Republicans Report Much Better Mental Health Than Others — Gallup

The link goes to a very entertaining and informing study, done by Gallup, showing a correlation between being a Republican and better overall mental health (self-reported).

The differences are quite significant, as can be seen. While Democrats are slightly less likely to report excellent mental health than are independents, the big distinctions in these data are the differences between Republicans and everyone else.

[…]

But an analysis of the relationship between party identification and self-reported excellent mental health within various categories of age, gender, church attendance, income, education, and other variables shows that the basic pattern persists regardless of these characteristics. In other words, party identification appears to have an independent effect on mental health even when each of these is controlled for.

The link shows the summaries of the studies, including mental health and party affiliation when controlled with income, gender, church attendance, and a few others. I would be betraying the roots of my scathing rebuke of the science of global warming if I didn’t point out that correlation does not equal causation, but the study still seems to be scientifically sound. It would be interesting to dig further into this study and see what it is about those that identify with the Republican party causes them to consider themselves having better health.

Perhaps the study should just be done again after the next presidential election.

Today’s xkcd cartoon is a shining example of why it is my favorite cartoon.

Today is Ethan’s third birthday. We celebrated it over the weekend because I am back at school for exams, but I still wish I could be there. Happy birthday!

Meet the women who won’t have babies - because they’re not eco friendly — Daily Mail

Here’s Toni Vernelli, a UK woman who sought sterilization for years, and terminated a baby, all because she wanted to save the planet.

Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible “mistake” of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.

He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - “relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.

Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to “protect the planet”.

[…]

“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35.

“Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”

[…]

[Or how about Sarah and Mark, a different couple who add,] “[w]hen I see a mother with a large family, I don’t resent her, but I do hope she’s thought through the implications.”

Mark adds: “Sarah and I live as green a life a possible. We don’t have a car, cycle everywhere instead, and we never fly.

“We recycle, use low-energy light bulbs and eat only organic, locally produced food.

“In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child.

“That’s why I had a vasectomy. It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth.

I agree with their choices; I don’t think they should be having children either. Also, as the title suggests, I’m quite curious how these people vote.

U.S. Customs delays ambulance at border — CanWest News Service

U.S. Customs delayed an ambulance that was transporting a man from Canada to a Detroit hospital. Apparently, the man had been “brought back to life” with defibrillators twice.

“If I’m that person in the booth, and there is an ambulance coming with a critically injured person, I’m not stopping the damn thing,” said Kat Lauzon, Laporte’s girlfriend. “I’m irate. I can’t figure it out. He could have died, and I would have blamed that person for murder.”

Be that as it may, but perhaps the Customs agents were buying into the political arguments on the left telling us how great the Canadian health care system is. Think about it: we’re constantly told by the left that the Canadian health care system is superior to ours in the United States.

If these agents had heard that — and it would be unbelievable if they hadn’t since all of us are inundated by it — then they probably thought that it was a big scam. Perhaps the agents just couldn’t believe it. Perhaps they thought the ambulance was being used to traffic something across the border because why would an ambulance be rushing a Canadian, who apparently, we are told, has a far superior health care system available to him, across the border the United States for health care?

“We have a system set up. We are to be pre-cleared and no problems,” Amlin said.

I’m being a little bit facetious here, and obviously if there is a system in place to transport Canadians across the border to give them access to much-needed health care, not available in their own country, then the ambulance should have been waived through. On the other hand, I’m not quoting the article for that purpose; I’m quoting the article to ask the real question: why does he need to come to the U.S. if the health care in Canada is so vastly superior? And for that matter, if the health care system is so vastly superior, why is it necessary to have a system “set up” to transport people across?

The article says that the Windsor hospital was “ill-equipped to perform live-saving surgery.” The city has a population of 216,473, and if you include the surrounding area (including the towns Amherstburg, LaSalle, Lakeshore and Tecumseh) the population is 323,342. I shudder to think what is available for smaller places, because no hospital should be “ill-equipped to perform live-saving surgery” if it services that many people.