#so ‘where?’ is an estimate based on context and american sign language | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

eduquip · 2 months

Text

07/13:

How important is grammar instruction in helping students write better?

Ever since I've learned about "prescriptive" and "descriptive" grammar, it's been my favorite grammar rules to think about. Prescriptive grammar are rules of grammar based on how language "should" be whereas descriptive grammar is how grammar is actually used: "ain't" isn't a word according to prescriptive grammar, but has it's own context and place in language according to descriptive grammar. When I think about teaching grammar, I know that prescriptive rules are important to helping students grow, but it's equally important to stress that descriptive grammar is justly valid and has it's place in language and writing.

Both of these rules have their own place and time. When students in America are learning dominantly English in schools, this is seen as the language of expectations in which grammar rules are set and followed. I have a friend who is born to two Spanish- speaking parents, grew up speaking Spanish at home and in their community, but started losing the ability to speak Spanish as well because they were primarily working with English in school. As of 2019, the United States Census Bureau reported that 78% of Americans spoke English (Dietrich & Hernandez, 2022). It is the majority, but there's still a 22% population who does not speak English. If children are in school to learn language, they will most likely learn English and a second language as an elective— therefore, the English rules of grammar take precedent in schools.

Prescriptive grammar, or "proper grammar", has a set of rules that show that an English speaker or writer has mastered conventions of the language. One rule, that differs between Romantic languages, is adjective placement. The prescriptive rule states that the adjective comes before the noun, such as "green shirt", whereas in a language like French, the adjective comes after the noun, such as "chemise vert". Someone who does not follow a rule like this may show signs that people don't understand the conventions of English grammar. When I teach English, it's convenient when students follow the prescriptive rules of grammar so I understand what ideas they are trying to convey. There is value in teaching it— but part of the value lies in bias. Acknowledging this bias is critical to acknowledging the political power that lies in mastering English.

English, plainly put, is a language not native to America, but it is primarily spoken and written in America. America was colonized by different European countries, such as Spain and England, and thus the language was spread along with colonial rule. An example of this is Indian Boarding Schools, where Native American children were taken from their families and taught English to "kill the Indian and save the man"— anyone using their native language or practicing their native culture were punished (The National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition). Because of imperialism, English is a language used throughout the world for business, communication, politics, tourism, and more. In 2019, the British Council estimated that 1.75 billion people spoke English, which is a quarter of the world's population, and was projected to grow to 2 billion in the next year (Ibrahim et. al, 2019). This can lead to the belief that, because of it's spread and political power, it is "superior" compared to indigenous languages (Zeng et. al, 2023).

I have a friend who lives in Portugal who speaks Portuguese as their first language and English as their second, and I have a friend who lives in Argentina who speaks Spanish as his first and English as his second. Both of these countries are not ones that I consider "English" speaking countries, but this is the language that we communicate in. My Portuguese friend describes their time learning English in school as a constant repetition of English's prescriptive grammar rules on tests alongside vocabulary. Their acquisition of the language relied heavily on learning the grammar rules of the language, and they are someone who writes English "well"— it's understandable and follows conventional rules to convey ideas. English mastery for bilingual students and citizens is "important" to have given the state of the world, because it will help them navigate many locations that use English for international business and communication, but it's equally important to acknowledge that English is a result of colonization and it's prescriptive rules are apart of it.

So as an English teacher, what can I do?

Be honest. Testing and business outside of school rely on a mastery of prescriptive grammar in English and other parts of the world, so understanding what's expected in writing can lead to more "acceptable" forms of writing. Standardized tests also expect writing to look and flow a certain way, so learning these rules can show that students can respond to the expectations asked of them by their audience (Lindbloom, 2004).

Be unbiased. Just because a student might speak without typical conventions of prescriptive grammar, understanding forms and systems of language within English can help students communicate with themselves and others without need for "proper" grammar. For example, African American Vernacular English (AAVE) is born and developed from enslaved Africans being forced to learn English while combining aspects from both their languages and English, which still exists as a dialect today (Smith, 2024). Understanding, as someone who teaches prescriptive grammar, that AAVE is not incorrect because it does not abide by English's prescriptive rules, acknowledges appreciation for all kinds of language use.

Give opportunities to write freely. To encourage students to want to write, they have to be given a space to write in a way that is true to the student. Opportunities like "freewriting" gives students a space to jot down a stream of consciousness and become comfortable with their identities as a writer (Brown, 2018). Freewriting should be ungraded and without rules of how to write, so descriptive grammar isn't a factor of of "correct" grammar. There should be opportunities for students to write and respond without pressure to use "proper" grammar to make it clear that perscriptive grammar rules do not define them.

All of this in mind, prescriptive grammar can help students shape their writing to become more coherent writers of English, but structure doesn't inherently define "better" writers. Teaching prescriptive grammar rules can help students communicate their thoughts on a basis of rules people understand. Teachers should make audience expectations clear to help students guide their writing, but also give students ample opportunity to write in "their voice" to practice and enhance when they are expected to follow grammatical rules.

References

Brown, J. (2018). Freewriting: Where did it come from? Why should we use it? How does it work? The Leaflet, 114(2), 34-40.

Dietrich, S., & Hernandez, E. (2022, August 29). Language use in the United States: 2019. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2022/acs/acs-50.html

Ibrahim, N., Hammed, H., Zaidan, A., Zaidan, B., Albahri, O. S., Alsalem, M., et al. (2019). Multi-criteria evaluation and benchmarking for young learners’ English language mobile applications in terms of LSRW skills. IEEE Access 7, 146620–146651. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2941640

Lindblom, K. (2004). Writing for real. English Journal, 94(1), 104-108.

The National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition. (n.d.). US Indian boarding school history. https://boardingschoolhealing.org/education/us-indian-boarding-school-history/

Smith, J. B. (2024, April 30). African American vernacular: Why it matters in language learning. International Center for Language Studies. https://www.icls.edu/blog/african-american-vernacular-why-it-matters-in-language-learning.

Zeng, J., Ponce, A. R., Li, Y. (2023, March 7). English linguistic neo-imperialism in the era of globalization: A conceptual viewpoint. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1149471.

0 notes

theliberaltony · 4 years

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarah (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): On Wednesday, a mob of pro-Trump rioters attacked the U.S. Capitol as Congress met to certify the 2020 presidential election results. But as shocking as Wednesday’s events were, they were, in many ways, the culmination of the past four years of Trump’s presidency.

President Trump has long spewed lies to his supporters about the election, refusing until very recently to concede, and routinely has shown his disdain for both the integrity of America’s elections and its tradition of a peaceful transfer of power. And right before the chaos broke out on Wednesday, Trump had just finished urging his supporters to protest Congress’s vote to certify the election results, telling them “[Y]ou’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.” Within an hour, the Capitol was under attack.

This violent episode raises many questions about the future of democracy in America — not only its continued health, but the extent to which the U.S. has already become less democratic. So let’s first unpack this question by diving into this data point: Polls show while the majority of Americans condemn what happened on Wednesday, a plurality of Republican voters support it. What does that say about the current state of democracy in the U.S.?

jennifer.mccoy (Jennifer McCoy, professor of political science at Georgia State University): It shows that Americans are terribly divided over the perception of democracy itself — including whether it is even under threat and who is responsible for the threat. This makes it extremely difficult to propose solutions. But it’s important to keep in mind that we’re talking about 15 percent of the population, maybe 20 percent, who said they condoned the violence.

lee.drutman (Lee Drutman, senior fellow at New America and FiveThirtyEight contributor): Democracy requires parties that are committed to free and fair elections and will accept the outcome — even if they lose. So if the dominant position in the Republican Party is that the only free and fair elections are those where Republicans win, and anything else is “stolen” and fraudulent, then we’re on the precipice of not having a democracy.

But as Jennifer said, the one silver lining here is that the overwhelming majority of Americans reject the anti-democratic rhetoric of Trump and his allies. This is important.

cyrus.samii (Cyrus Samii, professor of politics at New York University): I find it helpful to place this moment in a broader historical context, as I think there are two trends at play here. First, decades of mobilization and a fight for a more democractic, inclusive society have brought about generational changes in America’s politics, including more women, people of color and other long-excluded groups now having a seat at the table. That has made our politics more inclusive and more democratic, but there is a second trend here — a politics of resentment that cannot tolerate this growing diversity. This mindset is particularly rampant within the Republican Party, and part of what CNN’s Van Jones has called a “whitelash,” or conservative white Christian Americans mobilizing against the type of progress embodied by President Barack Obama’s time in office. The Atlantic’s Adam Serwer has also written on the pendulum swinging between moments of progress on inclusion and white resistance.

Last Wednesday embodied this dynamic in the span of a few hours: We had the historic election of two Democratic senators in Georgia, followed then by a mob, including a number of white supremacists sacking the Capitol in the name of Trump, and most Republicans to date being unwilling to do much about it.

jennifer.mccoy: Yes, and I think the question now is whether this unwillingness to condemn the mob, or call out their colleagues who are perpetuating the myth of a “stolen election,” is the dominant position in the Republican Party or only a faction that can be contained.

sarah: Do we have a sense of what is driving these attitudes?

jennifer.mccoy: The politics of resentment, written about by a number of scholars, including Kathy Cramer and Arlie Hochschild, who wrote definitive books on the topic, derives from perceptions of unfairness or injustice that accompany the diversification of one’s workplace or community, changing the power structures that Cyrus spoke about. The urban-rural divide in America’s politics exemplifies this. Rural Americans, mostly Republicans, perceive urban dwellers, more Democratic and more racially diverse, as receiving more than their “fair share” of tax revenues and opportunities. With wage stagnation and the growing service-based economy, white males without a college degree, in particular, feel a loss of social status that can lead to rage and support for more authoritarian politics. This is why “identity politics” are arguably more of an issue for the GOP than the Democratic Party today. What’s particularly troubling here, though, is that the political rhetoric from politicians and media personalities are really whipping up latent attitudes of resentment to create the politics of outrage we saw on display last Wednesday. Republicans have gone further than Democrats in using vilifying language and painting horrific scenarios if the “radical, liberal, socialist Democrats” and their “anarchic mobs” take over.

lee.drutman: To follow up on Jennifer’s point about politicians driving some of this, take what Vice President Mike Pence said at the Republican National Convention this summer. He said that the election was about “whether America remains America.” Those are incredibly high stakes, so when you add that kind of rhetoric to our winner-take-all election system, you have a recipe for a very angry minority convinced that the system is rigged against them. As we saw last Wednesday, one response is to take matters into their own hands through violence.

We also know that opposition to democracy is much stronger among Republicans who have beliefs that political scientist Larry Bartels has called “ethnic antagonism,” a measure of “unfavorable feelings towards Muslims, immigrants and other out-groups … [and] concerns about these groups’ political and social claims” in his research.

The chart below is extremely striking as it shows that among Republicans, the higher the level of ethnic antagonism, the more likely they are to say they don’t trust election results, use force as an alternative and support authoritarian stances. (Bartels “normalizes” the distribution so that half of Republicans are above zero on the ethnic antagonism scale, and then presents the data two ways — using statistical analysis to estimate values (left) and reporting the actual data in the limited survey sample (right).) Overall, though, the takeaway is clear: Bartels finds troublingly high support for these sentiments among Republicans.

sarah: Is what happened Wednesday, then, a somewhat expected consequence of what happens when a sizable portion of the electorate loses faith in our elections and institutions?

jennifer.mccoy: To be clear, the research we have doesn’t necessarily show that losing faith in elections and institutions leads to violence. It can, for instance, have repercussions like withdrawal and political apathy. We saw this in Venezuela when the opposition cried fraud, without evidence, after losing a referendum to remove President Hugo Chávez in 2004. They had trouble turning out supporters in governor elections right after, and then called for a boycott in the 2005 legislative elections, handing total control to Chávez’s party and enabling them to name loyalists to all of Venezuela’s political institutions. It took another decade before Venezuelans could mobilize to win back the legislature, but by that time, Chávez’s successor had turned even more authoritarian and remains in power today.

However, if political rhetoric is drumming up violence, using demonizing and dehumanizing language and glorifying battle language, then yes, supporters are likely to engage in violence, thinking their leaders are urging that, as we saw last Wednesday.

lee.drutman: Jennifer’s point about political rhetoric is extremely important. The level of nativism, or anti-immigration sentiment, has been roughly consistent in the population for a while now. But there are signs that it has become a much stronger partisan issue in the last decade or so as Trump and other Republicans have played with rhetorical fire. It’s true that far-right leaders have been stoking this issue in multiple western democracies, and as the chart below shows, it’s evident among Republicans in the U.S.

jennifer.mccoy: And the future of the Republican Party is absolutely key to what happens to U.S. democracy. Early signs after Jan. 6 are not encouraging — the party reelected Trump’s hand-picked candidates for the RNC, chair Ronna McDaniel and co-chair Tommy Hicks, and many party leaders have also avoided calling for any accountability for Trump, instead saying that this will further divide the country when we need to unify.

sarah: Some historians have argued if there isn’t accountability, this will all escalate. Is that accurate? How are you all thinking about the importance of consequences for what happened Wednesday for democracy moving forward?

Historian of coups and right-wing authoritarians here. If there are not severe consequences for every lawmaker & Trump govt official who backed this, every member of the Capitol Police who collaborated with them, this "strategy of disruption" will escalate in 2021

— Ruth Ben-Ghiat (@ruthbenghiat) January 7, 2021

cyrus.samii: If there is no accountability, then the lesson for Republicans will be that they can continue to use illiberal means to maintain a grip on power. And on the left, this might play into the hands of those who would say there is no point in sticking with liberal institutional processes when the other side doesn’t. A clear recipe, in other words, for escalation.

jennifer.mccoy: And if there isn’t any accountability for what happened Wednesday, it gives organized citizens, as well as the next generation of political leaders, license to engage in the same — or worse. Political learning is a real thing, and it can be positive or negative.

If Congress or others fail to act, the road remains open to Trump (and anyone else) to continue to act with impunity, run for office again or support future violent acts. Congress has the ability to impeach Trump and take the extra step of disqualifying him from running again, and the power to censure and even expel the members of Congress who spread the same disinformation about the election and voted against the certification of results in two states. This is important because failing to condemn the exclusionary and hate-filled rhetoric Trump used in his presidency means that catering to the fears, anxieties and resentments of a portion of the electorate might remain a viable political path moving forward.

sarah: Let’s take a step back. In November, The New Yorker’s Andrew Marantz wrote a feature on how civil resistance can stop authoritarian-style leaders from cementing their power, comparing what’s happened in the U.S. under Trump to other parts of the world. “In the past 15 years, there has been a marked global increase in what international relations scholars call ‘democratic backsliding,’” wrote Marantz, “with more authoritarians and authoritarian-style leaders consolidating power.” To what extent is there democratic backsliding in the U.S.?

lee.drutman: If democracy depends on a set of shared rules for free and fair elections, we are definitely in a period of backsliding.

cyrus.samii: I don’t know, the term “democratic backsliding” is problematic in my opinion insofar as it fails to clarify how the conflict in the U.S. is between those using democratic means to achieve progressive change (and succeeding at some moments) versus those who want to push back against that change by undermining democracy. The fact is, a lot of progress is occurring through the ballot box, the U.S. Senate runoffs in Georgia being a prime example, and this is precisely why Republicans are intent on throwing up obstacles to its broad-based use. Republicans have been trying to disenfranchise minority voters, for example, and these efforts are subject to heated legal fights.

sarah: So as Cyrus said, democratic backsliding may be too toothless of a term, but how would we describe the trajectory of democracy in the U.S.? Are we less democratic than one year ago? Four years ago?

jennifer.mccoy: According to international rankings, U.S. democracy is eroding faster than what we see in other major western democracies — it is more on par with Brazil, Bangladesh, Turkey and India, according to the global think tank V-Dem Institute’s 2020 democracy report. The Economist Intelligence Unit also downgraded the U.S. to a flawed democracy in 2016. Expert surveys of political scientists, such as Bright Line Watch and Authoritarian Warning Survey, also measure higher threats.

Each of these groups measure democracy using different measures — electoral integrity, rule of law, media and academic freedom, civil liberties, to name a few. But one measure I want to zoom in on is “toxic polarization” (which I call “pernicious polarization” in my research with Murat Somer), as we’ve found it’s especially delegitimizing and on the rise. Essentially, it’s when society is divided into two mutually distrustful camps and there is increased demonization and delegitimization of opponents. Our research has found that it can often result in calls to violence, too.

It’s also something V-Dem uses in its assessments. It found in a 2020 paper that the Republican Party was on par with autocratic parties in Turkey, India and Hungary on their new illiberalism index, especially in their use of demonizing language to describe political opponents, disrespect for fundamental minority rights and encouragement of political violence.

lee.drutman: (If you’re interested in how these various surveys evaluate the quality of a country’s democracy, here’s a great paper that outlines the different ways they measure democracy — summary table below.)

sarah: It’s true that in survey after survey, Republicans, as you all have said, have expressed less support for democracy than Democrats, but I was hoping we could unpack a little more the debilitating effect that this has had on American democracy writ large.

For instance, in the wake of the protests in Portland, Oregon, last summer, FiveThirtyEight’s Maggie Koerth and contributor Shom Mazumder found evidence of members of both parties holding anti-democratic views.

As the chart illustrates, this was especially true among Republicans, so I’m not trying to “both sides” this, but I do want to unpack the effect that severe polarization might have on democratic erosion. That is, how do you factor in polarization when looking at how the U.S. has become less democratic? Is it the number one factor driving what we’re seeing? Or is that too simplistic?

cyrus.samii: Breakdown by party is exactly the right way to look at it. Democrats are involved in a bottom-up struggle to broaden political inclusion while Republicans have been fighting to limit that, including in this past year’s elections. And so it is not so much a question of democratic backsliding at the country level, but rather in terms of whether parties see themselves as being competitive democratically or whether they need to use anti-democratic strategies to maintain their grip.

lee.drutman: Jennifer’s work on pernicious polarization is incredibly important here, and has really influenced my thinking. When politics becomes deeply divided in a binary way along cultural and identity lines (as it is now in the U.S.), democracy is in a really dangerous place.

jennifer.mccoy: And this type of polarization is more likely to lead to democratic erosion because it is based on an “us vs. them” division, not just disagreement on issues.

lee.drutman: On that chart, Sarah, showing support for strong leader/army rule, I’ve co-authored two recent reports on the topic, one in 2018 and another in 2020. And it’s true, we did find some support for these alternatives to democracy on both sides, which is worrying. But again, the overwhelming majority of Americans are in support of democratic institutions.

But here is where political leadership is so important. That some voters have weak connections to democracy is not a new problem. In fact, research has found that is typical among those who are the least educated and least politically engaged. The new problem is having political leadership that encourages and stokes these anti-democratic sentiments.

jennifer.mccoy: And as partisan antipathy grows, perceptions of out-party threat grow, and that leads people to challenge democratic norms so as to keep their own party in power and keep the others out.

cyrus.samii: The way I interpret the question, Sarah, is: How does polarization affect Republicans’ thinking on whether or not to abandon the strategy of limiting democratic processes to retain their hold on power, rather than seeking new coalitions, broadening their appeal and making themselves more competitive democratically?

In other words, it’s all about the strategy that the Republicans pursue. So when you take that into consideration, increased polarization — by which I mean distancing oneself from and dehumanizing outgroups — could sustain Republicans’ fixation on limiting democracy because they cannot see themselves forming any new alliances with people outside their traditional white Christian base.

lee.drutman: Cyrus — that is the central question, but I think there is a significant division among Republicans. So let me reframe your question slightly: What will it take for Republicans who want to build a more inclusive, pro-democracy party to triumph over those who are committed to ethnonationalism and grievance?

cyrus.samii: Yes, Lee, exactly.

lee.drutman: And as long as we think of this as a zero-sum Democrats vs. Republicans fight, we’re stuck. But if we think of this in terms of the forces of democracy vs. the forces of ethnonationalism (or whatever you want to call it), I do think we can make some progress.

sarah: Are there institutional changes (abolishing the Electoral College, reforming the Senate, etc.) that would bolster American democracy or make it less vulnerable to similar challenges in the future?

lee.drutman: I’ve written a lot about what would happen if the U.S. moved to a more proportional voting system, and I do think that would enable a center-right party to operate independent of a far-right party. It also might allow for a broader governing coalition that could keep the far-right out of government, as has happened in many Western democracies with more proportional voting systems.

And maybe we see this play out a little in the U.S. That is, I could see a pro-democracy faction within the Republican Party joining with Democrats to support electoral reforms (such as the Fair Representation Act, a piece of election reform legislation that would establish multi-member districts with ranked-choice voting).

cyrus.samii: Institutional changes to the Electoral College or the Senate would certainly make a difference, since those institutions are a part of what Republicans currently rely on in the anti-democractic aspects of their strategy. But changing them is probably too hard, politically.

Of course, once, say, Texas goes blue, those institutions will come to have the opposite effect and lock out Republicans — unless they change who they can attract. Also, Sarah, I think the idea that “overall trends point to increased illiberalism” is only true when it comes to the kinds of strategies that Republicans are using to try to maintain a grip on their power, rather than with respect to U.S. democratic politics as a whole.

lee.drutman: Yes, changing the Electoral College or the Senate would require constitutional amendments. Enacting proportional representation, interestingly enough, is entirely within Congress’s power, though.

jennifer.mccoy: I want to go back to an earlier point about HOW we get here. I’ve written with Somer about how democracies could solve this dilemma by “repolarizing” along democratic lines vs. authoritarian lines, and what we found is very similar to Lee’s and Cyrus’s point about inclusive movements vs. exclusionary ethnonationalist movements. That is, shifting the axes of polarization to the principle of protecting democracy instead of a divide between different partisan and social identities could actually help protect democracy, as long as it’s not done with demonizing or hyperbolic language.

And that’s important, because as political scientist Daniel Ziblatt has written, a principled conservative or center-right party is essential for a functioning democracy. Even President-elect Joe Biden has reiterated the need for a Republican Party for the health of our democracy. The problem is our two-party system is currently mired in toxic polarization and so the extreme elements within the parties are amplified. We need institutional reforms to allow for political incentives to change.

lee.drutman: I do think the events of Jan. 6 have been a tremendous wake-up call to many on the urgency of democracy reform.

cyrus.samii: It certainly was a wake-up call, Lee. I also think that the incredibly tumultuous times that current 18- to 35-year-olds have endured — 9/11, the Iraq War, the Great Recession, Trump’s presidency, the events that inspired the Black Lives Matter protests this summer, and of course, COVID-19 — could generate a political consciousness that we haven’t seen since the 1960s or 70s.

lee.drutman: Cyrus — yes, there are lots of similarities to the Great Society Era which was the last era of major democracy reform and included major voting rights reform. There are also lots of similarities to the Progressive Era, which was the previous era of large-scale democracy reform.

So if you believe in political scientist Samuel Huntington’s theory that there is a 60-year cycle of democracy reform movements — that every six decades or so, American democracy falls short of its democratic ideals and reform movements emerge to expand our democracy, we’re right on schedule.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #A FiveThirtyEight Chat

1 note · View note

thenavajotourist-blog · 4 years

Text

Your Hero is Not Untouchable Pt 1

Your Hero is Not Untouchable

A Monuments Study: Starting with Mt Rushmore

By Rye Purvis 6/17/2020

(Photo from Rapid City Journal Archives)

The Four Thieves

In 1868 the United States signed the “Treaty of Fort Laramie” with The Oglala, Miniconjou and Brulé Lakota, Yanktonai Dakota and the Arapaho Nations. The Treaty defined seventeen articles, namely defining territory to tribal members and protecting the land from white settler intervention. That all changed when white settlers moved onto tribal lands despite the Treaty when the allure of “gold” in the Black Hills led to expeditions by George Armstrong Custer in 1874. Territory largely remained on paper as “Indian Territory” until the Great Sioux War of 1876 where the United States government “unilaterally annexed native land protected under the treaty.” The treaty would be “modified three times by the US Congress between 1876 to 1889, each time taking more land originally granted, including unilaterally seizing the Black Hills in 1877.”1

Now under United States control, the Black Hills long known as a sacred ground for the Lakota people, were prepped to undergo a large carving in a 1927 federally funded project secured by then US Senator from South Dakota Peter Norbeck. Concurrently, according to the Meriam Report (a report on Indian “conditions” commissioned by the Rockefeller Foundation), the Sioux reservations in South Dakota saw largely starvation and dismal conditions. In James Fenelon’s “Culturicide, Resistance, and Survival of the Lakota Sioux Nation,” Fenelon writes that one man named Black Horse described such conditions: “we are starving…and eating our horses.” Another man, Fools Crow stated “the white population…was expanding; taking their land allotments, trading their ‘freedom for money and liquor’ with ‘no end to this curse.’”2 It had only been a mere 37 years prior that the United States Army massacred 250 Lakota men, women and children in the Wounded Knee Massacre. Food shortages were further heightened by years prior of European settlers hunting Bison (a staple for Lakota people) into near extinction. Cue Mt Rushmore:

“Sculptors were carving four faces of most famous Euro-American leaders, U.S. presidents, into a ‘great shrine of democracy and freedom’ on the monumental cliffs in the stolen Black Hills, in an area known to Lakota as ‘the six grandfathers.’ The Lakota dubbed the Mt. Rushmore result ‘the four thieves’ as each had engineered the taking of vast tracts of Indian land.”2

Did you know that Sioux Nation took the United States to Supreme court in a 1980 case to regain the Black Hills? The Supreme Court decided to instead give the “value of the land” in monetary value rather than the land itself. The Sioux has since declined the money (estimated to be over 1 Billion dollars, held within the Bureau of Indian Affairs) since this would “legally terminate Sioux demands for return of the Black Hills.”3 I know this fact isn’t related to monuments nor Mt Rushmore, but what is it is a testament to the resilience of the Sioux Nation despite years of war, famine, stolen land, broken treaties and the desecration of the Six Grandfathers.

Here’s another fact. According to the Smithsonian, Gutzon Borglum the creator/sculptor of Mt Rushmore was a white supremacist sympathizer who once said “I would not trust an Indian, off-hand, 9 out of 10, where I would not trust a white man 1 out of 10.” Borglum also worked alongside the Ku Klux Klan, becoming “involved in Klan politics.”4 Of course, this information doesn’t necessarily have to do with Mt Rushmore, but it makes for an interesting backdrop doesn’t it?

Lest We Forget

Art Historian’s Harriet Senie and Sally Webster remark in “Critical Issues in Public Art: Content, Context, and Controversy” the phenomenon of Mt Rushmore in displacing Sioux existence and history:

“It’s important to invent alternative pasts for a culture that finds it hard to accept the real one. It’s paradoxical that a Shrine of Democracy is placed in the center of land acquired through…the most blatant example of 500 years of genocide and hemispheric conquest. Rushmore implies that the European has always been here. It obscures a painful memory and eases racial guilt much the same way an individual represses thoughts that remind him of a painful experience.”5

This paradox permeates throughout American culture today, setting stage for the current climate of a demand for accountability and anti-racism manifesting throughout the US after George Floyd’s recorded murder by a Minneapolis Police Officer set off the motion of action. In just the last two weeks of June 2020, the world has watched as communities around the world have toppled over sculptures and monuments long considered representations of a colonized history. In fact, this past Monday, in my home state of New Mexico a protester was shot during a protest in Albuquerque in front of an Juan de Oñate statue. Oñate was a Spanish conquistador who was involved in the Acoma Massacre of 1599 that resulted in 500 Acoma men and 300 women and children killed as a result. This isn’t the first time protests have been held around such a figure. In 1998, a group of Acoma peoples cut off the foot of an Oñate statue in Alcalde, New Mexico as an act of defiance against the 400th year anniversary/celebration of Spanish “founding of New Mexico colony.” That’s not even the interesting part: “At the Oñate Monument and Visitors Center, Estevan Arellano, the director of the site, supervised the attachment of a new foot to the statue. He later said, ‘Give me a break – it was 400 years ago. It's okay to hold a grudge, but for 400 years?’”6

I digress.

Erin Genia wrote a great thesis titled “Wokiksuye: The Politics of Memory in Indigenous Art, Monuments and Public Space” and in it delves into the erasure of memory within a colonized landscape:

“Monuments play an important role in this process by supplanting Indigenous presence with shrines to colonization and occupation. A key pursuit of colonial empire-building is the forced erasure of memory. In this, colonizing powers have been so successful that people in the Western world are generally ignorant of their origins or their natural connections to the continuum of life. Knowing where you come from and what sustains you should be staples of consciousness for people of any culture. But the practice of eliminating memory and language has been taking place for so long that this fundamental knowledge is increasingly absent. The trajectory of world history has been dominated by those who have used their might to subjugate and take power from others to enrich a few chosen ones, using methods that wipe out the memory of the subjugated.”7

I wish I had the bandwidth to unpack the levels of effects colonization has had on BIPOC in America – all within a short online article on monuments- especially where Genia left us in the previous quote. The entire existence of the United States has been based on eliminating the memory and language of BIPOC through acts of genocide that pervade through monuments. So going back to Mr. Arellano’s quote “It’s okay to hold a grudge, but for 400 years?” No, toppling monuments in June 2020 are not acts of grudge or ill will, nor was it a grudge in 1998’s foot removal. Instead these are acts of recognition of painful histories that the US is grappling with, amongst a climate of people who have yet to fully acknowledge the atrocities of war, slavery, and genocide. In the words of the Acoma statement on the 1998 foot removal: “We see no glory in celebrating Oñate’s fourth centennial, and we do not want our faces rubbed in it.”

I will continue to write about other US Monuments in this series titled “Your Hero is Not Untouchable” including diving into contemporary artist responses.

Thank you for reading.

Quotes:

1 Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Fort_Laramie_(1868)

2 Culturicide, Resistance, and Survival of the Lakota (Sioux Nation) James V. Fenelon

3 United States v Sioux Nation of Indianshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Sioux_Nation_of_Indians

4 Matthew Shaer, The Sordid History of Mount Rushmore, October 2016 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/sordid-history-mount-rushmore-180960446/

5 Harriet Senie, and Sally Webster, Critical Issues in Public Art: Content, Context, and Controversy. (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1998), 249

6 Acoma Massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoma_Massacre

7 Genia, Erin, Wokiksuye: The Politics of Memory in Indigenous Art, Monuments and Public Space. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2019)

https://architecture.mit.edu/sites/architecture.mit.edu/files/user/attachments/Wokiksuye%20The%20Politics%20of%20Memory%20in%20Indigenous%20Art%20Monuments%20%26%20Public%20Space%20by%20Erin%20Genia.pdf

1 note · View note

citizentruth-blog · 6 years

Text

Fact Check: Misleading Ads from the DCCC - U.S. NEWS

New Post has been published on https://citizentruth.org/fact-check-misleading-ads-from-the-dccc/

Fact Check: Misleading Ads from the DCCC

(Fact Check) The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is airing ads across the country to boost Democrats’ chances of taking control of the House. But we found several ads that ran afoul of the facts.

An ad in Iowa misleadingly says that “50 percent” of the nonelderly in the 3rd District “have preexisting conditions,” yet Rep. David Young “voted to deny protections for their health care coverage.” His vote for the American Health Care Act would have lessened such protections for those on the individual market, where 6 percent of all Iowans get their coverage.

Two other DCCC ads say Republican candidates in Colorado and Pennsylvania cast votes against those with preexisting conditions, even though the lawmakers ultimately joined Democrats to vote against the AHCA.

In Pennsylvania, the DCCC claims that Rep. Mike Kelly’s “net worth increased by millions” while in Congress. But the source DCCC cites show that Kelly’s net worth has gone downsince he took office.

In Minnesota, an ad against Pete Stauber claims he’s in an “email scandal,” saying he “was caught using county tax dollars to help his congressional campaign.” Stauber, a county commissioner, swapped 15 emails with the National Republican Congressional Committee that the county said didn’t warrant any further action.

In Virginia’s 10th District, the DCCC uses a familiar talking point to misleadingly claim Rep. Barbara Comstock voted for “the Trump tax plan that gives almost all the benefit to the richest 1 percent, while middle class families pay higher taxes.” That’s only the case after 2025, when most of the individual income tax changes are set to expire.

The DCCC, an official party committee, is the second biggest spender behind the Congressional Leadership Fund, which calls itself as “the super PAC endorsed by House Republican leadership.” As of Oct. 19, CLF has spent more than $93 million, while the DCCC has spent nearly $66 million, on so-called “independent expenditures,” according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Independent expenditures are TV ads and other forms of political communications that advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate.

Earlier this week, we looked at some of the TV ads being run by CFL. Here we look at a sampling of DCCC ads that have aired this month.

Preexisting Talking Point

The DCCC uses a misleading talking point in an ad in Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District, saying that “50 percent” of “Iowans under 65 in David Young’s district have preexisting conditions. But Young voted to deny protections for their health care coverage.”

youtube

Young’s vote was in 2017 for the Republicans’ American Health Care Act, which would have lessened the protections under the Affordable Care Act for those with preexisting conditions — but it wouldn’t have eliminated all of them. And, more important, the changes would have applied to the individual market, where 7 percent of the U.S. population (and 6 percent of Iowans statewide) buys insurance.

The 50 percent figure comes from the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress, which applied Census Bureau population data to an Obama-era Department of Health and Human Services report. That report estimated how many Americans could be denied coverage, charged more or faced coverage exclusions if they were seeking coverage on the individual market before the ACA’s protections went into effect in 2014, because of their preexisting conditions. Those conditions ranged from high cholesterol and arthritis to cancer and heart disease.

As the CAP analysis notes, those not seeking insurance on the individual market — including those with employer-sponsored insurance, which is where about half of Americans get their coverage — wouldn’t lose their insurance because of any preexisting conditions.

CAP, April 5, 2017: While people with Medicaid or employer-based plans would remain covered regardless of medical history, the repeal of pre-ex protections means that the millions with pre-existing conditions would face higher rates if they ever needed individual market coverage.

The American Health Care Act, as we’ve explained before, would have prohibited insurance companies from denying coverage based on health status, like the ACA. However, unlike the ACA, it would have allowed insurance companies on the individual market to price premiums based on health status in some cases. Under the plan, which passed the House but not the Senate, a state could apply for a waiver to allow medical-based pricing for people who do not maintain continuous coverage, defined as a lapse of 63 days or more over the previous 12 months.

Those policyholders could be charged higher premiums on the individual market for their preexisting conditions for one year. After that, as long as there wasn’t another 63-day gap, the policyholder would get a new premium not based on health status.

States with those waivers would have to set up high-risk pools or risk-sharing programs, designed to assist those with high medical costs.

The GOP plan also wouldn’t have allowed insurers to exclude coverage of someone’s particular medical conditions. However, states also could get a waiver to set their own requirements on what essential benefits insurers had to include in their plans. Under the ACA, insurers must cover a list of 10 benefits.

So, Young did vote for a plan that would have lessened preexisting condition protections for those on the individual market — but the estimated 50 percent of people in his district with some kind of medical condition would have to be seeking insurance on that market before they potentially could have been charged higher premiums under that plan.

They Voted Against the GOP Plan

Two other DCCC ads say the Republican candidates cast votes against those with preexisting conditions, even though the lawmakers ultimately voted against the AHCA — and in doing so, cited their concerns that the Republican-sponsored bill didn’t do enough on patient protections.

In Colorado’s 6th District, the DCCC has aired an ad that says Rep. Mike Coffman “voted to end protections for preexisting conditions,” and on-screen it says “13 times.” A DCCC press release links to four of those votes — to repeal the ACA, or state that it should be repealed — that were cast in 2011, 2012 and 2015. As we said, the ACA includes several provisions to protect those with preexisting conditions, and with these votes, Republicans didn’t offer a substitute for the health care law.

youtube

So, it’s true that the votes would have ended those protections. Then again, lawmakers knew the repeal measures were symbolic votes, taken while Barack Obama was still president and had veto power.

But Coffman’s repeal votes don’t tell the whole story. When it came time for the House to actually pass a repeal-and-replace bill, Coffman voted against the American Health Care Act. In all, 20 Republicans voted “no.”

He also cited his concerns about provisions regarding preexisting conditions in doing so. In a press release on the day of the vote, Coffman cited Rep. Tom MacArthur’s amendment — which added the provision about state waivers to charge some policyholders more on the individual market.

“At this time, I cannot support the AHCA with the MacArthur amendment because I’m concerned that a small percentage of those with preexisting conditions may still not be protected,” Coffman said. “This does not take away from the fact that the Affordable Care Act is failing and American families are hurting. In my conversations with House leadership and the Administration over the last 72 hours, I made it clear that additional language was necessary to protect this vulnerable group.”

Similarly, a DCCC ad against Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick in Pennsylvania’s 1st District cites threeprocedural votes in claiming the Republican lawmaker “voted against protecting people with preexisting conditions.” (Coffman sided with Republicans, too, on those votes.)

But Fitzpatrick, like Coffman, voted against the GOP health care bill.

The Washington Post Fact Checker reviewed the three votes in question in depth, finding they were “minor procedural votes,” not votes to actually pass legislation. “All of these votes have to do with parliamentary actions — a vote on the previous question (in plain language, ending debate) and a motion to send a bill back to committee,” the Fact Checker wrote.

Two of the votes — on May 3 and 4, 2017 — were Democratic efforts to change House rules to block health care legislation that would end preexisting condition protections. And the other vote would have sent a bill back to committee with instructions to add language regarding such protections.

But the Republican votes wouldn’t have ended the ACA’s protections.

In ultimately voting against the GOP health care plan — a measure that would have ended some of those protections — Fitzpatrick said in a statement that “any changes to our current system must ensure both the continuity of coverage and the continuity of patient protection provisions.”

DCCC Sales Job on ‘Car Dealer Mike Kelly’

In Pennsylvania’s 16th Congressional District, the DCCC attacks Rep. Mike Kelly for his vote on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which Trump signed into law in December.

The ad says, “2010. Car Dealer Mike Kelly is elected to Congress. And while there, his net worth increased by millions. So, it’s no surprise he helped give special tax breaks to car dealers — like himself.”

The first claim — about Kelly’s net worth increasing while in Congress — is unsubstantiated. The second — about “tax breaks” — lacks context.

The DCCC’s research report on Kelly says, “When Kelly ran for office, his net worth was an estimated $8.05 million. In 2015, after four years in Congress, Kelly’s net worth grew to an estimated $18.61 million – a $10.56 million increase.” That’s false.

The DCCC cites the Center for Responsive Politics as its source. But that group’s website – opensecrets.org – says Kelly’s average net worth was $34.6 million in 2010 when he ran for office, and it dropped to $19.3 million in 2011, his first year in Congress. Kelly took office on Jan. 3, 2011.

As of 2015, the most recent year available, Kelly had an average net worth of $18.6 million. So his net worth is still below the level it was at when he ran for office in 2010, despite the ad’s claim.

Amanda Sherman, a DCCC spokeswoman, made the point that Kelly filed a financial disclosure report in 2010, while a candidate for office, that showed he was worth $8.05 million in 2009. But when the reports were filed is irrelevant. The fact is Kelly’s average net worth increased before he took office, not while in office, as the ad erroneously claims.

As for the ad’s reference to “tax breaks” for car dealers, the DCCC is referring to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — a $1.5 trillion law that overhauled the nation’s tax code. It cut corporate tax rates, changed the individual income tax brackets and reduced estate taxes, among other things.

While the narrator says that Kelly “helped give special tax breaks to car dealers like himself,” the ad displays a Wall Street Journal headline that says, “Car Dealers Win Carveout in Latest GOP Tax Proposal.” The Journal story was about a provision added on Nov. 9, 2017, that addressed the treatment of interest on “floor plan financing indebtedness,” which the global consulting firm KPMG explains is interest paid on loans that are “used to finance the acquisition of motor vehicles held for sale or lease.” That includes cars, boats, farm machinery or other vehicles purchased by dealers for lease or sale.

Car dealerships, for example, borrow money in order to maintain a stock of new and used cars on their lots. Under the old tax law, the interest on those loans was fully deductible. The House bill maintained 100 percent deductibility of interest.

Rep. Kevin Brady, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, added the provision, according to the Wall Street Journal article cited by the DCCC. The story mentions that Kelly is one of three House members who “have been in the auto-dealing business.” He owns Mike Kelly Automotive Group in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Kelly is a member of the committee and voted for Brady’s amendment, but the DCCC offered no evidence that Kelly was involved in the drafting of the provision that affects his business.

Despite the House vote in November, the Senate version of the tax bill “would have reduced the current 100 percent deduction of floor plan interest to 30 percent of adjusted taxable income,” according to the National Automobile Dealers Association. However, Sen. Rand Paul sponsored an amendment to preserve full deductibility of floor plan interest, which was included in the bill approved by the Senate on Dec. 2, 2017, according to the NADA.

Kelly voted for the final bill, which passed the House largely along party lines, 227 to 203, on Dec. 19, 2017. Trump signed it on Dec. 22, 2017.

John S. Treu, an assistant professor of accounting at West Virginia University, said it “would be appropriate” to characterize the treatment of floor plan financing as a “carveout.”

“The TCJA introduced a general limitation on interest deductibility based on adjusted taxable income and so maintaining the status quo for certain types of debt would also be a special carve out,” Treu told us in an email. “So I guess it would be appropriate to characterize it as a carve-out that maintained the status quo because the deduction for other types of interest income was being limited.”

We can’t say what role, if any, Kelly had in the House provision, but we know that the carveout would not have become law without the help of Paul in the Senate. We also can say for sure that the passage of a bill in December 2017 had no impact on Kelly’s net worth while in Congress from 2011 to 2015, contrary to the DCCC’s implication.

Kelly faces Democrat Ron DiNicola in the Nov. 6 election. According to the Erie Times-News, this is the DCCC’s first ad in the race since DiNicola was added to the committee’s Red to Blue campaign to flip control of the House from Republican to Democratic.

Tax Plan’s Effect on ‘Middle Class’

A DCCC ad in Virginia’s 10th Congressional District misleadingly says Rep. Barbara Comstock voted for “the Trump tax plan that gives almost all the benefits to the richest 1 percent, while middle-class families pay higher taxes.” Actually, most middle-income families will see a tax cut in the first years of the plan. When and if many of the individual income tax changes expire after 2025, those middle-income tax cuts disappear.

The ad portrays Comstock as a rubber stamp for Trump’s agenda, saying she has voted with Trump “97.8 percent of the time.” That’s true, according to a FiveThirtyEight.com analysis last updated on Oct. 10. It’s also true, as the ad says, that that is the highest among Virginia’s congressional delegation (though tied with Republican Rep. Scott Taylor).

But the ad cherry-picks to make the point that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — which Comstock supported — “gives almost all the benefits to the richest 1 percent, while middle-class families pay higher taxes.”

According to an analysis of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, taxes will decline on average across all income groups in 2018. While “middle-class families” is a subjective classification, TPC noted that in 2018 “taxpayers in the middle income quintile (those with income between about $49,000 and $86,000) would receive an average tax cut of about $900, or 1.6 percent of after-tax income.” Upper-income taxpayers, especially those in the top 1 percent, would benefit even more as a share of after-tax income.

Those middle-income taxpayers would continue to see tax cuts through 2025, TPC said, on average about $900 that year, or 1.3 percent of after-tax income. However, because most of the individual income tax provisions are scheduled to sunset after 2025, TPC found that by 2027, “taxpayers in the middle income quintile would see no material change on average.” Those in the bottom two quintiles, after seeing a small tax cut through 2025 “would face an average tax increase of 0.1 percent of after-tax income.” Some of those could be considered “middle class.”

Republicans added sunset provisions to most of the individual tax cut provisions so that the bill could pass through budget reconciliation, a process requiring only a majority vote in the Senate. In order to do that, Republican lawmakers could not add more than $1.5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years. Nor could they have a bill that added to the deficit beyond that 10-year window. However, Republicans say they expect a future Congress will extend those cuts.

An image in the ad says “83 percent of benefits to the richest 1 percent.” This is a frequent Democratic criticism of the tax plan, but, as we have written, it cherry-picks to a time after most of the individual income tax changes have expired (and assumes they are not extended). So it’s true that an estimated 83 percent of the tax benefits are projected to go to the top 1 percent in 2027, but in 2025 — the last year before those tax changes expire — a quarter of the tax cuts go to the top 1 percent.

The ad cites a Washington Post blog that says “some” middle-class taxpayers would see a tax increase and that the lion’s share of the tax benefits would accrue to upper-income Americans. Still, until the individual tax changes expire, most in the middle-income range will get a tax cut.

Email ‘Scandal’

A DCCC ad in Minnesota’s 8th Congressional District talks about an “email scandal” involving Republican candidate Pete Stauber, a St. Louis County commissioner, saying he “was caught using county tax dollars to help his congressional campaign.” The ad says voters ought to send a message that “we’ve got enough corrupt politicians in Washington.” But there’s less to this “scandal” than the ad suggests.

Stauber is accused of swapping 15 emails with people from the National Republican Congressional Committee. That appears to run afoul of St. Louis County policy, which states, “St. Louis County elected officials will not use St. Louis County funds, equipment, supplies, employees, or facilities in support of their own campaigns for reelection, other candidates for public office, or political organizations.”

So that’s the backdrop for the DCCC ad, which states, “Emails scandals. This time it’s Pete Stauber in the hot seat. He was caught using county tax dollars to help his congressional campaign. Now he’s refusing to answer questions and won’t release his emails. Send Pete Stauber a message, we’ve got enough corrupt politicians in Washington.”

In response to inquiries from the Star Tribune, St. Louis County confirmed there were 15 emails between Stauber’s county email address and the NRCC, which is backing Stauber as one of its “Young Guns” in a seat critical to Republicans holding onto control of the House. Stauber faces Democrat Joe Radinovich and independence party candidate Ray Sandman in the general election.

It’s true, as the ad says, that Stauber has refused to release those emails, and the county won’t either. The county administrator and assistant county attorney both say the emails are, according to state statute, private data and cannot be released without the consent of one of the emailing parties. (The Minnesota Department of Administration disagrees, and asked the county to make the emails reviewable. We take no position on that.)

But the county says it looked at the emails and determined no further action was required.

“We proactively reviewed the emails through the lens of our Code of Conduct for Elected Officials Policy and were satisfied that no investigation or further review was warranted,” said St. Louis County spokeswoman Dana Kazel, according to the Duluth News Tribune. The county commission is a nonpartisan board, meaning commissioners don’t run on any party ticket.

The ad cites a WDIO-TV news report on the story, which does state that Stauber is “in the hot seat” over the emails. In that report, Cynthia Rugeley, associate professor of political science at the University of Minnesota, says, “It’s a legitimate question on why you did it, and why you did it 15 times.” But, she said, “It’s not a serious violation by any stretch. … I would think 9 times out of 10 a county would make the same decision [not to take any further action].”

We reached out to Rugeley as well and she again noted, “There were 15 emails. He did use county email for the communication.” As for the ad’s claim that Stauber “was caught using county tax dollars to help his congressional campaign,” that’s a stretch.

“I guess you could make the argument about time he spent on a government computer,” Rugeley said. “I don’t know where he read it and elected officials do not have 8-5 business hours, making that a dubious claim. So, I don’t think the money argument works.”

We don’t either. It appears Stauber may have violated county policy with emails to the NRCC, but saying he “was caught using county tax dollars to help his congressional campaign” and implying that the email flap makes Stauber another “corrupt politician” goes too far.

#DCCC #Democratic Party #democrats #fact check

0 notes

daddyslittlejuliet · 6 years

Text

How to Prevent Dog Bites

In my new book about helping troubled dogs, The Midnight Dog Walkers: Positive Training and Practical Advice for Living with a Reactive or Aggressive Dog, I devote an entire chapter to the “scope of the problem” facing dog owners today. I could have, however, written a very large book just on the subject of why some dogs are willing to use their teeth to communicate. Dog bites are a serious problem. The American Veterinary Medical Association estimates that there are 4.5 million people bitten by dogs every year in this country.

Who gets bitten by dogs?

Children are bitten by dogs most often. Photography ©Volodymyr_Plysiuk | Thinkstock.

Who is bitten most often? Children — usually young boys. One study showed that an adult was not present in the dog bite incident 69 percent of the time. Even when an adult stands inches away from a child and a dog, that’s no guarantee that a bite won’t occur.

It is vitally important that parents and all dog owners understand what they can do to prevent such a tragedy. When a dog bites — even if harassed by a child — there is a substantial chance that the bite leads to a swift death by euthanasia. It also can create lifelong fear and anxiety of dogs in children who suffer a bite. And let’s not forget the potentially large financial consequences should your dog bite someone.

How can you prevent dog bites?

A national study of 256 fatal dog bites that occurred between 2000 and 2009 noted these facts:

no able-bodied person was present to intervene

the victim had no familiar relationship with the dog

the dog was not spayed or neutered

the victim’s ability to manage interactions with the dog was compromised due to age or physical condition

the dog had previously been mismanaged

the dog had been abused or neglected

Based on that information, my knowledge of other studies, and as a professional dog trainer, here are eight things dog owners can do to reduce the risk of a dog bite:

Never leave a dog unattended with a child or anyone who is not capable of intervening in the event it is necessary to do so. Never? Really? Yes, really. Any dog with teeth can bite, even your super sweet fluff ball at your feet. Forced into just the right situation where a dog feels he needs to defend himself, he has those teeth there to do the job.

Respect dogs you don’t know, and do not approach them. Simply don’t do it.

Spay or neuter your dog at an appropriate age.

Use positive reinforcement training. Never use pain, force, or fear to train a dog. Using these outdated methods is counterproductive, harmful, and unnecessary.

Proper and positive early socialization before the dog hits 16 weeks of age lays the foundation for the dog for the rest of his life. Get busy introducing the world to your young dog in a way that builds his confidence and resilience, and you will enjoy a lifetime with a well-rounded dog (assuming there are no genetic or medical reasons causing undesired behavior issues).

Teach young children positive methods of interacting with dogs. No child should be allowed to sit on a dog, pull a dog’s body parts, or in any way corner or harass a dog. Teach children to respect the dog’s right to walk away from a situation that makes him uncomfortable.

We have bred dogs to be our companions. Dogs left alone outside in the backyard or on a chain are unhappy, lonely dogs. They grow frustrated, which can lead to aggression, just as it does in humans. Dogs need to be “residents” of the household and not left alone.

Learn canine communication. Dogs have their own species-specific language. They warn us when they feel uncomfortable. Take the time to learn from a professional in the dog industry just what fear, anxiety or frustration look like from a dog’s point of view.

If a bite does occur, after medical needs are met, step back and reassess your management and training plans. Reassess why and how the bite occurred:

What was happening in the dog’s environment just prior to the bite?

What warning signals did the dog give that the humans didn’t understand or ignored?

Dogs don’t bite “all of a sudden.” They warn using their canine communication language. Warning signs include trying to escape or avoid the situation, lip licking, tail tucked, sudden sniffing or scratching out of context, whites showing in the eyes, shaking, barking, growling, lunging, body stiffness, giving a hard stare, etc.

Call in a true canine behavior expert for help. Do it sooner rather than later, as the dog’s life may depend on quality help. Dogs are masters of understanding us. Let’s return the favor, and spend more time and energy understanding their point of view and how they communicate.

Doing so can literally save a life, and that life may be that of your own dog — or your own child.

Editor’s note: Have you seen the Dogster print magazine in stores? Or in the waiting room of your vet’s office? This article first appeared in Dogster magazine. Subscribe to Dogster and get the bimonthly magazine delivered to your home.

Thumbnail: Photography ©TongRo Images Inc | Thinkstock.

Read more about dog training on Dogster.com:

What Are Dogs Scared Of? How to Help Dogs Overcome Their Fears

How to Stop Dog Pulling and Have a Better Walk

Think You’ve Got a Stubborn Dog? How to Train a Dog Who Won’t Listen

The post How to Prevent Dog Bites appeared first on Dogster.

0 notes

buynewsoul · 6 years

Text

How to Prevent Dog Bites

Who gets bitten by dogs?

Children are bitten by dogs most often. Photography ©Volodymyr_Plysiuk | Thinkstock.

How can you prevent dog bites?

A national study of 256 fatal dog bites that occurred between 2000 and 2009 noted these facts:

no able-bodied person was present to intervene

the victim had no familiar relationship with the dog

the dog was not spayed or neutered

the victim’s ability to manage interactions with the dog was compromised due to age or physical condition

the dog had previously been mismanaged

the dog had been abused or neglected

Based on that information, my knowledge of other studies, and as a professional dog trainer, here are eight things dog owners can do to reduce the risk of a dog bite:

Respect dogs you don’t know, and do not approach them. Simply don’t do it.

Spay or neuter your dog at an appropriate age.

Use positive reinforcement training. Never use pain, force, or fear to train a dog. Using these outdated methods is counterproductive, harmful, and unnecessary.

If a bite does occur, after medical needs are met, step back and reassess your management and training plans. Reassess why and how the bite occurred:

What was happening in the dog’s environment just prior to the bite?

What warning signals did the dog give that the humans didn’t understand or ignored?

Doing so can literally save a life, and that life may be that of your own dog — or your own child.

Thumbnail: Photography ©TongRo Images Inc | Thinkstock.

Read more about dog training on Dogster.com:

What Are Dogs Scared Of? How to Help Dogs Overcome Their Fears

How to Stop Dog Pulling and Have a Better Walk

Think You’ve Got a Stubborn Dog? How to Train a Dog Who Won’t Listen

The post How to Prevent Dog Bites appeared first on Dogster.

0 notes

stiles-wtf · 6 years

Text

How to Prevent Dog Bites

Who gets bitten by dogs?

Children are bitten by dogs most often. Photography ©Volodymyr_Plysiuk | Thinkstock.

How can you prevent dog bites?

A national study of 256 fatal dog bites that occurred between 2000 and 2009 noted these facts:

no able-bodied person was present to intervene

the victim had no familiar relationship with the dog

the dog was not spayed or neutered

the victim’s ability to manage interactions with the dog was compromised due to age or physical condition

the dog had previously been mismanaged

the dog had been abused or neglected

Based on that information, my knowledge of other studies, and as a professional dog trainer, here are eight things dog owners can do to reduce the risk of a dog bite:

Respect dogs you don’t know, and do not approach them. Simply don’t do it.

Spay or neuter your dog at an appropriate age.

Use positive reinforcement training. Never use pain, force, or fear to train a dog. Using these outdated methods is counterproductive, harmful, and unnecessary.

If a bite does occur, after medical needs are met, step back and reassess your management and training plans. Reassess why and how the bite occurred:

What was happening in the dog’s environment just prior to the bite?

What warning signals did the dog give that the humans didn’t understand or ignored?

Doing so can literally save a life, and that life may be that of your own dog — or your own child.

Thumbnail: Photography ©TongRo Images Inc | Thinkstock.

Read more about dog training on Dogster.com:

What Are Dogs Scared Of? How to Help Dogs Overcome Their Fears

How to Stop Dog Pulling and Have a Better Walk

Think You’ve Got a Stubborn Dog? How to Train a Dog Who Won’t Listen

The post How to Prevent Dog Bites appeared first on Dogster.

0 notes

jeffreyrwelch · 6 years

Text

How to Prevent Dog Bites

Who gets bitten by dogs?

Children are bitten by dogs most often. Photography ©Volodymyr_Plysiuk | Thinkstock.

How can you prevent dog bites?

A national study of 256 fatal dog bites that occurred between 2000 and 2009 noted these facts:

no able-bodied person was present to intervene

the victim had no familiar relationship with the dog

the dog was not spayed or neutered

the victim’s ability to manage interactions with the dog was compromised due to age or physical condition

the dog had previously been mismanaged

the dog had been abused or neglected

Based on that information, my knowledge of other studies, and as a professional dog trainer, here are eight things dog owners can do to reduce the risk of a dog bite:

Respect dogs you don’t know, and do not approach them. Simply don’t do it.

Spay or neuter your dog at an appropriate age.

Use positive reinforcement training. Never use pain, force, or fear to train a dog. Using these outdated methods is counterproductive, harmful, and unnecessary.

If a bite does occur, after medical needs are met, step back and reassess your management and training plans. Reassess why and how the bite occurred:

What was happening in the dog’s environment just prior to the bite?

What warning signals did the dog give that the humans didn’t understand or ignored?

Doing so can literally save a life, and that life may be that of your own dog — or your own child.

Thumbnail: Photography ©TongRo Images Inc | Thinkstock.

Read more about dog training on Dogster.com:

What Are Dogs Scared Of? How to Help Dogs Overcome Their Fears

How to Stop Dog Pulling and Have a Better Walk

Think You’ve Got a Stubborn Dog? How to Train a Dog Who Won’t Listen

The post How to Prevent Dog Bites appeared first on Dogster.

0 notes

roguenewsdao · 6 years

Text

Syraq SITREP 47: British Media Denies UK Special Operators May Have Been Captured by Syrian Arab Army, OPCW Headed to Douma as US/UK/French Strikes on Syria Delayed

Did Moscow and Tehran Use Captured British Special Forces as Leverage to Back the British Drive for War Against Syria Off?

Moscow has reportedly been engaged in back channel diplomacy with the Americans to allow the British to save face and quietly repatriate these POWs from an undeclared and illegal war. However, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the Kremlin threatened to expose the captured British operatives and their botched covert mission to the world, using them as leverage to get London if not Washington to back off -- for now -- from planned air strikes. The Daily Mail's reporting on the topic includes the British Ministry of Defense's denial that any UK servicemen have been captured in Syria and predictable propagandistic embellishment from Iran's Fars News Agency of the James Bond-esque tasks put to the British operatives before they were caught.

Leaks Possibly Authorized by Trump or his Close Loyalists to Push Back Against the Neocons Reveal Infighting in the Trump Administration, Bolton Opposed by Mattis/Dunford

As the Russian Analyst stated in our previous Syraq SITREP 46, there is clearly some sort of infighting going on behind the scenes in the Trump White House and more broadly, some push back perhaps against 'the deep state' across the (post)Western world. U.S. allies in Asia, led by Japan and South Korea, are noticeably silent or supporting the OPCW investigation playing out. Canada and Germany, while predictably condemning Assad, ruled out participating in any Anglo-American-French air campaign against Syria. While leaks intended to push Trump in a more belligerent direction or imply he's weak on Russia have been the norm since the President took office, for the first time in a good while we're seeing those opposed to rash confrontation with Russia or the casualties that will inevitably be incurred in a rumble with Iran leaking to reporters.

Not only did pro-Trump blogger Jack Posobiec claim that the tweet calling Assad an animal was written by someone other than the President, but we're now seeing reports that Secretary of Defense Mattis and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford are opposing National Security Adviser John Bolton's push for a wider air war. Based on their track records, the rabidly anti-Iranian Bolton wants the U.S. to do Israel's dirty work for it and target IRGC affiliated Shi'a militias in addition to supposed chemical weapons sites and (now mostly evacuated) Syrian air force bases. Mattis publically guarded comments neither committing to imminent action nor ruling it out appear to be attuned to the shifting moods of his Commander in Chief.

Dunford, for his part, has a history of bluntly telling the U.S. Senate that if they wish to destroy Assad's capacity to bomb rebels that entails direct clashes with Russia. Dunford has also been on the hotline with his counterpart Russian Chief of Staff Valeriy Gerasimov for weeks and conveyed the Russian commander's warnings of retaliation to the top. It therefore seems very likely that Dunford would advocate for a face-saving but highly limited Tomahawk strike on an empty air base in the desert, along the lines of last April's action. Mattis and Dunford, unlike Bolton, appear to be concerned that if the U.S. kills more Syrians and especially Russians and Iranians with missiles, then some GIs will be coming back from (the illegally set up) American bases east of the Euphrates in body bags. Could it be that the generals Trump so highly praised are trumping if not slowly removing the crazed neocon and worst (al)CIA(eda) factions in Washington, as QAnon has suggested?

Trump, the French-British Push for War, and the Weak 'Evidence' from the Douma Chemical False Flag Attack

This question brings us to the mind of the mercurial Commander in Chief, playing '4D chess' against himself, doubtless aware that the pressure from Robert Mueller and a corrupted FBI's raids on his personal attorney Michael Cohen is designed to push him towards a wider war. Asked by reporters if he'd ordered a strike following his apparent backtracking on the now notorious 'get ready for smart missiles Russia' tweet sent Thursday morning, Trump said 'we'll see what happens folks' (Even if you don't trust a word Trump says but only look to his actions at this point, you can watch the body language analysis of a 'defeated' looking President resigned to acting against his gut instincts, probably in the full knowledge that Douma was a dirty deep state false flag in the video above).

As the British cabinet predictably urged Theresa May to take action, UK Transport Minister Jo Johnson stressed: "There has been no decision to take military action at this point." Not surprisingly given how much our friends from LaRouchePAC have documented that this war drive is coming out of London, it was left to anonymous British military sources to complain that Trump's tweets had spoiled the chance to destroy more of the Syrian air force on the ground (although there is evidence Syrian Air Force planes have been dispersing since the Israeli strike on Tiyas air base last Sunday, and indeed, avoiding easily targeted by standoff missiles concrete aircraft shelters before then).

The Trump Administration was said to be 'consulting allies', while French President Emanuel Macron insisted Paris had proof chlorine if not other chemical weapons were used at Douma. OPCW investigators were said to be headed to the scene on Saturday, creating another potential reason for Trump to delay military action. Syria's envoy to the UN Bashar Jaafari said, "We will facilitate the arrival of the team to anywhere they want, in Douma, to check whether or not there was use of chemical substances".

On Fox News, which President Trump is known to watch to keep in touch with his electoral base, host Tucker Carlson pointed out that even Secretary of Defense James Mattis was admitting that the evidence the U.S. has gathered thus far is inconclusive, and heavily reliant, as after the sarin gas attack on Khan Sheikhoun last April, on (G)NGOs and 'fighters' aka jihadists and their White Helmets buddies on the ground. Mattis remarks Thursday to the House Armed Services Committee reiterated what he told reporters Wednesday, which is that the U.S. is still evaluating intelligence. Mattis also mentioned that non-persistent chemical agents could degrade at the site of the alleged attack in Douma in the context of discussing how soon OPCW investigators could reach the area. The Russian Analyst hopes the Commander in Chief watched the full debate between Carlson and Commentary neocon regime change advocate Noah Rothman:

As British anti-war conservative Peter Hitchens writes above, Jaish al Islam, the Saudi backed sharia imposing jihadists that controlled Douma before the alleged chemical attack, have a history of using toxic agents against enemies -- principally the Kurds. Amnesty International even documented their use in 2016 of indiscriminate 'hell cannons' and gas against Kurdish forces in Aleppo's Sheikh Maqsuod neighborhood, where an estimated 30,000 civilians lived at the time.

While social media has been used by NATO/USAID funded hacks like Bellingcat to gather 'evidence' of Syrian and Russian dastardliness since the August 2013 East Ghouta false flag, Twitter users are also pointing out serious problems with the 'evidence' surrounding the Douma attack. Notwithstanding the French claim to have solid proof chlorine gas was used, and the non-persistence of a cheap and easy for jihadists to cook up from legitimate water filtration or pool cleaning chemical agent that was first used in the trenches of World War One -- where were the bodies? As the Russian Defense and Foreign Ministry spokesmen and women asked this week, where are the hospitalized victims of chemical exposure who would've been evacuated by the Red Crescent to Damascus? Islamic custom requires a rapid burial, and bodies smelling of chlorine would be washed and wrapped quickly for interment. Where are the scores of victims were killed with gas, why haven't we seen any footage or photos of their funerals?

Another sign of faking and staging of scenes -- a member of the White Helmets stands in a room supposedly hit by a poison gas canister dropped from Assad's infamous 'barrel bombing' helicopters. Despite a hole in the roof, the bed is un-smashed by the canister that has evidently been placed on it with hands rather than settled on the mattress after a fall of several hundred to a few thousand feet. Despite the rage of the Establishment against 'conspiracy theorists' who shills like Dan Kaszeta wishes would die of bone cancer, the MI6-funded White Helmets history of cooperation with Al-Qaeda in disposing of murdered Syrian soldiers bodies, shoddy fakes and filming children who act out foaming at the mouth and convulsions from gas has finally caught up with them.

Yes sarin -- obtained from either Assad government stockpiles captured in the earlier part of the war or manufactured with precursors supplied by Saudi Arabia et al -- and other toxic agents have definitely been used to massacre civilians in Syria. But as Tucker Carlson correctly informed millions of Fox News viewers this week, the anti-Assad side has definitely obtained and chemical weapons.

The excuses offered by the trolls and shills increasingly agitated on Twitter about these questions from skeptics have included that 'people were afraid of the regime' meaning Syrian government soldiers would punish them and that 'no (post-Western) reporters have been to Douma' -- except apparently pro-Syrian government and Russian journalists and cameramen. The latter excuse however, is about to go away as journalists are seeking at this hour to accompany the OPCW teams into Douma on Saturday. That timing of course, along with the new moon, may motivate the British if not the French to try and launch a strike of their own to goad the Administration into action this weekend...before the Douma false flag is picked apart.

This globalist gambit would be similar the logic of the Anglo-French entente allowing the Obama Administration to 'lead from behind' in the NATO/GCC air campaign to topple Gaddafi's government in Libya back in 2011. But given Moscow's naval build up in the eastern Mediterranean and the prominent display of anti-ship missiles on the pylons of Sukhois flying over Tartus and Latakia where the Syrian public could photograph them, it's doubtful either Macron or May would have the balls to confront the Russians without Captain America's shield over their sparse fleets or the RAF air bases on Cyprus (which is well within Tochka or perhaps Yakhont missile range if the Syrian government receives the green light from Moscow to shoot rockets back at the attackers' bases). Even the typically Washington/Pentagon Establishment friendly Associated Press is reporting that Moscow has deployed supersonic Bastion anti-ship missiles to defend its installations along the Syrian coast. The Bastions were previously deployed in Crimea shorty after Moscow's forces secured the peninsula and the US Navy sent the USS Donald Cook to the Black Sea -- before the destroyer retreated after a particular disputed incident in April 2014. Any one of those could sink the French Aquitaine (D650) within minutes.

According to the latest naval SITREP posted Thursday night at the Saker blog by contributor 'Le Dahu', the amount of firepower the U.S. Navy and NATO navies currently have or within Tomahawk range in the eastern Med may have been overstated in recent days. With the USS Harry S. Truman battle group still several days to two weeks away having just set sail from its home base in Norfolk, Virginia, the timing appears off for anything other than a demonstrative strike -- certainly not a major effort to flood Syria's air defense systems and hit Damascus hard. Here the British and French poodles martial ambitions would seem to vastly outstrip the resources available to them:

Most focus is on the group of US destroyers that are forward deployed from Rota, Spain. Besides the USS Donald Cook, the USS Carney (DDG 64), is still in port in Rota, the USS Ross is in Plymouth, UK and the USS Porter, having just called into Cherbourg, last seen in the Channel, heading eastwards. There isn’t much hurry to sail either down to the Med or the USS Carney eastwards either at the moment.

The Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group (HSTCSG) set sail yesterday, a routine regular deployment that has been planned months ago. It will certainly head for the Med, then later go to the Gulf, probably at the beginning of May.

https://twitter.com/USNavy/status/984192120608129024

USS Normandy (CG 60);

and DESRON 28 group of guided-missile destroyers USS Farragut (DDG 99), USS Forrest Sherman (DDG 98), USS Bulkeley (DDG 84), USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51),

Two other late participants: USS Jason Dunham (DDG 109), and USS The Sullivans (DGG 68).

A German Navy is also part of the group for the first part: the Sachsen-class German frigate FGS Hessen (F 221). It is not known at this stage if Germany will respond similarly to the US.

https://twitter.com/XHNews/status/984395909298622465

Further afield (Red Sea and Gulf of Aden)

Most of the US Amphibious Ready Group (ARG), with the USS Iwo Jima (LHD7) with USMC Harriers onboard, left the Med to go down to Djibouti part of Exercise Alligator Dagger, (which had to be stopped due to several aircraft crashes by 3 April).

The US Navy operates in this region, as part of Task Force 53,

Among this group appears to be the USS Laboon, DDG. It is not known whether they have stayed in the area or sailed back up the Red Sea. There is a good chance that the USS Laboon has, probably along with another French FREMM frigate.

UK –Royal Navy

Other than HMS Duncan, the only other significant news is the possible deployment to eastern Med of an Astute-class nuclear submarine, as initially reported by the Daily Telegraph.

HMS Albion, which had been in the Med, was redeployed with orders to go to the South China Sea, Korea regions, to supplement two other RN warships already there.

Если Завтра Война...What if Combined Russian/Iranian Deterrence Fails? As Mainstream Media is Acknowledging, Moscow Is Still Signaling Its Ready for War...

What if the dirty deep state removes Trump from the equation, realizing that the soft coup via Robert Mueller's ridiculous prosecution isn't working? How about another, far more elaborate false flag compared to Douma, one that targets American bases or ships and blames the Russians and Iranians as aggressors? Again from the Associated Press, the leading global wire service and provider of world news to newspapers that millions of mostly older and voting Americans still read, telling the truth: that the Russian public appears to be far more informed and prepared for a superpower clash than the U.S. public. As my Swiss White Russian friend The Saker says, Russians fear war far more than Americans, but are far better prepared for it. As myself, London Paul and the Guerrilla have all been saying, Moscow is calling the dying petrodollar empire's bluff. Now it's up to whether QAnon's 'white hats' actually exist and the sane generals prevail over the insane banksters and warmongers:

Vyacheslav Nikonov, a senior lawmaker in the Kremlin-controlled lower house of parliament, said in televised remarks that the Russian military was getting its electronic countermeasures and air defense assets ready for action. He added on a combative note that the situation offers a “good chance to test them in conditions of real combat.”

An even more threatening situation may evolve if the U.S. and its allies use manned aircraft, and the Russian strike results in casualties.

Such a scenario could trigger a quick escalation, leaving Russia and the U.S. on the brink of a full-scale conflict — a situation unseen even during the darkest moments of the Cold War.

Retired Lt. Gen. Yevgeny Buzhinsky, the former chief of the Russian Defense Ministry’s international department, warned that Russia has thousands of military advisers in Syria “practically in every battalion,” and a strike on any Syrian facility could jeopardize their lives. He warned that Russia and the U.S. will quickly find themselves in a major conflict if they allow a collision in Syria to happen.

“I have an impression that Americans’ survival instincts have grown numb, if not vanished completely,” Buzhinsky said. “They seem not to really believe that Russia will give a tough military response and expect some sort of a local brawl, exchanging some minor blows. It’s a miscalculation. Any clash between Russian and U.S. militaries will expand beyond a local conflict and an escalation will be inevitable.”

Andrei Klimov, the head of an upper house committee that investigates foreign meddling in Russian affairs, proudly said on the top talk show on Russian state TV that his relative, a Soviet pilot, won a medal for combat duty in Vietnam. Klimov pointed to heavy U.S. losses from Soviet missiles and jets in Vietnam, adding that Russia stands ready to counter any possible U.S. strike.

Unlike the Vietnam War, where Soviet advisers helping North Vietnam supposedly weren’t directly engaged in combat, the potential clash in Syria would pit Russia directly against the U.S.

Fears of war swept Russian newspaper headlines and TV news, with commentators discussing the darkest possible outcomes, including a nuclear war.

“What if the war starts tomorrow?” the front page of Moskovsky Komsomolets clamored on Wednesday. Russia’s best-selling newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda wondered: “Is macho Trump going to start World War III?”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weeks before a purported chemical attack by the Syrian government on April 7, the Russian military warned the West against what it described as false claims of chemical weapons use to strike Syrian facilities.

The head of the Russian military’s General Staff, Gen. Valery Gerasimov, warned last month that a U.S. strike would threaten Russian military personnel in Syria and draw a Russian counterstrike against both U.S. missiles and the ships and aircraft launching them.

The statement signaled Moscow’s readiness to protect its ally even if it entails a direct clash with the U.S.

With tensions running high, Russian warships sailed out of their base in the Syrian port of Tartus in what retired Gen. Vladimir Shamanov, the head of foreign affairs committee in the lower house of the Russian parliament, described as a maneuver to avoid a possible U.S. blow.

Russia has several dozen warplanes at Hemeimeem air base in Syria, along with an array of state-of-the-art air defense missile systems and the Bastion missile systems protecting the coast. The missiles have a range of up to 450 kilometers (280 miles).

In case of escalation, Russia could use air bases of its ally Iran to deploy more aircraft closer to Syria.

Russia has used Syria as a testing ground for its new weapons, including some long-range missiles. These included the sea-launched Kalibr and air-launched Kh-101 cruise missiles; both can be fired from the Caspian Sea and other areas in western Russia.

Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said the top priority is to avert war in Syria and doesn’t rule out the possibility of a U.S.-Russian conflict.

He told reporters after a closed emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Thursday that “the danger of escalation is higher than simply Syria,” adding: “We hope that there will be no point of no return — that the U.S. and their allies will refrain from military action against a sovereign state.”

0 notes

minnievirizarry · 7 years

Text

28 Powerful Facebook Stats Your Brand Can’t Ignore in 2018

What began as a way for college students to connect has grown into one of the world’s largest social networks. In turn, it has become one of the best marketing resources too. But in order to be successful on Facebook, you have to dig below the surface and familiarize yourself with the ins and outs of the platform and analytics.

Here are some important Facebook stats—broken down by multiple dimensions—to help guide your social media strategy. Click on the jump links below to skip to each section:

General Facebook stats

Facebook demographic stats

Facebook geo stats

Facebook usage stats

Facebook mobile stats

Facebook video stats

Facebook advertising stats

Facebook publishing stats

General Facebook Stats

First, let’s start off with some general Facebook stats to paint a picture of why the social network is so important:

1. Facebook Has More Than 2 Billion Daily Active Users

As of June 30, 2017, there are:

2 billion monthly active users on Facebook

Over 1 billion daily active users

Although many social media marketers assume this number will plateau, it’s probably safe to say that Facebook will continue to grow until they run out of new users to sign up. Only a couple more billion to go!

To put these numbers into context, here are the number of monthly active users on other top social media platforms, according to statistics from TechCrunch:

Youtube has 1.5 billion monthly active users

WeChat has 889 million monthly active users

Instagram has 700 million monthly active users

Twitter has 328 million monthly active users

Snapchat has an estimated 255 million monthly active users

Facebook Demographic Stats

Over 2 billion users is a lot of people. In order to get a better understanding of who you can potentially reach on the platform, here are some Facebook stats on their audience demographics:

2. 83% of Women & 75% of Men Use Facebook

Overall, Facebook’s gender demographics are pretty evenly split with women slightly more active. According to Pew Research, 83% of women use the network compared to 75% of men.

This is a clear indicator that no matter who you’re trying to reach, they’re likely active on Facebook.

3. People Aged 18-29 Are the Most Prevalent Facebook Users (65+ Is the Least)

The age groups on Facebook break down by use as such:

88% of those 18-29

84% of those 30-49

72% for those 50-64

62% for those 65+

Despite being the smallest age group on the platform, Facebook seems to be the best option for reaching older users on social media when compared to other networks. Here’s a breakdown of social media usage of 65+ year olds on other networks:

8% use Instagram

10% use Twitter

20% use LinkedIn

16% use Pinterest

Less than 10% of 50+ year olds use auto-delete apps like Snapchat

If your brand targets an older audience, make Facebook marketing a priority.

4. 82% of Facebook Users Have Attended at Least Some College

Facebook initially started as the brainchild of then-college student Mark Zuckerburg. Before it became the social network we know it as today, it was actually called “Coursematch.” It was developed to allow people to create profiles listing out which classes they were taking.

Perhaps because of this, it’s interesting to consider Facebook use in terms of the highest level of education of users. This use breaks down as such:

79% of users are college graduates

82% have taken some college

77% finished high school or less

Facebook Geo Stats

Facebook’s audience is diverse, which makes it perfect for global brands outside of North America. Here’s a look at some important Facebook stats your brand should know:

5. 85% of Facebook’s Daily Active Users Come from Outside the US/Canada

As some of the above Facebook stats have already hinted at, Facebook is huge internationally. In fact, 85% of Facebook’s daily active users come from outside the US and Canada. India, Brazil and Indonesia have the largest Facebook audiences after the US.

Use this as an opportunity to explore expanding your target audience outside of your core, if it makes sense.

6. More Than 70 Facebook Translations Are Available

In order to support its global audience, Facebook has more than 70 languages available thanks to a framework that lets community members translate text on the platform. At this time, more than 300,000 people have contributed translations for different languages and dialects.

Global brands need to take this into consideration. Use analytics to help you understand the demographics of your audience, and keep an eye out for where large fan bases live. From there you can target your Page posts by location or language.

For example, if you limit the language of your post’s audience to Spanish, it will only be visible to people who:

Have Spanish set as their language on Facebook

List Spanish as one of their languages on their profile

People who don’t fit one of those criteria won’t be able to see your post on your Page, their News Feed or search.

Facebook Usage Stats

It’s important to understand how people use Facebook. This data can inform your publishing behavior, ad targeting and other pieces of your strategy. Take a look at these Facebook stats related to how people engage with the platform:

7. 40% of Facebook Users Have Never Liked a Facebook Page

More than 60 million businesses have a Facebook Page. Additionally, 39% of users like or follow a Facebook page to receive a special offer.

Some other Facebook stats that related to Facebook pages include things like:

One-third (32%) of Facebook users engage with brands regularly.

5 billion comments are left on Facebook pages monthly.

42% of customer service responses happen during the first 60 minutes.

All of this data leads back to the fact that Facebook Pages are a useful tool for your business. This is especially true in getting the word out and providing quick customer service. People equate quick responses to good customer service, so plan your social media customer service strategy accordingly.

8. People Spend an Average of 35 Minutes on Facebook Each Day

According to data from Nielsen, Americans spend an average of 10 hours and 39 minutes consuming media across their devices. Specifically, five hours per day are spent on mobile devices.

While content consumption is on the up-and-up, it might surprise you to find that the amount of time spent on Facebook per day has actually decreased. The current average amount of time spent on Facebook is 35 minutes per day.

That number is down from 40 minutes recorded just three years ago. This is supported by findings by SimilarWeb, a marketing intelligence firm which claims that people are generally spending less time on social media now than they did before.

With less time spent on Facebook, you have to learn to make the most of every opportunity to get in front of your audience. Think carefully about what you post and have a purpose for all the content you share.

9. People Access Facebook an Average 8 Times Per Day

According to comScore, Facebook is accessed at an average of eight times per day, followed by Instagram (six), Twitter (five) and Facebook Messenger (three).

So while people may not spend as much time on Facebook as they used to, they do tend to check it pretty frequently. One way to maximize your exposure is to schedule your Facebook posts to publish throughout the day, at times when your audience is most likely to be engaged. Not sure when the optimal time is? You can use our ViralPost feature to automatically schedule your posts to publish at the times your followers are most active.

10. 400 New Users Sign up for Facebook Every Minute

Every 60 seconds on Facebook, there are:

317,000 status updates

400 new users

147,000 photos uploaded

54,000 shared links

Compared to data from other popular social networks, every minute there are:

448,000 Tweets

66,000 Instagram posts

29 million WhatsApp messages sent

The numbers don’t lie—Facebook truly is the largest social network around, especially because they own two of the aforementioned three companies. So while there have been reports of Facebook no longer being as valuable for marketers as other channels, the user base continues to grow.

11. Everyone on Facebook Is No More Than 3.5 Degrees Separated

Facebook’s own research found that everyone is no more than 3.5 degrees separated. This is far less than the proposed six degrees of separation originally set out by Frigyes Karinthy. As many people use Facebook to keep in touch with friends and family, it’s interesting to see how this use scenario has literally brought the world closer together.

The closeness of users is beneficial for marketers trying to overcome Facebook’s algorithm, which is notorious for slashing organic reach for brands. Instead of trying to get in front of every single user yourself, let your audience do some of the work. Ask people to share your posts with their audience or to like your content. This will give you exposure to their audience which increases your organic reach. If enough people share it, you could even create a viral effect.

Facebook Mobile Stats

It’s no secret that social media (and the internet in general) is primarily accessed on mobile devices. And if the Facebook stats below are any indicator, it’s time for brands to start thinking of content and marketing from a mobile-first perspective:

12. Facebook’s Messenger Has Over 1.2 Billion Monthly Active Users

Facebook’s standalone Messenger App has a cool 1.2 billion monthly active users. And on the topic of mobile data, as of December 2016, Facebook has:

74 billion mobile monthly active users

55 billion mobile–only monthly active users

15 billion mobile daily active users

What this means for brands is you need to get active on Facebook Messenger. The numbers show consumers are all-in, so you should be too. One creative way some brands are using Facebook Messenger is by creating chatbots to facilitate their social customer care efforts.

Not sure how to start? We created our very own Facebook Messenger Bot builder that’s integrated into Sprout Social. So you can create your own bot with ease, and without the need for any complex coding and development.

youtube

13. 19% of Time Spent on Mobile Devices Is on Facebook

As we alluded to earlier, the average consumer spends five hours per day on their mobile device. But what’s even more interesting is how that time spent breaks down. As you can see in the chart below, Facebook is the clear leader with 19%.

What is your brand doing to take advantage of the mobile trend?

You can start by creating a seamless mobile experience across all your web properties whether it’s Facebook, Messenger, your website or anywhere else online. Unless you have data to the contrary, you can anticipate most of your social media traffic will be from a mobile device, so prepare accordingly.

Facebook Video Stats

In the past five years, video content has seen tremendous growth. But it’s not just YouTube that’s experiencing an upward shift. Facebook has grown to become a video giant of its own. Here are some stats you need to keep in mind for Facebook video marketing:

14. 44% of SMB Marketers Plan to Spend Money Promoting Facebook Video Content in 2017

One of the most telling signs that marketers are getting serious about Facebook video is that 44% of SMB marketers plan to put money behind their Facebook video content in 2017.

If your brand isn’t invested in video on Facebook, there’s a good chance your competitors are, which puts you at a significant disadvantage.

15. Facebook Gets Over 8 Billion Average Daily Video Views

This Facebook stat illustrates exactly why you’re doing your brand a disservice by ignoring video on the platform. With over 8 billion average daily views and 100 million hours of video watched every day, Facebook has become a top player in the social media video landscape.

Greatist is a popular brand that uses video to boost organic engagement and stand out in feeds filled with text and images.

Follow in their footsteps and jump on the Facebook video train.

16. 85% of Facebook Users Watch Videos With the Sound Off

It would be remiss to end this discussion of Facebook stats without getting into details regarding the use of video on the platform, and how it’s shaking everything up. Some of the most important Facebook stats relating to video include:

85% of Facebook users watch videos with the sound off,

Captioned video ads can increase video view time by an average of 12%

80% of users are annoyed when videos auto-play sound, and it gives them a negative impression of your brand.

The takeaway here is make sure your videos don’t need sound in order to be understood. Taking a little time to add captions could mean the difference between whether or not your Facebook videos get viewed.

17. People Are 5 Times More Likely to Watch Facebook Videos on a Phone

Based on all the Facebook stats we’ve mentioned thus far, this shouldn’t come as a surprise. People are five times more likely to watch video daily on a smartphone than on desktop.

Ensure that your videos are optimized for mobile viewing. Take a look at our always up to date social media video specs guide to get the correct dimensions.

Always Up-to-Date Guide to Social Media Video Specs

Staying relevant and capturing your audience’s attention is a constant challenge for marketers. And now that brands rely on video Read More …

18. 20% of Facebook Videos Are Live Streams

With Instagram Live, Periscope and other services, live video has been bubbling for a while. In fact, 20% of videos are Live Broadcasts. And in June 2016, businesses were streaming six times more live videos on their Facebook Pages than they were in January when live video was first introduced.

Another important statistic to understand is the live element is what’s most appealing to viewers. After your broadcast is finished, the recorded video lives on your page. However, Facebook found that live videos are watched three times longer during the actual stream than the replay.

Facebook Advertising Stats

The key to Facebook’s tremendous growth over the years has been their advertising platform. Marketers spend billions every year to reach their target audience with Facebook Ads. Thanks to low costs and a huge database of user data, Facebook Ads is appealing to businesses of all sizes. Here are some stats to keep in mind for Facebook advertisers:

19. 93% of Marketers Use Facebook Advertising Regularly

Most people have a lot of questions about Facebook advertising. Getting it right can result in some of the best ROI in all forms of advertising. So needless to say—the stakes are high. These Facebook stats shed light on some interesting quirks of advertising on Facebook:

93% of marketers use Facebook advertising regularly, which translates to about 3 million businesses that use Facebook to market their business. Furthermore, 70% of these businesses are outside the US.

Facebook earned a cool $7.68 billion in Q1 of 2017.

20. Images Account for 75-90% of Facebook Advertising Performance

When it comes to Facebook advertising, in order to be effective, consider the following:

Images account for 75-90% of Facebook advertising effectivity/performance.

The most effective length for an ad title on Facebook is four words, and 15 words for a link description.

21. 47% of the Value of Facebook Video Ads Happens in the First 3 Seconds

While Facebook video ads can be very effective, you don’t have a ton of time to capture your viewer’s attention. In fact, research from Facebook discovered nearly half of the value from your ads is attained in the first three seconds of the video.

When you create videos for ads, try to capture the viewers attention immediately. That way they’ll be compelled to stick around and see your entire message.

22. 93% of Social Media Advertisers Use Facebook Ads

Facebook is by far the most popular social media advertising channel. According to Social Media Examiner’s 2017 Social Media Industry Report, 93% of social media advertisers use Facebook Ads. The next network that’s even close is Instagram with 24%, but that’s also a part of the Facebook platform.

This is just more proof of how popular and in-demand Facebook Ads are for B2B and B2C brands.

23. 20% of Facebook’s Mobile Ad Revenue Is From Instagram

As you saw in the previous Facebook stat, Instagram is contributing quite a bit to Facebook’s overall advertising numbers. In fact, it makes up 20% of Facebook’s mobile ad revenue, up from 15% last year.

As Instagram continues to grow, this number could potentially increase even more. If you’re currently running Facebook Ads on mobile, consider giving Instagram a try.

24. The Average CPC for Facebook Ads Is $1.72

Curious about whether or not you’re paying too much for your Facebook Ads? The team at Wordstream conducted research to reveal some benchmarks for Facebook Ads.

While other companies have attempted to gather this type of data before, we like Wordstream’s data because it’s broken down by industry. As you can see from the graph below, there are significant differences in CPC for different industries.

If your average CPC is much higher than your industry average, it could be a sign you need to make some tweaks to your campaigns. If you’re on the low end, you’re probably on the right path.

25. The Average CTR for Facebook Ads Is 0.9%

Wordstream also looked at the average CTR of Facebook Ads by industry. Overall, they found the average CTR to be 0.9%. But similar to CPC, you should look at your industry average rather than the overall.

Facebook Publishing Stats

If you want to improve your brand’s organic reach, a good place to start is by analyzing your publishing behavior. Here are some Facebook stats about publishing that’ll get you on the right track:

26. Organic Reach for Branded Facebook Pages Is 2% on Average

We’ve been hinting at it throughout this entire post—Facebook organic reach is not what it used to be. But just how bad is the situation? Well, one study found Facebook organic reach for brands is 2% on average. The key word being average. There are plenty of brands experiencing even lower levels of reach.

Use Sprout Social’s Facebook Analytics tools to get an idea of how much reach your posts receive. Once you know where you stand, you can take steps to improve it. Check out this article for tips to boost your reach and engagement.

6 Essential Steps to Increase Facebook Organic Reach & Grow Your Audience

Far too often, brands spend days devising a Facebook marketing strategy only to see their post go live and ultimately Read More …

27. Brands Post an Average of 8 Times on Facebook per Day

How many times should you post on Facebook per day? Well according to the SME report, brands post eight times per day on average. How does your posting frequency stack up?

If you’re not getting the reach or engagement you’d like, consider increasing your posting frequency a bit. The same SME report found that 39% of marketers planned to increase their Facebook posting frequency over the next 12 months. Just monitor your analytics to make sure posting more often is helping rather than hurting your brand.

28. The Best Time to Post on Facebook Is Weekday Afternoons

A burning question on every marketer’s mind is when is the best time to post on Facebook? With so many conflicting studies out there, we decided to roundup the data from as many credible sources as we could find and average out the data. Here’s a chart that outlines our findings:

As you can see, weekdays have a significantly stronger correlation than weekends. And afternoons between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. tend to be the preferred times.

While this data gives you a great starting point, you ultimately need to rely on your brand’s own analytics. You can use our Facebook reporting suite to identify your most engaged posts and the time they were published. Then you can start to schedule more of your content to be shared around those times.

20 Powerful Facebook Stats Your Brand Can’t Ignore in 2017

Knowing how to use a platform is just as important as actually making use of it. By keeping these up-to-date Facebook stats in your arsenal, you’ll be better prepared to create an effective Facebook marketing campaign.

Are there any particularly interesting Facebook stats we missed? Tweet at @SproutSocial with your insights, and we’ll share the best ones!

This post 28 Powerful Facebook Stats Your Brand Can’t Ignore in 2018 originally appeared on Sprout Social.

from SM Tips By Minnie https://sproutsocial.com/insights/facebook-stats-for-marketers/

0 notes

grublypetcare · 8 years

Text

How to Prevent Dog Bites

Editor’s note: Have you seen the Dogster print magazine in stores? Or in the waiting room of your vet’s office? This article appeared in our February-March issue. Subscribe to Dogster and get the bimonthly magazine delivered to your home.

Dog bites are a serious problem. The American Veterinary Medical Association estimates that there are 4.5 million people bitten by dogs every year in this country.

Puppy by Shutterstock.

How can you prevent dog bites?

A national study of 256 fatal dog bites that occurred between 2000 and 2009 noted these facts:

no able-bodied person was present to intervene

the victim had no familiar relationship with the dog

the dog was not spayed or neutered

the victim’s ability to manage interactions with the dog was compromised due to age or physical condition

the dog had previously been mismanaged

the dog had been abused or neglected

Based on that information, my knowledge of other studies, and as a professional dog trainer, here are eight things dog owners can do to reduce the risk of a dog bite:

Respect dogs you don’t know, and do not approach them. Simply don’t do it.

Spay or neuter your dog at an appropriate age.

Use positive reinforcement training. Never use pain, force, or fear to train a dog. Using these outdated methods is counterproductive, harmful, and unnecessary.

Learn canine communication. Dogs have their own species-specific language. They warn us when they feel uncomfortable. Take the time to learn from a professional in the dog industry just what fear, anxiety, or frustration look like from a dog’s point of view.

If a bite does occur, after medical needs are met, step back and reassess your management and training plans. Reassess why and how the bite occurred:

What was happening in the dog’s environment just prior to the bite?

What warning signals did the dog give that the humans didn’t understand or ignored?

Doing so can literally save a life, and that life may be that of your own dog — or your own child.

The post How to Prevent Dog Bites appeared first on Dogster.

0 notes

minnievirizarry · 7 years

Text

28+ Powerful Facebook Stats Your Brand Can’t Ignore in 2017

Here are some important Facebook stats—broken down by multiple dimensions—to help guide your social media strategy. Click on the jump links below to skip to each section:

General Facebook stats

Facebook demographic stats

Facebook geo stats

Facebook usage stats

Facebook mobile stats

Facebook video stats

Facebook advertising stats

Facebook publishing stats

General Facebook Stats

First, let’s start off with some general Facebook stats to paint a picture of why the social network is so important:

1. Facebook Has More Than 2 Billion Daily Active Users

As of June 30, 2017, there are:

2 billion monthly active users on Facebook

Over 1 billion daily active users

To put these numbers into context, here are the number of monthly active users on other top social media platforms, according to statistics from TechCrunch:

Youtube has 1.5 billion monthly active users

WeChat has 889 million monthly active users

Instagram has 700 million monthly active users

Twitter has 328 million monthly active users

Snapchat has an estimated 255 million monthly active users

Facebook Demographic Stats

Over 2 billion users is a lot of people. In order to get a better understanding of who you can potentially reach on the platform, here are some Facebook stats on their audience demographics:

2. 83% of Women & 75% of Men Use Facebook

Overall, Facebook’s gender demographics are pretty evenly split with women slightly more active. According to Pew Research, 83% of women use the network compared to 75% of men.

This is a clear indicator that no matter who you’re trying to reach, they’re likely active on Facebook.

3. People Aged 18-29 Are the Most Prevalent Facebook Users (65+ Is the Least)

The age groups on Facebook break down by use as such:

88% of those 18-29

84% of those 30-49

72% for those 50-64

62% for those 65+

8% use Instagram

10% use Twitter

20% use LinkedIn

16% use Pinterest

Less than 10% of 50+ year olds use auto-delete apps like Snapchat

If your brand targets an older audience, make Facebook marketing a priority.

4. 82% of Facebook Users Have Attended at Least Some College

Perhaps because of this, it’s interesting to consider Facebook use in terms of the highest level of education of users. This use breaks down as such:

79% of users are college graduates

82% have taken some college

77% finished high school or less

Facebook Geo Stats

Facebook’s audience is diverse, which makes it perfect for global brands outside of North America. Here’s a look at some important Facebook stats your brand should know:

5. 85% of Facebook’s Daily Active Users Come from Outside the US/Canada

Use this as an opportunity to explore expanding your target audience outside of your core, if it makes sense.

6. More Than 70 Facebook Translations Are Available

For example, if you limit the language of your post’s audience to Spanish, it will only be visible to people who:

Have Spanish set as their language on Facebook

List Spanish as one of their languages on their profile

People who don’t fit one of those criteria won’t be able to see your post on your Page, their News Feed or search.

Facebook Usage Stats

7. 40% of Facebook Users Have Never Liked a Facebook Page

More than 60 million businesses have a Facebook Page. Additionally, 39% of users like or follow a Facebook page to receive a special offer.

Some other Facebook stats that related to Facebook pages include things like:

One-third (32%) of Facebook users engage with brands regularly.

5 billion comments are left on Facebook pages monthly.

42% of customer service responses happen during the first 60 minutes.

8. People Spend an Average of 35 Minutes on Facebook Each Day

According to data from Nielsen, Americans spend an average of 10 hours and 39 minutes consuming media across their devices. Specifically, five hours per day are spent on mobile devices.

9. People Access Facebook an Average 8 Times Per Day

According to comScore, Facebook is accessed at an average of eight times per day, followed by Instagram (six), Twitter (five) and Facebook Messenger (three).

10. 400 New Users Sign up for Facebook Every Minute

Every 60 seconds on Facebook, there are:

317,000 status updates

400 new users

147,000 photos uploaded

54,000 shared links

Compared to data from other popular social networks, every minute there are:

448,000 Tweets

66,000 Instagram posts

29 million WhatsApp messages sent

11. Everyone on Facebook Is No More Than 3.5 Degrees Separated

Facebook Mobile Stats

12. Facebook’s Messenger Has Over 1.2 Billion Monthly Active Users

Facebook’s standalone Messenger App has a cool 1.2 billion monthly active users. And on the topic of mobile data, as of December 2016, Facebook has:

74 billion mobile monthly active users

55 billion mobile–only monthly active users

15 billion mobile daily active users

youtube

13. 19% of Time Spent on Mobile Devices Is on Facebook

What is your brand doing to take advantage of the mobile trend?

Facebook Video Stats

14. 44% of SMB Marketers Plan to Spend Money Promoting Facebook Video Content in 2017

One of the most telling signs that marketers are getting serious about Facebook video is that 44% of SMB marketers plan to put money behind their Facebook video content in 2017.

If your brand isn’t invested in video on Facebook, there’s a good chance your competitors are, which puts you at a significant disadvantage.

15. Facebook Gets Over 8 Billion Average Daily Video Views

Greatist is a popular brand that uses video to boost organic engagement and stand out in feeds filled with text and images.

Follow in their footsteps and jump on the Facebook video train.

16. 85% of Facebook Users Watch Videos With the Sound Off

85% of Facebook users watch videos with the sound off,

Captioned video ads can increase video view time by an average of 12%

80% of users are annoyed when videos auto-play sound, and it gives them a negative impression of your brand.

17. People Are 5 Times More Likely to Watch Facebook Videos on a Phone

Based on all the Facebook stats we’ve mentioned thus far, this shouldn’t come as a surprise. People are five times more likely to watch video daily on a smartphone than on desktop.

Ensure that your videos are optimized for mobile viewing. Take a look at our always up to date social media video specs guide to get the correct dimensions.

Always Up-to-Date Guide to Social Media Video Specs

Staying relevant and capturing your audience’s attention is a constant challenge for marketers. And now that brands rely on video Read More …

18. 20% of Facebook Videos Are Live Streams

Facebook Advertising Stats

19. 93% of Marketers Use Facebook Advertising Regularly

Facebook earned a cool $7.68 billion in Q1 of 2017.

20. Images Account for 75-90% of Facebook Advertising Performance

When it comes to Facebook advertising, in order to be effective, consider the following:

Images account for 75-90% of Facebook advertising effectivity/performance.

The most effective length for an ad title on Facebook is four words, and 15 words for a link description.

21. 47% of the Value of Facebook Video Ads Happens in the First 3 Seconds

When you create videos for ads, try to capture the viewers attention immediately. That way they’ll be compelled to stick around and see your entire message.

22. 93% of Social Media Advertisers Use Facebook Ads

This is just more proof of how popular and in-demand Facebook Ads are for B2B and B2C brands.

23. 20% of Facebook’s Mobile Ad Revenue Is From Instagram

As Instagram continues to grow, this number could potentially increase even more. If you’re currently running Facebook Ads on mobile, consider giving Instagram a try.

24. The Average CPC for Facebook Ads Is $1.72

Curious about whether or not you’re paying too much for your Facebook Ads? The team at Wordstream conducted research to reveal some benchmarks for Facebook Ads.

If your average CPC is much higher than your industry average, it could be a sign you need to make some tweaks to your campaigns. If you’re on the low end, you’re probably on the right path.

25. The Average CTR for Facebook Ads Is 0.9%

Facebook Publishing Stats

26. Organic Reach for Branded Facebook Pages Is 2% on Average

6 Essential Steps to Increase Facebook Organic Reach & Grow Your Audience

Far too often, brands spend days devising a Facebook marketing strategy only to see their post go live and ultimately Read More …

27. Brands Post an Average of 8 Times on Facebook per Day

How many times should you post on Facebook per day? Well according to the SME report, brands post eight times per day on average. How does your posting frequency stack up?

28. The Best Time to Post on Facebook Is Weekday Afternoons

As you can see, weekdays have a significantly stronger correlation than weekends. And afternoons between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. tend to be the preferred times.

20 Powerful Facebook Stats Your Brand Can’t Ignore in 2017

Are there any particularly interesting Facebook stats we missed? Tweet at @SproutSocial with your insights, and we’ll share the best ones!

This post 28+ Powerful Facebook Stats Your Brand Can’t Ignore in 2017 originally appeared on Sprout Social.

from SM Tips By Minnie https://sproutsocial.com/insights/facebook-stats-for-marketers/

0 notes

buynewsoul · 8 years

Text

How to Prevent Dog Bites

Dog bites are a serious problem. The American Veterinary Medical Association estimates that there are 4.5 million people bitten by dogs every year in this country.

Puppy by Shutterstock.

How can you prevent dog bites?

A national study of 256 fatal dog bites that occurred between 2000 and 2009 noted these facts:

no able-bodied person was present to intervene

the victim had no familiar relationship with the dog

the dog was not spayed or neutered

the victim’s ability to manage interactions with the dog was compromised due to age or physical condition

the dog had previously been mismanaged

the dog had been abused or neglected

Based on that information, my knowledge of other studies, and as a professional dog trainer, here are eight things dog owners can do to reduce the risk of a dog bite:

Respect dogs you don’t know, and do not approach them. Simply don’t do it.

Spay or neuter your dog at an appropriate age.

Use positive reinforcement training. Never use pain, force, or fear to train a dog. Using these outdated methods is counterproductive, harmful, and unnecessary.

Learn canine communication. Dogs have their own species-specific language. They warn us when they feel uncomfortable. Take the time to learn from a professional in the dog industry just what fear, anxiety, or frustration look like from a dog’s point of view.

If a bite does occur, after medical needs are met, step back and reassess your management and training plans. Reassess why and how the bite occurred:

What was happening in the dog’s environment just prior to the bite?

What warning signals did the dog give that the humans didn’t understand or ignored?

Doing so can literally save a life, and that life may be that of your own dog — or your own child.

The post How to Prevent Dog Bites appeared first on Dogster.

0 notes

jeffreyrwelch · 8 years

Text

How to Prevent Dog Bites

Dog bites are a serious problem. The American Veterinary Medical Association estimates that there are 4.5 million people bitten by dogs every year in this country.

Puppy by Shutterstock.

How can you prevent dog bites?

A national study of 256 fatal dog bites that occurred between 2000 and 2009 noted these facts:

no able-bodied person was present to intervene

the victim had no familiar relationship with the dog

the dog was not spayed or neutered

the victim’s ability to manage interactions with the dog was compromised due to age or physical condition

the dog had previously been mismanaged

the dog had been abused or neglected

Based on that information, my knowledge of other studies, and as a professional dog trainer, here are eight things dog owners can do to reduce the risk of a dog bite:

Respect dogs you don’t know, and do not approach them. Simply don’t do it.

Spay or neuter your dog at an appropriate age.

Use positive reinforcement training. Never use pain, force, or fear to train a dog. Using these outdated methods is counterproductive, harmful, and unnecessary.

Learn canine communication. Dogs have their own species-specific language. They warn us when they feel uncomfortable. Take the time to learn from a professional in the dog industry just what fear, anxiety, or frustration look like from a dog’s point of view.

If a bite does occur, after medical needs are met, step back and reassess your management and training plans. Reassess why and how the bite occurred:

What was happening in the dog’s environment just prior to the bite?

What warning signals did the dog give that the humans didn’t understand or ignored?

Doing so can literally save a life, and that life may be that of your own dog — or your own child.

The post How to Prevent Dog Bites appeared first on Dogster.

0 notes

daddyslittlejuliet · 8 years

Text

How to Prevent Dog Bites

Dog bites are a serious problem. The American Veterinary Medical Association estimates that there are 4.5 million people bitten by dogs every year in this country.

Puppy by Shutterstock.

How can you prevent dog bites?

A national study of 256 fatal dog bites that occurred between 2000 and 2009 noted these facts:

no able-bodied person was present to intervene

the victim had no familiar relationship with the dog

the dog was not spayed or neutered

the victim’s ability to manage interactions with the dog was compromised due to age or physical condition

the dog had previously been mismanaged

the dog had been abused or neglected

Based on that information, my knowledge of other studies, and as a professional dog trainer, here are eight things dog owners can do to reduce the risk of a dog bite:

Respect dogs you don’t know, and do not approach them. Simply don’t do it.

Spay or neuter your dog at an appropriate age.

Use positive reinforcement training. Never use pain, force, or fear to train a dog. Using these outdated methods is counterproductive, harmful, and unnecessary.

Learn canine communication. Dogs have their own species-specific language. They warn us when they feel uncomfortable. Take the time to learn from a professional in the dog industry just what fear, anxiety, or frustration look like from a dog’s point of view.

If a bite does occur, after medical needs are met, step back and reassess your management and training plans. Reassess why and how the bite occurred:

What was happening in the dog’s environment just prior to the bite?

What warning signals did the dog give that the humans didn’t understand or ignored?

Doing so can literally save a life, and that life may be that of your own dog — or your own child.

The post How to Prevent Dog Bites appeared first on Dogster.

0 notes