Have I mentioned lately how glad I am that I'm not a Euro??

I think you may be overstating it. The federal government and their funded studies have produced results that sometimes puts eggs on their faces (at least on someone in the federal government). For instance marijiana is being studied by government sponsored studies despite resistance from other elements of the government, the heart benifits of mild alcohol use is well documented in federally supported studies despite some health advocates wishing it was not so, and a large federally supported study encouraging beta cerotine supplements unexpectedly increased lung cancers in some people so they had to stop the study early (embarassing a lot of federal and non-federal people who said this study should go forward). In short, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (which funds most of this work), though by no means immune from the larger political climate, is somewhat insulated from it as well (certainly compared to other governmental agencies). And further the scientists who get grants by them have even another layer of political insulation (peer review by non-government researchers have the most impact in fudning decisions) so they can focus on the science and not the politics. Not perfectly immune of course, but not a terrible system. Also the USDHHS (again which does most of this work) is not funded by tobacco taxes but by the general federal revenue fund (primarily income taxes), there isn't a strong self-interest to show the dangerous of some substances in order to get tax money for it as it is currently structured. Now this may not be the case for some state-level programs which are derived from tobacco taxes, but they are a drop in the bucket compared to the federal programs and studies.

On another note, if nicotene had a substantial positive impact on PD and AD even if the government wasn't jumping on it Johnson & Johnson or whoever makes Nicoderm or Nicorette sure would (or even Philip Morris). I just can't fathem if it was practically effective in reducing the onset or severity of such a tough and sad diseases it would be slipping under the radar. There are too many financial stakes involved in it even if some groups (feds) didn't want the finding to come out.


I am assuming that you are not in the US then, since we know Cubans are illegal there! (unlike being in London, where I can for the first time merely stroll out for a box whenever! )... Any recommendations? I have only recently begun to explore the Cubans... [/QUOTE]

Cohiba's are nice, can't remember the other Cuban brand I have had. I have a friend who has you can bring a couple across the US-Mexico border with no problem if you take the labels off. I have another friend who says you just need a friend of a friend in Little Habana.

 

The point about the dollar stores is the diversity of people running them and getting the first step up on the economic ladder. Cities in the Eastern US have been noted for the small markets that were ran progressively by the Irish, Italians and now people from Asian countries (Korea, Taiwan, Viet Nam etc) as the tides of immigration shifted over time. The Houston dollar stores were the best thing that I could think of that illustrated the concept of small business ownership by the New Americans.

Houston has had tremendous growth over the past several decades with migration from other parts of the US and many immigrants from around the world. The school systems have had to adjust to language barriers and other factors to accomodate the influx. As in any venture, there is room for improvement.

The transportation system (roads, buses and other) also has failed to perform at an optimal level, but again we are trying.

Houston has much to do if the goal is achieving a high ranking on the <i>Mercer</i> list, but the entire structure of the Houston area would have to change. Many industrial businesses would have to modify their processes and some would close with stricter pollution laws. The populations are not even close in size as Geneva is in the 200,000 range and Houston is multiples of that. Houston could probably be better managed/maintained if it was smaller, yet that reduction in population will not happen (barring a significant event which I would rather not think about).

I am not saying that Houston is better than Geneva et al, just different with each having its positives and negatives.


Mango

 

So I gather that this ranking does not account for the challenges being assumed by these various cities-- as Mango describes in the case of Houston.

 

First, I never said anything about researchers clamoring for the cigarette taxes, so I think that may just be a miscommunication somewhere between us. Only that the major source of funding, especially in this arena comes from the government, and that a researcher who issues a study that crushes the governments publicized policy justification risks not getting funding from that agency in the future. A study contradicting the governments position on beta carotine would not impact the a major intiative of its policy, nor would researchers saying a glass of red wine might be good for CVD, on the scope we would be talking about with nicotine.

Second, I would be suprised if you felt the government had never at least held up research in a specific area, and I'd be suprised if you would say they've never squashed research in a particular area. That could take many forms of course: allocating research money in other areas, banning the substance so research is not possible (as was the case despite psychologists testifying on the positive therapeutic results with ecstasy), or encouraging particular results by issuing findings before commissioning the study.

Third, peer review is certainly a good thing, but since there ARE cases where it is documented that peer reviewed studies have been fudged - as in Rx studies among other things, then peer review is hardly infallible. Also, peer review happens in the studies done as the behest of Big Tobacco. To dismiss these peer reviews as tainted is to assume that all scientists/researchers who take corporate grants are corrupt and willing to issue conclusions contrary to the facts before them. I don't think that is valid, and as I have pointed out, anti-smoking researchers also have incentives to conclude a particular way.

Finally, you indicate that Rx companies, driven by profit, would be all over nicotine as a treatment for AD and Parkinsons if there was scientific validity there. I am not sure that is true, especially when you consider the difference in profit between a nicotine patch and the current pharmaceuticals prescribed for these conditions. The profit would be much less if the treatment was nicotine, and their 20 years of exclusive rights for a particular treatment would not exist, since they could not patent nicotine as their own creation. The profit motive, which you agree is what drives Rx conglomerates, would be a massive incentive for them NOT to pursue nicotine solutions. Overall, as I've said, I don't know what the practical significance of nicotine would be for AD or Parkinson. It very well may be another decoy advanced by the Big Tobacco lobby.

My main point is only that conclusions reached by EITHER side should be viewed with a skeptical eye, not just the conlusions of one side.

 

Amen .

 

Look, HayesStreet, you haven't 'read the survey' either, so don't pass it off as if you have and I haven't. You've read its *summary*, and *so have I*, because the entire thing isn't *available* online. We're in the same boat on the information.

It tickles me that you've spent all this time telling us how awful the Mercer criteria are, but as soon as you read the thing in more detail, you just *had* to post to let your peeps know that, indeed, some US cities ranked higher than some European ones when you got further down the list! I gave everyone the link, so those who actually accept the criteria would probably know that anyway, HayesStreet. But I'm sure it made you feel better to get the info out there.

Oh, what a load of crap. Look, Houstonians may value your much-touted multi-culturalism above *clean air to breathe*, but I very much doubt whether most people in the world are so enlightened.

By the way, if the Mercer survey ranked cities on 'open immigration and multiculturalism' combined with 'internal discrimination and how badly poor people are generally treated' (which it doesn't), it's probable that there would be very little change in the rankings, since some European cities would rank low on the former and low on the latter, while US cities would rank high on both, *cancelling each other out* - that's my whole bloody point. I'm not pushing 'homogeneity inconsistent with my philosophical leanings', I'm just noting that neither of these criteria are covered and you are, indeed (along with me!), *talking out of your arse* by trying to compare them yourself with no real data.

And if it comes right down to it, all this ethnic diversity you and Mango are trumpeting basically consists, with a few minor exceptions, of people in sprawling segregated neighbourhoods driving SUVs to eat each other's cuisine. People actually have to come face to face with each other far more in New York (the base city for the study) or London. *That's* multiculturalism.

This is by far the silliest argument I've been in for a long, long time. My point - my only, pathetic, lame little point - is this:

It is quite conceivable - even probable - that there are areas in the world that are *much* nicer places to live than vast swathes of the United States, and some of those places might even be in the ever-dreaded Europe, filled with all those annoying 'Euros'. So talking about the entire world as an inferior dump - which is the undertone of much ignorant discourse in this country - can get somewhat tiresome for the rest of us. That's it. That's all. C'est tout.

But since that makes some of you get your jingoistic knickers in a twist and start listing all the bad things about Europe and all the good things about the US, that kind of undermines my point altogether, so never mind. No mas.

 

Max,

I was away so could not respond. Sorry, but I don't see why you thought this. I was speaking only of my interactions with French people and trying to underscore social/political differences. It had nothig to do with you or any other Americans, really (well, except for misconceptions that they are all socialists or commies ).

Nevermind.

 

Apparently you didn't even read the summary or you wouldn't be (a) saying the Mercer survey was a good evaluative tool and (b) talking about how bad US healthcare is, since the Mercer Survey rates US healthcare highly.

Actually I was pointing out that despite the impression you gave of the Mercer survey, it rated the US high in healthcare.

Oh, I see. The big socialist dimsie all the sudden don't give a damn about multiculturalism. 'Hell, Bern is CLEAN.' What a joke. Do you actually HAVE an principles, or are you some kind of philosophical grifter that just thought this particular board would be sympathetic to you calling yourself a socialist? By the way, I believe the US does have one of the top two CLEANEST cities in the world, and the Mercer Survey's overall number one choice is not one of those two.

Mere assertion that it would 'even out,' and the point is that the Mercer Survey DOES NOT consider those criteria. It is a criteria that is totally opposite to your political leaning, and yet you declare it the best way to evaluate where to live. DING DONG IS ANYONE THERE? Don't you see a problem with that?

Actually I am the one who noted the fact that Mercer does not use criteria that many would consider essential. You are the one that declared the Mercer Survey the best way to evaluate where to live, not me. You are apparently a full fledged capitalist-socialist. Yes, I know that's confusing but there it is. You want to say the best place to live is a homogenous white man's kingdom (Bern etc) AND say you only care about the po' person gettin' some justice.

Uh, yeah. Even if true that goes to prove my point that 'white gated communities' like, uh, BERN, GENEVA, and ZURICH are probably NOT the greatest places to live, since as Mango pointed out they are anti-multicultural. Besides, you are pretty much incorrect. The Duke of Westminster is not dining with the lower classes, or riding the tube, and the rich in NY take a car or a cab, not the subway.

And my only point is that talking about the United States as if its the land of demagogues and ignorant hillbillies, who've managed to screw up everything from the environment to the Middle East, while keeping our own black folk in chains, gets a little tiresome for the rest of us. And frankly, I don't give a damn if that gets your knickers in a twist.

 

As I said, you obnoxious, hectoring prick, *no f ucking mas*. My philosophical leanings are a) internally consistent b) perfectly defensible and c) actually *irrelevant* to my *point*, which is this:

I stand by that, and you're unable to refute it in any meaningful way. You are, however, particularly good at obfuscating real issues, going off on ridiculous tangents (you're still peeved about the *racism* threads? *Really*? God that's lame), and amping up the 'arsehole quotient' of any thread in which you participate. Did treeman name you as his rightful successor after he left or something?

Since you apparently spend most of your time (including Saturday nights!) in one of the most fun, exciting, and multicultural cities in the world hovering pathetically over a computer b****ing about how awful Europe-at-large is and how much you adore the USA, I suggest that you take me as an example and move back to your homeland ASAP so that you'll be able to stop seething your impotent bile all over the board.

Whew, that made me feel better.

 

And my only point is that talking about the United States as if its the land of demagogues and ignorant hillbillies, who've managed to screw up everything from the environment to the Middle East, while keeping our own black folk in chains, gets a little tiresome for the rest of us. And frankly, I don't give a damn if that gets your knickers in a twist.

Hayes St., your BBS baggage is ready in terminal B...

I thought the whole point of this thread was merely that it is not inconceivable that other places, particularly those in Europe, are preferable to live in than the United States. Why did it turn into another America in Therapy session? The Mercer Study was introduced into the discussion because it is the only continuing study (to my knowledge) by which international cities can be compared on a broad range of issues to determine their "livability." Let's look at the parameters of the survey again.




The aim of Mercer’s survey is to provide an objective, consistent, and comprehensive evaluation of the differences in quality of life in any two cities. The information is used by governments and major companies world-wide to determine appropriate allowances that reflect differences in the quality of life for personnel transferred abroad. The study is based on detailed assessments and evaluations of 39 key quality of life determinants, grouped in the following categories:

The 39 quality of life factors are liste here.
http://www.imercer.com/globalcontent/employeemobility/qualitynewsrelease.asp

Now, Hayes St., what specific anti-American bias is involved with this survey? What would be the Hayes St. criteria for determining an objective comparison of world cities? You have dismissed the survey (except when you find things in the survey that offer a warm and fuzzy outlook for the good ole USA, surprisingly), but you have yet to offer an alternative.



You, and others are focussing on the Swiss as the thread straw dog, but even their example is misrepresented. The Swiss aren't multicultural? They have three official languages! Their immigration policies are more stringent - which may be factored into the Mercer rankings, by the way, "the socio-cultural environment" factor - but all societies have mitigating circumstances determining their livability.

Again, I think that most people prefer to live where they were born and raised, so surveys like these probably don't matter. I was born and raised here in Texas, am not a socialist (you can try something else on me, Hayes St.) and I think the US is great. That still doesn't mean that it is automatically the best place on earth, or that the entire universe revolves around us.

One final set of questions to Hayes St.: how can you continue this rather boring thread on a Saturday when you live in London? Seriously, there is soooo much to do there and all you can do is prattle on about how much you prefer to live in America? Come on now, you can do better!

 

D*mn, is that really what dimsie said? I'd actually have to agree with that.

Note sure if I'd agree with the 'hectoring prick' part, though, dimsie.

 

The only thing the Mercer Study really indicates is that the extremes of European culture are superior to the extremes of American culture. I hope neither side really considers Europe or the US any paragon of civilization, or that any 'objective' study on the issue can lead to enlightenment.

Personally, I'd rather live in the best places of Europe than the best places the US has to offer. However, if we're talking about the best average quality of life (ie: as a whole, not just looking at the extreme examples of a country, like Zurich, etc..) then I'd choose the US without hesitation.

I do kind of resent the opinion that people from the US are more ignorant and less worldly than those of other developed countries. I've traveled throughout Europe many times, and have lived abroad, and you'll find ignorant people everywhere you go, whether it be France, England, Switzerland, or the good 'ol US of A; misconceptions aren't exclusive to America.

Keep in mind, I say this despite my family having been forced into 'americanization' during the 'red scare' (changed name.....night school)......and I still think this is, at the very least, as tolerant and politically stable a nation as you'll find.

 

Cool. 'Obnoxious, hectoring prick.' That really kinda flows. Glad you feel better.

Elvis, how sweet. I didn't think dimsie was doing quite poorly enough for you to feel it necessary to come rescue her, but...

Its not a study that examines hard data, first of all, its a survey. If you'll read the whole thread, you see there are multiple reasons why the survey is not functionally useful as a determinant of 'livability' in the context of this thread. Mercer does not portend to be an index for anything but compensatory discussions for temporary living in an expatriate situation. To make the extrapolations dimsie has is neither the intent of the survey nor a correct representation of the opinions collected. While I've certainly made attempts at humor (albeit cutting attempts), to declare my posts as devoid of solid analytical reasoning is incorrect.

I need not offer an alternative to indict your criteria. And as I've said to dimsie I'm merely pointed out that Mercer rated the US higher in some areas than she did, never saying I endorsed Mercer (for the fifth time).

I don't have a problem with any of this, except that I didn't just sling 'socialist' as an insult at dimsie. She labeled herself as such, which I don't have a problem with, except for the obvious hypocracy of a socialist endorsing the Mercer Survey. Although you may think my writing style is stand-offish I resent the implication that all I do is name call, which I think an examination of my posts would reveal is untrue.

Hey, I appreciate your and dimsie's interest in my social life. As it is my wife (works for large law firm) got called in for the weekend on some urgent deal, so I was home Sat and Sun night with my daughter. But thanks anyway. No need to worry though, I get out a decent amount. We can exchange notes on places to go if you're ever gonna be in London .

 

I <b>hate</b> it when you do that....

 

HayesStreet:

I really, *really*, REALLY resent your lameass faux-polite make nicey-nice jokey bullsh*t here, because you're maintaining an attitude in your most recent post that I find *very* insulting. I am perfectly happy for you to call me any name under the sun, but you implied that I was some kind of trendy hypocrite with no real principles. That's really serious to me and more insulting than calling me, well, practically anything else. What's more, it is *not* true and you haven't 'proved' any such thing about me. I want to make that perfectly clear. I am *not* a hypocrite for using this survey. Your analysis of why you think I am *does not hold up*, for various reasons I have *already explained*. Moreover, my being a socialist *is not RELEVANT to my argument*.

That's all.

 

No problem...I guess my self-effacing comments such as "blah blah blah" create such situations. I know that you are a good person, though, so would never attack you personally.

Just wanted to clear that up, not make you feel guilty for misinterpreting.

 

Uh, ok. If that's the way you want it.

This is what the International Socialist Organization says a Socialist stands for...

"The struggle for socialism is part of a worldwide struggle. We campaign for solidarity with workers in other countries. We oppose everything that turns the workers of one country against those of another country. We oppose imperialism and support all genuine national liberation movements. We oppose all immigration controls and protectionist measures."

[http://www.internationalsocialist.org/wherewestand.shtml]

You have said unequivocably that the Mercer Survey is the best avaliable evaluation of where to live. Is there any doubt that the Mercer Survey is a ranking based on capitalist values? If you aren't sure, let me point out that the TOP CITY to live in is the embodiment of what the socialist is supposed to be against. It is lots O white people. They do not allow immigration. They don't want no po' folk in town. You said, I believe, "you're right - it (the Mercer Survey) *is* biased towards the needs of executives rather than poor people..." It IS the whitebread gated community you make so much fun of when you're in your 'socialist' persona. So you are a hypocrite because you legitimize a criteria that says to the world 'this is what a great place to live looks like.' A Socialist would disagree.

You are a poser. You found out somewhere along the line that you could trumpet your tiny irrelevant little country by posing as a socialist, critiquing the big bad US with immunitywhile you were here. Well the good times are over for good. You're just another big mouth academic spouting philoso-babble wishin' you had the Benjamins to live the high life.

Begone.

 

Uh, since when did you become P. Diddy? There's nothing lamer than white guys trying to adopt hiphop slang...

You know, your assertions throughout this entire thread about what I believe in, what I've said, what the Mercer study means, what I think it means, whether or not a socialist can use this data with impugnity (you'll note that I have *already said* upthread that I do *not* think this data is perfect, but I *do* think it has *validity*, which despite your most warped rhetorical flourishes is *not* the same thing as accepting it totally, agreeing with 'gated communities' *or* selling out my principles), what I think about the USA, etcetera, etcetera, are *wrong*. I mean, they really are *deeply wrong*. And every time I've posted I've explained myself, and qualified, and given examples, and analysed, and argued all this crap to the best of my ability, and the only thing you can come up with - *after all that* - is that my argument is actually *correct*, but you (unjustifiably) think I'm a 'poser'???

Well, good on you, dude. You really showed me.

 

Hayes Street dissed Dimsie, yo:

LOL
What a spaz you are! You had a little difficulty in maintaining yourself in a basic discourse on a BBS and you had this totally embarassing meltdown and *then* you felt compelled to resort to some sort of lame variation of the "you're just playa' hatin'" theme. Hahahahaha. You are so down with the lingo, my proud American capitalist! Look, I could respond in kind and point you to various definitions (isn't that your little trick?) showing what an assh*le you are, or whatever, but I'm sure you hate yourself as much as most people here do. Why waste time?

I just want to ask you, though, Hayes St....does the "high life" mean maintaining an obsessive on-line therapy session about how we should all feel about your poor, misunderstood country? Fight the good fight and everything, but you seem like you are lonely, or something in London. Are you homesick? Are the horrible Euros gettin' you down? I hope things work out for you and keep up the ebonics lessons and everything, etc. Keep it real, homey (correct me on the hip lingo if I was in error, Master H) !