Homestead mailing list

["clanSkeen" <sgian AT planetc.com>]

> ***Ah, but James, you DO trot out the fat rant about absolutely everything
> that has anything however slight to do with health.

That's right, I do.  Because fat has something to do with just about every 
health problem there is .....even in the cases that it is not a  direct 
factor, it is none the less an indicator of bad diet, lack of exercise, and 
the overuse of prescription drugs which weaken and exascerbate even the 
maladies that the person had no hand in bringing about.

> ***And that has what to do with INFANT mortality?

That you even have to ask the question points to the nature and severity of 
the problem.  The poorer the overall health and strength of the woman, the 
more dangerous the birth for both mother and child.  Just as an observation 
here, I've attended the births of a good number of children and never in 
even one case was there a strong woman of  healthy weight who had the least 
problem in birth and the resulting children with top APGAR scores.   ALL the 
women I have known, ALL, who had a child die or died themselves in 
childbirth were grossly overweight with the accompanying bad nutrition and 
weakness one would expect to find.

Although no demographic of which I am aware is venturing a causal 
relationship, many have none the less observed that the rise in obesity 
parallels the rise in infant mortality both in time and location.

Obesity is well recognized as a significant contributor to deaths from 
cancer, cardio-vascular disease, and accident.  Why would we expect neonatal 
deaths to be any different?  Children born to healthy women are healthier 
than children born to obese women.

But once again see how quickly you are ready to dismiss obesity as a 
contributing factor to a rising health problem.  That's why it needs to be 
brought up.

> > ***ON ONE RANKING.  Let's see, the Princeton Review isn't done on spending
> http://www.princetonreview.com/footer/testingTesters.asp  Morgan Quintno's
> uses 21 factors including, what, can't be, test scores

I've read the construct of several of these comparisons.  When any of them 
use test scores that were normed on different populations (which is what 
they all must do, since there is no commonly normed test used by the 
states), they are just guessing and speculating.   The 21 factors are so 
subject to interpretation you can come to any conclusion you like and it 
would be just as valid.

James



> http://www.morganquitno.com/edfact04.htm and, of course, there is the 
> biggie
> which is all about reading, math, science, etc. the DOE's NAEP from the 
> NCES
> or as it is otherwise known, The Nation's Report Card
> http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/
>
> And, actually, the numbers you refer to are usually NEA numbers and they 
> are
> all about $$.  However, per capita is only part of their formula.
>
> Lynda
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Homestead list and subscription:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
> Change your homestead list member options:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/sgian%40planetc.com
> View the archives at:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead