I wanna move to Australia.

shouldnt this be failed countries?

no, they used the correct terminology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State

So i guess no one gives a shit about Iceland.

fucking world and their outrageous terminology

iceland's there in green. did you mean greenland?

Always mix those two up.

The U.S.'s high scores are in: large movement of refugees resulting in complex humanitarian crises, uneven economic development along group lines, and widespread arbitrary suspension of rule of law/ human rights. It seems to me that the first is primarily the result of mass illegal immigration (you aussies are lucky with the lack of bordering on developing countries thing), the second is skewed towards social democracies, leaving the last high score as the one of primary concern. Its curious that financial solvency of social programs was not listed, as I'd figure that'd be rather important in determining the health of a state. Although the countries in the green have many other positive aspects in regards to quality of life, the score index definitely seems to favor social democracies over freer markets. Is the quality of life in Canada significantly different than that in the US? I'm not convinced, but I very well could be wrong.

oh boy oh boy. you must not realise what a can of worms that statement is! suffice to say, we just lock the boat men, women and children up in detention camps in the desert, and unfortunately i'm not at all kidding.

It is safe to say that our Human Rights record in regard to those entering our country 'illegally' is both apalling and shameful.

Just a little adjustment for humorous purposes:



Anyway, I'm really suspicious of their grading on #5 as a whole--as SS said, it sounds like they're leaning in favor of social democracy and income redistribution. What's also interesting is that several western Europe countries (France, UK, Spain, Germany) aren't much better off--just makes me more suspicious. Cuba and Venezuela were both awful in this category (haha).

I also disagree with the US's bad grade on #2--if it has to do with illegal immigration, then that should be on Mexico instead of the US--yet Mexico has a 4 and the US a 5.5? WTF? If US companies didn't have the jobs for these immigrants, Mexico would have a shitload more of problems with poverty.

I have no complaints about the bad ranking on #9, though--fucking Guantanamo.

Dude, I want to fucking cry every time I hear about shit like Woomera.

Now I'm even more perplexed about #2, since Australia got a good grade there (unless policies have changed for the better in the past five years or so?)

Exactly. My first thought was, "hey, looks like they picked all the social democracies!"

Pretty biased, I'd say. We'll see how Sweden's newfound ethnic problems turn out, and then we'll see if they're sustainable.

Edit: Also, they could have just as easily placed the best six yellow countries in the green, as the gap on either side is comparable.

I don't really understand the reasoning, other than that its a difference in ideology. Nevermind the fact that many of those countries have developed more effective ways to be environmentally sustainable, when we're substantially farther behind.

I don't think it's talking about environmental sustainability.

Yes, but Aussie got a decent score in this category I believe. Its not a "widespread humanitarian crisis" probably because this individuals are restricted to camps, and is therefore a localized humanitarian crisis. Your ability to intercept and process/ deport those trying to immigrate seems to me to be fortunate for you, and although you may no t like the way your government handles it, at least you have a choice in what to do with immigrants. US immigration is pretty much out of anyones hands at the moment.

In regards to what Sun Devil said for Sweden and their new immigrants - I would think that regardless of how much Hispanic immigrants are chaning American demographics, it is going to be much smoother than the huge cultural differences and Europe is experiencing. There is a category for something along the lines of 'vengeance seeking groups', and I would think that should be weighted more than say, mass illegal albeit peaceful immigration.

Well, it remains to be seen if Sweden's immigrants can be classified as "peaceful" immigration. Who knows how much tension will come of the situation after all is said and done, but it just seems to me that the writer was a little too kind to Sweden as a result of its being the popular example of a model socialist democracy.

Well, Foreign Policy noted it in their review:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms. ... 865&page=4

Also, countries like the United States don't rank in green because of smaller factors like economic inequality. Women and minorities still don't get paid as much white men, and labor unions and blue-collar workers no longer have any organizational power, while salaries of CEOs increase. Yes, unemployment is low and people are being paid more than ever and have job stability, the economy is competitive, but wealth accumulation amongst the elite has increased something like 42% in the last decade. The last minimum wage increase by the Federal Government was in 1997. Wealth disparity plays a substantial factor into whether a country's population is stable. I'd find that difficult to ignore. Minorities still don't have the same priviledges as whites, and considering how badly the federal government fucked up Katrina, it further exposed state flaws in this country. The power of the Executive branch has increased, and the last Congress did next-to-nothing.