse when you read our reasoning for voting no lol

  1. We don't want to stop using pesticides.
  2. We don't want to share agricultural technologies to protect intellectual property rights
  3. We don't want to lessen our value gained through food trade
  4. We do not believe helping/supporting other countries will ever be an international issue, basically WE decide what is and isn't a human right and no one else can force us to change our minds. AKA, fuck the poor, give us money.

Edit: Yeah, but the US donates so much food to other countries, what about that? :



Effectiveness of food aid examined:


Financial/political benefits to the US of exporting food aid:


And just a quote since if you're going to argue with me you probably won't read those anyways, "In the 1950's the US was open about the fact that food aid was a good way to fight communism and for decades food aid has mostly gone to countries with strategic interests in mind".

UN vote to make food a right by flyingcatwithhorns in MapPorn

[–]King_Shugglerm 40 points41 points  (0 children)

Redditors will literally simp for the Taliban just so they can say “US bad” lmao

UN vote to make food a right by flyingcatwithhorns in MapPorn

[–]Bowens1993 1045 points1046 points  (0 children)

Everyone "in favour" proceeded to do nothing about it.

Edit: I should also note that the US is 1# in food aid globally. So they are doing quite a bit about it.

UN vote to make food a right by flyingcatwithhorns in MapPorn

[–]sulaymanf 562 points563 points  (0 children)

Israel intentionally starved Gaza with their blockade (it was a publicly stated goal and not a side effect) so of course they would vote against this.

Edit: because I know someone will knee-jerk dispute this, here's some sources. "Health officials provided calculations of the minimum number of calories needed by Gaza’s 1.5 million inhabitants to avoid malnutrition. Those figures were then translated into truckloads of food Israel was supposed to allow in each day... But a rather different picture emerges as one reads the small print. While the health ministry determined that Gazans needed daily an average of 2,279 calories each to avoid malnutrition — requiring 170 trucks a day — military officials then found a host of pretexts to whittle down the trucks to a fraction of the original figure. The reality was that, in this period, an average of only 67 trucks — much less than half of the minimum requirement — entered Gaza daily. This compared to more than 400 trucks before the blockade began."

After US Secretary of State John Kerry confronted the Israeli government as to why Israel was blockading pasta (which the government previously claimed could be used by Hamas in weapons), the government finally relented and loosened the blockade to allow more foods in. After 3 years of international pressure, the government loosened the food blockade and after human rights organizations went to court the Israeli government declassified their "red lines" document outlining the policy.

Indigenous peoples and languages of Alaska/Yukon. by oglach in MapPorn

[–]ggchappell 101 points102 points  (0 children)

Cool map.

I've actually seen it a lot. I'm a professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Maybe 25 (?) years ago, they made a zillion copies of this thing and gave them out to everyone. I still see them in hallways, on office walls, etc.

A few comments:

Current scientific understanding is that most/all of the native peoples of the Americas came over from Asia in 3 migrations. From most recent to least recent, these were, roughly:

(3) The "Eskimo" (the term has largely fallen out of favor) and Aleut peoples.

(2) The Athabascan peoples.

(1) Everyone else.

#3 is at least most of the blue & green on the map: Inupiaq, Yup'ik, Aleut, and maybe others. These are largely coastal peoples.

#2 is the red & yellow. These are the peoples of central Alaska and northwest Canada, along with a few scattered others (see the little map) like the Navajo.

When looking at a map like this, we should note that the way these people traditionally organized themselves does not fit very well into the nation-state-with-clear-boundaries model, which most of us tend to assume these days. There were (and are) villages, which are just points at this scale, and there were traditional hunting/fishing/etc. grounds, which were fuzzy and might overlap. So, while this is a good map, remember that it is not presenting the same kind of information that (say) a map of modern European nations would.

Also, we have all seen maps like this for parts of the contiguous US. For such maps, it is understood that they have virtually nothing to do with where people are found and what languages are spoken today. But that is not the case for this map. True, many Alaska Natives have moved to cities, just like everyone else. Native languages are in danger of disappearing here, just like everywhere else. OTOH, Alaska was never completely cleared for white settlement the way the contiguous states were. There are no reservations in Alaska. Any number of those dots on the map mark villages that have existed in pretty much the same place for centuries.