cbslocal | In the inner city, a health problem is making it harder for young
people to learn. The Centers for Disease Control said 30 percent of
inner city kids suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The CDC said these children often live in virtual war zones. Doctors
at Harvard said they actually suffer from a more complex form of PTSD
that some call “hood disease.”
Unlike soldiers, children in the inner city never leave the combat zone. They often experience trauma, repeatedly.
“You could take anyone who is experiencing the symptoms of PTSD, and
the things we are currently emphasizing in school will fall off their
radar. Because frankly it does not matter in our biology if we don’t
survive the walk home,” said Jeff Duncan-Andrade, Ph.D. of San Francisco
State University.
In Oakland, about two thirds of the murders last year were actually clustered in East Oakland, 59 people killed.
Teachers and administrators who graduated from Fremont High School in
East Oakland and have gone back to work there spoke with KPIX 5.
“These cards that (students) are suddenly wearing around their neck
that say ‘Rest in peace.’ You have some kids that are walking around
with six of them. Laminated cards that are tributes to their slain
friends,” said teacher Jasmene Miranda.
Jaliza Collins, also a teacher at Fremont, said, “It’s depression,
it’s stress, it’s withdrawal, it’s denial. It’s so many things that is
encompassed and embodied in them. And when somebody pushes that one
button where it can be like, ‘please go have a seat,’ and that can be
the one thing that just sets them off.”
In 2013, there were 47 recorded lockdowns in Oakland public schools – again, almost all in East and West Oakland.
Students at Fremont High showed where one classmate was shot.
“If someone got shot that they knew or that they cared about…they’re
going to be numb,” one student said. “If someone else in their family
got shot and killed they will be sad, they will be isolated because I
have been through that.”
Gun violence is only one of the traumas or stressors in concentrated areas of deep poverty.
“Its kids are unsafe, they’re not well fed,” Duncan-Andrade said.
“And when you start stacking those kids of stressors on top of each
other, that’s when you get these kinds of negative health outcomes that
seriously disrupt school performance.”
27 comments:
What exactly are you talking about, "got owned". I posted in the last threads the consensus is not 97% like is being sold. The only fight back has been that is was not from approved sources you guys happen to agree with. It would have been simple enough to squash my contention (if it was squashable) by looking at the studies analyzed in my links and demonstrating how these "oil backed" web sites are deceiving the masses. No such even a slight move was made in that direction, just simply an effortless blanket none of the sources can be considered regardless of their in depth and reproducible numbers and facts. That's arguing in bad faith, sir.
As for the new IPCC flair-up why if we are so into tainted biases why would a statement made after it has been called out for refusing a study from 5 climate scientist on the basis of "not helpful" or it "could give the deniers ammmo", held with such weight as to be held as "no need to look any further" truth.
I didn't discount the damage control statement from the IPCC, or say it shouldn't even have been considered, I let it sit out there, clearly there will be more news on this. And finally with the last link, I was just pointing out that time might be the best indicator of when Vic might start having doubt. I was thinking about his statement. "Climate change is not up for debate at this point"; And if the last link which is trying to figure out why the models are not working has the answer, going into the 30's might be a long time to hang on. I could have also added considerations about the inactivity of the sun
http://phys.org/news/2013-11-calm-solar-prompts-impact-earth.html
but my point is, without the consensus (not challenged) without the reality on the ground (rising temperatures, and increased weather events) as time goes by and the consensus which isn't even a majority now diminishes further, what will be the basis for still embracing a stance of mental superiority by holding on to a view that has not shown any manifestations?
"I posted in the last threads that the consensus is not 97%"
Yes, you did. Unfortunately folks may have also read the material you linked, which supported the 97% figure. Complained about it, made fun of it, but in the end supported it. (To be fair, there was some debate about whether 98% or 97% was the correct figure. Feel free to use either.)
Ken, you frequently misrepresent information that appears in the same thread you're posting in. The rest of us aren't quite dumb enough to fall or that.
I've tried to point this out to you before.
Afrodemia? LOL
CNu:
This is where you went wrong with me:
[quote]The invisible 800lb
gorilla that no one EVER explicitly articulates[/quote]
You OFFENDED ME by using a primate analogy while discussing "Urban/Black Education" in America.
Replace it with the words: "The Unseen Force Of White Supremacy In The Room is............................" and she'll welcome you back.
Thanks again Tom for you patience in pointing out my blindspots, I feel honored you have taken such care in pointing out these faults to me exclusively, . However in link 1:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/
Where the the 2 question survey was sent out to 10,257 scientist and some 3000 being received, only 77 thought the survey was a worthwhile use of their time. And 75 answered yes to the question: "“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” There is noone, including myself who does not believe we effect the temperature someway. Obviously we can see this when in the middle of winter, the city is warmer than rural areas, or in the summer tornadoes get pushed away from cities. Or even the temperature on a sunny day over a tar parking lot compared to a forest. That would be significant, it may not be what is majorly effecting climate, but significant, depending of course how one describes significant. And I would be included in the 97% consensus.
Now with the second link that I linked to that you have claimed to read:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
I don't even know where to start, I really have no idea how you come away from the analysis of the studies and surveys and decide there is no refutation of the 97% consensus that climate scientist believe human activity is causing global warming. The way the 97% consensus was measured, I too am part of the consensus, because I believe human activity does add warmth to the earth at some level. With this truth, we should understand the 97% consensus is meaningless, and the articles did prove this.
And finally Tom, I know you might have missed this part of my statement, cause I noticed you didn't include it in the quote, can you see how it might make a difference?
Your quote: "I posted in the last threads that the consensus is not 97%"
My actual sentence: "I posted in the last threads the consensus is not 97% like is being sold"
Anyone who read these two articles and checked them out as credible and accurate, would not look at the 97% consensus being promoted to the masses having the power we are coerced into believing it has.
Brother CNu:
On the Ta-Nehisi Coates article: HE IS A FRAUD.
Let a "Fraudulent Suppositionist" CONTROL THE TIMELINE and you will always lose the argument.
WHY are we debating "Newark schools circa 2011" after a $100m donation and not "WHAT HAS JET MAGAZINE EVER PRINTED as GUIDANCE on the 'Black Community Investments' after they sold the nation on the notion that Mayor GIbson would lead the charge to a REVOLUTIONARY NEWARK that worked for the people?"
Ta-Nehisi Coates is a CODDLED Black Quasi-Socialist Progressive-Fundamentalist Racism Chaser who the WHITE LIBERAL ELITE love because his challenges to "The Establishment" on behalf of Black people never INCLUDE THEM.
THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN VIOLENT RIOTS FROM THE NEGROES AFTER THE PUBLICATION OF THIS PICTURE. BUT IT PROVED TO BE PLEASING TO TOO MANY OF THEM BECAUSE THEY DON'T MIND WHEN HISTORY AND RELATIVE POSITIONING (OUTSIDE FIGHTER AGAINST DOMESTIC COLONIZERS ----- VERSUS ----- THE MOST EFFECTIVE DOMESTIC COLONIZERS OF THE AMERICANIZED NEGROES IN HISTORY)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--WRokJUtXxs/Tao6Tdr2c7I/AAAAAAAAD1I/r5i0OzirUsk/s1600/Barack+X.png
“The Centers for Disease Control said 30 percent of inner city kids suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Doctors at Harvard said they actually suffer from a more complex form of PTSD that some call ‘hood disease.’”
Who are these Harvard doctors and what is the name of their study? The failure to cite sources raises red flags. “Hood disease?” “White supremacy induced stress disorders” is more appropriate.
“Research has also shown a link between being African American and developing PTSD. African Americans are exposed to greater amounts of stress due to lower socio-economic status and lack of resources to address mental health needs. Norris (1992) found that White Americans report more occurrences of traumatic events as compared to African Americans, but the impact and nature of the trauma for African Americans is much more serious. This is primarily a result of the lack of financial and psycho-social resources to buffer the negative effects of stress, which is then compounded by additional factors such as racism and the neglect of their communities (Scott, 1998).” “Youth Violence: Implications For Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder In Urban Youth,” Eboni Morris (NUL Policy Institute)
Basically, PTSD becomes another stressor which increases the allostatic load of young Afrikan Americans.
[A few years ago Dr. Arline Geronimus, of the Population Studies Center at the University of Michigan, led a team of researchers who calculated that in Harlem and on Chicago's South Side, two-thirds of the black boys and one-third of the black girls who reached their 15th birthday would not make 65.]
Yet there is hope if we can rebuild healthy families
[African American youth who experience frequent discrimination during adolescence are at risk for developing heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, and stroke in later years, according to a new study. The study also found that emotional support from parents and peers can protect African American youth from stress-related damage to their bodies and health.]
If it's possible to set aside the scandals and questions of how money was spent, I was looking at the EAA advertisement of what they claim to be all about and their educational methods. Is their public relations educational "what we are all about" something closer to what you have been suggesting schools should look like:
http://nextgenlearning.org/grantee/education-achievement-authority-michigan-nolan-k-8
lol, Con_Feed got jokes....,
Sounds like a job for the Roman Catholic Church to me...,
I understand that you post articles just to "seed" debates and thus they are often absent of your personal commentary.
You couldn't be more wrong. He cares not a whit about debate (in the sense you mean it) and the articles themselves are the commentary. For the more dense, he even labels the posts at the bottom as hints.
It's not possible to set those factors aside. The Agilix demoware/vaporware was foisted on kids across multiple locations in KC. Million$ were spent on it here, and I witnessed a one-of-a-kind child rebellion (and we won't even go into the tearful teacher rebellions) against its use. Never before had I seen children systematically and uniformly sabotage computers - at all - but in many locations we wound up with hundreds of keyboards whose keys had been removed by clever little fingers in an act of none-too-subtle insurgency against the abyssmal piece of shit courseware that they were being subjected to.
Their public relations shares some buzzwords in common with what needs to happen, but the outright incompetence of the wretched, greedy cannibals perpetrating this fiasco puts it beyond the pale of anything I would consider doing to the children of my existential enemies. What's really going on here is that Agilix is using public funds to cover the upfront capital costs of developing its software.
Ken,
Ok, you explain the 97% belief in global warming among climate scientists in this way. You say that professional climate scientists -- who DON'T believe mankind is causing global warming -- would answer "yes" to the following question:
“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
... if they consider the layer of warm air over a parking lot.
--------------------------------------
You say that as if you mean it seriously. But surely it is a clear example of something we can both agree is not true. You know it is not true. Everyone reading it knows it's not true.
SO I'm curious. I'm curious about how you feel when you post completely transparent bullshit.
(a) Are you just trolling? I.e., you're laughing your ass off that I'm stupid enough to even respond?
(b) Liberals deserve to be lied to, because Clinton was a liar.
(c) You honestly think your readers are unable to differentiate between a parking lot and the planet as a whole.
(d) You honestly think climate scientists are unable to differentiate between a parking lot and the planet as a whole?
(e) You are unable to differentiate between a parking lot and the planet.
(e) Do you feel shame?
(f) Excitement?
(g)Do you feel that you've advanced our understanding of the truth in the big picture by telling a little white lie?
(h) Do you feel like a lottery player who has just got to win sooner or later?
(i) Is it a sort of crooked-billing-office strategy? You're trying to fill us with so much disgust at your crazy behavior that we eventually give up and let you win by default?
You could just say openly that you're lying and it would be equally effective. Do you realize that? Or does that point come completely out of left field for you?
Meant to say "97% belief statistic," not "97% belief"
rotflmbao..., two epic ownings in a single comment thread. I wondered what he was up to when he shifted the focus away from that dailymail rubbish he posted upthread and which Vic had resoundingly stuffed.
Typically, if you wake up with a swollen black-eye, out behind the road house dumpster. Your pants are around your ankles, your ass is sore and still glistening with bacon grease, do you go back around to the front door and challenge the locals to another fight, or do you slink on off back home and cut any further losses?
Yeah. Ken is holding about three cards of a flush, Vic tells him "You have a busted flush." Game over? No, Ken pays to see the cards.
I don't understand it.
It's wore than that. Ken cracks a big grin, lays down the busted flush, and reaches for the pot.
I guess the answer is:
(z) the crowd he usually plays poker with has some pretty special house rules. By those rules, three red cards are a flush.
Looking at your analysis and your own survey here I suspect you didn't actually read the paper with a full understanding. The question and the breakdown that would also include me in the 97% consensus happens to be on page 14 we'll get to it in a sec. It seems you have a working definition of significant, however I am not sure your definition is universal. You happen to laugh at my parking lot example, it was just a illustration on a small scale, perhaps you overlooked the city versus rural illustration. But since you are getting a chuckle from the parking lot example, remember another cute one, it wasn't to long ago we were all told that if we painted the top of our houses white it would be as effective as removing all the world's cars for 11 years. That would be significant now wouldn't it? Fortunately, we didn't make laws mandating everyone go through the expense of painting their roofs with the Global warming crowd proclamations.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/13/news/economy/white_roofs/?postversion=2009071312
But anyway if we break down the question like on page 14...Humans have some kind of
undefined impact on climate, ranging from 5% to 100%. This impact may be due to
either, some of, or all human impacts and may or not be able to be mitigated.” or your other choice is no influence, none. I guess I am surprised the consensus is not higher.
As for your multiple choice question, I am again somewhat disappointed with someone demanding such a high level of integrity for me when accurately portraying someone's position would gravitate towards my parking lot illustration and totally disregard my observations of how a city effects the climate that surrounds it. I think I even pointed how the heat dome of the city can even effect storm travel, yet you dropped all that and only talked of parking lots. Maybe though in this thread you are doing it this way to remain on topic. But I couldn't find an answer in your multiple choice selections that pin points what my thoughts were when writing my post. Thanks again for your curiosity though!
You can see as well as I can that the city example is the same as the parking lot example. You're claiming professional climatologists can't distinguish between a city and a planet, and so the survey of professional climatologists isn't valid.
You could continue in the same vein forever (x = "parking lot", x = "city", x = "aircraft carrier", x = "barbecue pit", etc), each time (1) boasting that I don't understand your sophisticated arguments, then (2) dismissing your previous try as a harmless joke but insisting that the NEXT example really is over my head.
The only question is ... Why?
There is plenty of news around Lennart Bengtsson, and he is considered a pretty reputable climate scientist. I suspect he knew what he was biting into when he started this, and we might see much more. However, there is the possibility being that he is 80, with his talk fearing for his health and being ostracized that he may be in an early onset of some old mind disease. So I saw no reason make any more challenges at this time. Here he is before any rejection of his paper submitted by him and 5 other scientist.
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/klimawandel-meteorologe-lennart-bengtsson-wird-klimaskeptiker-a-967602.html
I believe Tom we started out this discussion with your proclamation:
"Yes, you did. Unfortunately folks may have also read the material you linked, which supported the 97% figure. Complained about it, made fun of it, but in the end supported it. (To be fair, there was some debate about whether 98% or 97% was the correct figure. Feel free to use either.)"
None of the links supported 97 or 98% figure as you say. In fact the one link made it clear at the end:
"As this report shows, there’s no 97% consensus on global warming in these surveys. Not even close. They’re fooling you."
Do you still hold the opinion that the links were supporting the 97% consensus? And if so, explain how they did and what were their complaints before they finally in the end supported it. And if they didn't support the 97% consensus, what has changed your mind?
Here's what I said:
Yes, you did. Unfortunately folks may have also read the material you linked, which supported the 97% figure. Complained about it, made fun of it, but in the end supported it. (To be fair, there was some debate about whether 98% or 97% was the correct figure. Feel free to use either.)
Nowhere in those links could I find anything close to a serious attempt at disputing the 97% figure. I found a lot of rhetoric ("they're fooling you"). I found completely unsupported speculation along the lines of "only the people who agreed bothered to respond." I found sarcasm; bitter humor; bizarre nonsensical ideas that lead away from the point at hand. The same kinds of things you've been throwing at me in these comments. I found one single concrete point that was supported by anything more solid than "because I say so": a dispute over whether the correct number to use for the survey results was 97% or 98%.
Now you're telling me it's my responsibility to go search through a potentially unlimited supply of source material and find something that supports the case you want to make. Again I could ask, are you joking? And I suppose you could (again!) reply, yes, you were joking. How many times do you feel we need to repeat that exercise?
Ok, that's me. I admit I can't support the case you're trying to make.
But I've challenged you directly and you haven't come up with anything either! You keep claiming that you have access to some huge knowledge base that's over my head. Great! Knowledge is power, man! It's long past time to dig into that knowledge base and post something that supports your position. Or at least something that you won't have to claim was a joke later the same day.
I think that's a reasonable request for me to make.
???
Why do this? What's the point?
Look, I never would have thought the number was as high as 97%.
I would have guessed 85 or 90. My only familiarity with the 97% figure comes from these references you've posted. They've convinced me that scientific consensus on man-made global warming is much stronger than I thought. These people express a lot of feelings but virtually no data or logical arguments ... except some that support a (to me) surprisingly high degree of scientific consensus on the subject.
I've said all I ever want say to you on this subject. Much more than that, actually.
Please feel free to use this thread to declare victory, I won't intervene again.
Fortunately, we didn't make laws mandating everyone go through the
expense of painting their roofs with the Global warming crowd
proclamations.
In Bermuda, they coat their roofs white with lime, not only in compliance with this edict, but also to help disinfect the greywater that they capture in cisterns below the houses to help extend the finite fresh water available on that island.
Ken, why are you so relentlessly hostile to being a good steward to finite natural and material resources?
Are you responding out of fear that "the powers that be" will screen for resource consumption qualifications on the basis of tested and proven IQ and that you and yours will suffer a categorical fail?
Actually if you noticed I chose a link from 2009, because around 2011 a study actually came out that showed that reflecting the light will hit dark atmospheric pollutants and actually warm the atmosphere, meanwhile, the heat island cities caused with dark streets and roofs were only said to cause 2 to 4% of the global warming problem.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/Others/HeatIsland+WhiteRfs0911.pdf
It was pretty much accepted by everybody, so today when you talk about savings from white roofs it would only be helpful in warm climates who generally don't use heat but only air conditioning. No longer like in 2009 is it thought painting everything white means it's going to reduce the atmospheric temperature. In fact it's considered to be a negative in terms of trying to cool the earth if it was attempted universally. Besides rebounding light rays to hit pollution particles in the atmosphere, also it is believed white roofs will reduce water evaporation which will reduce clouds and thereby increase direct sun.
Of course I wonder about the water vapor idea because water vapor is 85 to 95% of green house gas, so I am not sure if anybody really knows if more humidity will cause global warming or if the cloud cover is stronger in reducing temperature.
But essentially that is why I thought it was fortunate we didn't mandate everyone having to go through the expense of painting their houses. Plus I would assume there would be a pollution cost in paint manufacturing and disposing of the cans, brushes and not to mention as the paint gradually washes off into the water supply. However for that little while, that was a great idea, and likely it we could have developed a consensus around it.
"Now you're telling me it's my responsibility to go search through a potentially unlimited supply of source material and find something that supports the case you want to make. Again I could ask, are you joking?"
Actually Tom, I asked you about a very limited supply of source material, I asked about these two links, you proclaimed in the end supported the 97% consensus. It was a round a bout trick to help you comprehend what you are reading. Clearly from your ability to comprehend my post it could only be assumed you had as much trouble reading the words and what they meant with the links, I was hoping as you found the complaints and the opposing statistics you might be able to have a better understanding of what you were reading. I wish you would have inadvertently accepted my help.
"But I've challenged you directly and you haven't come up with anything either! You keep claiming that you have access to some huge knowledge base that's over my head."
I know you are fighting your own demons here Tom, but I have never said I have any knowledge base that is over your head. There is no where I said this. I honestly thought you would be able to understand what was written in the links. I think your ability to read and actually comprehend what it says is putting you a severe disadvantage as you attempt to read post and decipher what someone is trying to show you in a link. I don't want you to feel offended though, its probably nothing you can help.
“Who are these Harvard doctors and what is the name of their study? The failure to cite sources raises red flags.” Busted, just as I suspected.
[“I so regret using the term 'Hood Disease' which is not a term either the CDC uses or HARVARD,” Tokuda explained in an email to EBONY. “That came from a resident in Oakland, and we seized on it. It is my fault.” Spokespeople for both Harvard’s School of Public Health and the Centers for Disease control said they’d done no such report and hadn’t been part of the station’s reporting.]
The spirit of Samuel “Drapetomania” Cartwright lives at KPIX-TV.
Post a Comment