I'm sorry, I'm assuming you intend to see the results of this while most of us are still alive. Is that not the case?
I'm sorry, I'm assuming you intend to see the results of this while most of us are still alive. Is that not the case?
Mass shooter in Buffalo that killed at least 10 people had a manifesto that is directly filled with Tucker Carlson style "white replacement" bullshit:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...t-posted-apparent-manifesto-repeate-rcna28889
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...t-posted-apparent-manifesto-repeate-rcna28889
Yeah, but Tucker is just asking questions. The real monsters are the people who use this to attack him! I wish I didn’t actually think this will be what Tucker says on Monday.
An aside, does that article actually claim at the end that 4chan is a knock off of 8chan?
I saw one of the interviews with officials talking about how the Super Market had an armed security guard, who actually shot the guy, but it didn't matter because the shooter had on body armor that made hand gun rounds unable to stop him. The guard was then killed by the shooter, who sounds like he had some sort of rifle if eye witness accounts are correct.
An aside, does that article actually claim at the end that 4chan is a knock off of 8chan?
Well, 8chan is cray cray cray while 4chan is only cray cray, so I can see why someone might think it is the cheap knock off...
"It has been 0 days since we have had far-right violence in this country. Remember, workplace national safety is your responsibility."
"... ANTIFA!!!!1! BLM TERRORISTS FASCIST DEMOCRAT CENSORSHIP THEY TAKIN' OUR GUNZ BIDEN FIRED DA POLEES!1!11!"
Fixed for GOP talking points.
Funny how far-right violence doesn't seem to move the voter needle away from the far right.
How the fuck is it "one factory" can take down 40% of baby formula production in the US? They've got to have dozens of production lines, don't they?
Seems symptomatic of a plant management that doesn't give a fuck, doesn't it?
Seems symptomatic of a plant management that doesn't give a fuck, doesn't it?
Consolidation and out-sourcing in the name of keeping more money.
Yeah, but Tucker is just asking questions. The real monsters are the people who use this to attack him! I wish I didn’t actually think this will be what Tucker says on Monday.
An aside, does that article actually claim at the end that 4chan is a knock off of 8chan?
It's not as if Tucker's audience is going to care much one way or another considering the particular victims in this case. Those few that might will just see it as an unfortunate reaction to white "culture" and Christianity being under such dire attack, these types of things are inevitable yada yada. If different groups had stayed in their 1950s lanes--when America was great-- this never would have happened!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... e-sturgis/
"The FDA, however, says it is still investigating the facility. Among the deficiencies it found were water leaks and standing water on the floor, workers not wearing appropriate protective gear and a number of swabs in the facility that tested positive for cronobacter sakazakii bacteria, according to the FDA report. Abbott Nutrition did not respond to phone calls and an email asking for comment."
Sounds like plain old factory mismanagement X consolidation of operations in one factory where those unsanitary conditions prevailed.
Yes, but the major driver is the "consolidation" part. When so many companies can outsource production and just slap their brand onto it, why have multiple factories making formula? Redundancy is market inefficiency, or something something. Competition? Never heard of it.
It's actually kind of surprising how small that place is: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Abbot ... 85.4261117
There are competitors but they dont manufacture in the US, I think. Abbott is #3 worldwide, btw.
What sort of training did the security guard have? You shoot to end the threat (kill), not to incapacitate (though I suppose aiming for center mass is also part of the training since the head, presumably unarmored, is a harder target to hit).
Well in this case the product was made at a an Abbot facility and not a third party copack. You would however be correct for store brands and they all source from one company (Perrigo Nutritionals in case you were curious).
Despite what has been reported there is not a single plant making 40% of the USA's baby formula. Yes Abbott makes 40% or so of the nation's formula. No, the Sturgis plant is not the only plant Abbott runs that makes baby formula. When it comes to baby formula there really are only two major players: Abbot (Similac) 40% and Mead Johnson (Enfamil) also 40%. Mega baby food company Gerber (part of global giant Nestle) has about 10%.
It should be noted that baby formula is consumed at an incredibly stable rate - there are no peaks and valleys. The demand neither increases or decreases with seasonality as there will a steady stream of consumption year round. Baby isn't going to guzzle more formula just because it's the 4th of July and all though your car might (gasoline, not formula).
Also supposedly the domestic manufacturers got a law passed to bar imported formula, to protect their domestic market shares.
Be interesting to see the percentage of American babies on formula vs. being breast fed and compare that to other industrialized countries.
I would guess it is much lower since every other industrialized country has paid maternity leave.
The average rate over the whole US is 58% at 6 months, 35% at 12 months. (this is breastfeeding at all not exclusive)
It varies wildly by state.
Lowest = Alabama 38.5% @6 / 21.6% @12
Highest = Washinton 74.6% @6 / 49.6% @12
I think most western European countries are lower than that.
The WHO recommends exclusive breastfeeding to an age of at least 6 months. It's better in every way for babies except for the few that can't tolerate it at all.
It varies wildly by state.
Lowest = Alabama 38.5% @6 / 21.6% @12
Highest = Washinton 74.6% @6 / 49.6% @12
I think most western European countries are lower than that.
The WHO recommends exclusive breastfeeding to an age of at least 6 months. It's better in every way for babies except for the few that can't tolerate it at all.
If I had a study I could put here a would but finding one is all over the place and often incomplete. If you have one please provide the link. It's bizarrely obfuscated in google, at least for my skills.
How much you want to bet that factory made more than it's fair share because it was more productive and cheaper to run? (You know, because they weren't doing any of the safety things? Those things cost money, so send the work to wherever they aren't done.)
I don't have time to dig up a bookmark, but when you control for class most of the difference goes away. Affluent mothers have the time/resources to breastfeed and have affluent-family outcomes for their babies. Poor mothers are forced by circumstances to use formula and have poor-family outcomes for their babies.
When you control for class breastfeeding still shows slightly better outcomes but much smaller than the very significant differences in the spherical-cow breastfeeding studies that everyone bases their understanding on.
I don't trust anyone, especially where there's a moral panic and holier-than-thou grandstanding involved:You don't think the WHO knows how to control a study?
- The study gathered data on 1,008 mothers from their last trimester of pregnancy through the first year of their infant’s life, taken from the Infant Feeding Practices Study II, a two-year longitudinal study conducted by the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. After controlling for maternal intent to breastfeed, the researchers found no difference in the health outcomes in the two groups. However, the study also found that mothers’ intention to breastfeed was strongly linked with infant health outcomes, irrespective of whether the child was actually breastfed. “This suggests that most physical health benefits associated with breastfeeding are likely attributable to demographic characteristics such as race and socioeconomic status, and other difficult to measure unobservable characteristics,” the authors write.
In other words, a mother’s intention to breastfeed serves as a proxy for her privilege, information about breastfeeding, and access to help. As Su told the University of Connecticut, “What we found is that intending mothers had more information about nutrition and diet; they more frequently consulted their physicians; and had better access to information related to infant health than those moms who did not intend to breastfeed.”
In other words, the kind of person who intends to breastfeed (someone with the socioeconomic wherewithal) has better outcomes for their child, regardless of whether they ultimately breastfeed or use formula. EDIT - and a mother who plans to use formula but then ends up breastfeeding (ie., gets fired from her job or whatever) still has worse outcomes.
I would think richer mothers are less likely to breast feed, because they can afford the formula and are more likely to be working in a demanding job, which may or may not have provisions for child care on site so she can feed during the day.
Also, isn't there some fear that breast feeding will make the breasts sag or make them less attractive? Women who are well off would more likely to be influenced by such fears.
Also, isn't there some fear that breast feeding will make the breasts sag or make them less attractive? Women who are well off would more likely to be influenced by such fears.
Nestle and others have been using deliberately misleading advertising for years.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... k-formulas
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... k-formulas
I have to say, the idea that breast feeding is the purvue of the wealthy (privilege/etc) seems...off. Scratch that, it seems like the absolute opposite of reality.
I have a good friend who provides lactation consulting, almost exclusively to lower income mothers/mothers-to-be. This service is provided and paid for by a mix of local .gov and charity financing, as far as I know. It's a valuable service in that younger, newer, poorer mothers may be terrified of it...and this type of education and consulting goes a long way to removing that fear.
Formula, AFAIK, has *always* been expensive, compared to breast feeding. That's the high order level of expense of it. So in cases of necessity (dry breast, "tube" boob--can't recall the name, don't google for it but it's a condition that makes lactation and breast feeding painful and difficult for the mother if done wrong), mastectomy, or just bad luck...it makes sense to have that option subsidized.
What doesn't seem to make sense to me is this weird idea that formula is the preferred option. And it may be, but if so...that should be where the wealth divide becomes apparent. Privileged mothers can afford it...some can't.
If the issue is more of a time/work thing, I can think of a LOT of ways to handle that with simple policy, placing the burden of the cost of a feeding room on the company. Hell, even subsidize THOSE, and mandate them.
I have a good friend who provides lactation consulting, almost exclusively to lower income mothers/mothers-to-be. This service is provided and paid for by a mix of local .gov and charity financing, as far as I know. It's a valuable service in that younger, newer, poorer mothers may be terrified of it...and this type of education and consulting goes a long way to removing that fear.
Formula, AFAIK, has *always* been expensive, compared to breast feeding. That's the high order level of expense of it. So in cases of necessity (dry breast, "tube" boob--can't recall the name, don't google for it but it's a condition that makes lactation and breast feeding painful and difficult for the mother if done wrong), mastectomy, or just bad luck...it makes sense to have that option subsidized.
What doesn't seem to make sense to me is this weird idea that formula is the preferred option. And it may be, but if so...that should be where the wealth divide becomes apparent. Privileged mothers can afford it...some can't.
If the issue is more of a time/work thing, I can think of a LOT of ways to handle that with simple policy, placing the burden of the cost of a feeding room on the company. Hell, even subsidize THOSE, and mandate them.
Until this is the case that lack explains why the rich do it more. It is impossible to (currently) pump at many jobs which are more low income jobs whereas at the office/center I used to work at we had a lactation room on every floor and any nursing employee was given paid time to do it.
Try that at a gas station for example. So I think you are right laws are needed.
The boycott of Nestle started in 1977 over its marketing of baby formula.
The main issues I remember were the availability of clean water for mixing with the formula and the tendency of poor mothers to use a weaker mixture (lasts longer).
edit:
I see that was referenced in the first link above:
more:
Why the Nestlé boycott continues
Where income affects is that mothers with more income (esp if married to somebody with a stable income) can more often afford to take time off work, or work in places that accommodate lactating moms.
Im gonna assume you actually want an answer, because this is sorta a shitty take on this.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/retired-buffa ... d=84731447
He was a retired police officer. One can assume he was 'properly' trained. kinda hard for a head shot when the dude is wearing a tactical helmet.
Seems another avenue besides gun control is outlawing body armor and ballistic helmets except for active duty military and police. And not even all of the police.
No, surely the answer is body armour for all !
Kindergarten to. the grave, full body armour !
If a good guy with a gin cannot stop a bad guy with a gun, because the bad guy with the gun has body armour, then it only stands to reason that all good guys, especially those with guns, need to wear body armour.
There is no other solution, beyond thoughts and prayers....
That thought occurred to me this weekend. Then what followed was the realization of how that would be opposed..."If body armor is made criminal, only criminals will have body armor."
Sounds like another good way to not get elected for any politician who tries it. We live in a country where people (of either party too, going by some I know) are far more motivated to fight for their guns and related gear than they are to prevent things like this shooting. It's what makes us uniquely American!
The fuckhead in this case sounds mentally deficient, which makes a lot of sense for someone living by the words of Tucker Carlson. I hope he lives a very long and very miserable life in the pen.