A CDC report, released today, shows that suicides have increased by an age-adjusted 33% from 1999 to 2017. Suicides increased most dramatically for both sexes in the age 45-65 group. The only group for which rates did not increase was for males over 75– the category that already had the highest rates among both men and women of all ages.
Suicides were most common in rural counties, and least common in metropolitan areas– a difference of 1.8 times. Rates in women were highest at 45-64 and decreased in older age groups; in men, rates increased with age steadily.
The data show significant risks for suicide in all age groups, both men and women. The highest risks are among women aged 45-64 and among men aged 75 and over. Men have higher suicide rates in all age groups. The highest rate among women in 2017 was 9.7 per 100,000 (aged 45-64) and among men, 39.7 per 100,000 (aged 75 and over.) Rates for men aged 15-74 gradually increased with age, and the highest rate was in those 75 and over. Rates for women peaked in the 45-64 age group dramatically; in men, a slight increase was seen in those 45-64 and a small decrease in those 65-74. Women’s rates decreased in the oldest age group (75 and over) but rates were highest in the oldest men.
There has been no explanation for the increases in suicide rates, which occurred along the same time period as a dramatic increase in drug overdose death rates. There was a 6-fold increase in drug overdose deaths among people aged 45-64 over the period 1999-2017 and a 3-fold increase in overdose death rates overall in that eighteen years.
In 2016, there were 63,600 deaths from drug overdoses, both suicidal and unintentional. There were 44,965 suicide deaths, of which 6,698 were “poisonings”. Apparently, about 58,355 of the overdose deaths were concluded to be unintentional. There is some overlap between these two causes of death; in individual cases, it may be difficult to determine whether the drug overdose was accidental or intentional.
The latest year for statistics on gun-related deaths was 2016; approximately 39,000 people were killed by guns, of which about 13,362 were homicides and most of the rest– 26,000– suicides. In 2016, the FBI reported a total of 17,250 homicides, an 8.6% increase from the year before.
We are at a loss to explain these increases, much less to influence them. It is tempting to describe these findings as being in relation to the disintegration of society. If this were so, then homicide rates should have increased, but they have remained stable over the last twenty years at a significantly lower level than in 1980. Perhaps there is an increase in stress, hopelessness, and financial ruin. Then the explanation would lie in the fact that median wages have not significantly increased in 30 years and wealth inequality has dramatically increased.
Then the way to counter this problem is to address wealth inequality. The simplest way would be to go back to a steeply progressive income tax schedule, with estate taxes to deter the hereditary accumulation of wealth. Attempts to address this problem are likely to be strenuously opposed by the wealthy. Nonetheless, the simple logic of this action will redound to increases in wealth for everyone– economic growth will be sure to increase, as has been shown by historical rates of growth that increase under high-tax regimes. Tax cuts and increases in wealth inequality are hostile to maintenance of infrastructure (which impacts quality of life for all but the most wealthy) and historically have not increased economic growth. The only thing that increases with tax cuts is the national debt.
(photo courtesy of pixabay.com and mohamed_hassan)
“And this is the dangerous message that created Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gaddafi. We can better protect the good relationship with Saudi Arabia in the long run through building a relationship with the Saudi people, institutions, and even the majority of the royal family. Or we can risk losing all that by protecting one powerful individual who has been implicated in a horrible crime.”
This long quote from Abdullah Alaoudh comes to you through the Washington Post and is written by Karen Attiah. It is published as an opinion piece. The writer was a friend of Jamal Khashoggi. Aloudh is a senior scholar at the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University.
(image courtesy of pixabay.com)
Lots of people say that:
The American Prospect: “[He]
Declares He Is Above the Law
June 3, 2018 [Chrome tells me this page is “not secure.”]
Washington Post: ” [His] lawyers say he’s above the law”
Los Angeles Times: “[He]
doesn’t think he’s above the law. He thinks he is the law”
So read this: an article from a psychiatric point of view published in Salon a just a week ago:
Psychiatrist justin frank on [his] god complex: he is erotically attached to violence.
From which comes the titled quote: “[He] evidently believes he is above the law”, the very first sentence in the article.
Abigail Adams wrote a letter to her husband on March 31, 1776, while he was away working on the Declaration of Independence (actually, she wrote many letters.) Here is a larger quote from her March 31 letter:
Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.
From a New Yorker article by John Cassidy:
Now another Yale academic, the philosopher Jason Stanley, is reiterating the point. In his new book, “How Fascism Works,” Stanley writes, “Regular and repeated obvious lying is part of the process by which fascist politics destroys the information space. A fascist leader can replace truth with power, ultimately lying without consequence. By replacing the world with a person, fascist politics makes us unable to assess arguments by a common standard.”
The beginnings of this “post-truth world” can be seen already:
In a Quinnipiac University survey that was carried out this summer, seventy-five per cent of Republican respondents said they trust Trump more than the news media to tell them the truth about important issues. Just sixteen per cent said they trust the news media more than Trump.
One reason for this withdrawal from reality is the propagandistic nature of the Trumpian screed. I mentioned in a previous blog the essential elements of propaganda, but they bear repeating: repetition; a catchy slogan; color; a specific objective; a kernel of truth; concealment; and timing. (quoted from who knows where.) Republicans are subjected to a constant torrent of propaganda from their Republican National Committee and their fund-raising apparatus.
Fortunately for us, although it may not be enough of an advantage, the Republicans are in the minority. Independents make up the largest voting bloc, and Democrats the second-largest. We have to point out at this juncture, that Adolf Hitler won his way to the chancellorship with only 33% of the popular vote (he was the head of the Nazi party, the largest or second-largest party in contention at the time, and Communists were excluded from the final “free” vote of the Weimar Republic.) The example of Nazi Germany should make us cognizant of the need for Democrats to enlist the cooperation of the smaller parties, although that may not be easy; a united majority front against minority Fascists would be essential should push come to shove.
(image courtesy of pixabay.com)
He has been having a bad time lately, since the election it seems. His trip to Paris didn’t go well. When Theresa May called him while he was on the flight over, he unloaded a bellyfull of bile. He insulted French President Macron over his misunderstanding of Macron’s speech plumping for a European army– apparently he thought that Macron was saying that Europe needed to defend itself against the US. In reality, Macron was referring to cyberattacks coming from Russia, China, or the US, not actual military aggression by the US.
Macron responded by giving a speech in front of 60 or 70 world leaders, forcing him to sit there and listen, glowering in silence next to Angela Merkel, while Macron denounced nationalism and called it the opposite of patriotism.
Now that he is back at the White House, he has holed up in his bedroom, hate-watching CNN and tweeting his lies and calumnies non-stop. He has cancelled all his activities (although he was forced to appear in the White House for a celebration of the Hindu holiday Diwali.) Ironically, Diwali is supposed to commemorate the cosmic triumph of good over evil. He didn’t even go to Arlington Cemetery on Veteran’s Day, breaking a tradition that has held since JFK.
We don’t have to wait for a constitutional crisis any more. It is here. One of the few things that he did, without any publicity, the other day was to publish an unlawful executive order denying pursuit of asylum to anyone not presenting themselves at an official port of entry. Meantime, the largest port of entry on the southern border, Tijuana, with 100,000 crossings a day and 22 or more lanes of traffic, will only process one hundred applications a day for asylum. Applicants must wait for weeks at the southern end of the border crossing for their turn to apply for asylum. Of course, the vast majority of asylum requests will be turned down.
What’s more, none of the additional personnel dispatched to the border to stop this “invasion” will be assigned to take applications for asylum. He is determined to slow-walk asylum claims and add to the years-long backlog of immigration court cases.
His order denying asylum to those not presenting at official ports of entry is unlawful because the governing statutes specifically state that people can apply regardless of when they come to the attention of authorities– whether it is voluntarily at a port of entry or later, if a person is apprehended north of the border. He can’t override specific laws with executive orders and the court will not allow him to ride roughshod over the legislative branch of government as long as Marbury v Madison is settled law.
Sessions, while he was head of the Department of Justice, narrowed the criteria for successful asylum applications by removing the fear of personal violence as an allowable claim. Those who say that their husbands are threatening to kill them, or who are being extorted or hunted by gangs, will no longer qualify for asylum. Those who have applied because of personal fear can seek asylum in Mexico, but gangs are waiting for them in places like Tijuana and have been known to kidnap and extort those with sufficient family resources (there are also husbands who kill their wives if they find them.)
Meantime, the number of people applying for asylum each year has skyrocketed from roughly 5,000 to nearly 100,000 over the last ten years. Yet the US historically has only allowed about 25,000 people a year to enter under asylum provisions.
He who must not be named claims that people are lined up to apply for jobs at the White House– despite the fact that taking a job like that could be a career-ending move. He is suffering severe cognitive dissonance over the shellacking he has gotten in the elections. He’s in hiding, still tweeting furiously. His multifaceted pathological personality and defective character are providing us with a horror show every day that we can’t turn away from. Our eyes are locked on this unfolding disaster, unable to look away, nauseated, disgusted, and ashamed for our country.
(photo courtesy of pixabay.com and yogeshree2989)
The reader should be aware that this symbol long predates the twentieth century in several cultures distant from Germany– it looks shocking, but I guess that’s the point. This really is an authentic Diwali picture and it just makes you wonder… is good good or is it really evil?
(photo collage courtesy of pixabay.com and InspiredImages)
@Jason – After watching Scott and Rubio whining about finishing the vote count in Florida I’m convinced that there is some overarching and dangerous influence over the Republican Party in D.C. That is not a partisan observation. They are behaving like there is a metaphorical gun to their heads.
(photo courtesy pixabay.com)
- Glackin
- western Ma
The first “immigration” bill was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The nation had survived its first 103 years (since the Constitution was adopted) without immigration restrictions. After 1795, any immigrant could become a citizen afte five years in residence.
The next major change came with the desire to limit the rush of Eastern European Catholics and Jews in the early decades of the 20th Century. Immigration regulation has always been code for immigration restriction, for keeping out the “other’.
The ironic point to that is that the nation has profited from every influx of the “others”. Each new wave has further enriched he nation far beyond the cost of accepting them.
The Senate has passed a typical piece of legislation, filled with the plums and goodies that were needed, or demanded to get that mythical 60 vote threshold. We would see much cleaner legislation were the Senate adopt the startling concept that a majority of their House is 51, and not 60.
We have some 11 Million people living here without documentation. They didn’t all climb over “that dang fence”. Most overstayed visas. They are at work at every level in our economy, and are a vital part of our economy.
It is time for politicians to stop posturing for cameras and reciting the same talking points to fire their bases, and admit to reality
It is time to end the fear of the “others” and embrace the policies that built this country.
“Give me your tired, your poor ….”
Immigrants who came to the US 100 years ago via Ellis Island had to prove financial stability and undergo a brief physical before they were allowed to enter the country. They were required to show some form of financial stability – either cash, or a sponsor willing to offer to support them, or offer them employment. There were no food stamps, welfare grants, free lunches, or bilingual schools. They came here to bootstrap themselves and their children into the mainstream melting pot. Those who chose to raise large families did so knowing that they woul be required to support their own children. All but the elderly learned to read and write English. They came at a time when folks were not embarrassed to be poor. No $150 Nikes or new cellphone every six months. They came at a time when the economy was expanding, and they were able and willing to work long hours under horrible conditions in order to gain a foothold in a country with a future. Most of all, they came legally. Few walked across the border expecting a handout.
- Robert Baesemann
- Los Angeles CA
NYT Pick
Emigration and immigration are processes driven by powerful economic forces. The Soviet block had a very difficult time controlling emigration despite their willingness to resort to murder to stop it. Vietcong crossed the border between North and South despite B52 strikes, defoliants, and ground troops. The only way to control borders is destroy the incentives for illegal immigration and smuggling.
If we do not want illegal immigrants crossing the border, we need to take away employers’ incentives to hire illegal immigrants. The legal machinery to do that is in place already. Major corporations regularly ask for a pass port to verify citizenship when they hire people because they need to avoid penalties.
No matter how formidable the wall the Republicans hope to build, they will have as little success as they have had with keeping out marijuana, heroin and cocaine. Fortified borders went out of style in 1940. The Euro zone has no passport controls. No one ever prevented Michigan from hiring cheap labor from Southern States. House Republicans need to advance the interests of their constituents rather than insist on throwing tax dollars away building fortified borders.
- maryo00
- Atlanta
NYT Pick
It is sad to read all of the (typical) anti-Republican comments. This is about granting amnesty to 20 million (not 11) illegal immigrants. Our court systems, schools, ERs, and jails are filled with reasons to have a sensible debate about immigration reform. Starting with enforcing existing laws. This is not about work visas, green cards, or even ‘fairness.’
It’s about our government’s complete disregard for enforcing immigration laws and monitoring those on visas to ID those that have expired. Too many of you claim that these illegal immigrants came here to escape a lousy situation. However, we can not take all of the people that want to leave their country – we’d explode. Not because the US is perfect, but because too many countries offer their people nothing. Not even an education.
As far as the diversity arguement – please! People like to live with their own kind, always have.
- Chicago Bear
- Chicago
NYT Pick
I’m willing to bet that all those folks ranting about criminals pouring across the border and the peril of immigrants don’t know a single undocumented person in this country. Well, I do and I do what I can to help them have a better life in this country. They aren’t freeloading on welfare; they’re working as hard as they can to support themselves and their families. Along the way, they are cheated and exploited by their employers. I would much rather have these people in our country than those narrow minded xenophobes whose graceless ignorance shows up in these comments. I hate to think what our country would be like if the majority was like them.
