Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[mattiasNYC]

This is a very tired mantra, women are in government too and most women I know think that abortion is not a suitable method of birth control, when there are so many other methods available.  The Sex in the City series is probably the most influential programme that has influenced young women in the UK and US today, I believe they are responsible for encouraging women to keep a condom in their handbags, good responsible advice from women.  I recognize that Sweden may have a different tradition.

Dave, the point isn't that women are powerless, the point is that you as a man aren't the one having to make an abortion, but you are the one trying to prevent others from having one, women, specifically. So 'yes', they have  a "voice" in politics, but that doesn't negate the fact that you're in favor of the government telling a group of people what to do, a group that you will never be a member of (and you'll also never ever "suffer" from the consequences of the action you wish to abolish).

There must be some thought given to the rights of the unborn child in any civilized society.  In the UK (I don't know about the US) there is a crime called destruction of an unborn child.  This often occurs when a couple split up and the girl is pregnant, the man punches her stomach to kill his baby, usually to avoid paying maintenance or because he thinks she has been two-timing him.

DaveP

I call 100% BS on men punching women in the stomach to induce "abortion" being frequent occurrence in couples splitting.

As for the "unborn child", that just brings the discussion to either a scientific or philosophical discussion. Actually more so a scientific one I would argue. As you pointed out, there's plenty of misery from women who aren't allowed or can't afford abortions who just try to get rid of their child after birth (in poor countries) as well as those that try to induce miscarriages. Much better then to have a controlled legal option.

As far as I'm concerned "viable life" is a very poor argument, as are most others.

 

[mattiasNYC]

I take your point Hodad, I am not counselling perfection here.

I just looked up the stats for the USA and there are 3000 abortions a day,

DaveP

According to the CDC the number is closer to 1800.

 

[mattiasNYC]

No need to put words in my mouth...  I am beyond weary of arguing with you. It is a waste of both our time.

JR

I didn't put any words in your mouth. Read what you wrote.

I know you don't do homework assignments though.

 

[DaveP]

I call 100% BS on men punching women in the stomach to induce "abortion" being frequent occurrence in couples splitting.

You misunderstood.

There are not many cases of the crime of destruction of an unborn child, it is just that of the cases there are, they are usually for the reasons given.

I was not saying that it was the outcome for every couple splitting, it was just an example of the law we have in the UK.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

I didn't put any words in your mouth. Read what you wrote.

I read it while I was composing it.

I know you don't do homework assignments though.

Good, you should also know that I don't like repeating myself.

Abortion is a hot button issue used to stir up the partisan divide. We need to focus effort instead on preventing unwanted pregnancy.  If there were no unwanted pregnancies there would be zero need for abortions, problem solved.  8)

The viability of a fetus can be a consideration in the context of chemically induced abortion that is more like ex post facto birth control than murdering a fetus when done quickly enough (sorry about the hot button language).

In my judgement we don't need to stir up any more public anger. This is the worst post election temper tantrum I've seen in my brief lifetime.  "Can't we all just get along?"

JR   

PS: You should become a trial lawyer so you can be well compensated for being so argumentative.

 

[dmp]

This is the worst post election temper tantrum I've seen in my brief lifetime.

The last 8 yrs were a long drawn out temper tantrum from conservatives - setting many new lows for modern politics.

We are seeing is a major dissent and protest against the Trump / Republican vision.  Hopefully, it will lead to a long term increase in participation in this country. Voting/ information/ etc

 

[dmp]

Also, I'm really tired of the insults coming from conservatives that paint liberals as childish. "temper tantrum" "snowflakes" etc...
Just because the guy you voted into the highest office saw fit to insult his political opponents right and left (i.e. "nasty women") doesn't mean you should follow his example.
Again, remember the standards we set for ourselves in this forum are above what you see and hear in Republican circles.

 

[Script]

Any bad thing that happens has at least two good flipsides (from the truism box).

One good thing I see is that people throwing political xtremist mud can now publicly be identified.

Another one is that Trump sure is a narcisist. As such he cares a lot about -- no, actually his entire self-understanding and self-esteem depend to large part upon -- what people think of him. I know it does not look like it, but that is what is at the core of any narcisist. So, yes, American fellows, please keep demonstrating (peacefully). You might have more power and influence on him than it seems.

Apart from that I think that the 'men behind the curtains' are laughing their heads off considering what and how a lot of things are 'debated' here in this thread.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Abortion is a hot button issue used to stir up the partisan divide.

Look at it this way: If the issue is of great moral importance, because it essentially is industrialized killing of human beings, then it stands to reason that it is more than what you imply above. And as I said, regardless of that view on a broader scale, that's really selling short the very legitimate feelings women have on this very issue, especially coming from a man.

We need to focus effort instead on preventing unwanted pregnancy.  If there were no unwanted pregnancies there would be zero need for abortions, problem solved.  8)

Yes, and by and large American conservatives (probably not you) will support abstinence education to combat that. And the problem is that it's not working as well as teaching kids about sex and contraceptives. So in the end we have conservatives (again, not you probably) who are complaining about the high costs of this, as well as the immorality, yet don't want to educate people to make better decisions, and then refuse to take the consequences of the lack of said education.

In addition to that, the common capitalist mantra is that "Socialism fails to take human nature into account" (which is bogus), yet here curiously "human nature" goes out the window. We suddenly expect all humans to act rationally and "responsively" despite the fact that our species has mated far younger than these days for thousands and thousands of years.

People will mate. It's just that simple. So if we want to construct societies in which having children becomes a burden one way or another then it's entirely reasonable that society also provides solutions for dealing with pregnancies once they occur, even if it's by accident.

The viability of a fetus can be a consideration in the context of chemically induced abortion that is more like ex post facto birth control than murdering a fetus when done quickly enough (sorry about the hot button language).

It is however a very difficult path to navigate philosophically, and the range of views on just how these words should be defined is pretty wide. So even though the above sounds reasonable, many will disagree.

Unless we want to get into deep philosophy and biology, I would argue that this is best left up to women to decide.

In my judgement we don't need to stir up any more public anger. This is the worst post election temper tantrum I've seen in my brief lifetime.  "Can't we all just get along?"

JR   

If you wanted "getting along" and no divide you should have chosen a different president John.

PS: You should become a trial lawyer so you can be well compensated for being so argumentative.

right back atcha.

 

[living sounds]

Yes, and by and large American conservatives (probably not you) will support abstinence education to combat that. And the problem is that it's not working as well as teaching kids about sex and contraceptives.

Actually abstinence only education does not work. It cost billions over the years but had no positive effects.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/409-the-truth-about-abstinence-only-programs

But with the kind of people advocating for these kinds of programs facts only matter if they support their world view.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Real fact or alternate facts?

 

[tands]

Just because the guy you voted into the highest office saw fit to insult his political opponents right and left (i.e. "nasty women") doesn't mean you should follow his example.

Trump said Hillary was a nasty woman, singular. It was her supporters who then adopted the term for themselves.

 

[tands]

“Trump: Experts, Who I Won’t Name, Tell Me Torture ‘Absolutely’ Works

"I have spoken, as recently as 24 hours ago, with people at the highest level of intelligence and I asked them the question: does torture work?” he told ABC reporter David Muir. “And the answer was: yes, absolutely.” Trump had promised during his presidential campaign to bring back waterboarding, despite it being banned by President Barack Obama during his first month in office; and despite there being no conclusive evidence that the torture method provided key intelligence about Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts (as its defenders often contend). “I feel it works,” Trump said, nevertheless. "

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/01/25/trump-i-ve-been-told-waterboarding-absolutely-works.html

 

[Rocinante]

A friend sent me this.

We are 4 days in. PAY ATTENTION!

* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the DOJ’s Violence Against Women programs.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Minority Business Development Agency.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Economic Development Administration.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the International Trade Administration.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Legal Services Corporation.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the DOJ.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Office of Electricity Deliverability and Energy Reliability.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Office of Fossil Energy.
* On January 20th, 2017, DT ordered all regulatory powers of all federal agencies frozen.
* On January 20th, 2017, DT ordered the National Parks Service to stop using social media after RTing factual, side by side photos of the crowds for the 2009 and 2017 inaugurations.
* On January 20th, 2017, roughly 230 protestors were arrested in DC and face unprecedented felony riot charges. Among them were legal observers, journalists, and medics.
* On January 20th, 2017, a member of the International Workers of the World was shot in the stomach at an anti-fascist protest in Seattle. He remains in critical condition.
* On January 21st, 2017, DT brought a group of 40 cheerleaders to a meeting with the CIA to cheer for him during a speech that consisted almost entirely of framing himself as the victim of dishonest press.
* On January 21st, 2017, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer held a press conference largely to attack the press for accurately reporting the size of attendance at the inaugural festivities, saying that the inauguration had the largest audience of any in history, “period.”
* On January 22nd, 2017, White House advisor Kellyann Conway defended Spicer’s lies as “alternative facts” on national television news.
* On January 22nd, 2017, DT appeared to blow a kiss to director James Comey during a meeting with the FBI, and then opened his arms in a gesture of strange, paternal affection, before hugging him with a pat on the back.
* On January 23rd, 2017, DT reinstated the global gag order, which defunds international organizations that even mention abortion as a medical option.
* On January 23rd, 2017, Spicer said that the US will not tolerate China’s expansion onto islands in the South China Sea, essentially threatening war with China.
* On January 23rd, 2017, DT repeated the lie that 3-5 million people voted “illegally” thus costing him the popular vote.
* On January 23rd, 2017, it was announced that the man who shot the anti-fascist protester in Seattle was released without charges, despite turning himself in.
* On January 24th, 2017, Spicer reiterated the lie that 3-5 million people voted “illegally” thus costing DT the popular vote.
* On January 24th, 2017, DT tweeted a picture from his personal Twitter account of a photo he says depicts the crowd at his inauguration and will hang in the White House press room. The photo is of the 2009 inauguration of 44th President Barack Obama, and is curiously dated January 21st, 2017, the day AFTER the inauguration and the day of the Women’s March, the largest inauguration related protest in history.
* On January 24th, 2017, the EPA was ordered to stop communicating with the public through social media or the press and to freeze all grants and contracts.
* On January 24th, 2017, the USDA was ordered to stop communicating with the public through social media or the press and to stop publishing any papers or research. All communication with the press would also have to be authorized and vetted by the White House.
* On January 24th, 2017, HR7, a bill that would prohibit federal funding not only to abortion service providers, but to any insurance coverage, including Medicaid, that provides abortion coverage, went to the floor of the House for a vote.
* On January 24th, 2017, DT ordered the resumption of construction on the Dakota Access Pipeline, while the North Dakota state congress considers a bill that would legalize hitting and killing protestors with cars if they are on roadways.
* On January 24th, 2017, it was discovered that police officers had used confiscated cell phones to search the emails and messages of the 230 demonstrators now facing felony riot charges for protesting on January 20th, including lawyers and journalists whose email accounts contain privileged information of clients and sources.
How much of a chance do we need to give? Seriously. Tell me."
-Deborah Friedman @ Bill Moyers

 

[mattiasNYC]

"* On January 23rd, 2017, DT repeated the lie that 3-5 million people voted “illegally” thus costing him the popular vote."

The interesting part about that, to me, isn't just that it's unfounded, but that he keeps talking about it. I mean it really does look like the guy has some pretty serious issues. He won the election, why is he still "campaigning"? Again, it really looks like narcissism and a vindictive, petty nature.

So one wonders just how he'll lead his cabinet with such a personality. What happens when advisors disagree? What happens when spokespeople refuse to tell blatant verifiable lies? What happens if he tries to order people around in unprecedented and possibly illegal ways?

Will heads roll, figuratively? I wouldn't be surprised if we'll see a great deal of people going through government during his tenure.

The rest of that list, if accurate (I haven't checked it) is troublesome to say the least. But as Trevor Noah pointed out, now it's all Republicans. There's nowhere to hide now. It's all their decisions to blame if stuff hits the fan.

 

[DaveP]

Will heads roll, figuratively? I wouldn't be surprised if we'll see a great deal of people going through government during his tenure.

I agree with this, but for different reasons, it will happen because some of them will lack political experience and are bound to make some bad mistakes.

A lot of the cuts in funding that Rocinante has listed would be consistent with a policy of small government and cutting a 20 trillion debt.  When debt repayments get very large you end up servicing them rather than spending on essentials.

What the international audience saw was some very nasty rioting ( I understand that the worst of this was caused by the Anarchist movement which seems to exist in every country).  Windows smashed with pre-prepared concrete blocks carried in their back packs (sky news).  A car set on fire and way too many journalists and photographers carefully recording it all.  Do you not think that the rioters are using this naive professional audience?

From what I've read in this forum, the American system of Congress and Senate has so many checks and balances that they act as a safeguard.  As this President has upset so many on both sides of the house, I think this must limit his more extreme options.

Listing all these issues is not evidence that the US is taking the world to hell in a handcart, it is evidence of liberal unease sure, but other points need to be mentioned for balance.  The most important issue is the confrontation of China and this again may be part of a deal making strategy, but its too early to say as yet.

DaveP

 

[musika]

Are we living in Shina?

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/01/25/511460917/for-journalists-whove-worked-in-china-new-white-house-tactics-seem-familiar

 

[tands]

A lot of the cuts in funding that Rocinante has listed would be consistent with a policy of small government and cutting a 20 trillion debt.  When debt repayments get very large you end up servicing them rather than spending on essentials.

Something like that is only true if you're in the EU, where you have a monetary union and no sovereign currency. You've given that power to Brussels.  A nation with a sovereign currency doesn't need to 'borrow' from parasitic elites like we do here in the US. That's a choice our government makes for us.

" However, a government that is sovereign with respect to its own fiat currency bears no resemblance at all to a household. Such a government creates the money we all use, either physically on a printing press or, more importantly, electronically in the accounts of financial institutions.

Licence to print money

Everyone understands that governments can create money. Most people also understand that governments don’t just create all the money they need for all the things people want because it would cause inflation. Inflation is the devaluation of money. If you have a really good season for growing apples and there is a glut, the price of apples falls. Similarly, if you have a glut of money, the price of money falls. That’s inflation.

So, here lies the key insight. Inflation is the limiting factor for government expenditure, not taxes or borrowing. A government that can create money doesn’t need your money from taxation or from borrowing in order to spend. There is no limit to how much money a sovereign government can spend, but if government spending plus private spending exceeds the productive capacity of the economy then you get inflation.

The real calculation faced by government should not be about how much money the government has – it has an infinite amount. The calculation should be about the capacity of the economy to absorb government spending without driving inflation.

Seeking a balanced budget and automatically borrowing any deficit spending (as we currently do) is an effective but unsophisticated way of ensuring government spending doesn’t cause runaway inflation. Taxes and government borrowing remove money from the private sector, creating space for government spending (which injects money into the private sector). Remember, the government does not have to borrow or tax in order to finance spending because they can create money.

The slowing Australian economy combined with the dramatic fall in global oil prices mean that inflation is set to fall and unemployment is rising. This is precisely the kind of environment into which the federal government could spend without borrowing (i.e. create money). Times like these represent opportunities for the government to finance productivity improving infrastructure and provide much needed services for nothing. I know it sounds too good to be true but this is the reality of a fiscally sovereign government.

The government could spend more

Can the government just spend as much as it wants on whatever it wants? Of course not, the result would be out-of-control inflation. Can it spend a lot more than it currently is without substantial negative consequences? Absolutely.

The much discussed “quantitative easing” in the US, UK and EU is an example of this kind of spending (though very poorly targeted). The US Federal Reserve has created trillions of dollars out of thin air and used it to buy risky financial assets and government bonds in order to take the risk off the balance sheets of financial institutions and improve their supply of money. The money was created with keystrokes on a computer which simply credit the accounts that these financial institutions hold with the Federal Reserve. There has been no runaway inflationary impact of this “printing” of trillions of dollars.

This reality of fiat currency is very difficult for many people to grasp but it’s not quite the magic pudding that perhaps it appears to be. When a government creates money, it isn’t creating value from nothing. The value lies in the human and capital resources that are underutilised in the economy. The money created by the government is simply the lubricant needed to mobilise these resources.

So, productive government spending is limited by the capacity of the economy to provide the goods and services that the government wants to purchase plus the goods and services the non-government sector wants to purchase. During economic downturns, and especially in recessions, there is spare capacity in the economy which can be employed by government. It’s possible, with this in mind, to quite easily return to the post-war days of genuine full employment even during an economic downturn.
Some basic realities

Until people understand the basic realities of monetary economics we cannot have a meaningful discussion of government finances. Rather than worrying about deficits and surpluses we should be asking whether the economy would benefit from greater or lesser government expenditure or taxation. This calculation balances unemployment, spare capacity, and the need for infrastructure and services against inflation risk. It’s a complex calculation but the underlying principles are pretty straightforward.

Let me just restate for emphasis: the need for balanced federal budgets is a myth. Like many myths, it does have some factual historical origins. Back when currencies were backed by gold it was possible for governments to go broke. Because modern currencies are not backed by anything material, sovereign governments cannot run out of money and can never be insolvent in their own currency. Somehow, mainstream political thinking hasn’t kept up with the dramatic changes in the monetary system that occurred more than 40 years ago."

http://theconversation.com/why-the-federal-budget-is-not-like-a-household-budget-35498

 

[tands]

"The premise of Third Way’s $20 million “donation” (“investment” would be more apt) to the DNC is that the “New Democrats” that led the Democratic Party and the American people to political, ethical, and policy failure and led to the election of our fraudster-in-chief are here to tell the Democrats what went wrong and how to fix it. That’s right, the same Wall Street CEOs that corrupted the New Democrats and ruined the Democratic Party, caused devastating harm to America and Americans (and Iraqis), and led to the election of Donald Trump are here to “save” the Democratic Party. Specifically, Third Way had the audacity to say that it was investing in the DNC to “launch a campaign to help Democrats reconnect with the voters who have abandoned the party.” The voters who abandoned the Democratic Party did so because the New Democrats deliberately abandoned those voters decades ago in order to curry favor (and contributions) from Wall Street elites.

The New Democrats did not limit their abandonment to benign neglect. Instead, they waged the “long war” against the working class. In 2016, the Democratic Party nominated (yet another) New Democrat who had spent a quarter-century as a senior ally of Wall Street’s long war against the working class. If you ever wondered what the word chutzpah means, Wall Street on the Potomac has just provided you with a classic example.

...

So here is my obvious question: what political party in its right mind would choose Brazile as its leader?  She is a disgrace. Listen to the jingoistic and juvenile phrase she used to sum up the New Democrat’s pro-war policies, particularly in light of her denunciation of Democrats who opposed Bush’s lies as “effete.” “[Democrats] “need to return to … muscular national security principles.”  “Muscular?” Of course, people who invade and kill people on the basis of lies are “manly” while those who oppose such invasions are “effete.” Manly men are “muscular.” They do not think. A man that uses his brains rather than his muscles is not smart; he is “effete.” We should glory in “regime change” because it is “muscular” – even if it transforms Iraq into an ally of Iran and leads to a series of sectarian civil wars in Iraq. On the issues that separate the New Democrats from progressives, Brazile represents everything that the Democratic Party should be opposing.

Note also that Brazile, unintentionally revealed the massive ideological contradiction, the black hole of hypocrisy that forms the New Democrats’ gravitational center. The New Democrats purportedly stand for the “end of big government,” deep distrust of government workers and programs, and austerity. The New Democrats rushed to cheer Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq even though it was the quintessential “big government” endeavor. They rushed to spend trillions of dollars on the Iraq war and military spending that exceeded the collective spending of the next nine nations with the highest military spending. The New Democrats demanded that all Democrats cheer this wasteful government spending, which harmed our military, maimed and killed our troops, and maimed and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. The New Democrats claim that the federal budget deficits and so-called “funding gaps” on the safety net mandate massive cuts in social spending programs. They promote invasions and unnecessary and harmful military spending programs that could easily “pay for” those social programs if austerity really were a desirable policy (it is not).

Note that each of these examples of the New Democrats’ black hole of hypocrisy also represented an assault on the American working class. Our service members are typically working class. The people hurt most by austerity’s denial of full employment are the working class. The people who gain enormously from austerity are Wall Street elites and the top one-ten-thousandth of one percent. The people hurt most by budget cuts in social programs and the safety net are the working class. The people hurt most by the New Democrats’ embrace of the three “de’s” are the working class.

The New Democrats are shocked that after waging their long war against the white working class – the white working class turned on the New Democrats’ candidate. Who could ever have guessed that after the New Democrats abused the working class for over 30 years, the white working class would decide to return the favor? (Again, yes, I understand that the Trump administration is betraying the working class.)

Wall Street and the New Democrats Continue their Long War on the Working Class

The New Democrats supported not only the actual war against various factions in Iraq, but also the economic and political war against the American working class and the middle class. They did so by inflicting austerity on our Nation and people, by attacking the safety net, and by pushing for the three “de’s,” particularly for Wall Street. This created the criminogenic environment that led to the fraud epidemics of the Enron-era and the most recent crisis, which hyper-inflated the two largest bubbles in history (creating the faux economic growth that the Clintons’ still brag about), caused the financial crisis (and Enron-era crash), and caused the Great Recession. (Bush’s “wrecking crew,” as Tom Frank aptly labeled them, followed the same policies. They share fully in Clinton and Gore’s culpability for the most recent crisis.)

The key take away is that Wall Street and the New Democrats want to continue the long war. They know that their long war has devastated the working class, enriched Wall Street elites beyond their dreams in 1984 when the funded the creation of the DLC, allowed the New Democrats to dominate the Democratic Party – and made Trump president."

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/01/bill-black-not-4-sale-corrupt-worker-hating-new-democrats-must-purged.html

 

[hodad]

A lot of the cuts in funding that Rocinante has listed would be consistent with a policy of small government and cutting a 20 trillion debt.  When debt repayments get very large you end up servicing them rather than spending on essentials.

DaveP

No.  Cutting these things will not do anything to reduce debt.  It's very much a political agenda at work--attack climate science, attack civil rights protections, etc.  Budgetwise, it's like going to the gravel yard with your kid's plastic bucket and shovel from last year's beach trip.  Because it's NOT about money.  It's NOT about the budget.  In fact, in the runup to the election, Trump was promising enormous govt. spending plans. 

I know you're a Brit, so you don't get this.  Modern American Republicans believe it is their right (Dick Cheney said, "We earned this.") to spend the country into oblivion to help stuff the larders of their corporate cronies, all the while cutting funding for social services, the arts, voting & minority protections, civil rights, etc. in the name of "small govt." 

I am partisan, but I am not wrong about it.  It's the facts, and if you've noticed that's something else the Grand Old Party has cut the budget on these days.  I think you're a good guy, Dave (from what I can tell from this list anyway), but you're defending things and people that are becoming more indefensible by the day. 

And a couple of notes on the abortion thing:  1.  I know the story I told was not the story of every abortion, but who's going to make those decisions?  As John R. pointed out (and I, surprisingly, agreed), the focus needs to be on prevention of unwanted pregnancies.  Unfortunately, the same forces that are so vehemently anti-choice are also anti-sex ed.  There was a case in Texas, I believe, where a school system switched to an "abstinence only" sex ed plan, and unwanted pegnancies and STDs skyrocketed in  the community.  So that's what we have to contend with here in the US.