SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Every study ranking nations by health or living standards invariably offers Scandinavian social democracies a chance to show their quiet dominance. A new analysis published this week—perhaps the most comprehensive ever—is no different. But what it does reveal are the broad shortcomings of sustainable development efforts, the new shorthand for not killing ourselves or the planet, as well as the specific afflictions of a certain North American country.
Iceland and Sweden share the top slot with Singapore as world leaders when it comes to health goals set by the United Nations, according to a report published in the Lancet . Using the UN's sustainable development goals as guideposts, which measure the obvious (poverty, clean water, education) and less obvious (societal inequality, industry innovation), more than 1,870 researchers in 124 countries compiled data on 33 different indicators of progress toward the UN goals related to health.
The massive study emerged from a decade-long collaboration focused on the worldwide distribution of disease. About a year and a half ago, the researchers involved decided their data might help measure progress on what may be the single most ambitious undertaking humans have ever committed themselves to: survival. In doing so, they came up with some disturbing findings, including that the country with the biggest economy (not to mention, if we're talking about health, multibillion-dollar health-food and fitness industries) ranks No. 28 overall, between Japan and Estonia.
[...]
The voluminous work that went into the paper may make measuring the UN goals on health seem even more daunting: The researchers were able so far to evaluate just 70 percent of the health-related indicators called for by the UN.
It may not be pretty, but "we have no chance of success if we can't agree on what's critical," said Linda Fried, dean of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 25 2016, @01:44AM
Are you kidding? Our current president just sent $400 million in unmarked, untraceable cash, without telling anybody, directly to the country his own State Department calls the 'world leader in state-funded terrorism'. Then he vetoed a bipartisan effort to allow 9/11 family members to sue for some money back, while also having fun with an official White House celebration of Muslim holidays. This administration couldn't bow down more to Saudis if they tried, and Hillary is vowing more of the same.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday September 25 2016, @01:59AM
Baraq Hussein Soetoro walks a fine line. We can only hope for some truths to emerge, and fast.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 25 2016, @02:38AM
> Are you kidding? Our current president just sent $400 million in unmarked, untraceable cash, without telling anybody,
Are you kidding? Not only was it disclosed, it was reported in the New York Times [nytimes.com] the following day:
Mr. Obama also announced the resolution of another argument between Tehran and Washington that dates to the Iranian revolution, this one over $400 million in payments for military equipment that the United States sold to the shah of Iran and never delivered when he was overthrown. The Iranians got their money back, with $1.3 billion in interest that had accumulated over 37 years.
And then the day after it was discussed in a whitehouse press briefing. [whitehouse.gov]
I am so damn tired of people turning their own ignorance into proof of conspiracy and malfeasance. You fucking trumpkins need to climb back into whatever cesspool you materialized in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 25 2016, @12:56PM
Are you kidding? Not only was it disclosed, it was reported in the New York Times [nytimes.com] the following day:
Its as good as undisclosed, no one who votes Trump reads the New York Times.
--
I defend my right to remain ignorant and stupid!
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Sunday September 25 2016, @02:41AM
> [...] just sent $400 million in unmarked, untraceable cash, without telling anybody, directly to the country [...] This administration couldn't bow down more to Saudis if they tried [...]
First off, the payment was made to Iran, not Saudi Arabia. There was a White House press release about the payment, at the time it was made. It was Iran's own money, seized in 1979. As part of the deal, the United States returned that money without paying 36 years' interest. Had the matter gone to the World Court, which both countries had agreed to, the court would likely have ruled that interest should be paid. From the press release:
The United States and Iran are now settling a longstanding Iranian government claim against the United States government. Iran will be returned its own funds, including appropriate interest, but much less than the amount Iran sought.
--https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/17/statement-president-iran [whitehouse.gov]
also explained here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/opinion/the-fake-400-million-iran-ransom-story.html [nytimes.com]
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Sunday September 25 2016, @02:45AM
*Oops, "without paying 36 years' interest" should have said "without paying the full amount of interest that Iran had asked."